Metareview: Alpha Protocol

Isn't it weird that the comment above me commented on the post 26 minutes before the post was even out?

I used to do that all the time when they'd put up the galleries before the articles themselves and the galleries would link to the unpublished articles.

Destructoid makes me cringe. They can't write one serious article, the lot of 'em.

Really, MrESC? They gave Henry Hatsworth a 9.5/10, and were almost set to throw it on their games of the year list last year. I wouldn't throw Henry Hatsworth into the same mainstream trash piles that are Madden and MW2.

Destructoid does emotional outbursts. Not reviews.

"Destructoid is like a reverse of Kotaku..."

In that it's of decent quality and its bloggers aren't hacks?

I think Destructoid is way too goofy -- like a video game blog cum FX sitcom. On the other hand, Kotaku is the second coming of N4G and GameFAQs.

Low scores is one thing, but I find a 2/10 very hard to believe. It's a rare and special breed of game that's actually THAT bad. I'm sure Alpha Protocol doesn't really warrant a score that low.

My thoughts exactly!

Also, Jim Sterling is a whore. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I swear that dude is bipolar or something. He's like the Kim Jong-Il of video game journalism.

Me too, I'll try it for myself, no one should rely purely on critics reviews.

"He's like the Kim Jong-Il of video game journalism."

That just made my day.

Everytime I look at Sterling's avatar, I want to punch it. Even in his avatar, he looks like a huge douche.

Yeah me too, I was like a Castle? WTF, More like the White House.

I agree. He even said that "those ideas are even well executed on the whole." You'd think that would mean the castle would be made of stone, not crap.

"well executed on the whole" definitely doesn't warrant a 2/10... these guys are on crack.

Bah, typos. Meant to say "very few people in the press have acknowledged that".

Regardless of how I feel about the game, it is pretty sad how many people make their decisions based off what a reviewer says.

@cleric: This is very true, and that is why I referred to it as the reviews industry, since it serves the purpose of advertising far more than it does of informing. There are plenty of games that I love which have received mixed reviews (S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Arcanum, Overlord II, Deus Ex: Invisible War), and while I acknowledge their faults, often they have strengths that make up for those downsides.

I haven't played Alpha Protocol, so it's possible it really is a stinker... but I have a lot of faith in Obsidian. They have made some great games in the past, hampered by a lack of budget in almost all cases, but where it matters most for the RPG genre - good writing, deep and balanced skill systems, and replayability - they always excel. Living in a world of "RPGs" designed for instant gratification (I'm looking at you Fallout 3), I'm more than happy to take some technical issues and wonky character animation if it means getting a game which does not insult my intelligence.

@Mr.ESC: I'm not sure about rushed to shelves, but it's definitely true that Obsidian typically have to contend with tight deadlines and a lack of funding. That their games turn out the way they do is pretty impressive.

Frankly, I think it's pretty telling that all of the RPG-related sites I trust to give good reviews have realistically assessed the game with regard to what it attempts to do, rather than comparing it to other shooters.

As for Mass Effect 2... it's a solid game, but it's not an RPG, and frankly the story is a total mess when you stop to think about it. While moment-to-moment it's a lot of fun and well-done, it feels like all parts of the game were constructed individually, then stuffed haphazardly into an overarching frame, resulting in what could be accurately described as a bit of a mess. Characters who make totally illogical decisions or have unclear motives, inconsistency with the first game, lack of any real need to have Shepard in the first place (he was only special in the first game because of his Prothean visions, now he might as well be Generic Space Marine #42) and both an intro and ending that basically nullify the existence of Mass Effect 2... it's kind of disappointing the plot is so poor even though they improved the gameplay so much.

I completely agree with everything you guys are saying...

But this game still looks terrible!

"frankly the story is a total mess when you stop to think about it. While moment-to-moment it's a lot of fun and well-done, it feels like all parts of the game were constructed individually, then stuffed haphazardly into an overarching frame, resulting in what could be accurately described as a bit of a mess. Characters who make totally illogical decisions or have unclear motives,"

Wow, sea, sounds like you're talking about Heavy Rain there.

Sea,

Wow. You've certainly managed to dumb down the accomplishments of Mass Effect 2. Sure. One could say Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG in the traditional sense, and many would agree that that's one of it's greatest strengths: it totally re-defines the genre and actually focuses on (gasp) *playing a role* and not arbitrary stat-tracking and level-grinding which has come to define RPGs.

