|
Dr. Stab posted:How is Marburg optional? You have to play Thornton in specific ways to get specific fights. I thought I had the game figured out and I STILL had my mind blown in the Wasteland Kickstarter thread with some of the poo poo that I was totally wrong-headed about. I knew about Scarlet, I knew Mina was a double-agent from the CIA, but I didn't understand... a lot, as it turns out, clearly I need to replay more. Also I've never fought Marbug because you have to make A GOD DAMNED VIDEOGAME CHARACTER actually believe you're exactly the kind of person he hates and not just pretending to be, and I've never fought Championchik because I hate Brayko and find it difficult to not kill him.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Boss FightsDoes Leland count? If you run up to where he is, he instantly surrenders. Another fight that is optional is Shaheed's lieutenant with the glass eye.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Bryako had more character than all three HE bosses combined. He was also a more frustrating boss fight than all three HE bosses combine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
The hardest part about the Brayko fight was realizing that the game has a sprint button. After that eureka moment (and running the gently caress away when he charges at you), Brayko was just a mild annoyance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:How is Marburg optional? There can be a second boss fight with Marburg if he escapes Rome and certain conditions are met heading in to the endgame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
Smol posted:The hardest part about the Brayko fight was realizing that the game has a sprint button. After that eureka moment (and running the gently caress away when he charges at you), Brayko was just a mild annoyance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
RE: Steven Heck love: (Taipai mission spoiler) "Said backup came in the form of Heck crudely mounting a minigun to a subway car and firing wildly at Chinese secret police officers as his train passed the platform"  I want to be bested buds with him on every playthrough. Even my soon-to-be second playthrough as a antsy, by the books Thorton recruit. And of course my soon-to-be third playthrough as a slightly unbalanced ( ), kungfu/shotgun wielding Thorton veteran.... Heck "The goddamn bees"
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 07:57
|
|
|
Hocus Pocus posted:RE: Steven Heck love: (Taipai mission spoiler) The first time I did that mission I had to pause it because I was laughing so hard. Heck is the best.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 09:45
|
|
|
The best thing about that is how he set it up months in advance just in case. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 09:53
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:I don't really see the Deus Ex connection in general, and the comparison to Human Revolution in particular is not doing Alpha Protocol any favors. HE's story isn't that much weaker - in fact, some parts (particularly incidentals) are actually smarter than anything in AP (if more poorly presented). But as far as gameplay is concerned, HE is an excellent update of Deus Ex, and AP can barely even dream of ever measuring up. I probably didn't play enough of Human Revolution to fairy judge it as a whole (only about five or six hours in), but speaking strictly of a specific design elements: of the many options, presented, there's always a 'right' way to do things in HR. The right way to clear a room is by silently knocking everyone unconscious, because that gives you the most XP. You don't choose which direction to move a conversation, you're just trying to 'win' that conversation. The game punishes you for not playing in a specific way. AP not only doesn't punish you, it gives you unique rewards based on your play-style. HR is a sleeker game with better combat/graphics/aesthetic/etc but it lacks the choice, the reactivity, and the generally better writing of AP. Too bad only a small subset of gamers give a poo poo about those last three things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 10:57
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I probably didn't play enough of Human Revolution to fairy judge it as a whole (only about five or six hours in), but speaking strictly of a specific design elements: of the many options, presented, there's always a 'right' way to do things in HR. The right way to clear a room is by silently knocking everyone unconscious, because that gives you the most XP. You don't choose which direction to move a conversation, you're just trying to 'win' that conversation. The game punishes you for not playing in a specific way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 11:04
|
|
|
I played through this for the first time last week, and immediately followed it up with two more playthroughs. I already loved the game my first time through, but getting under Marburg's skin enough to be able to kill him in Rome in my second was an amazing moment in a way I'd never really had in a game before. This game is amazing and I don't understand critics' complaints at all. Not only is the way it handles choice amazing, the gameplay is completely functional too, contrary to what all the reviews said. Yeah, you can't just point a pistol at a guy's skull from forty feet away and have it hit (well, at the beginning of the game anyway), but that's because the game clearly isn't just trying to be another third person shooter. Lining up shots and focusing for long enough once you're at the right distance has never failed to work for me, and I feel like reviewers lied about that part of the game. Maybe if you go through every mission guns blazing this would be a problem, but I mostly stuck with stealth and had a great time even when I wasn't using the dialog system. I'm definitely going to play through this game again multiple times in the future, and I'll probably discover something new about the game every time. This is a really fantastic game, and I wish I'd played it back when it came out so I could have tried to sell people I know on it back when it mattered. TechnoSyndrome fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Apr 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 11:06
