140 réponses à ce sujet

[RunCDFirst]

Leafs43 wrote...

The only thing I am mad about is Obsidian's incapability of making a finished product.

My money is on Fallout New Vegas fails too.

Well, Obsidian as a company has only made one original IP which was decent. However, some of the creative members worked on both the original Fallouts and Baldur's Gate, so I think they're quite capable of making good original games.

I think New Vegas will be a godsend. My only worry is trying to decide game of the year between Civ V and New Vegas.

[Grand_Commander13]

You know what I think when I hear "My money is on Fallout New Vegas fails too"? "How could it? They only have to be better than Bethesda."

[HoonDing]

Fallout: New Vegas will be Fallout 3, but with better writing & better game mechanics. So how can it fail?

[In Exile]

condiments1 wrote...

Obsidian is better at providing better writing than Bioware and Bethesda but their games seriously lack polish. They are usually too ambitious for thier own in good.

The word you are looking for is poor designers. Look, I like Obsidian. They have interesting stories and they have some of the most talented writers in the business, even if those writers have a fetish for particular types of stories.

They cannot make workable games very well. They optimize poorly, and their gameplay leaves an incredible amount to desire. Their creative team is good, but they don't make good video games. Their concepts are awesome, their stories are great, but their execution leaves very much to be desired. Bioware doesn't reach their level of compexlity in their stories, but they write great ones, and they make great games, which is what I'm purchasing in the end.

Leinadi wrote...

With the right skills or class, you can have both in those two situations.

Really? Could you potentially share what the skill or class is? 

And most story-heavy games wouldn't even offer the choice in the first place, and definitely not risk the player failing to obtain an important piece of info.

You're killing an NPC early and missing out on as side-quest. This is not a  major design. It's just that Alpha Protocol has no side-quests in the traditional sense, so what they've implemented it as is all main-plot. That was their major design sacrifice. Now, I'm all for that, but let's be realistic about what they're doing.

Modifié par In Exile, 11 juillet 2010 - 12:40 .

[Ecael]

Leafs43 wrote...

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Obsidian can not make an original game that is good.

Obsidian constantly piggy backs other developers' franchises.

You sound like you're jealous that Obsidian's writers are better than Bioware's.  I'll take Kreia as a well-developed character over Bastilla, or any of the original crew, any day.

Considering all the love that Alpha Protocol is getting, here on Bioware's boards no less, I'd call into question your claim that Obsidian can't make a good, original game.

The only thing I am mad about is Obsidian's incapability of making a finished product.

My money is on Fallout New Vegas fails too.

Doubt it. Something would have to go horribly wrong for it to fail.

I wouldn't underestimate a Obsidian/Bethesda pairing.

[Dick Delaware]

virumor wrote...
There are some others - Fallout, Arcanum, VTM:B... Daggerfall.

Man, I loved Bloodlines, but that game was linear as hell. Yeah, you got a couple choices in the end and maybe some endings are blocked off because of how you treated certain people (like Max) but it's a very linear game. Great atmosphere, good dialogue, decent combat, and at its best it really is amazing, but dude, the game's story is set in stone for the most part.

Hell, if anything, the game rubs it in your face. The whole point is that your a pawn in the never-ending power games of a bunch of immortals that don't care about you.

[Aetheria]

I've not played Alpha Protocol and sadly never finished Fallout 3, so I can't compare them to any Bioware games, but...

Isn't the most reactive game world still just an illusion of choice? No matter how many paths the designers allow you to take, your character is still radically hemmed in compared to the breadth of choice you have every single moment in real life. Given that, it seems pointless to judge a game based solely on how many choices it gives you - the real issue should be, how good is the game at presenting interesting choices, and how successfully does it maintain that illusion?

[Dick Delaware]

Aetheria wrote...

I've not played Alpha Protocol and sadly never finished Fallout 3, so I can't compare them to any Bioware games, but...
Isn't the most reactive game world still just an illusion of choice? No matter how many paths the designers allow you to take, your character is still radically hemmed in compared to the breadth of choice you have every single moment in real life. Given that, it seems pointless to judge a game based solely on how many choices it gives you - the real issue should be, how good is the game at presenting interesting choices, and how successfully does it maintain that illusion?

It's very far-fetched to compare even the most reactive of RPG's to real-life of all things. Well, obviously the consequences of playing a computer game are obviously not even close to that of real life, but that's hardly a basis of comparison. 

When people here talk about the illusion of choice, they mean choices made in a game that lack follow-through. Which is something BioWare seems to do A LOT. You meet Connor in Redcliffe but decide to risk the demon's wrath and come back only to find Redcliffe exactly as you found it, despite Teagan hinting at the dangers of leaving town with a demon that could return at any moment. That's what people mean when they talk about the illusion of choice. Interesting choices are indeed important, but they need to have follow-through as well, or else they feel shallow. The Redcliffe quest had plenty of consequences and it would've been perfect if they did this.

Dragon Age is pretty good at this compared to most other BioWare games, actually.

Let's compare this to a game that's more reactive. I haven't played Alpha Protocol, but let's compare that to a classic - Fallout 1. Since it's a 13 year old game, I hope you don't mind if I spoil it for you.

Now, in the game you discover a group of mutants headed by a charismatic leader who plan on overtaking humanity as the dominant race. They create more of themselves by dipping humans in chemical vats - humans not exposed to radiation (rare in the setting, obviously) are the finest specimens as they produce more intelligent mutants.The mutants themselves are large, powerful, and immune to radiation (vital in the game's post-apocalyptic setting).

Their leader reasons that since humans brought nuclear death to the world, that the time of ****** sapiens is over since they are clearly flawed beings. Also, since a mutant is clearly better able to survive a harsh, post-apocalyptic environment, they are more adapted to life in the Wasteland than anyone else can be. Under his rule, mutants would enforce peace via force and sterilize or kill humans that did not wish to comply.

However, here's where it gets interesting. If you've gotten chummy with an organization called the Brotherhood of Steel (basically a monastic order of soldiers and techies who are out for themselves) and talk to their scientist, she'll reveal to you that the mutants are sterile and give you a holodisk.

If you take this information and confront the mutant leader with it, he becomes so distraught over his own failures and the evils he's done in the name of progress and utopia that he kills himself instead of fighting you.

I'm sure you can notice the difference between the first example and the second one. There are several more in Fallout.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 11 juillet 2010 - 02:16 .

[Grand_Commander13]

Aetheria: No, illusion of choice is where the game developer pops up some options on the screen, you choose one, and then whatever was going to happen happens regardless of what you chose. If they're really big on keeping up the masquerade there will be a unique line in response to your choice to make it look like the developers cared.

Real choices have real options. Killing or arresting a weapons dealer kills the black market in the area but prevents you from buying new gear there; allying with different group gets you access to unique items and help at different times; getting information into the hands of the right people should have a consequence; the world should constantly remind you about your actions, and when you play through a second time and do things differently something should be different as a result.

Objectively Alpha Protocol could do so much more than it did. However it's far and away the best game for reacting to what the player does.

Modifié par Grand_Commander13, 11 juillet 2010 - 02:29 .

[MysterD]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

Objectively Alpha Protocol could do so much more than it did. However it's far and away the best game for reacting to what the player does.

I agree about Alpha Protocol far and away being the best game for reacting to the player - whether it's in a line of dialogue voice-acted by, an e-mail, or what-have-you.

Just...Alpha Protocol's skills and weapons need some better balancing and remove dice-rolls "hitting" or "missing", more so than anything else. Sure, there's other minor issues - i.e. the camera is jittery; no key to reposition an unlocked camera right behind Mike; or no toggle switch to unlock cam completely/lock camera into 3rd person behind Mike - but the game needs some balancing first and foremost.

[Grand_Commander13]

Except Alpha Protocol's hitting and missing are just like Deus Ex, or Counter-Strike: there's a crosshair, as you sit still it gets smaller, and the bullet can land anywhere in that crosshair. It's a very clear visual indication of your next shot's accuracy.

Since I've played tons of Counter-Strike and gone through Deus Ex a few times I was used to the concept and it never bothered me.

[gotthammer]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

Except Alpha Protocol's hitting and missing are just like Deus Ex, or Counter-Strike: there's a crosshair, as you sit still it gets smaller, and the bullet can land anywhere in that crosshair. It's a very clear visual indication of your next shot's accuracy.
Since I've played tons of Counter-Strike and gone through Deus Ex a few times I was used to the concept and it never bothered me.

Yeah. While I would say the game, overall, could use more polish, the combat mechanic didn't really bother me at all, too.
Alpha Protocol's a great game...just needs polish. (didn't encounter much, if any, by the of bugs, and I've played through it at least twice)
I was expecting to be disappointed, due to the negative reviews... good thing I didn't care and got myself a copy regardless. 
My only 'complaint': SIE not being one of those who can end up w/ you on the boat. 

[Pocketgb]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

Except Alpha Protocol's hitting and missing are just like Deus Ex, or Counter-Strike: there's a crosshair, as you sit still it gets smaller, and the bullet can land anywhere in that crosshair. It's a very clear visual indication of your next shot's accuracy.
Since I've played tons of Counter-Strike and gone through Deus Ex a few times I was used to the concept and it never bothered me.

Counter-Strike's recoil is controllable, though, and varies from weapon to weapon. Understanding the many weapon mechanics - and then honing your skills with them - is one of many reasons why CS has such a high skill threshold.

I haven't played Deus Ex since I was pretty young and rather ignorant to such things, is it as similar?

[Onyx Jaguar]

The both give you freedom to move around the levels. But Deus Ex implements the options better and you could theoritically go through the game by like only killing I think 3 people and just using stealth to take down the rest. The shooting mechanics in Deus Ex are a bit flat, but Alpha Protocols "Wait while exposing yourself to center a target" isn't that great. Even though I got good at hitting head shots quickly it wasn't something I partically found enjoyable.

[Leinadi]

The both give you freedom to move around the levels. But Deus Ex implements the options better and you could theoritically go through the game by like only killing I think 3 people and just using stealth to take down the rest. The shooting mechanics in Deus Ex are a bit flat, but Alpha Protocols "Wait while exposing yourself to center a target" isn't that great. Even though I got good at hitting head shots quickly it wasn't something I partically found enjoyable.

Something Deus Ex does a lot better is the much more open level design, I'd say that's one of the biggest flaws of AP. But, using non-lethal takedowns/martial arts and tranq rounds you can complete AP with (I think) only two kills. I would've personally wanted more options to completely stealth (meaning by-passing) sections though. But I mean... Most games don't even feature decent stealth from the start aside from Hide in Shadows + Sneak Attack so it's a bit hard to criticize AP specifically for that.

Really? Could you potentially share what the skill or class is?

I can't recall exactly. My guess for skills would be either Sabotage and/or Technical Aptitude high enough, and classes I think it's Tech Specialist and Veteran. But don't quote me on that. I have gotten both of the options in my playthroughs though.



And I would personally hate for APs gameplay to be more "action" so to speak. The game could've done with more balanced skills, definitely. But the RPG system beneath was what makes the combat fun. I enjoyed having to aim instead of just pointing the reticule at something and firing right away (generally speaking I mean, there are still points where you can fire right away).

[Grand_Commander13]

Yeah. I think it's Sabotage that determines the option on the first part of the level, and Technical Expertise or Veteran that determines whether you can get the (more important) other two options.