C2B

That was actually more of an answer to him and more sarcastically spoken. I should have used "" to specify this. Sorry.

Ahhhhhhh, sorry. Well, yeah, you're right. But both is really a matter of perspective. In my viewpoint it wasn't (Especially because of the multiple approach). It just was a general viewpoint. AP is also critizized as broken. That's why I said it's similiar how these two games were complained about. (Though, DX was still loved at realeased in contrast TO ap that was panned.)

I'm not...... I do really not understand. If I have said something "This is how it should be" or similiar I would understand, but I'm honestly confused. I even gave a reason for what I said and compared it. Where did I specify something? I even said it still can be, just that it isn't the case in most crpgs.... Where what`? Where's the hypocrazy. I would really like to take it back and reflect on it but I just can't find out what you mean?

Did I speak of AP? I just mentioned it since I have still good feelings about the release day back then. Also about its shortcomings but that didn't even concern me. Enjoyed it throughly. Doesn't mean I can't bring it up when people once again glorify things and keep talking about something that is flawless which it isn't. In my opinion, nothing is. Also, I don't think AP is much more broken than Deus Ex back then. It's pretty much similiar, actually. Deus Ex wasn't actually liked for its combat either.

Hypocrisy much? ? I just said that a true rpg doesn't need to be fully character based. It can, but this is probably mostly real life rp or p&p, so. My argument is that there are slim to none crpg (except reallly REALLY easy ones) that are fully character based in combat. Player skill is just as required, even more than in AP since quick thinking is even more required, choosing skills, changing formation, heal, tank, nerfing, buffing etc. Is that wrong? I don't really see the hypocrazy.

Just out of curiosity, did you like Fallout 3, Oblivion, or Mass Effect 1? All three had similar issues, yet none of them seemed to get trashed in the reviews because of it. Ahhh, I overlooked that post. Well, I give up. Don't even try answer to him. He's arrogant enough thinking he knows exactly what an rpg is and brings completly flawed statements. I especially like: equires a high degree of player input and micromanagement (in AP you literally control a character's every move) but then has a random stat based chance of failure even if the player does everything right. First of all, every rpg requires that. Which attack, which skill to choose, which formation etc.etc. But hey, you have your opinion. I'm tired to argue with something like that.

Every game has at least little bugs. Also, it's always a question of what people assume to be a bug. Though, Deus Ex had tons of glitches, actually. It's the only way to skip some bosses. And I'm not joking not to mention Deus Ex Ki was considerd mediocre to weak for that time in contrast to for example Half Life.

Also, since this is an rpg, furthermore a hommage on the spy/federal agent gerne in general overkill abilities make sense. I elaborated on that in my first post. Don't like it don't use it. Also I'm amused when people speak of realism and then bring splinter cell up. And I do not mean the story. .-.

Good to hear, I played my 3rd with a marksman-endurance-martial arts Rambo and it was not so fun... after that, I felt like the combat system is better suited for a stealth approach, IMHO. I mean, lots of enemies coming to kill you stacked one over the other, acting dumb or acting very cunning, no time to aim pistol... perhaps if I have chosen SMG or shotgun, it would be better. I think so, a pistol is always better suited for stealth since it's very weak in comparison and short range (though Chain shot makes up for much) Shotgun runthrough is lots of fun.

Exactly here is the problem. I know countless people who hated these two bossfights (especially the Darcy one) and would rather have a classic shootoff. I'm actually one of them (Though I don't mind the former ones). Loved the Sis fight because of it. Quickly took out her two guards with my pistol and then engaged her in hand to hand combat. It was a very enjoyable mid-boss fight that really helped the pace of the game.

'Incorrect' is a word that I wouldn't use talking about game design, but he has a good point. The boss design in Alpha Protocol is pretty cheap. Honestly, I don't know how many HP they had though, since I've managed to kill most of them with a chain shot to the head. Come up with something better. Given the direction the setting is it would have been better if they were avoidable. But I can't see how it could be much better. They at least tried to make them interesting.

the game isn't perfect but the reviewers exaggerated with the "flaws" and the worse is that played the game the wrong game to later criticize the gameplay/gunplay etc. Not to mention for a review score to have ANY use at all it has to be comparable to other games in the gerne. This is afaik NOT possible when flaws that are in both games are rated differently. That's the problem that we have. NOT that its flawless. (I could even give a flying crap if its flawless because not one game is. There is always valid room to complain)

If we take into account when you do sidequests in ME AP surpasses it. I have yet to see something as bad looking as planet exploring in the original ME. Also AP does shadows much MUCH nicer.

Seriously? Main complaints I can understand - bad KI (not horrible, not anywhere near it. In fact it is on the same level as most other games. KI didn't make real progress since ca. 2004-5. Also many people seem to ignore the silent running ability or the sound factor and blame it on the KI) - Overpowered powers (This is a hit and miss. On one side it lets you clearly feel like some sort of Jack Bauer/Bond spy. On the other side it makes the entire system unbalanced) -Minigames (Who are bad in any game. But seriously, at least its not boring like Planet scanning. I never had any problem with them though. Then again I played with my Xbox360 controller, so... ) -Level Design (Though the only real complaint I see here are the forever closing doors. They could have added more routes though. Also it's really a rather average Level design but functional for the most part) -Unbalanced (See above. Again two sides. While you are overpowered later in the game. EVERY weapon can be very functional and is useful. More than I can say for most shooters. Especially if you pair Martial Arts with it and fury. Then you basically just fly through rooms with enemies before they even have a chance of reaching the alarm. Also that gives such a high grad badass spy feeling.) Complaints I can not understand is when people play this like a shooter and complain that they can't hit with a pistol half across the map. Or when people glorify games like Deus Ex (which was clearly a role model for designing combat here) and say the gameplay wasn 1000x times better when it was not. That game was just as not polished as AP is now. There, I said it. On all the other reviews I only read "lack of polish". I honestly have no idea what polish actually means to that day since by most definitions I can't say to have ever played a "polished" game. Also, I can attribute just as many complaints to several other games. Including every Bioware and Bethesda ones. Also Black Isle for that matter and even Blizzard or other companys in other gernes. Or is suddenly RPG = Bad Gameplay for some reason?

