Gameplay Design Patterns for Game Dialogues

Jenny Brusk Staffan Björk

Dept. of Game Design, Gotland University Interaction Design Unit, Chalmers University of
621 67 Visby, Sweden Technology & University of Gothenburg
[email protected] 412 96 Göteborg
[email protected]

games. To this end we use gameplay design patterns [6],

ABSTRACT
which express reusable gameplay design choices as semi-
Dialogues are natural models for human communication
formalized and interconnected descriptions that may turn
and have also been used to model interaction within
design possibilities into explicit options. Furthermore, the
computer games. In this paper, we look at current models of
use of design patterns allows the discussion to be built upon
dialogues from within the field of computational linguistics
close to 300 general patterns [6], as well as several smaller
and explore their usefulness of games, and especially for
collections from related areas of character design for
the design of gameplay through interaction with non-
gameplay [16, 17, 18], thus linking the design options
playing characters in games. This is done by analyzing
regarding dialogue to options regarding gameplay in
several examples of computer-based games and similar
general. Gameplay design patterns are marked by being in
playful activities, both to see which models of dialogues are
capitalized italics (and should be distinguishable from
used but also to suggest possible ways of expanding
games by context).
gameplay through using other dialogue models. Uses of
existing models for dialogues within games are identified The structure of this paper is as follows. Initially we will
but an additional model, the Game State-based approach to discuss dialogues per se and typical features present in
dialogues, is introduced. The possible implications of the dialogues. A classification of dialogue systems is then
changes in gameplay are described through the use of given to show the range of available technologies. After
gameplay design patterns, offering a way to encode design this, several games are analyzed from a perspective of how
knowledge explicitly and link that knowledge to other they implement dialogue systems and how this affects
gameplay design pattern collections. gameplay, with noticeable differences documented as
potential gameplay design patterns. Based upon the
Keywords deconstruction made in the analysis, new categories are
Gameplay patterns, dialogue systems. created to describe the potential uses of dialogue systems in
games from a gameplay perspective. Armed with this
INTRODUCTION resource, and the identified gameplay design patterns, we
Interacting with a game system, characters in a game world discuss how the analyzed games could be modified through
and the other players one is playing with can be said to be different uses of dialogue systems, showing how dialogue
the core of the game activity. Performing actions that systems can offer new gameplay possibilities. The paper
receive feedback that in turn provoke new actions can be concludes with describing identified opportunities and
described as having a dialogue, and this is the natural model challenges of implementing these possibilities.
for communication both between players and between game
characters. This paper explores how novel gameplay can be BACKGROUND
created in games through the use of dialogues, based upon A dialogue can be described as a mean for agents to
the techniques and models developed within computational exchange and coordinate information, build social cohesion,
linguistics. and achieve mutual understanding [2]. We interpret an
utterance on basis of the context, or its use in a “language-
In this paper we investigate how practical dialogue systems
game” [31], and by virtue of its conventional force [3], such
can inspire new forms of uses and implementations of game
as asking a question or making an offer. To regard
dialogue systems. This includes presenting a number of
utterances as performatives, that they do something rather
features typical for human dialogues that can be useful for
than just describe the state of affairs, is the key point in
creating conversational game characters.
speech act theory introduced by Austin [3].
The aim is to provide designers with a set of concept tools
regarding how dialogues and gameplay can be combined in

Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. Proceedings of DiGRA 2009

© 2009Authors & Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA). Personal and educational classroom use of this paper is allowed,
commercial use requires specific permission from the author.
There are several ways in which natural language dialogue A hearer may be able to Barge-In while the speaker is
may come into play in games. Assuming the distinction talking, i.e. interrupt the ongoing exposition. This is not the
between game (G), player (P), player character (PC) and same as feedback, since a barge-in causes the speaker to
non-player character (NPC), and stretching the notion of stop talking and give attention to the hearer, rather than the
dialogue somewhat, we may distinguish between the opposite. Using gameplay design patterns, one can describe
following dialogue types: systems supporting Barge-In actions as having speech acts
as Interruptible Actions [6].
- P-G: Games may be “voice controlled”.
