StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What's your explanation for every game reviewer on the internet making shit up, distorting and lying about a game?

Which reviews are the ones "flat out lying"? I can recall you whining about how they're playing it wrong because they want the shooting to be like a shooter and not like an RPG. And something about how you think pistols are great and that GT must be lying when they say to avoid them (even though all they said is that you should specialize in Assault Rifles if you want the game to play more like a shooter).

Reviews claim it's buggy, and there are bugs. But if you didn't encounter the bugs they did, they're obviously lying. Some claim it has bland art. Some say the boss fights suck. Most complain about terrible AI.

Compile a list of factual errors then. Not when they say something sucked that you liked, that's a difference in opinion. I expect that since you've now directly claimed that every game reviewer has made shit up, you've got your work cut out for you.

What is your explanation for "every game reviewer on the internet making shit up, distorting or lying about a game"? I really want an answer. Are they punishing Sega for not sending them enough money hats, or do they really not like this game?

My money is on the latter. Even if a couple of reviewers had a couple of mistakes in their review, that's never the only thing they've complained about, it's always just part of the piles of things they didn't like.

And nobody is going to try a game every review trashes when bugfests get 80s.

I'm pretty sure I just proved that people can and do try and buy games that got shitty reviews. But no, the only explanation for a game not meeting expectations is review scores, even though that's obviously bullshit.

The best part for me is that you mindlessly defend the accuracy of reviews without even bothering to test it.

Yeah, why would I not automatically side with a douchebag notorious for complaining about everything when he proposes a conspiracy to assassinate a game perpetrated by every game journalist who reviewed Alpha Protocol? I don't give a shit about this game one way or another, I'm taking offense to your preposterous insinuations and blanket attacks on journalism. But hey, if you wanna mail me a copy of the game, I'll play it.

What the christ are you talking about? Not only are you apparently such a hoofbrain you disregard everything everyone says to contradict reviews simply because you don't like ME, but you apparently think

what a fuckhead wrote: proposes a conspiracy to assassinate a game perpetrated by every game journalist who reviewed Alpha Protocol

when everyone can clearly see me saying

Often Lied About wrote:Obviously, once the blood was in the water, reviewers could show their 'critical' chops by bagging on the 'crap' game; nobody's going to play it so lying doesn't matter

But nevermind, your blind faith is rewarded somehow I'm sure; probably because it's so much easier to attack a person you don't like than confront the fact that reviewers shat all over a good game. But you'll never know, because you're so hidebound you won't even spend zero dollars to discover the facts for yourself - your style is just repeating the ideas of others.

You are certainly the most amusing internet person on SDN.

I am thinking of buying this game. Is it one of those plot heavy RPGs with combat so dull you rather play on easy and watch the game as a movie ? Or is it some new kind of tacticool RPG like Deus Ex where you replay the levels again and again to try different strategies ?

Sarevok wrote:I am thinking of buying this game. Is it one of those plot heavy RPGs with combat so dull you rather play on easy and watch the game as a movie ? Or is it some new kind of tacticool RPG like Deus Ex where you replay the levels again and again to try different strategies ?

It's not that easy, even on easy mode; even cheating, if you get outright careless and try to play like John Rambo, you can and will die. However, on Easy mode, the game is not that harsh a mistress unless you go into the Brayko boss battle without being well-prepared in terms of which skills to take. (He's definitely That One Boss.)

I feel the need to point out that some tactics and skills are just gamebreakers, especially in combination. If you want to know which, you can look back through this thread, read a guide, or ask me. However, you can have a lot of fun with them, even so.


As far as it being like Deus Ex, it's not nearly as open-ended. It's a mission-based game, as in, "here is your mission, go do it and be warped back to the mission hub," it's not like Deus Ex which tries to keep you behind JC's eyes at all points which are not downtime. There's not a whole lot of reason to replay a level, really; there's not, generally speaking, very many alternate paths. In a few places you may, for instance, have different options for getting over the fence; do you hack the pad and walk through, take a zipline over, or jump from a building to a catwalk, but you always end up on the other side of the fence; sometimes in a different spot post-fence, but always post-fence. There are, however, a lot of places where the game will cheerfully lock you away from getting something you would have liked to have had. This can be very much a Guide Dang It situation if you don't know which door will seal behind you, for example. More aggravatingly, however, is when it's not obvious what will cause you to have an outcome you don't want. This is especially aggravating in dialogue trees, exacerbated by the fact the game only has checkpoint saves, not real saving.

