119 réponses à ce sujet

[UpUpAway]

I'm curious about whether or not the devs played around with various ways the interrupts can be presented, like instead of the vague flashing symbol, it would actually give a quick text of the action in brackets. This can get tricky for certain sequences though, like the dialogue between Shepard and Liara on the rooftop of Azure on Illium in LotSB. Shepard has multiple interrupts in dialogue to cut off Liara as she's speaking, and each one leads to whole lines of dialogue rather than just an action. I admit to being a bit torn on that, because on the one hand, it can make these exchanges more fun to listen to, but on the other, presents the potential to have the PC say something really dumb and you have absolutely no way to know even the gist of what will be said beyond that it might associate with the paragon or renegade alignment. 

 

The risk of "having the PC say something really dumb" also exists within the dialogue wheel'; so added dialogue wheel options are not going to be any better.  Putting the actions in as text will just slow things down because you'll have to actually read the text before deciding on whether or not to use the action.  That is disruptive to the tension/immersion of the moment and, IMO, will make the game less interesting.  It will also up the costs because the interrupts will have to be translated into different languages.  That people react faster to symbols than text is proven... and why road signs (like stop, yield, etc) have consistent shapes and colors and employ more symbols than text.

 

A good example of this is BDTS in ME1... the situations with Charn and Balak would have felt much more tense had they used interrupts rather than [Shoot him] in the dialogue wheel.  They weren't reliably predictable because you could by the [Shoot him] command and still have the option re-offered later after some more dialogue... but you wouldn't be able to predict or rely on that being offered until after you had gone through the scene once.  Unlike the interrupts, the game doesn't telegraph the meaning (e.g. by closing in on a fist or allowing Shepard to point the gun) because they can't start to build the tension ahead of time until after the dialogue selection is made... so, the sacrifice of removing the interrupts will likely be the loss of a lot of effective tension in the game.  If Bioware decides to remove them... I bet it'll be all of 5 minutes before the complaints about that lack of tension start appearing here.  (BioWare just can't win here on these forums no matter what they do.)

 

The Paragon interrupts in LOTSB were very predictable as being something that Shep would do or say to try to salvage his/her relationship with Liara.  Also, if missed, the player only didn't get her back in ME2; but they would still be friends, she would still come up to the ship, and it' had no bearing on whether or not Shepard was able to rekindle the romance in ME3 - That is, the consequences of missing the interrupts were pretty minimal overall.

 

Rather than adding text to the interrupts, I think it would be a better compromise to expand the variety of symbols that display and provide a "map legend" of them in the codex and have them appear consistently in one location (rather than flipping left to right).  That way, for example, a gun image appearing in the lower right corner would always denote a "shoot him" interrupt; a fist would always denote a "punch" interrupt; a "kiss" image would denote a "kiss interrupt, etc.

[Deerber]

I'm fine with interrupts taking specific paths depending on the class you have, so long as they all result in the same consequences and they are all, always, available to every class.

You won't take those renegade interrupts away from me!

What the OP describes in the second part of the post is a cool concept... I just think it shouldn't be tied to interruptions at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

When anybody in the industry says "RPG elements" they typically mean things like stats, level ups, etc. They are things which have historically only really been found in RPG games until recently.

These days, a RPG video game is pretty much anything that gives you various dialogue options on a regular basis, probably at some point pretended that they were going to matter, and allows for a non action based gameplay.

An ARPG basically means "We don't really fit into any other category, so we're calling ourselves this". If you're not going to call Diablo an ARPG, there really isn't another genre that it would actually fit into. Dungeon crawler maybe, but that's just a type of ARPG.

This is, in my experience, what the gaming industry uses as the working definition for each term other than the occasional time where a developer wants to be different for whatever reason.

So you maintain that ARPG is not a subset of RPG?

I always thought it was.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The risk of "having the PC say something really dumb" also exists within the dialogue wheel'; so added dialogue wheel options are not going to be any better.

There's a way to fix the wheel: Give us more detailed information. And there we're not timed.

There's also a way to fix the interrupts: allow an auto-pause and a preview of the action so we can make an informed amd unhurried decision.

