.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
C2B
-
Posts
4194 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by C2B
-
-
"But I don't know what to think. Thankfully, this game was released a bit earlier in Europe, so when bad reviews started to drip from the US, a lot of people already knew that the game was much better than what they were being told."
This line is a perfect illustration of the arrogance of European and those who like AP. Very hilarious.
He might as well just stay 'only stupid dislike AP' or 'Amerikans are dum dum'. Pretty much gets his point across.
No, it doesn't.
It just speaks on our total different mentalities and the hyperbole surrouding AP in the USA. Also that there are different reviews around.
Not to mention he didn't insult anyone. You just did.
It could have been better formulated though. Especially there was no need to mention the US specifically.
-
I don't think some of those complaints are without merit.
I just wish people were *more* up-in-arms in other games about stuff like the player being able to affect the story, good writing (especially for story-driven games), having to aim carefully before shooting and so forth...
I don't think bugs or lack of polish should be automatically excused, not at all. But I hate how it seems to be the basis of many people's gaming experience. How about raising the standards in other areas as well? I think it's disappointing how the reactivity seems to be just a footnote for many people. I think that should be a real driving force in games, because they're supposed to be interactive (again, even story-driven ones).
I just can't relate at all to the importance of bugs (unless they really do render the game unplayable of course), technical polish, graphics and so forth. I feel it's so secondary.
For me, there are actually 3 points on the critsisim on this game I don't understand:
1. The Bugs. AP has waaaaaaaaaaaay less Bugs than any Obsidian game before it and is in fact practically on the level of the first Mass Effect. It's not great, but its in the normal margin of most rpgs. (I seriously also don't get when people complain too much about Bugs in AP but then don't make a big deal out or don't critisise buggier games. For an actual example: Red Dead Redemption. Yeah, it's open world. Still has tons and tons of bugs (some are pretty holarious like human charachters getting the animations of animals).
2. The Gameplay. Not saying it hasn't flaws. Considering the balancing issue it has major ones. But at least it was again an honest attempt to fuse 3D person shooter/stealth with rpg elements. And they did the job for what it's worth relativly good. When I see people in playthroughs wandering around, shooting with the pistol across the room and not waiting for a critical even though that's what the tutorial tells you RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING makes me furious. Complaining with Ignorance just because you have to adjust to the rules in a game is completly stupid. Sorry. If we actually did that there would be only ONE extremly dumbed down combat system. Sure, it sells. But do you want that? Seriously?
If anything the game was waaaaaaaaaay too easy due to the balancing. I'm not a shooter gamer and I suck at it but I plow through hard like its nothing now. Of course it let's you plow to the conversation really fast which is cool.
3. Comparisons with other Games. Sorry. Here's a point I really wanna adress. There's just so much in the review scores that doesn't make sense. They exist to give us a rough comparsion but..... honestly.
For a recent example why was Mass Effect 2 not more attacked for it's really mediocre shooting and flawed level design (Seriously, Box, Box, Ramp, Box isn't really level design. they look pretty I guess?)? Why was it not that bad that the choices that carry over had nearly no effect in the second game even though it was advertised so heavily for it?
It's still a really good and perfectly well made game and deserving of most of its scores but......
Sorry, yes I'm aware of the flaws.
It's still an awful awful lot of hyperbole.
-
"reading these replies, I wonder what you people still do on the Obsidian forums"
NWN2 OC = Above average
KOTOR2 = Average
MOTB = DA AWESOMENESS
All 3 of which are very fun games. Plus, I enjoyed Avellone and company's work on games like FO2 and PST. *shrug*
Also, atleast from a story standpoint Kotor 2 was anything BUT average. Especially for the SW universe.
Also SOZ at least had lots of fun combat in my opinion. I foung the OC weaker.
-
Well, considering the general concisous towards this game has largly shifted towards the game (nice to see at example on gamefaqs) and Alpha Protocol has every chance to be a cult game I expect actually it to sell better down the line.
Becuase VTM:B got a sequel, due to it's cult status. As did Freespace, Freelancer, Jedi Knight, Shemnue, PS:T etc. Even sadder is when cult games have got a new lease on life(FO/DX) they've been done by different devs.
Freespace, Jedi Knight, Shenmue, Deus Ex (by the same devs) got one. PS:T is a license issue. Freelancer had several problems preventing it but is a candidat for a series that may be resurrected.
Your point?
(And yeah, DX2 wasn't too great but still by a lot of the same devs.)
-
AP isn't even a month out. A sequel can still be encouraged however if there are enough sales down the line. Happened before.
Hopefully, since there's a lot of potential and they'll probably have less problems with the tech, but I'm trying to not get my hopes up, since for now it's unlikely.
Well, considering the general concisous towards this game has largly shifted towards the game (nice to see at example on gamefaqs) and Alpha Protocol has every chance to be a cult game I expect actually it to sell better down the line.
But you're right we'll see. I just want to say it's too early to mourn.
-
Uhmm, as much as it isn't fast selling....
AP isn't even a month out. A sequel can still be encouraged however if there are enough sales down the line. Happened before.
-
play pistols and melee only btw, see how you like that ****.
That's actually one of the best combinations in the game.
-
Because he has opinions and expresses them? O-kay.you are a moderator? you sound like a troll man.....I can understand where some of the complaints come from, at any rate. Hitman: Blood Money one-ups AP with regards to stealth, infiltration and AI without compromising gunplay should the player want (or need to) shoot his way through a mission, and without pulling stupid **** like invisibility magicks. And, um, it's a 2006 game. Once again, the gameplay of an Obsid game just isn't up to par.
Which could also lead to the argument that both games are in different gernes but whatever.
I'm not gonna complain in Diablo that there are way too few RTS options.
Still, the system could be strongly improved you're right. But especially because of the gerne I can forgive much.
-
Alpha Protocol focuses on the paramilitary side of the espionage house. But think about it. Real espionage is akin to digging through a pile of **** and trying to find a diamond; pretty much what Parker does. Many people would find that boring, hence the emphasis on field work. At least that's how I see it. As for reptitive (sp?) takedowns... there are only a handful of ways to KO/Kill and enemy without making a ****load of noise, so being reptitive (sp?) is unavoidable.
You can also buy a silence for the pistol and mix it up a little.
-
Which options are taken out exactly? I could do all the things in the tutorial after the tutorial and I was a recruit.
Nothings taken out.
Also, it IS a silly complaint. Nobody either gives you a tutorial for every magic spell in a rpg or skill. Well, except maybe Square. But people complain about that too.
Also, not reading Manuals is also a,.... well either a pirate complaint or a lazy one.
Only a naive designer would design his game assuming that gamers indeed read manuals. A lazy complaint? Maybe. Doesn't really change the fact that most gamers don't read manuals, otherwise we wouldn't even have tutorials in the first place.
Heck, I think one of the designers that worked on Alpha Protocol mentioned that at a presentation, so yeah, this strikes me as a pretty stupid choice.
As for things you can do from the tutorial but can't (without a skill point in Sabotage at least) haven't we already mentioned that? Do I need to repeat to you that if you have 0 points in sabotage you can't disable terminals and doors with an EMP?
Uhmm, I don't remember that they did. Well, not in such a case.
Also, you don't in the tutorial either. You throw the emp in the tutorial.
The point in the sabotage skill just enables you to make this a passive ability. Meaning you don't have to throw/place it anymore and you can just use a button.
-
Actually I agree with Fallen Ghost's complaint.
Granted, I noticed it pretty quickly, but the tutorial still should mention that some things require skill points.
If you tell the player 'you can do this and this and this' and then TAKE OUT those options without even telling him during the first mission well... it's a rather badly designed tutorial, no matter how you want to see it.
Yeah, you can argue that you could read the manual etc.. but even Obsidian knows pretty well that the majority of the player doesn't (not to mention that AP's manual contains so little information it's almost useless), so the tutorial should have been much more informative.
Which options are taken out exactly? I could do all the things in the tutorial after the tutorial and I was a recruit.
Nothings taken out.
Also, it IS a silly complaint. Nobody either gives you a tutorial for every magic spell in a rpg or skill. Well, except maybe Square. But people complain about that too.
Also, not reading Manuals is also a,.... well either a pirate complaint or a lazy one.
-
What I mean is something akin to proper spying mission. You are at location, you mingle, explore, etc... And maybe at the end do some action (just like Kasmui DLC).
I just have to know what exactlythese two things have to do with any espionage, I would be glad.
-
It was intentional for gameplay. I'm pretty sure of that.
Though it would be nice if that stuff could be modded. Just hope with us that Obsidian decides to help its Mod Community.
Oh, I get that, and to some extent I agree...but would it really be so hard to base it more in reality? I guess with some of the over-the-topness of the enemy spy design (O. D. and his "special moves" (no spoilers!) ) that's to be expected.
Hehe, yea I wouldn't object to a "gun-realism" mod...not sure how likely that is
Well, its based on a gerne which is over the top anyway. Considering they originally introduced Dialogstances with Jack (I survive everything) Bauer, Jason (Look at me disappearing) Bourne and James Bond. Well that should tell you everything.
-
I understand this isn't a game about gunplay, but it astounds me that so many details about the way firearms are implemented are just plain wrong.
