Oblarg

So you do pirate sometimes? Well, now we're going into "I wonder how long until the moderators step in" territory, but I think you can guess the answer to that. Suffice to say that, contrary to what Monte Carlo would have you believe, no one is going to miss their rent when someone pirates a heavy metal album from 20-30 years ago. In fact, quite the opposite - sales increase from the exposure, because the few bands in the genre that still exist are relatively unknown, and people can't buy albums by bands they have never heard.

You're implying I would pirate software. Once again, it is not black and white, as you would make it seem - people do not either pirate everything or pirate nothing. You know, you ought to make fewer assumptions. It'd help you.

Unfortunately for those who enjoy being obnoxiously self-righteous, the morality of piracy is far from black and white. Most underground music scenes would be dead were it not for the massive exposure boost given by piracy. The error people often make is in the assumptions that pirates don't buy any music and that the music that they pirate would have otherwise been purchased. These are both false.

The sad thing is there are many, many people who seem convinced that this will be the case. The truth of the matter is that there would be absolutely no public support for internet policing to the degree that would be required to stomp out piracy. Politicians tend to not get reelected when they introduce laws that everyone hates. This is how democracy works. Moral arguments on piracy are completely beside the fact that piracy will continue, and the market will eventually adapt.

Look, what everyone here is overlooking is the fact that this is ultimately irrelevant. You cannot force the majority of the populace to comply with copyright law in its current form because it is not designed for the ease of copying information that now exists. Above all else, law relies on widespread public compliance, and in this case there is none. And even were we to assume that the music industry did somehow lobby a bill into place that resulted in measures so draconian that all piracy were stomped out, the industry would eventually adapt to the market when they realize that their current business model is ****ing moronic.

Matt Vinci is underrated - the bass lines on this album are every bit as good as anything Steve Harris has ever done.

I still buy music. I buy music that has recently been released by bands that still exist. Attempting to enforce copyright law over the internet is like attempting to enforce a ban on jaywalking - it will never, ever work. The only possible solution is to rework the copyright law.

Because piracy is just absolutely killing the industry right now. Irrelevant, though, at least for music piracy. Laws rely more on widespread compliance than on enforcement, and given the music industry's ridiculous pricing they're never going to get people to stop pirating music. I certainly am not going to pay $25 for a reissued album from 20 years ago from a band that no longer exists.

You said it therefore it must be true. The initial sentence or two of your post make it abundantly clear.

Your post doesn't reflect it.

I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees with that.

I have absolutely nothing against legitimate criticism. I don't think bashing an RPG for not conforming to "other shooters" is legitimate criticism. Nor do I think trashing pistols because they don't behave likes SMGs/Assault Rifles/completely fabricated weapons from another genre of game qualifies either. AP was a real-world RPG, therefore shooting was largely skill-based and conformed to how weapons work in the real world. Someone who bothered to read the box before playing the game might be inclined to congratulate the developer for this achievement. Wow, you managed to write a response to my post while obviously not reading it. Congratulations.

Then what are you trashing it for if I may ask? Gotta love people getting defensive when anyone on these forums isn't slinging praise at the game. I never trashed the game, you all just jumped down my throat the moment I mentioned that the frustration with the shooting mechanics was certainly understandable, and that the game could have done some things better.

The most recent example (for expediency): "the mechanics were fundamentally different than most other shooters" (Emphasis added). You seem to be categorizing it as a shooter here. I agree with you about Obsidian. Not sure why that makes me insufferable. Trashing AP (an RPG) for being a bad shooter is a strawman. If you need links or pictures, let me know. Pretty sure I can provide both. I was not trashing it for being a bad shooter, and that's still not a strawman. You're the one strawmanning here.

Actually, I read every word of your posts. I clearly see where you've insisted that it doesn't point out (in words that you understood) what many others here (including myself) seemed to have no problem grasping at all: crits are better than non-crits with the pistol. Your "you can't hit anything without a crit" strawman is, well, a strawman. If you want to insist that it's true, then that's your business, but that doesn't make it reality. The point (again) is that AP is not shooter. I know that you really, really want to insist that it is, but it says RPG right on the box. Ok then you've made your point. Guess what? Not everyone agrees with you. Get over it and move on. Ok, well thanks for sharing your opinion. Again, opinion != fact. People disagree with your take on the game. You can accept this and move or continue to attempt to shout down people that got it was an RPG (and not a shooter) and had absolutely no problem playing the game as it was *raises hand* You're not reading my posts. I never said AP is a shooter. I said a lot of the marketing was aimed towards the shooter crowd. Fanboys are insufferable. Yes, Obsidian is a great developer. No, they're not perfect. And you don't even know what a strawman is.

In case you haven't seen The Thick of It:

I must have been absent on the day that this was handed down as an immutable law of the universe, so forgive me if I'm a little too ready do dismiss this as your opinion and nothing more. Good thing I paid attention and bought it because it was an RPG and not a shooter. I remember there being an extensive shooting tutorial. Several other people seem to remember it as well. It IS optional though. Perhaps you simply missed it? "Most people" do or think lots of things. Is appeal to the lowest common denominator really the best argument that you have? Well, seeing as you're determined to not read my posts (I have mentioned what was wrong with the tutorial multiple times), I really don't know if I'm going to bother to do a point-by-point refutation. The "everyone is stupid and the game is 100% fine" approach is a moronic way to write off several errors that really hurt how well Alpha Protocol could have done. There's no "lowest common denominator" here, there is a very large number of players who were very understandably frustrated that the shooting did not work as they expected, especially in the initial levels, and the game did very little to indicate that the mechanics were fundamentally different than most other shooters. The main problem, as I indicated way back several pages ago (which no one read, because it seems everyone here is intent on jumping on anyone who so much as hints that Alpha Protocol is not a flawless masterpiece) is that adding RPG hit mechanics to a game which already requires twitch aiming is at best very difficult to implement and at worst a really ****ing stupid idea, because they are two mechanics which accomplish the exact same thing and are thus to some extent incompatible. Alpha Protocol did not get the balance quite right, as it leaned too far to the RPG mechanics side while not toning down the shooting side to match. The absolutely horrible scaling curves for weapon skill and two nearly useless weapon classes didn't help. Now, I have stated about three times that overall AP's shooting did work once you got your weapon skill up and adjusted to the "line up crit or don't bother shooting" idea (actually, assault rifles worked reasonably without lining up a full crit, to be fair), but there was very little in game to indicate how the shooting would work, other than a tutorial that did little more than show people how to use each weapon (and nothing about how to be effective with each weapon). Claiming that the sole reason many people disliked APs gameplay was "people are stupid look at me I'm so smart I could figure it out herp derp" is ****ing pathetic.

Did you not see the entire ****ing advertising campaign for the game? It was very clear they were attempting to attract mainstream shooter fans.

First, I've never had that problem (probably because I've never tried to use a pistol like a SMG). Second, have you ever fired a weapon? If you had, you'd know that "emptying a clip" reduces accuracy. Especially if the target is moving. I'm sorry that the real-world RPG was too realistic for you. Really. Really, realism is never, ever, ever a good reason for a game mechanic. Look, you can plug up your ears and refuse to accept what I'm saying, but the fact remains that Alpha Protocol's shooting plays significantly differently than most shooters on the market, yet the marketing and the tutorial did absolutely nothing to indicate this to potential players. Most people expect that in a shooter if you point your gun at a nearby enemy and click repeatedly, that enemy will die.

Exaggerate much? Being able to "one-shot-kill" with a pistol is nice at higher levels, but it seems completely realistic that someone with no (or few) points invested in the skill is going to be able to do so. Kinda robs the player of seeing any return on their skill-point investment. Yes, it's frustrating early on when I'm unloading clips into baddies who are way far away and only hitting occasionally, but that's what I get for believing that spies don't run around with assault weapons. In short: crits aren't mandatory, though you seem hell-bent on insisting that they are. Yes, pistols do burn through ammo at anything further than mid-distance, but please tell me how that's any different than real-life (ya' know, the game's setting and stuff). Oh come on, at max skill you can unload a full clip at an enemy ten feet away from you without dropping him. That should never happen. The shooting system for pistols more or less completely revolved around lining up crits.

Ehm, yeah, it did. It didn't even let you proceed unless you critted. That was showing you how to crit, not showing that "you absolutely must crit every shot to be able to do any damage to enemies."

Nowhere in the tutorial was it made obvious that "If you're going to be effective with the pistol you're going to need to line up a crit for nearly every shot." It is completely understandable why AP's combat system frustrated many players, especially in the early stages of the game. To blame this entirely on the players is nearing pure fanboyism. Pistols in the vast majority of shooters are accurate midrange weapons with a moderate rate of fire. They did not fill this role in Alpha Protocol until very high skill levels, and even then the rate of fire was comparable to most games' sniper rifles. The way the game was marketed combined with the fact that this wasn't explained during the tutorial quite unsurprisingly resulted in many players feeling that the shooting was broken. We both know this isn't the case, but you can't completely blame the players for being frustrated with a system which was initially very frustrating.

I've already stated that once you get used to the system, with max skill in pistols the shooting works fine. That's not standard shooting. Standard shooting involves putting as many rounds on target as quickly as possible until the target dies. You can't do that in AP with any efficacy at all, which understandably frustrates many people who came to the game expecting the shooting portion to function like a standard shooter. And the scaling with skill is unbelievably wonky.

This isn't a world of extremes. There is room for interpretation without the original law losing relevance. Either the constitution needs to be more easily amendable or it has to be interpreted fairly loosely, if our government is to function smoothly.