Some constructive criticism

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Honestly, pretty much the entire combat and stealth mechanics look bad right now to me. Except maybe the whole aiming thing.

[Slowtrain]

Yup, the frontal melee makes it look like Mike has never practiced fighting or been in a fight.

 

I said that implementing an unrealistic fight strategy just to "look cool" was a slippery slope, and now they've released enough footage that perhaps people who were on the fence are starting to agree.

 

I mean, Is anybody honestly wowed by the pummeling animations? Do people really think that having to button mash to pummel people adds significant depth to the gameplay?

 

 

I would just wonder if maybe you (and others) are being a bit harsh on the game?

 

Look at FO3: It had a lot of very poor animations. The crosshairs don't even match up with where many of the weapons are pointing in some cases! Yet, most people really enjoyed FO3 and don't concern themselves overly with the animations. And even those like Nightshape who can't stand the animations still enjoy the game.

 

My point being that once you start playing the game a lot of the "problems" disappear since you are now actually playing the game rather than watching it, and no longer notice those things.

 

Its one of the risks I think in overanalyzing pre-release gameplay footage and screenies.

[Noxt]

Yup, the frontal melee makes it look like Mike has never practiced fighting or been in a fight.

 

I said that implementing an unrealistic fight strategy just to "look cool" was a slippery slope, and now they've released enough footage that perhaps people who were on the fence are starting to agree.

 

I mean, Is anybody honestly wowed by the pummeling animations? Do people really think that having to button mash to pummel people adds significant depth to the gameplay?

 

 

Yeah.. I don't think anyone finds the melee good.

 

And Sawyer said that when you put more points into the hand-to-hand skill you just get longer combos. That just means more stupid looking pummeling..

 

I just can't help but to compare the Alpha Protocol H2H to Splinter Cell Conviction's H2H. Splinter Cell has done it well, Sam doesn't waste time hitting his opponents for 10 seconds without reaction, he takes them out quickly and effectively.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

I would just wonder if maybe you (and others) are being a bit harsh on the game?

 

Well, there are two factors here for me.

 

The first is that, whatever criticisms we may come up with, the critics will probably come up with more. Most people who are regulars on the AP forums are at least somewhat invested in actually liking the game. A critic who has only a few days to rush through a review has no practical obligation to "see past a game's faults" to the parts that are worthwhile. From a professional standpoint they should, but IME this is seldom the case with games that lack superficial polish.

 

Who cares about the critics? Well, my opinion is that when it comes to buy/no buy a lot of gamers will be looking to reviews for Alpha Protocol due to a modest marketing campaign and status as a new IP. If AP is commercially successful, Obsidian will get to make sequels or at least similar types of games in the future. I hope that happens.

 

The second point is related to the CQC specifically. It's something I've been harping on literally since my first post on the Obsidian boards. Basically, I suggested that they employ authentic defensive tactics for the martial arts used in the game, or at least make it fun to watch. The line from Obsidian was:

 

Finding a practical martial art that also reads well can be difficult; many of the most effective martial arts for one-on-one defense have relatively subtle movements. We found an art that is visually very satisfying and also practical, and our very experienced consultant was also used extensively for mocap. I think people will be happy with the look and feel of our CQC moves.

 

That said, I don't think there are a lot of serious martial artists who would ever recommend using hand-to-hand attacks against someone with a firearm unless there were literally no other option. As designers, given the choice between making an action-spy RPG with effectively no mid-combat hand-to-hand (because it isn't realistic) or having hand-to-hand that stretches the plausible, I think it's wise that we went with the latter.

 

All sounds good, right? I was suspicious when that much of a caveat was necessary to agree with my suggestion of using realistic martial arts, but at that point I had to pretty much take them at their word. I mean, okay, I can accept sacrificing realism for aesthetics.

 

Now that the screenshots and footage starts rolling in, the mocapped pummeling hardly even looks mocapped because of the jerky transitions between moves and poor enemy reaction. We also got from "very satisfying and also practical" to tournament sparring or at best fist fight moves like the spinning backfist and uppercuts that reach the stratosphere regardless of impacting a target.

