Liberty City? It was just so directionless. There was a lot of freedom on offer, but you had no idea of the general layout or how to progress. Just getting past that first guard or two could be a hassle, IMHO.
I dunno, Deus Ex, Planescape: Torment... both drop you in the deep end and leave you to sink or swim, one way or the other. That is something that is refreshing, and sadly missing from many games now. But neither of these games drop you in the deep end in a pool full of piranhas that have gone unfed for the last month - it can be a bit of a fumble, but it's never overtly unfair.
I might have a look for this... I was disappointed that this was so poor originally as I'd wanted another half-decent "free roaming" RPG. :)
You didn't like the first levels of Deus Ex? Get outta here!
(Expect a few-dozen comments to that effect, completely ignoring the rest of the content of the article!) :p
I thought this was a good read and the sentiment of the article is something I can empathise with in regards to other games that I've revisited some time after deciding that I don't like them.
I enjoy the revisit/followup articles from a point of view of reading the articles for their own sake (rather than as a buy/don't-buy guide).
I think it makes the reviews and opinions of the site feel more human and changeable; whereas normally one expects that once a review is made that the opinion is set in stone; even if the author's opinion changes later.
I think the problem stems from this desire developers have to build everything around the shooter format as a starting off point. So many of these games are shooters with a theme, rather than being in this case, a spy game with some shooting. It's a brave developer that says, "You know what, we don't need combat here."
And it's brave developers that make the best games. Mass Effect 2 is heavily combative certainly, yet features entire missions where you won't fire a shot in anger. Amnesia: The Dark Descent doesn't have any means to fight the enemy at all. The early Thief games would fail your mission if you killed anybody. Many of the best games in recent, and not so recent, history have been the ones where the developers have had the guts to let the game entertain on its own merits, without padding it out with unnecessary combat. That's not to say combat in games is a bad thing, but it is when it's just there for its own sake because the developer is worried your attention might wander.
Originally Posted by CardJoe Liberty City? It was just so directionless. There was a lot of freedom on offer, but you had no idea of the general layout or how to progress. Just getting past that first guard or two could be a hassle, IMHO.
The first time I played through Dues Ex was only 6 months ago (not finished, left my save on the family computer, needs cloud support!) and I actually found the first levels to be extremely enjoyable. At first I was a bit like, "God I have been consolised, I have no one holding my hand in this game!" but then I found it really liberating. The intensity of sneaking around for me was one I hadn't felt in a long time. From there though I adjusted to the game. So even though technically I can see that the latter levels are better as you have even more freedom/abilities, I actually enjoyed first levels the most because of the impact that they had.
Originally Posted by sear So I guess you didn't play the game past the first few levels for the review?
I didn't even finish watching the intro cutscene, to be honest. Just opened the box and gave it a smell test.
Lol, I can almost believe that.
Ironically with Deus Ex, the first level often ends up being the one people refer to most when discussing the genius of the game. However, compared to the next three or four levels it's a world apart - they were more linear, more hand holding, and more typically first level-ish. It takes until Hell's Kitchen and beyond to get close to the first level again.
I really liked Alpha Protocol. Interesting storytelling technique (of an admittedly not that amazing story,) decent game-play and I really didn't find any significant bugs or balancing issues myself. I also liked that you couldn't entirely tell how someone was going to react when you said something, but you could pretty much work out why they did after the fact: much like real life.
Originally Posted by theflatworm you couldn't entirely tell how someone was going to react when you said something, but you could pretty much work out why they did after the fact: much like real life.
Yeah, I like that too. It's not just "I am a good guy, I like nice answers".
You know a friend of mine has been playing it the last week, and he basically said the same kinda things. The game is flawed but he is thoroughly enjoying it. He went so far as to recommend it to me. I will be waiting until it's in a bargain bin though before I try it.
Haha, the only reason why I tried to play the game is because of Mike's name. Mike Thornton, I just imagine him as Pete's son. Pete Thornton was the head of the Phoenix Foundation, which employed MacGyver. I really enjoyed MacGyver. *Nostalgia*
I can sort of see where he's coming from with Deus Ex - It wasn't until maybe half-way through the first level of Deus Ex that it really clicked for me - once that happened I couldn't put the damned game down again. However it took three or four attempts to get to that point. Looking back it was superb, but starting out I just couldn't get on with that start.
Originally Posted by sear So I guess you didn't play the game past the first few levels for the review?
I didn't even finish watching the intro cutscene, to be honest. Just opened the box and gave it a smell test.
Judging by the original review and this piece, I can certainly believe that. After all, it's perfectly reasonable that a few glitches and niggles should condemn an otherwise fun and enjoyable game into obscurity.
You know what, I realise that the above may sound harsh and agressive, but it's only because I was disappointed by Joe's criteria when it comes to judging a game's true worth. I think it's time for everyone to ask themselves a question, is focusing on some technical issues really the right way to go? Joe, are the issues you mentioned in your original review so important when it's obvious, from the revisiting piece, that the game is fun and enjoyable despite of them? Is it ok to judge a game like you would a hard drive or a motherboard without actually communicating the overall feel of the game?
