C&VG: Sega rules out Alpha Protocol sequel

[Hassat Hunter]

If the majority of people are not getting how the system works maybe you have to rethink at least how to present it.

They made it pretty clear in the tutorial to me...

 

I guess most skipped that thinking they could handle the game?

 

Seriously; how the hell can this be new to people 10 years after DX. And DX didn't get all this trouble about it's system did it? Where people just that much smarter 10 years ago?

Edited September 20, 2010 by Hassat Hunter

[Oblarg]

Nowhere in the tutorial was it made obvious that "If you're going to be effective with the pistol you're going to need to line up a crit for nearly every shot."

 

It is completely understandable why AP's combat system frustrated many players, especially in the early stages of the game. To blame this entirely on the players is nearing pure fanboyism.

 

Pistols in the vast majority of shooters are accurate midrange weapons with a moderate rate of fire. They did not fill this role in Alpha Protocol until very high skill levels, and even then the rate of fire was comparable to most games' sniper rifles. The way the game was marketed combined with the fact that this wasn't explained during the tutorial quite unsurprisingly resulted in many players feeling that the shooting was broken. We both know this isn't the case, but you can't completely blame the players for being frustrated with a system which was initially very frustrating.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Oblarg

[Hassat Hunter]

Nowhere in the tutorial was it made obvious that "If you're going to be effective with the pistol you're going to need to line up a crit for nearly every shot."

Ehm, yeah, it did.

It didn't even let you proceed unless you critted.

 

Then again, they worked the exact same as DX pistol's, which I used as base. And "oddly enough", it worked fine.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Hassat Hunter

[Oblarg]

Nowhere in the tutorial was it made obvious that "If you're going to be effective with the pistol you're going to need to line up a crit for nearly every shot."

Ehm, yeah, it did.

It didn't even let you proceed unless you critted.

 

That was showing you how to crit, not showing that "you absolutely must crit every shot to be able to do any damage to enemies."

[Guest]

That was showing you how to crit, not showing that "you absolutely must crit every shot to be able to do any damage to enemies."

Exaggerate much?

 

Being able to "one-shot-kill" with a pistol is nice at higher levels, but it seems completely realistic that someone with no (or few) points invested in the skill is going to be able to do so. Kinda robs the player of seeing any return on their skill-point investment.

 

Yes, it's frustrating early on when I'm unloading clips into baddies who are way far away and only hitting occasionally, but that's what I get for believing that spies don't run around with assault weapons.

 

In short: crits aren't mandatory, though you seem hell-bent on insisting that they are. Yes, pistols do burn through ammo at anything further than mid-distance, but please tell me how that's any different than real-life (ya' know, the game's setting and stuff).

Edited September 21, 2010 by Achilles

[Oblarg]

That was showing you how to crit, not showing that "you absolutely must crit every shot to be able to do any damage to enemies."

Exaggerate much?

 

Being able to "one-shot-kill" with a pistol is nice at higher levels, but it seems completely realistic that someone with no (or few) points invested in the skill is going to be able to do so. Kinda robs the player of seeing any return on their skill-point investment.

 

Yes, it's frustrating early on when I'm unloading clips into baddies who are way far away and only hitting occasionally, but that's what I get for believing that spies don't run around with assault weapons.

 

In short: crits aren't mandatory, though you seem hell-bent on insisting that they are. Yes, pistols do burn through ammo at anything further than mid-distance, but please tell me how that's any different than real-life (ya' know, the game's setting and stuff).

 

Oh come on, at max skill you can unload a full clip at an enemy ten feet away from you without dropping him. That should never happen. The shooting system for pistols more or less completely revolved around lining up crits.

[Guest]

Oh come on, at max skill you can unload a full clip at an enemy ten feet away from you without dropping him. That should never happen. The shooting system for pistols more or less completely revolved around lining up crits.

First, I've never had that problem (probably because I've never tried to use a pistol like a SMG).

 

Second, have you ever fired a weapon?

 

If you had, you'd know that "emptying a clip" reduces accuracy. Especially if the target is moving.

 

I'm sorry that the real-world RPG was too realistic for you. Really.

[Oblarg]

Oh come on, at max skill you can unload a full clip at an enemy ten feet away from you without dropping him. That should never happen. The shooting system for pistols more or less completely revolved around lining up crits.

First, I've never had that problem (probably because I've never tried to use a pistol like a SMG).

 

Second, have you ever fired a weapon?

 

If you had, you'd know that "emptying a clip" reduces accuracy. Especially if the target is moving.

 

I'm sorry that the real-world RPG was too realistic for you. Really.

 

Really, realism is never, ever, ever a good reason for a game mechanic.

 

Look, you can plug up your ears and refuse to accept what I'm saying, but the fact remains that Alpha Protocol's shooting plays significantly differently than most shooters on the market, yet the marketing and the tutorial did absolutely nothing to indicate this to potential players. Most people expect that in a shooter if you point your gun at a nearby enemy and click repeatedly, that enemy will die.

[Hassat Hunter]

But where does it claim it's a shooter?

 

I find THE ESPIONAGE RPG on the box.

 

I blame ME2 for making people think that's how RPG's are...

[Oner]

There's still no excuse for people to not comprehend the "rules" of shooting after they can't hit the 10th guy with spray 'n' pray.

Adaptability? Whuzzat?

[C2B]

I'm wondering how anyone ever figured out D&D computer games without prior experience.....

 

 

Yes, I think if you can't figure out that a crit has higher accuracy especially since it's not really that new a element to wait for the recticle to close.... Well,...

[Oblarg]

But where does it claim it's a shooter?

 

I find THE ESPIONAGE RPG on the box.

 

I blame ME2 for making people think that's how RPG's are...

 

Did you not see the entire ****ing advertising campaign for the game? It was very clear they were attempting to attract mainstream shooter fans.

[C2B]

But where does it claim it's a shooter?

 

I find THE ESPIONAGE RPG on the box.

 

I blame ME2 for making people think that's how RPG's are...

 

Did you not see the entire ****ing advertising campaign for the game? It was very clear they were attempting to attract mainstream shooter fans.

 

To be honest what I remember from the marketing campaign was Choice,Choice,Choice. That includes a misleading campaign with Choice in Level Design which wasn't really much there. But I never remember them cartering to something that is unique to a shooter.

 

Can you please give an example?

Edited September 21, 2010 by C2B

[Guest]

Really, realism is never, ever, ever a good reason for a game mechanic.

I must have been absent on the day that this was handed down as an immutable law of the universe, so forgive me if I'm a little too ready do dismiss this as your opinion and nothing more.

 

 

Look, you can plug up your ears and refuse to accept what I'm saying, but the fact remains that Alpha Protocol's shooting plays significantly differently than most shooters on the market

Good thing I paid attention and bought it because it was an RPG and not a shooter.

 

yet the marketing and the tutorial did absolutely nothing to indicate this to potential players.

I remember there being an extensive shooting tutorial.

 

Several other people seem to remember it as well.

 

It IS optional though. Perhaps you simply missed it?

 

Most people expect that in a shooter if you point your gun at a nearby enemy and click repeatedly, that enemy will die.

"Most people" do or think lots of things. Is appeal to the lowest common denominator really the best argument that you have?

[Oblarg]

Really, realism is never, ever, ever a good reason for a game mechanic.

I must have been absent on the day that this was handed down as an immutable law of the universe, so forgive me if I'm a little too ready do dismiss this as your opinion and nothing more.

 

 

Look, you can plug up your ears and refuse to accept what I'm saying, but the fact remains that Alpha Protocol's shooting plays significantly differently than most shooters on the market

Good thing I paid attention and bought it because it was an RPG and not a shooter.

 

yet the marketing and the tutorial did absolutely nothing to indicate this to potential players.

I remember there being an extensive shooting tutorial.

 

Several other people seem to remember it as well.

 

It IS optional though. Perhaps you simply missed it?

 

Most people expect that in a shooter if you point your gun at a nearby enemy and click repeatedly, that enemy will die.

"Most people" do or think lots of things. Is appeal to the lowest common denominator really the best argument that you have?

 

Well, seeing as you're determined to not read my posts (I have mentioned what was wrong with the tutorial multiple times), I really don't know if I'm going to bother to do a point-by-point refutation. The "everyone is stupid and the game is 100% fine" approach is a moronic way to write off several errors that really hurt how well Alpha Protocol could have done. There's no "lowest common denominator" here, there is a very large number of players who were very understandably frustrated that the shooting did not work as they expected, especially in the initial levels, and the game did very little to indicate that the mechanics were fundamentally different than most other shooters.