 

Second, consider the philosophy behind the pummeling mechanic, not as a martial artist, but just as a thinking person. Somebody is pointing a gun at you, so you're going to drive him backwards with a flurry of strikes? Where do you think he *wants* to be so that he can shoot you?

 

It seems to me like they sacrificed realism for aesthetics but failed to deliver on the aesthetics.

 

People can and have fielded similar arguments on things like AI, gunplay, dual SMGs, and whatnot. I think it's a valid point that if a game wants to deliver style over substance in combat, it should at least deliver style. I also think that the intent of making the game stylish will be lost on reviewers if the visuals and mechanics aren't polished and fluid.

 

Look at FO3: It had a lot of very poor animations. The crosshairs don't even match up with where many of the weapons are pointing in some cases! Yet, most people really enjoyed FO3 and don't concern themselves overly with the animations. And even those like Nightshape who can't stand the animations still enjoy the game.

 

As has been the case with Bethesda games in general, because they capitalize on open-world completionist fetish (and yes, I find it enjoyable, but I actually like VATS). A lot of the game consists of simply exploring, and the exploration is not bad. AP has a lot of other mechanics, but they all seem to feed primarily into the basic fighting/sneaking gameplay. If you spend most of the game doing something, then it pays to make that thing work really well.

 

My point being that once you start playing the game a lot of the "problems" disappear since you are now actually playing the game rather than watching it, and no longer notice those things.

 

Its one of the risks I think in overanalyzing pre-release gameplay footage and screenies.

 

Just because *I* can choose to look past a flaw doesn't mean reviewers will be so accepting. With something like how authentic the CQC is, most reviewers couldn't care less, but they *will* notice it if the gameplay looks jerky and glitchy. There are games that I think play fine that have been blasted as incredibly awkward and clunky to play,

[Slowtrain]

You raise some good points, none of which I really disagree with. I guess we are just looking at the game in two different ways. I am already sold on the game and not too worried about detailed animations. Whereas you seem to be looking at it from the point of view of an potential player who is not yet sold in the game, or even knows much about it.

 

I am curious. Are you a practicing martial artist of some sort? Your use of the phrase tournment-style fighting (vs I'm guessing, street style fighting or military style fighting like Krav Maga) where the emphasis is on looking good and scoring points vs killing somebody, is not a distinction most people (other than fighters/soldiers/martial artists) would even be aware of.

 

 

SO it is possible that your awareness and criticism in this area might not be something that most potential gamers would think to notice.

[mingoran]

I find map design more important than combat realism or challenging tactics in a game like this which is more about exploring your options than great combat.

 

The AI does bother me a little. Close range fire fights look weird and there's a situation where the player is shooting against two enemies and one is just standing there just watching the player, like he is taking his turn to fire and this also looks very weird.

 

There's an easy solution for this. If the player get's too close enemies start running backwards looking for cover and shooting at the player. Enemies that are doing nothing pretend to be doing something useful like reloading his gun or unjamming it or why not run around and look for cover. If he already has cover then he crouches down and waits some time before firing.

 

There's an interview somewhere on the net (don't recall where) from the guy who designed HL boot AI that explains these tricks.

Edited June 5, 2009 by mingoran

[Oner]

I mean, Is anybody honestly wowed by the pummeling animations? Do people really think that having to button mash to pummel people adds significant depth to the gameplay?

Just for the sake of argument: Is anybody wowed by repeatedly clicking the mouse button to see a muzzle flash and a hit effect?

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

I mean, Is anybody honestly wowed by the pummeling animations? Do people really think that having to button mash to pummel people adds significant depth to the gameplay?

Just for the sake of argument: Is anybody wowed by repeatedly clicking the mouse button to see a muzzle flash and a hit effect?

 

Depends on the muzzle flash and the hit effect. Killing floor, IMO, has some pretty satisfying shooting. You get the iron sights, recoil, blood, etc. I'm not a ZOMG first person r leet gamer, but I do like weapons to feel like they are affecting enemies (just like with CQC).

