This is truely... an awful game.

[AwfulGame]

I honestly expected a game that would be playable. The company that made this game (a game I truely looked forward to) are responsible for games that I adore beyond all reason and yet this game... this... travesty of a game is clearly some half finished filler designed by the Z-listers of the game development department. The ones they don't normally let near the computers for fear they might use the CD drawer as a coaster for their coffee mugs again.

 

I'm appalled at myself for having forked the money over to be quite honest, the graphics are sub-standard when you consider the glorious games that are produced for the xbox, PS3 and PC these days. Red Dead Redemption is truely beautiful, Mass Effect is astounding and other such games border on works of art, but this game seems to grab its graphics from the dark days of the early nineties (my trusty Amiga could manage better graphics than this) and makes little use of any technological advances we've had for a good while.

 

The main character minces when he walks, seems to require the momentum of flinging his arms wierdly forwards in order to run and whilst crouching he appears to be auditioning for the part of King Richard the Third, hunchback and all. Not all games require beautiful graphics, but this one is so lacking it is unbelievable.

 

Hacking... I think my eyes bled, withered and melted into the deep recesses of my skull upon having to even attempt this awful mini-game. It is so badly designed that whoever approved it clearly has no concept of fun.

 

This game is appalling, there really isn't any other word for it. The fact it has been released is a travesty and despite the fact I was ready to pounce of Fallout: New Vegas, I think for the first time ever I'm going to seriously hesitate when it comes to any game produced by Obsidian. With such a catalogue of games under their belt, this is one that truely needs to be re-written, re-worked and re-released as something fun, beautiful to look at and enjoyable to play. As it stands, I could not recommend this game and its huge flaws and the inherent laziness evident within its entire design.

 

Woo, vented.

[fuZZ]

agreed hacking is ****, but the game is good... its not crysis in terms of graphics. its not an ME1/2 or dragon age clone, but damn its fun!!!

[Orogun01]

That's just an awful first post. Is that how you greet everyone?

[tr1pod]

He's spot on

[Oblarg]

He's spot on

 

It'd be a more legitimate criticism if he could find something to complain about other than graphics and a minigame.

[tr1pod]

He's spot on

 

It'd be a more legitimate criticism if he could find something to complain about other than graphics and a minigame.

 

 

Not sure why. He's not a reviewer, he just somebody posting on the games messageboard. He clearly doesn't like the game and after paying

[qaz123]

He's spot on

 

It'd be a more legitimate criticism if he could find something to complain about other than graphics and a minigame.

 

 

Not sure why. He's not a reviewer, he just somebody posting on the games messageboard. He clearly doesn't like the game and after paying

[fuZZ]

He's spot on

 

It'd be a more legitimate criticism if he could find something to complain about other than graphics and a minigame.

 

 

Not sure why. He's not a reviewer, he just somebody posting on the games messageboard. He clearly doesn't like the game and after paying

[Oblarg]

He's spot on

 

It'd be a more legitimate criticism if he could find something to complain about other than graphics and a minigame.

 

 

Not sure why. He's not a reviewer, he just somebody posting on the games messageboard. He clearly doesn't like the game and after paying

[HoonDing]

In before Mass Effect/Fallout 3/Dragon Age has even worse AI/graphics/animations/combat.

 

Seriously, OP is spot on about the hacking minigame. Maybe it's my mouse, but it took me half an hour to even pass the one in the tutorial. I also dislike the main protagonist's voice-over... even worse than Mark Meer.

[AwfulGame]

He's spot on

 

It'd be a more legitimate criticism if he could find something to complain about other than graphics and a minigame.

 

The game as a whole is poorly made and combat is awkward and poorly realised. It seems clunky and ham-fisted to me and removes another dash of fun from one aspect of the game. Perhaps I've been spoilt by playing games that are fun from the outset and decently made. But for 40 pounds sterling I think every gamer should expect something more for their pennies.

 

The interaction system simply doesn't flow, I find it lazy to say the least. Quick-time event conversations simply don't work in my opinion. I find myself detached from the whole thing, were as conversations in Mass Effect 1 and 2 flow and you feel you're actually a part of it. Hell some people might think they are basically the same system barring the timer, but AP's version seems cobbled together and a poor relation to other such versions.

 

Movement and so forth is odd and lacks the grace and finesse of other games (as mentioned before) and since one can't help but not look at the main character since he occupies a good portion of the screen, is as distracting as it is off-putting. The simple fact is this game is not fun, not worth the money paid for it and graphics (say what you will) make a huge impact since they are the first thing anyone lays eyes upon. I must admit I found my interest waning the moment I saw the main menu screen. I wasn't aware I'd been teleported back to the early 1990's as I said in my first post. But on I played hoping for a spark of fun to ignite my interest.

