Do you want Alpha Protocol 2? in Alpha Protocol: General Discussion Posted March 13, 2013 Now, first and foremost, one person's fun is not another. Such is the way of things. So bummer, marelooke, that you didn't enjoy it. I can certainly see how if you didn't enjoy it/get used to it, it would make enjoying the story much much more difficult, if not impossible. For my own two cents, just speaking of my experience, I thought I would hate the timed dialogues, and I ended up loving them. I normally in dialogue heavy RPs do sit and agonize over my choices, trying to pick the "Best answer" whether from a mechanical perspective (what will earn me the most influence/get me the most XP, etc.) or a roleplaying perspective. I like usually to read and read and think about my options. At first the timed dialogues seemed like a horror--how could I know what to say, what if it was wrong, what if I wasn't roleplaying. Then I realized -- there really was no wrong answer. Yes, certain answers might gain or lose influence with someone, or otherwise take a new path down the plot I didn't want/expect. But then I realized that losing influence had its own advantages as gaining it and simply opened different avenues; the avenues themselves were different ways of playing, but they didn't make me bigger/better/faster/stronger, they didn't make me lose out on something --- or if I seemed to lose out on something immediately, I still gained in the long run. (Often pissing off one person pleased another and vice versa, and so on.) Or at the very least, the story that resulted that was very interesting. Also, once I realized Mike was going to be more or less a jerk no matter what you said (or to quote Yahtzee Croshaw, the "ponciest ponce who ever ponced past a poncing parlor"), I didn't worry too much about making the wrong roleplaying choice. Mike has a distinct personality of his own, it's just about what sides you bring out in him. I also find that the moments you did need to stop and think a minute, they did give you a little more time. And I did find that once I got used to the system, I got better and better at making snap decisions and getting the result I desired most anyway. That the game also tends to default your answer based on past choices -- i.e., if your last answer was professional, the selected option to the next question will default to professional -- makes it easier. You can be guaranteed consistency at least (which has its own perks) -- if you're not sure what to pick, going with the "personality" you've been picking for the most part is always a fine defaul. Now there are rare moments you could feel like you screwed up -- usually in a few yes/no or arrest/kill scenarios where you accidentally pick one rather than the other. I noticed most of those they give you a little more time to decide, however. There was only one time when the choice was "go/stay" where it was really nebulous as to which answer matched the thing I wanted to say because of the way the dialogue was worded and I picked the "wrong" thing--but I just went with it and I still accomplished everything I wanted to. Even with the system's occasional flaws, I still ultimately felt freed by the situation rather than constrained, which is what I thought I would. It shifted me to a different way of thinking that does indeed mesh with the fast paced feel of the game that helps immeasurably with immersion. So I am very glad that I personally gave it a chance, and I'd like to see a similar system show up again in games with a similar feel. If anything, I'd want any obvious mechanics further removed from the player's view -- don't tell me if I gain/lose influence, just note it in the software silently and let me keep playing. Anything that keeps me from feeling there's a right or wrong answer improves my feeling like I can truly play as I want. Maybe show me when I've earned a perk for a certain kind of behavior, but that's it. I wonder if there'd be a way to make timed dialogues optional, but I don't know if that would really truly help to please both sides. Your reply has inspired me to give the game another shot, keeping the above in mind does give an interesting take on Thornton and how to play him. I at least might finish the game someday, which is nice because I really liked the concept. I'm not sure how making the timed dialogues optional would be an issue for anyone though: make the defaults the way the game was intended to be played by the devs and let people that dislike it turn it off. It's a single player game after all, who cares how others enjoy playing it? Pretty much. You can easily see it. No one based Fallout 3 for being buggy. But it happens for FN:V. Interesting detail; It's 80% the same freaking bugs due to that horrid engine... Should speak for itself, no? Pretty much this. Then again it's the same bugs that were in Oblivion and before that in Morrowind. Bethesda is very protective of its bugs and is very keen to see nothing bad happening to them To be fair though I actually almost finished Fallout 3 before it got patched while I had to shelve NV for a few weeks before it was playable (in the literal sense, it would crash after ~10min, consistently) and I wasn't exactly alone. While this evidence is anecdotal at best I do think more people had more major trouble with NV early on (right now they're pretty much the same bug-wise and in fact a few of my F3 pet-peeves have been solved in NV). And let's be honest, neither Obsidian nor Bethesda have a reputation for bug-free games, having one work with tech built by the other was expected to be...interesting...at least As to journalists slamming Obsdian harder than Bethesda, well, they write what they're paid to write... Suffice to say that I consider most "major" review sites to have even less credibility then a politician in an election year.