Interview Alpha Protocol Interrogation at IGN

[Jason]

Tags: Alpha Protocol; Obsidian Entertainment

IGN had <a href="http://pc.ign.com/articles/925/925916p1.html" target="blank">a chat</a> with Sega's Tim Ernest and Obsidian's Matthew Rorie about the upcoming <b><a href="http://www.obsidian.net/games.html#ap" target="blank">Alpha Protocol</a></b>.
<br>
<blockquote>IGNPC: Developers of shooter-based RPGs like Deus Ex and Fallout have always had to strike a balance between character stats and player performance. Where do you draw the line between the player's abilities and their characters skills?
<br>
<br>
Matthew Rorie: Obviously this is a tricky balance to strike, perhaps especially in an action RPG - you have to ensure that the skills a player invests in are meaningful to the gameplay experience, but at the same time you have to avoid the randomness of dice rolls and probabilities that can sometimes frustrate even experienced RPG players. It's important to keep in mind that while Michael Thorton is an inexperienced agent at the start of the game, he's been very well-trained in the weapons and technology that he's using. So if you line up a critical hit with your pistol on an enemy, you're not suddenly going to miss due to a dice roll.
<br>
<br>
On the other hand, Mike will gain more experience with his weapons as he travels the world. Adding skill points to weapons will allow you to deal more damage and aim more quickly, and will also unlock new special abilities for the weapon (such as Chainshot for the pistol, which was mentioned previously). Without any points in martial arts, you'll still be able to hit dudes in the face, but if you level it up, you'll gain some impressive maneuvers that will let you drop fools that much more quickly. This helps to ensure that the player feels empowered by their choices without completely eliminating their ability to use skills they haven't invested in quite as heavily.</blockquote>
<br>
One of the Obsidian folks around here should let Matthew know that most experienced RPG players aren't frustrated by dice rolls and probabilities when it comes to dropping fools. We're actually quite comfortable with them.

 

[Data4]

One of the Obsidian folks around here should let Matthew know that most experienced RPG players aren't frustrated by dice rolls and probabilities when it comes to dropping fools. We're actually quite comfortable with them.

Yeah, but by "experienced RPG players", he means the idiocracy made up by the masses. *sigh* Ever get the feeling you're in an episode of the Twilight Zone?

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Developers of shooter-based RPGs like Deus Ex and Fallout

Wait WTF?

 

[inwoker]

Fallout 3 is shooter. What is your concern? Fallout 3 is new game, therefore it has new technology and new gameplay mechanics and not some turn-based crap.

 

[Spectacle]

I can't really blame Obsidian for going after the mass effect/fallout 3 retarded action-RPG market, there's huge piles of money to be had, after all. I hope the incom from AP will finance the next MotB....

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I can't really blame Obsidian for going after the mass effect/fallout 3 retarded action-RPG market, there's huge piles of money to be had, after all. I hope the incom from AP will finance the next MotB....

Indeed. At least Obsidian can stay around and not wind up like Troika.

And AP sounds helluva lot better than most of the action RPGs.

 

[fastpunk]

Dunno about you guys, but it seems to me that a good Action RPG is just as rare as a good RPG. I wouldn't mind playing a good ARPG at all, especially if it's made by Obsidian.

 

[inwoker]

Combat is most boring part of Obsidian games. If they do combat right this time, Alpha Protocol would actually be their best game.

 

[Volourn]

"Combat is most boring part of Obsidian games."

Outside of KOTOR2, no. NWN2 combat is pretty damn good 'cause it's using the ever awesome REAL Aurora Combat. Not that fake shit found in TW.

 

[Korgan]

NWN2's engine barely works in combat. There are no magic duels like in BG2, despite the ruleset being quite suitable for them - wizards just buff up and throw shit at each other. Parry is never, never used by PCs of NPCs. Sneak attacks are either overpowered or useless, or always overpowered with Epic Precision. That's just a few facts off the top of my head, the real problem is that the player doesn't feel like *doing* anything except watch fighters bash shit, circle around with a rogue and spam nukes with casters. It doesn't encourage any tactics at all.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

circle around with a rogue

With Feint you don't even have to circle around.

