The Conspiracy Against Alpha Protocol

[worcanna]

For a while I have been of the mind that I find Obsidian (and Black Isle) games to be superior in their narrative and story telling. But BioWare's games have typically been technically better, from a gameplay side or what have you.

 

 

There are some exceptions (Icewind Dale, which was explicit in its attempts to be a hack 'n' slash), but that's the way I see it.

 

Pretty much how I see it, as well. The real place where Obsidian pulls ahead is dialogue - BioWare can make a good plot, but they can't back it up with equally strong dialogue, which often detracts from the intensity of the plot. Virmire in ME1, for example, had a great moment in the plot where you had to choose between Ashley or Kaiden, but the godawful dialogue robbed it of any emotional power it would have ("I'M SORRY ASH. I HAD TO MAKE A CHOICE."). Obsidian, on the other hand, has always written absolutely great dialogue to support their games. Kreia in KotOR2 has some of the best lines I have ever heard in a video game - never has any BioWare character even come close.

 

Edit: And if Kreia isn't good enough for you, try Heck. I was falling out of my chair laughing at his emails.

 

This is part of the problem i guess with what im seeing of fans the game who dislike the low reviews. You play and are willing to see past this cracks to the beyond awesome dialog. You have to understand though that it doesn't make a game!. It isn't 50% of the game, it has to be a shooter really. While Obsidian do great with the idea of the RP apart of it, the G part fails a bit. They have had issues with gameplay in general in a lot of the game and need a lot of time to bugfix which they evidently didn't put in.

 

Because of that and how much potential this game had, it is being given hard marks. Not because its being compared, but because i should of stood up and been awesome but Obsidian evidently didn't use the extra time to bug-fix now did they. So the scores are fair, if a little hard based on the feelings of what people think should of happened. If your saying its unfair for the reviewers to of given these hard marks, its more because they thought higher of obsidian with this. There own IP that had its chance to step out and be counted as being BETTER then Mass Effect. So there is your answer really. If its different, id be surprised considering who i work for and how the general view around my office has been with this game.

[unskilled-]

Deadly_Nightshade

 

Glad we agree on a few things. It is true that while ME2 railroads you in terms of one predetermined outcome, that is the side effect of the kind of story it is trying to establish. I'm sure it would have been pretty hard for the developers and writers for ME1/2 to try and write in why Shepard all of a sudden joins the reapers, sentient machines who want to destroy all of humanity.

 

Regarding AP's story, I agree that while it is not the most original story around, it does have enough plot twists to keep things fresh and interesting; thus requiring additional playthroughs to figure out the whole story.

 

As for how I play, I've done all my playthroughs using the stealth method. I'm not scrupulous about whether or not I take down an enemy or not (lethal or otherwise), only doing what is required for the perks, at least.. after my first playthrough (all stealth, no killing). The whole problem with the stealth portion of the game is that it is underutilized. This is due to the fact that the levels are structured so as to railroad you into encounters without any choice in the overall scheme of the level. Having multiple entry points or routes within the level doesn't really count if all the routes are within the same vicinity/checkpoint, nor does it help that the majority of these different routes have intel you'd likely be looking for.

 

What did it for me in regards to ME2's action is the fact that you can actually "feel" (reticule, character shaking, gun moving around, screen moving appropriately) your weapons fire. Its what really helps immerse you into the game and combat, thus making the overall experience more engrossing and fun. AP unfortunately does not have this feature. Nor does it have the selection of ME2's guns. AP has 4 guns, thats it. Everything else is cosmetic and stat-based so you don't really feel that extra "oomph" in your gun aside from enemies going down faster. ME2 has, what? Handgun, SMG, AR, SR, Shotgun and Heavy Weapons. 2 Different handguns and SMGs, 3 different types of ARs, SRs and Shotguns, and 6 (no DLC weapons) heavy weapons. So thats 19 different weapons in total, and they all handle differently with seperate sounds, firing animations, damage output, clip size and other little things (krogan only shotgun, super-sniperrifle that only garrius, legion and i think a sniper specialist shepard can wield).

 

I'll say this again, I'm not hating on AP. However, this doesn't give the game a freepass because of how awesome its player-driven story is. Just because a game nails one feature perfectly or even exceeds everybody's wildest expectations, doesn't excuse it from having other parts of the game that are lackluster or just simply lacking in content, features and/or general polish and quality (yancy when he gets upclose to the screen at the beginning, oh my god).

