Wombat

Gratz on the DLC. Nice to have the confirmation, finally.

Yea, I see it very difficult to distinguishing the Witcher 2 from Deus Ex: Human Revolution than Baldur's Gate from Icewind Dale. But enough of rhetoric. I guess I had spent too much on the game and browsing.

Isn't that based on the assumption that you want the entire market (and barely ever succeeding) rather than dominating a market segment? The entire market? We may have issues even at the level of common sense. Was the fans of Alpha Protocol enough to keep the expected market segment for the investment from the publisher? Would it have helped Obsidian if we had bought a couple of copies? Even for smaller market segment, they seem to have problems with finding a publisher and "hardcore RPG fans" have to turn to indie developers.

Really? Maybe, google may nail them. Haven't seen these. [Edit]Thinking of that, we may read them differently. When I read about Sega's involvement, I thought (and still think) Sega wanted more action/shooter factors, which is more reasonable reaction as the publisher to my eyes, especially considering the tendency of the market. However, I think it was tough to make AP more-shooter-ish at that stage considering the original scope and the available (human) resources, which is more likely scenario to me.[Edit] I've gotten an impression that some of the designers who are keen to modern games seem to foresee, judging from how they reacted to my comments and their own writings. How about Oblivion? There are some dumb design decisions but the stealth was quite nice. Bioshock? Also, why didn't they try to learn from some main-stream games? In fact, some shooters began to adopt some RPG mechanics and they seem to have learnt quicker than RPG designers did. They are their new competitors.

Really hard to believe, since it definitely makes me think such a publisher would be a sheer idiot. In any case, I wonder if I could reach the source now but I read some comments of Obsidian designers who don't see any problem with the core mechanics since it is designed as an RPG (What did Sawyer tell about this way of thinking in the presentation?).

Your comment reminds me of what some designers told at that time. And just for sure, I don't mean that everything in AP should be like DXHR (as I had already written in this thread). If you read the article I linked, you might see my reasoning.

Oh, if you care that much, then... Alternatives would be nice, though.

That's that but is that really only me who sees problems even in design philosophy? Also, if no Obsidian designers had seen any problem, why did Sawyer need to give a presentation like this even less than a month ago? I understand the psychology to blame publishers but Occam's razor tells me it's not the only reason. I'm not blaming anyone here. Simply put, it would be better for both designers and us if we are able to continue playing their games.

Well in a completely combat oriented playthrough you won't really need all the stealth, hacking and what-not upgrades. Just strength, recoil, typhoon, dermal armour and perhaps some energy upgrades.. I think you'd get more than enough xp for that? Stealth requires much more to be unlocked and it's probably why they went this route. I see your point but what about the money issue? Here, I'm guessing since I haven't done combat path...except that I have quite a lot of experience enough to cover combat game-play, too, which is, however, not the point. As a side note, assault stealth type and pacifist stealth type would have different paths. I go for the latter so haven't spent any point for targeting and something like that. I agree, In the last mission I spent a lot of time sitting somewhere out of reach and recharging. Yea, I was glad that I had built a pacifist stealth type who finds various ways to avoid conflicts such as finding possible routes and even "vanish"ing for a limited amount of time. That's the map where I didn't go for even take-downs.

Not everything but I hope even most frigid members of Obsidian will see why AP was a commercial failure...I was amazed by some reasons from some designers about why they think AP was unpopular - They don't seem to have studied any of their competitors' works at all. I think they still have their strength in terms of conversation-based role-playing but the core-game plays were not optimized for today's format.

And suddenly you're at the Mass Effect 2 illusive man end-game screen and EVERYBODY's bitching like there's no tomorrow. Since, apparently, if you get mission based xp, it's "no longer and RPG!!11one" Except I never heard anyone criticizing Mass Effect 2's mission based-XP but just the extremely game-y TPS-like mission completed screens? Just for the sake of clarity. Use the word "quests," instead of "missions"...the issue solved. I just finished and was quite upset that

I'd rather go for Alpha Protocol philosophy on this one despite of the fact that I'd like the designers to do some research on the game-play of DXHR. Players shouldn't be taxed/rewarded based on how they played the game. However, these micromanagements for earning XP is quite traditional in CRPG. Also, it's classic o spare resource to exploit some occasions. In fact, I spared explosives/ammo/energies for boss battles and the cases like above. I did this with original Deus Ex but, it is definitely not a good design in terms of balancing. I wonder how much of this is intended in DXHR since one of the themes are giving people "freedom." Although Sawyer may sound like a control freak (Haggard? ) at times, I'm inclined to agree with ammo and other things when it comes to balance/give the players calculated game-play experience. Just one thing makes me step back, though. As Avelone and Harvey Smith may agree, it is often the moment of the satisfaction for the players to come across with what even the designers didn't expect. Of course, this is nothing to do with micromanagement but I guess there should be a balance between quality game-plays and simulated sand-box world under a certain core rules.

. Google nailed it.

Generally speaking, in role-playing games, I'd rather like to see more of story/character development than surprises and/or epic moments since they are out of control of the choices of the players but I think it's another reasonable criticism to this conspiracy themed plot-line. However, specifically to this game, beside some obvious plots, I suspect, if the players gather info such as getting it from NPCs and/or hacking computers, then, it is probably easier to see what's coming. I wonder if there are people consciously lose dialogue mini-games while they can retry only in order to see what will happen. Here, I'm not defending the game but I'm just guessing that some of the feeling may come from the design itself, beside the plots. For, this could be food for thought if some people design the game in a more or less similar manner. Alpha Protocol's conversation system is about choice (if we exclude the time-limit as a game-play) but there is a win/lose factor in this game. Talking of that, the conversation system-based on profiling/psychological state may be well fit to something like Aliens: Crucible since some designers mentioned it is designed as psychological suspense where people can be more dangerous than the situation given to them. I kept myself invisible during the combat by feeding the battery recklessly. They will shoot back but seems to find it difficult to nail Adam. Also, it was where I maxed out the battery but I didn't find it useful after the scene. In any case, I have earned a lot of EXP by hacking and take-downs. It seems to be some walkthroughs for this on the net.

I definitely want some horror factor in Thief 4 but I like more real-world like settings than fantasy/SF ones...playing Deus Ex has strengthened this feel (Some characters let me feel that they could be in our society while some others are out-of-cartoon villains). Also, I wonder how far they could reach with sound effect aspect since I think it contributed to the horror factor as well as lighting, too. DXHR's stealth play is very much tied to shooter and visual signs supported by the "argumentations". Well, indeed, Garrett has an "argumentation", whether it's mechanical or magical (according to the ending of DS), then again... Some movies definitely influenced it such as Shining. Basically, I'd agree with you but the problem specific to the area for me was that I wasn't scared by the scenes more than the inevitable feeling of d

Indeed, I found it easier simply go through and the option doesn't allow me to explore much. So, I switched to take down, ending up with "Consciousness is Over-rated." (Got "Foxiest of the Hounds" but, somehow, missed "Pacifist" while I used tranq even in the process of getting "Good Soul.") Yea, this and the money issue. In fact, I came across with some people complaining of it in main stream boards. Combat with hacking would earn decent money and EXP, though. Personally, I'd recommend playing by your own but it's your choice. I think this (Achievement-related spoiler warning) is a good place to start. I didn't use this one but found after finishing the game. Maybe, area by area approach can be a possible compromise.

This is one of legitimate criticisms on this game. I suspect, money-wise, too, it would be tougher to go for assault. I don't know why they did this...except possible intention to brainwash the players into stealth games, paving the way for Thief 4* go against shooter mainstream. For, the solution would be quite easy since they only need to give XP just for finishing missions. I myself won't play this game as a shooter but it felt bit unfair to the shooter-players if we can forget about their dominance of the market (BTW, have you read one of the mail of Pritchard?). * Talking of conspiracy...

Noticed that NOW myself.

I simply used "JRPG" as a typical example of fixed story line + party combat but I do know some exceptions. I guess I should be just happy with having not played the games you seem to have... Wonder if it has something to do with the fact I stopped playing Bioware games... I cannot follow what you are trying to say here, but if you are implying something like: some games follow Hollywood pop movie standard which rely on spectacles and gorgeous CGs than insight to a situation and/or people in that, then, I can agree with you. Such as? If they haven't come across with you, then, our opinions are different. However, I don't expect much emotional ties to NPCs in FO series...it has a different approach compared with something like Planescape: Torment, IMO (Yea, still poking around bushes to figure out what you are saying).

So little info yet. I was convinced that I'd end up with buying DXHR after gathering quite amount of info. Core i7 2600k, the Witcher, and DXHR...so far, my game-related shopping items this year seem to be good so far but it's mainly because the internet allowed me to gather info before buying them. I could even buy them with the order to fit my life schedule. Now about Thief 4, how much info do we have? You were probably glitched...in my play-through of the first mission, , which was a nice welcome to the game world, letting me to experiencing it through the variety of characters reacting to my choices. Quite balanced casts, too. Agree with Hurlshot, here. Especially in terms of narrative, I've gotten an impression that it ended up with an experiment rather than a complete work. Eurogamer interviewed with Pacotti (funcroc did his job), who looked back more or less similar manner. Some interesting ideas are scattered around but there is no way for the players to gather them into a coherent experience.

The comments make me sad. Gamers in general prefer a more "epic" story over a personal/subdued narrative (e.g. FO3 fans arguing FO3 had a better story than FNV because of "epic" moments like Liberty Prime). It's the same reason why the Transformers movies are so financially successful. Not news to me. If I were just following narrative, I'd rather watch movies or could play even JRPG. Also, NV has some memorable characters, too.

Well, I'd rather talk about the game than some people...indeed, I have come across with some negative reviews but I'm yet to see a well written one among them. Bad reviews tend to be more about the writers than the subjects and I see no reason to bother with them. It has some minor randomization but the beauty is that it doesn't change the character of people you are talking to. As with stealth, the players need to pay attention to the "tendencies." Yea, that's why I haven't taken the aug. However, after finishing conversation sessions, I save/reload, take the aug to see my profiling was right. Either stealth or conversation, game-play in general seem to be designed with trial/error approach in mind (BTW, nice that the latest patch shortened the loading time!) I always thought the approach fits RPGs since it lets the players explorer the world through the game-play of their liking...in fact, I have already repeated some maps. Again, the beauty of this is that the players still need to replay since some decisions are made much before their consequences. Exploring an imaginary world with multilayered game-plays is a point of RPG.

I haven't upgraded the charge but I've gotten an impression that the first battery slot is also designed as a minimum asset to avoid the players' being stuck without any energy. Guess they "balanced" the combat, then, which is not bad for sure, but, for an RPG, I'd rather like to see various ways to deal with bosses, hopefully specific to each build. Whoever make them, it's nice to see good writings and interesting settings show their worth to publishers.

? Well, seriously, it's just my copy & paste has stuck in the middle of my language setting.

Oh, your avatar reminded me that David in Japanese version is to have . I think his voice sounds too young, though. Just noticed they didn't pick Ghost in the Shell staff except ...odd marketing.