I think you're missing a unique game (yes, a flawed one) with a huge number of choices.
I hadn't planned to quit yet. I've seen enough 'it gets better after Saudi Arabia' claims to give it a bash. I'm almost finished in Saudi anyway.
My problem is that 'choices' alone don't make a good game for me. If the gameplay sucks I'm going to have a hard time enjoying any good C&C. If the story gets (a lot) better soon, then that's ok. Generally :
- I'll tolerate bad gameplay for an good story
- I'll tolerate a cheese story for great gameplay.
I'll give AP a chance to demonstrate one or the other, but I have to question how anyone can NOT see why so many reviews are (legitimately) negative. Say 'yes, but, it's a rough gem!', sure. But denying that they have a real point with their criticism?
BG2 saw Irenicus torturing the player? No, BG2 saw you standing in a cage and then trudging through a dull, big-ass dungeon
You're referring to the initial gameplay, not really the narrative hook.
It's kind of a 'fuzzy' thing to define, given how subjective it is, but some games do their story hook mainly with the introductory video and narration, some give you a sequence to play which introduces that hook. For Bloodlines, the narrative hook was the scripted introductory cut-scene with the Prince. For Planescape, it was the section of gameplay at the start, where you wake up and interact with Morte and are presented with the mystery of your past to unravel. The 'hook' is not simply what your goal is or the first actions you take, it's that initial presentation of the plot/theme/scenario which must interest the player and make them want more.
For this reason I include any intro videos/cut-scenes under the concept 'plot hook'. And in the intro video, Irenicus captures you silently in the night and tortures you, and would have continued if not for an interruption by unknown assailants. That's how you came to be standing in that cage, it's not like you were born there. It's the equivalent of the Dungeon Master presenting you with the background of your characters, in Dungeons and Dragons.
You can, of course, say the video/cut-scenes had no impact on you, that you found the premise rubbish or that the gameplay was all you noticed and that you weren't impressed. *Shrug*
It's all subjective, as you said. But I found the way the hook was presented to the player in the games I mentioned much stronger, AP's more muddled.
Fallout saw you leaving home? Who cares? I had no emotional bond to the place and getting out to explore is the whole point.
I didn't care about the vault either. But the intro video did a great job of establishing the grim mood of the setting, then you have the chat with the overseer who introduces you to why you're being sent out from your safe haven, then you see your character standing in front of the vault, jumpsuited skeleton of a previous vault dweller in front of him. I thought it was a great introduction to Fallout's setting and plot, which was more about being forced out into that strange and hostile world from your comfort and safety than about the water chip. Although the water chip idea wasn't bad either, as it presented the struggle just to survive the hostile wastes as the
real enemy, not some mustache twirling villain. It may not have provided a clear next step, but it hooked me on the setting/tone, which was more what Fallout was about than a linear storyline.
Again, subjective. But I was certainly interested at that point. Far more interested than I am in finding the terrorists with the missiles in AP right now.
