The Reviews

[khawaja07]

ok now i've played the game...first when i started i thought it would be game with a normal sTOry , horrible gameplay and teriible graphics.. but i was over-surprisingly overwhelmed.. my GOD ! what a GAME ! the graphics aren't that bad, the gameplay is fine especially those martial art kicks their awsome(first i've seen IT in these sort of games) and then after that what a STORY my GOD.. i hAve to say i very UNDERESTIMATED Obsidain with Alpha protocol..but i was TOTALLY WRONG !.. and what a STORY! it may have some of the greatest stories i've ever seen for this kind of game i think even the first splinter cell even did'nt had that kind of story.. and also it has a lot of replay value.while i could not stop prasing this game here's my review

 

very good ones..

 

Terrific STORY !(9.5/10)

Very definitive choice making(RPG Effect)(8.5/10)

Alot of replayability.(9/10)

 

fine ones...

The graphics !(8/10)

The Gameplay (8/10)

Fine A.I (7/10)

the little troublesome

 

The Hacking..(6/10)

 

the bad ones

 

some glitches(because i think that it needed a bit of polish)

little game breaking bugs.

 

Final Result for me = 8.9 %

 

 

so thats about it !.I have to say it was a very refreshing experience playing a spy RPG game... iam very impressed by Obsidian.. and now im very looking forward to fallout : new vegas.. and oh a praise for the devs' "People don't be discouraged by some reviews like 2/10 or 6(coursesy of destructoid and gamespot respectively) you've mad a great game with a thrilling story and great RPG elements in it! they did not see the truth beyond the little glitches so please don't rule out a sequal for it. and i hear that one of ur devs was very sad about it and saying that it should've been canned im very pleased that this game god released coz it has the soul for a completely new franchise, it just needs some more polishing and improvement in graphics and a little in gameplay thats it otherwise it would've had reviews like 9 or even 9.5. so please do consider a sequel for this great game and try to get some patches out so that it does'nt hurt it's sales.. So looking forward to ALPHA PROTOCOL 2!"

Edited May 30, 2010 by khawaja07

[zkylon]

^^

It's in real time with some turn based gameplay (vats).

I get what you mean but a game can't be turn based unless you literally take turns to act.

[SirPetrakus]

^^

It's in real time with some turn based gameplay (vats).

I get what you mean but a game can't be turn based unless you literally take turns to act.

It's not just VATS that I was referring to. Even if Fallout NV still uses real time mostly, I don't think the RPG combat mechanics work in the exact same way as AP, so maybe he will have no problem with it. Unless it's complete TB he's looking for. In which case, I have little to comfort him with.

[Oblarg]

GamePro - 3.5/5

 

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.

[WorstUsernameEver]

GamePro - 3.5/5

 

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.

 

.... To be honest I don't think that's a bad philosophy to follow.

Shouldn't review be made to indicate to people whether or not it's worth to buy a product?

You can't simply give your opinion, you also have to try to stop for a minute, think about what people could think about this or that feature, think about who can enjoy it and who can't, etc.

It's not a simple post on a forum, and that's why I honestly can't take seriously a lot of reviews.

[Ausir]

^^

It's in real time with some turn based gameplay (vats).

 

VATS is not turn-based. Not anymore than e.g. Chain Shot skill in AP.

[Alpha]

khawaja07 , is nice to know that you enjoyed the game. Can't wait for June 1.

[ironcreed]

The reviews that are favorable seemed to understand that it is an RPG, while the ones that hated on it seemed to be frustrated that it does not play like Gears of War. Statements such as "stealth does not work" or "stay away from pistols" are hilarious because they obviously failed to realize that you have to invest points in a given skill for it to be effective. It is an RPG and they dock points because it is structured to be an RPG, lol.

[Cloaker]

The reviews that are favorable seemed to understand that it is an RPG, while the ones that hated on it seemed to be frustrated that it does not play like Gears of War.

 

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.

[C2B]

The reviews that are favorable seemed to understand that it is an RPG, while the ones that hated on it seemed to be frustrated that it does not play like Gears of War.

 

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.

 

Yeah, because all games should be exactly the same soon so we can all enjoy unoriginal boring streamline world.

 

That's so much better

[Sannom]

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.

 

Shouldn't it be like that though, for an objective review? The guy may have loved the game and passed over the flaws, but as a journalist he feels like the game isn't as polished as it should be, and reflects it on the note. Seems fair to me.

 

 

The reviews that are favorable seemed to understand that it is an RPG, while the ones that hated on it seemed to be frustrated that it does not play like Gears of War.

 

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.

 

Dialogues and story are part of the gameplay experience in Alpha Protocol. Beside that, ironcreed didn't talk about the story but about the gameplay.

[Zerosaber]

from what I see from the reviews they all seem consistent on what's good and what's bad. It's just how harsh/good they are rating them that affects the score

[ironcreed]

The reviews that are favorable seemed to understand that it is an RPG, while the ones that hated on it seemed to be frustrated that it does not play like Gears of War.

 

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.

[ProtocolX]

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.

 

Any review that says pistols are useless did not play the game, did not level up EVER, is a bad player, etc. Pistols RULE the game. Chain shot is probably the single most powerful skill in the game. Final bosses ... couple of chain shots and done.

 

Stealth - again, they did not invest in it, thus I wonder if they EVER leveled up?? What could they possibly have put points in?? Toughness and tech skill and . . . Martial arts maybe? Then tried to play as a shooter with no skills in any weapons?

 

Granted it would be VERY hard to never kill, etc. in the game, but as for stealth being useless?? I can't see that, I used it all the time and rarely ever had an alarm go off in a mission.

 

So once I see that I just disregard the entire review.

[Pop]

I'm being told there's a Tim Rogers review of AP out somewhere, and I want to read it because I feel like it's probably going to be a trainwreck with some surprisingly cogent design criticisms nestled amongst all the loquaciousness. His site was the only pro review site to take Mass Effect 2 to task for Bioware's design philosophy and *gasp* review it on second playthrough. Tim Rogers is sort of like Roshambo from NMA, with a stoned spaciness in place of Rosh's bottomless, curdled spite.

[poetic obsidian]

Yes, there is a lot of legitimate criticism one could make against alpha protocol, but relative to other big release titles, it is evident that reviewers are being a lot less forgiving of AP's flaws. Some of this feels really inconsistent.

 

Mass Effect had some serious bugs. Heck, there are still people today who can't even play the game due to a GPF protection error, and Bioware never bothered to fix it, instead they resorted to locking any threads on the issue.

 

Dragon Age had a fairly serious issue concerning dexterity on release which made an entire class nearly unplayable. I don't think it has been fixed on the PS 3 and probably never will.

 

Fallout 3 on the PC had random crash issues, not to mention the infamous 1 year crash. Still got glowing reviews.

 

I wonder if the fans like us get more worked up about this kind of perceived unfairness than the devs themselves?

[Meshugger]

I'm being told there's a Tim Rogers review of AP out somewhere, and I want to read it because I feel like it's probably going to be a trainwreck with some surprisingly cogent design criticisms nestled amongst all the loquaciousness. His site was the only pro review site to take Mass Effect 2 to task for Bioware's design philosophy and *gasp* review it on second playthrough. Tim Rogers is sort of like Roshambo from NMA, with a stoned spaciness in place of Rosh's bottomless, curdled spite.

 

Eventhough that i might disagree with the guy, i really like reading Roshambo's rants. Hopefully he will do a review of AP soon.

[Oblarg]

I'm being told there's a Tim Rogers review of AP out somewhere, and I want to read it because I feel like it's probably going to be a trainwreck with some surprisingly cogent design criticisms nestled amongst all the loquaciousness. His site was the only pro review site to take Mass Effect 2 to task for Bioware's design philosophy and *gasp* review it on second playthrough. Tim Rogers is sort of like Roshambo from NMA, with a stoned spaciness in place of Rosh's bottomless, curdled spite.

 

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

[Gel214th]

to take Mass Effect 2 to task for Bioware's design philosophy

 

How on earth did you make it to the end of that ....soliloquy on Mass Effect 2? wow.

[Alpha]

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.

 

Any review that says pistols are useless did not play the game, did not level up EVER, is a bad player, etc. Pistols RULE the game. Chain shot is probably the single most powerful skill in the game. Final bosses ... couple of chain shots and done.

 

Stealth - again, they did not invest in it, thus I wonder if they EVER leveled up?? What could they possibly have put points in?? Toughness and tech skill and . . . Martial arts maybe? Then tried to play as a shooter with no skills in any weapons?

 

Granted it would be VERY hard to never kill, etc. in the game, but as for stealth being useless?? I can't see that, I used it all the time and rarely ever had an alarm go off in a mission.

 

So once I see that I just disregard the entire review.

 

Agree with you. I think the majority of reviewers didn't finish the first mission and wrote a lot of nonsense review only to bash AP.

[funcroc]

RPGWatch First Impressions (by Brian "Dhruin" Turner)

 

"But Alpha Protocol is better than the sum of these parts. The intricate plot changes, character relationships and quick-fire choices with consequences are miles ahead of any other action/RPG - and many traditional RPGs for that matter. Despite the niggles and missed opportunities, I look forward to getting back to the game and uncovering the conspiracy."

[WorstUsernameEver]

RPGWatch First Impressions (by Brian "Dhruin" Turner)

 

"But Alpha Protocol is better than the sum of these parts. The intricate plot changes, character relationships and quick-fire choices with consequences are miles ahead of any other action/RPG - and many traditional RPGs for that matter. Despite the niggles and missed opportunities, I look forward to getting back to the game and uncovering the conspiracy."

 

Was just about to post it. Damn funcroc!

[Oblarg]

The reviews that are favorable seemed to understand that it is an RPG, while the ones that hated on it seemed to be frustrated that it does not play like Gears of War.

 

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.

[Flouride]

Finnish magazine Pelit gave AP 80/100 which is okay considering the same guy "only" gave RDR 86/100.

 

Positive:

 

-Choices actually matter

-Different setting from your regular rpg

-Char customization

 

Negative:

 

-Too much hurrying

-Ugly and technically clumsy

-Minigames are too hard in the end game.

[Cloaker]

IGN - 6.3

http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093931p1.html

 

Gamespot - 6.0

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/rpg/alphap...col/review.html

 

Gametrailers 6.4

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-a...protocol/100742

 

Kotaku - They compare it rather unfavorably to Mass Effect 1

 

...