Originally Posted by alexandros1313 Judging by the original review and this piece, I can certainly believe that. After all, it's perfectly reasonable that a few glitches and niggles should condemn an otherwise fun and enjoyable game into obscurity.
You know what, I realise that the above may sound harsh and agressive, but it's only because I was disappointed by Joe's criteria when it comes to judging a game's true worth. I think it's time for everyone to ask themselves a question, is focusing on some technical issues really the right way to go? Joe, are the issues you mentioned in your original review so important when it's obvious, from the revisiting piece, that the game is fun and enjoyable despite of them? Is it ok to judge a game like you would a hard drive or a motherboard without actually communicating the overall feel of the game?
I feel that if there are significant technical issues then they do bear mentioning - not being able to read critical text, broken load points and terrible modelling in cutscenes are all BIG problems. It's always worth communicating this sort of information because
A) It can be one of the biggest factors in the customer's enjoyment
B) It doesn't matter how good the game is if it doesn't work
C) It's often indicative of the overall quality
It's also worth putting the point across that I haven't and still don't really recommend Alpha Protocol, unless you get it super cheap (in which case you get what you paid for). It isn't a very well made game.
In both the review and this article the technical flaws aren't the whole story though - it's not just "It's got bugs in it, 5/10". It's cumulative. It's got a fairly pedestrian, predictable plot and the gameplay is unbalanced in several big way (pistols, hacking). The level design is antithetic to the intended design, the cast is bloated, etc. AND it's buggy as well.
I found it quite hard to communicate in this article in all honesty, but the point I was trying to make wasn't just "First I thought Alpha Protocol was quite rubbish, but some pals said it was good and I played it again and they were right", if only because I can't end up on a wholly positive note. The point was more "First I thought Alpha Protocol was quite rubbish, but some pals said it was good and I played it again and, while it is still rubbish, it does at least have this one thing going for it which I didn't fully appreciate before."
On review approach as a whole, I don't really see there being a huge difference between reviewing hardware and reviewing games. Sure, one is backed up by figures and the other is wholly subjective, but in both cases you're essentially reviewing a PRODUCT that people have to pay for. For games, yes you have to communicate the overall feel of the game, but when the technical information is part of that feel...
Fair enough. Even though it is still my opinion that you shouldn't review games in this manner, I can accept that someone may think differently. I feel that the most important part of the game is it's "essense", ie if it's fun to play. Dissecting each part of a game and judging it independently is kinda missing the point, as it is only as a whole that a game can be judged accurately. Games that attempt to give something different to the gamer should be rewarded, otherwise you end up with generic games like Mass Effect 2. Honestly, I feel that the 6 point difference between Mass Effect 2 and and Alpha Protocol is unjustified, since a lot of the problems with Alpha Protocol are also true of ME2 (mainly pedestrian plot and linear level design). Alpha Protocol may be be flawed but, in my opinion, it deserved both a better score and a more positive review.
I like the game much as i did like mass effect, and both are buggy as hell, if mass effect got good scores i dont see the reason why this one cant too.
Bought the game on the strength of this revisit. Completed it today. thought it was easily worth the fiver I paid for it at christmas.
The plot is fairly decent as computer games go. I like the dialogue system, it is similar to mass effect but there is a timer so you have to decide your choice quickly. This is good becasue it encourages you to make instinctive replies, and what you say in a conversation can have long term repercussions. There are a lot of points that you are called upon to make a quick decision which can have far reaching effects on the plot. I also thought the voice acting was decent.
IT is clearly lacking a bit of polish. For example the shooting mechanism can be a bit frustrating. It takes too long to target your shots. Some of the skills you could developm seem unecssary e.g I could break all locks, hack computers and alarms right through to the end without ever developing skills in this category. Personally I think if it had been given a couple months longer in QA, then the average review score could have been upped 10-15%.
I feel a bit sorry for the developers as it is clear that a lot of work was put into the game. It went past too many deadlines and sega pushed them to releasing it when it wasnt perfect, possibly shoot themselves in the foot as mediocre reviews = poor sales.
I would give it 79% or 8/10, as despite it flaws it was a fun game.
Comments 1 to 25 of 26
ReplyPlanescape Torment suffers similarly; beautiful game, terrible introduction.
I might have a look for this... I was disappointed that this was so poor originally as I'd wanted another half-decent "free roaming" RPG. :)
(Expect a few-dozen comments to that effect, completely ignoring the rest of the content of the article!) :p
I thought this was a good read and the sentiment of the article is something I can empathise with in regards to other games that I've revisited some time after deciding that I don't like them.
I enjoy the revisit/followup articles from a point of view of reading the articles for their own sake (rather than as a buy/don't-buy guide).
I think it makes the reviews and opinions of the site feel more human and changeable; whereas normally one expects that once a review is made that the opinion is set in stone; even if the author's opinion changes later.
