Cycloneman

I think the solution to people re-loading when they 'fail' a diplomacy or other check is to make the consequences of failure just as interesting as, but very different from, the consequences of success. Failure is always good for a hero - it reduces smugness. I was actually responding to the idea that they'd divide up Diplomacy into multiple subsections with what you quoted. But, to counter your point and make a couple of my own. If you "fail" a Diplomacy/Charisma check in game with this alternate system, are you going to think a) "Ooh, interesting, now the conversation is different," or b) "Ugh, dammit, time to reload"? I mean, for example, suppose you want Michael to bag a female character, but you fail your Charisma roll. Are you going to go, "oh, an interesting new thing that isn't sex" or are you going to go "****! RELOAD." Or, say you want to access some area by smooth-talking your way in, but you fail your Charisma roll. Are you going to go, "oh, an interesting new thing that isn't the area I wanted," or are you going to go "****! RELOAD." I suppose if failure was functionally the same as success, it would be okay. But then it would be a huge waste to actually put points into Charisma. It's okay when you fail because that's the natural flow of the conversation - nobody feels bad when they can't do X or Y because the game says they can't (like, say, not being able to convince Malak to turn to the light side). I mean, in one of the paths for the example conversation, Michael totally gets shot down by Scarlet Lake. And, again, the bizarreness of having a roll that you don't technically know whether it succeeded or failed (ie were you destined to get shot down or not?) or at best (if it says [success] or [Failure] like some games do) didn't even know that you had a Charisma check coming up until after you rolled. Plus, how would a Charisma skill not just be a "you got marginally better at talking to people" thing? What sort of interesting stuff would it let you do other than talk better? Since you've always got only 3 dialogue options based on mood, not specific choice, it's not like it can open up new options. I just looked over that and wow it's kind of drawn out. Summary: 1. Failing diplomacy checks is going to make people reload, unless failure is functionally the same as success, in which case no one will put points in Charisma unless they're a masochist. 2. You wouldn't know when a diplomacy check is coming up in conversation, as you'll just set Michael's mood to a particular setting. 3. Charisma would probably be one of those marginally-better kinds of skills where each point gives you nothing but a bigger bonus. Why would there be diplomacy? You've already admitted it's not fun, the other skills mentioned in the text are all combat/combat-related, it doesn't really fit with the dialogue system, and it ends up cutting off your choice by picking an arbitrary number out of a hat to decide what happens.

Excellent counterargument, in that it wasn't excellent or a counterargument. That post (note, paraphrasing) goes "Mass Effect couldn't have been any better," true? Then it says "I liked it more than Fallout, and now it's my #1 game." The only logical way that the second could follow from the first is if you were attempting to support the first with the second, ie you liked it more than fallout, it's your #1 game, thus it couldn't have been any better. If you want to either a) say a different logical relationship between the two points or b) admit that post has a non-sequitor and no one can understand what you're saying because you jump from subject to subject randomly, those would both disprove my point (ie you think Mass Effect couldn't have been better because it was so good).

I don't see how it can be better. It is the only game in a decade that has removed Fallout from its number 1 position in my top ten list. Let's examine this post, eh? First of all, the question is, how is it that Mass Effect's story - which you later describe as worse than that of PS:T - wouldn't be improved by limiting character choices? You respond saying you "don't see how it can be better," as though Mass Effect's story was perfect (snort). This implication (that it couldn't be better because it's so great) is reinforced by your next sentence, which is either a total non-sequitor or an intended supporting statement. You argue that you enjoyed it more than Fallout, thus enhancing the implication that it can't be better because it's already perfect. You push this impression up by saying that that it is now the number 1 game on you "top ten list" (which I can only presume is the "top ten games"). The prosecution rests.

Apparently, I can no longer edit my first post, so I'll put this down here... Known skill traits (assuming Game Informer is accurate): 1. There will be individual weapon skills. Reasons: a) "These [special agent skills] can range from individual weapon specialization to stealth." 43 b) "If you place enough points in pistols," referring to being able to use the pistols skill. 44 2. The skills will not include basic CIA operative stuff. Reason: "At the beginning of the game, Michael is a completely competent CIA operative, [...] He may be able to defuse bombs and score headshots [...]" 42 Goes on in each quote to say "but he doesn't have magical awesome action hero powers." 3. Skills will not just be "get marginally better" type things. Reason (prepare for block of text, couldn't really figure out how to make this as clear without dumping it all out): "The idea is that your skill points don't just increase damage or accuracy, but actually have a tangible effect on your character build. In other words, you won't just get marginally better at shooting a pistol - you will open up new skills that change your perception of a situation." History tells me that this game won't have shooter qualities. It's Obsidian we're talking about. Seems unlikely, as Chris Parker is quoted as saying: "If you play the entire game as the flirt, you'll get one kind of reward. If you're aggressive, you'll get another one. But what if you do a little of everything? We're making sure you get rewarded for that too." Later in the article, the writer says "The team is avoiding this roadblock [refering to a quote by Parker about how it's annoying to re-load because you felt you did it wrong] by making sure players are rewarded for any course of action, not just cleaving tightly to one paradigm." Dividing up "Diplomancy" in different directions would be pretty much the definition of "punish you for not going down the straight and narrow choices we give you".

That quote is also in the GI article, and later in the GI article it says this: "Since the team wants to blend player skill with character skill, the whole shooting mechanic doesn't rest solely on you lining up headshots." Then it goes into a description of the critical hit system (which is not comprised of aim for the head) So it seems likely that they mean that the normal FPS style completely-self-sufficient firearm using where your character's skill is entirely based on your own will be backed away from and replaced with a system where much of your accuracy is determined by the character.

He never said that Tell me, what exactly is he saying here, then? He already admited that. Which is the contradiction, and my point.

So what? Story is part of the "quality package," if not the "fun package" (but come on, why are movies fun? Since story is all they have, even if that story is "James Bond has sex with a beautiful woman and blows things up," it's probably related to story). If you're arguing that Mass Effect couldn't have been any better, you better not say that there's some way that it is inferior to other products. That's the worst argument I've ever heard. I'd make a counterargument, but H

Those seem more likely to be just general, automatic spy-skills. Since the article does say:"At the beginning of the game, Michael is a completely competent CIA operative, but his talents lack the comic book edge that distinguishes other famous special agents. He may be able to defuse bomb and score headshots, but he won't be jumping any motorcycles out of exploding airplanes just yet." It seems likely those would just be automatic skills Michael has. Personally, I find the idea of that unlikely, given a couple points:1. The (current) mechanism for conversation is that you select a mood and it goes automatically. It seems kind of weird if it had you randomly start rolling dice in the middle, without any sort of warning. 2. It seems to imply the game will try to be a bit more "inclusivist" with your playstyle still earning rewards, no matter what you choose with Chris Parker saying things such as "If you play the entire game as the flirt, you'll get one kind of reward. If you're aggressive, you'll get another one. But what if you do a little of everything? We're making sure you get rewarded for that, too." Or another quote (not from Parker) saying "If a game provides a reward for one course of action (but not another) many gamers will re-load a save until they feel they have achieved the best payoff. This will not be necessary with Alpha Protocol." 3. Diplomacy skills are just lame, honestly. They are quite frankly pointless to have because they are so important that most players will put points into them whenever they can. Direct quote from text (after mentioning some pistol power tricks): "If you place enough points in pistols, he will." Oh, and I just found this reading through it again. Speaking about skills: "These can range from individual weapon specialization to stealth." (emphasis added, obviously) I dunno, the article itself says that "you won't just get marginally better at shooting a pistol" and such. I mean, what sort of things would an athletics skill do that are active/interesting passives?

I'm consulting my copy of Game Informer over the course of this estimation, and I'll leave page numbers so you can find it in your own copy (assuming you have one). On page 43, there's a quote from Chris Parker: "you have 10 skills." Here's an overview of my estimation from the text: 1. Pistols. Mentioned in the section on emulating the JBs tactics on 43. Also on page 44, it mentions "points in pistols." This is the logical basis for a lot of this - if pistols are mentioned, then I can somewhat guesstimate what else is a skill. 2. Some sort of gadgetry. It mentions using "remote-detonated explosives" if you want to emulate 007 on page 43. 3. Hand-to-hand. Mentions stealthy neck-snapping on 43, also mentions "the monk". 4. Assault Rifle. Mentions the assault rifle on 44. If "pistols" is a skill, then "assault rifles" is probably one too. 5. Shotgun. Picture on page 47 clearly shows Michael holding a shotgun. 6. Stealth. Mentions stealthy neck-snapping on 43, also mentions "the stealth guy," also mentions "the assassin". 7. No idea. Anybody find any other clues in the text? 8. No idea. 9. No idea. 10. No idea.

Okay, do you see the problem here? First you say Mass Effect couldn't have been better because it is so perfect () then you say PS:T has a better storyline than Mass Effect. Can you see where the contradiction lies? If PS:T has a better storyline than Mass Effect, then Mass Effect could have had a better storyline and thus been better. Unless you're arguing that having the ability to screw around with your character's face and make some meaningless decisions about their background is so great that it overrides having a good storyline. Anyway, back to the main point of this thread: all I want is some possible male love interests for Michael. That's enough customizability for me.