Alpha Protocol

Lexx said:
Saudi Arabia is still "the beginning."
Click to expand...

Yeah, wait until last Taipei mission and first Moscow missions... that's where the shit(ty game design) really hits the fan.
What kind of a "roleplaying game" really forces you to build a all-out fighting character in an espionage setting? A shitty one.
By the way, no need to answer my question in the "what are you playing now" -thread - I already unistalled the game. Really regret buying this one.

Hey Maximaz, it's pretty similar to Lost... you kind of want to like it, but it's so damn hard with all that is simply almost intentionally done wrong. Atleast I will not have to go through potentially unbelievably and depressingly stupid ending and all the build-up like I did with Lost. Should have seen that one coming earlier like with this title.

Yup, not a fan.
 
Well, made myself put some more time into the game. I was tempted to try out Moscow but after hearing about a really difficult boss that required more in-game time, I went for Rome first.

I wouldn't say that my opinion has changed very much. There were some good sequences, yes. I loved the scouting part where I had to decide whether to take the shot and make an important decision right there, as opposed to a "press A or B" prompt type situation. That was great and stuff like that actually made me even more angry at Obsidian.

I know Sega probably demanded the game be released when it was but Obsidian should have physically fought to have the game delayed another year. It could really have been a fantastic game and a very successful franchise that could have taken the developer to another level. I honestly believe so.

Like I said, the potential is huge and becomes even more obvious as you progress. If I knew I was playing a very early build of a game, I'd count the minutes till release and I'm not exaggerating here. As it is though, I would not recommend it. I will try and finish Rome and Moscow but I will be blazing through, especially through the dreaded action missions. The game is simply FAR from finished.

Oh and I hate the dialog system. It wants me to pick an answer before an NPC is done talking. How in the hell am I supposed to know what to say, when I haven't heard what the other person has to say first??? At least, give me a freaking pause after they're done.

I just don't understand this. Obsidian made this complex flexible choice-and-consequence system and then didn't even completely think stuff like the dialog system or shooting mechanics through or fix walking animations, at least.
 
maximaz said:
Oh and I hate the dialog system. It wants me to pick an answer before an NPC is done talking. How in the hell am I supposed to know what to say, when I haven't heard what the other person has to say first??? At least, give me a freaking pause after they're done.
Click to expand...

Because the game aims to make dialogue more realistic and thus interesting? Tell me, how many times in real life do you say "Hold up, I need to think over what you've just said and pick an appropriate response"?
 
After a while, I started to like the dialog system and got no problems with it anymore. In most situations, you should know already while the npc is talking, in what sense you want to answer him. I see no big problems here.
 
Tagaziel said:
maximaz said:
Oh and I hate the dialog system. It wants me to pick an answer before an NPC is done talking. How in the hell am I supposed to know what to say, when I haven't heard what the other person has to say first??? At least, give me a freaking pause after they're done.
Click to expand...

Because the game aims to make dialogue more realistic and thus interesting? Tell me, how many times in real life do you say "Hold up, I need to think over what you've just said and pick an appropriate response"?
Click to expand...
I see your point, but I doubt you do always interupt someone in a converstion or just throw out answers. NOt when I talk with people at least.

Time to consider a bit your "answers" is a must. Particularly when you have to think about what might be coming out of it. I have to say I prefer it much how the Witcher is doing it (eventually just judging from the videos) where you have a converstion between 2 NPCs eventually and you just have a short time to decide with another NPC a tactic in combat or what to do next. I hope they will keep that for the more serious dialogue as well not just what kind of "attack" there should happen. Cant say how things work in Alpha Protocol. Just saying a realistic conversation leaves usualy enough room to think about your answer. But depends as well a lot about the kind of conversation. I would not expect in the heat of the battle someone to start a discussion about metaphysics or the cave alegory. But when you have time you should get it to think about it.
 
Tagaziel said:
maximaz said:
Oh and I hate the dialog system. It wants me to pick an answer before an NPC is done talking. How in the hell am I supposed to know what to say, when I haven't heard what the other person has to say first??? At least, give me a freaking pause after they're done.
Click to expand...
Because the game aims to make dialogue more realistic and thus interesting? Tell me, how many times in real life do you say "Hold up, I need to think over what you've just said and pick an appropriate response"?
Click to expand...

Realistic is the wrong term, I think. The whole game aims to give an atmosphere of 80s spy-schlock. "Realism" doesn't fit into that. Besides, realism is a really shitty goal for videogame design that usually ends up giving us stupid crap like Heavy Rain.