For example, the UC .50 cal pistol is not a big, beefy gun. The actual in-game model looks like it's a Gsh-18, which is a 9mm pistol. Even if this is a "fictional" weapon created for the game, shouldn't a weapon that's supposed to shoot one of the most powerful loads for a handgun at least LOOK larger than the other pistols?
There's a ton of other stuff wrong too, things like subsonic rounds being magically "silent" in assault rifles, "chambers" holding extra rounds, and so on...not trying to nitpick here, but it honestly makes we wonder: 1) was it an intentional choice to get all of this stuff wrong, 2) did the designer not care, 3) was it an oversight by someone who just kind of generally cruised wikipedia and decided it didn't matter anyway?
Curious -- I still am greatly enjoying the game, but I'd enjoy it a little more if there was more veracity on the firearms!
It was intentional for gameplay. I'm pretty sure of that.
Though it would be nice if that stuff could be modded. Just hope with us that Obsidian decides to help its Mod Community.
-
How specfically does starting out with abysmally bad aim and having to put points into a skill to no longer have abysmally bad aim actually make the gameplay better?
It's actually not a point about "better" instead a point about "different"
It's a different approach to gameplay. I know its somewhat hard for you to accept that but there isn't only ONE way to achieve gameplay.
Which way you like is an entirly different and subjective matter.
-
Isn't every hub-centered game like that? Which is the reason I don't like it.
Probably. I think Deus Ex did a better job at that, even if it most Deus Ex was spent jumping from mission to mission.
And no one' saying there were plotholes (at least not right now), it's just hard to follow it when there's so much going on and so little time spent on developing the unfolding of each particular event. The overall plot in fact is very basic regardless of what you do, but the way it's told and the amount of secret agendas and sometimes lack of proper explanation (as in, who's the Gelato Guy, what's the real deal with Heck, etc...) turns out making appear more complex than it is. It's all in-character with the game's context and style but it gets difficult to track.
True, its very character focused.
-
Sorry but calling someone "fanboy" because disagrees is equal that someone call "whiner" for the same reasons, when there are not really arguments that support such an affirmation. I think you would add more to this discussion, telling us what is "balanced" (using the arms and the abilities on AP, not from other games), perhaps something good can come
Uhm, about that. I'm sorry and I hope not many took offense when I said "Whiner". It was targetes towards people who wanted a entirly other system (shooter) not at people who critizized the game.
That's also many the reason why I was so harsh in my post. I wanted to discuss several other issues with the game and the gameplay itself and how they can be improved. That's why I brought my own viewpoints to common problems into the first post. My goal was actually not to be too biased. I originally planned to not even write in this thread too much.
But as soon (near immediatly) as people began talking about how the game should be a shooter I stepped in. I mean I even clarified it in the thread title.
-
So, all games should be some sort of adjusted Fast-Food games?
Look, AAA quality games have about 20 million dollar budgets up to 100 million dollar (GTA4, Red Dead Redemption about 80 million). I have no idea about Alpha Protocols budget but it was in development for some time and was released more or less year too late.
After retailer cut, console manufacturer cut, ads cost, research and development, about 17 dollars out of 60 dollars go to the potential profit. This means that if ads are balanced correctly and funding for next project is secured, they need to sell over million units to make profit (with 20 million dollar budget).
With this info in mind, some of the features need to be in game so that majority of the gamers are at least somewhat interested of the game. Call it fast-food games or whatever, it's about survival for the developers and publishers. This don't mean that all games have to be cookie cutters or casual games, but if modern FPS shooters have certain features and (nearly) all work in relatively same way, deveoper takes a huge risk if they do things differently. They can do it differently, but then they have to be sure that it works at least as well as the "standard" or even better. Perception how something works is also important as well as accessability. For example GTA4 improved driving mechanics from the previous GTAs, but in general players didn't like the change.
Well, from that point of view its certanly viable. But, there aren't many developers around that take risks anymore.
Part of the reason I like Obsidian. From a salespoint absolutly right from a gaming one it's a little sad.
@bos Yeah, I totally ignore flaws. Truly right. Sorry. Now can you please not post anymore. Or you know, something on how Obsidian can improve these things?
-
So you're suggesting the removal of just the weapon skills?
Modern gamers in general just don't get the combat mechanics where you aim at something and still miss even if your aim was 100% accurate. This don't mean that weapons skills would have to be removed complitely, but more focused on optional "skills" like auto-aims, bullet time, VATs, dead-eye, chain shot, faster reloading, ect ect. This means that base skill would be pinpoint accurate as in (nearly) all modern FPs, but players, if they so choose, could invest in skills that make shooting even easier. Shotgun would still be situational close range weapon, pistol silent, assault rifle a long range (short) burst weapon, SMG a short range burst weapon.
So, all games should be some sort of adjusted Fast-Food games?
(Ok, that's generalizing but I hope you get my point)
(Also not in the sense of fast but in accesible)
-
Isn't every hub-centered game like that? Which is the reason I don't like it.Exactly. It was kind of predictable that Halbech was trying to build up global tensions (in fact, i think Mike says it around the beginning of the game) but how what you were doing in each place relates to that is sometimes lost.Uhmmm, which hub do you mena?
First of all: Micheal goes to every city just KNOWING that Halbech is somehow involved here. He does NOT know what exactly they do. So he has to gather intel.
Moscow was about arms dealership. Where the origin of Halbechs weapon dealership lies.
Tapei was about a planned assassination
Rome was about a planned Terrorist attack
After that, he realizes that the only chance to lure Leland/Halbech out is to surrender to Alpha Protocol which starts the endgame.
There are lots of other plotthreads to the story, but I have met NONE that didn't make sense in the Alpha Protocol continuity.
They even managed to avoid (I was burned by my own agency) Which does mostly not make sense for various reasons with the NSA and Mina.
So yeah, complicated NOT plotholes
-
I think the plot not making sense is part of the charm. Together with no saving and dialoguse sytem it adds to the general sense of dealing blindly with forces greater than you.
Uhmmm, the plot makes sense actually. Very much, even. It's just complicated. There's a difference.
Godd review. Anyway. I'm glad.
-
Many things listed by those that aren't fanboys. However getting fanboys to admit/see faults in AP is like trying to get the truth from politicians.
Yeah, we are all fanboys because we don't want a shooter. Great
And till now EVERYONE has admitted faults in the system.
But like I said before its something that can be improved. Not totally changed.
Read my first post for crying out loud.
You're not a moron are you?
I didn't make this thread to hear the WHINING of shooter fans. The complete OPPOSITE actually. Real CRITISM and improvments.
-
I don't know about swords, but there are Operation Flashpoint and Arma II if it's about guns.
And still they're getting tons of bashing for weapons being inaccurate, crippled AI, and all that bullcrap casual gamers (and unfortunately huge part of gaming journalists are casuals imho- it doesn't matter how many games you play in a week but how you play them) are complaining and whining about.
OPF: Dragon Rising wanted to please both audiences and failed badly on both fronts (pun not intended).
You can't make both of these worlds happy.
Casual is all about visuals, fancy cinematic and shortest and least engaging gameplay possible - to have a chance of finishing borrowed game during a weekend. Interactive entertainment at its best.
Hardcore gaming is about mechanics, involvement, immersion and spending on a game 80+, posting on forums to death as a break...
--------------------------
*me = huge ArmA fan
Funny fact is. The casual gamers you describe think themselves as the hardcore gamers.
Which always cracks me up.
-
---snip---
Answer to your problems is quite simple, Dan. Don't like it? - don't play it.
Knowing so much about game design and what should done to be right, what's the best and where's the truth about perfect game experience you shouldn't be wasting your time on these forums.
You know what? I have an idea: you should be designing your own game! There's even full engine waiting for you to use!
So download your copy of Unreal Development Kit - it's easy to use, ready for your brilliant and ground breaking ideas to became truth!
Ah - and don't forget to inform us how is it going and give us some demo to try. I bet, with such deep knowledge about how everything should be done your game is going to be a full blown success, no question about that.
...Ah...unless you're one of those useless malcontent, who can't do anything on their own - just whine that people more talented than you couldn't make something which would suit your sophisticated taste...
So sorry for demanding quality production out of the product we paid $50 dollars for.
Yeah, thats right. We shouldn't whine or complain about a product we paid for and should expect more out of it. We shouldn't expect the developers or anybody with half a brain to hear our criticism of the game and, hopefully for the future, take them into account and hopefully implement them. But what do we know? I'm sure all of us haven't been playing video games for the past 10 years, so what do we know?
Yeah, how to twist words.
Little tip: There is a difference between improving something and "I want to have it my waaaay. W
More Reviews, What to expect
in Alpha Protocol: General Discussion
Posted · Edited by C2B
No, I don't.
I think it's too much hyperbole generated through several gaming practices and standards that don't make sense under which AP was seen in the wrong light. Extravagating the flaws was an outcome of it. And there are numeros other reasons. But none of them is that I would judge a persons intelligence. Just their taste maybe.
I cannot say if you are dumb or intelligent. I don't know you in real life.
But, at the moment you are acting extremly ignorant accusing everybody here of something that just isn't true for most of them.
And even now I don't have any idea if you just do that because your angry at something and you are a pretty cool dude in reality.