Videos of presentation by Matt MacLean at Game Design Expo

[funcroc]

 

http://www.gamedesignexpo.com/videos/

Edited September 4, 2010 by funcroc

[Starwars]

I really, really enjoyed watching that. But I must say that there are many things that I disagree with. Matt felt like the final level in Alpha Protocol was really good for example, but to me it's easily the worst part of the game outside of the fact that you get to "wrap it up". Some of the challenges thrown at you feel overtly "gamey" and artificial (rocket launcher placement anyone?). Also, (this is not related to the challenge though) while it's nice that you return to the where you started out the game, the problem is that it's just not a very interesting location visually speaking. In fact, I would say that it's probably the most boring one in the game.

It also breaks what I feel to be a fairly important design decision of the game in that you have to kill at least one fairly big main character, even if you choose to use non-lethal means to take him down. Yeah, the numbers on the stat page say non-lethal but the game plays as if the character dies.

 

I think a lot of people will watch these vids and feel that what Matt is saying does not match up at all with their personal experiences with Alpha Protocol. I think there is a great insight though in that he says that they kinda lost their objective view, got desensitized, of how the game plays.

Personally I think it's a lot of fun to play, I'm one of the people who think the weapons feel good to use, I enjoy that you have to aim, the stealth stuff and so forth. But it is a pretty unbalanced game overall, with wonky AI and all that. But I think making AP has been a great learning experience for the designers involved with it.

 

He's right on the money when he talks about Left 4 Dead btw.

 

Also, beards. But no drinking game.

 

Very enjoyable presentation.

[WorstUsernameEver]

I honestly lolled at the 'making our enemies easy made their AI look buggy' because that's exactly how the AI ended up anyway.

Plus, the challenge level in Alpha Protocol was kinda wonky in general, I'm surprised he seemed so pleased with it.

[Oner]

AP isn't too hard when you play on normal, and I had stuttering.

Except Marburg's villa when you're unarmed without Martial Arts, gah.

[WorstUsernameEver]

AP isn't too hard when you play on normal, and I had stuttering.

Except Marburg's villa when you're unarmed without Martial Arts, gah.

 

It's not too hard, but it is wonky. The game is incredibly easy for some builds and incredibly difficult for others, plus, some bosses are just plain unfair (see Brayko) in how they are designed.

[C2B]

I really, really enjoyed watching that. But I must say that there are many things that I disagree with. Matt felt like the final level in Alpha Protocol was really good for example, but to me it's easily the worst part of the game outside of the fact that you get to "wrap it up". Some of the challenges thrown at you feel overtly "gamey" and artificial (rocket launcher placement anyone?). Also, (this is not related to the challenge though) while it's nice that you return to the where you started out the game, the problem is that it's just not a very interesting location visually speaking. In fact, I would say that it's probably the most boring one in the game.

It also breaks what I feel to be a fairly important design decision of the game in that you have to kill at least one fairly big main character, even if you choose to use non-lethal means to take him down. Yeah, the numbers on the stat page say non-lethal but the game plays as if the character dies.

 

I think a lot of people will watch these vids and feel that what Matt is saying does not match up at all with their personal experiences with Alpha Protocol. I think there is a great insight though in that he says that they kinda lost their objective view, got desensitized, of how the game plays.

Personally I think it's a lot of fun to play, I'm one of the people who think the weapons feel good to use, I enjoy that you have to aim, the stealth stuff and so forth. But it is a pretty unbalanced game overall, with wonky AI and all that. But I think making AP has been a great learning experience for the designers involved with it.

 

He's right on the money when he talks about Left 4 Dead btw.

 

Also, beards. But no drinking game.

 

Very enjoyable presentation.

 

It mostly does match up with mine. While I fully agree with the gameplay beeing wonky I actually think that the end location WAS the most interesting and varied one. Sure I was in Tapei and Moskau but the design of the enviroments and overall feel were rather bland. The hotel in taipei came close but that was more for the fact that its probably the most interesting mission in the entire game. Though it could have been so much more.

 

AP's main problem (in terms of gameplay. Story/Dialog/E-Mails were all well designed. Well except for descriptions on the dialougewheel) is that there went serious things wrong in the concept phase and resulting design problems in my opinion. Development Hell and Mitsoda leaving probably didn't help either.

Edited September 4, 2010 by C2B

[WorstUsernameEver]

To be fair, he actually never talks about the final location in the presentation. At least, I haven't heard anything about that.

[Starwars]

Sorry, to clarify I think the bit about that level was up on the screen.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Guess I'll need to rewatch it. Not now though.