Oblarg

Just finished my first playthrough. That was a blast. Never saw the ending coming - though I'm pretty sure it'll be quite different on my next playthrough. The main thing about combat (at least with the pistol) is that it differs from your average shooter in that to be effective you have to be able to hold the reticle over the target for a few seconds before firing. Spamming shot after shot, even if they're well-aimed, is just a way to waste ammo. It's a bit more meticulous than your average shooter, but once you figure it out it works very well.

I'm a huge fan of 80s music, too (though mainly heavy metal).

The music during the Brayko fight was absolutely perfect.

I swear, I'm going to reach through the internet and punch the next person to use this completely irrelevant and absurd argument.

It was only poorly reviewed by the major US reviewers. Most of the European reviewers liked it quite a bit, as did one or two reputable American review websites (1up gave it a B+ and praised it quite a bit).

Pistols, while a bit underwhelming (but certainly not useless) at lower ranks, are absolutely killer once you get reasonable skill. Once you get master crit (or even expert), you'll be nailing people in the head from across the room. It's insane. The curve is a bit too steep, but once you get the skill up there it's a blast. Chainshot is rigged, though - six shots is simply too many.

I've just finished Moscow and Rome, and I'm sure that it would have played out differently had I done different things. However, the entire plot is executed so seamlessly that you can't really tell which events are being triggered by which specific interactions. It's all very intricate, and I love it - it's certainly much more subtle than the reactivity I've seen in any other RPG.

This is nonsense. They're reviewing it as a GAME, and as a game, it is fairly janky and frustrating a lot of the time because of bad AI, camera, weak gunplay, etc, regardless of how many points you have in a weapon skill or stealth. If they were reviewing just the RPG elements or the story, well no **** it would be getting more praise. Thankfully these reviewers don't believe that story>gameplay. Nonsense my ass. Take the Gametrailers review for instance. They specifically said that "it's too bad that it does not play more like a shooter." They said it in the review, so it obviously contributed to them docking points for it. Also, other reviews have mentioned that pistols are unusable and stealth is broken, failing to take into consideration that it is an RPG and you have to invest points into a given skill for it to become more effective. The fact is, these skills DO work better as you level them up. As for bugs and glitches, those are fair enough points to knock the game for, but I was specifically talking about reviews mentioning RPG mechanics as being a negative when the game is in fact an RPG to begin with. So, don't give me this "nonesense" bull**** because the reviews speak for themselves and some of them have indeed knocked the game for this. I don't care what you say, it's ridiculous. Anyone claiming that pistols are unusable probably didn't skill up at all with them. At early ranks, they're only usable at short ranges - perhaps the range could be a bit further, but it's not gamebreaking. At max skill, they tear everything up. You can kill almost every baddy in the game (excluding bosses) with a pistol crit to the head lined up while you're in cover - it may even be a bit overpowered, especially when you factor in chainshot.

So, I'm not quite sure how any reviewer could have given this a 2/10. I've beaten Rome and Moscow now, and the combat is getting quite good - now that my pistol skill is nearly maxed, I can land a critical strike from across a fairly large room, and chain shot is as awesome as ever. They could have made the weapons a bit less pathetic at the lower skill levels, sure, but the combat is actually pretty good once the game gets going. The graphics aren't anything spectacular, but they're good enough to not be a nuisance - they're about on par with DA:O. Plot is great so far.

Don't know what the deal is with hacking - the mouse controls kinda suck, but it's still pretty easy.

Just played through Saudi Arabia hub and arrived in Rome. The gameplay isn't fantastic, but it's not terrible. The stealth walking animation is pretty bad, but overall I still feel like a badass super-spy most of the time. Been playing almost exclusively with the pistol. It feels a lot less clunky once you realize how the mechanics actually work and stop trying to snipe people from 100+ yards away - you won't hit someone at that range unless you're incredibly lucky, regardless of your aim. Chain shot is ****ing awesome, though - removes the range limit on the pistol, so you can snipe away if you get into trouble. The stealth is pretty good, as well, though it's a bit unforgiving and it's very difficult to go through a level without being spotted at least once. The good news is that the levels are segmented - being spotted in one area only alerts the guards in that area, so it doesn't ruin the rest of the level. The dialogue flows very nicely, and the plot is thickening. Can't wait to see how it unfolds. So far I'd give it an 8.5 to 9. Edit: The hacking minigame is nowhere near impossible. I have no skill in technical aptitude or sabotage, and I can handle all of the minigames without issue. It strikes a nice balance between being challenging and being annoying, something that most minigames can't manage (all the ME2 minigames were mindnumbingly easy).

Gamersgate just put up the Alpha Protocol serial key. Time to play.

That was interesting, but his metaphors are overly-long and he comes off as rambling.

That's another review where the reviewer seemed to like it more than the score would indicate. It seems as if he scored it based on how he thinks people will react to it rather than how much he personally enjoyed it.

WE'LL WRECK YOUR NECK! Such a fun song to play along to.

Just was wondering what people think is the reason for the polarization of the reviews. From what we've seen, the European reviews are all fairly positive, and the American reviews are all pretty critical. I really have no clue why there's such a big gap. It's as if the reviewers aren't playing the same game.

Bro, post in the tech support forums, it's not like everyone is seeing that bug.

Care to give any reasons for that opinion?

There certainly was an art direction, of sorts - they talked about it in one of the dev diaries. Moscow is cold and blue, Saudi Arabia is dusty and yellow, etc.

That seems to be the trend - the intro sucks because you have no skills yet, but once you get going it picks up.

I lost all respect for Chris Taylor after Supreme Commander 2. Yeah, he made TA, which is the best RTS ever, but honestly, what the ****.

I think that's more a case of horribad facial animations, honestly. Otherwise she looks an awful lot like Yvonne Strahovski. Agreed on the goddamn ME2 magic missile comment. ****, I hated how almost every single goddamn ability in ME2 felt exactly the same. The shared cooldown didn't help. Yes, I can shoot a missile that freezes the target, or one that lifts it in the air, or one than burns it, I get it already. The abilities were just bland, and the shared cooldown killed any ability synergy that may have existed (warping targets that are affected by biotic powers? Please, but the time that **** is off cooldown they're already dead). I'm expecting it'll be a solid RPG. The combat won't be astounding (I can't imagine that it'll be worse than ME1's combat, though), but that's not the point of the game. As for ME2's graphics, I feel like I'm in a tiny minority (really tiny) in that I actually thought ME1 looked better than ME2. Sure, there were framerate and texture popping problems, but the colors were softer and there was more bloom, and overall the graphical style was better. ME1's graphical style invoked a sense of intrigue and wonder. The armor was sleek and awesome-looking, too. In ME2, though the technical aspects of the graphics were better, everything just looked so goddamn sterile, and there were no bright colors. The constantly dark lighting really pissed me off. The armor looked really clunky, too, which baffled me as it had been so great in ME1. But here I go, getting off topic. I should create a thread on the bioware forums about this, and probably get flamed to hell.

The 1UP review was one of the most reasonable ones I read. Honestly, I have a hard time taking the scores of 2/10 seriously when a slew of European gaming sites (some of them quite reputable) all gave it ~8.5/10. The polarization of the scores is quite interesting, though. I still can't wait to play it. Gamersgate better put up those serial codes at midnight on June first. A pity I didn't buy it while they were breaking the street date.

Chain Shot FTW. I lol'd. That was clever, good sir.

Yes, the gameplay is clunky. We get that. Enjoy it for what it is - it's not a fast-paced shooter, it's a choice-driven RPG.