DeathQuaker

Sega's said they aren't going to permit a sequel, so bringing anything from old game into new isn't going to happen unless Sega changes their mind, which I imagine is unlikely. I said in another post though I'd like to see them do another espionage RP. Now, in a hypothetical world where an AP II was going to happen, I think if Thorton's going to be the MC, he should probably stay male for story/character consistency. If it was going to be a new MC, I'd absolutely want either a female MC or the ability to choose your gender (same if there was a new spy RPG made in a new IP). It would be hard to do an AP sequel come to think of it, though -- there are SO many people who can end up dead by the end, it would be hard to have a game that accounted and adjusted for all possibilities and still allowed characters to return and have meaningful contributions to the story. In fact, I have trouble thinking of a character who would be guaranteed to be alive in all scenarios... maybe Heck? That's... kind of sad he's the only one guaranteed to live. OTOH, I'd love to see a game where you're, say, an agent for G22, they seemed like a really cool organization. For any spy RPG, car chases and the like could be cool if the mechanics were well designed, but I'd rather the focus be on improving the existing combat mechanics. Like, for example, being able to actually aim a sniper rifle with the PC controls without spending an hour fighting mouse sensitivity while lining up the shot. Or like having two different command keys for throwing a grenade and attaching one to an area to set up a trap, so you aren't constantly accidentally doing one when trying to accomplish the other. And I agree about having the sniper rifle be opened up as another option for a weapon you could carry, or at least have it be more frequently available. I also want to be able to switch appropriate weapons between burst and single fire as needed. But the more I think of it, if there were another game using Alpha Protocol IP, what I'd really want is a prequel where you play SIE spreading machine gun fire all over the world.

Glad to read other people are enjoying this game. I barely ever replay games and I'm on my 3rd playthrough with this one. Part of it is while a lot of stuff happens, it's paced as such that I don't feel like I have to repeat some lengthy segment I have to get through to get to the meat of what I want to enjoy, part is just seeing how people react differently when I try different responses or reactions. Last game was super stealth and mostly Professional stance, so this time I'm trying to go aggressive, and fighting wise as blasty as I can get (I WILL make the shotgun actually a useful weapon, I WILL, dammit!) and being ridiculous with the collateral damage and seeing what happens.

I want to play a game where someday the sneaky guy who deals with traps and cons his way out of things is a different class/role from the lightly armored skirmisher who exploits enemy weaknesses rather than deals damage via brute force. Call one the "thief" or "scoundrel" and call the other "skirmisher" or "guerrilla" or whatever. The two could multiclass if that is what you wanted, but I feel that automatically and integrally tying what I feel are two different concepts into one class makes a class overall weak because it tries to do too much.

Not exactly like FF2 of course, it was designed ages ago games have progressed a lot since then. I just meant for example, instead of earning overall player experience which allows you to jump in any skills and abilities you want when you level up, have experience earned in every thing individually. Like every time you pick a lock, you gain experience towards leveling in lockpick skill. Sure this could potentially create more work for player growth, but not if the game is made right. And the normal play style is to me as gaining a level every minute would be to you, it just seems silly and too simple and easy, which is fun too but something that requires consideration is nicer. My only issue with leveling skills separately is I don't want to have Skyrim/Elder Scrolls syndrome where because out of necessity/random use I level my weapon skill super fast, but other skills take EONS to develop, like standing there and crafting a billion weapons or armor just to nudge up Smithing experience. I love the idea of developing your character per skill but it is a very hard thing to balance well, and hard to make sure that leveling non-combat skills does not feel like a chore. As to fast or slow leveling... if it is to be slow leveling, I want leveling to feel significant. I don't want to play the game for 20 hours to get to level 2, and then get "you may raise one attribute point" and that's it. I want to feel like I accomplished something. A fast leveling system can work if the rewards are not huge (so you don't become an uber god overnight) but stack up over time. And actually... I guess what I really prefer is medium. I don't need to level every fight, because then it doesn't feel special or useful, but I want it to be often enough I don't feel like I've been waiting for 85 years just to get an ability boost or whatever.

