Alpha Protocol Preview by videogamer

[Zoma]

http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/alpha_pr...eview-1859.html

 

Very interesting. It covers extensively on the RPG C&C aspects which shows very clearly in this preview.

[H]

One question: do we get to see the text of the e-mail before it is sent?

[Enoch]

[quote name='H

[Nepenthe]

[quote name='H

Edited July 23, 2009 by Nepenthe

[Starwars]

Nice.

 

The possible thing I won't like is how there seems to be no "wrong" choices. Don't get me wrong, I think having content for different options is a very good thing. But if you act like a moron, then I think there should be consequences for that, and often have those consequences be unfixable. I hope there won't always be possibilities on "repairing" your mistakes (such as smoothtalking the guards even when we headsmashes the dude in the bar) whatever we do.

 

But yeah, this definetely sounds good. Definetely one of the better previews since it focuses on what appears to be one of the main points of the game.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Starwars

[Jaesun]

The possible thing I won't like is how there seems to be no "wrong" choices. Don't get me wrong, I think having content for different options is a very good thing. But if you act like a moron, then I think there should be consequences for that, and often have those consequences be unfixable. I hope there won't always be possibilities on "repairing" your mistakes (such as smoothtalking the guards even when we headsmashes the dude in the bar) whatever we do.

 

THIS.

[Gfted1]

Did you two even read the article? Several examples of C&C were given.

[Pidesco]

This is probably the best preview of the game, yet.

[mkreku]

I'm gonna make the gayest Mike ever and only flirt with guys.

[Starwars]

Gfted1

 

“We don’t make a habit of punishing the player for playing the game the way they’d like,”

 

It's this quote and some of the examples shown that has me slightly worried. My point is, if we as Mike Thorton (who is in a rather delicate situation it would seem), act like morons throughout the game then personally I would've liked to see punishment for this. I don't want every mission to be like the one with Grigori, where even if we smash his frickin' head on a table like some kinda butch Rambo guy, we can still turn those consequences (heavy security later on) to our advantage everytime by simply smooth-talking a bit.

 

It's like, if we get a lot of choices... that's great. But if the consequences of those choices can all be reversed, or even turned to our advantage, the "consequence" part of choices&consequences kinda loses its importance to me at least.

 

Like in Fallout 3 (just pulling a really quick example out of my head here). Yes, I the player have the option of pissing off the town of Megaton, by attacking someone or trying to steal something or whatever. But since the town only remains pissed for a few days if I remember correctly, and the returns to a "normal state" again, the choice is sorta meaningless.

 

Probably a crappy example, but hope point is getting across. And I'm not claiming that AP will be this way, it's just that I fear it will.

[Enoch]

Gfted1

 

 

[Pop]

Right. "Moronic behavior" in games is really kind of relative. "moronic" more often than not means "reckless and dangerous", and it's the reckless and dangerous behaviors in a lot of a games that make them fun (for example, going toe-to-toe with Metzger and his goons or fighting an entire casino full of gangsters in Fallout 2)

 

Thing is I'd like to see "moronic behavior" rewarded if the player handles the aftermath cannily. The kind of character that starts fights and gets into impossible jams and perseveres through wit and guile is a kind of character that countless roleplayers dream to inhabit. And you can't have a Trickster God character if there's no ****-up at the outset of the story. Consider the scenario that the preview outlines - You beat up an informant who rats you out, and you're faced with bigger tougher security. It would be pretty lame if you always got to make use of that beefed up security. But according to the article, you can only do so if you play your cards exactly right. I think that's an ideal setup - I can turn the rough situation to my advantage and feel accomplishment (and what's more, I would be the exact opposite of moronic - I would be cagey), or I can end up putting myself through needless difficulty with the knowledgethat my choices put me in that position and that I'm not being punished for being an ****, I'm being punished for making a dumb ****. The trick is to make being a smart **** a tricky proposition that is nonetheless achievable.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Pop

[Starwars]

I imagine that it's going to be a tricky balance. Immediate and certain consequences can generally be harsh without frustrating the player. Indeed, that's most of the history of gaming-- turning off your flashlight leads to a grue eating you and you reloading. The risk of attaching delayed and unexpected consequences to a player's choices is that the player can feel blindsided by these consequences if they're too tough to deal with when they come up. If the consequences are harsh, and player's option is to either deal with them or go back to a save 5 game-hours ago, you're going to get a lot of frustrated and dissatisfied customers. ("I turned off my flashlight back in the basement, and now the grue has tracked me down 120 moves later in the thief's treasure room??! Nuts to this!") So Obsids has to come up with a way that the consequences feel meaningful, but also are always manageable to the player.

 

Agreed, though for certain games, I'd still argue that if you act like an idiot (like shooting up a bunch of people in a town in a more openended type of game for example), then that *should* stay with you. If you were to steal something, then yeah, consequences shouldn't be as harsh naturally.

 

As far as Alpha Protocol, it's of a different design. And I'd agree with you that it probably wouldn't be wise to really screw your game into a corner in it. But even so, if we go back to the example with Grigori and the guards. If every consequence is somehow bypassable like that, then I don't like it none. Having the ability to somehow impact it would be great. But occasionally I want to feel the game bite my ass for something I may have done, otherwise the difficulty of stuff like conversations (which are an gameplay mechanic in RPGs) simply disappear. From where I stand, for every possibilty there is to revert a consequence like in Grigoris case, I'd also like an event where I have to think my stuff through in the *first place* and not be given a second chance to "fix it", you know?

That doesn't really mean painting the player into a corner, it need not be that harsh. But I feel that, sometimes, games should say "well, you acted stupid there son, now you're gonna have to take the consequence of it here".

[Oblarg]

Consequences look great. I love the way the plot seems to develop (intercepted email of Grigori selling you out is golden).

 

This game just keeps looking better and better.

[Gfted1]

Gfted1

 

 

[Zoma]

The 10% discount is for the armor he sells. 5% discount is for the weapons.

[Gfted1]

Huh, I guess I was the one that misunderstood. Sorry Starwars.