RPGWatch Feature - Alpha Protocol Impressions

holeraw said:

It means mainstream reviewers have no idea what they are talking about so they can only praise what they think they are expected to praise and people who listen to them play idiotic games therefore learning to believe that idiocy = high quality.

Click to expand...

So you believe that all mainstream reviewers have no idea what they're talking about? Interesting that you would lump them all together like that, especially considering that you don't even know them. I don't think someone being mainstream automatically means they're an idiot.

holeraw said:

It means mainstream reviewers have no idea what they are talking about so they can only praise what they think they are expected to praise and people who listen to them play idiotic games therefore learning to believe that idiocy = high quality.

Click to expand...

Well, I think that's harsh. It has nothing to do with idiocy, but perhaps more precisely level of investment. Some people prefer not to invest themselves when playing games, but that hardly makes what they enjoy idiocy, or themselves idiots for enjoying them.

It also means that I don't expect reviewers to "objectively state their opinion" - when I want that I check the forums. I want a reviewer to form an as subjective as possible opinion based on whatever knowledge he might have on the subject.

Click to expand...

Well, good for you, because that's precisely what reviewers are doing

JDR13 said:

So you believe that all mainstream reviewers have no idea what they're talking about? Interesting that you would lump them all together like that, especially considering that you don't even know them. I don't think someone being mainstream automatically means they're an idiot.

Click to expand...

No, that was an over-generalization intended to make my point somewhat clearer because it was not understood

Sorry if that that came out too harsh but the average quality of mainstream in all media and genres (not limited to computer games) is simply abysmal (in games even more so because it is, up to a degree, expected and tolerated - see expressions such as "good story… for a game")

(I find however that it's extremely harsher for those who honestly strive to create quality when they see their efforts being overshadowed by overhyped 'fast food')

DArtagnan said:

Well, I think that's harsh. It has nothing to do with idiocy, but perhaps more precisely level of investment. Some people prefer not to invest themselves when playing games, but that hardly makes what they enjoy idiocy, or themselves idiots for enjoying them.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I understand that.
There still needs to be some kind of understanding about what you get in return for your investment though. ie. there's no problem with enjoying bad games as long as you realize they are bad. (like people who enjoy terrible -often idiotic- 'cult' movies… I know several such people and they are certainly not idiots, but they are invested in these things and they do understand quality)

DArtagnan said:

Well, good for you, because that's precisely what reviewers are doing

Click to expand...

The good ones certainly. The others… in your words "let themselves get influenced HEAVILY."

EDIT… did I mix up subjective and objective?! S**t… I usually get them right … sorry about that … language issues (+ objectivity is so often rejected on the web that I expect anyone to do so)

holeraw said:

(I find however that it's extremely harsher for those who honestly strive to create quality when they see their efforts being overshadowed by overhyped 'fast food')

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they're all striving to create quality, the problem is that what constitutes as quality is subjectively different from one person to the next.

JDR13 said:

I'm pretty sure they're all striving to create quality, the problem is that what constitutes as quality is subjectively different from one person to the next.

Click to expand...

But isn't striving for quality entirely futile then?
In that case isn't Beethoven's 9th as great a work as the latest pop hit or me whistling in the shower?

If quality means more copies sold, then naturally AAA developers are striving for quality. I wouldn't call mainstream appeal quality, though - at least not my kind of quality

If actually selling a copy is quality, then it means that convincing people to buy your game is quality, but that's largely marketing and word of mouth - and as witnessed countless times before, brilliant games aren't always sold. System Shock, anyone?

Nah, quality is as subjective as anything - but I honestly don't think AAA developers feel they have the luxury of making exactly what they want. They might claim that, publically - and they might even manage to convince themselves given the obvious corporate interest, and the consequence of openly criticising company policy. But, deep down, when they're in bed - thinking - I'm pretty sure they're not that blind to what they're putting out, as opposed to why they got into game development in the first place.

They're not going to convince me, anyway.

holeraw said:

But isn't striving for quality entirely futile then?
In that case isn't Beethoven's 9th as great a work as the latest pop hit or me whistling in the shower?

Click to expand...

I think you're confusing striving for quality with simply having more talent.

Just finished Alpha Protocol, and I'm surprised to say I enjoyed it more than either of the Mass Effects. I played a stealth based character and tried my best to sneak around although my own stupidity got me detected more often than not. I enjoyed the dialog trees and character progression a great deal. What I put my points actually made a difference in how my character performed. My biggest gripe were the boss fights which were just downright annoying. I seemed to get through these fights more on luck than any skill-set I'd acquired during game play. I had textures drop out several times, but that doesn't really bother me a great deal. I see myself coming back to this one in the future.