[unskilled-]

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.

 

I apologize for my generalized statement. I suppose a fix to the statement would be "AP has failed to meet every game reviewer's expectations." (even then I don't think it would be right, but whatever.. foots already in mouth)

 

Ulicus

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.

 

I agree that ME2 was a downgrade in terms of pure RPG elements, but then.. AP certainly isn't overflowing with depth either. ME1/2 gives you full control over how your character looks and plays, even if you are railroaded after that. AP gives you freedom to choose how you level your iThorton, but then.. aside from minor cosmetic changes, keeps your iThorton essentially the same.

[Oblarg]

For a while I have been of the mind that I find Obsidian (and Black Isle) games to be superior in their narrative and story telling. But BioWare's games have typically been technically better, from a gameplay side or what have you.

 

 

There are some exceptions (Icewind Dale, which was explicit in its attempts to be a hack 'n' slash), but that's the way I see it.

 

Pretty much how I see it, as well. The real place where Obsidian pulls ahead is dialogue - BioWare can make a good plot, but they can't back it up with equally strong dialogue, which often detracts from the intensity of the plot. Virmire in ME1, for example, had a great moment in the plot where you had to choose between Ashley or Kaiden, but the godawful dialogue robbed it of any emotional power it would have ("I'M SORRY ASH. I HAD TO MAKE A CHOICE."). Obsidian, on the other hand, has always written absolutely great dialogue to support their games. Kreia in KotOR2 has some of the best lines I have ever heard in a video game - never has any BioWare character even come close.

 

Edit: And if Kreia isn't good enough for you, try Heck. I was falling out of my chair laughing at his emails.

 

This is part of the problem i guess with what im seeing of fans the game who dislike the low reviews. You play and are willing to see past this cracks to the beyond awesome dialog. You have to understand though that it doesn't make a game!. It isn't 50% of the game, it has to be a shooter really. While Obsidian do great with the idea of the RP apart of it, the G part fails a bit. They have had issues with gameplay in general in a lot of the game and need a lot of time to bugfix which they evidently didn't put in.

 

Because of that and how much potential this game had, it is being given hard marks. Not because its being compared, but because i should of stood up and been awesome but Obsidian evidently didn't use the extra time to bug-fix now did they. So the scores are fair, if a little hard based on the feelings of what people think should of happened. If your saying its unfair for the reviewers to of given these hard marks, its more because they thought higher of obsidian with this. There own IP that had its chance to step out and be counted as being BETTER then Mass Effect. So there is your answer really. If its different, id be surprised considering who i work for and how the general view around my office has been with this game.

 

Gunna have to disagree with you there - I found AP to have better gameplay than ME1, by far. Combat with the pistol becomes *very* satisfying once your skill gets above 10 or so. I also encountered very few bugs, all of which were pretty minor, during my playthroughs.

[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.

 

I apologize for my generalized statement. I suppose a fix to the statement would be "AP has failed to meet every game reviewer's expectations." (even then I don't think it would be right, but whatever.. foots already in mouth)

 

Yeah, its cool I just misread what you were trying to say.

[Thorton_AP]

This is part of the problem i guess with what im seeing of fans the game who dislike the low reviews. You play and are willing to see past this cracks to the beyond awesome dialog. You have to understand though that it doesn't make a game!. It isn't 50% of the game, it has to be a shooter really. While Obsidian do great with the idea of the RP apart of it, the G part fails a bit. They have had issues with gameplay in general in a lot of the game and need a lot of time to bugfix which they evidently didn't put in.

 

I disagree. You see, we're also fans of games like System Shock 2, Deus Ex, and Vampire: Bloodlines. Which are games that Alpha Protocol mimic'd in terms of gameplay style.

 

 

While I think some of the reviews may be harsh, and I have had some people even around work say that they feel the game is "abysmal," I don't deny that the game has faults.

 

The biggest bone of contention with reviewers looking at faults is that they seem to focus and concentrate on the faults so much, while not doing so with other games like Mass Effect (which I feel plays very similar to AP).

 

Maybe there's some bias because ME came first. But I am skeptical. I think if this game had BioWare on the box and not Obsidian Entertainment, I think the review scores will be higher. ANd this is WITHOUT any implied "buying" of higher review scores.

[Libertarian]

Excuse me, mister, I love the 'G' part of Alpha Protocol.

