Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've read some of the negative reviews, particularly Destructoid's and it sounds like the criticism is way overblown. It seems like they're complaining about the hacking/lockupicking mini games actually being a challenge. God forbid we have a game where hacking mini games aren't a tedious bore with no challenge whatsoever(sorry Mass Effect 2, you're one of my favorite games but you're still guilty of this.)

Also, I think the AI is much ado about nothing. Yes, it's not the best AI we've ever seen but it's functional enough for stealth game. Deus Ex had pretty lousy AI but that didn't stop it from being a great game.

 

Also, the game is pretty polished overall. There are a few glitches but not nearly as bad as I was expecting based on what I've read in the reviews. The only bug I have encountered in fact is one where the game freezes when it loads a check point after you die but it happens very rarely.

 

Alpha Protocol is a great game and I'm pleased some reviewers like 1up realize this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Never once ignored a flaw of ME1 or 2. I fully acknowledge the few there. ME1 - barren planets and framerate issues, which was the number one problem with the game. The story, characters and just about everything else rocked. Read reviews and you'll see those sentiments seconded.

 

ME2 - slow paced story and mini games. On a personal level, they left out some very key character progression.

 

Outside of that, both games were perfect. Looking at Alpha Protocol, the main problems acknowledged by everyone (including a friggin insider developer :ermm: ) framerate, bugs, bugs, and more bugs (simply climbing a ladder breeds frustration), no polish, lack of explorable world, limited characters. No vehicles, squadmates, side quest, and its a short story for an RPG.

 

I had a big long reply to this all typed up and ready to submit, but I wasn't sure anyone would be interested in reading my wall of text about how each of the negatives you've outlined for Alpha Protocol can either be applied to the Mass Effect series as well, or could instead be considered a positive. In short, it's not necessarily that you are being too harsh on Alpha Protocol, but rather that you seem to be able to overlook the same flaws in other games.

 

On another note, I'd like to bring this article to everyone's attention. It highlights the divide among AP reviews between those that think it's a worthwhile, if flawed experience and those that think it's so horribly broken as to be not worth playing at all. It was an interesting read and contains quotes from numerous reviews to help illustrate the point.

Edited by Deraldin
Link to post
Share on other sites
The pretty excellent media review site Popmatters gives it an 8/10.

 

Yes, this one of the best reviews I've read. Here's the prior article. Comparing this review with the rest, good or bad, this guy is able to articulate a proper sentence, It is a very good review, the one you can expect for a RPG.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mainly these negative reviews are written by people who praised Modern Warfare 2 as it was a good and clever game...

That tells me enough. :)

 

Yup, I hate miliatary shooters like CoD, so high scores do nothing for me when it comes to those.

 

I always judge by my interest in a game and not scores.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wrote an article the other day regarding the construction of quality by the game reviews industry, using Alpha Protocol as an example. If anyone is curious, you can check it out on my blog here:

 

http://criticalmissive.blogspot.com/2010/0...ruction-of.html

 

 

(Sorry for my poor english)

 

Good work! I agree with you. What is not generally noticed is that most reviewers do not have certified critical skills (academic degrees etc. etc.). Many reviewers, unlike literature, art or film critics, are just amateur. For example, many reviewers evaluate the story of a game, but (these are just a few examples) they have never read or heard of Dostoevskij or Musil, or they don't know the difference between ethics and morals, tragedy and epic, etc. For this reason, GTAIV (however one of the most buggy game ever... but this is a Rockstar's game, so this doesn't matter for the videogame reviewers) is considered, by most of the reviewers, as one of the most beautiful videogame stories ever, when in fact this is nonsense. For me this is the biggest problem of videogame's reviewers. Unlike the critical theory of film (or literature, art, music) the world of videogame reviewers is at the level of mere opinion (which is not a critical judgment; indeed, an opinion is always equivalent to another). Just a few examples: Roger Ebert, Greil Marcus, Terry Eagleton, Rosalind Krauss, they are all authoritative and influential critics and reviewers. I cannot agree with them, but I recognize their competence and the quality of their work. In the videogame's world there are critics like these? Currently (correct me if I'm wrong) the answer is no.

Edited by epektasis

"This is my destiny. To see what lies between life and death"

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wrote an article the other day regarding the construction of quality by the game reviews industry, using Alpha Protocol as an example. If anyone is curious, you can check it out on my blog here:

 

http://criticalmissive.blogspot.com/2010/0...ruction-of.html

 

 

(Sorry for my poor english)

 

Good work! I agree with you. What is not generally noticed is that most reviewers do not have certified critical skills (academic degrees etc. etc.). Many reviewers, unlike literature, art or film critics, are just amateur. For example, many reviewers evaluate the story of a game, but (these are just a few examples) they have never read or heard of Dostoevskij or Musil, or they don't know the difference between ethics and morals, tragedy and epic, etc. For this reason, GTAIV (however one of the most buggy game ever... but this is a Rockstar's game, so this doesn't matter for the videogame reviewers) is considered, by most of the reviewers, as one of the most beautiful videogame stories ever, when in fact this is nonsense. For me this is the biggest problem of videogame's reviewers. Unlike the critical theory of film (or literature, art, music) the world of videogame reviewers is at the level of mere opinion (which is not a critical judgment; indeed, an opinion is always equivalent to another). Just a few examples: Roger Ebert, Greil Marcus, Terry Eagleton, Rosalind Krauss, they are all authoritative and influential critics and reviewers. I cannot agree with them, but I recognize their competence and the quality of their work. In the videogame's world there are critics like these? Currently (correct me if I'm wrong) the answer is no.

 

For reviewers, I've always liked Desslock, Jason Ocampo, and especially Greg Kasavin.

Of course, Greg's now w/ 2K Games...

 

About GTA4, I thought it was a very-well told story - but, a lot of that had to do w/ the excellent cinematics and excellent voice-acting. Personally, I think Planescape: Torment is one of the best told and written stories ever put forth in gaming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finnish version of Gamereactor gave the game 5/10. Though I wouldn't put much weight on that score since I'm not even sure if anyone reads their paper version (or if they got one) or if anyone takes their no name reviewers seriously.

 

Apparently the reviewer "loved"

Brayko. And spent hours running away from him and trying to shoot him down while he was chasing him with a knife. Apparently his stealth & martial arts build wasn't really good for that fight... Why wouldn't you level up any shooting skill at all?

You can only blame yourself if you build your char like a moron. Who would even try to play Fallout 1 or 2 with only melee skills? ;)

 

He also a made comment about how he felt that a truckload of chimps were sent to polish the game at the last stage. Overall it seemed like the guy was expecting shooting mechanics and designing from Mass Effect 2 and I think that and the Moscow hub mission showed in the score.

Hate the living, love the dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently the reviewer "loved"

Brayko. And spent hours running away from him and trying to shoot him down while he was chasing him with a knife. Apparently his stealth & martial arts build wasn't really good for that fight... Why wouldn't you level up any shooting skill at all?

You can only blame yourself if you build your char like a moron. Who would even try to play Fallout 1 or 2 with only melee skills? ;)

I beat Deng partially with martial arts and I only had it leveled to Jump Attack at that point.

Also, my first playthrough of FO2 had only martial arts as a weapon skill. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
I beat Deng partially with martial arts and I only had it leveled to Jump Attack at that point.

Also, my first playthrough of FO2 had only martial arts as a weapon skill. :p

 

I beat Deng similarly as well. But you probably knew what you were getting into when you choose only melee skills with FO2. If you are playing a completely new arpg there are safer ways to build your char ;)

Hate the living, love the dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, no. I thought "if it wasn't perfectly viable then they wouldn't have made this skill". ;)

Apart from that, yeah, I could imagine the downsides.

 

From what I remember the melee skill was viable in FO2. Just a lot harder to play than say putting points into big guns.

I'm fairly certain you can beat quite many bosses in AP as well with Fury and Iron Will. Just makes it harder :p

Hate the living, love the dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For reviewers, I've always liked Desslock, Jason Ocampo, and especially Greg Kasavin.

Of course, Greg's now w/ 2K Games...

 

About GTA4, I thought it was a very-well told story - but, a lot of that had to do w/ the excellent cinematics and excellent voice-acting. Personally, I think Planescape: Torment is one of the best told and written stories ever put forth in gaming.

 

(Sorry for my poor english)

 

Yes, I like me too Kasavin, but he is a perfect example of the power of videogame cultural industry and the equivocal close connection between the controller (reviewer) and the controlled (the software house): when you judge who is the one who pays you the salary (with publicity, exclusives etc. etc.) then there is a big problem with the judging system itself. Nevertheless, what are the scientific publications on videogame media (which are the only things that prove the real competence of a reviewer, indeed, scientific articles must be peer reviewed) of Kavasin (or Desslock, or Ocampo)? I tried looking on Amazon and the result was: nothing. Try doing that with Eagleton (or Krauss, Marcus, Jameson, Ebert): 227 matches...

 

For GTAIV. Yes, I agree that the story is quite good, but..."the great story EVER!!!" and "98" in metacritic score for a game buggy, buggy, buggy and with a IA that, even compared to the IA of Alpha Protocol, is ridicolous it's a nonsense; and innovation? Nothing. But when you think that GTAIV is the most expensive game ever made, and probably the most expensive publicized game ever, then everything is clear. But this is an another story...

"This is my destiny. To see what lies between life and death"

Link to post
Share on other sites
For GTAIV. Yes, I agree that the story is quite good, but..."the great story EVER!!!" and "98" in metacritic score for a game buggy, buggy, buggy and with a IA that, even compared to the IA of Alpha Protocol, is ridicolous it's a nonsense; and innovation? Nothing. But when you think that GTAIV is the most expensive game ever made, and probably the most expensive publicized game ever, then everything is clear. But this is an another story...

No way in Hell is GTA4 the "Greatest story ever." Not even close.

 

Let's not get into the technical issues and performance issues the PC version has. Sure, it's gotten better since it's last patch for sure, but still...it needs more work....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Grenades have no real bounce physics.

Face customization is purely cosmetic and has no gameplay impact.

Typical third person shooter.

aaaaa.gif
Link to post
Share on other sites

is what he says wrong? Your look doesn't have much of a gameplay change, grenades don't exactly bounce around, and for the most part you're running around in a third person shooter but with rpg elements. He does say that the rpg stuff is pretty good too.

Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...