Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Prestigious site Destructoid confers a 6/10 on Witcher 2

sgc_meltdown

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
6,000
I will now quote the entire article so our outraged potato comrades have the option of not visiting the site.
Go google for it if you want.

The Witcher 2, like its predecessor, is certainly a unique game. While it bears all the trappings of a roleplaying game, its twenty-five hours of gameplay are structured more like a linear action games with a smattering of optional material. It's a strange setup, but it's far from the oddest example of design contained within this odd creature. In fact, little about this game makes much sense, when one considers just how contradictory it is.

The first thing you'll notice with The Witcher 2 is that its combat is utterly ridiculous. Roleplaying games always risk sporting an imbalanced fighting system that sees a game get easier as the player levels up, but nowhere has this problem been more prevalent than here. Geralt of Rivia, the titular Witcher, starts off pathetically weak and unable to properly defend himself, an issue that's not helped by the broken targeting system, unresponsive controls, and the aggressive enemies that surround our hero and attack from all angles -- you can't even parry multiple enemies without unlocking it on the character skill chart, and even then it doesn't always work.

Yet, by the time the game ends, you'll be cleaving through enemies like butter. If you spam your shield spell and unlock finishing moves, regular fights go from almost impossible to an insulting joke. It seems CD Projekt couldn't strike the right balance between character development and challenge, so just didn't bother. This is evidenced in the boss fights, which often rely on guesswork in order to beat, as players figure out the one convoluted, obscure strategy required in order to win. There's no challenge in that, it's just throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks.

Witcher 2's combat system tries to pass itself off as a deep, tactical experience in which you separate enemies and deftly counter attacks. A noble endeavor, but it just doesn't work. From the outset, Geralt has access to a variety of spells of both the offensive and defensive variety, as well as various potions and bombs that can be crafted with the right ingredients, so he has quite a few tricks up his sleeve. However, enemies are so keen on bum-rushing the player, surrounding him, and striking from the back that all strategy flies out of the window once melee actually begins. The way enemies behave runs utterly counter to the way Geralt fights.

Not to mention, our Witching hero relies on potions to bump up his endurance and attack, but they can only be drank out of combat, which requires players to be clairvoyant and assume when they're needed. You'll soon learn that player speculation is a big part of The Witcher 2, in both combat and quests. Much of the game is more a case of, "Try to guess what the developers were thinking," than anything involving skill or intelligence.

CD Projekt seems to love telling players to do something, but not how to do it. Never has a game's manual been so important. From simple things like arm wrestling to more important thing like finding an unmarked objective on the map, the game is dreadful at providing player feedback.

After so much bitching, you'll be expecting me to say that The Witcher 2 is a terrible game and ... it isn't. It simply requires a huge amount of effort to get into. If you can crack through the game's tortuous opening hours until Geralt bulks up and stick with the dry, uninspiring narrative, you'll find a game that manages to hit a fair few crescendos and provides the occasional thrilling battle. My biggest problem is that the rewards are disproportionately small compared to the immense struggle it takes to enjoy the game -- a struggle in which Assasins of Kings will fight you every step of the way.

It's not a poorly made game in the least. As far as European roleplaying titles go, this is absolutely the best example one could hope to find. The combat feels fast and fluid once Geralt is strong enough and, depending on your choices, the second of the game's three chapters can be an incredible experience with a thrilling conclusion. Witcher 2 can be experienced multiple times with different stories, due to decisions that affect how the entire game plays out, and the adult nature of the narrative -- which doesn't skimp on the brutality, swearing, and sex -- might not exactly be mature, but can at least amuse in spite of the overall plot's dull nature. Oh, and strangely I even like the quick-time-event sections, especially the hand-to-hand brawls, which manage to be quite exciting in spite of their QTE nature.

When all's said and done, however, one cannot help but feel unsatisfied, like the aggravation of the game's opening chapter and the brevity of the third just doesn't do enough to make the game worth playing. I don't think I'd have completed this title, or even bothered playing for more than hour, if I wasn't writing a review. I value my time too much to waste it on a game that tries its hardest not to be enjoyed.

