Editorial Alpha Protocol - Delivering on the Promise

[racofer]

If you recall, I wasn't defending the game. I merely asked to explain what makes it banal.shit.boring.

I know. And we went over and over about the flawed gameplay elements like mini-games, pathetic stealth system, poor gun fights, etc.... but that didn't sound like good enough to fill your own definition of:

You know, intelligent criticism?

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

Like what?

 

[Vault Dweller]

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.

You still have to do the mission. If there was a peaceful way to handle the endgame and just talk to everyone, blackmailing, intimidating, pulling facts from your collection of dossiers, making alliances, that would be quite something. Unfortunately, even if you join Leland, you still have to do the same shit and jump through the same and rather fucking annoying hoops with minor variations: escape medical bay -> use a computer -> meet/save/kill Scarlet/Mina -> go through the sublevel with turrets -> get evidence -> kill mercs and protect Parker OR kill mercs AND Parker -> escape the facility -> kill "imma chargin mah lazer" Darcy and his mercs - what an awful fucking mission -> kill a helicopter firing rockets at you and its mercs - what an even more awful fucking mission -> stop Westridge or Leland. Jesus Fucking Christ.

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.

Wow.

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.

Which affects what exactly? The dossier idea was good, but the implementation was awful.

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.

It's one of the few interesting options, but they aren't enough to challenge Fallout or even to save the game.

 

[Azarkon]

Since when did choices and consequences = gameplay non-linearity?

Heavy Rain has choices and consequences, but when it comes to gameplay, it is linear: you go through the same basic sequence of events with "cosmetic" changes, and the story only truly branches at the end when you get one of 22 different endings.

The same is true of AP, though AP has more gameplay non-linearity. Your choices matter, there ARE different ways of resolving the same problem, and the consequences DO echo throughout the game. Take the fight with Marburg, for example. If you had made the right decisions up to this point in time, you will be given an option to taunt him into engaging you, as opposed to fleeing. This results in Marburg's death. If Marburg is dead, he can't appear during the final mission. That means you can't use him to kill Parker, or negotiate with him to not fight for Leland. But you still have to get through Parker and you still have to get through Leland... That is, unless you sided with Leland, in which case you fight Yancy instead - and that's a significantly different fight.

This is C&C without gameplay non-linearity. AP doesn't have completely different scenarios for different choices. It doesn't have this because it is already short on content. The amount of time it takes to create an AP mission is probably on the order of months. To create different scenarios under these production constraints is untenable. This is why there are so few games that offer true non-linearity in this day and age. When was the last game that had it? Arcanum?

By the way, this is also not that different from MoTB. To which end, I would question VD's ability to stay consistent with his own standards, since as far as I recall, VD, you praised MoTB's C&C as being awesome sauce. What non-linearity was there in MoTB? Did you not have to visit the exact same areas in the exact same sequence? As far as I recall, you did:

Bear God's Barrow
|
v
Mulsantir
|
v
Shadow Mulsantir
|
v
Wells of Lurue
|
v
Ashenwood
|
v
Slumbering Coven
|
v
Red Wizard Academy
|
v
Founder's Sanctum
|
v
City of Judgment
|
v
End

There were no new maps that you could go to as a result of C&C. What C&C there existed, consisted mainly of choosing how to solve a particular quest - such as either by convincing someone to give you the key, versus fighting them for it, versus [spirit devour].

Yet how is this different from AP? Each mission has a set of criteria that you must accomplish in order to finish it. They can thus be thought of as maps. These individual criteria can be tackled in several different ways. There is stealth - which requires stealth skills and equipment, much like talking through a quest did in MOTB. There is combat - which is obvious. And then there is - not always, but a lot of the times - additional help that you can use through bribing people or past choices, such as using Brayko to deal with Championik, convincing the Al Samad guards to let you through the door, convincing Shaheed's men to be neutral in the ruins mission, or convincing the American embassy guards to let you through the front door because you're a Veteran or a smooth talker. All of these choices are an accumulation of previous choices, thus demonstrating that there are real consequences to your actions.

There are also larger, supra-mission choices:

In each hub, you generally have two ways to get to the objective that would unlock the hub's final missions. This is equivalent to choosing your methodology in MOTB. In Taipei, you could either side with the Triad and investigate the G22 warehouse, through which you might gain (or lose) both of them as allies. Or, you could do just one of these, and then recruit Steven Heck. Both, I believe, would get you to Omen Deng. Similarly in Moscow, where meeting Grigori and dealing with Dmitri is enough to get you the embassy information. Of course, if you elect to do all three missions, that is a choice, as well, and it can open additional doors later down the line.

The only difference, I suppose, is that in AP it is primarily your previous decisions that open/close doors in the hall of choices. In MOTB, it was your persuasion skill or alignment. Thus, AP's C&C appear less "RPG-like," even though it simply an issue of hidden variables.

It seems to me that people simply cannot see below the artifice of the ME 2-like mission structure to grasp the analogy to games where the choices are presented more explicitly through Quests-In-Your-Journal.

 

[Vault Dweller]

If you recall, I wasn't defending the game. I merely asked to explain what makes it banal.shit.boring.

I know. And we went over and over about the flawed gameplay elements like mini-games, pathetic stealth system, poor gun fights, etc.... but that didn't sound like good enough to fill your own definition of.

I don't remember anyone defending the mini-games or arguing that they aren't shit by definition. The stealth system is ok. It's what makes the game actually playable. It won't win any awards but it's more than decent. Skyway dug himself into a very deep hole by making various comparisons with Deus Ex, Bloodlines, and Oblivion. The gun fights are ok too. It's a pretty decent implementation of skill-based gunfights. As mentioned by others many gadgets work very well and give you plenty of options.

What makes the game so painful (for me) is the extreme linearity, the mission design which cuts you off from the cities you're supposedly operating in, the idiotic boss fights, scripted events that force you to fight because fighting enemies is fun, and the fact most of the time you just shoot people because you're a spy and that's what spies do.

 

[Azarkon]

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.

This is a ridiculous comparison. BG 2 wasn't slammed for its C&C because of "cosmetic" choices. It was slammed because it didn't have many choices in the first place. In BG 2, conversations would seem to offer you different choices, but would then loop around and result in the exact same outcome:

"Would you kill the vampire for me?"
"No."
"Would you kill the vampire for me if I paid you 100 gold?"
"No."
"You have to kill the vampire."
"Ok."

This, in addition to the fact that there was only one ending, is the only reason BG 2 was slammed, because the game actually had several significant choices, including ones with gameplay non-linearity. However, because it was loaded with these "false" choices people became annoyed, especially in a 200-hour game where the vast majority of choices were "false."

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Wow. This is wonderful. I could post this long diatribe about how racofer, skyway, and I were right and that it was predicted by me in another thread that within a month this love affair with AP would end.

Instead, I'll just post this.

 

[KalosKagathos]

You still have to do the mission. If there was a peaceful way to handle the endgame and just talk to everyone, blackmailing, intimidating, pulling facts from your collection of dossiers, making alliances, that would be quite something. Unfortunately, even if you join Leland, you still have to do the same shit and jump through the same and rather fucking annoying hoops with minor variations: escape medical bay -> use a computer -> meet/save/kill Scarlet/Mina -> go through the sublevel with turrets -> get evidence -> kill mercs and protect Parker OR kill mercs AND Parker -> escape the facility -> kill "imma chargin mah lazer" Darcy and his mercs - what an awful fucking mission -> kill a helicopter firing rockets at you and its mercs - what an even more awful fucking mission -> stop Westridge or Leland. Jesus Fucking Christ.

What's your point again? That there was a path through Fallout in which the Master didn't die or the military base didn't blow up?

Which affects what exactly? The dossier idea was good, but the implementation was awful.

It's amazing how much having a sniper rifle lying around can change the way you approach a mission.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Do explain.

 

[Azarkon]

Wow. This is wonderful. I could post this long diatribe about how racofer, skyway, and I were right and that it was predicted by me in another thread that within a month this love affair with AP would end.

Instead, I'll just post this.

Except none of the people who proclaimed they liked AP has switched, and there never was a "love affair" to begin with.

Try again.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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.

This is a ridiculous comparison. BG 2 wasn't slammed for its C&C because of "cosmetic" choices. It was slammed because it didn't have many choices in the first place.

O really? Not counting the big Bodhi vs Shadow Thieves choice, here is a few examples: different ways to get into the asylum, release Keldorn from your services to save his marriage or keep him, side with the prince or with the king in the Sahaugin City, all the options in the Underdark, etc. Plenty of choices, but they don't affect the gameplay. If you side with the rebel prince, you'll still do exactly the same stuff but in the end you attack the king instead of the prince. Etc.