- P-PC: Player is directing his player character using Types of Dialogue Systems
dialogue. A system that can communicate with a user in natural
language is usually called a dialogue system [15] and its
- NPC-NPC: For commenting on the states and the commercial use has typically been to rationalize task-
events of a game. oriented human interactions, such as booking train-tickets
- P-NPC: To provide players with background, or managing bank transactions.
quests, and social interaction. Four main approaches for building dialogue systems have
One could also consider a PC-NPC combination, but this is been classified ranging from the least complex to the most
not a main focus in the paper since it would also require a complex: Finite state-based, Form-based, Plan-based, and
closer look at the role of player agency in games. Likewise, Agent-based [1].
P-P dialogues are not discussed since designing them Finite state-based systems can be modeled as a graph
demand a natural focus closer to interaction design than consisting of nodes, representing states, and directed,
gameplay design. This paper mainly focuses on dialogues labeled arcs connecting the nodes denoting transitions
between the player and NPCs (P-NPC), but other types of between the states. At each state the dialogue system will
dialogues will be discussed to show other possible uses of generate a prompt, usually in the form of Canned Text
dialogues. Responses (for instance a prerecorded utterance) [15],
requesting specific information from the user. The system
Dialogue Control Elements
will change state if it can match the user's input with any of
Speakers typically distribute the talk in a structured way to the outgoing transitions from the current state. If not, it will
avoid overlaps and misunderstandings, and they may give
either re-prompt or start over (for instance after a number of
feedback and correct errors during the interaction. Bunt [9]
re-prompts). This means that the dialogue is both
refers to these aspects as dialogue control functions, and
Diegetically Consistent, i.e. every exchange is within the
several such concepts are potential features of games, i.e.
scope of the domain, as well as Context Dependent since
from a game context it is possible to define them as
whether the input is accepted or not is dependent on the
gameplay design patterns. Thus, when these are presented
current state. Different from finite state-based systems, the
here they are presented as if they were gameplay design
form-based systems can fill several slots from the same
patterns to enable their use in later sections. In cases where
input as well as handle input provided in different orders.
fitting gameplay design patterns already exist, we will refer
to those. In plan-based systems, the system and the human user
collaborate on a plan to solve a specific task in a stable
Turn taking is a basic dialogue control element that environment, as in expert systems such as the Circuit-fix-it
concerns how we distribute and organize the moves in a shop system [26]. In virtual worlds, however, the
conversation (see e.g. [23]). The gameplay design pattern
environment is dynamically changing which may change
Turn Taking [6] addresses the same issues for games but
the preconditions for executing the plan. In these systems,
does not stress the communicative aspect of the interaction.
the conversation requires a model of an agent with the
Ordinary human-to-human conversations are processed
ability to re-plan in order to achieve some goal or change
through Incremental Dialogue Processing, where interrupts
goal if priorities change and are therefore referred to as
are possible due to the fact that the hearer can process and
agent-based systems (c.f. [10, 24, 28]).
react to each contribution while it’s being produced. The
alternative can be referred to as Chunk-based Dialogue
EXAMPLES OF DIALOGUE SYSTEMS IN GAMES
Processing, by which dialogue contributions (for instance
To explore the possible uses of dialogue systems beyond
utterances or phrases) are processed in chunks.
the simple observation made above, a number of games are
When a dialogue only can be initiated and/or controlled by analyzed in the following sections. We have chosen
one of the agents this is referred to as Single-Initiative commercial games and research projects that taken together
Dialogues, while the alternative is labeled Mixed Initiative cover a broad range of dialogue systems in use. The
Dialogues. Regardless of which model is used, the agent research projects ELIZA [30] and Façade [22] have been
currently in possession of the turn expects to get continuous included because they are both publicly available as well as
Basic Input Feedback from the other participants as an interesting from a game dialogue perspective. Furthermore,
assurance that they have heard and understood the message. even though it is not presented as a game, Façade contains
a complete gameplay structure. Several of the examples are Zork
quite old, and there are two main reasons why they still Zork [14] is an adventure game where the player takes on
have been chosen: First, they are among the first, or early, the role of an adventurer that explores a fantasy
examples of games that use dialogue. Second, their environment in the search for treasures. The player controls
relatively limited context and variety make them easier to his avatar through text input and all responses are likewise
analyze and describe than the more complex games that in text, giving an example of P-PC dialogue in a game.
have come later. Since nothing happens until input is given, the game is an
example of a Turn-Based Game that uses Chunk-Based
ELIZA Dialogue Processing. Unlike ELIZA, the text given to the
Although not a game per se, the computer program ELIZA system does not represent a conversation with a fictional
[30] allows a human agent to have a dialogue with a character but rather instructions for the system on what
fictional Rogerian psychiatrist through a text-based actions, mental or physical, the player wants the PC to
interface (an example of P-NPC dialogue, or possibly P-G perform. Although these instructions use the representation
since the NPC is the only perceivable part of the game). of the game, i.e. the game’s diegesis, error and ambiguity
Although it can be seen as a candidate to overcoming the handling require some of the dialogue to be on a meta-level.
