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

[Oner]

So if people have differing opinions from you they're fanboys that downplay flaws.

 

That's..umm..yeah.

[Bos_hybrid]

Those that try to downplay the obvious flaws are fanboys, those that believe AP was judged to harshly by all reviewers are fanboys. Those that say the game is flawed but still good are not. As to wanting skills removed, I only want Shadow operative removed(due to it being ridiculously overpowered).

I assume then that you consider every reviewer judged AP fairly?

 

Read the bolded part. Obviously some were ridiculously harsh(Destructoid) but anything above 6/60 was fair.

 

So if people have differing opinions from you they're fanboys that downplay flaws.

 

That's..umm..yeah.

 

No, people that deny or downplay flaws are. There is nothing wrong with really liking this game(I do), but ignoring it's flaws does no one any good.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Bos_hybrid

[Niten_Ryu]

So, all games should be some sort of adjusted Fast-Food games?

 

Look, AAA quality games have about 20 million dollar budgets up to 100 million dollar (GTA4, Red Dead Redemption about 80 million). I have no idea about Alpha Protocols budget but it was in development for some time and was released more or less year too late.

 

After retailer cut, console manufacturer cut, ads cost, research and development, about 17 dollars out of 60 dollars go to the potential profit. This means that if ads are balanced correctly and funding for next project is secured, they need to sell over million units to make profit (with 20 million dollar budget).

 

With this info in mind, some of the features need to be in game so that majority of the gamers are at least somewhat interested of the game. Call it fast-food games or whatever, it's about survival for the developers and publishers. This don't mean that all games have to be cookie cutters or casual games, but if modern FPS shooters have certain features and (nearly) all work in relatively same way, deveoper takes a huge risk if they do things differently. They can do it differently, but then they have to be sure that it works at least as well as the "standard" or even better. Perception how something works is also important as well as accessability. For example GTA4 improved driving mechanics from the previous GTAs, but in general players didn't like the change.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Niten_Ryu

[C2B]

So, all games should be some sort of adjusted Fast-Food games?

 

Look, AAA quality games have about 20 million dollar budgets up to 100 million dollar (GTA4, Red Dead Redemption about 80 million). I have no idea about Alpha Protocols budget but it was in development for some time and was released more or less year too late.

 

After retailer cut, console manufacturer cut, ads cost, research and development, about 17 dollars out of 60 dollars go to the potential profit. This means that if ads are balanced correctly and funding for next project is secured, they need to sell over million units to make profit (with 20 million dollar budget).

 

With this info in mind, some of the features need to be in game so that majority of the gamers are at least somewhat interested of the game. Call it fast-food games or whatever, it's about survival for the developers and publishers. This don't mean that all games have to be cookie cutters or casual games, but if modern FPS shooters have certain features and (nearly) all work in relatively same way, deveoper takes a huge risk if they do things differently. They can do it differently, but then they have to be sure that it works at least as well as the "standard" or even better. Perception how something works is also important as well as accessability. For example GTA4 improved driving mechanics from the previous GTAs, but in general players didn't like the change.

 

Well, from that point of view its certanly viable. But, there aren't many developers around that take risks anymore.

 

Part of the reason I like Obsidian. From a salespoint absolutly right from a gaming one it's a little sad.

 

@bos Yeah, I totally ignore flaws. Truly right. Sorry. Now can you please not post anymore. Or you know, something on how Obsidian can improve these things?

Edited June 17, 2010 by C2B

[edgarcuk]

EX: 2 Fanboy.

- bad KI (not horrible, not anywhere near it. In fact it is on the same level as most other games. KI didn't make real progress since ca. 2004-5. Also many people seem to ignore the silent running ability or the sound factor and blame it on the KI)

 

(I'm assuming you mean AI)No the AI is horrible. Plain and simple, wish it wasn't but it is. Half the time they don't take cover and quite often when they do, they leave it to charge into you line of fire. No flanking the player etc. However the fact that some AI is smarter then others( CIA>Terrorist) was good.

 

 

While I agree with you, that would make the game harder for many people who say the combat is horrible and the boss fights very hard.

 

EX:3 Fanboy.

-Unbalanced (See above. Again two sides. While you are overpowered later in the game. EVERY weapon can be very functional and is useful. More than I can say for most shooters. Especially if you pair Martial Arts with it and fury. Then you basically just fly through rooms with enemies before they even have a chance of reaching the alarm. Also that gives such a high grad badass spy feeling.)

 

This is just laughable. Pistols are overpowered(CS) shotguns and smgs are useless, however AR only becomes unbalanced when you use subsonic rounds. Then we have Brilliance, you know the ability the instantly restores all other abilities and don't even start me on stealth, the other skills were fine. So no it is not better balanced then most shooters and it's worse the most rpgs, say NWN2. This game IS unbalanced.

 

Please elaborate why shotguns and smgs are useless, because other members have used them in their playthrou, in my case, I started another playthrou using shotguns and found them very useful, and the pistols very crappy... of course, going the Rambo route...

 

I'm playing in 360 and Brilliance is working fine, perhaps is a bug in PC.

 

Please, elaborate why IS unbalanced... give us a example of "balanced" using the arms and the abilities on AP, not from other games.

 

 

Depends who you call fanboy, though.

 

Those that try to downplay the obvious flaws are fanboys, those that believe AP was judged to harshly by all reviewers are fanboys. Those that say the game is flawed but still good are not. As to wanting skills removed, I only want Shadow operative removed(due to it being ridiculously overpowered).

 

I'm sorry but I agree that the game is flawed (AI, graphics, combat mechanics), but I believe the reviewers were too harsh, yes, they were... because comparing with other recent games, in this case DAO, they praised it... at least in the 360 DAO is plagued with bugs unresolved since day one, DAO has got uglier graphics than AP, combat mechanics in DAO are normal but better than AP, the mages are overpowered in DAO and so on... do you believe most of those reviewers were fair?

 

As for the overpowered Shadow Operative, ME2 has got the tactical cloak for the infiltrator class... perhaps Mike is an infiltrator in ME2 universe...

 

Sorry but calling someone "fanboy" because disagrees is equal that someone call "whiner" for the same reasons, when there are not really arguments that support such an affirmation. I think you would add more to this discussion, telling us what is "balanced" (using the arms and the abilities on AP, not from other games), perhaps something good can come

[C2B]

Sorry but calling someone "fanboy" because disagrees is equal that someone call "whiner" for the same reasons, when there are not really arguments that support such an affirmation. I think you would add more to this discussion, telling us what is "balanced" (using the arms and the abilities on AP, not from other games), perhaps something good can come

 

Uhm, about that. I'm sorry and I hope not many took offense when I said "Whiner". It was targetes towards people who wanted a entirly other system (shooter) not at people who critizized the game.

 

That's also many the reason why I was so harsh in my post. I wanted to discuss several other issues with the game and the gameplay itself and how they can be improved. That's why I brought my own viewpoints to common problems into the first post. My goal was actually not to be too biased. I originally planned to not even write in this thread too much.

 

But as soon (near immediatly) as people began talking about how the game should be a shooter I stepped in. I mean I even clarified it in the thread title.

[Bos_hybrid]

While I agree with you, that would make the game harder for many people who say the combat is horrible and the boss fights very hard.

 

Remove the cheapness of boss fights and improve the A.I, also allowing stealth kills of bosses for those that don't increase firearm skills(those are the people that find them hard).

 

Please elaborate why shotguns and smgs are useless, because other members have used them in their playthrou, in my case, I started another playthrou using shotguns and found them very useful, and the pistols very crappy... of course, going the Rambo route...

 

I'm playing in 360 and Brilliance is working fine, perhaps is a bug in PC.

 

Useless compared to the pistol, why would a player choose them when pistol and CS so obviously outclass them. I tsearched hacked a game file to test them out and ultimately pistols outclassed them followed closely by the AR. It's not so much about them needing to be completely equal(it's not an MMO), just disappointing that they are so underpowered. Cutting chainshot shots in half would reduce it's gamebreaking ability.

 

Brilliance by itself isn't overpowered, but combine it with chainshot and shadow operative and you cake walk through the game. Instantly recducing the cooldown on these powers is just too much. Cutting them in half would be less difficulty breaking.

 

I'm sorry but I agree that the game is flawed (AI, graphics, combat mechanics), but I believe the reviewers were too harsh, yes, they were... because comparing with other recent games, in this case DAO, they praised it... at least in the 360 DAO is plagued with bugs unresolved since day one, DAO has got uglier graphics than AP, combat mechanics in DAO are normal but better than AP, the mages are overpowered in DAO and so on... do you believe most of those reviewers were fair?

 

Graphics incorperate many thing, art/animation/performance. AP graphics are brought down by animation and performance and being bland(the setting) as for why DA graphics weren't mentioned, they were however DA didn't suffer from poor animation and performance on console that apparently AP did. When the game doesn't look great, then suffers from animation and performance issues it's going to commented on.

 

And yes IMO DA consoles versions were rated to high.

 

As for the overpowered Shadow Operative, ME2 has got the tactical cloak for the infiltrator class... perhaps Mike is an infiltrator in ME2 universe...

 

Fortunately Shep can't kill seven guy in one infiltrator use. If Shadow operative disabled the use of stealth kills, it wouldn't be as overpowered.

 

Sorry but calling someone "fanboy" because disagrees is equal that someone call "whiner" for the same reasons, when there are not really arguments that support such an affirmation.

 

Of course it is, but it's funny that no one jumps to the haters/whiners defense, while the fanboy accusation get raised eyebrows. Perhaps because the so called 'fanboys' taste are more aligned with others in this thread?

[pmp10]

While I agree with you, that would make the game harder for

Sorry but calling someone "fanboy" because disagrees is equal that someone call "whiner" for the same reasons, when there are not really arguments that support such an affirmation.

 

Of course it is, but it's funny that no one jumps to the haters/whiners defense, while the fanboy accusation get raised eyebrows. Perhaps because the so called 'fanboys' taste are more aligned with others in this thread?

Given what kind of forum it is do you really expected otherwise?

[edgarcuk]

As for the overpowered Shadow Operative, ME2 has got the tactical cloak for the infiltrator class... perhaps Mike is an infiltrator in ME2 universe...

 

Fortunately Shep can't kill seven guy in one infiltrator use. If Shadow operative disabled the use of stealth kills, it wouldn't be as overpowered.

 

 

Well, you can 3, lol... anyhow, perhaps if the duration is less, that would be good.

 

Sorry but calling someone "fanboy" because disagrees is equal that someone call "whiner" for the same reasons, when there are not really arguments that support such an affirmation.

 

Of course it is, but it's funny that no one jumps to the haters/whiners defense, while the fanboy accusation get raised eyebrows. Perhaps because the so called 'fanboys' taste are more aligned with others in this thread?

 

Could be because most of the people in this forums really like AP? and giving a generalisation, most will raise eyebrows... same will occur if in a thread everyone is discussing how bad is AP and someone came and say "whiners", also because the so called "whiners" are more aligned in that discussion....

[Imrix]

One thing I actually really like about AP is that you had to make actual choices and couldn't save everyone/everything.

 

Having said that, your options are not bad ideas.

 

 

I would have actually really enjoyed it if what you described was possible due to being a veteran start

 

Oh, I completely agree. Sometimes, that kind of thing really works- But only if it's done right. It needs to be clear that these are your only choices. Otherwise, people will point out "hey, why don't you just..."

 

 

In this case, enforcing those choices isn't that difficult. You decide to save Madison? Okay, you warned the museum, and faked some orders from on-high so they believe you. You even sent the guards in to disarm the bombs while you save the girl- unfortunately, the guards failed, the bombs went off and Halbech got its bodies. A lot less than they would've liked, but a terrorist act still went off in a major European city.

 

You decide to disarm the bombs? Marb urg doesn't bring Madison along, and just has her shot the moment you make your choice. Her body turns up in the after-action news reports- maybe he even plays her final moments for you over the comms.

 

 

The point is, I don't disagree with this kind of choice, but it needs to be done without forcing the player into a Stupidity Is The Only Option situation. There's more than one instance of this, mind; I'm just using the Rome finale as an example. Still, Alpha Protocol avoids this more than most. It's just a shame they turn up at all.

[Amentep]

I remember writing a story and had everything plotted out and the character did this and then this happened and so on.

 

It was well reviewed by my peers except one thing. I was asked - "Why didn't character A do action B when confronted with challenge C?"

 

The obvious answer is that the author didn't think of it, and if he doesn't the characters can't either.

 

I think with the above example

I suppose that Mike could have called before he started - but if Marburg got tipped off that the museum was empty wouldn't he just move the target? Mike would then have to reinvestigate, find the new target etc. I think after the bomb diffusal has been thwarted Thorton doesn't interrupt Marburg because Thorton thinks that - with the bombs defused Marburg has no reason to kill Madison.

 

Edited June 17, 2010 by Amentep

[razgriz_1400]

Regarding the gunplay aspects: I'm a shooting enthusiast and can honestly say the shooting in AP seems to be more realistic than most games I've played (Modern Warfare comes to mind with someone being able to unload 7 Desert Eagle rounds at a target inside of 2.5 seconds....). To hit a target, whether it's at 5 meters or 50 meters requires that one aims properly and squeezes the trigger properly. Other factors apply such as fatigue, adrenaline, breathing, etc. I've personally had it happen when shooting that I aimed for a headshot at a target on the range, but wound up with an upper torso/neck hit because the numb-nut on the trigger (that would be me) jerked the shot rather than smoothly squeezing the trigger. AP's system of adding points to skills with the weapons seems, in my opinion, to account for factors like that and experience with said weapons reducing the chances of screwing up a shot, but not eliminating it entirely. My only real complaint is the dual-wielding of SMGs, but since I see AP as being portrayed with more of a comic book-ish feel, I look past that. The same applies to stealth.

 

Regarding the bad enemy AI, I've seen worse, particularly the guards in MGS looking right at Snake inside the C Box in a place where the box makes no freaking sense but shrugging it off. Could it be better? Anyting can potentially be improved upon, but it's not as bad as many of the reviewers make it out to be.

[dan107]

What point is there sneaking if gunning everyone down was easy as cakes, and required no effort at all?

 

If that's addressed to me, I'm certainly not asking to make the shooting gameplay any easier overall. Just less awkward.

 

*biggest sigh in the last 6 months*

 

Same here.

 

Take an Alka-Seltzer. You'll feel better.

 

I don't play RPGs because of their sophisticated story, and I neither play shooters because they lack one. I play RPGs because they force me to use different mindset instead of only point and shoot. Using AP as an example - it forces me to think: should I spent some points to improve my AR accuracy or should I spent them to improve my sneaking talents. With RPG mechanics removed from shooting/sneaking what choice would I have?

 

Whether or not to take out an enemy from a distance with or take him down up close with a pistol. Whether to stealth kill enemies or just sneak past them. Whether to try and avoid patrol routes or to climb into an open window. Whether to drop a grenade into a room full of guards or to hack a console and lock them in. Etc, etc, etc.

 

You know actual tactical choices, not do I want to be a) crap with an assault rifle or b) not crap with an assault rifle.

 

Seeing flaws and pointing them out differs from stating game features as "flaws" and repeating your point of view 300 times just to defend it.

 

That's because people ignore the actual points I make and respond with sighs, groans, moans, attempts at wit, and flat out insults. And yet not one person in this thread has answered the very simple question that I posed 3 times now. Let's see if bolding helps.

