Interview Alpha Protocol Design Interview

[GarfunkeL]

Except BG2 and Torment are not "real time" durr hurr
Yet you still need to move your units into a position there as well as keep some kind of formation when it comes to BG2. Way more fun than "action" a la sitting behind a box and waiting while dumb AI will pop its head from behind its own box.

Oh, sorry : they are turn-based RPGs of the "no-time-freezing-at-every-action" variety.
BG2 : heavy hitters on the front line, mages and archers on the back.
AP : weak and fragile, use stealth and cover. Strong and tough, go all out.
I clearly don't see that much of a difference.

Tell me, how did you survive the orc ambush in Firkraags lair? Or how you cleared the Beholder cult under Athkathla? Or any of the werewolf-encounters?

Saying that BG2 was nothing but "melee front, ranged back" is retarded oversimplification and saying that AP and BG2 are on the same level is retarded stupidity. BG1/2 isn't any pinnacle of tactical combat but its way ahead when compared to a third-person shooter where the player is alone.

 

[FeelTheRads]

1- You'll need to do the necessary investigation and information gathering before you can "move the story forward" as you say.

Really? Every time I read about AP I hear how the dialog is "cinematic" in that you can't "go back". So what happens if you don't have that supposedly needed information at some point? Is it possible?

Wanna bet you'll always have what you need in order to not break the "cinematic experience"?

Not saying that it's something good, but have you seen timed dialog before?

Uhm...Fahrenheit. Another "cinematic experience".

Or even the fact that you've to actually gather information before you can persuade, intimidate, blackmail, someone?

Yes, many times. Quick examples: Fallout and Arcanum.

The fact that you only have stances or topics to choose from doesn't tell you which is the right option unless you have been paying attention to what has transpired before

How did you know which was the "right" option in Fallout?
In AP on the other hand it looks like all the options are "right" because then you can LARP and "act the way you want when choosing a stance or action".

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Really? Every time I read about AP I hear how the dialog is "cinematic" in that you can't "go back". So what happens if you don't have that supposedly needed information at some point? Is it possible?

Wanna bet you'll always have what you need in order to not break the "cinematic experience"?

I imagine you'll follow with a suboptimal option - if you didn't get the info about how Mr X has this certain item, you don't get to ask him about it and you don't get that part of the story. If we're lucky (but I think it's unlikely), we may have actual branching paths depending on what you did or forgot to do.

How did you know which was the "right" option in Fallout?

Fallout isn't a great example because it's usually easy to see which option will lead to trouble (the more confrontational / nosy ones) and which ones will lead to answers, or at least just being ignored (the more brown nosing / gentle).

The empathy perk even makes the bad options turn red and the good ones turn blue.

In AP on the other hand it looks like all the options are "right" because then you can LARP and "act the way you want when choosing a stance or action".

"Pull gun" for, example, might have a negative effect. I don't think it's a win button that'll make everyone confess when asked about something. It might make them refuse to cooperate, or give wrong information.

 

[FeelTheRads]

you don't get to ask him about it and you don't get that part of the story.

Yes, this is why I'm saying it sounds like dumbed down CYOA book. Every option is right, you'll just be taken on a different path.

Fallout isn't a great example because it's usually easy to see which option will lead to trouble (the more confrontational / nosy ones) and which ones will lead to answers

And threaten or pull gun aren't just as obvious to what will lead? Seems even more obvious actually, because in Fallout you had skills that determined the result. And you had no way to tell what are the chances of success.

It might make them refuse to cooperate, or give wrong information.

Yes, two well established paths. CYOA.

 

[Soulforged]

Really? Every time I read about AP I hear how the dialog is "cinematic" in that you can't "go back". So what happens if you don't have that supposedly needed information at some point? Is it possible?

Why the big assumption? Certainly there would be some final decisions to make from which you cannot go back (unless you reload) but that shouldn't be always the case.

Wanna bet you'll always have what you need in order to not break the "cinematic experience"?

Possible, but improbable. Even Mass Effect 2, the game which drove this cinematic trend forward, allowed you to break that "cinematic experience" and have many conversation paths explored over and over again, there's no reason why it should be different in Alpha Protocol, and I doubt that every dialog would be timed.

