Alpha Protocol is underrated and deserves some more praise. GS scored this wrong

[QUOTE="LookAnDrolL"]A game that's says RPG on the box should have and will have IF and WHEN. If you want a action game, play an action game. Action RPG != Shooter with dialogue IronBass

It plays as a rpg first and a shooter 2nd.

It plays as a rpg first and a shooter 2nd.kozzy1234

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]It plays as a rpg first and a shooter 2nd.IronBass

So hugeI don't have to shoot anything? (Pretty much)

The shooting elements are good enough.

Game is one of the years best but.....

I agree. Gamespot missed the mark here. The game has some issues (some of the walking animations look funny, cover can get a little odd sometimes, some levels look worse than others), but nothing that deserves a 6. Games like Fallout 3 had much more (and worse) problems than this game does, yet it scored high as hell because those reviewers looked past many of those flaws, and just enjoyed the gameplay. Hell even Read Dead Redemption, probably the best open-world game I've ever played, had bugs up the ***, MUCH more so than AP (and much more game-breaking), but it scored high.

I think what could have brought it down was that the reviewer didn't like the story much. Personally I think it's fun and engaging- not nearly up to Mass Effect quality, but it works well with it's goal of being an espionage experience. I'm pretty sure most of the European reviews agree with me there. Also the shooting (kind of like the masterpiece Deus Ex) is very closely tied to your rank. If you think the shooting sucks, it's just because your a low level with whatever gun you're using.

TheGrayEye

Nah, it looks pretty bad.C-Lee

Thats it?! Graphics means everything!

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]It plays as a rpg first and a shooter 2nd.IronBass

Agreed, it is a flawed gem if there ever was one. I am really enjoying it as well and see myself playing through it a few times.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]I haven't played it yet, but it sounds like a game I'd really like. Gamespot massively underrated Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines, and it sounds like this is another one of those cases.AlphaJC

Vampie the masquerade is overrated to hell.

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]It plays as a rpg first and a shooter 2nd.IronBass

I haven't played it yet, but it sounds like a game I'd really like. Gamespot massively underrated Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines, and it sounds like this is another one of those cases.Rhazakna

The game deserves at least an 8. I haven't experienced many bugs and I am loving the game. No way this deserved a 6. MW2 was a buggy mess and yet it got a 9. I call BS on reviews.SF_KiLLaMaN

The game deserves at least an 8. I haven't experienced many bugs and I am loving the game. No way this deserved a 6. MW2 was a buggy mess and yet it got a 9. I call BS on reviews.SF_KiLLaMaN

That's been the case with review sites for years.

The game deserves at least an 8. I haven't experienced many bugs and I am loving the game. No way this deserved a 6. MW2 was a buggy mess and yet it got a 9. I call BS on reviews.SF_KiLLaMaN

it's common knowledge nowadays for Mainstream Review sites to give games from huge mainstream companies a free pass (for the most part) for bugs and glitches...but then turn around and bully the "little guy" for the same exact things.

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]It plays as a rpg first and a shooter 2nd.IronBass

You ever play Deus Ex? Both AP and that classic use a similar sense of approach for the shooting aspect, in that it is heavily tied to your rank with that weapon. In the beginning of the game, your shooting skills are supposed to suck. Yet, as you increase your skill with a certain weapon, you'll eventually become a master with it. It's meant to be a slowly rewarding system of progression.

The reason Mass Effect 2's shooting felt so comfortable, is because they pretty much dropped the whole weapon skill-point system from the first (and other rpg) game(s). Hope that makes sense.

[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="kozzy1234"]It plays as a rpg first and a shooter 2nd.TheGrayEye

You ever play Deus Ex? Both AP and that classic use a similar sense of approach for the shooting aspect, in that it is heavily tied to your rank with that weapon. In the beginning of the game, your shooting skills are supposed to suck. Yet, as you increase your skill with a certain weapon, you'll eventually become a master with it. It's meant to be a slowly rewarding system of progression.

The reason Mass Effect 2's shooting felt so comfortable, is because they pretty much dropped the whole weapon skill-point system from the first (and other rpg) game(s). Hope that makes sense.

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

[QUOTE="IronBass"] Whatever it plays first as, the shooting part is a huge part of the game. So it's required to be good.Advid-Gamer

You ever play Deus Ex? Both AP and that classic use a similar sense of approach for the shooting aspect, in that it is heavily tied to your rank with that weapon. In the beginning of the game, your shooting skills are supposed to suck. Yet, as you increase your skill with a certain weapon, you'll eventually become a master with it. It's meant to be a slowly rewarding system of progression.

