1eyedking said:
Vault Dweller said:
Part 2
Some gameplay quotes:
"Excellent
sneaking mission"
"Taking down all guards is difficult but satisfying"
"Checkpoint system is annoying but adds an awesome thrill and makes C&C even more awesome"
Oh shit! Did I really say that? I unwisely suggested that the game had a decent sneaking mission (singular)? Oh my...
And that taking down all guards is hard but satisfying? I knew I should have stayed with the "banal shit boring" formula.
Btw, it's nice to make shit up and pass it for an exact quote. I said:
"The checkpoint system is annoying as fuck but it does add to the thrill because if you make a mistake and have to reload, you have to go back. In games where you can save easily, sneaking past an enemy isn't that challenging. Reload a few times until you get a lucky roll and you're done. The checkpoint system doesn't encourage you to take risks, but AP often does."
Which is true.
"A much better character system than I thought" (read my 'guide', FFS, this is plain retarded)
"Loot system sucks" (ZOMG he's not that retarded)
"Superb characters and writing, excellent voice-acting" (Oh wai-)
"C&C is simply fucking awesome" (And now he's gone full derp)
The character system IS better than I originally thought.
The loot system does suck. The characters and the writing are good. As for the last quote, I said "The choices, aka the role-playing - superb." The choices are indeed well done in the game and you can really craft your own story. However... (see below).
I know you can be pretty particular about what an RPG is, but I'd argue that Alpha Protocol is probably the best one to come out for a while ...
Quite possibly.
But a week later you flip-flopped:
Nope. Don't have a lot of free time. Currently I'm doing the hotel mission in Taipei.
Overall impressions to-date: like all the different options and choices a lot, really want to replay the game, try different things, and see what happens, but playing the game is so painful sometimes. I'm definitely not the target audience.
Good: characters, writing, dialogues, choices (and hopefully consequences).
Bad: the rest. Ok, maybe the rest isn't bad but just uninspiring and mediocre, but who the fuck cares?
The biggest problem is that "good" takes about 10% of the gameplay, so most of the time you're just playing a mediocre game that I would never ever play for more than 10 minutes, if not for the good parts.
First, do you not understand the meaning of "quite possibly" and the difference from "yes, absolutely! best gaem evar!"?
Second, in case you didn't notice, my opinion of the game hadn't really changed and everything I've said about the game earlier fits my conclusion:
"What makes the game so bad is how good some parts of it are and how poorly they are developed/integrated. Take the characters, for example. They are good and well written, for the most part, which is one of Obsidian's strengths. Yet we're kept away from them. Instead of exploring their personalities and philosophies, being challenged or tricked to see and accept their points of view as reasonable, we get brief, timed conversations between lengthy sneaking/fighting sequences.
I can't say that the characters are underdeveloped, but they are under-presented in the game, which becomes even more evident when we have to take sides or make decisions.
Same goes for the consequences. They are well done and the story is flexible enough to support a large variety of choices, but it's like there are two games: generic shooter/sneaker layer on top of a fairly complex and well done choices & consequences narrative system. The problem is that they exist independently from each other. It's like you're playing two different games"