60 réponses à ce sujet

[didymos1120]

smudboy wrote...

Teknor wrote...

smudboy
wrote...

 Interrupts exist purely to break conversation, and get
on with whatever is supposed to go on.  Like 'splosions and bullets.

Helluva
assumption based on nothing. 

1. to cause or make a
break in the continuity or uniformity of (a course, process, condition,
etc.).
2. to break off or cause to cease, as in the middle of
something: He interrupted his work to answer the bell.
3. to stop (a
person) in the midst of doing or saying something, esp. by an
interjected remark: May I interrupt you to comment on your last remark?

Thing is, they don't always break conversation, but simply redirect it. An example: interrupt Mordin when you first meet him. Guess what? You keep talking to him. Veetor on Freedom's Progress is another example. Tali hug is another. Preventing Miranda from executing Niket: yet another. Headbutting Gatatog Uvenk. Saving Harkin the expense of knee surgery. Cracking Zaeed across the face on Zorya....

So no: not always about getting straight to 'splosions and bullets.

Modifié par didymos1120, 22 juin 2010 - 04:00 .

[Christmas Ape]

Teknor, I admire your spirit, but if the Great War taught us anything it's that charging an entrenched position very rarely wins you ground.

[KarmaTheAlligator]

The things is sometimes it's just too much to ask for Shepard -and by extention the player- to just sit there like a lemon while he could get a pre-emptive strike, especially when it helps to even the odds. Plus it doesn't have any benefits in-game for leaving those enemies alive, you won't get any more exp or ammo out of them.

[smudboy]

didymos1120 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Teknor wrote...

smudboy
wrote...

 Interrupts exist purely to break conversation, and get
on with whatever is supposed to go on.  Like 'splosions and bullets.

Helluva
assumption based on nothing. 

1. to cause or make a
break in the continuity or uniformity of (a course, process, condition,
etc.).
2. to break off or cause to cease, as in the middle of
something: He interrupted his work to answer the bell.
3. to stop (a
person) in the midst of doing or saying something, esp. by an
interjected remark: May I interrupt you to comment on your last remark?

Thing is, they don't always break conversation, but simply redirect it. An example: interrupt Mordin when you first meet him. Guess what? You keep talking to him. Veetor on Freedom's Progress is another example. Tali hug is another. Preventing Miranda from executing Niket: yet another. Headbutting Gatatog Uvenk. Saving Harkin the expense of knee surgery. Cracking Zaeed across the face on Zorya....

So no: not always about getting straight to 'splosions and bullets.

I listed two examples.  You listed several.  We are saying exactly the same thing: get on with it.

[Teknor]

Christmas Ape wrote...

Teknor, I admire your spirit, but if the Great War taught us anything it's that charging an entrenched position very rarely wins you ground.

Dude i didn't know that i was dealing with a fan dumb.

[HTTP 404]

didymos1120 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Teknor wrote...

smudboy
wrote...

 Interrupts exist purely to break conversation, and get
on with whatever is supposed to go on.  Like 'splosions and bullets.

Helluva
assumption based on nothing. 

1. to cause or make a
break in the continuity or uniformity of (a course, process, condition,
etc.).
2. to break off or cause to cease, as in the middle of
something: He interrupted his work to answer the bell.
3. to stop (a
person) in the midst of doing or saying something, esp. by an
interjected remark: May I interrupt you to comment on your last remark?

Thing is, they don't always break conversation, but simply redirect it. An example: interrupt Mordin when you first meet him. Guess what? You keep talking to him. Veetor on Freedom's Progress is another example. Tali hug is another. Preventing Miranda from executing Niket: yet another. Headbutting Gatatog Uvenk. Saving Harkin the expense of knee surgery. Cracking Zaeed across the face on Zorya....

So no: not always about getting straight to 'splosions and bullets.

the funny thing is that being interrupted in real life always results in a different action.  A person doesnt just interrupt someone and then do nothing.  Its called an interrupt right in Mass Effect 2?  you just said "interrupt Mordin when you first meet him. Guess what? you keep talking to him."  I feel llike you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.  haha

reminds me of when I watch sports with my roommate.  I say "he's outta bounds"!  then he'll say "no! his foot hit the ball out!"  what?? same thing!  cept he needed to be right.  what Im trying to say is that you are right!

