spacekungfuman

I just wanted to say thank you for making New Vegas. It is the best game I have played since Arcanum, nearly a decade ago. I didn't think a game like this could be made now, with the broader audience, the oversight of the horrible teams at bethesda, and the awful FO3 engine, but you proved me wrong. For the first time in a long time, I just played a game and loved every minute of it. Keep up the good work!

Only thing you can do is buy New Vegas but not Fallout 3 and the next Fallout (4?) by Bethesda. I don't think there's really any other way to support Obsidian without supporting Bethesda's Fallout(s). To be fair, I could argue that the core gameplay of Fallout 3 and New Vegas is the same, and that actually New Vegas is in a lot of way a refinement/correction rather than a revolution, but I don't really want to start a debate on how you feel on Fallout 3. The core gameplay is not what I'm buying this game for. I thought the mechanics, engine, and overall feel of FO3 were pretty terrible. But the worst part of that game was the writing, which I found less tolerable than the broken english you see in some translations of Eastern European games. I believe that the gameplay of this game will be terrible, because FO3's gameplay was so bad, but I am counting on quality writing. I literally could not bring myself to play past the first conversation with the Sheriff in megaton in FO3. I could not say to the sheriff "I'm looking for my father. Middle-aged guy. Maybe you've seen him?" because my character concept was not a mental deficient. If I had an intelligence score of 1, then I could have chosen that, but my character was supposed to be smart (int 9) so I stopped playing, and replayed FO1 instead with a low int character, to relive the alternate script to a 10 year old game which was better than the main script of Bethesda's so called AAA blockbuster game.

I would pirate the game and send Obsidian a check, but the sale is probably more valuable than the cash. I wish that there was an "I think Fallout 3 was a travesty and that Bethesda should not have purchased the license" edition. . .

I know this might sound ridiculous, but I really like Obsidian's games and can't stand Bethesda's, and I want to know if any method of buying the game would be more beneficial to Obsidian than another. Does Obsidian get more money from each sale on steam for example, or does the profit breakdown work the same no matter where I buy it from?

What reviews are you reading? I'm seeing complaints about control, cover mechanics, and the AI. These are complaints about the combat system, not that it involves stats. Remove the action combat and have it work like a traditional rpg like KOTOR, and then all these complaints would drop away and the reviews would focus on how many things Obsidian got right with the RPG side of the game. This is not a topic about stat based combat vs player skill based combat. While both may have their places in different games, the bottom line is that the combat system is causing this game to get some very poor reviews from some of the largest review sites, and the text of the reviews makes it VERY clear that the combat is what is bringing the numbers down. In a perfect world, everything would be flawless in this game, and the reviewers would have had nothing to complain about, but given budget and time constraints, and the fact that Obsidian has tons of experience building stat based combat systems and very little action combat development experience, going with what they knew for combat would have been better for the company and for the game's sales.

Obsidian was in a tough position on this game. Wanting to do an action/stealth hybrid makes perfect sense for the genre, and action rpgs like ME1/2 and Elder Scrolls/FO3 have been massive crossover successes, in part because they pull in gamers other than RPG players. But the added appeal is a two edged sword, and with the increasing "sophitication" of the 3rd person shooter genre in recent years (seriously, it has exploded these last 5 or 6 years), the bar to entry into the genre is a lot higher than it used to be. As other people pointed out, Bioware already felt the backlash of making an action rpg in this space, and moved ME2 away from RPG mechanics to please the action gaming set (many of whom probably consider themselves to be RPG fans at this point thanks to all the crossover games). With limited development resources and vast RPG experience, Obsidian may have just been better off making the best pure RPG that they could, pulling in all the RPG fans, and potentially grabbing crossover fans based on the setting and the more favorable reviews that the game could have gotten. And to anyone who thinks a game can't sell with choice and consequence as the main mechanic, just take a look at heavy rain. . .

TLDR summary: Reviewers like Alpha Protocol's role playing aspects and hate its action combat. Would the game have been better off as a traditional RPG, where the strong role playing mechanics are all that would matter? So the reviews are in, and the scores are not pretty, but an interesting theme has emerged. Although there is some criticism on the writing, voice acting, and characterization (which should all be taken with a grain of salt, given that these same reviewers were pleased with all of these aspects in Fallout 3) the actual role playing mechanics of the game are receiving a ton of praise. People seem to love the choices and consequences, enjoy the character and weapon customization systems, and be excited and quite taken with the dialog system. Where things turn bad is where the game turns away from the genre (and Obsidian's) roots, and veers towards an action game. The combat is being panned, both from a control perspective and regarding enemy AI. Obsidian (and other roleplaying developers) have released plenty of rpgs in recent years that actually feature pretty lousy combat (pretty much any aurora engine game) but it never comes across as a major criticism because the FEEL of the combat is not the point in those games. Role playing game combat is more about decisions (both before and during combat) than control or AI, and as long as you get the other aspects of the game right, and the combat system crunches the numbers and animates well, noone ever seems to complain, unless they are complaining about the genre itself. The difference in expectations for rpg vs action combat probably accounts for a lot of the negative reviews this game is getting, and the decision to go twitch seems to be proving disastrous. To be absolutely clear, reviewers seem to think Obsidian NAILED the role playing aspects of the game. If Alpha Protocol were a more traditional RPG then this would be enough, and the reviews would probably look very different. But once the action combat is thrown into the mix, reviewers don't seem to care how well the role playing works. Essentially, these core elements (which on their own would make Alpha Protocol a strong role playing game) are being relegated to second class status, and treated as nothing more than nice features which cannot redeem a shoddy action game. So my question (to fans and developers) is simple. Was this a mistake? Should Alpha Protocol have been made into a traditional RPG which could rest on its strongest mechanics, or was it right to try and make an action game, which shifts the focus away from Obsidian's core strengths as a role playing game developer? TLDR summary: Reviewers like Alpha Protocol's role playing aspects and hate its action combat. Would the game have been better off as a traditional RPG, where the strong role playing mechanics are all that would matter?

I hope that Obsidian doesn't go with full voice acting. They probably have a limited budget to work with, and I'd hate to see the amount of dialog in the game limited by the high cost of having every line recorded.

I really hope that this turns out like KOTOR, only without the publisher censoring and rushing. Sure Fallout 3's engine and combat are horrible, but so was KOTOR's and look at the gem they produced then. As much as I HATED combat in FO3, and would love to see turn based (or at least stat based) combat in this game, I reccomend Obsidian sticks with the **** combat and engine, and just focuses on story. The company needs to turn out a game where the story and characterization is not hampered by bugs and poor engine optimization. Of all of FO3's faults, the writing was the worst, and it is the one that Obsidian can fix with the least effort, and the least chance of breaking anything. I mean, you guys could probably write a better story in your sleep than the horror that was FO3.

Its NOT autoaim that I'm asking for. I'm asking to replace player aiming with character aiming. Stat resolved combat. That's all I'm asking for. The aiming portion is not to avoid having to aim, but to make it so that character skill and not player skill determines hits.

This is essentially the KOTOR/JE combat system that I'm asking for. While that is not a great system at all, at least its stat based, and there is precedent ofr very successful games using this sort of "move in real time, hit with stats" system.

I really don't understand why so many people care about the animation of aiming/attacking coinciding with if you actually hit. Games had an attack animation and a to hit roll that did not go together since animation first began. As far as it being little gain, I'd say giving people the option to play the game as an rpg instead of an action rpg is a pretty huge gain. It would basically set a new standard in the industry, and show that it is possible to make a game that appeals to old genre fans and newer fans/fans of different genres.

I'm not asking for the sticky targeting or target lock because aiming is hard. I'm asking because I'm looking for an alternate gameplay style that is more akin to BG than Doom, where you select a target, and then the character hits or misses based on their stats, instead of hitting/missing being based on me aiming. Its a different style of play and a different style of game, but if it would not be that hard to enable it in AP, then everyone wins.

I'm aware of this, and its exactly what I'm asking to disable. I'm not saying change it for everyone, or even make sure it works throughout the whole game perfectly. I'm just asking for an unsupported option that would take as little work as possible, to just make the game more of an RPG for me. I will buy the game either way, but I would be VERY happy if this option was made available. I'd also bet the option would increase sales, since then the game would have something for everybody.

Just a simple request here. No condescending polls or debate over which type of combat is the best. I just want to know if at this point in the game it would be possible to make an OPTION to enable a sticky targeting system, and have the chance to hit be based on the characters stats. I know that weapons stats are in the game, and I assume the AI must use some form of lock on targetting, so I would think the building blocks are there. Maybe it could even be released for the PC as an unsupported addon or something. But if it is possible with the engine and the stat system to make this happen, it would be greatly appreciated. Once a developer responds, I will not post other than in gratitude if this turns out to be possible. We already had enough vitriol in the last thread. Thank you.