29 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

First of all, I'm aware that some people really like the interrupts as they are, and for those people, I'm inclined to let you play as you have been. You'll get a cue that there's an interrupt opportunity, you'll choose right then whether you want to trigger it, and then you'll see the result the game provides you. If you liked it before, it will still be like that.

But some of us didn't like that.

The interrupts do two things that I think are excellent. First, the allowed the player character to be an active, rather that passive, participant in conversations. This basically never happened in BioWare games prior to the interrupt system. Second, they offered decision-making opportunities where inaction was an available alternative. Outside of interrupts, it's extremely rare that a BioWare game will offer a list of options where one of them is inaction. But every interrupt even does exactly that.

Those are both great features.

But there are problems. First, I dislike how little information the player is given about what the interrupt might entail. And second, I dislike the time pressure under which the decision to trigger the interrupt (or even notice that there is one) had to be made.

So, I propose new features:

1. An auto-pause option to stop the game whenever an interrupt opportunity occurs, thus eliminating the time pressure.

2. A means to preview the interrupt so that we can make an informed decision about whether to trigger it.

So, again, if the auto-pause is not enabled, you'll get exactly the same interrupt experience as before.

But if it is enabled, we'll be able to do kne of theee things:

1. Dismiss the interrupt - this would have the same effect as doing nothing under the traditional design

2. Trigger the interrupt - again, this would work just like under the original design.

3. Investigate the interrupt. This is new, and would give us more information about what the interrupt was. Upon doing that, the player could then choose whether to trigger or dismiss the interrupt.

The first two options exist for players who want to eliminate the time pressures, but like being surprised by the outcome (or who think the original design provided enough information).

The third option eliminates all of the listed problems, but obviously disrupts the flow of the conversation quite a bit, which is why I don't want to force everyone to go through it.

This design would include all of the benefits of interrupts, but allow players to avoid the aspect they see as drawbacks.


* This proposal arose from discussions between In Exile and me on BSN in early 2013.

[Metalfros]

You got some nice points, but if BioWare really wants an outstanding, interactive story, they should never even consider points 1 and 2. First, I think that if you wait too long to react on interruptions, you shouldn't be able to pause it and think, but suffer the consequences. Same goes for if you quickly push the button, and regret it after. I mean in real life, you also can't pause it. And the second point, I really don't think an 'interrupt' is a decision and we shouldnt be informed about it. It is usually about little, simple things like punching your favourite Quarin in his ballsack, and it really doesn't require much thought (just do it damnit!).

 

I respect your opinions though, so don't see it as hate.

[Indigenous]

How to fix interrupts by removing the interruption? I am surprised you didn't just suggest to add the interrupt option to the dialogue wheel.

 

I don't think you quite understood the purpose of the interrupts.

[Wulfram]

I think interrupts should have more icons. Something like those in Dragon Age would do a lot to help clarify.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Those are some excellent points and I like your ideas. I missed at least one Paragon interrupt in the conversation with Liara after the Tela Vasir fight because I happened to drink some tea and couldn't react quickly enough. Had to replay the entire sequence.

 

I think I can even improve your idea a bit.

 

1. When an interrupt comes up, the game gives you a few seconds to react before it pauses everything. That way people with fast reactions will get to keep the smooth transistions and everyone else has ample time to ponder the implications.

 

2. The game shows you indicators right from the start. It already does at times, like the camera showing Shep's clenched fist during Renegade interrupts, so you know they will punch their target if you take it. At other times it could highlight objects, for example the gas pipe and your gun in the Krogan hospital in ME2. Conversations are a bit more tricky, perhaps the interrupt could show a symbol? A hug for example.

 

3. If you don't want to use the interrupt, you can cancel it.

 

The investigate ability doesn't make sense. Do you truly believe there are players who don't care enough and simply go, "Do something heroic, Shep!" instead of trying to find out what exactly would happen? So... just show them right from the beginning, if the information is available anyway.

[Cyonan]

If you remove the time constraint, you might as well just make them like any other dialogue because they aren't any different at that point. The conversation stops and wait for you to choose a response.

 

I do think that more indicators as to what exactly the interrupt is going to result in would be good, though,

[themikefest]

I like having the interrupts pop up like they are now. 

 

Having to pause to investigate what the interrupt would do, would ruin the flow of the game for me. If it's an option, that's fine since I wouldn't use it. Plus I will be doing many playthroughs so I will use the interrupt in one playthrough and skip it in another playthrough

[HuldraDancer]

I didn't mind the time constraints that much but I would like to have a bit of a better idea what the interruptions will do if taken so maybe some better visual or audio cues?

[RoboticWater]

I actually like the time constraint that interrupts pose. It keeps the player on their toes and smooths out and animates an otherwise static scene. I also think it helps immersion: The Witcher games occasionally times the player for a response, and I think it firmly plants me in the protagonist's shoes. Rather than give players the chance to think delicately through every decision (a rarity in tense situations), the game forces them to make a spur of the moment decision for their character literally on the spur of the moment.

 

Dialog systems in games have remained quite similar over the years, I think games properly emulating the challenge of conversation through time constraints is a step in the right direction.

 

Ideally, I think BIoWare should just give the interrupts more description and place them contextually in the world (i.e. "Stab Blue Sun with sparky thing" would be over a circle highlighting the sparky thing) as well as giving us the option to cancel it.

 

I'm partial to having the option to pause. I'm in favor of any feature that aids accessibility or roleplaying, but the option basically defeats the whole purpose of interrupts. I'd be happier if it was a menu option that was off by default.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You got some nice points, but if BioWare really wants an outstanding, interactive story, they should never even consider points 1 and 2. First, I think that if you wait too long to react on interruptions, you shouldn't be able to pause it and think, but suffer the consequences. Same goes for if you quickly push the button, and regret it after. I mean in real life, you also can't pause it. And the second point, I really don't think an 'interrupt' is a decision and we shouldnt be informed about it. It is usually about little, simple things like punching your favourite Quarin in his ballsack, and it really doesn't require much thought (just do it damnit!).

I respect your opinions though, so don't see it as hate.

It's an interrupt for the character, bot for the player. If the player is playing anything other than a self-insert, the player's reaction time and quickness of thought shouldn't matter.

So that's why I want the pause option.

And again, I want the extra information because I generally can't tell what the interrupts are going to do. Also, if my character's mode of thought is sufficiently different from mine (if he uses a different system of reasoning or standard of evidence), then it often takes me some time to translate my thoughts into his, and vice versa.

If I'm going to do proper roleplaying, I need more time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Those are some excellent points and I like your ideas. I missed at least one Paragon interrupt in the conversation with Liara after the Tela Vasir fight because I happened to drink some tea and couldn't react quickly enough. Had to replay the entire sequence.

Exactly. I tend to take my hand off the mouse during conversations (I did this a lot in ME2, because I had grossly unergonomic desk and I needed to rest my wrists regularly), but the interrupts could only be triggered with the mouse, so by the time I got back I was almost always too late.

If there had been an audible cue, or if the visible cue had been more conspicuous (perhaps shading the entire screen), that would have helped, as well.

I think I can even improve your idea a bit.

1. When an interrupt comes up, the game gives you a few seconds to react before it pauses everything. That way people with fast reactions will get to keep the smooth transistions and everyone else has ample time to ponder the implications.

That's why I proposed this be incorporated into the auto-pause options. If a player wants to react in real-time, he can simply not enable the pause.

But I don't object to your idea as the implementation of the pause mechanic. It would probably be less abrupt your way.

2. The game shows you indicators right from the start. It already does at times, like the camera showing Shep's clenched fist during Renegade interrupts, so you know they will punch their target if you take it. At other times it could highlight objects, for example the gas pipe and your gun in the Krogan hospital in ME2. Conversations are a bit more tricky, perhaps the interrupt could show a symbol? A hug for example.

Some sort of glossary or interpretive key would be immensely helpful, yes.

I was imagining text descriptions.

3. If you don't want to use the interrupt, you can cancel it.

Of course. There needs to be a way to do nothing, just as there is now.

The investigate ability doesn't make sense. Do you truly believe there are players who don't care enough and simply go, "Do something heroic, Shep!" instead of trying to find out what exactly would happen?

Yes, that appears to be quite common.

[Sylvius the Mad]

How to fix interrupts by removing the interruption? I am surprised you didn't just suggest to add the interrupt option to the dialogue wheel.

I don't think you quite understood the purpose of the interrupts.

