Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About themadhatter114

  • Rank
    (3) Conjurer


  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  1. Something is only cliche if it is overused. Cliche = banal and boring. Tropes and archetypes can bring some comfort and familiarity to an otherwise unfamiliar setting, but cliches are inherently overused.
  2. How can you question us about your perception of the game as a whole? Ask yourself why you perceived this as so bland and provide us the answer so we can agree or disagree. I wouldn't call it bland. The pacing is deliberately slow. You have time to get immersed in the world. The problems you deal with are pretty low key except for some incest. But this is a game more about a personal struggle set within a hollowborn epidemic disrupting the local economy and perverting scientific research. You get to find out the true cause of the epidemic, you get to chase the man who inadvertently caused your awakening, and you get to learn some startling revelations about the nature of the gods. These things were all presented in an interesting manner without being melodramatic but without banality. The companions are pretty low key as well. One is spying on you and dealing with his own minor awakening, another just needs to get out of Gilded Vale and wants to know if he fought in the wrong side of the war. The NPCs are generally just traveling companions without their own melodrama. Grieving Mother is drawn to you through her own unconscious recollection of her time as a faux Watcher and she believes you are the one who can help end Waidwen's Legacy. But mostly they just need a friend and ally and they have your back. It's not bland just because it avoids making every issue feel epic. You're not traveling with an heir to the throne and the mother of an Old God. You're not traveling with the warlord of an entire species or the man who crippled their reproductive systems. Dialing back the epic and makes for a well-paced story and makes the extraordinary actually feel extraordinary. Just like with tv, sometimes it's okay for a show where every single event is epic and over the top, and sometimes I want something a little more grounded and deliberately paced.
  3. Was the Hollowborn epidemic going to end regardless of the players actions? Did Thaos have enough souls for he already? Woedica doesn't seem like she was getting shorted when you gave her the available souls and ended the continued gathering of more souls. Was killing Thaos a completely hollow act if you take that ending, or would Woadoca eventually need more souls?
  4. How do you screw up your missions from his perspective? He's happy to let you think that Brayko was the mastermind in Moscow. He's also happy to let you think Omen Deng was behind things in Taipei and simply had an accomplice. But in Rome and Taipei either way you do it can be considered both a success and a failure. Do you simply have to alienate everyone else so that he thinks you're an idiot who has no allies and no resources?
  5. How do you get Leland to hate you? Is it depending on your choices throughout the game moreso than your dialogue choices? I got negative rep with him by being suave at first, but then I could do nothing but gain rep with him no matter what I picked and he ended up liking me, anyhow.
  6. Yes, combat is hard if you don't invest at all in any combat skill. Yeah, it would be nice if there were a way around every fight, but them's the breaks. Probably not wise to go for a pacifist run with absolutely no combat skill on your first playthrough. Especially since Obsidian has never claimed that there would be a non-violent solution at all times. That said, it's Brayko's mansion. He lives there. What's the pressing issue plot-wise that you couldn't head to Taipei for a few days before assaulting his mansion? You can gain some XP, decide if maybe you want to invest in some combat skills, and gain a valuable ally that might help you out against Brayko. Speaking of the Brayko fight, your ally from earlier in the mission should show up to help out or at least right as the dialogue starts. Then you would have to consider losing rep with them based on how you deal with Brayko. But alas...
  7. Once you've made the choice to stop the riots or the assassination, does Omen Deng's status alter the ending news broadcast at all? Does Russia produce basically a new Halbech if you trust Surkov too much and kill Brayko without talking to him first? Surely letting Shaheed and Nasri go is very bad. Letting Madison die is bad (well, unless you think a new souped up Patriot Act is a good thing). I think letting Sung live is potentially worse depending on your perspective. But I would have to imagine that killing Deng and Brayko without talking to either would have negative repercussions, as well, but I don't know.
  8. Alright, this entire topic is MEGA SPOILERS so just don't read it at all if you don't want to have the entire game spoiled for you. Since basically Mike is trying to stop World War 3 and expose Halbech, why aren't there more options to fail? So what if Surkov gets killed at the embassy? Couldn't I find Brayko some other way? But that's not the important one... What if I choose to try to save Madison in Rome, and I mess it up? Crap, the bomb went off AND Madison is dead. But I still have lots of evidence I've gathered against Halbech while in Rome, so why not let me continue? What if I upset President Sung and don't get him to wear a vest or tighten security? Sung dies and riots break out, but well I still have evidence against Halbech and Alpha Protocol. Or, even if I did convince Sung of one thing or the other, why not let the assassination take place WHILE I'm fighting Deng, if we both survive throughout the entire speech. Or maybe if Deng defeats you, have a chance to talk him into sparing you, and then have him get all shocked when the assassination takes place while he has you at gunpoint. Or what if I've pissed off EVERYONE and have no allies at the end? If I killed Sis, never met Sie, and alienated Steven Heck, why not reflect that in my choice of handlers for the final mission? Or maybe alter the approach to the final mission. Maybe Mina could be more careful and not get caught right away if you don't have any other allies, and she could help free you before getting caught herself. Then you'd have to assault Parker in the control room all by yourself. Then, at the end, the world is a worse place, but Halbech is exposed, and things get just a little bit better, but not much, because there's just going to be another Halbech. One problem I could see with this approach is the autosave system. I don't think anyone wants to fail to protect Surkov and then get an autosave and no chance to try again. Nor do I think anyone wants to screw up trying to save Madison and get an autosave, or fail to convince President Sung and get an autosave. But one way to solve this would be a rotating autosave system, where you could go back a couple checkpoints instead of just to the most previous one. Or something else along those lines, like some sort of chapter system. What do you all think would be some interesting consequences that could have been inserted for failure at different points, and what would be some problems with such a system? I definitely want a sequel, and I think something like this would definitely make the sequel more interesting, though possible infinitely more infuriating for some people. But if Mass Effect 2 can give you a literal suicide mission if you don't have enough loyal allies, I think Alpha Protocol 2 should be able to give you a total downer ending if you fail at some missions and/or don't have enough allies.
  9. I don't see how,my fight last 3-5 minutes in each round and I was tearing him apart with two smg's. His armor would always go back up while I was reloading the guns. Critical hits take away a ton more health than non-criticals. If you get him twice with Chain Shot with nothing but criticals, he's done.
  10. You probably can't. That's probably why there is an achievement for getting the vast majority of the intel rather than 100% of it.
  11. Let me think about this for a moment, NO! Are you insane? I am against gun control, but having every person with a gun, and with there being more than a few trigger happy people out there, That would be an immensely STUPID idea. Frankly that is the stupidest idea I have read so far here. The police is there to keep the peace, to arrest criminals, and to maintain order. If we remove the police and let everyone have a gun and "police" themselves we would have total and complete anarchy. Yeah, towns should probably be able to pass local taxes to support a police force. But everyone should have their own guns and be ready to defend themselves, especially against the police when the time comes. Are you stupid? Do you know how many towns in this country have a volunteer fire department? In my home county there are 3 volunteer fire departments, and they all have fundraisers to buy equipment and for training, and they all do an excellent job. But, yes, in a city, it's important to have full-time fire department paid for by city funds. I don't want the government to have any more interest in legislating my consumption habits than they already do.
  12. My main reasoning for being against government-funded health care is that, once the government has a vested interest in your health, they then assume the power to legislate your health. I'm just so excited to see all the Nazi tactics they use to combat the "obesity epidemic." It will be so awesome if we have socialized medicine and then the Center for Science in the Public Interest gets taken seriously!
  13. After 8 years of Bush and Republican leadership, and seeing where it brought us, why would I even want another 4 years of a Republican White House? Also I don't get why you are so against socialized medicine. It works quite well in Canada and the U.K.. Are you against other socialized emergency services such as police and fire departments? Imagine that you had to "pay" a police officer to investigate a break in to your home or to investigate an an assault charge. Imagine if you had to pay the fire department yourself to put out a fire at your home. Imagine the need to make a payment for a 911 call. Only major credit cards accepted! Or, or, imagine this. Perhaps you could get yourself a gun and protect yourself and tell the police to go to hell since protecting you is NOT their job. As for fire departments, localities could institute a 'fire tax' to maintain a fire department. Or they could have a volunteer fire department, which is what just about every small town has. The same could be done with police, or you could hire a private investigator, or, as I said, you could buy a gun and leave the cops out of the equation.
  14. Amusingly, a New York Times poll found that 49% of Republican delegates at the convention supported either gay marriage or civil unions. But I don't see anywhere that Palin has stated anything about gay marriage. The only reference to it I've seen is in her gubernatorial debate when she made reference to the 1998 Alaskan Constitutional amendment defining marriage. Marriage should not be defined as "two individuals who love and cherish each other to the point they are committed to each other in both a spiritual and physical bond." That's just silly. The church should define marriage however they want, and the government shouldn't define marriage at all. Gay couples should have no more privilege than cohabiting siblings or best friends. Nor should married couples.
  15. The amusing thing about the Republicans trying to separate her from the AIP is that the AIP and the Republicans are pretty friendly in Alaska. The Republican who tried to remove the leader of the Troopergate investigation is the son of the former AIP chairman. Her flirtation with the AIP is a huge plus for me. Has Palin ever made a statement against civil unions? Marriage is defined in Alaska's Constitution as between a man and a woman. Therefore denying spousal benefits to gay couples is not a discrimination issue. Gay couples are no more deserving of spousal benefits than cohabiting siblings. Of course, in my view, they should all be the same. Gay civil unions are the undoing of marriage as a social institution. But if the government would simply stay out of the marriage debate altogether, it would be so much better. But what views on foreign policy, health care, or the economy have Palin even expressed so far? I understand if you're simply saying you're against the McCain ticket, or the Republicans, but stating specifically that you are opposed to Palin's views when she has not expressed those views is a little silly. I don't expect to get to know her actual views, though. Right now she's being given the McCain party line and will have to stick with it. Honestly I think Palin is an isolationist at heart. She preaches energy independence and I'd say that's because she wants to get the hell out of other countries. She was singing Ron Paul's praises during the Republican primaries. Though I wouldn't be surprised if her views will put her in the pro-Israel lobby.
  • Create New...