 

The main problem, as I indicated way back several pages ago (which no one read, because it seems everyone here is intent on jumping on anyone who so much as hints that Alpha Protocol is not a flawless masterpiece) is that adding RPG hit mechanics to a game which already requires twitch aiming is at best very difficult to implement and at worst a really ****ing stupid idea, because they are two mechanics which accomplish the exact same thing and are thus to some extent incompatible. Alpha Protocol did not get the balance quite right, as it leaned too far to the RPG mechanics side while not toning down the shooting side to match. The absolutely horrible scaling curves for weapon skill and two nearly useless weapon classes didn't help. Now, I have stated about three times that overall AP's shooting did work once you got your weapon skill up and adjusted to the "line up crit or don't bother shooting" idea (actually, assault rifles worked reasonably without lining up a full crit, to be fair), but there was very little in game to indicate how the shooting would work, other than a tutorial that did little more than show people how to use each weapon (and nothing about how to be effective with each weapon). Claiming that the sole reason many people disliked APs gameplay was "people are stupid look at me I'm so smart I could figure it out herp derp" is ****ing pathetic.

[Purkake]

Attempting to engage in an intellectual discourse with Achilles is a lengthy and ultimately fruitless effort, as I learned a few months before.

[C2B]

It IS optional though. Perhaps you simply missed it?Claiming that the sole reason many people disliked APs gameplay was "people are stupid look at me I'm so smart I could figure it out herp derp" is ****ing pathetic.

 

Who said that? AP's gameplay is less than stellar YES.It's largly unbalanced. But to expect people to figure out that you have to wait a bit before shooting ISN'T. I have to adjust to the gameplay in nearly every game I have played. I had to adjust to the gameplay when I first played a cover shooter. I had to adjust to the gameplay when I first played a stealth game.

 

Also you do the same. You ignore posts, don't remark points others made to continue your rambling etc.etc. Also, according to your rant every game ever has a bad tutorial. Because I don't really remember a shooter/action game that teached me tactics and while AP's tutorial wasn't stellar it should have teached you enough to get relativly good through the game.

 

 

P.S Just too add. After I figured everything out the game was way too easy except for bosses in all weapon categories. Hell, you can get easily through most of the levels by just punching all dudes.

Edited September 21, 2010 by C2B

[Guest]

Well, seeing as you're determined to not read my posts (I have mentioned what was wrong with the tutorial multiple times), I really don't know if I'm going to bother to do a point-by-point refutation.

Actually, I read every word of your posts. I clearly see where you've insisted that it doesn't point out (in words that you understood) what many others here (including myself) seemed to have no problem grasping at all: crits are better than non-crits with the pistol.

 

Your "you can't hit anything without a crit" strawman is, well, a strawman. If you want to insist that it's true, then that's your business, but that doesn't make it reality.

 

The "everyone is stupid and the game is 100% fine" approach is a moronic way to write off several errors that really hurt how well Alpha Protocol could have done. There's no "lowest common denominator" here, there is a very large number of players who were very understandably frustrated that the shooting did not work as they expected, especially in the initial levels, and the game did very little to indicate that the mechanics were fundamentally different than most other shooters.

The point (again) is that AP is not shooter. I know that you really, really want to insist that it is, but it says RPG right on the box.

 

The main problem, as I indicated way back several pages ago (which no one read, because it seems everyone here is intent on jumping on anyone who so much as hints that Alpha Protocol is not a flawless masterpiece) is that adding RPG hit mechanics to a game which already requires twitch aiming is at best very difficult to implement and at worst a really ****ing stupid idea, because they are two mechanics which accomplish the exact same thing and are thus to some extent incompatible.

Ok then you've made your point. Guess what? Not everyone agrees with you.

 

Get over it and move on.

 

words

Ok, well thanks for sharing your opinion. Again, opinion != fact. People disagree with your take on the game. You can accept this and move or continue to attempt to shout down people that got it was an RPG (and not a shooter) and had absolutely no problem playing the game as it was *raises hand*

[Oblarg]

Well, seeing as you're determined to not read my posts (I have mentioned what was wrong with the tutorial multiple times), I really don't know if I'm going to bother to do a point-by-point refutation.

Actually, I read every word of your posts. I clearly see where you've insisted that it doesn't point out (in words that you understood) what many others here (including myself) seemed to have no problem grasping at all: crits are better than non-crits with the pistol.

 

Your "you can't hit anything without a crit" strawman is, well, a strawman. If you want to insist that it's true, then that's your business, but that doesn't make it reality.

 

The "everyone is stupid and the game is 100% fine" approach is a moronic way to write off several errors that really hurt how well Alpha Protocol could have done. There's no "lowest common denominator" here, there is a very large number of players who were very understandably frustrated that the shooting did not work as they expected, especially in the initial levels, and the game did very little to indicate that the mechanics were fundamentally different than most other shooters.

The point (again) is that AP is not shooter. I know that you really, really want to insist that it is, but it says RPG right on the box.

 

The main problem, as I indicated way back several pages ago (which no one read, because it seems everyone here is intent on jumping on anyone who so much as hints that Alpha Protocol is not a flawless masterpiece) is that adding RPG hit mechanics to a game which already requires twitch aiming is at best very difficult to implement and at worst a really ****ing stupid idea, because they are two mechanics which accomplish the exact same thing and are thus to some extent incompatible.

Ok then you've made your point. Guess what? Not everyone agrees with you.

 

Get over it and move on.

 

words

Ok, well thanks for sharing your opinion. Again, opinion != fact. People disagree with your take on the game. You can accept this and move or continue to attempt to shout down people that got it was an RPG (and not a shooter) and had absolutely no problem playing the game as it was *raises hand*

 

You're not reading my posts. I never said AP is a shooter. I said a lot of the marketing was aimed towards the shooter crowd.

 

Fanboys are insufferable. Yes, Obsidian is a great developer. No, they're not perfect.

 

And you don't even know what a strawman is.

[Volourn]

"I'm sorry that the real-world RPG was too realistic for you. Really."

 

Excepty AP wasn't realistic espicially in the combat aspect. But, that wasn't what was wrong with it anyways. *shrug* Games aren't meant to be realistic.

[C2B]

You're not reading my posts. I never said AP is a shooter. I said a lot of the marketing was aimed towards the shooter crowd.

 

And fantastically you never gave me an example. Seriously? Where was it marketed as a shooter. The entire marketing campaign was CHOICE, CHOICE, CHOICE. The whole level design part of it was misleading but I don't remember one add that said. HEY LOOK HERE GREAT SHOOTER.

 

And also. What are you here complaining about? He accepts your opinion. But don't think for a second that your opinion is the only one in the world.

 

Yes, Gameplay was broken. Did it hinder the other parts of the game too much? IMO, no.

Edited September 21, 2010 by C2B

[Guest]

You're not reading my posts. I never said AP is a shooter. I said a lot of the marketing was aimed towards the shooter crowd.

 

The most recent example (for expediency):

 

"the mechanics were fundamentally different than most other shooters" (Emphasis added).

 

You seem to be categorizing it as a shooter here.

 

P.S. the post in which you said it was a shooter was quoted in the post where you claimed that you've not called it a shooter. Maybe it's time to stop posting now?

 

Fanboys are insufferable. Yes, Obsidian is a great developer. No, they're not perfect.

 

I agree with you about Obsidian. Not sure why that makes me insufferable.

 

And you don't even know what a strawman is.

Trashing AP (an RPG) for being a bad shooter is a strawman. If you need links or pictures, let me know. Pretty sure I can provide both.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Achilles

[Oblarg]

You're not reading my posts. I never said AP is a shooter. I said a lot of the marketing was aimed towards the shooter crowd.

 

The most recent example (for expediency):

 

"the mechanics were fundamentally different than most other shooters" (Emphasis added).

 

You seem to be categorizing it as a shooter here.

 

Fanboys are insufferable. Yes, Obsidian is a great developer. No, they're not perfect.

 

I agree with you about Obsidian. Not sure why that makes me insufferable.

 

And you don't even know what a strawman is.

Trashing AP (an RPG) for being a bad shooter is a strawman. If you need links or pictures, let me know. Pretty sure I can provide both.

 

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

[Guest]

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

Ok, well anyone that's been following along can read what I wrote and read what you wrote and make their own minds about who is being consistent here and who isn't.

 

You've made your point and you don't seem to be willing to accept that others can have opinions that differ from yours, so please help me understand how any future posts from you should be considered anything other than trolling.

[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?