 

[Azarkon]

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.

This is a ridiculous comparison. BG 2 wasn't slammed for its C&C because of "cosmetic" choices. It was slammed because it didn't have many choices in the first place.

O really? Not counting the big Bodhi vs Shadow Thieves choice, here is a few examples: different ways to get into the asylum, release Keldorn from your services to save his marriage or keep him, side with the prince or with the king in the Sahaugin City, all the options in the Underdark, etc. Plenty of choices, but they don't affect the gameplay. If you side with the rebel prince, you'll still do exactly the same stuff but in the end you attack the king instead of the prince. Etc.

Nice job citing choices that people did praise BG 2 for, VD.

Bodhi vs. Shadow Theives didn't lead to different paths through the game? Rampaging through the Underdark vs. siding with the Drow wasn't a significant difference?

Those were ALL significant choices in BG 2, comparable to anything in Fallout or Arcanum. But BG 2 was a 200-hour long game. There were many, many other points in the game where there was no choice. The primary reason people bitched was because most of the quests had false choices, and because there was only one ending (of course, this was resolved in TOB).

By contrast, what major choices were there in PST, the game everybody fucking praises for C&C? Could you choose to skip Curst Prison? Could you choose to skip Trias? Could you choose to skip Fortress of Regrets? Can you skip to the end in one go by learning that the entrance to the portal was right next to where you woke up?

No. In fact, there were only three different endings to PST and all of them happened in FOR. Sure, you could talk your way out of the final battle, but in our terms that was no more than a "cosmetic" choice.

And this was in a game from the golden ages, a much beloved classic.

Someone above already analyzed Fallout.

People have double standards, plain and simple.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Nice job citing choices that people did praise BG 2 for, VD.

I can't keep track of who praises BG2 for. It was a decent action adventure game but shitty RPG. All the above mentioned choices fail to have any affect on the gameplay as I explained in the prince vs king example.

Bodhi vs. Shadow Theives didn't lead to different paths through the game?

It was the only significant choice that ran out of steam by the time you had to meet Bodhi again. You still have to kill her, don't you?

Rampaging through the Underdark vs. siding with the Drow wasn't a significant difference?

Nope.

Those were ALL significant choices in BG 2, comparable to anything in Fallout or Arcanum.

Let's try that again: despite having all these wonderful choices, you still had to do the same shit and that's what makes it a shitty RPG.

The primary reason people bitched was because most of the quests had false choices, and because there was only one ending (of course, this was resolved in TOB).

Because the choices didn't matter. Duh.

By contrast, what major choices were there in PST, the game everybody fucking praises for C&C?

Can you find me a single post [not by an alt] praising PST for choices and consequences? I don't post regularly these days, but a few years ago everyone seemed to agreed that it was a glorified and very linear adventure game that had an interesting plot, was well written, and had cool characters.

 

[Azarkon]

Nice job citing choices that people did praise BG 2 for, VD.

I can't keep track of who praises BG2 for. It was a decent action adventure game but shitty RPG. All the above mentioned choices fail to have any affect on the gameplay as I explained in the prince vs king example.

Bodhi vs. Shadow Theives didn't lead to different paths through the game?

It was the only significant choice that ran out of steam by the time you had to meet Bodhi again. You still have to kill her, don't you?

Rampaging through the Underdark vs. siding with the Drow wasn't a significant difference?

Nope.

Those were ALL significant choices in BG 2, comparable to anything in Fallout or Arcanum.

Let's try that again: despite having all these wonderful choices, you still had to do the same shit and that's what makes it a shitty RPG.

The primary reason people bitched was because most of the quests had false choices, and because there was only one ending (of course, this was resolved in TOB).

Because the choices didn't matter. Duh.

The choices ... don't matter ... because they unlock new content and represent completely different ways of getting through the game? How the fuck do any choices matter, then?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Since when did choices and consequences = gameplay non-linearity?

Because your choices mean shit if you end up following the same path no matter what you do.

The same is true of AP, though AP has more gameplay non-linearity. Your choices matter, there ARE different ways of resolving the same problem, and the consequences DO echo throughout the game. Take the fight with Marburg, for example. If you had made the right decisions up to this point in time, you will be given an option to taunt him into engaging you, as opposed to fleeing. This results in Marburg's death. If Marburg is dead, he can't appear during the final mission. That means you can't use him to kill Parker, or negotiate with him to not fight for Leland. But you still have to get through Parker and you still have to get through Leland... That is, unless you sided with Leland, in which case you fight Yancy instead - and that's a significantly different fight.

See what I posted above. You will still end up doing the same shit. Whether or not you kill Marburg is irrelevant. If you don't fight NPC A, you fight NPC B at the end of the mission. I fail to see the difference.

This is C&C without gameplay non-linearity.

This is shit with interchangeable NPCs.

By the way, this is also not that different from MoTB. To which end, I would question VD's ability to stay consistent with his own standards, since as far as I recall, VD, you praised MoTB's C&C as being awesome sauce. What non-linearity was there in MoTB?

You're confusing the linearity of the list of location with the linearity of things you do in game. Let's take a look at the last Taipei mission creatively called Stop Omen Deng:

http://alphaprotocol.wikia.com/wiki/Sto ... rial_Rally

First, even though you're a super awesome spy who's like really awesome at collecting and buying intel, there is no way for you to figure out that Deng isn't trying to assassinate the president. Second, you do exactly the same sequence: reach gardens, exit gardens, enter the hall, chase Deng in a very linear maze-like construction area, reach the top, fight him, and either spare him or kill him.

Consequences of previous missions:

- Turning off the bugs gets you help from G22 for this mission (help I don't need; if anything these fuckers started several fights I didn't want them to and triggered the alarm; thanks a lot)

- Not telling Hong Shi's men about what he did gets you back-up for this mission (same comments)

- If you kept Heck happy (or Taipei is your first hub), he doesn't sell you out at the end of this mission (which affects a few dialogue lines)

Consequences in following missions:

If you kept Deng alive he will give you information later in the game (how does it affect the following missions? It doesn't. Should have killed the fucker.)

In MotB choices actually affect things and you can do things differently, hence the praise. Reread my review and the context which revolved around different choices and consequences.

 

[racofer]

There we go!

 

[Vault Dweller]

The choices ... don't matter ... because they unlock new content and represent completely different ways of getting through the game? How the fuck do any choices matter, then?

I forgot another awesome choice. If you accept random side quests, they will unlock new content (maps, monsters, loot, levels, oh my!), so yeah... the game was awesome! And different classes get different strongholds. If that's not an example of choices and consequences, I don't know what is.

BG2 has a single choice: Bodhi vs Shadow Thieves. The only consequence is two different sets of quests (3 each?), which BG2 being a huge game can easily spare. There are no other consequences. Bodhi doesn't help you when Irenicus captures you and you still have to kill her in the end. All other choices are insignificant and they don't affect your gameplay.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Maybe we should reach a consensus on what "C&C" means. How much a choice must change for it to matter, how intense a consequence must be (Fat Dragon mentioned not holstering your guns makes guards shoot you in Fallout; I don't really consider that c&c). Then these conversations would progress beyond

"X was an example of C&C"

"Nuh-uh, Y was"

"Fucking retard"

...

...LOL KIDDAN, WE CAN'T EVEN AGREE ON A DEFINITION OF "RPG" ON THE FIRST PLACE

 

[Fucking Quality Poster]

The choices you make in a game and their effect on the way you have to play the game.

Some C&C is shallow (AP) while elsewhere it is deep and meaningful (FO, Arc).

By shallow it can be defined as only having limited effect on gameplay, limited only to ending slides/cut scenes. Deep and meaningful C&C is being able to make choices that effect your character in more than just a cosmetic way.

The only way to properly explain this is to give specific examples.

 

[Azarkon]

Since when did choices and consequences = gameplay non-linearity?

Because your choices mean shit if you end up following the same path no matter what you do.

What? No. Since when did consequences require that you follow a different path of gameplay for them to be meaningful? Is the conversation with the Master at the end of Fallout not a high moment of C&C? Yet all this conversation does is let you skip a fight. Stealth allows you to skip hundreds of fights in AP. Dialogue options allow you to skip at least 2-3. Different endings are present in both. This is not meaningful?

See what I posted above. You will still end up doing the same shit. Whether or not you kill Marburg is irrelevant. If you don't fight NPC A, you fight NPC B at the end of the mission. I fail to see the difference.

Leland's "fight" is not really a fight. All you have to do is sprint up to him and he surrenders. Yancy's fight is an actual battle. They lead to drastically different endings. No difference?

This is shit with interchangeable NPCs.

In what way is Yancy and Leland interchangeable? Do they have the same voice actors? Do they say the same dialogue? Do they perform the same actions? Do they lead to the same endings? Same animations? Same graphics? What?

You're becoming like skyway.

You're confusing the linearity of the list of location with the linearity of things you do in game. Let's take a look at the last Taipei mission creatively called Stop Omen Deng:

http://alphaprotocol.wikia.com/wiki/Sto ... rial_Rally

First, even though you're a super awesome spy who's like really awesome at collecting and buying intel, there is no way for you to figure out that Deng isn't trying to assassinate the president. Second, you do exactly the same sequence: reach gardens, exit gardens, enter the hall, chase Deng in a very linear maze-like construction area, reach the top, fight him, and either spare him or kill him.

Consequences of previous missions:

- Turning off the bugs gets you help from G22 for this mission (help I don't need; if anything these fuckers started several fights I didn't want them to and triggered the alarm; thanks a lot)

- Not telling Hong Shi's men about what he did gets you back-up for this mission (same comments)

- If you kept Heck happy (or Taipei is your first hub), he doesn't sell you out at the end of this mission (which affects a few dialogue lines)

Consequences in following missions:

If you kept Deng alive he will give you information later in the game (how does it affect the following missions? It doesn't. Should have killed the fucker.)

Except Deng's information is one of two ways to discover that Scarlet is an assassin (the other requiring you to have high reputation with her), which allows you to confront her before the end of the game, leading to two endings that you would not have had otherwise.

In MotB choices actually affect things and you can do things differently, hence the praise. Reread my review and the context which revolved around different choices and consequences.

Let's use your own examples then:

Here is another example that surprised me. There is a small garrison near a spirit-infested forest. Two witches are in charge of the garrison: one helps you, one doesn’t. At a certain point you are a presented with a reasonable option to start a revolt against the witch in charge, the one who doesn’t help you. You even get a quest to talk to all berserkers and get them on your side through persuasion, intimidation, or other abilities. It seemed to me that that’s the only option to move forward and the only real choice here is how many berserkers you manage to sign up. Sure, there was a “no” option somewhere in the dialogue tress, but I thought it was one of them fake options, i.e. you say “no”, she says "well, if you change your mind, I'll be, like, here" and then the game waits for you to change your fickle mind and aint going anywhere. On my next playthrough, I actually said "no". Much to my surprise, this option was viable and actually gained me a short-term ally in an upcoming battle. Overall, there were 3 outcomes there and different reactions from the witches in a nearby town.

A witch doesn't help you. You have two options. Start a revolt against her, or tell her about the revolt and gain an extra ally in the next battle. If you start the revolt, you get the "revolt mission." If you don't start the revolt, you skip to the next fight.

AP: Taipei Hub

Hongshi doesn't help you unless you help him first. You have two options. Accept his mission to kill his lieutenants, in which case you have a new "kill Hongshi's lieutenants" mission. Or give him the finger and talk to Heck, instead. If you side with Hongshi, you get extra allies in the next battle. If you side with Heck, you don't, but he rigs some explosives to explode.

It's just interchangeable NPCs, remember?

 

[Azarkon]

The choices ... don't matter ... because they unlock new content and represent completely different ways of getting through the game? How the fuck do any choices matter, then?

I forgot another awesome choice. If you accept random side quests, they will unlock new content (maps, monsters, loot, levels, oh my!), so yeah... the game was awesome! And different classes get different strongholds. If that's not an example of choices and consequences, I don't know what is.

Which one of these decisions affect the plot of BG 2 and what happens later down the line?

All of AP's decisions do.

BG2 has a single choice: Bodhi vs Shadow Thieves.

Did we forget about helping the dragon vs. helping the drow in the Underdark, which leads to different sequences of quests?

The only consequence is two different sets of quests (3 each?), which BG2 being a huge game can easily spare. There are no other consequences. Bodhi doesn't help you when Irenicus captures you and you still have to kill her in the end. All other choices are insignificant and they don't affect your gameplay.

A problem AP does not suffer, because if you impressed a character in AP (say, Albatross or Marburg), they DO help you at the end - just as if Bodhi sided with you in the Irenicus fight. Wasn't your argument that BG 2 sucked in C&C and that AP is just like it? Yet, for all the examples you gave, they're nothing alike.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, let's use MotB as an example:

Choice: kill Okku or let him leave; minor effect - gaining Okku as an ally vs creating an evil construct using Okku's shell (not immediately obvious).

Long term gameplay affects:

When you enter the "evil tribe" area, they will attack you if you let Okku live. If you killed him, they will not attack you and will offer to teach you a very handy power that would be very important to your survival if you send them some people to sacrifice. At least two options are added to dialogue options with potential victims.

If you create the construct, it can step in and help you avoid a tough battle with a lich - "Let me show myself to the lich so that it might know fear for the first time in its unlife", and affect many conversations, including the one with Myrkul where if you let the construct devour it, Myrkul will overpower the construct later on and attack you.

Now that's a great example of choices and consequences where a seemingly minor choice (kill Okku or not) will echo through the entire game.

 

[Trash]

Yeah, quite a few games have good C&C. What's all the fuzz about?

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Blue shirts versus red shirts. The C&C in AP is honestly pretty good when compared to the vast majority of games on the market, even those that bang the drum of C&C. However, having C&C superior to Bioware and Bethesda is hardly impressive.

The C&C in AP is basically limited. There are differences in how each mission is tackled, but ultimately it doesn't have a large effect on the overall structure of said mission. I think part of the reason why it seems so ... uninspired is because it is the mission structure, as opposed to a world that you can interact with. AP could have deepened the illusion of C&C with a world that seemed to react to the choices, but since it's just hub mission hub mission, you don't really feel he effect.

The thing is, I think mission based is probably the easiest way to do serious C&C, though. Make missions open up, close on a regular basis, and have different missions against different enemies in different locations with different goals as opposed to the same missions with the same goals but slightly (and I mean slightly) different approaches.

Basically, Obsidian dropped the ball big time on C&C, since it is the only thing this turd has going for it. If they made the C&C really deep and meaningful, it could have really set the game apart despite it's considerable flaws. As it stands, it does have good C&C, but it is not nearly deep enough to make up for the unpalatable shit that is the rest of the game.

And Deus Ex is a way better game, by the way. Just throwing that out there.

 

[Azarkon]

Well, let's use MotB as an example:

Choice: kill Okku or let him leave; minor effect - gaining Okku as an ally vs creating an evil construct using Okku's shell (not immediately obvious).

Long term gameplay affects:

When you enter the "evil tribe" area, they will attack you if you let Okku live. If you killed him, they will not attack you and will offer to teach you a very handy power that would be very important to your survival if you send them some people to sacrifice. At least two options are added to dialogue options with potential victims.

If you create the construct, it can step in and help you avoid a tough battle with a lich - "Let me show myself to the lich so that it might know fear for the first time in its unlife", and affect many conversations, including the one with Myrkul where if you let the construct devour it, Myrkul will overpower the construct later on and attack you.

Now that's a great example of choices and consequences where a seemingly minor choice (kill Okku or not) will echo through the entire game.

Killing Okku is a major decision in MoTB, since it determines the availability of 2/5 companions in the entire game. In fact, it is probably the one decision with the *most* ramifications.

The equivalent of this decision in AP would be to either side with Leland or to not do so. In order to side with Leland, you have to impress him. In order to impress him, you have to make specific decisions throughout the game that gets his reputation up.

Once you've done so, the method of approaching the end objective - destroy AP - shifts. Leland asks you to erase all the evidence of Halbech's involvement, and you get to fight Yancy. None of the side quests that make sense for siding against Leland are available. Most of the cutscenes change, and so do the dialogue options. The ending changes, but WAIT - you don't actually have to side with Leland. You can fake side with him and then betray him if you have enough of your allies in order. If you do so, you get to kill Leland AND Yancy, not to mention achieving an ending that has you pulling the strings behind world affairs.

AP has plenty of C&C along these lines. They don't let you BYPASS huge amounts of content - which is what I brought up in the other thread - but they do make a difference in how you approach each objective and the narratives that result.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

In order to impress him, you have to pick the professional stance regardless your decisions throughout the game to gets his reputation up.

fixed