The reason Mass Effect 2's shooting felt so comfortable, is because they pretty much dropped the whole weapon skill-point system from the first (and other rpg) game(s). Hope that makes sense.

I wasnt aware that taking a whopping two seconds to throw points into a gun skill after lvling up was some form of Rocket Science that requires a degree at MIT?

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

[QUOTE="IronBass"] Whatever it plays first as, the shooting part is a huge part of the game. So it's required to be good.Advid-Gamer

You ever play Deus Ex? Both AP and that classic use a similar sense of approach for the shooting aspect, in that it is heavily tied to your rank with that weapon. In the beginning of the game, your shooting skills are supposed to suck. Yet, as you increase your skill with a certain weapon, you'll eventually become a master with it. It's meant to be a slowly rewarding system of progression.

The reason Mass Effect 2's shooting felt so comfortable, is because they pretty much dropped the whole weapon skill-point system from the first (and other rpg) game(s). Hope that makes sense.

i think that this will hit the bargain bin fast and then ill pick it.

i was on the fence with it, and from bad review pushed me away from it.

soo, when i purchase it ill tell you what i think.

No sorry a game that relies on shooting just be full of glitches that infringe on the quality of the game and/or controls. It's easy to point all the good things out TC...paradigm68

The game doesn't rely on shooting, though. Playing the game as a stealthy character who doesn't kill anyone is just as valid as running-and-gunning. In any case, it's an RPG - why would we want it to play like Gears of War?

if anything, GS might have actually over-rated it a bit compared to the much better 3rd person action / stealthers and hybrid RPG's out there like Mass Effect and Splinter Cell Conviction...67gt500

When considered as an action game, sure, it's not great.
When considered as an RPG (which is what it says on the box, and what the company is known for), it's fantastic, but the gameplay is a bit mediocre.

Basically, your enjoyment depends on your expectations. It's definitely a better RPG than Mass Effect, but if you prfer action games then you won't like it as much.

I've put a couple hours into this game and make no mistake folks - it's a 6.0 - 7.0 experience - tops... the GS review (and corresponding score) is accurate - if anything, GS might have actually over-rated it a bit compared to the much better 3rd person action / stealthers and hybrid RPG's out there like Mass Effect and Splinter Cell Conviction...67gt500

[QUOTE="paradigm68"]No sorry a game that relies on shooting just be full of glitches that infringe on the quality of the game and/or controls. It's easy to point all the good things out TC...Planeforger

The game doesn't rely on shooting, though. Playing the game as a stealthy character who doesn't kill anyone is just as valid as running-and-gunning. In any case, it's an RPG - why would we want it to play like Gears of War?

if anything, GS might have actually over-rated it a bit compared to the much better 3rd person action / stealthers and hybrid RPG's out there like Mass Effect and Splinter Cell Conviction...67gt500

When considered as an action game, sure, it's not great.
When considered as an RPG (which is what it says on the box, and what the company is known for), it's fantastic, but the gameplay is a bit mediocre.

Basically, your enjoyment depends on your expectations. It's definitely a better RPG than Mass Effect, but if you prfer action games then you won't like it as much.

i think its a 7.0 game at best. There are too many glaring flaws that are hard to ignore.

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

[QUOTE="IronBass"] Whatever it plays first as, the shooting part is a huge part of the game. So it's required to be good.Advid-Gamer

You ever play Deus Ex? Both AP and that classic use a similar sense of approach for the shooting aspect, in that it is heavily tied to your rank with that weapon. In the beginning of the game, your shooting skills are supposed to suck. Yet, as you increase your skill with a certain weapon, you'll eventually become a master with it. It's meant to be a slowly rewarding system of progression.

The reason Mass Effect 2's shooting felt so comfortable, is because they pretty much dropped the whole weapon skill-point system from the first (and other rpg) game(s). Hope that makes sense.

Well, if you take note of what I said, then the shooting doesn't have to be crappy. It's only really bad if your character is bad.

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"][QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

You ever play Deus Ex? Both AP and that classic use a similar sense of approach for the shooting aspect, in that it is heavily tied to your rank with that weapon. In the beginning of the game, your shooting skills are supposed to suck. Yet, as you increase your skill with a certain weapon, you'll eventually become a master with it. It's meant to be a slowly rewarding system of progression.

