What is bad about the gameplay ASIDE from people trying to play this like a shooter?

[Amentep]

For the IE games, "Hide in Shadows" became a total abstraction of what the intent was in the P&P version. In the P&P game you actually needed shadows, for example, to hide in. Not standing in the middle of Kuldahar. At noon.

 

In some respect, what we see in AP is an abstraction as well in terms of all aspects of the game. I guess the question is whether the abstraction works for the player - which in Dan's case it doesn't.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Amentep

[C2B]

Well "A wizard did it" itsn't really far from "SCIENCE" (Commenting on the magic remark)

 

Just because something can be explained with an element from a contunity doesn't mean that it always makes sense in said contuinty. See Hassans post about Kotor II

 

All the weasels gonna say.

Edited June 14, 2010 by C2B

[Amentep]

Well "A wizard did it" itsn't really far from "SCIENCE" (Commenting on the magic remark)

 

Clarke's Law!

 

I actually don't think this would be an issue (and for me its not an issue) if there was something in Thorton's suit that allowed the camouflage skill to work.

 

I think though - and its a fair complaint - a guy suddenly being invisible based on his own skills just because he's skilled could be seen as a bit much. This is where I think you can only really counter by saying that the game was designed so that each path could be seen as valid. Just as run-and-gunners would be upset if the game was a corridor crawl full of sneaking, the stealthers would be upset if there was no way to get past melee points. An "invisibility" skill allows the stealther to keep the game moving within their game style. And if, understanding this, the player still feels it "breaks" the game, well that's all there is at that point.

[C2B]

Well "A wizard did it" itsn't really far from "SCIENCE" (Commenting on the magic remark)

 

Clarke's Law!

 

I actually don't think this would be an issue (and for me its not an issue) if there was something in Thorton's suit that allowed the camouflage skill to work.

 

I think though - and its a fair complaint - a guy suddenly being invisible based on his own skills just because he's skilled could be seen as a bit much. This is where I think you can only really counter by saying that the game was designed so that each path could be seen as valid. Just as run-and-gunners would be upset if the game was a corridor crawl full of sneaking, the stealthers would be upset if there was no way to get past melee points. An "invisibility" skill allows the stealther to keep the game moving within their game style. And if, understanding this, the player still feels it "breaks" the game, well that's all there is at that point.

 

Well, yes. I kinda just argumented with his remark that skills in other rpgs like bg become suddenly all valid and logical. Even the forgotten realms aren't that well written.

I kinda agree that they could have combined it with a gadget though. But I don't see it much of a biggie.

 

I'm a super spy and shadow operative is kinda greatly inspired by Jason Bourne. Some things he pulls of in the movies aren't that different or any more believable.

 

''^^

Edited June 14, 2010 by C2B

[Amentep]

Bond is clearly sci-fi as well so a lot of the super-tech fits that style of movie spy.

 

I guess the problem with defining stealth in AP with a gadget would be that it would put stealth in the realm of gadgets and not the stealth skill (which would probably unbalance the skills). I think it was a deliberate design choice and I for one understand it.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Amentep

[dan107]

The levels are not designed to allow for realistic stealth for the most part. Evasion is a cheap as invisibility, and there are spots in almost every level that you cannot sneak past without evasion or invisibility.

 

I will say that at least for me I found the level design while fairly straightforward to also mostly allow for stealth at least until you got to a point in which stealth wasn't really possible anymore (like walking into a wide open area with loads of enemy - they the only way to stealth would be to use the fantastical stealth skills).

 

That's actually another element of bad design IMO. Time and time again I would try to stealth through a level only to have a firefight forced upon me. Not because I got caught, but because the game decided to do so. That made me feel like all my time and effort sneaking was wasted. What's the point of sneaking around in the first place if you're still gonna have to shoot everything that moves at some point?

 

It isn't magic. It's a skill. Like Chain Shot (which is impossible to do IRL).

