The Reviews

[Oner]

I'll be curious to see though if next weeks review will be RDR or AP.

[Oblarg]

I'll be curious to see though if next weeks review will be RDR or AP.

 

Neither. When's the last time Yahtzee reviewed a game the week after it came out?

[Metal_Guitar]

The only review I'm looking forward to is the Zero Punctuation review...if there even is one.

 

Yatzee is usually fun but rarely insightful.

 

When is the last time any video game review was insightful?

 

This is the truth.

[WorstUsernameEver]

The only review I'm looking forward to is the Zero Punctuation review...if there even is one.

 

Yatzee is usually fun but rarely insightful.

 

When is the last time any video game review was insightful?

 

I found the Codex's Dragon Age review surprisingly insightful and fair. Granted, you were probably referring to mainstream reviews.

[Oner]

I'll be curious to see though if next weeks review will be RDR or AP.

Neither. When's the last time Yahtzee reviewed a game the week after it came out?

Splinter Cell: Conviction?

Besides, he's usually late with the reviews because Australia gets games with a delay, but this time Australia was the second country that broke release dates I think.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Oner

[WorstUsernameEver]

http://www.gladriel.com/reviewFull/content...rotocol-review/

 

Another review.

To be honest, they complain about graphics, AI and hacking minigames, yet at the end they talk about glaring design flaws (wut? do they know what design means?). Also a lot of comparisons to Mass Effect, that I'd image has stealth going by that review.

Score is 7.5.

[Sannom]

I think I got the message : no hacking without investing heavily into Sabotage

[Ayreon2084]

Offical Alpha Protocol Review from Gladriel.com has been out!

 

7.5/10... not bad

http://www.gladriel.com/reviewFull/content...rotocol-review/

[Alpha]

http://www.gladriel.com/reviewFull/content...rotocol-review/

 

Another review.

To be honest, they complain about graphics, AI and hacking minigames, yet at the end they talk about glaring design flaws (wut? do they know what design means?). Also a lot of comparisons to Mass Effect, that I'd image has stealth going by that review.

Score is 7.5.

the reviewer failed for me as soon as i read the ps2 graphic comparison... i wonder what he did mean with this:

 

"silent attack on an enemy is almost always successful."

[Niten_Ryu]

http://www.gladriel.com/reviewFull/content...rotocol-review/

Score is 7.5.

 

Pros (+)

Excellent story

Cool customizations and skills

Nice dialogue system

Interesting setting

 

(-) Cons

PS2 quality graphics

Tons of bugs and glitches

 

Sounds like most (all?) Black Isle / Obsidian games

 

Maybe Obsidian should outsource graphics and programming

[zkylon]

the reviewer failed for me as soon as i read the ps2 graphic comparison... i wonder what he did mean with this:

 

"silent attack on an enemy is almost always successful."

Felt the same way with the PS2 comparison. Even just the normal maps set this generation's graphics miles apart from last generation's, not to mention shaders and higher poly models. Agh, i hate those uneducated disses.

 

The other day, actually, i showed one of those videos of Mike talking to deep throat Balaklava to a friend and his only comment was about how great the game looked, specially the facial animations. And i agree.

[kreese12]

Lame to hear about the bugs. They had so much extra time...I hope that they had at least just one person working on the game during that period to fix up the bugs.

 

Argh. Still looking forward to playing AP but some of what I'm reading in the reviews is a bit distressing.

 

And I can't fathom the reason for having regenerating armor. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Edited May 27, 2010 by kreese12

[Kaiser Wilson]

the reviewer failed for me as soon as i read the ps2 graphic comparison... i wonder what he did mean with this:

 

"silent attack on an enemy is almost always successful."

Felt the same way with the PS2 comparison. Even just the normal maps set this generation's graphics miles apart from last generation's, not to mention shaders and higher poly models. Agh, i hate those uneducated disses.

 

The other day, actually, i showed one of those videos of Mike talking to deep throat Balaklava to a friend and his only comment was about how great the game looked, specially the facial animations. And i agree.

 

Ditto, I don't know how someone can say these graphics look like PS2. They don't look top notch but they don't look that bad either.

 

Gamespot has put up a score of 6.0 but no real review as of yet.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/rpg/alphaprotocol/index.html

[zkylon]

Ditto, I don't know how someone can say these graphics look like PS2. They don't look top notch but they don't look that bad either.

 

Gamespot has put up a score of 6.0 but no real review as of yet.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/rpg/alphaprotocol/index.html

Well, they gave Bloodlines a 7.7 (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/vtmb/index....ult%3Btitle%3B0) so it's pretty clear they don't know what makes RPG gamers tick.

Edited May 27, 2010 by zkylon

[juncaj8]

I think I'm gonna wait 'till the games prices drops based on these reviews.

[Oner]

http://www.gladriel.com/reviewFull/content...rotocol-review/

 

Another review.

To be honest, they complain about graphics, AI and hacking minigames, yet at the end they talk about glaring design flaws (wut? do they know what design means?). Also a lot of comparisons to Mass Effect, that I'd image has stealth going by that review.

Score is 7.5.

Hey hey hey, I know that guy! He's Hungarian and was one of the reviewers for the hun GameStar.

 

 

And I can't fathom the reason for having regenerating armor. Just doesn't make sense to me.

To give you a fighting chance if you have low hp.

It's an acceptable break from reality. Accept it.

[poetic obsidian]

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.

[kreese12]

And I can't fathom the reason for having regenerating armor. Just doesn't make sense to me.

_____

To give you a fighting chance if you have low hp.

It's an acceptable break from reality. Accept it.

 

Well, not a huge huge deal, its just not what I would have hoped. Regenerating armor means that there is less consequence for breaking your cover -- you can get into a firefight with three guys say, kill them, take a bit of damage, and this damage has no consequence for the rest of the level because in a few seconds it is magically repaired. This is an easy, imaginative, and less enjoyable game mechanic that one that is more complex and more RPG than action-game based.

 

Say, for example, your armor has a rating against penetration damage and resistance, so your armor can make you avoid hits to your health, or reduce the amount of damage done to your health. Or some other system.

 

In direct response to your comment: for myself anyways, I'd much prefer to die if I made some huge tactical errors, or screwed up my gun play so much that I got shot extensively. I'd much prefer dying to magically recharging armor. Having a bigger penalty for errors, and a chance of dying , makes a game more fun for me. It's not fun if the game is too easy that making a mistakes don't really matter. I find it fun to be challenged and overcome bad odds. And ya , early reviews are saying the game is pretty easy.

 

And not that I think games should be too realistic, but it is almost immerision breaking for me to have your armor regenerate -- doesn't make any sense. I hate to say it but I think they just did this because it was used in Mass Effect -- but which in M.E, at least it made sense in the game world, because shields could feasibly regenerate... but its not like a kevlar vest can repair itself. This isn't as a big of deal as health regen in Deus Ex 3 but ugh, I'm just not a fan of the system.

 

Sorry -- end of my off-topic gripe.

Edited May 27, 2010 by kreese12

[Alvin Nelson]

And I can't fathom the reason for having regenerating armor. Just doesn't make sense to me.

_____

To give you a fighting chance if you have low hp.

It's an acceptable break from reality. Accept it.

 

Well, not a huge huge deal, its just not what I would have hoped. Regenerating armor means that there is less consequence for breaking your cover -- you can get into a firefight with three guys say, kill them, take a bit of damage, and this damage has no consequence for the rest of the level because in a few seconds it is magically repaired. This is an easy, imaginative, and less enjoyable game mechanic that one that is more complex and more RPG than action-game based.

 

Say, for example, your armor has a rating against penetration damage and resistance, so your armor can make you avoid hits to your health, or reduce the amount of damage done to your health. Or some other system.

 

In direct response to your comment: for myself anyways, I'd much prefer to die if I made some huge tactical errors, or screwed up my gun play so much that I got shot extensively. I'd much prefer dying to magically recharging armor. Having a bigger penalty for errors, and a chance of dying , makes a game more fun for me. It's not fun if the game is too easy that making a mistakes don't really matter. I find it fun to be challenged and overcome bad odds. And ya , early reviews are saying the game is pretty easy.

 

And not that I think games should be too realistic, but it is almost immerision breaking for me to have your armor regenerate -- doesn't make any sense. I hate to say it but I think they just did this because it was used in Mass Effect -- but which in M.E, at least it made sense in the game world, because shields could feasibly regenerate... but its not like a kevlar vest can repair itself. This isn't as a big of deal as health regen in Deus Ex 3 but ugh, I'm just not a fan of the system.

 

Sorry -- end of my off-topic gripe.

 

Sup.

 

You have an Endurance bar that regenerates - it just so happens that Armor contributes to this Endurance bar. Armor gives you a better ability to shrug off injuries as blunt trauma/minor annoyance and when your Endurance is out, then injuries hit your health (lasting damage). So yeah, your armor doesn't regenerate, it just contributes to your fast-recovery life bar.

 

Make sense?

[qaz123]

Ditto, I don't know how someone can say these graphics look like PS2. They don't look top notch but they don't look that bad either.

 

Gamespot has put up a score of 6.0 but no real review as of yet.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/rpg/alphaprotocol/index.html

Well, they gave Bloodlines a 7.7 (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/vtmb/index....ult%3Btitle%3B0) so it's pretty clear they don't know what makes RPG gamers tick.

 

Yeah, it couldn't be that AP deserves such a score.

Edited May 27, 2010 by qaz123

[Oblarg]

Gamespot is a notoriously unreliable review source.

 

They gave Supreme Commander 2 (awful, awful RTS) an 8.0.

 

To their credit, though, they did rate Total Annihilation above Starcraft.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Oblarg

[WorstUsernameEver]

Unreliable or not these reviews WILL hurt the game and Obsidian pretty badly.

And come on, with all the people that have played the game on the forum, isn't there anyone that can comment and say 'this is wrong' or 'I haven't encountered bugs so far'?

You guys aren't doing a good job reassuring me.

[Oner]

Unreliable or not these reviews WILL hurt the game and Obsidian pretty badly.

And come on, with all the people that have played the game on the forum, isn't there anyone that can comment and say 'this is wrong' or 'I haven't encountered bugs so far'?

You guys aren't doing a good job reassuring me.

Ask and ye shall receive. http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showt...t&p=1035772

I've not encountered any bugs or glitches yet either.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Oner

[Starwars]

For the Saudi Arabia hub, there was very little (if any) that I would put down as a bug. I'm sure there are some here and there but the game actually felt way more polished than I expected. Again, based on the Saudi Arabia hub only.

[WorstUsernameEver]

To be honest, seeing the reception Alpha Protocol is receiving compared to Fallout : New Vegas I'm wondering.. is it because New Vegas it's a sequel to Fallout 3 and Fallout 3 was awesome so Fallout New Vegas will be more awesome (for the mags, at least), is it because Bethesda is backing them up (they're drooling over Hunted too..) or is it simply because?

I mean, I expected a mixed reaction, but I didn't expect this much negativity.. makes me wonder if Obsidian really made the right choices.