The reason Mass Effect 2's shooting felt so comfortable, is because they pretty much dropped the whole weapon skill-point system from the first (and other rpg) game(s). Hope that makes sense.

TheGrayEye

Well, if you take note of what I said, then the shooting doesn't have to be crappy. It's only really bad if your character is bad.

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

[QUOTE="paradigm68"]

The game doesn't rely on shooting, though. Playing the game as a stealthy character who doesn't kill anyone is just as valid as running-and-gunning. In any case, it's an RPG - why would we want it to play like Gears of War?

[QUOTE="67gt500"]if anything, GS might have actually over-rated it a bit compared to the much better 3rd person action / stealthers and hybrid RPG's out there like Mass Effect and Splinter Cell Conviction...Advid-Gamer

When considered as an action game, sure, it's not great.
When considered as an RPG (which is what it says on the box, and what the company is known for), it's fantastic, but the gameplay is a bit mediocre.

Basically, your enjoyment depends on your expectations. It's definitely a better RPG than Mass Effect, but if you prfer action games then you won't like it as much.

yep

It will be Deus Ex Human Revolution that will show them how its done, leveling up your weapons and biomods will let you do more abilities with the specific weapon or mod, not increase their accuracy or power. Face it, times change, and hiding poor shooting mechanics behind RPG elements is over, even DX series is breaking from it.

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"] I just dont get why "good" rpg's have to have crappy shooting. Whatever its just not for me. I think people tend to over look short comings of certin games and bash others for the same thing.Advid-Gamer

Well, if you take note of what I said, then the shooting doesn't have to be crappy. It's only really bad if your character is bad.

Well, I just beat the game not too long ago, the only weapon I used was the pistol (I'm a get-up-close-and-melee kind of guy), and it was pretty bad in the beginning, but I maxed it out by the end of the game, and it became much more confortable to use. The pistol mainly seems designed around getting headshots, especially for stealth purposes, which it is very good for.

There is probably someone else on here that can speak for the other weapons, and more so about the shooting in general, but I do know that it is extremely tied to your skill points. I can also say the cover system in this game, is a lot better than say, GTA 4, unquestionably.

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

When considered as an action game, sure, it's not great.
When considered as an RPG (which is what it says on the box, and what the company is known for), it's fantastic, but the gameplay is a bit mediocre.

Basically, your enjoyment depends on your expectations. It's definitely a better RPG than Mass Effect, but if you prfer action games then you won't like it as much.

texasgoldrush

yep

It will be Deus Ex Human Revolution that will show them how its done, leveling up your weapons and biomods will let you do more abilities with the specific weapon or mod, not increase their accuracy or power. Face it, times change, and hiding poor shooting mechanics behind RPG elements is over, even DX series is breaking from it.

Deus Ex didn't hide it though. Why would they intentionally make it so the aiming sucks in the beginning, if that wasn't the point? They could have easily made it so you kill enemies with pin-point accuarcy from the get-go. The point is to create a game-long system of skill progression, one that is ultimately very rewarding.

Personally, I don't mind if the next Deus Ex wants to change that up, as long as they create another type of system that also has the goal in mind to deliever a lengthy and rewarding sense of progression/evolution, then by all means.

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"]

Better RPG=crappy shooting and action mechanics? That seem to be the opinion here.

texasgoldrush

yep

It will be Deus Ex Human Revolution that will show them how its done, leveling up your weapons and biomods will let you do more abilities with the specific weapon or mod, not increase their accuracy or power. Face it, times change, and hiding poor shooting mechanics behind RPG elements is over, even DX series is breaking from it.

That's because the Deus Ex series is presumably getting more casual-friendly, and far more action-heavy and less RPG-focused.

Let's take Oblivion, for example. Fighting works in real time, your ability to hit enemies and avoid being hit is entirely dependant on the player's skill (unlike Morrowind, Mass Effect or Alpha Protocol, for example). Sure, this makes for engaging gameplay, but it makes absolutely no sense in a role-playing game. Why should my pathetically weak mage, who has never so much as handled a dagger before, have the same ability to hit things as my orc barbarian, who has spent his entire life training to be a good fighter? Similarly, why should my highly-trained orc barbarian be a crap fighter if the player controlling him is crap?