While I don't recall BG's specific "Hide in Shadows" routine (never bothered too much with rogues and stuff) I am pretty sure it was indeed still possible. One common tactic heard about fighting Basilisks in BG1 was parking a rogue to see them (in their FoV), then attack then with AoE spells from beyond their LoS.

Also, KOTOR completely allows one to become invisible, and that's without the use of the "Force" (read: Magic). Guess that's a horrible RPG too, even if combat is completely stat-based?

 

Let's not go to extremes here. KOTOR is not a horrible RPG, and neither is AP IMO. I keep repeating that overall I think that AP is a very good game, I'm just criticising several specific design decisions that keep it from being a great one.

 

However, there is a big difference between AP and KOTOR. In KOTOR, just like in BG, combat is very abstracted. You select an enemy and an ability, and the rest is dice rolls. The engine is not built for sneaking or line of sight considerations, therefore you necessarily have to abstract stealth as well. In AP, however, the engine is built to accomodate a much more elegant stealth system, however the level design simply falls short.

 

Having said that, I've always thought that using D&D on the computer was more about making a game that will feel comfortable and familiar to a large audience rather than trying to design the best possible game. D&D gameplay is good for pen and paper, but quite frankly it's crap compared to gameplay systems that the PC is capable of supporting. Comfortable and familiar though they may be, stats are a relic of a more primitive time. BG and KOTOR were great in spite of D&D, not because of it.

 

Well "A wizard did it" itsn't really far from "SCIENCE" (Commenting on the magic remark)

 

Just because something can be explained with an element from a contunity doesn't mean that it always makes sense in said contuinty. See Hassans post about Kotor II

 

Well if it's explained properly, it ought to make sense. If it's just crowbarred in, however, that would also be bad design.

 

All the weasels gonna say.

 

Maybe the weasel comment was a bit harsh. I was just pissed off at how disrespectfully you quoted me in the beginning.

 

This is where I think you can only really counter by saying that the game was designed so that each path could be seen as valid. Just as run-and-gunners would be upset if the game was a corridor crawl full of sneaking, the stealthers would be upset if there was no way to get past melee points. An "invisibility" skill allows the stealther to keep the game moving within their game style. And if, understanding this, the player still feels it "breaks" the game, well that's all there is at that point.

 

Another limitation of stat based design. If Thorton was made by default to be good at both combat and sneaking (like a superspy really ought to be) then you could have levels that focused on combat and ones that focused on sneaking, without trying to accomodate both and as a result being good at neither.

[dan107]

If I would want to play Splinter Cell - I would play it. And not Alpha Protocol.

What's wrong with gameplay being similar to whatever? Lack of creativity. And creativity is some really rare gem in gaming industry these days. That's why I prefer games being innovative over clones of the same old sh**t.

Game creation is an art, in case you don't know that, and like every art - should evolve and search for different routes of expression... (unless you still want to play Pong as a "only real" action game, or Wastelands as "only real" RPG)

 

I suppose the people that ride bycicles instead of building their own contraptions do so because they lack creativity? Look creativity is good, but you can't reinvent the wheel every single time. You have to pick and chose where to be creative, and a game developer should play to its strenghts. Obsidian's strongpoint is story and characters, not game system design. So instead of mucking about trying to build game systems from scratch, it makes a lot more sense to just go with ones that are known to work, and focus the creativity on the narrative. Just because something is original does not mean that it will be good. Especially if the company lacks experience in that area.

 

You should start thinking more out of the box you've put yourself in, Dan. And get out that cave. The truth is out there...

 

It sure is my man. And it will blow your mind.

Edited June 14, 2010 by dan107

[Grand_Commander13]

The difference between the inaccuracy effect in CS and AP is night and day. I don't have a problem with a slight inaccuracy effect at a distance, my problem is with playing an elite agent who can't hit a target with an assault rifle at point plank range.

Alpha Protocol's accuracy is probably closer to reality than Counter-Strike's... Counter-Strike gives you single-shot accuracy almost like what you'd get if you bolted the gun down to a table, except it's in a combat situation.

 

I suppose the people that ride bycicles instead of building their own contraptions do so because they lack creativity?

That analogy fails on multiple levels. You buy bikes and games for different reasons, and the design goals when making them are very different. Bikes are not a creative outlet, games are. Buying a bike rather than building your own is more like leasing a game engine instead of programming your own, not like copying a game's gameplay rather than making your own.

[Amentep]

The levels are not designed to allow for realistic stealth for the most part. Evasion is a cheap as invisibility, and there are spots in almost every level that you cannot sneak past without evasion or invisibility.

 

I will say that at least for me I found the level design while fairly straightforward to also mostly allow for stealth at least until you got to a point in which stealth wasn't really possible anymore (like walking into a wide open area with loads of enemy - they the only way to stealth would be to use the fantastical stealth skills).

 

That's actually another element of bad design IMO. Time and time again I would try to stealth through a level only to have a firefight forced upon me. Not because I got caught, but because the game decided to do so. That made me feel like all my time and effort sneaking was wasted. What's the point of sneaking around in the first place if you're still gonna have to shoot everything that moves at some point?

 

I guess I see it a bit differently in that I see it as outside elements forcing my hand. I understand where you're coming from, just ultimately have accepted that the game has these moments where stuff outside of my control happens.

 

This is where I think you can only really counter by saying that the game was designed so that each path could be seen as valid. Just as run-and-gunners would be upset if the game was a corridor crawl full of sneaking, the stealthers would be upset if there was no way to get past melee points. An "invisibility" skill allows the stealther to keep the game moving within their game style. And if, understanding this, the player still feels it "breaks" the game, well that's all there is at that point.

 

Another limitation of stat based design. If Thorton was made by default to be good at both combat and sneaking (like a superspy really ought to be) then you could have levels that focused on combat and ones that focused on sneaking, without trying to accomodate both and as a result being good at neither.

 

If he was good at both, though, it'd nullify the players choice in how they wanted to define Thorton, which is what I think they're going for.

[felix88]

I will just come out and say it's your fault if you can't hit target at point blank range.

[Thorton_AP]

I think it's pretty obvious that the game is not actually intended to be realistic.

 

To any that followed the game development, that became pretty obvious a long time ago.

 

 

 

I can understand how some might expect a very realistic experience, and that's a fault of the game, but by design it's not intended to be realistic.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[unskilled-]

I think it's pretty obvious that the game is not actually intended to be realistic.

 

To any that followed the game development, that became pretty obvious a long time ago.

 

 

 

I can understand how some might expect a very realistic experience, and that's a fault of the game, but by design it's not intended to be realistic.

 

More depth does not equal more realism.

[Thorton_AP]

No, but there are people complaining about the lack of "stealthing" through the game without spending major points into stealth.

 

The game wasn't designed to let you snoop around every level without being spotted without the crazy skills IMO. Barring some extreme patience.

[unskilled-]

No, but there are people complaining about the lack of "stealthing" through the game without spending major points into stealth.

 

The game wasn't designed to let you snoop around every level without being spotted without the crazy skills IMO. Barring some extreme patience.

 

This would be a design oversight or flaw, take your pick.

[Niten_Ryu]

Or is suddenly RPG = Bad Gameplay for some reason?

 

Yes, it is. Especially in real time first person CRPGs. As a old skool player, I can accpet the fact that I have to use 200 bullets to kill corporate drone, but players in general nowadays find it totally retarded. To apply dragon, supermutant or ultimate-robo-o-doom boss fight mechanics to characters like in Alpha Protocol, is a grade A design fumble.

 

What do I care right? I can complite this game without item upgrades, with any spec or difficulty. It's not about us hardcore gamers anymore, it's all about those who play Halo, Gears of War or Modern Warfare. This means Obsidian, just like every other AAA level (or AA) developer, have to do certain things as good as in previous games or even better. We shouldn't compare Alpha Protocol to 2002 version of the Spinter Cell, 1998 version of the Half-Life, nor 1994 version of System Shock. Yet, Alpha Protocol still does things worse then those games in certain areas of the game. Design choice? Sure, but a bad one.

