The Conspiracy Against Alpha Protocol

[Deus Ex Machina]

Okay, maybe the title is overly dramatic, but I feel that it's appropriate considering that AP is an espionage game.

 

Here's my problem.

 

I have noticed that the majority of complaints that reviewers have had with AP (framerate issues, graphical issues, animation issues, combat mechanics issues, A.I. issues, etc.) were present in several other games such as The Elder Scrolls IV : Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fable 2, Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. However, all those games were highly received by the same reviewers that lambasted AP. Whether or not the reviewers had a personal grudge against Sega or Obsidian is uncertain, however, the hypocrisy is.

 

Does anyone else see the bull **** in all this?

[MazeMouse]

Okay, maybe the title is overly dramatic, but I feel that it's appropriate considering that AP is an espionage game.

 

Here's my problem.

 

I have noticed that the majority of complaints that reviewers have had with AP (framerate issues, graphical issues, animation issues, combat mechanics issues, A.I. issues, etc.) were present in several other games such as The Elder Scrolls IV : Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fable 2, Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. However, all those games were highly received by the same reviewers that lambasted AP. Whether or not the reviewers had a personal grudge against Sega or Obsidian is uncertain, however, the hypocrisy is.

 

Does anyone else see the bull **** in all this?

 

With some of the reviewers I get the idea the are just "mad" they didn't get the game they were expecting. Either due to hype or due to wrong expectations (Some were even complaining about basic RPG stuff... if you don't want RPG stuff, don't buy an RPG )

[blacktick]

Yes,I have to admit that it all sounds very weird.

There have been many games that are plagued with AI,graphical,poor framerate etc issues but since the production values are top notch,they somehow dismiss them all and give them a high score.

 

It seems ppl are way too stupid these days to understand a game that has skill based shooting. Most of the reviews seem to have one thing in common and that is wondering why they can't hit when their skill for the weapon is low.

This I assume stems from borderlands where you also have skills for weapons,but it doesn't affect the hit rating...iirc.

 

I guess they were expecting a new gears of war/splinter cell...

 

It's hard to keep faith in the gaming industry when good games get slandered and games like fps shooter 5000 gets all the praises for having gory executions and over the top bloom in it.

Edited June 1, 2010 by blacktick

[Kasabian]

Who listens to reviewers anyway?

 

A low score just proves they did not really play the game.

 

The animations are great, especially hand to hand makes you feel like Jason Bourne or Ethan Hunt, quite satisfying. The only dodgy animation is enemy patrol movement, when it transitions from walking to another action, the reset is fine.

 

Buggy? I have not had a single CTD, the game runs fluidly even on my crappy old system, some have experienced mouse issues and stuttering, but all can be fixed with .ini edits. (Go check the PC support area)

 

The AI is not overly smart, but to be perfectly honest what game has great AI? For example Oblivion was famous for having dumb AI where enemies would run constantly at a boulder if you stood on it out of their reach.

 

A lot of people compare AP with Mass Effect, quite rightly too, it is much in the same style, but AP has far far less bugs, Mass Effect still has the overheating bug.

 

Hypocrisy? One can justify saying that. I would also add idiocy, after all reviewers often copy other reviewer trends. They should play the game and actually experience it.

 

One thing is for sure, AP has a great story and dialogue, even reviews and those that complain compliment the game in this aspect.

 

I also think not everyone gets the games playstyle being a mix of stealth action and RPG.

 

 

 

In my opinion AP is the best Action RPG in quite a while.

[polo77]

Did you send a copy to the french journalist? because there is still no test

[cesko]

A lot of people compare AP with Mass Effect, quite rightly too, it is much in the same style, but AP has far far less bugs, Mass Effect still has the overheating bug.

 

Overheating bug? Never encounter that one on my pc or 360 with ME

 

With the rest I agree, except for the animations, they're really clunky, still love the game for the story and the 007 feel

Edited June 1, 2010 by cesko

[edgarcuk]

I agree with OPs, I found these sites giving credit to the "tired developer" comments in Joystiq, specially Destruictoid... this really seems like a disqualification campaign, specially in North America.

 

While agree the game needs enhancements in the presentation, AI and combat, those current characteristics are acceptable but not really crappy.

 

Yes, there is a conspiracy against AP, why bother to take the comments of an unreliable source as news when usually such comments are disregarded?....

 

This is very Alpha Protocol. lol

[blackwolfe]

Yes, the other games mentioned did have bugs. But when I played them it was not as apparent, it simply didnt feel like it mattered, I still enjoyed them. Sure, I enjoy Alpha protocol too, but some of the bugs are extremely frustrating. And no, the mouse crazyness cannot always be fixed through editing the ini files. Not for everyone and for some only temporarily. It didnt fix it for me.

 

Some of the reviews are probably lower because the reviewers had too high expectations

Some reviews are probably lower because of bugs

Some reviews are stupidly low for no good reason.

 

I'd give alpha protocol at least 7/10 though.

Edited June 1, 2010 by blackwolfe

[Deus Ex Machina]

Thanks for all the feedback.

 

It would seem that, much like Deadly Premonition, AP has garnered a cult following. I loved Deadly Premonition. I'm picking up AP as soon as I get off work today and I'll be sure to post my impressions as an RPG player and as a vet gamer.

 

I'm sure I'll find that the criticism is not entirely justified.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Deus Ex Machina

[Kasabian]

-Edit-

Edited June 1, 2010 by Kasabian

[Kasabian]

Look at the gamers ratings compared to the reviewers.

 

I think it was Gamespot? That gave AP a 6.0, yet the readers gave it a 7.0. I think over time things will settle down and it will be seen for the gem it is.

[HoonDing]

Big productions always get more leeway than the smaller ones. Just like in business.

[SpiderMan1217]

Big productions always get more leeway than the smaller ones. Just like in business.

 

So true.

[SirPetrakus]

Honestly? A conspiracy? No, I think people expected a Mass Effect 2. Hey, it's third person, it's real time, it's action, has guns, therefore shooter! Sincerely, there haven't been that many modern or sci-fi real time RPGs so I guess that's what baffles people, that it looks like something, but is actually something else, like it's typecasted. It's very hard to convince people accustomed to this typecast to think outside the box. To those people, yes the game is broken. Thing is, most people in Europe, expected and understood that AP is an RPG, hence the higher scores in comparison to the US. I mean, AP's worst EU review was what? 7.8? Destructoid gave the game a 2! That's almost 6 points! 6 points is like a completely different game! Someone's got it wrong and someone's got it right, obviously. So pick your poison.

[Oner]

Does anyone else see the bull **** in all this?

Yes, for the past 6 years.

 

BTW I posted a theory somewhere once that the REAL Alpha Protocol is trying to minimize the game's popularity.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Oner

[that guy with hair]

Does anyone else see the bull **** in all this?

Yeah, but I see BS in what you're on about.

Have you played Mass Effect 2? Whether a person likes the action-focus trend of many RPGs these days, ME2 deserves all the praise it gets. There are niggling issues here and there, but overall it reeks of pure quality. The same can be said for those other games ('cept maybe Oblivion, which I thought was over-hyped).

 

I love Obsidian and I will keep supporting them as a company (I will preorder New Vegas, and likely their as-of-yet unannounced game), but I am dumbstruck by how delusional some people are being.

 

Alpha Protocol has many faults and it deserves the reviews it is getting, especially when you compare it to the competition over the last several years (and I mean the more critical US reviews, Euro reviews don't seem to find as much).

 

And yes, many big-name games (usually popular franchises) seem to get it easier at times. But don't try to pass off AP's deservedly lackluster ratings on some ridiculous conspiracy.

[Kindred]

I just registered to have my say on this. Don't look at me like that - it's the internet, everyone has an opinion.

 

Alpha Protocol isn't a bad game. It's not even a buggy game by modern standards. It's got rough edges (figuratively, and literally with the lack of AA support.) It's unimpressive visually. The animations are clunky compared to other third-person games. I ran into a grand total of one bug during my first (and currenly only completed) playthrough in the form of onscreen distortion when accessing one computer in the Moscow train station.

 

There's no grand conspiracy.

 

I think the problem with Alpha Protocol is peoples' preconcieved notions of how it would be. Releasing the game in the wake of Splinter Cell is a questionable marketing move - I'd compare it to releasing an original sci-fi movie the week after Star Wars - especially since when people think of stealth espionage games, they think of Sam Fisher. The problem is that Splinter Cell is an action game, and therefore can focus on providing a completely linear story, where Alpha Protocol is an RPG which requires more than a writer sitting in a room for six hours to come up with a way to deliver its content.

 

I bought Splinter Cell: Conviction and played through it once. That's it. I didn't even think about a second playthrough. Right now, I've got two AP save files on the boil, and it likely won't be too long until I begin another.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Kindred

[vulgar]

(sorry for my poor english)

 

I have great time playing this game and think this could be one of the best games ever, if Obsidian would take their time and polished the game, before shiping it. For me it is more fun playing AP than , for instance, Dragons Age (same game as everything made by Bioware since NWN) and has greater replay value.

 

It seems to me, like everything is in the game, but nothing done as it should be. I was expecting something like Deus ex (at least hoping for it). In year 2010 this game should be done better. Still great fun.

 

Most of bad reviews have their point, and if deus ex is 10, than AP deserves no more than 6. But the way games are today, AP gets fair 7.5. At least in my book.

[edgarcuk]

Does anyone else see the bull **** in all this?

Yeah, but I see BS in what you're on about.

Have you played Mass Effect 2? Whether a person likes the action-focus trend of many RPGs these days, ME2 deserves all the praise it gets. There are niggling issues here and there, but overall it reeks of pure quality. The same can be said for those other games ('cept maybe Oblivion, which I thought was over-hyped).

 

I love Obsidian and I will keep supporting them as a company (I will preorder New Vegas, and likely their as-of-yet unannounced game), but I am dumbstruck by how delusional some people are being.

 

Alpha Protocol has many faults and it deserves the reviews it is getting, especially when you compare it to the competition over the last several years (and I mean the more critical US reviews, Euro reviews don't seem to find as much).

 

And yes, many big-name games (usually popular franchises) seem to get it easier at times. But don't try to pass off AP's deservedly lackluster ratings on some ridiculous conspiracy.

 

Well, I've got ME2 and I like it, good combat, presentation and AI (sometimes)... I don't consider the RPG quality as AP does posses.

 

Of course big-name games usually got positive ratings, the fact of making a news from an anonymous "tired developer" it's far beyond a normal thing, this seems like a disqualification campaign.

[qaz123]

No conspiracy.

 

AP deserves most of the reviews it is getting. However, some of them are way to harsh.

 

I'd say its about on the level of DA:O (console version) except for length. I think most of the reviews are of the console version, and I'm sure (just like DA) the pc version is way better.

[Fallen Ghost]

It's just that unlike with Fable II(which was particularly broken and bad) as well as all the others the OP mentioned nobody went with fat checks to the reviewers or their bosses for praise....so they feel it is their duty to trash any good game they weren't paid enormous amounts of money to praise.

[Mk1]

I think Oblivion, Fallout 3 or the Mass Effect games all deserve higher scores than Alpha Protocol. Production values matter, and a clunky combat system should hurt your score - especially in an action game.

 

Still, a lot of the reviews are too harsh, and exaggerate the extent to which the rough edges (no pun intended...) in AP get in the way of gameplay.

 

Although just because in this case the scores (for the PC version, which are better than for the 360 version) aren't terribly unfair (only somewhat so), it doesn't mean that there isn't a ton of bias and hypocrisy in the game review press... Look at what those bastards did to The Witcher, for example - an 81 Metacritic score, but a 9.3 user rating and over a million copies sold on the PC alone. There are times when a big name is easily worth 15 points.

[BEES]

Alpha Protocol is far from perfect. I agree that there are some reviewers who criticism some very... bizarre things. Like the Gametrailers review that went on about how the stats control how well Thorton hits instead of player aim - even though this exact same mechanic was praised in the Fallout 3 review.

 

However, as others have said, there are issues that are appropriately reflected in many of the scores. On the PC, it's quite obvious that AP is a port and a rather clunky one at that. The controls for the hacking game are frustrating at best. The camera is incredibly finicky and anxious. There's been a couple of times when I've 'stuck' to allies during combat even though I'm a good foot from them not to mention Thorton "freezes" for a few seconds if you enter most of your menus while moving.

 

However, there's been a serious downplay of the story from AP. I can not accept that Mass Effect or Fallout get the same scores as Alpha Protocol. There really is no comparison... at least from the time that I've played. Maybe it suddenly takes a nosedive halfway through but for some reason I seriously doubt that.

[subedii]

I think Oblivion, Fallout 3 or the Mass Effect games all deserve higher scores than Alpha Protocol. Production values matter, and a clunky combat system should hurt your score - especially in an action game.

 

Still, a lot of the reviews are too harsh, and exaggerate the extent to which the rough edges (no pun intended...) in AP get in the way of gameplay.

 

Although just because in this case the scores (for the PC version, which are better than for the 360 version) aren't terribly unfair (only somewhat so), it doesn't mean that there isn't a ton of bias and hypocrisy in the game review press... Look at what those bastards did to The Witcher, for example - an 81 Metacritic score, but a 9.3 user rating and over a million copies sold on the PC alone. There are times when a big name is easily worth 15 points.

 

 

Personally there is now WAY that I could rate Fallout 3 above Alpha Protocol. I mean people talk about bad animation, and lacklustre shooting mechanics, and all I can think is that Fallout 3 had those in spades. Combined with horrible character models and some really, really bad writing with a story that I'm not sure I could care less about if I actively tried.

 

And I say all that thinking that Fallout 3 was actually a really good game.

 

But I just completed Alpha Protocol and I really can't get how people will call this out on bad animation (admittedly it's not stellar, but it's at the very least passable, or maybe I'm just more tolerant) and dock points for that. When in comparison Fallout 3 the characters look as if they're ice-skating on the desert sands but that's alright because it's Bethesda and we expect bad animation from them. It's bizarre.

 

I have to say the writing and the storyline of AP really did impress me. The conversations felt more natural and flowing than most RPG's on the market. I don't even think Mass Effect 2 came out on top there.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Alpha Protol seriously lacks polish in several areas, and has some odd design ideas in others and that's why its getting mediocre review scores. I expected it to play and look much better than it ended up, it's an Unreal3 engine game after all.

 

 

 

...and on a personal level I also quite dislike playing an obnoxious **** like Mike Thorton, possibly the least likeable player character Ive seen in years.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Kaftan Barlast