 

I much prefer a dice roll component to the gun combat than just a run and gun.

 

As an RPG, it should have the 'RP' part mixed with the 'G' part, which Alpha Protocol does.

 

Look at Mass Effect 2. It has the 'G' part, but it doesn't have the 'RP' part in terms of menus, features and gameplay. Alpha Protocol has it in all 3 departments.

 

And on the subject of Mass Effect 1, the combat was far worse than Alpha Protocol. It had the dice roll component, but it even felt less visceral than Alpha Protocol when you hit your enemy. The combat was far too wonky in Mass Effect 1, even though I still prefer it to the more run and gun nature of its sequel. I never actually felt like I was hitting my enemies in Mass Effect 1, though. And the cover system in Mass Effect 1 was truly balls. I can't stand janky cover systems that just use sticky cover and not an actual button press. Mass Effect 1 and Kane & Lynch had these cover systems. With all that said, I adore Mass Effect 1.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Libertarian

[Thorton_AP]

I agree that ME2 was a downgrade in terms of pure RPG elements, but then.. AP certainly isn't overflowing with depth either. ME1/2 gives you full control over how your character looks and plays, even if you are railroaded after that. AP gives you freedom to choose how you level your iThorton, but then.. aside from minor cosmetic changes, keeps your iThorton essentially the same.

 

I guess that depends on what you value in an RPG.

 

Planescape: Torment has a pregenerated character, and is probably the best CRPG I have ever played.

[dan107]

For a while I have been of the mind that I find Obsidian (and Black Isle) games to be superior in their narrative and story telling. But BioWare's games have typically been technically better, from a gameplay side or what have you.

I doubt anyone would disagree with you.

 

The question then is; what do you find more attractive? A good narration (OE) above mega-polished gameplay, or mega-polished gameplay that's rather bland in content (BW).

 

Apperently a lot of people choose BW, much to the demise of Troika, but I definitely put OE higher.

 

I disagree. I think that Bioware games have amazing narrative and dialogues. At least as good as Obsidian. But they also have better production values in addition to it. As much as I enjoyed AP, I think that ME 1 and 2 are superior games. I'd probably rank AP on about the same level as DA though, albeit they have different strengths and weaknesses.

[Cloaker]

This is part of the problem i guess with what im seeing of fans the game who dislike the low reviews. You play and are willing to see past this cracks to the beyond awesome dialog. You have to understand though that it doesn't make a game!. It isn't 50% of the game, it has to be a shooter really. While Obsidian do great with the idea of the RP apart of it, the G part fails a bit. They have had issues with gameplay in general in a lot of the game and need a lot of time to bugfix which they evidently didn't put in.

 

I disagree. You see, we're also fans of games like System Shock 2, Deus Ex, and Vampire: Bloodlines. Which are games that Alpha Protocol mimic'd in terms of gameplay style.

 

 

While I think some of the reviews may be harsh, and I have had some people even around work say that they feel the game is "abysmal," I don't deny that the game has faults.

 

The biggest bone of contention with reviewers looking at faults is that they seem to focus and concentrate on the faults so much, while not doing so with other games like Mass Effect (which I feel plays very similar to AP).

 

Maybe there's some bias because ME came first. But I am skeptical. I think if this game had BioWare on the box and not Obsidian Entertainment, I think the review scores will be higher. ANd this is WITHOUT any implied "buying" of higher review scores.

 

The reviews are as they are because the game is very flawed, it has nothing to do with who the developer is. AP has very serious issues with the gameplay and presentation. Mass Effect was flawed, and almost all reviews mentioned those flaws, but that was 3 years ago, standards were different and there was nothing like ME. AP has a good story and good C&C, but that means **** all in today's market if the game is janky, unattractive, etc. The fact that some people are actually blaming BioWare and Mass Effect on AP's low metacritic score is just sad. There's a lot of bitterness on these forums, I've noticed.

SEGA marketed the game as Mass Effect with Spies, and that's what the people and reviewers expected, that level of polish. They told the press to call this game Mass Effect + Splinter Cell, literally. They tried to compete and came up way short...

[Oblarg]

This is part of the problem i guess with what im seeing of fans the game who dislike the low reviews. You play and are willing to see past this cracks to the beyond awesome dialog. You have to understand though that it doesn't make a game!. It isn't 50% of the game, it has to be a shooter really. While Obsidian do great with the idea of the RP apart of it, the G part fails a bit. They have had issues with gameplay in general in a lot of the game and need a lot of time to bugfix which they evidently didn't put in.