Well, just because you don't have them doesn't mean they don't happen to other people, just that it was optimized better for your system than theirs. Still, it's no more buggy than, say, Fallout 3, which would crash on startup on my computer before I edited some ini files, but which was not criticized for the bugs by mainstream critics (of course Brother None has actually criticized FO3's bugs as well). Actually, all the bugs in the game are ME1 level. Didn't see or heard of any more bugs that weren't in some form in ME1. Hell, ME2 has also a lot of bugs. Especially "hanging on objects" was annoying in that game.

There is another problem here when we score this game. Comparison. I see multitudes of problem more in the original ME and Fallout 3 than I see in AP. Yet those games scored near/over 90. This kinda destroys the entire rating system. Makes it unreliable. Reviewers should rather just focus on pointing out good and bad points of a game rather than score it. It just doesn't add up.

What? You're joking, right? Yes thats right, I'm joking. Certainly games of ME2's polish, quality and production values don't do anything to raise expectations of other games. Just like how the original Half-Life didn't raise expectations for future FPS games to become more cinematic, nor how MGS for the playstation didn't raise expectations for games everywhere to have high quality voice acting and cinematic cutscenes. Instead of cherry picking my post for a single statement just to make a dumbass remark, why not put some effort into it and actually tell me your opinion. Problem is here Mass Effect 2 is as much as an crpg as most adventures. The mechanics are shooter through and through. Also, if you believe it or not, there are people that value other things over production value and polish. Not to mention there are tons of more polished and better quality 3rd person shooters out ther

Yep, belongs to Darcy's personality.

Try to get 1 number per Sequence and then get the other in the next or use EMP's. Also, Alpha Protocol is skill based in the minigames. The later ones are very hard if you didn't spend much points. It's the equivlant of other rpgs saying "Your skill is too low" Just in Alpha Protocol you can still try.

Wait what? 80's Movies have at least charm or deliever good things. Boll movies are deliberatry made to insult people. Not to mention 80's scripts were were still better than AITD or Tunnel Rats. Also both FC and Postal are horrible. Especially Postal. While the original games still poked fun in some morbid way, the movie just did stupid things and made it as insulting as possible. And the entire time you know this guy just does it for the money in his scheme. At least Ed Wood movies were still filled with love from Ed Wood. He liked making the movies and it showed. As utterly bad as they were. Boll on the other hand just trolls and is as arrogant as possible a person can be. So, no Uwe sucks.

Trying to stealth though some levels without being detected or even hitting anyone reminded me of the puzzle-ness of Commandos, the first one. Except that its harder in AP because you don't have a whole view of your environment. He was talking about the character development I think. Yeah, but I have seen people that ONLY invested in stealth and then complained about how hard the bosses and enemies are. It does not need that that "Level" but it still needs a minute to think about it. (Certainly more than ME2 did)

Yeah, Omikron was very underrated. Though I disagree there wasn't very much consequence at all. Omikron had choice comparable with Sandbox (It kinda was one) games in what to do next or if you follow certain things (though more than them). In the end most things boiled down to very little consequence. Also it both profited and suffered for beeing a David Cage Game. Great Director (Main Reason Fahrenheit and Heavy Rain have such a high status), horrible Writer (with some good things in between. But few.)

I'm sorry but that user is just theorycrafting there. He does not have access to any more sales information than the rest of us, and discounts have been offered for games that have sold well before, hell my collector's edition of ME2 was heavily discounted before release from what I recall. The user admits that the PC version was number 3 in the best sellers list for Play, and tries to wrangle it to indicate that it only did so because it was marked down while the console versions were not given the discount and did not sell so well. I could argue that it was given a discount because Play managed to get more sales on it than it thought and so could afford to give it a discount while the console versions didn't and so they kept them at the high price. We also don't know how many people didn't preorder it but bought it after release, from what I have seen many people held off on it as they were unsure and then bought it later, possibly driving the price down due to lack of confidence only to then find it selling after release, that is still a sale whichever way you spin it. Remember, the publisher still gets the same amount of money per sale regardless what the stores sell them at, so even if all the stores discount the game as long as they sell Sega still makes money. I have not deluded myself into thinking AP will become a blockbuster or even sell that well, but until I see actual sales numbers and profits I will not believe that anyone really has any idea how well it has done (or not done). ^This Furthermore, not to mention that play.com is not represantive for a large chunk of the european market. Also his last sentences are fairly biased against the game. So I call a "I see what I want to see" As far as I can see checking several online-houses sales have been rather mediocre to good. Not anywhere near Red Dead Redemption but that was expectable.

No, you don't own them silence. You're right, What you DO own them is not going on a stupid avenge trip just because you're feeling mishandled. Because that is even more cowardly than anything else. If nobody asks you and there is no harm in said product just shut up. Especially when it's the release of the product. Because thats some human decency anyone should have.