It's more about the overall design of immediacy and decision-making. The whole game hinges on making decisions only once and immediately. That's why it (quite uniquely) has a checkpoint-based save system that is actually a part of the game's overall design. The naturally-flowing, choice-filled dialogue is all a part of that.
 
Tagaziel said:
Because the game aims to make dialogue more realistic and thus interesting? Tell me, how many times in real life do you say "Hold up, I need to think over what you've just said and pick an appropriate response"?
Click to expand...

What? It's realistic to be required to answer just as soon as a person stops talking? In real life, do you think of a response while someone is speaking to you, instead of listening to what they have to say first? What if the last word is not what you are expecting? And then do you say something you don't mean sometimes because you couldn't come up with an answer right away but had the need to respond immediately?

I don't know about you but I usually let them finish before I come up with a response. You don't need to say, "hold up", you can just take a few seconds to absorb what was said and then respond. If you don't do that, you could actually be psychic.

If you ask me, the countdown should start when someone is done talking so you get a chance to read the responses and absorb what is being said.

In most situations, you should know already while the npc is talking, in what sense you want to answer him. I see no big problems here
Click to expand...

A lot of times the attitude is all that matters, I'll give you that, but when the choices are more specific or when the content of your response actually matters, it becomes a problem. Like when you talk to Leland and he asks you about your allies. I almost told him about Sis, before realizing that he was being vague and meant someone else. I don't remember most conversations but I've experienced a situation where I responded wishing I had a chance to think for a second more than once. I don't mind keeping the dialogues tense with a timer, just start it after a person is done talking. But that's just me.
 
maximaz said:
What? It's realistic to be required to answer just as soon as a person stops talking? In real life, do you think of a response while someone is speaking to you, instead of listening to what they have to say first?
Click to expand...

I too think that "realistic" is the wrong term but yes you do. Most of what influences your choice of words, tone and so forth in everyday conversation already happens during listening.
 
As Terry Pratchett would say, most people don't listen, they spend the pause when you're talking to figure out what they're going to say next.
 
C2B said:
I too think that "realistic" is the wrong term but yes you do. Most of what influences your choice of words, tone and so forth in everyday conversation already happens during listening.
Click to expand...

Partially, yes but you absolutely need a moment to respond. You don't fully come up with a response while they speak. When a person is cussing you out, sure, you may already decide to punch them, tell them off, or give them the finger. There are situations when it doesn't really matter what they say. However, when someone says "what is that in your..." you don't immediately think whether you should say "pen, wallet, change or banana" before AFTER they finish the sentence with "... pocket, hand, bag, ass".

EDIT: to be clear, I meant that you may already have those options in your head but you don't actually make a decision on one until after the question is completed.
 
I think this game was rated very low .
I never saw any bugs and finished it 2 times , very satisfying . And unexpected , i read reviews first .

Who didn't play it should consider carefully about what they're missing .
 
I've been meaning to try Alpha Protocol some day or another, but am worried about the supposed bugs. Is there a community patch or something similar I should definetly play with?
 
It's pretty much playable how it is right now. The bugs the game has are mainly ai fails or the wonky controls.
 
I've played through it 3 times now and didn't encounter one single bug. How people could say this game is unplayable is beyond me.
 
mobucks said:
fuckin hell i wnt stealth/melee.
Click to expand...

Go with stealth/meele but pick a weapon as the third option. Then its ok.

During normal levels there isn't a better combination than the two. It's just against bosses when both fail.

(Meele is actually pretty much the fastest way to get through the game)
 
Stealth/pistol/melee, because the pistol special ability fucks bosses up like it's nobody's business.
Besides, the pistol works great with stealth because it's the only weapon that can be silenced (I think? sub-sonic rounds don't count)
 
A pacifist run isn't possible anyway, as you sooner or later *have* to beat someone somehow.

But if you just care about not killing, then you can use weapons at boss fights, because you decide in the dialog if you want to kill him or not.
 
You can beat all the mandatory bosses purely in melee, unless you count the striker.

The trick is to keep attacking until they start blocking, wait till they attack and then start attacking again to cut them off (Jeet Kune Do: Intercepting Fist). You'll need an additional tactic against coke heads though.

Pistols are much easier.
 
I also did unarmed and stealth build , and really didn't have any kind of problems . Perks for stealth are just nasty .

But i used pistols a little , for that Russian but no big deal really . I don't know if anyone did just unarmed kind of a build and spent most points later on health and endurance but i think it's possible . Adrenaline Rush is very overpowered .
And if you can't win the boss of one town simply go to the next and level a bit but care about starting last missions because then it's impossible to go "out" . If you think you don't have it in you to kill the boss .

There's a funny animation on the first mini boss if you can creep up to him on the bridge :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top