 

I disagree. You see, we're also fans of games like System Shock 2, Deus Ex, and Vampire: Bloodlines. Which are games that Alpha Protocol mimic'd in terms of gameplay style.

 

 

While I think some of the reviews may be harsh, and I have had some people even around work say that they feel the game is "abysmal," I don't deny that the game has faults.

 

The biggest bone of contention with reviewers looking at faults is that they seem to focus and concentrate on the faults so much, while not doing so with other games like Mass Effect (which I feel plays very similar to AP).

 

Maybe there's some bias because ME came first. But I am skeptical. I think if this game had BioWare on the box and not Obsidian Entertainment, I think the review scores will be higher. ANd this is WITHOUT any implied "buying" of higher review scores.

 

The reviews are as they are because the game is very flawed, it has nothing to do with who the developer is. AP has very serious issues with the gameplay and presentation. Mass Effect was flawed, and almost all reviews mentioned those flaws, but that was 3 years ago, standards were different and there was nothing like ME. AP has a good story and good C&C, but that means **** all in today's market if the game is janky, unattractive, etc. The fact that some people are actually blaming BioWare and Mass Effect on AP's low metacritic score is just sad. There's a lot of bitterness on these forums, I've noticed.

SEGA marketed the game as Mass Effect with Spies, and that's what the people and reviewers expected, that level of polish. They told the press to call this game Mass Effect + Splinter Cell, literally. They tried to compete and came up way short...

 

Name one aspect of the game that falls behind ME1, please.

[Hassat Hunter]

but that means **** all in today's market if the game is janky, unattractive, etc.

Ah, I long for the good old days (and I am young myself, oh my) when not everyone was a graphics whore and games didn't need to sell a million copies to make even for their insane graphical costs...

[Oblarg]

but that means **** all in today's market if the game is janky, unattractive, etc.

Ah, I long for the good old days (and I am young myself, oh my) when not everyone was a graphics whore and games didn't need to sell a million copies to make even for their insane graphical costs...

 

I don't buy that bull****, anyway. AP looks better than DA:O did, and DA:O wasn't labeled as "unattractive."

[Hassat Hunter]

So... why are all reviewers saying that about AP and calculating that into their score...

 

But, oh so conveniently, not for Dragon Age?

 

(Not that I know what DA's graphics are yet. Bio's insane DRM/DLC scheme makes me wait to purchase that one)

[andyr86]

The only critics who's opinions ever make sense (PC GAMER UK) gave it an 81. Along with a well balanced and thoughtout article, and its a good call on their part. Alpha Protocol is a flawed gem, that i'm sure most people will appreciate playing.

 

Not every critic has canned it and those that did should have a stronger look into their reviewing policy and writing staff for misleading their readers.

[Orchomene]

I can't say the game is perfect, but perfection doesn't exist so that's not news. But say that it has many flaws is going very far.

There are very minor issues and things I'd rather have seen be developed differently, but those are not "flaws".

 

1. Lack of polish : If you compare it to Bioware games, it's more or less the same or better. I mean, have you see all the inconsistencies and plot holes in ME2 ? How many times in a playthrough are you wondering "WTF is saying my character ?"

 

2. Lack of originality : Come on. All the games from Bioware are the same since NWN OC. You have a mission to save the world by defeating the greatest threat ever. For that, you gather allies/objects in 3 or 4 different places, then final confrontation. Sure, it's epic. But epic becomes quite boring at some moment. That's why ME2 story feels so flat, you can't save the galaxy in every game of the trilogy and thus Bioware semt to not know what to do. It's for a good reason that Bioware has developped so few sequels. They are just bad at refreshing their scenarii.

 

3. Broken combat gameplay : Ok, if you use time after time chain shot, it becomes boring. But at least, the places where you fight often allow you to have some tactic that may differ. I feel the combat less broken than ME1/2 ones but less tactic than some of DAO.

 

4. Bugs/glitch : well, sure you can find some, even several. But it's one of the most stable game I've bought recently. Fallout 3, I had the Jefferson memorial bug, i.e. crash everytime I approached the monument. To the point I had to use the console to teleport into it to allow me to play the game. Issue has been corrected, but it was a beta game in the beginning. Yet, it's been game of the year. ME1 was a pain on my preceeding computer, the mini game was freezing, always. Yet, I was above the min spec (but inferior to the recommended). That was to the point I had to stop playing until I change my computer (I had to do it for my job and take a laptop, anyway). ME2 has more or less the same issues as AP linked to UE engine, so it's good for this point. DAO has a lot of bugs, some repaired and some not. All I can say is that there is a very high bias in the reviews concerning this aspect.

 

5. Dialogues. Well, what can be said ? You can't compare dialogues of Bioware of the level of a movie like Independence Day with dialogues of Obsidian games. The emotion overused in Bioware games is here to hide the flatness of what is said. On the contrary, even with characters hiding well their emotions (which is assumed as a normal attitude in a spy game after all), dialogues in AP are interesting. If you then look at NPC having a well visible attitude (Steven- don't-call-me-Steve), it's really good.

 

6. Replayability : After my first play of ME1/2, I can't see why I would reply the game since I don't like the shooter gameplay (but I can understand that some may like it). DAO, I've replayed it three times, but more to see the origins and to test some new specializations. Now, in almost every game developed, designers tend to avoid content that is not seen in every playthrough. You play ME1/2, DAO (there is even a bonus accomplishment for visiting every place in the game that can easily be obtained in the first playthrough) and have seen almost all the game. At least in DAO, there are some modifications when you chose your side in the allies missions.

Now, have a look at AP. I let you conclude.

 

All in all, I don't like action heavy games, I'm not found of spy games. I don't like mini games.

But nonetheless I like AP and will replay the game several times. May be not yet, but I will be back.

On the contrary, as soon as I finished ME1/2, I delete all from my computer to gain some memory that would have been a waste otherwise.

 

So no, there is no conspiracy. But there is a heavy bias toward the establishment in the video game business. There is also an evolution toward some flat and acultured attitude with the attention given to voice acting, graphics, standardisation of gameplay, quick pacing.

It's often what happens in art. Be it cinematography, literature, music : what sells and is appreciated by the acultured base of our societies (whatever the country, of course) is the normalised and eye-candy product.

But in the end, the humanity memory generally only keeps the real artistic products and the normalised and eye-candy product is forgotten and viewed as ridiculous.

[Nepenthe]

I must be the only person who sees no issues in liking both Bioware and Obsidian games? It's kind of like looking at a table with lemon pie, rhubarb pie and 12 plates of dogpoo and then starting a Jihad over which of the two pies is better.

[FlintlockJazz]

I must be the only person who sees no issues in liking both Bioware and Obsidian games? It's kind of like looking at a table with lemon pie, rhubarb pie and 12 plates of dogpoo and then starting a Jihad over which of the two pies is better.

I don't think most people are necessarily arguing that one is better than another (though some maybe are), in fact I'm certain most people like both Bioware and Obsidian, it's just a bit of confusion over why AP got marked down for something by reviewers while many of Bio's games also have it and yet didn't get marked down for it.

[Orchomene]

I really did enjoy a lot BW games. But I just found that the quality is degrading games after games.

I just found their last games ok, but not really better than that.

[Amentep]

I must be the only person who sees no issues in liking both Bioware and Obsidian games? It's kind of like looking at a table with lemon pie, rhubarb pie and 12 plates of dogpoo and then starting a Jihad over which of the two pies is better.

 

I've at least liked all of Bioware's games and I've at least liked all of Obsidian's games.

 

I also think its perfectly possible to craft a thoughtful review of Alpha Protocol discussing its strengths and weaknesses without, in fact, referencing Bioware or a Bioware game.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Amentep

[worcanna]

Sorry it has taken so long to get a reply sorted. Life and work

 

In this day and age, you can not bring out a "slap shot" style of game like this and get great scores, infact wasting a idea is worse. Think of this, in this day and age we have games with nearly all types of system. AP came out with a mindbogglingly good conversation system (that i will admit i doubted the heck out of because how exactly a stance conveys what i want to say is beyond me, its easy to misread), it fell short of the GAME part of a game. While you are able to look past things, you also have to admit the faults are there and DO effect gameplay greatly. For instance, using the line "Pistols get better after 10 points" is a EXCUSE no matter what way you cut it. I understand that with no points, you are untrained and you are building up a skill but i don't think the game should realistically depicted the idea that im a total spaz with a pistol and there for can't hit crap until ive suffered to get it up to a good level. Use your head and think about it logically. If your making the main hero a total newbie from the start of the game and giving his skill level that level of "grace", why would you let this guy do ANY missions?. Let's also remember another fact i bet you all didn't know, 90% of all reviews are reviewed based on hard mode first before normal. Reason? Reviewers play more games then normal, there for find normal too easy and not a real depiction of a game. Hard mode in AP is broken and for people who say others, stop making excuses and accept it. Enemy AI and the weapons make it insanely hard to even pass some of the missions and i SLOGGED my way through it to do my review and it wasn't fun. While normal is a lot more enjoyable, the fact hard mode isn't even a choice really should also count against this.

 

Its all blinkered vision. While i understand you do want the game to be rated more highly, it needs to EARN it. Unless bugs are fixed, this isn't going to happen.

 

Oh, and also. Using Deus ex and bloodlines in this games line is a excuse too. Im sorry, saying "This game will be good when the fans patch it" is saying "This game is crap before the fans patched it". Remember that. Deus Ex is a fan loved game because FANS put the effort in Ion never did. Same with Bloodlines.

[Oner]

If they play it on hard then they shouldn't be surprised that it's hard.

[edgarcuk]

Sorry it has taken so long to get a reply sorted. Life and work

 

In this day and age, you can not bring out a "slap shot" style of game like this and get great scores, infact wasting a idea is worse. Think of this, in this day and age we have games with nearly all types of system. AP came out with a mindbogglingly good conversation system (that i will admit i doubted the heck out of because how exactly a stance conveys what i want to say is beyond me, its easy to misread), it fell short of the GAME part of a game. While you are able to look past things, you also have to admit the faults are there and DO effect gameplay greatly. For instance, using the line "Pistols get better after 10 points" is a EXCUSE no matter what way you cut it. I understand that with no points, you are untrained and you are building up a skill but i don't think the game should realistically depicted the idea that im a total spaz with a pistol and there for can't hit crap until ive suffered to get it up to a good level. Use your head and think about it logically. If your making the main hero a total newbie from the start of the game and giving his skill level that level of "grace", why would you let this guy do ANY missions?. Let's also remember another fact i bet you all didn't know, 90% of all reviews are reviewed based on hard mode first before normal. Reason? Reviewers play more games then normal, there for find normal too easy and not a real depiction of a game. Hard mode in AP is broken and for people who say others, stop making excuses and accept it. Enemy AI and the weapons make it insanely hard to even pass some of the missions and i SLOGGED my way through it to do my review and it wasn't fun. While normal is a lot more enjoyable, the fact hard mode isn't even a choice really should also count against this.

 

Its all blinkered vision. While i understand you do want the game to be rated more highly, it needs to EARN it. Unless bugs are fixed, this isn't going to happen.

 

Oh, and also. Using Deus ex and bloodlines in this games line is a excuse too. Im sorry, saying "This game will be good when the fans patch it" is saying "This game is crap before the fans patched it". Remember that. Deus Ex is a fan loved game because FANS put the effort in Ion never did. Same with Bloodlines.

Edited June 12, 2010 by edgarcuk

[epektasis]

2. Lack of originality : Come on. All the games from Bioware are the same since NWN OC. You have a mission to save the world by defeating the greatest threat ever. For that, you gather allies/objects in 3 or 4 different places, then final confrontation. Sure, it's epic. But epic becomes quite boring at some moment. That's why ME2 story feels so flat, you can't save the galaxy in every game of the trilogy and thus Bioware semt to not know what to do. It's for a good reason that Bioware has developped so few sequels. They are just bad at refreshing their scenarii.

 

(sorry for my poor english)

 

I agree with you on everything you wrote. But you forgot to add that the story in Mass Effect 2 is a shameful plagiarism....especially the final mission. I think is a scandal that no reviewer has pointed out this thing.

This is the big differences between Bioware and Obsidian: Bioware has some good technicians, but they don't have Chris Avellone and his team.

[Alpha]

I must be the only person who sees no issues in liking both Bioware and Obsidian games? It's kind of like looking at a table with lemon pie, rhubarb pie and 12 plates of dogpoo and then starting a Jihad over which of the two pies is better.

 

 

I like both Devs but some gamers like to do comments like this : "is not better that this Developer games" only to create controversy.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Alpha