The Conspiracy Against Alpha Protocol

[Ulicus]

I think scores between 7-8 are perfectly fair for this game.

 

What Mass Effect 2 did was raise the bar on what a CRPG should be. When the bar is raised, expectations are raised.

 

What? You're joking, right?

 

Yes thats right, I'm joking. Certainly games of ME2's polish, quality and production values don't do anything to raise expectations of other games.

 

Just like how the original Half-Life didn't raise expectations for future FPS games to become more cinematic, nor how MGS for the playstation didn't raise expectations for games everywhere to have high quality voice acting and cinematic cutscenes.

 

Instead of cherry picking my post for a single statement just to make a dumbass remark, why not put some effort into it and actually tell me your opinion.

The thing is that though ME2 was a great game -- and certainly one that does have better production values and polish than AP -- it was extraordinarily limited as a CRPG. You can't raise the bar on what a genre should be by divorcing yourself from the genre as much as you possibly can. Half-Life wouldn't have raised expectations on future FPS games if it had been a third person game, after all.

[C2B]

I think scores between 7-8 are perfectly fair for this game.

 

There is another problem here when we score this game. Comparison.

I see multitudes of problem more in the original ME and Fallout 3 than I see in AP. Yet those games scored near/over 90.

This kinda destroys the entire rating system. Makes it unreliable.

 

Reviewers should rather just focus on pointing out good and bad points of a game rather than score it. It just doesn't add up.

[Orchomene]

I think scores between 7-8 are perfectly fair for this game.

 

What Mass Effect 2 did was raise the bar on what a CRPG should be. When the bar is raised, expectations are raised.

 

What? You're joking, right?

 

Yes thats right, I'm joking. Certainly games of ME2's polish, quality and production values don't do anything to raise expectations of other games.

 

Just like how the original Half-Life didn't raise expectations for future FPS games to become more cinematic, nor how MGS for the playstation didn't raise expectations for games everywhere to have high quality voice acting and cinematic cutscenes.

 

Instead of cherry picking my post for a single statement just to make a dumbass remark, why not put some effort into it and actually tell me your opinion.

The thing is that though ME2 was a great game -- and certainly one that does have better production values and polish than AP -- it was extraordinarily limited as a CRPG. You can't raise the bar on what a genre should be by divorcing yourself from the genre as much as you possibly can. Half-Life wouldn't have raised expectations on future FPS games if it had been a third person game, after all.

 

Hum... Each one his/her opiinion, but I almost forced myself to go to the end of ME2.

Why ? Very awful story, bad story telling, flat dialogues, railroading all the way, boring combat, boring runing in corridors, ridiculous bosses.

I don't play shooters, so I can't compare. But ME2 is probably the worst game I've bought the last two years. Also, after having seen what has been said of some FPS (MW2) and seen someone playing it, I can understand that ME2 may seem to "raise standard" for some people.

Yet, I like many of the Bioware games. The stories are far from original, but I can enjoy playing their games. But Me2, raising RPG standard ?

It's ridiculous.

It's like saying that Independance Day has raised cinematographic standard like it is a masterpiece movie.

With ME2, you get flashing and pretty images, but nothing else.

[Amentep]

What AP did was fail to meet everybody's expectations.

 

It hasn't failed to meet mine, please quit making statements about my opinions.

 

I played and loved Mass Effect 2, but come on this game is not Mass Effect Gaiden: Alpha Protocol. Comparing them is a useless endeavor; and given that they're vastly different games in what they're trying to do any comparison is only going to scratch the surface of the good and bad in either game.

[Oner]

What AP did was fail to meet everybody's expectations.

 

It hasn't failed to meet mine, please quit making statements about my opinions.

He said everybody's expectations, not anyone's.

[Amentep]

What AP did was fail to meet everybody's expectations.

 

It hasn't failed to meet mine, please quit making statements about my opinions.

He said everybody's expectations, not anyone's.

 

I'm not a part of everybody? Did I get voted out of the human race or something while I wasn't looking?

 

Everybody = everyone = every person

 

Anyone = any person at all

 

Saying something "fails to meet everybody's expectations" is equivalent to saying "did not meet anyone's expectations"

 

It'd be more accurate to say something like "What AP did was fail to meet the expectations of a not insignificant number of people who played it (the exact number in comparison to those who did still being open to conjecture at this point)."

[Oner]

Saying something "fails to meet everybody's expectations" is equivalent to saying "did not meet every single person's expectations"

 

Fixed for you.

[Amentep]

Saying something "fails to meet everybody's expectations" is equivalent to saying "did not meet every single person's expectations"

 

Fixed for you.

 

My point still stands that I'm a part of "everybody"

 

Egads, that sounds dodgy.

[Oner]

And?

[Ulicus]

I think scores between 7-8 are perfectly fair for this game.

 

There is another problem here when we score this game. Comparison.

I see multitudes of problem more in the original ME and Fallout 3 than I see in AP. Yet those games scored near/over 90.

This kinda destroys the entire rating system. Makes it unreliable.

 

Reviewers should rather just focus on pointing out good and bad points of a game rather than score it. It just doesn't add up.

Oh, I agree. I much prefer reviews that aren't scored at all.

 

Hum... Each one his/her opiinion, but I almost forced myself to go to the end of ME2.

Why ? Very awful story, bad story telling, flat dialogues, railroading all the way, boring combat, boring runing in corridors, ridiculous bosses.

I don't play shooters, so I can't compare. But ME2 is probably the worst game I've bought the last two years. Also, after having seen what has been said of some FPS (MW2) and seen someone playing it, I can understand that ME2 may seem to "raise standard" for some people.

Yet, I like many of the Bioware games. The stories are far from original, but I can enjoy playing their games. But Me2, raising RPG standard ?

It's ridiculous.

It's like saying that Independance Day has raised cinematographic standard like it is a masterpiece movie.

With ME2, you get flashing and pretty images, but nothing else.

Uh, you realise that I was saying that ME2 didn't raise CRPG standards, right? By virtue of it "streamlining" to the point that it was more shooter than RPG.

[Amentep]

And?

 

unskilled-: "What AP did was fail to meet everybody's expectations."

 

Me: "It hasn't failed to meet mine, please quit making statements about my opinions."

 

You: "He said everybody's expectations, not anyone's."

 

As far as I can tell you implied that unskilled- wasn't speaking for me like I claimed he was.

 

Since everybody is every person and I'm a person saying "everybody's expectations" makes it a statement about every person's expectations which includes my own.

 

Since my expectations have been met, his statement wasn't accurate.

 

My entire point is that we should try to avoid sweeping generalizations.

[Orchomene]

Uh, you realise that I was saying that ME2 didn't raise CRPG standards, right? By virtue of it "streamlining" to the point that it was more shooter than RPG.

Well, you said ME2 was a great game. Well, that's not my point of view was the only thing I said. The answer I made was for all the stack, not specifically you.

[Ulicus]

Amentep:

Well, whaddya know, someone who realises that "everybody" is actually -- despite appearances -- singular!

 

Pedantry FTW.

 

Orchomene:

Fair dos.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Ulicus

[FlintlockJazz]

And?

 

unskilled-: "What AP did was fail to meet everybody's expectations."

 

Me: "It hasn't failed to meet mine, please quit making statements about my opinions."

 

You: "He said everybody's expectations, not anyone's."

 

As far as I can tell you implied that unskilled- wasn't speaking for me like I claimed he was.

 

Since everybody is every person and I'm a person saying "everybody's expectations" makes it a statement about every person's expectations which includes my own.

 

Since my expectations have been met, his statement wasn't accurate.

 

My entire point is that we should try to avoid sweeping generalizations.

 

I think this is a case of unclear posting causing confusion. Unskilled may have meant 'everybody' in that it didn't meet anyone's expectations, but the actual literal meaning is that not everyone had their expectations met. The literal meaning therefore means that it can indeed meet some expectations it just did not meet all expectations of everyone, so you can have one group of people whose expectations were met perfectly but as long as at least one person didn't then everyone's expectations were not met...but then no game has ever been released in which everyone's expectations were met anyway, so stating it is unnecessary unless of course he did mean that it failed everyone's expectations and so it makes sense that some people will presume that...

 

This is a prime example as to how easy it is to misinterprete someone.

 

EDIT: Argh, people already posted to clear this up, oh well nothing to see here folks.

Edited June 10, 2010 by FlintlockJazz

[Ulicus]

I think this is a case of unclear posting causing confusion. Unskilled may have meant 'everybody' in that it didn't meet anyone's expectations, but the actual literal meaning is that not everyone had their expectations met. The literal meaning therefore means that it can indeed meet some expectations it just did not meet all expectations of everyone, so you can have one group of people whose expectations were met perfectly but as long as at least one person didn't then everyone's expectations were not met...but then no game has ever been released in which everyone's expectations were met anyway, so stating it is unnecessary unless of course he did mean that it failed everyone's expectations and so it makes sense that some people will presume that...

 

This is a prime example as to how a simple misinterpretation (or correct interpretation) can cause flame wars, though fortunately it hasn't.

No, the actual literal meaning is that there is not a single person who had their expectations met. "Everybody" is a singular pronoun. It just looks like a plural one.