 

As to it being a legit criticism, the mini-game and the graphics are but two pieces of a very sorry puzzle that are indicative of the laziness of the game developers and the people who even approved this as a finished product. As for it being an RPG, I'd say no to that. Mostly down to the fact I found myself not giving a flying fig for the protagonist from the outset. RPG it ain't. A poorly designed shooter with delusions perhaps. RPG. No.

 

These are my opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. Some folks will love this game, some folks will hate it. Other folks such as me will wonder how on earth this ever passed muster and found its way onto the shelves of the local gaming store.

 

I could have griped more in the first post, but I figured I'd focus on two huge gripes for me. But lets face it, whatever my opinions, other folks will love this game and I wish them all the fun they can milk from it. Not everyone is the same afterall, it would be a boring world if we were.

Edited May 29, 2010 by AwfulGame

[Oblarg]

He's spot on

 

It'd be a more legitimate criticism if he could find something to complain about other than graphics and a minigame.

 

The game as a whole is poorly made and combat is awkward and poorly realised. It seems clunky and ham-fisted to me and removes another dash of fun from one aspect of the game. Perhaps I've been spoilt by playing games that are fun from the outset and decently made. But for 40 pounds sterling I think every gamer should expect something more for their pennies.

 

The interaction system simply doesn't flow, I find it lazy to say the least. Quick-time event conversations simply don't work in my opinion. I find myself detached from the whole thing, were as conversations in Mass Effect 1 and 2 flow and you feel you're actually a part of it. Hell some people might think they are basically the same system barring the timer, but AP's version seems cobbled together and a poor relation to other such versions.

 

Movement and so forth is odd and lacks the grace and finesse of other games (as mentioned before) and since one can't help but not loko at the main character since he occupies a good portion of the screen, is as distracting as it is off-putting. The simple fact is this game is not fun, not worth the money paid for it and graphics (say what you will) make a huge impact since they are the first thing anyone lays eyes upon. I must admit I found my interest waning the moment I saw the main menu screen. I wasn't aware I'd been teleported back to the early 1990's as I said in my first post. But on I played hoping for a spark of fun to ignite my interest.

 

As to it being a legit criticism, the mini-game and the graphics are but two pieces of a very sorry puzzle that are indicative of the laziness of the game developers and the people who even approved this as a finished product. As for it being an RPG, I'd say no to that. Mostly down to the fact I found myself not giving a flying fig for the protagonist from the outset. RPG it ain't. A poorly designed shooter with delusions perhaps. RPG. No.

 

These are my opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. Some folks will love this game, some folks will hate it. Other folks such as me will wonder how on earth this ever passed muster and found its way onto the shelves of the local gaming store.

 

Do tell, what makes something an "RPG" in your opinion?

[fuZZ]

In before Mass Effect/Fallout 3/Dragon Age has even worse AI/graphics/animations/combat.

 

Seriously, OP is spot on about the hacking minigame. Maybe it's my mouse, but it took me half an hour to even pass the one in the tutorial. I also dislike the main protagonist's voice-over... even worse than Mark Meer.

 

i beg to differ ME1&2, dragon age and FO3 are all good games and offer somthing different to the RPG genre, to say they have worse AI/graphics/animations/combat is so untrue.

 

the op is correct in saying that computer hacking is ****, but not game breaking!

[tr1pod]

Again, he is spot on. An RPG to me is a game in which you take the role of a character and advance them in skills. It also means the protagonist is someone you care about enough to do so. This guy is so wooden he floats on water. Not helped by the fact that the guy doing his voice is horrendous.

 

I could say the lines in a more convincing way. Christ, Stephen Hawkings could deliver them better.

[Oblarg]

Again, he is spot on. An RPG to me is a game in which you take the role of a character and advance them in skills. It also means the protagonist is someone you care about enough to do so. This guy is so wooden he floats on water. Not helped by the fact that the guy doing his voice is horrendous.

 

I could say the lines in a more convincing way. Christ, Stephen Hawkings could deliver them better.

 

Are you seriously implying that a game's RPG-ness is dependent on how much you personally like the main character?

 

Har har har. Very funny bud.

[fuZZ]

Again, he is spot on. An RPG to me is a game in which you take the role of a character and advance them in skills. It also means the protagonist is someone you care about enough to do so. This guy is so wooden he floats on water. Not helped by the fact that the guy doing his voice is horrendous.

 

I could say the lines in a more convincing way. Christ, Stephen Hawkings could deliver them better.

 

Are you seriously implying that a game's RPG-ness is dependent on how much you personally like the main character?

 

Har har har. Very funny bud.

 

 

if you cannot customize the player character (as in sex, height, etc) then you cannot relate to them on a personal level i suppose... me personally i do not mind the default looks of the character.

[AwfulGame]

Do tell, what makes something an "RPG" in your opinion?

 

You need more than the ability to assign dots to skills, the ability to select from several tenuous backgrounds and the chance to change the look of the man you'll watch mince across the screen. A story that is in some way interesting would be nice, a protagonist that is also interesting and that you've got some affinity with as opposed to the cardboard cut-out operative. Being lead through a story with the ability to be sarcastic, smarmy or angry isn't an RPG (in my opinion). It is merely a choose your own adventure where instead of flipping to page 213 to see what happens when you backchat the local Burgomeister, you press X to be smarmy. Wow, next time one might be really devilish and press Y to be slightly annoying.

 

For me, I need to feel something for the person I'm playing and in FPS' I don't feel any affinity and that is what this is. An FPS with the chance to perform a few annoying mini-games, chat to set characters and proceed through a game. The chance to put ones mark on the character and some might well find they can do that with what is on offer, but for me, I find myself with absolutely no interest in the main character.

 

But then that is "My Opinion".

[Tigranes]

Well I think it's a case of hate/love... just played a few hours, Mike isn't the most interesting character in the world but he's fine for me. his VA is pretty 'realistic' as well. I like the dialogue system (it's not even that fast-paced anyway), and I think the atmosphere is great.

 

I think it's undeniable that the game doesn't feel super-polished and slick, because there are some ups and downs with the graphics/animations and movement/interfacing is especially clunky. Hacking's quite easy for me, but the game seems confused whether you want to move with the mouse or the keyboard when you do it - only touching one maeks it better.

 

The simple fact is this game is not fun, not worth the money paid for it and graphics (say what you will) make a huge impact since they are the first thing anyone lays eyes upon. I must admit I found my interest waning the moment I saw the main menu screen.

 

The funny thing is, I thought the main menu was very 90's as well, but the actual game is very very fun. It's grabbing me a lot. The difference is that with Dragon Age and FO3 it grabbed me at the start because everything was clearly very well made and put together... here, not as much, but there's interesting dialogue, interesting setup and while graphics look a few years dated (Amiga? Yeah right) they do have a charm to them.

 

I think we can all point out the flaws in the game or bits we don't like, but hey, I don't judge every game by the same standards - some games are great in some places, other games pull you in with other tricks. Dragon Age had completely horrendous dialogue and cutscenes directly ripped off Lord of the Rings, but it had great polish, great gameplay and good balance. Alpha Protocol doesn't look like it's as polished and it is sometimes clunky, but it's got a lot of other things going for it.

[Alpha]

As soon as i read OP's nickname i knew what expect in the troll thread.

[AwfulGame]

As soon as i read OP's nickname i knew what expect in the troll thread.

 

As soon as I read the above, I knew what to expect in the blinkered fanboy's post.

[SickOfThisBS]

There's a good game underneath these technical issues.

 

I have uninstalled the game. I would overlook other issues but the mouse problems just completely kill it for me, and I've tried really hard to ignore it. I'm disappointed cause I waited for this title since that Gametrailers episode from Obsidian, somewhat more than a year ago.

 

I hope they fix up the issues so I can give it another chance. Not much more to say.

[HoonDing]

The funny thing is, I thought the main menu was very 90's as well, but the actual game is very very fun. It's grabbing me a lot. The difference is that with Dragon Age and FO3 it grabbed me at the start because everything was clearly very well made and put together... here, not as much, but there's interesting dialogue, interesting setup and while graphics look a few years dated (Amiga? Yeah right) they do have a charm to them.

I think that's partly the point of OP. While fun, the game feels more like it was developed by an Eastern European independent developer rather than an overseas developer supported by a large publisher.

 

That is perhaps why the European reviews are so positive compared to overseas ones: European reviewers are more used to lesser production values. If Alpha Protocol was developed by, say, Cypron Studios, Gamespot would've probably given a 3.0 score.

Edited May 29, 2010 by virumor

[Tigranes]

That's an exaggeration, honestly. I mean, GTA4 had horrendous texture errors that replaced the landscape with white. Dragon Age had gamebreaking bugs where characters disappeared or you couldn't enter the Dwarven city. Certainly I wouldn't say AP is as polished as a Halo or a Mass Effect but I don't really think its so necessary for every game to be for it to be worth playing.

[Raithe]

The hacking game has a few twitches with the mouse, but I haven't had any major issues.. Yes, the graphics can be a bit clunky.. but I don't generally expect crysis level swishness ramped up for an enjoyable rpg.

 

I've found the dialogue stance system to be interesting, and the voice work quite decent. There's worse dialogue and spoken lines in a lot of tv/film , especially crime and spy stuff thats on these days.

 

The gameplay and level designs do feel a touch reminiscent of deus ex to me.. which I enjoy. There are some flaws in it, but nothing thats truly reached out and grabbed me.

 

And forty pounds sterling? where on earth did you buy that? the retail price was 29.99 and nearly everywhere was doing the standard release day "reduction" that most games have.

[Thorton_AP]

Didn't some people get it at