RAMPANT AMBITION

[Pop]

So I've been hearing a lot of talk, a lot of talk about Alpha Protocol. Alpha Protocol has been compared a lot recently to one "Deus Ex". "Deus Ex" was renowned for its branching gameplay, which allowed you to make decisions that would alter (at the very least cosmetically) the shape of the narrative to come. This is all well and good, everybody liked that about "Deus Ex", but "Deus Ex", as some of you make recall, was initially going to be even more expansive, more expansive than it was when it shipped. One thing that got cut was something similar to what is being touted in this Alpha Protocol game. In this Alpha Protocol game, in the example that's been repeated to us ad nauseam, you break / sneak / talk your way into an American Embassy and face enemy forces with the marines, but it has been mentioned that depending on prior choices you could conceivably be on the other side of the conflict, fighting against marines. This is similar to what "Deus Ex" was supposed to be like, in that you were supposed to be able to align yourselves with either the MJ12/UNATCO or the NSF.

 

However, as most of you are aware, that grand vision was cut short, and players were all but forced into the employ of the NSF. Now, maybe I'm being a negative nelly, but AP is looking to be even more ambitious than "Deus Ex" ever was, in the choices department, promising more than a few dilemmas in the last hour of the game to determine the outcome of it. We've already heard of content being cut in the (superfluous) romance aspects of the game, but will Obsidz be able to implement everything they initially planned on implementing, now when we're about 7 months from launch? Are what we are seeing now in fact a truncated version of the original draft, so to speak?

 

I'm writing all this because what's been said so far about the game is very, very promising, and lord knows we've all been promised things in our games that haven't panned out. So how does it look? If you have to cut corners, can you do so in a way that won't damage the ambition of what we've heard about?

Edited July 31, 2008 by Pop

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't see how a 20 hr game is going to be more ambitious than DX. Most likely dialog will be a lot more extensive, but for everything else I'm not holding my breath. Having different factions shoot at you or not shoot at you isn't all that ambitious IMO, although certainly a good thing. Edit: It's just like on Onderon, you either fight the Royalists or Vaklu troopers, except sometimes they mislabeled Vaklu troopers as Royalists. I didn't think it was that big a deal, didn't change the game much.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Wrath of Dagon

[Pop]

On Onderon, the choice of siding with the Royalists or the Vaklu had relatively little impact on the game outside of the outcome for that one mission and of course, light side / dark side points, an easy crutch that Alpha Protocol won't have. AP looks to promise more dynamism in consequences. You can gain or lose allies and resources, and future encounters bend and twist with your previous actions.

[Hell Kitty]

I didn't think the "side with UNATCO" thing ever got past the ideas stage.

[H]

Alpha Protocol is shorter than Deus Ex, so yeah, I think Obsidian will manage to pull this off.

[Zoma]

Depends on the replay value. It could be simply 20 hours on the first try but manages to get alot higher than that if it succeeds in providing replay values.

 

Afterall, in one interview it was stated AP has lots of endings.

[Wrath of Dagon]

On Onderon, the choice of siding with the Royalists or the Vaklu had relatively little impact on the game outside of the outcome for that one mission and of course, light side / dark side points, an easy crutch that Alpha Protocol won't have. AP looks to promise more dynamism in consequences. You can gain or lose allies and resources, and future encounters bend and twist with your previous actions.

They also show up to help you on Telos, and you run into Vaklu's lieutenant on the Ravager, which makes no sense if you sided with the queen. I expect AP will be similar although hopefully a bit more involved and sophisticated.

[Xard]

On Onderon, the choice of siding with the Royalists or the Vaklu had relatively little impact on the game outside of the outcome for that one mission and of course, light side / dark side points, an easy crutch that Alpha Protocol won't have. AP looks to promise more dynamism in consequences. You can gain or lose allies and resources, and future encounters bend and twist with your previous actions.

They also show up to help you on Telos, and you run into Vaklu's lieutenant on the Ravager, which makes no sense if you sided with the queen. I expect AP will be similar although hopefully a bit more involved and sophisticated.

 

You do remember cutscene between Kreia and that bastard after the beast struck him down, right?

 

Tobin being on Ravager has nothing to do with who won

[Wrath of Dagon]

As I recall he says some things which assume you sided with Vaklu, but my recollection could be wrong.

[Xard]

well, it's wrong

[Wrath of Dagon]

May be it's because the first time I played it, I missed the entire second part of Onderon because of a bug, and almost missed the first part as well, so I had no idea why Tobin was there or what he was talking about.

[SirPetrakus]

I am looking forward to an Obsidian game that will be as long lasting as BG or Fallout, though you could speed run the Fallout games in less than one hour. I want something long lasting but not meaningless *coughoblivioncough*

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

IMO, pretty much every game released these days is a truncated version of the original vision. And, cut or not, Deus Ex was still one of my favorite shooters of all time.

 

I'd rather see an ambitious game imperfectly realized than the flawless execution of a mediocre concept.