 

Of course, it's incredibly pedantic to point that out, since we all know what Unskilled actually meant (what you say above)... but, technically, he was wrong.

 

You can't say this game DID meet everybody's expectations and you can't (technically) say that it DIDN'T meet everybody's expectations. You can say, however, that it did not meet all expectations without anyone being able to nitpick at your choice of words. (since "all" is plural)

 

EDIT: Because I kept saying "collective" instead of "plural". (facepalm)

Edited June 10, 2010 by Ulicus

[Amentep]

I really wasn't trying to be pedantic...I thought he was making a sweeping generalization. Apologies if I was wrong.

[FlintlockJazz]

I think this is a case of unclear posting causing confusion. Unskilled may have meant 'everybody' in that it didn't meet anyone's expectations, but the actual literal meaning is that not everyone had their expectations met. The literal meaning therefore means that it can indeed meet some expectations it just did not meet all expectations of everyone, so you can have one group of people whose expectations were met perfectly but as long as at least one person didn't then everyone's expectations were not met...but then no game has ever been released in which everyone's expectations were met anyway, so stating it is unnecessary unless of course he did mean that it failed everyone's expectations and so it makes sense that some people will presume that...

 

This is a prime example as to how a simple misinterpretation (or correct interpretation) can cause flame wars, though fortunately it hasn't.

No, the actual literal meaning is that there is not a single person who had their expectations met. "Everybody" is a singular pronoun. It just looks like a collective one.

 

Of course, it's incredibly pedantic to point that out, since we all know what Unskilled actually meant (what you say above)... but, technically, he was wrong.

 

You can't say this game DID meet everybody's expectations and you can't say that it DIDN'T meet everybody's expectations. You can say, however, that it did not meet all people's expectations.

Yeah, I think I should check into things a bit more before making big posts that are basically wrong. Made an example of how presumption can lead to ****ups myself there.

[Ulicus]

I really wasn't trying to be pedantic...I thought he was making a sweeping generalization. Apologies if I was wrong.

 

Yeah, I don't think he was trying to say that no-one's expectations were met.

[Minchi]

Yeah...and whoever wrote those reviews on alpha protocol either didn't play it or hated the company...so those reviews who have scored the game so low should be shot on site... that what i think

Edited June 10, 2010 by Minchi

[Amentep]

I think this is a case of unclear posting causing confusion. Unskilled may have meant 'everybody' in that it didn't meet anyone's expectations, but the actual literal meaning is that not everyone had their expectations met. The literal meaning therefore means that it can indeed meet some expectations it just did not meet all expectations of everyone, so you can have one group of people whose expectations were met perfectly but as long as at least one person didn't then everyone's expectations were not met...but then no game has ever been released in which everyone's expectations were met anyway, so stating it is unnecessary unless of course he did mean that it failed everyone's expectations and so it makes sense that some people will presume that...

 

This is a prime example as to how a simple misinterpretation (or correct interpretation) can cause flame wars, though fortunately it hasn't.

No, the actual literal meaning is that there is not a single person who had their expectations met. "Everybody" is a singular pronoun. It just looks like a plural one.

 

Of course, it's incredibly pedantic to point that out, since we all know what Unskilled actually meant (what you say above)... but, technically, he was wrong.

 

You can't say this game DID meet everybody's expectations and you can't (technically) say that it DIDN'T meet everybody's expectations. You can say, however, that it did not meet all expectations without anyone being able to nitpick at your choice of words. (since "all" is plural)

 

Yeah, I think I should check into things a bit more before making big posts that are basically wrong. Made an example of how presumption can lead to ****ups myself there.

 

Welcome to the club!

 

EDIT: fixed quote.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Amentep

[Ulicus]

Gah! Everyone's quoting the unedited version. :'(

 

Oh well, I can take it on the chin.

[FlintlockJazz]

Yeah, I think I should check into things a bit more before making big posts that are basically wrong. Made an example of how presumption can lead to ****ups myself there.

 

Welcome to the club!

 

EDIT: fixed quote.

 

Do we get our own clubhouse?

 

Gah! Everyone's quoting the unedited version. :'(

 

Oh well, I can take it on the chin.

 

Damn, our evil plan isn't working! I mean, um, glad to see you're taking it so well.

[Amentep]

Yeah, I think I should check into things a bit more before making big posts that are basically wrong. Made an example of how presumption can lead to ****ups myself there.

 

Welcome to the club!

 

EDIT: fixed quote.

 

Do we get our own clubhouse?

 

The difficult part is going to be demonstrating the secret handshake...

[Azdeus]

What are you, the Shriners?

[Amentep]

What are you, the Shriners?

 

Don't be hatin'