416 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphael]

Vaeliorin wrote...

ME has removed the role-playing, therefore it's not an RPG. 

Complete and utter nonsense! ME2 has more actual roleplaying than ME1 (apparently). You are confusing roleplaying with roleplaying game elements. Roleplaying has to do with story, character interaction and choices. You are talking about the worst elements of RPGs that has to do with unrealistic and slow combat system, insane amounts of loot and much too complex character development. All of these elements were incorporated from pen & paper RPG and MMORPGs at the time RPG developers made RPGs partly because they didn't have the skills to make decent graphics and animations. At a time they placed less emphasis on story, interaction and choice than Bioware does in all their games today and thus had to compensate with cheap window dressing.

I'm a roleplaying purist (notice I left out the 'game') and consider the Mass Effect series to be the evolution of the cRPG genre.

Modifié par Seraphael, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:18 .

[AtreiyaN7]

On a semi-serious note, there are actually those of us who like "pure" RPGs AND RPG-shooters/RPG-lite shooters (or whatever category you want to put ME/ME2 in). We're not all, umm, how shall I put this politely...rigid hardcore RPG militants? Okay, maybe that's not entirely polite. However, for my part I'm happy with the way things seem to be shaping up! I look forward to getting the game next week. You can have a million dice rolls/abilities/armor...and a game could end up sucking if the story and writing aren't there. As long as the story is great, then that's all that should really count.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:18 .

[Silhouelle]

I personally view the definition of "RPG" as a game that allows me choice in the type of character I am playing. If a game forces me to play a very specific character, who I cannot control response-wise in dialogue, then I am not roleplaying that character. I'm just observing his or her story, however imersed I might be in it. So that and the storyline are why I play RPGs. I actually don't enjoy the gameplay mechanics (combat and the like) overly much in RPGs, but rather the ones in games that focus on the combat/exploration/whatever.

Take the Legacy of Kain/Soul Reaver games. Best storyline ever, in my opinion, and had awesome character developement. Was it an RPG, in my definition of such, no it wasn't. Because you didn't choose what the character said, how they responded. It is the equivelent of the Metal Gear Solid games. It might be a really fun game, but you're watching someone elses story, rather than making your own (or having lots of choice thus creating the illusion of your own story).

I liked ME mostly for its story and character interactions/developements, but I enjoyed the combat too. Will I enjoy the second? Most likely. Sure, its changed combat a bit and spent more resources on that than other stuff no doubt, but they also likely had a much bigger budget for the second game, given the success of the first. Still allows one to create a character gender, class and personality wise. Allows you to have conversations with many options and it has combat. Sounds like a fine game to me, to be honest, and as the game was originally stated to be a trilogy, its a fair bet the story was written long before the first game ever came out, so its not like they'll be a "dumbing down" of the story, imo.

~S.

[Mister Mage]

Seraphael wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

ME has removed the role-playing, therefore it's not an RPG. 

Complete and utter nonsense! ME2 has more actual roleplaying than ME1 (apparently). You are confusing roleplaying with roleplaying game elements. Roleplaying has to do with story, character interaction and choices. You are talking about the worst elements of RPGs that has to do with unrealistic and slow combat system, insane amounts of loot and much too complex character development. All of these elements were incorporated from pen & paper RPG and MMORPGs at the time RPG developers made RPGs partly because they didn't have the skills to make decent graphics and animations. At a time they placed less emphasis on story, interaction and choice than Bioware does in all their games today and thus had to compensate with cheap window dressing.

I'm a roleplaying purist (notice I left out the 'game') and consider the Mass Effect series to be the evolution of the cRPG genre.

Obviously you have not played Fallout 1/2 or Arcanum, because those involve incredibly deep and well-developed turn-based systems and provide a GREAT deal more choice than Mass Effect will ever aspire to.

[Seraphael]

Mister Mage wrote...

Seraphael wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

ME has removed the role-playing, therefore it's not an RPG. 

Complete and utter nonsense! ME2 has more actual roleplaying than ME1 (apparently). You are confusing roleplaying with roleplaying game elements. Roleplaying has to do with story, character interaction and choices. You are talking about the worst elements of RPGs that has to do with unrealistic and slow combat system, insane amounts of loot and much too complex character development. All of these elements were incorporated from pen & paper RPG and MMORPGs at the time RPG developers made RPGs partly because they didn't have the skills to make decent graphics and animations. At a time they placed less emphasis on story, interaction and choice than Bioware does in all their games today and thus had to compensate with cheap window dressing.

