The reviews for Alpha Protocol have come in, and I don't know about you, but I am starting to get seriously worried for New Vegas since both are made by the same developer. In a nutshell, their newest game has poor production values, is incredibly sloppy and unfinished, has horrible AI, and a ton of glitches. There's a pretty well written review below. The only redeeming quality seems to be that your choices have a big impact on the game.

Let's pray that New Vegas doesn't turn out like this.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/rpg/alphaprotocol/review.html

I've read around a teensy little bit about the developement issues that occured on that project, and I don't think that'll be the case with NV. I imagine the sheer amount of pride on the line for Sawyer will probably work wonders on the project as a whole.

Eh, seeing as how I've enjoyed other games these guys have worked on I'm not worried. Every shop produces a game or two that's not an 8+ out of 10, you know. Heck, Bethesda made Oblivion and I disliked it so much I couldn't even finish the main quest. :shrug:

Well I hope NV doesn't come out like this either, but it won't. Its using the same engine as Fallout 3, not Alpha Protocols engine. I think the reason why that game got such a bad review and flopped is because there's too many games out there like it. Its like a clone of Metal Gear Solid, Siphon Filter, and all the other endless 3rd person shooter games where your a special forces top secret agent guy. Tell you the truth the only thing I'd like to see from Alpha Protocol being implemented in NV is the hand to hand combat moves. Fallout 3 hand to hand combat was pretty lame wasn't too exciting just throwing basic punches and kicking mole rats, really not a whole lot of animation to it.

I'll also be interested to see what Alpha Protocol is like after a patch or two. Usually when a game is released this buggy it's because of publisher pressure on the dev studio and it gets fixed post-release.

I really don't like how game companies rush their games because of a certain deadline. I mean I'd rather a game be perfect and developers take their time instead of a game being half ass because of a due date. If NV release date was pushed to be released in winter instead of fall I would not complain if they took that extra time to make the game perfect, and not just exceptional.

It was pushed back by over a year so can't see it as being publisher pressure.

Considering Alpha Protocol was delayed and it still turned out buggy, I don't think Obsidian knows how to utilize delays very well anyway.

Did not know that. There's no excuse then if they took more time and its still glitchy, but then again I've never played game that didn't have its glitches.

Tell you guys the truth I'm not worried about NV being a low rated crappy game, I'm optimistic that it well be a great game and be even better fallout 3. After all they read these forums they know what we liked and didn't like in fallout 3, so they actually have an advantage knowing what worked in fallout 3 and what didn't.

Guys, New Vegas will definitely get 90s reviews from the major sites. Maybe not as much as Fallout 3, but the marketing alone is worth 10 points.

And from what I've read, Alpha Protocol doesn't sound that bad. It's getting generally above average reviews.

If it was feature creep from the dev side, then yeah, there's no excuse. If, on the other hand, it's coming from the publisher side, then it's the publishers fault. I don't know which one it was for AP.

[edit]: Either way, it looks like feature creep ate up all the budget for bug squashing.

What's feature creep?

Honestly I don't know what you mean by feature creep.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=feature%20creep


--------

As for FO:NV...... the fact that it's based on an already developed game & engine (FO3) certainly helps a great deal.

Basicly, adding features to a game, to the point that it slows development and becomes detrimental to an entire project. It usually isn't a problem if management is disciplined enough to say enough, and settle on a feature set for the final game.

[edit]: Beaten again. Argh.

OOOOhhhh... well you should have said scope creep than I would have understood... I have taken project management courses know about creep, I guess I didn't know feature creep was a programmers term.

Yeah poor project management and adding features that aren't needed can create a big mess. I notice that with Microsoft's software these days, they just overload their crap with so many pointless tools for their word program... whatever happened to K.I.S.S. or keep it simple stupid. But thats a whole other story.

To stay on topic well lets hope NV has good project management and they don't get delayed by feature and scope creep, and that its a very good game by the time fall gets here. But I wouldn't let Alpha Protocol be an end all be all judgment for NV. Sometimes people make better projects than others.

I don't think New Vegas is going to get bad reviews, I mean...Beth isn't going to let it be bad, they can't afford that.

I choose to remain optimistic. I prefer to judge games for myself rather than some jerk paid to tell me their opinion.

It's cool. If you'd said scope creep to me, then I'd have been the clueless one :laugh:

Listerman said something I agree with for once.

Yeah... project management :meh: Phhhh... I've taken the courses but would never want to be one. I'd rather stick with the technical stuff thank you.


Well you know we don't have much control over that kind of stuff the DEVs are gonna do what they're gonna do and we can only be hopeful. Just because one of their games/projects didn't get such hot reviews doesn't mean that another project/game won't be any better. Sometimes a director makes a really good movie, then sometimes they make a bad one it just how it goes. Just because a director made a bad movie doesn't mean their next movie is going to be the same, it might be a really good movie. That's what I think about the Alpha Protocol's review affecting the outcomes of Fallout:NV being a good game.

Bethesda better let them have enough time. If it's a mess by the time Fall comes it should be delayed.

I'm confident that Bethesda wouldn't let this game be a flop.

Well this is my personal equation for Fallout: New Vegas...

Fallout 3's game engine + Obsidian (Black Isles) Super Duper knowledge of Fallout (They are the creators of the series anyways) = Awesomeness

At least that is how it computes in my brain...

Oh and the Fallout series pretty much being the reason that put Obsidian on the map doesn't hurt its chances either.

You can't pin the fault on the publisher or developer. Both have to deal with it.

@Relic: Bugs+Bugs=?

A very unhappy customer...