 

Obsidian has alot to offer in chocies, characters and storylines. But those don't mean anything if base game and combat mechanics are up to date.

[C2B]

Or is suddenly RPG = Bad Gameplay for some reason?

 

Yes, it is. Especially in real time first person CRPGs. As a old skool player, I can accpet the fact that I have to use 200 bullets to kill corporate drone, but players in general nowadays find it totally retarded. To apply dragon, supermutant or ultimate-robo-o-doom boss fight mechanics to characters like in Alpha Protocol, is a grade A design fumble.

 

What do I care right? I can complite this game without item upgrades, with any spec or difficulty. It's not about us hardcore gamers anymore, it's all about those who play Halo, Gears of War or Modern Warfare. This means Obsidian, just like every other AAA level (or AA) developer, have to do certain things as good as in previous games or even better. We shouldn't compare Alpha Protocol to 2002 version of the Spinter Cell, 1998 version of the Half-Life, nor 1994 version of System Shock. Yet, Alpha Protocol still does things worse then those games in certain areas of the game. Design choice? Sure, but a bad one.

 

Obsidian has alot to offer in chocies, characters and storylines. But those don't mean anything if base game and combat mechanics are up to date.

 

Yeah.....

 

two things:

 

1. Little exterregating are we? The bosses in alpha protocol aren't anywhere near these examples. I still needed around 8-12 critshots though.

 

2. Hey let's talk about retarded things in video games! How about that Run n' Gun?

[WorstUsernameEver]

Or is suddenly RPG = Bad Gameplay for some reason?

 

Yes, it is. Especially in real time first person CRPGs. As a old skool player, I can accpet the fact that I have to use 200 bullets to kill corporate drone, but players in general nowadays find it totally retarded. To apply dragon, supermutant or ultimate-robo-o-doom boss fight mechanics to characters like in Alpha Protocol, is a grade A design fumble.

 

I agree on that.

Problem is, same thing happened with Fallout 3 and strangely enough reviews were all positive.

At least if you (meaning 'reviewer' not you ) criticize something you should do it in every review you're doing, not just the game without corporation backing.

[C2B]

Or is suddenly RPG = Bad Gameplay for some reason?

 

Yes, it is. Especially in real time first person CRPGs. As a old skool player, I can accpet the fact that I have to use 200 bullets to kill corporate drone, but players in general nowadays find it totally retarded. To apply dragon, supermutant or ultimate-robo-o-doom boss fight mechanics to characters like in Alpha Protocol, is a grade A design fumble.

 

I agree on that.

Problem is, same thing happened with Fallout 3 and strangely enough reviews were all positive.

At least if you (meaning 'reviewer' not you ) criticize something you should do it in every review you're doing, not just the game without corporation backing.

 

Yeah, let's critizize every game ever made! That's gonna help?

 

Also, with that logic there would be only ONE right design choice eliminating every creativity from the beginning.

 

Not to mention said design choice would be highly debatable.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Or is suddenly RPG = Bad Gameplay for some reason?

 

Yes, it is. Especially in real time first person CRPGs. As a old skool player, I can accpet the fact that I have to use 200 bullets to kill corporate drone, but players in general nowadays find it totally retarded. To apply dragon, supermutant or ultimate-robo-o-doom boss fight mechanics to characters like in Alpha Protocol, is a grade A design fumble.

 

I agree on that.

Problem is, same thing happened with Fallout 3 and strangely enough reviews were all positive.

At least if you (meaning 'reviewer' not you ) criticize something you should do it in every review you're doing, not just the game without corporation backing.

 

Yeah, let's critizize every game ever made! That's gonna help?

 

Also, with that logic there would be only ONE right design choice eliminating every creativity from the beginning.

