Why such bad reviews of Alpha Protocol
- Thread starter Twotricks
- Start date
Right, but hitting someone in the head with a massive 2H sword to little effect is perfectly allright. It's an RPG, it's supposed to be stat based. Even in games like Gothic where player skill determines hitting, the stats will determine whether or not you do significant damage.
Huh? It IS an RPG with shooter elements. It has never tried to be anything else. ME2 is a shooter with RPG elements. Very different. To RPG fans, AP should be significantly closer to their hearts than ME2.
Well, this is a matter of taste, obviously. However, it's definetly more consistent and with less holes than ME2. Don't even get me started on all the stuff that makes no sense in ME2.
I experienced no such issues, and I replayed it three times. Either I'm very lucky or simply exceptionally skilled at maintaining a reliable computer (I'm willing to lean towards the latter if you want, hehe), or you're unlucky.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Well, Maylander.
You can, of course, ignore the reality of what some people expect when they play a stealth shooter, regardless of RPG mechanics - but it won't help you to understand the response some people are having.
It's not that they're "right" or "wrong", it's simply that they expect or want different things.
Obviously, Obsidian had something in mind for this game - and you LIKED it, others DISLIKED it.
Once you accept that, it will be much easier to let people just think what they do.
Certainly, to me, Alpha Protocol has a very strong "real life" spy theme, and whether you think it's unreasonable to expect a certain measure of realism or not, I think it's a mistake to fault people for having such expectations.
I was extremely put off by the "boss" fights, because I truly wasn't expecting that kind of Doom crap in a game of this nature.
You can, of course, ignore the reality of what some people expect when they play a stealth shooter, regardless of RPG mechanics - but it won't help you to understand the response some people are having.
It's not that they're "right" or "wrong", it's simply that they expect or want different things.
Obviously, Obsidian had something in mind for this game - and you LIKED it, others DISLIKED it.
Once you accept that, it will be much easier to let people just think what they do.
Certainly, to me, Alpha Protocol has a very strong "real life" spy theme, and whether you think it's unreasonable to expect a certain measure of realism or not, I think it's a mistake to fault people for having such expectations.
I was extremely put off by the "boss" fights, because I truly wasn't expecting that kind of Doom crap in a game of this nature.
I have no problems accepting people expecting a shooter, I'm just saying you can't call it a bad RPG because you thought it was going to be a shooter. Reviewers are no exception.
That's as daft as saying PS:T is a bad dungeon crawler because it looks like Icewind Dale.
That's as daft as saying PS:T is a bad dungeon crawler because it looks like Icewind Dale.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Are they calling it a bad RPG, or are they merely calling it a bad game with RPG elements that don't help much?
Personally, I think it's an average game, with highly questionable design choices.
If it's supposed to be an actual RPG - then the marketing dudes need to be shot, don't they
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 3,508
Well, all the hype I allowed myself to view centered around the theme of making choices and consequences and to a lesser extent on the viability of different approaches. So my expectations at least are mostly in that area. And I'd think that that at least should also be a focal point of reviews as well. Some reviews did this, but some other didn't.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 3,508
I think it is like this : "It's in 3D, with cinematic quality -> it must be a shooter. It can*t be an RPG !
RPGs are NEVER in 3D with graphics like shooters !!!"
If this assumption is true, then it could shed some light on how people classify games.
RPGs are NEVER in 3D with graphics like shooters !!!"
If this assumption is true, then it could shed some light on how people classify games.
Not sure about this. I think that the blurring of the genres has more to do with the change of expectations. I would blame shooters that have at least some rudimentary RPG elements, like Bioshock, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., or maybe Assassin's Creed, for creating new expectations in the ARPG genre.
I must say that I disagree with you on every single point. Strange how two persons opinions could be so different.
Just out of curiosity.
Could you perhaps tell me couple of RPGs you found very good in last years ?
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 481
Bad receptions / reviews are sometimes the result of shattered hopes/expectations that were built up through the hype/marketing/pre-release phase.
Alpha Protocol was not on my radar - Maylander gave a short review last week - I bought the game - played it twice and enjoyed the game.
AP is a good game with some new ideas (= making choices fast and frequently) and a good replay value.
AP is a hybrid game (rpg/shooter) and hybrid games often get some flak from fans of the pure gaming categories.
Spellcraft for a example was a good strategy/rpg mix. It was criticised by pure rpg fans and by pure strategy fans.
Alpha Protocol was not on my radar - Maylander gave a short review last week - I bought the game - played it twice and enjoyed the game.
AP is a good game with some new ideas (= making choices fast and frequently) and a good replay value.
AP is a hybrid game (rpg/shooter) and hybrid games often get some flak from fans of the pure gaming categories.
Spellcraft for a example was a good strategy/rpg mix. It was criticised by pure rpg fans and by pure strategy fans.
Last edited:
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,468
I don't get these bad previews. AP is gettng bashed because of technical failures or because it isn't next gen action rpg similar to Mass effect. Most of the us critics aren't even giving it a fair chance. I'm first to admit that it isn't pefect, but it has much more depth than mass effect 2 for instance. It should weight something. I found that blogpost about differences between european and us reviews very enlightning.
By the way this reminds me of how gothic 2 was received among gaming media. A really good rpg but very few critics actually even gave it a fair chance. I remember reading 4/10 reviews from the biggest game sites, gamespy gave it 2/5 or something. So in this sense this is nothing new under the sun.
I haven't yet finished AP but I'm already loving it. Sure shooting gameplay may seem a bit stiff at first but once you gain more levels, the game really starts to shine. If you guys have trouble accepting that character in game misses his shots because he is not trained..well I can understand it. For me however its just much more rewarding when those skills actually mean something. Its old fashioned and it may not appeal to modern shooter fans, but I'm glad they did it this way.
And the whole choise and consequence stuff alone is a worthy reason to buy this. Obsidian once again takes us to a new territory of roleplaying. Most of all the whole spy theme feels so fresh after all these medevil rpgs.
By the way this reminds me of how gothic 2 was received among gaming media. A really good rpg but very few critics actually even gave it a fair chance. I remember reading 4/10 reviews from the biggest game sites, gamespy gave it 2/5 or something. So in this sense this is nothing new under the sun.
I haven't yet finished AP but I'm already loving it. Sure shooting gameplay may seem a bit stiff at first but once you gain more levels, the game really starts to shine. If you guys have trouble accepting that character in game misses his shots because he is not trained..well I can understand it. For me however its just much more rewarding when those skills actually mean something. Its old fashioned and it may not appeal to modern shooter fans, but I'm glad they did it this way.
And the whole choise and consequence stuff alone is a worthy reason to buy this. Obsidian once again takes us to a new territory of roleplaying. Most of all the whole spy theme feels so fresh after all these medevil rpgs.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,468
That could change though, especially the user score. Gothic 2 no doubt had fairly poor ratings at some point (it certainly had quite a few bad reviews), but since then all the fans have probably bumped it up quite a bit, as it became something of a cult classic.
That could happen to AP as well, as the ones still playing it a year or two from now will no doubt be huge fans of the game on their Xth re-run.
That could happen to AP as well, as the ones still playing it a year or two from now will no doubt be huge fans of the game on their Xth re-run.
themadhatter
Philosopher Emeritus
- Joined
- February 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
Don't get me wrong, mate, I was quite caught up by the advent of a unique IP, but it's failure to deliver on the overwhelmingly vast majority of my expectations has left me somewhat bitter.
That, right there, is a sound assessment: it's "good." Nothing more.
It is not that the damage calculations are skill/stat based, but their implementation that matters. Which is to say, you're missing the point. Of course, given what you chose to write, I suspect it is a deliberate, and rather belligerent, response to someone who dared speak out against something you enjoy.
Again, missing the point. In fact, you missed by such a wide margin that you came right around and hit on mine.
To whit: the OP notes that poor reviews are flooding in because AP has "poor shooting mechanics" to which I remarked that it works more like an "RPG with shooter elements." Then you come around and effectively repeat me. See the problem?
And who said it isn't? We're discussing the critical reception of AP, not that of the RPG enthusiast/hardcore crowd.
By and large it is, yet there does exist a very solid foundation on which to judge the "quality" of writing. AP is hardly The Grapes of Wrath, mate.
…oh, and don't concern yourself with the plot holes in either AP or ME2 (or ME) herein, I'm pretty sure we're on the same page: they're veritable Swiss cheese storylines.
Well, apart from the veiled and somewhat derogatory remark concerning my ability to maintain a computer (which, I assure you, I am quite competent at), I'm going to let this one pass. It's like discussing a fever, auto-accident or any other "traumatic" event with someone that has never endured it: pointless.