 

How specfically does starting out with abysmally bad aim and having to put points into a skill to no longer have abysmally bad aim actually make the gameplay better?

 

Or if you like how having bad aim adds realism to the game, the question can be re-phrased:

 

How specfically does starting out with realistically bad aim and having to put points into a skill to have unrealistically god-like aim actually make the gameplay better?

Edited June 17, 2010 by dan107

[Hassat Hunter]

That was one of the fun things about ME2 - the ability to interrupt conversations with enemies and catch them off-guard as they exploited what would be considered "conversational immunity" in any other game. Probably the best example was the conversation during Miranda's loyalty mission when you had the opportunity to shoot the opposing mercenary leader as he taunted you about how he was using the conversation to get his men into position.

 

But no. You can't do that sort of thing in AP. And there's more than one occasion where you're basically stuck saying, "Well... THAT was stupid..."

While you don't get a flashing icon, I sure remember hitting grigori in the head with Vodka, or shooting Surkov in the leg. I think that would pretty much resemble ME2 Renegade actions, no?

[C2B]

How specfically does starting out with abysmally bad aim and having to put points into a skill to no longer have abysmally bad aim actually make the gameplay better?

 

It's actually not a point about "better" instead a point about "different"

 

It's a different approach to gameplay. I know its somewhat hard for you to accept that but there isn't only ONE way to achieve gameplay.

 

 

Which way you like is an entirly different and subjective matter.

Edited June 17, 2010 by C2B

[Hassat Hunter]

For example GTA4 improved driving mechanics from the previous GTAs, but in general players didn't like the change.

FANBOY!

Seriously, you talk like the serious flawed driving mechanic of GTA IV is an improvement. I can't take fanboys like you serious. Now could we please all agree with me, since, you know, I am right...

 

(See how good this argumentation works? )

[Amentep]

That's because people ignore the actual points I make and respond with sighs, groans, moans, attempts at wit, and flat out insults. And yet not one person in this thread has answered the very simple question that I posed 3 times now. Let's see if bolding helps.

 

How specfically does starting out with abysmally bad aim and having to put points into a skill to no longer have abysmally bad aim actually make the gameplay better?

 

Or if you like how having bad aim adds realism to the game, the question can be re-phrased:

 

How specfically does starting out with realistically bad aim and having to put points into a skill to have unrealistically god-like aim actually make the gameplay better?

 

My thought on this - and of course everyone comes from a different place in what works for them in a game - is that starting off with "bad aim" and allowing the character go to "super aim" through use of skill points allows the player to get a sense of building their character and also creates a certain value to the gun skill. If a character starts with good aim and moves to great aim than the player may not feel sufficiently rewarded by their choice to spend points in guns. In fact if you start with good aim, it is an encouragement to dump points away from guns making the guns a weak skill tree because you'll probably be able to satisfactorily hit things without putting any points into the gun skills.

 

This way - rightly or wrongly - forces players to live with their choices. Now I say this as someone who is not generally gifted at shooters but never felt that my weak gun skills in the game actually hampered anything. Sure I couldn't shoot anything early on, but I'd put more points into martial arts and quite appropriately had a much easier time rushing opponents and attacking than I did guns, rewarding me with results based on the skill points I used. As I developed my character my gun skills became more versatile in their use.

 

I never put any points into SMGs but could still use them to waste ammo and keep opponents from rushing me.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Amentep

[Niten_Ryu]

For example GTA4 improved driving mechanics from the previous GTAs, but in general players didn't like the change.

FANBOY!

Seriously, you talk like the serious flawed driving mechanic of GTA IV is an improvement. I can't take fanboys like you serious. Now could we please all agree with me, since, you know, I am right...

 

(See how good this argumentation works? )

 

It's not actually what we players consider as improvements, but what developers and publishers think. Rockstar made only slight changes on how driving works from GTA3 to Vice City to San Andreas. For GTA4, they used focus group testing, different physics setting and spend a lot of time and resources to find out what could be improved. After the game was released (and sold over 17 million units so far), many players didn't like the changes. For some reason or the other, what developers thought to be improvement, turned out to be failure for the players. It could be perception issue, it could be learning curve or the fact that driving, for some reason or other, don't feel fun for 'em. Personally I can do amazing tricks in GTA4 and drive without geting damaged but majority can't do it. They prefer driving mechanics from the previous GTAs (or perhaps from some other games).

 

All this could be said from shooting mechanics in FPS. In early days of the genre, there were huge fights what game actually did 'em best. When I played Quakeworld Team Fortress, most of the hardcore players didn't even consider moving to Half-Life's Team Fortress Classic. Personally I liked TFC better and moved to that game. Some still today play certain version of the original Counter Strike, while majority have moved to shooters like Modern Warfare 2 or perhaps to more recent version of the Counter Strike.

 

To create perfect mechanic for the any system is really hard but popularity trends are relatively easy to follow. Thus going against the trend like Alpha Protocol did is very risky, even if developers manage to meet all their design goals. This time gamble didn't pay, both customers and reviewers noticed the flaws vs. existing combat and shooting mechanics.

[Hassat Hunter]

Count me to that group.

While I did indeed learn to drive "properly" in GTA IV, it just isn't as much fun as it used to be. In GTA 3, VC and SA I spend hours just driving for fun, in GTA IV it feels more like a chore amongst the missions than fun like it was back than.

 

Realistic != good. For an over-the-top game like GTA arcade driving fitted just fine, insanity during chases guaranteed, like IV couldn't give AT ALL...

[unskilled-]

Count me to that group.

While I did indeed learn to drive "properly" in GTA IV, it just isn't as much fun as it used to be. In GTA 3, VC and SA I spend hours just driving for fun, in GTA IV it feels more like a chore amongst the missions than fun like it was back than.

 

Realistic != good. For an over-the-top game like GTA arcade driving fitted just fine, insanity during chases guaranteed, like IV couldn't give AT ALL...

 

Its a matter of opinion then, cause I felt that the driving mechanics in GTA4 were fantastic.

[Thorton_AP]

Why isn't there an option to interrupt Marburg with a bullet to the face between Madison being let go and Marburg shooting her? For that matter, how about instead of demanding "Let her go!" like a fool, Thorton shoots both guards in the face and pins Marburg down with gunfire while Madison runs for it? You could tie it to whether the player has Chain Shot, if need be.

 

That was one of the fun things about ME2 - the ability to interrupt conversations with enemies and catch them off-guard as they exploited what would be considered "conversational immunity" in any other game. Probably the best example was the conversation during Miranda's loyalty mission when you had the opportunity to shoot the opposing mercenary leader as he taunted you about how he was using the conversation to get his men into position.

 

But no. You can't do that sort of thing in AP. And there's more than one occasion where you're basically stuck saying, "Well... THAT was stupid..."

 

 

The ability to do conversation interrupts in ME2 was a fantastic decision on BioWare's part IMO.

[LookAndRoll]

Little tip: There is a difference between improving something and "I want to have it my waaaay. W

[Laverre]

How specfically does starting out with abysmally bad aim and having to put points into a skill to no longer have abysmally bad aim actually make the gameplay better?

 

Or if you like how having bad aim adds realism to the game, the question can be re-phrased:

 

How specfically does starting out with realistically bad aim and having to put points into a skill to have unrealistically god-like aim actually make the gameplay better?

 

Because slowly improving your character till he is near perfect in some areas, is a long honed tradition to achieve player satisfaction in rpgs. I think mainly because it makes it more your character and not like Sam Fisher some superhero typ everyone else got too.

Like the absurd health system, the unrealistic huds and several other aspect games tend to have, it's not necessarily realistic or everyones favourite thing, but it's established and accepted.

 

For the gameplay well you could argue, that slowly getting from bad and limited to very good helps to use your skills better, because they arn't that reliable at the beginning so you have to think more how to even the odds and it eases the learning curve slightly by slowly introducing new talents and abilites on top of the starting ones instead of dropping you into a pool of over the top talents.

 

On a personal note, I'm especially glad they did it this way, because Splinter Cell always felt to easy. The combination of an absurd amount of "stealth" and quite extraordinary aiming, made the games way to easy for me. Sure I may have been a superagent, but I was mainly a rather bored one, because the challenge was near to nonexistent. Something I felt Alpha Protocol only became near the end with maxed abilites, especially due to shadow operator.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Laverre

[Orchomene]

How specfically does starting out with abysmally bad aim and having to put points into a skill to no longer have abysmally bad aim actually make the gameplay better?

 

Or if you like how having bad aim adds realism to the game, the question can be re-phrased:

 

How specfically does starting out with realistically bad aim and having to put points into a skill to have unrealistically god-like aim actually make the gameplay better?

 

Having a recruit that has never touched a gun outside training be for the first time in real battle situation and do perfect headshots with a pistol at 50 m in less than 1 s, do you think that it's normal ? Do you think this is normal that in a RPG, you may roleplay a gun specialist yet miss all your target because you (as a player) are not very good in eye-hand coordination ? Gameplay-wise, it give a sense of evolution of your character.

But of course, you don't have to enjoy RPG mechanics, it's a matyter of taste. But then, why to you buy RPGs ? I don't like the shooter mechanics, thus I don't buy shooters (with the exception of shooters that are marketed as RPG, like ME2).

What would you think of a guy going in a MW forum and asking for an aiming mechanism based on character skill and not player skills ? Do you think he would survive more than 5 minutes in the upcoming flame war ? Well, I really don't know since I don't go to this kind of fora, but I can imagine a relatively bad reception.

[naarkh]

This is very much a matter of perspective. Its only awkward and clumsy if you look at it from a shooter perspective. Not from a classic rpg perspective. If you try to play it in the normal shooter way of course the gunplay will feel flawed and awkward.

 

How else would you play it? You still have to point the gun and shoot. If it was pick an enemy and an ability, like the ranged combat in KOTOR, I could understand it, but in AP the overall system is still standard cover based shooter. With stats crowbarred in for some reason. (You still didn't say what exactly they add to the gameplay, mind you.)

 

Okay... In KOTOR(I-II doesn't really matter) ever went to point blank, use your some ranged ability but your guy hits the ceiling?

 

Of course you'll say "I don't have a crosshair that's pointed to enemy's skull!" but a blind man can hit a man who is about let's say 180 cm long and let's say 90 cm wide(Makes 1.62 m squared if you calculate) from point blank.(Think about you're holding your pistol/rifle/whatever properly too)

 

Also even in point blank in Fallout 3 your chances are 95% maximum even if you're aiming properly to enemy's head.

 

So in RPG's or RPG shooters(Not counting ME series because they're just jokes about aiming from any distance) it works in that way.

 

Of course it could be improved, but I dont think removing the stats would do AP any justice.

 

Why not? Why do you think that it would be a worse game without the stats?

 

It might work better or not but it wouldn't be a RPG. Let me be simple : Stats = RPG, Obsidian is a company that makes RPGs...

 

You expect Blizzard to make a driving simulation? No? WoW : Cart Racing would be good, "why do you think that it would be a worse game"?(Umh now i have a headache because i sound like i'm defending WoW yet i hate it -.-)

 

If you want a pure, realistic shooter go for Operation Flashpoint(first one) or Sniper Elite but i'm not so sure you'll love the shooting there aswell(You need to aim properly, think about wind and distance etc)

 

Of course AP has its flaws(no character creation, less armors/clothing, a few glitches over here and there) but why do people want to change every single different game to their favourite game? Their close minded favouritism ruins the whole gaming business.