Turing test (c.f. [25] for modern versions of this test), the Thus, it does not have Diegetically Consistent Dialogue.
experience is typically a playful one for users aware of the
Given that Zork presents players with a diegetic game
true nature of the psychiatrist consisting of trying to make
world, Zork cannot only rely on transformation rules as
the program say illogical or inappropriate utterances. The
ELIZA to provide feedback. Instead it needs to relate the
interaction with the system enforces a Turn Taking structure
player’s input to the current state of the game world.
similar to Turn-Based Games [6]. After the first welcoming
Specifically, this takes place on two levels: to determine if
utterance from ELIZA, the program hands over the initiative
it makes sense diegetically (e.g. not trying to pick up a
to the user and waits for input, potentially for an infinite
sword that is out of sight), and to generate an appropriate
amount of time, hence making it a Single Initiative
response. Some responses are simple uses of the gameplay
Dialogue system. Players have the possibility of Free Text
design pattern Canned Text Responses while other require
Communication since they can type whatever they want to
more or less complicated algorithms. In addition to these
the system and the input is then handled through Chunk-
types of responses, Zork needs to inform players when it
Based Dialogue Processing. Further, since conversing is
does not understand the input, and handle loading and
the only activity one can do in the system it is a trivial
saving, which would correspond to the P-G dialogue in our
example of Gameplay Integrated Conversation, i.e. a game
model.
in which conversation is the main gameplay element and
where the dialogue is an integral part of the game The way Zork uses language interaction for manipulating
mechanics, if one considers the activity gameplay. game components makes it possible to consider utterances
during gameplay as illocutionary acts [3]. This can be
ELIZA never admits to not understanding input from users,
described as the gameplay design pattern Illocutionary
and can maintain the illusion of always understanding
Interface, since the interface to the game is through
players through the possibility of responding with context-
communicative acts regardless of whether the generated
free questions. This “error-handling” is represented to
actions within the game are represented as dialogue or not.
players as part of the conversation, and not as part of the
However, text can also be used to direct and communicate
interface, which can be described as the design pattern
with other characters in the game, such as in the sequel to
Diegetically Consistent Dialogue, i.e. all utterances are
Zork where the player could tell the demon to kill the
consistent with the represented environment the dialogue
wizard by writing “DEMON, KILL WIZARD”. In this
takes place within. The program does not try to parse the
case, the player could actually interact both with the game
semantics of a user’s input; it relies on transformation rules
system (or the PC) as well as with other characters in the
to create its output based on the user’s input. This means
story through the same interface.
also that ELIZA lacks a proper dialogue manager. Given
that the whole experience of interacting with ELIZA is in Allowing players free text input to the game parser means
the form of a dialogue, ELIZA can be said to make use of that players will probably have to experiment with what
the pattern Player Constructed World [6], since all specific input is acceptable and not in the game. Since this
details of the conversation comes from the players. ELIZA interaction is indeed part of gameplay, Zork can be said to
can also be said to be able to manipulate a language-game, have the Game Interface as Puzzle, and this design can be
i.e. a small aspect of a language focusing on a specific said to have followed adventure games into the point-and-
activity and the actions related to the activity. Ordinary this click versions of the genre.
would require a model of the context and the current state
of the activity but given that Rogerian psychology consists Grim Fandango
of mirroring patients’ statements as questions, ELIZA can Taking place in the Land of the Dead, the game G r i m
avoid the need of having a detailed understanding of the Fandango [19] makes use of the Aztec belief that dead
overall development of the dialogue. souls wait for four years until they reach the ninth
underworld - the final home. The game is a single-player Morrowind uses a dialogue system based on hypertexts
adventure game where the player controls Manny Calavera, connected to a database in which all interface objects
who has to pay off the debts he gained from living a “less- containing dynamically changing text are stored, such that
than-perfect” life to be able to continue the journey himself. journal notes for instance are stored aside with dialogue
The gameplay takes place through making Manny move content. Dialogue management is hence restricted to
around, pick up and interact with objects in the selecting the correct database entry for a specific hypertext
environment, and start talking to characters he meets. keyword based on the current game state, location, and the
NPC currently addressed, which spawns the new patterns
Unlike the previous examples, P–NPC dialogues in Grim
Location-Specific Dialogue, Character-Specific Dialogue
Fandango are separated from other activities in the game.
and a generated version of the Context-Dependent Dialogue
Talking to a NPC in the game takes the player into a
pattern. The selection is also dependent on the PC–NPC
different Game Mode [6] where the different phrases that
relationship, hence introducing the sub-pattern Relation-
Manny can say are listed in the form of Canned Text
Dependent Dialogue to Context-Dependent Dialogue.
Responses that are consumed if selected. The selection of
Although some of the phrases are diegetically social
utterances depends on where in the narrative structure the
interaction, nearly all conversations with NPCs are
player is, thus providing the basis for the pattern Context-
functionally attempts to complete Gain Information [6]
Dependent Dialogue. Each phrase is furthermore coupled
goals. Further, it is possible to use Affective Communication
with a pre-recorded sound file that can be interrupted,
(Admire, Intimidate, Taunt and Bribe) to influence the
which could be interpreted as having the pattern Barge-In,
NPC's disposition towards the PC and change preconditions
but as there are no effects of interrupting the disposition it
for succeeding with a preferred action.
can also be described as an interruptible Cut Scene. All
dialogues are initiated and controlled by the player, thus
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
making use of the Single Initiative Dialogues pattern. Like its predecessor, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion [5]
Each dialogue is purposeful in some way, either as (Oblivion henceforth) is a single-player computer role-
Information Passing [17], to provide Diegetic Game Hints, playing game allowing players the freedom of controlling
or even as a key to change the game state. The dialogues in how their characters develop within a rich fantasy
Grim Fandango are also important vehicles for conveying environment. Besides activities such as fighting, stealing
the story and creating an atmosphere that is consistent with and cast spells, players can interact with several hundred
the stage set. The game characters are presented both NPCs through a specialized interface for P-NPC dialogues
implicitly, through for instance Rumors, and explicitly by accessible only when the relation between the PC and NPC
talking to them in person. The dialogues can also be is sufficiently good. In contrast to its predecessor
regarded as a way to socialize with the other characters, as Morrowind, dialogues in Oblivion are performed by
some of the choices have less or no impact on game selecting a phrase, hearing the response and choosing a new
progression but more have the function of supplying the phrase in a turn-based manner until any of the participants
player with a Freedom of Choice [6]. ends it. The phrases are pre-scripted and the selection
depends on location, current relation between the PC and
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind NPC, and status of quests, i.e. the sequel also uses the
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind [4] (Morrowind patterns Location-Specific Dialogue, Character-Specific
henceforth) is a role-playing game played in first person Dialogue, Relation-Dependent Dialogue, and Context-
perspective by a single player. The player starts by building Dependent Dialogue. As for Morrowind, starting a dialogue
the character, such as specifying its race, class, sex, skills puts the player in another Game Mode and the rest of the
and a number of additional attributes. The actions the player game world is paused until the dialogue is finished. In
then chooses to perform will have impact on how the game essence, this shows that the dialogue system is a separate
progresses and how the player character is perceived by the system from the main game, both as the actions performed
other characters in the game. The game challenges, as in are different and as these actions do not take up time in the
most RPGs, involve solving quests, exploring, fighting, game world. The dialogue interface also provides access to
joining guilds, trading and interacting with other characters another interface where players can try to improve (or
in the game. A player can approach an NPC to initiate a P- worsen) the NPC's perception of the PC through a mini
NPC dialogue, and activating the dialogue interface freezes game that is focused upon recognizing facial expressions of
the game world, making it a different Game Mode. This the NPC.
gives consequences to game play such as being able to start
Oblivion has already been analyzed for aspects of designing
a discussion with a guard while being chased by a monster
non-playing characters [16] as well as their social networks
(as long as the guard has not noticed the monster) and
[17]. During this process several patterns related to
having no risk of being attacked until the discussion has
dialogues were identified, including Contextualized
ended. Similar to all the previous examples, players initiate
Conversational Responses, Free Text Communication,
and control the dialogue, making it a Single Initiative, Turn-
Gameplay Integrated Conversations, Ambiguous
Taking system.
