Alpha Protocol preview at Eurogamer

[Humodour]

Dont buy - Buy

 

Best rating scale ever, IMHO. Forces user to actually read review, prevents much bias, and gets rid of a lot of reviewer subjectivity.

[Slowtrain]

If a reviewer awards a game a perfect score, regardless of scale, then the reviewer is saying that the game is perfect, no? Perfection is an absolute. Nothing can ever be MORE perfect. AT the point of perfection a pinnacle has been reached and nothing can ever go any higher. Both in and of itself (a game that is perfect can never be improved) and in comparison to others (a game that is perfect can never be surpassed by other games though it can be equalled)

 

If your scale is only 2 points, then you don't have much leeway in awarding scores. WHich is probably why 2 point scales are rarely used. But 2/2 is still perfect. Just as 5/5 or 10/10 or 100/100.

 

That is certainly an amazingly contrived and eccentric way to view things.

 

Now this is probably how I would construct a 2 point scale:

Bad - Good

or

Dont buy - Buy

 

However I wouldnt make the scale:

PERFECT, BEST GAME EVER - Everything else

 

Because that would be stupid.

 

 

That's true. I would do it that way as well. A binary scale doesn't allow for much granularity and one is forced to lump the fair with bad and the good with the great.

 

Probably why 2 point scales aren't very common when representing things that have more than 2 possible states.

 

 

It would be interesting to see game reviewers adopt a pass/fail system. My guess is they wouldnt'; because Pass isn't as hyperbolic and press worthy as 10/10, 5 STARS!, Greatest game Ever!

 

 

Pass.

[mkreku]

If a reviewer awards a game a perfect score, regardless of scale, then the reviewer is saying that the game is perfect, no?

No. It simply means it's the best of its kind at the time.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Review scores are always a joke. Their only possible purpose is to compare different games, and even then, its all just numbers.

 

When you look at game reviews, don't look at the score. That never works. Look at the bad/good the reviewer talks about. Those are usually more accurate... Unless its Gamespot. They just throw "GREAT STORY!" on every hyped title and rarely mention anything wrong with the game.

[Spider]

You both make good points. I completely avoid game reviews these days. A total waste of time trying to sort the gems (rare) from the trash (common).

 

The most recent epic lie in cRPGs are the ratings of the german RPG Drakensang. A well crafted, polished, old school dungeon romp in Icewind Dale style has on average got a grade of 70, with no real justification apart from it being "too confusing" (because it isnt DnD) and because you actually have to read a few lines of text that haven't been voice acted. Oh and its also generic... (nods to Oblivion).

Never mind the beautiful graphics, tactical combat, subtle humor, pleasant music, depth, that's all not important lets just bury the game because it isn't Bethesda/Bioware...

 

And again, here it comes down to opinion. Because I feel that a score of 70 is about right for Drakensang. Probably a bit high even. The graphics were ok, but nothing amazing. The animations were pretty good though. The rule set was overly complex and hard to make sense out of. There was no real point of reference, so I didn't know what was considered good in a skill (and I even tried to check the log window, but I couldn't make sense of how the skills were used).

 

The writing was mediocre at best, and the lack of voice acting draws it down a lot (compared to the standard today). What little voice acting there was, wasn't particularly good either.

 

And there was no real choices to be made. You just walked around, got quests and completed them. No choices, no consequences and never a true feeling of purpose. I got past the murder investigation and then I got to bored with the game and couldn't finish.

 

Granted, it wasn't as horrid as Two Worlds, but it had nothing on a game like Icewind Dale (which it most resembles). It was marginally better than Temple of Elemental Evil story-wise, but neither the character generation system or the combat was even close.

 

That being said, the scale of gaming reviews are just stupid anyway. When a 7 of 10 is seen as a bad score, something is just wrong. 7 of 10 is about the same as 4 of 5, which is certainly a good enough score. But the ten or hundred scale scores have been inflated through the roof. They basically start at six or so.

[AlphaPro]

Gach! Why does everyone hate Oblivion! Does anybody else on this forum like real-time games more than turn-based? Frankly, Fallout 1 sucked. Fallout 2 sucked. Elder scrolls 1&2 sucked. Every turn based game ive ever played has sucked. (In my opinion). If you all like to play Dungeons and Dragons, rolling your little 20 sided dice and aking turns slaying the dragon, thats all well and good, even though I think its stupid. But there are some people in the world that like games that don't involve you waiting 30 seconds while the opposing creature attacks you, and you can do nothing to stop your injury. FPS and TPS own! I am very happy Alpha Protocol is taking a step up from 'classic' RPGs ad involving gamers that like to blow stuff up and see bodys go flying with ragdoll effects instead of seeing a 'dragon has blocked your attack'

Edited August 10, 2009 by Tigranes
'Gay' is not a pejorative term. Try to make your point without putting down those of a homosexual disposition.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Gach! Why does everyone hate Oblivion! Does anybody else on this forum like real-time games more than turn-based? Frankly, Fallout 1 sucked. Fallout 2 sucked. Elder scrolls 1&2 sucked. Every turn based game ive ever played has sucked. (In my opinion). If you all like to play Dungeons and Dragons, rolling your little 20 sided dice and aking turns slaying the dragon, thats all well and good, even though I think its gay. But there are some people in the world that like games that don't involve you waiting 30 seconds while the opposing creature attacks you, and you can do nothing to stop your injury. FPS and TPS own! I am very happy Alpha Protocol is taking a step up from 'classic' RPGs ad involving gamers that like to blow stuff up and see bodys go flying with ragdoll effects instead of seeing a 'dragon has blocked your attack'

Every single word of that is blasphemy here. Seriously, not a single thing I wouldn't hit you for.

 

I'm going to guess troll.

[AlphaPro]

im a troll because im not a nerd. fine. bask in your lies.

[Tigranes]

Does anybody else on this forum like real-time games more than turn-based?

 

I think people who don't like RT are in the minority. They're both fun in their own right.

 

Elder scrolls 1&2 sucked.

 

Wait, Daggerfall was TB? It sure as hell wasn't when I played it. Granted, that lasted all of 20 minutes, so...

[AlphaPro]

Hmm...thought it was. Hard to tell because my computer sucked so bad you couldnt hardly make out who you were attacking. They looked like gray blobs, and your weapon was a red blob. Slash,slash, win.

[Zoma]

Oblivion sucked.

[AlphaPro]

I know, it wasnt great, but it still was a ton better than D&D: TOEE

[Tigranes]

Hmm...thought it was. Hard to tell because my computer sucked so bad you couldnt hardly make out who you were attacking. They looked like gray blobs, and your weapon was a red blob. Slash,slash, win.

 

So your opinion of these games, in fact, stand quite apart from the TB v. RT debate. You like some games and you don't like others, I don't see why you'd need to squish all that into boxes to substantiate some sort of dichotomy.

 

TOEE was just terribly made, the concept wasn't bad. But then, Oblivion was awesome in concept, and just had a few tendons snapped while it was running to the finish line.

[AlphaPro]

So your opinion of these games, in fact, stand quite apart from the TB v. RT debate. You like some games and you don't like others, I don't see why you'd need to squish all that into boxes to substantiate some sort of dichotomy.

 

TOEE was just terribly made, the concept wasn't bad. But then, Oblivion was awesome in concept, and just had a few tendons snapped while it was running to the finish line.

 

Um...Well...your post makes too much sense.

 

Maybe i dont like RPGs but i only like games with RPG elements? Im confused now.

[Jaesun]

What does all this have to do with Alpha Protocol....?

[H]

Gach! Why does everyone hate Oblivion! Does anybody else on this forum like real-time games more than turn-based? Frankly, Fallout 1 sucked. Fallout 2 sucked. Elder scrolls 1&2 sucked. Every turn based game ive ever played has sucked. (In my opinion). If you all like to play Dungeons and Dragons, rolling your little 20 sided dice and aking turns slaying the dragon, thats all well and good, even though I think its stupid. But there are some people in the world that like games that don't involve you waiting 30 seconds while the opposing creature attacks you, and you can do nothing to stop your injury. FPS and TPS own! I am very happy Alpha Protocol is taking a step up from 'classic' RPGs ad involving gamers that like to blow stuff up and see bodys go flying with ragdoll effects instead of seeing a 'dragon has blocked your attack'

Fact: When humanity invented football, chess became obsolete.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Gach! Why does everyone hate Oblivion! Does anybody else on this forum like real-time games more than turn-based? Frankly, Fallout 1 sucked. Fallout 2 sucked. Elder scrolls 1&2 sucked. Every turn based game ive ever played has sucked. (In my opinion). If you all like to play Dungeons and Dragons, rolling your little 20 sided dice and aking turns slaying the dragon, thats all well and good, even though I think its stupid. But there are some people in the world that like games that don't involve you waiting 30 seconds while the opposing creature attacks you, and you can do nothing to stop your injury. FPS and TPS own! I am very happy Alpha Protocol is taking a step up from 'classic' RPGs ad involving gamers that like to blow stuff up and see bodys go flying with ragdoll effects instead of seeing a 'dragon has blocked your attack'

 

We hate Oblivion because we've played much better games than Oblivion a decade ago. Its like someone is trying to convince you that the old, rusty, wheel-coming-off pickup truck is in fact a Jaguar E type, regardless of the fact that you can see what it is for yourself.

[mkreku]

Nevermind. Carry on discussing everything except Alpha Protocol.

Edited August 10, 2009 by mkreku

[Oner]

Nevermind. Carry on discussing everything except Alpha Protocol.

I'm watching Beast Wars and Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles right now. <3

[kirottu]

I give this thread 10/10.

[H]

Do you mean this thread is perfect? Or is it simply the best of its kind right now?

[Oner]

I believe it is the second. And now I go sip some english tea and look reeaaally intellectual.

[coomber]

So you give absurdly high grades to crap games, for nothing??

 

Yes. If a writer likes the look of a game you think is crap but they love, they will say so. Why is this difficult for you to understand?

 

Eg. Oblivion, Crysis, Fallout 3...

 

That's just... illogical.

 

Not so, my Vulcan friend. I don't know anything about Crysis, but Oblivion is the best game ever created in my opinion. You don't think so but maybe the guy who reviewed it did. I thought Fallout 3 was over-hyped as well, but I don't begrudge someone else thinking it is amazing.

 

You might not be paid, but its obvious to anyone who has eyes and a brain that there is a large number of games that are bound to have high grades even before they are released, and on the other hand that there are games that don't have that kind of advertising power and are thus sentenced to making a name for themselves on their own.

 

No one who knows anything about cRPG's would say that Oblivion is a better game than the Witcher, yet the former was graded in general above 90 and the latter between 80-90.

 

There is obvious favoritism at work, and no other way to explain it besides money. The honest reviewer in the Kane & Lynch case on Gamespot proves this.

 

Having a good PR team and bribing journalists are two different things (although sometimes the line between the two can be blurred). I agree with you that journalists are more inclined to score up games with big marketing campaigns and the like. But to say they are paid to do it by developers is 100% wrong.

 

I never played Witcher (why did they cancel the console version?! ) but if I played it and thought Oblivion was better, would I be 'wrong'? No. Because it's an opinion and it doesn't have to tally with yours.

[RPGmasterBoo]

As I understood it from the Gamespot scandal it goes something like this: the publisher pays serious money to advertise the game on a major game site. For that money he not only expects the adverts to show but also a reasonably favorable review of the game. In that particular case the games was bashed to pieces by an honest reviewer, who in turn lost his job for this.

Regardless what happened implies that this is common practice among major review sites.

 

Eidos thought that the money they pumped in would give them a favorable review. Why would they think this? I doubt they're stupid and the only reasonable explanation is that they've done this before.

 

Inviting journalists for exclusive interviews is also common, and this favor also makes them more inclined to write positively or at least not mention some of the games failings.

 

Understand this: when I say journalists are paid - its in broad terms: someone gets money or favors to give popular AAA titles high grades, perhaps the editor makes the journalist know what's expected of him, perhaps they have a routine you scratch my back I scratch yours eg. developer funds the site through ads, the site favors the game in return. As long as your paycheck is coming partly out of their money, there's reason to suspect you're objective.

 

Understand this as well: to the gamers its ultimately unimportant how this favoritism arises or who gets the money. What's important is whether a review is actually informative enough to let an honest gamer know what he is buying. That's just not happening with AAA titles. Most of those so called must play games have shown themselves to be fairly average. Its obviously something beyond simple opinion, that makes games gamers scoff at get such high marks.

[H]

(why did they cancel the console version?! )

Money problems. There is this crisis thing going on outside the window.