I described what I thought was the purpose of the interrupts.

Forcing a player to react in real-time, however, is antithetical to roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I actually like the time constraint that interrupts pose. It keeps the player on their toes and smooths out and animates an otherwise static scene. I also think it helps immersion: The Witcher games occasionally times the player for a response, and I think it firmly plants me in the protagonist's shoes. Rather than give players the chance to think delicately through every decision (a rarity in tense situations), the game forces them to make a spur of the moment decision for their character literally on the spur of the moment.

Dialog systems in games have remained quite similar over the years, I think games properly emulating the challenge of conversation through time constraints is a step in the right direction.

And I would disagree. Time constraints make the dialogue a challenge for me, rather than for my character. That forces me to break character.

Ideally, I think BIoWare should just give the interrupts more description and place them contextually in the world (i.e. "Stab Blue Sun with sparky thing" would be over a circle highlighting the sparky thing) as well as giving us the option to cancel it.

I'm partial to having the option to pause. I'm in favor of any feature that aids accessibility or roleplaying, but the option basically defeats the whole purpose of interrupts. I'd be happier if it was a menu option that was off by default.

I do think it should be off by default. But I think the option needs to exist.

[Dantriges]

Yeah some indicators would be nice. They used them in some scenes but nt in others IIRC and i would like to know if Shep is telling someone to shut up and leave, punch him in the face, threatens someone with a gun or shoot. I don´t need to know the possible consequences just what I am about to do.

[MegaIllusiveMan]

 I like them as they are.

 

See, when I saw Udina point the gun to the Asari Councilor on ME3, it was reflex that had me push the Renegade Button, not the should I kind of thing.

 

It would break the game motion. For example, like the Udina Interrupt, Liara's Interrupt in Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC. See, Liara is in a hurry to stop the Shadow Broker so in Shepard's shoes, you would need to accompany Liara's Pace then interrupt her hastened thoughts before she went talking on and on. No turning back (Of course, this is just an example of many for those kind of interrupts)

[Absafraginlootly]

In witcher they have some timed decisions that are pretty much do something/do nothing - except that the do something is in text instead of a symbol so you have some clue of what that option is. 

 

Since my only problem with interrupts is that I don't know what they'll be I'd be happy if they did something like this.

[In Exile]

You got some nice points, but if BioWare really wants an outstanding, interactive story, they should never even consider points 1 and 2. First, I think that if you wait too long to react on interruptions, you shouldn't be able to pause it and think, but suffer the consequences. Same goes for if you quickly push the button, and regret it after. I mean in real life, you also can't pause it. And the second point, I really don't think an 'interrupt' is a decision and we shouldnt be informed about it. It is usually about little, simple things like punching your favourite Quarin in his ballsack, and it really doesn't require much thought (just do it damnit!).

I respect your opinions though, so don't see it as hate.

The answer to that is an auto-pause mechanic that by default is disabled. There's no issue with offering more options. The story doesn't become more interactive if - for example - every dialogue option was on a 5 second timer.

[Broganisity]

The purpose of the Interrupt system is to intervene on an action in a certain way that you couldn't do after waiting for someone to finish a line of dialogue. It should not be something you can preview before deciding 'yeah, I'm going to interrupt riiiiiight now', however you should not be penalized if you do not pick it. . .as is the case for many people at the end of Mass Effect 3.

 

The interrupt system in ME3 was little more than 'have a personal moment that affects nothing' with such examples being the paragon interrupt to bro-fist with Wrex on Tuchanka or to try to catch Tali. Neither of these examples actually do anything, whereas the final renegade interrupt against the Illusive man requires you to trigger it or be killed by him and have to go all the way back from the final dash. . .Bioware, that's not how the system was supposed to work.

 

In ME2 you had interrupts that hinted at what you were going to do based on what the interrupt was. Shooting the gas tank on Tuchanka during Mordin's loyalty mission being the greatest example as it allowed you to know what Shepard was thinking of doing if you decided to perform that act.  What's more, you were not required to do these interrupts but they could add to the character of Shepard and make some events easier (or harder) if you were willing to perform them. Shooting that gas tank eliminated an enemy by burning them alive, making the upcoming fight easier if you were willing to cause them that level of excruciating pain. . .although I personally do not see how that tactically sound attack, which would cause no damage to any incidents, could be considered a 'renegade' act, or a paragon act. . .really its a rather neutral interrupt, albeit a badass neutral one.

 

What they should do instead of your proposed 'preview action' function (which would allow the player to just choose the best outcome, rather than risk being penalized by something they were not recognizing or was not properly displayed to them) is to properly hint through camera angles and on-screen action just what the interrupt is going to do. The failed on this in ME3, both in regards to telegraphing what the effect of the interrupt was and in giving the interrupts actual meaning.

 

Having a 'pause on interrupt' function means little to me as long as its disabled by default, though I've always considered the interrupts, at least in ME2, to have had had adequate timing to decide if I wanted to perform them or not.

[KaiserShep]

I don't mind having more options, so long as I still have the option of cutting someone off mid-sentence to unleash something horrible upon them. 

 

You talk too much.

 

Thinking about this instance, you do at least get some visual cue on occasion. With Cathka, you got a glimpse of the arc welding tool, with the Weyrloc clan spokesperson, you got a view of that nice gas line. 

[Ambivalent]

I had no problem with interruptions but seems like some folks like you did.

 

As long as that's optional, sure i don't mind. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yeah some indicators would be nice. They used them in some scenes but nt in others IIRC and i would like to know if Shep is telling someone to shut up and leave, punch him in the face, threatens someone with a gun or shoot. I don´t need to know the possible consequences just what I am about to do.

I only want to know what my character is going to do, but I found that I didn't know that with the interrupts. I generally approached interrupts well aware that I didn't know what Shepard would do. And that bothered me every time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The purpose of the Interrupt system is to intervene on an action in a certain way that you couldn't do after waiting for someone to finish a line of dialogue. It should not be something you can preview before deciding 'yeah, I'm going to interrupt riiiiiight now', however you should not be penalized if you do not pick it. . .as is the case for many people at the end of Mass Effect 3.

You're always penalized when you don't choose it, because that option is not available anywhere else. You have to choose whether you want to do something without knowing what that thing is.

Guessing isn't choosing.

Nor is misclicking choosing.

What they should do instead of your proposed 'preview action' function (which would allow the player to just choose the best outcome, rather than risk being penalized by something they were not recognizing or was not properly displayed to them) is to properly hint through camera angles and on-screen action just what the interrupt is going to do. The failed on this in ME3, both in regards to telegraphing what the effect of the interrupt was and in giving the interrupts actual meaning.

Hints are insufficient. I think we should have certainty, if we want it.

When is comes to the behavior of the protagonist, the only acceptable level of surprise is zero.

[Cyonan]

So I'm still not clear on how the pause feature you describe is any different from regular dialogue that offers a "do nothing" choice.

 

Unless by preview you mean it actually shows you the outcome, but then it shouldn't do anything beyond showing you what only your character will do. Reactions from other characters should never be something you can preview.

 

Of which I would argue that the dialogue options should be more clear about what exactly your character is going to say, anyway.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So I'm still not clear on how the pause feature you describe is any different from regular dialogue that offers a "do nothing" choice.

The main difference is that the NPC isn't necessarily ready.  A regular dialogue event typically involves letting the NPC finish.  Interrupts don't do that, and generally involve some sort of action (rather than words) mid-conversation (and often mid-line).

 

Regular dialogue events force a level of passivity on the protagonist which the interrupts don't.

 

But most importantly, what this does is lets the people who like the interrupts as they are keep them as they are.  I don't want to take interrupts away from anyone who likes them.

Unless by preview you mean it actually shows you the outcome, but then it shouldn't do anything beyond showing you what only your character will do. Reactions from other characters should never be something you can preview.

I completely agree.  I want to know only what my character will do.

Of which I would argue that the dialogue options should be more clear about what exactly your character is going to say, anyway.

Yes they should.  Ideally telling us exactly what will be said and done, word for word, just like the full-text options did.

[bondari reloads.]

Interrupts mean to anticipate the enemy's action somewhat, but since they happen on instinct, it is reasonable to not slow the moment down by an "interrupt wheel".

I feel like their sole purpose was to make the dialogue more action-y, and another set of options to explain each interrupts purpose would be counterproductive.

That said, as it stands now they are a little bit silly in the sense of " push a button and something awesome happens".