 

[Volourn]

Aurora Combat > IE combat. This is undisputable. More options, more variety, cooler, and just better.

 

[Kingston]

Aurora Combat > IE combat. This is undisputable. More options, more variety, cooler, and just better.

But it plays worse.

 

[janjetina]

The only action oriented RPG that has so far managed to hold my interest enough to finish it was Vampire: Bloodlines, primarily because of the plot and the characters, superbly presented through well-written dialogues. Plot, characters and dialogues were just as (if not more) important in making the atmosphere of the game great as the visuals and sounds.

I even wasn't able to force myself to finish the Witcher because I found the dialogues (or should I say Witcher's monologues) irritating, as the player has a very little control over the dialogue - you usually have to make a choice between two sentences and listen to Geralt's not-so-Shakespearean tirade (more or less, quite often less) in the spirit of the chosen dialogue option.
That's why I probably won't bother torrenting Fallout 3 - Bethesda can talk about the "immershun" all day long, but it's their dry dialogues that break the immersion and make watching the grass grow a preferable alternative to playing their abomination.

Hence, with its dialogue wheel, Alpha Protocol is the game I won't bother playing. It's a shame that the people in Obsidian abandoned the greatest feature in their games - a well written dialogue with multiple options under the control of the player. If we take a look at two Obsidian's great games - Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2 and Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer, and at the no.1 game made by anyone - Planescape: Torment, we'll see that the great strength of those games is interaction between the PC and other characters in the game world, presented through numerous dialogue choices that have effect on the game world (influence system, light/dark side points, alignment points) and are influenced by the realities of the game world (numerous skill checks in dialogues). It is optimal that as many choices as possible have consequences, but even adding "false" choices can help to tailor your character the way you see him. This is especially useful when you are dealing with the "white and black" world, as in Star Wars, and you are presented with making an exclusive binary decision that can have a net effect on your light side / dark side points, as multiple dialogue choices can convey different motivations and/or different means to a decision, so the player can easily get "in character". Obsidian should stick to that which makes their games great and hone them to perfection (character and environment interaction through multiple option dialogues with numerous skill checks and as many meaningful consequences as possible), and change the features that are not as good, primarily combat and engine optimization and some technicalities like the use of formal methods when designing their software, to reduce the amount of bugs and development costs.
In a spy thriller type book or a movie, personality of the main character is the cornerstone. Conveying that personality through "stances" and Witcher-like monologues is doomed to failure.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

shooter-based RPGs like Deus Ex and Fallout

Yay revisionist history!

 

[elander_]

This reminds me i never played Bloodlines with a Malkavian. It's time for another run.

 

[Anthony Davis]

What Matt is referring to is in some Action RPGs, you put the crosshair dead center on some bad guy's dome, and pull the trigger.

The engine then rolls a dice, and determines that NO, the bullet actually went 15 feet to the left of him because you rolled a one.

While that kind of mechanic is fine in NON-Action RPGs, in Action RPGs players EXPECT the bullet to go where you put the crosshair.

As awesome as Deus Ex was, it suffered from this and was dinged for it in reviews.

In our research, most players were fine with skills and stats affecting damage, critical hits, recoil, and other things, but they were NOT okay with stats and skills affecting the accuracy of the player.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

In our research, most players were fine with skills and stats affecting damage, critical hits, recoil, and other things, but they were NOT okay with stats and skills affecting the accuracy of the player.

Wait wait wait... You asked from people outside of the Codex?

 

[SimpleComplexity]

Alpha Protocol needs moar VATS.

 

[crakkie]

In our research, most players were fine with skills and stats affecting damage, critical hits, recoil, and other things

Recoil? So System Shock 2-style spastic recoil at low skill levels? I can live with that.

Now as far as unlimited ammo, I still see no justification.

 

[Anthony Davis]

In our research, most players were fine with skills and stats affecting damage, critical hits, recoil, and other things

Recoil? So System Shock 2-style spastic recoil at low skill levels? I can live with that.

Now as far as unlimited ammo, I still see no justification.

I wasn't involved in the unlimited ammo discussion, but I personally does not feel like it makes the game worse.

I do know some of the reasons as to WHY they went this way.

1. They did not want to slow the flow of the game levels down by making the player search for ammo.
2. They did not want to the player to be forced to use a weapon they had not trained with because they could not find ammo for the weapon they DID train with.


It's not like shooter are that realistic anyways with regards to ammo. As a former United States Army soldier, let me tell you, no one can carry the amount of ammo that these games let you do anyway. Ammo weighs a LOT.

The only game that is even close to realistic with the ammo count are SOME of the Tom Clancy games (like Rogue Spear).

There are plenty of other shooter mechanics and options for the player to mess around with.


edit:
Yes, recoil is affected by skills and weapon upgrades.

 

[Monolith]

What Matt is referring to is in some Action RPGs, you put the crosshair dead center on some bad guy's dome, and pull the trigger.

The engine then rolls a dice, and determines that NO, the bullet actually went 15 feet to the left of him because you rolled a one.

While that kind of mechanic is fine in NON-Action RPGs, in Action RPGs players EXPECT the bullet to go where you put the crosshair.

What's wrong with a bobbing corsshair depending on stats and skills? The bullet goes where the crosshair is and the engine doesn't have to roll any dices.

As awesome as Deus Ex was, it suffered from this and was dinged for it in reviews.

I can agree that it suffered from idiotic reviewers that didn't get that kind of mechanic (sorry, but the game had that weapon skills for a reason). It's neither complicated, nor unreasonable - but yeah, perhaps they should have added a moron-mode difficulty where it plays like a pure FPS, instead of like the RPG/FPS hybrid it actually was.

In our research, most players were fine with skills and stats affecting damage, critical hits, recoil, and other things, but they were NOT okay with stats and skills affecting the accuracy of the player.

I can understand critical hits, recoil, and even "other things" - but affecting damage? To be honest, if it was an isometric action RPG I wouldn't mind, but in a first person game that's an immersion breaker (as much as I hate to use that buzzword).

1. They did not want to slow the flow of the game levels down by making the player search for ammo.

I can't remember James Bond ever searched for ammo, so why not? I don't have to like it though.

2. They did not want to the player to be forced to use a weapon they had not trained with because they could not find ammo for the weapon they DID train with.

Which might be quite interesting if done properly.

It's not like shooter are that realistic anyways with regards to ammo. As a former United States Army soldier, let me tell you, no one can carry the amount of ammo that these games let you do anyway. Ammo weighs a LOT.

The only game that is even close to realistic with the ammo count are SOME of the Tom Clancy games (like Rogue Spear).

There are plenty of other shooter mechanics and options for the player to mess around with.
.

If you're trying to make AP sound like a shooter, you're doing damn fine.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Well, the bits about the non-combat parts of AP definately sound very RPG.

Also, I think there is nothing inheritently wrong in using action gameplay for combat in an RPG. Usually it's the execution that goes down the shitter.

 

[Kingston]

I really liked the mechanic in SS2 and in Bloodlines. What I hate is having to put 10 bullets into a guy because I'm not trained instead of 1 if I were. It just seems so damn ridiculous. Besides, even in SS2 and Bloodlines you could kill someone with a gun if you got close enough to ensure a hit (i.e. right next to their face). Now I'm gonna do that and there won't be any use. This tactic could've been useful for e.g. a high agility guy who can run fast.

2. They did not want to the player to be forced to use a weapon they had not trained with because they could not find ammo for the weapon they DID train with.

GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY

 

[Lurkar]

If AP was a different genre, I'd be pretty irritated, but as someone else said, James Bond never went hunting for ammo, nor did his judo chop ever fail because he was too good with guns to do martial arts. Both decisions fit the genre rather well, and in the end, if the decision is between "realism" and genre-appropriateness, I'll go with the second.