Alpha Protocol vs Fallout: New Vegas (Avellone vs Sawyer)

[jagged-jimmy]

APs gameplay is non existant and laughable. Playing only for story and C&C is ...kind of wierd.
NVs engine and combat are shit, but gameplay is somewhat good - exploring and solving quests. So NV wins, i guess.

 

[Stelcio]

Playing only for story and C&C is ...kind of wierd.

And yet Telltale sell millions of copies of their games.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

And yet Telltale sell millions of copies of their games.

Well, we're at the Codex here, i like to have gameplay in my games. Playing an Adventure from time to time is fine though.

What i meant, was:
When the gameplay in a game of very specific genre totally sucks, then playing it for other aspects won't save it.

 

[Lhynn]

Well, we're at the Codex here, i like to have gameplay in my games. Playing an Adventure from time to time is fine though.

What i meant, was:
When the gameplay in a game of very specific genre totally sucks, then playing it for other aspects won't save it.

Then think of it as if it was another genre, suddenly the game doesnt suck!

retarded logic if i ever heard one.

 

[Stelcio]

What i meant, was:
When the gameplay in a game of very specific genre totally sucks, then playing it for other aspects won't save it.

First error: you imply that gameplay in AP sucks. I already stated - narrative is the gameplay in AP. Combat is not great, I agree, though I didn't mind it at all, but it's not the most important element of gameplay, it's marginal in meaning and - only thing you can actually complain about - less marginal in quantity.

Second error: you call cRPG "a very specific genre" while it's far from it. Unless you categorized AP as shooter, which would be an error itself as well.

Third error already mentioned: you rate the game's quality on basis of what genre you categorized the game as.

 

[Roguey]

Narrative is THE gameplay in Alpha Protocol. It's pretty much CYOA.

AP's gameplay is bad shooting and stealth. There's no challenge to overcome in narrative.

 

[Infinitron]

I actually don't think AP's main problem is necessarily that the combat/gameplay/mechanics were bad. They WERE bad, but they could have gotten around that.

The problem was that the game's levels felt repetitive and cheap. They could have compensated for the poorly designed mechanics with lots of AWESOME situations and spectacle. But there's just not enough of that. I mean, you can zipline occasionally. Whoop tee fucking doo.

I guess you could say that the game was too low budget to have Call of Duty awesome button rollercoaster levels, but too poorly designed and linear to be a thinking man's mechanics game. Which one was it trying to be? Did the designers even know?

 

[Crooked Bee]

I tried replaying Alpha Protocol a year or so ago, but couldn't get past the first few hours; it felt very repetitive, and I just didn't feel like going through the motions again. I did have fun in my first playthrough, though.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

AP's gameplay is bad shooting and shit pointless stealth. There's no challenge to overcome in narrative.

Improved and QFT.

Then think of it as if it was another genre, suddenly the game doesnt suck!

retarded logic if i ever heard one.

Not sure what you mean, should i LARP playing something else?

First error: you imply that gameplay in AP sucks. I already stated - narrative is the gameplay in AP.

Here i say, that we totally disagree. I see AP as an action/stealth game with RPG mechanics. It sure was designed as such. A mix of Mass Effect and a shit Fighting game/Shooter.

Third error already mentioned: you rate the game's quality on basis of what genre you categorized the game as.

Nope, i said that the game should succeed at what it's designed to be at the core.
Playing GTA because of bowling and in-game internet surfing is fun? Fail.

 

[Spockrock]

I tried replaying Alpha Protocol a year or so ago, but couldn't get past the first few hours or so; it did feel very repetitive, and I just didn't feel like going through the motions again. I did have fun in my first playthrough, though.

pretty much my experience with the game

 

[Stelcio]

AP's gameplay is bad shooting and stealth. There's no challenge to overcome in narrative.

Quite the contrary - considering the fact that dialogue options are vague and you have to choose one in limited timeframe AND you are aiming for some specific results, the challenge is indeed there. Though I agree that if someone does not care at all how the story resolves itself, there is no actual threat of "game over" in narrative. But then - is the only point in playing the game beating it?

Here i say, that we totally disagree. I see AP as an action/stealth game with RPG mechanics. It sure was designed as such. A mix of Mass Effect and a shit Fighting game/Shooter.

Considering this game's difficult development process I doubt this game was designed as anything specific - the design philosophies were changing through developement. But it still ended up as a game you can absolutely enjoy if you don't mind its action/stealth element. Sometimes people create something with one thing in mind but end up with that thing having great use in something very different. That's why you shouldn't rate games basing on what you expect them to be, because they may end up being great if you just sit down and play them.

Nope, i said that the game should succeed at what it's designed to be at the core.
Playing GTA because of bowling and in-game internet surfing is fun? Fail.

I am pretty sure branching story and rich C&C were meant as a core, even defining feature of Alpha Protocol from the start.

 

[Roguey]

Quite the contrary - considering the fact that dialogue options are vague and you have to choose one in limited timeframe AND you are aiming for some specific results, the challenge is indeed there.

The three times I played, I used consistent archetypes, almost always hammering pro/suave/aggressive. Wasn't all that interested in say, doing "everyone likes/hates you" runs.

Though I agree that if someone does not care at all how the story resolves itself, there is no actual threat of "game over" in narrative. But then - is the only point in playing the game beating it?

Overcoming obstacles until there are no more obstacles or you get bored/too frustrated, whichever comes first. Obsidian got the "role playing" part down as well as they were able given what they were going for (a role playing game with a predefined fixed protagonist), botched the "game" part.

I am pretty sure branching story and rich C&C were meant as a core, even defining feature of Alpha Protocol from the start.