 

Not to mention said design choice would be highly debatable.

 

You seem to have misunderstood but.. whatever.

[C2B]

Or is suddenly RPG = Bad Gameplay for some reason?

 

Yes, it is. Especially in real time first person CRPGs. As a old skool player, I can accpet the fact that I have to use 200 bullets to kill corporate drone, but players in general nowadays find it totally retarded. To apply dragon, supermutant or ultimate-robo-o-doom boss fight mechanics to characters like in Alpha Protocol, is a grade A design fumble.

 

I agree on that.

Problem is, same thing happened with Fallout 3 and strangely enough reviews were all positive.

At least if you (meaning 'reviewer' not you ) criticize something you should do it in every review you're doing, not just the game without corporation backing.

 

Yeah, let's critizize every game ever made! That's gonna help?

 

Also, with that logic there would be only ONE right design choice eliminating every creativity from the beginning.

 

Not to mention said design choice would be highly debatable.

 

You seem to have misunderstood but.. whatever.

 

Nope, I think I did not. Bosses in Alpha Protocol don't take more in than most humanid standard rpg enemies. Enemies in First Person and Third Person shooters already take more in that they should have. If we begin talking about this and consider that because it doesn't fit the "setting" is just a one way trip into opinion land.

In most stories it comes down to "A wizard did it" or "SCIENCE" or anything like it when something like this happens. Hell, the entire spy/agent gerne is full of it. Jason Bourne has the power to make himself invisible when the story wants it, Jack Bauer gets stabed in the guts like every 6 hours.

So, if a story is really intended to be "realistic" I call it out on that, but here it is just nitpicking ala "I don't like it W

Edited June 15, 2010 by C2B

[Oblarg]

Or is suddenly RPG = Bad Gameplay for some reason?

 

Yes, it is. Especially in real time first person CRPGs. As a old skool player, I can accpet the fact that I have to use 200 bullets to kill corporate drone, but players in general nowadays find it totally retarded. To apply dragon, supermutant or ultimate-robo-o-doom boss fight mechanics to characters like in Alpha Protocol, is a grade A design fumble.

 

What do I care right? I can complite this game without item upgrades, with any spec or difficulty. It's not about us hardcore gamers anymore, it's all about those who play Halo, Gears of War or Modern Warfare. This means Obsidian, just like every other AAA level (or AA) developer, have to do certain things as good as in previous games or even better. We shouldn't compare Alpha Protocol to 2002 version of the Spinter Cell, 1998 version of the Half-Life, nor 1994 version of System Shock. Yet, Alpha Protocol still does things worse then those games in certain areas of the game. Design choice? Sure, but a bad one.

 

Obsidian has alot to offer in chocies, characters and storylines. But those don't mean anything if base game and combat mechanics are up to date.

 

Comparing AP to ME1, it's an improvement in pretty much every field. Comparing it to ME2, the combat isn't quite as good but the narrative blows it completely out of the water.

 

Or did you suddenly forget that the final boss of both Mass Effect games were bullet sponges, as well? You don't need to compare AP to old games to see improvement.

 

On top of that, this is an RPG. The title is Alpha Protocol: The Espionage RPG. It may be wearing shooter clothing, but that's a fad nowadays - it's not supposed to be gears of war, and if it played like gears of war I'd be pretty ****ing disappointed.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Oblarg

[Oner]

General RAAM had a load of hp too.

[WorstUsernameEver]

In most stories it comes down to "A wizard did it" or "SCIENCE" or anything like it when something like this happens. Hell, the entire spy/agent gerne is full of it. Jason Bourne has the power to make himself invisible when the story wants it, Jack Bauer gets stabed in the guts like every 6 hours.

 

Except that Alpha Protocol, being a game set in a realistic modern day setting (and using that as a selling point nonetheless!) can't really use that kind of explanations.

As for your Jason Bourne/Jack Bauer examples, they are both in the realm of verisimilitude. Are they plausible? Not much.

