Alpha Protocol, Or How Video Killed the Radio Star

[Mangoose]

BS. Assault Rifles need no points to be incredibly effective. Same with pistols (outside of Chain Shot). My playthrough I maxed AR, Sabatoge, and Toughness, but Pistol was the weapon I used most, and I stealthed most of the game with no points in stealth. Try again. It may make it slightly easier, but you don't need any points in it.

You can't tranquilize enemies in one hit (and thus stay un-noticed) with a pistol, without pistol skill (the +damage). That's a fact, coming from my current playthrough, which I have up to the first Chain Shot. 50% of the time the NPC won't collapse, or won't collapse fast enough, resulting in the rest of the NPCs converging on me. In my last playthrough, I had Pistols close to max, and I could stay stealthy while taking out enemies without killing them.

Assault Rifles are unbalanced. But I already acknowledged the skills are unbalanced. Now, tell me you can play the game easily with Shotgun or SMG at zero points.

Also, don't confuse the game's difficulty (or lack there-of) with poor RPG mechanics. In other words, if the game were sufficiently difficult, do you still think putting points in, say, Pistols, is useless?

True, RPGs typically have a deeper system of progressive character development (encapsulated by "leveling," a traditional RPG concept), but I need to mention that tactical combat simulators have concepts of experience as well. See Jagged Alliance.

Oh, I don't disagree, but like I said, it's not AS important in a game such as JA, where you can recruit a replacement (and not a blank slate).

 

[Azarkon]

Whoa, I think we're getting way off topic here. The initial point was what did AP do well. In fact, I think bringing up "flaws" in the RPG genre as a whole is an attempt to avoid answering that question.

Stats and character skills are, without a doubt, the primary factor in defining an RPG. They're not compared to tactical combat simulators, due to the fact that despite their similarities, they're attempting to accomplish clearly different goals. RPGs tend to use the elements to tell an adventure story of some kind, while tactical combat simulators focus on more of a... broad story. While RPGs tend not to have the tactical depth as their "sister" genre, it makes up for it in other ways.

So ultimately, where does AP make up for its flaws? The checklist goes above average C&C, average to slightly above average dialogue, average to below average story, below average to poor combat, below average to poor stealth, poor "RPG" mechanics, and poor minigames.

Moreover, AP has "stats" if you want to call them that, but for the most part, they don't matter one bit. It's still nearly 100% twitch gameplay. It's not an action RPG as much as it's a poor shooter with tacked on RPG elements.

The original argument was over whether AP needed to do anything exceptionally well for it to be considered a successful game. You were making the assertion, I believe, that a game should concentrate on a specific area (ie stealth, shooting, etc.) as opposed to having a foot in everything. My issue with this is that RPGs are inherently "bastards." Many of the Golden Age RPGs never did do anything exceptionally well, and a classic example of this is the BG series. But they were praised because they managed to combine the disparate parts into a coherent, entertaining whole. In fact, Bioware's success continues to be based on this formula.

Obsidian's... Well, Obsidian has issues, and one of the biggest has to do with polish, which I maintain remains the most fundamental problem with their games.

Obsidian's issue is not polish, that's such a copout. This isn't Troika we're talking about. Obsidian has NEVER RELEASED A GOOD GAME. Seriously. MotB was the closest you'll come, but it still had god awful combat and gameplay. All I'm asking is what did it do well? And you disseminate by saying "what does anything do well". That's a pretty lame trick, if you ask me. I'm not saying RPGs have to have exceptional anything. A collection of average and above average can lead to an enjoyable gaming experience. AP is not average. It's well below average.

The individual parts, combat, story, etc., do matter, but they can be saved if the game is well put together. I'm not talking about bugs or shit like that, that's just the nature of computer games and any PC gamer has learned to live with that. I'm talking about a coherent, complete gaming experience. PS:T had a godawful combat system but the way the game was put together, it didn't really matter. Same with Arcanum. FO's combat was average, but everything else was so good to great that the combat, at that point, didn't matter. There's something to be said about synthesizing a collection of disparate parts and making a quality game out of it. I don't see how AP does this. Most of the consequences in the game simply don't matter, and you won't get wildly different gameplay experiences from two different people. At most you'll get "Oh, yeah, I shot Brayko" "Oh really, I let him live" "So cool man".

*sigh*

This comes down to our basic disagreement over AP. I don't think AP is well below average. I think it's average, with the potential for well above average - if its general gameplay and narrative conclusion were more polished. I'd have said the same thing for KOTOR 2. And regarding Troika? Since when did Troika release a GOOD game that was unmarred by horrid gameplay, execution, etc.? Arcanum?

Since I've already laid out my arguments for this, you'd have to excuse me for not repeating myself. If you don't buy my argument, then so be it. Just don't pull a skyway and say something like "killing/sparing Brayko makes no difference, it's just flavor filler" because, FYI, there is more to killing/sparing Brayko than whether he lives or dies. I'd say that the way you can use him against Surkov is pretty damn significant, C&C wise.

As far as Obsidian as a company goes, I don't know why you would want them to fail when you said yourself, earlier, that there hasn't been a single stellar RPG in the last five years by ANYONE (much less Obsidian). You really think Obsidian failing would change this? Honestly, their talent would just be recruited into companies like Bioware, making "safe" games like the industry has been and likely will be for the foreseeable future.

For proof of this, let me ask you this: where was Tim Cain, all these years, after Troika failed?

 

[MetalCraze]

@Azarkon:
Of course you are not a professional reviewer or anything - I never said that. But what was the point of writing this review? To look at it yourself?

If the level design, gunplay, etc. bothered me, I'd have mentioned them.

Yeah you concentrated only on "watching a movie" part of the game and even there it was like finding excuses.

"Only character models change." => Wrong

See here you go again.
Wrong why?

"You still complete objectives." => No shit. Find me a game where you don't complete plot objectives.

Even going on banal killing spree of essential characters in Fallouts and Arcanum will either lock lots of quests from you or you will still be able to complete them provided you will find an -alternative- way.
In AP you can kill only when you are allowed and even then a replacement is forced on you. What you do or choose doesn't matter in AP.

"You can only win." => If you lose, it's called a reload. The only constant criteria in AP is that you survive, and there's no logical reason why you need every one of your games to have "you die" endings. Isn't it obvious that Obsidian requires that you survive so that they could put you in a sequel?

If you lose it isn't called a railroad. Railroad is when no matter what you do it all goes the same.
But as for a sequel - of course - money must be milked. Although why anyone would need a sequel of a game that is such a failure on every front?

Examples. Let's see - how about the number of different end game scenarios in the actual game, for starters? Depending on how you acted the rest of the game, you could (among other things):

- Kill Leland
- Arrest Leland
- Join Halbech, and then kill/arrest Leland
- Join Halbech, and then cooperate with Leland
- Save Mina
- Don't save Mina
- Convince Scarlet to be neutral
- Convince Scarlet to become your handler
- Kill Scarlet
- Convince Parker to work for you
- Convince Parker that Marburg killed his daughter, and have them fight each other
- Fight Parker yourself
- Fight Westridge

So? What does it change? Nothing. Different character models that ultimately affect nothing in the end. Bioware LARPing - choices but no consequences.

And that's not even mentioning the different handlers you might choose, which result in different dialogue, different characters appearing, different endings, etc.

As I've said - flavour filler and different models. Why were you arguing against it again?
Even in KotOR getting high "influence" with various party members results in you getting additional quests or even subplots with them. And yet KotOR is a railroad very much. But AP went lower.

"Balanced" is different from "fun." Any MMO'er could tell you that. While both are desirable in a game, either can be present without the other.

How exactly a broken stuff that makes the game even easier than it is is fun? I thought fun was about playing the game, not pressing a "win" button and see shit instantly die.

Right, because we all know ME 1 was an action-stealth game where you could stealth through entire levels without touching a single enemy, and where combat is totally based on picking the right time and place to ambush an enemy. A copy, indeed.

That's why I asked you to compare it to better, similar games.
But yes it copies a lot from ME1. From non-descriptive dialogue wheel, that covers the railroad, character system where instead of stats you unlock spells to the exactly same shooter gameplay. You don't stealth in AP either - there are enough times where triggers instantly tell enemies where you are and bosses of course which you can't stealth. You just exploit the stupidity of AI - shadows, lighting, surfaces, noise - all of it doesn't matter - you press a magical "make me transparent" button and run past them. If you'll add the same button to ME it will become just as "stealthy".

As far as comparisons to Splinter Cell goes, why would I bother? Splinter Cell, like Hit Man, is a pure action-stealth game, developed solely to promote this sort of gameplay.

AP is a pure action game too. No?

It's obvious that it would have a depth of gameplay, in this particular area, unmatched by a hybrid like AP, which has to spend significant resources in other areas.

Hybrid of what?
And which areas?
AP has linear corridors, you are railroaded by small barriers that you can't get over, animations are terrible, stealth and gunplay are primitive, voice acting is mediocre, progression is very linear - so where are those areas where all the effort went? Low poly truck wheels?

Besides, I said as much when I remarked, "AP is no Hit Man" => AP's action-stealth gameplay is no match for Hit Man's. But it's better than ME 1's and ME 2's, and those are the games AP *should* be compared to considering both ME and AP are Action-RPG hybrids.

No if you do stealth and you do shooter that take the absolute majority of the game time it must be compared to stealth-action games. Just because instead of linear cutscenes you are able to choose 5 minute cutscenes on your own in between terribad hour-long levels - it excuses the game from sucking how?
Or why don't you compare it to DX? It has real RPG elements, open levels with alternative routes, some of which require character skills to unlock them, no minigames and even a bit of real non-linearity, and even though it's small - AP has nothing on it. I'm speaking of course about the choice you make whether to get back to UNATCO or go rebel. And you can run away from boss fights.
That is in a game that is 10 years old. Somehow you forgot to mention all this eh?

Except they poached most of the features Bioware added to the UE 3 for ME.

Weren't you just saying that AP isn't a copy of ME?
This is fun you know.

Believable != realistic (suspense of disbelief, impossible vs. improbable, blah blah).

Believable != stupid either. Believable is something that is based on common sense. Everything else is just MGS.

If this wasn't obvious when you could walk through hallways filled with enemies by turning on Shadow Operative, it should have been when they introduced bosses who can take a dozen point-blank shot gun blasts without having pieces of their flesh hanging all over the room.

That's another reason that makes AP fail even at what small it tries to do, eh?

Stats -> skills (Don't tell me you don't know about skill-based RPG systems).

Try posting actual points, not dancing around.

Stat checks -> there are several. One is during the Brayko Mansion raid, where if you had a high enough Technical skill you could rescue both the hostage and get the data, whereas if you didn't, you could only do one. (An alternative is to have Veteran status).

A single example that isn't even a proper stat check, designed more for LARPing? Well that's some heavy stuff man.
What about the ability to hack/lockpick anything even with zero skills which means that they don't matter at all.

The rest -> Who the fuck cares? If I wanted Splinter Cell, I would've played Spinter Cell.

So judging by how everything is bad in AP - what did you want then? A B-class anime? We already know that playing game isn't what you wanted. And because writing and characters in AP fail even when compared to mediocre american cop shows - I don't even compare it to high-class conspiracy TV media like 24 or Bourne.

The part of AP gameplay that I wanted to stress is that it's surprisingly fun. And you seem to have missed the part where I said that AP's combat is flawed.

So gameplay is fun because it's bad?

Video killed the radio star, skyway. Didn't you get the memo?

Yeah I got one - I think it's quite telling about AP's quality that you can compare it only to the worst.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

This is a conversation I had with Brother None earlier as well. There is C&C, but I don't think it is implemented well. In a mission based system like this, good C&C would open different missions and close off others, thereby making the gameworld feel dynamic. As it stands, you're going to play the exact same missions in AP no matter what. There are some story ramifications to what you do, you may make one mission easier/harder, and you may fight Boss A instead of Boss B. The thing is, I don't think implementing the type of C&C I mentioned would have taken significantly more effort, but it would have greatly improved the game.

As for Troika, they're kind of an interesting case. They had a hard time putting a complete game together, but they did excel at one thing in all of their games: atmosphere. Arcanum and Bloodlines especially had such interesting settings with terrific characters populating every nook and cranny. These games were definitely flawed, but, as I mentioned earlier, it came together (after some love by fan patches [HI DROG]) and created an overall experience that was enjoyable and complete. Obsidian has never been able to do this.

 

[Azarkon]

This is a conversation I had with Brother None earlier as well. There is C&C, but I don't think it is implemented well. In a mission based system like this, good C&C would open different missions and close off others, thereby making the gameworld feel dynamic. As it stands, you're going to play the exact same missions in AP no matter what. There are some story ramifications to what you do, you may make one mission easier/harder, and you may fight Boss A instead of Boss B. The thing is, I don't think implementing the type of C&C I mentioned would have taken significantly more effort, but it would have greatly improved the game.

Does it really matter if you play the exact same missions if the missions themselves are different, internally, depending on the choices you've made earlier? It's content reuse, and an idea you might as well get used to because ever since game production costs skyrocketed after the 90s, it's been less and less feasible - financially - to create content that may or may not be consumed.

The days of opening up entire dungeons and map locations based on your choices are more or less over.

As for Troika, they're kind of an interesting case. They had a hard time putting a complete game together, but they did excel at one thing in all of their games: atmosphere. Arcanum and Bloodlines especially had such interesting settings with terrific characters populating every nook and cranny. These games were definitely flawed, but, as I mentioned earlier, it came together (after some love by fan patches [HI DROG]) and created an overall experience that was enjoyable and complete. Obsidian has never been able to do this.

Are you sure you're not a Troika fanboy?

 

[Azarkon]

@Azarkon:
Of course you are not a professional reviewer or anything - I never said that. But what was the point of writing this review? To look at it yourself?

To share an opinion? Why does anyone post on forums?

Yeah you concentrated only on "watching a movie" part of the game and even there it was like finding excuses.

No, like I said, I enjoyed the mission scenarios. Gunfighting wasn't the best I've seen. AI was crap. Camera angles were sometimes horrid. But it was playable and enjoyable. I didn't give high marks to Obsidian for the gameplay. I just said that it was fun. Many people share this opinion, both here and elsewhere, and some of them are much harsher critics than I. I don't see why it's so hard to comprehend.

Wrong why?

Because it's not the only thing that changes. Dialogues change. Events change. The whole context changes. You could say that, at the end of PST, the only difference between killing yourself and absorbing TTO is that you get a separate animation. Is that meaningful?

Even going on banal killing spree of essential characters in Fallouts and Arcanum will either lock lots of quests from you or you will still be able to complete them provided you will find an -alternative- way.
In AP you can kill only when you are allowed and even then a replacement is forced on you. What you do or choose doesn't matter in AP.

Yes it does. Your objectives change if you kill/spare different people, or if you choose to side with/against different factions. Siding with Halbech means that you can just walk off of the island with Leland. Killing Marburg in the museum means that you can't use him against Parker, but you can still manipulate Parker through other means, or, if those too are unavailable because you made the wrong choices, you can still kill him. These are different ways of completing the same overall quest, and which produce different endings.

If you lose it isn't called a railroad. Railroad is when no matter what you do it all goes the same.
But as for a sequel - of course - money must be milked. Although why anyone would need a sequel of a game that is such a failure on every front?

Reload, not railroad, and I did criticize Obsidian for putting the cart before the horse, no?

So? What does it change? Nothing. Different character models that ultimately affect nothing in the end. Bioware LARPing - choices but no consequences.

As I've said - flavour filler and different models. Why were you arguing against it again?
Even in KotOR getting high "influence" with various party members results in you getting additional quests or even subplots with them. And yet KotOR is a railroad very much. But AP went lower.

I knew you were going to do this. Yeah, you know, in Fallout, joining the Master and is actually the same thing as killing him - all it does is produce different ending texts. What's the point of choices and consequences again? And who says you don't get additional subplots with characters in AP? You realize that, just before the end of the game, you can contact various allies for additional subplots, and that this depends on your choices?

If your only point is equivalent to FSM's - that choices should unlock additional missions in entirely new locations - then read my reply to him.

How exactly a broken stuff that makes the game even easier than it is is fun? I thought fun was about playing the game, not pressing a "win" button and see shit instantly die.

I'll quote some other guy on this:

If you don't go out of your way to gimp it, it's actually quite enjoyable. There are some parts that can go fuck themselves (hi2u hacking) but for the most part it's pretty smooth. I'm not a big fan of cone of fire but if you could fire straight there would be almost no challenge to the stealthing part (MGS:4 anyone?). It's like retards who whined about there being no challenge in Valkyrie Chronicles because they just used Alicia to bumrush the end flag on every map.

That's why I asked you to compare it to better, similar games.
But yes it copies a lot from ME1. From non-descriptive dialogue wheel, that covers the railroad, character system where instead of stats you unlock spells to the exactly same shooter gameplay. You don't stealth in AP either - there are enough times where triggers instantly tell enemies where you are and bosses of course which you can't stealth. You just exploit the stupidity of AI - shadows, lighting, surfaces, noise - all of it doesn't matter - you press a magical "make me transparent" button and run past them. If you'll add the same button to ME it will become just as "stealthy".

Except for most of the game, even playing as a Vet, you don't get 30 seconds of Shadow Operative. If you want to play like a faggot and use six seconds of invisibility to move from pillar to pillar, and then afk for 45 seconds waiting for the cooldown,, yea, stealth sucks. But if you combined Shadow Operative with some other abilities - like Silent Running, and exploited the terrain and patrol paths, you could get through levels much faster. Which is the whole point.

Stealth in AP isn't perfect by any means, but it's playable, and in some situations, exciting.

AP is a pure action game too. No?

Hybrid of what?
And which areas?
AP has linear corridors, you are railroaded by small barriers that you can't get over, animations are terrible, stealth and gunplay are primitive, voice acting is mediocre, progression is very linear - so where are those areas where all the effort went? Low poly truck wheels?

I've already covered my opinions about these topics. Not going to repeat myself.

No if you do stealth and you do shooter that take the absolute majority of the game time it must be compared to stealth-action games. Just because instead of linear cutscenes you are able to choose 5 minute cutscenes on your own in between terribad hour-long levels - it excuses the game from sucking how?
Or why don't you compare it to DX? It has real RPG elements, open levels with alternative routes, some of which require character skills to unlock them, no minigames and even a bit of real non-linearity, and even though it's small - AP has nothing on it. I'm speaking of course about the choice you make whether to get back to UNATCO or go rebel. And you can run away from boss fights.
That is in a game that is 10 years old. Somehow you forgot to mention all this eh?

Deus Ex is a superior game - doesn't mean AP is BAD. Honestly, how many games have been able to match Deus Ex? Even its own sequel sucked balls by comparison.

If Deus Ex is a 10, AP would be a 7. That's about how I'd rate them if they were placed side by side.

Weren't you just saying that AP isn't a copy of ME?
This is fun you know.

Engine-wise, it's very similar. Gameplay-wise, it's different. Not hard to understand.

Believable != stupid either. Believable is something that is based on common sense. Everything else is just MGS.

Super spies are inherently unrealistic. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy a good Bonds movie.

Try posting actual points, not dancing around.

If you don't understand a point, just ask.

A single example that isn't even a proper stat check, designed more for LARPing? Well that's some heavy stuff man.
What about the ability to hack/lockpick anything even with zero skills which means that they don't matter at all.

You realize your skills in Sabotage affect the difficulty of hacking/lockpicking, right, and that after a certain point, not having skills or bonuses in Sabotage make them virtually impossible?

So judging by how everything is bad in AP - what did you want then? A B-class anime? We already know that playing game isn't what you wanted. And because writing and characters in AP fail even when compared to mediocre american cop shows - I don't even compare it to high-class conspiracy TV media like 24 or Bourne.

What do I want? One thing's for sure - I don't want to play Deus Ex or Fallout for the 999th time, which is what I'd end up doing if I had your ... sensibilities.

Another way to think about it: what would I rather do, spend my days accumulating 12,000 posts' worth of meaningless bitching on the Codex, or play some actual games outside of the ones I've played too many times already?

So gameplay is fun because it's bad?

Flawed, not bad.

Yeah I got one - I think it's quite telling about AP's quality that you can compare it only to the worst.

ME is a highly rated game, FYI, and so is MOTB (even within Codex circles). Your own peculiarities aside, I believe my points of comparison are meaningful, and far from being terribad strawmen.

 

[1eyedking]

An apprentice kiss his retarded mentor's ass, cute.

No. Skyway is an ignorant when it comes to aesthetics. He can't appreciate the finer things in stories and settings that really make you immerse (in a non-Bethesda sense) yourself in a truly believable/consistent world, so in his blind fanaticism he isn't able to see the good in games beyond gameplay, such as The Witcher*.

But he tends to be completely correct when it comes to mechanics.


*: he can definitely tell shit art direction from passable, though.

 

[Azarkon]

Aesthetic experiences are rooted in gameplay mechanics. The two are not independent.

 

[1eyedking]

Aesthetic experiences are rooted in gameplay mechanics. The two are not independent.

No, they're independent. Remove all the notes you find in Thief, remove all of the cutscenes, all of the chants and poems, make Garrett a clone of Cloud with a hood with a voice actor from Dragon Ball Z, base your building architecture on some generic future dystopia out of a random anime, and make the Trickster actually be a furry alien from the film Avatar, complete with cutesy eyes*.

All the while keep the variable lighting mechanics, body dragging mechanics, surface-dependent noises mechanics, open missions design, etc.

I assure you: it wouldn't be the same game.

*: don't you dare smear my post, DraQ.

 

[Azarkon]

...

...

...

You... Do realize what independence means, right?

Here's what you need to prove if you want to prove that aesthetic experiences and gameplay mechanics are independent. Let's say that you consider Deus Ex a 10-point game, both aesthetically and mechanically. You also consider Witcher a 10-point game, but only aesthetically. To show that aesthetic experiences and gameplay mechanics are independent, you need to prove that if I switched the aesthetics of Deus Ex with that of Witcher without making changes, while retaining the same Deus Ex gameplay mechanics, again without making changes, the resulting game would still be a 10-point game, both aesthetically and mechanically.

Have fun.

 

[Darth Roxor]

1eyedking and skyway, sitting in a tree...

 

[1eyedking]

1eyedking and skyway, sitting in a tree...

I'm just tired of people bashing one of the only posters who makes sense in all of this God forsaken forum.

Is it wrong of him to ask basic good stealth-game stuff? AP certainly doesn't qualify in the RPG department since player skill overrides character skill in too many areas. If it's a hybrid, then lets compare it to a reasonably good hybrid: does it have all the things that made Deus Ex good? Body-carrying? Surfaces making different noises? Inventory management? Interesting characters? Missions that weren't railroaded? Unforgiving skills? The only thing that AP does better is the voice acting, but it's not like it weren't that hard to beat Deus Ex in that department since almost every game out there does it.

I think you people liked that piece of crap and can't stand the idea of having horrible taste and are pathetically attempting to justify your lack of standards by rabidly defending a game that just sucks at too many areas. Explain to me the following:

• How does the dialogue system not suck? You get an ambiguous word that at times defines just a general attitude and at others a completely different message. You must sometimes pick the word before the other character finishes his sentence/question so not only do you not know what you're going to say, you don't even know what you're going to answer to. All of this in under 5 seconds, sometimes under just 2.
• How do you justify the lack of stealth mechanics when even hybrids like Deus Ex have them?
• How do you justify a supposed balanced skillset when one of the skills makes bosses die in less than 3 seconds? Really, the game becomes just too fucking easy, and as if it weren't already.
• A skill that makes you disappear out of thin air without an in-game explanation? (even if Deus Ex had it, it meant not getting camera invisibility - but even then this was retarded in Deus Ex, which doesn't warrant as an excuse to copy it)
• How do you justify railroaded missions?
• How do you justify the lack of branching? Is really the game anything beyond a "Choose Your Own Cutscene (Where You Can't Die)" when it comes to C&C? No? Prove it! Prove me how missions get cancelled, how much you can fuck up to the point where progressing in the game becomes insanely difficult, and quoting the developers how the hell is "Every choice is a good choice" not next-generation retarded design?
• How do you justify the game allowing you to accurately shoot with the pistol without leaving cover?

I could go on and on about this, but you should get the idea: your game sucks, deal with it. At least some people here who play Oblivion have the balls to say "Yeah, it's crappy quality but I get a kick of it much like fucking a cheap hooker for sex: it satisfies my lowest, most mundane desires - so sue me, fuckers!".

 

[Darth Roxor]

1eyedking and skyway, sitting in a tree...

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I'm just tired of people bashing one of the only posters who makes sense in all of this God forsaken forum.

You can only win

 

[Azarkon]

1eyedking and skyway, sitting in a tree...

I'm just tired of people bashing one of the only posters who makes sense in all of this God forsaken forum.

Is it wrong of him to ask basic good stealth-game stuff? AP certainly doesn't qualify in the RPG department since player skill overrides character skill in too many areas. If it's a hybrid, then lets compare it to a reasonably good hybrid: does it have all the things that made Deus Ex good? Body-carrying? Surfaces making different noises? Inventory management? Interesting characters? Missions that weren't railroaded? Unforgiving skills? The only thing that AP does better is the voice acting, but it's not like it weren't that hard to beat Deus Ex in that department since almost every game out there does it.

I think you people liked that piece of crap and can't stand the idea of having horrible taste and are pathetically attempting to justify your lack of standards by rabidly defending a game that just sucks at too many areas. Explain to me the following:

• How does the dialogue system not suck? You get an ambiguous word that at times defines just a general attitude and at others a completely different message. You must sometimes pick the word before the other character finishes his sentence/question so not only do you not know what you're going to say, you don't even know what you're going to answer to. All of this in under 5 seconds, sometimes under just 2.
• How do you justify the lack of stealth mechanics when even hybrids like Deus Ex have them?
• How do you justify a supposed balanced skillset when one of the skills makes bosses die in less than 3 seconds? Really, the game becomes just too fucking easy, and as if it weren't already.
• A skill that makes you disappear out of thin air without an in-game explanation? (even if Deus Ex had it, it meant not getting camera invisibility - but even then this was retarded in Deus Ex, which doesn't warrant as an excuse to copy it)
• How do you justify railroaded missions?
• How do you justify the lack of branching? Is really the game anything beyond a "Choose Your Own Cutscene (Where You Can't Die)" when it comes to C&C? No? Prove it! Prove me how missions get cancelled, how much you can fuck up to the point where progressing in the game becomes insanely difficult, and quoting the developers how the hell is "Every choice is a good choice" not next-generation retarded design?
• How do you justify the game allowing you to accurately shoot with the pistol without leaving cover?

I could go on and on about this, but you should get the idea: your game sucks, deal with it. At least some people here who play Oblivion have the balls to say "Yeah, it's crappy quality but I get a kick of it much like fucking a cheap hooker for sex: it satisfies my lowest, most mundane desires - so sue me, fuckers!".

Has it ever occurred to you that the problem is not that everyone else's standards are too low, but that skyway's standards are too high?

If I wanted to, I could write a scathing review of Deus Ex trashing every aspect of the game because "it could be better" while making all sorts of flashy and unrealistic demands.

What would be the point?

No one has ever said that AP is a masterpiece deserving to be placed on the same pedestal as Fallout.

But there's a huge space between masterpiece and shit. Heroes of the Lance is shit. AP is average or above average.

 

[Mangoose]

I think you people liked that piece of crap and can't stand the idea of having horrible taste and are pathetically attempting to justify your lack of standards by rabidly defending a game that just sucks at too many areas.

...

I could go on and on about this, but you should get the idea: your game sucks, deal with it. At least some people here who play Oblivion have the balls to say "Yeah, it's crappy quality but I get a kick of it much like fucking a cheap hooker for sex: it satisfies my lowest, most mundane desires - so sue me, fuckers!".

What the FUCK are you talking about?

Nobody is saying the game is good.

At best, it's fun.

The conclusion of the review is this:

If there is one phrase that I would use to describe Alpha Protocol, and indeed all of Obsidian's games except for MOTB, it would be "unfulfilled potential."

...

In this respect, it does not fulfill the player's expectations, expectations that have been built up through the course of a strong beginning and an enticing middle, and which are disappointed by a lackluster end.

How's about that, motherfucker? Stop putting words in our motherfucking mouths.

Edit: And the point of not comparing it to a very good game such as Deus Ex is that the only conclusion you can draw from such a comparison is that it is worse than a very good game. In other words, it's a worthless comparison. So it's not as good as a 9/10 game. So it's anywhere between a 0 and an 8. Great fucking conclusion, moron.

 

[Felix]

1eyedking and skyway, sitting in a tree...

I'm just tired of people bashing one of the only posters who makes sense in all of this God forsaken forum.

Is it wrong of him to ask basic good stealth-game stuff? AP certainly doesn't qualify in the RPG department since player skill overrides character skill in too many areas. If it's a hybrid, then lets compare it to a reasonably good hybrid: does it have all the things that made Deus Ex good? Body-carrying? Surfaces making different noises? Inventory management? Interesting characters? Missions that weren't railroaded? Unforgiving skills? The only thing that AP does better is the voice acting, but it's not like it weren't that hard to beat Deus Ex in that department since almost every game out there does it.

I think you people liked that piece of crap and can't stand the idea of having horrible taste and are pathetically attempting to justify your lack of standards by rabidly defending a game that just sucks at too many areas. Explain to me the following:

• How does the dialogue system not suck? You get an ambiguous word that at times defines just a general attitude and at others a completely different message. You must sometimes pick the word before the other character finishes his sentence/question so not only do you not know what you're going to say, you don't even know what you're going to answer to. All of this in under 5 seconds, sometimes under just 2.
• How do you justify the lack of stealth mechanics when even hybrids like Deus Ex have them?
• How do you justify a supposed balanced skillset when one of the skills makes bosses die in less than 3 seconds? Really, the game becomes just too fucking easy, and as if it weren't already.
• A skill that makes you disappear out of thin air without an in-game explanation? (even if Deus Ex had it, it meant not getting camera invisibility - but even then this was retarded in Deus Ex, which doesn't warrant as an excuse to copy it)
• How do you justify railroaded missions?
• How do you justify the lack of branching? Is really the game anything beyond a "Choose Your Own Cutscene (Where You Can't Die)" when it comes to C&C? No? Prove it! Prove me how missions get cancelled, how much you can fuck up to the point where progressing in the game becomes insanely difficult, and quoting the developers how the hell is "Every choice is a good choice" not next-generation retarded design?
• How do you justify the game allowing you to accurately shoot with the pistol without leaving cover?

I could go on and on about this, but you should get the idea: your game sucks, deal with it. At least some people here who play Oblivion have the balls to say "Yeah, it's crappy quality but I get a kick of it much like fucking a cheap hooker for sex: it satisfies my lowest, most mundane desires - so sue me, fuckers!".

Has it ever occurred to you that the problem is not that everyone else's standards are too low, but that skyway's standards are too high?

Not really, have you read the Dark Messiah thread?

 

[MetalCraze]

No, like I said, I enjoyed the mission scenarios. Gunfighting wasn't the best I've seen. AI was crap. Camera angles were sometimes horrid. But it was playable and enjoyable. I didn't give high marks to Obsidian for the gameplay. I just said that it was fun. Many people share this opinion, both here and elsewhere, and some of them are much harsher critics than I. I don't see why it's so hard to comprehend.

So you are saying it sucks after all? OK.

Because it's not the only thing that changes. Dialogues change. Events change. The whole context changes.

Now on Episode 3:
Something changes but I can't say what.

You could say that, at the end of PST, the only difference between killing yourself and absorbing TTO is that you get a separate animation. Is that meaningful?

Of course not. Then again PST is a linear game as well and somehow noone states otherwise.

Yes it does. Your objectives change if you kill/spare different people, or if you choose to side with/against different factions. Siding with Halbech means that you can just walk off of the island with Leland. Killing Marburg in the museum means that you can't use him against Parker, but you can still manipulate Parker through other means, or, if those too are unavailable because you made the wrong choices, you can still kill him. These are different ways of completing the same overall quest, and which produce different endings.

Somehow you named none. All you've said "look character models change".
And some fluff in the end too.

Reload, not railroad, and I did criticize Obsidian for putting the cart before the horse, no?

Yet then you quickly wrote that it's good for what it is.

I knew you were going to do this. Yeah, you know, in Fallout, joining the Master and is actually the same thing as killing him - all it does is produce different ending texts.

Yes.

What's the point of choices and consequences again?

Ah but the ending is not all there is to Fallout. Even character build affects questlines, both locking and unlocking a few. F.e. I like how Troika did design in this particular case - in FO1 in order to get to the local "thief guild" you need to hack through multiple complicated locks - only a "thief" build will allow you to pass. Even saying something bad to important characters will really piss them off - not like in AP where you'll instantly get a replacement - like Vault City in FO2 where if you'll annoy that Tandy bitch it will make dwellers go all hostile on your ass and you will have to find another way of seeking what you need. All on your own using common logic. No replacements.

And who says you don't get additional subplots with characters in AP? You realize that, just before the end of the game, you can contact various allies for additional subplots, and that this depends on your choices?

Examples plz

If your only point is equivalent to FSM's - that choices should unlock additional missions in entirely new locations - then read my reply to him.

Yes choices shouldn't be LARPing that just changes some stuff in the exactly same spot while you pretend-LARP that there is some kind of non-linearity going on.

How exactly a broken stuff that makes the game even easier than it is is fun? I thought fun was about playing the game, not pressing a "win" button and see shit instantly die.

I'll quote some other guy on this:

If you don't go out of your way to gimp it, it's actually quite enjoyable. There are some parts that can go fuck themselves (hi2u hacking) but for the most part it's pretty smooth. I'm not a big fan of cone of fire but if you could fire straight there would be almost no challenge to the stealthing part (MGS:4 anyone?). It's like retards who whined about there being no challenge in Valkyrie Chronicles because they just used Alicia to bumrush the end flag on every map.

Try reading his quote again and my question afterwards. And try answering my question again because the quote you posted where he complains about people wanting to make it easier makes absolutely no sense as an answer.

Except for most of the game, even playing as a Vet, you don't get 30 seconds of Shadow Operative. If you want to play like a faggot and use six seconds of invisibility to move from pillar to pillar, and then afk for 45 seconds waiting for the cooldown,, yea, stealth sucks. But if you combined Shadow Operative with some other abilities - like Silent Running, and exploited the terrain and patrol paths, you could get through levels much faster. Which is the whole point.

The whole point is that you can't exploit the terrain. You exploit blind and deaf enemies and the magic "crouch-run" button which makes them even more deaf and blind.
This is the whole point.
Now compare it to Splinter Cell and Thief games where shadows and surfaces mean a lot and enemies go to check a noise.

Stealth in AP isn't perfect by any means, but it's playable, and in some situations, exciting.

What's so exciting about it when it fails compared to Splinter Cell which itself isn't the best stealth evar?

I've already covered my opinions about these topics. Not going to repeat myself.

Yeah - good for what it is was your answer.

Deus Ex is a superior game - doesn't mean AP is BAD. Honestly, how many games have been able to match Deus Ex? Even its own sequel sucked balls by comparison.

System Shock 2 is better. DX isn't that great itself, gunplay is still flawed, but non-gunplay parts are of a pretty high quality.
Who cares about how many games have been able to match Deus Ex? The point is why 10 years later games suck so hard compared to it?
10 years ago games were still inclining or at least not losing the edge - but today AP is just another mod for Gears of War.
And even dialogues you fap to - only some 5 years ago they were sentences which also were full on stat/feat/skill/whatever checks thus part of gameplay. Today they are 3 words long one liners in between shooting parts so you can pretend like you are roleplaying a character.

Engine-wise, it's very similar. Gameplay-wise, it's different. Not hard to understand.

Except I wrote many points why apart from a very primitive "push button to stealth" part they are the same - care to write what makes them different?

Super spies are inherently unrealistic. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy a good Bonds movie.

Even in Bond movies bosses don't look like emo teenagers.
Feargus words about how AP is a game about a spy like you imagined him when you were 15 years old speak a lot here.

If you don't understand a point, just ask.

OK - where are stats/skills in AP? Not "you unlocked more invisibility" or "more dmg for you weapon".

You realize your skills in Sabotage affect the difficulty of hacking/lockpicking, right, and that after a certain point, not having skills or bonuses in Sabotage make them virtually impossible?

Who cares? You can easily complete them if you are fast enough.
RPG skills bypass locks not make minigames easier.

What do I want? One thing's for sure - I don't want to play Deus Ex or Fallout for the 999th time, which is what I'd end up doing if I had your ... sensibilities.

If you had my "sensibilities" you wouldn't be spending so much time on a game of such a poor quality.
And then people wonder why devs make such crappy games.

Another way to think about it: what would I rather do, spend my days accumulating 12,000 posts' worth of meaningless bitching on the Codex, or play some actual games outside of the ones I've played too many times already?

Bitching is not the biggest part of my posts.
Besides if you've actually tried to check non-console-shooter topics once in a while you would've noticed that I also have a "higher quality" posts with no bitching at all, quite the contrary.

Flawed, not bad.

Flawed is a very light form of saying "gunplay is terrible because it's too slow due to consolish weapon modelling and enemies not moving at all, zero difficulty, there is cover system, there are minigames, stealth is all about pressing one button and running behind enemies, cutscenes are too long and are forced on you when writers wish". You see - in DX it's flawed. In AP it's outright bad.

ME is a highly rated game, FYI

On Gamespot? IGN? ESF? Yes.
So is crap like Sex and The City.
Because ME is a primitive console shooter and they are very popular among amoeba gamers.

and so is MOTB (even within Codex circles).

Not really. There are way better games than MotB, MotB is just better than everything that came out since - at least Obsidian really tried there with spirit meter which was tied into character system well and had some fully opened locations with way harder monsters like in good ol' RPGs. And it is a RPG.
But MotB was 3 years ago and it isn't coming back.

 

[Achilles]

Thief was a stealth game, and it did stealth well. Fallout was an RPG, and a very good one (I would say the best). Hitman was... well, title says it all, and it was fantastic. PS:T was an interactive novel, and the storytelling was superb. Each of these games have their strong points. What is AP's strong point? Why should we make allowances because "well, it's not really a stealth game" or it's "not really an action game". That's fine, but stop trying to be those things, then.

That is a different kind of discussion and, as a matter of fact, I would be inclined to agree with you. Maybe it would be better if there were clear, distinct genres that only tried to do one thing very well. I would certainly like to have a really good stealth game, a really good action game and a really good RPG instead of one game that tries to do a bit of everything.

However, valid as that point may be, the fact remains that it's not fair to compare each part of Alpha Protocol with the best game in that genre. It's totally unrealistic to expect similar levels of proficiency.

I could accept an opinion that criticizes Alpha Protocol for being mediocre, bad or shit as a whole - no problem with that. But not this "stealth is shit compared to Thief" criticism.

 

[Mangoose]

However, valid as that point may be, the fact remains that it's not fair to compare each part of Alpha Protocol with the best game in that genre. It's totally unrealistic to expect similar levels of proficiency.

It's also fucking useless, because saying a game is worse than a 10/10 game means that it can be anywhere between 0-9.

 

[Radisshu]

Is skyway's standards even that high, isn't he just retarded?

He kind of feels like a parrot who repeats what everyone says without understanding anything, he can't even argue properly to defend his points (as proved by Azarkon).

 

[LameNinja]

LOL that MetalCraze dude is so funny - bashing a game he has never played and all his arguments are based on some 2 min videos or stuff he reads on the forums, but doesnt understand. Hilarious :D

 

[Shannow]

Fight on skyway, save this here codex from newfag mediocrity.

HINT: If an old game does something well, a new game is supposed to do it better. Whining that you can't expect new games to do as well as 10/10 (which none of them ever got from serious reviewers) old games ultimately leads to next-gen shit. And arguing with skyway about "scale" is probably the most pointless excercise you can waste your time with. So skyway rates games in "good" and "shit" while you rate in 0-10. So what? Discuss fucking merits and weaknesses of the games and encourage devs to improve in the future.
Skyway usually has a point with his criticisms and his binary rating system is a lot less aggravating than all you next-gen apologists.

 

[Mangoose]

So skyway rates games in "good" and "shit" while you rate in 0-10. So what?

Because a scale just MIGHT be useful to someone who has already played the good games and doesn't want to play a shitty game.

Moron.

 

[Felix]

Consider you do the same with skyway can I call skyway's apologist?

skyway's appologist.