Alpha Protocol vs Fallout: New Vegas (Avellone vs Sawyer)

[Metro]

It's amazing how much Codex overrates the writing in New Vegas. Not that AP is better.

 

[Xor]

I don't think the comparison is really fair - MCA came in halfway through the development of AP, while Sawyer was on FNV from the beginning (as far as I know). Plus FNV had a complete engine, assets, tools, etc out the gate, while AP was done entirely from scratch. So under those circumstances it's not really surprising that AP is a barely playable mess, while FNV is more polished and has a lot more content.

I still like both games.

Edit: 7000th post. It only took me 7 years.

 

[Infinitron]

Well, AP had a complete Unreal Engine 3.

 

[Xor]

It's still a big hurdle to go from a generic engine to a playable game.

 

[baturinsky]

It's amazing how much Codex overrates the writing in New Vegas. Not that AP is better.

It's not about individual dialogues, it's about tying the world together.

 

[Commissar Draco]

Although I LIKE ALPHA PROTOCOL THIS MUCH Ι Ι have to admit that NV was definitely a better game overall,apart from the dialogues/c&c everything else in AP ranged from mediocre to shit

Commissar agrees; the NPC and C&C were perfect in Alpha Popamole but the was meh. NVN with all its horrors spawned from Behthpizda ''engine'' was far more enjoyable to actually play and had some good C&C and story too... So voted FNV cause our court Jew forgot to add kingcomrade.

 

[Sykar]

Well, AP had a complete Unreal Engine 3.

Nothing beats Gamebryo engine.

 

[Viata]

Nothing beats Gamebryo engine.

I don't know if you are making fun of Gamebryo, but Gamebryo is a good engine. Catherine, El Shaddai and Bully are good games and the engine didn't make it bad. It's just Bethesda's fault for making bad games under Gamebryo. It's like blaming the tool when the carpenter is just plain bad.

 

[Infinitron]

I liked how Feargus, in his Matt Chat interview, decided without being prompted to spend a few minutes basically telling people to shut the fuck up about how "Gamebryo sucks" because they have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Not a good pair of games to compare directly. AP was a glorious falure (though I loved it) - genuine innovation, brilliant in some aspects and an attempt to create something outside the stock game-design templates. The kind of game where you'd expect there to be several failed attempts over the years before someone else (who can use those prior failures as stepping stones) creates a successful game in its image. FO:NV was a 'slamdunk' - a safe but very well executed crpg - did nothing to push the boundaries of the genre, but took an existing template, learnt from the errors of prior iterations and produced a very good game as a result.

 

[Roguey]

I don't remember level scaling in KOTOR2. Some of the toughest battles for me were on Telos, right near the start of the game, when you crash land on the battle and have to steal a shuttle to take to Atris' academy.

The easiest fights were at the end of the game (Onderon if you leave it until last, as I always do - and the Sith Academy on Malachor V), you can just walk through those spamming nothing but Force Storm (and use your lightsaber on single targets).

They fucked up. http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...with-old-man-davis.83113/page-22#post-2798098

Each area of the game, upon first entering it, is stocked with treasures appropriate for the player's level.
...
Upon entering an area for the first time, the difficulty levels for all placed creatures are scaled based on the player's level.
...
The auto-balancing system was less successful in achieving its goals. We achieved complete play-through of the game only shortly before our gold date and were unable to evaluate issues like gamebalance until it was too late to make many changes. As a result, we erred on the side of making the game too easy and, therefore, largely undermined the potential of auto-balancing as a tool to provide a consistently challenging experience.

Jesus Christ. Are you saying that Obsidian actually took a modern Bioware game and dumbed it down? And this is a developer people entrusted with millions of dollars to make an IE sequel.....

Josh Sawyer didn't work there at the time.

I don't know if you are making fun of Gamebryo, but Gamebryo is a good engine. Catherine, El Shaddai and Bully are good games and the engine didn't make it bad. It's just Bethesda's fault for making bad games under Gamebryo. It's like blaming the tool when the carpenter is just plain bad.

Larian's work with gamebryo was garbage too.

I get the impression that Gamebryo, like Unity, is good for developers, lousy for end-users.

 

[Lhynn]

Everyone who voted for AP should take a long, hard look at himself. Don't let Roguey's unsightliness sway your judgement.

I voted based on the fun factor mostly, i have replayed AP 7 times, and not a second in it is boring or a bad time, never have i left a run incomplete and sometimes ive done up to 3 replays in a row.
Its just that fucking fun.
It does have to do with personal tastes tho, i really dont mind playing a shitty shooter as long as it lets me get creative with the encounters. I dont mind shitty animations when im perfectly happy with a game that features none. I dont mind the graphics and the glitches. Everything else just hits the sweet spot.

NV has a lot of good times, but it also has plenty of banal shit boring hours of gameplay.

 

[Azalin]

Not a good pair of games to compare directly. AP was a glorious falure (though I loved it) - genuine innovation, brilliant in some aspects and an attempt to create something outside the stock game-design templates. The kind of game where you'd expect there to be several failed attempts over the years before someone else (who can use those prior failures as stepping stones) creates a successful game in its image. FO:NV was a 'slamdunk' - a safe but very well executed crpg - did nothing to push the boundaries of the genre, but took an existing template, learnt from the errors of prior iterations and produced a very good game as a result.

AP was a flawed gem,the thing is that the innovative parts were the good parts that most people liked and gave the "gem" part,the "flawed" part came from the parts that were done better in a dozen other games before and after AP(combat,sneaking,etc)

 

[Lord Andre]

AP was an awesome shitty action game. I was engaged all up to the retarded end dungeon.

In NV, while it was fun derping around for the first part of the game, once I could take deathclaws and cazadores with impunity it started to get boring. At that point I looked to the story for engagement but there was none to be had. In front of me lay a long march of killing my way through fetch quests/Legion/NCR until I was the last man standing. Boring.

I see a lot of people praising the writing, NPCs and characters in NV. I don't agree. It's not that it's shit, it's just that it's kind of dry. Very, very dry.

In conclusion I would say AP is more entertaining while NV is a better a game.

As a side note, the problem I have with NV, I also have with wasteland 2, midway through the game, combat is no longer a challenge and the story gets too derpy/obvious for me to give a fuck.

 

[Tigranes]

Alpha Protocol 2 will beat both games down to the ground, and you know it!

 

[Bubbles]

The Fallout 3 / New Vegas combat system was so awful that I could never in good conscience support it. Would've been better off as a point and click adventure.

As a side note, the problem I have with NV, I also have with wasteland 2, midway through the game, combat is no longer a challenge and the story gets too derpy/obvious for me to give a fuck.

I think New Vegas has some flashes of good writing, but WL2 keeps swinging between mediocre and eye-gougingly awful right from the start. If we had a "biggest disappointment" poll for 2014, I'd vote for WL2.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I LIKED ALPHA PROTOCOL THIS MUCH

 

[Gozma]

The VA in New Vegas is so damn bad it's hard to feel how good the baseline writing is. Like, Dead Money feels a thousand times better writing-wise than the main game, but it's mostly because the VA was not done by z-grade Bethesda shitters.

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

new vegas obviously

Alpha Protocol sucks this much

 

[Sykar]

AP was an awesome shitty action game. I was engaged all up to the retarded end dungeon.

In NV, while it was fun derping around for the first part of the game, once I could take deathclaws and cazadores with impunity it started to get boring. At that point I looked to the story for engagement but there was none to be had. In front of me lay a long march of killing my way through fetch quests/Legion/NCR until I was the last man standing. Boring.

I see a lot of people praising the writing, NPCs and characters in NV. I don't agree. It's not that it's shit, it's just that it's kind of dry. Very, very dry.

In conclusion I would say AP is more entertaining while NV is a better a game.

As a side note, the problem I have with NV, I also have with wasteland 2, midway through the game, combat is no longer a challenge and the story gets too derpy/obvious for me to give a fuck.

Well it did take place in the Mojave desert.

 

[Paul_cz]

Both games are incredible, but New Vegas is Fallout. And open world. Much more my style.

 

[Average Manatee]

New Vegas is the better game, but in terms of the level of actual accomplishment I have to give the edge to Alpha Protocol. Reason being that AP is an entirely new game that tried something a bit different, while NV is the definition of that almost couldn't have gone wrong from a codex perspective.

 

[Infinitron]

A follow-up to Fallout 3 from the same publisher using the same engine almost couldn't have gone wrong?

 

[Average Manatee]

I believe the codex requirement for NV to be viewed positively can be summed up as "Fallout 3 but in a completely different location with no connection to Fallout 3 and with less overall dumb/lore rape". That's about it.

No one expected amazing shooting mechanics, or a completely new engine that isn't shit, or great visuals. Those were already set in stone from the start and therefore something that NV wouldn't really be judged on since Obsidian had no hand in them. If anything Obsidian/NV is given credit for improving some of these things in minor ways even if they are still pretty bad. Meanwhile Alpha Protocol was an entirely new game, and it IS judged harshly based on these criteria.

 

[Bubbles]

A follow-up to Fallout 3 from the same publisher using the same engine almost couldn't have gone wrong?

We had a poll on this:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/anonymous-fallout-3-poll.50868/