As for the story, I agree that it is definitely inferior to the first game. However the primary objective of the game was to make the player forge a bond with his crewmates that most other games can only hope to attain. The game is all about the characters, the overarching plot is, as you mentioned, just there to tie everything together, but the journey to the conclusion is the main draw of the game and I think many would agree that it succeeds in that regard.

As for Shepard's role I think you're grossly marginalizing his importance to the entire story of the Mass Effect universe. His importance lies in his ability to command loyalty and respect from his allies to point where they're willing to walk to the depths of hell with him (word to Miranda): a trait few possess, as well as the fact that he's a beacon for the galaxy and living proof that the reapers can be defeated, *that* is his role in the game and if you think that a simple generic space marine could fill in for the role he fills then that's on you.

Is it perfect? No. Are there plot holes and some weak characters? Sure. But on a whole the Mass Effect universe is more well-constructed and executed than 95% of any ficitional world created in any visual medium today, especially in the video game industry. It's easy to sit down and pick something apart, but luckily we don't play games in pieces and chunks, it's all about the end result and the entire package and how well the parts combine to make a rememberable and, most importantly, *fun* experience.

/mass effect fanboy rant

@embassy: I appreciate your comment, but I'd like to respectfully disagree with a few of those points.

1) I don't know about you, but I have a more traditional definition of RPG than most gamers. For me, RPGs are games based upon board games like Dungeons & Dragons, with abstract statistics to quantify character abilities, and a strong emphasis on player choice (solving situations in multiple ways through the intuitive use of said abilities). That doesn't mean that I exclude anything that's not turn-based, but I wouldn't consider Mass Effect 2 an RPG, and even the original Mass Effect isn't much of an RPG. Both feature highly linear storylines with one fixed path through them (choosing which of the 4 missions to take does not make the game non-linear), there is usually only one way to solve a situation, there is almost no use of non-combat skills outside of dialogue, and the player can't come up with creative ways to fix problems. The "you play a role" definition is totally ridiculous, because a) you play a role in every game, and b) BioWare has repeatedly stated that in Mass Effect, their goal was to create a very specific character, rather than one the player can mould from scratch.

2) As I said, moment-to-moment, Mass Effect 2 is great. The dialogue is excellent, the character arcs are often touching, and it features far more interesting party members than the first game. I think BioWare did a really good job, especially on Jack and Mordin. However, the problem with these characters is that they aren't really necessary for the story. The game is supposed to be about stopping the Collectors, but it's really about solving X's problem so X will help you with your problem. All of the characters, while interesting, either have past connections to Shepard, or are being paid in some way for their work, so it's not like their own stories even have any connection to the overarching plot. What could have been a great space opera about a bunch of unlikely heroes who decide to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, ended up being a mishmash of well-written, but self-contained stories.

3) Shepard was only really special in the first Mass Effect because the Prothean Beacon exploded and he was the only/ and/or last one who was able to retain, and later understand, all of its data. In Mass Effect 2 he's a hero for saving the Citadel, but as a character he never grows or changes throughout the story, and in fact, he really isn't needed at all - especially since the Illusive Man makes it pretty clear right from the get go that hired guns are totally acceptable for the mission. If they're on a fat payroll, why does Shepard need to be there? The loyalty mechanic is interesting, but it makes more sense if loyalty needs to be gained before they're hired on, not after - I'm not sure why daddy issues would get in the way of being able to hack a computer fast enough; these are supposed to be the most elite soldiers in the galaxy after all.

While the "war hero" angle definitely makes sense in the right context, it's not handled that well and it never really comes up in actually recruiting any squad members. And, of course, Shepard never gains any new abilites, never changes as a character, and never factors into the story at all except that he/she just happens to be The Protagonist. While I'm not saying he/she needs to be The Chosen One or anything, having some sort of genuine character development is important to making us care about the hero. It's not a good thing if your supporting cast is full of significantly more interesting people than your protagonist.

There's a difference between a strategy title where math is king, and a game that pretends to let your skill running a controller matter. It's always annoying to be centered on a perfect headshot, and just miss.