RPGs should be focused on the skills of the characters, not the players (it defeats the point of roleplaying if they don't). Your different characters shouldn't all be perfect shots with every gun, and variation and specialisation keep these games interesting and replayable.

Having said that, even as an RPG Alpha Protocol's gameplay is a bit bland (although you can still aim perfectly well if you put heaps of points into them - I rarely missed a shot later in the game) - but it's not abysmal, nor should it be compared to something like Splinter Cell or other shooters, which are almost entirelyfocused on player-skill.

This game is a 7.0, maybe 7.5 at most. It's good but it has some issues here and there that degrade most concepts.

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

When considered as an action game, sure, it's not great.
When considered as an RPG (which is what it says on the box, and what the company is known for), it's fantastic, but the gameplay is a bit mediocre.

Basically, your enjoyment depends on your expectations. It's definitely a better RPG than Mass Effect, but if you prfer action games then you won't like it as much.

texasgoldrush

yep

It will be Deus Ex Human Revolution that will show them how its done, leveling up your weapons and biomods will let you do more abilities with the specific weapon or mod, not increase their accuracy or power. Face it, times change, and hiding poor shooting mechanics behind RPG elements is over, even DX series is breaking from it.

Yup..they'll show us how it's done like they did with Invisible War ;)

which btw you actually said was a better game than DX1.....your opinion is void.

That's because the Deus Ex series is presumably getting more casual-friendly, and far more action-heavy and less RPG-focused.

Let's take Oblivion, for example. Fighting works in real time, your ability to hit enemies and avoid being hit is entirely dependant on the player's skill (unlike Morrowind, Mass Effect or Alpha Protocol, for example). Sure, this makes for engaging gameplay, but it makes absolutely no sense in a role-playing game. Why should my pathetically weak mage, who has never so much as handled a dagger before, have the same ability to hit things as my orc barbarian, who has spent his entire life training to be a good fighter? Similarly, why should my highly-trained orc barbarian be a crap fighter if the player controlling him is crap?

RPGs should be focused on the skills of the characters, not the players (it defeats the point of roleplaying if they don't). Your different characters shouldn't all be perfect shots with every gun, and variation and specialisation keep these games interesting and replayable.

Having said that, even as an RPG Alpha Protocol's gameplay is a bit bland (although you can still aim perfectly well if you put heaps of points into them - I rarely missed a shot later in the game) - but it's not abysmal, nor should it be compared to something like Splinter Cell or other shooters, which are almost entirelyfocused on player-skill.

Planeforger

Honestly, I enjoy the way that the previous poster described the new Deus Ex's way of handling - which seems to be similar to the way ME1 handled the system.

Honestly, I have to agree with those saying that its not a legitimate excuse to say its an RPG, so of course the PC's aim starts off very bad. The main character of AP, from what I have heard, is a member of the best group of spies/assassin/whatever you want to call his profession - he should start with pinpoint accuracy. You should learn fundamental firearm skills in basic training - the government's not going to send you on missions if you can't master their weapons.

It makes sense to distinguish the beginning PC from the end-game PC, but RPG-developers are going to have to get a bit more creative than simply making their super-spy soldier begin with immersion breaking ineptitude with his weapons and skills. Give him passive/active skills, improve the rate of fire and decrease the amount of time it spends to reload, or give some type of increased functionality, but don't give me the crutch excuse that this seasoned veteran can't hit a nearby target because he doesn't have enough points in firearms.

If developers want to avoid such criticism, they shouldn't create characters whose backstory supports their skills and then gimp the character in game. Either that, or start of with a character who would realistically demonstrate a big difference in performance in the beginning and end of the game.

As for your example, an mage shouldn't do as a well as a combat oriented orc. It doesn't make sense (In Morrowind's case) that anyone misses a point blank slash with a knife. Even an untrained women flailing wildly with a knife is going to get some cuts on an assailant. I could understand my attacks missing the guards in Morrowind, saying, well, maybe he's just moving. he's a fighter afterall. But I could repeatedly miss even rats and diplomats if I hadn't leveled the appropiate weapon enough. That's just unrealistic to think someone could miss an axe swing on a rat directly in their face.

In the case of the orc, each hit should do more damage, every hit should flow into the next one, and he should be able to block some attacks with a dagger, seeing as how he trained and specializes with it.

