This is obviously a rather nonspecific thread in that it does not relate to one specific issue, however I feel it contains legitimate questions and criticism. If it's deemed inappropriate or descends into flames (it's the internet after all) then do with it as you will.
I'm genuinely curious about the QA when it comes to Alpha Protocol.
PC Gamers typically expect an acceptable level of bugs when a game is released and do not mind editing in little fixes and tweaks, flushing out old drivers etc.
Most PC users understand that the vast array of hardware configurations make it impossible for software to run absolutely perfectly out of the box. There's no real point expanding on this because I'm just repeating common knowledge.
My main question - which will likely go unanswered but hopefully not unread - is did anyone actually playtest the PC version?
A stupid question because they must have. So how did a major issue like the poorly implemented streaming affecting mouse performance make it past the gates?
Am I to believe all the PC playtesters used gamepads?
What about the ridiculous mouse control in the hacking minigame that treats the mouse as an analogue stick? How did noone notice this?
Texture pop-ins on a PC. Really?
I like to break games and make unintended things happen because I find it funny. It's a challenge and a "meta-game" if you will. Silly ragdoll stuff or accidentally falling into a skybox when glitching up a sheer cliff. Stuff you have to go out of your way to do and noone's really going to find it unless they look for it.
Unfortunately with Alpha Protocol it breaks before you can even really play it and not in a quirky, unexpected one-off way. It does it constantly. Playing normally and "as intended".
That isn't fun.
I took down a guard with my stealthy guy today. Another patrolling guard walked practically over the body and did nothing. Just carried on walking his wonky, jerky walk. The AI (on hard no less) and animation is frankly embarrassing.
Why was this game so rushed?
Likely rhetorical, it's usually down to bad project management.
Please patch it, there's a glimmer of a good game in there somewhere and it's always a shame to see something people have poured their time into over a period of several years get slated.
Question
PwNinat0r2000
This is obviously a rather nonspecific thread in that it does not relate to one specific issue, however I feel it contains legitimate questions and criticism. If it's deemed inappropriate or descends into flames (it's the internet after all) then do with it as you will.
I'm genuinely curious about the QA when it comes to Alpha Protocol.
PC Gamers typically expect an acceptable level of bugs when a game is released and do not mind editing in little fixes and tweaks, flushing out old drivers etc.
Most PC users understand that the vast array of hardware configurations make it impossible for software to run absolutely perfectly out of the box. There's no real point expanding on this because I'm just repeating common knowledge.
My main question - which will likely go unanswered but hopefully not unread - is did anyone actually playtest the PC version?
A stupid question because they must have. So how did a major issue like the poorly implemented streaming affecting mouse performance make it past the gates?
Am I to believe all the PC playtesters used gamepads?
What about the ridiculous mouse control in the hacking minigame that treats the mouse as an analogue stick? How did noone notice this?
Texture pop-ins on a PC. Really?
I like to break games and make unintended things happen because I find it funny. It's a challenge and a "meta-game" if you will. Silly ragdoll stuff or accidentally falling into a skybox when glitching up a sheer cliff. Stuff you have to go out of your way to do and noone's really going to find it unless they look for it.
Unfortunately with Alpha Protocol it breaks before you can even really play it and not in a quirky, unexpected one-off way. It does it constantly. Playing normally and "as intended".
That isn't fun.
I took down a guard with my stealthy guy today. Another patrolling guard walked practically over the body and did nothing. Just carried on walking his wonky, jerky walk. The AI (on hard no less) and animation is frankly embarrassing.
Why was this game so rushed?
Likely rhetorical, it's usually down to bad project management.
Please patch it, there's a glimmer of a good game in there somewhere and it's always a shame to see something people have poured their time into over a period of several years get slated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
9 answers to this question
Recommended Posts