Hee, Mitsoda left because Avellone kept telling him that his narrative didn't have enough reactivity. In its first iteration it was a lot more like a linear adventure game where no major characters died (because they were being saved for a sequel).

 

[Bubbles]

Hee, Mitsoda left because Avellone kept telling him that his narrative didn't have enough reactivity.

Yes, that's a likely reason to quit your job.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

I am pretty sure branching story and rich C&C were meant as a core, even defining feature of Alpha Protocol from the start.

That's a feature though, meant to make the action game special and elevate it above competition. That's not the core gameplay.

 

[Roguey]

Yes, that's a likely reason to quit your job.

Are you being sarcastic with me, because that really is the reason

Before this, a former Obsidian employee speaking under less-open conditions told me Brian quit because he's "a drama queen, albeit a talented one."

 

[Seaking4]

Quite the contrary - considering the fact that dialogue options are vague and you have to choose one in limited timeframe AND you are aiming for some specific results, the challenge is indeed there. Though I agree that if someone does not care at all how the story resolves itself, there is no actual threat of "game over" in narrative. But then - is the only point in playing the game beating it?

The point of the game is to have fun. And while there are parts of AP that are fun, what you spend 90% of the game doing is just boring.

 

[Lhynn]

Not sure what you mean, should i LARP playing something else?

You should always be able to LARP your RPGs, means you got in.

But i didnt mean that, you said AP doesnt work as an RPG, but as a game of a different genre its good, i dont see how thats possible. Its either good or it isnt, regardless of genre.

 

[Press X for Feels]

Alpha Protocol was one of the few RPGs where the choices you made actually mattered so I admired it on that end but everything else was pretty shit down to the protagonist who was always smarmy no matter what option you picked. Still way better than the Bioware tripe people tried to claim it was an inferior copy of, and the absolute drubbing it got by critics who played it for like ten minutes was completely undeserved.

F:NV is definitely the better game though just based on the fact it isn't excruciating to actually play.

 

[Tigranes]

It's well known that Alpha Protocol was very confused and angsty in its development, it wasn't sure what it wanted to be, it wasn't very good sometimes at what it wanted to be, it had multiple voices inside the head pulling it this way and that, and ultimately there wasn't quite enough time to be whatever.

I still love replaying AP but it's hard for me to necessarily defend it or recommend it to other people systematically. There's just something wonderful about watching guard patrol patterns then setting multiple ones on fire with one grenade, sneaking in a mine on the wall that you remotely detonate as they run towards you frantically, trying to headshot everybody with a pistol (without Chain Shot). But at the same time there's no getting around the fact that the abilities are poorly designed and balanced, the controls can be clunky, and so on and so forth.

Also we should be happy that, however flawed, it exists as a paragon of C&C in the wider landscape of CRPG design.

 

[Stelcio]

The three times I played, I used consistent archetypes, almost always hammering pro/suave/aggressive. Wasn't all that interested in say, doing "everyone likes/hates you" runs.

Ok, so you weren't interested in exploring possibilties this game gives and thus taking on the challenges bound with them. Perfectly viable reason to not enjoy the game. Not really something you can criticize the game about.

Hee, Mitsoda left because Avellone kept telling him that his narrative didn't have enough reactivity. In its first iteration it was a lot more like a linear adventure game where no major characters died (because they were being saved for a sequel).

I can agree that in its first iteration it may have been more linear, but on a screen you provided Avellone himself said that initially the storyline wasn't as reactive as they wanted it to be.

That's a feature though, meant to make the action game special and elevate it above competition. That's not the core gameplay.

Since when you know better what devs had in mind for the story - to be a core gameplay element or "a feature"? As far as I see it, the narrative is the defining element of Alpha Protocol, the selling point. Saying AP is an action shooter is like saying Pirates! is arcade sea battle game.

 

[Rake]

F:NV is definitely the better game though just based on the fact it isn't excruciating to actually play.

This is the part i disagree though. FNV is excruciating to actually play, and it's much bigger with a ton more pointless filler in there.
Agree with the rest of your quote though.

 

[Spockrock]

I found NV to be very enjoyable (I don't use VATS, play it like a shooter in combat), so it's hard to actually imagine what could be so bad about playing it. or did you mean you hated exploration (because AP has none, so that's a logical assumption)?

 

[Roguey]

Ok, so you weren't interested in exploring possibilties this game gives and thus taking on the challenges bound with them. Perfectly viable reason to not enjoy the game. Not really something you can criticize the game about.

It's not a challenge to figure out which stances characters like and dislike, unless one is socially challenged.

I can agree that in its first iteration it may have been more linear, but on a screen you provided Avellone himself said that initially the storyline wasn't as reactive as they wanted it to be.

By "we" he means "I" as the creative director of Obsidian Entertainment who eventually had to take over the project himself to get what he wanted.

 

[Rake]

I found NV to be very enjoyable (I don't use VATS, play it like a shooter in combat), so it's hard to actually imagine what could be so bad about playing it. or did you mean you hated exploration (because AP has none, so that's a logical assumption)?

Both felt like bad shooters to me. I'm completely indifferent to exploration so NV doesn't get any points for it. I liked the narrative,characters and C&C in AP more than NV.
Both games are "good for what it is" flawed gems.(and tarnished gems for that matter). The thing that makes me prefer AP is it's more scripted nature and the lack of filler content (a thing i despise in games and the reason i don't like exploration in games most of the time)

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Can someone explain what the actual C&Cs are in AP other than characters appearing in certain levels if they like you or you left them alive?

I've done 2 or 3 full playthroughs and didn't really see much consequence to the choices, and the gameplay is so boring I can't quite face another playthrough.

I'm probably the biggest Obsidian fanboy here but even I can't honestly hold up AP as a good example of C&C in an RPG.