Vault Dweller said:
The overwhelming consensus when the game was released was that it sucked and didn't represent the game properly. I think that the entire game sucked but that's an entirely different story.
Different opinions, nothing that can be argued about between us, I give you that. However what we're talking about in here is not solely the quality of the story, but actually everything that is flawed (and severely flawed, by the way) with the gameplay elements of Alpha Protocol, specially the abysmal dialog system which leaves the roleplaying (something we value in here) mangled, turning a great part of the roleplaying into a minigame that you don't fully understand the outcome, given that you don't pick what to say, only an emotional response.
Not the same. First, most side quests sucked as much if not more than the entire game.
http://www.rpgcodex.net/images/news/Quest%201.JPG
http://www.rpgcodex.net/images/news/Quest%202.JPG
A handful of side quests was decent (shined? no) but a handful of decent quests in a sandbox game is nothing.
And a handful of decent choices in a shooter is also irrelevant.
It's like recommending a shitty dungeon crawler for one decent fight.
The same can be said about AP. You ignore the overwhelming number of awful aspects in favor of some interesting moments.
Can't comment; haven't played the game yet.
That is the main problem going around here: people that have not yet played it, yet still think their point of view is more accurate than those whom have ventured into it.
- quite a few people seem to like the game.
Quite a few people liked Oblivion too, so I take it all of us who did not are just a bunch of whiners from their point of view.
- the criticism is too vague: shit sucks, awful game, "complete mess beyond redemption"; nobody wants to be specific
There's no way to be specific about features you will only experience while playing the game. What you ask for is like describing colors to a blind person. The game as a whole doesn't fit right, and until you try the dreaded dialog mini game there's no way for you to fully understand what we've been talking about in here.
Timed responses are one thing, however having to make your pick before the dialog even ends is another thing, and this is what AP does.
- a lot of criticism whining is about things that either aren't important like combat in a third person action RPG shooter with RPG elements...
This describes the game better.
"Wah wah but itz haz them choices nd consquences!!... yet you cannot avoid the linear progression of the game. Make no mistake, this game is just like ME only with much lower production values or polish.
(when was it done right?)
So if you don't know anything better, it's good for what it is? Come on...
and graphics or things that we knew would suck like the minigames.
The graphics I don't really care, but the minigames are an essential part of the game, present throughout the entire campaign, not merely gimmicks to advertise the game as in
"We haz minigaems too!
- the gaming media hates it for retarded reasons - "oh noes I can't hit anything with my new character, the aiming cursor is too wide!!!"
Can't say you're wrong there, but we're talking about out own impression in here, not what was written over at gamespot.
