108 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

Mass Effect 1 and 2 has 3 usual choices, bad good and neutral, for action and dialogue.
While Alpha Protocol has aggressive, calm/professional and joke dialogue choices and for action choices?
Watch this.



Now imagine that instead of her, it was your ME2 or ME1 love interest.
Save innocent lives or your LI? Or any other character you care a lot.

But also dialogue choices in AP also have different reaction on every charter.
Like that guy you saw on video hates smartasses( joke dialogue choices) but like professionals and when somebody is aggressive. If you ****** him of a lot he will stay in boss fight until you kill him but if not he will run away.

Also for more examples of different action and dialogue choices so look this video that made me buy AP.



ME2 is still better from AP but it choices in that game are better made. Also if you never played that game I recommend it to buy it. It is really underrated game.

Modifié par Mesina2, 30 juillet 2010 - 01:00 .

[smudboy]

ME can learn quite a lot from AP.

[Ninniach Lina]

Like how to make sure guns all fire like muskets, and how to lie about being able to take one path (stealth) the whole game with no problem, before popping us down in a boss fight that stealth doesn't work in.



Yeah, ME can learn a lot.

[CroGamer002]

Ninniach Lina wrote...

Like how to make sure guns all fire like muskets, and how to lie about being able to take one path (stealth) the whole game with no problem, before popping us down in a boss fight that stealth doesn't work in.

Yeah, ME can learn a lot.

I'm talking about choices not gameplay.
Besides stealth and action worked great in this game, unlike in Splinter Cell Conviction.

[scotchtape622]

lol, wow, that is lame. It gives 0 hint on what you're going to say, not to mention the time limit on choosing your response.

[adam_grif]

ME and ME2 had to railroad you a lot so they could set up the next game in the series. Characters that had to play an important part in the next game couldn't be killed, and you could only make choices that had no large repercussions in the short term future, to keep the amount of "unique content" that you experience for making a certain choice down to a reasonable level for the design and production teams.



If you can only produce 35 hours of high-quality game in your development cycle, if you are too "choice happy", then you'll have to cut down each playthrough to something like 10 or 12 hours. This doesn't make developers or publishers happy, so they keep it to a minimum and you only end up with a mission here, a sidequest there, with some dialogue sprinkled around places.



Anyway, there's good news and bad news. Good news is that with no direct story sequel coming out after ME3, they are much more free to expand your choices and make some of the ones that didn't do much of anything in ME1/2 come back and have some impact.



Bad news is that they still won't be that impactful, and many of the "big changes" will not be shown, but communicated to you via dialogue or email, or simply implied.

[Estelindis]

For the love of heaven - edit the title to indicate Alpha Protocol spoilers, please!



As for the topic itself, I thought AP's conversation system was excellent. The professional, suave, and aggressive attitudes were all somewhat intercompatible, so Thorton didn't sound like he'd gone crazy if he made a different attitude choice after a string of the same ones.

[CroGamer002]

Wait, what?
It's quite obvious to me what will he say in AP.
But not how will some characters respond.

But that's not my point.
I'm talking about choice effectiveness.

[CroGamer002]

Estelindis wrote...

For the love of heaven - edit the title to indicate Alpha Protocol spoilers, please!

As for the topic itself, I thought AP's conversation system was excellent. The professional, suave, and aggressive attitudes were all somewhat intercompatible, so Thorton didn't sound like he'd gone crazy if he made a different attitude choice after a string of the same ones.

Woops.
My bad, fixed now.

[Kid_SixXx]

scotchtape622 wrote...

lol, wow, that is lame. It gives 0 hint on what you're going to say, not to mention the time limit on choosing your response.

I actually think that is one of the stronger features of the game.  You can chose to be civil or a complete tool without worrying about filling up some alignment meter that might screw up your conversation options with other characters and it's not like you have all day to respond to people during real life conversations anyway.
There are a lot of things wrong with AP but the dialogue system isn't one of them.

[Estelindis]

Mesina2 wrote...
Woops.
My bad, fixed now.

Thank you!

[scotchtape622]

I don't really care about a Paragon/Renegade type meter, but don't try to defend the lack of indication on what you will say, or the time limit, because they are clearly weaknesses.

[Jackal904]

smudboy wrote...

ME can learn quite a lot from AP.

Sure. Mass Effect, a successful and highly praised franchise, could learn a lot from Alpha Protocol which got all around terrible reviews...

[CroGamer002]

Jackal904 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

ME can learn quite a lot from AP.

Sure. Mass Effect, a successful and highly praised franchise, could learn a lot from Alpha Protocol which got all around terrible reviews...

CoD MW2 has great reviews.
Is that game good?

Oh and don't forget about Halo.

Modifié par Mesina2, 30 juillet 2010 - 02:14 .

[Cheese Elemental]

Mesina2 wrote...

Jackal904 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

ME can learn quite a lot from AP.

Sure. Mass Effect, a successful and highly praised franchise, could learn a lot from Alpha Protocol which got all around terrible reviews...

CoD MW2 has great reviews.
Is that game good?

Oh and don't forget about Halo.

Those are your opinions. It's worth remembering that popular games are often popular for a reason.

[Rogue Eagle]

Having played Alpha Protocol through I can say that though the PC port is kinda poor, the game itself isn't actually too bad!



The decisions were the best part of it. So many different ways things could go.

[CroGamer002]

Cheese Elemental wrote...
Those are your opinions. It's worth remembering that popular games are often popular for a reason.

Halo because it was first FPS on console that worked while CoD MW2 was overhyped.

Besides this is now getting off topic.

[CroGamer002]

Rogue Eagle wrote...

Having played Alpha Protocol through I can say that though the PC port is kinda poor, the game itself isn't actually too bad!

The decisions were the best part of it. So many different ways things could go.

THIS IS MY POINT OF THREAD!

[Onyx Jaguar]

The decisions really didn't have much more impact that I would have liked. You ended up in the same place at the end no matter what. Also none of the characters really tied into the game very well. It was pretty much a bunch of characters in three acts without a proper fourth act. Only a couple came together at the end but they were there the whole time.



You did have good choices but I disagree with the "Choose one, this chick who you barely know, or these people you have never met". Even if presented in ME that would be a lame decision. At least its contemporaries in BDTS and Zoyra were better written.



Also the dialogue system was interesting it should have had more work. Basically you were prompted to spam one line of thought more often than not than follow the flow of the conversation. What was nice about them though was that they actually seemed like conversations.

[jklinders]

Alpha Protocol was a great game with a few flaws that got a bad rap. Absolutely no game I have ever played actually included consequences with the choices in the way that Alpha Protocol did. The writing was fantastic. The coding...not so much. The encounter with Marburg there is a perfect example of how a lot of in game actions on your part under the hood can determine whether you can finish him off or not. You create a reputation for yourself with the other players without even realizing it half the time. Setting all these little triggers in place must have been a nightmare to code which is why so few developers try it. If nothing else give Obsidian a little credit for trying.



A little OT, anyone who thinks a stealth build does not work never bothered putting any points in handguns. Hands down the games most lethal weapon if you make the investment.

[Skilled Seeker]

Hell no. That video featured some fo the worse and cheesiest dialogue I've heard. And you have no idea what the PC is going to say. If you want AP play AP.

[CroGamer002]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

The decisions really didn't have much more impact that I would have liked. You ended up in the same place at the end no matter what. Also none of the characters really tied into the game very well. It was pretty much a bunch of characters in three acts without a proper fourth act. Only a couple came together at the end but they were there the whole time.

You did have good choices but I disagree with the "Choose one, this chick who you barely know, or these people you have never met". Even if presented in ME that would be a lame decision. At least its contemporaries in BDTS and Zoyra were better written.

Also the dialogue system was interesting it should have had more work. Basically you were prompted to spam one line of thought more often than not than follow the flow of the conversation. What was nice about them though was that they actually seemed like conversations.

You missed the point.
How about chick you barely know in Mass Effect is one of Mass Effect love interests?

I'm not talking about gameplay, plot, characters or dialogue system but choices and their affection.
It wouldn't be cool if you ****** off someone in ME3 so he can fall into your trap?

[smudboy]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
The decisions really didn't have much more impact that I would have liked. You ended up in the same place at the end no matter what. Also none of the characters really tied into the game very well. It was pretty much a bunch of characters in three acts without a proper fourth act. Only a couple came together at the end but they were there the whole time.

Every side mission impacted the main mission it was part of.

The ending changed on who was involved, who ends up being the person you're fighting, what you learn about some and are revealed of others, who helsp you and how, who you go off into the sunset with, how you deal with the agency, and ultimately who lives or dies.

The fourth act was put together brilliantly, all based on the choices you've made up to that point.

You did have good choices but I disagree with the "Choose one, this chick who you barely know, or these people you have never met". Even if presented in ME that would be a lame decision. At least its contemporaries in BDTS and Zoyra were better written.

This results may have been smaller in scope (death toll), but it has greater impact than the Save/Leave Council choice.

Also the dialogue system was interesting it should have had more work. Basically you were prompted to spam one line of thought more often than not than follow the flow of the conversation. What was nice about them though was that they actually seemed like conversations.

You were not prompted to spam one line of thought.  That's what ME does.  ME is P/R everything, because it grants you P/R points, and if you don't get those, future choices can't be made, making social encounters be only a problem solving event of getting P/R points.  The only optional choices in AP were either based on other choices, or whether you had dossier information.

Modifié par smudboy, 30 juillet 2010 - 02:56 .

[CroGamer002]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Hell no. That video featured some fo the worse and cheesiest dialogue I've heard. And you have no idea what the PC is going to say. If you want AP play AP.

I don't want AP in ME3, I want ME3 to have choices that will have heavy consequences like AP.