Top 7


  • sephex - June 4, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    Resident Evil 6 does A LOT of things better than a lot of games. It's just the camera shows wrong angle, what frustrates people.
  • GOD - June 2, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    Fracture was sadly was one of my early PS3 games (it was a gift) but I had it so I though I might as well try it. Holy crap was that game bland, and boring, and not polished, and poorly written, and JET BRODY. But the terraforming gun was really cool to mess around with and that's what I did for about an hour before never playing that game again. I left it with the thought, if only the rest of the game was even half decent, this could have been amazing... somebody by the license, scrap everything about the original besides the basic terraforming concept, and make an awesome game out of it. Hell make a Bioshock game that takes place in a nature setting and has a bunch of terraforming focused plasmids!
  • Tony Wilson - June 3, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    I believe the Fracture demo was a multiplayer beta or something along those lines? I had my fill of the game after that :P
  • kyle94 - June 2, 2014 8:36 p.m.

    As a couple of other people have said, I disagree with Divinity II and Alpha Protocol being considered to be mediocre games. They're not perfect, they're not big-budget AAA games, but I felt they were great, especially for the price I got them at. Alpha Protocol in particular, I love for some of the choices. So many games throw in a morality system or have outlandish extremes. Look at Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age 2, for example. They forgo a traditional moral rating and instead had personalized approval/relationship ratings, so you could play as an actual complex character, rather than someone who will either sacrifice a limb to save a kitten or burn the tree down while stealing the little girl's pocket change. However, even then, there were still moments that just didn't make sense, with no middle ground. And I'm not talking about the whole mages or templars decision, I get that. One that did strike out to me was dealing with Merrill. At the end, while Merrill was weeping over the Keeper's body, you could either say "She was stupid" or "You should've listened". Is there really no middle path, no option to simply comfort her, or not say anything and let her think for herself, or condemn the Keeper's actions while not outright insulting her? Alpha Protocol, however, felt different. It had personal relationships too, but I loved the big, main choices. And why is that? They don't change anything. Either one thing happens, or another thing happens, and it doesn't matter much either way. But that's exactly why I love it, because it's different than every other video game power fantasy out there. There is no 'right' option, because either way, the bad guys win in some way. There is no 'moral' way, because an argument could be made for each decision. In Taiwan, you can either stop a riot and save the lives of several civilians, or stop the assassination of the President of Taiwan. But what is the moral option? Is it better to save the lives of the innocents? But the president is innocent as well, and his leadership may be needed to prevent further chaos and greater loss of life. Or in Rome, do you stop a bomb that could kill and wound dozens, or save a love interest? Surely that must be the selfish option, but even then, it still feels like a punch to the gut. This is a woman who risked her life in order to help a complete stranger, just because that seemed like the right thing to do. And because of you, she possibly ended up dying, possibly believing that she was abandoned at the last minute. And because there is no 'right' option, those sort of choices are great. They let the player, they let the character, decide for themselves. I will admit, in a lot of RPGs with multiple endings, I will personally look up the different endings and epilogues, and try to gear towards that to get the 'best' ending that is the most satisfying. But Alpha Protocol avoided that. With no real morality system, with no real 'best' choice or way to take a third option, it leaves the decision, and the consequences, ultimately up to the player. It no longer becomes "Which choice will lead to the happy ending?" but "Which choice would I make? If I did this, would I be able to live with myself, be proud of my choice?" And I loved that. (Holy crap I wrote too much. Maybe I should get hired to write essays.)
  • Shigeruken - June 2, 2014 7:31 p.m.

    I wouldn't call alpha protocol's dialogue system a perfection; it's more of a simplification. Dragon Age 2 has a similar system. Good, Charming, Evil, Exposition. One of the best things about Dragon Age: Origins (and Mass Effect 1 to a lesser degree) is that you could pick from a large choice of dialogue options which suited your character. It felt like I could say what I wanted with every decision. That's what made Origins and ME1 story driven role playing games, whereas Alpha Protocol, DA2, and to a lesser degree the latter two Mass Effect games are more like modernized choose your own adventure games.
  • kyle94 - June 2, 2014 8:48 p.m.

