Alpha Protocol

[Average Manatee]

One further thing to know: This isn't a game that you should be trying to stealth through 100%. It will make the game far, far worse than it is.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Make sure you optimize the ini-files if you haven't already. If you need help doing it go here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/55422-modding-alpha-protocol/

 

[Infinitron]

One further thing to know: This isn't a game that you should be trying to stealth through 100%. It will make the game far, far worse than it is.

Yes, also this. Train yourself up to use a weapon. You will need it.

 

[Roguey]

And by "weapon" they mean pistols or assault rifles (but really just pistols). SMGs, shotguns, and martial arts are supplementary.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

I'd take pistols and martial arts. The pistol's ability chain shot is basically god mode and is all you'll ever need for ranged combat. Martial arts is more than enough to dispose of enemies in close combat.

 

[Alex]

I know I mentioned my dislike of Alpha Protocol here before, but I thought a while about it, and I think I can pinpoint what kills the game for me.

AP is recognized for offering the player a huge amount of choice. I won't contest this, there are indeed many different choices offered as you progress through the game. However, even though choices are plentiful, mixing tactical and story choices together into one, they lack player agency. By this, I mean that you don't make your choices as a part of a master plan, and idea of where you want to get, but rather as more of a feedback to the game designer as to which direction you want him to take the story now.

As Captain Shrek mentioned, the game is cinematic, and I think this is its greatest flaw. There are certain problems with CRPG's stories in general that it may have been trying to fix. The frequent lack pacing, or the disconnect of the player's character from the rest of the story the two most obvious to me. AP's approach to this then is to define the pacing, the place of the characters in the story, what the drama is about and everything else. All you get to say is what specific story thread you want to follow.

And this is a very big problem in my mind. Everyone has their own definition of what RPGs are, or should be. My own definition is that an RPG is a game where you can build a role, and have the game react accordingly to what it is. And AP doesn't let you build your role, it lets you choose it, frequently in the dark without a clear idea of what you are choosing entails.

By the way, I should mention that many other RPGs I liked very much have very big limitations to the role you can build. But because you don't have the character's place in the story thrust into you by a multi-choice option, these are far less grating than AP's take.

 

[Menckenstein]

Does Sis have a cold? Or is she a drinker?

 

[Serious_Business]

By this, I mean that you don't make your choices as a part of a master plan, and idea of where you want to get, but rather as more of a feedback to the game designer as to which direction you want him to take the story now.

All you get to say is what specific story thread you want to follow.

And this is a very big problem in my mind. Everyone has their own definition of what RPGs are, or should be. My own definition is that an RPG is a game where you can build a role, and have the game react accordingly to what it is. And AP doesn't let you build your role, it lets you choose it, frequently in the dark without a clear idea of what you are choosing entails.

Your point is clumsily expressed at best. By definition, crpgs are not anything more than choosing the options the designer gives you. This is rather obvious - the word "designer" already implies this - you're playing in a designer world, a closed box. "Choosing your role" entails "choosing the options that the designer gives you". There's nothing more to it than that. I understand you mean that with this inherent limitation a crpg can do more or less, but as I said, I don't really feel like you're saying anything pertinent.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

And this is a very big problem in my mind. Everyone has their own definition of what RPGs are, or should be. My own definition is that an RPG is a game where you can build a role, and have the game react accordingly to what it is. And AP doesn't let you build your role, it lets you choose it, frequently in the dark without a clear idea of what you are choosing entails.

I think you mean AP lets you choose a path without really knowing where that path will lead. What do you mean by "build a role"? Role = "a socially expected behavior pattern usually determined by an individual's status in a particular society /a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process". In other words, warrior is the guy that goes in front taking hits, wizard is the guy that goes in the back slinging spells. You can choose Thorton's skills, you can choose what he'll do. Isn't that building a role?

 

[Infinitron]

TL;DR
What Alex wants is a game that's less on rails and more freeform. Why he has to bring in this bullshit about 'playing a role' is beyond me.

 

[Deakul]

This game is far too broken to be enjoyable, one of Obsidian's worst games.

 

[Gord]

I would have enjoyed the game more if there had been less boring combat parts.
Less of them and less boring ones.

Half the amount of combat missions would have been about ok I guess.

 

[Alex]

Your point is clumsily expressed at best.

Truly sorry about that. I was in a hurry, but I will try to do a little more editorial control in the future.

By definition, crpgs are not anything more than choosing the options the designer gives you. This is rather obvious - the word "designer" already implies this - you're playing in a designer world, a closed box.

Ok, this isn't at all related to the main discussion, but I have to disagree the word "designer" entails such things. Pencil and paper games have designers as well, but in those games you are truly free to build your roles (in the ones I play, anyway).

"Choosing your role" entails "choosing the options that the designer gives you". There's nothing more to it than that. I understand you mean that with this inherent limitation a crpg can do more or less, but as I said, I don't really feel like you're saying anything pertinent.

Well, I agree with you that this is an inherent limitation. The designer can try to guess more or less what kinds of actions the player might want to follow through, what kinds of stories he might want to play out. My main point, however, is that the greater focus on the story came with a greater cost of player's agency, both real and illusory. Take New Vegas, for example. In the end, you need to choose from one of the well defined, pre-made solutions to the Dam's problem. But even then, the game affords your character plenty of chances to define who he is, through the huge load of side-quests the game has.

Furthermore, your character is a "mysterious stranger", someone pretty much separated from the story that comes in and does things his way. Since he isn't cinematically inserted into the story like Thorton is, his self expression during the game is far less than AP's protagonist. He interacts with npcs mostly through combat and a few, unvoiced dialog options. But this lack of story insertion also helps making the PC "yours". You get to say who the PC truly is through the great breadth of quests, shaping an imaginary personality throughout and the game rarely breaks this illusion. Thorton, on the other hand, is pretty much his own guy the whole game.

I think you mean AP lets you choose a path without really knowing where that path will lead.

That is problematic too. Compare it to New Vegas, for example, where the game gives you much more opportunity to find out what the effect of your actions will be. Sure, sometimes you will be surprised, without you being able to do anything about it, but it is still much better than in AP, where you can't be so sure about even what the choice you are making is going to do.

What do you mean by "build a role"? Role = "a socially expected behavior pattern usually determined by an individual's status in a particular society /a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process". In other words, warrior is the guy that goes in front taking hits, wizard is the guy that goes in the back slinging spells. You can choose Thorton's skills, you can choose what he'll do. Isn't that building a role?

It is, but I am mostly complaining about the story aspect of AP, which is pretty separated from the game aspect. You can use game systems to make "stories" where you play an important role too. The Wizardry series, or Crawl - Stone Soup games are good examples of this. I don't feel AP succeeds in this aspect either, but I am not at all arguing about that right now.

TL;DR
What Alex wants is a game that's less on rails and more freeform. Why he has to bring in this bullshit about 'playing a role' is beyond me.

Well, my main point for this post was that AP failed mostly by trying to be cinematic. Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines' main quest was very on rails too, but it still allowed for more player agency (and the illusion of it). The reason I posted this is because I thought it might be interesting to discuss if its "movie-likeness" was really at odds with it being a CRPG and what other ways we could find to make the player's character more part of the story without making him no longer feel like the player's creation.

 

[Roguey]

I would have enjoyed the game more if there had been less boring combat parts.
Less of them and less boring ones.

Half the amount of combat missions would have been about ok I guess.

The missions are so short I really don't think it'd make much of a difference. You'd end up with like a three-four hour game.

 

[Average Manatee]

To make the gameplay good, what Alpha Protocol needed is Deus Ex-like level design, both in style and scale. Console limitations + Obsidian mishandling combined to create areas that couldn't load more than about 5 enemies at a time in a 30x30 area, that was absolutely disgusting.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

To make the gameplay good, what Alpha Protocol needed is Deus Ex-like level design, both in style and scale. Console limitations + Obsidian mishandling combined to create areas that couldn't load more than about 5 enemies at a time in a 30x30 area, that was absolutely disgusting.

I realize that a lot of gamers miss the old days when levels could be as huge as walking five meters but most western action games have since moved on to run a more tight, closed-off ship when it comes to level design. Nothing to do about that. It would have been disgusting if Obsidian had tried to cram as many enemies as possible on these small levels. The way they solved it was simply to let you encounter groups of enemies so you could dispose of them (by shooting, punching or sneaking), move on and encounter the next wave of enemies. Retards will disagree but this is in fact similar to the old days like in Deus Ex where enemies in groups of 2 or 3 would stand around/patrolling in place and wait for you to come by and dispose of them so you could move on to the next part of the level where you'd have to deal with another 2 or 3 enemies that just stood around/patrolled in place waiting for you.

tl;dr nothing has changed, some are just too stupid to see that.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Did you read the OP, Andyman Messiah?

 

[Infinitron]

I realize that a lot of gamers miss the old days when levels could be as huge as walking five meters but most western action games have since moved on to run a more tight, closed-off ship when it comes to level design. Nothing to do about that.

I disagree. I think there's a chance that one day the "open world sandbox" school of design will be synthesized into the "normal" school, effectively recreating the large maps of yore.

This will require a new console generation, of course. Although you could argue that DX:HR has already achieved it to an extent.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

I realize that a lot of gamers miss the old days when levels could be as huge as walking five meters but most western action games have since moved on to run a more tight, closed-off ship when it comes to level design. Nothing to do about that.

I disagree.

"most western action games"
"most western action"
"most western"
"most"

You'd have to agree that the sandbox-style games aren't so many that they're outmaneuvering Gears of War and Halo. Heck, I can only name GTA, Saint's Row, Prototype and Infamous and the last two have open worlds that are catastrophically empty-feeling.

Shrek: Yes?

 

[Infinitron]

I realize that a lot of gamers miss the old days when levels could be as huge as walking five meters but most western action games have since moved on to run a more tight, closed-off ship when it comes to level design. Nothing to do about that.

I disagree.

"most western action games"
"most western action"
"most western"
"most"

You'd have to agree that the sandbox-style games aren't so many that they're outmaneuvering Gears of War and Halo. Heck, I can only name GTA, Saint's Row, Prototype and Infamous and the last two have open worlds that are catastrophically empty-feeling.

Shrek: Yes?

Let me clarify - I don't think contemporary sandbox-style games have a design that's in any way comparable with the likes of Deus Ex and Thief. They set out to achieve very different goals.
That's why I think the sandbox-style would have to be synthesized with regular, conventional FPS map design.

So what you're saying is irrelevant. I don't care that sandbox-style games aren't outmaneuvering Gears of War because they aren't what I want.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Let me clarify - I don't think contemporary sandbox-style games have a design that's in any way comparable with the likes of Deus Ex and Thief. They set out to achieve very different goals.

Which is why I left them out of my "most western action games" group.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Shrek: Yes?

Sorry did not see it earlier.

4) World: The interactable world is divided into two sets: your safehouse(s) and the missions. You interact with the world mostly through dialogue in missions or emails. The bad thing about this is that the world i not OPEN like in Deus Ex where you had comparatively more freedom to interact with NPCs that were plot irrelevant. I don't know about you guys, but this game could have had a lot more immershun if
there were fun characters that trigger small side quests (again like in Deus Ex).

This was what I was referring to. Please be advised that the OP was written when I had just joined RPG codex and had not given serious thought to gaming.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

tl;dr nothing has changed[...]

 

[some guy]

Furthermore, your character is a "mysterious stranger", someone pretty much separated from the story that comes in and does things his way. Since he isn't cinematically inserted into the story like Thorton is, his self expression during the game is far less than AP's protagonist. He interacts with npcs mostly through combat and a few, unvoiced dialog options. But this lack of story insertion also helps making the PC "yours". You get to say who the PC truly is through the great breadth of quests, shaping an imaginary personality throughout and the game rarely breaks this illusion. Thorton, on the other hand, is pretty much his own guy the whole game.

Well, the notion of "beeing" a character that is part of the world isn't all that important when you can influence the world in a joyfull mather. But we all have our priorities...

This is a clear cut case of a game that would actually be improved if it featured a story mode that removed the retarded timer for dialogue choices and popamole gameplay and went straight to the custcenes and their shallow C&C because the "choose your own adventure interactive movie" within it is the only thing that is not totally shit.

The popamole gameplay was functional and the cutscenes and choises where awsome.

 

[villain of the story]

Oh, another shitty thread for a shitty game. LAWL