That's certainly true, but remember that Fallout is their 2nd most successful franchise behind TES, and unlike a published game or one of their poorer games like IHRA Drag Racing, New Vegas has the potential to sell more than Fallout 3 did, and Bethesda wouldn't let that opportunity slip away.

Word. I have a tendency to not play "10/10" games for more than a few hours or days in the case of MW2 and GTA IV, but games that get around 7/10-8/10 or even 4/10-5/10 stick with me a lot longer... but this is just a tendency. There are exceptions. I almost burned my friend's copy of Big Rigs and I still play Fallout 3 (which was a 9/10 on most reviewers.)

No because Alpha Protocol was made from scratch FONV is not.

Why is everyone so damn worried? All Alpha Protocol was lacking was technical polish and crazy big hype. Bethesda can handle the former (it's their damn engine) and the latter (they have the money).

I also think maybe you should play a game before judging ANOTHER game by it. What you're honestly doing is judging something by using something else that was judged by someone else.

Also, RDR had bugs, Fallout 3 had bugs, GAMES had bugs. People read a review and assume the worst, or start subconsciously looking for bugs. As for the guy who mentioned Force Unleash, it's certainly not unplayable. I have a friend who's a bit of a Star Wars fan (not super crazy) and he liked it almost as much as KOTOR.

From what I hear Alpha Protocol isn't actually that bad, but like Deus Ex and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines it (as you said) lacked the hype and marketing of most big name games resulting in lukewarm reviews. It should be noted that Deus Ex and Bloodlines have become beloved classics with loyal followings despite their "professional" reception. Professional reviewers are not at all reliable sources, and I for one don't take gaming journalism seriously because of all of the crap going on behind the scenes. I probably won't play Alpha Protocol myself, but it has nothing to do with it being a so called "bad game"; the spy angle and pre-defined protagonist just don't interest me.



Yeah, I find it strange that people are concerned about New Vegas having bugs and bad AI because of Alpha Protocol. Fallout 3 was not by any means a perfectly stable game, and even after its final patch it's still a mess. As for the AI, well I don't think it really needs to be said. Fallout 3 had horrendous AI in the first place; in combat your enemies mindlessly charged at you like a bunch of idiots, and occasionally fled if they were getting their rears handed to them. Not to mention they didn't even use stimpacks (or any type of drug for that matter) even if they had some on them.

I'll see your Gamespot review and raise you one 1UP review - B+. Doesn't sound poor to me. Bottom line: Gamespot is not the word of God, nor are any other critics.

People need to stop being sheep and make up their own damn minds. Everything about NV sounds like it's a bigger, better version of FO3, and FO3 wasn't the most amazing game in the world. Decent, but no Mass Effect.

The opening poster obviously never did a background check on Obsidian. ^_^

Maybe the devs just got distracted once NV was on their plates...
I for one would likely get bored of another spy game if the option to work on a Fallout title was there.

The guy who wrote the most glaring review of alpha protocol (destructoid) really seems to have an axe to grind, both for Obsidian, and for his own readers. Frankly I'm striking that article entirely from any consideration for the game.

[edit]: Actually, after giving his review history a deeper look, he just has an axe to grind in general.

Fallout New Vegas is almost definitely going to be better than than Alpha Protocol. Most of the reviews said that the game just seemed like it wasn't finished. They had to start from the ground up, but with Fallout, they only have to build off of what Bethesda already provided. Maybe we can even hope that all the attention that was lacking in Alpha Protocol went to Fallout. I'm still optimistic about New Vegas. Obsidian probably knows their Fallout better than Bethesda, and look how great a job they did two years ago.

I keep forgetting they walk on water. With how people talk about them, one wold think Obsidian was the name of some ancient diety worshipped for it's many hands that in which crafted The Fallout.

I meant to refer to the limping messiah syndrome. Obsidian can walk on water on the right side, their right foot is working on gameplay and they write with the right hand. But the left side always drowns cause it's for QA and time managing. ^_^

Yeah, the http://www.rpgamer.com/games/other/xbox2/alphaprotocol/reviews/alphaprotocolstrev1.html on RPGamer.com is pretty darn positive too. The comments afterwards make note of the fact that reviews for AP seem to be all over the place from negative to positive, and the RPGamer reviewer seems kinda surprised by some of the comments they saw in other reviews.
(for example, he reviewed the PC version, and found it "polished" and un-buggy. While other people think it's a buggy mess. Confused yet? )


/shrug

Personally, I'm going to have to wait and play Alpha Protocol myself before I start deciding it's quality. I don't usually go in for game reviews beyond what information I can glean from reading between the lines - just because a reviewer says he wasn't impressed with a game doesn't mean I'm not going to be, either (and vice versa, of course.)

From what I understand, the project was severely mismanaged on every level, from the owner of the company stepping in and assuming he is a great producer, to the publishers saying "rawr, I want this new feature that worked in game [X], implement it now!", to the other producers bailing from the project once the owner started meddling.

Then the Messiag falls over and it just winds up walking in circles on the floor like Shemp from the Three Stooges.

i think i saw somewhere that another obsidian group is making FO:NV apart from AP

And that's precisely what happens with pathfinding errors in Alpha Protocol. See, I'm right!

I haven't played Alpha Protocol yet...hell, I wasn't even aware it was out.

Thought I read the "a tired dev" comment on joystiq was a troll, but could be wrong. Anyway it's plausible.


Came out yesterday in Europe which is how a lot of people who aren't reviewers are playing it before the NA release date.

I was afraid it'd get poor scores when I was reading after the pushback that the devs thought it wasn't RPG enough and trying to infuse more RPG elements (from a Game Informer).

Well to be fair the game isn't getting ALL bad scores, sure they're a lot lower than most would like but there are quite a few sites giving 8/10+. A lot of sites that are giving lower scores also mention that dispute the flaws and outdated graphics they're having a lot of fun with the game.

Yeah. If it were just that comment, I'd think it was fishy, but everything I've heard supports it. It's eerily plausible.

I don't think there is anything to worry about with FNV. I'm not worried about it... unless they begin to incorporate a LOT (too much so to speak) realism in the game. It's a game after all, and I think, or shall I use the evil word 'assume'.... that the current state of FNV is fairly polished. Even though it's still fairly early. So by release date months away, it should still be in a polished state. If it's decided to add in way too many realisms at a late stage in development... there's the chance it might not be so polished in the end.

i have played alpha protocol it was HORRIBLE!
its realy ***
first graphics load forever!
second its totally NOT for stealth players
third it takes forever to kill a guy
i shot a guy 4 time's in the face whith a shotgun....... and he didnt died >.>
and fourth it realy bugs me that a shot in the head isnt a instant kill