This isn't a judgement of AP as a game though. I haven't played it. It's just my idea of how RPG makers need to evolve and stop relying on excuses to limit their gameplay/world

I dont get how hard is it to comprehend what the devs were going for when it comes to shooting. Its all based on your points. The pistol sucked balls when I had no points in it,but once I put some in it got much much better. Simply put you want something better put points into it. ME1 basicly worked the same way. If you wanted to be good with a gun you put the points into it. That doesint mean the shooting is broken. It means you dont like how that type of gameplay works plain and simple.

Honestly, I enjoy the way that the previous poster described the new Deus Ex's way of handling - which seems to be similar to the way ME1 handled the system.

Honestly, I have to agree with those saying that its not a legitimate excuse to say its an RPG, so of course the PC's aim starts off very bad. The main character of AP, from what I have heard, is a member of the best group of spies/assassin/whatever you want to call his profession - he should start with pinpoint accuracy. You should learn fundamental firearm skills in basic training - the government's not going to send you on missions if you can't master their weapons.

It makes sense to distinguish the beginning PC from the end-game PC, but RPG-developers are going to have to get a bit more creative than simply making their super-spy soldier begin with immersion breaking ineptitude with his weapons and skills. Give him passive/active skills, improve the rate of fire and decrease the amount of time it spends to reload, or give some type of increased functionality, but don't give me the crutch excuse that this seasoned veteran can't hit a nearby target because he doesn't have enough points in firearms.

If developers want to avoid such criticism, they shouldn't create characters whose backstory supports their skills and then gimp the character in game. Either that, or start of with a character who would realistically demonstrate a big difference in performance in the beginning and end of the game.

As for your example, an mage shouldn't do as a well as a combat oriented orc. It doesn't make sense (In Morrowind's case) that anyone misses a point blank slash with a knife. Even an untrained women flailing wildly with a knife is going to get some cuts on an assailant. I could understand my attacks missing the guards in Morrowind, saying, well, maybe he's just moving. he's a fighter afterall. But I could repeatedly miss even rats and diplomats if I hadn't leveled the appropiate weapon enough. That's just unrealistic to think someone could miss an axe swing on a rat directly in their face.

In the case of the orc, each hit should do more damage, every hit should flow into the next one, and he should be able to block some attacks with a dagger, seeing as how he trained and specializes with it.

This isn't a judgement of AP as a game though. I haven't played it. It's just my idea of how RPG makers need to evolve and stop relying on excuses to limit their gameplay/world

Actually it depends what background you pick for your guy. If you pick recurit like I did it will say your basicly green. So you sucks at pretty much everything and must build yourself up. You can pick soldier and AP points are put into your character stats according to that.

Just beat it today, I'd say the game is probably a solid 7.

Decent story and characters, from what I experienced

and some pretty bad gunplay though it got decent over time.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"] Better RPG=crappy shooting and action mechanics? That seem to be the opinion here.

Kandlegoat

yep

It will be Deus Ex Human Revolution that will show them how its done, leveling up your weapons and biomods will let you do more abilities with the specific weapon or mod, not increase their accuracy or power. Face it, times change, and hiding poor shooting mechanics behind RPG elements is over, even DX series is breaking from it.

Yup..they'll show us how it's done like they did with Invisible War ;)

which btw you actually said was a better game than DX1.....your opinion is void.

Actually I didn't.......I said the story of the second game was better, but DX1 is the better game.

And DX2 didn't allow you to level up you weapon skills, DX3 will.

finalfantasy94

Actually it depends what background you pick for your guy. If you pick recurit like I did it will say your basicly green. So you sucks at pretty much everything and must build yourself up. You can pick soldier and AP points are put into your character stats according to that.

It's funny,people are bashing AP claiming:how it's unrealistic having a Spy suck at guns in the beginning

yet in FO3,they can stomach a teenager that lived in a vault his/her whole life without any experience in actual firearms...then all of a sudden picking up a Pistol and easily being able to blow away everything in the wasteland despite only being lvl 2-3 and having very low gun skill. :roll:

Seasoned veterans start off with 100 skill points, so if you didn't choose to train those points in pistols, that makes sense to me.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]If developers want to avoid such criticism, they shouldn't create characters whose backstory supports their skills and then gimp the character in game. Either that, or start of with a character who would realistically demonstrate a big difference in performance in the beginning and end of the game.Kickinurass

Maybe I'm a bit biased, since my character was a Recruit, but...that's exactly what the game did.

As for your example, an mage shouldn't do as a well as a combat oriented orc. It doesn't make sense (In Morrowind's case) that anyone misses a point blank slash with a knife. Even an untrained women flailing wildly with a knife is going to get some cuts on an assailant. I could understand my attacks missing the guards in Morrowind, saying, well, maybe he's just moving. he's a fighter afterall. But I could repeatedly miss even rats and diplomats if I hadn't leveled the appropiate weapon enough. That's just unrealistic to think someone could miss an axe swing on a rat directly in their face.Kickinurass

I've always assumed that 'miss' was just the equivalent of saying 'failed to hurt them' - maybe you just swung randomly, maybe your sword bounced off their armour, maybe they jumped out of the way, whatever. Sure, it's not perfect either, but it makes more sense than all of your characters being just as good as one another.

This isn't a judgement of AP as a game though. I haven't played it. It's just my idea of how RPG makers need to evolve and stop relying on excuses to limit their gameplay/worldKickinurass

I actually think limitations are a great thing in RPGs.
A character shouldn't be able to do everything, master every weapon, specialise in every skill...otherwise you'd end up with a character that's exactly like everyone else's character. Each character should have their own unique attributes (imo), and be limited in what they can do, yet also have their own unique ways to solve every situation.

This adds to the replayability of the game, makes your decisions much more complex/important, and makes your character much more believable. RPGs nowadays are too forgiving on your characters - the c|assics usually made it so that your awesome mage was pathetic in melee combat, your tech expert was a terrible shot with a gun, your barbarian couldn't even persuade a bartender to get them a drink, etc etc.

[QUOTE="Kandlegoat"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]

yep

It will be Deus Ex Human Revolution that will show them how its done, leveling up your weapons and biomods will let you do more abilities with the specific weapon or mod, not increase their accuracy or power. Face it, times change, and hiding poor shooting mechanics behind RPG elements is over, even DX series is breaking from it.

texasgoldrush

Yup..they'll show us how it's done like they did with Invisible War ;)

which btw you actually said was a better game than DX1.....your opinion is void.

Actually I didn't.......I said the story of the second game was better, but DX1 is the better game.

And DX2 didn't allow you to level up you weapon skills, DX3 will.

the dark and gritty story/setting in DX1 is far superior...but to each their own.

I honestly wouldnt be surprised if DX3 will be IW all over again....and even more dumbed down than that game.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]

[QUOTE="Kandlegoat"]

Yup..they'll show us how it's done like they did with Invisible War ;)

which btw you actually said was a better game than DX1.....your opinion is void.

Actually I didn't.......I said the story of the second game was better, but DX1 is the better game.

And DX2 didn't allow you to level up you weapon skills, DX3 will.

the dark and gritty story/setting in DX1 is far superior...but to each their own.

I honestly wouldnt be surprised if DX3 will be IW all over again....and even more dumbed down than that game.

[QUOTE="Kandlegoat"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]

Actually I didn't.......I said the story of the second game was better, but DX1 is the better game.

And DX2 didn't allow you to level up you weapon skills, DX3 will.

texasgoldrush

the dark and gritty story/setting in DX1 is far superior...but to each their own.

I honestly wouldnt be surprised if DX3 will be IW all over again....and even more dumbed down than that game.

not to me...some parts could be dark/gritty...but there were also more parts that felt more Blade Runner instead of the spooky and Dystopian: "hey this ****ed up world could be possible IRL" setting/story of DX1.

I dont hate DX2...as a standalone game...it's pretty good...but it was a dissapointment compared to it's prequel.

I've put a couple hours into this game and make no mistake folks - it's a 6.0 - 7.0 experience - tops... the GS review (and corresponding score) is accurate - if anything, GS might have actually over-rated it a bit compared to the much better 3rd person action / stealthers and hybrid RPG's out there like Mass Effect and Splinter Cell Conviction...67gt500

This game destroys Splinter Cell Conviction and is tied with Mass Effect2 and Red Dead as my fav games this year.

