Jump to content

It should have been stat based


Recommended Posts

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.

I didn't mean it's easy and even I can figure out what you wrote here. At least, IMO, the game-play must feel complete without making the players figure out how these abstract data works to sell it those who are not familiar with role-playing games. Bethesda relatively did well, at least, in this respect. If the engine is not available in the market, then, they need (human) resources such as Emil Pagliarulo, which I have mentioned in one of my ancient posts here. I wonder which is more realistic, though.

Edited by Wombat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On regards the technical issues, I'd like to point out that in the Xbox version, the game has minor glitches and it's almost bug free, in fact the game looks really complete, even the graphics seems better... I was with a friend last night and her PC version really looks like an unfinished and unpolished game. On the other hand, if you compare DAO in the Xbox version vs. the PC version, the Xbox version looks really bad and it does have major bugs, but in the PC version it runs smooth and looks very good. Comparing in the Xbox version, AP graphics are far better than DAO and the game runs "bug free"...

 

Saying so, I think much of the technical problems with AP are due to a bad porting to PC, which is something Obsidian should take in consideration when delivering a game.

 

I agree with the OPs with regards that perhaps Obsidian should have stick more to the RPG elements and put less combat, for example, the first Rome missions ( contacting peers, infiltration) fit better to the overall game, than to go around expecting combat. Of course, in all the mission you can stealth and kill no one, but it is not always possible.

 

Also, the way you approach in terms on combat, influences your game fun, i.e. playing stealth, keeping low profile is more rewarding and enjoyable than just shooting everyone; I'm playing my 3th playthrou a la Rambo and it doesn't feel as fun and rewarding as the stealth approach. The only interesting thing in this playthrou is the Pricky Micky approach (aggressive, womaniser, killing everyone) but combat a la Rambo, is rather boring.

 

I think most of the "professional" reviews used this Rambo approach and ended frustrated, in addition to play it on a PC... I picture them choosing any dialogue option saying: "whateva, I just want blood!!"

Edited by edgarcuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The criticism is not with the action combat system, the criticism is with the stat part that completely mucks it up. The combat gameplay would've been much better if they ditched the stats completely and just made it a straight stealth/shooter hybrid.

 

Stats are a pen and paper relic. If you really thinkg about it, what exactly do they add to the gameplay, other than making it clumsy and frustrating while they're low? There are much more elegant ways to create a challenge than that! When will someone finally make a game that has the gameplay of Half Life 2 combined with the story and character interactions of a traditional RPG?

Edited by dan107
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, thank you...

 

I hated ME2 because its plain shooter with some rpg elements and it lost its RPG soul to cater the shooter audience.

 

Alpha protocol system is fine, Its actually 50%-50% on the character/player input.

The only thing AP needs is more polishing in the actual mechanics, more balance on the skills and a brand new AI.

 

Also not all Reviewers criticized the ARPG mechanics, Its obvious after 2 hours of playing the game that the way to do headshots is using the critical shots. I mean its not that hard to understand that if you character don't specialize on some key skills he's going to suck major bollocks, and like all good RPG if your character sucks, even if you are good player you will suffer. AND THIS PERFECT.

 

The major point here its the unbalanced skills. Skills that at start are incredible poor and later on they become godlike. That's easily adjustable.

And the BAD AI. ME1 and ME2 both had terrible AI, but because the game didn't have an open way to aproach them, its not that notorious. In AP it is, because there are much more ways to approach the enemies.

 

The graphics are fine, maybe they need a little more post processing.

The animations need more work. But that's just cosmetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished my first game last night as a spy (pistol, CQC, stealth, recruit, hard mode) and I didn't find the combat mediocre at all.

 

Actually compared to my ME2 game as a soldier, the combat in AP was much more challenging, had greater options and was generally more fun, despite the stat based mechanics.