The issue of reward vs. hassle is typified in the game's quest objectives, which are all subject to flagrant heaps of backtracking and repetition, usually being of the "kill these" or "collect this" variety. Each chapter takes place in one large environment, and players will need to traipse through the same old scenery in order to complete any type of quest. The lack of "fast travel" and tendency for the game to force players back up through a dungeon after they've fought their way down adds to the boredom. Most sidequests offer up little in the way of compensation either, and can often be safely skipped without missing anything worthwhile. The extra experience points are nice, but you can usually grind the same amount through combat in with less frustration, and monetary rewards are usually of inconsequential value.

Even aside from this problem, I have a list of niggling issues that, while small on their own, add up to constant annoyance. The game struggles to make doors work properly, often forcing Geralt and NPCs to take turns opening and closing them rather than leaving it open and letting everyone through at once. The shopping menu and the crafting menu are on separate screens, and players need to back out of an entire conversation with a merchant in order to access each one. The auto-targeting system is dreadful, with Geralt constantly switching opponents halfway through attacks and diving into a group of enemies to attack a monster, while ignoring the three that were far closer. Context-sensitive commands such as looting and climbing often require the player to be stood in an exact place, and won't work if he's even an inch out of this arbitrary space. These petty grievances mount up over time, especially when they occur at such regular intervals.

The game's fun moments only make me wish that the whole game was so consistently good, but it's not. It hits high peaks fairly quickly and then sinks to a lengthy trough with equal swiftness. One moment you're carving up enemies and feeling on top of the world, the next you're running around trying to find hidden monster nests and wondering why you've bothered.

All this leads to a cliffhanger ending that makes Witcher 2 feel more like a stopgap than an actual sequel. When I look back on the totteringly paced exposition, there's really not a lot that was said or done. Two thirds of the game feel like extended sidequests, and the conclusion consequently seems rushed. Nothing of interest every really happens, and more intriguing things are only ever hinted at, never revealed.

At least it can be said that The Witcher 2 is pretty damn gorgeous. You'll likely need to make a few graphical tweaks to get a smooth framerate, but once you do, there's no denying that this is one of the best looking titles out there. The lighting and the larger, more scenic environments really hammer home how accomplished the aesthetics are. That said, there is some notable texture pop-in and laughable character animation, and clothing constantly collides with human bodies, even on NPCs who have armor that should have been designed specifically for them. It's unsettling to try and talk to a character whose shoulder pads are jammed into their face.

The sound is fairly atmopsheric, with some horrific monster noises and great music. The voice acting ranges from hilarious to embarrassing, though. Welsh accents aren't exactly the most dramatic, especially when they're attached to characters we're supposed to take seriously. As for Geralt, his voice actor still straddles the line between amusingly dry and unpleasantly emotionless.

The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings is a solid enough experience that gets better the deeper into it you get. It starts off as a deeply unsatisfying game which wants to punish players who try to enjoy it, then becomes rather endearing, with the acquisition of power and loot at least providing a traditional sense of accomplishment. When all's said and done, however, the game's high points arrive too late and provide too little. While hardcore fans will likely dive into the game and have fun, those who don't feel that they should be made for pay for a game with their patience will be put off.

At times, Assassins of Kings is good. Great, even. For the most part though, it's just okay. It does the job and wastes some time, while providing no lasting impression or unforgettable experience. There are just far more fun and intensely more rewarding ways of wasting time.


Score: 6.0 -- Alright (6s may be slightly above average or simply inoffensive. Fans of the genre should enjoy them a bit, but a fair few will be left unfulfilled.)


Note: the very same reviewer has given the very same 6/10 rating to Call of Duty: Black Ops.
The site has recently reviewed Darkspore with 7/10.

ed5ZO.jpg
: x : x : x : x : x : x : x : x : x : x : x : x
ed5ZO.jpg
 

likaq

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
1,198
Let me guess:

Jim "I'm so retarded it's no even funny" Sterling wrote this?
 

sgc_meltdown

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
6,000
likaq said:
Jim "I'm so retarded it's no even funny" Sterling wrote this?

For some reason a lot of internet people correctly guess this before even reading the article
 

Phelot

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
17,908
HAHA! I, too, guessed that this was from Jim Sterling.
 