    To be fair to Alpha Protocol, it did that before Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 2 did that sorta thing. But, then again, video game development being how it is, it doesn't really matter who came up with an idea first, since it could have been developed from the same inspiration or one was worked on for longer and so on and so forth. Though, I do agree with you about the second comment. I do miss dialogue trees a lot of the time. The fewer options are easier to be voice-acted, and can help create a common character who the player influences, and not entirely create. And given Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2 especially, there's a clear general character at the base. I suppose dialogue trees are just considered obtrusive nowadays. Though, when done well, they can be effective. One example I always remember is KOTOR 2, which was sadly horribly rushed, but was made by Obsidian, the same people behind Alpha Protocol, Fallout New Vegas, etc. In that game especially, the dialogue trees were just as much exposition as the actual dialogue. There were moments of it, but there were less of that sorta Elder Scrolls/Dragon Age/etc "What's an alienage? Who's Azura? What's a paladin?" stuff going on. That sort of exposition drop always seems obtrusive, and rarely makes sense for a character inhabiting that world to not know who the major gods are, and so on. However, when done well, it can be made to be more natural sounding while still explaining things. In KOTOR 2, there's one conversation I vaguely remember, where someone asks the main character if they're familiar with a certain general. You get a few options in the dialogue tree. They included (paraphrasing from a bad memory): "Yes, I do. He was a good friend of mine." "Yes. I served with him during the War." "I may have heard of his name." There, right away, that tells you a bit about him. He's a general, he served in the war, he's not a jedi as he's not "Master", and you can even throw in some world-building character backstory based on your response. If you think that all choices are 'canonical', then your response is showing how the main character looks back on him in retrospect, or how comfortable s/he is with opening up about an old friend. But I'm rambling again.
  • Shigeruken - June 2, 2014 10:57 p.m.

    I was just using DA2 and ME2 as examples of similar implementation, apologies if it seemed as though I was implying that they were the first games to oversimplify a dialogue tree in this way. I do agree with the rest of your point, but in all honesty I don't think that exposition needs to be obtrusive. Origins is a great example of this to go with Kotor. In Origins you could role play a character that knew nothing about the world or it's history, or you could choose options that established for your own benefit that your character has that common knowledge already. There may be a "What is a Darkspawn?" dialogue option, but you can ignore it and continue with the assumption that you already know. In my opinion, that freedom of choice leads to more diversity in a playthrough. The Kotor games really were awesome though weren't they? I loved that Bioware and Obsidian let you pick the world's history through your dialogue choices. Kotor 2 basically had the first rpg save transfer. But I guess we'll have to get used to more directed "rpg" experiences, everybody else seems to go crazy for them :/
  • LovingLife139 - June 2, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait...Divinity II is mediocre? Have...have you even played it?!? I guess I should just respect that everyone has their own opinions, but that game is one of my favorite RPGs of all time, and I've played a few hundred of them. I just hope that anyone who sees that game on this list doesn't make a decision not to try it out, because it's certainly a diamond in the rough with its foreboding atmosphere and depressing humor.
  • Endorphinated25x - June 2, 2014 7:21 p.m.

    Funny you should say that because I always wanted to play that game.
  • Shigeruken - June 2, 2014 7:33 p.m.

    Yeah. It may have sold poorly, but it was a great game.
  • Earthbound_X - June 2, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    For Divinity II’s mind-reading, couldn't you just keep killing enemies to get those experience points back? Or are there only a set number of enemies, like both the Gothic and Risen series?
  • LovingLife139 - June 2, 2014 4:10 p.m.

    No, there were set enemies, so mind reading was definitely something you had to put thought into before deciding to risk it.
  • Earthbound_X - June 2, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    Alone in the Dark's fire system was also really cool. Quite a few games on this list I think are really good myself, not even close to mediocre, but opinions I guess.
  • LucasGrimm - June 2, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    What about the Bullet-Curve Mechanic in Wanted: Weapons of Fate. It made the game feel different then your average cover based shooter and really made the game playable for a licence title off a movie that was pretty awful.
  • g1rldraco7 - June 2, 2014 1:50 p.m.

    good article.
  • pl4y4h - June 2, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    I like the nod to Haze at the end. When it first debuted i thought it looked awesome but i never had a ps3 to play it. Thank god i didn't lol
  • Bansheebot - June 2, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    Doesn't Mass Effect do exactly what the article is claiming it doesn't with its dialogue options? It's just that instead of a single adjective you get a vague summary.
  • frahmer86 - June 2, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    Because Mass Effect isn't a mediocre game series.
  • frahmer86 - June 2, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    Never mind, actually read your whole comment. Yeah, I guess it kind of does.
  • Mafu - June 2, 2014 11:59 a.m.

    Alpha Protocol and Divinity II mediocre? Jason, there must be something wrong with you. Those games, though very underrated, were awesome. Loved both of them and I spent A LOT of hours playing them. Sure, they had their flaws. No game is perfect, right? But, both were incredible RPG's that I totally recommend.

Showing 1-20 of 33 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000