Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Conspiracy Against Alpha Protocol


  • Please log in to reply
234 replies to this topic

#21
Fallen Ghost

Fallen Ghost

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 125 posts
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.

#22
Mk1

Mk1

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 40 posts
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.

#23
BEES

BEES

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 20 posts
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.

#24
subedii

subedii

    (0) Nub

  • Members
  • 2 posts

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.

#25
Kaftan Barlast

Kaftan Barlast

    Obsidian VIP

  • Members
  • 4737 posts
  • Location:In the middle of the night when everything was still, she heard clawing and gnawing, nibbling and squabbling. She could hear the wolves in the walls, plotting their wolfish plots, hatching their wolfish schemes
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 by Kaftan Barlast, 01 June 2010 - 08:02 AM.


#26
blackwolfe

blackwolfe

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 78 posts
Swedish PC gamer magazine gave the game 8/10 and did not mention any bugs at all in their review.

#27
Paraclete

Paraclete

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 37 posts

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?

What version of those games were you playing? I never once had issues in ME/2, Oblivion, or Fallout3.

You guys can attempt to justify or rationalize your purchase all you want by talking **** about great games, but the truth of the matter, and what you need to REALIZE, is that AP has some serious issues. I know it makes your fanboy powers weak to admit it, but AP just isn't that great of a game. Sure, it has it's moments(trust me it's fun at times), but it has TOO many bugs IMO to offset those issues.

Also, if you don't like the reviews, don't read them. It's that simple. Instead of making up bull**** theories about how Destructoid or IGN or any other game reviewer is a secret member of the Illuminati and the Bildenburg group, you could just grow a pair and not give a **** about reviews like 99% of other people.

Constantly comparing AP to some of the greatest games made in the past 5 years, AND then stating that all the video game reviewers are secretly Reptillians really doesn't help sway people to your side.

Edited by Paraclete, 01 June 2010 - 08:41 AM.


#28
Kasabian

Kasabian

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 110 posts
What bugs exactly Paraclete? AP is relatively bug free, please tell me these serious issues.

As for Oblivion being perfect and bug free I can name over 1000 bugs, just look up the unofficial patch. Mass Effect had many bugs, most still not fixed, just check out the Mass Effect Wiki. Dragon Age has countless unresolved bugs, Awakenings makes the game unplayable for most fans. You compare AP to these highly rated yet seriously bugged games then I am sorry to say AP is relatively low on bugs.


FYI reviewers are Reptilians, they are not human and have cold black hearts. Never listen to their lies, trust in game demos and your friends opinions first. :(

#29
Deng

Deng

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 23 posts

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 don't think it is a conspiracy, but ALOT of the reviews have criticised it for being being too "dice heavy". Well Mass Effect 2 and Fallout 3 are also Dice heavy. In FO3 I can aim at a guys head and do no damage.

Then a gamespot review said it lacked "character and soul"...wtf?

If the comments were that it is a bit buggy or too short, I could understand. But to criticize it for using a gameplay mechanic used by other games is just ridiculous. It is not a conspiracy, but it is pretty well known that "AAA" games from publishers with big media and PR divisions generally get an upturn in review scores.

#30
Deng

Deng

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 23 posts

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.


Fallout 3 has BROKEN combat. Mass Effect shooting is EXACTLY like AP. The gameplay mechanic is the same.

The AP AI is pretty poor, but then again, the FO3 AI is just plain stupid.

#31
Alpha

Alpha

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 589 posts
  • Location:Puerto Rico
  • Xbox Gamertag:Bad Instincts
AP is a great game , i am having a blast with it. Is really bad that the majority of gamers let be influenced by unfair reviews and haters.

BTW< bugs/ i didn't see any in my playthrough.

Edited by Alpha, 01 June 2010 - 09:36 AM.


#32
Paraclete

Paraclete

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 37 posts

What bugs exactly Paraclete? AP is relatively bug free, please tell me these serious issues.

As for Oblivion being perfect and bug free I can name over 1000 bugs, just look up the unofficial patch. Mass Effect had many bugs, most still not fixed, just check out the Mass Effect Wiki. Dragon Age has countless unresolved bugs, Awakenings makes the game unplayable for most fans. You compare AP to these highly rated yet seriously bugged games then I am sorry to say AP is relatively low on bugs.


FYI reviewers are Reptilians, they are not human and have cold black hearts. Never listen to their lies, trust in game demos and your friends opinions first. :(

Granted I haven't seen a LOT of bugs, but the ones I have seen have been pretty game changing. I've had save/checkpoint bugs quite a few times(issues with the game not saving progress, or just not saving at all), a few AI bugs where they would just stand in place or where they were still on high alert even after a re-load.

It feels a lot like Oblivion when it was first released mixed with some Mass Effect. It's fun, but it has its share of bugs(PS3 version), and other than the clumsy gun controls, its actually pretty fun.
I think with some patches it can actually be a really good game, and the PC version I'm sure will have some great mods at some point.

Edited by Paraclete, 01 June 2010 - 09:08 AM.


#33
Libertarian

Libertarian

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 127 posts
Bethesda games are vastly overrated these days. Both Oblivion and Fallout 3 suck compared to Morrowind.

Those games have so many problems, yet they were overlooked.

Edited by Libertarian, 01 June 2010 - 09:12 AM.


#34
Mk1

Mk1

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 40 posts

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.


Fallout 3 has BROKEN combat. Mass Effect shooting is EXACTLY like AP. The gameplay mechanic is the same.

The AP AI is pretty poor, but then again, the FO3 AI is just plain stupid.


No, ME shooting (the original ME) is not exactly like that in AP - the controls in ME, while nothing to write home about compared to the best shooters out there, are notably more responsive and crisper. The ones in AP are barely good enough that (for me) they don't detract from the game, but that's it. And neither of them compare well with the tweaked controls in ME2. On top of that, AP tries to use the same exact mechanics both for stealth-based shooting and all-out action, and they're not especially well suited to the latter.

I don't know what your objection is to the Fallout 3 system, but I never had any major issue with it... Regardless, Fallout 3 doesn't need to be a better FPS than Alpha Protocol to have a "better combat system", it just needs to have a combat system that suits the kind of game it is better than AP's system fits AP... and I think it does.

Edited by Mk1, 01 June 2010 - 10:37 AM.


#35
jonih

jonih

    (0) Nub

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Xbox Gamertag:jodiii
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
I have just played through AP, and enjoyed it,
but generally the reviews are right, the PC version has on metacritic currently 75 score, which is presisely what I think it deserves and would have given myself.
dated graphics, low production value and poor animation, the importance of those things varies very much from person to person, but it is only normal that a reviewer take those into account in the score, out of 10, AP lost at least 1 point due to this and it is only normal.
then 1 more point lost due to the poor AI, bit clumsy controls, the poor optimization, like the huge lag that comes from time to time when entering new areas(I know about the .ini fix, but even if the reviewers knew, they still had to take this into account in the score) and such.

now, there clearly were some haters as well, like one review for the xbox version that gave 20/100, and when you read it, it sounds like the game is completely brokem.

#36
LookAndRoll

LookAndRoll

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 35 posts
I just registered to said that this game is getting a lot of unfair reviews its like people were expecting a MGS game or a Splinter cell. Well, you ****, read the bloody CASE, what it says? RPG, what?? RPG, Third person shooter this is not.

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.


Fallout 3 has BROKEN combat. Mass Effect shooting is EXACTLY like AP. The gameplay mechanic is the same.

The AP AI is pretty poor, but then again, the FO3 AI is just plain stupid.


No, ME shooting (the original ME) is not exactly like that in AP - the controls in ME, while nothing to write home about compared to the best shooters out there, are notably more responsive and crisper. The ones in AP are barely good enough that (for me) they don't detract from the game, but that's it. And neither of them compare well with the tweaked controls in ME2. On top of that, AP tries to use the same exact mechanics both for stealth-based shooting and all-out action, and they're not especially well suited to the latter.

I don't know what your objection is to the Fallout 3 system, but I never had any major issue with it... Regardless, Fallout 3 doesn't need to be a better FPS than Alpha Protocol to have a "better combat system", it just needs to have a combat system that suits the kind of game it is better than AP's system fits AP... and I think it does.


Sorry, but ME1 has exactly the same gameplay as AP, no wait, AP gameplay is more advanced ME1 didn't have tactical critical hits as AP has.
And in the other hand, why in the name of zeus, are you tryng to play this game as a shooter, its a damn RPG, Jesus.

Edited by LookAndRoll, 01 June 2010 - 11:50 AM.


#37
Irrelevant

Irrelevant

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 163 posts
There is no conspiracy; (although there is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy(cycle) regarding newer games to look better than older games which causes costs to up which requires the developer/publisher to market to the largest audience possible.) Most game review companies write to please the largest audience possible so it certainly makes sense for these companies to change their review of a game in order to please the audience they are writing for.
Most of these people are not journalists either, from looking at the information most of them provide(on IGN,Kotaku,Joystic, ect) they seem to be average 20-30 year olds. Which is why some games are praised for the same reasons others are bashed for, qoutes taken out of context,quality(defined as how much a game does what it advertises to do/how much it has improved over similar games)ignored, numerical values, ect.
On an unrelated note, most reviews ignore the fact that Alpha Protocol is an rpg and do not complain about the gameplay and instead focus on other

#38
Nepenthe

Nepenthe

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4723 posts
  • Location:Office of Special Tactics and Reconnaissance
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Currently the Nepreference™ system ranks as follows:

Mass Effect 2 > Alpha Protocol = Mass Effect > Dragon Age: Awakening > Dragon Age: Origins > a big void > Fallout 3

Fallout 3 is the only game that has taken me a ~year to complete (or how long it took for Broken Steel to get released on PS3... 9 months?). I completely lost interest in it twice, but came back both times to try to finish it. It's been gathering dust ever since, and I honestly don't see myself suffering through it again.

I feel like the guy seeing the naked emperor whenever people praise FO3, I really don't see what's the big deal - ok, the DLC was on a relative scale really good and the 3 I got were great value for money when compared with, say, DAO DLC, but that's about it.

I won't start thinking up conspiracy theories, but I think it's pretty obvious that some of the major U.S. review sites have approached Alpha Protocol with a definite negative bias, overlooking the positive aspects and overemphasising the negatives. I find the ones linked to on the official Alpha Protocol facebook page to be mostly quite fair (one was crossing over into fanboyish territory). The tearing is godawful, though, but I guess tearing beats the DAO judder we PS3ites got.

Oh yeah. There is something I like about Fallout 3. The CE lunchbox is fun.

Edited by Nepenthe, 01 June 2010 - 01:13 PM.


#39
Thorton_AP

Thorton_AP

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1142 posts

What version of those games were you playing? I never once had issues in ME/2, Oblivion, or Fallout3.

You guys can attempt to justify or rationalize your purchase all you want by talking **** about great games, but the truth of the matter, and what you need to REALIZE, is that AP has some serious issues. I know it makes your fanboy powers weak to admit it, but AP just isn't that great of a game. Sure, it has it's moments(trust me it's fun at times), but it has TOO many bugs IMO to offset those issues.


Here's the irony of your comment.

You criticize Deus Ex Machina because "you didn't have any issues with ME1/2, Oblivion, or Fallout 3."

It's possible that people don't have issues with Alpha Protocol too. I haven't found any bugs yet (but it's still early for me).

#40
Irrelevant

Irrelevant

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 163 posts
issues such as production value(I have no idea what this is, but it seems to be how pretty the game is.)
Anyway, if a game developer does not want to deal with this they can either a. target a specific audience(Metal Gear) or b.(pending) Call reviewers out on their bull****(David Jaffe) dan dan daaaaaaan.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users