Interview Alpha Protocol interview at RPG Vault Part 2

[Elwro]

Tags: Alpha Protocol; Obsidian Entertainment

The <a href="http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/930/930117p1.html">second part</a> of RPG Vault's interview with the Obsidian guys making Alpha Protocol is up. Here's a bit on the 'stances' and their role in dialogue:<blockquote><b>Jonric: In terms of how we'll interact with the various NPCs, the game is touted as having a significant dialogue stance system. What is this feature? </b>
<br>
<br>
<b>Chris Avellone:</b> The stance system is a one-way path through dialogues where you choose Thorton's mood and attitude when dealing with others to try and get information, to attempt to find out more about your objective, or else simply to romance the ladies of the world... or anger your enemies.
<br>
<br>
When speaking to others, you can choose to take a suave-style stance (cocky, confident, witty), aggressive (Jack Bauer style), or professional (if you're of the paladin persuasion or a patriotic fellow obsessed with duty). We also allow the player to perform "actions" that short-circuit dialogues, such as shooting people in the knees or the face, smashing bottles across the heads of smartasses, or anything else that can jump to the core of the conversation without wasting time negotiating with folks.</blockquote>What does "one way path through dialogue" mean here? That after choosing a stance you don't choose dialogue options? Or that you just can't change it during the conversation?
<br>
<br>
The main character will have a database containing information about his contacts, which may prove handy during dialogue:<blockquote><b>Jonric: Would we be correct to that there are other related systems that also impact the gameplay experience depending on the choices we make?
<br>
<br>
Chris Avellone</b>: Similar to the influence system in Knights of the Old Republic II and the Neverwinter Nights 2 series, we have "reputation" in Alpha Protocol. Depending on how the hero treats an NPC or his faction / allies, you can dramatically change how they treat him, and shift their roles in the game... and at times, this will have huge ripple effects on how certain sub-missions and global assignments play out.
<br>
<br>
In addition, the amount of reputation you gain with someone affects the different game bonuses that will be applied through perks if he or she becomes your handler on a mission. If you treat SIE well (and I do mean "well"), then she has a chance to become ones, and to convey perks and bonuses to you as she helps you through your mission.
<br>
<br>
You are tracked on your behavior as well, and certain people will react to you depending on how you've been acting elsewhere in the game. If you've primarily been aggressive, enemies will have formed a dossier on you and have a pre-set judgment about you as soon as you meet them.
<br>
<br>
We also bring the "research" angle into the. When Thorton gains a contact in the game, this opens up a basic dossier on the subject, and the player can gather information on various characters. This can help when entering conversations by giving more facts about their backgrounds, previous missions and faction ties, that you can use as leverage in the conversation to get what you want. As an example, you learn what stances some NPCs respect, as well as which can be used to provoke a reaction that would be advantageous, such as how to piss someone off into doing something stupid, or an attitude that generates more trust for you than for someone's current employer.</blockquote>
<br>
Read the whole thing <a href="http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/930/930117p1.html">here</a>; the first part is <a href="http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/927/927738p1.html">here</a> if you missed it.
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.rpgwatch.com">RPG Watch</A>

 

[Sodomy]

I hadn't been following this, but after reading this interview, it just sounds like Deus Ex with an absolutely retarded dialogue system.

Pass.

 

[Forest Dweller]

What does "one way path through dialogue" mean here? That after choosing a stance you don't choose dialogue options? Or that you just can't change it during the conversation?

That you can't ever say the same thing twice. At least that's what they've been saying. This is good news in my opinion.

Also:

"We gather you decided not to have a multiplayer mode. What were the main reasons behind this choice?"

:facepalm:

 

[Azrael the cat]

I hadn't been following this, but after reading this interview, it just sounds like Deus Ex with an absolutely retarded dialogue system.

Pass.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

...No seriously - are you honestly saying you wouldn't leap to play a new Deus Ex, even with an absolutely retarded dialogue system. Deus Ex had some great writing, but the dialogue 'system' was pretty linear. Deus Ex w/ absolutely retarded dialogue system > most games in the past 8 years.

Not that I'm saying AP will necessarily live up to that, but if it did I'd sure buy it.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Wasn't it the last time they described the system that you can switch the style during the dialogue and that there will be timed decision moments (run/intimidate/persuade)?

 

[epicvest]

sounds like the one in blade runner

 

[Elwro]

Yeah, that's what I thought at first.

 

[racofer]

Chris Avellone: Similar to the influence system in Knights of the Old Republic II and the Neverwinter Nights 2 series, we have "reputation" in Alpha Protocol.

kthxbai

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Chris Avellone: Similar to the influence system in Knights of the Old Republic II and the Neverwinter Nights 2 series, we have "reputation" in Alpha Protocol.

kthxbai

Just to clarify, did you misread "camera" in there?

 

[racofer]

Nope, Anthony Davis already mentioned the piss poor camera in another thread. This one is exactly about what I quoted.

 

[Sodomy]

I hadn't been following this, but after reading this interview, it just sounds like Deus Ex with an absolutely retarded dialogue system.