[Azure79]

I really enjoyed the CQC from the Bourne game.

 

When you entered CQC with an opponent, the camera would zoom into a side view, at which point you could perform your basic punch-kick combos and block incoming attacks. Pretty basic but each hit felt incredibly painful due to the animations. Bourne would deliver groin kicks, knee kicks and other no nonsense attacks. You also had adrenaline bars that you gained through quick kills and head shots in other parts of the game, which you could use to instantly take down an enemy, or inflict massive damage on bosses when in CQC.

 

When faced with more than one opponent, lets say three, you could use all three bars of adrenaline to instantly take down three opponents, much like he does in the movies. Or if you didn't want to use your adrenaline bars, enemies you weren't facing off directly had the opportunity to hit you from behind. The game gave you some time via a quick button press to avoid and counterattack accordingly.

 

Also there were situational takedowns like smashing someone's head through a glass door, using a pen as a weapon etc. The whole thing felt really brutal and captured the tone of the movie fights well.

 

Of course it felt strange other enemies would stop shooting at you when you entered one of these fights, but I usually in those cases I used a quick takedown to keep the game flowing. You also had the option of taking someone down as you were running towards them, which was useful when in evade and escape sequences.

[Azure79]

Since I have nothing better to do on a Sat. night, I've been going around watching more AP videos. Poor me.

 

It game does look incredibly fun and I like the timed responses that forces you to think quick. I think the main gripe I have with the CQC is Mike just does the same combo over and over, at least in the videos I've seen until now. It would be cool if as you gain more levels and invest more skill in CQC you are given options on how to dispatch enemies.

 

Like a master in CQC would be able to disarm an enemy, take the enemy's weapon and shoot him all in two quick movements. You could map this move to a specific button other than the basic combo button. Or if Mike is caught between multiple enemies, a master CQC player would have the move where he could take a human shield and dispatch the other enemy and then knock out the shield.

[Humodour]

Here's my constructive criticism: the game looks terrible! The AI looks retarded, the animations look clunky, the gameplay looks thoroughly meh, and invisibility? Go back to the drawing board, Obsidian! Here's a list of what I would change about this game:

• Everything
  

 

Nah.

[alanschu]

Just to be curious, are the people criticizing the CQC preferring that the CQC be like Splinter Cell where (historically) you would click the mouse button once and watch Sam kickass?

[J.E. Sawyer]

Some comments on CQC, because I think some of the criticisms are valid:

 

One of the biggest issues with any mechanic tied to an RPG system is one of scalability, i.e. if a value is a factor in how a mechanic works, how does that mechanic scale in a way where the player can perceive a benefit from the increment? Any ability that tends to result in a straight-up status effect with no duration (such as an instant kill or permanent knock-out) does not really scale, unless there is some sort of threshold in place. That means that Sam Fisher-style one-hit kills on every opponent do not (practically) have the potential to scale.

 

Additionally, we found that our initial CQC mechanics were too brief and simple for a lot of people to enjoy: one or two hits and dudes were laid out, done for. Simply put, the majority of players wanted to pound the crap out of people. Obviously, not everyone does, but this, combined with a desire for a more finely granular system (for better RPG tuning/scalability) suggested that we have longer combos, flashier combos, and generally more striking in the vein of Rapid Fire or Perfect Weapon (films) than ultra-efficient one or two hit takedowns. Not that you're going to be beating on dudes for 12 hits or anything, but the combos are longer for that reason.

 

RE: disarms and other AI-related nifty CQC-moves: I totally agree that those sort of elements would be fitting and awesome. As with anything, the depth of a system comes down to its scope relative to other systems. CQC is not as large of an element of AP as it is with Bourne (movies or game). It is more of a supplemental combat style than a dedicated mode of combat, so I don't want anyone to expect that it's going to be a very deep system.

 

That said, comments about smoothness of animation, timing, etc. are always worth mentioning. Whatever we give to you (regardless of depth) should be as polished and excellent as we can make it. We will do our best to improve and polish our CQC before the game is completed.

[Zoma]

I think disarm in Alpha Protocols can be simplified by means providing access to the perk at a relatively high allocated skill points in the martial arts attribute.

 

How it works is by means of giving a player a reasonable 30%(?) chance to disarm an unguarded opponent whenever the character reaches the last link of the combo, be it an upper cut or a flying kick. The disarm animation would simply be seen with the weapon flown out of the enemy's hands.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Thanks for the comments Sawyer, I particularly like the scalability argument (although I could think of other ways to approach it). If nothing else, it's good to better understand the thinking that went into the decision.

[Tigranes]

Makes sense Sawyer. Are you able to tell us whereabouts in that context the CQC we saw in the E3 stealth playthrough is, though? i.e. Was Thorton, and his CQC skill, about where you would expect most players to be at for that area in the game, or underdeveloped, or buffed up for the demo? Were we seeing The Best of Mike Thorton CQC there, or a 'level 1' performance, or somewhere in the middle?

 

I thought the CQC looked fine, especially liked how the other guy was trying to shoot you anyway but kept being disrupted and misfiring. I think the most important thing for me in terms of how it looks/feels is how the guy being beat up on reacts to it.

[Matthew Rorie]

Unless I am sorely mistaken, the over-the-shoulder camera footage from E3 was with a character with zero CQC skill. So it's probably not the best showcase for how CQC works against our enemies.

[Azure79]

Thanks for your comments as well Mr. Sawyer. I guess I'm one of those people that would prefer a short animation of one or two quick movements to knock out the enemy rather than long combos.

 

I already know I'll be playing a sneaky type that will try to get close and incapacitate enemies with CQC. I think as long as I can measureably see that my melee skills increase with skill points invested, I'll be happy. My thinking was as you become better and better at CQC, the actual combos would become more efficient and deadly instead of an overly long combo.

 

You know what, just trash my little complaints and just give us a great story with lots of intrigue. I'll be most happy with that.

[J.E. Sawyer]

You can still do single-shot takedowns (lethal or non-lethal), but they must always be done against unaware/stunned opponents. If an opponent is fully aware and engaging you in combat, you have to beat 'em up for a while. With enough upgrades, I do think it's possible to take out low-level scumbags in one or two standard strikes anyway, but I'm not positive.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Can you elaborate on the "stunned" state?

[Tigranes]

Tranquiliser dart?

[Oner]

That would be a non-lethal takedown, not a stun, methinks.

[Enoch]

I'd guess that enemies can be stunned by stuff like tear gas or flash-bang grenades.

[Solivagant]

Unless I am sorely mistaken, the over-the-shoulder camera footage from E3 was with a character with zero CQC skill. So it's probably not the best showcase for how CQC works against our enemies.

 

Particularly in this gameplay demo Gametrailers Alpha Protocol Dev Walkthrough and part 2? Because if it was at 0, someone should have said it to the person playing the game, he kept using it all the time (and taking too long to take the enemies down)!

[Enoch]

You can still do single-shot takedowns (lethal or non-lethal), but they must always be done against unaware/stunned opponents. If an opponent is fully aware and engaging you in combat, you have to beat 'em up for a while. With enough upgrades, I do think it's possible to take out low-level scumbags in one or two standard strikes anyway, but I'm not positive.

So how is the lethal/non-lethal distinction made? Is it simply a "press X for lethal, press Y for non-lethal"? Does the non-lethal option open up with a threshold investment in melee and/or stealth skills? (It seems from M. Rorie's comment that basic takedowns, at least, can be done with zero skill investment-- I assume that the scaling of this feature comes from the skill in stealth/gadgetry necessary to get close enough undetected.) Or perhaps it has something to do with your character's equipment (weapon in hand = lethal, unarmed or ether-soaked rag = non-lethal)?

 

Is there an additional cost to going non-lethal? Keeping the body count low should be, I think, something that takes a little extra effort. Perhaps the non-lethal takedowns take a little more time, which makes detection by other hostiles more likely?