Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Interview Alpha Protocol Design Interview

VentilatorOfDoom

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
8,600
Location
Deutschland
Tags: Alpha Protocol; Chris Avellone; Obsidian Entertainment

Vault Dweller, who still works occasionally as an Undercover Agent for the Codex, tricked a few Obsidian folks into answering his questions. <a href="http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,1473.0.html">Topic: Alpha Protocol.</a>
<br>
<br>
<p style="margin-left:50px;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-top-color:#ffffff;padding:5px;border-right-color:#bbbbbb;border-left-color:#ffffff;border-bottom-color:#bbbbbb;"><b>3. I'm sure that when you started working on Alpha Protocol you looked at many different designs - above mentioned SS2, Deus Ex, which was cited as an inspiration for AP, Bloodlines, the Thief games, Bioshock, Mass Effect, etc. What, in your opinions, are the best design decisions that any developer should pay attention to before attempting to design a similar game? Which mistakes should be avoided? Basically, when it comes to "first/third person RPG with guns", what works and what doesn't?</b>
<br>
<br>
<b>Chris Parker:</b> The biggest problem we ran into was trying to balance the action game and maintain the things we think are important in RPGs. For example, you can't have a high action shooter with bad weapon mechanics - so when you are figuring out how you want your RPG system to work, you need to work against some of the typical RPG clichés like having your ability to-hit determined by skill. Instead you need to embrace all the great things about the first or third person shooter, and then figure out how to make your RPG without screwing those things up.
<br>
<br>
<b>Matt MacLean:</b> What worked for us is deciding how much we wanted the game to be player-skill-driven vs. character-skill-driven and stick to it. For instance - we were okay with making the player actually aim, shoot, and take cover via action controls and not a tactical menu were you select attack or defend - if you can't play an FPS, you probably can't play our game but to try and accommodate that level of action handicap would require making two different games.
<br>
<br>
From there, we knew we wanted the game to be theoretically beatable if you never used any RPG skills but were just ridiculously good at action gaming - not because we wanted the player to ignore the cool abilities we offer, but because giving the player the choice to put points anywhere means we can't make progression contingent on any one ability - so we were okay with skills you didn't invest in getting less useful vs. enemies rising in power as the game goes on - there's just never any obstacle that requires any one certain skill.
<br>
...
<br>
<b>6. One couldn't help but notice that there are no dialogue skills. Can you comment on this design decision?</b>
<br>
<br>
<b>Chris Avellone:</b> When you see a Speech skill in a role-playing game, it's usually the "correct" response. That's not much of a choice. So we made the "speech skill" based on actions you take in the game world including research, paying attention to cues in the dialogue, your attitude when speaking to someone, the amount of Intel you've gathered or purchased, and how you treat other people - not just the person you're talking to. We want you to act the way you want when choosing a stance or action, not have a skill point you to the "best" option.
<br>
<br>
In addition, dialogue in Alpha Protocol is complicated in that you don't always want to succeed in a conventional speech check against someone. In the spy feel of the game, there are many positive and negative repercussions to dealing with folks that pay off immediately (which is how players have been trained with Speech) but also longer-term counterbalancing positive and negative repercussions (which do undermine how Speech skills are perceived). By the end of the game, there isn't always a clear win when all's said and done - just reactivity.
<br>
<br>
In short, the payoffs for a response or behavior that would be typically defined by a short-term Speech skill success are often "too soon to tell," both immediately and in missions down the road.
<br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
I'll recapitulate:
<br>
1) Basically remove combat skills and replace them with player skill so that the game <i>is beatable if you never used any RPG skills</i>. This will net you proper <s>shooter</s> modern RPG combat.
<br>
2) Remove social skills as well, because they're dumb in the first place and don't make for <i>much of a choice</i>.
<br>
3) Add a few *RPG skills* like Technical Aptitude and Sabotage, which actually (at least I presume it) unlock Minigames that again require player skill.
<br>
4) Add a couple of Extreme Skillz for the lulz, like an Invisibility spell for proper *stealth gameplay* or a skill like Biotic Charge in ME2 which makes for fun moments.
<br>
5) Don't forget the most important RPG elements: collargrabbing dialogues and emotionally engaging romances.
<br>
There you have it: a modern RPG.
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.irontowerstudio.com">ITS</A>
 

Darth Roxor

Royal Dongsmith
Staff Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,878,406
Location
Djibouti
When you see a Speech skill in a role-playing game, it's usually the "correct" response.

