Yeah, the saddest thing about these kinds of games is when you realize you can count all the really good CRPGs on your fingers.
It's even sadder when you've already played them all several times and you know that there won't be anything that surpasses, or even reach the same quality, in the near future or at all.
Yeah, the saddest thing about these kinds of games is when you realize you can count all the really good CRPGs on your fingers.
It's even sadder when you've already played them all several times and you know that there won't be anything that surpasses, or even reach the same quality, in the near future or at all.
And yet we keep asking, as though there's some completely unheard of mindblowing game that we've never heard of before.
Although Fallout: New Vegas is coming out next month; A new Fallout, with Avellone back in the saddle? It just might be the next great one.
Yeah, the saddest thing about these kinds of games is when you realize you can count all the really good CRPGs on your fingers.
It's even sadder when you've already played them all several times and you know that there won't be anything that surpasses, or even reach the same quality, in the near future or at all.
And yet we keep asking, as though there's some completely unheard of mindblowing game that we've never heard of before.
Although Fallout: New Vegas is coming out next month; A new Fallout, with Avellone back in the saddle? It just might be the next great one.
I have high hopes for that particular game as long as Bethesdas "writers" haven't been meddling with the script and plot. Obsidian seems to be working at their best when they have a completed game engine to work with since Q&A and programming aren't really their strong suit (R.I.P Troika).
Yeah, the saddest thing about these kinds of games is when you realize you can count all the really good CRPGs on your fingers.
It's even sadder when you've already played them all several times and you know that there won't be anything that surpasses, or even reach the same quality, in the near future or at all.
And yet we keep asking, as though there's some completely unheard of mindblowing game that we've never heard of before.
Although Fallout: New Vegas is coming out next month; A new Fallout, with Avellone back in the saddle? It just might be the next great one.
I have high hopes for that particular game as long as Bethesdas "writers" haven't been meddling with the script and plot. Obsidian seems to be working at their best when they have a completed game engine to work with since Q&A and programming aren't really their strong suit (R.I.P Troika).
I've already read that NV has a much longer script than Fallout 3, more voice actors, and more accountability in dialog, meaning people will actually react to things like gender or past actions.
It's almost like they're actually making it an RPG. Who'd've thunk it?
Well guess it's terrible... I mean it makes sense though. It's not street fighter
Yeah, I just finished this game, and the terrible reviews are the very definition of bullshit.
The only problem this game has is that it's Mass Effect 1 after Mass Effect 2; if they simply changed the shooting so it fires where it says it will, I guarantee this game would have got straight 80s.
The assholes who gave it 2/10 (like Destructoid) are just that: assholes. They have played much, much shittier games than this, and its insulting to the people who spent 3 years of their lives creating a rather good game to do such an awful, Comic Book Guy style, job at reviewing.
Well guess it's terrible... I mean it makes sense though. It's not street fighter
Yeah, I just finished this game, and the terrible reviews are the very definition of bullshit.
The only problem this game has is that it's Mass Effect 1 after Mass Effect 2; if they simply changed the shooting so it fires where it says it will, I guarantee this game would have got straight 80s.
The assholes who gave it 2/10 (like Destructoid) are just that: assholes. They have played much, much shittier games than this, and its insulting to the people who spent 3 years of their lives creating a rather good game to do such an awful, Comic Book Guy style, job at reviewing.
I think the problem is that Alpha Protocol is a really great storytelling game wedded to a relatively bad shooting game. If you play the storytelling game and manipulate the shooter elements to feed into that, you've just played a great game with a sometimes frustrating combat system. If you play the shooter and enjoy the storytelling elements, you've just played a relatively bad shooter with good storytelling.
What I mean is that, instead of being an all around "70ish" experience, the storytelling elements of the game hit 90ish levels, while the shooter elements hit poor, 55ish levels. It averages out to "pretty good" but if you don't take both parts equally, your view of how the game should be regarded will differ.
