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

[WorstUsernameEver]

Depends if "broad appeal" and pleasing the group which isn't the "main customers target" for the game is a good thing.

 

For the company (and the publisher) it very much is.

It's difficult if not downright impossible to market an hardcore rpg in these days, and if anything, Obsidian would have probably gone the turn-based/real time with pause route.

Mind you, I like the game, and I know sometimes it sounds like I don't, but I'm just about to do a jerkass (suave/aggressive) playthrough with a recruit, and after that a soldier-y/tech-y professional veteran so...

 

So you're suggesting the removal of just the weapon skills? Keeping just stealth, sabotage, toughness and Martial arts? That is a very shallow skill tree. It is so shallow in fact that why have it at all? It's like in ME2, where I leveled up and invested my points in ammunition. No, I don't think you understand me here; I spent my character's advancement points to buy ammo! What the ... seriously! I blew chunks out of my opponents and instead of, say, familiarizing with my armor and optimizing for better shield output or getting a better aim with pistols, I got ice bullets. ICE BULLETS! But don't get me wrong, I actually liked ME2.

 

Again, nope. I actually think that weapon skill could still be tweaked and be workable, working around factors like reloading time, pure recoil (assault rifle), precision when you're using blind fire, special abilities and such.

It's just the skill points determining accuracy/damage that I think didn't work as well as it should (though the 'wait a bit and the reticle closes in' system is certainly better than Bloodlines' system).

Edited June 16, 2010 by WorstUsernameEver

[player1]

I actually like whole wait/focus and get better precision part of AP shooting mechanics. I think it could be good to use for some shooter games too (although base precision needs to be much better then in AP).

 

Something similar, although in more abstract term, exists in some shooters that have snipers. When you zoom it "wobbles" around, until you make it steady. Instead such "what you see, what you get" approach, that can be annoying with such "wobbling" around, having crosshairs that get more focused if you steady your aim a bit could actually work better as streamlined mechanic.

Edited June 16, 2010 by player1

[213374U]

I have yet to see a game that handled gun/sword play in ANY way realistically. Sorry.

And in some way, thats a good thing.

Jedi Knight games. :3

So IRL swordplay = jumping and running around like a headless chicken, hitting the air with the sword in hopes that the position of a FTL (to account for lag) opponent will be coincident with one's blade?

 

Whoa, what fencing style do you practice? Me wants.

[Oner]

I have yet to see a game that handled gun/sword play in ANY way realistically. Sorry.

And in some way, thats a good thing.

Jedi Knight games. :3

So IRL swordplay = jumping and running around like a headless chicken, hitting the air with the sword in hopes that the position of a FTL (to account for lag) opponent will be coincident with one's blade?

 

Whoa, what fencing style do you practice? Me wants.

Never mind that he was talking about realistic damage (ie one hit kill).

[felix88]

I don't know about swords, but there are Operation Flashpoint and Arma II if it's about guns.

[213374U]

I have yet to see a game that handled gun/sword play in ANY way realistically. Sorry.

And in some way, thats a good thing.

Jedi Knight games. :3

So IRL swordplay = jumping and running around like a headless chicken, hitting the air with the sword in hopes that the position of a FTL (to account for lag) opponent will be coincident with one's blade?

 

Whoa, what fencing style do you practice? Me wants.

Never mind that he was talking about realistic damage (ie one hit kill).

Which isn't the case either... unless you decapitate or impale the heart. Adrenaline > U

Edited June 16, 2010 by 213374U

[MarteenDee]

I don't know about swords, but there are Operation Flashpoint and Arma II if it's about guns.

 

And still they're getting tons of bashing for weapons being inaccurate, crippled AI, and all that bullcrap casual gamers (and unfortunately huge part of gaming journalists are casuals imho- it doesn't matter how many games you play in a week but how you play them) are complaining and whining about.

 

OPF: Dragon Rising wanted to please both audiences and failed badly on both fronts (pun not intended).

 

You can't make both of these worlds happy.

Casual is all about visuals, fancy cinematic and shortest and least engaging gameplay possible - to have a chance of finishing borrowed game during a weekend. Interactive entertainment at its best.

 

Hardcore gaming is about mechanics, involvement, immersion and spending on a game 80+, posting on forums to death as a break...

 

 

 

--------------------------

*me = huge ArmA fan

[C2B]

I don't know about swords, but there are Operation Flashpoint and Arma II if it's about guns.

