More Reviews, What to expect

[Flouride]

Finnish site peliplaneetta.net gave AP 74/100. They were complaining about bugs (PS3 version) and about bad controls.

[funcroc]

PC Gamer US/UK: 81%

 

A playthrough of Alpha Protocol is an intensely personal thing, implicating you in believable events that take their cue from current issues and poking away until you confide what you

[WorstUsernameEver]

GameBanshee review.

No score, but it's one of the most fair minded (if debatable) analysis I've read so far.

It's four pages also!

[Oblarg]

GameBanshee review.

No score, but it's one of the most fair minded (if debatable) analysis I've read so far.

It's four pages also!

 

Once again, where are all the bugs these people are complaining about? I'm not seeing them.

[Libertarian]

GameBanshee review.

No score, but it's one of the most fair minded (if debatable) analysis I've read so far.

It's four pages also!

 

Once again, where are all the bugs these people are complaining about? I'm not seeing them.

 

Other than some clipping, odd A.I. behavior, etc, I've had really no bugs. Nothing that hurts the game, imo.

[Ausir]

Once again, where are all the bugs these people are complaining about? I'm not seeing them.

 

Well, just because you don't have them doesn't mean they don't happen to other people, just that it was optimized better for your system than theirs. Still, it's no more buggy than, say, Fallout 3, which would crash on startup on my computer before I edited some ini files, but which was not criticized for the bugs by mainstream critics (of course Brother None has actually criticized FO3's bugs as well).

[C2B]

Once again, where are all the bugs these people are complaining about? I'm not seeing them.

 

Well, just because you don't have them doesn't mean they don't happen to other people, just that it was optimized better for your system than theirs. Still, it's no more buggy than, say, Fallout 3, which would crash on startup on my computer before I edited some ini files, but which was not criticized for the bugs by mainstream critics (of course Brother None has actually criticized FO3's bugs as well).

 

Actually, all the bugs in the game are ME1 level. Didn't see or heard of any more bugs that weren't in some form in ME1. Hell, ME2 has also a lot of bugs. Especially "hanging on objects" was annoying in that game.

[funcroc]

Gamasutra's Editor at Large, Chris Remo's tweets

 

"Played a few hours of Alpha Protocol. I love the real-time dialogue system, and the apparent depth of interlocking RPG systems. Combat and polish seem to be the big downfalls, which is too bad. Yet another game I wish weren't primarily composed of combat/action."

 

"Fighting "Sis" in Alpha Protocol is the least fun I've had in a video game in a long time. When your plainclothes-wearing 20-year-old girl "boss" enemy has 10x the hit points of her elite armored guards, that's a ****up. Incorrect."

[Oner]

"Incorrect" he says, looooooooooooool.

[WorstUsernameEver]

"Incorrect" he says, looooooooooooool.

 

'Incorrect' is a word that I wouldn't use talking about game design, but he has a good point.

The boss design in Alpha Protocol is pretty cheap.

Honestly, I don't know how many HP they had though, since I've managed to kill most of them with a chain shot to the head.

[C2B]

"Incorrect" he says, looooooooooooool.

 

'Incorrect' is a word that I wouldn't use talking about game design, but he has a good point.

The boss design in Alpha Protocol is pretty cheap.

Honestly, I don't know how many HP they had though, since I've managed to kill most of them with a chain shot to the head.

 

Come up with something better. Given the direction the setting is it would have been better if they were avoidable. But I can't see how it could be much better. They at least tried to make them interesting.

[Oner]

A guy with dual SMGs and a lot hp is a lot less cheap than a lvl 20 uninterruptible, endless repertoire mage with a lot a of hp.

As awesome as the G22 guys standing by/sitting on the ships rails cheering Sis on (and occasionally shouting "Larry! NOOO!" if you accidentally hit one of them) would've been, it wouldn't have made much sense now, would it? These aren't knight mano-a-mano duels, these are fights against ruthless intelligence agents/terrorists/etc.

 

Also, adapt people, adapt.

[WorstUsernameEver]

"Incorrect" he says, looooooooooooool.

 

'Incorrect' is a word that I wouldn't use talking about game design, but he has a good point.

The boss design in Alpha Protocol is pretty cheap.

