lasthearth

Every time this game gets delayed, the cost of development goes up, and the number of copies that needs to be sold for Sega to make money goes up. It cannot help Obsidian's reputation as a developer that their projects constantly run beyond their original projected deadlines.

I'm not canceling my pre-order, what's the point, they have my $5. What exactly am I going to be able to do with those $5 that I can't do now?

I don't believe it will be canceled, but the video game equivalent of a direct to dvd release is just as bad. If Sega no longer believes in the game, they will not put a marketing effort behind it, and the game will not do well.

Great, are we looking at another "what might have been"? Instead of "if only Lucasarts gave them 8 more months" now it will be "if only Sega didn't give them another 8 months."

So is the game really not near finishing, or is this game near finished and Sega didn't like it and are asking them to make changes that will take 8 month to complete?

My fear is that Sega won't allow them to release this game until Sega is happy with it, and the last couple month has been the tweaking for Sega approval process. And it's anybody's guess when they will reach the point Sega is happy, hence no hard committed release date. What I hope doesn't happen is once again we get an Obsidian game where we talk about a game that "could have been". Instead of "if only Lucasarts gave them more time", it will be "if only Sega left them alone".

So apparently the leaked minutes from a Sega internal meeting has this snippet about AP: Alpha Protocol Michael Foster, product evaluator, said AP felt barely RPG. Initial level too challenging for players.

Yeah, it's really about banging chicks in a video game, just like it's really about shooting people and beating people up in a video game, what is the big freaking deal?

Did you read the article? The issue isn't the desire to have sex, and the article doesn't even use the word misogyny. A man takes a woman out to dinner, he pays the bill, they go back to his place, and now he wants sex. Does she want sex? That's not important, he showed her a good time, payed for dinner, and now she must reward him with sex. The issue is that this is how sex in games is typically presented, a commodity to be traded rather than a shared experience between two people. A relationship/romance is the work you have to do rather than enjoyable on it's own. Sex is the point of the relationship, rather than just a part of it. Personally I think sex and relationships in gaming is an interesting topic, but insisting that sex sells and games are just meaningless entertainment is a rather dull response to it. Of course he wants sex, but she "must" reward him with sex? There is no "must" about it. If she wants to have sex, they will. If she doesn't, and he forces himself on her, that's rape. Is your compliant against the idea of casual sex in general? So what if Alpha Protocol isn't about portraying long term romances/relationships, and is about romantic flings in the tradition of the classical James Bond genre? (I don't know that to be the case since I haven't played the game yet, and neither has the author of the article). But so what if it is true. How is this different from the way things are in every area of entertainment and culture, and why is it worth an entire article singling this one game out?

Argument against the article is not necessary. It is obvious to any one thinking about this in a clear headed way. People like sex. Sex sells. So companies put sex in the product to help them sell. It's not misogyny, it's just practical. Unless the innate desire by men to have sex with women is somehow misogynistic. And if that's the case then nature is misogynous.

Yeah, new games comes out on Tuesdays in the US, and Fridays in Europe. So it's still 27th for the US.

I don't expect it be to magical. It should be hard. A challenge. You have to really puzzle your way around how to go about it without killing people. And I'd have no problem with certain objectives where it is impossible. Where if you want to not kill people you have to skip it. That's what choices should be about.

Avoiding combat situations doesn't just mean air vents and steal . It could mean using persuasion, disguise, computer hacking, bribery, etc, etc. And I'm not saying a non lethal take down here and there wouldn't make a lot of sense. But if you go through the entire level and the only difference is that the enemies fell down unconscious after you shot them instead of falling down dead after you shot them, then to me the option is pretty pointless. I would also like the game to recognize that you don't kill people. For example your threatening conversation options are less effective if you have a very low kill hunt, etc.

If no kill just means you disable them with a tranq dart. Then it would be pretty lame. Because then it's no different gameplay wise from shooting them with a gun. No kill should require you to actively avoid combat situations.

They better not delay this now that DAO is delayed. I'm going to have no new games to play.

Since the special bonus is most likely just an unlockable code, most PC gamers would probably just wait for the inevitable crack rather than pre-order. And honestly, the percentage of PC gamers who don't pirate is most likely in the teens.

