Alpha Protocol on GTTV next Friday

[Zoma]

 

 

Erm. I'm a little worried here. Why is there such a drastic compromise of texture quality between the old screenshot and the new one? Just by looking at the texture sharpness is startling. The new one's looking so washed out. Heck, the old one's looking so much more vibrant and nicer looking than the video's bland style.

 

What's happening Obsidian?

Edited March 14, 2009 by Zoma

[funcroc]

I enlarged original 960x544 format into 1440x900 before capturing that. sorry for confusing.

Edited March 14, 2009 by funcroc

[Pidesco]

I'd say it's due to the newer one being the 360 version, but I could be wrong.

[Zoma]

I'd say it's due to the newer one being the 360 version, but I could be wrong.

 

The top picture was taken from the GTTV while the bottom one was a screenshot from the E3 2008 preview.

 

I don't really think its the matter of resolution itself. It doesn't change the fact that the textures looks so washed out and the color lacking the vibrance.

 

I presume that's the PS3 version in comparison to the 360 version that is below?

Edited March 14, 2009 by Zoma

[Pidesco]

Actually, looking at it again, obviously the top picture is from the PS3 version. I'd like to think that the nicer looking, E3 picture is from the PC version.

 

Anyway, isn't the PS3 better able to handle larger textures, compared to the 360?

[Morgoth]

Well, having once owned both consoles, I can confirm that the 360 has more vibrant colours, and a sharper picture. However, the PS3 pic quality doesn't look that bad as showed in the above screenshot. I guess it's taken from a video.

[Dakar]

The second screen is touched up, did you think that's how it would acdtually look?

 

Also the first screen is form the PS3, the PC version will probably look better than either console version.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Dakar

[Zoma]

The second screen is touched up, did you think that's how it would acdtually look?

 

Also the first screen is form the PS3, the PC version will probably look better than either console version.

 

Can you be sure its touched up? I recalled a Dev mentioning that it was taken from in-game footage if I'm not mistaken.

[Morgoth]

No way it's touched up, as this is normally not allowed. I guess the capture is just taken from the PC, that's why it looks so good.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Looks great. Music sounded like a cheap rip-off of the matrix soundtrack, though.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Erm. I'm a little worried here. Why is there such a drastic compromise of texture quality between the old screenshot and the new one? Just by looking at the texture sharpness is startling. The new one's looking so washed out. Heck, the old one's looking so much more vibrant and nicer looking than the video's bland style.

 

What's happening Obsidian?

One is a compressed video screenshot that was captured through a breakout box, the other is an ordinary screenshot.

 

Guess which is which.

 

E: Okay, I won't make you guess. The top one is a compressed video screenshot. I'm 95% sure it was captured using analog component cables through a breakout box, resulting in a loss of contrast and overall quality.

[Pidesco]

Will there be a difference in texture quality between different platforms?

[Morgoth]

Will there be a difference in texture quality between different platforms?

Well the PC version will likely have higher res textures. Duh.

[Zoma]

Good to hear J.E that the quality remains consistent as last year's. But Obsidian ought should have recorded cleaner quality footage instead of compressed video. Many people in online forums are apparently misunderstanding the graphic quality of the actual game, most regarding it as 'ugly' and 'bland'. Thus its best you guys redistribute a clean footage online asap before the word of mouth spreads unnecessary damage.

 

On the thought of PC platform, will Obsidian attempt to use PhysX for those peeps with cards capable for it? I don't mind the delay though, otherwise it can be applied with a patch instead.

 

Since PhysX is a technology Obsidian has yet to try out yet, I thought this may be an opportune moment to learn experience from in its application.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Zoma

[J.E. Sawyer]

Will there be a difference in texture quality between different platforms?

No idea, sorry.

 

Zoma: I really don't like the effect most breakout boxes have on video quality, but I think when that was captured, it might have been all that we had available.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So when MT shoots someone in the head, do I just pick the "aggressive" dialog option?

 

Edit: Oh, never mind, I see in the screenshot there's actually a shoot option.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

MT bashing the old man's head in was badass.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I didn't realize there was more AP after the Ghostbusters crap.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Zoma]

Then you must had missed out alot. AP is the main spotlight for GTTV with Ghostbusters and Fallout 3 inserted in the middle as sort of a timeout break. Keep watching until its the end.

[mingoran]

Great show. I have seen enough things to make me want to try this game.

 

Enjoyed lots of weapons, skills and ways to interact with the environment.

 

I'm a bit skeptical about the dialog but still curious enough to want to give it a try. The few dialogs look well written.

 

Don't enjoy mini-games and would be more conformable with a button that makes an auto-attempt.

[Starwars]

One thing I actually like about the dialogue system (though I'm still definetely a bigger fan of classic system) is that the choices seems to be fairly abstracted. In Mass Effect, there was a sort of "middle-ground" where it kinda tried to describe the content of what Shepard would say, but it often failed in my mind. Just having the option say "Sarcastic" or whatever works better for me. Especially if it provides additional options. Like, I think I read in a previous preview that we'd get a pop-up option to shoot someone in the knee-cap.

 

Other than that... I will also say that I will never be able to understand how people can say that this game looks bad (which I've read on other forums) technically. I just can't understand how graphics whore heavy the gaming industry is if someone can honestly that the game looks bad technically. It's sad. Sure, I can understand that it isn't Crysis 2, but seriously... How can anyone say that the graphics are so bad that it's an area where someone would pan it or let it be a deciding factor in whether one should purchase it or not? I just can't wrap my head around that.

 

That said, I do wish the heads were a bit more alive. I think they definetely look to have plenty of personality which is good, but they feel a bit stiff. Perhaps something to do with the Unreal engine as I felt the same about Mass Effect. And, like I said before, I hope the framerate is smoother in the final build (or that we get very customizable graphics on the PC).

[Oblarg]

Pistol firing animation is still a bit jerky.

 

The textures in some scenes (the middle east ones especially) are amazing, while they are pretty bad in others. I'm pretty sure polish from now until release can fix this.

 

SMG's always dual-wielded is annoying, but not as bad as I had thought. I still hope there is more than one weapon ability per tree.

 

Dialog system and voice acting looks to be top-notch. Thorton's voice is spot on for his character's appearance. The "What the hell is going on, why'd you drug me" line is an example of great voice acting. (Unfortunately, it still doesn't even come close to Eternal Darkness, but then again, nothing ever will).

 

Do want.

[Venom713]

I know the game is still being worked on... but why did all of the rifles not have magazines in them? And I like the hand-to-hand combat, but already I saw the same thing repeated too much for comfort. I can understand the attacks being on the repetitive side, but I only saw one takedown animation used at least 3 times.

[lollers]

Seems Chris Parker was resisting an urge to punch Geoff when he mentioned VATS... or at least say something nasty.

Edited March 14, 2009 by lollers

[Fearless_Jedi]

Just saw the special footage of AP on GTTV. I gotta say AP looks pretty good. However, I did seem to notice one little issue that has the potential to be a deal breaker for me. Around 6:49-6:52 I noticed that while our hero was using CQC on a bad guy, the bad guy was still firing his gun. Anyone else see the potential for issues with this? Even if the motion capture studio is closed and they don't want to shell out the cash for that little extra feature that really gives players that spy action feeling (Bower, Bourne, and Bond have all used disarms BTW) can't they at least make it so that the bad guys don't fire their guns while you punch em? It is bad enough that CQC will be all but useless when encountering multiple enemies (as far as I have seen) but at the very least make it so that the guy you are beating on can't fire his freakin gun! FYI I am a huge proponent of giving players a disarm ability/feature in any action game involving CQC. I mean its only an extra 10 or so motion capture animations (depending on how you want to do it). All you have to do is make your takedown button or the held "attack" button default to a disarm if you do it on an armed enemy. Anyway, thats just my two cents.