C&VG: Sega rules out Alpha Protocol sequel

[Achilles]

I was not trashing it for being a bad shooter, and that's still not a strawman. You're the one strawmanning here.

 

Then what are you trashing it for if I may ask?

Careful, sir. Apparently the rules of logic do not apply here.

 

Also, pointing out flawed argumentation results in schoolyard taunts.

[Volourn]

"The entire marketing campaign was CHOICE, CHOICE, CHOICE."

 

O RLY? That must explain the emphasis on it being like ME2 then, or all the combat mechanics everything. While 'choices' (another aspect of AP that they failed to deliver on to a high degree, btw) were part of the marketing campaign it's highly immoral to claim that was the ENTIRE marketing campaign. LMAO

[C2B]

"The entire marketing campaign was CHOICE, CHOICE, CHOICE."

 

O RLY? That must explain the emphasis on it being like ME2 then, or all the combat mechanics everything. While 'choices' (another aspect of AP that they failed to deliver on to a high degree, btw) were part of the marketing campaign it's highly immoral to claim that was the ENTIRE marketing campaign. LMAO

 

Oh, really Volourn. Thanks for poiniting that out. But really. I want to see were it was marketed as ME2 then. Especially since that was a game that was just released this year.

 

Actually, wait I'm arguing with Volourn here again. Silly me.

 

Edit: Naturally you are totally right and I submit to all your superior reasoning. Volourn.

Edited September 21, 2010 by C2B

[Volourn]

Thanks. That's all that one can ask.

[Oblarg]

I was not trashing it for being a bad shooter, and that's still not a strawman. You're the one strawmanning here.

 

Then what are you trashing it for if I may ask?

 

Gotta love people getting defensive when anyone on these forums isn't slinging praise at the game.

 

I never trashed the game, you all just jumped down my throat the moment I mentioned that the frustration with the shooting mechanics was certainly understandable, and that the game could have done some things better.

[C2B]

I was not trashing it for being a bad shooter, and that's still not a strawman. You're the one strawmanning here.

 

Then what are you trashing it for if I may ask?

 

Gotta love people getting defensive when anyone on these forums isn't slinging praise at the game.

 

I never trashed the game, you all just jumped down my throat the moment I mentioned that the frustration with the shooting mechanics was certainly understandable, and that the game could have done some things better.

 

Oh, I wasn't in the conversation from the beginning. Also, I believe people can get frustrated by the system but anyone who wants to learn it has to learn it. It's that simple. I did not blame Splinter Cell or Thief back in the day because the usual shoot at everything tactic didn't work. Obsidian added an tutorial. I don't see the problem in that regard. Now beeing frustrated by the bosses or that the combat feels like a chore. THAT can I understand. And seriously waiting for a reticicle to close and distributing skill point isn't one of the hardest things to learn ever in gaming.

 

As for your comment. I called you out on it because the phrase "I was not trashing it for beeing .... " kinda implies that you trashed the game for another reason.

[Achilles]

Gotta love people getting defensive when anyone on these forums isn't slinging praise at the game.

 

I never trashed the game, you all just jumped down my throat the moment I mentioned that the frustration with the shooting mechanics was certainly understandable, and that the game could have done some things better.

I have absolutely nothing against legitimate criticism. I don't think bashing an RPG for not conforming to "other shooters" is legitimate criticism. Nor do I think trashing pistols because they don't behave likes SMGs/Assault Rifles/completely fabricated weapons from another genre of game qualifies either.

 

AP was a real-world RPG, therefore shooting was largely skill-based and conformed to how weapons work in the real world. Someone who bothered to read the box before playing the game might be inclined to congratulate the developer for this achievement.

[C2B]

Gotta love people getting defensive when anyone on these forums isn't slinging praise at the game.

 

I never trashed the game, you all just jumped down my throat the moment I mentioned that the frustration with the shooting mechanics was certainly understandable, and that the game could have done some things better.

I have absolutely nothing against legitimate criticism. I don't think bashing an RPG for not conforming to "other shooters" is legitimate criticism. Nor do I think trashing pistols because they don't behave likes SMGs/Assault Rifles/completely fabricated weapons from another genre of game qualifies either.

 

AP was a real-world RPG, therefore shooting was largely skill-based and conformed to how weapons work in the real world. Someone who bothered to read the box before playing the game might be inclined to congratulate the developer for this achievement.

 

Nah, there were some parts that felt real but it was still largly fiction.

 

AP uses "Real World" mostly as a background. In its heart it is spy fiction. Absolutly great spy fiction at that.

[Achilles]

Nah, there were some parts that felt real but it was still largly fiction.

 

AP uses "Real World" mostly as a background. In its heart it is spy fiction. Absolutly great spy fiction at that.

Err...pretty sure 98% of the story was fiction.

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with the game mechanics.

 

Fictionalized game mechanics are things like unlimited ammo or being able to unload a pistol clip into a guy 100 feet away and have every bullet be a head shot (with zero skill points invested in Pistols).

 

To your point, some of the stealth mechanics clearly aren't based on real-world stuff and things, but to my point, that isn't what we were talking about.

 

P.S. since we were talking so much about how this game was marketed, I thought it might be helpful for some people to go back and review, oh, maybe this Dev Diary. I thought Chris Parker's comment (~2:20) was illuminating. Also, the very last sentence.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Achilles

[Oblarg]

Gotta love people getting defensive when anyone on these forums isn't slinging praise at the game.

 

I never trashed the game, you all just jumped down my throat the moment I mentioned that the frustration with the shooting mechanics was certainly understandable, and that the game could have done some things better.

I have absolutely nothing against legitimate criticism. I don't think bashing an RPG for not conforming to "other shooters" is legitimate criticism. Nor do I think trashing pistols because they don't behave likes SMGs/Assault Rifles/completely fabricated weapons from another genre of game qualifies either.

 

AP was a real-world RPG, therefore shooting was largely skill-based and conformed to how weapons work in the real world. Someone who bothered to read the box before playing the game might be inclined to congratulate the developer for this achievement.

 

Wow, you managed to write a response to my post while obviously not reading it. Congratulations.

[Achilles]

Again, I read every word.

[Oblarg]

Again, I read every word.

 

Your post doesn't reflect it.

[Achilles]

Your post doesn't reflect it.

 

You said it therefore it must be true.

[Oblarg]

Your post doesn't reflect it.

 

You said it therefore it must be true.

 

The initial sentence or two of your post make it abundantly clear.

[Achilles]

The initial sentence or two of your post make it abundantly clear.

Abundantly.

[Karl the Unfettered]

I laugh at this thread, the past few posts. You guys are so passionate. Laaauuugh laugh laugh.

 

I tried the rifle; didn't work for me. Tried the shotgun; didn't work for me. Didn't try the SMGs, that's not my play style.

 

But the pistol, I was using that almost exclusively from minute one. Sure it takes some getting used to, but it's a challenge trying to line up a headshot on a moving target, especially at the lower levels of skill (but not undoable). What's even more fun is the variety of approaches I could take; I could crouch, push the door gently open and sneak in, taking out each enemy one by one. Or I could kick the door down and Chain Shot every last mothers' son of those pricks.

 

Stealth worked great for me too, in fact it almost seemed broken at times (Shadow Operative, anyone?). Overall though, it was a lot of fun.

 

On a vaguely related note: anyone interested in a shooter oughta try Mafia II. Might not be first-person, but it's still pretty fun. Also got some sweet cars in there.

[Achilles]

Stealth worked great for me too, in fact it almost seemed broken at times (Shadow Operative, anyone?). Overall though, it was a lot of fun.

If I could offer a recommendation...

 

Don't take the last skill point in Pistols and don't take Stealth past 12.

 

You still get to have fun, but you no longer feel like you're breaking the game.

 

My $0.02

[Thorton_AP]

Nah, there were some parts that felt real but it was still largly fiction.

 

AP uses "Real World" mostly as a background. In its heart it is spy fiction. Absolutly great spy fiction at that.

Fictionalized game mechanics are things like unlimited ammo or being able to unload a pistol clip into a guy 100 feet away and have every bullet be a head shot (with zero skill points invested in Pistols).

 

What about a game that lets you immediately shoot multiple rounds from your pistol, allows you to literally go invisible and walk around without being seen, can let you run around really fast or anything of the sort?

 

 

I agree that I feel the shooting complaints are overstated (including Oblarg's), but Alpha Protocol's game mechanics are not based upon reality. A lot of it is fantastic and extraordinary.

 

I also believe that the shooting proficiency of Mike at the start of the game is similar to how I would do. As a game mechanic I didn't mind it, but I'd be skeptical if anyone that has small arms proficiency would require as much time as Mike does to accurately hit targets.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Achilles]

What about a game that lets you immediately shoot multiple rounds from your pistol, allows you to literally go invisible and walk around without being seen, can let you run around really fast or anything of the sort?

Yep, pretty sure I addressed that in the sentence that immediately followed where your quote ended.

 

I agree that I feel the shooting complaints are overstated (including Oblarg's), but Alpha Protocol's game mechanics are not based upon reality. A lot of it is fantastic and extraordinary.

See above. I responding specifically to the mechanics as they related to weapons. Again, I though I addressed that in the sentence you did not include in the quote (perhaps not as well as I could have).

 

I also believe that the shooting proficiency of Mike at the start of the game is similar to how I would do. As a game mechanic I didn't mind it, but I'd be skeptical if anyone that has small arms proficiency would require as much time as Mike does to accurately hit targets.

Arguable. To your point, Mike is suppose to have some background (in fact he's sold as an utter badass at whatever it was he was doing before). In fairness to the devs though, you have to start somewhere and you have to do it in such a way that you don't rip-off the people who do actually invest in the skill (AND you have do pull this off in such a way that you don't make the higher-end skill ridiculous). I think saying that Pistol is over-powered and game-breaking is a lot more accurate than saying it's completely useless.

[Zoraptor]

I agree that I feel the shooting complaints are overstated (including Oblarg's), but Alpha Protocol's game mechanics are not based upon reality. A lot of it is fantastic and extraordinary.

I actually think that one of AP's biggest problems was that it couldn't decide whether to be serious business reality or super power Bond/ Batman hybrid, and the associated problem of whether to judge it as fantastic or realistic. If you view it as realistic then the fantastic parts are a negative, if you view it as fantastic then the realistic parts (like not every shot aimed at a bullseye actually hitting the bullseye) are a negative. As such it (potentially at least, personally I wasn't bothered by the dichotomy) has the worse of both worlds.

[Tigranes]

Agreed, I suspect that Brian Menze & Co's original script was a lot more realgritty.

[C2B]

Agreed, I suspect that Brian Menze & Co's original script was a lot more realgritty.

 

You mean Brian Mitsoda.^^

 

Also I honestly have to say I prefer the current state over a realgritty one. I'm a big fan of spy fiction and its an incredible hommage to it.

 

Also we were talking about gameplay not the story itself.

 

 

(Not to mention, I doubt it would have been "real" either way. The portrayal of espionage we have in modern media is as far from reality as you can get)

Edited September 24, 2010 by C2B

[Thorton_AP]

What about a game that lets you immediately shoot multiple rounds from your pistol, allows you to literally go invisible and walk around without being seen, can let you run around really fast or anything of the sort?

Yep, pretty sure I addressed that in the sentence that immediately followed where your quote ended.

 

Yeah I read that after.

 

Which just makes it even more patently absurd that you even think about relating the game mechanics to how they should realistically be.

 

The game mechanics in Alpha Protocol are, through and through, not realistic.

 

 

And for the weapons, as you seem keen on admitting now, they "had to start somewhere." I think that for the purposes of their gameplay goals, the gunplay is unrealistic to the point where it is likely not reflective of someone that would be in the position that Thorton is in.

 

 

EDIT: Zoraptor nails it again.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Achilles]

Yeah I read that after.

Sorry, but I don't think you did.

 

You're referencing stealth which I conceded, in that sentence, is not realistic. Since the discussion that I was having with Oblarg was regarding pistols, I'm not sure where you hope to go with this.

 

Which just makes it even more patently absurd that you even think about relating the game mechanics to how they should realistically be.

If at all possible, try to imagine the skills trees in AP as having two categories. We'll call the first one "base skill" and the second one "powers" (feel free to suggest other label). For pistols, base skill is the ability to line up crits (how quickly, how far away, etc) and powers is "chain shot".

 

Since at no point in my discussion with Oblarg did "chain shot" come up, let ignore "powers" for now.

 

How realistic is it that an untrained person would be fairly inept at using pistols? My vote: pretty realistic.

If someone trained in pistols and became very good with them, how might that be manifested? I'm thinking they would probably be able shoot more accurately at greater distance and with greater speed.

 

Which, amazingly, is exactly how the pistol mechanics in AP work. As Mike gets better with pistols, his crit range increases, the amount of time that he needs to be able to line up a crit is reduced, and his overall accuracy improves.

 

Without spending the next 10 minutes going back over how all the weapons work, I'll just say that I'm pretty sure that's how all the weapons in AP worked too.

 

So please, feel free to tell me how "patently absurd" I'm being some more.

 

The game mechanics in Alpha Protocol are, through and through, not realistic.

You're welcome to your opinion.

 

And for the weapons, as you seem keen on admitting now, they "had to start somewhere."

This sentence only makes sense if I'd previously argued elsewhere that they didn't. Pretty please go find that post. I'd love to see it.

 

I think that for the purposes of their gameplay goals, the gunplay is unrealistic to the point where it is likely not reflective of someone that would be in the position that Thorton is in.

Glad to see that we seem to agree on something.

 

EDIT: Zoraptor nails it again.

See above discussion re: base skills vs powers.

I just want to interject that a few people seem to be under the impression that because the devs made something available that you're somehow obligated or forced to use it. With regards to Zoraptor's post, how "serious" (vs. Bond/Batman) would AP be if you never used Shadow Operative or Chain Shot? No one is holding a gun to your head when you clicky-click on those options.

 

You want to have a super-realistic spy experience? Don't use the options that don't jive with your RP. Might be why they gave you more than one options and chose "Your Weapon is Choice" as a tag line.

 

I'm right there with you in wishing that some of the powers weren't so over-powered. Luckily, I discovered a magical secret that helped and I'm going to share with you what it is:

 

I stopped investing AP in powers I didn't want.

[Thorton_AP]

Sorry, but I don't think you did.

 

You're referencing stealth which I conceded, in that sentence, is not realistic. Since the discussion that I was having with Oblarg was regarding pistols, I'm not sure where you hope to go with this.

 

Um, yeah I actually did. You know, after I made the post. But you seem to have your mind made up over things already. Next up you should tell me what I'm thinking.

 

Since at no point in my discussion with Oblarg did "chain shot" come up, let ignore "powers" for now.

 

Sure. It's always nice to ignore those aspects of the game that shred your arguments and make you look the fool.

 

How realistic is it that an untrained person would be fairly inept at using pistols? My vote: pretty realistic.

If someone trained in pistols and became very good with them, how might that be manifested? I'm thinking they would probably be able shoot more accurately at greater distance and with greater speed.

 

Ah, so it's realistic because you "think" so? If you think it's realistic for an "untrained" spy selected for an elite super secret organization to be as capable with pistols as I am then you're welcome to your opinion.

 

If you think that it's realistic for Mike to be as inaccurate with his pistols while on the move (and take as long as he does to still line up a shot even with "average" skill), well then I think you're just fooling yourself because you're a fan of the game. An expert with pistols is still going to be able to fire accurately at distance while moving. I know this because I witness it first hand.

 

Which, amazingly, is exactly how the pistol mechanics in AP work. As Mike gets better with pistols, his crit range increases, the amount of time that he needs to be able to line up a crit is reduced, and his overall accuracy improves.

 

Without spending the next 10 minutes going back over how all the weapons work, I'll just say that I'm pretty sure that's how all the weapons in AP worked too.

 

THis is fine as a game mechanic. I loved it in Deus Ex and Bloodlines too. But it's not realistic.

 

So please, feel free to tell me how "patently absurd" I'm being some more.

 

Because you say absurd things all the time. From telling me that I didn't actually read something you said after I made a post (that's mostly just arrogant I guess), to thinking that a game like Alpha Protocol has weapon gameplay that is in some way a representation of actual reality. Too bad Mike has a finite and arbitrary distance at which he can accurately line up and fire his critical hit. Better pray he's not 15.1 meters away, because I can only line up my shots at distances up to 15.0 meters.

 

You're welcome to your opinion.

Especially when it's an accurate reflection of the actual game. This is most certainly a GAME, with several concessions made for the purposes of fun instead of realism.

 

Glad to see that we seem to agree on something. original.gif

 

Sorry, weren't you the one saying that Mike's gunplay skills are appropriate because you cannot run around headshotting people (or something)?

 

 

I just want to interject that a few people seem to be under the impression that because the devs made something available that you're somehow obligated or forced to use it. With regards to Zoraptor's post, how "serious" (vs. Bond/Batman) would AP be if you never used Shadow Operative or Chain Shot? No one is holding a gun to your head when you clicky-click on those options.

 

No, but that doesn't deny that it exists in the game. Simply because you choose to not use a skill, doesn't mean that it does not exist in the game as an active design choice. You can't add skills that let you go invisible and say "we're making a realistic shooter, you just have to actively choose the skills that make it realistic." What you've now done is metagame. If this is the best you can surmise then you have nothing to stand upon.

 

I have no issues with skills like Chain Shot or Shadow Operative being in the game (and I found both of them fun). The fact that they are available and a part of the overall conscious design decision is irrefutable.

 

 

You want to have a super-realistic spy experience? Don't use the options that don't jive with your RP. Might be why they gave you more than one options and chose "Your Weapon is Choice" as a tag line.

 

You want a super-realistic spy experience, I suspect you shouldn't be playing Alpha Protocol (or probably any video game). Of course, call me when you get bored. If you found this game to be a realistic spy experience, then you're welcome to your opinion.

 

I stopped investing AP in powers I didn't want.

 

Congratulations on metagaming. This doesn't demonstrate that AP is a realistic spy experience, let alone a super-realistic spy experience. It doesn't refute Zoraptor's statement either. I'd say it almost reinforces it.