Ulicus

The performance itself is fine but I find it horrifically distracting and really wish there was some way to switch it off. The only time I ever want to hear the narrator is during the opening of each new chapter. If the voiced narration works for other people that's great but it's never going to do so for me.

Yes and no. For many people, the vancian system of the Baldur's Gate series simply meant that after every single fight you had a nap. Spells were essentially per encounter with the annoying interruption of clicking the rest button after each fight. And PoE had limits to resting supplies which stopped rest spamming. So, that issue wasn't prevalent. I don't know about that. There were never more than four difficult encounters in a dungeon (or on a dungeon level), so you could always rest spam as much as you actually needed to. The only thing that ever stopped me were self-imposed RP restrictions, like "I don't think it makes sense for the party to rest here and now, even though the game would let me".

Ultimately, as long as there are a bunch more painted portraits to choose from at character creation -- and those portraits can be accurately reflected on my character* -- I'll be happy whatever they decide to do regarding watercolours. * If I boot up DEADFIRE for the first time and still can't create an Aumaua with a beard even though the best Aumaua portrait has one . . . well. Then I'm going to be miffed.

I'm not overly excited by the idea, really. I appreciate the rationale -- and there's nothing wrong with the examples we've been shown -- but I'd prefer a single visual style spread across the Very Important characters and the less important characters doing without. As was the case in the first game. That being said, it's not a deal breaker, and I'm sure I'd get used to it.

I agree. Though I'd probably go so far as to say that base attributes really shouldn't be the be-all-and-end all when it comes to dialog checks, anyway. If a character is engaging in a drinking contest, for instance, then shouldn't their present fortitude matter at least just as much as their base constitution?

And, with just under two days to go, I've finally upped my pledge by the $8 necessary to join this august body. I shall be "Grand Theologian of the Obsidian Order" Which took far too long for me to decide upon.

As long as it makes sense within the context of the story and setting for my character to be ten or twenty stronger at the end of the game, I'm absolutely okay with it. From what we've been told about the way souls work in this game -- as well as what the protagonist goes through in the opening -- I would think that Project Eternity, like Torment and The Sith Lords before it, is going to have a plot reason for the player's rapid progression. Also, regarding sequels, I wouldn't take it as a given that we'll be taking one character through a series of games, here. It may well be the case that, should we be fortunate enough to get a PE sequel, it'll be focusing on an entirely different character.

As long as I get to build my companions how I want and there's never any auto-levelling going on (including when they first join), I'm not really too bothered how EXP is distributed. Any of the first three options would suit me fine.

BG2 sort of was. Not strictly speaking, of course, but the fact that every Amnish guard and common street thug at the beginning of BG2 was basically at the BG1 level cap -- or near enough -- was pretty silly.

Sure. I have no problem with "Elite Guards" existing and having some presence in the game. I just want that presence to be consistent, throughout.

If you're encountering a fellow adventurer (or whathaveyou) over the course of the game several times then, sure, I'd agree. But it makes no sense for, say, a typical town guard of the setting to be more skilled by leaps and bounds by the end of the game just because the main character has levelled. That's not authentic -- it just reinforces that you're playing a game. I also feel it's pretty daft if "Elite Guards" suddenly start appearing in places where previously a standard guard would have sufficed, for no reason other than the fact the game knows you're a higher level, now.

Michael Westen. Burn Notice. In fact, Thorton's general character is far more like Westen than he is any of the Three Bs. That's not a bad thing, though: because Michael Westen is freakin' awesome. He's not one of "sauve/professional/aggressive" but rather "whatever my cover needs me to be" with a heaping of sarcasm and take-the-piss (akin to Thorton's "sauve", I guess) on top when he's being himself.

Awesome news. Hopefully this'll clear up those few instances of actions leading to the wrong consequences (Embassy springs to mind)... and finally stop a certain someone hogging all the space on the boat.

I found it interesting that the two gameplay elements he specifically singled out for praise were the skill-based system and the mini-games. And, yeah, am I weird for coming away from it thinking that it was -- overall -- a pretty positive review? I (perhaps incorrectly) got the impression he was implying at the end that he was going to replay it. Which is something of an endorsement in itself.

How would you enable a player who was rubbish at stealth games to play a character who was a stealth expert, in that case? In a proper RPG -- and despite your protestations, that's what Alpha Protocol is -- you can't penalise the player (too much) for being rubbish at something that their character is amazing at.

Heh. The hair and 5:00 shadow I gave Mike made him look like a dead ringer of Joshua Jackson (he of Dawsons and Fringe fame).

The difficult part is going to be demonstrating the secret handshake... The Adirondacks are beautiful this time of year....

Gah! Everyone's quoting the unedited version. :'( Oh well, I can take it on the chin.

Yeah, I don't think he was trying to say that no-one's expectations were met.

No, the actual literal meaning is that there is not a single person who had their expectations met. "Everybody" is a singular pronoun. It just looks like a plural one. Of course, it's incredibly pedantic to point that out, since we all know what Unskilled actually meant (what you say above)... but, technically, he was wrong. You can't say this game DID meet everybody's expectations and you can't (technically) say that it DIDN'T meet everybody's expectations. You can say, however, that it did not meet all expectations without anyone being able to nitpick at your choice of words. (since "all" is plural) EDIT: Because I kept saying "collective" instead of "plural". (facepalm)

True. Neither are the PC sales in general, yet. It isn't looking too hot on the consoles, though. :'(

Amentep: Well, whaddya know, someone who realises that "everybody" is actually -- despite appearances -- singular! Pedantry FTW. Orchomene: Fair dos.

There is another problem here when we score this game. Comparison. I see multitudes of problem more in the original ME and Fallout 3 than I see in AP. Yet those games scored near/over 90. This kinda destroys the entire rating system. Makes it unreliable. Reviewers should rather just focus on pointing out good and bad points of a game rather than score it. It just doesn't add up. Oh, I agree. I much prefer reviews that aren't scored at all. Uh, you realise that I was saying that ME2 didn't raise CRPG standards, right? By virtue of it "streamlining" to the point that it was more shooter than RPG.

Casting Jennifier Hale as the protagonist wouldn't really be the best idea, considering she's Fem!Shep. Though including her in an expansion or sequel, or whatever, would be sweet. I agree. Though, having seen the first week sales figures on VGChartz, my hopes for a sequel are diminishing somewhat. :| Too Human did better in its first week....