FedericoV wrote...
Realmzmaster wrote...
Alpha Protocol is a brilliant game in your humble opinion. Unfortunately, many did not share your opinion. It is like DA2, which I enjoyed nonetheless.
Yes, it's a positive opinion just like your previous negative ones. I guess we're even 
.
Btw, who are those "many" who disliked AP? The many critics, the same critics who incensed DA2 and ME3 knowing that they were just lying about those games and lied about Obsidian's AP and FO:NV too ****ing about bugs (then giving a perfect score to Skyrim who has lot more bugs than those games, just like anything Bethesda). Last time I cheked, the user score for AP in Metacritic was way higher than DA2 (and even ME3).
The critics have killed AP before it has a chance: but the people who have actually played it (don't take it as a loaded question, just curiosity: have you played it?) know that the game is way better than what the "professional reviewer" (LOL) have to say on the matter.
The difference between DA2 and AP is quite simple (in my experience, off course): AP has a soul while DA2 has not. The way both games were designed, produced, marketed and released explains everything. AP was played by very few people because of bad reviews and most people who have played it, actually liked it. DA2 was played by a lot of people thanks to marketing and hype, the critics "strangely" have helped it but most people who have played it, actually did not liked it a lot.
I played AP and thought it was terrible. Fortunately, I didn't waste much money since I got it cheap on a Steam sale.
My problems boil down to these:
1.
Control Issues -- AP was really designed with a gamepad in mind. It works with the mouse-and-keyboard, but only barely. The controls just aren't very responsive and seem awkward.
2.
Hacking -- The hacking mini-game is atrocious. It's blindingly hard to see what's happening and it's difficult beyond reason. I've read that most people recommend using a gamepad while sitting back a few feet to complete it.
Why should I do that? I bought a PC game and I expect to play it like a PC game. That means sitting at a normal distance in front of my monitor and using the mouse-and-keyboard. If I'd wanted a console experience, I'd play games on a console.
3.
Save Game Options -- This game doesn't let you manually save wherever and whenever you want. It doesn't even do quicksave, if I recall correctly. Instead, it's an RPG where only checkpoints and save points are used.
That's insane. RPGs are long games, especially when decisions are involved. I rarely replay games, so I have no intention of replaying the entire game simply to get a different result. I expect to save the game and load it to try out different choices. Plus, without the ability to save, it stifles exploration. I won't try new and different approaches if dying means having to redo the last 30 minutes of gameplay.
No, the lack of a manual save doesn't make the game more challenging, it simply makes it more frustrating. The ability to save should be there. If someone doesn't want it, then they can simply avoid using it.
There's no reason to remove usability options under the guise of "making it challenging." That's something to do with gameplay itself, not disabling a feature of the hardware.
4.
Dialogue -- You have a very limited window in which to respond to people when in a discussion. Some people might like this, but I certainly don't.
I want to think over what they said and respond carefully. I don't have time to do that if I have to pick a choice immediately.
Yeah, some people might say it's more realistic, but so would limiting the player to one life, where if they die, there's no continuing on. In other words, realism often takes a backseat to gameplay. This is, after all, a game, which is intended to be entertaining. If I want the constraints of real life, I don't need to buy a game.
Modifié par DeadPoolMK, 20 avril 2012 - 05:02 .
Retour en haut