I'm a roleplaying purist (notice I left out the 'game') and consider the Mass Effect series to be the evolution of the cRPG genre.

Obviously you have not played Fallout 1/2 or Arcanum, because those involve incredibly deep and well-developed turn-based systems and provide a GREAT deal more choice than Mass Effect will ever aspire to.

I've played them all. I'm sure if Bioware wanted to go retro on us, they could beat Fallout 1/2 and Arcanum easily. Having great graphics and voice acting with top actor talent cost a pretty penny. Also, if you look at value for money, even Mass Effect which is on the shortish side, provides a hellufalot more value for money than most games out there.

[TheAnima]

I just want to point out, the people who are complaining about nonskill based weapons aiming are idiots. The gun fires where you point it, in Mass Effect, it did that, but had the added drawback of sometimes firing in completely stupid directions because you had low skill. This drawback has been removed. So there's no way any sane person could see this as a loss.

[Mister Mage]

Seraphael wrote...
I've played them all. I'm sure if Bioware wanted to go retro on us, they could beat Fallout 1/2 and Arcanum easily. Having great graphics and voice acting with top actor talent cost a pretty penny. Also, if you look at value for money, even Mass Effect which is on the shortish side, provides a hellufalot more value for money than most games out there.

I am not going to argue Mass Effect 2 isn't full of content, and hell I'm not going to argue it's not worth it.  I'm excited about it, and I have very few reservations.  Most of the decisions are either great, fine, or acceptable, with nothing really making me feel like a bad choice was made.

I'm more against the general idea that fun can become outdated.  I like turn-based strategy too.  I don't think that something that was once fun stops being fun.  For example, I got a 10 year-old relative of mine to play Secret of Monkey Island.  The graphics are blocky, there is no voice acting, and the music amounts to beeps and boops.  But you know what?  It's fun, so he had fun.  Fun doesn't age and die like you and me.

I am fine, in fact happy, with the direction Mass Effect(the franchise) is taking.  I just don't like the idea that grids, turn-based combat, or statistics are inherently "outdated" by now, and that we should make RPGs into interactive storybooks, which a lot of posts here seem to be leaning towards.

[Malastare-]

TheAnima wrote...

I just want to point out, the people who are complaining about nonskill based weapons aiming are idiots. The gun fires where you point it, in Mass Effect, it did that, but had the added drawback of sometimes firing in completely stupid directions because you had low skill. This drawback has been removed. So there's no way any sane person could see this as a loss.

Not unless you were a masochist, no.

However, I worry about what goes with it.  If ME switches (or has already switched) to a shoot-exactly-where-the-crosshair-is mode, then it has traded RPG aiming (target selection) with TPS/FPS aiming (twitch and pan).  This is going to annoy many RPG gamers who simply don't want to have to practice aiming just to play the damn game.

[vashts1985]

charater develpment and finding items and exp and all that in no way define what an RPG is and definetly should not.

[Daeion]

todahouse21 wrote...

Daeion wrote...

todahouse21 wrote...

But it has to be more than that. In the old forum I read comments that basically said "I can't play this game. It's too dumbed down."

What?

Is it the lack of chocobos? I bet it's the lack of chocobos.

Could you be more of an ass?

Lets take a look at the inventory system.  Gone is having to make a decision of what would be best for a certain squad mate becuase the game does that for you.  Gone is going oh wow, I just found this great upgrade, should I give it to Rex or Garrus, the game just duplicates it and everyone gets a copy.  Gone is having to make the choice of who to bring because you need certain skills.  Everything now is just run and gun FPS style with no decision making needing to be made except for do I want to kill this guy with my pistol or me sniper rifle.

You sir. have no idea how much of an ass I can be.

well at least you addmit it, that's better than most.

[TheAnima]

Malastare- wrote...

TheAnima wrote...

I just want to point out, the people who are complaining about nonskill based weapons aiming are idiots. The gun fires where you point it, in Mass Effect, it did that, but had the added drawback of sometimes firing in completely stupid directions because you had low skill. This drawback has been removed. So there's no way any sane person could see this as a loss.