Phelot

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
17,908
See, this is why Jim Sterling is a moron. He manages to complain about the better parts of a game while being one of the few to think the shit parts are awesome. Here, we see him complaining about the combat. OK, fair enough, but why? Because he doesn't like to be outnumbered and swarmed by enemies...

And then he goes on to tell us how he likes the fistfighting QTE...
 

Deleted member 7219

Guest
Jim Sterling is an attention-seeking weasel. Trolling just aint funny when you get paid to do it and pretend to be an honest professional.
 

J_C

One Bit Studio
Patron
Developer
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
16,947
Location
Pannonia
Project: Eternity Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
Article is shit, writer's a moron. :smug: (And this time I really mean it. There is so much stupidity in the article, that I can't take it seriously).

Read what he wrote about the combat. Then watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCjzA-C647o Did the maker of the video wrote the article?
 

Gwendo

Augur
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
989
Prestigious site? They gave Dragon Age 2 a 7/10. Sure, TW2 has its shortcomings. Some derived for being made with consoles in mind. But it's still miles ahead of Dragon Age 2. If the negatives mentioned in this review makes TW2 worth a 6, there's no way Dragon Age 2 could score the same or higher.

So there's double standards here. Maybe the reviewer wanted a more consolized game than what TW2 already is.
 

sea

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
5,698
Matt7895 said:
Jim Sterling is an attention-seeking weasel. Trolling just aint funny when you get paid to do it and pretend to be an honest professional.
This. The guy is a fucking moron and makes me want to drive a stake through my skull every time he opens his fat, dumbass mouth - and while I often use hyperbole for sarcastic effect, here I have no qualms sincerely stating that he is one of the stupidest "journalists" in the entire gaming sphere (and that is quite the title, considering how low the standards are). But hey, I guess his antics bring in more ad revenue, so fuck integrity, right?

The absurd thing is that the only complaints he has pretty much come out on account of him sucking at the game (i.e. less hand-holding for quests, having to *gasp* read the manual, not having sense to exercise caution). This idiot epitomises the console 'tard stereotype like few people can.
 

CrimsonAngel

Prophet
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
2,258
Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Retard city over there dose this all the time.

The find a game or company that is not big enough to revoke there "Preview access" and then act like they are all arty and Indy.

IF you read the review it is nothing, but a few annonyes and more about that the player alone seem to be to fucking stupid to play the game.

The targeting is not broken, it is not perfect by any stretch, but it works if you don't spam your light attack all the time like a monkey trying to get a machine to give that fat ass a treat.

HE gave DA2 a 7 and a rating of BUY IT!

What a fucking joke.
 

sgc_meltdown

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
6,000
His Dragon Age Origins review is interesting.

Ferelden's history books state that, many centuries ago, a group of mages tried to usurp Heaven and The Maker, but in doing so, unleashed an evil terror upon the world that turned them into the hated Dark Spawn -- a race of zombie-like creatures that hide underground and emerge every few centuries to instigate a "Blight" and attempt to take over the world. Standing in the way of the Dark Spawn are the Grey Wardens, an order of warriors who have remained throughout history to push the Dark Spawn horde back into hiding.

Players take on the role of the latest Grey Warden recruit, enlisted by the mysterious Duncan to face a re-merging Dark Spawn threat and its leader, The Arch Demon. Dragon Age: Origins starts with one of six completely unique stories depending on the race and background the player has chosen. One can choose to be a human noble, a mage, a Dalish elf, a city elf, a dwarven noble or a dwarven commoner. The "origin" stories themselves take at least an hour apiece to complete, and take the form of self-contained stories that manage to entertain in their own right. However, these sections are a mere taste of what comes next, as the game opens up into a massive RPG that will take at least forty hours to finish.

It has to be said that the world crafted by BioWare is absolutely wonderful. The lore is intriguing, with unique takes on the relationships between elves, dwarves and humans. The game also manages quite a few successful attempts at humor. Most importantly, however, the amount of choice in the game is superb. There are moments that really make the player think about the consequences of their actions, and many of the dilemmas give you options that are not clearly defined as "good" or "evil." It's up to the player to determine the morality of their actions, which is a great step forward for RPG gameplay.

As an experience, Dragon Age has few rivals that can stand up in comparison. It's a wonderful feeling to be immersed in the world of Ferelden and engage the numerous allied characters, such as the sarcastic Alistair or the bird-hating, misanthropic golem Shale. The main plot of the game is also remarkably interesting, full of political intrigue and moral implication that help spice up an otherwise typical "save the world from evil" narrative.

The game's combat system will be familiar to players of the Knights of the Old Republic games. Characters automatically engage in attacks while players select various skills for the characters to pull off. The game's biggest draw is the "Tactics" system, which offers a ridiculously deep set of commands and allow allied characters to act according to player specifications when not being directly controlled. Unfortunately, however, while the sheer amount of choice on offer is amazing, this bold new system also happens to be the game's biggest downfall.

It pains me to say it, but the tactics system doesn't work even half as well as BioWare would like us to think it does. For the first fifteen hours or so, players don't have to worry about it, but once the game ramps up the difficulty, allied characters gladly march into death, helped along by the fact that the A.I is pure garbage. Suddenly, players find themselves bogged down in endless and pedantic micromanagement as they blindly experiment with different tactics in a vain bid to keep allies alive. The pre-set tactics provided for players that don't like micromanagement are worthless, and require constant tweaking.

Don't get me wrong, I like tinkering with stats and playing with a game's twiddly knobs, but the tinkering is excessive in Dragon Age to the point of getting in the way of the game. It's also frustrating to spend ages trying to second-guess the game's A.I and craft a tactic set that works, only to have the allied characters continue to run around and get themselves killed.

Even worse is the fact that no amount of tactics can craft a team capable of dealing with the myriad obstacles constantly thrown at players. Be it tank-like enemy warriors that love to gang up on one player and systematically take the team down, archers that hide away and stun players with flights of arrows, or mages that can stun, freeze, drain and explode the allied party, often at once, there is too much to deal with at any given time, and players can easily be overwhelmed by the sheer clusterfuck of battle. I'd say you need a party of eight to deal with some of the huge battles in the game. Four doesn't feel like enough when twenty armed soldiers jump you and they have two mages with fireball spells backing them up.

The difficulty in Dragon Age is erratic at best and completely unbalanced at worst. Some dungeons are a breeze to get through for the first hour, and then suddenly there will be a room full of enemies that seem ludicrously powered up and completely overrun the player's team. These difficulty spikes appear randomly and without warning.

The game clearly wants to be treated like some sort of RTS, encouraging players to move allies into prime positions depending on their class. However, battles are just too chaotic and messy for any real RTS elements to shine through. This isn't helped by the fact that the only way to accurately position allies is to manually take control of them, but as soon as you give control back to the A.I, it will just carry on doing what it does best -- getting bullied by the enemy and dying within seconds. In the same way that Mass Effect tried to be a methodical shooter but put players up against fast-paced melee attackers, Dragon Age desperately wants to be a strategy game, but has made the game look, feel and play like a mindless, crazy hack n' slash.

It's worth noting that PC gamers get a more tactical perspective of battle and have access to hotkeys. These additions will surely help and make the PC game the infinitely superior choice. In comparison, the console versions cannot handle the kind of battles BioWare have created. This game probably should not have been released on the PS3 or Xbox 360. Even with the extra tools, however, the PC version still seems to suffer from many of the same problems, from what I have played of that version.

A number of other issues get in the way as well. Dragon Age is stingy on the healing items, with each shop you encounter selling maybe four or five of them and never restocking. In a game like this, where constant healing is necessary, it doesn't make sense. Skills like Herbalism let players make their own items, but of course, this requires finding the right ingredients, which can be a mission in and of itself.

The game also seems shockingly light on loot. I spent much of my game in the same armor, thanks to the fact that equipment on sale was either worthless, or required insane amounts of leveling up to acquire the strength to use. Much of the joy in RPGs comes from upgrading equipment, but the chances to do that in this game are limited until you've leveled up enough, and since it can take hours to achieve one level in Dragon Age, that's a lot of time spent in the same rusty armor.

Navigation in the game is a real bitch. I found that I often didn't want to complete some of the sub-quests, simply because it would have taken too much effort to find them. There is no compass system like in Oblivion, and many of the quests require you to simply guess where they are. If you're lucky enough to be in the same area as a quest location, you'll see a marker that directs you, but if the location is in another building or another city, good luck finding it. The World Map does not tell you where quest locations are, and marking your chosen quest as active seems to do absolutely nothing to help. The fact that quite a few quests consist of "Go to several different locations around the world and try to find where we've hidden stuff," adds insult to injury.

Compounding this is the fact that loading times can be pretty excessive as well. Traveling from city to city is a chore, and while I appreciate the fact that random encounters can sometimes happen during map travel, what I don't appreciate is the fact that such encounters require additional loading.

It sounds like I absolutely hated my time with Dragon Age, but that wouldn't be fair to say. It gave me many hours of fun, and I tried my hardest to love it. At the very least, the first fifteen hours were some of the best RPG gameplay I've enjoyed in the past few years, and that's more than can be said for most games out there. Dragon Age simply lets itself down, however, with its conflicted gameplay, imbalanced, random difficulty and poor A.I. If characters could look after themselves a little more, perhaps everything else would have been fine, but after hours of micromanagement and hair-pulling frustration, I can't say that I was sad to see the game's credits roll.

It's a real shame, because Dragon Age: Origins provides an incredibly memorable experience full of wonderful touches and beautiful flourishes. The combat system's core is robust and, with a bit more tweaking and less of a focus on tactics, could have been a truly incredible accomplishment in the RPG genre.

The game looks pretty decent, although it isn't by far the best looking game of the year. A few glitches do pop up again to truly let us know this is a BioWare game, the most common being characters that move their mouths but don't say anything. The real tragedy here is that the voice acting is pretty damn great, with characters like Shale and Alistair standing out as wonderful characters. The vocal talents of Tim Curry are criminally underutilized, however.

Dragon Age: Origins is a game that once looked set to be the best RPG of the year. It has a great story, high production values, and one of the most immersive worlds ever created in a videogame. Tragically, Origins' considerable high points have been squandered on a frustrating, unbalanced combat system, and a customizable A.I that's just too broken to adequately customize. Is Dragon Age a good game? Yes, it most assuredly is, providing an experience that will stick in the mind for a very long time. However, it is fitting that one of Origins' main themes is how seemingly good choices can have bad consequences. That message is something the game's design reinforces throughout.

You should definitely play this game if you love RPGs, and for BioWare nuts, this is an easy buy. However, its status as a classic is questionable, and I wouldn't expect this to replace anybody's favorite RPG anytime soon.


Score: 7.5 -- Good (7s are solid games that definitely have an audience. Might lack replay value, could be too short or there are some hard-to-ignore faults, but the experience is fun.)
 

sgc_meltdown

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
6,000
Hahahaha he also did their Alpha Protocol review.

If you want to save time, let's get this out in the open right now -- Alpha Protocol isn't very good. In fact, it's absolutely dreadful and it should not have been released in the state it's in. It looks and feels every bit like a game that has been subjected to patches, fixes and panicked over-development, yet still managed to hit its (perpetually postponed) deadline without being finished. Alpha Protocol is a mess, and that's putting it kindly.

The game is split fairly evenly between token RPG efforts and third-person action, although it's clear that this is far more of an action game than it is a roleplaying one. As Agent Mike Thorton, you join the ranks of the Alpha Protocol, a clichéd clandestine organization that specializes in deniable ops. The game is designed for multiple playthroughs, as the story can change with every choice you make. In this regard, Obsidian has certainly done something right. How you speak to characters, who you choose to kill, and how you perform your missions can all have an effect on the game, and for once they're effects that you can actually feel throughout the course of the game, with long-standing repercussions for your decisions.

Alpha Protocol is innovative in that you never quite know how your words and actions will alter the situation, and unlike other games, where the conversations can be influenced with charisma stats, the interactions of this particular title are determined entirely by whether you choose to be aggressive, professional, or humorous. Intuitively getting a feel for the situation and the temperament of NPCs takes precedence over shallow and meaningless dialog choices perpetuated by other RPGs. In the background, Alpha Protocol is still taking you through formulaic and preordained conversations, but the illusion of a natural choice and flowing conversation is crafted surprisingly well. In terms of the way a story is told, Alpha Protocol is a success.