Honestly, I don't know how many HP they had though, since I've managed to kill most of them with a chain shot to the head.

 

Come up with something better. Given the direction the setting is it would have been better if they were avoidable. But I can't see how it could be much better. They at least tried to make them interesting.

 

Come up with something better. Seriously?

I'm not a game designer. That's not my job.

But there are examples even in the game. The Darcy boss fight, the Parker's one.

Those are, imho, while not perfectly executed, good examples of how a boss fight in Alpha Protocol should be done.

Omen Deng and Marburg were so and so.

Sis? That was the worst boss fight of my playthrough, though I didn't fight Championchik or Sie.

[Oner]

Depending on your build, the Sis fight can be an enjoyable "2-4 guys shooting at each other from cover" fight.

[Zack Fair]

Here are some reviews from Hungary:

 

iPon Computer - 81% (written by me ^^)

Gamekapocs - 69%

PC Guru magazine - 81%

Gamestar magazine - 87%

Playstation Community - 7/10

Edited June 13, 2010 by Zack Fair

[C2B]

The Darcy boss fight, the Parker's one.

 

Exactly here is the problem. I know countless people who hated these two bossfights (especially the Darcy one) and would rather have a classic shootoff. I'm actually one of them (Though I don't mind the former ones). Loved the Sis fight because of it. Quickly took out her two guards with my pistol and then engaged her in hand to hand combat. It was a very enjoyable mid-boss fight that really helped the pace of the game.

[Oner]

Here are some reviews from Hungary:

 

iPon Computer - 81% (wrote by me ^^)

J

[Zack Fair]

Here are some reviews from Hungary:

 

iPon Computer - 81% (wrote by me ^^)

J

[Hassat Hunter]

Yup, I wouldn't count Darcy's "hide and throw a bunch of nades" bossbattle one of the best bossfights of the game. Quite the contrary.

(Not to mention you still need to pump 100 bullets in the guy before he dies unless using Chain shot or the sniperrifle)

Edited June 13, 2010 by Hassat Hunter

[funcroc]

Culture Clash: The Facts of Life by Matthew Sakey

My Halfway Of The Year 2010 Awards by Thierry Nguyen

Chris Remo's conment on Alpha Protocol

You Pay for Quality, You'd Better Get Quality at Tap-Repeatedly

[Tigranes]

That's what you get when you get a game that lets you create wildly different builds, and then actually makes you feel the good and bad consequences of those builds. People think the game is unbalanced, or broken, or too easy, or too hard, etc.

[Estelindis]

That's what you get when you get a game that lets you create wildly different builds, and then actually makes you feel the good and bad consequences of those builds. People think the game is unbalanced, or broken, or too easy, or too hard, etc.

Indeed. The Darcy fight was the hardest and most frustrating in the game for me because I had built my agent as a non-lethal powerhouse and was aiming to get through the whole game without killing anyone. I did my best not to kill Darcy, but couldn't climb up to the tower to fight hand to hand. Couldn't get shock grenades up there. No point in using the sniper rifle, as it'd kill him. All the while, unable to stay in one place much time at all due to grenades. After about two hours of reloading, I resorted to Chain Shot (which, although a core game mechanic, always feels like cheating to me). I used tranquilliser rounds (the only kind of bullet I've ever used in the game, outside of the tutorial). Of course, although my kill count remained at 0, the game's narrative acted like I killed Darcy anyway... As commented elsewhere: even when using tranqs, ten of them directly in the enemy's face is probably going to kill him. But still! "Your weapon is choice," right? If we manage to keep our kill count at 0 even after Darcy, then NPCs shouldn't act as if we've killed him. (Unless they're simply mistaken and Darcy's still alive, somehow? I suppose I can believe whatever I want, actually, since there'll be no AP2. More's the pity.)

Edited July 23, 2010 by Estelindis

[Starwars]

I don't think some of those complaints are without merit.

 

I just wish people were *more* up-in-arms in other games about stuff like the player being able to affect the story, good writing (especially for story-driven games), having to aim carefully before shooting and so forth...

 

I don't think bugs or lack of polish should be automatically excused, not at all. But I hate how it seems to be the basis of many people's gaming experience. How about raising the standards in other areas as well? I think it's disappointing how the reactivity seems to be just a footnote for many people. I think that should be a real driving force in games, because they're supposed to be interactive (again, even story-driven ones).

 

I just can't relate at all to the importance of bugs (unless they really do render the game unplayable of course), technical polish, graphics and so forth. I feel it's so secondary.

[Chaste]

I just can't relate at all to the importance of bugs (unless they really do render the game unplayable of course), technical polish, graphics and so forth. I feel it's so secondary.

 

You're kidding, right? Those things affect the overall gaming experience of a person. If not the polish or the graphics, the bugs, at least. I disagree about them being just secondary. IMO, they should be among the primary things a developer should take care of first.

 

Innovations, good storytelling, gameplay -- these are things that are already expected in an established company's new game. These are things that are already given in a title. Hence why if they're present, they don't get as much attention spotlit on them by the players. Unless a feature is really revolutionary, a gamer will just acknowledge how it's making a certain game good or great. You won't see them being exalted to the highest level or scrutinized because they are already expected in a decent game.

 

Bugs, lack of polish, etc. however, now these are being highlighted more often because they detract from the overall package of a game. Dunno about you, but I play a game in order to be immersed and have fun. Bugs detract me from that experience because they annoy me, especially if said bugs occur rather frequently. Overall polish, not so much, but they do lower my impressions of a game.

 

In any case, if I recall right, AP got kudos for its DSS. Personally, it's the only thing that made me like AP.

[C2B]

I don't think some of those complaints are without merit.

 

I just wish people were *more* up-in-arms in other games about stuff like the player being able to affect the story, good writing (especially for story-driven games), having to aim carefully before shooting and so forth...

 

I don't think bugs or lack of polish should be automatically excused, not at all. But I hate how it seems to be the basis of many people's gaming experience. How about raising the standards in other areas as well? I think it's disappointing how the reactivity seems to be just a footnote for many people. I think that should be a real driving force in games, because they're supposed to be interactive (again, even story-driven ones).

 

I just can't relate at all to the importance of bugs (unless they really do render the game unplayable of course), technical polish, graphics and so forth. I feel it's so secondary.

 

For me, there are actually 3 points on the critsisim on this game I don't understand:

 

1. The Bugs. AP has waaaaaaaaaaaay less Bugs than any Obsidian game before it and is in fact practically on the level of the first Mass Effect. It's not great, but its in the normal margin of most rpgs. (I seriously also don't get when people complain too much about Bugs in AP but then don't make a big deal out or don't critisise buggier games. For an actual example: Red Dead Redemption. Yeah, it's open world. Still has tons and tons of bugs (some are pretty holarious like human charachters getting the animations of animals).

 

2. The Gameplay. Not saying it hasn't flaws. Considering the balancing issue it has major ones. But at least it was again an honest attempt to fuse 3D person shooter/stealth with rpg elements. And they did the job for what it's worth relativly good. When I see people in playthroughs wandering around, shooting with the pistol across the room and not waiting for a critical even though that's what the tutorial tells you RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING makes me furious. Complaining with Ignorance just because you have to adjust to the rules in a game is completly stupid. Sorry. If we actually did that there would be only ONE extremly dumbed down combat system. Sure, it sells. But do you want that? Seriously?

 

If anything the game was waaaaaaaaaay too easy due to the balancing. I'm not a shooter gamer and I suck at it but I plow through hard like its nothing now. Of course it let's you plow to the conversation really fast which is cool.

 

3. Comparisons with other Games. Sorry. Here's a point I really wanna adress. There's just so much in the review scores that doesn't make sense. They exist to give us a rough comparsion but..... honestly.

 

For a recent example why was Mass Effect 2 not more attacked for it's really mediocre shooting and flawed level design (Seriously, Box, Box, Ramp, Box isn't really level design. they look pretty I guess?)? Why was it not that bad that the choices that carry over had nearly no effect in the second game even though it was advertised so heavily for it?

 

It's still a really good and perfectly well made game and deserving of most of its scores but......

 

 

Sorry, yes I'm aware of the flaws.

 

 

It's still an awful awful lot of hyperbole.

Edited July 23, 2010 by C2B