Responses, Awareness of Surroundings, Initiative,
Emotional Attachment, Actions Have Social Consequences, actions regardless of what the player is doing and the
Eavesdropping, Social Norm, and Information Passing, and system therefore has Mixed Initiative Dialogues. That the
to a lesser degree Own Agenda, Sense of Self, Competing time passes while dialogues take place and the people not
for Attention, and Either You are with Me or against Me. involved in the discussion can perform other actions show
Several of these have been mentioned in the earlier that Façade also has Gameplay Integrated Conversations.
examples but for documentation purposes it should be noted Furthermore, Façade handles Multi-Party Dialogues, as all
that they were first identified in Oblivion although not three characters can be engaged in the same dialogue. The
studied in greater detail due to a different focus and space size of the group talking is not completely in the player's
considerations. Due to space considerations, readers are control: one must consider that all characters can perform
referred to the previous work for details about these Eavesdropping. Further, characters can Barge-In on others
patterns although it should be mentioned that the and the NPCs show a Sense of Self in becoming irritated
Eavesdropping pattern is supported through NPC-NPC when interrupted.
dialogues.
Mass Effect
Façade Mass Effect [11] is a space opera game that has received
Façade [22] is an interactive drama where the PC is invited acclaim in popular press for having a novel dialogue
over to the married couple Grace and Trip for a social visit. system. Although having responses available due to the
Standing outside their door, the player involuntarily presence of character traits and players choosing type of
performs some Eavesdropping on the couple quarreling and response rather than exact phrasing have been present in
it becomes obvious that they are having some serious earlier games, e.g. the Fallout series and Morrowind
marital problems. This opening serves as an introduction to respectively, the quality of the writing and integration of the
the plot and depending on how the player acts from now on different parts may explain the positive reception. Another
the story will take different turns. As for Oblivion, it has aspect given the positive response may in fact be related to
been a case study in an earlier paper [17], where the the interface; dialogue options are organized in a pie menu
patterns Emotional Attachment, Competing for Attention, with the same type of responses always appearing in the
Eavesdropping, Awareness of Surroundings, and Either You same place, which simplifies selection.
are with Me or You are against Me were associated with it.
Mass Effect uses a Single Initiative, Turn-Taking system.
The expressed design goal of Façade has been to create a
Although the system can be compared to Morrowind or
drama in which agents interact socially with each other and
Oblivion since they both use the Location-Specific
with the player (i.e. both P-NPC and NPC-NPC dialogues),
Dialogue, Character-Specific Dialogue, Context-Dependent
and where each action performed affects the behavior and
Dialogue, and Relation-Dependent Dialogue to Context-
attitude of the other agents [22]. The agents in Façade
Dependent Dialogue patterns, the experience is radically
therefore show that Actions Have Social Consequences, i.e.
different. The reason is that the options presented in Mass
their behavior and decisions depend upon the other
Effect specify both what the PC will talk about as well as
participating agents. Grace and Trip start conversations
how, rather than the “database retrieval” style provided in
with the PC to gain sympathy, showing examples of
Morrowind. Responses are also Canned Text Responses but
Initiative and Own Agenda. Objects in the environment
support Diegetically Consistent Dialogues since the
trigger conversation throughout gameplay, showing that the
responses are recorded pieces of voice acting with lip-
NPCs have Emotional Attachment to them and that they
synched avatars.
have Location-Specific Dialogue as well as Character-
Specific Dialogue. The dialogue system is in practice a sub system of the Mass
Effect game engine with only some information transfer to
In Façade the dialogue discourse actually constitute the
the overall game state. As such the dialogue system does
major part of the story, and it seems reasonable to define a
not support patterns such as Emotional Attachment,
gameplay design pattern, Dialogue-based Game
Competing for Attention, Awareness of Surroundings, and
Construction, explaining this type of design decision
Actions Have Social Consequences. However, the dialogues
applied on games. The goal can be described as unlocking a
revolve around personal backgrounds and romances, which
Relation-Dependent Dialogue between Grace and Trip,
show that the mentioned patterns can occur on a narrative
signifying that the player has changed the context to create
level rather than a gameplay level.
the right Context-Dependent Dialogues (but it should be
noted that players can set their own goals rather than the
A Comparative Analysis
culturally implied one of helping the couple solve their
After having presented several examples of how dialogues
marital issues).
are used in games separately, we can now compare them
As for ELIZA and Zork, players interact with the system with each other and see how they relate to models of
through Free Text Communication. Although Façade only dialogues. By doing so the potential design space between
processes text after the return key has been pressed, i.e., by the games can be identified and this provides the basis for
Chunk-Based Dialogue Processing, NPCs can initiate the discussion later on how the games could be provided
novel gameplay through design changes.
Grim Fandango, Oblivion, and Mass Effect use Finite state- Feedback by redesigning the system to support Incremental
based tree-structures, where each player choice unfolds the Input Processing, i.e. handling input per key strokes or
branch of the selected node. ELIZA, Zork, Morrowind, and tokens separated by blanks instead of per complete
Façade on the other hand do not easily fit any of the models utterances. The romantic and intimidating aspects of
used to explain dialogue systems. The reason why ELIZA dialogue in Mass Effect could likewise be expanded with
does not fit is due to having a negligible internal state, for requiring players to have appropriate body language and
nearly all input the system remains in the same state as distance to achieve the desired effect. To integrate game
before. Zork uses a Form-based-like approach when trying dialogues with the overall gameplay, one has to equate
to disambiguate users’ input but does this for the current communicative actions with other game actions as well as
game state and not for the whole game. The dialogue provide a support for these actions to be performed
engine in Morrowind resembles information retrieval simultaneously. In Façade they used ABL (A Behavior
systems that offer some kind of dialogue management, such Language) to accomplish this [21]. Another approach is to
as the BirdQuest system [12]. The agents in Façade are use statecharts [13] for modeling independent but
built using a Plan-based approach, but the method used synchronized behaviors, as well as integrating the dialogue
differs from ordinary plan-based approaches in that it state with the overall game state [7].
allows multiple agents (in this case Grace and Trip) to have
The personality of NPCs in Grim Fandango and Oblivion
joint goals and behaviors [21].
are expressed through dialogues, and in Façade and Mass
Although ELIZA, Zork, and Façade have aspects of existing Effect the character’s emotional state can be perceived as
approaches in their design, it might be more correct to state well. These features can be further explored to also include
that they have a Game State-based approach. That is, even social behavior, dependent on the characters’ interpersonal
if ELIZA and Façade are not games per se, the state of the relationship and the role they play in the situation in
dialogue is represented through the complete game state. question. An example of how this can be solved using
Morrowind fits this model partly as it uses a different game standard technology is presented in [8].
mode for dialogues but has some tree-based structures in it.
The examined games make use of dialogues for gameplay
However, the conditions determining what can be discussed
in different ways. In ELIZA the dialogue is the gameplay (in
in each conversation depend on the game state (primarily
the sense that there is gameplay at all) while for Zork it is
the NPCs’ perception of the PC) and most dialogue can be
the interface that makes gameplay possible. G r i m
retrieved in a random access manner.
Fandango, Morrowind, Oblivion, and Mass Effect use
dialogues to provide information to players about the game
THE DESIGN SPACE OF DIALOGUE SYSTEMS IN
world and to progress the various plots. In one sense they
GAMES
all use dialogues as Illocutionary Interfaces since they can
By using the example games and identified patterns as
either change the game world or the progress of a narrative
starting point we now discuss how design choices can be
structure, but this may not be apparent to players before
transplanted or modified, and identify hypothetical (in the
they make utterances. Taking an extreme view, one could
sense that they have not yet been found instantiated in a
finish any of these games without understanding the
game) gameplay design patterns. As an initial observation,
dialogues in the games. For Zork and Façade one would at
the examples show a range of possible uses for dialogues as
least have to parse out the important words used, i.e. use
interfaces to games. ELIZA and Zork use dialogues as the
Game Interface as Puzzle. Interacting with ELIZA without
sole way to interact with the game and in the first case it is
understanding the language the system responds in is
done completely within the diegesis of the game. Grim
unlikely to give a meaningful experience for any longer
Fandango, Morrowind, Oblivion, and Mass Effect have
period of time.