Certainly. The most recent RPG I've found to be "very good," though not without fault, was Risen.
Let's assess that remark alone, shall we? Given that as our operating principle, that you disagree with me on every point, you contend that…
* Alpha Protocol's stealth system is "on par" with that of the Splinter Cell and Thief series
* There is nothing wrong with a "global awareness" system existing within a stealth game
* Alpha Protocol boasts superior shooting mechanics to that of Mass Effect 2
* The dialogue of Alpha Protocol is consistently of high-quality
* Alpha Protocol exists in a bug-free state
* Alpha Protocol has animations that are superior to Mass Effect 2, Assassin's Creed 2 and Splinter Cell: Conviction
* Alpha Protocol has textures, models, lighting/particle effects and other graphical attributes that are superior to, or on par with, those of other modern AAA-games
* No one will experience a "dull moment" when playing Alpha Protocol
…look, mate, sometimes candor is called for, so you'll have to pardon the lack of a "no offense" in this sentence: frankly, you're deluded.
Hardly. Opinions are like the people who spawn them, each is unique.
Of course, as noted in my prior remark, most of what I wrote was not opinion at all.
When it works, yes, it is.
I, for one, was hardly impressed. Most choices seemed superficial, at best. All tended to lead to the exact same outcome. None, that I saw, had any pivotal bearing on the overarching plot.
Worse, yet, I was constantly reminded of this, having deliberately gone out of my way to earn the animosity of Mina. Even at hatred level, though, it was still business as usual: "Welcome to your new safehouse! Here's some cool stuff to play with! How are you, Michael? Read my e-mail!"
The whole "perk" she contributed to increase my skill cooldown was also a nuisance: what did I care if she hated me? Why would that affect my ability to shoot someone? Oh, no, I can't kill you, Mina hates me!
Same goes for the lady Marburg held captive: having deliberately antagonized her, earning "Animosity" status, I was then taunted with "save her…or a lot of innocent people!" Dum-dum-dum!
…really? What kind of choice is that?
And where is that, exactly?
Seriously, what "new territory" did they broach?
Quasi-cinematic scenes? Already done (better).
C&C? Already done (better).
Safehouses and weapon upgrades? Already done (better).
Stat/skill-based damage? Already done (better).
…running out of things to list. Care to lend a hand?
For once, I have no argument. A spy-themed game would be superb! You know, something like No One Lives Forever…wait, that was spy-themed. Alpha Protocol is more of a modern-RPG, period. Why? Because nothing is particularly "spy-ish" (if you accept that as a word).
To test the theory: change the Alpha Protocol organization to, say, a military outfit: Delta Force, Green Berets, what-have-you. Or perhaps a terrorist group (certain things I did certainly made me feel like one, such as killing a bunch of unaware men at a historic site, then leaving their bodies behind as I blew the entire area up). Or the classic "rogue cop" scenario. Everything would be much the same.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
Dhruin
SasqWatch
DA: The tagline on the box clearly says "The Espionage RPG". Damn those lying marketing types.
themadhatter
Philosopher Emeritus
- Joined
- February 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
I'll raise a pitchfork to that any day, mate.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
D
DArtagnan
Guest
So, now the entire marketing campaign has been reduced to a tagline on the box?
How about you, Dhruin, do you think mainstream gamers can be blamed for expecting more traditional shooter mechanics in a game like this?
I'm not saying the market dudes are liars (though that's their job), I'm just saying they failed miserably to convey what the game is about.
I knew it was going to be more cerebral, but that's because I know Obsidian. Still, with my knowledge, I was surprised they went as far as they did, with the RPG mechanics. That was a pleasant surprise, though, but I can certainly understand the average stealth shooter fan responding negatively to that.
Which is why I think it's particularly jarring that they opted for those pathetically stupid boss fights, when deliberately side-stepping traditional shooter stuff everywhere else.
Really, you'd think someone suffered a mental breakdown about halfway through development.
I'll use Risen as an example here and there.
Actually, you specifically mentioned how wrong it is to shoot someone at point blank range to little effect. Hitting someone in the head with a 2H sword would have the exact same effect as shooting someone, yet in Risen it's perfectly fine for such an action to do no damage at all unless your stats are good enough. For some reason it's not fine in AP? What is wrong with their implementation? AP clearly has a stat called "Damage" which increases through talents, weapon types and upgrades. Sounds perfectly normal to me (in RPGs, not shooters, and this is an RPG).
Right, but it's supposed to work like an RPG with shooter mechanics. If I reviewed Modern Warfare 2, God of War 3 etc, I'd give it a whooping 2/10 and call it rubbish because the mechanics are uninteresting, the writing is piss poor and the sense of progress non-existant. Yet, I am not the target audience, am I? Don't let a shooter fan review an RPG just because it happens to use shooter(ish) mechanics. Let an RPG fan do it, someone who is actually among the target audience.
For a reviewer to lower APs score because the shooter mechanics aren't shootery enough is as dumb as lowering the score of Risen because the combat system is not as good as God of War 3. They are not even remotely comparable.
Indeed, but it's supposed to be reviewed by RPG enthusiasts. That's the feedback a game like AP is supposed to be getting, not that of shooter fans. I wouldn't be too happy if Risen was reviewed by action fans..
True, but quite a few reviews compare it to ME2, a few even call the writing poor compared to that of ME2. That is redicilous, plain and simple. It just shows the reviewer never put any effort into reading what was actually written. APs writing is above that of ME2 any day, and I'm not saying that because I'm biased - I'm certainly a fan of the ME series.
Actually, I was trying to make myself look good. I always tend to get so-called buggy games to run smoothly, whether it's vanilla Gothic 3, NWN2 or Alpha Protocol. The thing is, I never actually do anything specific to get them to run smoothly either (.ini tweaking etc), hence the comment about being lucky. It could also be that I simply have solid computers.
Actually, you specifically mentioned how wrong it is to shoot someone at point blank range to little effect. Hitting someone in the head with a 2H sword would have the exact same effect as shooting someone, yet in Risen it's perfectly fine for such an action to do no damage at all unless your stats are good enough. For some reason it's not fine in AP? What is wrong with their implementation? AP clearly has a stat called "Damage" which increases through talents, weapon types and upgrades. Sounds perfectly normal to me (in RPGs, not shooters, and this is an RPG).
Right, but it's supposed to work like an RPG with shooter mechanics. If I reviewed Modern Warfare 2, God of War 3 etc, I'd give it a whooping 2/10 and call it rubbish because the mechanics are uninteresting, the writing is piss poor and the sense of progress non-existant. Yet, I am not the target audience, am I? Don't let a shooter fan review an RPG just because it happens to use shooter(ish) mechanics. Let an RPG fan do it, someone who is actually among the target audience.
For a reviewer to lower APs score because the shooter mechanics aren't shootery enough is as dumb as lowering the score of Risen because the combat system is not as good as God of War 3. They are not even remotely comparable.
Indeed, but it's supposed to be reviewed by RPG enthusiasts. That's the feedback a game like AP is supposed to be getting, not that of shooter fans. I wouldn't be too happy if Risen was reviewed by action fans..
True, but quite a few reviews compare it to ME2, a few even call the writing poor compared to that of ME2. That is redicilous, plain and simple. It just shows the reviewer never put any effort into reading what was actually written. APs writing is above that of ME2 any day, and I'm not saying that because I'm biased - I'm certainly a fan of the ME series.
Actually, I was trying to make myself look good. I always tend to get so-called buggy games to run smoothly, whether it's vanilla Gothic 3, NWN2 or Alpha Protocol. The thing is, I never actually do anything specific to get them to run smoothly either (.ini tweaking etc), hence the comment about being lucky. It could also be that I simply have solid computers.
themadhatter
Philosopher Emeritus
- Joined
- February 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
Seconded, vehemently so.
Again, you are arguing my point for me, which is to say that debating me is ridiculous: I am on your side! Honestly, I agree with everything you've written (the quoted bit, that is). The OP, however, pointed out that reviews were marking AP down for poor shooting mechanics and I informed them why that was, nothing more. Take a look at the topic title, mate, then at my reply. It's a straightforward question-answer exchange, not me taking a stab at the game for being less of a shooter than ME2.
Come on, who are you kidding? The RPG enthusiast community operates out of forums such as this, along with a few less-than-reputable ones, with little to no representation in the mainstream media. Quick proof: the RPGCodex hosts a rather exhaustive and relatively fair review of TES:Oblivion, among other games, yet a perusal of Metacritic reveals that it holds no place in their records: no affect on the score, no reviewer quip.
Once more, we're talking about AP's critical reception, not how its intended audience received it.
Therein, once more, lies my point: critical reception versus that of the intended audience.
My opinion of the writing has already been put forth, yet I understand that a great many admire it, as they do most of that which Obsidian employees have penned. I can respect that, however, when you compare the works of studios such as Bioware and Obsidian the outcome hardly requires a seer to predict: Bioware wins.
Why? Simple, Bioware is the "blockbuster" producing studio, whereas Obsidian are the men hot on their tail with derivative works, looking to captivate that same audience…I didn't mean it to come out that way, but I essentially just summed up Obsidian's entire history.
The simple truth is, they are not in the same league, nor are they truly competing for the same audience. Bioware's games are like the Avatar film of James Cameron: lots of mass appeal, fancy graphics, bombastic themes, just enough grit to earn a "mature content" tag and little else. Obsidian treads a tougher path, not quite that of an independent, but not truly in the AAA arena. I'd rather their work was compared against that of studios such as Piranha Bytes, as they tend to produce equally competent games, both from a graphical and technical perspective. What's more, their studio sizes/budgets are far more in-line.
Perhaps, yet in any case, there's no denying that AP has bugs. Not just in the way that "all software has bugs" but in the same manner Obsidian has consistently shipped their products: chock full of 'em.
I too never experienced any problems with Gothic 3. My rig at the time was, as you put it, solid. Long loading times, sure, but those were expected…then I acquired a new computer, with brand-new hardware, and abruptly G3 was revealed as the mess it was. AP is much the same, though less severe. Perhaps you truly are "lucky," or, more likely, you simply didn't notice most of them (as I originally said, there are few show-stopping bugs), but they are there.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
human_male
Math and girls is hard.
I've played the first couple of missions. There are some things I like and some I definitely don't, but anyway…
I have a question about difficulty. I'm playing on Normal, and I'm not finding it much of a challenge so far. Does it get more difficult? So far I haven't even had to use a health kit because of the recharging armor, oh excuse me… endurance. If I get hit I just take cover until that goes back up. When I read the manual it says your health does not regenerate on it's own, and I thought "Yipee!" I'm so sick of games with health regeneration. I hate it. But then they have the regenerating "endurance" which acts exactly like health generation in a way.
I also don't like not being able to save where I want, that there's no sensitivity slider for when you're aiming (I need to turn it right down because I'm a bad shot with my thumb), and the timed dialog options. That's just me though, I'm sure most people wouldn't have a problem with any of that.
It also seems that ammo and money are abundant on missions. They almost had me when I nearly ran out of assault rifle ammo (which would given me an excuse to use my pistol) but then I found some more (including a respawning ammo pile). I like games where you have to be careful with your ammo, and use different weapons as ammo for one weapon becomes depleted and so forth. So another question… does that sort of thing get harder as the game progresses? Will I actually have to purchase ammo at some point?
Does the Hard setting affect things like that (endurance, money, ammo) or is it just enemy toughness? Anyone play on hard (on 360)? How are you finding it?
I have a question about difficulty. I'm playing on Normal, and I'm not finding it much of a challenge so far. Does it get more difficult? So far I haven't even had to use a health kit because of the recharging armor, oh excuse me… endurance. If I get hit I just take cover until that goes back up. When I read the manual it says your health does not regenerate on it's own, and I thought "Yipee!" I'm so sick of games with health regeneration. I hate it. But then they have the regenerating "endurance" which acts exactly like health generation in a way.
I also don't like not being able to save where I want, that there's no sensitivity slider for when you're aiming (I need to turn it right down because I'm a bad shot with my thumb), and the timed dialog options. That's just me though, I'm sure most people wouldn't have a problem with any of that.
It also seems that ammo and money are abundant on missions. They almost had me when I nearly ran out of assault rifle ammo (which would given me an excuse to use my pistol) but then I found some more (including a respawning ammo pile). I like games where you have to be careful with your ammo, and use different weapons as ammo for one weapon becomes depleted and so forth. So another question… does that sort of thing get harder as the game progresses? Will I actually have to purchase ammo at some point?
Does the Hard setting affect things like that (endurance, money, ammo) or is it just enemy toughness? Anyone play on hard (on 360)? How are you finding it?