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.

Why was this game so rushed?

 

From what I've understood, SEGA got involved too much.

So how did a major issue like the poorly implemented streaming affecting mouse performance make it past the gates?

 

The same way that almost every major video game release ever makes it past the gates with annoying bugs. At least this one doesn't stop most people from playing the game, like in some other releases.

 

Please patch it,

 

It's still not out in some places yet, but I'm sure a patch will come at some point. Hopefully soon.

Also, very rarely, the final version of a game does not get tested. So any bugs fixed from the previous version, that were tested were fixed, but more were made, and no one noticed it, because the game did not have final testing, which should take around a few weeks to a month. It rarely happens and mostly with rushed games, but SEGA said that AP was delayed for tweaking, I guess no one tested it after the tweaks, at least that is what it looks like.

So how did a major issue like the poorly implemented streaming affecting mouse performance make it past the gates?

 

The same way that almost every major video game release ever makes it past the gates with annoying bugs. At least this one doesn't stop most people from playing the game, like in some other releases.

 

You may want to re-read my post.

I pointed out that "PC Gamers typically expect an acceptable level of bugs when a game is released".

 

The bugs ARE stopping people from playing the game. Hence the decision to make the OP.

 

People are running into "showstoppers" left, right and centre so don't palm me off with the whole "but it's a new release" excuse which I succinctly addressed in the OP.

Again, re-read my post.

I've stopped playing until a patch comes out (which will probably never happen anyway, at least not any time soon)

I pointed out that "PC Gamers typically expect an acceptable level of bugs when a game is released".

 

Yep. Basically you're saying that AP's bugs is an 'unusually high and unacceptable' level of bugs. I'm saying that, it's actually a fairly acceptable and reasonable level of bugs. There's no miscomprehension going on here, we just disagree.

 

People are running into "showstoppers" left, right and centre so don't palm me off

 

To me, 'showstopper' bugs are where people get random CTDs, plot-central NPCs disappearing or bugging out, your character disappearing through floors, massive memory leaks, etc. Sorry, but I don't see anything at the moment that suggests your radical claim.

 

Obviously there are some people who can't play at the moment, which sucks. I've had my more than my share of that.

Wasn't really going to join in this thread until that last comment about there being an acceptable number of bugs.

 

. . .

 

Really? I mean, I too work in the industry and I know how things generally go, and I can understand all sorts of development issues etc., but to call this an acceptable amount is a bit silly. Things like entire levels becoming unplayable because you had to reload and no way to fix it is not an acceptable amount. Acceptable are things that don't ruin the game as a whole or make the excited player sigh in frustration as he shuts off the game never to play it again.

 

The sad part is that this game is actually fun when it is working. However, in its current state I can't recommend it to anyone...I really hope a few patches are going to be coming out, but given the repeated delays I'm more or less expecting this to be one of those games that is simply written off as a loss. It's too bad too, it has some really fun bits.

 

I'm just one guy, but here are a few of the bugs I can't believe weren't resolved before release:

 

- enemies disappearing from the level if you have to reload from a checkpoint

- AI having no sensible visibility limitations and instant lock on when you are spotted.

- AI almost completely ignorant of anything else going on around

- Mouse issues which make navigating the world difficult if not impossible at times

- Mini-games that weren't even considered from a PC players standpoint

 

So far that's pretty much it, but it makes the game feel half-assed. I mean really...how long would it have taken to fix those few issues? Unless there's a major engine problem beneath the surface here preventing those fixes from taking then I'm pretty disappointed. I know sometimes fixing a bug is extremely difficult even when it seems simply, but these are pretty blatant offenders and I don't see how anyone could feel comfortable releasing with them present.

 

Frankly it's a shame.

 

edit: Just wanted to add that I'd rather see some horrible bugs that are rare than the sort we have here that seem to affect lots of people. I wonder how many of the issues we're seeing were already in the bug database and were just ignored when the gold master was run.

Edited June 2, 201015 yr by Monk

bump because Monk is right 100%

And Seriously... how did something as ugly as the walking animation make it past the polish passes?

 

This game has so much potential, but it feels like it was pushed out the door heavily unpolished.