In both cases, the problem aroses from the player not having enough information about the available options.

Putting the actions in as text will just slow things down because you'll have to actually read the text before deciding on whether or not to use the action. That is disruptive to the tension/immersion of the moment and, IMO, will make the game less interesting. It will also up the costs because the interrupts will have to be translated into different languages. That people react faster to symbols than text is proven... and why road signs (like stop, yield, etc) have consistent shapes and colors and employ more symbols than text.

The interrupts don't come with symbols, though. And if they did, those symbols would need to be extremely precisely defined.

A preview would work better.

A good example of this is BDTS in ME1... the situations with Charn and Balak would have felt much more tense had they used interrupts rather than [Shoot him] in the dialogue wheel. They weren't reliably predictable because you could by the [Shoot him] command and still have the option re-offered later after some more dialogue... but you wouldn't be able to predict or rely on that being offered until after you had gone through the scene once. Unlike the interrupts, the game doesn't telegraph the meaning (e.g. by closing in on a fist or allowing Shepard to point the gun) because they can't start to build the tension ahead of time until after the dialogue selection is made... so, the sacrifice of removing the interrupts will likely be the loss of a lot of effective tension in the game. If Bioware decides to remove them... I bet it'll be all of 5 minutes before the complaints about that lack of tension start appearing here. (BioWare just can't win here on these forums no matter what they do.)

I have no idea what the supposed benefit of this "tension" is. I certainly don't see how it outweighs the uncertainty the interrupts create.

And, again, creating tension (or any emotion) in the player is damaging to immersion, because it reminds the player that he exists independently from the character. Much how the player being hungry is damaging to immersion.

The Paragon interrupts in LOTSB were very predictable as being something that Shep would do or say to try to salvage his/her relationship with Liara. Also, if missed, the player only didn't get her back in ME2; but they would still be friends, she would still come up to the ship, and it' had no bearing on whether or not Shepard was able to rekindle the romance in ME3 - That is, the consequences of missing the interrupts were pretty minimal overall.

I can't speak to the specific events in LotSB (because I didn't buy any of the DLC after BDtS), but this seems to be the wrong way to look at it. The danger of picking the wrong thing isn't that future paths will be closed. The danger is that choices made previously will no longer make sense, because the character who did that is inconsistent with the one that did this new thing.

Rather than adding text to the interrupts, I think it would be a better compromise to expand the variety of symbols that display and provide a "map legend" of them in the codex and have them appear consistently in one location (rather than flipping left to right). That way, for example, a gun image appearing in the lower right corner would always denote a "shoot him" interrupt; a fist would always denote a "punch" interrupt; a "kiss" image would denote a "kiss interrupt, etc.

This would be an improvement.

Ideally with a pause.

And text.

[UpUpAway]

There's a way to fix the wheel: Give us more detailed information. And there we're not timed.

There's also a way to fix the interrupts: allow an auto-pause and a preview of the action so we can make an informed amd unhurried decision.

In both cases, the problem aroses from the player not having enough information about the available options.
The interrupts don't come with symbols, though. And if they did, those symbols would need to be extremely precisely defined.

A preview would work better.
I have no idea what the supposed benefit of this "tension" is. I certainly don't see how it outweighs the uncertainty the interrupts create.

And, again, creating tension (or any emotion) in the player is damaging to immersion, because it reminds the player that he exists independently from the character. Much how the player being hungry is damaging to immersion.
I can't speak to the specific events in LotSB (because I didn't buy any of the DLC after BDtS), but this seems to be the wrong way to look at it. The danger of picking the wrong thing isn't that future paths will be closed. The danger is that choices made previously will no longer make sense, because the character who did that is inconsistent with the one that did this new thing.
This would be an improvement.

Ideally with a pause.

And text.

 

Adding a lot of text to the dialogue wheel does not fix the dialogue wheel... it just slows the game right down to a crawl because people have to read so much text to get through the convos.  You might like to read a novel for each convo in order to decide what you want your PC to say... but I wouldn't and I suspect that most people wouldn't either.  Adding text doesn't even make things more predictable in that the real effects of a particular convo choice can be placed in the game much later.

