Something to note, I think neither Rougey nor anyone in this thread beyond the trolls are saying VtM:B is worse that Alpha Protocol, we're saying if you're going to call one shit, you're going to have to call the other shit as well. Simply because beyond the gameplay basics(One FPS, the other TPS.) They are essentially the same game.
WTF is this shit?
Star Wars and Eragon are both shit since beyond setting basics (One Space Fantasy, the other High Fantasay.) They are essentially the same movie.
See how that logic works? Sometimes the shit is in the execution. AP is written worse, less interesting, and has even bigger combat balance problems than Bloodlines. The one main knock against Bloodlines is that a couple parts are favored towards combat types. In AP, the whole game is a joke with skill points in pistol. At least in Bloodlines being a stealthy character leads to something actual. In AP, it's just a different way through the level map.
I mean, AP managed to take a problem that exists in many great RPGs and managed to mangle it so bad that it's literally the most unbalanced RPG I have played.
Reading Comprehension, bro. There's a few more posts in this thread that you should probably read before feeling morally outraged.
The knocks against Bloodlines that are brought up time and time again, are, the side quests and main quest require you to combat stat out your character. The game is buggier than a crimelords mansion. And the game starts falling completely to pieces after the first act.
The things that most people bring up as why it's a good game, are the characters, the story and the setting.
They have the same flaws. They have the same benefits. Judging completely objectively here, because quality of writing judgement via comparison is not something that can be judged in the vacuum that true objectivity/journalistic neutrality requires. They are essentially the same game, with the same benefits and the same flaws. It's only when you completely disregard that objectivity and make comparisons that Alpha Protocol falls apart. And both roguey and I have mentioned that we prefer Bloodlines. And are merely arguing for the point of, calling Alpha Protocol shit for the reasons stated above, objectively, without a comparison that would eliminate your objectivity. Should lead to you also calling Bloodlines shit.
And you can't just compare Bloodlines strengths to the same strengths of AP, without comparing the weaknesses of each. Also you can't call certain things a strength or a weakness without objectively examining it's place in gameplay and the implications behind it.
Example, conversation:
OoP:AP has a horrible hub structure that linearly forces the player down a single path. And teleports the player to the quest locations. Whereas Bloodlines has an explorable hub system that allows the player to explore and miss things, like side quests, that may require the character to go back and explore further.
NoP:What's the strengths of either system. The highly focused plot could actually benefit from the lack of explorable hub system, as it adds to the tension as well as giving a consistent pace to the plot. While a game like bloodlines which is going for another sort of atmosphere and setting as well as having a looser plot could benefit from having a semiexporable world for adding to the general atmosphere. More than that, you have to take into account the setting style. Most modern spy movies don't generally require the main character to slum it up at a club talking to the owners for a lead, they generally already have leads, or have a contact they meet within the first act who has a lead. Slow moments are rare, and generally suited for things like epilogues or tense conversations in between major landmark action scenes. Whereas the genre bloodlines is attempting to mimic, that of the supernatural thriller, delight in slow moments, they add to the tension. They build it, and promote a sense of exploration and learning as you go along.
Using your Eragon to Star Wars comparison in a mini review to demonstrate the difference between an objective review and a non-objective review by comparison. Because I know someone is going to bring it up.
Objectively:
Eragon's characters are unlikable, immature and in essence simply follow tropes that have been followed by the industry for decades if not centuries. As the series progresses they gradually evolve into Mary Sues that nothing can ever really stop. The events follow the standard plot line of novels and movies such as this. And having read it through to completion I can't help but think that it could have been written better. Ultimately though the action is well described, only falling into a few pit falls of younger authors, and avoiding any of the cartoonish lack of seriousness. This is, to me, it's one strength. The plotting is inconsistent, and that makes following it rather boring. It relies on a great many Deus Ex Machina and simply random chance that in a younger person's eyes may have simply slipped over their heads. But I noticed quite clearly in my reading of it.
Non-objectively:
What really startles me about Eragon, is how much better it's plot has been done before. It creates facsimiles of the Star Wars narratives events, however in doing so it lacks the resonance created by said events. Ultimately making it far worse. It's characters even fill the same shoes as the characters from star wars. Eragon being Luke, Murtagh being Han, Old Ben having his shoes filled by Brom, Leia being filled by Arya. The Shade being Darth Vader. The only thing it lacks is the death star. Or perhaps that has it's role filled by the Urgal, a race closely resembling the Orcs of LoTR. In reality I believe the setting is that of a mix of Tolkien High Fantasy, mixed with McCaffrey's Pern series. The plot being the standard of those following Cambell's Journey of a Hero, in the form codified by Star Wars.
The objective review generally only talks about things relating the genre. Whereas when you remove the objectivity you get a better feel of how it relates to the others in the genre you run the risk of losing people who maybe haven't read LoTR. Or Pern, or watched Star Wars. It's why journalistic neutrality, or objectivity is required for consistent understandable reviewing.
.
consensus on such issues.
So death to walking haterz, Age of Teleportation sucks etc. etc.