[didymos1120]

HTTP 404 wrote...
the funny thing is../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png that being interrupted in real life always results in a different action.  A person doesnt just interrupt someone and then do nothing.

Uh, what?  Seriously: I know that's English, but I have no clue what it's supposed to mean. What exactly are you referring to, cause I don't remember even implying that  "and then do nothing" is what happens in any of those examples?

  Its called an interrupt right in Mass Effect 2?  you just said "interrupt Mordin when you first meet him. Guess what? you keep talking to him."  I feel llike you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.  haha

Yes....you continue having a conversation with him.  When you interrupt Mordin, you don't do it by shooting him in the face or blowing up the clinic, and in that particular case, the paragon and renegade interrupts appear at what turns out to be the beginning of a potentially much longer conversation.

That's the whole point: it doesn't lead directly to property damage and/or homicide. Or whatever. This is opposed to what smudboy originally claimed, which is that interrupts are only in the game to break off conversation and get the player back to slaughtering mooks or some other form of actiony goodness ASAP.  

Modifié par didymos1120, 22 juin 2010 - 05:23 .

[smudboy]

didymos1120 wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...
the funny thing is../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png that being interrupted in real life always results in a different action.  A person doesnt just interrupt someone and then do nothing.

Uh, what?  Seriously: I know that's English, but I have no clue what it's supposed to mean. What exactly are you referring to, cause I don't remember even implying that  "and then do nothing" is what happens in any of those examples?

  Its called an interrupt right in Mass Effect 2?  you just said "interrupt Mordin when you first meet him. Guess what? you keep talking to him."  I feel llike you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.  haha

Yes....you continue having a conversation with him.  When you interrupt Mordin, you don't do it by shooting him in the face or blowing up the clinic, and in that particular case, the paragon and renegade interrupts appear at what turns out to be the beginning of a potentially much longer conversation.

That's the whole point: it doesn't lead directly to property damage and/or homicide. Or whatever. This is opposed to what smudboy originally claimed, which is that interrupts are only in the game to break off conversation and get the player back to slaughtering mooks or some other form of actiony goodness ASAP.  

Like 'splosions and bullets.

It could also be like many other things.

My argument was the combo of the P/R system, because Renegade is bad grr!  (And Paragon is...not bad, or something.)  Regardless it forces the player to simply choose those options because they get points, so they can do more of those options, because.

[Daforth]

Nightwriter wrote...

The game has too much combat. I'm tired of shoot-em-up scenarios. I always shoot people up. It's all I ever do.

I don't mind watching a cutscene instead at all. I find the interrupts very fun and entertaining. Much better than combat.

OMG! An action-rpg game has TOO MUCH combat? /facepalm 

[ShamieGTX]

Daforth wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

The game has too much combat. I'm tired of shoot-em-up scenarios. I always shoot people up. It's all I ever do.

I don't mind watching a cutscene instead at all. I find the interrupts very fun and entertaining. Much better than combat.

OMG! An action-rpg game has TOO MUCH combat? /facepalm 

he means that he would like a TAD BIT more of information regarding the universe, kinda like sayin the Kill Bill movies had TOO muchh Blood...
but yeah its kinda stupid complaining about a action game with too much action..... GTA games anyone?

[didymos1120]

smudboy wrote...

It could also be like many other things.

OK, I thought by "like 'splosions and bullets"  you meant "stuff that puts an end to that other stuff with all the talking."  I mean, it seems odd to assume that this:

"Interrupts exist purely to break conversation, and get on with whatever is supposed to go on.  Like 'splosions and bullets."

also covers this:

"Interrupts exist purely to break conversation, and get on with whatever is supposed to go on, like the rest of the conversation, which may actually end up lasting longer because of the interrupt."


but OK.  So basically: "Interrupts are for interrupting stuff, and afterwards more stuff, which may or may not be just like the previously occurring stuff, will happen."

Modifié par didymos1120, 22 juin 2010 - 10:57 .

[smudboy]

didymos1120 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

It could also be like many other things.

OK, I thought by "like 'splosions and bullets"  you meant "stuff that puts an end to that other stuff with all the talking."  I mean, it seems odd to assume that this:

"Interrupts exist purely to break conversation, and get on with whatever is supposed to go on.  Like 'splosions and bullets."

also covers this:

"Interrupts exist purely to break conversation, and get on with whatever is supposed to go on, like the rest of the conversation, which may actually end up lasting longer because of the interrupt."


but OK.  So basically: "Interrupts are for interrupting stuff, and afterwards more stuff, which may or may not be just like the previously occurring stuff, will happen."

Pretty much.  Dialog choices also enact player/character behaviors, just without a timer.  It's the same thing, only you can "interrupt" someone/something else's current social/physical behaviors, to get on with whatever's next (and we've no idea, since we don't know what those interrupts are, aside from the vague understanding you're doing something P/R.  Which is, again, one of the problems with the P/R system.)

[Christmas Ape]

smudboy wrote...

Regardless it forces the player to simply choose those options because they get points

You keep using "force" in relation to the Paragon/Renegade system - I'm not sure you know what that word means.

They are an option, which opens further options in gameplay. If your priorities aren't "experience the entire game on my first playthrough", you're not forced to do anything. A pure* neutral playthrough won't prevent you from recruiting any vital squadmates, won't prevent you from doing any of the required missions, won't lead to an unwinnable fight.

At no point does any effect of the Paragon or Renegade system become mission critical. You are as forced to engaged with it as you chose to be.



* "Pure" being slightly misused to account for those decisions with no middle option.

[FlurryJK2]

mashavasilec wrote...

  I don't care about most renegade interrupts, especially headbumping the krogan and stubbing Cathka. On the other hand, some moments (i'm talking about Horizon, yes)  really lack renegade interrupts. I'd punch this whole colony to death if i could, along with Virmire survivor *shakes fist in indignation*

Exactely I'd love to renegade interrupt kaiden or ashley and ask them who the hell they think they are doubting me.

[smudboy]

Christmas Ape wrote...

smudboy wrote...
Regardless it forces the player to simply choose those options because they get points

You keep using "force" in relation to the Paragon/Renegade system - I'm not sure you know what that word means.
They are an option, which opens further options in gameplay. If your priorities aren't "experience the entire game on my first playthrough", you're not forced to do anything. A pure* neutral playthrough won't prevent you from recruiting any vital squadmates, won't prevent you from doing any of the required missions, won't lead to an unwinnable fight.
At no point does any effect of the Paragon or Renegade system become mission critical. You are as forced to engaged with it as you chose to be.

* "Pure" being slightly misused to account for those decisions with no middle option.

If the P/R dialog system is grayed out, then it has forced you to make other choices.  This is because you have to go a pure P or R path.  I'm sure you're aware of this.

Modifié par smudboy, 23 juin 2010 - 01:24 .

[Christmas Ape]

smudboy wrote...

If the P/R dialog system is grayed out, then it has forced you to make other choices. This is because you have to go a pure P or R path. I'm sure you're aware of this.

Ummm...cool story, bro. That's got precisely sweet **** all to do with

smudboy wrote...

Regardless it forces the player to simply choose those options because they get points

though, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.



You cite a case in the course of Mass Effect 2 where having the Paragon or Renegade persuasion option available is vital to the course of the mission, and I'll accept that you're "forced" to pursue those options. Because otherwise, you* are choosing to try and max out those bars for your own reasons. Maybe you want to be the Ultimate Paragon of Co-Operation and Co-Existence, maybe you're obsessed with getting the "Best Possible Playthrough", maybe you like the way Hale reads the Renegade choices. Doesn't matter to me. None of those are "forced", though. They're called choices.



* From this point on "you" is used generically.

[smudboy]

Christmas Ape wrote...

smudboy wrote...
If the P/R dialog system is grayed out, then it has forced you to make other choices. This is because you have to go a pure P or R path. I'm sure you're aware of this.

Ummm...cool story, bro. That's got precisely sweet **** all to do with

smudboy wrote...
Regardless it forces the player to simply choose those options because they get points

though, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.

You cite a case in the course of Mass Effect 2 where having the Paragon or Renegade persuasion option available is vital to the course of the mission, and I'll accept that you're "forced" to pursue those options. Because otherwise, you* are choosing to try and max out those bars for your own reasons. Maybe you want to be the Ultimate Paragon of Co-Operation and Co-Existence, maybe you're obsessed with getting the "Best Possible Playthrough", maybe you like the way Hale reads the Renegade choices. Doesn't matter to me. None of those are "forced", though. They're called choices.

* From this point on "you" is used generically.

All I'm saying, in my original post, is that the interrupts are flawed because of the P/R system.

Because the player knows their options won't be available if they don't go pure, they keep choosing as many of those P or R choices.  That doesn't mean they have no other options: but if they want to do all the options, they are forced to have a collection of those choices, simply because they're blue or red.  (Although I don't think that's the case with the interrupts.)

If the choices were actually connected to previous choices, then that would make sense, as opposed to a point system.  But this is much more complex.

One of the developers of Alpha Protocol made a presentation about this very topic (and others), how they wanted to create a dialog system where the player can choose a certain attitude (neither good/bad), that doesn't rely on points->future choices to be made.  (aside: Else it becomes an issue of problem solving, not choice.)

And if I wrote that you must play a certain way or else the game won't work?  Well that's clearly wrong.

[Christmas Ape]

All I'm saying, in my original post, is that the interrupts are flawed because of the P/R system.



Because the player knows their options won't be available if they don't go pure, they keep choosing as many of those P or R choices.

This relies on a great deal of assumptions about other people's playstyles, assumptions made to reinforce a personal belief the system is direly flawed. It blows all previous Bioware systems like it out of the water. I tried playing a Jade Empire character in the style of Chinese devils; visit evil upon evil, torment the wicked in service to Heaven, all that good stuff. My options turned out to be "good guy" or "puppy-chewing monster". At least the ME system lets you raise both, generating good people who take **** from no-one and other nuanced options.

That doesn't mean they have no other options: but if they want to do all the options, they are forced to have a collection of those choices, simply because they're blue or red. (Although I don't think that's the case with the interrupts.)

Almost certainly not with the interrupts, to all my experience they appear regardless.

And this is only a flaw if you consider "can always persuade their way through a conversation" to be a flawed priority for play. If you're willing to accept a Shepard who can't in fact rely purely on their reputation and force of personality in every dialog, but sometimes has to make a tough choice, the system works (IMXP) just fine. Last playthrough I couldn't talk down the Jack/Miranda scuffle - oh well. I still got everybody home alive.

[smudboy]

Christmas Ape wrote...

All I'm saying, in my original post, is that the interrupts are flawed because of the P/R system.

Because the player knows their options won't be available if they don't go pure, they keep choosing as many of those P or R choices.

This relies on a great deal of assumptions about other people's playstyles, assumptions made to reinforce a personal belief the system is direly flawed. It blows all previous Bioware systems like it out of the water. I tried playing a Jade Empire character in the style of Chinese devils; visit evil upon evil, torment the wicked in service to Heaven, all that good stuff. My options turned out to be "good guy" or "puppy-chewing monster". At least the ME system lets you raise both, generating good people who take **** from no-one and other nuanced options.

You have the freedom to choose whatever you want: until you don't.

That doesn't mean they have no other options: but if they want to do all the options, they are forced to have a collection of those choices, simply because they're blue or red. (Although I don't think that's the case with the interrupts.)

Almost certainly not with the interrupts, to all my experience they appear regardless.
And this is only a flaw if you consider "can always persuade their way through a conversation" to be a flawed priority for play. If you're willing to accept a Shepard who can't in fact rely purely on their reputation and force of personality in every dialog, but sometimes has to make a tough choice, the system works (IMXP) just fine. Last playthrough I couldn't talk down the Jack/Miranda scuffle - oh well. I still got everybody home alive.