It's not like every such option needs to have a flashing '[~~~>SPEECH CHECK<~~~]' sign before it...
 

Fat Dragon

Arbiter
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
3,499
Location
local brothel
Chris Avellone is the chosen one, his myth shall be written in the blood of Zeus.

Seriously though great interview, was a good read; Vince asks good questions. Really hope this game will be as good and nonlinear as they're claiming, we'll see in a couple months. Definitely agree with the dev's points about the speech skill, but that problem could also be solved by providing different types of speech skills that give different results and none being the absolute "perfect" choice. Their method is also interesting though, I hope their dialog system plays good.
 

fastpunk

Arbiter
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
1,798
Location
under the sun
Awesome interview. The game sounds solid, can't wait to play it. I'm still disappointed in their choice to make hacking and lockpicking minigames, though. Something like VtM:B's approach would have been ideal. Also, the A.I. seems rather dimwitted, which could fuck up the game in multiple ways. Still, like I said on ITS, if it delivers in terms of characters, reactivity, and multiple-path approach to mission, I'll be enjoying it.
 

spectre

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
5,382
you need to work against some of the typical RPG clichés like having your ability to-hit determined by skill. Instead you need to embrace all the great things about the first or third person shooter, and then figure out how to make your RPG without screwing those things up.

I don't know where's the difficulty here, cause the devs nowadays seem to paint it as a task of epic proportions while it's actually pretty simple, And has been done in deus sex a dew years back as well: make the aiming reticle, crosshair or whatever sway or shake depending on the actuall skil, then add modifiers based on various circumstances. There. No more headshots while sprinting sideways. Unless you have godly skill.
 

KalosKagathos

Learned
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
1,988
Location
Russia
Darth Roxor said:
When you see a Speech skill in a role-playing game, it's usually the "correct" response.

It's not like every such option needs to have a flashing '[~~~>SPEECH CHECK<~~~]' sign before it...
It's still pretty obvious which option is correct, usually, tags or not. Even in Torment CHA and INT options were 2 sentences longer than the rest, better worded and raised more critical points.
 

Fat Dragon

Arbiter
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
3,499
Location
local brothel
spectre said:
you need to work against some of the typical RPG clichés like having your ability to-hit determined by skill. Instead you need to embrace all the great things about the first or third person shooter, and then figure out how to make your RPG without screwing those things up.

I don't know where's the difficulty here, cause the devs nowadays seem to paint it as a task of epic proportions while it's actually pretty simple, And has been done in deus sex a dew years back as well: make the aiming reticle, crosshair or whatever sway or shake depending on the actuall skil, then add modifiers based on various circumstances. There. No more headshots while sprinting sideways. Unless you have godly skill.
When Obsidian's Anthony Davis was still posting on here, he told us that AP does exactly that. And from the gameplay videos I've seen, they kept it that way.
 

Lockkaliber

Magister
Patron
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
2,542
Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Divinity: Original Sin 2 Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Without giving spoilers, the answer to your first question: the changes that take place from this trilemma are in boss reactivity, merchant availability, the armament (better or worse) for future adversaries in other optional and critical missions in the Op after the event takes place, availability of added caches, perks, bonus pay, additional intel options, and news reports (which aren't a game mechanic, per se, but they are designed to hit the player emotionally). It also affects reputation from your handler, and from the people you are fighting in your first Op

This sounds very nice. And the non-linear part as well! Great interview VD!
 

Darth Roxor

Royal Dongsmith
Staff Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,878,406
Location
Djibouti
The best examples we’ve talked about is, if you encounter this one weapons dealer

if you encounter this one weapons dealer

WEAPONS DEALER

613332.jpg


Weapons dealer is the new Megaton.
 

denizsi

Arcane
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
9,927
Location
bosphorus
An old, senior Obsidian employee, nearing his 60s, telling his grandchildren stories around campfire

"There was this weapon dealer."
 
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
513
Interesting interview.

