It should have been stat based

[spacekungfuman]

TLDR summary: Reviewers like Alpha Protocol's role playing aspects and hate its action combat. Would the game have been better off as a traditional RPG, where the strong role playing mechanics are all that would matter?

 

So the reviews are in, and the scores are not pretty, but an interesting theme has emerged. Although there is some criticism on the writing, voice acting, and characterization (which should all be taken with a grain of salt, given that these same reviewers were pleased with all of these aspects in Fallout 3) the actual role playing mechanics of the game are receiving a ton of praise. People seem to love the choices and consequences, enjoy the character and weapon customization systems, and be excited and quite taken with the dialog system.

 

Where things turn bad is where the game turns away from the genre (and Obsidian's) roots, and veers towards an action game. The combat is being panned, both from a control perspective and regarding enemy AI. Obsidian (and other roleplaying developers) have released plenty of rpgs in recent years that actually feature pretty lousy combat (pretty much any aurora engine game) but it never comes across as a major criticism because the FEEL of the combat is not the point in those games. Role playing game combat is more about decisions (both before and during combat) than control or AI, and as long as you get the other aspects of the game right, and the combat system crunches the numbers and animates well, noone ever seems to complain, unless they are complaining about the genre itself.

 

The difference in expectations for rpg vs action combat probably accounts for a lot of the negative reviews this game is getting, and the decision to go twitch seems to be proving disastrous. To be absolutely clear, reviewers seem to think Obsidian NAILED the role playing aspects of the game. If Alpha Protocol were a more traditional RPG then this would be enough, and the reviews would probably look very different. But once the action combat is thrown into the mix, reviewers don't seem to care how well the role playing works. Essentially, these core elements (which on their own would make Alpha Protocol a strong role playing game) are being relegated to second class status, and treated as nothing more than nice features which cannot redeem a shoddy action game.

 

So my question (to fans and developers) is simple. Was this a mistake? Should Alpha Protocol have been made into a traditional RPG which could rest on its strongest mechanics, or was it right to try and make an action game, which shifts the focus away from Obsidian's core strengths as a role playing game developer?

 

TLDR summary: Reviewers like Alpha Protocol's role playing aspects and hate its action combat. Would the game have been better off as a traditional RPG, where the strong role playing mechanics are all that would matter?

[WorstUsernameEver]

The difference in expectations for rpg vs action combat probably accounts for a lot of the negative reviews this game is getting, and the decision to go twitch seems to be proving disastrous. To be absolutely clear, reviewers seem to think Obsidian NAILED the role playing aspects of the game. If Alpha Protocol were a more traditional RPG then this would be enough, and the reviews would probably look very different. But once the action combat is thrown into the mix, reviewers don't seem to care how well the role playing works. Essentially, these core elements (which on their own would make Alpha Protocol a strong role playing game) are being relegated to second class status, and treated as nothing more than nice features which cannot redeem a shoddy action game.

 

So my question (to fans and developers) is simple. Was this a mistake? Should Alpha Protocol have been made into a traditional RPG which could rest on its strongest mechanics, or was it right to try and make an action game, which shifts the focus away from Obsidian's core strengths as a role playing game developer?

 

Eh, the problem is, how would you design such a system?

It's not as easy as it sounds, and I think Obsidian ultimately went for the action-rpg route because they thought it complemented the genre in a way that a turn-based/isometric RPG can't.

[Morgoth]

Traditional? No. I think the Action/Stealth RPG approach embodies the methods of a spy quite well. It was the right move.

[gotthammer]

Methinks the current system is actually good, BUT needs a fair amount of polishing. Making it 'smoother' would be a good start, I think.

[poetic obsidian]

The OP is right on actually. Don't reduce his post to a simple: Obsidian should have done a more traditional rpg setup when it comes to combat. What he's really saying is that the strong rpg elements (such as writing, dialogue etc. ) of the game are treated in a rather flippant way by the reviewers. The infamous Gamespot review is the perfect example. Essentially, the reviewer felt that the strong rpg elements weren't enough to overcome its shortcomings as a shooter action game.

 

The OP feels that instead of letting the great rpg writing be the focus of their reviews, it was relegated to being naught but a consolation prize in a failed shooter action game.