Is it worth it? Yeah, it is. Is it the Best Game Evarrrr?... No. But it is fun.

Sarevok wrote:I am thinking of buying this game. Is it one of those plot heavy RPGs with combat so dull you rather play on easy and watch the game as a movie ? Or is it some new kind of tacticool RPG like Deus Ex where you replay the levels again and again to try different strategies ?

It's an RPG shooter. You take cover behind objects and shoot dudes like in Gears, but you can increase your character's skill with guns by using skill points that you gain when you level up. The plot is incredibly dynamic and changes pretty fucking drastically depending on your choices, plus the structure of the game allows you to play each level differently, not just the story. ShadowDragon may think that playing an action hero isn't really doable, but I just finished a play through with practically zero stealth skills beyond permanent awareness and blew through everything with SMGs and shotguns. My first run through was a stealthy martial arts specialist who beat the shit out of everyone.

Beyond all the TVtropes garbage, I also like how he complained that the checkpoint system doesn't let you cheese through dialogues. Whoops.

Also, I went and looked at Yahtzee's review of AP, and it was definitely hilarious. He thinks AP is a PMC and that after the first hub the story was way too complicated for him to understand. Goddamn.

well, the checkpoint system does make it difficult to do save/reload cheese

My second playthrough was easy. First playthrough was with a recruit, so I could unlock veteran. I thought you could increase the difficulty slider in-game, but you can only set it at the start. Tis a shame, because the game was super-easy as a veteran. My third playthrough (which I've taken a break from) is on hard. I'm going for a stealthy pistol and SMG gadgeteer guy (the SMGs are for when shit hits the fan, which frequently does when I attempt stealth, but the gadgets are the best).

I'm purposefully restraining myself from the cheesier elements of the game, like chainshot and activating your cloaking device so you can murder an entire room full of guys in less than 20 seconds.

adam_grif wrote:Which reviews are the ones "flat out lying"? I can recall you whining about how they're playing it wrong because they want the shooting to be like a shooter and not like an RPG. And something about how you think pistols are great and that GT must be lying when they say to avoid them (even though all they said is that you should specialize in Assault Rifles if you want the game to play more like a shooter).

It doesn't matter whether you call it "lying" or "stupid", playing a game wrong and then claiming that it's broken or bad because it didn't play the way you were trying to play it is the hallmark of a shitty review. The point of a review is to give information about the game as it actually is, not the other game you wanted it to be instead.

adam_grif wrote:Compile a list of factual errors then.

Gametrailers: Perfectly lined up headshots miss. Perfectly lining up a shot in this game means waiting for your critical hit, and that will never miss. The video shows the reviewer never waiting for a critical with the pistol. (They're all or nothing).

Eurogamer: Handlers give you debuffs if they don't like you. They don't, they give you a different buff. (Stephen Heck gives you the same thing if he hates you that Albatross gives if he likes you)

Destructoid: RPG elements are "token". The game offers vast variation in both dialogue (Which the same review even states makes other RPGs look shallow) and character development

Destructoid: Lack of hiding places makes stealth impossible. Stealth is ridiculously overpowered and broken.

Destructoid: Impossible to line up critical hits because enemies don't stand still and be shot. (horrors!). Most do, they just sit in cover like every other cover, also only one weapon needs to be still to charge the critical.

Destructoid: Harder levels of alarm panel etc. are impossible. I can do them. Destructoid's reviewer is a flid then. Also, you can bypass them with EMPs.

I read the Destructoid review. It was unbelievably, offensively, and factually wrong in virtually every criticism it made against the game. It was a total joke.

