Alpha Protocol is not an ugly game!

[Libertarian]

Please note that the following images are not mine, but they do show off how pretty Alpha Protocol can be.

 

But most importantly, they show off that Alpha Protocol is not the abysmal looking game many would have you believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WorstUsernameEver]

It's certainly not abysmal looking.

Compared to other UE3 games it looks subpar though.

[Oblarg]

It's not even subpar compared to recent RPGs - it looks noticeably better than DA:O, for example.

[WorstUsernameEver]

It's not even subpar compared to recent RPGs - it looks noticeably better than DA:O, for example.

 

Dragon Age : Origins has been criticized a lot when it comes to gfx though.

Really, trust me, I've heard/read people going all 'the visuals are ****ty', so it's not like this treatment for Alpha Protocol was unexpected.

[Oblarg]

It's not even subpar compared to recent RPGs - it looks noticeably better than DA:O, for example.

 

Dragon Age : Origins has been criticized a lot when it comes to gfx though.

Really, trust me, I've heard/read people going all 'the visuals are ****ty', so it's not like this treatment for Alpha Protocol was unexpected.

 

The scores weren't dragged down for it, however. And most of the major game reviews didn't mention it.

[BrandonIRL]

It's far from bad but the actual in game graphics (not dialogue) aren't the latest especially when it comes to the PC.

[WorstUsernameEver]

It's not even subpar compared to recent RPGs - it looks noticeably better than DA:O, for example.

 

Dragon Age : Origins has been criticized a lot when it comes to gfx though.

Really, trust me, I've heard/read people going all 'the visuals are ****ty', so it's not like this treatment for Alpha Protocol was unexpected.

 

The scores weren't dragged down for it, however. And most of the major game reviews didn't mention it.

 

I doubt that it was the visual presentation that dragged down AP. Not only that, at least, but a whole lot of other flaws (little and big) here and there, like bugginess, wonky camera, clunky controls, unsatisfying shooting (debatable, but that's what a lot of reviewers felt) and an unoriginal story (granted, Obsidian choose to do an unoriginal story, and the narrative is at times incredible for the reactivity but.... some reviewers really didn't care about it.. now that you make me think about it, that's a good point in criticizing certain reviews.. you can't praise Dragon Age's story and then criticize Alpha Protocol's).

I'm enjoying the game a lot, but it's not like the reviewers invented the flaws, they're in the game.

[Oblarg]

It's not even subpar compared to recent RPGs - it looks noticeably better than DA:O, for example.

 

Dragon Age : Origins has been criticized a lot when it comes to gfx though.

Really, trust me, I've heard/read people going all 'the visuals are ****ty', so it's not like this treatment for Alpha Protocol was unexpected.

 

The scores weren't dragged down for it, however. And most of the major game reviews didn't mention it.

 

I doubt that it was the visual presentation that dragged down AP. Not only that, at least, but a whole lot of other flaws (little and big) here and there, like bugginess, wonky camera, clunky controls, unsatisfying shooting (debatable, but that's what a lot of reviewers felt) and an unoriginal story (granted, Obsidian choose to do an unoriginal story, and the narrative is at times incredible for the reactivity but.... some reviewers really didn't care about it.. now that you make me think about it, that's a good point in criticizing certain reviews.. you can't praise Dragon Age's story and then criticize Alpha Protocol's).

I'm enjoying the game a lot, but it's not like the reviewers invented the flaws, they're in the game.

 

Here's the thing, though: I've seen maybe five bugs, total. Most of them are minor graphical bugs.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Here's the thing, though: I've seen maybe five bugs, total. Most of them are minor graphical bugs.

 

Here's the thing : me too, but others encountered a lot more bugs.

Trust me, it isn't that simple and linear when it comes to bugs.

[Oblarg]

Here's the thing, though: I've seen maybe five bugs, total. Most of them are minor graphical bugs.