Not unless you were a masochist, no.

However, I worry about what goes with it.  If ME switches (or has already switched) to a shoot-exactly-where-the-crosshair-is mode, then it has traded RPG aiming (target selection) with TPS/FPS aiming (twitch and pan).  This is going to annoy many RPG gamers who simply don't want to have to practice aiming just to play the damn game.

But Mass Effect NEVER HAD RPG AIMING. That's my point.

[casedawgz]

TheAnima wrote...

Malastare- wrote...

TheAnima wrote...

I just want to point out, the people who are complaining about nonskill based weapons aiming are idiots. The gun fires where you point it, in Mass Effect, it did that, but had the added drawback of sometimes firing in completely stupid directions because you had low skill. This drawback has been removed. So there's no way any sane person could see this as a loss.

Not unless you were a masochist, no.

However, I worry about what goes with it.  If ME switches (or has already switched) to a shoot-exactly-where-the-crosshair-is mode, then it has traded RPG aiming (target selection) with TPS/FPS aiming (twitch and pan).  This is going to annoy many RPG gamers who simply don't want to have to practice aiming just to play the damn game.

But Mass Effect NEVER HAD RPG AIMING. That's my point.

Exactly. You still had to point your gun at your enemies. All that's been removed is that frustrating, entirely random element that sometimes decided that your shot would veer to the left by three meters and miss.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Seraphael wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

ME has removed the role-playing, therefore it's not an RPG. 

Complete and utter nonsense! ME2 has more actual roleplaying than ME1 (apparently). You are confusing roleplaying with roleplaying game elements. Roleplaying has to do with story, character interaction and choices. You are talking about the worst elements of RPGs that has to do with unrealistic and slow combat system, insane amounts of loot and much too complex character development. All of these elements were incorporated from pen & paper RPG and MMORPGs at the time RPG developers made RPGs partly because they didn't have the skills to make decent graphics and animations. At a time they placed less emphasis on story, interaction and choice than Bioware does in all their games today and thus had to compensate with cheap window dressing.

I'm a roleplaying purist (notice I left out the 'game') and consider the Mass Effect series to be the evolution of the cRPG genre.

YOu completely misseed Vaeliorin's point.

His point (one with which I wholeheartedly agree) is that ME (and to an even greater extent, ME@) prevents roleplayuing by not granting the player control over what his character says or does.

In ME, the dialogue wheel prevented you from choosing what Shepard said.  You could choose between the options on the wheel, but those options did not tell you what was going to happen next.  There was no way to play Shepard as a coherent character because there was always the risk that the option you chose would produce behaviour that was inconsistent with your character concept, or even your character's past behaviour.

And even if they changed that and offered full dialogue text on the wheel, you'd still lack control over how Shepard delivered his lines (because of the voice-acting) and what he did as he delivered them (punching people, drawing a gun, walking away, etc.)

ME2 makes this problem worse through the implementation of the interrupt system, so now we're required to choose actions based not even on an abfuscatory paraphrase, but a non-specific visual cue such that we can't possibly with any confidence what the result will be.  And yet the whole of the game's dialogue is designed around them, so now we have even less information about what Shepard is going to do based on our inputs.

How is that roleplaying?  That's like you playing a tabletop game and telling the GM your character leaves the room, only to have the GM tell you you left the room but threw a live grenade behind you as you did, killing everyone inside.  That's insane.

[Sylvius the Mad]

casedawgz wrote...

TheAnima wrote...

But Mass Effect NEVER HAD RPG AIMING. That's my point.

Exactly. You still had to point your gun at your enemies. All that's been removed is that frustrating, entirely random element that sometimes decided that your shot would veer to the left by three meters and miss.

You could aim while paused.  As such, player aiming in Mass Effect was reduced to target selection, just like pure RPGs.  Whether you hit or missed was determined entirely by the character's skill, not the player's.

In ME2, using the aim while paused mechanic now guarantees hits.  I don't see why anyone thinks that's better.

[Malastare-]

TheAnima wrote...

But Mass Effect NEVER HAD RPG AIMING. That's my point.

It had a hybrid.  In ME1, all you had to do is get the crosshairs close to the target, a red triangle would center over the enemy and when you shot, the bullets would go to the red triange not the crosshairs.  If you strayed too far, the bullets would re-center on the crosshair.

I know it was stronger on the XBox, but it was there.  Feel free to check it out.  Its easy to see when your target jumps behind a wall.  You'll still have the red triange marking the target and you can fire your weapon as you move the crosshairs away.  The bullets will cluster around the triangle target, not the location of the crosshairs.

That is a form of RPG aiming.  You just aimed close enough to the target to let the game figure out which target you wanted it to fire at.  Hence: target selection.

[Bigeyez]

There is no such thing as a "Pure" RPG. Some RPG's have certain gameplay mechanics and others don't.



Just look at the wide differences between games like Final Fantasy, Baldurs Gate, Diablo, Fallout, Kotor, and Mass Effect.



All of those are RPGs and yet they are all different from each other in many ways. No single thing makes a game an RPG. I don't care if you're talking about an inventory system, stats, points, leveling, equipment, Parties, etc. These are all simply gameplay mechanics and not every RPG has all of them.



What every RPG DOES have however is an actual narrative, (ie more then in your average game) a cast of characters, putting the player into a role, and some form of choice (choice doesn't always mean dialogue options).

[Bigeyez]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Seraphael wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

ME has removed the role-playing, therefore it's not an RPG. 

Complete and utter nonsense! ME2 has more actual roleplaying than ME1 (apparently). You are confusing roleplaying with roleplaying game elements. Roleplaying has to do with story, character interaction and choices. You are talking about the worst elements of RPGs that has to do with unrealistic and slow combat system, insane amounts of loot and much too complex character development. All of these elements were incorporated from pen & paper RPG and MMORPGs at the time RPG developers made RPGs partly because they didn't have the skills to make decent graphics and animations. At a time they placed less emphasis on story, interaction and choice than Bioware does in all their games today and thus had to compensate with cheap window dressing.

I'm a roleplaying purist (notice I left out the 'game') and consider the Mass Effect series to be the evolution of the cRPG genre.

YOu completely misseed Vaeliorin's point.

His point (one with which I wholeheartedly agree) is that ME (and to an even greater extent, ME@) prevents roleplayuing by not granting the player control over what his character says or does.

In ME, the dialogue wheel prevented you from choosing what Shepard said.  You could choose between the options on the wheel, but those options did not tell you what was going to happen next.  There was no way to play Shepard as a coherent character because there was always the risk that the option you chose would produce behaviour that was inconsistent with your character concept, or even your character's past behaviour.

And even if they changed that and offered full dialogue text on the wheel, you'd still lack control over how Shepard delivered his lines (because of the voice-acting) and what he did as he delivered them (punching people, drawing a gun, walking away, etc.)

ME2 makes this problem worse through the implementation of the interrupt system, so now we're required to choose actions based not even on an abfuscatory paraphrase, but a non-specific visual cue such that we can't possibly with any confidence what the result will be.  And yet the whole of the game's dialogue is designed around them, so now we have even less information about what Shepard is going to do based on our inputs.

How is that roleplaying?  That's like you playing a tabletop game and telling the GM your character leaves the room, only to have the GM tell you you left the room but threw a live grenade behind you as you did, killing everyone inside.  That's insane.

So by your definition the only games that are RPGs are games that A) Let you type out EXACTLY what you want your character to say and Then let you select the tone of voice the voice actor says your lines in?

Hm guess we've never had a real RPG then.

Edit: Seriously though did the dialogue wheels really frustrate you that much? It really wasn't to hard to get the gist of what Shepard was about to say. Do we really have to go back to paragraphs of choices to read through to make you happy?

Modifié par Bigeyez, 20 janvier 2010 - 09:33 .

[ITSSEXYTIME]

Aisynia wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Eragondragonrider wrote...
I a person that has designed and played rpgs for 25 years, I think why most purest are saying ME2 is not a real rpg is because it doesn't have the wait command menu. FFIII set the bar for purest out there and most people want RPGs to be like it because it was such a great for its time.

RPG Purists don't think JRPGs are RPGs.

A lot of purest can not get past the idea that RPGs are evolving constantly to get more people into them. I think having a game that it more live action then waiting to chose what you want to do draws you more into the game and story.

When you remove the role-playing, you no longer have an RPG.  ME has removed the role-playing, therefore it's not an RPG.  That doesn't mean it's a bad game.  I rather enjoyed ME1, but I would put it in the genre of shooter with RPG elements, not into the RPG genre (there are very, very few games that make it into that genre anymore.  Pretty sure DA was the only mainstream game that fit the genre in 2009.)

.. What?

They allowed you to import your character from ME1 so that the choices you make affect the second game. They increased the number of options you have in terms of interacting with other characters, such as the interrupt system. Your actions in ME1 and probably to a greater extent, ME2, have a "butterfly effect", whereby one small decision can have huge ramifications. They've improved character interaction to the point that doing a favor for one person can anger another if you do it wrong, or you will run into situations where you may be forced to take sides in a disagreement. The ending of Mass Effect 2 will be dependent largely on the relationships you build, how well you have managed to balance the feelings of everyone around, and how extensive you have researched weapons, your ship, etcetera.

Now if you want to say that by removing stat dependent accuracy and other such things, they have removed some genre conventions, fine. But to me, as a native dice-roller, the stats, numbers, character sheets, and dice and all that have always been a form of enabler. They do not define the RPG itself.

You are saying that by removing some of the math, or by streamlining some of the systems, they are removing the roleplaying itself.. and that is frankly just incredible to me. The roleplaying is everything I described above.. the playing of a role, the interaction, storytelling, etc. That has always been the point of RPGs, the stats and numbers are just things that enable the ability to better tell that story. Removing, replacing, or streamlining those does not stop it from being an RPG, it just removes some elements you associate with RPGs. All the roleplaying is firmly in tact, and has in fact, been made more robust.

If you just miss some of the numbers and genre conventions, that's great, that's fine, but to say this isn't an RPG is just.. well it's just.. wow...

The RPG genre is so vast and difficult to define that yes, technically ME2 is just as much as an RPG as DA:O.

Where it differs however is that it cut out all the meat of any good RPG.  Character development is dumb and basic.  The system works better in a game like Dawn of War 2 because the different trees resulted in completely different playstyles. (Eg you could make a ranged character a melee character and still be effective)  In ME1 and ME2, getting to the next level of sniper rifles provides a paltry bonus to damage/accuracy and occassionally an increase to the effects of assassination.  Each tree just increases the stats of whatever you already have.  While the improving stats part is fine, having abilities just gradually get better every 5-6 points is a shallow system that results in a handful of abilities all of which you can pretty much use at lvl 1.  Once you get to lvl 10 or so, you'll probably be using the same thing you are using until the end of the game playing exactly the same way (you'll just be more effective at it)

Additionally, ME1 and ME2 (some videos have shown this off already) tend to force you down specific decision paths.  The classic "I won't give you my guns, No, **** YOU **** I KEEP MY GUN" dialogue tree takes the decision AWAY from the player, making the entire point of offering a choice meaningless.  I never felt at any point in DA:O that I didn't have a way to resolve a situation that fit my character, but in ME I regularly find my character saying things that I wouldn't expect them to simply because the game never gave me a choice in what to say, only in whether I wanted to be angry or REALLY ANGRY when I said it.


Mass Effect represents what I find to be one of the most disturbing trends in the game industry today.  Streamlining every feature, removing any and all depth in favour of creating a cool cinematic experience.  There is no reason Mass Effect couldn't have a more involved character development process with robust skill trees and a plethora of unique abilities and still be accessible to the common player. (See: Dragon Age)  There's no reason why they have to force you down a specific dialogue path for the sake of story telling when games like Dragon Age manage to do the same thing only instead of forcing your character to say what they want it creates a believable reason for your character to be motivated to say that and crafts the game in such a way that your character is forced to progress in the intended direction through the various scenarios rather than character choice.  A great example is *SPOILERS IF YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED DRAGON AGE* When you are asked to go rescue Anora from Howe's estate, your character has the option of saying "Hey, couldn't this be a trap?"  but then Arl Eamon explains to you WHY you can't just ignore the situation and why you are better off springing the trap or not.  I suspect that if such a decision were in ME it would have looked like "Let's go save her!" "Alright" and "I'm too badass to be caught in a trap!".

/endrant

[Bigeyez]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Bigeyez wrote...

There is no such thing as a "Pure" RPG. Some RPG's have certain gameplay mechanics and others don't.

Just look at the wide differences between games like Final Fantasy, Baldurs Gate, Diablo, Fallout, Kotor, and Mass Effect.

All of those are RPGs and yet they are all different from each other in many ways. No single thing makes a game an RPG. I don't care if you're talking about an inventory system, stats, points, leveling, equipment, Parties, etc. These are all simply gameplay mechanics and not every RPG has all of them.

What every RPG DOES have however is an actual narrative, (ie more then in your average game) a cast of characters, putting the player into a role, and some form of choice (choice doesn't always mean dialogue options).

There are titles that are much closer to the definition of a "TRUE RPG" when compared to others. Also, there are titles that are not defined as RPGs but are closer to some that ARE given the RPG title.

Ok go ahead and find me the texbook definition of a "True RPG". I'll sit here and wait for you....

There is no definition of a "True RPG". Mass Effect is just as much of an RPG as Final Fantasy, Baldur's Gate, and any other RPG title that we wouldn't be having this inane discussion over.

Modifié par Bigeyez, 20 janvier 2010 - 09:36 .

[Br0th3rGr1mm]

Malastare- wrote...

TheAnima wrote...

But Mass Effect NEVER HAD RPG AIMING. That's my point.

It had a hybrid.  In ME1, all you had to do is get the crosshairs close to the target, a red triangle would center over the enemy and when you shot, the bullets would go to the red triange not the crosshairs.  If you strayed too far, the bullets would re-center on the crosshair.

I know it was stronger on the XBox, but it was there.  Feel free to check it out.  Its easy to see when your target jumps behind a wall.  You'll still have the red triange marking the target and you can fire your weapon as you move the crosshairs away.  The bullets will cluster around the triangle target, not the location of the crosshairs.

That is a form of RPG aiming.  You just aimed close enough to the target to let the game figure out which target you wanted it to fire at.  Hence: target selection.

What you are describing has NOTHING to do wth weapon skill scores and everything to do with the AIM ASSIST settings.  Go fire up the game, turn off AIM ASSIST (in the options) and try to pull off what you are discribing above...it won't work any longer.  The weapon skill values (RPG aspects) had to do with how fast your accuracy degraded while you fired (the aiming circle got bigger and your bullets strayed from the center point more the longer you fired (or used other powers that reduced accuracy).

[Seraphael]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

YOu completely misseed Vaeliorin's point.

His point (one with which I wholeheartedly agree) is that ME (and to an even greater extent, ME@) prevents roleplayuing by not granting the player control over what his character says or does.

In ME, the dialogue wheel prevented you from choosing what Shepard said.  You could choose between the options on the wheel, but those options did not tell you what was going to happen next.  There was no way to play Shepard as a coherent character because there was always the risk that the option you chose would produce behaviour that was inconsistent with your character concept, or even your character's past behaviour.

And even if they changed that and offered full dialogue text on the wheel, you'd still lack control over how Shepard delivered his lines (because of the voice-acting) and what he did as he delivered them (punching people, drawing a gun, walking away, etc.)

While it seemed that way, it isn't strictly true. You pretty much knew what dialogue options would yield what results at all times. Paragon and Renegade replies were clearly marked. Though I sometimes was miffed Shepard didn't say exactly what I wanted, I was rarely if ever suprised by the outcome.

ME2 makes this problem worse through the implementation of the interrupt system, so now we're required to choose actions based not even on an abfuscatory paraphrase, but a non-specific visual cue such that we can't possibly with any confidence what the result will be.  And yet the whole of the game's dialogue is designed around them, so now we have even less information about what Shepard is going to do based on our inputs.

How is that roleplaying?  That's like you playing a tabletop game and telling the GM your character leaves the room, only to have the GM tell you you left the room but threw a live grenade behind you as you did, killing everyone inside.  That's insane.

Can you with confidence predict the outcome of split second decisions in real life? Rarely. As such the slight unpredictability (you will know if it's Paragon or Renegade and depending on the context it shouldn't be that hard to predict) of the interrupt system is more true to roleplaying than anything else. You're breaking with the, at times, rather tedious scripted conversations and a feeling of realistic danger even in the middle of a conversation is promoted. How isn't that roleplaying?

Modifié par Seraphael, 20 janvier 2010 - 09:45 .