It doesn't matter whether you call it "lying" or "stupid", playing a game wrong and then claiming that it's broken or bad because it didn't play the way you were trying to play it is the hallmark of a shitty review.

In the examples you raise, that only happens in the destructoid one, with the complaints about hacking + stealth + aiming being impossible. The GT one is rather saying that the game ought to be different, because the way it plays sucks.

The point of a review is to give information about the game as it actually is, not the other game you wanted it to be instead.

So reviews are supposed to be bland, bullet point recaps of the game, making no comment on whether things are good or bad? It's somehow "not good" for a review to say "this mechanic sucks, it should do something else"?

Gametrailers: Perfectly lined up headshots miss. Perfectly lining up a shot in this game means waiting for your critical hit, and that will never miss. The video shows the reviewer never waiting for a critical with the pistol. (They're all or nothing).

I'm aware that you have to wait for the reticule to turn red in order to get a critical or w/e in the game. Given that this statement is made within the context of complaining that the game doesn't play enough like a shooter (which is the stance that they take in the review), it's pretty clear they're talking about having the reticule right on their head and missing, specifically because the game wants you to wait till it turns red. They aimed well (perfectly lined up), but because the game mechanics say you aren't aiming as well as you are, so you miss.

Not a factual error unless you're deliberately trying to misconstrue the statement to mean something they clearly don't intend it to.

This aside, the Destructoid review appears to be a complete abortion, and Eurogamer made a goof. This is hardly evidence of systemic lying about the game for the purpose of shitting on it.

Alright I am picking up Alpha Protocol tommorow. I am getting it because a RPG about being a James Bond type person seems intrigueing. Lets hope the storyline is as good as the premise (unlike Elder Scrolls 3 and 4).

Are we marking down every game with conefire now?

adam_grif wrote:I'm aware that you have to wait for the reticule to turn red in order to get a critical or w/e in the game. Given that this statement is made within the context of complaining that the game doesn't play enough like a shooter (which is the stance that they take in the review), it's pretty clear they're talking about having the reticule right on their head and missing, specifically because the game wants you to wait till it turns red. They aimed well (perfectly lined up), but because the game mechanics say you aren't aiming as well as you are, so you miss.

However, as has been noted multiple times now, this type of conefire is in every shooting game since Wolfenstein 3D, and no game before has been marked down for it or even had it mentioned in reviews.

Also, GT's stance is not "the game doesn't play enough like a shooter" but "like a shooter is the only way to play the game", and their remarks on the weapons are made in the context of that faulty assumption. If they were doing the former they would have mentioned, for instance, that the pistol is a weapon to use when you're being patient and stealthy and isn't good in an open firefight (except chain shot means it is, oops), rather than saying "lol pistol sux use ar".

I mean it isn't quite as bad as when IGN US complained that Football Manager 2010 didn't let you control the players (There's a clue in the title of that game....), but it's still complaining that the game isn't something it was never actually attempting to be, rather than assessing what it is and then deciding whether it did what it was trying to do well or not.

It's somehow "not good" for a review to say "this mechanic sucks, it should do something else"?

It's not good to say that when you demonstrate that you don't understand the mechanic.

Stark wrote:I guess people are defining 'dead' due to the developers saying it failed; they clearly didn't meet their business goals.

I don't know about business goals, but I've read a couple of interviews with developers who've said that they're pretty unsatisfied with how the game turned out. Apparently Sega was apparently telling them to focus on different things all the time and the game's direction was pretty much shifting constantly as a result. Explains the game's rushed and unpolished feel pretty well, I think.

adam_grif wrote:They aimed well (perfectly lined up), but because the game mechanics say you aren't aiming as well as you are, so you miss.

Protip: "Aiming well" isn't always enough to counter the inherent inaccuracy of a weapon. Missing with the pistol when you're perfectly aimed is only due to the weapons conefire, as Stark ever-so-concisely points out, and the critical hit thing is a way around that. Would you make the same complaint about the shotgun being unable to score a headshot from 200 meters?