For all that's been said, I'm still very suspicious about the dialogue system. I can't quite see how exactly it's supposed to add to either the spy genre or player's identification with Thornton. I would go so far as to say not knowing what your character's about to say tends to create a sense of distance and that while a ticking bomb scenario may be entertaining to watch in a spy film, it sounds a lot less enjoyable as a dialogue mechanic.

The other thing is the third person view. I can't say I'm radically against it, but again, I don't really understand the arguments given to justify it.

MCA said:
We wanted the player to identify with Michael Thorton, which means we wanted him visible during the action.
This goes against my personal gaming experience and, dare I say, the conventional wisdom. It's called first person for a reason, after all.

MCA said:
So, you are rewarded for being stealthy and avoiding detection as much as if you'd killed someone in your path. 3rd person was the best way to communicate this aspect in the game.
Most of the cited influences (well, some were mentioned by VD only, but they make sense in the context nonetheless) such as System Shock 2, Thief, Deus Ex are first person games. I was one of the apparently very few of people who actually liked Cold War (a game that shares some similarities with Alpha Protocol -- a tongue-in-cheek spy adventure, inspired by MacGyver rather than Bond/Bauer/Bourne), but I thought its use of the third person perspective was detrimental to gameplay, particularly when it came to stealth.

MCA said:
[...]the ability to perform satisfying martial arts moves in 1st person is harder to do than in 3rd person.
True, but it also depends on how exactly martial arts are implemented. In a spy game, I'd expect them to be more useful as a complement of stealth rather than a viable means of fighting opponents armed with assault rifles.

I'm still interested in the game, though. I don't really mind the lack of a dedicated dialogue skill, or for that matter the overall focus on player skill. This is slightly off-topic, but I believe that a game with a very reactive world allowing for emergent gameplay, multiple approaches and solutions and outcomes for individual problems and a similarly flexible storyline could make for a great cRPG even if it focused solely on player skill. Sure, it would be the polar opposite of stat-heavy, Mondblut-friendly games, but not without its precedent in pen and paper RPGs.
 

Silellak

Cipher
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,198
Location
Tucson, AZ
Jim Cojones said:
Darth Roxor said:
WEAPONS DEALER



Weapons dealer is the new Megaton.
You should have noticed that this time it is VD who talks about the arms dealer first so the situation is a bit different. Well, MCA mentions him at the beginning of the interview but this time not talking about C&C.
Do you honestly think he read the interview, or just CTRL-F'd for "weapons dealer"?

Keep in mind that, not only did VD mention the infamous weapons dealer example first, but the specific line DR is referring to was actually VD quoting from another interview entirely.
KodexKoolKredits.PNG
 

janjetina

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
14,231
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Torment: Tides of Numenera
The goal was to create a cinematic spy experience with a sense of urgency, and the dialogue system accomplishes that. A timed dialogue system is more true to the genre (sense of pressure, commitment of your decisions, and spurring the player to make sure they've done their homework before going into a conversation they can't take back).

It is unfortunate that the developers, including Avellone, don't realize that a computer game and a movie are two very different media. Unlike a computer game, cinema is a non-interactive form of entertainment. Level of involvement (emotional, intellectual, physical) of playing a computer game is much higher - a player is an active participant, while a person watching a movie is just a passive observer.

Trying to fit a computer game into a "cinematic" experience means reducing to the point of removing its defining feature - interactivity, replacing it with passive observation and a few clicks of the button. In the limit, a "cinematic" game ceases being a game and becomes a movie.

While it is fine that a game draws inspiration from a movie, it shouldn't tend to become one. The movie industry is prolific enough as it is and needs no a bunch of mediocre additions - Avellone, while a good game designer and writer, is no Sergio Leone. Games make bad movies and movies make bad games.

It is obvious that Alpha Protocol is a game whose very premise is flawed. It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine additional design elements and implementation that is able to salvage that.

It seems that in this case implementation is flawed as well. When faced with an urgent, time critical decision, a person is able to make a decision based on his knowledge and experience. In the case of conversation, or negotiations, a person has (should have) knowledge (or related experience) of the subject and the person he converses with, and based on that he forms his thoughts and "conversation options" in advance or instantly as needed. Responses consist of a complete sentence containing facts. In the case of Alpha Protocol you choose between "aggressive", "calm" and "practical". How does that pertain to the facts about the other party or the subject of the conversation (that are supposed to be discovered by playing)? A complex decision making process is reduced to only one simple choice (of an attitude), a quick mouse click, and passive observation of effects of your choice. There is no wit involved.

