Editorial Alpha Protocol - Delivering on the Promise

[TwinkieGorilla]

hey skyway have you played AP yet?

 

[Freelance Henchman]

Al-FAIL Bro-2-LOL.

 

[denizsi]

the ruins mission in Rome where you have to protect the device, a device no one gives a shit about on top of that, because it's not as if any of the goons tried to deactivate it.

Actually, they do, eventually but they sure take a LOT of time to finally approach and start deactivating.

 

[Fucking Quality Poster]

This much is true. AP has a lot of problem, but in terms of C&C, it really can't be beat.

I'm afraid it can be. The C&C "engine" is superb (it's a great model to follow), but the extreme linearity (and I thought that Bloodlines was bad in that area) and the mission structure, which cuts off the world and takes away your ability to make decisions outside of missions, waste that potential.

I've just finished the game. If I replay it now I will be able to make many different choices but I'll still end up playing exactly the same game and doing exactly the same shit, but some cutscenes will be different.

Alpha Protocol C&C do a great job creating a set of different mission summaries, but unfortunately they barely affect the actual gameplay, which isn't that enjoyable to begin with.

Precisely what I thought as I was playing through Alpha Protocol.

My problem with the game is that the mission-based quests, shooter-dominated game mechanics, and general closed-world atmosphere completely dilute and overshadow any RPG mechanics that actually are good. The quest-to-quest C&C is good, but certainly not impressive compared to FO1/2/Arc as some people here have suggested.

For example: I killed the Sheikh's body guards one level before I was supposed to fight them. Difference? I don't fight them in the next level, even though they could have easily been dispatched anyways. Another one is the fact that I killed the Sheikh. Again, the only bearing it has on my game in Rome is combat-related, and certainly does not affect the overlying story in any way. I mean, it affects the game in terms of combat, but that isn't very fun in the first place. C&C is supposed to add to the enjoyment of the game, but I am afraid that is impossible in this case, since C&C in Alpha Protocol has mostly to do with combat, which is by far the worst part of the game.

 

[hoochimama]

I'd say the consequences mostly affect characters in the game. The ones that slightly change your missions (weaker guards, fewer guards, sniper rifle drops, ice-cream shop) are in the minority.

 

[Darth Roxor]

well an invis spell can surely be easier justified in a VTM game, no?

I was refering to one post of skyway's, where he kept trashing AP for its bad stealth, while at the same time saying that Bloodlines at least didn't have any bullshit invisibility spells.

He also claims to have finished it with a malk and a nosferatu.

Uh-huh.

 

[hoochimama]

Might as well post an example of the invisibility spell for those who haven't played the game http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OADWEedV6k#t=5m25

 

[Vault Dweller]

Bullshit.

Stop the lies, start the truths. Here's a list of Fallout C&C that my bro Fat Dragon compiled for me:

1. Everyone knows about the water merchant example.
2. The Ghouls in Necropolis will eventually be murdered by the Super Mutants if you take too long to go there to help them.
3. Killing children = bounty hunters come after you.
4. Choose not to put your weapons away when a guard tells you to, he'll punish you bad for being a smartass.
5. If you're not careful with what you say to people you can royally piss them off without a chance to apologize, which can cut you off from quests, get fights started, etc. Eg, saying you want to join the Khans but then pussing out when he tells you to murder the two girls will anger Garl and he'll order to have you killed, getting caught lying by Aradesh makes him lose all trust in you and kick you out of the village, etc.
6. Choosing to go into the Glow unprepared. Even better if you save right after that. I've lost count of how many times I've read of someone screwing themselves completely there.
7. The game allows you to kill anyone you don't like at anytime you please, at the risk of fucking things up, including quests.
8. If you try to cut corners with Decker's jobs instead of doing them exactly how he asked, he'll get pissed which means he either orders his gang on you or cuts you off from his other jobs (can't remember which).
9. Doing the Loneshark quest before talking to Kane permanently cuts you off from Decker's quests since you end up pissing Kane off.
10. Killing Neal gets the entire police force hunting you down.
11. Wiping out the Khans early avoids Tandi ever getting kidnapped and you lose that quest.
12. Killing Razor pisses of the Gun Runners faction, preventing you from doing business with them.

Probably a few others I missed, haven't played Fallout in quite a while.

He probably did miss a few, but since some points on his list are pure bullshit (using only one save slot and getting stuck because of it = C&C) it should even out. AP easily tops all that.

Well, I'm tempted to accept "AP easily tops that" as the ultimate proof, but it would be nice if you'd actually list these amazink! consequences. And for the record, the list isn't complete and there is more to consequences than some immediate effect. For example, being able to convince the Master that his plan is flawed because you found the data and discussed it with Vree is a much better example than "Choose not to put your weapons away when a guard tells you to, he'll punish you bad for being a smartass. "

 

[Achilles]

Ok, this thing with Alpha Protocol is absolutely ridiculous. I really don't mind it when people have an opinion that is different than my own, but there are some people who change their views and criteria from thread to thread, with the sole purpose of... I don't have a clue actually.

I finished Alpha Protocol a couple of times. I thought it was an enjoyable game, not an all-time great but certainly more interesting than most other games in it's genre. There are obvious flaws, mainly the linearity of most of the levels, but some of the criticism that it gets is absurd.

Stealth: Simplistic when you compare it to the likes of Thief, but that is not a fair comparison. For the most part, it works well enough to suit the game's needs. Putting more points into stealth makes you more effective and there is no "make the enemies stupid" button, as skyway said about crouching. Just try sneaking around an enemie with a non-stealth character and tell me if he hears you or not.

" Magic" skills: So if you put points into stealth you get Shadow Operative that lets you kill enemies while being "invisible". It didn't annoy me because I saw it as a representation of the skill of my character. In this case, character skill matters more than personal skill: Even if I'm cack handed and can't hide for shit, my character is still a super spy that can take down multiple opponents silently. Why is that so "offensive" to some of you? I undestand if people would rather do the stealth killing themselves, but the influence of character skill over personal skill is something that is often considered an advantage for older games. But I guess we have to find something to bitch about, right?

Shooting: Can someone explain to me why the shooting is so bad? I mean, what is wrong with it? Is it because skills affect your performance? if so, I am dissapoint because I thought that we are in favor of skills being important to gameplay. ME 2 is released, we slam it because it's an action game and skills have no meaning. Alpha Protocol is released, we slam it because skills affect the shooting. What the fuck people? What the fuck? Sorry, I meant FFS.

AI: Again, why is it so abysmal that we have to berate the game for it? Was ME's AI better? Really? Enemies throw grenades, try to find you if they are alerted to your presense, they take cover and move around, they can spot you easily if you haven't invested points in stealth. Sure, they do stupid things some times and quickly forget that you even exist- just like AI in almost every modern game.

Yes, I know, "stupid Obsidian fanboys are butthurt" etc. Bullshit. Noone ever said that Alpha Protocol was the best game of all time, just that it was more interesting than the usual garbage that we are handed with. What prompted the "Obsidian fanboy butthurt" was simply the natural reaction to the flip-flops of some people who change their views every day in order to win some KKK or stay true to their stupid internet persona.

Btw, I don't have an issue with people who didn't like Alpha Protocol. I can see why people may not like it. I just can't stand people who contradict themselves with every other sentence.

But what the fuck do I know, I'm a newfag.

 

[Raghar]

And critical hits - I still don't understand how holding a gun pointed at the enemy for 3-5 seconds increases its damage and precision.

It's called aiming.

 

[dr. one]

For example: I killed the Sheikh's body guards one level before I was supposed to fight them. Difference? I don't fight them in the next level, even though they could have easily been dispatched anyways. Another one is the fact that I killed the Sheikh. Again, the only bearing it has on my game in Rome is combat-related, and certainly does not affect the overlying story in any way.

it does affect the overlying story since it affects the endgame (before the headquarters infiltration you get one dialogue-based "mission" if you let him live which makes endgame a bit different, plus news broadcast during credits is different)

also, strongly agreed with Alexandros´ post.

 

[racofer]

And critical hits - I still don't understand how holding a gun pointed at the enemy for 3-5 seconds increases its damage and precision.

It's called aiming.

So aiming increases bullet momentum, which translates into higher damage. Thanks for this clarification.


So VD, have you played the game yet?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

And critical hits - I still don't understand how holding a gun pointed at the enemy for 3-5 seconds increases its damage and precision.

So aiming increases bullet momentum, which translates into higher damage. Thanks for this clarification.

Yeah, what kind of shitty game would have such a dumb featu-

Uh, uh...cybernetic implants!!!

--

I imagine the higher damage is due to aiming increasing the chance of the bullet hitting a vital part, instead of scratching (lower damage) or something.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I've said this before: Alpha Protocol is a true testament to that CnC doesn't make an RPG.

They would have if the game wasn't mission-based and the consequences actually affected the missions.

To put it simply, choices and consequences create different gameplay experiences. That's why Fallout is praised so much. Not because it's loaded with c&c but because they work so well and you can play the game in different ways. No, sneaking around the same enemy vs killing the same enemy doesn't count. Neither is killing some guards now or killing them later.

AP choices seem meaningful but the consequences are cosmetic - basically, if you'd replay the game you'd end up doing the same shit but for slightly different reasons, not unlike BG2 choices and consequences, which morons often cite as some kinda proof that the game wasn't linear and didn't suck major ass when it comes to these elements.

So VD, have you played the game yet?

Just finished it.

Currently I'm doing the hotel mission in Taipei.

Overall impressions to-date: like all the different options and choices a lot, really want to replay the game, try different things, and see what happens, but playing the game is so painful sometimes. I'm definitely not the target audience.

Good: characters, writing, dialogues, choices (and hopefully consequences).
Bad: the rest. Ok, maybe the rest isn't bad but just uninspiring and mediocre, but who the fuck cares?

The biggest problem is that "good" takes about 10% of the gameplay, so most of the time you're just playing a mediocre game that I would never ever play for more than 10 minutes, if not for the good parts.

...

This much is true. AP has a lot of problem, but in terms of C&C, it really can't be beat.

I'm afraid it can be. The C&C "engine" is superb (it's a great model to follow), but the extreme linearity (and I thought that Bloodlines was bad in that area) and the mission structure, which cuts off the world and takes away your ability to make decisions outside of missions, waste that potential.

I've just finished the game. If I replay it now I will be able to make many different choices but I'll still end up playing exactly the same game and doing exactly the same shit, but some cutscenes will be different.

Alpha Protocol C&C do a great job creating a set of different mission summaries, but unfortunately they barely affect the actual gameplay, which isn't that enjoyable to begin with.

 

[racofer]

I imagine the higher damage is due to aiming increasing the chance of the bullet hitting a vital part, instead of scratching (lower damage) or something.

Which sounds kinda awkward when the bullet visually hits the guy right in between his eyes. But since I "aim too fast" it's the right thing to penalize me for that with a lower damage output if I had aimed for longer, despite having the same outcome.

The biggest problem is that "good" takes about 10% of the gameplay, so most of the time you're just playing a mediocre game that I would never ever play for more than 10 minutes, if not for the good parts.

See, and this is just like that thing me and skyway and everybody else were talking about back on that other AP thread where you constantly criticized us. Only we just don't play the game because of the aforementioned reasons since it's too much for us to bear.


Oh but what we did was whining, sorry.

 

[Terror Teats]

I've just finished the game. If I replay it now I will be able to make many different choices but I'll still end up playing exactly the same game and doing exactly the same shit, but some cutscenes will be different.

Alpha Protocol C&C do a great job creating a set of different mission summaries, but unfortunately they barely affect the actual gameplay, which isn't that enjoyable to begin with.

This.

I have to admit as much as I liked it, I have no urge whatsoever to replay--barring DLC/patchuality. Get Mina to hate me? I get a few nasty words/bonuses change, but I proceed through exactly the same missions. No nasty surprises or betrayals until endgame cutscenes (actually Madison does fuck you up with a shock trap, but basically, still doing the same missions for the same reasons).

Another thing: I'm not convinced that there's a lot of character build variety. Shotguns/ARs/SMGs seem basically interchangeable, and not once did I feel a need to invest a point in them (even when I found myself in situations where I needed to use these weapons). Same goes for Toughness and Technical Aptitude. That leaves Pistols/MA/stealth/sabotage. So, sneak a little, hack a little, and pick whether you want silent distant takedowns, or close ones that you can handle if something goes wrong. A little more skill variety might have been nice.

 

[KalosKagathos]

Well, I'm tempted to accept "AP easily tops that" as the ultimate proof, but it would be nice if you'd actually list these amazink! consequences.

Well, I don't know if you know, but there's this arms dealer dude in Saudi Arabia...

And for the record, the list isn't complete and there is more to consequences than some immediate effect. For example, being able to convince the Master that his plan is flawed because you found the data and discussed it with Vree is a much better example than "Choose not to put your weapons away when a guard tells you to, he'll punish you bad for being a smartass."

Spoiler

On a serious note, Alpha Protocol offers something similar during the final encounter with Parker. If you left the right people alive and if he likes you he'll leave Alpha Protocol. Speaking of Parker, if you know that he's Madison's father, if Madison's dead and if Marburg's alive you can get him to shoot Marburg. Speaking of Marburg, he won't retreat in Rome if he hates you guts. If he does retreat you can convince him not to interfere at the endgame if you complete his dossier.

If you really, really piss off Albatross you can call him before turning yourself in, claim that killing Sis was lots and lots of fun and mention that now is his last chance to get you, resulting in him sending some operatives after your ass. They'll be hostile to both you and the Alpha Protocol security.

Intel availability varies GREATLY depending on your choices. For example, you'll be able to buy some for almost every mission involving Al-Samad from Nasri's interrogators if you have him arrested.

Leaving Brayko alive allows you to press A to Konstantin during the final showdown with Surkov. He'll knife both him and Valuev, sparing the player the trouble of a boss fight.

 

[hoochimama]

I imagine the higher damage is due to aiming increasing the chance of the bullet hitting a vital part, instead of scratching (lower damage) or something.

Which sounds kinda awkward when the bullet visually hits the guy right in between his eyes. But since I "aim too fast" it's the right thing to penalize me for that with a lower damage output if I had aimed for longer, despite having the same outcome.

Wonder why they couldn't just make it so your crosshair wobbles a bit(depending on your character skill level) and the longer you hold your aim steady the less it wobbles with your shots going where you aim and gun damage being mostly location-based and skill-independent.

Does anyone actually prefer having character skill translate to direct weapon damage or even just having a targetting cone instead of a floating crosshair?

 

[Serious_Business]

Huh. I actually agree with skyway and VD, some of the worst faggots who care so much about their internet self-image, not a good sign.

AP's C&C is superficial. It's like DX on a grand scale, and DX's C&C was superficial. It has very little to no effect on the gameplay (and even then, as was pointed out, the gameplay is too bad to care). The game is linear, the C&C only affects a) some inconsequential perks b) items that you don't need anyway c) some info about the weak plot d) character placeholders (another DX parrallel : wether Paul lives or dies only changes who gives you the speech at the end of the game).

It depends on what your standards for C&C are. I have the same standards as VD and skyway, so I agree with them, but that doesn't make them "right", it only means that they consider that the C&C is superficial. Saying "there is no C&C in AP", traduced from objective-skyway-volourn hyperbole to reasonable speech, basically means "I find the C&C in AP to be unsatisfactory", and there you have a lot of the stupid unecessary arguing out of the way. And I'm really of that opinion, because you really don't get that much of a different experience depending on your choices. Sure, it's above Bioware, but really, this isn't enough. They should have cut off the superficial scenes crap and gave us different missions depending of our choices, that would have been better.

It's too bad that C&C is starting to be seen as something useless and impertinent regarding rpgs for some, because AP isn't doing it right, really. In other words, wait for AoD before you judge, and after we'll be able to condemn that feature to idealised, non-possible crap, or not.

 

[racofer]

I imagine the higher damage is due to aiming increasing the chance of the bullet hitting a vital part, instead of scratching (lower damage) or something.

Which sounds kinda awkward when the bullet visually hits the guy right in between his eyes. But since I "aim too fast" it's the right thing to penalize me for that with a lower damage output if I had aimed for longer, despite having the same outcome.

Wonder why they couldn't just make it so your crosshair wobbles a bit(depending on your character skill level) and the longer you hold your aim steady the less it wobbles with your shots going where you aim and gun damage being mostly location-based and skill-independent.

Exactly. This would at least translate into a convincing consequence for increasing your weapon skills other than just damage. Hell, even ME had this.

Does anyone actually prefer having character skill translate to direct weapon damage or even just having a targetting cone instead of a floating crosshair?

Just make it like in every other game: the longer you aim or the higher your skill, the smallest the cone is which translates into higher accuracy. A damage boost then would make sense too.

 

[Terror Teats]

In other words, wait for AoD before you judge, and after we'll be able to condemn that feature to idealised, non-possible crap, or not.

Lung tlme wyuattt fore an condamnotion.

 

[Fucking Quality Poster]

I'd say the consequences mostly affect characters in the game. The ones that slightly change your missions (weaker guards, fewer guards, sniper rifle drops, ice-cream shop) are in the minority.

And these effects on characters, what difference do they make to the actual game? Like, let's say I screw over one character for another. How would that change the way I have to play the game?

For example, in Arcanum if I help ignite the Orc riots, I am pretty much unwelcome in all major cities and towns from then on. The bearing that has on the rest of my game and the way I play it is...pretty huge.

Any similar examples from Alpha Protocol?

it does affect the overlying story since it affects the endgame (before the headquarters infiltration you get one dialogue-based "mission" if you let him live which makes endgame a bit different, plus news broadcast during credits is different)

That is still some pretty shallow C&C, at least to me, although I commend their effort.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Huh. I actually agree with skyway and VD, some of the worst faggots who care so much about their internet self-image, not a good sign.

That's how it always starts. You'll be one of us before you know it.

It depends on what your standards for C&C are. I have the same standards as VD and skyway...

Almost there, buddy. One more push...

And I'm really of that opinion, because you really don't get that much of a different experience depending on your choices. Sure, it's above Bioware, but really, this isn't enough. They should have cut off the superficial scenes crap and gave us different missions depending of our choices, that would have been better.

I was just about to say that. It's like ... we've become one.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The biggest problem is that "good" takes about 10% of the gameplay, so most of the time you're just playing a mediocre game that I would never ever play for more than 10 minutes, if not for the good parts.

See, and this is just like that thing me and skyway and everybody else were talking about back on that other AP thread where you constantly criticized us. Only we just don't play the game because of the aforementioned reasons since it's too much for us to bear.

If you recall, I wasn't defending the game. I merely asked to explain what makes it banal.shit.boring. You know, intelligent criticism? For the record, many things that Skyway claimed weren't true, so...

 

[Jaesun]

For the record, many things that Skyway claimed weren't true, so...

We all pretty much know now Skyway doesn't even play the games he bitches about, so most of us just ignore his posts and move on, since he just basically spots out meaningless babble nowdays.

How the mighty have fallen...