dialogues as separate modes in the gameplay with no other
activities occurring while the dialogue continues. Façade Zork and Façade show that requiring players to perform
integrates the dialogue into the game interface and lets actions that express an understanding of the dialogue is one
dialogue and other activities take place at the same time. way of integrating dialogue and gameplay. For Zork this
consists mainly of figuring out what verbs, adjectives, and
Allowing dialogues to take place simultaneously with other
nouns can be used in the interface. In F a ç a d e it is
activities as Façade does, i.e. by using G a m e p l a y
manifested through the vagueness of the goal and the
Integrated Conversations, is a conceptually easy way to
openness of how players can express themselves.
change designs. This can add stress and tension, e.g. having
to convince town guards in Morrowind or Oblivion to let The examples listed above may be perceived as only
the PC enter the city gate while monsters are approaching. applicable to natural language interactions, but scripted
Besides making verbal expressiveness a potential game dialogues can also be improved by allowing a wider range
skill, this also can cause speed of typing to be important for of utterance options in specific situations. These options
players. It should be noted that this idea can be applied on may be available on basis of for instance the dialogue
Façade but at a higher level of detail; players can be history, the character’s internal state as well as the
challenged to provide NPCs with proper Basic Input interpersonal relationship. One example of a more complex
system that uses a dialogue menu combined with Canned
Text Responses is the Augmented Conversation Engine described to the level of detail in the original collection but
[29]. In this system, the response from the NPC is selected by situating them in the context of dialogue systems and by
from a matrix of trust combined with randomness, which grounding them in concrete game examples, the meaning
summarizes to about twelve different possible answers to a and potential are hopefully evident.
specific user input.
Regarding the applicability of models from computational
The combat system in Monkey Island [20], having to know linguistics to games, the examples did not show perfect
the right insults to verbally defeat one’s opponent, provides matches to existing categories. This may be due to
another alternative. This can be generalized into the pattern, specialization to the applications in question, but also due to
Colloquial Mastery, i.e. one has to learn the use of the the presence of characteristics typically not discussed in
language beyond simple information transferal so that one computational linguistic. An alternative approach, the
masters the idiosyncrasies of the current environment. For Game State-based approach, has been introduced as has the
example, soldiers may need to begin and end every observation that the intention of dialogue systems for games
sentence with “sir” and outlaws may need to add curses to can differ from other dialogue systems in that
impress NPCs to fit the Social Norm. A technical more cooperativeness is not always the intended design goal.
challenging option is to require players to use Delicate
Phrasing, formulating utterances without revealing REFERENCES
sensitive information or causing insults. In this fashion, 1. Allen, J. F., Byron, D. K., Dzikovska, M., Ferguson, G.,
game dialogues can challenge players’ skills in expressing Galescu, L. & Stent, A.: Towards Conversational Human-
themselves– either as a standalone game or as part of the Computer Interaction. AI Magazine (2001)
overall gameplay. 2. Allwood, J.: On Dialogue Cohesion. Gothenburg Papers in
Theoretical Linguistics 65, Dept of Linguistics, University of
CONCLUDING REMARKS Gothenburg (1992)
In this paper we have explored how dialogue systems can 3. Austin, J. L.: How to do Things with Words, second ed.
be applied in games. Suggested uses have come from Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. (1962)
established techniques and concepts from computational 4. Bethesda Softworks LLC: The Elder Scrolls III:
linguistics as well as by identifying uses in some examples Morrowind (2003)
and generalizing them. The specific suggestions have been
5. Bethesda Softworks LLC: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
identified as gameplay design patterns although not full (2006)
descriptions of these have been given. The patterns suggest
several different ways in which dialogues can provide new 6. Björk, S. & Holopainen, J.: Patterns in Game Design.