 

Here is how a typical ME2 encounter as soldier went for me. Storm to cover, crouch, take my time and kill everything within range with the assault rifle. No enemies tried to flank, cover was indestructible, no enemies threw grenades to flush me out of hiding, the only enemies to charge were Krogan and Overlord Super Collecter, usually in a slow plodding pace that gave me plenty of time to kill them.

 

An AP encounter would usually have me sprinting from cover to cover because man, those enemies love to throw grenades, armored shotgun wielding enemies would always charge in, forcing my wimpy pistol wielding spy to give up position and retreat, a lot of the cover offered were truck and gas tanks which would frequently explode forcing me to find other means of cover. It was great. I was always in danger. But I also had a lot of options to combat this. I would frequently use incendiary grenades and shock traps to make any charge dangerous to the enemy, I would do everything I could to stop charges and flanking with my gadgets while I lined up criticals. It got even more fun when my skills improved. I loved sneaking into the center of a group of enemies, chainshotting them, then taking out any that survived with CQC while they were still reeling from the initial attack. The charging knee to the head is awesome.

 

I don't think the reviewers really explored all the options that were available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, the problem with all the major reviews I'd read was that it gave me the impression that they played the game the wrong way... without doing a actual BUILD, without specializing in the key skills...

 

If I had to play this game with a lousy build off course I'll hate it...

 

However, some US reviewers pointed how unbalanced some skills were. And there is some true in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The criticism is not with the action combat system, the criticism is with the stat part that completely mucks it up. The combat gameplay would've been much better if they ditched the stats completely and just made it a straight stealth/shooter hybrid.

 

Stats are a pen and paper relic. If you really thinkg about it, what exactly do they add to the gameplay, other than making it clumsy and frustrating while they're low? There are much more elegant ways to create a challenge than that! When will someone finally make a game that has the gameplay of Half Life 2 combined with the story and character interactions of a traditional RPG?

 

What reviews are you reading? I'm seeing complaints about control, cover mechanics, and the AI. These are complaints about the combat system, not that it involves stats. Remove the action combat and have it work like a traditional rpg like KOTOR, and then all these complaints would drop away and the reviews would focus on how many things Obsidian got right with the RPG side of the game.

 

This is not a topic about stat based combat vs player skill based combat. While both may have their places in different games, the bottom line is that the combat system is causing this game to get some very poor reviews from some of the largest review sites, and the text of the reviews makes it VERY clear that the combat is what is bringing the numbers down. In a perfect world, everything would be flawless in this game, and the reviewers would have had nothing to complain about, but given budget and time constraints, and the fact that Obsidian has tons of experience building stat based combat systems and very little action combat development experience, going with what they knew for combat would have been better for the company and for the game's sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The criticism is not with the action combat system, the criticism is with the stat part that completely mucks it up. The combat gameplay would've been much better if they ditched the stats completely and just made it a straight stealth/shooter hybrid.

 

Stats are a pen and paper relic. If you really thinkg about it, what exactly do they add to the gameplay, other than making it clumsy and frustrating while they're low? There are much more elegant ways to create a challenge than that! When will someone finally make a game that has the gameplay of Half Life 2 combined with the story and character interactions of a traditional RPG?

 

What reviews are you reading? I'm seeing complaints about control, cover mechanics, and the AI. These are complaints about the combat system, not that it involves stats. Remove the action combat and have it work like a traditional rpg like KOTOR, and then all these complaints would drop away and the reviews would focus on how many things Obsidian got right with the RPG side of the game.

 

This is not a topic about stat based combat vs player skill based combat. While both may have their places in different games, the bottom line is that the combat system is causing this game to get some very poor reviews from some of the largest review sites, and the text of the reviews makes it VERY clear that the combat is what is bringing the numbers down. In a perfect world, everything would be flawless in this game, and the reviewers would have had nothing to complain about, but given budget and time constraints, and the fact that Obsidian has tons of experience building stat based combat systems and very little action combat development experience, going with what they knew for combat would have been better for the company and for the game's sales.

The reviewers played the game the wrong way period. They don't need to change nothing of the combat mechanic because the game was intended to play that way. That is what make the game different to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...