 

Here's the thing : me too, but others encountered a lot more bugs.

Trust me, it isn't that simple and linear when it comes to bugs.

 

I realize this, but I can't make my game more buggy to rate it based on how it would be if it were crippled by bugs.

 

The game I played was easily worth a score in the high 80s.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Here's the thing, though: I've seen maybe five bugs, total. Most of them are minor graphical bugs.

 

Here's the thing : me too, but others encountered a lot more bugs.

Trust me, it isn't that simple and linear when it comes to bugs.

 

I realize this, but I can't make my game more buggy to rate it based on how it would be if it were crippled by bugs.

 

The game I played was easily worth a score in the high 80s.

 

I think you're missing my point Oblarg. I'm not saying that the rating or the point of all reviews was spot on (because some reviewers completely missed core elements of the gameplay, and some very nice and original systems Obsidian put in the game), what I'm saying is that I can understand the reason.

How much you can enjoy this game greatly depends on your tastes as a gamer, and personally, I'm enjoying it a lot.

Now, if I had to write a review... giving it an objective analysis would be very hard.

But my enjoyment could easily be compared to the score it received on Canard PC.

 

Oh, and by the way, while the visual presentation isn't perfect... the way cutscene are 'directed' is imho.

It really feels like a spy film at times, and it certainly felt more cinematic than Mass Effect 1 (didn't play Mass Effect 2).

Whether you enjoy the cinematic-ness (bleargh, I wish I could find a more elegant way of saying this ) depends on your tastes as a player.. again.

[Shinaju]

Its not ugly at all. It is however uninspiring and lack of polish makes the graphics so criticized. Also screenshots don't show how bad the animations are.

[ChaoSwordsman]

I thought the game looked pretty good. I played it on PC and loved the visuals (i mean some environments definitely didn't show much polish but I didn't mind), but then I played it on the 360 and realized how ugly the game could get. Maybe it's cuz I played it on PC first but... the facial textures in the console version are just dreadful at times (good example would be Westridge and Leland), not to mention the technical issues (some dreadful slowdown and the regular unreal engine pop-in issues). Anyways, it's not ugly, but there are some really uneven spots in the game.

[Ausir]

Especially the major character faces are definitely better than in other recent RPGs, like Fallout 3 or Dragon Age.

[edgarcuk]

I think the OP is referring to what some reviewers said about the PS2 graphics.

 

Indeed, AP is not an ugly game, I cannot tell from the PC point of view, just the 360 and the graphics are much better than DAO, but not as good as Batman Arkham Asylum (which uses unreal engine, too) or au pair of ME2, but not really that bad as a PS2 game.... that is an exaggeration, of course talking about RPGs or games using unreal engine in 360.

Edited June 12, 2010 by edgarcuk

[SirPetrakus]

People tend to forget, I think, how good RPGs look. I'm not talking about the big budget, dime a dozen, guaranteed sales because they look good but are ultimately shallow shooters. Just RPGs. AP is on par, in terms of graphics with ME1. Sure, the animations do seem to take away a little from the overall experience, but come on! Fallout 3, Oblivion, even DragonAge, which I had no problem with their visuals, still don't look as good as AP does. You know where AP looked really ugly? The chair and the table while talking to Marburg and Madison. Seriously, those are the worst looking chairs I've seen in video games. Would I subtract from the game just because of those two chairs and a table? Hell no! It's just two chairs and a table! I cringed when I saw them, but I'd have to be really pre-disposed and pathetic to complain about something like that.

 

It is INSANE the amount of criticism this game has received, especially by the "top" US reviewers. People who turn it down are people who haven't played it or never gave it a chance to begin with. Their loss.

[Oner]

I still don't get eh animation complaints. Only ugly animations I saw are the Al-Samad guys' walking animation and Mike's crouching, the latter is only badly realized, not badly executed.

