C2B

You can also buy a silence for the pistol and mix it up a little.

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.

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.

I just have to know what exactlythese two things have to do with any espionage, I would be glad.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. 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

Uhmmm, the plot makes sense actually. Very much, even. It's just complicated. There's a difference. Godd review. Anyway. I'm glad.

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.

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.

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

The approch ME2 took with Armor and Shields is noteworthy here. Though it was still very flawed and didn't make too much sense in that way. To hold up gameplay is you know an important part in games. If we made games all "realistical" people would way way waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more rage. I have yet to see a game that handled gun/sword play in some way realistically. Sorry. And in some way, thats a good thing.

Except that Alpha Protocol, being a game set in a realistic modern day setting (and using that as a selling point nonetheless!) can't really use that kind of explanations. As for your Jason Bourne/Jack Bauer examples, they are both in the realm of verisimilitude. Are they plausible? Not much. But they're not impossible. A punk chick taking 8 headshots to die is, and that, I fear, creates a disconnect between the player and the game, the setting and the mechanics. You may disagree, but Obsidian should probably take note of this kind of opinions, since it's not just mine, and since it seems to be one of the point that kinda killed Alpha Protocol in some reviews. Note that I'm not a member of the 'let's take out stats' crowd. On the contrary, I feel that the challenge the designer face in this kind of hybrid is to make stats important while not creating this kind of disconnect. Is it hard? A lot. But if they want to pursue the action-rpg road they must be prepared to accept this kind of challenge. Once again, One point you can easily apply to EVERYTHING FICTIONAL. Furthermore "Make it that everyone likes it" or for short streamline it isn't the reason I like Obsidian. Sure they can take the easy way out like Bioware and make a mediocre to good shooter system but if you believe it or not the design choice Obsidian took as a hybrid isn't wrong and is actually LIKED by people like me. Sure it can be improved (especially the balance) but that doesn't mean they didn't take the challenge and succeded in it.

Yes, it is. Especially in real time first person CRPGs. As a old skool player, I can accpet the fact that I have to use 200 bullets to kill corporate drone, but players in general nowadays find it totally retarded. To apply dragon, supermutant or ultimate-robo-o-doom boss fight mechanics to characters like in Alpha Protocol, is a grade A design fumble. I agree on that. Problem is, same thing happened with Fallout 3 and strangely enough reviews were all positive. At least if you (meaning 'reviewer' not you ) criticize something you should do it in every review you're doing, not just the game without corporation backing. Yeah, let's critizize every game ever made! That's gonna help? Also, with that logic there would be only ONE right design choice eliminating every creativity from the beginning. Not to mention said design choice would be highly debatable. You seem to have misunderstood but.. whatever. Nope, I think I did not. Bosses in Alpha Protocol don't take more in than most humanid standard rpg enemies. Enemies in First Person and Third Person shooters already take more in that they should have. If we begin talking about this and consider that because it doesn't fit the "setting" is just a one way trip into opinion land. In most stories it comes down to "A wizard did it" or "SCIENCE" or anything like it when something like this happens. Hell, the entire spy/agent gerne is full of it. Jason Bourne has the power to make himself invisible when the story wants it, Jack Bauer gets stabed in the guts like every 6 hours. So, if a story is really intended to be "realistic" I call it out on that, but here it is just nitpicking ala "I don't like it W

Yes, it is. Especially in real time first person CRPGs. As a old skool player, I can accpet the fact that I have to use 200 bullets to kill corporate drone, but players in general nowadays find it totally retarded. To apply dragon, supermutant or ultimate-robo-o-doom boss fight mechanics to characters like in Alpha Protocol, is a grade A design fumble. I agree on that. Problem is, same thing happened with Fallout 3 and strangely enough reviews were all positive. At least if you (meaning 'reviewer' not you ) criticize something you should do it in every review you're doing, not just the game without corporation backing. Yeah, let's critizize every game ever made! That's gonna help? Also, with that logic there would be only ONE right design choice eliminating every creativity from the beginning. Not to mention said design choice would be highly debatable.

Yes, it is. Especially in real time first person CRPGs. As a old skool player, I can accpet the fact that I have to use 200 bullets to kill corporate drone, but players in general nowadays find it totally retarded. To apply dragon, supermutant or ultimate-robo-o-doom boss fight mechanics to characters like in Alpha Protocol, is a grade A design fumble. What do I care right? I can complite this game without item upgrades, with any spec or difficulty. It's not about us hardcore gamers anymore, it's all about those who play Halo, Gears of War or Modern Warfare. This means Obsidian, just like every other AAA level (or AA) developer, have to do certain things as good as in previous games or even better. We shouldn't compare Alpha Protocol to 2002 version of the Spinter Cell, 1998 version of the Half-Life, nor 1994 version of System Shock. Yet, Alpha Protocol still does things worse then those games in certain areas of the game. Design choice? Sure, but a bad one. Obsidian has alot to offer in chocies, characters and storylines. But those don't mean anything if base game and combat mechanics are up to date. Yeah..... two things: 1. Little exterregating are we? The bosses in alpha protocol aren't anywhere near these examples. I still needed around 8-12 critshots though. 2. Hey let's talk about retarded things in video games! How about that Run n' Gun?

The stealth could be expanded. Also some want to not even engage in enemy combat. Of course thats not really a reason to critizite something. But it would be nice if it was added.

It had Spies in it, Chris Avellone and it was an original IP. Also its Obsidian. One of the only companys that actually excels in something and doesn't try to streamline their games. Well that warranted the buy. As soon as I loaded up the game was done with the beginning (which remembered myself of ME2 which is funny since there is no way that that is anything else then a conicidence since ME2 was released not even 4 months ago)(Again, funny fact the opening that for some reason is generic HERE and critized is not critizized openly in ME2), had my talk with Westridge where I learnt to love the conversations. The rest was one great hommage of the spy gerne. Warranted beeing one of my favourite games of all time.

Clarke's Law! I actually don't think this would be an issue (and for me its not an issue) if there was something in Thorton's suit that allowed the camouflage skill to work. I think though - and its a fair complaint - a guy suddenly being invisible based on his own skills just because he's skilled could be seen as a bit much. This is where I think you can only really counter by saying that the game was designed so that each path could be seen as valid. Just as run-and-gunners would be upset if the game was a corridor crawl full of sneaking, the stealthers would be upset if there was no way to get past melee points. An "invisibility" skill allows the stealther to keep the game moving within their game style. And if, understanding this, the player still feels it "breaks" the game, well that's all there is at that point. Well, yes. I kinda just argumented with his remark that skills in other rpgs like bg become suddenly all valid and logical. Even the forgotten realms aren't that well written. I kinda agree that they could have combined it with a gadget though. But I don't see it much of a biggie. I'm a super spy and shadow operative is kinda greatly inspired by Jason Bourne. Some things he pulls of in the movies aren't that different or any more believable. ''^^

I guess you are playing it in easy/normal. Nope. First time I played it on Hard mode with a recruit, because I wanted a challenge. Played as a stealth character. Second time I played on Hard with a Veteran "shoot-everything" guy. I'd say my skill level with shooters are average, nothing remarkable so don't take it as bragging. The only other shooters I've plahttp://forums.obsidian.net/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gifyed through before are: Bioshock 1 and the mass effect games (hybrid shooters on those yeah) My point was that reading the dossiers before encountering enemies does not make it easier to beat them. The combat in the game WAS challenging at times, especially with my stealth character that only had 100 hp throughout the game. It wasn't challenging because the enemies acted smart though, mostly because I got shot, once or twice, and died instantly. Hmmm, pretty nice idea, though I don't think they even intended that or it is something that probably was killed in the early developement phase anyway. It's not even a question of smartening the AI but of giving them different routines. Wouldn't be hard to implent I think Though, I see exactly that when I fight bosses actually. They have different patterns. Would be nice in any case to implent with a patch or bringing in in AP2. Also purchasing Intel etc. can help in the fights since it makes them weaker in certain situations.