Chaste

You're kidding, right? Those things affect the overall gaming experience of a person. If not the polish or the graphics, the bugs, at least. I disagree about them being just secondary. IMO, they should be among the primary things a developer should take care of first. Innovations, good storytelling, gameplay -- these are things that are already expected in an established company's new game. These are things that are already given in a title. Hence why if they're present, they don't get as much attention spotlit on them by the players. Unless a feature is really revolutionary, a gamer will just acknowledge how it's making a certain game good or great. You won't see them being exalted to the highest level or scrutinized because they are already expected in a decent game. Bugs, lack of polish, etc. however, now these are being highlighted more often because they detract from the overall package of a game. Dunno about you, but I play a game in order to be immersed and have fun. Bugs detract me from that experience because they annoy me, especially if said bugs occur rather frequently. Overall polish, not so much, but they do lower my impressions of a game. In any case, if I recall right, AP got kudos for its DSS. Personally, it's the only thing that made me like AP.

Like I said, it's in the presentation. ME2 is a decidedly polished game that met what it targeted. It knew what it wanted to do in the beginning, and it met those goals with flair and panache. It has a fun gameplay, regardless of what detractors are saying. Sure, it functions as a shooter but that's because Bioware listened to and observed the reaction and feedback from fans from ME1. They found out that fans are more receptive to the action part of the game so they tailored ME2 to be just that (if you have played ME1, you'll know that its shooting is somewhat similar to AP, in that it is stat-based, i.e., put points if you want a specialty in that weapon). I admit I was disappointed with how they dumbed down the min-maxing RPG aspects of it but they kept the story and and choices and made it more engaging and that's more than enough for me, as an RPG fan. In short, ME2 was considered to be a huge success because it presented a fun game with an engaging storyline (so far), wrapped up in a nice and polished package Is it a popcorn-type entertainment? Sure, but it never claimed to be otherwise. Regarding the story, like I said above, it's unfair to compare AP and ME in story because the latter isn't finished yet. But even with what's being presented so far, I can't understand why people would say that ME2 has no story. To sum it up: Humans are disappearing all over the galaxy. An organization that is operating outside the law and is considered by the intergalactic council to be a pro-human terrorist group decided that the only person who can uncover the mystery is you, the hero of the first game (who, BTW, can be established to personally hate this pro-human group based on your choices in the first game), because this group is suspecting that the disappearances are connected to the Great Big Bad that made itself known to the council in the first game. Unfortunately, you're dead, but due to the miracles of modern science, they are able to revive you. You are then tasked to collect a motley crew of badasses in a suicide mission to uncover said human colony disappearance mystery. So, is that a no story? And while we're talking about stories, I read once where a writer (I think it was Gaiman) said that there is no such thing as an original story. Every story told comes from several story archetypes that have already been established before. Even AP is far from original and is actually standard spy fare. If your beef with ME's story is that it's essentially the same as other Bioware games, then you're already being biased because of it. Consider the specifics of every story and you'll realize that it's not the overall plot that matters, it's how it's delivered. That is where the "epic" part comes in. Being a wide reader of fiction and literature, I am already aware of the various story plot archetypes and thus, any story that is able to invoke in me a feeling of "AWESOME!" is well worth the price I paid for it. AP is standard backstabbing espionage story, with the unique DSS implementation which, as I've already said, is the crown jewel of AP. I acknowledge that it works, but see, it SHOULD work because that's the game's ace in the hole in the first place! Take that away and what do you have? A buggy game whose presentation and polish is below ME2. Even with the DSS, AP is still standard espionage story fare. But does that lessen my opinion of the game? No, because I'm basing AP on the specifics of what it's telling, and in that, it succeeds. It still doesn't take away the fact that AP is buggy, less than stellar, and -- with the exception of the innovative DSS which I am all praises for -- a generic spy RPG.

For what it's worth, they do have a perfectly good reason to blast the last boss of ME2. People seem to forget that ME2 is a direct sequel of ME and thus, any discussion of its story should be done in reference to the first. On its own, ME2's story lacks luster because it's incomplete. In this regard, I don't really think it's fair to compare AP and ME (1+2) in story (yet) as the ME saga is obviously not yet finished. That is why I'm comparing AP and ME based on what's currently done: their presentation (both in gameplay elements and construction). And for that, my vote goes to ME. I can count several instances in the ME saga where I feel pumped, where I'm drawn in to the whole thing, where I go "Okay, it's time to kick bad guys' butt!" (the whole point from Ilos to the Citadel, all the rousing speeches, the siege on the Collector base, as examples). The whole ME saga so far gives me the feeling of being a bad ass warrior, able to lead people to hell and beyond. And that's only possible because of Bioware's presentation of the game. Contrast that with how Obsidian presented AP. Sure, I was able to tailor Mike Thorton to my liking, but I never for one moment felt that epic feel of taking on something. That is what I meant when I used the analogy of movies in my earlier post. And for what it's worth, I consider both games as RPGs. Dunno why, but 15 years of playing wRPGs is telling me that both can be classified in the genre.

First time poster. Just finished Alpha protocol a couple of minutes ago. Prior to it, I have been lurking these forums reading the pros and cons of the game, as well as the remarks of the users. That having been said, here's what I thought of Alpha Protocol. I played the PC version by the way, on a decent computer rig. I was already aware of the negative reviews it got, but I started the game in much the same way that I started other games which I am hyped for (and I have been eagerly following AP ever since Obsidian announced it, touting the revolutionary "choice" engine it has): with maximum enjoyment in mind. My overall review or opinion of a game is then dependent on whether it delivered or failed the enjoyment expectation I already had. For lack of a better term, I categorize Alpha Protocol as a "really promising game that fell really short due to presentation problems". I enjoyed it but for the life of me, I cannot understand how some people say it is better than Mass Effect 2 (or even 1). There were several issues I discovered during the course of my playthrough which made me understand why it got the score and negative reviews it did. Gameplay-wise, I took AP for what it is: a typical stat-based RPG like NWN. I agree, it's not a shooter and it shouldn't be played as such, otherwise, your ass will be handed to you in a silver platter. Good combat entails spending points and having specializations (I specialized in Pistol, with a minor on Assault Rifles). I didn't have any problem with it, although Obsidian should've marked what can be used as covers and what can't. Or, if they're aiming for realism, make ALL items that can be sensibly made as covers BE covers. There are instances where I thought a pillar can be made as a cover because logically, it can, only to find out that I can't and by then, I was already riddled by bullets. Speaking of covers, I've lost count of the times I died because I rolled from a covered crouched position and ended up standing, instead of crouching still. One would think that to stealthily roll from a crouching cover to another, you'd still be crouching, but no. Graphic-wise, I wasn't bothered by it. There were other more polished games than this, true, but I am someone who can forgive a graphically inferior game if its gameplay and story is engaging enough (seriously, this is someone who was still playing and enjoying Civ 1 in the late 90s). I also wasn't bothered by how they animated Thorton (specifically when he's in sneak mode, as that's what most reviewers are pointing at) because I was too busy playing the game. However, a cousin of mine (who's not a gamer and who was watching one time) laughed and pointed at how awkward and ridiculous he looked, so maybe there is some weight with that criticism. What did bother me, however, were the mediocre quality control and subpar user interface of the game. You cannot buy in bulks, you cannot replace a particular component by clicking on it directly (you had to click on its category first), whenever your Intel or dossier is updated, it doesn't specify which was already read or unread -- this becomes a problem when you miss reading the second or so update on the lower left of your screen when you get the dossier. Even more of a problem when you were busy collecting dossiers in the heat of the game, intending to read them later. Also, was it really too much to have a drag-able scrollbar while reading the intel? I had to continously click on the arrow in order to read the entries. It's frustrating and very unintuitive. What takes the cake, however, is the loading time when selecting the Clearinghouse or buying in-between items. It was HORRENDOUS. Seriously, it is on par with the stupid elevator loading screen in ME1. But it is more frustrating because it happens IN. EVERY. ITEM CATEGORY. A game released in 2010 should never have this godawful loading instance in the store inventory. Sudden freezing in-game, especially during Checkpoints, are also annoying and should have been removed given the long time this game has been in development. The AI is very very laughable. During my gameplay, I kept telling myself the enemies I was gunning down deserved the asskicking they got because they're just too ****ing dumb to live. Charging at me even though they can shoot me from across the screen is NOT good tactics. Staying in one place even though I already lobbed an incendiary grenade and looking at it stupidly is not the mark of a well-trained attack group. How it managed to get past QA testing is beyond me. Also, those who said that ME2 had more bugs than AP must've received a different game because this game is just chockful of them. The ones that spring to mind: - the frequent sudden jerking of the mouse. It's very frustrating, especially if you're in the middle of a firefight. And this is something that should already be seen by the testers because it happens often and it happens even during the early parts of the game. And yes, I've already checked the FAQ in this forum and tried the workaround where you change the config. It didn't help. - choosing to reload from the last save point almost always results in the level being devoid of enemies. What I had to do was choose the load from checkpoint option. - there are frequent instances when the selection during the weapon upgrade window does not fit in its supposed box (i.e., the highlight rectangle does not correspond to the actual rectangle box where it says Barrel, Sights, etc). This results in me not being able to select a particular weapon part. I had to go back to the Equipment-Intel, then back to the Equipment screen in order to fix this. - camera turrets I've already shot down and destroyed sometimes still triggers the alarm. I mean, WTH? - the sniper rifle is way too twitchy. I cannot aim properly with it as I often realize that I overshoot my mark. This is at half mouse sensitivity which, BTW, I have to change from quarter sensitivity default because the camera moves way too sluggish otherwise. Obsidian should have already made a good balance by default. - the hacking system on the mouse part (right part) does not often correspond with the pointer (the highlighted numbers drag way more slowly than the mouse pointer). This results in me sometimes not being able to move the numbers to the extreme left or right of the hack window because the pointer is already at the edge of the monitor. - things you've accomplished immediately before a checkpoint will sometimes still visually revert back to as if they haven't yet been interacted with, if you reload to that checkpoint. For example, in Rome (ruins), there's a part where you first tag a weapons cache with explosives. Then, when you cross the arch immediately after it, a checkpoint occurs. If you die and go back to that checkpoint, you will see that the interact icon is again up on the weapons you've supposed to have been already tagged, but when you go to it, you cannot interact with it anymore. This doesn't happen at just this instance, BTW. This happens in others. For example, the checkpoint just after you talk with Parker in the last mission. - instances where elevators that are supposed to already be opened are not. No other way to this but to reload from your last checkpoint. - inconsistency with the critical hit target reticule for the pistol when hidden, even though I already have a good line-of-sight with the target. I had to move the camera around until the reticule appears. Those are the bugs I can think off that have happened to me on a fairly regular basis. Meanwhile, I have never encountered a bug in ME2 that bugs (no pun intended) me to the point that I can recall of them. Even in ME1, the only bug that really annoys me was the Overheating one, and yes, I had to agree that that was stupid. The story works for me, based on the subject matter and the nature of the game. Does it have the epic feel of ME? No, it doesn't. But this is a spy game and what's been presented is, I think, sufficient enough for its subject matter. If I am to make an analogy with movies, I would say that Alpha Protocol is Casino Royale: I enjoy the time I spent watching it, but it doesn't have that epic "Oh my God that was GREAT!" feel that I had when watching, say, Pirates of the Caribbean. Finally, the touted DSS. This, I think, is where AP trumps ME. The dialogue system is fun, and I love the effects it can have on your game. Even though I think it can still be improved upon (i.e., more significant and in-your-face changing effect), I think Obsidian is on the right track with this. If the western RPG genre takes on this and improves on it, then we will really see some really great games in the future. This is the sole reason why I think I can bear replaying AP inspite of its horrible presentation and flaws. All in all, I think AP's negative reviews were a bit overblown (but not by much). If it wasn't for the DSS, I would've declared AP a buggy game that was rushed out (even with its long development cycle), and should only be bought at a bargain price. However, given the innovative way they tried to make the dialogue system, I can forgive them for the flaws. What I can't understand, however, is the blatant fanboyism of some people, even declaring that it is better than ME2. IMO, it's not. Far from it.