With that said, I think the addition of a more manageable, consistent, just all around better cover system would have helped the game tremendously. Many of my most frustrating combat related moments are due to the cover system. Hell, I actually kinda liked the way they handled shooting, overall.
Well guess it's terrible... I mean it makes sense though. It's not street fighter
Yeah, I just finished this game, and the terrible reviews are the very definition of bullshit.
The only problem this game has is that it's Mass Effect 1 after Mass Effect 2; if they simply changed the shooting so it fires where it says it will, I guarantee this game would have got straight 80s.
The assholes who gave it 2/10 (like Destructoid) are just that: assholes. They have played much, much shittier games than this, and its insulting to the people who spent 3 years of their lives creating a rather good game to do such an awful, Comic Book Guy style, job at reviewing.
I think the problem is that Alpha Protocol is a really great storytelling game wedded to a relatively bad shooting game. If you play the storytelling game and manipulate the shooter elements to feed into that, you've just played a great game with a sometimes frustrating combat system. If you play the shooter and enjoy the storytelling elements, you've just played a relatively bad shooter with good storytelling.
What I mean is that, instead of being an all around "70ish" experience, the storytelling elements of the game hit 90ish levels, while the shooter elements hit poor, 55ish levels. It averages out to "pretty good" but if you don't take both parts equally, your view of how the game should be regarded will differ.
With that said, I think the addition of a more manageable, consistent, just all around better cover system would have helped the game tremendously. Many of my most frustrating combat related moments are due to the cover system. Hell, I actually kinda liked the way they handled shooting, overall.
You know, that kinda makes sense to me. If Alpha Protocol were just a shooter with no plot elements, it'd earn every bit of its 55 rating. So I have to assume that reviewers were playing it just for the gameplay, not realizing that the plot and story were the whole reason to be playing in the first place.
Posts
And yet we keep asking, as though there's some completely unheard of mindblowing game that we've never heard of before.
Although Fallout: New Vegas is coming out next month; A new Fallout, with Avellone back in the saddle? It just might be the next great one.
I've already read that NV has a much longer script than Fallout 3, more voice actors, and more accountability in dialog, meaning people will actually react to things like gender or past actions.
It's almost like they're actually making it an RPG. Who'd've thunk it?
Uuuuugh. I haaaate this industry.
Well guess it's terrible... I mean it makes sense though. It's not street fighter
Yeah, I just finished this game, and the terrible reviews are the very definition of bullshit.
The only problem this game has is that it's Mass Effect 1 after Mass Effect 2; if they simply changed the shooting so it fires where it says it will, I guarantee this game would have got straight 80s.
The assholes who gave it 2/10 (like Destructoid) are just that: assholes. They have played much, much shittier games than this, and its insulting to the people who spent 3 years of their lives creating a rather good game to do such an awful, Comic Book Guy style, job at reviewing.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?p=16143424#post16143424
I think the problem is that Alpha Protocol is a really great storytelling game wedded to a relatively bad shooting game. If you play the storytelling game and manipulate the shooter elements to feed into that, you've just played a great game with a sometimes frustrating combat system. If you play the shooter and enjoy the storytelling elements, you've just played a relatively bad shooter with good storytelling.
What I mean is that, instead of being an all around "70ish" experience, the storytelling elements of the game hit 90ish levels, while the shooter elements hit poor, 55ish levels. It averages out to "pretty good" but if you don't take both parts equally, your view of how the game should be regarded will differ.
With that said, I think the addition of a more manageable, consistent, just all around better cover system would have helped the game tremendously. Many of my most frustrating combat related moments are due to the cover system. Hell, I actually kinda liked the way they handled shooting, overall.
Battle.net
You know, that kinda makes sense to me. If Alpha Protocol were just a shooter with no plot elements, it'd earn every bit of its 55 rating. So I have to assume that reviewers were playing it just for the gameplay, not realizing that the plot and story were the whole reason to be playing in the first place.