 

And still they're getting tons of bashing for weapons being inaccurate, crippled AI, and all that bullcrap casual gamers (and unfortunately huge part of gaming journalists are casuals imho- it doesn't matter how many games you play in a week but how you play them) are complaining and whining about.

 

OPF: Dragon Rising wanted to please both audiences and failed badly on both fronts (pun not intended).

 

You can't make both of these worlds happy.

Casual is all about visuals, fancy cinematic and shortest and least engaging gameplay possible - to have a chance of finishing borrowed game during a weekend. Interactive entertainment at its best.

 

Hardcore gaming is about mechanics, involvement, immersion and spending on a game 80+, posting on forums to death as a break...

 

 

 

--------------------------

*me = huge ArmA fan

 

Funny fact is. The casual gamers you describe think themselves as the hardcore gamers.

 

Which always cracks me up.

[dan107]

Answer to your problems is quite simple, Dan. Don't like it? - don't play it.

 

Knowing so much about game design and what should done to be right, what's the best and where's the truth about perfect game experience you shouldn't be wasting your time on these forums.

 

You know what? I have an idea: you should be designing your own game! There's even full engine waiting for you to use!

So download your copy of Unreal Development Kit - it's easy to use, ready for your brilliant and ground breaking ideas to became truth!

 

Ah - and don't forget to inform us how is it going and give us some demo to try. I bet, with such deep knowledge about how everything should be done your game is going to be a full blown success, no question about that.

 

...Ah...unless you're one of those useless malcontent, who can't do anything on their own - just whine that people more talented than you couldn't make something which would suit your sophisticated taste...

 

Who said that I didn't like it? I explicitly stated several times that I think that AP is a very good game overall. I'm just posting specific criticisms of aspects of it that I don't think worked very well. Ah, but you're probably too busy enjoying your own "wit" to actually read what I said. Let me know when you get your head out of your ass.

 

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

[blackwolfe]

And even though I asked several times I still haven't seen anyone say what exactly stats add to the shooter gameplay other than making it awkward and clumsy when the stats are low. "It's an RPG, stop whining" is not an adequate answer.

 

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.

 

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

[dan107]

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.)

 

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?

Edited June 16, 2010 by dan107

[Oner]

*biggest sigh in the last 6 months*

[Hassat Hunter]

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

 

Then we would need EVERY enemy to have the HP of a levelboss (like Brayko), just like ME2 needed all kind of layered defenses aside from a gazillion HP just to pose a medium threat.

[Imrix]

So far, my only real gripe with AP is the same gripe I have with most RPG's with a propensity for making you decide between two choices: The lack of ability to take a third option. Isn't that what heroism is all about? Defiance of the odds?

 

Admittedly, AP is better than most due to the lack of an arbitrary karma bar (praise be!), but it still annoys me at times.

 

As an example, the Rome finale.

 

The non-spoilers version; whichever option you take, I can think of a few extra actions you could take to minimize the damage of the other outcome, or even achieve both.

 

The spoiler version...

 

 

If you decide to save Madison... You had, at least, several hours before embarking on this mission, and you couldn't have Mina call ahead to have the museum evacuated? Maybe forge some orders from on-high to make sure? Heck, not long before making that choice, you passed some security guards and helped them out in a gunfight. Get THEM to start evacuating the building. Okay, it wouldn't actually thwart Halbech, but it would sure as hell mitigate the damage!

 

If you decide to disarm the bombs? This wouldn't be a complaint if Marburg had just, say, turned up with a photo of Madison's corpse, or called his men in front of Thorton with orders to shoot... But no. He insists on dragging Madison in front of you, letting her go, taking an agonizingly long pause, and then shooting her. Thorton, meanwhile, does absolutely squat all throughout this.

 

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.

 

 

Now, these instances of no third options are rarer in Alpha Protocol than others, but unfortunately, that rarity just means they're all the more glaring when they do turn up.

[Thorton_AP]

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

[MarteenDee]

*biggest sigh in the last 6 months*

 

 

Same here.

[Bos_hybrid]

Many things listed by those that aren't fanboys. However getting fanboys to admit/see faults in AP is like trying to get the truth from politicians.

[junior]

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..."

[C2B]

Many things listed by those that aren't fanboys. However getting fanboys to admit/see faults in AP is like trying to get the truth from politicians.

 

Yeah, we are all fanboys because we don't want a shooter. Great

 

And till now EVERYONE has admitted faults in the system.

 

But like I said before its something that can be improved. Not totally changed.

 

Read my first post for crying out loud.

 

You're not a moron are you?

 

 

 

I didn't make this thread to hear the WHINING of shooter fans. The complete OPPOSITE actually. Real CRITISM and improvments.

Edited June 17, 2010 by C2B

[MarteenDee]

Many things listed by those that aren't fanboys. However getting fanboys to admit/see faults in AP is like trying to get the truth from politicians.

 

Depends who you call fanboy, though.

 

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.

 

AP isn't a perfect game (and haven't seen perfect game yet) but trying to turn RPG into shooter isn't the way to improve it. But stripping it from stat driven gameplay removes "tactical" approach of balancing your gameplay - which would turn the game into another shooter, but with some rich story.

 

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?

 

If I don't want to think about character development and just utilise my aiming skills as a player - I'm playing match or two in CoD4. If I'm going for realistic warfare/gun play - I'm playing ArmA2, if I wish to think more and make some gameplay choices (should I improve my aim instead of hacking) - I'm playing Alpha Protocol.

 

Introducing changes proposed by Dan would be like making Conviction with rich story, thus it would strip AP from "tactical character development" part. I wonder if he's complaining over at Splinter Cell boards about making story more complicated and multi layered as in AP. That would make more sense IMHO.

 

Difference between shooter and RPG isn't about story but about mindset and character development . Which seems to be forgotten in this discussion.

[Niten_Ryu]

So you're suggesting the removal of just the weapon skills?

 

Modern gamers in general just don't get the combat mechanics where you aim at something and still miss even if your aim was 100% accurate. This don't mean that weapons skills would have to be removed complitely, but more focused on optional "skills" like auto-aims, bullet time, VATs, dead-eye, chain shot, faster reloading, ect ect. This means that base skill would be pinpoint accurate as in (nearly) all modern FPs, but players, if they so choose, could invest in skills that make shooting even easier. Shotgun would still be situational close range weapon, pistol silent, assault rifle a long range (short) burst weapon, SMG a short range burst weapon.

[C2B]

So you're suggesting the removal of just the weapon skills?

 

Modern gamers in general just don't get the combat mechanics where you aim at something and still miss even if your aim was 100% accurate. This don't mean that weapons skills would have to be removed complitely, but more focused on optional "skills" like auto-aims, bullet time, VATs, dead-eye, chain shot, faster reloading, ect ect. This means that base skill would be pinpoint accurate as in (nearly) all modern FPs, but players, if they so choose, could invest in skills that make shooting even easier. Shotgun would still be situational close range weapon, pistol silent, assault rifle a long range (short) burst weapon, SMG a short range burst weapon.

 

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

 

(Ok, that's generalizing but I hope you get my point)

(Also not in the sense of fast but in accesible)

Edited June 17, 2010 by C2B

[edgarcuk]

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..."

 

Actually, you can do the same in AP, just pressing "attack" button... if I remember well, in ME2 are like 5 opportunities, almost the same as AP. The mechanics are there, how they applied, it's different. Besides in ME2, usually such action are Renegade actions and they are not available any time.

 

What the poster is suggesting is the option to save Madison, but you can perform only one... same as in ME2, when you've got to decide to save the port or the city with the missile attack mission.

[Bos_hybrid]

Yeah, we are all fanboys because we don't want a shooter. Great

 

And till now EVERYONE has admitted faults in the system.

 

But like I said before its something that can be improved. Not totally changed.

 

Read my first post for crying out loud.

 

I did and it was made to make the obvious flaws seem trivial or overblown, which they aren't.

 

 

You're not a moron are you?

I didn't make this thread to hear the WHINING of shooter fans. The complete OPPOSITE actually. Real CRITISM and improvments.

 

No you made it to jackoff to this game and took offense when others don't.

 

EX: 1 Fanboy.

-Level Design (Though the only real complaint I see here are the forever closing doors. They could have added more routes though. Also it's really a rather average Level design but functional for the most part)

 

The level design is generally poor, it is quite often a corridor shooter. Very few multiple pathways, normally just one short path, the stealth in those parts is basically shadow operative(I win ability), boring and lacking in difficulty.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

[pmp10]

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?