 

Furthermore, in a game, I think being surprised by what happens next on occasion makes things more fun.  I already know you disagree so no need to belabor that point any more.  Please do not continue to suggest that my preference is a "wrong way" to look at it.  If you can bring yourself to respect my preferences for a little "tension" building in the game, I will certainly respect your need for some predictability.  To much predictability in a book is generally not recommended... it becomes then like reading the last chapter of a book first which makes reading the entire book then... pointless.

 

There are consequences of each of our preferences... your preference for TEXT slows the game down (as I've described above - people respond to symbols faster than text... that's why we have lots of symbols these days in signage all over the place rather than reams of text).  A compromise then for you and I would be a system of symbols (or icons) used for the interrupts that remove some of the ambiguity for you without adding a bunch of text to read for those of us who don't want to read a novel while playing a game.  A symbol legend in the codex would basically remove all ambiguity for you since you could read what the symbols mean before you even start the game.

[Cyonan]

So you maintain that ARPG is not a subset of RPG?

I always thought it was.

 

Diablo is one of the games that practically created the genre, and it's nothing like what you would call a RPG. You don't get to do any actual roleplaying in that game. The most interaction you get with NPCs in that game is either selling/buying stuff from them or listening to them spew a bunch of dialogue about some quest you have. You don't get to have any real dialogue choices.

 

I consider Diablo 2 to be one of the greatest games ever made but a RPG or subset of it? Most certainly not, and it's considered an ARPG.

 

They just coined the term cause those games had a bunch of stats and levels and stuff you normally found in games like D&D but were much more action oriented with vastly reduced(or removed) roleplaying capacity. It didn't really fit into any genre, but kind of had a few things from RPG so they stuck that label on it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Adding a lot of text to the dialogue wheel does not fix the dialogue wheel... it just slows the game right down to a crawl because people have to read so much text to get through the convos. You might like to read a novel for each convo in order to decide what you want your PC to say... but I wouldn't and I suspect that most people wouldn't either. Adding text doesn't even make things more predictable in that the real effects of a particular convo choice can be placed in the game much later.

I don't think we should be able to control those consequences, or even know what they will be in advance. Our character can't predict the future.

All I want os for my character to have conscious control over what he does, and since I'm the source of all of my character's thoughts, that means that I need to have conscious control over everything he does.

How the world reacts to that doesn't matter. What NPCs do in response doesn't matter. What matters is whether I was able to choose a specific action.

And if I didn't know what it was, then I cannot be reasonably said to have chosen it.

Furthermore, in a game, I think being surprised by what happens next on occasion makes things more fun.

We should absolutely be surprised. But never by our own character.

There are consequences of each of our preferences... your preference for TEXT slows the game down (as I've described above - people respond to symbols faster than text... that's why we have lots of symbols these days in signage all over the place rather than reams of text). A compromise then for you and I would be a system of symbols (or icons) used for the interrupts that remove some of the ambiguity for you without adding a bunch of text to read for those of us who don't want to read a novel while playing a game. A symbol legend in the codex would basically remove all ambiguity for you since you could read what the symbols mean before you even start the game.

The symbols will only be faster if they are completely unambiguous, though. I'm skeptical that this is possible.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Diablo is one of the games that practically created the genre, and it's nothing like what you would call a RPG. You don't get to do any actual roleplaying in that game. The most interaction you get with NPCs in that game is either selling/buying stuff from them or listening to them spew a bunch of dialogue about some quest you have. You don't get to have any real dialogue choices.

I consider Diablo 2 to be one of the greatest games ever made but a RPG or subset of it? Most certainly not, and it's considered an ARPG.

They just coined the term cause those games had a bunch of stats and levels and stuff you normally found in games like D&D but were much more action oriented with vastly reduced(or removed) roleplaying capacity. It didn't really fit into any genre, but kind of had a few things from RPG so they stuck that label on it.

Whereas, I would absolutely call Diablo an RPG. Not a good one - the action combat is uninteresting, and the characters are all pre-fab - but at no point does the game make your character do things without your input, nor assign motives.

