-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Alpha Protocol |OT| Bourne, Avellone, Denton, and the Agency's Sagacious Secrets
- Thread starter Tokubetsu
- Start date
You can do that with any class, as long as you've gone far enough up in the Technical Aptitude tree.
Good to see big time press post-liking it, it's unfortunate they didn't think as much when it was released.
Also, pretty ridiculous to think Halbech is a reference to Blackwater of all things, instead of the super obvious Halliburton.
The conclusion is spot on, though. Someone steal Alpha Protocol's design already.
No, the game is only in hard difficulty if you use weapons more power than pistols actually. If you go full stealth + CQC takedowns, it's still easy mode. But the big guns just make the game hilariously harder.
My thought process was that since the stealth playthrough I initially had was rather easy, if I went full rambo I wanted it to be a bit harder. So I played on Hard with a full rambo character with automatic weapons. Worst mistake ever. Made it to the Rome boss and got screwed by an autosave into the boss encounter. Fucking impossible bullshit. Loool.
Yeah that was what I tried to sayNo, the game is only in hard difficulty if you use weapons more power than pistols actually. If you go full stealth + CQC takedowns, it's still easy mode. But the big guns just make the game hilariously harder.
Okay, this is quite random, but I wanted to get this out.
I initially liked the real-time, abbreviated dialogue stance mechanics. But I don't now after a couple of playthroughs. Let me list the characteristics of the mechanics.
- Real-time creates a sense of urgency, and perhaps even some tension. Unnecessary if it gets in the way of more important aspects.
- Real-time means it's more cinematic than any other dialogue cutscenes.
- Real-time means the pc's dialogue lines need to be abbreviated.
- Stances mean pc can have just as many lines as npcs as the stance can be carried through a long exchange. Not really a positive or a negative, perhaps more cinematic.
- Stances can mean it's pretty difficult to tell what the pc is going to say. For example, when talking to a female npc, is Suave going to make Thorton make a light-hearted quip or flirt?
- Real-time plus stances can mean the player doesn't have adequate time to consider his choices; in other words player choices are obscured. This is important because the game is pretty heavy on C&C, and it's all done through dialogue.
Looking at those, overall, it's trading clarity in choices with cinematic presentation. I know which I prefer every time.
I initially liked the real-time, abbreviated dialogue stance mechanics. But I don't now after a couple of playthroughs. Let me list the characteristics of the mechanics.
- Real-time creates a sense of urgency, and perhaps even some tension. Unnecessary if it gets in the way of more important aspects.
- Real-time means it's more cinematic than any other dialogue cutscenes.
- Real-time means the pc's dialogue lines need to be abbreviated.
- Stances mean pc can have just as many lines as npcs as the stance can be carried through a long exchange. Not really a positive or a negative, perhaps more cinematic.
- Stances can mean it's pretty difficult to tell what the pc is going to say. For example, when talking to a female npc, is Suave going to make Thorton make a light-hearted quip or flirt?
- Real-time plus stances can mean the player doesn't have adequate time to consider his choices; in other words player choices are obscured. This is important because the game is pretty heavy on C&C, and it's all done through dialogue.
Looking at those, overall, it's trading clarity in choices with cinematic presentation. I know which I prefer every time.
How would you feel if their was a perk that showed you if the npc would like/dislike you depending on your response? I.e Suave +1 Intimidate -1 ....etc
That's kind of the point, innit?
You're a superspy on a mission to stop the evil guys from blowing up the world, you don't have time to think twice about shit, you just choose. It works because a spy game is supposed to be cinematic. It this were a game about elves and dwarves it'd be different.
That doesn't solve any problems because you still wouldn't know what choosing Suave or Intimidate would make Thorton say. Worse, giving the player the information about how the npc would react would only incentivise choosing options that go one extreme (+10) or the other (-10).
Sure, and that's exactly my problem - the game chose style over substance. The game is not providing the most accurate and complete information it can because of the style of presentation embedded as a mechanic. That may feel like a spy game, but, really, the trade-off isn't worth it to me.
I personally never had a problem with it in my 5+ playthroughs and in fact I wish it was implemented in more games. Wouldn't want the system in every RPG, but it just looks cool on cinematic games and makes conversations feel a lot more natural, since there aren't really dialogue trees.
And I don't think it's style over substance. Some games use dialogue trees, some don't, it's an aesthetic choice in both cases, and it has to do with what suits the game better. Alpha Protocol is about being James freaking Bond, of course it's gonna be cinematic, and reading two paragraphs of dialogue while Goldfinger waits for you to blow up the UNICEF headquarters sounds a bit less engaging
"Can you hold on for a minute? I need to look up just what to say on Gamefaqs."
I like/want mechanics and systems that are least compromised. The real-time stances don't add anything to C&C, and do in fact keep the player in the dark to an extent.
They are there to immerse you into the role of a spy, they're mechanically working together with the context to make the most out of it.
I just think taking a traditional dialogue mechanics approach wouldn't make the game any less a spy game, only bringing net benefits. The thing I do like that plays a part in dialogue is the Dossiers which give a general idea of what stances to take against different characters. But that doesn't need real-time stances to work.
I'm sure it could be done with dialogue trees, but I'm content with how it is and I actually like it a lot.
It's just Mass Effect done right.
Except it's not a net benefit. The real time is there for a reason. It's supposed to force you to make a quick choice. It's not a handicap, it's a benefit.
It's also why they always boil things down to Suave/Direct/Aggressive and they're always in the same place. Once you learn where the three options lie, there's really no need to look at what they actually say. You already know what the tone of the answer/question will be, and if you researched the dossiers you should have an idea of what a person will respond to.
It's like the levels in Mario that are constantly scrolling in order to force you to move.
It's a gameplay conceit. Removing that would do major harm to the game.
It's a net loss or benefit depending where your priorities lie.
The real-time is there for cinematic presentation. It doesn't actually make one "think quickly"; the real-time is a problem not because of real-time but because of the consequent stances. The stances don't always adequately convey the message. I've already given an example. Another example can be, it's difficult to tell the difference between Professional and Direct.
It's simple in how it plays out: cinematic presentation > real-time > stances > lack of clarity.
Note that the lack of clarity is in the message, not in how npcs react to it*; dossiers help there. It's not a glaring flaw of the game, it works. But it's compromised because it makes a poor trade-off, and can otherwise be better.
*Come to think of it, with dossiers you're learning how npcs respond to different attitudes, and not necessarily to what the actual content of Thorton's lines is.
The real-time is there for cinematic presentation. It doesn't actually make one "think quickly"; the real-time is a problem not because of real-time but because of the consequent stances. The stances don't always adequately convey the message. I've already given an example. Another example can be, it's difficult to tell the difference between Professional and Direct.
It's simple in how it plays out: cinematic presentation > real-time > stances > lack of clarity.
Note that the lack of clarity is in the message, not in how npcs react to it*; dossiers help there. It's not a glaring flaw of the game, it works. But it's compromised because it makes a poor trade-off, and can otherwise be better.
*Come to think of it, with dossiers you're learning how npcs respond to different attitudes, and not necessarily to what the actual content of Thorton's lines is.
It's not difficult to differentiate between the three.
The idea always was Suave = Bond, Professional = Bourne, Aggressive = Bauer. In one you'll crack jokes, in one you'll get to the point in a neutral fashion and in one you'll make threats and get heated.
And it's not compromised, because the game is designed for it.
I also have no idea how you can say the player doesn't have to think quickly, because they do due to the fuse that's always counting down.
I think we're going to agree to disagree, because I think anyone who claims that the timed responses is a negative doesn't really get what they were going for.
Well, yeah? I mean you only have a couple seconds... The stance system is there just so you don't have to read three whole sentences before you make up your mind.
And as for the lack in clarity in the contents of what you say, well, not so much, really. I mean, whenever you get choices like "suave" or "professional", basically you're gonna say the same thing on all 3 choices, you're just changing how you say it. In other choices you just get more straightforward and clear options:
Recurring stances like Suave and Professional don't always say the same thing in different tones. And that's beside the fact that each stance on its own can be interpreted to mean different things. As for the image, that's significantly more clear (except for the Curious), thus better. Edit: They're more clear because they're like "actions" or "commands" instead of "attitudes".
I did have a few lines in the game that felt off but they could have been fixed in content creation. Maybe once there is a sentence that twists from what someone may expect in the last few words which could lead a person to want to switch stances within .5 seconds. I really liked the system and thought it made the conversations a back and forth part of gameplay. By having the constantly advancing conversations and no reading of dialog ahead of time i feel like it allows the typical conversation to be longer than a traditional crpg conversation system. It also removes the whole hunt and peck or dialog exhaustion part of the game.
I noted this earlier in my argument, that abbreviations allow for the pc to have comparable amount of lines to those of npcs. But this is not a positive. Not also a negative on its own, but it causes issues elsewhere.
The necessity for the pc to have comparable amount of dialogue is simply a part of striving for cinematic presentation. Or more precisely, fully voiced protagonists. It would feel odd to have the pc speak one or two sentences for every five to ten sentences an npc speaks. Not to mention it drastically reduces the pc's (his/her face's) screen time. A clear negative in cinematic presentation.
You could address that with full text. If the pc has five sentences to say, and each node has a minimum of three options to choose from, you're looking at fifteen sentences. Not only this is difficult to implement from console/TV display UI perspective, and not good for UX, it'd also be seen as something archaic by press and players at large.
One way to address the issue is to implement abbreviations. Mass Effect did this. Alpha Protocol went for a more sophisticated approach, and is, in fact, much better for it. But it inherits the same problems that Mass Effect has, even if to a much lesser extent. And as I've indicated in my previous post, this is mostly a problem with attitude stances rather than options which are more like "actions".
Adding in a real-time layer exacerbates this issue. Because when time's running out, and you're not sure what the hell choosing Aggressive would make Thorton say, you're left with consulting the relevant dossier, which basically tells that choosing Aggressive wins the npc over/pisses him off. The problem with dossiers is that when their knowledge is applied, the player is encouraged to choose options that push the npc reputation to one extreme or the other (+/- 10), rather than choosing from options the player would want the pc to say.
All these complaints are in addition to the fact that the real-time stances don't actually add anything to the C&C, to facilitate which is the primary goal of dialogue mechanics. My argument has been that my complaints hinder said C&C.
Considering facilitating C&C is the primary goal (to me, at least) of dialogue mechanics, if the mechanics are inferior to another in all circumstances, then they're obsolete.
The real-time stances are absolutely unnecessary to address this.
keltickennedy
Member
I was just thinking about picking this up on steam. How is it? What should I expect?
jankyness, and some of the best choice and consequence in any game ever.
Typographenia
Member
I think you will find yourself having a much better time with a focus on stealth/melee/pistols. I went all stealth and melee, and I had a great time (outside of one or two boss fights that demanded a weapon).
Also, feel free to jump around from any of the locales once the game opens up. It's not set in stone that you have to complete one entire area without ever exploring the others (and most people find it preferable to jump around).
Most importantly: have a good time! Alpha Protocol is a criminally underrated game. Easily one of my favorite games this entire generation.
Also, feel free to jump around from any of the locales once the game opens up. It's not set in stone that you have to complete one entire area without ever exploring the others (and most people find it preferable to jump around).
Most importantly: have a good time! Alpha Protocol is a criminally underrated game. Easily one of my favorite games this entire generation.
big suggestion would be not to spec assault on your first run
go stealth + pistols so you get to play the game at its finest (which isn't mechanically amazing but it's decent), then you can try out other stuff
also the early parts of saudi arabia are kind of lame, but I promise you it gets a whole lot better later on, so if you're not excited at first just bear with it and you'll be glad you did
finally remember you don't have to beat every mission in a country before moving on to another one, so if you get stuck in taipei or something you can just bail and try moscow