@MLS
Yeah that "bullseye! oops you missed" is in VC. Sometimes enemies will even straight up dodge your attacks even if you are in front of them at point blank range and shoot them. Protip:if you want a sure fire way to get a head shot don't let the enemy see you.

I don't mean to discourage you though. I'm halfway through the game myself and I just love the strategy mixed with first person shooting. The characters are good and the story is extremely well-done. The story doesn't come off as cheesy or corny at all. That's not to say that the "bullseye! oops you missed" thing you talked about doesn't taint the experience at all. It will be frustrating at times , but overall that game generally kicks ass. :)

IDK they had that in Fallout3 too, and I didn't mind.

Never let things come down to "if I miss I'm screwed" in Valkyria Chronicles, because those are often the times when you'll miss. Always give yourself a way out.


Oh, and in case you missed it like I did, you can put multiple people together and they'll all attack at once. I beat 99% of the game before figuring this out (the last boss is impossible without doing it, or at least I couldn't find a way). Just make sure they are close together when you try to attack a boss or a higher level enemy.

I always like to think that gaming is maturing as a medium, and that we're starting to ask better questions about what games mean, and less about how subjectively "good" they are... then I read what the mainstream press has to say and have my faith shattered. Bravo, Destructoid, your magnificent prose and sharp wit will be heralded for ages yet to come.

It's not just the press...

http://www.cracked.com/article_18571_5-reasons-its-still-not-cool-to-admit-youre-gamer.html

@Acosta02

is that you Deagleer? a Live freind of mine just sent me this link over Xbox Live a few days ago. Great article, and unfortunately very true.

I like gamers like you. Seeks games that appeal to their interests rather than what the reviewer thinks.

It's perfectly fine to seek out your game that appeals to your interests, but when the reviews almost unanimously say that a game is bad, feels rushed, and they barely had fun with it, why would you drop $45 for that game? Rent it first if you are inclined to play it, but reviewers play bad games so you don't have to.

No thanks. You can avoid your review lesson, Teacher Ryuk.

I often have a very acquired taste and that taste often leads me to enjoy games that were panned by paid reviewers. I see a good many reviews for Alpha Protocol that are 7+, which is a very good rating. Why should I only listen to the reviews that shit on a game? I'm not that dumb. I see mixed reviews, I try something for myself. And sometimes I find a game I'm glad I didn't miss out on, warts and all (like I said). I have the cash to do so, so I'll take my hands on time over your hands off time, no offense. Also, my local rental stores (ie: Blockbuster) rarely get games in, and on the odd chance that they do, it's always out. I simply don't have the time to run to and from the rental store to see if they get a copy back in. I'll spend the $45 and be done with it. If I like it, like some reviewers have, then good. If I don't like it, like some reviewers have, then that's fine.

At least I tried it and I can afford to take a risk. And I'd rather take a risk than take none at all. But hey, I live on the edge, Ryuk. I'm just too XTREME for some people.

Special Agent Steve,

I can't speak for everyone but I definitely put a lot of stock in to reviews because unfortunately for me $60 is a lot to invest in a product, so I have to be very judicious with my purchasing decisions.

I wish I could just pick up every game that interested me, reviews be damned, but that isn't the case for many people. 60 buck is 60 buks and if I see a general consensus from sources/outlets and people I trust/respect (such as the 'Stiq), I have to take that into heavy consideration.

So I guess my point is that not everyone who primarily follows reviews for thier purchasing decisions is doing so strictly as lemmings.

@ Embassy
Oh not, I complete agree that reviewers offer an insight to the game that allows one to make a smarter investment. But a lot of people ARE lemmings that blindly follow the review system. I preorder most games that interest me, mainly for Amazon bonuses, but I still buy what appeals to me. Red Dead Redemption could've been a flop- it appeared rushed and quickly contrived, but I still kept my pre-order because I love Western, old gun slinging games. So, yeah, reviews should be looked at, but not depended on. There are tons of amazing games that only got OK reviews.

I'm with you, I enjoy reading reviews but in the end, I like to form my own, first hand opinion of a game. If I went strictly off of Meta scores, I never would have played White Knight Chronicles and I absolutely loved that game.

I never really had high hopes for Alpha Protocol and I understand after reading many reviews that it is a technical mess. But I want to play a spy RPG and there simply isn't a lot of options in that department. I did cancel my Amazon pre-order in favor of the Kmart deal though.