If there is one thing Bioware could learn from Alpha Protocol is...

[Woodsey]

Perhaps they had more time to implement it given how little time they'd spent making an interesting and coherent story.

I always feel like I'm tailoring the story in various aspects in BioWare games - maybe not on too many major plot points, but I still feel like I'm having an affect.

I'd take that over the drudgery of AP any day. I think they're getting better at it anyway.

 

[swankyfella]

thats because the choices you make in Mass Effect are supposed to affect the next game.

But even those were minimal. Most of the effects from 1 to 2, were small things. Maybe 1 and 2 will have a bigger effect on 3.

The point of the Mass Effect games was never to make an absolutely unique game for everyone who played them, but instead to make a very personal version of a general story.

Try watching someone else play through ME1 or 2 with their Shepherd. His (or her) voice sounds strange coming out of a different face than your Shepherd's. Even though you'll recognize where they are and what they're doing, it's the little differences that make you realize that your playthrough is yours and yours alone. That's a big reason the games are so good, even with their limited cause/effect system.

 

[Kingsnake661]

The choices in ME add flavor, or as some put it, atmosphere to the game. Yes, it's true, they didn't usually make much of an impact in how the game plays or how the story progress, SO FAR, but they did add to the over all expearince. And add a measure of replay value.

I think, and that's all it is, a guess, but i think ME3 will have a slightly more branching story structure then the first 2, and the choices that were made, in eairler games, and throught 3, will be more dirmatic in the last game. Because it IS the last game. (In Shepards story.) Becuase it can afford to be...

The reason, IMO, the first 2 games choices didn't effect the following game as much as it could have, was because, they knew they were making a trilagy, and had to keep the story, somewhat consistent so that they wouldn't have to make 2 totally different games by the time the 3rd one hit. But, there is no 4th game they have to setup, so they have real freedom to get creative with the ending, which, IMO, is where the big payoff needs to be.

So, i'm hopeful for ME3. Even if it isn't as epic as i think it could be, (and prolly won't be... most things rarely live up to their hype), so long as bioware does what they do best, write a good story and let me expearince it with likable charaters and an illison of real choice, i'll be happy.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

What could Bioware learn from Alpha Protocol? They could learn how to make RPGs again. They seem to have forgotten how to.

 

[Azrael the Cat]

Amazing amount of player control over the plot in AP as well.

Don't know spoiler tags, so SPOILERS - not game-ruining, but revealing major parts of some possible endings (though there are many, and I'm not revealing how to get them, so it isn't really going ruin your playthrough like it would if AP was most games when it came to player choice).
.
.
.
.
.
.
SPOILERS
.
.


Take just a few bits of the end-game, for example. Whether you get to fight Marburg, convert Marburg to your side, reconcile with Alpha Protocol, convince Parker to switch sides depend on difficult/rare options that require putting multiple pieces together earlier in the game. Then as well as the standard good/evil endgames with side-choices, you also get say-you're-joining-the-evil-side, bluff Leland out, then at the last moment backstab him in order to either (a) be the good guy afterall, or (b) if you've built up enough contacts/resources/info etc (say by having an elite assassin loyal to you, with contacts at the top of the Chinese secret police and organised crime in Taiwan/Moscow, and a secret private army with a shared agenda....) say that you don't actually need Leland and can go 'ultra-evil' and take over the conspiracy for yourself

 

[Azrael the Cat]

Even when Bioware was doing the BG series, it was always Interplay in those days that was king of the rpgs. They co-made BG1 - Bioware were making a generic RTS before Interplay (as publisher) contracted with them to make a game using Interplay's idea of using RTS controls and viewpoint to control a Dungeons and Dragons game with open exploration (hence Baldurs' Gate). Interplay (through their subdivision Black Isle) made the best of the Infinity Engine games, Planescape:Torment (ok, even I'm tied between BG2 and PS:T, but PS:T was certainly a contestant for best game of the era), and made Fallout and its sequel. Even in the 80s, Interplay/Black Isle had a great history of rpgs from Wasteland, the Bards Tale 1-3, etc.