I don't understand this constant complaint by people in RPG threads that starts with the "I shouldn't be penalized for" following by whatever choices that are presented in the game. What's wrong with being penalized? It's called decisions. Some decisions you make in life will cost you things. What you're really saying is that you don't want any negative consequences for any choices you make. Which basically means that the choices you made in the end makes no difference. If you're a stealth expert, but the person who's the stealth handler doesn't share you ethical objectives, then you have to make a choice between the person who can help you finish the mission the easy, or making it harder on your self by sticking to your ideals. To me that seems that like a perfect role playing decision.

Deus Ex is not even an RPG. Why not compare Alpha Protocol to Meter Gear Solid while you're at it.

Why not? People compare games, it's how quality is decided by the masses. Yeah, but why ME specifically? ME is a good game, a great game even, but the PC overheat bug and the final fight with Saren just ruined everything this game did for me, and sometimes, in dialogue terms mostly, it did very little. VERY little. I hope AP will do better than that. Because the game reminds them of Mass Effect. You think there is some conspiracy out there or something? That people are making the comparison for no good reason? They make the comparison because they see similarities. And the fact so many people are comparing AP specifically to ME should make you pause and reconsider your position, that maybe there's something obvious that everyone else sees and you're just missing because you don't want to see it. Because deep down your fear is that AP will be just like ME and you don't want to consider that possibility. Fear not, I think AP will have game play mechanics similar to ME, but the story will be completely different as the settings of the two games have little in common. I'm also fairly sure the characters in the game will be very unique to its own settings and story lines.

Why are you so defensive? All people said is that it the game has a lot of Mass Effect feel, nobody said "ripped off ME", and nobody "held it against them". As far as I'm concerned comparisons to ME is a compliment as that game both sold very well and was very well critically received. Obsidian would be ecstatic if Alpha Protocol had the same commercial and critical success. If you have some bizarre Bioware hate that makes you think that comparisons to popular Bioware games is a put down, then you need to go work out your own psychological issues.

Come on, let's be fair. This game has a lot of Mass Effect feel. The leveling up system, where you get to put points into various skills, with special moves being unlocked at certain skill levels, is EXACTLY like Mass Effect.

Actually for the most part the reason some console games don't have a save anywhere system is legacy from the days when consoles didn't have hard drives, and even when they had memory cards the sizes were severely limited. Save anywhere requires the save game file to retain all the information about the state of the game. Whereas save point system only requires the save game file to retain certain information about the player character. It has nothing to do with consoles being "kiddie", it has nothing to do with consoles gamers being more "casual.". It was strictly because the consoles games had hardware limitations as to how large the save game files can be which made a save anywhere system impractical. In the current gen consoles, large HD are present and so most games on console nowadays do have save anywhere systems. FO3, Oblivion, ME, etc.

I'm going to guess that you get to keep your inventory etc, but that the enemies you killed will be alive.

From the videos from e3, it looks like the checkpoints are right *after* the dialogues, to ensure you can't replay the dialogue choices.

While I generally prefer a save anywhere system. I completely understand why the developers in this case opted for the checkpoint approach. The goal here is to put momentum in the narrative to always put the players on the edge of his seat knowing that all his decisions are permanent and cannot be altered, and the player is forced to always push forward rather than go back and try to get the perfect resolution. This is a deliberate design decision developers intended to create a certain type of gaming experience. Of course it robs the player of his "freedom", all design decisions do. If I introduce a hit point system, I rob the player of the freedom to get shot infinite times and keep going. If I set boundaries in the virtual world, I rob the player the freedom to go beyond those boundaries. Thus, the issue is not whether a design decision robs the player of freedom, but whether the design decision enhances the gaming experience or detracts from it. Arbitrary statements such as "save anywhere is always superior to check point because it offers more freedom" is as absurd as saying "open word is always superior to predefined path because it offers more freedom". It's simply not true, it really depends on the game. Some games would be awful if they were made completely open world. Whether the checkpoint system is better suited for this game or not is something we can only decide after we play the game.