However, Alpha Protocol's story never gets very interesting, rendering all the clever narrative tricks rather worthless. The characters aren't compelling in the least, the narrative is convoluted and feels completely alienated from the overall experience, and Agent Thorton himself is a rather dull character who doesn't seem to change all that much regardless of your dialog choices. Frankly, he comes across as a moronic dick no matter how you "choose" to play him. Great news for moronic dicks everywhere, but bad news for anybody else.

With a narrative and characters that have all the dimensions of a sheet of paper, the game really needs to rely on its thrilling spy action to remain interesting. That reliance is soon revealed to be a terrible, terrible mistake. It's difficult to describe just how bad the game is, because it's one of those things so unbelievably abominable that one has to experience it for oneself. However, since playing this game is not recommended, I'll certainly try and evoke the putridity of the gameplay in text.

First of all, enemy AI is an astonishing shambles, almost to the point of being impressive. Opponents run around with seemingly no direction whatsoever, apart from the ones who will charge directly into your bullets because they want to punch you in the face. No joke, one in three enemies want to do nothing but punch you in the face. He won't fire his gun, he'll just sprint towards you, dodging from left to right like a headless chicken, then he'll punch you in the face -- once -- and slowly back away, shooting you. It makes absolutely no sense, and yet it seems to have been deliberately programmed into the game's AI because that's all the enemy soldiers ever want to do. That is, when they're not conjuring up endless grenades to spam with alarming regularity.

There is a cover system, but it doesn't work. Most of the time the enemies will just shoot through the cover and kill you, and it's also impossible to tell what works as cover and what doesn't. Some surfaces can't be hidden behind, but you won't know until you try, soaking up extra damage in the process. Once you do find cover, you then have to hope Thorton will actually stick to it, and later you'll hope that he unsticks when you want to move on. It's very much a "touch and go" situation as to whether or not Thorton will behave the way you want him to. In other words, Thorton will decide when he wants to pretend he's in a competent third-person-shooter, not you.

The game is supposedly able to be played one of three ways -- using stealth, using brute force, and using gadgets. Stealth is no good because the enemy AI is so unpredictable and spotty, not to mention the useless camera and poor graphics make spotting enemies ahead of time difficult, and the complete lack of hiding places negates the idea of sneaking around. The gadgets are a cool idea, but nothing too innovative, and playing strictly as a gadget-based character mostly means throwing grenades around. That leaves you with a combat-oriented character, but combat is so crap that it's not really very fun.

It seems as if Obsidian tried to mix RPG combat with real-time shooting action, and it doesn't really work (what a surprise!). All it means is that sometimes the guns will miss even if the reticule is dead on target. You can stay still and watch the reticule close in an enemy for a critical shot, but the opponents are running around like the aforementioned decapitated poultry, so good luck with that. Steadying one's aim is next to impossible with the insane characters who are either running towards you, running in circles, or running nowhere, with Thorton stuck in the middle of this chimp's tea party surrounded by grenade spam and broken cover systems.

A big deal is made of the close quarters combat, but I don't know why because it's terrible. It consists simply of mashing one button and hoping for the best, especially as there's no targeting system for melee attacks and Thorton will frequently just punch the air in front of an enemy's face while they shoot the crap out of him. Unfortunately, it's almost essential to keep upgrading Thorton's melee skills because of those enemies who are obsessed with punching him.

When not dealing with a ruined combat system, players can have the action completely broken up by an overabundance of lockpicking and hacking minigames. You'll be pleased to know that they are the worst lockpicking and hacking minigames ever developed. The lockpicking, for example, forces players to gently squeeze one trigger/shoulder button to put a very tiny lock in place, then push the other trigger to set it. They need to do this multiple times with an absurdly strict time limit in place and it is twice as frustrating as it sounds. Sometimes the locks won't work, either, meaning you have to cancel out of the minigame and get back into it to reset things. At first the lockpicking is not so bad, but as the game goes on, you have more locks and less time on the clock.

Hacking is very much the same situation. Too much to do, and not enough time to do it in. Code cracking involves a grid full of rapidly changing symbols, except for two codes hidden within that remain the same, almost like a wordsearch. Players have to move two code overlays across the grid, but if they're too slow, the codes move elsewhere on the grid and need to be found again. Not only that, but the overlays move across the grid so slowly that even if you find the codes in time, there's no guarantee you'll get the overlay in place before it moves. All of this must be done before an overall time limit runs out. As with lockpicking, this already convoluted system becomes stricter and more difficult as time goes on, to the point where most sane players will give up entirely and ignore all hacking.

As if that wasn't enough, there's another form of hacking, mostly used for door locks and alarms. In this system, players must match corresponding numbers by following a short maze between the two figures. The maze paths can intertwine meaning that quick eyes and swift action are required. Out of all the minigames, this one isn't half bad, but don't worry, they find a way to screw it all up. Basically, the game thinks it's frightfully clever to increase the amount of numbers that need matching without adequately increasing the time limit. As soon as you see an alarm with ten numbers that need matching, just forget it, because it's not doable. The time limit is simply too short and the controls are too slugging and slow to deal with it. Not only that, but you can't rush the game because any mismatched number will shorten the already too short time limit.

In fairness, there are stats you can level up to make these minigames less abysmal and easier to d eal with, but Alpha Protocol masquerades as a game about choice, and if you choose not to max these stats out, you will basically be screwed over later on. You're never warned just how abundant these minigames are, with a new lock to pick or computer to hack appearing literally every five minutes, usually in clusters. Basically, if you want to enjoy Alpha Protocol at all, you need to max those stats or face hours upon hours of locked doors and untouchable computers that will reward your efforts with nothing but misery and rage. Choice is an illusion.

Alpha Protocol's RPG elements aren't half as bad as the combat and general gameplay. Thorton can be customized in a number of cool ways, from his personal history to his various skills and proficiencies. Gaining skills in different guns won't just increase his damage with them, but they will confer unique special abilities, accuracy upgrades, and critical hit chances. Thorton's actions during the game will also result in special perks that will stick with him throughout the game. Damage bonuses, health upgrades and more can all be won simply by talking to somebody in a certain way, or choosing to spare and end different lives. If Alpha Protocol has managed to do one thing in a new and impressive way, it's weaving an RPG experience throughout an action game, rather than keeping the two elements completely distinct from one another. It's just a shame that such clever and thoughtful development is wasted in this complete travesty of a videogame.

As with any good RPG, there are all sorts of special skills and buffs that can be unlocked while leveling up Thorton. It's a shame that very few of them are actually useful, though. Generally, you'll find one or maybe two special skills and stick with them, especially since selecting gadgets and skills requires pausing the game to bring up a radial menu in order to select what you want and then going back into the game and pressing a different button to use it. Most games, better games, just let you automatically activate a skill from the radial menu itself, but Alpha Protocol isn't a good game, so you have this pointless little process to go through instead.

Speaking of pointless processes, the mission selection is a complete pain in the backside. After every mission, Thorton has to go back to his safehouse and engage in rambling conversations before he can do anything. There are all kinds of time wasting activities, such as reading emails and buying weapons, but all these actions are accessed via pointless wandering from one destination to the next. Running upstairs to your computer to read vapid emails from dicks in between every mission just isn't fun. But then, nothing else about Alpha Protocol is fun so at least it's keeping with the theme.

The game's graphical presentation does a good job of matching the atrocious quality of the gameplay, with textures that frequently pop in and out, all manner of visual glitches such as floating objects or unresponsive targeting, and just good old fashioned bad animations and sub-par effects typifying the game's commitment to being bad. This is all topped off with mediocre voice acting, mediocre sound effects, and mediocre music. Essentially, Alpha Protocol looks exactly how it plays -- like a bad budget game that isn't even worth $20, let alone the $59.99 asking price.

Generally speaking, writing a bad review is never fun, and only a sadist would derive pleasure from crucifying a videogame in public. However, when a game comes out that's so bad only the willfully ignorant could deny its awfulness, harsh and cruel criticism is thoroughly deserved. Because there's no excuse for pap like this. There's no justifiable reason you could have for essentially conning people out of their hard earned money for a game so badly cobbled together. There are games in their beta stage that are more complete, better designed, and more worth paying for than this mistake.

It's disgusting that a game in this forsaken a state is asking for a single thin dime, let alone sixty bucks. Even if it was free I wouldn't recommend it. Alpha Protocol, to its slim credit, has its basis in noble and ambitious ideas, and those ideas are even well executed on the whole. However, while the ambitious stuff hits the mark, the bog standard gameplay has suffered beyond measure. You can build the most magnificent castle in the world, but if the foundations are made out of wet feces, everything's going to crumble and fall apart before your very eyes. Alpha Protocol is a castle that's collapsed in crap. Proof that even the most accomplished of visions are worthless if the fundamentals aren't in place.

Obsidian and Sega, like the US government portrayed in this very game, are better off denying all involvement in this failed operation.


2.0 -- Bad (2s are a disaster. Any good they might have had are quickly swallowed up by glitches, poor design choices or a plethora of other issues. The desperate or the gullible may find a glimmer of fun hidden somewhere in the pit.)
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,811
So Sterling gives DA a 7.5, AP a 2, New Vegas a 9, and TW2 a 6.

Sounds about right. :smug: :smug: :smug:

Just kidding. I'd remove 2 from each score. :smug: :smug: :smug: :smug:
 

Gerrard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
12,026
Isn't this the same retard that writes about PC piracy and reports every leaked game and how consoles are super awesum?



Maybe he's fighting the good fight by showing that "video game journalism" is a fucking joke?

Oh no, wait, he's just an idiot.
 

sgc_meltdown

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
6,000
Roguey said:
So Sterling gives DA a 7.5, AP a 2, New Vegas a 9, and TW2 a 6.

A staple of trolling is writing normally every so often. See: a person on the codex you don't like.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,585
Location
Motherfuckerville
sgc_meltdown said:
http://gomakemeasandwich.blogspot.com/2011/02/in-his-words-why-jim-sterling-is-in.html

Holy 888 Scatman! Just skimming through that hurt my brain.

I MUST SHOWCASE THE MISOGYNY OF RANDOM GAME REVIEWER NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF BY STRINGING TOGETHER OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES WITH HY-FUCKING-LARRY-US WITTICISMS!
/
:dworkin:
 

Fens

Ford of the Llies
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,899
Location
pitcairn
cringeworthy stuff

sterling's got his own show on the escapist as well (not even going to link that shit)... and even the escapist crowd doesn't like him (normally they cheer everything with boobs)

better troll than prosper or god's punishment for electing obama ? discuss !
 

Brother None

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
5,673
sea said:
Matt7895 said:
Jim Sterling is an attention-seeking weasel. Trolling just aint funny when you get paid to do it and pretend to be an honest professional.
This. The guy is a fucking moron and makes me want to drive a stake through my skull every time he opens his fat, dumbass mouth - and while I often use hyperbole for sarcastic effect, here I have no qualms sincerely stating that he is one of the stupidest "journalists" in the entire gaming sphere (and that is quite the title, considering how low the standards are). But hey, I guess his antics bring in more ad revenue, so fuck integrity, right?

87631-jim3.jpg
 

latexmonkeys

Augur
Patron
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
233
Location
Walmart Land
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
J_C said:
Article is shit, writer's a moron. :smug: (And this time I really mean it. There is so much stupidity in the article, that I can't take it seriously).

Read what he wrote about the combat. Then watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCjzA-C647o Did the maker of the video wrote the article?

:lol:

That video's fucking hilarious!

"Stop fucking chasing me you asshole! AHHh. gangbang me from behind! Teamed up on me , nothing I could do! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! This game sucks!!! Developer's suck at programming!!!!!!!!!11111"

My favorite bit is when he attacks the soldier with the giant shield head on and whines like a bitch when, surprisingly, his attack is blocked and counterattacked.
 

Mastermind

Cognito Elite Material
Patron
Bethestard
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
21,144
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
sgc_meltdown said:

Jim Sterling/Daphny twitter conversation highlights (Click the link to view the conversation in its entirety)
I know exactly what cunts look like. I'm talking to one right now
Just ask your husband for permission before using the computer next time.
People like you *revel* in sexism, so sure. I'm just giving you what all attention-seeking little bitches crave.
You're the embarrassment. To your gender, your species, and all feminazi sluts like yourself.

:lol:
:salute:

Ironically, the article has the exact opposite effect from the one intended on me.
 

Serious_Business

Best Poster on the Codex
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
3,911
Location
Frown Town
IM SO ANGRY ABOUT DISSSSSSSSSSSSS

Wait what

What's going on

Why did you wake me up u asshole
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom