It's been a long time since I did a "Dio Review", and that's because I felt that reviews are easy to get wherever you go - my opinion means very little in that respect. However, looking at the actual mechanics in a game and then pulling them apart, analyzing them, and discussing what I would do differently is a different matter altogether. It's one thing to say what's wrong with a game. It's another to say how you'd actually improve it.
So here's the first DiD, looking at Alpha Protocol. This is probably going to be long, because there are a lot of problems.
The Problem with Weapons
There's two major flaws here. The first of which - the skill system around the weapons - I won't get into until later on. The second issue is the weapons themselves. Pistols are severely underpowered for the typical "secret agent" weapon of choice. SMG's are so dramatically inaccurate that they become a short range weapon, and are outdone by the Shotgun. The Shotgun has so much brute force you don't need to really put skills into it for close quarters. And the Assault Rifle is a great all-rounder.
Now, I'd say when your Secret Agent game favors Assault Rifles that you're getting away from Secret Agent themes and more into Generic Soldier territory. The power difference is just so dramatic that it's better to play through the game forgetting about stealth and just shooting everything up with the Assault Rifle and Shotgun. Which doesn't make you feel like much of a Secret Agent.
How Weapons Should Have Been Different.
If you're going to make people put points into weapon skills, make sure the weapons are balanced first. Pistols need to do more damage. SMG's need to have a tad less spray. Shotguns and Assault Rifles are at good points. But you need to be as efficient at killing with one weapon as you are with the next, or else the game becomes all about speccing into the best weapons.
The Problem with Skills
The skill system - when you first see it - is actually really boring. Your choice of things to level up in is Stealth, the 4 weapon skills, Martial Arts, Sabotage, Technical and Fortitude - and I don't even know if I got the names of those last two abilities right because I never used them. These skills all have different costs (Stealth costs 6 points, Weapon skills cost 5, Sabotage and Technical are 3, Martial Arts and Fortitude cost 4).
First, the ability costs. When you start out the game, you choose a 'class'. Soldier, Spy, Tech Expert, Recruit or (unlocked later) Veteran. This starting class effects some dialogue later on in the game, but it doesn't effect your choices much in the way of skills. Skills are always the same cost, no matter your choice of class. Which means you can choose to be a Soldier and move around all his abilities to be more like a Spy, right at the start of the game. The classes make more of a suggestion as to what would be appropriate for that playstyle, they don't lock you into it.
If I choose to be a Spy, shouldn't the ability cost for things like Stealth and Pistols be lowered so that I become better at those things? That is what made the most sense to me. But it's not the case here. Stealth is just as expensive a skill to level for an experienced Spy as it is for a Soldier - which doesn't make a lot of sense.
Later on in the game after your first mission you DO get to choose a specialization. And this is the only point where your choice actually means something. The Specialization doubles the amount of points you get to spend in an ability - which is important if you want to be amazing at Stealth. The problem is, every time you level up you get 10 points to spend on abilities. I've not played a game where I got any higher than level 19 - so that's 190 points to spend. Only enough to max out one or two abilities depending on what you choose - it's just not enough to work with.
The second problem is the fact that the skills are boring. Fortitude and Technical in particular offer no real "visual" feedback that you're good at those things. Sure, Fortitude gives you more health and recharges your Endurance faster, and Technical makes you better in all aspects of tech and weapons. But it's not like choosing to be an amazing martial artist, or fantastic at stealth - where the feedback is instant after you level it up. This is an action game, not World of Warcraft - why would I want to increase invisible stats?
Third problem is the weapon skills. Remember in Mass Effect how you had to level up weapon skills to increase your accuracy and give you handy little abilities to use in combat? Basically the same deal here. When you start out the game, your targeting reticule with every weapon is GIGANTIC. Targetting works in an odd way - the longer you aim down sight, the more accurate you become. So at the start of the game it might take 5 seconds to get an accurate shot with the pistol - by the end it'll only take two when you max out your pistol skill.
This is one of the most annoying mechanics in the game. I'm a Secret Agent for gods sake! I didn't much see James Bond aiming down his pistol sights for 5 seconds to get a head shot on an unwitting passer by. And once you take that shot, you better hope it hits - because the recoil will fling your reticule back out and you'll have to re-aim for another 5 seconds.
How Skills Should Have Been Different.
Firstly, picking a class needs to mean something more than bonus dialogue. If I choose to be a spy, I should be better than anybody else at using stealth, pistols and martial arts - that's what being a Spy is all about. Rather than just a set amount of levels in that ability, make the cost of the ability less.
Secondly, when you level up you should get more points to work with. This isn't such a glaring issue, but if I finish the game I want to be the best in my chosen fields - not just one or two of them. Mass Effect 1 was fantastic at doing that - even if you only did the main missions, you had plenty of points to throw around on abilities.
This extends out to weapon skills, too. The whole point of getting so many points to spend in Mass Effect 1 was that you became great in your chosen weapon quickly, which made the weapon easier to play with and use. If the leveling process is too slow, you're stuck for a long time dealing with a weapon that sucks until the very end of the game. Alternatively, just remove the weapon skills altogether - that's last gen.
Your choice of abilities need to provide interesting incentives to level up in them. Not just "25 extra health" or "pick up more ammo from enemies", but abilities like "do a roundhouse kick when you hold B" or "slow down time when you aim down sight". Something active and visual that makes you feel like "yeah, this is why I leveled that up".
Finally. Fire the designer that thought it was a good idea to increase your accuracy from "firing wildly" to "perfect shot" the longer you aim down sight. He's a dumbass.
The Problem with the Cover System
So one of my playthroughs, I was a Martial Artist. And it was a lot of fun, rushing in and beating up foes that would usually knock you about. But sometimes I want to take cover to use my actual weapons, which is to be expected. So to get into cover (on the XBOX 360) you tap A. To get out of cover, you tap A again or move the joystick away from the cover.
First problem with this is that you are locked in there. NOT a good idea for an action game where enemies can and will rush you with shotguns and melee attacks. The problem here is that while you're in cover peaking around the corner watching the guy rush up to kill you, you can't just wait for him to come around the corner and tap B to melee him - no. You can't use B at all while you're in cover, unless it's a stealth kill. So in order to melee somebody from cover you need to tap A or move the joystick FIRST, THEN start tapping B. This just seems like clunky design, and I'm surprised it was overlooked.
How The Cover System Should Have Been Different.
Tapping B from cover removes you from cover and does a melee attack.
The Problem with Boss Battles
They're stupid. They just make you feel hugely inferior with their massive health pools and powerful attacks. They're more bullet sponges than a real challenge - and try taking them on with your inaccurate weapons while they have perfect aim.
How Boss Battles Should Have Been Different.
They shouldn't have existed. If you want to put boss battles in a game, it should feel like a challenge - not frustrating, not like they're just a more heavily armored and higher damage version of you. Boss battles are difficult to balance. Look at Bowser in the old Super Mario games - he was another obstacle to be overcome, just like all the other enemies you'd squashed on the way here. And if you screwed up in taking him down, it was your fault. He was a different enemy - jumping on his head didn't work. It changed the way you played, even if for a moment.
That's the way Boss Battles should be. Figure out a weakness. Exploit it. Win. The challenge should be in getting to the "Win" part. A boss battle isn't fun if the weakness is "bullets" and in order to win you "apply more bullets". That's what you've been doing to get up to that point. Boss battles should mix it up. Change gears and do something different. But not so much that it feels out of place. Bullets should still be involved - just the how and how many should differ.
Subscribe to Diomades by Email
0 comments:
Post a Comment