Incidentally, is there something special you have to do to get Albatross as your handler in the last mission? I never pissed him off aside from telling him about Sis' locket, and even got the email from him in the final safehouse saying to contact him, but then his portrait was grayed out on the selection screen.

Well conefire is bit more realistic than RPG style stats overruling the physical world. That said I am not concerned about game mechanics here. Vampire the Masquerade is one of my favorite RPGs. Yet all the guns were controlled by pen and paper rules. You dont play a RPG game for the gunplay. It is as silly a expectation as wishing a Crytek game a good story to go with the great visuals and combat.

Manus Celer Dei wrote:

Stark wrote:I guess people are defining 'dead' due to the developers saying it failed; they clearly didn't meet their business goals.

I don't know about business goals, but I've read a couple of interviews with developers who've said that they're pretty unsatisfied with how the game turned out. Apparently Sega was apparently telling them to focus on different things all the time and the game's direction was pretty much shifting constantly as a result. Explains the game's rushed and unpolished feel pretty well, I think.

That's par for the course in the game industry. At the end of the day the Publisher makes all the calls and decisions because they're the ones with the money. Publishers hate games that aren't just like something they played 10 years ago that made lots of money. It's too risky from a business perspective. So they have a tendency to call the developer and constantly micro manage the development of a new title until it's basically just Quake or Starcraft or Morrowind again.

Publishers also command extensive power with advertising and journalism. It's pretty much standard for publishers to bribe journalists to say nice things about their game.

Manus Celer Dei wrote:

Incidentally, is there something special you have to do to get Albatross as your handler in the last mission? I never pissed him off aside from telling him about Sis' locket, and even got the email from him in the final safehouse saying to contact him, but then his portrait was grayed out on the selection screen.

Did you max out your rep with him?

I don't think you have to - I've almost always got him as an option unless he's dead. I've never taken him, however.

I began to enjoy AP immensely once I got that 'play it like a tps' bug out of me. It frustrated the hell out of me, I quit for about 3 weeks and when I came back had a much more enjoyable experience.

That and I got to see Stephen Heck perform the most epic drive-by shooting ever.

I've never had anyone still be alive when he comes past.

Aaron wrote:

Manus Celer Dei wrote:Incidentally, is there something special you have to do to get Albatross as your handler in the last mission? I never pissed him off aside from telling him about Sis' locket, and even got the email from him in the final safehouse saying to contact him, but then his portrait was grayed out on the selection screen.

Did you max out your rep with him?

In Russia you have to explicitly agree to join forces with him. I can't think of any other thing that might affect his presence as a handler, except possibly choosing him over SIE for the embassy mission in Russia (if you choose SIE, the enemies become G22 agents; if you choose him, they're VCI mercs)

SIE doesn't care if you shoot VCI, so I'm not sure if he cares you shoot G22. He doesn't really care in the warehouse mission.

Stofsk wrote: In Russia you have to explicitly agree to join forces with him. I can't think of any other thing that might affect his presence as a handler, except possibly choosing him over SIE for the embassy mission in Russia (if you choose SIE, the enemies become G22 agents; if you choose him, they're VCI mercs)

Oh right, I forgot about that bit. Been a while since I played.

Stark wrote:SIE doesn't care if you shoot VCI, so I'm not sure if he cares you shoot G22. He doesn't really care in the warehouse mission.

That bothers me. SIE not caring doesn't, because she's explicitly mentioned to being a merc and her loyalties are fluid. But I would have liked for Albatross to have said something.

I just checked on the wiki and there doesn't seem to be any definitive answer. You can apparently still get him even if your relationship is low. Can you get him if you kill Sis? Also you do have to save him from Brayko don't you? (I chose to save him the first game, and in the second I was a veteran so it doesn't matter, you can do both)

I think you can get him if you kill Sis, if you play it right. The first game I killed Sis but was able to smooth it over so we didn't get on but worked together fine. And yeah, people you don't save are killed.

Albatross and I were good buddies up until he found out Sis gave me the locket, and then I picked SIE at the embassy mission. After that, I didn't hear from him again and didn't have him as an option at the end.