Pass.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

...No seriously - are you honestly saying you wouldn't leap to play a new Deus Ex, even with an absolutely retarded dialogue system. Deus Ex had some great writing, but the dialogue 'system' was pretty linear. Deus Ex w/ absolutely retarded dialogue system > most games in the past 8 years.

Not that I'm saying AP will necessarily live up to that, but if it did I'd sure buy it.

Deus Ex was rather lame in the first place; it wasn't a good FPS, it wasn't a good RPG, it wasn't really good at anything. The last thing it needs is a dialogue system where you don't actually pick your character's lines, but rather their general "mood".

 

[SuicideBunny]

on the other hand a stance system shifts focus from player skill to character skill (haha), and actually allows for halfway decent conversations written in less time and with less talented writers than its qualitative multiple choice counterpart.

 

[dagorkan]

It's going to be voice acted so their horrible writing will still show through. You can't cover up deficiencies in design, creativity and writing competence, certainly not in RPGs.

 

[Sodomy]

on the other hand a stance system shifts focus from player skill to character skill (haha), and actually allows for halfway decent conversations written in less time and with less talented writers than its qualitative multiple choice counterpart.

It also reduces choices in conversation- having the choice of 3 options at the start of the conversation seems less than satisfying.

Character skill vs. Player skill can be mitigated with the use of [skill] tags.

 

[Pastel]

Nope, Anthony Davis already mentioned the piss poor camera in another thread. This one is exactly about what I quoted.

So what was bad about the influence system in MotB, exactly?

 

[Sodomy]

I personally thought that getting feats if your followers liked you was a dumb idea because it brought too strong of a meta-gaming aspect to your party interactions.

 

[racofer]

All of it.

 

[Pastel]

I personally thought that getting feats if your followers liked you was a dumb idea because it brought too strong of a meta-gaming aspect to your party interactions.

True. Still, I never intentionally went for max influence - it often fluctuated, and for some companions it was negative.

All of it.

Yea, people like you when you do things they like and hate you when you do stuff they hate? What the fuck.

 

[racofer]

Precisely.

 

[SuicideBunny]

It also reduces choices in conversation- having the choice of 3 options at the start of the conversation seems less than satisfying.

matter of taste, but i prefer a fluent and actually well written dialogue that manages to serve as a carrier or even catalyst for atmosphere, especially in a game were you already play a fleshed out character with a more or less established personality, than something like fo3's or for that matter even mass effect's conversation system.

Character skill vs. Player skill can be mitigated with the use of [skill] tags.

for the record

• i was jokingly referring to it as a good thing, thus the (haha).
• i don't understand the infatuation of some people here with more deterministic characters, and do not think that they are a good idea.

anyway, no, it can't.
static skill checks don't mitigate any player skill, since it's still on the player's authority to increase or not increase the relevant statistics and pick the answers. they only broaden the micromanagement required from the player and shift some focus on non-combat strategies within the required player skill.
the only way to reduce influence of the player's ability is to directly reduce the control the player has of the character, and that just doesn't happen with dialogue skill or stat checks.

 

[Sodomy]

Character skill vs. Player skill can be mitigated with the use of [skill] tags.

for the record

• i was jokingly referring to it as a good thing, thus the (haha).
• i don't understand the infatuation of some people here with more deterministic characters, and do not think that they are a good idea.

anyway, no, it can't.
static skill checks don't mitigate any player skill, since it's still on the player's authority to increase or not increase the relevant statistics and pick the answers. they only broaden the micromanagement required from the player and shift some focus on non-combat strategies within the required player skill.
the only way to reduce influence of the player's ability is to directly reduce the control the player has of the character, and that just doesn't happen with dialogue skill or stat checks.

Skill tags DO mitigate player skill. Take Arcanum for instance- if you were "diplomating" your way past a problem, you frequently had to guess which option was the diplomat option, and which one wasn't. A character who is skilled at "diplomating" shouldn't have to guess in such a matter.

This doesn't make the character deterministic, because the player still makes the choice to "dipolmat" their way past this problem. If "diplomating" is always the preferred solution, then it's a problem with the world/quest design, rather than with the use of skill tags.

 

[Korgan]

shooting people in the knees or the face, smashing bottles across the heads of smartasses

...grabbing collars. I love the sound of it already.

 

[The Feral Kid]

I don't know but reading the interview seems that Obsidian is putting a real effort to create something interesting and original for a change instead of constantly trying to cover Bioware's tracks.

 

[elander_]

Dialog system and the way it is used are very different things. Just because the dialog system offers the possibility to filter dialog lines by mood it doesn't mean stats checks are gone. It's only a different way to present dialog to the player.

Not getting the same dialog line twice, i take this as making dialogs more believable and make you think twice before making a dialog choice because you won't get a second chance in certain cases. Sounds cool. If you want to recall info npcs have said that's what the journal is good for.

You can physically intimidate npcs by shooting their legs or break a bottle in their heads? Bring it on.