Review Alpha Protocol Reviewed

[Redshirt #42]

Why would anyone read this shit?

i am confuse

 

[SuicideBunny]

The game is gun b awsum I just know it

the only thing that interests me is c&c and branching.
expecting good gameplay from story-rich rpgs hasn't exactly worked out the last 30 years, not to mention that those consoletard-written previews are about as informative as a word association thread.

 

[CrimsonAngel]

For the love of all that is unholy PLZ do not SUCK!.

 

[MetalCraze]

the only thing that interests me is c&c and branching.

That's why instead of games we have shitty interactive dating sims.
And BTW if you'd actually read those consoletard-lololo-written previews you would know that AP's branching ends with more enemies waiting for you on the exactly same location if you chose a different cutscene. But you wrote "c&c" so that means this is exactly what you want.

expecting good gameplay from story-rich rpgs hasn't exactly worked out the last 30 years

Surely you mean it didn't work in those 3.5 games released this decade?
And just a hint - AP isn't a RPG.

not to mention that those consoletard-written previews are about as informative as a word association thread.

If you stopped reading after you were done with their titles, because reading further was too hard (which isn't surprising considering AP's level and amount of writing) - then sure they are.
Now, my dear LARPing faggot, how about defending Avellone saying that none of your choices matter because you will always be successful no matter which cutscene you choose and another guy, Parker or something, saying that no matter what digits you choose in the character making screen you will never suck?
But I'm sure those consoletard-written previews made it all up

 

[Grunker]

ENTER THE SKYWAY

HE IS NOT AMUSED

 

[Tycn]

Now if only that was the rule and not the exception.

Fantastic logic. Western RPGs suck because outside of a few exceptions like Fallout they are shitty Diablo clones, Bethesda quicksandboxes or BioWare dating sims.

Please, the mean quality of JRPGs is far lower than that. There's a plethora of CRPGs considered good here (and that's not even counting 'good for what it is'), can you say the same for JRPGs?

And the point about writing still stands.

Sure. Writing in most JRPGs is just as shitty as in most WRPGs.

Gross understatement and you know it. The writing in most JRPGs makes Bioware look like Shakespeare.

Strange Journey has a total of, let me check, yes, that's right, none adolescent characters, duh. And the point about writing is moot when all that writing and all those choices in Torment amount to a total of things, outside flavour text, equal to Strange Journey's amount of adolescent characters.

Does that go for the rest of the games in the series? I was referring to the conventions of the genre, many of which Torment sidestepped admirably for a 'JRPG'.

You can't discount writing so easily, given that it is relevant to the distinction between CRPGs and JRPGs. You can claim that Torment utilises mostly Biowarian 'flavour text', but that doesn't change the fact that JRPGs tend to have far less text altogether.

And as I said many times before there are romantic interactive novels for girls with more choices and consequences than Torment.

So? Choose your own adventure books have more choices and better writing than all JRPGs. They're hardly relevant in a discussion about games, however.

 

[SuicideBunny]

That's why instead of games we have shitty interactive dating sims.

putting the wagon before the horse.
those are the only things that interest me, because i've yet to play an rpg with good gameplay, and simply stopped caring along the way.

And BTW if you'd actually read those consoletard-lololo-written previews you would know that AP's branching ends with more enemies waiting for you on the exactly same location if you chose a different cutscene. But you wrote "c&c" so that means this is exactly what you want.

debatable. killing that teen wannabe assassin blocks a contact you get when you spare her. considering the contacts are the main characters of this game, this is already more than a simple more evil foozles consequence.
not to mention that they have to have more than that to justify multiple endings.

Surely you mean it didn't work in those 3.5 games released this decade?
And just a hint - AP isn't a RPG.

i meant what i wrote, and yes, alpha protocol is an rpg. it is a hybrid of that stupid action rpg subgenre that diablo spawned, which is essentially a dumbed-down roguelike with all the roguelike elements removed, and third person shooter.
the fact that nearly no sane person likes said sub-genre or that it can be rather hard to tell it apart from, say, shoot'em ups with money and upgrade shop mechanics sadly does not stop it from being a sub-genre of rpg.

none of your choices matter because you will always be successful no matter which cutscene you choose

considering that we are exclusively talking story branching here, i fail to see your point.
the only thing a dead-end story choice achieves is having you reload and pick something else, which pretty much makes it a fake choice entirely, only slightly less retarded than "but thou must".
on the other hand i have no idea what exactly that's supposed to mean as you yourself pointed out that choices can make your life harder by increasing the amount of the bad doods, which goes against what i would consider "always successful".

and another guy, Parker or something, saying that no matter what digits you choose in the character making screen you will never suck?
But I'm sure those consoletard-written previews made it all up

i thought we already established that gameplay is unchallenging and bad?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

none of your choices matter because you will always be successful no matter which cutscene you choose

considering that we are exclusively talking story branching here, i fail to see your point.
the only thing a dead-end story choice achieves is having you reload and pick something else, which pretty much makes it a fake choice entirely, only slightly less retarded than "but thou must".
on the other hand i have no idea what exactly that's supposed to mean as you yourself pointed out that choices can make your life harder by increasing the amount of the bad doods, which goes against what i would consider "always successful".

when skyway says that, I take it he means you will easily achieve that inevitable success, and that alone is reason for dismissing it as sucky shit. Which is kind of balls since

The place that was supposed to be inhabited by hardcore gamers with interest in challenge even while this age was about making game easier and easier, but turns out half the locals are bloody casuals interested in LARP and picking dialogue lines?

Interest in challenge ? Bullshit ! Was Fallout difficult ? No it wasn't. Was Bloodlines challenging ? Not in the least. Did Arcanum require perfect meta knowledge of the whole game to complete and get the good ending ? Not at all. Are these among the favorites of the most prominent members of the Codex Hivemind ? I'll let you find out on your own, you probably know the answer. Damned casuals have infiltrated even the highest spheres ! :evil:

 

[Phelot]

Not really. The objective is the dificult gameplay itself. Having another pretty looking stage is just a side reward. Why do you think so many action games have an arcade mode were all the story and character stuff, and even the ending, is removed so you can focus on the pew pew? The focus is on the gameplay, the rest are just additions to round the package. Sure, it's cool to have them but you could remove them completely and still be amazed at how cool the stuff is.

So, you wouldn't mind if say a game like Ninja Gaiden was essentially a stick figure that jumped on black and white platforms and killed plain blocks of white that had no animation at all, but was still challenging? ANd that every level is the same and while the challenge may got harder, it always looks the same? You wouldn't get bored or want some sort of reason to keep playing besides challenge?

If so, then I salute your pureness akin to a computer, no fluff or distractions!

I long for a challenge in a game. I long for games that allow you to die, trust me, but I'm also looking for story and art and the sounds and music since these are the reasons that certain games are so dear to me. Yes, it was cool to actually beat Street Fighter 2010 (if you haven't played it and like old NES games, give it a try, it IS the epitome of challenging) on a challenging level, but the real joy was the awesome music and the "Holy FUCK!" factor of finally getting to a new level.

Was it all the more satisfying because of the challenge? Most certainly. WOuld I have been pissed if every level was exactly the same? Fuck yes.

But when you win Deus Ex and see all those pretentious little endings, what have you got? Do you feel amazing because you have reached a level of strategical planning, skill, or puzzle solving unmatched by the unwashed masses? No, every other retard out there has seen it, and it didn't even need a walkthrough to see it. Seeing that ending has no value, it's common. Reaching it has no value, because every retard and her mom and her dog have the skill to do so. It's a casual game, designed so casual players can play it. You know it, i know it, they know it. Value depends on scarcity, and just as when you are nice to everyone being nice has no value at all when a challenge can be surpassed by everyone there's no meaning in surpassing it. You aren't going to get called the Black Cat in part because of your amazing reflexes and reaction times if you train with Deus Ex. T_T

...

I don't play games so I can brag to people about the fact I beat it. The appeal of Deus Ex wasn't so you could tell your pals that you actually beat Deus Ex OMG, it's to experience the story for yourself rather then have someone tell you about it. It's fun to have a character that you actually care about and to see how things end for them.

Call me a fag, but I enjoy games as an art form (fuck you Ebert) maybe that's dumb to you, but I like to experience a game. I love it when a developer actually love their work and poor their soul into it, they give out their best ideas because they think the game deserves it. You can see it in a few games and while they may not be a challenge, they are still fun and entertaining and isn't that the point of games?

Role Playing Games should give us the tactical and turn based version of this kind of tense and ridiculous fight were the least mistake can mean you die and must start over instead of the metaphysical vagueries of fantasy land and questions about what can change the nature of a zombie and his flying skull. Something like this, where you have no chance to win other than by understanding the gameplay to perfection and having a carefully built party, or getting a walkthrough as weaklings do. :3

Opinions on what is and what is not an RPG are limitless...

But, would those games be as fun without all the fluffy graphics and mega spell effects? And just what is so tactical and skillful about learning the exact combo needed to defeat an encounter? It's always, spam this spell, then the healer spams health, then use this ability everytime it cools down.

The first video is for people with autism to be able to beat. There is nothing tactical about MEMORIZING attack patterns of enemies and holding down the fire button. If you want tactics and strategy you're better off playing a wargame.

For the record, I love those sort of games, my favorite being Raiden which seems to be a more mild one. I'm low skilled though

But using the Blade isn't really lossing, since you can't have it forced upon yourself if your skill isn't up to the challenge set up by the game, it is an optional less than ideal ending. You are never going to find yourself in a situation where, like, someone else gets the blade and where the choices you made make it impossible to escape or survive that encounter no matter what you want as long as you aren't bloody amazing with the combat system and can't survive an almost impossible battle because you know each option as if you had designed the game.

It's worse then losing, it's a trick that the player may fall for thinking it's either this or a boss fight. You can miss other endings.

And not experiencing everything isn't losing if you see the game as a game and not a bloody book. As in, you are not seeing a big game over, you suck, haha, loser, try again after training those skills for a bunch of months. Or years, maybe. You just missed something and, really, no one cared. It's the roleplaying equivalent of missing the extra life because you did not have the item ot breach the wall, and the extra life at least would have an use.

I think you have an opinion on the point of RPGs and are confusing it with fact. You play a role that you should hopefully care about should the developers have done their job properly.

Personally, I can appreciate many different types of RPGs. Some are fun for their stat building and combat, others for their characters and story progression.

Why can't both be RPGs?

But i think we both made our viewpoints clear by now.

This engagement will not end until there is blood and tears!

 

[KalosKagathos]

Please, the mean quality of JRPGs is far lower than that. There's a plethora of CRPGs considered good here (and that's not even counting 'good for what it is'), can you say the same for JRPGs?

Sure. Nippon Ichi games, Final Fantasy Tactics and Vagrant Story are all p. cool. So are FFXII and Shadow Hearts, apparently, but I haven't checked them out yet.

Gross understatement and you know it. The writing in most JRPGs makes Bioware look like Shakespeare.

As depressing as it is, BioWare writes some of the best video game stories (it's not that they are genuinely good, but that the competition is even worse), making your example rather unfair. Try comparing stories of Ultima, Might and Magic games, Wizardry, Diablo or Titan Quest (or hell, even Fallout and Arcanum) to those of JRPGs and you won't have a clear winner anymore. In any case, writing is not what makes a good game.

 

[Gragt]

@ La Chatte Noire

"So a game is only a test of skill"

A videogame is only a test of skill, yes.

My full sentence was "So a game is only a test of skill and only when it reaches a certain point in difficulty." and it was re: your claim that DX isn't a game because it isn't challenging enough. I reiterate: how do you objectively measure the level of challenge a game must have to be actually considered a game?

Approaching objectives in many diferent ways isn't gameplay, is the structure or design of the game.

I don't recall claiming otherwise. You asked what was the point of having these different gameplay elements together and the answer is that they let you complete objectives in more than one way.

LARP is constantly used to define the Biowarian style of choices that do nothing at all and take you down the same path, just with diferent dialogue.

Apart from whether this classification is appropriate or not, DX isn't on the same level as a Bioware game. Typical Bioware games gives you a host of seemingly big and important choices which turn out to change very little, while DX acts mostly on a smaller scale. Whether you help the hotel guy keep his daughter or not doesn't really have an impact on the gameplay but why should it? It's a gratuitous small detail that doesn't add much to the gameplay and wouldn't change the game if it was removed yet its presence adds a lot to the whole package and helps to give a sense of place. Chosing different dialog options may only offer information but is it a bad thing? Should every conversation change the gameplay? It certainly removes nothing and potentially add more, though it's not in the gameplay itself. The Lebedev choice doesn't change much and could have been handled better, true, but does it detract from the game? As far as I can remember it's the only big fake choice the game offers you and most of the choices you get to make come from how you decide to solve the problems.

I have never heard anyone praising Deus Ex's gameplay.

And how does that give more weight to your argumentation? I'm here to debate of facts about the game, not what some people may or may not have said about them. If you claim that gameplay in DX is bad, you should show it clearly and not rely on what others may or may not have said, but most of what you do is make peripherals accusations that the gameplay is bad and the different actions you can take have no impact and count as LARP, both of which are objectively false, and that to be good a game should be very hard, which only applies to some sort of games.

I saw you made a list of some kind in another post.

1. Choices do not have gameplay consequences.

Some don't, which again isn't a bad thing, and other may yield you information, items or a delayed fight. Exemple: ask Jaime to stay at Unatco and you meet him in Paris where he gives you the killswitch for Gunther, allowing you to bypass the fight; if you tell him to leave at once for Hong Kong, he'll bring a nano upgrade instead.

2. Game is retard easy, there is no challenge.

It's not the hardest game ever but it's not "retard easy". You'll usualy need to think a little bit before alerting the whole base to your presence or jumping in front of an automated machinegun or bot. At the start, you'll usualy want to avoid direct confrontation. The game gets easier as you progress but that's the natural consequence of upgrading your character.

3. There is no true punishment for being a bad player.

Death + reload. Standard issue in most games unless you voluntarily decide to play ironman (which usualy makes things more fun if you want a challenge). Or should it also format your hard drive when die?

4. There is no true reward for being the stuff of legends.

The sense of accomplishment should be its true reward, and also maybe that you do not have to reload so much. The game is also open enough to let you take voluntary challenges if you want, such as trying to do the whole level undetected without knocking anyone out. It won't be acknowledged but then again who needs praise from a game?

5. Stealth gameplay is stupid beyond measure thanks to awful enemy AI and level design not focused on stealth challenges.

There are a bit too many ventilations grate around but you still can't go around invisible and silent unless you use some items and/or biomods and need to excercise some care. Enemy AI isn't great but competent, especially for a 2000 game. Some levels may also bit trickier than other, like the tanker where any noise will alert everyone.

6. Actiony gameplay is stupid beyond measure thanks to it having to be kept soft for non combat characters and mixed builds.

Example: You go back to hell's kitchen to meet with an informant in the ruins. Halfway through a great number of soldiers, with some mechs, attack your position. Solution? Charge them with the sword and all your augs active, dood. Maybe use a Thermo Camo thing to get the drop on the mechs, kill each in one hit, then proceed to slaughter the soldiers by means of aligning yourself with the soldier mass, press forward, and click click click, since they can't see you and, if they do, they can't really damage you. GG, you win. In realistic.

Example: You escape from your brother's room or kill your way through. Then you reach battery park and Anna is here, waiting for you. Combat vest + Anti Bullet Skin + Shotgun, and note my skill at rifles was untrained. GG, you win. In realistic. The game's so bloody easy they have to drop a plot command on you to stop your rampage.

You make good use of your equipments, skills and biomods and that makes the game easier. How is that's a problem?

7. Some advantages and solutions, like those from hacking and lockpicking, require no skill at all. You are never short on them, so there's no weighting the potential advantage against the potential loss, nor do you have to be a good player to exploit them. GG, you win.

Multitools and lockpick are a bit too abundant, yet you may have a problem if you try to open every door with them without trying to look for an alternate route and not leveling your skills. It's not a problem if they make use of character skill because it's more of an RPG element than the others, unlike combat.

8. Combat has no depth. There are no tactics, there are no better weapons to diferent situations, other than the presence of a Mech leading to kaboom.

Tactics depend on how you want to play and develop your character. Want to pick them from a distance? Better use a sniper rifle or highly modified pistol (choice of weapon there) than an assault rifle. Want to jump in the middle? Assault rifle or maybe the plasma rifle will do it, unless you prefer to melee them with the nanosword. Wanna be a tease? Put LAMs on the walls and attract them your way. That's a few way to deal with combat. Or as you said earlier you can use some mix of camouflage and attack to get the first shot.

9. Prod + Crossbow. Then, evil magic sword + Crossbow. Do you hear that? Is the sound of GG, you win.

Or sniper rifle + sword. Or plasma rifle. Or upgraded shitty starting pistol. Or kill nothing and just stealth through undetected. There is more than one way to win and they're fun.

 

[Sannom]

Now, my dear LARPing faggot, how about defending Avellone saying that none of your choices matter because you will always be successful no matter which cutscene you choose and another guy, Parker or something, saying that no matter what digits you choose in the character making screen you will never suck?

Links to those, if you can recall where you found them? Don't worry, I do.

The Surkov videos that came out a week or so ago are good examples of why, even though you get the same answer, there are a lot of differences between each choice, most notably on the relationships with the other characters, in this case Surkov, Mina and Brayko.

Parker's comments have already been proven unrealistic by numerous previews and reviews. Don't expect to go far if you don't play to the strength of the character you create. Whatever he wanted to express, he really chose his words poorly.

 

[Mangoose]

not at all different from attacking a game before playing it.

Because hour+ of gameplay videos is all lies. There's not enough information in those 30 previews! Each of which shows again and again that AP is no good and yet another popamole shooter with digits.