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Oy. You're mixing two separate gameplay elements - environment exploration/enemy handling and conversations/story progression. I won't argue that AE isn't superior in the later department, but the former? You don't think there's a "right" way to handle the environment in AE, or that you get anywhere near as many options to do so as HR? But if you go in guns blazing, you get much less XP for being nonstealthy and nonlethal. There aren't even advantages because you're more likely to get shot and die since enemies are fighting back. Its the definition of punishing you for playing a certain way. AP not only lets you do whatever suits you (stealth choke an entire room, uzi death, shotgun stomps) but gives you unique rewards for whichever way you chose. Like I said, the actual combat/enemy handling elements are almost objectively more fun in HR just due to the gameplay mechanics of the thing, but still. Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Apr 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 11:11
|
|
|
Anybody know how this would work out? Never meet SIE (don't do that train station level), meet Albatross and antagonise him (through non-Professional dialogue choices and killing Sis), get Heck to sell you out. Apparently you have to meet both SIE and Albatross to get Heck to sell you out, and both have to like you. I've also read about a way where you can get Albatross to get G22 to attack Alpha Protocol and try to kill Thorton but I don't know how to do it - I think I have to alienate Heck and kill SIE at Brayko's mansion, but if you can only alienate Heck if both SIE and Albatross like Thorton then Albatross won't hate me, which is what I'm trying to achieve. I've had Albatross hate me before, but all that happened was that he threatened my Thorton then kept flying in his little plane. Also not sure what happens if Sis likes you (you get a gun? I don't know) and Albatross hates/likes you (again, no idea). I want to shoot that smug bastard. He just rubs me the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 11:29
|
|
|
Dreggon posted:Anybody know how this would work out? Heck is the game's backstop handler - he won't sell you out if there's no other potential handlers for the last mission. Also, I think the G22 attack on the Greybox is cut content - Albatross threatens you but never actually shows up. Sis only gives you the gun if she likes you and if Albatross is your handler in the final mission. Also you don't actually get the gun, she hands it to you in a cutscene and then it's gone when you regain control.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 11:37
|
|
|
Fil5000 posted:
That reminds me of a random thing that pisses me off: why didn't we ever get the option of gold-plated pistol or shotguns?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 11:45
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:That reminds me of a random thing that pisses me off: why didn't we ever get the option of gold-plated pistol or shotguns? I believe Marburg has a gold plated pistol, actually. Don't hold me to that, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 11:49
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:I believe Marburg has a gold plated pistol, actually. Don't hold me to that, though. Not gold plated, but unique, I think. Same goes for Omen Deng's shotgun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 11:53
|
|
|
Something else - there's an option called Analysis Flawed for Parker, but in the YouTube video I watched (gently caress playing the entire game just for this one little bit) Thorton only mentioned the last 'boss' in Moscow (i.e. not Brayko). Not mentioned was the Sung assassination or the museum in Rome. Do these two things get mentioned if you spare Deng and save Madison (so the museum blows up)? Also, I tried getting Scarlet to hate me for some of the endgame content. In my first game I thought "OK she's all professional and stuff and does not like suave" and it worked just fine. In my second game I thought "Well apparently she hates being hit on so I will do that and get her reputation as low as possible." Turns out... no, she liked me even better when I just left the thing on Suave. There was literally only one Suave option that reduced her reputation, and that was in the hotel level. And at the end of it she sends you an email saying "hey you know that thing I hated when you told me to do it? I really liked it and want to do it again". What the hell woman, be consistent. I guess I have to pick the Aggressive option if I want to get shot at the end. I also wonder what Thorton says if you betray Halbech, but have executed or alienated everybody who Thorton would otherwise have referenced in the conversation as a potential supplier of weapons and stuff. "You know, Leland, I don't need you. I've got.... uhh..... a gun and, um... I'm gonna sell it and take your job with the profits.".
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 12:15
|
|
|
Dreggon posted:Something else - there's an option called Analysis Flawed for Parker, but in the YouTube video I watched (gently caress playing the entire game just for this one little bit) Thorton only mentioned the last 'boss' in Moscow (i.e. not Brayko). Not mentioned was the Sung assassination or the museum in Rome. Do these two things get mentioned if you spare Deng and save Madison (so the museum blows up)? I'm trying to get this option to work in my current playthrough, and I'll tell you all the things I'm trying to pull off with it (lots of spoilers): I think there's one thing from each operation that fits in there. I know that leaving Deng alive is one, whether or not Sung dies. Having the non-Brayko Russian guy whose name I can't remember on your side is one. In this playthrough I also spared Shaheed, as in he got away and was not dead but AP/Halbech think he is, and I got Madison to reveal that Parker's her dad. So I'm pretty sure the scene with Parker is going to go like this: "Yeah, your analysis is flawed, here's why. Your Moscow contact works with me now, Deng is still alive and pissed off that you killed his dad, Shaheed is also still alive and running around with a pissed off Al-Samad and proof that Halbech gave them missiles. Oh yeah, and I slept with your daughter and then your buddy Marburg shot her in the back. What do you have to say for yourself?  It helps that this is a Veteran playthrough so I can just imagine Thorton being a better thinker and analyst than Parker is, and completely outsmarting him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
On the subject of optional bosses, these are the ones I know about... (Moscow) The fight against SIE is optional depending on how the conversation with her when you first meet in the trainyard goes. (Moscow) You only fight Championchik if you go after Surkov; if you never find out what he's been doing, or if you let him escape after finding out, you won't see him again. (Rome) The fight against Marburg has a possible second phase in which he stays and fights to the death, which will happen only if he really loathes you. (Endgame) Depending on your conversations with Parker and Marburg, you will end up fighting either Marburg, a weakened and injured Marburg, a bunch of drone turrets controlled by Parker, or a bunch of Greybox mooks. (Endgame) Depending on your actions, you will fight either Westridge or Leland, but not both. Xander77 posted:Oy. You're mixing two separate gameplay elements - environment exploration/enemy handling and conversations/story progression. I won't argue that AE isn't superior in the later department, but the former? You don't think there's a "right" way to handle the environment in AE, or that you get anywhere near as many options to do so as HR? HR gives you more options, but then leans really heavily on making one of them the "right" one by not only making it much more effective than the alternatives, but also rewarding you much more heavily for using it. DX and AP don't give you OOC incentives to choose a particular path; the closest DX comes is giving you slightly more XP for exploring each level thoroughly, and AP rewards you no matter you do in both conversation and combat. As for the comparison between DX1 and AP, I think it's apt. Yes, AP has a much greater focus on dialogue, and the level design can't hold up at all compared to DX1, but the core gameplay is pretty much the same. The only critical difference is that you earn new activated abilities by improving your skills, rather than having a skill/aug separation like in DX1. I have in the past described AP as "Deus Ex, if all the talent devoted to level design were instead devoted to conversations"; I think it fits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:As for the comparison between DX1 and AP, I think it's apt. Yes, AP has a much greater focus on dialogue, and the level design can't hold up at all compared to DX1, but the core gameplay is pretty much the same. The only critical difference is that you earn new activated abilities by improving your skills, rather than having a skill/aug separation like in DX1. Also, the right way to play AE is to take the pistol with maxxed out chainshot. That's demonstratably the most effective way to do things, though it doesn't mean that you can't have fun with the shotgun, for instance. DX (and or HR, I think that two are about the same) gives you a lot more tools to gently caress around with for fun instead of going for the most efficient route, and it allows you to challenge yourself in interesting and fun ways (no augs, no weapons, no takedowns, no hacking, only walk backwards, jump every five steps)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:No. Noooo. AE has dedicated spots where you can jump. You can't move anything in the environment. THERE ARE NO AIR VENTS for heaven's sake. It's nothing like DX in terms of gameplay except for the whole "sneak-ish rpg/fps blend". I think the main reason people link DX and AP is the whole "What you do affects what you see" thing that's common to both. I'd put "What, you can save Paul?!" moment that a lot of players had in the same category as "What, you can kill Marburg?!" from AP. HR is a different kettle of fish because you get pretty much the same story regardless of your actions. HR definitely gives you more agency as a player, but you don't get much chance to shape the story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Fil5000 posted:I think the main reason people link DX and AP is the whole "What you do affects what you see" thing that's common to both. I'd put "What, you can save Paul?!" moment that a lot of players had in the same category as "What, you can kill Marburg?!" from AP. HR is a different kettle of fish because you get pretty much the same story regardless of your actions. HR definitely gives you more agency as a player, but you don't get much chance to shape the story. AE is as much more reactive in terms of story as DX is in gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:But you don't, really. You do the same things in the same places and fight (or not fight, ok boss battles blah blah) the same people in DX 1. And the ending is still "three buttons" just scattered though an area. You can sort of see the beginnings of AP in the first DX though. How you respond to Gunther in the first level has an impact on how he talks about you later, that kind of thing. I agree it's mostly linear storywise but it feels like the intent is the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 16:04
|
|
|
TechnoSyndrome posted:
I suspect most game reviewers are in a hurry, and may not play a game through to the end (especially if they aren't enjoying it). The missions in Greybox are kind of meh. If you do everything "right" and get all the extra missions you'll start Saudi with a little extra money and discounts on certain things, hardly game changing. If Parker likes you it will be easier to convince him in the endgame, if he hates you he may cut you off without hearing your evidence at all, but it doesn't seem to matter if the other two men like you or not, and you'll have plenty of opportunities to change Mina's mind later. (You MUST be suave in your very first 2 interactions to get the Suave perk and be able to kill Marburg in Rome, but that isn't something a reviewer is going to notice on his first play through.) None of your actions or decisions seem particularly game changing. The Saudi missions aren't much better. The whole "Arab terrorists are the bad guys" thing feels over-done. The first really meaningful decision you make is how you deal with the arms merchant, the second is how you deal with Shaheed. Most of Saudi still feels like it is on rails the first time you play it. At that point in your first play through, AP doesn't seem like a very good game. Your skills suck, so pistols do seem almost useless, especially if you unwisely scattered your skill points instead of focusing them on pistols at first. It feels like you have to be standing right next to a guy to get the aiming reticule to activate, and if you are that close why not just do a stealth take down? The combat is bad, and the story is nothing to write home about. A lazy or rushed reviewer might quit playing right there, and his review won't be good. A dedicated reviewer might play through once, and thing he's seen everything the game has to offer so he gives it a middling review. It really doesn't become a GREAT game until you play through a second time, doing different things than you did the first time. The game has great replay value, and gets better and better if you play it a few times. But I really can't blame most reviewers for never getting to that point, and basing their review on the rather mediocre introductory levels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:I suspect most game reviewers are in a hurry, and may not play a game through to the end (especially if they aren't enjoying it). While I respect your opinion, I expect reviewers to at least attempt a complete play-through before giving their judgement on a product. If for some unforeseen reason they cannot, they should be forthcoming with such information.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:(You MUST be suave in your very first 2 interactions to get the Suave perk and be able to kill Marburg in Rome, This is false. I get the Aggressive perk for the somewhat-more-powerful-than-the-others perk and I could still do this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Merry Magpie posted:While I respect your opinion, I expect reviewers to at least attempt a complete play-through before giving their judgement on a product. If for some unforeseen reason they cannot, they should be forthcoming with such information. Then you must be constantly disappointed. That's not how video game 'journalism' works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
Merry Magpie posted:While I respect your opinion, I expect reviewers to at least attempt a complete play-through before giving their judgement on a product. If for some unforeseen reason they cannot, they should be forthcoming with such information. You are just adorable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Gaming journalists are no different from any other profession where there are people who are in it for the passion but most are incompetent or for the rent/mortgage. Bad gaming journalists are so much more obvious because it's highly likely they're loving atrocious and will give up at any stiff breeze and say it's too difficult or awkward. The problem is that these chucklefucks write articles that sheep might read and believe. E:Slightly less than obvious is that they often have deadlines. But in principle, it is really loving stupid to write off a game when morons like publishing executives chase metacritic ratings. Delacroix fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Apr 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
Delacroix posted:Gaming journalists are no different from any other profession where there are people who are in it for the passion but most are incompetent or for the rent/mortgage. Bad gaming journalists are so much more obvious because it's highly likely they're loving atrocious and will give up at any stiff breeze and say it's too difficult or awkward. The problem is that these chucklefucks write articles that sheep might read and believe. Kiiiinda leaving out the systemic bribery there chief.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:Then you must be constantly disappointed. That's not how video game 'journalism' works. I suspect he means "expect" in the sense of "hold them to the standard of", not in the sense of "have any realistic expectation that they will". That's certainly how I would mean it in that sentence. That said, games journalism is pretty much like all journalism (which is to say, the more you know about the subject being discussed, the more tragically, obviously, factually wrong everything written on that topic is) except with more bribery and less competence. To be quite honest, at this point I'm not convinced that most reviewers play the game they're purporting to review at all; maybe one in ten plays the game (and one in a hundred plays it to completion), and the remaining 90% base the review on what other reviewers wrote, their gut impressions of the developer, how much they like the box art, and how many advertising dollars their host is getting from the publisher.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Kiiiinda leaving out the systemic bribery there chief. All part of the chasing metacritic scores, signore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
'Angry Thorton'. Huge spoilers but I think this needs to be posted every few pages: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf3q_hVEnIA&feature=related Why be evil when you can just be pointlessly angry and dickish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 11:59
|
|
|
Man, I always was lucky about avoiding bugs until now. I got the annoying "awareness doesn't work" bug. next 18 points have to go into stealth to get to master because I don't feel like restarting. Worst recruit run ever. *edit* Not worst recruit run ever. I'm just playing like I'm trying to stealth, but suck at it and constantly have to fight my way out. It's strangely fun Dilber fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Apr 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
Rock Paper Shotgun posted:RPS: Alpha Protocol 2. Please? Somehow? Kickstarter? I’ll totally fund it with my sexy, sexy games journalist money. How far will a month-old brick of ramen and a leftover Canadian five dollar bill get you? Any news is good news, right?? Here's the full interview, but its mainly about Wasteland 2 (this was the only mention of AP, sadly) http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/07/interview-obsidians-chris-avellone-on-wasteland-2/#more-103098
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
Great Lakes Log posted:Any news is good news, right?? Honestly, a spiritual sequel would interest me more than a straight AP2. The whole modern day terrorists-vs-spies-vs-PMCs setting doesn't really interest me. This is not to say AP2 wouldn't be a week one buy for me, but I'd rather another game taking the same approach as AP in a more interesting setting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
Yeah, given the range of ways you could end AP, a direct sequel would either be a disappointment for not carrying on from YOUR ending, or a nightmare to code. That said, I'd like an espionage setting again, it's not something you see a lot of in games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Fil5000 posted:Yeah, given the range of ways you could end AP, a direct sequel would either be a disappointment for not carrying on from YOUR ending, or a nightmare to code. That said, I'd like an espionage setting again, it's not something you see a lot of in games. Espionage is fun, but I'd rather see it during the Cold War, or in the asteroid belt, or in a totally fantastical/alien setting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 22:55
|
|