<center>
"Yes, that's it," said the Hatter with a sigh: "It's always SLAM DUNK-time, and we've not time to polish the releases between the whiles."</center>
With Alpha Protocol being Obsidian's last released title before New Vegas, its release and reception is bound to be of some interest to those considering buying Fallout: New Vegas. And well, it's not pretty. Get your review roundups at GameBanshee, which contains reviews like Eurogamer 7/10 and bit-tech.net 5/10, whose thoughts can be quickly summed up as "something has gone awfully wrong for Alpha Protocol." (for reference, be sure to also read the much more positive 8.4/10 GamesMaster review)
Far be it for me to ascribe universal competence to videogame reviewers, and on my personal scale there are certainly sites I'm more interested to hear from than these. I have already noted fans of the game accusing the reviewers of an unfair bias, and failing to see how the same reviewers that praise Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2 can burn Alpha Protocol to cinders. I recognize the disjointed feeling of "are they talking about the same game I played?", but I can't comment yet (I do have the game, but no time to really play it yet).
Nor should we forget that Alpha Protocol is in its nature a different animal than New Vegas. Its intentions on the "RPG scale" were meant to veer more clearly towards stealth and combat, and criticism in those areas are not directly relevant, other than criticism of choppy execution.
Besides, those of us who have followed the project for a longer time know how messy its production cycle has been. An earlier design, by Vampire: Bloodlines' and currently Zombie RPG writer Brian Mitsoda, was completely scrapped, so completely that Mitsoda could simply say he has "nothing" to do with the current game's design. Even as a stable version formed under Chris Avellone's direction, the release date still had to be pushed back from October 2009 to May/June 2010. That is after being announced with an early 2009 release in March 2008. All of this points to a very poorly managed project.
Yet with all the delays, when Eurogamer says "Alpha Protocol feels like a B-team effort", I can't bat an eyelash at it. It's just not surprising. This is the crux of the matter. Alpha Protocol was a game twice-delayed (at least), yet even the more positive GamesMaster review cited above lovingly calls it "a technical turkey". Mild when compared to this quotation from a 6/10 VideoGamer review:<blockquote>Then there are the technical issues; the plethora of graphical mishaps, animation blunders and odd design choices. The frame rate is of particular concern, which drops into oblivion during pivotal moments of a mission. Textures pop in left, right and centre and portals frequently appear in doors and walls, revealing a glimpse at the strange world outside of the developer's jurisdiction. AI is disturbingly last-gen too, especially for a game that relies so heavily on stealth. Enemies often won't notice you're stood right in front of them, and are completely oblivious to the likes of grenades. I honestly think Metal Gear Solid did a better job of artificial intelligence back on the PSone.
Little things annoyed me too, like the awkward position of the camera, which follows Thorton around too closely and at too high an angle. It's a strange criticism to make, but I was always concerned that I couldn't see his feet, which for some reason made me feel uncomfortable. Thorton's sneak animation is comical too, and appears as if he's wandering around trying to conceal an erection. Alpha Protocol generally lacks the polish of a game that's been in development as long as it has. A few people have used the phrase 'rough around the edges' to describe the game in previews, but I'd argue that this is an understatement.</blockquote>"Fnneeeeeh!" the fan will say, in his incoherent rage, "technical polish is not the developer's task, it belongs to the publisher! Both production and QA belong in their portfolio, not Obsidian's!" Too true. And normally I'd agree, blame the publisher. But this isn't the first time this has happened with an Obsidian title. Heck, this, hmmpph, "tradition" even came up on J.E. Sawyer's recent Formspring cycle:<blockquote>Now, we all know that Obsidian has developed some pretty buggy games in the past, especially considered that they weren't developed from scratch (they were both sequels). Now, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intention, so the question is : how it happened
Poor planning, poorly phased implementation of content, poor scope management in general.</blockquote>And I posed the question three years ago when interviewing Kevin Saunders about NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer.<blockquote>GB: While Obsidian's games are well-executed, gameplay issues seem to be one of the biggest concerns for critics - even going back to the Black Isle Studios days with titles like Fallout 2 and Planescape: Torment. Do you feel this (the mechanical side of game design, so to speak) is something that needs more focus or additional player input in future games?
Kevin: That's an interesting question. Actually, most of the Mask of the Betrayer team (myself included) didn't work at Black Isle Studios. I think the problems mentioned are by no means systemic issues or Obsidian issues. The criticisms come down to a couple specific decisions and it's as simple as that.</blockquote>But now, three years later, we can definitely say it's not as simple as that. Three titles in, two of which were sequels, Obsidian's batting average doesn't look that good when it comes to technical execution. There's no blaming producers for this anymore, not when SEGA pushed back the release date of Alpha Protocol multiple times, it's become kind of painfully obvious that Obsidian just sucks at project management. For comparison's sake, there were two years and four months between Alpha Protocol's announcement and its release, while there looks to be about a year and six months between announcement and release for New Vegas, though that doesn't tell us everything on comparing their total production length.
So what does that mean for us Fallout fans, looking forward to New Vegas? It pretty much just tells us what we already knew: when it comes to technical execution, Fallout: New Vegas will in all likelihood be a piece of junk. When originally announced, I kind of expected it to be a humble, quicky project, a sort of large expansion-sized project. Instead, we're overhauling SPECIAL, tweaking combat and interfaces, and adding a goodly-sized new world. Sounds pretty ambitious for a developer with a reputation for careful planning and allocating of time and resources. Sounds like a recipe for disaster in Obsidian's hands. And that's without factoring in that their publisher is Bethesda, a publishing house with a pretty poor track record, and whose Fallout 3 was no marvel when it came to technical factors such as bugs and animations.
Discuss. Let us know if you disagree and feel Obsidian will be able to deliver a technically polished game. Are the changes from Fallout 3 to New Vegas all so minor that they should manage? And if you've played it, please share your Alpha Protocol experience, what hopes and fears the game has given you vis-a-vis New Vegas.
This was an unscheduled blog-style post. Back to your regular programming soon enough.
"Yes, that's it," said the Hatter with a sigh: "It's always SLAM DUNK-time, and we've not time to polish the releases between the whiles."</center>
With Alpha Protocol being Obsidian's last released title before New Vegas, its release and reception is bound to be of some interest to those considering buying Fallout: New Vegas. And well, it's not pretty. Get your review roundups at GameBanshee, which contains reviews like Eurogamer 7/10 and bit-tech.net 5/10, whose thoughts can be quickly summed up as "something has gone awfully wrong for Alpha Protocol." (for reference, be sure to also read the much more positive 8.4/10 GamesMaster review)
Far be it for me to ascribe universal competence to videogame reviewers, and on my personal scale there are certainly sites I'm more interested to hear from than these. I have already noted fans of the game accusing the reviewers of an unfair bias, and failing to see how the same reviewers that praise Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2 can burn Alpha Protocol to cinders. I recognize the disjointed feeling of "are they talking about the same game I played?", but I can't comment yet (I do have the game, but no time to really play it yet).
Nor should we forget that Alpha Protocol is in its nature a different animal than New Vegas. Its intentions on the "RPG scale" were meant to veer more clearly towards stealth and combat, and criticism in those areas are not directly relevant, other than criticism of choppy execution.
Besides, those of us who have followed the project for a longer time know how messy its production cycle has been. An earlier design, by Vampire: Bloodlines' and currently Zombie RPG writer Brian Mitsoda, was completely scrapped, so completely that Mitsoda could simply say he has "nothing" to do with the current game's design. Even as a stable version formed under Chris Avellone's direction, the release date still had to be pushed back from October 2009 to May/June 2010. That is after being announced with an early 2009 release in March 2008. All of this points to a very poorly managed project.
Yet with all the delays, when Eurogamer says "Alpha Protocol feels like a B-team effort", I can't bat an eyelash at it. It's just not surprising. This is the crux of the matter. Alpha Protocol was a game twice-delayed (at least), yet even the more positive GamesMaster review cited above lovingly calls it "a technical turkey". Mild when compared to this quotation from a 6/10 VideoGamer review:<blockquote>Then there are the technical issues; the plethora of graphical mishaps, animation blunders and odd design choices. The frame rate is of particular concern, which drops into oblivion during pivotal moments of a mission. Textures pop in left, right and centre and portals frequently appear in doors and walls, revealing a glimpse at the strange world outside of the developer's jurisdiction. AI is disturbingly last-gen too, especially for a game that relies so heavily on stealth. Enemies often won't notice you're stood right in front of them, and are completely oblivious to the likes of grenades. I honestly think Metal Gear Solid did a better job of artificial intelligence back on the PSone.
Little things annoyed me too, like the awkward position of the camera, which follows Thorton around too closely and at too high an angle. It's a strange criticism to make, but I was always concerned that I couldn't see his feet, which for some reason made me feel uncomfortable. Thorton's sneak animation is comical too, and appears as if he's wandering around trying to conceal an erection. Alpha Protocol generally lacks the polish of a game that's been in development as long as it has. A few people have used the phrase 'rough around the edges' to describe the game in previews, but I'd argue that this is an understatement.</blockquote>"Fnneeeeeh!" the fan will say, in his incoherent rage, "technical polish is not the developer's task, it belongs to the publisher! Both production and QA belong in their portfolio, not Obsidian's!" Too true. And normally I'd agree, blame the publisher. But this isn't the first time this has happened with an Obsidian title. Heck, this, hmmpph, "tradition" even came up on J.E. Sawyer's recent Formspring cycle:<blockquote>Now, we all know that Obsidian has developed some pretty buggy games in the past, especially considered that they weren't developed from scratch (they were both sequels). Now, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intention, so the question is : how it happened
Poor planning, poorly phased implementation of content, poor scope management in general.</blockquote>And I posed the question three years ago when interviewing Kevin Saunders about NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer.<blockquote>GB: While Obsidian's games are well-executed, gameplay issues seem to be one of the biggest concerns for critics - even going back to the Black Isle Studios days with titles like Fallout 2 and Planescape: Torment. Do you feel this (the mechanical side of game design, so to speak) is something that needs more focus or additional player input in future games?
Kevin: That's an interesting question. Actually, most of the Mask of the Betrayer team (myself included) didn't work at Black Isle Studios. I think the problems mentioned are by no means systemic issues or Obsidian issues. The criticisms come down to a couple specific decisions and it's as simple as that.</blockquote>But now, three years later, we can definitely say it's not as simple as that. Three titles in, two of which were sequels, Obsidian's batting average doesn't look that good when it comes to technical execution. There's no blaming producers for this anymore, not when SEGA pushed back the release date of Alpha Protocol multiple times, it's become kind of painfully obvious that Obsidian just sucks at project management. For comparison's sake, there were two years and four months between Alpha Protocol's announcement and its release, while there looks to be about a year and six months between announcement and release for New Vegas, though that doesn't tell us everything on comparing their total production length.
So what does that mean for us Fallout fans, looking forward to New Vegas? It pretty much just tells us what we already knew: when it comes to technical execution, Fallout: New Vegas will in all likelihood be a piece of junk. When originally announced, I kind of expected it to be a humble, quicky project, a sort of large expansion-sized project. Instead, we're overhauling SPECIAL, tweaking combat and interfaces, and adding a goodly-sized new world. Sounds pretty ambitious for a developer with a reputation for careful planning and allocating of time and resources. Sounds like a recipe for disaster in Obsidian's hands. And that's without factoring in that their publisher is Bethesda, a publishing house with a pretty poor track record, and whose Fallout 3 was no marvel when it came to technical factors such as bugs and animations.
Discuss. Let us know if you disagree and feel Obsidian will be able to deliver a technically polished game. Are the changes from Fallout 3 to New Vegas all so minor that they should manage? And if you've played it, please share your Alpha Protocol experience, what hopes and fears the game has given you vis-a-vis New Vegas.
This was an unscheduled blog-style post. Back to your regular programming soon enough.
.