I use Dungeon Siege as an example all the time largely because it was called a Diablo-clone when it came out, but it had character creation, classless skill advancement, a controllable party, and no action elements. The only thing they have in common, really, is that there's nothing else to do in the game but advance through it and kill monsters. They're both classic dungeon crawlers, in the style of Avatar or Oubliette, two of the very earliest CRPGs.

[RoboticWater]

Why would anyone misuse Roguelike? It's one of the best defined terms in gaming.

You'd think these people had never played Rogue.

Most of them probably haven't, but the term was wrongly affixed to enough non-Roguelike games that the definition changed within the public's eyes. It shouldn't have happened, but it did. This doesn't mean we should start trolling the forums of every game calling itself a roguelike and insist that any mechanic not conforming to the exact genre is simply wrong.
 

I also really wnjoued driving the Mako. But other people didn't. I'm not telling them they're doing it wrong by not enjoying some element of the game.

Everyone can have their opinions; that's fine. My problem is that you're calling BioWare wrong for not conforming to your standards of an RPG, which, given the nebulous definition of RPG, might as well be exclusively your opinion.
 

There is only one RPG element, and that's roleplaying. But unlike a lot of other game systems, roleplaying isn't something that's provided by the game. Roleplaying is done entirely by the player, so all the game needs to do is leave space for it. Roleplaying isn't something a game provides; it's something a game allows.

And lots of games do. Football Manager leaves plenty of space for roleplaying.

I don't have a proper definition of RPG, because I can't list all the sufficient conditions. But allowing roleplaying is absolutely a necessary condition, and interrupts of the sort we've seen in ME2 and ME3 actively prevent it.

How can you state all that as if it were a fact held by the entire industry? I completely agree with your definition of RPG, but clearly, the vast majority of developers feel differently.
 
Then, if you fully admit to holding Mass Effect to a standard it never committed to, on what basis are you calling the series or any of its mechanics mistakes? There is nothing objectively wrong about interrupts. Within the context of your definition of RPG, they may be the epitome of poor design, but Mass Effect does not exist within that context. It has its own particular standard for RPG, and it's only fair to the fans of Mass Effect and BioWare to at least consider that standard when criticizing the game.

 

Go ahead and dislike interrupts or any mechanic on whatever you please, but don't pretend that Mass Effect and all its fans would definitely benefit from their removal. Mass Effect is a nuanced series, and the only criticism that could in any way be deemed constructive needs to be nuanced as well.

[MarchWaltz]

I want origin and class quests

[UpUpAway]

We should absolutely be surprised. But never by our own character.
The symbols will only be faster if they are completely unambiguous, though. I'm skeptical that this is possible.

 

I disagree with this as a basic principle given my experiences in real life.  People are often surprised by how they react in certain circumstances... they can spend a lifetime training and believing that, when push comes to shove, they would "rise to the occasion" and react a certain way... only to surprisingly crumble and fail.  Other times, people can believe that they "could never do something" only to be surprised to discover, again when push comes to shove, that they had "something" inside them that they never knew was there.  If an RPG is going to present us with a realistic playable character, then I think there should times when even that character should surprise us from time to time.

[Cyonan]

Whereas, I would absolutely call Diablo an RPG. Not a good one - the action combat is uninteresting, and the characters are all pre-fab - but at no point does the game make your character do things without your input, nor assign motives.

I use Dungeon Siege as an example all the time largely because it was called a Diablo-clone when it came out, but it had character creation, classless skill advancement, a controllable party, and no action elements. The only thing they have in common, really, is that there's nothing else to do in the game but advance through it and kill monsters. They're both classic dungeon crawlers, in the style of Avatar or Oubliette, two of the very earliest CRPGs.

 

Actually at the end of the game your character will always take Diablo's soulstone and put it in their own head. It was made canon in the second game that the Warrior was the one to do this and became Diablo, but in the original game the end cutscene always has your character doing it.

 

Plus up till that point other than combat, the game barely lets your character do anything even with your input.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Actually at the end of the game your character will always take Diablo's soulstone and put it in their own head. It was made canon in the second game that the Warrior was the one to do this and became Diablo, but in the original game the end cutscene always has your character doing it.

So one instance, at the part of the game played by the least people. That's the best place for it.

Especially since they just established a set canon for the second game anyway, this eliminating any meaningful continuity between the two (which is a good thing - I dislike save imports).

I never got to the end of Diablo. I rarely "finish" RPGs, because the plot arc defined by the writers does not matter to me.

Plus up till that point other than combat, the game barely lets your character do anything even with your input.

But it doesn't make you do anything without your input, which is what matters.

[Lady Luminous]

Adding a lot of text to the dialogue wheel does not fix the dialogue wheel... it just slows the game right down to a crawl because people have to read so much text to get through the convos.  You might like to read a novel for each convo in order to decide what you want your PC to say... but I wouldn't and I suspect that most people wouldn't either.  Adding text doesn't even make things more predictable in that the real effects of a particular convo choice can be placed in the game much later.
 
Furthermore, in a game, I think being surprised by what happens next on occasion makes things more fun.  I already know you disagree so no need to belabor that point any more.  Please do not continue to suggest that my preference is a "wrong way" to look at it.  If you can bring yourself to respect my preferences for a little "tension" building in the game, I will certainly respect your need for some predictability.  To much predictability in a book is generally not recommended... it becomes then like reading the last chapter of a book first which makes reading the entire book then... pointless.
 
There are consequences of each of our preferences... your preference for TEXT slows the game down (as I've described above - people respond to symbols faster than text... that's why we have lots of symbols these days in signage all over the place rather than reams of text).  A compromise then for you and I would be a system of symbols (or icons) used for the interrupts that remove some of the ambiguity for you without adding a bunch of text to read for those of us who don't want to read a novel while playing a game.  A symbol legend in the codex would basically remove all ambiguity for you since you could read what the symbols mean before you even start the game.

I think you make some very good points. Instead of adding more text to the wheel, I think the summaries should simply be more accurate.

If I click "I don't know what to say" that is what my character should say, or something along those lines. "I don't know what to say" is not an accurate paraphrase of "Well... ****."

[Sylvius the Mad]

I disagree with this as a basic principle given my experiences in real life. People are often surprised by how they react in certain circumstances... they can spend a lifetime training and believing that, when push comes to shove, they would "rise to the occasion" and react a certain way... only to surprisingly crumble and fail. Other times, people can believe that they "could never do something" only to be surprised to discover, again when push comes to shove, that they had "something" inside them that they never knew was there.

Because they lack self-knowledge. I agree, this is fairly common (and disappointing). And this is often true of my characters; they are surprised by their own behaviour.

My favourite Warden in DAO was very much like this. His opinion of himself didn't match the reality at all.

But note that sentence. They are surprised by their behaviour, because they lack self-knowledge. But I still need to have perfect knowledge of them in order to ensure their coherence.

If I can't do that, the whole point of playing the game is lost. I play these games to find out what path the game the character I craft will take.

If he's not my character, I'm not interested.

[Cyonan]

So one instance, at the part of the game played by the least people. That's the best place for it.

Especially since they just established a set canon for the second game anyway, this eliminating any meaningful continuity between the two (which is a good thing - I dislike save imports).

I never got to the end of Diablo. I rarely "finish" RPGs, because the plot arc defined by the writers does not matter to me.

 

Taking control of my character at the end and forcing them to do something that decides their fate goes against what RPing is supposed to be.

 

But it doesn't make you do anything without your input, which is what matters.

 

The problem is that Diablo offers no capacity to actually role play your character.

 

All your doing is creating stories in your mind, which is not role playing.

[Master Warder Z_]

The problem is that Diablo offers no capacity to actually role play your character.

 

All your doing is creating stories in your mind, which is not role playing.

 

[UpUpAway]

Because they lack self-knowledge. I agree, this is fairly common (and disappointing). And this is often true of my characters; they are surprised by their own behaviour.

My favourite Warden in DAO was very much like this. His opinion of himself didn't match the reality at all.

But note that sentence. They are surprised by their behaviour, because they lack self-knowledge. But I still need to have perfect knowledge of them in order to ensure their coherence.

If I can't do that, the whole point of playing the game is lost. I play these games to find out what path the game the character I craft will take.

