Editorial Alpha Protocol - Delivering on the Promise

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

Murder = choice, consequence = they'll be dead. You can loot their body, but can't otherwise interact with them, unless with necromancy or some such.

Choice = join Chaos, consequence = you'll be eternally damned, an enemy of the Imperium, and get to do cool stuff with your Chaos buddies.

Choice = call somebody an asshole, consequence = well they'll just call you an asshole back.

Personally, I just want to have some valid options, like weapon, playstyle, route etc. choices. Maybe I'd like to use revolvers, but that doesn't work if they are worthless, so it's not really an option, maybe I don't feel like doing some asshole quest for some peasants, so I kill them instead, but if you can't steal the money they offer you, it's probably much better to do the asshole quest (and then kill them, because usually killing people is beneficial).

Speaking of MoTB, you usually kill the man-eater tribe anyway, and kill the lich anyway, because leaving them unkilled doesn't really serve any purpose. You have the option of devouring Myrkul or letting your construct do it, but obviously one option is superior to the others. Having Okku or having OOM are roughly equal options, but other than that, like in so many games it comes down to picking the best possible option. I really can't think of a CRPG where you, say, decide to be a Necromancer, then spend a big portion of the game experimenting on undead and massing an army of death to conquer some nation or such, which would be a sicnifigantly different and mutually exclusive choice to being some goody warrior, fighting evil, or a rogue who would instead try to steal as much as possible from wherever. Usually you just have a set of goals which you can achieve efficiently or not, most usually in a linear fashion. You don't get to choose the goals.

Not criticising any games here (well AP sucks, filthy uncontrollable mess game), but I still don't see this C&C thing. Fallout has options, almost everything is optional, and that's it, that's good.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Speaking of MoTB, you usually kill the man-eater tribe anyway, and kill the lich anyway, because leaving them unkilled doesn't really serve any purpose.

Sometimes the events are awesome enough to not kill them anyway. Normally OOM intimidating the Lich would only cause some of the Lich's undead to change sides and a fight ensues anyway, but once with the Imaskari Lich in my party and high influence with OOM, both of them intimidated the Lich and suddenly the Lich surrendered to the Imaskari Lich and pledged himself into service. The Imaskari Lich sent him away to await his orders. No fight. That was pretty awesome.

 

[Black]

The Imaskari Lich

What.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

Yeah, I did that once, but I don't think it was really worth it, so if I should ever replay MotB again, I'd be sure to kill the lich. And Maric too.

The Imaskari Lich

What.

Maric, the one you can release in the beginning caves by shattering the Imaskari rod.

 

[themadhatter114]

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.

Well, hey, why not just make everything unkillable then because deciding to murder everything in sight for kicks isn't really a choice, right? Or, hell, why not break the game if you murder a quest-giving drow because choosing to just murder everything in sight isn't really a choice. What the hell are you smoking with a quote like that? Are you saying that it doesn't drastically alter gameplay to just skip the dragon and murder everything in sight? The choice to close off an entire quest line isn't 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.

And, hell, I'd much rather have a "collect the 3 whatsits from the 3 locations" quest than a choice about which one to go after. I sure wish I didn't have a choice not to make my idiot fighter face some mind flayers that would destroy him in one hit.

You need to make up your mind. In MOTB, different dialogues and different companions is GREAT C&C. Having a little dialogue choice/button that says "Devour Soul" that gives you +evil points is a GREAT consequence as opposed to a dialogue choice/button that says "Eternal Rest" and gives you +good points is apparently awesome. And nuking the Master in Fallout in one of three ways is GREAT C&C, but choosing to cooperate with or attack a dragon is not even a choice at all.

If you are invested in characters and in a story, changes in attitude and dialogue are a nice example of choice and consequence. If you don't give a shit, then it's not. It's just a bit ridiculous when 2 levels of choice and consequence are exactly the fucking same, but one is a "fake choice" or without consequence just because you are less invested in the game as a whole.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, hey, why not just make everything unkillable then because deciding to murder everything in sight for kicks isn't really a choice, right?

Right. It's an option that's always there, much like the option not to do side quests. For example, in Fallout you can just start shooting the moment you leave the vault and never talk to anyone, killing everyone you see. Is it a proper alternative path?

I'll reply to the rest later.

 

[Azarkon]

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).

If MQS is what you mean then you should just say MQS, and not C&C. Makes it more specific. AP has plenty of C&C, but perhaps not enough MQS, mostly due to the forced boss fights.

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.

Again, I do not see how AP choices fail to be meaningful. The so-called "cosmetic changes" are actually fundamentally different story lines - if you care about the plot and/or the characters at all, then it certainly is significant what happens to them.

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.

The consequences are not imaginary, however, nor are they only localized one-offs ("hey you headslammed that guy, badass!") that never get referred to again. If you piss off a certain character in AP, that character stays pissed off and that means things happen that would otherwise not. Just a sampling:

"If the player shows an interest in Grigori (chooses Suave answers), Grigori will appreciate the humane gesture and give a 10% discount on armor purchases. Grigori may suggest that when you do find the weapons, that you reroute the shipment to him, which results in him rewarding you with money and a funny email exchange.

If you greet Grigori with headslams, he will give you the info, but he will also inform the other factions about you. This means that on the Intercept Surkov at US Embassy mission the guards will have better equipment and Surkov will be expecting you (with a low opinion of you). You might also miss the Contact Surkov at Moscow Office mission because he will not be willing to invite you to his office (you will interrogate Surkov at the Embassy)."

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

No... I think you are, because you keep referring to choices unlocking new gameplay, which is unnecessary for C&C. In a party-based game, if your choices lead to the death of a major companion, who would not die otherwise, that's C&C. It's not "cosmetic" just because you can recruit another companion in his or her place and still have the same basic gameplay.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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).

If MQS is what you mean then you should just say MQS, and not C&C. Makes it more specific. AP has plenty of C&C, but perhaps not enough MQS, mostly due to the forced boss fights.

"It's an example" refers to your example. AP has 0 multiple quest solutions, few choices, and very weak consequences.

Again, I do not see how AP choices fail to be meaningful. The so-called "cosmetic changes" are actually fundamentally different story lines - if you care about the plot and/or the characters at all, then it certainly is significant what happens to them.

So they affect the narrative (not gameplay). Nobody's arguing with that.

The consequences are not imaginary, however, nor are they only localized one-offs ("hey you headslammed that guy, badass!") that never get referred to again. If you piss off a certain character in AP, that character stays pissed off and that means things happen that would otherwise not. Just a sampling:

"If the player shows an interest in Grigori (chooses Suave answers), Grigori will appreciate the humane gesture and give a 10% discount on armor purchases. Grigori may suggest that when you do find the weapons, that you reroute the shipment to him, which results in him rewarding you with money and a funny email exchange.

If you greet Grigori with headslams, he will give you the info, but he will also inform the other factions about you. This means that on the Intercept Surkov at US Embassy mission the guards will have better equipment and Surkov will be expecting you (with a low opinion of you). You might also miss the Contact Surkov at Moscow Office mission because he will not be willing to invite you to his office (you will interrogate Surkov at the Embassy)."

Let's see. You have two choices: nice and "commander sheppard". If you go with nice, you get a 10% discount (holy shit consequences) and an option to send him some weapon crates (more money and funny email? does it get any better than that when it comes to consequences of your actions?). If you headslam him, he still gives you the info (courtesy of the game's linearity) and he will still trade with you (but no discount and no funny email for you!), the guards will be better armed (which doesn't really mean anything in a game that's easy on Hard with a Recruit), and instead of interrogating Surkov in his office, you'll do so at the Embassy. Deep stuff, bro.

No... I think you are, because you keep referring to choices unlocking new gameplay content, which is unnecessary for C&C.

That's what consequences are. If two different playthrough are practically identical, except for the color of the shirts, then it's safe to say that the consequences are cosmetic and the choices are meaningless.

 

[Azarkon]

"It's an example" refers to your example. AP has 0 multiple quest solutions, few choices, and very weak consequences.

False. I'm surprised you played the game and yet would still make such a statement.

Outside of the forced boss fights, which mission CAN'T you do differently? You can stealth through nearly all of the boss-less missions. Or you can go in with guns blazing. You can also approach each hub differently to unlock the next stage of the hub. These are all instances of MQS.

As for there being few choices... Are you serious? What about the game REACTING to your CHOICE of whether to sneak through a mission or blasting your way through it? What about characters commending you on being a professional who covers his tracks versus leaving a trail of bloody murders?

All these are choices in AP. Just because you don't make them in a dialogue box, doesn't mean they aren't choices.

Let's see. You have two choices: nice and "commander sheppard". If you go with nice, you get a 10% discount (holy shit consequences) and an option to send him some weapon crates (more money and funny email? does it get any better than that when it comes to consequences of your actions?). If you headslam him, he still gives you the info (courtesy of the game's linearity) and he will still trade with you (but no discount and no funny email for you!), the guards will be better armed (which doesn't really mean anything in a game that's easy on Hard with a Recruit), and instead of interrogating Surkov in his office, you'll do so at the Embassy. Deep stuff, bro.

If you convince the Master that his plan was illogical, all you get are some extra lines before the ending. If you don't convince the Master that his plan was illogical, all you get is an extra battle.

Deep stuff, bro.

That's what consequences are. If two different playthrough are practically identical, except for the color of the shirts, then it's safe to say that the consequences are cosmetic and the choices are meaningless.

Except that's not what happens. It's pointless to debate with someone who thinks that the wealth of consequences in AP are just "changing the color of the shirts." That's just hyperbole of the sort that skyway would make, and really makes me question your ability to rationally judge games, VD.

And you even admitted that the narrative changes. Are narrative changes nothing more than "changing the color of the shirts?" So if my narrative through the game was "an agent goes rogue, massacres security agents across three capitals of the world to discover that he was betrayed, kills everyone at his original organization, and then joins up with a black-hearted corporation to dominate the world" and your narrative was,"an agent goes rogue, flies across the world to discover the truth behind an evil corporation, does his best to stop the plans of said corporation and to minimize the loss of life those plans require, and eventually returns to his original organization, armed with new allies, to bring the corporation and its associates to justice," that's cosmetic?"

As they say on the Codex: FFS.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Outside of the forced boss fights, which mission CAN'T you do differently? You can stealth through nearly all of the boss-less missions. Or you can go in with guns blazing.

Doing missions differently - in my book - is a bit more than moving from A to B to C (within each mission) and either killing enemies terminator style or taking them out silently or sneaking past them. A thief shouldn't have to take exactly the same route as a fighter.

As for there being few choices... Are you serious? What about the game REACTING to your CHOICE of whether to sneak through a mission or blasting your way through it? What about characters commending you on being a professional who covers his tracks versus leaving a trail of bloody murders?

How does it affect my gameplay? It's an equivalent of a star for the effort. Nice, but...

All these are choices in AP. Just because you don't make them in a dialogue box, doesn't mean they aren't choices.

We are talking about two different things. I'm talking about the gameplay, you're talking about the narrative, which I praised, btw:

"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."

If you agree that the gameplay - the missions - isn't affected (other than in the most cosmetic way), then we don't have much to argue about. If you disagree, then please stop using the narrative examples to back up your arguments.

If you convince the Master that his plan was illogical, all you get are some extra lines before the ending. If you don't convince the Master that his plan was illogical, all you get is an extra battle.

And?

And you even admitted that the narrative changes. Are narrative changes nothing more than "changing the color of the shirts?" So if my narrative through the game was "an agent goes rogue, massacres security agents across three capitals of the world to discover that he was betrayed, kills everyone at his original organization, and then joins up with a black-hearted corporation to dominate the world" and your narrative was,"an agent goes rogue, flies across the world to discover the truth behind an evil corporation, does his best to stop the plans of said corporation and to minimize the loss of life those plans require, and eventually returns to his original organization, armed with new allies, to bring the corporation and its associates to justice," that's cosmetic?"

If both agents end up doing almost exactly the same shit, then yes, they are cosmetic. This has always been the Codex point of view. That's why KOTOR was never considered a good RPG even though you can play either as a good Jedi bent on redeeming his past, helping everyone he meets, and stopping an evil Sith or an evil Sith beyond redemption bent on returning to his evil ways despite the brainwashing program, taking advantage of everyone he meets, and stopping an evil Sith who took his spot. Same here.

 

[Azarkon]

Doing missions differently - in my book - is a bit more than moving from A to B to C (within each mission) and either killing enemies terminator style or taking them out silently or sneaking past them. A thief shouldn't have to take exactly the same route as a fighter.

And you don't take the same route as a fighter. You move from save point to save point, yes, but in-between the save-points, there are specific routes marked out for stealth characters versus action characters. You just have to discover them, as opposed to hiding behind a box and popping Shadow Operative whenever it refreshes.

Take a deeper look at some of the levels. I played through first as a stealth character and there were plenty of alternate routes that someone went and specifically put in. Not perfectly, mind you, but they did. Saudi Arabia was chock-full of them. Doors on the side. Extra rooms for hiding. Ladders that you could climb up in order to bypass the guards. Things like that.

How does it affect my gameplay? It's an equivalent of a star for the effort. Nice, but...

Saying that "it doesn't affect my gameplay" isn't the same as saying "there are few choices." Or "0 MQS." I don't have an issue with people criticizing AP for not having gameplay consequences. I have an issue with people pretending that gameplay C&C is the only meaningful C&C there is, and therefore AP has NO C&C.

We are talking about two different things. I'm talking about the gameplay, you're talking about the narrative, which I praised, btw:

"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."

If you agree that the gameplay - the missions - isn't affected (other than in the most cosmetic way), then we don't have much to argue about. If you disagree, then please stop using the narrative examples to back up your arguments.

Not the issue here. My stance has always been that while there weren't enough gameplay consequences in AP - this doesn't mean the game lacks meaningful and deep C&C. Your stance has been that gameplay consequences are the only consequences that actually matter, and that everything else is "fluff" or "cosmetic" - and consequently, AP does lack meaningful and deep C&C. Therein lies the disagreement. It's not an issue of whether, factually, AP has a dearth of gameplay consequences (it does) or an abundance of narrative consequences (it does).

And?

It's possible to reduce almost any meaningful choice to a mockery. The consequences for headslamming Grigori or treating him like an ass is significant - it may close off an entirely new mission, for fuck's sakes. Saying that this doesn't matter, is akin to saying that most of the choices in MoTB, Fallout, or what-have-you do not matter.

If both agents end up doing almost exactly the same shit, then yes, they are cosmetic. This has always been the Codex point of view. That's why KOTOR was never considered a good RPG even though you can play either as a good Jedi bent on redeeming his past, helping everyone he meets, and stopping an evil Sith or an evil Sith beyond redemption bent on returning to his evil ways despite the brainwashing program, taking advantage of everyone he meets, and stopping an evil Sith who took his spot. Same here.

I don't know what the Codex thought (funny that; neither of us seem to), but *I* did not consider it a good RPG because of two reasons: first, playing "evil" in KOTOR reduced your conniving Sith lord into an average neighborhood bully. Player: "can I have some money for my efforts, sir?" Game: "WELCOME TO THE DARK SIDE DARTH REVAN." Second, the entire game had a single branching point at the very end where you could literally make the decision in a vacuum. It didn't even matter what you did up to that point, at least that's how I remembered it.

AP has neither of these issues. It doesn't have an alignment system, to start with, and the choices that you make throughout the game accumulate and come back to haunt you. Just because the game doesn't give you new missions, doesn't mean the reactions of NPCs, their dialogues, the cutscenes, the people in an actual mission, etc. do not change. In some cases, yes, it's just replacing one model with another. In others, however, and more frequently, it's changed conversations, scenes, and endings.

That's what makes it meaningful. In a game where you're already pretty much playing for the conversations and the character relationships, choices that AFFECT what conversations and character relationships you receive are of great importance. Let's face it, none of us are really playing AP for the stealth action gameplay. Some of the missions can be fun, yes, but they're not in any way exceptional. We're playing for the narrative elements - the conversations, the characters, the writing, the cutscenes, etc. And these are what AP's choices affect in a significant way. So how can the consequences be fluff if they affect precisely what most of us care about in the game?

AP is more similar to PST than people think. No, it's not as "deep" or as "clever" as PST, but it has the same basic priorities. Remember the midgame conversation with Ravel? Or the conversation at the end with TTO? Or the one with your incarnations? Or Dak'Kon? Or Annah? Or FFG? Or Morte? These were the highlights of PST; these were the reasons why we waxed poetic about the game.

AP is no different. The highlights of AP are the conversations and the character interactions, and how your choices throughout the game affect them. This is what I mean by narrative consequences.

 

[Azarkon]

tl;dr version:

Ever wondered what would have happened if Bond was replaced by Bourne in one of the 007 movies? Or what would have happened if, instead of saving the girl, he had gone after the bomb instead?

Imagine a company, backed by competent writers, wrote a program that allowed you find out the answer to these questions. This is what AP is. FFS.

 

[Mangoose]

The point isn't that gameplay C&C is meaningful and narrative C&C is not. The point is that the narrative C&C - namely the consequences - in AP is weak. I've played through AP twice, and I like it. It presents a good illusion of narrative C&C. But if one actually looks at it with a critical eye instead of playing through the game casually, as I did the second time, you can tell it's an illusion because most of the narrative C&C is low quality and cosmetic. And going back to an older point of yours, no, a large quantity of low quality C&C does not result in good C&C.

That if you murder people willy-nilly and lose the respect of AP and thus can't rejoin them is probably the best C&C in AP.

However, there are worse.

The main choices at the end of each "hub" have the worst narrative consequences. You decide to save the Prime Minister of Taiwan and riots ensue. What happens? You get a line or two of flavor text in the ending slide, with another line of audio in the credits.
Instead of saving the girl in Rome, you go after the bomb? Same thing. Ending slide text. Audio in the credits.

The faction choices are so cosmetic, it's not even funny. Either you get a bunch of G22 guys helping you in missions, a bunch of VCI helping you in missions, or Steven Heck playing Rambo. There are no far reaching consequences besides this. Does siding with one or the other lose you reputation with Halbech or Alpha Protocol? Does each faction choice have a different effect on your mission against Surkov, Omen Deng, or Marburg? No.

It's not that there is no narrative C&C. It's that the narrative C&C are limited to affecting specific events (again, except for being able to re-join AP and/or Halbech) in the narrative instead of having far-reaching consequences throughout the narrative.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

AP is no different. The highlights of AP are the conversations and the character interactions, and how your choices throughout the game affect them. This is what I mean by narrative consequences.

And this is where the whole thing falls apart. For argument's sake, I'll say AP's interaction was on par with PS:T (which it isn't). In PS:T, character interactions make up at least 60% of the gameplay, if not closer to 75%. In AP, character interactions make up... 10% at best? And there are.. what... really 8 characters you'll interact with for an extended period over the entire game? So you have 90% of the game full of the bad combat/stealth/whatever with 10% of the "good" parts.

PS:T's combat is shit, as is Arcanum's, and Fallout's combat is mediocre. Deus Ex's combat is pretty meh, and Vampire the Masquerade's is clunky. Why are we so willing to forgive these games for their bad gameplay in situations but so unwilling to do so with AP? Because AP's shitty gameplay is 90% of the fucking game. The C&C, the characters, the story, which are all of middling quality, DON'T FUCKING MATTER in the long run because not only is the bad so bad, but it's bad in such a large quantity.

 

[Azarkon]

The point isn't that gameplay C&C is meaningful and narrative C&C is not. The point is that the narrative C&C - namely the consequences - in AP is weak. I've played through AP twice, and I like it. It presents a good illusion of narrative C&C. But if one actually looks at it with a critical eye instead of playing through the game casually, as I did the second time, you can tell it's an illusion because most of the narrative C&C is low quality and cosmetic. And going back to an older point of yours, no, a large quantity of low quality C&C does not result in good C&C.

I've played AP through about four times, paying specific attention to what changes, and I don't think this is true.

That if you murder people willy-nilly and lose the respect of AP and thus can't rejoin them is probably the best C&C in AP.

The fact that if you piss people off in AP, you don't simply lose out on their content but can often obtain more interesting things out of them (and Thorton) is the best C&C in AP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUydx57t ... re=related

The main choices at the end of each "hub" have the worst narrative consequences. You decide to save the Prime Minister of Taiwan and riots ensue. What happens? You get a line or two of flavor text in the ending slide, with another line of audio in the credits.

Additional lines in the news report right after, as well. As well as additional lines with Leland.

Instead of saving the girl in Rome, you go after the bomb? Same thing. Ending slide text. Audio in the credits.

Additional lines with Marburg. Additional lines with Leland. Additional options at the end with Parker. Etc.

The faction choices are so cosmetic, it's not even funny. Either you get a bunch of G22 guys helping you in missions, a bunch of VCI helping you in missions, or Steven Heck playing Rambo. There are no far reaching consequences besides this. Does siding with one or the other lose you reputation with Halbech or Alpha Protocol? Does each faction choice have a different effect on your mission against Surkov, Omen Deng, or Marburg? No.

I agree with this. Faction choices aren't that significant in AP, except in how they affect the characters you interact with who are part of those factions. You don't get scenes with Albatross if you piss off G22, for example. But the actual decision of siding with a faction? Not important.

It's not that there is no narrative C&C. It's that the narrative C&C are limited to affecting specific events (again, except for being able to re-join AP and/or Halbech) in the narrative instead of having far-reaching consequences throughout the narrative.

Oh, there's a lot more than that. But some are better hidden than others.

 

[Mangoose]

Additional lines in the news report right after, as well. As well as additional lines with Leland.

Additional lines with Marburg. Additional lines with Leland. Additional options at the end with Parker. Etc.

That's the problem. You just get some additional response lines, not different ways of persuading or actually affecting the other NPCs. (Sometimes there are, but not the majority of the time)
Edit: OR if they actually change the person's entire opinion of me, rather than just a few select lines.

Besides, I didn't sacrifice the girl to stop the bomb just for the approval of a few specific NPCs. I want actual, worldly consequences, because the state of the world was what I was considering when I stopped the bomb, not the opinion of a few cranky old men.

A good way to have done this would have been showing you effects around the world based on your combination of choices at the end of each mission hub. Instead of the simple and lazy if->then->end logic that results in the one-off consequences instead of having consequences here, there, and there, and here.

Oh, there's a lot more than that. But some are better hidden than others.

Care to list some of the not-so-hidden ones?

 

[Azarkon]

That's the problem. You just get some additional response lines, not different ways of persuading or actually affecting the other NPCs. (Sometimes there are, but not the majority of the time)

Hmm... Not the President Sung decision, no, but the decision of whether to spare Omen Deng does give you additional options at the end. Marburg - dead, alive, respecting you or not respecting you - makes a significant difference as well. Brayko and Surkov are hub-limited, but I think most people would agree that the Brayko/Surkov decision points are fairly well-done since they unlock new missions, allow you to avoid boss fights, etc.

Besides, I didn't sacrifice the girl to stop the bomb just for the approval of a few specific NPCs. I want actual, worldly consequences, because the state of the world was what I was considering when I stopped the bomb, not the opinion of a few cranky old men.

A good way to have done this would have been showing you effects around the world based on your combination of choices at the end of each mission hub. Instead of the simple and lazy if->then->end logic that results in the one-off consequences instead of having consequences here, there, and there, and here.

Not sure what you're asking for here. The state of the world - as reported in the news, both at the time and at the end - are dependent on the choices you made. Characters also remember what you did, and you can use this to persuade them (ie Parker). What more can there be, if we're not talking about new missions?

Care to list some of the not-so-hidden ones?

Sure.

1. The finale in Moscow, which is dependent on almost every single decision you've made up to this point (but esp. in Moscow).

2. Marburg's grudge with Parker. This is a fairly important plot point that you can only reveal if you manage to get their Dossiers around 100%, as well as Madison's. At this point you can convince Marburg to kill Parker, or Parker to kill Marburg. You can also convince Marburg to help you, which is the payoff for earning his respect.

3. The option to betray Leland, at the end, and create your own Halbech - Thorton Inc. This leads to two fairly humorous (and rather effective) endings for a manipulative Thorton.

4. Sparing Shaheed: you get a long conversation with Shaheed at the end if you spare him, and it allows you to clarify your own motivations for infiltrating AP. Including an option to betray your country (grants the Hand of Al-Samad perk), and an option for turning Parker.

5. Scarlet. You probably know her story. But it has a fairly big impact on how the narrative proceeds towards the end. Grants an extra ending, but the most important aspect is to get closure on the Sung event.

 

[Mangoose]

Hmm... Not the President Sung decision, no, but the decision of whether to spare Omen Deng does give you additional options at the end.

Yeah. I mean, it's commendable that sparing Omen Deng has consequences, but given that a lot of the tension in that sequence of the game is over your choice between saving/not saving Sung, and IMO that is the major decision in that arc, the lack of consequences is bad. Same with Rome.

I don't have the same complaint in Moscow, since there wasn't as much socio-political context as Rome and Taipei, and I agree that the mission and boss-fight nonlinearity was at a high here.

Not sure what you're asking for here. The state of the world - as reported in the news, both at the time and at the end - are dependent on the choices you made.

What I mean is that the state of the world is very glossed over in the news and in the ending slides. You get a few lines. That's it.

What I mean by your combination of choices is... For example if you chose A at hub 1 and chose B at hub 2, then that results in a different ending than choosing A at hub 1 and choosing A at hub 2. I'm thinking about this very abstractly and not really considering the specific things that occurred in the game, but I'm just pointing out an example of how the consequences could have been more, for a lack of a better word, "interesting."

Sure.

1. The finale with Yancy...

You misread what I said. I don't mean consequences that depend on a specific set of choices, but choices that result in far-reaching consequences throughout the game. In other words, if I do one thing, that will affect a number of things and events that occur later on in the game. That's where I feel AP is not good enough on the narrative C&C part.

AP is definitely good at presenting specific and specialized consequences that depend on many choices, but it's also important in C&C that a single choice can have significant consequences. AP doesn't do the latter well, which is why I've concluded that its C&C is good but still unsatisfying.

 

[Azarkon]

You misread what I said. I don't mean consequences that depend on a specific set of choices, but choices that result in far-reaching consequences throughout the game. In other words, if I do one thing, that will affect a number of things and events that occur later on in the game. That's where I feel AP is not good enough on the narrative C&C part.

AP is definitely good at presenting specific and specialized consequences that depend on many choices, but it's also important in C&C that a single choice can have significant consequences. AP doesn't do the latter well, which is why I've concluded that its C&C is good but still unsatisfying.

I see. That's an interesting point. I guess I agree? What you're saying is that pivotal decisions in the game do not affect enough variables later down the line - they affect just a few, primarily through the characters who care about them. This is a legitimate criticism.

But I don't agree that this makes the C&C in AP "weak." I think it makes it exactly what I said in the review - better than almost any other game on the market today, but still not up to its potential.

 

[Azarkon]

AP is no different. The highlights of AP are the conversations and the character interactions, and how your choices throughout the game affect them. This is what I mean by narrative consequences.

And this is where the whole thing falls apart. For argument's sake, I'll say AP's interaction was on par with PS:T (which it isn't). In PS:T, character interactions make up at least 60% of the gameplay, if not closer to 75%. In AP, character interactions make up... 10% at best? And there are.. what... really 8 characters you'll interact with for an extended period over the entire game? So you have 90% of the game full of the bad combat/stealth/whatever with 10% of the "good" parts.

PS:T's combat is shit, as is Arcanum's, and Fallout's combat is mediocre. Deus Ex's combat is pretty meh, and Vampire the Masquerade's is clunky. Why are we so willing to forgive these games for their bad gameplay in situations but so unwilling to do so with AP? Because AP's shitty gameplay is 90% of the fucking game. The C&C, the characters, the story, which are all of middling quality, DON'T FUCKING MATTER in the long run because not only is the bad so bad, but it's bad in such a large quantity.

You sure about that? People throw out percentages without ever measuring them, and in this case I don't think it's legit. Torment has more character interactions than AP, but Torment is also a much longer game. AP is, what, 10 hours long? If an hour of this was taken up by reading dialogue and text, that'd already be 10%. I think I spent a lot longer fooling around with the writing (which is not just in dialogue, but also in dossiers, emails, and just general flavor text) than an hour.

Most of the missions, for example, had a fairly good pace in terms of interspersing action with dialogue. There were rarely any long stretches of stealth action gameplay without any dialogue from either handlers or NPCs you found on the mission, esp. after Saudi Arabia. You also need to remember that a good number of the missions had no stealth action gameplay but were all dialogue (ie the various Contact missions, the sniper mission, the gelatto mission).

 

[Mangoose]

I see. That's an interesting point. I guess I agree? What you're saying is that pivotal decisions in the game do not affect enough variables later down the line - they affect just a few, primarily through the characters who care about them. This is a legitimate criticism.

But I don't agree that this makes the C&C in AP "weak." I think it makes it exactly what I said in the review - better than almost any other game on the market today, but still not up to its potential.

I agree. Relatively, its C&C is pretty good. From an absolute perspective, it's weak on a day when my standards are high and pretty decent on a day when my standards are more reasonable. The weak consequences of pivotal decisions really drag the game down, as they are presented as pretty important choice nodes, which is where I guess it's not "up to its potential." I guess why the FOs feel like they have better C&C is that they are more balanced in their C&C, having both pivotal decisions with strong consequences and smaller, individualized consequences for smaller choices.