Some constructive criticism

[HanSh0t1st]

First off, I'd like to say that so far Alpha Protocol looks great. I think that the graphics look great and I think that the gameplay has the potential to be brilliant - certainly, AP has the potential to be awesome.

 

Having said that, however, and having followed quite closely for the last few months, I do have some criticism of it, based on what I have seen so far.

 

My first point is (and I know that this is possibly just how the game has been played in a few videos we have seen) that I think the running and gunning-style combat looks a bit ridiculous. I was really quite happy with how the combat looked in the earlier IGN walkthrough vid (the one which showed some of the Embassy mission from different perspectives) yet I'm not so certain about it, as it has been shown in more recent videos. The G4tv demo, for example, shows Thorton running in circles around enemies while he shoots at them. Even the gttv walkthrough vid that we saw, and which shows stealth gameplay to an extent, ends up with Thorton running around like an idiot.

 

My original impression of the stealth was that Thorton acted as a saboteur. Ie, sneaking past enemies, taking some down before it turns into a full fight and using technology to gain the upper-hand (hacking, setting off missiles, etc.) I realise that you get to chose your approach in combat but the stealth gameplay we saw degenerated pretty quickly into running-and-gunning. So, is it still an option to handle the situation tactically, use cover and use stealth? I don't expect to be able to avoid open combat, but I'd at least like the option to take a more subtle approach

 

My second point - and it's not a major one, but it's fairly important to me - concerns the look of the game. Now, I think that the graphics look good but I'm slightly concerned by the GUI. A complaint that I've seen is that the game looks too arcadey. Certainly, I'm hoping that it won't turn out that way in combat, but I have another concern. More specifically, I don't really like the look of the xbox button prompts and the buttons in dialogue. I just think they look rather goofy and arcadey.

 

Compare how they look here http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-alpha-protocol/50419 and how they looked here http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/7947...7001122548.html

 

I just think that the second makes it look much nicer and, more than anything, maintains the image of AP as a serious espionage RPG (as I said, I think it looks a bit goofy in the first link)

 

Anyway, I'm sure some people will disagree with me, but I'm hoping for some sort of affirmation/ discussion and still look forward greatly to AP's release in spite of any criticism I might have

[H]

Are you sure AP is even trying to be "a serious espionage RPG"?

 

 

From the look of things, the game fully embraced the goofiness inherent to the genre.

[Zoma]

Alpha Protocol's characters are leaning towards the Kill Bill Spectrum without being part of it. Obsidian did mention that at one point they tried to make AP serious but it ended up as pretty boring, so they spiced up the characters instead.

[fastpunk]

AP has some over-the-top elements which kind of rule out the 'serious espionage RPG' part. I hope it doesn't end up feeling inconsistent in tone.

 

Personally, the 'super powers' kind of bother me (invisibility? really? ), but I can ultimately live with that stuff. Now, the AI, that seems to be a real problem. I'm not sure how much work it would take to enhance it or tweak it, but I really hope Obsidian takes the time to do it.

 

Judging from the videos, the AI needs to be more aggressive and focused (not run in circles and get run over by a train because they heard a suspicious sound), to make you use cover more often. From what I've seen, Obsidian implemented a pretty competent cover system (with mantling, blind-firing, all that good stuff). It would be a pretty big waste of resources and effort if the AI didn't push you to use it.

 

Of course, the impressions I got from the vids might be wrong. After all, Thorton did seem to be in some sort of god mode, which made it look very easy. Doesn't change the fact that the AI seems rather inconsistent though.

[HanSh0t1st]

I know that the characters are pretty eccentric and the abilities are meant to be a bit over-the-top but I'm junder the impression that it is still grounded in reality and the combat and story are meant to be at least somewhat realistic - the combat we've seen at E3, though, seems to suggest otherwise - which is strange as we have been told that a more tactical/ cautious approach is equally playable. To be honest, I don't really like the idea that you can run around in the open and take as much fire seen in the G4tv demo without being killed pretty quickly. I thought that you'd have to make at least some use of cover to stay alive when AP is set to the normal difficulty level (which may explain the demo, if it was set to easy).

 

EDIT: I also agree about the AI needed to be improved - that's something that I've been unimpressed by in most of the videos where it has been shown (I actually meant to address AI in my original post - damn! )

 

Certainly, I think that - while the characters are meant to be eccentric in their design - the AI and the combat seem to be undermining the tone. I'm not sure if this has changed, but their intention seemed to be to create a tone somewhat akin to Syriana/24/the Bourne series but without the feeling of tension or danger being present in combat then this won't happen. I think that since then they might have started moving away from being completely realistic, but they still have to maintain that tension - otherwise it just won't work.

Edited June 4, 2009 by HanSh0t1st

[Slowtrain]

I'm thinking something in the vein of NOLF/NOLF2, perhaps a little more sexist and serious.

 

"serious espionage rpg" went out the window along with the Syriana references about what 2 years ago?

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Er, I didn't know the movie Syriana was a joking matter. Are you referring to something else?

[Slowtrain]

Er, I didn't know the movie Syriana was a joking matter. Are you referring to something else?

 

 

I don't think AP is going to have nearly the Syriana-esque feel we were initially told it would way back when.

 

I'm picturing more like clowns with fangs and handguns. Maybe some ninjas.

[Hell Kitty]

I'm guessing the Syriana stuff was from the original storyline by Mitsoda and Carlson. The game might be more colourful now, but I'm not expecting anything so crazy as the NOLF games.

[Zoma]

Obsidian, please make the enemies more deadlier and make the cover system useful for both MT and the enemies.

[Humodour]

[quote name='H

[MacMichael]

I think it's possible to pull off a "serious" spy RPG even with over the top characters. Maybe not Syriana level seriousness, but certainly Bond level seriousness. I'm thinking more early Bond and current Bond, there was a Brosnan Bond or two that exceeded my ability to take them seriously. Bond always was dealing with colorful characters, like Jaws and Oddjob, in colorful places, You Only Live Twice's volcano hideout, etc. Though maybe it depends on where people are willing to draw the line on seriousness.

[H]

And I have no problem with that!

Only people completely devoid of sense of humor do.

Bond level seriousness

Zero?

[Slowtrain]

I'm guessing the Syriana stuff was from the original storyline by Mitsoda and Carlson. The game might be more colourful now, but I'm not expecting anything so crazy as the NOLF games.

 

 

Yeah, it probably won't be quite as goofy. But any comparisons to NOLF are a Good Thing!

 

And NOLF2 wasn't as odd as NOLF1, iirc. Both were great, though. ALthough I think NOLF was somewhat more awesome.

 

 

ANd I think its fine they went with a non-Syriana feel to the gameplay. Syriana was an awesome movie, but I like all the fun stuff I've seen from the game so far. Enough to make me go to Gamestop and put my money down on a reservation already!

 

 

I'd also love to see a game play out as somber and brutal as Syriana, but I imagine it would be a tough sell. No dual wielding SMGS and a LOT of talking.

[Noxt]

Personally, I was really disappointed with the melee system.. it looks very clumsy and stupid, even. Michael attacks some guy five times, faces the guy sideways, attacks him five times more before he drops.. all in a very clumsy manner. IMO, it would have been so much better if they made him as good from the front as from behind (I.e, the takedown from behind that happened in a second).

[Oner]

You did notice that the baddies were blocking some of his attacks, right?

[Noxt]

Yes, I did.

[Sannom]

IMO, it would have been so much better if they made him as good from the front as from behind (I.e, the takedown from behind that happened in a second).

 

There is a HUGE difference between QTE (from behind) and actually directing him to hit.

[Mr. Fob]

I certainly hope they wont make it as "colorful" as the NOLF series. Don't get me wrong, the games were great but it's not what I expect from AP. I had hoped for at least the level of seriousness of the Bourne movies or 24. Now they are also far from realistic but they go into the direction of coolness rather than humor. This I think fits very well well with the spy setting and I was hoping AP would be bold enough to at least try that. I mean come on, the SC series also pulled that one off, so apparently it can work in video games.

[lord of flies]

Here's my constructive criticism: the game looks terrible! The AI looks retarded, the animations look clunky, the gameplay looks thoroughly meh, and invisibility? Go back to the drawing board, Obsidian! Here's a list of what I would change about this game:

• Everything
  

[Noxt]

IMO, it would have been so much better if they made him as good from the front as from behind (I.e, the takedown from behind that happened in a second).

 

There is a HUGE difference between QTE (from behind) and actually directing him to hit.

 

Indeed, and it would be good if there was no difference in the gameplay. The melee just looks stupid now.

[Oner]

IMO, it would have been so much better if they made him as good from the front as from behind (I.e, the takedown from behind that happened in a second).

 

There is a HUGE difference between QTE (from behind) and actually directing him to hit.

 

Indeed, and it would be good if there was no difference in the gameplay. The melee just looks stupid now.

Yes, it is indeed stupid that Mike has an easier time punching someone from behind. Cut melee from the game, Obsidian!

[Zoma]

And add Chainsaw attachment on an uzi!

[Noxt]

IMO, it would have been so much better if they made him as good from the front as from behind (I.e, the takedown from behind that happened in a second).

 

There is a HUGE difference between QTE (from behind) and actually directing him to hit.

 

Indeed, and it would be good if there was no difference in the gameplay. The melee just looks stupid now.

Yes, it is indeed stupid that Mike has an easier time punching someone from behind. Cut melee from the game, Obsidian!

 

Yup, the frontal melee makes it look like Mike has never practiced fighting or been in a fight.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Yup, the frontal melee makes it look like Mike has never practiced fighting or been in a fight.

 

I said that implementing an unrealistic fight strategy just to "look cool" was a slippery slope, and now they've released enough footage that perhaps people who were on the fence are starting to agree.

 

I mean, Is anybody honestly wowed by the pummeling animations? Do people really think that having to button mash to pummel people adds significant depth to the gameplay?

Edited June 5, 2009 by Cl_Flushentityhero