[Starwars]

New interview, good read: http://www.hookedgamers.com/features/2010/03/12/matt_maclean_and_matt_rorie_talk_alpha_protocol.html

The television news will automatically follow your progress and report on the major events that happen in the game world, so if you walk into a combat mission and proceed to wipe out everything that moves, you can expect the news reporters to comment on the bloodbath at the train station (for example). You will also be able to feed information that you gain during the course of your missions to a reporter NPC that you meet fairly early on in the game, which can have some interesting repercussions down the line - unfortunately talking too much about that would veer into spoiler territory.

[Gareth]

Yes, that is what I'm complaining about, the objectives are literally "take out the next sub-boss", "destroy the vehicle", like a badly designed shooter. An RPG should give you a quest and may be some journal updates as hints, not objectives with check points.

You go to that area to catch the arab dude. You're updated that he is getting away in the vehicle convoy and that you need to get him out to succeed. It's a scripted sequence with a 'quest' update (He's getting away! Stop him!)

That seems like an unreasonable amount of hand-holding in a story-driven RPG huh?

Complaining for the sake of it, you are.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The point is it seems they're walking you through a series of linear checkpoints, not very RPGish. Not necessarily bad game design, just not particularly what I'm looking for.

[Gareth]

And the ending of VtmB where you were told to go kill LaCroix, and then his bodyguard intervened and you had to kill him first before killing laCroix, was that 'not very RPGish'? You know, Deus Ex also had a comm link chap who'd update your objectives when you did shit too, like all the time.

I really fail to see the difference here. The player is given the objective to go get the arab dude. He is spotted by the sub-boss so has to kill him (though that doesn't guarantee that you can't avoid the mini-boss) and then he has to destroy the vehicle when the Arab tries to get away, in order to get him out.

He did the mission with a character who has skills in stealth and shooting shit, and he stuffed up the stealth part. We weren't shown any hacking or anything but you seem to have leaped to the conclusion that there is none, and that the game is linear. From just that video, and because the chick on intel comm shows updated objectives when you trigger certain events?

Your choice dude, but you're making some fairly large leaps there.

[Wrath of Dagon]

May be, I haven't played the game, so I can't be sure. That's just the appearance the demo gave me, nor have I seen anything to indicate otherwise in the past.

[Ellorien]

Looks like a shooter with mediocre animation to me, obviously ME-inspired (Obsidian, never original). Also, judging on appearance, there is not much "stealth" worth mentioning.
Seriously, Obsidian and BioWare should stop calling their games RPG.

[Starwars]

New interview with SEGA producer. Some mixed gameplay stuff shown, not sure if there's anything new: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-10-alpha-protocol/63325

Preview: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2010/03/18/alpha-protocol-show-consequences-of-decisions/

Interview with Avellone (on a variety of topics): http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/obsidians-chris-avellone-interview?page=1

[Gareth]

ooks like a shooter with mediocre animation to me, obviously ME-inspired (Obsidian, never original). Also, judging on appearance, there is not much "stealth" worth mentioning.
Seriously, Obsidian and BioWare should stop calling their games RPG.

I'm disappointed in how 'Codex' people are being around here. You watched an 'associate producer' playing while doing an interview and clearly fumbling his stealth attempt and now you're leaping to quick judgement.

How about this, a journalist actually sits and plays the game properly and :

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/alpha-protocol-hands-on

You definitely do have an impact on how the game actually plays, though, depending on how you choose to develop your character. Playing the same mission three times with different character builds, it's easy to see that it really is possible to approach Alpha Protocol in quite drastically different ways.

Taking the stealth approach involves pumping all your stat points into hand-to-hand combat and avoiding detection. Stealth-specialised characters have an Awareness skill that puts arrows on the screen representing where enemies are and whether they're aware of your presence. It's easier to sneak up behind them, and there's a usable Shadow Running skill that makes you effectively invisible. Pressing the d-pad to the right brings up your skills wheel, allowing you to deploy a sharp-shooting or stealth-enhancing ability at crucial moments.

In the mission provided for the hands-on, which was towards the latter third of the game, this meant picking locks and using a silenced pistol to work an alternative route around the level without being detected, either incapacitating enemies with a punch to the throat or a chokehold or avoiding them entirely. Unfortunately, triggering an alarm usually led to instant death - it wasn't the most forgiving approach, but it was rewarding.

Playing with a soldier build, things were much, much simpler. With high hit points and SMG skill, it was entirely plausible to simply run into rooms and mow everything down without even having to bother with cover, using aggro and rapid-fire skills for quick boosts. With a tech-focused character, it was easier to hack security cameras and bypass the infuriating hacking mini-games with an EMP. There was also more inventory space for gadgets, like a radio mimic to call off an alarm or a sound generator to distract sentries.

Sounds much better than ME2, for all that I liked that game a lot. Sounds like Deus Ex, which is a win in my book.

That article is also amusing because it criticizes problems that were evident in ME2 or F3 as well :

There are two main problems with this at the moment: first, choosing wildly differing responses makes Thorton come across as a mentalist, and second, almost everything that Thorton says makes you want to either roll your eyes or punch him in the teeth. He's an arrogant smartarse, and his delivery often falls well wide of the intended Jack Bauer or James Bond mark.

his has a lot of counter-intuitive implications. Empty a clip of bullets into an enemy's head, and the damage done is determined by your character sheet rather than where you're aiming or how powerful the gun is - so you can rush up to a boss and unload a shotgun into his stomach, and it will do practically no damage if your shotgun stat isn't high. Try to fire an assault rifle from far away without the requisite skill points, and you simply won't hit anything, no matter where you aim.

Guess Obsidian didn't pay enough for advertising hype.

[Starwars]

Good about the different ways to play through the game, though I certainly hope there won't be that much of a huge difficulty leap between stealth and all out kill machine.

About the way Thorton sounds and acts, well. Could be valid I suppose. Nothing in the trailers have bothered me here but I know lots of people don't like it.

The last quote is indeed silly as hell. It's just the type of thing that a preview would "forget" if writing about a game coming from a big developer (like you say, Fallout 3 is a prime example). Granted, in games that look "realistic" so to speak, it always looks a bit weird to unload a magazine into someones head and not do much damage. But if the pay-off is that we choose our specializations (even though Eurogamer feels this is a bad thing for a RPG), then I'm all for it.

Pretty good news all around for me, but the tone of the preview is disappointing.

[micks]

I'm disappointed in how 'Codex' people are being around here.

Well, I for one find the sentiment understandable.
I'm trying my best to be optimistic about the game, but I have to admit from what I've seen so far, it doesn't look like my cup of tea at all. I'm not a big fan of the third person perspective in the genre, the way the spy theme appears to be handled is disappointingly cheesy and over the top and the dialogue system gives me the creeps.
In fact, if it wasn't made by Obsidian and have MCA as the lead designer, by now my interest would likely have dropped to zero.

That article is also amusing because it criticizes problems that were evident in ME2 or F3 as well[...]Guess Obsidian didn't pay enough for advertising hype.

But does the fact that the reviewers failed to mention similar shortcomings of other games invalidate the criticism?
I haven't played ME2, but with FO3 these (lacklustre FPS mechanics, bad writing) were some of the primary reasons that made me uninstall the game after ~10 hours. Where Deus Ex offered a well thought-out and enjoyable combination of player skill vs. character skill (or stat) based FPS gameplay elements, FO3 offered a half-baked compromise. This, for me at least, took most fun out of combat.

As for Thornton's lines, I don't really mind so much if he can change his attitude completely between two sentences, but the fact that he apparently often comes across as an idiot is disheartening. With MCA on board, I'd expect writing to be one of the game's selling points, not something that makes you "roll your eyes" or want to "punch [the protagonist] in the teeth". 

[Gareth]

the way the spy theme appears to be handled is disappointingly cheesy and over the top

It strikes me as pretty similar to Bond/Bourne/Bauer. And no cheesier than any other RPG of the last few years, save perhaps MotB.

the dialogue system gives me the creeps.

I'm uncertain about the timed dialogue thing, but I'm willing to give it a try. It looks like ME2s dialogue wheel with a timer. I can generally decide on a response quickly so I don't think it will be a massive problem.

But does the fact that the reviewers failed to mention similar shortcomings of other games invalidate the criticism?

No, but I don't consider it a shortcoming.

A) You can choose dialogue answers with different tones in the same conversation : How is this different from any dialogue heavy RPG? You're generally given options which include 'nice' and 'sarky', and yes you can alternate from response to response. What is a better option? To not offer those options? Let the player decide once up front if they are going to be naughty or nice and refuse to let them vary it once they choose? It's a silly complaint.

B) How is it a problem that your skills affect your damage output? So you shoot the guy in the head and he doesn't drop. Well, clearly that is less believable than if you hit him in the head with a massive great Maul and he doesn't drop! No, it isn't. This is a standard with RPG combat, you suspend your disbelief slightly in the name of fun combat gameplay. Sarevok in BG1 cost me over 20 arrows to take down. If the fact that that was iso perspective is enough to hide the obvious disconnect from reality from players then those players aren't thinking very hard.

ut the fact that he apparently often comes across as an idiot is disheartening. With MCA on board, I'd expect writing to be one of the game's selling points, not something that makes you "roll your eyes" or want to "punch [the protagonist] in the teeth".

I've watched the videos, I don't see what he was talking about. Unless they are WILDLY different from what it is like for most of the game then he is just your standard action-guy voice ala ME2's male VO actor, and the lines are fine. Maybe not the best you could hope for, but wildly worse than most other games you've played in recent memory? I really doubt it.

[micks]

@Gareth:

The points you make are perfectly valid, it's mostly that we look at the problem from the opposing "the glass is half empty/half full" standpoints. I agree in that it doesn't sound any worse than most games of the last few years, but then again, I was hoping for something exceptional rather than just  average. The dialogue system could turn out ok, I just can't help feeling sceptical, etc.
 
About the damage output feature: you are absolutely right that this is a standard with RPG combat. I  just think it doesn't work all that well with real-time shooter hybrids. It's not fun. If the game ties your character skill to how easy/challenging it is to hit an opponent (by making your speed, movement, aim, recoil, etc. skill dependent), it's cool. Shooting someone repeatedly in the head with a shotgun from point blank range and failing to kill them because you only have points in "small guns", not so much. Just my opinion.

I pre-ordered anyway, so I hope you're right and the game turns out good.

[One Wolf]

concerning the damage\skill thing, that`s pretty much the way I want it although I`d prefer a miss as opposed to no damage.  In an RPG with abilities tied to stats and skills, I`m not sure there`s any other way, is there?

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's also impossible to tell, at this stage, what effect your choices have in these conversations. Taking different approaches each time we played the hands-on missions changed the other character's immediate response dialogue, but we still ended up playing the same levels afterwards.

To me that's more the point. The fact that you can play shooter/stealth/hacking is nice, but some of the Splinter Cells have done that too, and a few shooters as well, so that doesn't necessarily make it much of an RPG.

[Gareth]

But don't you think you're being just a little too skeptical? This is Obsidian and Chris Avellone, go read the interview with him where he talks about his definition of an RPG. These guys know what an RPG is, their company focuses exclusively on making RPGs, they say it is an RPG and that your choices affect the path through the game and you think what, they are lying? Sell outs?

It may be a bad game but I don't really doubt it will be an RPG.