If he's not my character, I'm not interested.

 

... and your PC is not ever likely to become 100% your character in any RPG written in a setting with a story line written by anyone but yourself.  Again, just another "impossible" situation for BioWare to address.

[Cyonan]

... and your PC is not ever likely to become 100% your character in any RPG written in a setting with a story line written by anyone but yourself.  Again, just another "impossible" situation for BioWare to address.

 

To be fair, it easily happens in pen and paper campaigns.

 

and even though video games have very obvious limitations that pen and paper doesn't have to worry about, they can still limit the issue by trying to not surprise the player with the PC doing something they didn't intend.

 

The dialogue wheel can also have this issue before one figures out that the top right is paragon and the bottom right is renegade. However, the game never actually tells you this and without knowing it you can sometimes be wrong about the tone that a dialogue choice is going to take. Dragon Age has done a better job with this than Mass Effect has since it added the icons to let you know what kind of response it's going to be. They really should add that into ME:A.

 

It's all about making what a character's action will be as a result of player input as clear as you possibly can.

[Sylvius the Mad]

All your doing is creating stories in your mind, which is not role playing.

That's all roleplaying is. You're concocting, in your own mind, the thoughts of your character, and them using that mental state as a frame of reference from which to experience the world from your character's perspective.

Good roleplaying is marked by the player's ability to make for his character choices which fit the chracter, but which the player would prefer the character not make. But in that moment, the player's preferences don't matter.

[Quarian Master Race]

I don't get why this discussion ends up derailing every single thread related to mechanics. "What is an RPG?" has little to do with the OP, and Pen and Paper games or whatever in particular have practically nothing to do with Mass Effect. It's far closer to Gears or a Micheal Bay flick with a CC and some limited interactivity and reactivity, rather than Sci Fi D&D.

I'd definitely say yes to more moments like the Omega DLC reactor interrupt for the Engineer, and different types for other classes as well. I don't have any inherent problem with the Interrupt system that wasn't far more contingent upon how it interacted with the P/R ideological system (which just needs to die off anyway IMO).

[UpUpAway]

To be fair, it easily happens in pen and paper campaigns.

 

and even though video games have very obvious limitations that pen and paper doesn't have to worry about, they can still limit the issue by trying to not surprise the player with the PC doing something they didn't intend.

 

The dialogue wheel can also have this issue before one figures out that the top right is paragon and the bottom right is renegade. However, the game never actually tells you this and without knowing it you can sometimes be wrong about the tone that a dialogue choice is going to take. Dragon Age has done a better job with this than Mass Effect has since it added the icons to let you know what kind of response it's going to be. They really should add that into ME:A.

 

It's all about making what a character's action will be as a result of player input as clear as you possibly can.

 

I disagree... I think it's an illusion more easily created with a pen and paper campaign where they overall story can be less structured than it needs to be in a video game and at a lower cost.  It's still not 100% the player's character... that requires that the player be able to write for themselves the entire story, the entire setting, and design the character's appearance, build, and personality from scratch... without any limitations.  100% is an absolute, so even in a pen and paper campaign written by someone else, it's not achievable... and what Sylvus the Med is wanting (and he/she has stated several times) is 100% absolute... so, he/she is just setting up yet another impossible demand for BioWare to meet... making the suggestion of any sort of compromise unacceptable to Sylvus... making any further discussion on the matter with him/her... simply pointless.

 

I do believe that Bioware's interrupt system can be improved upon for others wanting more predictability.  I personally don't mind things in a game being unpredictable and I will miss some of the suspense/tension/game flow if they decide to remove the interrupts.  I will become frustrated with the slow pace of the game if they opt to add in large amounts of text to the dialogue wheel.  I believe there are numerous others who would feel the same way.  I've suggested a compromise... 'nuff said.

[Cyonan]

That's all roleplaying is. You're concocting, in your own mind, the thoughts of your character, and them using that mental state as a frame of reference from which to experience the world from your character's perspective.

 

Roleplaying involves actually taking actions as the character would if they weren't being controlled by you, however in Diablo you cannot actually take any actions that isn't slaughtering enemies.

 

One could make the argument given what you just said that Half-Life is a RPG, because you can come up with the thoughts of your character and experience the world from that perspective. So could Doom. In fact, any FPS game without a voiced protagonist would fall under this category.

 

Are you seriously going to call Doom and Half-Life roleplaying games?

 

I disagree... I think it's an illusion more easily created with a pen and paper campaign where they overall story can be less structured than it needs to be in a video game and at a lower cost.  It's still not 100% the player's character... that requires that the player be able to write for themselves the entire story, the entire setting, and design the character's appearance, build, and personality from scratch... without any limitations.  100% is an absolute, so even in a pen and paper campaign written by someone else, it's not achievable... and what Sylvus the Med is wanting (and he/she has stated several times) is 100% absolute... so, he/she is just setting up yet another impossible demand for BioWare to meet... making the suggestion of any sort of compromise unacceptable to Sylvus... making any further discussion on the matter... simply pointless.

 

You don't need to write the setting for it to be 100% your character and you get to define their appearance, build, and personality yourself. In my last campaign I did define all of those things for my character without limitations other than I can't break the rules of the universe such as making a Human that naturally has 50 arms because Humans don't have 50 arms.

 

I could even have written that character as a coward who runs away from the conflict, it's just a character that would have been written out of the story pretty quickly cause I would have run away from it.

 

My GM did not get to make a single choice about that character. It was purely my character. One of many characters I create where I choose all the details about them.

[UpUpAway]

Roleplaying involves actually taking actions as the character would if they weren't being controlled by you, however in Diablo you cannot actually take any actions that isn't slaughtering enemies.

 

One could make the argument given what you just said that Half-Life is a RPG, because you can come up with the thoughts of your character and experience the world from that perspective. So could Doom. In fact, any FPS game without a voiced protagonist would fall under this category.

 

Are you seriously going to call Doom and Half-Life roleplaying games?

 

 

You don't need to write the setting for it to be 100% your character and you get to define their appearance, build, and personality yourself. In my last campaign I did define all of those things for my character without limitations other than I can't break the rules of the universe such as making a Human that naturally has 50 arms because Humans don't have 50 arms.

 

I could even have written that character as a coward who runs away from the conflict, it's just a character that would have been written out of the story pretty quickly cause I would have run away from it.

 

My GM did not get to make a single choice about that character. It was purely my character. One of many characters I create where I choose all the details about them.

 

Well, I think 100% includes putting the character into settings as well because settings also shape the character and the author of the story will have a philosophy/opinion embedded in the story.  For example, ME3 has an underlying theme about how war shapes a solider and many of the settings/circumstances they devise are drawn, illustrated to show that "theme. 

 

What you're telling me, I believe, is that 100% to you means something less than 100% percent to me... not a problem.  I would just interpret that to mean that something less than 100% would actually satisfy you. 

 

Obviously, something much less than 100% satisfies me, since I like leaving some control of my PC in the hands of the author of the story even in an RPG. 

 

BioWare will ultimately do as they please (whether that involves caving in to some of the demands or just ignoring everyone).  Since I'm not seeking an absolute... they just have more of a chance of pleasing me no matter what they do than someone who wants 100% and nothing less.

 

At any rate, we are now way off topic, so I'd like to get back to the topic of the thread.  OP - I like Bioware's use of interrupts and would certainly like it if they inserted more class specific ones.  QTE's that literally halt the progression of the game (e.g. mashing the X button to escape the hold of an enemy), I don't care for... but BioWare's interrupts don't work that way... so I like them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Roleplaying involves actually taking actions as the character would if they weren't being controlled by you, however in Diablo you cannot actually take any actions that isn't slaughtering enemies.

You're ignoring the mechanical choices, like abilities and equipment.

One could make the argument given what you just said that Half-Life is a RPG, because you can come up with the thoughts of your character and experience the world from that perspective. So could Doom. In fact, any FPS game without a voiced protagonist would fall under this category.

Are you seriously going to call Doom and Half-Life roleplaying games?

Doom's setting is really shallow; it doesn't give us a lot to work with. Half-Life does a lot better, but again the lack of a meaningful mechanical system denies us a lot of decision-making opportunities.