Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Weapon of choice

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,750
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
You know, I gave it some thought and, while I have lot of issues with Alpha Protocol (I dislike the type of story it tells, the various interactive systems like sneaking, hacking and combat aren't very good, etc), there is just one thing that really kills the game for me. It is the way the game handles choice. In most RPGs, you are given at least some semblance of initiative, free will or control. In Fallout, for example, you can go wherever you want on the map, you have dialog options to express the most basic options and what happens to each town after the game ends is foreseeable and controllable. You don't have just "choice", you have initiative, you have enterprise.

In AP, on the other hand, the game tries to give you a few choices, each of which will change the story in wildly different ways. Throughout, it even robs the player from having a good idea of what his choices will do. Besides the "stance based" dialog, where you can't even know for sure what you are choosing to say or do, the game can also dictate what your character does in certain situations. To be frank, I am still pissed off that when I stealthily approached the guy you need to take out before the tank boss battle in Saudi Arabia, the game suddenly went into cinematic mode and prevented me from doing what I wanted to do.

I think I understand why they did it. By having the choices limited and having their consequences as a direct part of the story, the game can make Thorton and actual part of the story, not just an spectator. To expand on what I mean here, take Vampire: Bloodlines as an example. You actually get a few choices in that game, but even so, most of the time, the story you saw in that game was mostly about other characters. And while I think AP's is a very noble goal, it made Thorton not actually seem the player's character, but someone else's. Torment, for example, frequently managed to make TNO part of the story being told without taking the player's control (although I admit Torment wasn't anywhere as successful here as AP).

In a way, I think the game is closer to those japanese visual novel software, where one little choice can send you in a wildly different story, though I do admit AP isn't anywhere near that bad for the most part. I understand a lot of people here liked AP and while that is great (heck, I wished I could enjoy modern games like people here seem to do), but I really think that player initiative, or enterprise, is a crucial thing for an rpg (or at least my definition of rpgs).

Anyway, thank you, SCO, for a good read.
 

Phelot

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
17,908
Yeah, it seems like a lot of games have C&C as a feature and it doesn't seem to work, at least for me.

I guess it's almost like a choose your own adventure book. At least that's how I felt in The Witcher. You're enjoying the story when you are abruptly interrupted and given a choice. Go to page 50 or page 60 depending on said choice.

To give a counter example, look at Risen. Pretty basic stuff there, but it's more entertaining. You get quests from two factions, complete enough of one side and you join them. I like that. I like being able to meta game if I want, I like being able to do what I want and to prove to whichever side I want to join rather than having to decide in a dialogue choice that I can't escape out of. One choice and BAM! suddenly that side is bad and the other side is good. Sure sure, the story tries its best to muddle it or make it more interesting, but that's still the bottom line.

I'd say the best C&C is when you don't even know that you're making a choice. You just play. So maybe in Fallout 2 you have to kill off the Bishops because you got caught upstairs. Didn't know Bishop had quests for you? Too bad. Picked the wrong person in the Wright overdose case? Maybe you'll figure it out in another play through.
 

Zomg

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
6,984
It's more like that the purpose of choice is either to let you define the character or the narrative, or to have game win/loss effects (i.e. it's the winning choice vs. losing choices). Aimless choices, like the decision to arbitrarily go left or right at a fork in the road or to align with factions that only differ in uniform colors or something are mostly just wasted development effort. In fact it's a continuous scale - the more character/narrative meaning or gameplay effect you pack into a choice the better. C&C is not the point, it is a means to an end.
 
Self-Ejected

Excidium

P. banal
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
13,696
Location
Third World
As much as I love C&C, sometimes I think it's more trouble than it's worth for the developer.
 

Mister Arkham

Scholar
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
763
Location
Not buried deep enough
Excidium said:
As much as I love C&C, sometimes I think it's more trouble than it's worth for the developer.

I have to agree to some extent. Creating a genuine set of choices and consequences that cater to the huge variety of play styles that an RPG embraces...the attempt is admirable, but it almost always comes at the expense of writing and gameplay regardless of the choice being made at a critical juncture in the plot or during a throw-away moment.

In a lot of ways, I think that it's why Bioware will always be on top with this sort of thing. The choices that their games present are shallow and binary to the point of being illusory, but the illusion of choice still fosters that innate feeling of interactivity and control, and it comes at no cost to the structure of the narrative. it's regrettable, but there you are.
 

deuxhero

Arcane
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
11,328
Location
Flowery Land
Only real derp in the article is the comparisons of the influence system to Biioware (Which Obsidian used in the past before them) and the use of an APC in that one mission is based on who you chose as an ally (and if you thought SIE would allow for a subtle approach, it's your own damn fault).
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,236
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Visible influence meters are annoying. No matter how hard you try to RP*, you will find yourself picking and choosing responses based on how much influence they net you. Especially on your first playthrough of a game where you're trying to see as much as possible and you don't want to piss anybody off.

I support invisible, behind-the-scenes influence meters, but of course then the developers are afraid no will notice their hard work.


*Why? Because usually there's more than one dialog response you could imagine your character plausibly saying. When that happens, you find yourself "breaking the tie" by looking at their effect on the influence meter.
 

Phelot

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
17,908
Infinitron said:
Visible influence meters are annoying. No matter how hard you try to RP*, you will find yourself picking and choosing responses based on how much influence they net you. Especially on your first playthrough of a game where you're trying to see as much as possible and you don't want to piss anybody off.

I support invisible, behind-the-scenes influence meters, but of course then the developers are afraid no will notice their hard work.

I agree, though I think it is easy for the player to realize that what they've said to a companion has made an impact on them.

PST sort of did this. You were informed via text that you upset or pleased a companion. Wasn't much, but it was there and it more or less took out the whole meta gaming shit where you figure you'll bring NPC X to loyalty 8 so you can take a -2 loyalty on them which in turn brings NPC Y's loyalty up to 5.

That just sucks.
 

SCO

Arcane
In My Safe Space
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
16,320
Shadorwun: Hong Kong
But a terrible consoletarded audience.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom