poetic obsidian

You know what's really funny? each of those negative reviews actually make the game sound more and more appealing to my sensibilities. When looking at colleges, one thing I wish I did was read the negative reviews, and then look at the personalities, and tastes of the people who did not enjoy their experience. If they sounded like they were very different people from me, then it's almost guaranteed that I would have had a blast at that college. I know most people would be automatically turned off by negative reviews, but if you look at the people who hated something, and the reasons they cite, you can often learn a lot more from that, than from the positive reviews.

A big part of the reason why it got those scathing reviews in America is because alpha protocol seems to be a niche game at its core. Sure, the publisher might not have intended it to be that way, based on how they marketed it. And the developers gave it some shooter game elements possibly to bring in that mass effect 2 crowd. But that backfired on them because so far, the people who went into the game expecting a Mass Effect 2 style action rpg-lite game, or a Fallout 3 style shooter, found the game to be severely lacking in things like flashy production values and shooter mechanics. While those who approached the game like an old school rpg (aka niche) had a more favorable impression. This is why some suggested that Obsidian should have just gone all the way and made it a "pure" Rpg, and thus avoiding those unfavorable Mass Effect 2 comparisons. It's a niche rpg game at its core, and requires more patience, and thought than shooters which are designed to be as fluid and streamlined as possible.

I definitely understand the comparisons. But VTM:Bloodlines was the swan song of my beloved Troika. Let's hope the comparisons stop well before that.

I concur. I don't like the culture that DLC promotes. It's bound to have an effect on the way developers approach and design their games. Games like System Shock 2 or planescape torment could never be made in the age of DLC's. It takes a whole different philosophy so to speak. However, if the DLC 's are few, fairly priced, and actually add substantial content in the same spirit of the original game (remember Bioware's Darkspawn Chronicles debacle?...ouch), then I'd buy them just to show support to the company.

Exactly. They might have been better off going for a "pure" RPG given what reviewers have been saying. Here's a summary of gamespot's review: I don't know if it could be spelled out clearer than that. "Gee, it's a great rpg, and rpg fans might love to dig deep into it, BUT that's just a small consolation prize for the crappy gunplay." Makes no sense. That's like reviewing a beat em up game and saying. "Gee, it's got great button-mashing action, fluid controls, and balanced fights, BUT that's just a small consolation prize for the crappy plot."

The OP is right on actually. Don't reduce his post to a simple: Obsidian should have done a more traditional rpg setup when it comes to combat. What he's really saying is that the strong rpg elements (such as writing, dialogue etc. ) of the game are treated in a rather flippant way by the reviewers. The infamous Gamespot review is the perfect example. Essentially, the reviewer felt that the strong rpg elements weren't enough to overcome its shortcomings as a shooter action game. The OP feels that instead of letting the great rpg writing be the focus of their reviews, it was relegated to being naught but a consolation prize in a failed shooter action game.

I'm so glad there's a thread about this ! I just game back from a Gamestop, and found out the hard way that only consoles get the pre-order bonus. Now,I don't really care that much about missing the bonus. What really worries me is how this reflects the slow but seemingly inevitable death of PC gaming. I mean, when I first went into the Gamestop, the guy didn't even know that AP was coming out for the PC !! When I looked at their stock, almost everything was for consoles,and there was one tiny section for PC games, and most of them were used. It's a pity really, because I'm a PC person myself for a variety of reasons. I think that with the shift to consoles, there will be an even bigger focus on merchandising, gimmicks (like Bioware points), and DLC's. Games will become even more about just making money rather than an art form. Sure, it has always been about money, but in today's console dominated market, the focus is turning to money even more than ever in my opinion. There will be no more innovation as everyone will fight to create the highest selling version of the same game.Sad, really.