I think the problem stems from this desire developers have to build everything around the shooter format as a starting off point. So many of these games are shooters with a theme, rather than being in this case, a spy game with some shooting. It's a brave developer that says, "You know what, we don't need combat here."
And it's brave developers that make the best games. Mass Effect 2 is heavily combative certainly, yet features entire missions where you won't fire a shot in anger. Amnesia: The Dark Descent doesn't have any means to fight the enemy at all. The early Thief games would fail your mission if you killed anybody. Many of the best games in recent, and not so recent, history have been the ones where the developers have had the guts to let the game entertain on its own merits, without padding it out with unnecessary combat. That's not to say combat in games is a bad thing, but it is when it's just there for its own sake because the developer is worried your attention might wander.
The first time I played through Dues Ex was only 6 months ago (not finished, left my save on the family computer, needs cloud support!) and I actually found the first levels to be extremely enjoyable. At first I was a bit like, "God I have been consolised, I have no one holding my hand in this game!" but then I found it really liberating. The intensity of sneaking around for me was one I hadn't felt in a long time. From there though I adjusted to the game. So even though technically I can see that the latter levels are better as you have even more freedom/abilities, I actually enjoyed first levels the most because of the impact that they had.
Just interesting to see a different perspective.
I didn't even finish watching the intro cutscene, to be honest. Just opened the box and gave it a smell test.
Lol, I can almost believe that.
Ironically with Deus Ex, the first level often ends up being the one people refer to most when discussing the genius of the game. However, compared to the next three or four levels it's a world apart - they were more linear, more hand holding, and more typically first level-ish. It takes until Hell's Kitchen and beyond to get close to the first level again.
What did it smell of?
Yeah, I like that too. It's not just "I am a good guy, I like nice answers".
Worked for the Witcher. :)
Judging by the original review and this piece, I can certainly believe that. After all, it's perfectly reasonable that a few glitches and niggles should condemn an otherwise fun and enjoyable game into obscurity.
You know what, I realise that the above may sound harsh and agressive, but it's only because I was disappointed by Joe's criteria when it comes to judging a game's true worth. I think it's time for everyone to ask themselves a question, is focusing on some technical issues really the right way to go? Joe, are the issues you mentioned in your original review so important when it's obvious, from the revisiting piece, that the game is fun and enjoyable despite of them? Is it ok to judge a game like you would a hard drive or a motherboard without actually communicating the overall feel of the game?
I feel that if there are significant technical issues then they do bear mentioning - not being able to read critical text, broken load points and terrible modelling in cutscenes are all BIG problems. It's always worth communicating this sort of information because
A) It can be one of the biggest factors in the customer's enjoyment
B) It doesn't matter how good the game is if it doesn't work
C) It's often indicative of the overall quality
It's also worth putting the point across that I haven't and still don't really recommend Alpha Protocol, unless you get it super cheap (in which case you get what you paid for). It isn't a very well made game.
In both the review and this article the technical flaws aren't the whole story though - it's not just "It's got bugs in it, 5/10". It's cumulative. It's got a fairly pedestrian, predictable plot and the gameplay is unbalanced in several big way (pistols, hacking). The level design is antithetic to the intended design, the cast is bloated, etc. AND it's buggy as well.
I found it quite hard to communicate in this article in all honesty, but the point I was trying to make wasn't just "First I thought Alpha Protocol was quite rubbish, but some pals said it was good and I played it again and they were right", if only because I can't end up on a wholly positive note. The point was more "First I thought Alpha Protocol was quite rubbish, but some pals said it was good and I played it again and, while it is still rubbish, it does at least have this one thing going for it which I didn't fully appreciate before."
On review approach as a whole, I don't really see there being a huge difference between reviewing hardware and reviewing games. Sure, one is backed up by figures and the other is wholly subjective, but in both cases you're essentially reviewing a PRODUCT that people have to pay for. For games, yes you have to communicate the overall feel of the game, but when the technical information is part of that feel...
The plot is fairly decent as computer games go. I like the dialogue system, it is similar to mass effect but there is a timer so you have to decide your choice quickly. This is good becasue it encourages you to make instinctive replies, and what you say in a conversation can have long term repercussions. There are a lot of points that you are called upon to make a quick decision which can have far reaching effects on the plot. I also thought the voice acting was decent.
IT is clearly lacking a bit of polish. For example the shooting mechanism can be a bit frustrating. It takes too long to target your shots. Some of the skills you could developm seem unecssary e.g I could break all locks, hack computers and alarms right through to the end without ever developing skills in this category. Personally I think if it had been given a couple months longer in QA, then the average review score could have been upped 10-15%.
I feel a bit sorry for the developers as it is clear that a lot of work was put into the game. It went past too many deadlines and sega pushed them to releasing it when it wasnt perfect, possibly shoot themselves in the foot as mediocre reviews = poor sales.
I would give it 79% or 8/10, as despite it flaws it was a fun game.
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums