Editorial Alpha Protocol - Delivering on the Promise

[Azarkon]

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

fixed

Unclear. The game's different requirements haven't yet all been figured out. I know, for example, that to get Marburg on your side requires you to have very high reputation with him, which implies doing all the Rome missions without being deceted. By contrast, killing him requires you to have very low reputation AND 100% dossier AND acting suave throughout the conversations you have with him.

I had thought that with Leland, you would be offered the chance to join Halbech so long as you don't piss him off. I was wrong.

 

[Azarkon]

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.

Except this gets down to the definition of C&C. Like someone said above, a group of people seems to think that it's not C&C unless the consequences leads to a completely different way to get through the level. In that case, AP still has C&C, but it primarily has to do with which missions you select for each hub (you choose 2 out of 3, and what you choose, and in what order, affects what happens).

However, if C&C is defined simply as your choices through the game mattering, then AP has a higher C&C:game length ratio than almost any game I've played. Almost EVERYTHING you do in this game has some consequence, however slight. What you wear, what attitude you adopt, whether you killed or stealthed through a particular level, your background, your past choices - the game REACTS to all of them.

This REACTIVE gameplay is what defines AP C&C, and rather than calling it "cosmetic," people should realize how effective it is in creating the sense of personal agency and narrative, which is the whole point of C&C in the first place. At the end of the day, every game is limited in the amount of C&C that it could have by the amount of additional content that it has to create. AP's excellence lies in how well it spends its "zots," so to speak, in making players feel like what they choose to do has an effect on the world.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Way to pretend to address a post without actually addressing anything contained therein.

 

[Azarkon]

Way to pretend to address a post without actually addressing anything contained therein.

I addressed all the points therein. You simply have to think harder.


























P.S. quantity is as important as quality.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Basically, your post says that flavor text = Consequence. The narrative does change based on your decisions in AP, but since the structure of the game is mission/hub based, you don't actually *see* the consequences to your actions, they are told to you. Basically, fuck the narrative. The game world doesn't change one bit. You get palate swaps, npc swaps, and cutscene swaps, but no gameplay swaps. Considering how much of AP is going through those ridiculously linear missions, the least they could do, and I mean the LEAST they could do, is at least make mission selection based on consequences. You need to complete 2 out of three missions to open up the final mission. That's fine. Then make your choices within the game effect which missions are available. Don't just make the choice be to click a mission off of a screen, but rather make your attitudes/actions determine which paths are opened to you.

There honestly isn't much of a dilemma when it comes to "what is C&C". The only question is how deep the C&C goes. In AP they give the incredible illusion of C&C, but ultimately it is relatively shallow.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot to mention.

















You're a faggot.

 

[hoochimama]

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?

At best it changes little, at worst it changes nothing about the way you play the game.

I figure how much of an impact these consequences have on the game and your enjoyment of it depends solely on how much you care for the few characters this game has and its story.

If you don't enjoy the splinter cell lite missions it's the story and characters that have a shot at redeeming the game, that's the deciding factor, not the C&C since they only matter if you already care for the characters and the story.

Considering how the codex has previously shunned other games' similarly fluff consequences it seems two-faced to praise this game's C&C as some sort of holy grail. Not to mention considering it to be an rpg.

 

[Azarkon]

Basically, your post says that flavor text = Consequence. The narrative does change based on your decisions in AP, but since the structure of the game is mission/hub based, you don't actually *see* the consequences to your actions, they are told to you. Basically, fuck the narrative. The game world doesn't change one bit. You get palate swaps, npc swaps, and cutscene swaps, but no gameplay swaps. Considering how much of AP is going through those ridiculously linear missions, the least they could do, and I mean the LEAST they could do, is at least make mission selection based on consequences. You need to complete 2 out of three missions to open up the final mission. That's fine. Then make your choices within the game effect which missions are available. Don't just make the choice be to click a mission off of a screen, but rather make your attitudes/actions determine which paths are opened to you.

There honestly isn't much of a dilemma when it comes to "what is C&C". The only question is how deep the C&C goes. In AP they give the incredible illusion of C&C, but ultimately it is relatively shallow.

How deep C&C goes is not a binary question that depends solely on whether C&C affects gameplay. The depth of a consequence can refer to its depth with respect to any of the dimensions in question: be they narrative or gameplay. Consequently, your definition fails to capture anything except the specific category of gameplay consequences, which AP possesses but not to the extent that it possesses non-gameplay consequences. But since plenty of people agree that AP has awesome C&C, it is clear that not everyone holds this view of what C&C is.

And so this is no more than a semantics debate, and I told you this three posts ago. Which is why you did not think hard enough.

 

[Kos_Koa]

Finally, a thread that is talking about the one thing I was most curious about in Alpha Protocol. So now the consensus is AP has weak gameplay AND weak c&c. Damn, I guess I'll pass on this one.

 

[Azarkon]

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?

At best it changes little, at worst it changes nothing about the way you play the game.

I figure how much of an impact these consequences have on the game and your enjoyment of it depends solely on how much you care for the few characters this game has and its story.

If you don't enjoy the splinter cell lite missions it's the story and characters that have a shot at redeeming the game, that's the deciding factor, not the C&C since they only matter if you already care for the characters and the story.

Considering how the codex has previously shunned other games' similarly fluff consequences it seems two-faced to praise this game's C&C as some sort of holy grail. Not to mention considering it to be an rpg.

The Codex, in case you haven't noticed, is not in agreement. But the tendency of individual Codexers have always been to play favorites. If it's a Bioware game, about half the people will trash it, and Volourn will (if he shows up) always defend it. If it's an Obsidian game, skyway and his buddies will always trash it. If it's an Euro game (ie Witcher, Gothic, etc.), expect a good proportion of the Euro Codexers to become frothing fanboys, simply to make the point that Euros > Amerikwans.

What I dislike, in general, however, is people who bash a game without ever having played it. They don't seem to understand the difference between *experiencing* a game and talking about in the *abstract*, and the gap that lies in-between. From an abstract point of view many games, including classic ones, sound like trash. But that's not how they play out. AP is a game that has to be experienced to be loved/hated. The same is true for its C&C.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Blah blah blah. I played it and beat it (in about 13 hours), tried playing it again to see if there was actual C&C, then realized it's just the same missions over and over and no matter what you do in Taipei even the narrative remains largely unchanged.

After that, I said fuck it. And the argument "OMG you haven't played it you don't know it's bad" is probably the biggest fallacy that permeates the Codex. You CAN know it's bad from reviews, previews, and LPs. You may not have the intricate knowledge of HOW BAD the stealth system is, or how wonky the camera is, or how bad the AI is, or how lame the hacking minigame is, but you can see enough to recognize that those qualities ARE in fact bad.

Spoiler: I never played Oblivion, yet I am confident that the game is shit.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Spoiler: I never played Oblivion, yet I am confident that the game is shit.

but only from hearsay. You also know the earth is round - from hearsay. but can you be sure?

Also C&C is no prereq for a good game, not even for replayability. If a game is good enough you'll replay it and enjoy it even when everything is exactly as in previous playthrus.

 

[Azarkon]

In any case, the article by Shamus Young deals with this to some degree, when he says:

The point is that we don't really need limitless choices in a game in order to have fun. What we need are choices that are interesting and fun.

What is "interesting and fun" varies from person to person, but it is certainly foolish to say that AP "has no C&C" (as skyway does) simply because it does not fulfill his definition of what C&C is.

For people like myself, narrative consequences are as fun and interesting as gameplay ones. Would I have liked it more if AP had gameplay consequences? Certainly. But that could be said for anything. You can always do better.

It doesn't change the fact that AP does narrative C&C very, very well.

 

[Azarkon]

Blah blah blah. I played it and beat it (in about 13 hours), tried playing it again to see if there was actual C&C, then realized it's just the same missions over and over and no matter what you do in Taipei even the narrative remains largely unchanged.

After that, I said fuck it. And the argument "OMG you haven't played it you don't know it's bad" is probably the biggest fallacy that permeates the Codex. You CAN know it's bad from reviews, previews, and LPs. You may not have the intricate knowledge of HOW BAD the stealth system is, or how wonky the camera is, or how bad the AI is, or how lame the hacking minigame is, but you can see enough to recognize that those qualities ARE in fact bad.

Spoiler: I never played Oblivion, yet I am confident that the game is shit.

You don't know what you're talking about. Judging a game before playing it is what MOST of the Codex does, and so certainly cannot be the "biggest fallacy that permeates the Codex." That's why it's a habit around here to declare games to be shit before they're ever released. Followed by a bunch of flip-flops - see Mass Effect 2.

As for getting information from reviews, previews, and LPs, the first two are among the WORST ways to learn about whether you will enjoy a game, given the state of gaming journalism.

LPs are better, but it depends on who's writing it.

 

[themadhatter114]

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.

You mean being disguised as a Drow and doing missions for select houses and choosing whom to backstab is not a significant choice vs. simply attacking the entire Drow city? Cooperating with a dragon is the same as simply attacking her and then also fighting the entire Drow city? Getting a gift from the dragon for cooperating isn't the same as trying to keep or sacrifice her eggs and having to fight her?

Sure, that doesn't give you the "cosmetic" C&C of a different ending slide, but it sure as hell gives you a different gameplay experience.

 

[hoochimama]

What I dislike, in general, however, is people who bash a game without ever having played it. They don't seem to understand the difference between *experiencing* a game and talking about in the *abstract*, and the gap that lies in-between. From an abstract point of view many games, including classic ones, sound like trash. But that's not how they play out. AP is a game that has to be experienced to be loved/hated. The same is true for its C&C.

So where would you draw the line? You need to have finished the tutorial to be able to bash it? Need to have finished half the game? The whole game once? Twice in order to see what changes with different consequences? What if you avoid side quests? What if your build is retarded so your game experience is unlike anything the designers intended? What if you're retarded and it takes you multiple playthroughs to figure out the C&C is fluff?

It's nonsense, those willing to suffer through a game they don't like just to be sure they have an informed opinion on it are a rare minority, the way you'd like things you'd only be reading praise.

 

[Kos_Koa]

Spoiler: I never played Oblivion, yet I am confident that the game is shit.

but only from hearsay. You also know the earth is round - from hearsay. but can you be sure?

In before "You can't judge the world before you circumvent it!"

Also C&C is no prereq for a good game, not even for replayability. If a game is good enough you'll replay it and enjoy it even when everything is exactly as in previous playthrus.

People are only judging the game based on the standards the developers outlined. "Your weapon is choice." remember, so it's only appropriate that the game be judged by what it's trying to achieve.

 

[Azrael the cat]

In any case, the article by Shamus Young deals with this to some degree, when he says:

The point is that we don't really need limitless choices in a game in order to have fun. What we need are choices that are interesting and fun.

What is "interesting and fun" varies from person to person, but it is certainly foolish to say that AP "has no C&C" (as skyway does) simply because it does not fulfill his definition of what C&C is.

For people like myself, narrative consequences are as fun and interesting as gameplay ones. Would I have liked it more if AP had gameplay consequences? Certainly. But that could be said for anything. You can always do better.

It doesn't change the fact that AP does narrative C&C very, very well.

This

 

[Azrael the cat]

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.

You mean being disguised as a Drow and doing missions for select houses and choosing whom to backstab is not a significant choice vs. simply attacking the entire Drow city? Cooperating with a dragon is the same as simply attacking her and then also fighting the entire Drow city? Getting a gift from the dragon for cooperating isn't the same as trying to keep or sacrifice her eggs and having to fight her?

Sure, that doesn't give you the "cosmetic" C&C of a different ending slide, but it sure as hell gives you a different gameplay experience.

Meh, that's just blue shirts / red shirts. After all, we've already established that switching one combat for a completely different opponent with different AI is cosmetic? Isn't that right? Avoiding fights with most bosses, or changing who you fight and where, as in AP, is just cosmetic? Gee, then fighting the dragon vs fighting a few drow vs fighting all the drow, that's just blue shirts v red shirts. Just like fighting Parker v Parker+turrets v no fight w/ Parker v Parker shoots Marberg, depending on your allies, knowledge of his relationship with another NPC, and what you let happen to that other NPC.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

In any case, the article by Shamus Young deals with this to some degree, when he says:

The point is that we don't really need limitless choices in a game in order to have fun. What we need are choices that are interesting and fun.

What is "interesting and fun" varies from person to person, but it is certainly foolish to say that AP "has no C&C" (as skyway does) simply because it does not fulfill his definition of what C&C is.

For people like myself, narrative consequences are as fun and interesting as gameplay ones. Would I have liked it more if AP had gameplay consequences? Certainly. But that could be said for anything. You can always do better.

It doesn't change the fact that AP does narrative C&C very, very well.

herp derp

 

[Vault Dweller]

You mean being disguised as a Drow and doing missions for select houses and choosing whom to backstab is not a significant choice vs. simply attacking the entire Drow city? Cooperating with a dragon is the same as simply attacking her and then also fighting the entire Drow city? Getting a gift from the dragon for cooperating isn't the same as trying to keep or sacrifice her eggs and having to fight her?

Sure, that doesn't give you the "cosmetic" C&C of a different ending slide, but it sure as hell gives you a different gameplay experience.

First, the choice to simply kill everyone vs doing quests and gaining a shitload of XP isn't really a choice.

Second, you are not doing missions for selected houses. The design is very linear. Solaufein sends you to kill some mind flayers and rescue Phaere. Phaere sends you to kill a beholder, then she sends you to kill some gnomes (you can kill them or say that you killed them), then she wants you to kill Solaufein (again, kill him or tell her that you did), then the Matron sends you to fetch the blood of either beholders, mind flayers, or kuo-toa, then you get a seemingly nice choice with the eggs but ultimately it doesn't matter what you choose as your choice doesn't affect the gameplay at all and you don't have the most important choices - let the ritual go as planned or tell the Matron what Phaere is up to. Same goes for either slaying the dragon or getting a gift from her. It's a cosmetic choice that really comes to whether you want a gift from the dragon or a gift from the demon.

 

[KalosKagathos]

Do explain.

You can talk the Master into blowing up the cathedral, you can sneak in and blow up the cathedral yourself or you can shoot everything in sight and then the cathedral will magically self-destruct. I think there's a certain pattern to be spotted. What I'm trying to say is this. What Fallout offers in huge numbers is not C&C, but multiple quest solutions - which is undeniably a great thing to have, but isn't the subject of our discussion. Access to the Brotherhood being required for persuading the Master is pretty much the only example of C&C in the cathedral, as your actions throughout the game do not create (or cut off) any other opportunities. It's even worse with the military base: about the only thing you can do to shake it up a little is to get the elders to send some backup (which, again, requires access to the Brotherhood facility). Really crappy backup that doesn't follow you beyond the entrance, BTW.

 

[Azarkon]

We need to be a little more concrete about this.

Let's define Choice Point A with binary decisions A1 and A2. Thus:

A1: Beat him until he gives it up
/
A: Obtain location of crime lord from prisoner
\
A2: Patiently persuade him to yield it

What VD, FSM, and skyway desire is the following: instead of A1 and A2 being "simple dialogue options" carried out by narrative cutscenes, they should instead lead to lengthy sub-quests:

A1*: steal baton from police -- sneak into prison -- bypass prison security -- beat prisoner with baton until he gives info -- sneak out of prison

A2*: make an appointment with prisoner -- ask him for info - accept prisoner request to go look for his lost sister -- rescue lost sister from gang -- return to prisoner -- get info

In this setup, the "consequences" of your choices are the different scenarios that you undertake as a result. These consequences may in fact have no further follow-up. That is to say, the only thing the game might care about is that you obtained the info - how you obtained it is meaningless.

Schematically:

A1------
/---------\
A----------B...
\---------/
A2 -----


What we - or at least I - am saying is that this is not the only way to think about meaningful C&C. Instead, you might think of A1 and A2 as short narrative decisions that have no immediate gameplay effects aside from the different texts/cutscenes you receive. BUT, later down the line, they play a role, as the game responds to the fact that you chose one or the other.

Schematically:

A1 \
/-----B1...
A
\-----B2...
A2 /

AP falls into the second category: B1 and B2 are fairly similar to each other and there are few gameplay differences, but each choice point has long-term narrative and thematic repercussions that the game responds to. Moreover, there are many choices throughout the game, and the amount of work required to account for each of them while maintaining overall coherence is substantial, which is why what Obsidian has attempted is not merely "fluff": they have to ensure that the narrative flows logically for each choice that you make. Killing Shaheed and then having the game act as if nothing happened - that's not logical, and yet many hub-based games try their hardest to brush what you did under the carpet, just so they never have to do with the exponential explosion of possible choices.

Some might say that the ideal would be to have both:

A1 ----- B1 ------ ...
/
A
\
A2 ----- B2 ------ ...

Thus, your choices take you on completely different paths through the game that might never return to the same point, and each traversal from beginning to end of the game tree would result in a totally different experience. That would be nice - perhaps the apex of C&C - but it is utterly unrealistic from a production point of view. If you had the resources to create such a game, you might as well have spent it creating several, one for each traversal.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Azarkon is a patriot

 

[Visbhume]

To characterize AP's c&c as providing merely cosmetic changes in cutscenes, flavor text and the like is misleading. By letting you affect the narrative in meaningful ways, what AP is in fact doing is providing another level of gameplay.

You may as well call the strategic map in the Total War games "cosmetic" because, in the end, it all boils down to battles anyway.

 

[Vault Dweller]

We need to be a little more concrete about this.

Let's define Choice Point A with binary decisions A1 and A2. Thus:

A1: Beat him until he gives it up
/
A: Obtain location of crime lord from prisoner
\
A2: Patiently persuade him to yield it

It's an example of multiple quest solutions. MQS support various builds and allow you to handle objectives in a manner fitting your character but they rarely have any effect on the game (and they really can't; if every different quest solution leads to its own gameplay branch then the complexity would grow exponentially and designing such a game would be next to impossible).

What VD, FSM, and skyway desire is the following: instead of A1 and A2 being "simple dialogue options" carried out by narrative cutscenes, they should instead lead to lengthy sub-quests:

I can't speak for my esteemed colleague Skyway, but I've never asked for such things. What I did ask for is for proper consequences for choices that are designed to be meaningful. How do you get the info from a prisoner is less important than, for example, what you'll do with it.

Instead, you might think of A1 and A2 as short narrative decisions that have no immediate gameplay effects aside from the different texts/cutscenes you receive. BUT, later down the line, they play a role, as the game responds to the fact that you chose one or the other.

Schematically:

A1 \
/-----B1...
A
\-----B2...
A2 /

AP falls into the second category: B1 and B2 are fairly similar to each other and there are few gameplay differences, but each choice point has long-term narrative and thematic repercussions that the game responds to.

It all depends on whether or not the B "responses" actually affect gameplay. If all I get is a nod and either "way to beat that prisoner dude!" or "way to persuade that prisoner dude!", then it's lame. Unfortunately, that's what AP does. It does a great job creating a custom narrative that exists OUTSIDE of the game, but the inside effects are of the "red shirt/blue shirt" variety.

The proof is in the proverbial pudding. Making different choices determines your allies and how people treat you in general. Sounds fucking awesome in theory, but doesn't work in a mission based, action-heavy game where the flow of each mission remains the same regardless of your choices, which affect only the narrative - what happens between missions and thus completely outside of your gameplay.

It's like playing Minesweeper and then reading a nice summary of your brave efforts to clear the minefield and how it affected some imaginary war between two naval powers. Imaginary consequences do not an RPG make.

That would be nice - perhaps the apex of C&C - but it is utterly unrealistic from a production point of view. If you had the resources to create such a game, you might as well have spent it creating several, one for each traversal.

See above. You're confusing multiple quest solutions and consequences to choices that are supposed to be meaningful.