Another thing that developers should get into their thick skulls: if the character skills serve only to unlock player skill (usually reflex) dependent minigames, it is as if they don't exist. If there are no effective non-combat character skills, the game is not a RPG.

Alpha Protocol is not a RPG. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether it is RPG or not if the game is good. Right now I am able to somewhat enjoy playing the Witcher EE (though I wasn't able to get into it when it came out) not as a RPG, but as a story based game with great setting, choices and horrible combat. I doubt I'll be able to enjoy Alpha Protocol though, as abysmal dialogue system and abundant minigames don't leave much of a game to play (except for the combat part, and I'm not a fan of RT combat).
 

hiver

Guest
I dont think anyone really needs to bother to point out that AP is not an rpg. Or be buthurt about it.

First, officially its an action RPG. Secondly, by its mechanics its really a hybrid game.

All of that doesnt have to mean its going to be a bad game. Escape from Butcher bay is still in my top ten list and that had even less RPG elements. And it was in FP perspective.

The biggest mistake Obsidian is doing is hyping it as an RPG, even if they do insert "action" in front of that.
If they would sell it only as an action game, a spy thriller shooter - most people would think its a second coming after playing it.

Same thing happened with Ass Effect. First one was largely ridiculed in these elitist circles while most people were pleasantly surprised with the sequel - because no one really expected a RPG at all anymore.
Just a decent game.


Secondly - its very clear what the mainstream wants these days, right? Right.

Obsidian is making games that please the mainstream, games that would sell to that kind of demographic.
Therefore all these -movie like features-

They are not trying to make the game that would please Codexians or other people of similar attitudes.
They are not trying to make an RPG game in the usual old skool sense.

I personally only expect a good action game, a story and characters that will make sense and i hope that reactivity business is as good as their hype about it.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
janjetina said:
It is unfortunate that the developers, including Avellone, don't realize that a computer game and a movie are two very different media. Unlike a computer game, cinema is a non-interactive form of entertainment. Level of involvement (emotional, intellectual, physical) of playing a computer game is much higher - a player is an active participant, while a person watching a movie is just a passive observer.
Really? Fascinating.

Trying to fit a computer game into a "cinematic" experience means reducing to the point of removing its defining feature - interactivity, replacing it with passive observation and a few clicks of the button.
Says who?

It is obvious that Alpha Protocol is a game whose very premise is flawed.
IS it obvious?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine additional design elements and implementation that is able to salvage that.
If you say so.

It seems that in this case implementation is flawed as well. When faced with an urgent, time critical decision, a person is able to make a decision based on his knowledge and experience. In the case of conversation, or negotiations, a person has (should have) knowledge (or related experience) of the subject and the person he converses with, and based on that he forms his thoughts and "conversation options" in advance or instantly as needed. Responses consist of a complete sentence containing facts. In the case of Alpha Protocol you choose between "aggressive", "calm" and "practical". How does that pertain to the facts about the other party or the subject of the conversation (that are supposed to be discovered by playing)? A complex decision making process is reduced to only one simple choice (of an attitude), a quick mouse click, and passive observation of effects of your choice.
No. First, your conclusions are drawn from false assumptions*. Second, even these conclusions are false as they reflect your own bias and unwillingness to understand the dialogue system.

Another thing that developers should get into their thick skulls: if the character skills serve only to unlock player skill (usually reflex) dependent minigames, it is as if they don't exist.
Worked well in Bloodlines, didn't it? Having 10 in "guns" simply removed all restrictions and let you play Bloodlines as you would play a shooter.

If there are no effective non-combat character skills, the game is not a RPG.
There are Stealth, Sabotage, and Technical Aptitude. If Bloodlines, Deus Ex, and even SS2 are considered RPGs, I see no reason to exclude AP from that list "just because".

* Hint: http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article ... 8_640w.jpg
 

Dionysus

Scholar
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
345
hiver said:
The biggest mistake Obsidian is doing is hyping it as an RPG, even if they do insert "action" in front of that.
If they would sell it only as an action game, a spy thriller shooter - most people would think its a second coming after playing it.
No, I think that would be a much bigger mistake. The action/stealth aspects will probably suck compared to Conviction, for example. They will be much better off with comparisons to ME2 or The Witcher 2. Their biggest mistake is that they didn't get a voice actor that could pull off a decent Bauer. As a result, they don't have anything that really shows well.

Anyway, that was a good interview. I thought the speech-skill and failing questions yielded amusing answers. The answer to the speech skill question seems especially stupid.
 

hiver

Guest
I dont know. Hyping a game as pure action seems to have payed off for Bioware and DA.

In this kind of game i dont see what the speech skill as it was done in older RPGs would have done.

Man, this game is designed for audiences that dont want to read blocks of text, or read at all.
It covers that angle perfectly and it has a timer to increase the urgency.

Also, you cant take back what you "said" and thats a big plus. (unless you reload but nobody has gotten around that one yet and its true for any kind of dialog system)
 

janjetina

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
14,231
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Torment: Tides of Numenera
Vault Dweller said:
Really? Fascinating.

Good to know.

Says who?

Says Merrian-Webster:
Main Entry: cin·e·mat·ic
Pronunciation: \ˌsi-nə-ˈma-tik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1916

1 : of, relating to, suggestive of, or suitable for motion pictures or the filming of motion pictures <cinematic principles and techniques>
2 : filmed and presented as a motion picture <cinematic fantasies>

Game implies interactivity. Where is interactivity in that?
You have a fixed amount of resources (time/money/workforce). Will you spend them on gameplay or on "cinematic experience"?

IS it obvious?

Yes. A "cinematic game" is an oxymoron.

If you say so.

I do.

No. First, your conclusions are drawn from false assumptions*.

That's a little better, but it doesn't change the fact that a player will spend much less time thinking about the decisions and making them than watching the action unfold without his participation.

Second, even these conclusions are false as they reflect your own bias and unwillingness to understand the dialogue system.

Show me the error of my ways then. How are such simplistic choices, devoid of the nuances of the full sentence expression, not inferior to full sentence choices (except in that they can cover for potential writers' inability to express the intent, but Obsidian (and particularly Avellone's) games are well written, as far as computer games go)? I can't help but associate such a system (in light of modern technology) as pandering to the lowest common denominator, the people who consider any complete sentence "TLDR".

Worked well in Bloodlines, didn't it? Having 10 in "guns" simply removed all restrictions and let you play Bloodlines as you would play a shooter.

Either you have misunderstood me or you are deliberately stretching it. I'm not complaining about the combat mechanics in Bloodlines or in AP. I acknowledge it as an acceptable attempt to reconcile the RPG element of character skill influence and the action element of player skill. It works for combat, as combat is, in nature, "actiony" and involves physical skill.

However, non-combat skills like Technical Aptitude shouldn't lead to reflex dependent minigames, as the actions that depend on it are not physical in nature. I don't need "mad mouse clicking skillz" to program a piece of code. Having a non-combat skill as a doorway to a tedious minigame is anticlimactic.
If those skills do not lead to minigames, but resolve the actions on their own, then everything is fine (in that aspect).

There are Stealth, Sabotage, and Technical Aptitude.

I know they exist, but are they effective, or do they only lead to player reflex dependent minigames?

If Bloodlines, Deus Ex, and even SS2 are considered RPGs, I see no reason to exclude AP from that list "just because".
Character skills matter a lot in Bloodlines, and all non-combat skills resolve on their own, rather than leading to a minigame. I don't consider Deus Ex and SS2 RPGs (doesn't preclude them from being good games, though).

hiver said:
Also, you cant take back what you "said" and thats a big plus.

That is a great feature and should be employed in RPGs with classic dialogue system. Dialogue trees should be pruned and no takebacks or mutually exclusive choices should be allowed.
 

Dionysus

Scholar
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
345
hiver said:
I dont know. Hyping a game as pure action seems to have payed off for Bioware and DA.
DA wasn't hyped as a pure action game. It was hyped as being risque, because they didn't have anything else to go with. With AP, they don't have anything to show. They can promise a great interactive narrative, but the action gameplay and cinematics don't show very well.

hiver said:
In this kind of game i dont see what the speech skill as it was done in older RPGs would have done.
Well, the basic idea is that the player chooses to invest in a speech skill, which allows the character to gain an advantage in dialog that he or she otherwise wouldn't have. So the player needs to decide whether the character will be good at killing shit, hacking computers, talking to people, or sneaking around, and hopefully the character sheet will affect the way that quests can be solved.

Which is not to say that there's anything wrong with an RPG that doesn't feature speech skills. It's just that his initial answer was pretty silly. He does go on to clarify that there are no dialog skills because the interactive narrative is essentially a nongame. They don't want the dialog choices to have an impact on whether you win or lose.
 

hiver

Guest
@janjetina
Excuse me for butting in but they are spending a considerable amount of the hype on "reactivity" and different C&C as one of the main features of the game.
Thats interactivity of it.
Cinematic cutscenes or other cinematic features can go fudge themselves in the butt for all i care - if reactivity proves to be true to the hype.

As for dialog feature of "no turning back" thats how it goes as far as i understood it.
Once youve chosen an answer you will get appropriate consequences and baring reloading there wont be turning back through the dialog - which would destroy the purpose of the timer.

The example of an arms dealer speaks how far the consequences go - but im really hoping for even more dire consequences that will influence overall path through the game when you deal with more important characters in the story.
 

hiver

Guest
Dionysus said:
hiver said:
I dont know. Hyping a game as pure action seems to have payed off for Bioware and DA.
DA wasn't hyped as a pure action game. It was hyped as being risque, because they didn't have anything else to go with.
A what?
Adj. 1. risque - suggestive of sexual impropriety ?? :lol:

What do you mean - they didnt have anything else to go with?
What the hell does that mean?

It was intentionally hyped as an epic action game where you slay through thousands of zombies and dragons and fling uber awesome spells.

They could have shown equally easy amazingly excellent top down view, skills and C&C present in endings of some major quests available through dialog.

They did show some of it but it was positively drowned in "epic action" hype which everyone believed will be the only thing in the game.
Or at least thats how i saw it.

btw i never finished DA on account of its less then stellar features and gimmicks and i dont really consider it a good game overall.


With AP, they don't have anything to show. They can promise a great interactive narrative, but the action gameplay and cinematics don't show very well.
I guess it would be hard and very spoilerific to show their reactivity in trailers since consequences often come to light much later in the game.

Showing action and cool combat and whatnot is whats going to get them a piece of that mass market pie they ARE aiming for. And thats easy to show in trailers - which are done for mass market primarily.

And it doesnt mean there wont be anything else to it, especially since they are putting a lot of effort into talking about C&C as a main feature.

Dionysus said:
hiver said:
In this kind of game i dont see what the speech skill as it was done in older RPGs would have done.
Well, the basic idea is that the player chooses to invest in a speech skill, which allows the character to gain an advantage in dialog that he or she otherwise wouldn't have. So the player needs to decide whether the character will be good at killing shit, hacking computers, talking to people, or sneaking around, and hopefully the character sheet will affect the way that quests can be solved.

Which is not to say that there's anything wrong with an RPG that doesn't feature speech skills. It's just that his initial answer was pretty silly. He does go on to clarify that there are no dialog skills because the interactive narrative is essentially a nongame. They don't want the dialog choices to have an impact on whether you win or lose.
Well, this is obviously not that kind of a game where you choose between speech and other skills (though i never played a game where you actually had to choose between speech and something else except maybe torment to some degree (wisdom int charisma vs physical skills needed for a fighter). Usually you can freely have high speech and several other skills so it becomes a non-choice.

In AP that kind of mechanism has been replaced by dialog choices which have a real difference and consequences you must follow through.

Which is a decent trade in every way you look at it - if they are not just blatantly lying about the whole thing.
 

janjetina

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
14,231
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Torment: Tides of Numenera
hiver said:
Excuse me for butting in but they are spending a considerable amount of the hype on "reactivity" and different C&C as one of the main features of the game.
Thats interactivity of it.
Cinematic cutscenes or other cinematic features can go fudge themselves in the butt for all i care - if reactivity proves to be true to the hype.

I hope for the best, but expect the worst, and "cinematic" is the second worst red flag buzzword in my book (the first being "streamlined").
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom