Early Impressions

[Orogun01]

Okay, after logging 16 hours of gameplay I feel that AP is a bug out of which a game grew. Skipping, faulty AI, awkward controls, and some other major stuff. Fortunately the game has it's playable moments but the amount of faults make it almost impossible to enjoy.

[Libertarian]

Fantastic game. A great story and fantastic set of characters. The graphics aren't cutting edge, but I find a lot of the textures to be solid and the lighting is very nice. I also think a lot of the character models are well done. There are little stutters here and there, but this game performs much better than the original Mass Effect. I also dug the combat. It's a bit wonky, but I actually dig the dice roll RPG gameplay. I like how the reticle works. It's pretty much the same as the original Mass Effect. Loved the safe houses and how you were given a choice to which locations to go to. And speaking of choice, no game does it as well as Alpha Protocol. What an achievement!

 

Screw the reviews, this one is a gem and a half.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Libertarian

[Calax]

On my first play through I had to ask.

 

Why is this guy

Talking to Thorton?

[heathen]

Game is a mess; essentially a glorified choose your own adventure with hamfisted action/stealth gameplay thrown on top. Not to mention all of the crippling bugs and general lack of polish that make it seem like, well, Polish

[Kenrae]

Fantastic game. A great story and fantastic set of characters. The graphics aren't cutting edge, but I find a lot of the textures to be solid and the lighting is very nice. I also think a lot of the character models are well done. There are little stutters here and there, but this game performs much better than the original Mass Effect. I also dug the combat. It's a bit wonky, but I actually dig the dice roll RPG gameplay. I like how the reticle works. It's pretty much the same as the original Mass Effect. Loved the safe houses and how you were given a choice to which locations to go to. And speaking of choice, no game does it as well as Alpha Protocol. What an achievement!

 

Screw the reviews, this one is a gem and a half.

 

I couldn't agree more.

Only one real problem. Whoever decided to use checkpoints instead of savegames should be shot. Multiple times.

[unskilled-]

This game would have been cutting edge if it came out 2-3 years ago, before the likes of Mass Effect and the later iterations of Splinter Cell.

 

The game does deliver on its promise of providing a user driven story. As much as Mass Effect can claim, it doesn't give you the ability to determine whether someone lives or dies, and the resulting consequences of said decision. Oh, and also the "side missions" (if you can call them that), such as going out of your way to retrieve additional data or completing objectives purchased from the clearinghouse does add a crucial part to the gameplay. Other games added sidemissions for extra experience, money, loot, additional background information etc, but they've never gone so far as to actually have a direct impact on your future missions and dealings with people (general rule of thumb, the more information the better).

 

However, the graphics look like last-generation graphics. This is an unfortunate and inexcusable decision because of the hardware platforms this game has been designed for. Regardless of whether this was multiplatform, or whether the game was designed for console first then ported to PC second, this looks like a first generation x-box or ps2 title. In addition to this, the whole animations and general body skeleton seem wonky. The feel of running, ducking around corners, firing your weapons.. they all feel completely unnatural. The speed of which Mike wallhumps when taking cover is amazingly stupid fast. If the cover is small enough, he won't even move his legs when wallhumping (moving side to side when up against a wall).

 

Another cavet with this game is that it doesn't really break the traditional mode of offering up areas with multiple infiltration routes while placing them all within 2 feet of each other. It is nice to market the game as offering the ability for people to choose stealth or rambo mode (or bruce lee if your into CQC), but it doesn't really make much of a difference when a good majority of "stealth" routes involve you either sneaking past enemies or knocking them out and sneaking past security cameras.

 

The combat itself is nothing special. Comparing it to Mass Effect, its more balanced in that enemies won't bumrush you enmass when they first spot you. However, due to the cartoonish physics effects of how mike runs, ducks and all that other jazz.. its not engrossing. When you fire a gun, you don't "feel" the recoil, nor do you feel the weight of your boots hitting the floor as your walking/running.. the only time you "feel" something is when your using hand to hand and even then thats due to liberal use of visual impact effects and slow-motion beatdowns. Aside from the cosmetic upgrades (seriously, the stat bonuses of the upgrades mean jack), all weapons are essentially the same aside from 1 to 5 increase or decrease in a corrisponding stat. There's no fully automatic assault rifle, apparently all of them default to 3-shot bursts. There's no option of going single shot, triple burst (default) or fully automatic. So basically, aside from blowing your money on a weapon that will do 5 more points of damage, there is no decernable difference. If the guns had a huge variance in their stats, then there would be reason to throw down 15000 for the top of the line assault rifle, instead of throwing down 15000 for the top of the line assault rifle thats only slightly marginally better then what you start out with. Sniper rifles, ugh. Why are they not a usable, upgradable weapon? You'd think that as someone who does wetwork for a shadow organization, a sniper rifle would be your best bet for taking out targets of interest and scouting out your area of infiltration, yet they've relegated the sniper rifle to a glorified one-hit medium ranged weapon.

 

I guess my first impressions left me wanting more. More stealth action gameplay and less shoddy RPG battle mechanics. I guess the whole problems I see (my opinion) stem from the fact that this game's engine isn't upto snuff or wasn't utilized properly. Either that or you'd need a whole new different engine.

 

Good story telling mechanics and an interesting player driven story, but the whole feel of the game from simple walking and interacting with the environment, the look of the environment; from how the levels are structured to how your supposed to interact with them, as well as the graphics in terms of character modeling and animations.. they all lack polish and refinement. This series has potential, but it needs to realize the complete experience that this type of game offers, and hopefully it won't limit itself to cross-console development hell.

[Kasabian]

Fantastic game. A great story and fantastic set of characters. The graphics aren't cutting edge, but I find a lot of the textures to be solid and the lighting is very nice. I also think a lot of the character models are well done. There are little stutters here and there, but this game performs much better than the original Mass Effect. I also dug the combat. It's a bit wonky, but I actually dig the dice roll RPG gameplay. I like how the reticle works. It's pretty much the same as the original Mass Effect. Loved the safe houses and how you were given a choice to which locations to go to. And speaking of choice, no game does it as well as Alpha Protocol. What an achievement!

 

Screw the reviews, this one is a gem and a half.

 

I couldn't agree more.

Only one real problem. Whoever decided to use checkpoints instead of savegames should be shot. Multiple times.

 

 

Quick save is a cheat and makes games far too easy. Checkpoints force players to complete sections flawlessly in order to progress, good design decision in my opinion.

 

I also agree with most of what Libertarian says.

[Oner]

No one is forcing you to use quick save.

[Calax]

[quote name='unskilled-' date='Jun 3 2010, 11:22 PM' post='1040450'

However, the graphics look like last-generation graphics.

I'm sorry, but I take issue with this. Unless you're defining "last generation" as "first round of 360/ps3 games" then you're incorrect. There is nothing in the previous market that came close to this level of graphics. The graphics aren't as good as ME2's but they do match ME1.

[unskilled-]

Look at Crysis. That game came out in 2007, and its graphics blow these out of the water. You can argue that these graphics are comparable to ME1, but that game came out in 2008! Its 2010 right now! I will contend that my statement is incorrect, but the sentiment is not.

[Nosmirc]

Look at Crysis. That game came out in 2007, and its graphics blow these out of the water. You can argue that these graphics are comparable to ME1, but that game came out in 2008! Its 2010 right now! I will contend that my statement is incorrect, but the sentiment is not.

 

*Delurks* How in any form is that a fair comparison? By that measure, most games have poor graphics because they still don't measure up to Crysis.

 

That's like saying your family sedan is worse then a speedster. The thing is, they accomplish different goals. One is to go crazy (and impractically) fast *Crysis*, the other is meant to accomodate a family *AP*.

 

Just like not every car needs to match speed of an F1, not all games have to meet Crysis level of detail, especially when you have static hardware considerations to account for (ie Consoles). Furthermore, by having a lower level of detail then Crysis, you open the product up to more customers, as not everyone necessarily has a PC that can run Crysis efficiently.

 

That being said, while AP's graphics are not mind blowing, they convey the message just right. More detail wouldn't really have enriched the game anymore. I would say that I almost find the character models to be more appealing then ME2 character models.

 

 

 

 

Myself, I loved the game. I was kinda worrying at first reading the initial reviews, but was prelexed by the polarity of them. Something didn't seem right with the reviews. Considering other games that scored much higher, with just as many if not more issues, it didn't make sense for AP to be so low. Are reviewers basing scores on the companies past? "Oh, a bug! Of course, it's Obsidian, when have they NOT released a buggy game? Note: Game is very buggy. DONE!"

 

I bet if Bioware had release this game like this, it would be getting 8.5 or higher. Which is silly, since their writing has been pretty meh lately, and at times, cringeworthy. Not to mention the jarring transition from no swearing, to everyone swearing like it's a sailors convention.

 

And the gameplay for AP I would rate higher then the first Mass Effect, by far. Why...I might even say it's better then 2. In fact. I will. The only time I really enjoyed combat in ME2 was as a Vanguard, and that's because you turned into a friggin' missile. Which didn't get too boring for me. In AP, I actually had to deal with NPCs that tried to flank (when the environment allowed for it...). I had to use all the abilities (which had seperate cooldowns, take that ME2!) to survive and win some battles.

 

And the C&C...woo. My second play through, I kept a character alive that I killed on the first one. And it stunned me, because I never realized what really was going on the first time. A definate "wait what?" moment.

 

The only real problems I had with the game was:

 

-No quickslots. Would be nice to bind skills to the number keys rather then having to switch them

-Cover system works, but sometimes does some weird things such as preventing one from shooting, even when there's no reason you could not

-Mouse control is still a bit rough

 

Aside from those things, it was otherwise a great game. And I ain't gonna jump on the "OMG bad AI!" wagon since....AI hasn't improved much for some time, why would you expect it to be any different here? WOuld be a nice surprise if they were really really good, but I won't hold it against the devs for that. For what it is worth, I found the AI was fine. btw, the melee and back away move by NPCs is to knock you off balance, then put distance while shooting you. They only do it when you get too close to them, or if they are a close ranged build, like with a shotty.

 

For the TL;DR crowd, comparing AP to Crysis in terms of graphics is a silly comparison, as one would have to say every game has bad graphics since they don't compare to Crysis.

 

And AP isn't nearly as bad as critics make it out to be, whatever their reasoning. Sour grapes I suppose.

[Enoch]

Played for 2 hours. Had 2 crashes to desktop. Grrr...

 

 

I guess I'll spend the next hour updating drivers (which aren't that old) and see if it improves. But then I'll have to go to bed. And I really did want to at least get through the prologue this evening. Sometimes being an employed gamer kinda sucks.

I would like to report that the driver update seems to have worked-- no crashes since then.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Enoch

[Kenrae]

More stealth action gameplay and less shoddy RPG battle mechanics.

 

That's a matter of tastes. I like that it's more of an RPG than an action game. But that's because I prefer RPGs, I'd never say a game is bad just because it's an action game.

[Kenrae]

Only one real problem. Whoever decided to use checkpoints instead of savegames should be shot. Multiple times.

 

Quick save is a cheat and makes games far too easy. Checkpoints force players to complete sections flawlessly in order to progress, good design decision in my opinion.

 

I also agree with most of what Libertarian says.

 

Quicksaves let you, as a player, decide how you prefer to play. Checkpoints don't. I find repeating something I've just done to be extremely boring and dull, if I didn't like this game so much I would have abandoned it due to checkpoints.

For a game that boasts about choices this particular design decision is taking choice from me. Let me play the game how I want.

[Kasabian]

No one is forcing you to use quick save.

 

You are right, because it is not present!

 

You missed my point though, adding it would make the game far too easy. I would prefer people complaining that quick save is not present rather than them complaining that the game was no challenge.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Kasabian

[Kenrae]

And AP isn't nearly as bad as critics make it out to be, whatever their reasoning. Sour grapes I suppose.

 

Or maybe it's just that Obsidian hasn't bribed any reviewer.

 

Have you played ME2 in nightmare mode? I assure you that you must use all of your skills and weapons to survive and the enemies flank you, a lot.

[Surberus]

No one is forcing you to use quick save.

 

You are right, because it is not present!

 

You missed my point though, adding it would make the game far too easy. I would prefer people complaining that quick save is not present rather than them complaining that the game was no challenge.

 

The point you seem to be missing is that having quick save in the game gives people the option to play how they choose. Do you want to save before/after every fight, go for it. Would you prefer to save only after finishing each mission, you can do that too.

 

It has nothing to do with ease vs difficulty and everything to do with opening the game up to different play styles. At this point in time, in the gaming world, there is no reason not to have a quick save option. In my mind it borders on an ignorance of the gaming community to not include it.

 

My current complaint and frustration is that I am kicked out of missions far too soon. When I get into firefights I like to move through them seamlessly. This often leads to a trail of bodies and collectable items and then suddenly I'm ending the area and didn't know it so I can now not go back and collect the stuff I left lying around.

 

It's the little design choices like this that take me out of the game and show me the developers did not put player choice/control first.

[Kasabian]

I am not missing any point, I know a few people want it and why they do, but I just do not care.

 

I just see things differently and obviously the designers do too.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Kasabian

[Calax]

Look at Crysis. That game came out in 2007, and its graphics blow these out of the water. You can argue that these graphics are comparable to ME1, but that game came out in 2008! Its 2010 right now! I will contend that my statement is incorrect, but the sentiment is not.

There's a difference. Crysis was a PC exclusive title, and was designed to use stuff that's was beyond the current tech level. Alpha Protocol is designed as a console game and the graphics on a PS3 or 360 don't exactly have much in the way of power behind them when compared to top of the line graphics cards.

[Paraclete]

Kind of tired of the whole "respawning waves of enemies" approach to boss battles. It's not unique, nor fun; only pointless and boring.

[ckhound]

I love the game, honestly i would give it a 9/10 easy, maybe 8 if i was stingy but these reviews are killing peoples opinions of a great and fun game. One of my favorites instantly.

[BEES]

I love the game, honestly i would give it a 9/10 easy, maybe 8 if i was stingy but these reviews are killing peoples opinions of a great and fun game. One of my favorites instantly.

 

I was prepared to give it an 8, but Taipei was bug city, for whatever reason. Had to reload a boss fight because the zipcord start point didn't "spawn," couldn't use the Reload last savegame at all since it never spawned the enemies, had my skills completely locked at one point...

 

On the plus side, though, the community suggestion for the mouse problems did significantly reduce its erratic movements.

[Hassat Hunter]

Kind of tired of the whole "respawning waves of enemies" approach to boss battles. It's not unique, nor fun; only pointless and boring.

Remind me, where does that happen again?

Because I found it refreshing that AP was one of the games these days without infinitely respawning enemies. Dead = Dead... okay, a few bugs (reloading at CIA making the unconscious re-awaken), but never infinite battles (AFAIR)

[unskilled-]

Look at Crysis. That game came out in 2007, and its graphics blow these out of the water. You can argue that these graphics are comparable to ME1, but that game came out in 2008! Its 2010 right now! I will contend that my statement is incorrect, but the sentiment is not.

There's a difference. Crysis was a PC exclusive title, and was designed to use stuff that's was beyond the current tech level. Alpha Protocol is designed as a console game and the graphics on a PS3 or 360 don't exactly have much in the way of power behind them when compared to top of the line graphics cards.

 

I don't know what you are talking about. The games on the ps3 and 360 have graphics that blow the majority of computer games out of the water. Its not a lack of processing power on the part of the consoles themselves.. rather, their limitations when it comes to upgrading to newer more powerful hardware.

 

Yes Crysis is a PC exclusive title. The only reason behind that is because its graphics would melt anything not built from future technology, or at least when it came out.. they've optimized the whole engine so it runs a helluva lot better on systems that dont meet the requirements. The ps3 could easily run that game now, the 360 could but it might have to run on lower graphical settings.

 

Anyways, I just finished it and the story was pretty awesome. Some awesome twists too! Wonder when the sequel's coming out (I'm guessing 2012).

[Nosmirc]

I don't know what you are talking about. The games on the ps3 and 360 have graphics that blow the majority of computer games out of the water. Its not a lack of processing power on the part of the consoles themselves.. rather, their limitations when it comes to upgrading to newer more powerful hardware.

 

Yes Crysis is a PC exclusive title. The only reason behind that is because its graphics would melt anything not built from future technology, or at least when it came out.. they've optimized the whole engine so it runs a helluva lot better on systems that dont meet the requirements. The ps3 could easily run that game now, the 360 could but it might have to run on lower graphical settings.

 

I would guess the reason why console games appear to 'blow' PC games out of the water is a concious choice on the part of the developer. Ramping up the graphics can be pretty expensive, and if the lowest setting is too high, you'e just limiting your customer base.

 

In terms of potential, PCs will always be ahead of any console, thanks to the ability to upgrade components. Consoles are stuck until the next gen of consoles come out. But noone really wants to exceed the PC's current limits. It would potentially limit accessiablity to the game.