Uhm...Fahrenheit. Another "cinematic experience".

Didn't know that one, but going through the Wikipedia article I found something interesting that perhaps could shed some light into Alpha Protocol design:

Finally, a conversation system is also implemented into the game, with the right analog stick being used to choose dialogue options. When conversing with certain Non-player characters (NPCs), this is sometimes accompanied by a "Suspicion" meter, which is affected by the player's choices indicating how suspicious the character Lucas is conversing with is, e.g. failing to give convincing answers when being interrogated by police. In these situations, if the player does not make a choice within the allotted time limit, the game will make a default choice for him, or else the conversation is abruptly ended. It should be noted that it is impossible to leave a conversation without the minimum amount of information necessary for the characters to progress in the game, and if one continually strays too far from the topic's intended resolution, the game will automatically make the choice for him. Examples include the cop in Joe's Diner telling the player, as Carla Valenti, about the waitress and at the table at which Lucas was sitting, Lucas being interrogated by Carla or Tyler.

Let's hope that wasn't the inspiration for this game.

Yes, many times. Quick examples: Fallout and Arcanum.

Fair enough.

How did you know which was the "right" option in Fallout?
In AP on the other hand it looks like all the options are "right" because then you can LARP and "act the way you want when choosing a stance or action".

If all the options are right, then perhaps none of them are. Did you consider that?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Yes, this is why I'm saying it sounds like dumbed down CYOA book. Every option is right, you'll just be taken on a different path.

[...]

Yes, two well established paths. CYOA.

How would an answer work if not leading you to a different path (that includes npc say something else or become hostile)? That's exactly what happened in Fallout when you chose an answer. Or any other game where you choose what to say.

After all, people can only respond in three ways:

-positive (give reward / continue being friendly)
-neutral (ignore / nothing changes)
-negative (becomes hostile / stops cooperating)

What exactly should happen if you choose a "wrong" answer? The above are present in Fallout and I don't see why AP's dialogue system wouldn't allow them.

btw, CYOAs have the chance of ending prematurely or having things go the wrong way depending on your choices. I remember one that asked if I wanted to risk stealing a guard's weapon while my partner was distracting him. If you choose yes, he ends up noticing and cuts off your hand. Your career, and the story, ended there. It's perfectly possible to have bad consequences in CYOAs.

And threaten or pull gun aren't just as obvious to what will lead?

Well, it's obvious you will try to pull a gun. It's not obvious what'll happen after that. Will it have a positive consequence (guy tells you what you want)? A negative one (guy reacts / refuses to keep talking to you)?

so, not different from Fallout - you might threaten a guy, but you don't know how it'll go ; he might refuse because your Speech isn't enough, etc.

Seems even more obvious actually, because in Fallout you had skills that determined the result. And you had no way to tell what are the chances of success.

I'll give you the skills (Going by what they said about the system until now, about how people will react accordingly to how much of a Bourne / Bauer / Bond you've been, I imagine the chances of success could be tied to how you treated the person and his allies until that point - if you were aggressive all the time, threatening to kill him would be believable ; if you were professional, he would realize you wouldn't kill a valuable source just because you were butthurt - but let's not speculate so much), but here you also have no way to determine the chances of success (maybe even less than Fallout, since you can't trust your high speech skill to help you). You're assuming "pull gun" means "win conversation".

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Yes, this is why I'm saying it sounds like dumbed down CYOA book. Every option is right, you'll just be taken on a different path.

wait...what? the first CYOA book i read i totally fucked up and died after a few pages. granted i was like 6 years old, but it was definitely *not* the right option. and if my memory serves me, the good ones didn't make it obvious either.

 

[kris]

So you can't rely on simply talking your way out of any situation, as it currently works on most RPGs I know (for example convincing that drug inventor on Fallout 2, don't remember his name, that a cure for his drug is possible simply because you passed from science % 99 to science % 100, and have few more points in intelligence).

Althoguh this makes perfectly sense. If your character is an expert in an area then that should be put to use in the appropriate situation, this one is.