In terms of a story that branched based on your choices, yes. It was FAR more accomplished than Mass Effect 2 in that department. Mass Effect 2's branching story consisted of emails and small conversations that affected only side missions. Alpha Protocol's consisted of the whole story changing at some points.BarbaricGoose said:I'd just like to point that "Adventurous" does not mean good. The power glove was adventurous, and the power glove wasn't good. It was soooo bad. Saying that AP was "More accomplished" than ME2 is rather silly. You're entitled to your opinion, but ME2 was far more accomplished than AP. I dare say AP was barely accomplished at all. Accomplished is probably the worst word to use when describing AP, because that's the exact opposite of what it was. It was more... inept.
It had a lot of interesting systems, but most of them were half-assed. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed AP; it was a refreshing take on the RPG in both narrative and mechanics, but you can't deny that it was a poorly made game. Saying that it's better than ME2 just doesn't make sense. You can say that you enjoyed AP more, but saying that it's "More accomplished" is just wrong.
Not to mention those same reviewers glossing right over Oblivion and Fallout 3's metric fuck-ton of bugs, flaws, and ass stories.Vrach said:For the most part, the same fuckwit reviewers said absolutely nothing of Civilization V's bugs, crashes and other shit, a lot of which was non-system specific, happening to everyone, instead giving it a green light and praising every fucking feature in the game based on a hour's playthrough of some 1% of the game's content (and neglecting to mention plenty of things, like the game's utterly incompetent AI that results in 0 military challenge, among other things).
Bottom line, I hope they don't take too much of the "professional" reviewers bullshit. Yes, the game needed some more polish, yes, it needed some more work, but for what it was, a non-sequel, a first spy RPG and for what it did with the dialogue system alone, it was just fine. Mass Effect was similarly shitty with certain systems (I'd say it was far worse actually) and was hailed one of the greatest games of all time and ME2 rightly fixed a lot of the issues. I've got a feeling Alpha Protocol would've done the same, if it wasn't for the blooody reviewers.
That is unfair. Bethesda has the same problems Obsidian has and then some.Irridium said:Not to mention those same reviewers glossing right over Oblivion and Fallout 3's metric fuck-ton of bugs, flaws, and ass stories.Vrach said:For the most part, the same fuckwit reviewers said absolutely nothing of Civilization V's bugs, crashes and other shit, a lot of which was non-system specific, happening to everyone, instead giving it a green light and praising every fucking feature in the game based on a hour's playthrough of some 1% of the game's content (and neglecting to mention plenty of things, like the game's utterly incompetent AI that results in 0 military challenge, among other things).
Bottom line, I hope they don't take too much of the "professional" reviewers bullshit. Yes, the game needed some more polish, yes, it needed some more work, but for what it was, a non-sequel, a first spy RPG and for what it did with the dialogue system alone, it was just fine. Mass Effect was similarly shitty with certain systems (I'd say it was far worse actually) and was hailed one of the greatest games of all time and ME2 rightly fixed a lot of the issues. I've got a feeling Alpha Protocol would've done the same, if it wasn't for the blooody reviewers.
It pisses me off that Bethesda gets a pass from everyone for their buggy-ass games, yet Obsidian always gets the shit torn out of them for it.
Selvec said:Whatever reviewers your looking at, they need a good kick in the ass. Alpha Protocol had some issues, but it had even more potential. This is kinda the game you want a sequel for. A game that actually has promise towards a better game. A game in which the issues where glaringly obvious, but had enough questions and future potential that a second game will not be some dry tacked on mess like most sequels.
If Obsidian makes Alpha Protocol 2, it has the potential to be what Baldurs Gate 2 was to Baldurs Gate 1. A true sequel that improves in every way upon the first game.
The key word here is potential people.
this.LiquidGrape said:Excuse me, but I think what you meant to say was...etherlance said:Another Alpha Protocol?...........................
*negative snip*