Seasoned veterans start off with 100 skill points, so if you didn't choose to train those points in pistols, that makes sense to me.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Maybe I'm a bit biased, since my character was a Recruit, but...that's exactly what the game did.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]As for your example, an mage shouldn't do as a well as a combat oriented orc. It doesn't make sense (In Morrowind's case) that anyone misses a point blank slash with a knife. Even an untrained women flailing wildly with a knife is going to get some cuts on an assailant. I could understand my attacks missing the guards in Morrowind, saying, well, maybe he's just moving. he's a fighter afterall. But I could repeatedly miss even rats and diplomats if I hadn't leveled the appropiate weapon enough. That's just unrealistic to think someone could miss an axe swing on a rat directly in their face.Planeforger

I've always assumed that 'miss' was just the equivalent of saying 'failed to hurt them' - maybe you just swung randomly, maybe your sword bounced off their armour, maybe they jumped out of the way, whatever. Sure, it's not perfect either, but it makes more sense than all of your characters being just as good as one another.

This isn't a judgement of AP as a game though. I haven't played it. It's just my idea of how RPG makers need to evolve and stop relying on excuses to limit their gameplay/worldKickinurass

I actually think limitations are a great thing in RPGs.
A character shouldn't be able to do everything, master every weapon, specialise in every skill...otherwise you'd end up with a character that's exactly like everyone else's character. Each character should have their own unique attributes (imo), and be limited in what they can do, yet also have their own unique ways to solve every situation.

This adds to the replayability of the game, makes your decisions much more complex/important, and makes your character much more believable. RPGs nowadays are too forgiving on your characters - the c|assics usually made it so that your awesome mage was pathetic in melee combat, your tech expert was a terrible shot with a gun, your barbarian couldn't even persuade a bartender to get them a drink, etc etc.

That's what I miss about the old RPGs, or at least, they don't them in today's RPGs.

Nevertheless, I agree with the idea of "missing". It was okay in pen and paper RPGs because all you needed was your imagination. With a strict visual representation, however, it's starting to look really stupid. Even at super spy recruit status my guy should not be doing the dumb things he's doing.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Kandlegoat"]

the dark and gritty story/setting in DX1 is far superior...but to each their own.

I honestly wouldnt be surprised if DX3 will be IW all over again....and even more dumbed down than that game.

not to me...some parts could be dark/gritty...but there were also more parts that felt more Blade Runner instead of the spooky and Dystopian: "hey this ****ed up world could be possible IRL" setting/story of DX1.

I dont hate DX2...as a standalone game...it's pretty good...but it was a dissapointment compared to it's prequel.

I do enjoy the progression of the character from hapless misfit to fast moving hurricane of death. As I said, I haven't played the game yet, but I think I'll enjoy it more than the GS review did. From what I heard, the game went the other direction - glad to know I was wrong to though.

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

I've always assumed that 'miss' was just the equivalent of saying 'failed to hurt them' - maybe you just swung randomly, maybe your sword bounced off their armour, maybe they jumped out of the way, whatever. Sure, it's not perfect either, but it makes more sense than all of your characters being just as good as one another.

Planeforger

Indeed, but that's where I think subtle things come into play. For example, I wouldn't mind if my attacks were ineffectual - maybe if there was a clang of metal or some grunt to acknowledge that I hit, but failed to do damage. I don't think a mage should be as good with daggers as a spy that specializes in it, but I think there could be improvements to differentiate the neophyte and adept users that is more than just making all hits miss.

I actually think limitations are a great thing in RPGs.
A character shouldn't be able to do everything, master every weapon, specialise in every skill...otherwise you'd end up with a character that's exactly like everyone else's character. Each character should have their own unique attributes (imo), and be limited in what they can do, yet also have their own unique ways to solve every situation.

Planeforger

I agree. One of the things I hated about Fable 2 was being able to make a character that excelled in all three areas. That and it was just a shallow (but fun) game. I just think there should be more to differentiate characters them simple, invisible damage/accuracy modifiers. Which is why I like the idea of active/passive combat skills. Even if it was a visual change from wild swings to precise strikes, I'd be happy. I nearly always play the stealth guy, and it feels as though I'm rarely justly rewarded for my actions.

This adds to the replayability of the game, makes your decisions much more complex/important, and makes your character much more believable. RPGs nowadays are too forgiving on your characters - the c|assics usually made it so that your awesome mage was pathetic in melee combat, your tech expert was a terrible shot with a gun, your barbarian couldn't even persuade a bartender to get them a drink, etc etc.

Planeforger

I would enjoy it if games stepped back a bit. I think it has to do with the focus on action - I really hate that there is rarely a nonviolent solution to most problems. I would enjoy an RPG where I could manipulate other characters into helping me advance. Not that I don't enjoy modern RPG's but I just think the genre can go a bit further.