New preview with shocking info about real reason for delay

[cb.spike]

http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109849

 

My biggest concern for Alpha Protocol is that SEGA purposely delayed the game to put it out after Mass Effect 2. From what the developers were saying, the decision for this delay was purely strategic and the game was effectively completed before being pushed off till this June 1st. Now that the bar has been set extremely high, things like the stone faces you'll see just aren't going to cut it. Alpha Protocol has been positioned for a long time as the spy equivalent to Mass Effect, and from what I saw, they're certainly trying to get there. It's rather unclear as to how the final game will turn out considering we only saw a small slice of the thirty-plus hour pie but the ideas and execution seem like they're on the right track.

 

 

I hope it will work out fine.

Edited April 2, 2010 by cb.spike

[Jokerman89]

Makes sense to me, new IP vs big seller, both are similar games. They always said they moved the game to polish and Release it at a time where it can do the best it can in terms of sales.

[Morgoth]

This is kinda stupid to postpone a game just because of ME2.

 

Hell, even Bioware had balls and released it in January and made buckets of money, despite being a month that isn't known to get big blockbusters released.

 

It's pointless to hold a game back, cause it's effect on sales will be miniscule at best. People will buy it or not, no matter what month.

[Slowtrain]

Funny things is, reagardless of how it sells, it will probably be a much more complex and interesting game than ME 1 and 2 combined.

 

The fact that the main crit of AP is the "bad graphics" is pretty pathetic and just shows where game "journalists" are at these days.

[Starwars]

Like Jokerman said, they claimed right from the start that the delay was due to PR reasons as far as I can remember.

 

I didn't agree with it back then but I can see it now. Going up against a Bioware title (whether DA or ME2) wouldn't have been too wise. It's true that the delay will likely draw on some comparisons with ME2 now (especially since I think ME2 uses a newer version of Unreal engine) but I think AP will have a better chance to carve out some form of niche of its own with no other big RPGs around its release. There's also the fact that SEGA changed PR firms sometime this year. I don't know if it's the work of them or not, but at least now the game seems to be making its way back onto the radar of people, whereas towards the end of last year and the beginning of this year it was deadly silent.

 

I don't think AP will gain great reviews because of what Slowtrain mentions. Graphics (even though I don't see it myself) and any bugs will get the game fairly slammed because, hey, it's Obsidian and they released those buggy games. But I do think the game has a better chance to sell decently now, especially for a new title coming from a company that is not a mainstream favorite.

[Amentep]

Funny things is, reagardless of how it sells, it will probably be a much more complex and interesting game than ME 1 and 2 combined.

 

The fact that the main crit of AP is the "bad graphics" is pretty pathetic and just shows where game "journalists" are at these days.

 

I'd think it'd depend on why the graphics were bad as to whether its a justified criticism. I don't need fancy graphics in a game, but it can be possible for graphics to be a hinderence to enjoyment, I think.

[Enoch]

I'd be surprised if the slippage from the original October date was due to ME-related competition. The strategic ME-avoidance probably came in once the holiday release window was missed. Were there no ME2, I bet the game would've come out in February or March, rather than June.

[Tel Aviv]

Funny things is, reagardless of how it sells, it will probably be a much more complex and interesting game than ME 1 and 2 combined.

 

The fact that the main crit of AP is the "bad graphics" is pretty pathetic and just shows where game "journalists" are at these days.

 

I'd think it'd depend on why the graphics were bad as to whether its a justified criticism. I don't need fancy graphics in a game, but it can be possible for graphics to be a hinderence to enjoyment, I think.

Absolutely. Modern graphics have changed the way games are written. You don't need a character to spell out their feelings if they can emote convincingly. If Alpha Protocol can't deliver on that premise, if the technical aspects are off, it's going to detract from the overall success of the story.

[Morgoth]

Fallout 3 didn't need complex emotions either to be a success.

 

But I can understand that comparisons with ME2 will be inevitable, and that the spoiled journalists will expect certain technical standards.

 

Still, from the little I've seen about AP, graphics and emotions are not really a worry here.

[Slowtrain]

Funny things is, reagardless of how it sells, it will probably be a much more complex and interesting game than ME 1 and 2 combined.

 

The fact that the main crit of AP is the "bad graphics" is pretty pathetic and just shows where game "journalists" are at these days.

 

I'd think it'd depend on why the graphics were bad as to whether its a justified criticism. I don't need fancy graphics in a game, but it can be possible for graphics to be a hinderence to enjoyment, I think.

Absolutely. Modern graphics have changed the way games are written. You don't need a character to spell out their feelings if they can emote convincingly. If Alpha Protocol can't deliver on that premise, if the technical aspects are off, it's going to detract from the overall success of the story.

 

I'll freely grant that I am much less demanding of graphics than most gamers, but even still, the grapphics in AP look more than capable of delivering on the game's promised gameplay.

 

In the end, that is all that counts: Are the graphics good enough to make the gameplay work. Anything beyond that is just gravy and not neccessary for full enjoyment of the game.

[Amentep]

I agree that all that counts is the game delivering what it promises in terms of gameplay.

 

But bad graphics CAN effect the overall experience with the game.

[Ryukan]

I agree that all that counts is the game delivering what it promises in terms of gameplay.

 

But bad graphics CAN effect the overall experience with the game.

 

Quite true, in today's next gen game market bad graphics can kill a game. Poor visuals that don't support great gameplay don't do the game any good, and Alpha Protocol looks like it is gonna ghave gamplay and graphics that are great. I can see reason behind them delaying it to avoid competing with Mass Effect 2, but then again the two games don't seem very related to me. I found Mass Effect 2 to be on ok game; they removed things that sucked, but changed thigns that didn't need changing. I wasn't really blown away by ME2, it seemed like more of the same. Here's to Alpha Protocl being an awesome espionage action game.

[Slowtrain]

I agree that all that counts is the game delivering what it promises in terms of gameplay.

 

But bad graphics CAN effect the overall experience with the game.

 

 

I do agree with that.

 

I remember in Invisible War how I kept trying to activate trashcans in the opening lab levels because they looked like computer terminals.

 

Of course, that may just have been the result of bad art rather than any engine limittations or problems.

[Slowtrain]

Quite true, in today's next gen game market bad graphics can kill a game. Poor visuals that don't support great gameplay don't do the game any good,

 

 

Fallout 3 had pretty poor visuals and did more than OK in the next gen game market.

[Ryukan]

Quite true, in today's next gen game market bad graphics can kill a game. Poor visuals that don't support great gameplay don't do the game any good,

 

 

Fallout 3 had pretty poor visuals and did more than OK in the next gen game market.

 

 

Hmmm I am in disagreement with you there, I thought Fallout 3 had pretty good visuals. Out of curiosity, why do you think it had poor visuals?

[Pidesco]

Everything was green, the texture work was pretty bad, faces were atrocious, animations were atrocious. Basically, it showed it was based on Oblivion's engine, which, visually was pretty bad even if it benefited from having new tech at the time it was released.

[Slowtrain]

Pretty much. I still enjoyed the game though. The animations remained painful to watch for the duration, however

 

And I think, personally, that AP looks way better than Fallout 3. Based on what we've seen, of course. Maybe in person the game actually looks horrible or something. So far though, criticism of the graphics strikes me as pretty ridiculous.

 

Does anybody still care about Crysis? Not really. Great graphics but a pretty mediocre game that came and went with little fanfare.

 

Deus Ex, otoh, had pretty poor graphics, relative to the high-end games of the day, when it was released, and yet still remains a talked about classic to this day.

[Amentep]

Wait everything was green in FO3? Looked brown to me.

 

Also FO3 didn't have the same "exploded face" creator feature of Oblivion (although to be fair, it wasn't much better).

 

That said, AP's graphics that I've seen so far feel like they work at least from the screens and vids I've seen.

[Slowtrain]

Also FO3 didn't have the same "exploded face" creator feature of Oblivion (although to be fair, it wasn't much better).

 

 

True, but Oblivion's exploded faces were a rare and special quality that few games posess.

[Tigranes]

ME2 coming out in January isn't really a factor, post-EA Bioware are really in a different ball park now. They can release it in January because then the entire gaming media will gravitate to them, in the absence of other heavyweights. Alpha Protocol, as a new IP especially, can't really do that. It does look like the delayed release helped it get more attention - just wonder whether June wasn't overkill.

[Nepenthe]

ME2 coming out in January isn't really a factor, post-EA Bioware are really in a different ball park now. They can release it in January because then the entire gaming media will gravitate to them, in the absence of other heavyweights. Alpha Protocol, as a new IP especially, can't really do that. It does look like the delayed release helped it get more attention - just wonder whether June wasn't overkill.

 

Nah, they looked at Red Faction: Guerilla's sales figures, and decided that was precisely the spot they want to hit with their new IP.

[Baeus]

Doesn't really work though. Red Faction had pretty much no big name games near it for a month. Alpha Protocol will be bumping up against Alan Wake, Red Dead Redemption and UFC 2010 all within a week or so of its release.

 

Dunno, I have a feeling it would have just been better to have beaten ME2 and Dragon Age to the punch. Hell, if they're worried about the graphics, AP seems way better than what I remember of Dragon Age.

[Nepenthe]

Doesn't really work though. Red Faction had pretty much no big name games near it for a month. Alpha Protocol will be bumping up against Alan Wake, Red Dead Redemption and UFC 2010 all within a week or so of its release.

 

I'm not saying it's a brilliant plan, just thinking that it sure looks like it is the plan!

 

OTOH, the only game from your list I'd consider buying is Alan Wake, and let's not forget it's an x360 exclusive. Of course my preferences don't really mean your point doesn't stand.

[Flouride]

I will probably end up buying all four (Alan Wake, UFC, Red Dead and AP). Too bad Red Dead Redemption was pushed back a month. Not that many good games coming out in April now and May is crowded with potentially good games.

[Baeus]

I just think the Red Faction got really really lucky, and some publishers are too focused on trying to win the lottery the same way it did. At the moment, there's something big coming out every 2 weeks. Only real option is to put some big marketing muscle behind AP, and stop releasing the screenshots that show missing gunclips and revolvers clipping out of Sis's stomach. You know, pick the good screenshots