The game is gun b awsum I just know it

Lol, you think biased previews from incompetent journalists are a good indicator of how a game is?

 

[Black Cat]

@ Tycn

"You can't discount writing so easily, given that it is relevant to the distinction between CRPGs and JRPGs. You can claim that Torment utilises mostly Biowarian 'flavour text', but that doesn't change the fact that JRPGs tend to have far less text altogether."

And the amount of text matters because of what, exactly?

And text doesn't make a videogame, nor a game, nor a role playing game nor a CRPG as the overwelming majority of the genre isn't precisely known for its deep writing and profound characterization. Things like Fallout and Planescape and Arcanum are anomalies among CRPGs, as dungeon crawlers and roguelikes and hack & slash games are as CRPG as those, if not more. Much more, maybe.

Geez, that subgenre is so much of a non issue one of its most mentioned titles is a smallish expansion pack to an awful game, keeping all the awful game's mechanics but adding a story about the trials and tribulations of Fantasy Land's atheists.

Storyfaggotry =/= CRPG. Writing =/= CRPG.

=/= CRPG.

"So? Choose your own adventure books have more choices and better writing than all JRPGs. They're hardly relevant in a discussion about games, however."

So? Is it you, and others, who seem to believe writing and choices make a CRPG instead of gameplay, not me. By that account then Bloodlines and Arcanum and Fallout are worse CRPGs than a bunch of hentai visual novels, some otome dating sims, and two thirds the serious business visual novels ever, duh. Though if CRPGs are defined by gameplay then Bloodlines and Arcanum and Fallout are worse CRPGs than many a JRPG and most roguelikes and every single dungeon crawler ever, so we have a small problem.

"Gross understatement and you know it. The writing in most JRPGs makes Bioware look like Shakespeare."

So? Bioware plus Troika plus Planescape the totality of CRPGs are not, and as mentioned above it represents nothing but a small minority of it, an aberration. A short live one, at that, since even Bioware abandoned it to make third person shooters and action games in fake china. He compared them to CRPGs, not to the three aberrant ones you like.



@ Phelot

"You wouldn't get bored or want some sort of reason to keep playing besides challenge?"

I am a graphics whore in that I like good art and graphics, sure, but as long as the thing isn't as ugly i want to spoon my eyes out of their sockets, sure, i'll give them a try. x3

After all, when you are clearing stage four or trying some dungeon for the three hundred and fifteenth time you don't really notice the art and visuals and music anymore. You are in a tao like trance of shiny sparkling death and *blank stare*.

"I don't play games so I can brag to people about the fact I beat it."

That's your problem right there, you see? That's no gamer's spirit! :3 Fun's fun, but even more fun is going to your brother or you ex with a replay of you slaughtering without breaking a sweat a boss they can't defeat at all and asking them to repeat that stuff they were saying about girls and games. :twisted:

Be attitude for gains! x3

"But, would those games be as fun without all the fluffy graphics and mega spell effects?"

I never said games had to have bad graphics, or no graphics. I said games have to be focused on gameplay and challenge, with all other elements being subjugated to this. Fluffy graphics and spell effects aren't the purpose, they just make the presentation more attractive and add to the fun originated from the game's challenge.

After all, even the prettiest and fluffy graphics get boring after you have seen them once, and when the game's hard enough you are going to see them a couple hundred times at least. And when the game's is truly autistic hardcore you don't have time to even notice them.

"The first video is for people with autism to be able to beat. There is nothing tactical about MEMORIZING attack patterns of enemies and holding down the fire button."

Of course there isn't. I said role playing game boss fights should be to tactical turn based combat what that battle is to action games, not that eXceed 3rd was an example of tactical turn based combat. In other words you should understand the gameplay mechanics of role playing games as well, to defeat a late game bosses and dungeons, as you have to understand the gameplay mechanics of bullet hell games to have a chance in that video. Some role playing games, like roguelikes and japanese dungeon crawlers, still try to do that.

They aren't as photogenic, though, so eXceed 3rd was the better choice.

Just one detail, though, on the memorizing part: It's totally wrong. That's why most people find those games so hard, they aren't about memorizing. They are about training, like a martial art. You need to train the basic techniques common to all games, like lane switching and streaming and death bombing, until they are instinctual, and then try not to memorize the enemy patterns, because that will slow your growth. Play a game for, like, a week or so at first, and just a couple of days once you start getting good, and then switch to another bullet hell one. And then another, etc. Once you return to the first one, two months later or so, you will notice you don't need to memorize the patterns to be better, as your reflexes and reaction times and, like, instinctual thingies that allow you to find paths among the constant stream of bright colored death get better and refined. If you memorize the patterns instead, once you switch games or raise the dificulty or spend enough time away from the game you will be back at square one.

Once you start going down that path you start seeing the patters as you do them. Evade some bullets, dodge a laser, and all of a sudden you understand it even if it's the first time you saw it and dodge it without even trying. The super duper mega pro bullet hell guys and gals have to dedicate a lot to the genre for the base skill level to raise enough you can do a no continues clear in normal on your first couple of tries, and then start working for Hard or Lunatic. The first time it happens and you reach the final boss' final attack on your first try in a new game you will see it's a bloody drug, though. T_T

"For the record, I love those sort of games, my favorite being Raiden which seems to be a more mild one. I'm low skilled though"

Ganbare, Phelot-Kun! :3

Everyone begins sucking. It's a mixture of dedication and autism what allows them to post those kind of videos. x3

"I think you have an opinion on the point of RPGs and are confusing it with fact."

Of course it's my opinion, but this is Fur Fair Codexia and i kind of thought all that stuff about, like, this is just my opinion disclaimers was kind of totally not in and terminally uncool.

"This engagement will not end until there is blood and tears!"

I would challenge you to solve this as true gamers should (in a fighting game, naturally!) but i kind of epic fail at those and this being the Codex you would pick, like, Vanguard Princess or something equally ewwwww just to spite me.



@ Le Petit Furet

" I reiterate: how do you objectively measure the level of challenge a game must have to be actually considered a game?"

Read what i said to Perfect Fool about that. A game, any game, is a game as long as it is challenging to the player. Once it stops being challenging, it stops being a game. Though if someone finds Deus Ex challenging she needs help, seriously.

"You asked what was the point of having these different gameplay elements together and the answer is that they let you complete objectives in more than one way."

Yes, but letting you complete objectives in more than a single way doesn't count as gameplay but as design, and then having several ways to complete objectives doesn't make the game good, makes it a really bad game, since the gameplay is never beyond half assed and simplistic, built around a good design idea.

"Some don't, which again isn't a bad thing, and other may yield you information, items or a delayed fight"

Then it is on the same choices and consequences level than any Bioware game. The game's touted as being the paragon of Choice and Consequence, so that doesn't cut it, sorry. Also, I have given examples of games to which choices are not even part of the package that have more meaningful choices than Deus Ex.

Also, Deus Ex is a game. If choices aren't really relevant to the gameplay they aren't relevant to the game, so they have no value in defining whether or not it is a good game.

"It's not the hardest game ever but it's not "retard easy". You'll usualy need to think a little bit before alerting the whole base to your presence or jumping in front of an automated machinegun or bot."

Ow, you need to think a bit before going in! I guess that puts it on the same level as doing a clean Mass Effect insane run, where you have to think a little before rushing a room full of biotics or they'll zerg rush you and GG, you lose. Actually, that's the same level of AI shown in Deus Ex, duh.

"Death + reload. Or should it also format your hard drive when die?"

That's no punishment, that's design. I have given examples of many games where regardless of how much you reload you will not come close to get a good ending until your skill level is up to the task, from straight shooters to role playing games. Go get the True Demon Ending in Nocturne without the pierce skill and then tell me how much good reloading does to you. Also, rank based gameplay where you only get certain endings and routes if you reach the juncture point with a high rank, if not the highest one.

"The sense of accomplishment should be its true reward, and also maybe that you do not have to reload so much."

The sense of accomplishment is only there when you accomplish something. If the game has no real challenge and every single retard out there can get the same result without true skill, what did you accomplish?

"There are a bit too many ventilations grate around but you still can't go around invisible and silent unless you use some items and/or biomods and need to excercise some care."

Items and Biomods are part of the gameplay. We aren't talking extra challenge here, we are talking how hard is the game when you are using all the tools the game gives to you. The answer is not at all. If i have to add extra rules for the game to be somewhat challenging the game is retard easy, so go back to the point when you said it wasn't.

"You make good use of your equipments, skills and biomods and that makes the game easier."

Making good use of your tools should be the bare minimun for the game to be doable, not an optional something you do to make the game even easier. If i can clear a game with minimal deaths just because i use the tools the game gives me, then i have to assume the game's is designed so that retards and imbeciles unable to play it can win it. Therefore, retard easy. :3

"Tactics depend on how you want to play and develop your character."

So tactics are not something we need to have a chance, but something we roleplay? I want to be a sniper gal, so i'll pick rifles! I want to be a gunslinger, so i'll pick pistol! I want to be a ninja, so i'll pick low tech! Instead of i want to fucking survive to see the second room of this stage, i'll use whatever is fucking better for the situation. Sorry, if any approach works in any situation then there is no game. There's just a sandbox for you to build pretty castles on it.

"There is more than one way to win and they're fun."

So there are no real punishment, just choose whatever you like without any real consequence other than being able to play as you like?

In any case, this reminds me of this. Sorry.

Also, why so dry with me since i came back? Are you emo again or something?

 

[Gragt]

@ La Chatte Noire:

A game, any game, is a game as long as it is challenging to the player. Once it stops being challenging, it stops being a game.

That's far too relative to be acceptable. Does that mean you might play a game and suddenly you aren't? Might it be a game for one and something else (what?) for someone else? There is no need to needlessly complicate things, especially with such fickle definitons.

Yes, but letting you complete objectives in more than a single way doesn't count as gameplay but as design, and then having several ways to complete objectives doesn't make the game good, makes it a really bad game, since the gameplay is never beyond half assed and simplistic, built around a good design idea.

You have yet to prove the gameplay as half-assed and simplistic. Certainly simple, and it can be seen as one of its virtues, but not simplistic.

Then it is on the same choices and consequences level than any Bioware game.

I just demonstrated why it isn't.

The game's touted as being the paragon of Choice and Consequence, so that doesn't cut it, sorry.

I discuss the game, not what others (who?) may claim about the game.

Also, I have given examples of games to which choices are not even part of the package that have more meaningful choices than Deus Ex.

I'm not exactly convinced by those that require you to basically find the perfect route to achieve the best ending, where it isn't much about C&C but blind persistence. That said I easily agree that many games do C&C better — Arcanum, King of Dragon Pass or Mask of the Betrayer come to mind — but it's not like C&C is the focus of DX in the first place, and just because that idea is often thrown around doesn't make it relevant to criticise the game for it.

Also, Deus Ex is a game. If choices aren't really relevant to the gameplay they aren't relevant to the game, so they have no value in defining whether or not it is a good game.

They do because DX is not just a mere excercise of skill but also has a story and different characters tied to it and it is fun to see what influence you can have on those — from what is allowed by the developpers. It certainly clashes with a view that games should only be considered for the challenge they can propose, but that's how it is because we humans often require context to heighten our simple pleasures. That's why we shoot demons in Doom and not faceless cubes, why we try to get the Amulet of Yendor in NetHack or why we try to save the princess in so many other games. It's only logical that some games would improve on this point and give more flesh to the context, even if unfortunately some recent exemples put more emphasis on the context than the actual game. DX manages to find a nice balance between the two.

Ow, you need to think a bit before going in!

That was a caricatural rebuttal to answer you equally caricatural claim.

That's no punishment, that's design. I have given examples of many games where regardless of how much you reload you will not come close to get a good ending until your skill level is up to the task, from straight shooters to role playing games.

We go back to the context again. To care about getting a good ending within those conditions, the player should then care enough about the context to put the extra work. Anyway that is interesting for some games but not enough to be mandatory. Also as shown previously DX isn't about getting a good or a bad ending.

Also, rank based gameplay where you only get certain endings and routes if you reach the juncture point with a high rank, if not the highest one.

Great, some arbitrary mean to increase replay value. It might be fun in games where you but I question the pertinence when it comes to an RPG (pure or hybrid) where the fun of replaying comes from seeing the same game from a different perspective.

The sense of accomplishment is only there when you accomplish something. If the game has no real challenge and every single retard out there can get the same result without true skill, what did you accomplish?

Again for that claim to work, you have to show that the game has no challenge and every single retard can get the same result. Yes, I read your previous exemples but not all games need a high challenge level to be fun.

Items and Biomods are part of the gameplay. We aren't talking extra challenge here, we are talking how hard is the game when you are using all the tools the game gives to you.

If we aren't, then why do you bring it up?

The answer is not at all.

To be honest, I would have been surprised if the game became harder the more I use the tools it makes available to me.

If i have to add extra rules for the game to be somewhat challenging the game is retard easy, so go back to the point when you said it wasn't.

What the hell are you talking about now?

Making good use of your tools should be the bare minimun for the game to be doable, not an optional something you do to make the game even easier. If i can clear a game with minimal deaths just because i use the tools the game gives me, then i have to assume the game's is designed so that retards and imbeciles unable to play it can win it. Therefore, retard easy. :3

As you say yourself, that's just an assumption, and that's not enough to make an argument.

So tactics are not something we need to have a chance, but something we roleplay?

Are the two mutually exclusive?

I want to be a sniper gal, so i'll pick rifles! I want to be a gunslinger, so i'll pick pistol! I want to be a ninja, so i'll pick low tech! Instead of i want to fucking survive to see the second room of this stage, i'll use whatever is fucking better for the situation.

That's a rather easy and dishonest shortcut. Just because DX lets you complete a level in more than one way doesn't mean that any approach will do. Take the direct approach if you can deal with combat better, and even then it depends greatly if you face humans or bots; go with stealth if you are geared for that approach; go through the roofs or sewers if you have the upgrades that will make it easier; etc.

So there are no real punishment, just choose whatever you like without any real consequence other than being able to play as you like?

Why the unhealty focus on punishment? Is it really a bad thing to be able to play the way you want? Obviously if you develop yourself only towards combat you won't be as stealthy as another character. You will still be able to make use of stealth but not as efficiently.

In any case, this reminds me of this. Sorry.

I've seen some live battles. Always fun and cute. It's fun to see that even a ferret as small as Bobby can scare adult cats easily.

Also, why so dry with me since i came back? Are you emo again or something?

I'm emo since those bastards took my avatar away.I just react to what you say, nothing more and nothing less. But don't worry, I got enough fluids to share with everyone.

 

[Black Cat]

@ Le petit furet

"That's far too relative to be acceptable."

That's as relative as a game has to be fun to be a game or any other definition of what a game is.

"Does that mean you might play a game and suddenly you aren't?"

Yay, once you went beyond the challenge horizon you are no longer playing a game just as when you are playing alone with your toys and no rules beyond what you want you are playing a game, you are just playing. A game is defined by rules and mechanics designed to be overcome.

"I just demonstrated why it isn't."

No, you didn't. You just said that it is not the same as Bioware because of scale, again focusing on something that's not the gameplay, as if games were something but, like, games. Games aren't about scale, genre, writing, or anything but gameplay, so if the gameplay effect is the same it is the same thing from the standpoint of a game. They are both choices and they both have only illusive consequences that in no way affect the gameplay in a meaningful manner so they are both the same thing as far as it affects the gameplay.

I have never said those details are wrong per se. I was critizing the Codex's own double standar and the retards who say choices equal gameplay instead of design. Choices only equal gameplay when they have an effect on the gameplay, otherwise they are just fluff that in no way changes the relative quality of the gameplay.

"I'm not exactly convinced by those that require you to basically find the perfect route to achieve the best ending, where it isn't much about C&C but blind persistence."

Games aren't choose your own adventure books, and Choices and Consequences are of no importance as far as they don't affect the gameplay directly. The best endings and outcomes are suposed to be rewards for an outstanding skill levels. We can discuss Deus Ex virtue as interactive storytelling, sure, but that will not change that as a game all those choices and consequences are superficial and vanal, shit, boring since they are divorced from the game. And, in true Deus Ex tradition, its virtues as interactive storytelling will be humiliated by anything we can think of since it half assess it as much as it half assess everything else.

"They do because DX is not just a mere excercise of skill but also has a story and different characters tied to it"

It is a game. The story and the characters are unimportant fluff that may add to the game but doesn't make the game. Chess doesn't have a plot yet it is a game, a book has a plot but isn't a game. Plot is unimportant to it's nature as a game, as it is optional and so unimportant to its quality as one. Plot, and fluff, do not make you a good game. What makes you a good game is the comparative quality of its gameplay.

Every single gameplay element of Deus Ex pales in comparison to the standars of the genres they where taken from. The shooting mechanics are simplistic, diferent weapons don't really make a diference, enemies just rush you and strafe and are unable of pulling even the most basic tactics against you. The stealth mechanics are among the worst in the genre, and you are able to pull no end of shit without no one even caring and with alert levels returning to normal in the most ridiculous situations. The AI is even worse for stealth than it is for action, enemies don't react to anything that doesn't happens in front of their noses, patrol routes rarely overlap so it's easy to break the levels minding one enemy at a time without ever having to truly time anything, and what little trouble you may have is completely retarded as enemies making noise when killed by a melee weapon but not when shocked by the prod, where the former one kills them cleanly and the later one has them two seconds being high voltaged. Both cases suffer even more as the levels aren't made up to work with the limitations of the stealth system nor the action mechanics. The role playing game and the skill based game constantly get in the way of one another, to the point where the skill system works by means of throwing lots of penalties to you and then requiring you raise levels to get to normal game mechanics, and even then the game's unable to create a challenge. In many cases you are not paying skill points to get new skills and routes, you are paying them for the game to stop messing with your skills in retarded ways.

Going through all in the highest dificulty setting the Thief games do stealth way better, and even Halo does first person shooter combat better but let's say Unreal and Half Life. The first person action role playing game thingie is done ages better by System Shock II, where you do not build your character based on what you want to LARP but to face particular challenges, there are many character builds that can get in an impossible to continue spot, and you only choose pure conceptual builds to be heavily challenged. Etc, etc, etc. Compared to those the only thing Deus Ex has going for it is the possibility of choosing your own approach, and we already defined that as design instead of gameplay.

So in which way is Deus Ex a good game? Given you are the one pushing a positive claim it is with you that the most weight of the burden of proof stands, and so far you haven't pushed forward any argument. You should present your argument before trying to pass me the burden of proof, given positive claims have the right of pass and you are the one saying Deus Ex is a good game. :3

"DX manages to find a nice balance between the two."

So it manages to find a balance between gameplay and fluff, which could be understood as sacrificing elements of gameplay to make space for fluff, and that makes it a good game? Nope, a game is gameplay, and no fluff can make a weak gameplay be good. It can make you forgive the gameplay is weak, sure, but that will not make it a good game, just a experience you particularly enjoy.

"To care about getting a good ending within those conditions, the player should then care enough about the context to put the extra work."

It is implied you care enough to put the extra work, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your time playing a game you don't want to play. Is the gameplay rewarding enough that mastering it is fun? Then do so. No? Then go play something else. If you need a plot to keep playing a game then, again, the game's not doing its work as a game.

You are assuming fluff is a key element of gaming, but it isn't, as it is evidenced in the entire body of arcade gaming and abstract action games. Fluff betters the experience, sure, but it is an optional aside. To give a random example people is constantly trying to pull the better Hellsinker ending, even when they don't bloody understand what the fuck is going on in the screen, just because the gameplay makes it worthwhile to reach such a level of skill. To this day not even the japanese are sure of what the bleeping fuck is going on, but those last battles are tense and ridiculous enough to make the extra effort worth it. In the same way, people is constantly trying to activate the special patterns in Twilight Refrain, to the point of playing entire stages in counter intuitive ways to meet all the conditions at the triggering spot, just because the gameplay is amazing and to try and defeat a new pattern, much harder than the normal ones, is a reward in itself. You want role playing game examples? The Shin Megami Tensei bonus bosses, who are always so brutal they would defeat the main one with little finger alone, and their excuse to be there is usually something along the lines of i was passing through and...

In other words, if you aren't enjoying the gameplay in and out of itself maybe you should look for a diferent game, or a diferent pastime.

"Great, some arbitrary mean to increase replay value."

One rewards your skill and the other doesn't, and the one that doesn't is less arbitrary than the one which does? So a game basing the content you receive on your playing skill is using an arbitrary mean to increase replay value but a game doing a skill check for it or a dialogue tree for it is giving you choices and consequences?

"when it comes to an RPG (pure or hybrid) where the fun of replaying comes from seeing the same game from a different perspective. "

Most dungeon crawlers do not change more by choosing a diferent character than shooting games do when picking a diferent ship and attack pattern. You are just getting new and diferent pew pew around which to build the way you face the challenges. Dungeon crawlers aren't role playing games? Roguelikes aren't, either? Behold, the one genre with, like, eight games, total.

"Yes, I read your previous exemples but not all games need a high challenge level to be fun."

Fun does not define a game, as there are many fun things that aren't games, and i can asure you there are many games you would totally not find any fun at all. The fun factor you take from it is irrelevant to it being a good or bad game. The one thing games possess that other fun things does not is player control and challenge. All other elements are fluff, as games came before the fluff got to them. They can better the experience of playing the game, but they do not make the game better or worst.

"If we aren't, then why do you bring it up?"

I gave an example of the game being stupidly easy, not of items and biomods making the game even easier. The game gives me those tools, i use them, i break the game. Such a good game this is!

"To be honest, I would have been surprised if the game became harder the more I use the tools it makes available to me."

A game's dificulty when using all what it offers to you is the base dificulty. If you aren't using all the tools, you are gimping yourself. The game shouldn't become easy when you use all the tools given to you, it should become even harder when you don't, and only become easy as you master the use of each tool in combination with all others in diferent situations.

Saying otherwise is like saying a given first person shooter is easy when you are using all the weapons it offers to you against the enemies they are most effective against, and that for the game to be a challenge you need to only use the basic pistol. That's adding an extra challenge because the dificulty level sucks, not playing the game as intended and not finding it retard friendly.

"What the hell are you talking about now?"

You said it is impossible to go completelly invisible and silent without using items or biomods. That only means is possible to go completelly invisible and silent, since the game gives you both items and mods as a tool. They are not a cheat, they are not a hack. Therefore being completelly invisible and silent is something designed as it appears in the game and given it's totally broken, then the game mechanics are broken. Is a game with broken mechanics a good game?

"As you say yourself, that's just an assumption, and that's not enough to make an argument."

No. I said given the game is easy to totally dominate when using the tools the game offers i have to assume the game's designed so that retards and imbeciles can win it. The assumption is that they willingly made the retards and imbeciles able to win it, not that the game is retard easy when using all its tools as intended. If my assumption is wrong and they did not want the game to be doable by retards then they are awful designers and failed, pick one.

"Are the two mutually exclusive?"

If tactics are something you need to do just to survive you can't roleplay them. You have to either use the right one to survive or go to the game over screen. Otherwise you are saying the game shouldn't punish you for choosing a not efficient way of facing a challenge, meaning challenges should be easy enough any tactic, or most, should be able to carry the player through them.

Challenges are never free for all. Actually, what defines a challenge is that it isn't free for all. If anyone can solve it in their own way, then it isn't a challenge at all. The point of a challenge is that not all approachs will get you through it. In a stealth game a challenge is defined by a level where the routes and patterns and mechanics interact in such way you need to make a perfect plan using all your tools and improvise upon it along the way to get anywhere. In an action game a challenge is a battle so hard you need to fight efficiently and skillfully to have a chance to get through. If any weapon will carry you through, there is no need to fight efficiently. If a careful plan using all your tools isn't required, then the pattern and routes and mechanics aren't challenging enough.

The entire point of a challenge is to raise yourself to its level and not to have the challenge itself be pulled down to your own. That would defeat the entire point.

"Take the direct approach if you can deal with combat better, and even then it depends greatly if you face humans or bots; go with stealth if you are geared for that approach; go through the roofs or sewers if you have the upgrades that will make it easier; etc."

That's the point, and it kind of follows from the last one. No matter what situation you are in you will find a route in which your build has it easy, and there's no skill to that. You are not having to game the system to survive all the challenges the game designers could throw you way but facing challenges custom built so you can surpass them. That's no bloody challenge! No matter where you are, you can win. What's the point? There's no raising up to the challenge, therefore there is no challenge at all.

"Why the unhealty focus on punishment?"

It's not unhealty. All the contrary, actually. Punishment is not unhealty. When you are punished you learn to fear that failure, and push you forward, away from that punishment. If the first time through Deus Ex you build whatever comes to mind and find yourself in a situation where the game has turned impossible and there's no way your character can win with your current skill level you will either develop your skill level, becoming a better player, or develop a better character, becoming a better player. Or planning your run to the smallest detail so next time you get there you have more items, making you a better player.

[BDSM]
Pain is the answer. Pain is the guide. Pain is the key. *prays*
[/BDSM]

"I'm emo since those bastards took my avatar away."

Awww, you are kawaii even avatarless. :3

"But don't worry, I got enough fluids to share with everyone."

That's so easy to understand the wrong way. D:



I'm getting this feeling we are going into the battlegrounds of semantics about what is a game and what just a experience at lightspeed. x3

 

[Vibalist]

@ Le Petit Furet

@ La Chatte Noire:

Stop this faggot bullshit.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

The politically correct way to call it is "french", Vibalist

seriously, you people are so insensitive

 

[visions]

I didn't read the last couple of walls of text but I think Blackcat's stance that playing obnoxiously hard games is way superior to playing games she considers play-pretending and escapism, is kind of hilarious.

I really don't see how solving "complex problems" in a fucking COMPUTER GAME is any less escapist than playing a game for it's setting, story, characters or whatever

"Whereas you play games for personal enjoyment I solve COMPLEX PROBLEMS in computer games, this makes me a pretty elite individual"

I also find it funny how many people seem to be jumping on the "everything that's not hardcore dungeon crawling is larping" bandwagon. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised anymore if someone would say that reading fiction and identifying with the protagonist to some extent ("lololol you are reading Faust and think you actually are him, what a larper!!1!") now counts as larping, taking into account how much the definition of "larping" has been stretched.

Furthermore, I think that comparisons with playing with toys are clearly fallacious, since when playing with toys you were making up your own world, story, setting, characters etc, whereas in computer games you are interacting with and adapting to something that has been created by other minds, therefore reading books or watching movies would be an apt comparison, unlike playing with toys.

Arguing that the only important aspect of computer games is gameplay, since they are computer "GAMES", is pointless semantics, it's also heavily influenced by the connotations the word combination "computer game" has in English. Not all languages make such a clear distinction between games and playing, for instance in French the verb "jouer" can be applied to both, baseball and playing with barbies, same with "mängima" in Estonian (yes I know that no-one gives a fuck about Estonian, but French is a p. important language at least). Hell, I just realized that also in English you are still PLAYING games, so even if we venture into semantics and are operating solely by the rules and definitions of English, we still can't ignore the PLAYING aspect. In "playing games", the noun "games" is subordinated to the verb "playing", playing games is one of the aspects of playing.

Also regarding more abstract games, do you play card-games or chess in order to win or in order to do something moderately fun/enjoyable? I know that for me doing something that is interesting and fun is much more important than winning and overcoming "the challenge" although I try to win as well.

I also realized that it's kind of ironic that I mentioned the walls of text, since even though I initially intended to make a few comments, I also ended up vomiting forth a wall of text in a stream-of-consciousness manner, but whatever, after typing all this shit up I'm definitely not going to delete it anymore.

For conclusion, I think that maybe whether one values challenge/game-mechanics or the setting/story/etc. more, may be determined by one's background and how he or she starts approaching rpgs (or computer games in general). I came from a bookish background and for me rpgs are about exploring and interacting with the game world, similar to reading a book, only more interactive and the progress in game world is often less linear and more flexible than in a book.

I do also appreciate games that mostly rely on the mechanics but I can't deny that the computer games (not just rpgs) I've enjoyed the most were the ones where I enjoyed the world and presentation (Blade Runner, Arcanum, Fallouts, Torment, Unreal, Age of Wonders).

I think that the games that mostly rely on presentation and games that rely mostly on challenge both have their place and I can enjoy both, Morrowind and Doom, for different reasons, since they have a somewhat different function for me, although tbh I don't think that I'd enjoy a game like Doom as much as I do if it would have bland and boring enemies and environments (fighting evil terrorists/mercenaries in some shithole for instance).

 

[Clockwork Knight]

"Whereas you play games for personal enjoyment I solve COMPLEX PROBLEMS in computer games, this makes me a pretty elite individual"

This is pretty much what the codex does. "Popamole", "new shit", "dumbed down", etc

 

[Vibalist]

"Whereas you play games for personal enjoyment I solve COMPLEX PROBLEMS in computer games, this makes me a pretty elite individual"

This is pretty much what the codex does. "Popamole", "new shit", "dumbed down", etc

The key difference being that most of the sane members on The Codex are capable of understanding that games should also be enjoyable in addition to being challenging.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Black cat went full emo. Too bad

 

[Chateaubryan]

Since when Black Cat stopped using "nya", "like" and "stuffies" as punctuation marks ?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

When people stopped biting the trollbait.

 

[SuicideBunny]

don't we have any consoletard frenchies on the codex? the games already out for the xbox in france.