Charles River Media, Hingham (2005)
gameplay challenges as well as how game interfaces can be
designed. 7. Brusk, J. & Lager, T.: Developing Natural Language
Enabled Games in SCXML. In Journal of Advanced
Even though natural language interaction adds possibilities Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics - Special
and advantages in the design of the user interface, it also Issue on Intelligence Techniques in Computer Games and
introduces new problems and difficulties. The system may Simulations, vol. 12, No. 2, pp 156-163 (2008)
fail to create an interpretation or create an erroneous one, 8. Brusk, J.: Dialogue Management for Social Game
and repeated failures in understanding may cause Characters Using Statecharts. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI
frustration for the player. It is beyond the scope of this International Conference on Advances in Computer
paper to in detail explore how to solve these issues, but Entertainment Technology (ACE 2008). Yokohama, Japan, pp
possibilities include having a range of possible input 219-222 (2008)
modalities, letting the system choose reactions based on the 9. Bunt, H. 1994. Context and dialogue control. Think
global state (as e.g. Façade does by using its beat system), Quarterly 3, 19-31.
or trusting players tendency to try to find meaning in 10. Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S. & Churchill, E. F.
utterances (as ELIZA does). Free Text Communication (Eds.): Embodied Conversational Agents. MIT Press (2000)
gives players large degrees of freedom but it may still be 11. Demiurge Studios [Bioware]: Mass Effect (pc version)
important to make the range of reasonable options obvious (2008).
to players. A possible solution to this is to let the system
12. Flycht-Eriksson, A., Jönsson, A., Merkel, M. & Sundblad,
take initiative and help the player to learn how to interact. H.: Ontology-driven information-providing dialogue systems.
Another approach is to have an adaptive behavior, such that Tampa, Florida, USA (2003)
the NPC adjusts to the player’s type of behavior.
13. Harel, D.: Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex
Gameplay design patterns have been heavily used in this Systems, In Science of Computer Programming 8, North-
paper. Several new design patterns were identified through Holland (1987)
analyses of existing games. Further analyses of hypothetical 14. Infocom: ZORK I: The Great Underground Empire (1980)
re-designs have provided the basis for the new patterns 15. Jurafsky, D &, Martin, J. H.: Speech and Language
including Delicate Phrasing, Colloquial Mastery, and Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing,
Incremental Input Processing. These patterns have not been Computational Linguistics and Speech Recognition. Prentice
Hall Series in Artificial Intelligence. Prentice Hall, Upper 24. Prendinger, H. & Ishizuka, M. (Eds): Life-Like Characters:
Saddle River, NJ 07458. (2000) Tools, Affective Functions, and Applications. Springer (2004)
16. Lankoski, P. & Björk, S.: Gameplay design patterns for 25. Saygin, A. P., Cicekli, I., Akman, V.: Turing Test: 50
believable non-player characters. In: Situated Play: Proceedings Years Later. Minds and Machines 10, 4 (November), 463{518.
of DiGRA 2007 Conference. (2007a) Kluwer Academic Publishers. (2000)
17. Lankoski, P. & Björk, S.: Gameplay Design Patterns for 26. Smith, R.: Spoken Natural Language Dialog Systems: A
Social Networks and Conflict. In: Proceedings of Game Design Practical Approach. Oxford University Press (1995)
and Technology Workshop 2007 (2007b) 27. Splash Damage: Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. (2007)
18. Lankoski, P. & Björk, S.: Character-Driven Game Design: 28. Swartout, W., Gratch, J., Hill, R., Hovy, E., Marsella, S.,
Characters, Conflict, and Gameplay. Paper presentation at Rickel, J. Traum, D.: Toward Virtual Humans. AI Magazine, 27,
GDTW, Sixth International Conference in Game Design and 1 (2006)
Technology, 2008.
29. Swain, C.: The Augmented Conversation Engine – A
19. LukasArts: Grim Fandango (1998) System for Achieving Believable Conversation in Games and
20. LukasArts: Monkey Island (1990) Interactive Stories. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI
21. Mateas, M. & Stern, A.: A Behavior Language: Joint International Conference on Advances in Computer
Action and Behavioral Idioms. In Prendinger, H. and Ishizuka, Entertainment Technology (ACE 2008), ACM, pp 213-218
M. (eds) Life-like Characters. Tools, Affective Functions and (2008)
Applications, Springer (2004) 30. Weizenbaum, J.: Eliza - a Computer Program for the Study
22. Mateas, M. & Stern, A.: Façade: An Experiment in of Natural Language Communication Between Man and
Building a Fully-realized Interactive Drama. Game Developers Machine. Communications of the ACM Archive 9, 1 (January),
Conference: Game Design Track. (2003) 36-45 (1966)

23. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.: A Simplest 31. Wittgenstein, L.: Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell
Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Publishing (1953)
Conversation. Language 50, 4, 696{735. (1974)