Edited June 3, 2010 by poetic obsidian

[Hathur]

The problem many reviewers seem to be having is this.... the game LOOKS like 3rd person shooter (but the game is in fact a RPG)... and when something looks like a 3rd person shooter, the player naturally expects it to behave like one.

 

This is a lesson Bioware learned with Mass Effect 1.. many of the complaints people had 2.5 years ago about ME1 was the combat... it looked like 3rd person shooter (it was an rpg hybrid) but it's shooting mechanics didn't behave like a 3rd person shooter.. it was based on the stats on the character, very much like AP.

 

For ME2, they realized that if they wanted to make a game that looks and behaves similar to a 3rd person shooter, they'd better make the shooting gameplay behave like a 3rd person shooter.. not a stat based RPG... so in ME2 they removed that aspect of the game and relied on other aspects to enforce the RPG elements (story, characters, squad points to unlock special abilties, etc... but the core shooting behaved purely like a classic shooter).

 

For me personally, I don't mind AP's shooting mechanics because I seldom play shooters and I am accustom to RPGs where weapon skill comes from character stats... so I was able to wrap my head around it.... but AP tries to look like a shooter, so it confuses many gamers / reviewers and rather than realizing the shooting aspect is functioning as intended, they call it sloppy or buggy instead.

 

A game like Knights of the old Republic didn't have this problem... they were over-the-shoulder view gameplay (3rd person), but they worked like traditional RPGs... you select a target and auto attack... your hits were determined by dice rolls... there was no complaint about buggy / sloppy action because it behaved as one expected.... but the moment you require the player to have to manually target and train crosshairs on a target himself... and then add the dice roll element ontop of that to compound the difficulty, many gamers simply balk and think it's buggy... "Uncharted's shooting isn't sloppy like this!" or "Gears of Wars shooting is sloppy like this!" etc etc.

 

Obsidian likely should have gone the same route Bioware did for ME2... made the shooter mechanics not dependent on stats, but purely player skill like regular shooters... and then used skill points to unlock special abilities or make stealth better, etc etc.

 

This would have alleviated many of the harsh reviews the game received (though again, personally, I like the combat mechanics of AP as is... but if Obsidian was worried about wider appeal, they should have done the same as ME2 with the gunplay).

 

That all said... there is no excuse for the game's abysmal, idiotic, buggy as all hell AI.

 

Yet despite that, I still love AP.... I'd buy the sequel or even DLC for it.. though I doubt we'll see either... the game is getting panned hard in North American reviews... which saddens me because the more I play it, the more and more I realize that this game is truly a wonderful little gem... that just happens to have some tarnish on it.

[edgarcuk]

I think another factor is the release date, if AP was released before ME2, the reviews would be different. Since one of qualities of ME2 is the combat, it is now a reference and people expect the same sort of combat mechanics.

 

The combat system is au pair of ME1 or perhaps better, if AP was released last year, many of the reviews would take ME1 as reference, not ME2.

[Tokie]

If the combat had been like Deus Ex (Original), then this game would not be as badly critised.

 

With the extremely polished Action RPG ME2 released early this year, that game overshadows AP in the eyes of the reviewers in terms of combat.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Tokie

[Morgoth]

If the combat had been like Deus Ex (Original), then this game would not be as badly critised.

Thing is, Deus Ex had atrocious combat, so I don't exactly know what you mean.

[Kasabian]

You men the combat should have been based off a ten year old game? Are you mad?!

 

AP is an improvement in many ways, apart from the non-linear aspect of Deus Ex, which AP needed to make it an actual masterpiece.

[fuZZ]

If the combat had been like Deus Ex (Original), then this game would not be as badly critised.

 

With the extremely polished Action RPG ME2 released early this year, that game overshadows AP in the eyes of the reviewers in terms of combat.

 

lets be honest deus ex overshadows AP by far. AP is decent but DX is awesome!

[spacekungfuman]

Obsidian was in a tough position on this game. Wanting to do an action/stealth hybrid makes perfect sense for the genre, and action rpgs like ME1/2 and Elder Scrolls/FO3 have been massive crossover successes, in part because they pull in gamers other than RPG players. But the added appeal is a two edged sword, and with the increasing "sophitication" of the 3rd person shooter genre in recent years (seriously, it has exploded these last 5 or 6 years), the bar to entry into the genre is a lot higher than it used to be. As other people pointed out, Bioware already felt the backlash of making an action rpg in this space, and moved ME2 away from RPG mechanics to please the action gaming set (many of whom probably consider themselves to be RPG fans at this point thanks to all the crossover games). With limited development resources and vast RPG experience, Obsidian may have just been better off making the best pure RPG that they could, pulling in all the RPG fans, and potentially grabbing crossover fans based on the setting and the more favorable reviews that the game could have gotten. And to anyone who thinks a game can't sell with choice and consequence as the main mechanic, just take a look at heavy rain. . .

[poetic obsidian]

Obsidian was in a tough position on this game. Wanting to do an action/stealth hybrid makes perfect sense for the genre, and action rpgs like ME1/2 and Elder Scrolls/FO3 have been massive crossover successes, in part because they pull in gamers other than RPG players. But the added appeal is a two edged sword, and with the increasing "sophitication" of the 3rd person shooter genre in recent years (seriously, it has exploded these last 5 or 6 years), the bar to entry into the genre is a lot higher than it used to be. As other people pointed out, Bioware already felt the backlash of making an action rpg in this space, and moved ME2 away from RPG mechanics to please the action gaming set (many of whom probably consider themselves to be RPG fans at this point thanks to all the crossover games). With limited development resources and vast RPG experience, Obsidian may have just been better off making the best pure RPG that they could, pulling in all the RPG fans, and potentially grabbing crossover fans based on the setting and the more favorable reviews that the game could have gotten. And to anyone who thinks a game can't sell with choice and consequence as the main mechanic, just take a look at heavy rain. . .

 

Exactly. They might have been better off going for a "pure" RPG given what reviewers have been saying. Here's a summary of gamespot's review:

 

Alpha Protocol's ambitions are commendable, and if you're a role-playing fanatic, you'll enjoy investigating its intricacies. It's unfortunate that its various ingredients are so undercooked. The flaky cover system, the mediocre production values, the fundamental blemishes gone unchecked--these elements add up quickly and drag the experience down. The elaborate storytelling and character progression are impressive. It's too bad that the gawky, glitchy gameplay can't rise to the same standard"

 

I don't know if it could be spelled out clearer than that. "Gee, it's a great rpg, and rpg fans might love to dig deep into it, BUT that's just a small consolation prize for the crappy gunplay."

 

Makes no sense.

 

That's like reviewing a beat em up game and saying. "Gee, it's got great button-mashing action, fluid controls, and balanced fights, BUT that's just a small consolation prize for the crappy plot."

Edited June 3, 2010 by poetic obsidian

[Wildcat84]

I do agree that having stats and a more traditional RPG character setup would have been nice, but it actually already IS there, in the skill set.

 

I think the reviews this game is getting is indicative of just how lazy and shallow the gaming press is. None of the reviews I've read so far could possibly have been written by people who played the game for more than 30 minutes. They are writing it based on their experience in the tutorial before they even HAVE skillpoints to spend yet.

[Alpha]

Traditional? No. I think the Action/Stealth RPG approach embodies the methods of a spy quite well. It was the right move.

Agree with you.

[Nissa_Red]

I do agree that having stats and a more traditional RPG character setup would have been nice, but it actually already IS there, in the skill set.

 

I think the reviews this game is getting is indicative of just how lazy and shallow the gaming press is. None of the reviews I've read so far could possibly have been written by people who played the game for more than 30 minutes. They are writing it based on their experience in the tutorial before they even HAVE skillpoints to spend yet.

This is my feeling too.

 

How many games have to be published every month for reviewers to show so lazy and not do their job thoroughly (dare I say, ethically)?

 

I used to give reviewing sites some credit. Not anymore, and it is doubtful to change.

 

Now, I tend to check... forums first, or just trust my guts.

[Wildcat84]

I do agree that having stats and a more traditional RPG character setup would have been nice, but it actually already IS there, in the skill set.

 

I think the reviews this game is getting is indicative of just how lazy and shallow the gaming press is. None of the reviews I've read so far could possibly have been written by people who played the game for more than 30 minutes. They are writing it based on their experience in the tutorial before they even HAVE skillpoints to spend yet.

This is my feeling too.

 

How many games have to be published every month for reviewers to show so lazy and not do their job thoroughly (dare I say, ethically)?

 

I used to give reviewing sites some credit. Not anymore, and it is doubtful to change.

 

Now, I tend to check... forums first, or just trust my guts.

 

Dirty little secret, learned from the aftermath of the Star Wars Galaxies NGE, is that the gaming industry press is not only lazy but corrupt. Most glowing reviews at release are bought and paid for. You never see a follow up question in any "interview". When the press actually has to "work" you get crappy not even half assed reviews like we've been reading, released on the first day of the game's release, probably written in 15 minutes after playing the game for 10.

 

This is why blog sites are the best places to go for honest reviews. Listen to other players. Word of mouth recommendations are by far the most valuable.

[blackwolfe]

Its like they are playing an entirely different game. However I cant say that Swedish PC gamer magazine had a bad review, they gave it 8/10 and never mentioned any bugs in their review.

 

At first, Alpha protocol might seem like a bad game and you might get really annoyed by the few bugs there are(like the mouse issues that were driving me insane) and say "Thats it, Im not playing it until there is a patch". But once you get past that, there is so much to the game and there is depth to the plot, not to mention how different it can be depending on what you say and in what order you do the missions etc.

[thufirhawat333]

I think it was more like a Field Agent approach than a spy one (I mean, initially I expected much more talking, acting, building deep cover, acting as a mole, gathering info, etc), but it worked out pretty well.

[Darkeus]

I personally just think that the reviewers should quit being lazy and play the game right. How hard is it to grasp that it uses RPG elements for combat. Just amazing....

 

You know, the American reviewers remind me of this guy on the Gamefaqs boards. The kid complains about the game being crap because he says the tutorial does not show him how to use proximity mines and Shock traps. Beyond the fact that it does show you how to use gadgets as traps quite clearly, the child refuses to pick up a manual to read on what he should do.

 

So basically, the kid will not play a game that doesn't show him exactly how to play the game. Is this the kind of gamers we are making now? Do most gamers need to have their hand held every step of the way? Do they really hate for a game to be hard and challenging?

 

No wonder all we get is these cookie cutter games that have no soul. No wonder original games are far and few between. Fallout 3 had the same type of combat. They didn't give it bad reviews because it looked like a First Person Shooter. Fallout 3 had plenty of bugs in the game and possibly THE WORST ENDING IN ALL OF VIDEO GAMES! No one panned it and gave it bad reviews.

 

Hell, I love Fallout 3!

 

Point is, I see some serious bias and reviewer laziness. It is a shame, these damn game sites panned Resonance of Fate too and it was a much better JRPG than Final Fantasy 13 (What a craptastic game FF13 was).

[unskilled-]

There seems to be a misunderstanding when people talk about an action-rpg hybrid. I guess you would have to devise an action-rpg scale to see where certain games fall into. This game falls into the action-side of action-RPG's due to the fact that, no, there is no RPG elements used in combat aside from your skills you use. This is no different from Mass Effect, since both determine hits as a physical thing (bullet hits body) instead of a numbers based thing (bullet may hit body, but due to a 95% chance to miss it misses).

 

The only thing RPG about this game is the class skills and character progression. Interactions with other characters, at its very base, is not an RPG thing. What makes character interaction an "RPG" thing is the depth of interaction. All games have a story, but RPG games let you delve deeper into the story and backgrounds of people and other such things to give you an incentive to "roleplay" a specific character. Now, this game does not have the Mass Effect style of "tell me your life story cause I asked you", no, this game does it in a more realistic way, which is refreshing.

 

With that wall of text out of the way, another one forms. This game has rudimentery RPG elements. Its combat is also lacking. That being said, I enjoy this game because of the sole feature it nailed perfectly: the Mass Effect style conversation ring. This alone makes this game have high replay value, since you are able to not just act like an **** (if you want to) but you can also back up your actions of being an ****, by shooting people or bottling them.

[Paraclete]

This type of game would have worked well if the combat was turn based, ala Fallout Tactics. The way it is now, it becomes WAY too hectic when you actually have to fight it out, the controls just don't fit the game.

[Wombat]

I wonder if people here like to see Obsidian go down to Troika's path? I'd write a different thing in boards of indie companies. So, I guess I'm trying to be slightly more realistic than some people here. In fact, I don't write anything at boards of bigger companies since it would be pretty unrealistic of me to expect them to listen to me.

 

In some of my first posts here, I asked a question about whether they go for the path of modernizing 90's CRPG or that of weaving some role-playing game essences into modern action games. Either way, it would be O.K. for me. I asked this question since I thought they would fail if they were half-minded. Unfortunately, my fear seems to have been realized.

 

As for "traditional RPG," I know BIS made their share of success in making 90's CRPG. However, definitely, they didn't make full use of RPG essences from PnP RPG in their games, which could be benefited by modern graphics rather than fighting against it. "Be water, my friend".

 

This time around, I guess I advance further despite of my ignorance of game-development.

Obsidian people here, how about pretending to make a stealth action game? For example, buy a game engine from a successful stealth action maker, and put dialogue systems and RPG GUI into it? There must be some meta-data which manifest various types of damages, armor and health. Then, these meta-data can be systematically organized by your good old CRPG mind into character advancement/modification systems. If the original engine is successful one, it can even work as an advantage in persuading potential publishers. So, why not make what you are good at and buy what you are not? After all, even back to BIS, you made use of engines by Bioware and even now, you are using that of Bethesda in Fallout:New Vegas (Well, good luck on taming that old hag embryo, though). If you keep making successful games, probably, you will be supplied with resources suitable to your course.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Wombat

[Flouride]

This time around, I guess I advance further despite of my ignorance of game-development.

Obsidian people here, how about pretending to make a stealth action game? For example, buy a game engine from a successful stealth action maker, and put dialogue systems and RPG GUI into it? There must be some meta-data which manifest various types of damages, armor and health. Then, these meta-data can be systematically organized by your good old CRPG mind into character advancement/modification systems. If the original engine is successful one, it can even work as an advantage in persuading potential publishers. So, why not make what you are good at and buy what you are not? After all, even back to BIS, you made use of engines by Bioware and even now, you are using that of Bethesda in Fallout:New Vegas (Well, good luck on taming that old hag embryo, though). If you keep making successful games, probably, you will be supplied with resources suitable to your course.

 

It's not that simple. First of all licensing engines cost quite a lot of money. I think Obsidian originally bought the licence for Unreal Engine for Project New Jersey (Seven Dwarves).

Then there's the fact that maybe the company owning the stealth action game engine won't want to sell their engine to someone who would create a game that will be competition to their own stealth games.

[Shinaju]

Please don't blame professional critics. Ultimately, reviews are just personal opinion about the game. You can say they are corrupted and not giving the game enough credits for whatever reason you think is good, it might just be your opinion that it is good. AP got a 60%ish score on average, and this is a score I would have given the game as well. I do enjoy the game a lot, and I've just finish my fourth playthrough today. Roleplaying different kind of Thorton was fun, trying different choices was very interesting and impressive. Yet I will still give it a 5/10. This game is incomplete, in fact I think this game is only 70% done. The 30% is polish and game testing. And just because of the lack of that 30%, it deserves a 5/10.

 

AP might have the great ideas, and other nice stuff, it lacks the package, the professional feel to it. When I saw the screenshots, I already said they need to do something about the graphics and artt. When IGN made a preview and praising the game what its good, they say the bugs will be dragging this game down to hell, it did. Obsidian and Sega knew this is going to happen, but they don't care. The shareholders definitely don't care (which is stupid to say the least). I am pretty damn sure they made a profit with AP, and they are satisfied. From what AP became, I knew they didn't put a lot of money into this and it is already a profit to them.

 

What developers and publishers need to know (they probably do, just have their own reason not to do it), is to make a solid game. Thats it, no need for crazy ideas, or crazy new innovations, or high budget voice acting or the best engine or anything. Of course don't just copy and paste a game, but a SOLID game should come first b4 anything innovative. Because before you manage to make a game creative, you need at least be able to play it well. A well polish game beats a great innovative game any time. This however, only apply to Obsidian. From all their products, it is clear they are not good at making solid games, but are decent in innovation stuff. That is why they need to make a solid game instead. Call it practice or trial and error, you need to have a good foundations for anything, especially games. Trust me, a solid makes more money and more welcome than a broken game with potential. Because that potential is lost anyways.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Shinaju