The problem is bothering to assign points to an attitude/dialog option in the first place, as if being a dick the first few times requires you in order to be a dick the last time.  This makes sense if all those events are tied together: but they're not.  It's some obscure analog point P/R system, because no one's bothered to actually connect these series of events to some tangible, social/behavioral outcome: and they're not.  If they were connected, then no need for points (or rather the analog P/R meters could just be a culmation for you keeping track: not the social/behavior connection between future events.)

[Christmas Ape]

smudboy wrote...



The problem is bothering to assign points to an attitude/dialog option in the first place, as if being a dick the first few times requires you in order to be a dick the last time. This makes sense if all those events are tied together: but they're not. It's some obscure analog point P/R system, because no one's bothered to actually connect these series of events to some tangible, social/behavioral outcome: and they're not. If they were connected, then no need for points (or rather the analog P/R meters could just be a culmation for you keeping track: not the social/behavior connection between future events.)

This is your first Bioware game, I take it?

[smudboy]

Christmas Ape wrote...

smudboy wrote...

The problem is bothering to assign points to an attitude/dialog option in the first place, as if being a dick the first few times requires you in order to be a dick the last time. This makes sense if all those events are tied together: but they're not. It's some obscure analog point P/R system, because no one's bothered to actually connect these series of events to some tangible, social/behavioral outcome: and they're not. If they were connected, then no need for points (or rather the analog P/R meters could just be a culmation for you keeping track: not the social/behavior connection between future events.)

This is your first Bioware game, I take it?

No: what's your point?

[Christmas Ape]

smudboy wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...

smudboy wrote...
The problem is bothering to assign points to an attitude/dialog option in the first place, as if being a dick the first few times requires you in order to be a dick the last time. This makes sense if all those events are tied together: but they're not. It's some obscure analog point P/R system, because no one's bothered to actually connect these series of events to some tangible, social/behavioral outcome: and they're not. If they were connected, then no need for points (or rather the analog P/R meters could just be a culmation for you keeping track: not the social/behavior connection between future events.)

This is your first Bioware game, I take it?

No: what's your point?

That you're describing a system found in every Bioware game since the BG franchise as if it were a failing unique to ME2. It's like complaining you have to have multiple conversations with your companions to learn things about them and glean side missions. Yes, that's BioWork. It's universal.

If you don't like their moral/decision-making system, why play in the first place?

[smudboy]

Christmas Ape wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...

smudboy wrote...
The problem is bothering to assign points to an attitude/dialog option in the first place, as if being a dick the first few times requires you in order to be a dick the last time. This makes sense if all those events are tied together: but they're not. It's some obscure analog point P/R system, because no one's bothered to actually connect these series of events to some tangible, social/behavioral outcome: and they're not. If they were connected, then no need for points (or rather the analog P/R meters could just be a culmation for you keeping track: not the social/behavior connection between future events.)

This is your first Bioware game, I take it?

No: what's your point?

That you're describing a system found in every Bioware game since the BG franchise as if it were a failing unique to ME2. It's like complaining you have to have multiple conversations with your companions to learn things about them and glean side missions. Yes, that's BioWork. It's universal.

If you don't like their moral/decision-making system, why play in the first place?

Yes.  One of you people.  You know the ones who don't actually have a point, but have to question you because their generalization on a certain topic isn't understood or shared, supersedes someones entire, now illogical behavior?

You people: "What smud?  You don't like factor X in game Y?  Why do you even bother playing game Y?"

Thank you for your extremely general understanding of why I, or perhaps anyone for that matter, whom upon learning they have an issue with a game play element, is found completely irrational to continue to play said game.

I will now continue talking to myself about waffles covered in tartar sauce.  Because those are so delicious.

Modifié par smudboy, 23 juin 2010 - 03:01 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

No I think you are going to end up talking to waffles covered in tartar sauce at this point. Most people here have no point.