I'm not dissing Bioware of the late 90s here - I loved those Baldurs Gate games. But if you that time/tech period, I'd take Fallout/FO2/Planescape:Torment/Icewind-Dale over the Baldurs Gate series. Even if you prefer the BG series, what I'm getting at is that there is nothing new about the Obsidian crew doing less rated, less mainstream, but long-term icons, liked by less, but absolutely loved by those that are into them. Half the Interplay/Black Isle crew went to Obsidian, and they've just continued what they've always done.

The real tragedy is that the other half of Interplay/Black Isle went to Troika, made a few amazing games (Arcanum, Bloodlines) and went bankrupt, and unlike the Obsidian crew, the Troika half of the Interplay team have left the dedicated rpg scene to make stuff for Blizzard and other mmorpgs (Tim Cain is lead writer on Diablo 3, Jason Anderson is working on the FO MMO, etc). My dream would be for the Troika guys to form a joint enterprise with Obsidian, bringing the full talents of the Interplay/Black Isle crew back together.

In any event, keep the Interplay story in mind if Bioware does stop making rpgs (they seem to be heading inexorably towards action games, and I can't see that stopping under EA). The good designers will still be able to form new companies and make rpgs with them, irrespective of what the original company does.

 

[LetalisK]

To be honest, I actually liked the game, sure the AI was bad but at least it was fun in my opinion.

Also, it wasn't just decisions alone affecting the game, it also was your play style, I remember breaking into one place, trying to use stealth at first only to end up in a gun fight, the after mission report says they would close the place down now because I was caught and they don't want someone breaking in again.

I honestly can't think of a stealthy game where the enemy AI isn't pants-on-head retarded.

 

[Rayne870]

Deciding the fate of the council in ME1, has Effects in ME2 shapes a lot of the atmosphere.

The human council doesn't believe you as much as the alien one. It makes no difference whatsoever. That's the general rule of thumb with Bioware games. Lots and lots and lots of talking with little real effect on the gameplay or story. The fact that the paragade system gets you the same results regardless also speaks volumes about how little choice matters in such a game. And don't say the Rachni or the geth or whoever is gonna make a difference in ME3. Either some unimportant background characters or stuff is going to be lost or Bioware will kill off a meaningful squadmate despite the fact that it requires owning Mass Effects 1 and 2 to get a theoretical best ending. There's no good repercussions for their games. They dumbed down the Rachni decision for Legion's loyalty mission (it's the fucking geth; they don't give a shit) and there was so much good stuff going on between Morinth and Samara. Why the fuck could you only pick one? You're Commander-goddamn-Shepard, grab one's arm, point a gun at the other and tell them to give up their 400 year feud with a blue or red decision. You're Shepard, you've done that before.

But yes Alpha Protocol probably had a good cause and effect system and henceforth a dynamic story but it was lost on the masses, myself included because of the severe lack of polish in the non story elements of the game.

Was I the only person that noticed how clunky the combat was, how one eye tended to be more open for some characters when they were emoting and that Kelly would tell you you had emails after telling you you had emails?

Or that you could get infinite squad points?
Or how my vanguard got stuck up on a post after charging only to get picked off because she had nowhere to go?

To be honest, I actually liked the game, sure the AI was bad but at least it was fun in my opinion.

Also, it wasn't just decisions alone affecting the game, it also was your play style, I remember breaking into one place, trying to use stealth at first only to end up in a gun fight, the after mission report says they would close the place down now because I was caught and they don't want someone breaking in again.

I honestly can't think of a stealthy game where the enemy AI isn't pants-on-head retarded.

I can't think of any sneaking game other than Alpha Protocol that made sneaking look like a cross between Sneak King and air humping.