But they're not impossible.

A punk chick taking 8 headshots to die is, and that, I fear, creates a disconnect between the player and the game, the setting and the mechanics.

You may disagree, but Obsidian should probably take note of this kind of opinions, since it's not just mine, and since it seems to be one of the point that kinda killed Alpha Protocol in some reviews.

Note that I'm not a member of the 'let's take out stats' crowd.

On the contrary, I feel that the challenge the designer face in this kind of hybrid is to make stats important while not creating this kind of disconnect.

Is it hard? A lot.

But if they want to pursue the action-rpg road they must be prepared to accept this kind of challenge.

[C2B]

In most stories it comes down to "A wizard did it" or "SCIENCE" or anything like it when something like this happens. Hell, the entire spy/agent gerne is full of it. Jason Bourne has the power to make himself invisible when the story wants it, Jack Bauer gets stabed in the guts like every 6 hours.

 

Except that Alpha Protocol, being a game set in a realistic modern day setting (and using that as a selling point nonetheless!) can't really use that kind of explanations.

As for your Jason Bourne/Jack Bauer examples, they are both in the realm of verisimilitude. Are they plausible? Not much.

But they're not impossible.

A punk chick taking 8 headshots to die is, and that, I fear, creates a disconnect between the player and the game, the setting and the mechanics.

You may disagree, but Obsidian should probably take note of this kind of opinions, since it's not just mine, and since it seems to be one of the point that kinda killed Alpha Protocol in some reviews.

Note that I'm not a member of the 'let's take out stats' crowd.

On the contrary, I feel that the challenge the designer face in this kind of hybrid is to make stats important while not creating this kind of disconnect.

Is it hard? A lot.

But if they want to pursue the action-rpg road they must be prepared to accept this kind of challenge.

 

Once again, One point you can easily apply to EVERYTHING FICTIONAL. Furthermore "Make it that everyone likes it" or for short streamline it isn't the reason I like Obsidian.

 

Sure they can take the easy way out like Bioware and make a mediocre to good shooter system but if you believe it or not the design choice Obsidian took as a hybrid isn't wrong and is actually LIKED by people like me.

 

Sure it can be improved (especially the balance) but that doesn't mean they didn't take the challenge and succeded in it.

[Amentep]

In most stories it comes down to "A wizard did it" or "SCIENCE" or anything like it when something like this happens. Hell, the entire spy/agent gerne is full of it. Jason Bourne has the power to make himself invisible when the story wants it, Jack Bauer gets stabed in the guts like every 6 hours.

 

Except that Alpha Protocol, being a game set in a realistic modern day setting (and using that as a selling point nonetheless!) can't really use that kind of explanations.

As for your Jason Bourne/Jack Bauer examples, they are both in the realm of verisimilitude. Are they plausible? Not much.

But they're not impossible.

A punk chick taking 8 headshots to die is, and that, I fear, creates a disconnect between the player and the game, the setting and the mechanics.

You may disagree, but Obsidian should probably take note of this kind of opinions, since it's not just mine, and since it seems to be one of the point that kinda killed Alpha Protocol in some reviews.

Note that I'm not a member of the 'let's take out stats' crowd.

On the contrary, I feel that the challenge the designer face in this kind of hybrid is to make stats important while not creating this kind of disconnect.

Is it hard? A lot.

But if they want to pursue the action-rpg road they must be prepared to accept this kind of challenge.

 

The problem is that unless a game wants to design around the possibility of an instant kill at any time, RPGs are going to use a hitpoint system and as long as there are hitpoints there are going to be strange abstractions in combat.

 

Just as its silly to take 8 head shots to kill in a game, its just as silly to take 70 slashes with a sword, or 100 arrows to the chest. Its part an partial with the game being a game. How frustrating would it be to have Mike Thorton dropped by 1 shot every time he got into a firefight?

 

Mind you this could be avoidable if "HP" were handled a bit differently.