No, not in a video game. Every game I've ever played that had an "unwinnable fight" was where you were actually doing just fine in the fight, and then a cutscene robs you of your victory, completely ignoring your ability to think fast or your character's ability to fight, and just making you lose because the plot demands it. I don't like being robbed of player agency just for the sake of a cool cutscene. If I'm not supposed to kill it yet, then don't let me fight it. Let me see it kill something else from afar to see how badass it is or whatever, but if I get to fight it, then I get at least a chance to win. (I am fine with a scenario where you can win or lose a difficult fight, and the plot continues either way from there.)

I wonder if the relationship would still have been felt so romantic if Anna would have also looked like a rotting corpse like the nameless did? Sure, appearance is not everything, but a romance with a zombie?! Disgusting! I hope I don't have to see something like that in P:E. Having imagined both sides of the romance between Annah and TNO, including how Annah might look at the ugly and dessicated TNO, I still found the story to be compelling, because it was well-written. But I nor anyone else here I don't think is suggesting all romances should be with dead or seemingly dead people. I'm really kind of puzzled how you jumped to that idea in particular. If what you wanted to say was "what if Annah was ugly," then yes, I am pretty sure I still would have enjoyed the story (I actually found her character model to be a little grotesque and inhuman in its own way, as it was quite disproportionate, though she has a lovely face). I do think some kind of "zombie romance" in particular would be gross though IDK, on the other hand, I remember the ghoul couple in Fallout 3 in the Underworld hotel were kind of sweet. At any rate, I don't see anyone clamoring for something of that nature.

Very late to this conversation (I just joined the forums) but wanted to put in my 2 cents on the issue -- First, I like the idea of making sure all relationships, be they romantic, platonic, brotherly, hateful, or in between, are well developed. And I would rather a handful of extremely well developed companions who can develop unique relationships with the PC than a large number of companions who are shallowly written. Second, in RPGs, I am all for romance, and I am all for sex (non graphic), but I do not want to be given the impression that romance=sex. Sure, there are romantic relationships that are also sexual relationships, but there can be also romantic relationships that are not sexual (or not for a long time) and there can most definitely be sexual relationships that are not in the least romantic. More to the point in game design, it really really irritates the hell out of me in video games where the moment you bed another character is determined to be the moment you successfully "romanced" them. I hate when "romance" is used as a euphemism for "screw." Using an Obsidian game as an example, Alpha Protocol does this rampantly. Banging a girl you hardly know after a long day of shooting people just because you let her bandage your wounds, or having an "exclusive interview" with a journalist who has been largely and entirely been cool and aloof to you the whole game, or letting a mercenary ravage you on a table is not romance--it's just plain getting laid (I want to use a different term in fact but I'm fairly sure it would get filtered out). So don't tell me, game, that I successfully "romanced" these characters when all I did was bang them at a moment of convenient opportunity (I don't even think you ever get to tell any of the bangable women that you love them, and I'm pretty sure with maybe one or two exceptions, Mike doesn't). I don't mind that these events can happen--I in fact quite enjoyed them --but just call it for what it is. In fact I think to this day, the most satisfying romance I ever felt I played through--in any video game ever, not just any Obsidian game--was Annah in Planescape Torment, which culminates in no more than a quickly cut off kiss and of course more or less ends tragically. But through the dialogue, I felt the tension there, and I could see clearly how she felt and how she struggled with her feelings, and thus it felt to me like a real story of love. The moment where she says, "He matters to me more than life," actually made me cry. It's not often that I actually feel in a game like a character truly loves my PC, and Torment is one of the very few that accomplished that. Now, just in case I haven't made it clear, I have no problem if there's "bedroom scenes" in a game, but I just want to be clear of the distinctions between lust and love (and the spectrum between), and that one does not always immediately come along with the other. Hell, I'd think it was awesome if there was a companion who beds the main character on a lark but then makes it absolutely clear that they have no particular feelings at all toward the PC (and perhaps by contrast, an NPC deeply in love with the PC but who is very slow to admitting that, let alone to seeking out physical intimacy).