Alpha Protocol Reviews

[Thorton_AP]

Yeah, you got me. AP's writing, story,m and characters all get better magically at the 6 hour mark. My bad. If I had only stuck through the crap parts for just another hour, I would com,pletely love the game and believe it's the best ever - even better than PST, FO, or MOTB. LMAO

 

Actually the story does get a lot better once you're past Saudi Arabia.

[Orchomene]

"Yes. Isn't this true for most games anyway?"

 

No.

Very well... tell a few games where the story is the BEST in the start. So good, it doesn't get better than that.

 

Lionheart.

But well, ok, it's because the game becomes a slaughter fest after the beginning.

[Thorton_AP]

Games like Oblivion have the best story elements at the beginning IMO.

[Jorian Drake]

Games like Oblivion have the best story elements at the beginning IMO.

 

What!?

 

[Oner]

Games like Oblivion have the best story elements at the beginning IMO.

 

What!?

You know the premise but, still don't know the terrible terrible story.

He has a point if you ask me.

[Jorian Drake]

Games like Oblivion have the best story elements at the beginning IMO.

 

What!?

You know the premise but, still don't know the terrible terrible story.

He has a point if you ask me.

I thought he meant the killing off of the King

[Thorton_AP]

Games like Oblivion have the best story elements at the beginning IMO.

 

What!?

 

 

 

The narrative for games like Oblivion is strongest at the beginning. When you're following the king out and there actually IS a narrative.

 

Once it's done and you're into the open world, it effectively disappears IMO.

 

 

I'm not saying that the narrative in Oblivion is good at any point. But compared to the rest of the game, the strongest story elements occur at the beginning than at any other point.

[Kid SixXx]

Some of the most legendary games, like Deus Ex or Vampire: Bloodlines have had "a lack of polish".

Didn't make them less classic.

 

V:tM Bloodlines became legendary because it has an amazing mod community that helped make the game playable again.

 

Without them, V:tM Bloodlines would've been one of those proverbial games that you heard a lot about, decided to play, and then immediatetly put down because the bugs dove you crazy.

 

V:TM Bloodlines straight out of the box supported only with Troika patches was nigh-unplayable even with a good gaming rig. It wasn't just unpolished; it was unfinished.

 

Deus Ex was graphically hindered by the limitations of the Unreal engine yet it still looked and played ten times better than the average game that came out in 2000 and it also benefitted from some amazing mods from its modding community.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Kid SixXx

[Hassat Hunter]

Without them, V:tM Bloodlines would've been one of those proverbial games that you heard a lot about, decided to play, and then immediatetly put down because the bugs dove you crazy.

I've completed Vtm:B 5x with the official 1.2 patch only. Wesp breaks more than he fixes IMO.

 

So, not seeing your point here...

[Kid SixXx]

I didn't realize the point of "VtM got a new lease on life because of the mod community" took rocket science in order to grasp.

 

Interest in VtM: Bloodlines would've died a long time ago if the mod community hadn't worked hard to make the game playable.

 

Also Wesp alone =/= the entire VtM mod community.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Kid SixXx

[Thorton_AP]

Without them, V:tM Bloodlines would've been one of those proverbial games that you heard a lot about, decided to play, and then immediatetly put down because the bugs dove you crazy.

 

V:TM Bloodlines straight out of the box supported only with Troika patches was nigh-unplayable even with a good gaming rig. It wasn't just unpolished; it was unfinished.

 

Bloodlines was a game that, when I hit a game stopping bug at the end game that prevented me from completing the game, I swore at the game, and immediately restarted from the beginning and didn't care.

 

I played through the game several times before mod support even existed.

 

 

Bloodlines isn't a classic because the mod community gave it new life. Bloodlines had a mod community because the people that enjoyed that type of game fell in love with it.

 

In spite of getting a blocking bug (that likely just needed a restart of the level, not the whole game), I still played and loved the game.

[Hassat Hunter]

A lot of games get mod support. Some games even live on it (Oblivion is horrible mod-less).

 

I wouldn't call Vtm:B one of those games though.

[HoonDing]

I think games developed by big-name developers (Bethesda, Blizzard, BioWare) should be judged by the same standards that independent developers are judged (read: lambasted) by.

 

Many independent developers can be excused for the state their games are released in due to lesser resources, yet more than often receive no leeway for it, unlike the big-names. Why cut the big-names slack, who have access to much bigger resources?

[Volourn]

"Many independent developers can be excused for the state their games are released in due to lesser resources,"

 

Nope.

 

 

"more than often receive no leeway for it, unlike the big-names."

 

False.

 

 

 

"Why cut the big-names slack, who have access to much bigger resources?"

 

Nobody cuts them slack. Nobody.

 

Sure, they have more money to spend but the games also cost more to make, and the sales expectations are few the roof.

 

A game like Geneforge only has to sell a few THOUSAND copies to break even. A game like DA, has to sell HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS or MILLIONS to break even. On top of that, main stream developers like BIO, and Obsidian have to answer to their publisher(owner) as well. Just look at Sega's repsonse to AP. They claim to like the game, but they won't do a sequel ebcause the game bombed financially despite shipping upwards of 700k and likely selling at least a few hundred thosuand of those.

 

You simply really can't compare big time companies with your winky dinky amateur game companies.

 

Also, it should be noted, that in spite of a few noteable exemptions, your typical big time company makes better games than your little internet game companies.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Gorth
I'm sure it's possible to get excited without name calling

[Hassat Hunter]

Why cut the big-names slack, who have access to much bigger resources?

Because otherwise they will no longer advertise their games there, loosing advertisement income. And we can't have that now, can we?

[Pumbaa]

Why cut the big-names slack, who have access to much bigger resources?

Because otherwise they will no longer advertise their games there, loosing advertisement income. And we can't have that now, can we?

 

I would like to point out that AP advertised on Gamespot and IGN, and got clobbered on both websites... Besides, saying that the reviewers were rough on AP because it's not a "big" game is weird, because AP IS a big game. Not as big as, say, ME2, but big nonetheless. A 4 years development cycle, weeks of advertisement and a SEGA backing aren't directed at Indie material.

 

I don't even think that the reviews were unfair. I mean, I loved the game and finished it twice for the choices, but I think we can all agree that Saudi is pretty bad. The story only picks up after your choices start making a difference (and that's a good halfway through). The camera was a big-ish issue; the crosshairs disappear when I use skills on a well-lit place; the weapons are somewhat unbalanced (I finished the last battle in seconds with a Comissar pistol, chain shot and Brilliance). I also had to restart the warehouse mission in Moscow twice in a row, because the objective didn't show up. And I'm not the the only one... check the AP wikia out, there's a whole page listing the bugs, and it's quite long.

 

What I'm trying to say is that this game's not for everyone... and reviews should be aimed at the average gamer. Not everyone's interested to endure faulty AI/subpar combat and hours of lame storytelling to get to the goods. IMO, the goods in question are solid gold and the trade-off is worth it, but different people like different stuff, right? It's the whole reason a review isn't just a score (although it seems like Metacritic is some kind of deity, nowadays).

[ginji]

The camera was a big-ish issue; the crosshairs disappear when I use skills on a well-lit place; the weapons are somewhat unbalanced (I finished the last battle in seconds with a Comissar pistol, chain shot and Brilliance). I also had to restart the warehouse mission in Moscow twice in a row, because the objective didn't show up. And I'm not the the only one... check the AP wikia out, there's a whole page listing the bugs, and it's quite long.

 

If we talk about bugs, my experience with Mass Effect 2 and Fallout 3 was horrible. In ME2 I just finished a mission that the game made me start directly from halfway through the whole first 10/15 minutes were cut, don't know why (and I hope it won't happen again). Not to talk about the saves corruption, the mission and NPC errors etc. (still, I liked that game very much and I'm replaying it for the second time).

And Fallout 3? Oh, i hated that game. Freezes, disappearing NPCs, random weapons bugs, disappearing dog for no apparent reason, i got stuck with the scenery many times, and many other things I don't even want to remember.

And no reviewer told me about this. Actually, both games received 9 and 10 everywhere. I don't care about reviews anymore, but I don't think they're fair by judging different games with different mentality... I mean, they should be professionals.

 

 

What I'm trying to say is that this game's not for everyone... and reviews should be aimed at the average gamer. Not everyone's interested to endure faulty AI/subpar combat and hours of lame storytelling to get to the goods. IMO, the goods in question are solid gold and the trade-off is worth it, but different people like different stuff, right? It's the whole reason a review isn't just a score (although it seems like Metacritic is some kind of deity, nowadays).

 

But this isn't enough to give a bad score. If a game isn't for everyone, it should be a plus!

I agree the reviews should be aimed to everyone, but that's where the ability of the reviewer comes in. To tell what's good and what's bad in the review's text, and to judge the game for what it is, and not because some fat kid can't stand some dialogue (or can't understand a Shoot'em Up, or an arcade racing without tuning options).

I mean, a game like ICO is an incredibly niche game, should they give it 2 or 3? It's a masterpiece.

 

 

 

I'm talking generically, of course. I STILL don't have Alpha Protocol (shame on me, I know). For what I know, it could be complete garbage

 

 

 

P.S: I hope my english is good enough...

Edited August 13, 2010 by ginji

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2010/10/...alpha-protocol/ So the guy who gave AP 4/10 is now saying he loves it, he's enjoying it an awful lot, and will play it again and again. Just shows how subjective reviews are, while so much is riding on them. Enjoy the game for what it is, not for what you want it to be (through GameBanshee).

[Purkake]

Opinions are subjective, film at 11.

[Oblarg]

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2010/10/...alpha-protocol/ So the guy who gave AP 4/10 is now saying he loves it, he's enjoying it an awful lot, and will play it again and again. Just shows how subjective reviews are, while so much is riding on them. Enjoy the game for what it is, not for what you want it to be (through GameBanshee).

 

And even then he still harps on how the game is supposedly "broken," and has some gargantuan amount of bugs that somehow I never encountered.

[Rattaplan]

The camera was a big-ish issue; the crosshairs disappear when I use skills on a well-lit place; the weapons are somewhat unbalanced (I finished the last battle in seconds with a Comissar pistol, chain shot and Brilliance). I also had to restart the warehouse mission in Moscow twice in a row, because the objective didn't show up. And I'm not the the only one... check the AP wikia out, there's a whole page listing the bugs, and it's quite long.

Yet games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl, with so many game-breaking bugs in it you could fill a planet, gets a score of 8.5 from certain reviewers. You dare to claim objectivity while it's abundantly clear there is none. It's a giant subjective mess that's being manipulated by some self-proclaimed authority figures resulting in a consensus of the masses. But it's ok, though.. Most people can't handle freedom and need authority (figures) in order to function properly.

[Hassat Hunter]

Man, was there a side-mission in S.T.A.L.K.E.R 1.0.0 that worked properly? Cause I certainly didn't find any.

 

I suppose the bug that corpses got re-stocked when re-entering an area was nice though, never a lack of ammo/bandages and money after the first area due to that.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The only significant bug I encountered repeatedly was that cover didn't work properly maybe half of the time. Which was exactly the same for Mass Effect 1. Yet compare the scores for those two.

[Oblarg]

The only significant bug I encountered repeatedly was that cover didn't work properly maybe half of the time. Which was exactly the same for Mass Effect 1. Yet compare the scores for those two.

 

The cover not working wasn't even a real bug, it was just a rather poor design choice. It is rather frustrating that no major reviewers are willing to call BioWare games out for the same things for which they so happily bashed AP.

 

At least Yahtzee liked it, which is more than can be said for either Mass Effect game.

[Hassat Hunter]

People use cover? (well, outside of ME2 then, that's the only game where I didn't completely disregarded implented cover systems)