[C2B]

People tend to forget, I think, how good RPGs look. I'm not talking about the big budget, dime a dozen, guaranteed sales because they look good but are ultimately shallow shooters. Just RPGs. AP is on par, in terms of graphics with ME1. Sure, the animations do seem to take away a little from the overall experience, but come on! Fallout 3, Oblivion, even DragonAge, which I had no problem with their visuals, still don't look as good as AP does. You know where AP looked really ugly? The chair and the table while talking to Marburg and Madison. Seriously, those are the worst looking chairs I've seen in video games. Would I subtract from the game just because of those two chairs and a table? Hell no! It's just two chairs and a table! I cringed when I saw them, but I'd have to be really pre-disposed and pathetic to complain about something like that.

 

It is INSANE the amount of criticism this game has received, especially by the "top" US reviewers. People who turn it down are people who haven't played it or never gave it a chance to begin with. Their loss.

If we take into account when you do sidequests in ME AP surpasses it. I have yet to see something as bad looking as planet exploring in the original ME. Also AP does shadows much MUCH nicer.

[Hassat Hunter]

I think most reviewers "PS2 graphics" refer to the graphical mess one gets just before textures are loaded. Of course, it's pretty stupid to refer to these graphics (since, at least for me, they take less than 1 second to load their textures) but hey, that seems like what happened.

 

They had to crucify the game for something right? It's less shallow than MW2. Crush that ****!

 

Edit; thnx Oner.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Hassat Hunter

[Oner]

You mean crucify?

[dan107]

Graphics have been around more or less the same level in most games for the last 3 years or so, and will continue to be on that level in the foreseeable future. Don't expect any major improvements until the next generation of consoles comes out; even for PC games, since most games are multi-platform nowadays.

 

On the plus side though I've had the same rig for 3 years now and can still run any game I want at max settings. So some good has come out of this transition to consoles after all.

[fkldnhlsdngsfnhlsndlg]

The game's visuals aren't bad at all. Character animation can be stiff, the motion blur filter really is kind of odd, and there's texture popping on the console versions, but it's by no means an ugly game. In some senses it's actually quite good - lots of environment detail, nice colours (what, no grey and brown?!), and most of the characters are modeled and textured well. It's not up to the standards of an action game like Gears of War, but Alpha Protocol has a clean and consistent look. "Functional" is the word that's coming to mind. I don't need it to try to wow me to have fun with it.

[Alpha]

I'm enjoying the game a lot, but it's not like the reviewers invented the flaws, they're in the game.

 

the game isn't perfect but the reviewers exaggerated with the "flaws" and the worse is that played the game the wrong game to later criticize the gameplay/gunplay etc.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Alpha

[Libertarian]

I'm enjoying the game a lot, but it's not like the reviewers invented the flaws, they're in the game.

 

the game isn't perfect but the reviewers exaggerated with the "flaws" and the worse is that played the game the wrong game to later criticize the gameplay/gunplay etc.

 

Indeed. Anyone been playing Red Dead Redemption? That game has the most bugs I've ever encountered in a game.

 

You can even look them up on Youtube and come up with 3k+ results.

 

Most UE3 games have texture pop-in. AP takes 3-4 seconds to load textures for me.

 

Other than the sneaking animations and some walking animations, I found the majority of facial animation stuff to be quite decent, actually.

 

I much prefer the way this looks over the dark and shiny look of a Gears of War, for example.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Libertarian

[C2B]

I'm enjoying the game a lot, but it's not like the reviewers invented the flaws, they're in the game.

 

the game isn't perfect but the reviewers exaggerated with the "flaws" and the worse is that played the game the wrong game to later criticize the gameplay/gunplay etc.

 

Not to mention for a review score to have ANY use at all it has to be comparable to other games in the gerne. This is afaik NOT possible when flaws that are in both games are rated differently.

 

That's the problem that we have. NOT that its flawless.

 

(I could even give a flying crap if its flawless because not one game is. There is always valid room to complain)