Preview Moral Choices the Alpha Protocol Way

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Tags: Alpha Protocol; Obsidian Entertainment

Videogamer had some <a href="http://www.videogamer.com/ps3/alpha_protocol/preview-2333.html">hands-on time</a> with Alpha Protocol.
<br>
<br>
Lets be honest from the start: <i>this isn’t as pretty as Mass Effect.</i>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Let’s be clear right now: this isn’t as pretty as Mass Effect. Lead spy Michael Thorton and his chums would never be described as “da hotness” by hormone-fuelled street yutes, but nor would they be described as “well butters”. Fine, so those particular slang terms both went of out of use years ago – but hopefully you get my point: it’s solid-looking, rather than spectacular. On a similar note, the action doesn’t feel quite as pant-dampeningly pleasurable as BioWare’s sci-fi romp. The controls just aren’t as immediately responsive, so pleasingly contoured to your destructive whims, and the battles lack the same “instant blockbuster” feel that you get while battling with Shepard and company. If Alpha Protocol had made its original release window, it wouldn’t have had to suffer these comparisons – but it didn’t, and so it must.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
But it features muddied morality instead:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>For example, at one point on your travels you may need to deal with a particular Russian informant who has some info that you need. If you’re polite, he’ll give you what you need, and he’ll also give you both an optional side mission and the contact details for a new arms dealer. If, on the other hand, you shout at him and then glass him like an ASBO yob on a government grant, he’ll be so utterly terrified of you that he’ll give you give you a five per cent discount in his shop (everyone in Russia sells guns, apparently).
<br>
<br>
In most RPGs this would simply be another throwaway morality choice, linked to a binary good/evil karma system – but here, things aren’t so clear-cut. If you glass the informant he’ll run crying to the local authorities, so when you later turn up to burgle a local embassy you’ll find it staffed by grizzly marines. This might sound like a bad thing, but if you approach them in the right way you get nice and chummy with them - so when the embassy gets attacked by terrorists, ten minutes later, they’ll help you out. If, on the other hand, you were squeaky-clean and nice-as-pie with the initial informant, the embassy will be staffed by wimpy security guards. No prizes for guessing what happens to them when the bad guys show up.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.rpgwatch.com/#14918">RPGWatch</A>

 

[hanssolo]

"da hotness" - street yute.

 

[denizsi]

So it still comes down to whether you kill more guys or fewer guys in a quest.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

Wow, those guys know their way around choices, they know tbeir job.

We all know C&C need balance like any other element of interaction, though

So if in the game "you want" to get the good finale, doing this simple by choosing all the goodie talks means that the balance is totally pooch screwed.

In the same way you can't make consequences impossible to read. The goal of any videogame is to make the player think about what they see and reflect on how they could solve problems.

So there must be a way for "consequences" to be intelligible in the choices before you make em. Why? Because among 4 choices, there should be one that's better than all of them. And it's hard to know which is because like in the example above there's some "unpredictable" implication. So there must be little almost invisible clues as to which is the best decision. The man the hero glassed and threatened should have given away for a split second this hint that lets you know what he's going to do(a tissue? a patch in his jacket? a short phrase about his connections), and maybe a little hint about the fact that the local authorities will help you.

Balance is everything in this case, the choices can't be too obscure or they're as bad as the example uuuh the guy cited... a game where you can make a choice based only on your "feel" with it, and then you can only "see what happens", is not very interesting to play.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

So it still comes down to whether you kill more guys or fewer guys in a quest.

Well remember Deus ex? Consequences also were kill more or fewer guys.

The challenge was HOW to manage to kill few.

Remember Fallout's typical situations? You had two factions and a third hidden non-combat possiblity. But it was hard to get(a phrase appeared on the screen like a "you see a man handling a small device"), this solution would result in giving back control to the normal people.

The consequence was more equipment-money against fewer people killed, no? Nothing immense or tragical. But it was still challenging to get it.

 

[a wild nigger]

im a fukkin dingleberry!!
im a fukkin dingleberry!!
im a fukkin dingleberry!!

 

[Hobo Elf]

Alpha Protocol - RPG of the millenium.

 

[Castanova]

How is this different than the choice between talking the Master into killing himself and having to kill him yourself?

 

[Jaedar]

This sounds really really good: A glimmer of hope in the bog of videos.

 

[Sannom]

So it still comes down to whether you kill more guys or fewer guys in a quest.

Nah, even if you have the soldiers instead of the security guards, you can still be an ass and have them shoot you

So there must be a way for "consequences" to be intelligible in the choices before you make em. Why? Because among 4 choices, there should be one that's better than all of them.

Balance is everything in this case, the choices can't be too obscure or they're as bad as the example uuuh the guy cited... a game where you can make a choice based only on your "feel" with it, and then you can only "see what happens", is not very interesting to play.

In the case of Grigori, I think the key is his "dossier". Even the official website says that if one thing is certain with him, it's that he will never keep anything a secret, and that he is most likely to talk about you to other people.

Dunno about your second statement. Many previews I have read find it refreshing that since you can't be sure of your actions middle and long-term repercussions, you are most likely to just "play a role" instead of trying to get "the best outcome".

 

[DraQ]

Sounds like incline.

I'm still not very interested, but if it turns out alright, I hope their game is a success and spawns copious offspring more interesting to me in terms of theme and setting.

And, while findable clues are always good, there is nothing inherently bad with unforeseeable consequences, if they make sense in retrospect - the only guideline should be to not rape the player for perfectly reasonable behaviour.

 

[poocolator]

Those defending this...thing, buy it, play it, (take one for the team); afterward, come back to us and tell us how much you hate yourself.

I'll be awaiting with my dick in my hand, ready to smear the tears across your faces.

 

[Xor]

Oh, you.

 

[denizsi]

So there must be a way for "consequences" to be intelligible in the choices before you make em. Why? Because among 4 choices, there should be one that's better than all of them.

Intelligible? Perhaps. "Better"? I'm not sure. Better in what way, from a moral perspective or on metagaming grounds? Don't answer, both are bad. You can't always cut things into a universally clear best/good/bad/worst else it stops being interesting and becomes boring. Really, just what's the point of having choices at all then? It's like the choice of power to rule them all.

Balance is everything in this case, the choices can't be too obscure or they're as bad as the example uuuh the guy cited... a game where you can make a choice based only on your "feel" with it, and then you can only "see what happens", is not very interesting to play.

Like your hand-holding much? And where's the balance in always having a choice that's better than others?

Are you Emma Short or what?

Well remember Deus ex? Consequences also were kill more or fewer guys.

How is this different than the choice between talking the Master into killing himself and having to kill him yourself?

Ignoring the fact that talking the Master into killing himself requires recovering information AND stats, in addition to the fact that talking the Master into killing himself completely eliminates combat, which are huge deals in comparison to this, let's agree that those games are the past now. They showed cool stuff and now we need to take cue and move on. That's how progress is achieved.

Already, I'm very glad that AP doesn't look like it will be a direct ME rip off with a make up in the narrative choice department. That, for a pseudo-parasitic developer like Obsidian (in the sense they've always followed in BW's footsteps), is a somewhat ballsy move what with all the rage by a "all content in one play" mentality -assuming the narrative branching is as significant as they make it out to be

What's sad is, it does look like a complete ME rip off with face lift on another side because they're also following incredibly archaic design decisions that don't even suit to one of the basic RP archetypes at all. In an RPG. And an "ESPIONAGE" RPG to boot. What the fuck is with the stealth bomber mechanics? As far as we've been told, there's nothing in the game to support a really stealthy approach. Where's the emphasis on avoidance, gadgetry, alternative routes etc. Can you say AP is on the same page as FO, DX or whatever on those points? I think not.

Right now, from my perspective, all this game has going for itself is the promised narrative branching -not the quality of choices-, which sounds more involved than anything else so far.

Too bad the rest of the game looks like shit(tm)*. Popamole combat. Saudi weapons dealer. Bad AI. Saudi weapons dealer. Poor writing. Saudi weapons dealer. Non-existent stealth. Saudi weapons dealer.

*: in before emotard punks quoting the politically incorrect words and BAWing about KKKodex points.

 

[Sannom]

is a somewhat ballsy move what with all the rage by a "all content in one play" mentality -assuming the narrative branching is as significant as they make it out to be

As far as we've been told, there's nothing in the game to support a really stealthy approach. Where's the emphasis on avoidance, gadgetry, alternative routes etc. Can you say AP is on the same page as FO, DX or whatever on those points? I think not.

Dunno what you think about this kind of source, but the Czech translator of the game posted some thoughts on the game on his twitter page. Really excited thoughts. Perhaps a little bit too much. Guy played through the game seven times and got a different ending each time. He was enjoying his eighth play-through when we last heard of him about this subject.

What makes you think that stealth is not favored in AP? You have three skills lines to help you do this, alternate paths to avoid enemies, characters responding positively to you if you're a "ghost", gadgets to distract enemies, etc. A level design less inspired than the one in Deus Ex is my only complain on that bit that far.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

In the case of Grigori, I think the key is his "dossier". Even the official website says that if one thing is certain with him, it's that he will never keep anything a secret, and that he is most likely to talk about you to other people.

Dunno about your second statement. Many previews I have read find it refreshing that since you can't be sure of your actions middle and long-term repercussions, you are most likely to just "play a role" instead of trying to get "the best outcome".

Well then there's no challenge and there's no interaction.

If you just play a role of, i dunno, independent but common-sensed guy you will always choose, say, the 3rd phrase of the wheel, because it's always the one that fits your alignment. You know it will always be consistent with you role, there's just to see what consequences it gets.

Where's the challenge? Also, if you already chose a role, can you change your mind? Based on what? On how you got up from the bed? How the mailman talked to you? That's not good enuff and again it lacks interaction.

My problem with "unruled" C&C is that i am a GOOD person. I will ALWAYS be the good guy, i could never do evil choices, not in a million years. So games have to give me a reason to not be good guy, and these reasons are dossiers and other plot hints. It's interesting to read that in AP an apparently good decision may lead to negative outcomes, those MIGHT just force me to consider things better and not be the usual goodiegoodie. Because if i want to be good-hearted in here too, i will have to "decypher" the "obscure" situations.

Fallout had a radically different system, it was the "best outcome" scheme, as i already said. You usually were able to choose between 2 factions, but you knew that if you solved a puzzle, you could find a 3rd solution that would settle things for good, and it was obviously the "good-hearted" decision, and all you'd get was fewer money, fewer ammo. And it wasn't important(that it was obviously the good-guy choice) because it was DIFFICULT to find this "hidden" solution, it was a puzzle. That's what "the best outcome" means. And it's contained in the bit you told about the dossier. The dossier will reveal you that there's one choice that's better than the others(because it's the good-hearted one), but it's HARD to find it... and that's where balance comes.

Challenge is the important thing here, everything else is secondary.

If a player can't even TRY to predict the repercussions, or to push the odds on his side someway, well the player picks random phrases following his "morals of the day". And challenge disappears.

 

[denizsi]

I'm hoping that guy is not a moron. That kind of joyful replayability is all I'm expecting from this game.

Regarding stealth, as far as I've read, all the emphasis on stealth is made to be the "being provided the tools to kill without going Rambo". Are there "socially" oriented quests involving getting through obstacles using impersonation, beguile, maybe setting small self-contained stunts/plots ie. all the stuff we've come to love from spy movies? I don't know. I haven't read or heard anything of the like in previews/videos, which probably means there aren't.

At this point, Hitman series look like better "spy games" in comparison.

If a player can't even TRY to predict the repercussions, or to push the odds on his side someway, well the player picks random phrases following his "morals of the day". And challenge disappears.

That sounds better now.

 

[Sannom]

Where's the challenge?

In living with the consequences of your choice? In trying to stick as close to your role as possible? In the fact that even though you know that the role you've choses isn't suited for some encounters, you will stick to it no matter what, even if it involves pain?
The thing you're describing is playing like a pragmatic, which is in itself a role. You can also get all the intel you need, know how to best deal with someone, but still refuse to do it because it conflicts with how you want your character to go.

Regarding stealth, as far as I've read, all the emphasis on stealth is made to be the "being provided the tools to kill without going Rambo". Are there "socially" oriented quests involving getting through obstacles using impersonation, beguile, maybe setting small self-contained stunts/plots ie. all the stuff we've come to love from spy movies?

Many gadgets are there to distract the enemy, block cameras' sight, etc. Some abilities are used to get a good idea of what exactly your foes are seeing, their patrol routine, etc. And in one of the article of AP's blog, they insisted on a number of mission in the Rome hub that you can perform without being seen. The main guy in that area is even surprised to hear you're even in the city!
There are a good number of social missions, which are about getting close to people in order to talk to them. Preferably not in full body armor. How you go through the conversation is up to you.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

So there must be a way for "consequences" to be intelligible in the choices before you make em. Why? Because among 4 choices, there should be one that's better than all of them.

Intelligible? Perhaps. "Better"? I'm not sure. Better in what way, from a moral perspective or on metagaming grounds? Don't answer, both are bad. You can't always cut things into a universally clear best/good/bad/worst else it stops being interesting and becomes boring. Really, just what's the point of having choices at all then? It's like the choice of power to rule them all.

It's not important really whether there's only ONE best choice, what matters is that there's challenge and interaction.

In a situation where there's 3 choices, and only one is good, the player will have to analyze everything he has seen so far(the story, the characters personality, documents, items)in order to know which is the best choice. It's not the only way to force thinking! It's simply a very effective one, because it doesn't let you pick anything(if you can pick anything because any is acceptable, what's the point of picking one at all? ) Obviously you can't know for SURE that the one you picked is the right one(balance). And beside the best choice, you can predict about the others

Now in the same situation with 3 choices, maybe there's not one that's best, but there's hidden clues that will let you "guess" the outcomes of each vaguely. In a way there's still "the best choice"... because if you could PREDICT the outcomes, there's one choice that's BEST for you. It's the sameconcept.

See reflecting on the possible outcomes is the key of challenge in both cases. The game should give clues to guess the outcomes. But if there's a choice that's BEST of all, challenge is doubled. You can guess the outcomes but you can also try to guess the best one. It's a richer challenge. It's what Fallout had.

Like your hand-holding much? And where's the balance in always having a choice that's better than others?

see above. The challenge is in looking everywhere for clues that tell you something, it's in doing it(because executing a choice that's best is HARD). And searching and doing requires balance. Your own way of challenge is as if Fallout didn't have a third choice to make. Your vision is as if in Fallout you could only pick between one faction or the other. You could guess what would happen and none was actually good or bad, but in the end it was stupid, you would only pick one, who cares? No puzzle, no real difficulty.

Well remember Deus ex? Consequences also were kill more or fewer guys.

How is this different than the choice between talking the Master into killing himself and having to kill him yourself?

Ignoring the fact that talking the Master into killing himself requires recovering information AND stats, in addition to the fact that talking the Master into killing himself completely eliminates combat, which are huge deals in comparison to this, let's agree that those games are the past now. They showed cool stuff and now we need to take cue and move on. That's how progress is achieved.

Yes exactly my point. Obviously to Fallout(and for the world, for anywhere anytime in the history humanity) doing something with logics, in a non-forceful way was clearly the best choice there was. And the point is that It was the hardest way to get. And the point of Fallout was that you would have to SEARCH for non-violent ways and they were THE BEST CHOICE im telling you about. it required you do to find those items. You had to solve puzzles.

Wow, im boring myself.

 

[1eyedking]

If Alpha Protocol had made its original release window, it wouldn’t have had to suffer these comparisons – but it didn’t, and so it must.

Videogaming journalism never forgives, never forgets.

 

[HanoverF]

The controls just aren’t as immediately responsive, so pleasingly contoured to your destructive whims, and the battles lack the same “instant blockbuster” feel that you get while battling with Shepard and company.

what is this I don't even...

 

[Gay-Lussac]

If Alpha Protocol had made its original release window, it wouldn’t have had to suffer these comparisons – but it didn’t, and so it must.

Videogaming journalism never forgives, never forgets.

Unless you pay them.

 

[Black]

If other RPGs are anything to go by, this isn't a choice. Small discount vs additional exp, possibly ph4t l3wt and a new (possibly unique) shop.

Reminds me of becoming a slaver in FO2. Sure, you can, but why would you? Money is everywhere and Wright won't give you the SAD quest with lotsa stuff and Skynet.
DUMB

 

[Xor]

Eh, you can still do most shit as a slaver, and it pays pretty well. It's not perfect from a powergaming standpoint, but the player isn't going to know that on their first or second playthrough. Choices and consequences.

 

[Jaedar]

The controls just aren’t as immediately responsive, so pleasingly contoured to your destructive whims, and the battles lack the same “instant blockbuster” feel that you get while battling with Shepard and company.

what is this I don't even...

Translation: Game is not popamole. Tiny jorunalism brain strained, cannot understand controls.