You tend to find what you look for. Take any RPG game that got top reviews, and play through it actively looking for bugs, glitches, awkward mechanics etc. and it will turn out that Alpha protocol has a standard share, if not less compared to some others. AP's flaws are put into a spotlight while the other games' flaws are downplayed. Many theories have been offered on this forum to explain why that happened. Pick whichever one you personally subscribe to: - the reviewer went in expecting a game with standard shooter mechanics instead of an rpg with *gasp* math in the background -Sega didn't cough up enough cash to those game websites - those other games had more polish and higher production values so people were too distracted by the shiny graphics and big name voice actors to notice the bugs

I found both Fallout and Deus Ex to be quite atmospheric actually, and that's because they both used sci fi to add that extra ethereal element that contributes to atmosphere. Jagged Alliance is excellent as a tactical shooter, but the setting isn't particularly atmospheric. It was the sparse but effective voice acting and rich characterizations that gave Jagged Alliance its atmosphere. The mercs had their own quirky, distinctive personalities. Alpha Protocol is just too down to earth it seems, but that's probably exactly what the writers wanted. ------------ Yup, I'm not the only one who notice this tension between RPG tradition and realism in Alpha Protocol. from rpg watch:

Well, thats what sets Alpha protocol apart from other rpgs. There is simply no fantasy, no sci-fi, not even hints at magic or anything paranormal. There are already enough fantasy rpgs out there. People need to get the "traditional" rpg mindset out of their heads. I understand they were trying to do something different. But with that came a price. The most negative reviews of AP make it seem as if the author was expecting a third person shooter, and the setting is partly to blame for that.

Goodness, there's actually someone else out there ??? The OP pretty much listed the three ingredients which are also crucial to me when it comes to RPG's. I thought I was the only atmosphere whore around. Sadly. the two responses you got don't seem to be too convincing. Perhaps they misunderstood you, or they simply don't value those things as much as we do. I think it's the setting. Obsidian went for a realistic modern day setting, and it's hard for that to compete against fantasy realms when it comes to evocative power of ambience, mood, atmosphere. As another poster pointed out, the setting didn't exactly help Obsidian out when it came to reviews. People associate shooters with that setting, and so its natural for them to go in with a certain mindset. If there was an element of the supernatural appropriate to the modern setting (specifically a healthy dose of science fiction) that would have gone a long way towards making people go into the RPG mindset as opposed to a shooter mindset. But as it is, all your enemies seem to be just humans, and that realism can be mundane and have an adverse effect on that quality of immersive atmosphere that some of us prize in RPG's.

I know Obsidian would probably hate to hear this, but in many ways they remind me of an indie game company. They have a narrow focus (story-driven RPG's), take on ambitious projects, foster a niche appeal, and have some very devoted super-fans. Sadly, the poor reception of AP outside of people like you might force them to mainstreamize and console-ize even more than ever...like a certain company I could name.

Yes, there is a lot of legitimate criticism one could make against alpha protocol, but relative to other big release titles, it is evident that reviewers are being a lot less forgiving of AP's flaws. Some of this feels really inconsistent. Mass Effect had some serious bugs. Heck, there are still people today who can't even play the game due to a GPF protection error, and Bioware never bothered to fix it, instead they resorted to locking any threads on the issue. Dragon Age had a fairly serious issue concerning dexterity on release which made an entire class nearly unplayable. I don't think it has been fixed on the PS 3 and probably never will. Fallout 3 on the PC had random crash issues, not to mention the infamous 1 year crash. Still got glowing reviews. I wonder if the fans like us get more worked up about this kind of perceived unfairness than the devs themselves?

One thing that seems clear to me is that if Deus Ex were released today with relatively similar graphics, AI, bugs etc, it would have gotten much less favorable reviews than it did. I do not think that this is due to reviewers having higher standards. I think it's due to having different standards altogether. You tend to find what you look for. That seems like a painfully obvious statement, but the implications can be profound. Reviewers today are actively looking for things like glitches, awkward animations, flashy graphics etc, so those are the things they find (or don't find). The focus is on what they physically see on screen, and not on the subjective experience of being immersed in a virtual world via its mood, story, dialogue etc. which is another component of games.

I will grant that I might be an extreme case when it comes to using imagination to fill gaps. I still play and enjoy RPG's like might and magic 7:for blood and honor, and dark sun: the shattered lands. It's not nostalgia because I played both of those games for the first time in 2010 ! When I was a kid, if I found a stick on the ground, it was never just a stick. it could be a gun, a sword, or the front paw of my trusty wolf companion.

Indeed. All of what you said goes without saying. A more pertinent analogy would be: suppose there is a book with an excellent story, but the publisher got cheap, and released it in a hard-to-read, ugly font, and included typos. Now, should you just pretend those issues don't exist during your review of the book? Absolutely not. However, if there really is a good story there but published in an ugly font, I will see that as an unfortunate hindrance, but I won't let that color my entire perception of the story. It won't be a 2/10. Ideally, the two things assist each other. Having an easy-to-read font makes for a seamless transition into the realm of the story. What's written on the physical page is just the medium through which you enter the virtual world of the story. If the medium is a hindrance, you should absolutely take off points for it, but at the same time, put it into its proper perspective, and recognize that it is only the first part of a two-step process.

Indeed, and I agree with you. That's why I put "UI" in quotation marks. What I really meant was an abstract place or a gap between the human and the virtual world. Graphics, textures, combat mechanics, that awkward sneaking animation.... all those things stand between the user and his involvement with the virtual world in Alpha Protocol, and in that sense I meant they are part of the "user interface." Sorry for the confusion. Some of you think I'm saying that imagination is a fix or a substitute for on-screen issues. That's not true, and that's not what I'm saying at all. It's more that the two should work together , and what you see on screen should help the imagination bridge that gap in a seamless way. If a game's AI is atrocious, it definitely interferes with the process of bridging that gap between the user and the virtual world. And no amount of imagination could fix that. But focusing only on on-screen issues and forgetting the other component, it could lead you to having an unreasonably harsher view of a game than you otherwise might have.

I concede that it's a bit of an extreme example, but those usually serve best to illustrate a point. Hellgate was an ambitious RPG that was (is) indisputably flawed and got bad scores and a bad rap. Yet despite that, I was able to carve out an enjoyable experience for myself by not relying solely on what was presented on screen, but instead, using that as a starting point from which my own story could take off. Had I focused only on what was presented to me, I would have found a mundane main story, and a glitchy game. As I said above, I think doing this is especially key in the realm of RPG's, and it struck me that some of the people crucifying Alpha Protocol might have benefited from keeping this in mind.

I'm glad that a few people understood what I was trying to say. This is especially true for the RPG genre as you pointed out. Roleplaying both denotes and connotes using your imagination. Yes, oblivion and morrowind ( morrowind moreso in my opinion) reward the user for using their creative juices to assist with the immersion. As sandbox games, you get the opportunity to create your own story, and the graphics, music, atmosphere, and mood of what you see on screen help to assist your imagination. It's the same reason why I was able to really enjoy technically flawed games VTM:Bloodlines. If you use what you see on screen to serve your own purposes, rather than relying entirely on that, it could make for a much more fulfulling experience, especially in the realm of RPG's. Although I agree with you, that is not the point I was trying to make at all.

It might seem like a no-brainer that someone who reviews games for a living should know how to play games...but is that really the case? I have read almost all of the unflattering reviews of alpha protocol I could find, including the user comments/reviews and one common trend I see among them is that they criticize the combat mechanics, AI, animation, graphics and glitches/anomalies. What do all these things have in common? They are essentially part of the user interface. They all relate back to that gap between the virtual world on the computer and the human behind the keyboard. It seems like gamers today rely too much on what they see on screen to bridge that gap. We have forgotten that the best instrument to bridge that gap is our imaginations. I'm going to use one simple example now: Take Hellgate London's single player game. This game was lambasted upon release and there's no denying that most of the criticism was warranted. But when I actually played the single player game, I had a tremendous amount of fun. Why? Because I used my imagination to bridge the gap between the virtual world and myself....rather than relying entirely on what I see on screen. Here's what I did. I created a story for my engineer character in my head. And there I was...a skinny teen boy walking alone through the dark, smelly London sewers with nothing to protect myself but a ragged t-shirt, an old rifle, and my pet robots. Three of the robots were built like flying cameras and they had motion sensors which kept watch over me as I slept. If any unsavory creature popped out from the shadows, my robots would spot them immediately and they defended me. I grew quite fond of the reassuring buzz of their engines as they whirred and flitted around me. The point I attempted to make there is that rather than relying entirely on what I see on screen, I used that as a springboard for my imagination. Consequently, I got a tremendous sense of immersion and enjoyed this game much more than I otherwise would have. Back in the old days, games used iconic graphics where our imaginations were left to fill the rest. So it was easier for us to do this back then. It came natural. But we've been spoiled over the years. And a consequence of that is that we have come to rely more and more on what we see on screen to bridge the gap between the human and the virtual world. I think we do this to much. How does this relate to Alpha Procotol? Well go back to what I said in my opening statements, The majority of the critical reviews (especially the particularly scathing ones) cited prinmarily issues which all relate back to the user interface and by extension to that gap. They relied entirely on what they saw on screen to bridge the gap, and therefore Obsidian's shortcoming in technical execution were at the front of their awareness, and they did not find a way to immerse themselves in the world. Rather, they should have used what they saw on screen as a springboard for their imaginations. A springboard that would bridge the gap by propelling the user into the role they wanted to create for themselves. Just like I did with my example above involving the robots in the sewers. --------------------------------------------- Now I understand the point I'm trying to make here could easily be misinterpreted, and I'm not sure I explained myself well at all. I am not saying that the user is entirely responsible for bridging the gap between the virtual world and themselves. So the criticism about the technical shortcomings on screen are valid. The "user interface" (which includes combat mechanics, animation, graphics, AI etc.) should make bridging that gap as seamless as possible. However, the user should not entirely rely on what they see on screen to bridge that gap. The imagination should instead use what they see on screen as a springboard. It was easier for us to do this in the days of iconic graphics. But with today's graphical enhancements, many seem to have lost this ability and thus rely too much on what is seen on screen. And when that is imperfect, as in the case of alpha protocol, they are unable to bridge the gap, throw the baby out with the bath water, and dismiss the good points along with the bad. ---------------------------------------------

The gamespot review blurb mentions production values. That's a key point right there. Let's be honest, Alpha Protocol didn't have the production values of a modern warfare 2 (I seem to be using this game because it is pretty much representative of a distressing current trend). A lot of people seem to confuse quality with production values.This is especially prevalent in the film industry where average cliched stories get the toast because of the celebrity glam aka star power and production values. That isn't something relevant to my enjoyment of a film, nor to a game, so I'm not in the least worried. If anything, it seems like my prediction will come true. This might be a game that will get low scores but for all the wrong (to me) reasons. -------------------------------------------- P.S. I'm much more worried about sporadic criticism floating around which imply bugs, an overly short game, or poor writing.

I think the reason why people were telling you to be careful about IGN reviews is that IGN, gamespot etc. are notorious for being very forgiving of the flaws of "hype machine" titles, while being unreasonably harsh at the flaws of lesser known ones. Alpha Protocol doesn't fall into the modern warfare 2, fallout 3, dragon age hype machine so its far more susceptible to getting a review that would emphasize the flaws. Aside from the accusations of being paid off which might be true, those big name review websites have a ve$ted intere$t in giving good scores to big sellers like modern warfare 2 even though the game had some serious flaws for the PC.

It's expected that they will talk about the dated graphics. In all honesty though, I won't mind if all the "big name" review sites give AP an 8/10. This might mean that there's a greater chance that I would end up loving it. My tastes rarely align with the mainstream, and some of my favorite games got less than stellar scores/ or are practically unknown: Amber:Journeys Beyond, Sanitarium, Homeworld to name a few.

They wanted to be fun and were ridiculous. For some reason, that video just plain ticked me off. I used to think girls into video games were cool, but the girl in that video makes me want to strangle something (and I'm not talking about my chicken).

I'm going to have to join the club of people saying that the commentators were annoying/ intrusive/ and ruined the atmosphere. Granted, a few of the quips were funny, but they went too far and most of it was just all the most annoying aspects of nerding out. Seriously, is this the kind of personality to expect among the typical game journalist? No wonder...