Alpha Protocol Reviews

[Achilles]

Cogar66 wins.

[Oner]

[Flouride]

"I'm not a troll, but I answer like a troll, look like a troll, sound like a troll and even smell like troll. R00fles!"

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

"I'm not a troll, but I answer like a troll, look like a troll, sound like a troll and even smell like troll. R00fles!"

You missed the "You're the troll!" bit.

[Chaste]

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.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Chaste

[Orchomene]

Well, you have your own opinion and I have mine.

What can I say to convince you that it's not fanboyism from me ? The reason I put AP above ME2 is the following : I liked playing AP despite some of the flaws (I faced less flaws than you, but it may be luck) and I forced myself to go to the end of ME2 and didn't like it all. I've unistalled ME2 and won't play it again. So, for me, this is clear that AP is above ME2. ME2 is like, as you say, Pirates of Caribbean, that is a mainstrwam movie. ME2 is a game for everyone but me. Poor story, porr character, a simple and uninnovative gameplay and boring fights.

Also, saying that ME2 doesn't have technical issues is just wrong. You may not have faced BSD, but it happens. The engine is the same as the AP one and the issues (texture load) are the same.

 

I'm not sure I'm the one that is the "fanboy" here.

[Volourn]

"ME2 is a game for everyone but me. Poor story, porr character, a simple and uninnovative gameplay and boring fights."

 

Wow. All that, and you still finished the game. That's impressive. I also like you insult everybody who likes a game you don't. btw, You did just describe AP.

 

 

 

"I'm not sure I'm the one that is the "fanboy" here."

 

Your above statement proves your fanboyism. Basically, you have made a 'factual' claim that everybody who prefers ME2 over Ap (ie. disagrees with you) are moronic tools who like a game despite it being 'objectuively' worse. Yup, putting others down to make yourself feel better about your choice of favored game is definitely a sign of fanboyism.

 

Anyways, let's have fun:

 

Poor story: AP's is a bad rip off of basically every season of 24.

 

Poor characters: L0L Thorton, and company ar ejokes. Not one of them are memorable.

 

Uninnovative Gameplay: Describes Ap to a tee. It steals ideas from better games and does them 10x times worse. Nothing original about AP at all.

 

Boring Fights; AP has zero inetresting fights.

 

Too bad too as Obsidian is capable of awesomely fun games like MOTB. AP bombed for a reason. It's just not a very good game.

[Flouride]

Volourn the master critic who didn't even play half of the game.

[Achilles]

I applaud Chaste for making an honest effort to provide an objective review. It is unfortunate that the PC version seems to suffer from so many bugs. Luckily I purchased the 360 version of the game and have encountered almost none of them (there are two areas where the enemies are missing from the current surroundings upon reload).

 

I still fail to grasp the comparison to ME. It's not even the same ballpark. In all fairness, I haven't played ME2 but the writing in ME was atrocious. Comparing the two games on story is an unfair fight that ME will lose every time. I will admit that despite its flaws ME is one of my guilty pleasures because let's face it, it's a fun game. But it's not a serious RPG.

 

So far as RPG mechanics go, AP knocks one ball out of park after another. Is it as "pretty" as ME2? No, but the environments are gorgeous and the characters expressive. With very few exceptions, the VO work is spot-on. Reactivity is far better than anything I've seen from Bioware.

 

As an action game, I'm sure that AP falls short. But I didn't purchase AP because I was expecting and action game. I bought an RPG. I really wish we could reframe this dialog in terms of merits of AP as an RPG, because that what is it was and always has been billed as.

 

EDIT:

 

"Volourn the master critic who didn't even finish the initial hub."

 

Fixed

Edited July 20, 2010 by Achilles

[Purkake]

It's like the paraolympics here with people who haven't finished either game arguing about which is better.

 

 

At least I have finished both, neither is that horrible.

 

Edited July 20, 2010 by Purkake

[Achilles]

It's like the paraolympics here with people who haven't finished either game arguing about which is better.

 

 

At least I have finished both, neither is that horrible.

And when the comparison doesn't even work

[Purkake]

How a bout two deaf men arguing over classical music then?

[Volourn]

"Volourn the master critic who didn't even finish the initial hub."

 

Yeah, I guess the better option would be like those who finished ME2 yet hated everything about it. That would be the logical thing to do. Put in 20-30 hours of work just to say I finished it.

 

I play games to have fun. I did not have fun with AP therefore I stopped.

 

I have fun MOTB therefore I finished it.

 

I had fun with KOTOR2 and SOU despite neither of them being great games; but they were fun.

 

I played enough of AP, and read enough sdpoilers of the later parts of the game to make a solid, logical statement.I did not finish Oblivion, or FO3 yet I would not hesitate to state they were crappy games.

 

btw, I also did not even bother to try out a barbie game to figure out I would not like it, and that's it a bad game.

 

 

But, yeah, one needs to finish a game they hate to prove they hate it 'legitly'. That doesn't make sense.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I give AP an 8.5 I would've given it a 9, but I wasn't very happy with the way the ending was handled, at least in my playthrough. And yes, it is offensive anti-American truther propaganda

suggesting Halliburton and the US government are behind Al Qaeda because lolz they badly wanted the Patriot Act and to sell completely unnecessary (because there are no real terrorists) security equipment to the Europeans.

.

[Purkake]

never change, Wrath.

[Achilles]

never change, Wrath.

hehe, glad I read this before I responded to the above

 

EDIT: @V - I think we should just acknowledge that you aren't part of the target audience. This is a story-driven RPG for people that like story-driven RPGs. You didn't like the mechanics. That's fine. To each their own - really. But if you want to lambaste the game based on the story, it would really help your case to be able to say that you actually finished it.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Achilles

[Wrath of Dagon]

Probably for the best.

[Oblarg]

I give AP an 8.5 I would've given it a 9, but I wasn't very happy with the way the ending was handled, at least in my playthrough. And yes, it is offensive anti-American truther propaganda

suggesting Halliburton and the US government are behind Al Qaeda because lolz they badly wanted the Patriot Act and to sell completely unnecessary (because there are no real terrorists) security equipment to the Europeans.

.

 

I really don't think it was supposed to be interpreted as being that close of an analogue to real-world events - yeah, the "middle eastern terrorists but with a twist" plot has been beaten to death, but I really doubt the game was intended to indicate that the US is behind Al Qaeda.

 

I'd give AP an 8.7/10 - for reference, I'd give ME1 a 9/10 and ME2 a 7.5/10.

[Purkake]

never change, Wrath.

hehe, glad I read this before I responded to the above

 

EDIT: @V - I think we should just acknowledge that you aren't part of the target audience. This is a story-driven RPG for people that like story-driven RPGs. You didn't like the mechanics. That's fine. To each their own - really. But if you want to lambaste the game based on the story, it would really help your case to be able to say that you actually finished it.

Why not a gentlemanly deal? You finish ME2 and Volo will finish AP and then you can have a pistol duel at dawn to determine which game is truly better.

 

@Oblarg: The disclaimer at the start of the game clearly stated that any resemblance to real world people, places and event is merely coincidental.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Purkake

[Oner]

@Oblarg: The disclaimer at the start of the game clearly stated that any resemblance to real world people, places and event is merely coincidental.

That's almost as funny when Assassin's Creed 2 said this.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I give AP an 8.5 I would've given it a 9, but I wasn't very happy with the way the ending was handled, at least in my playthrough. And yes, it is offensive anti-American truther propaganda

suggesting Halliburton and the US government are behind Al Qaeda because lolz they badly wanted the Patriot Act and to sell completely unnecessary (because there are no real terrorists) security equipment to the Europeans.

.

 

I really don't think it was supposed to be interpreted as being that close of an analogue to real-world events - yeah, the "middle eastern terrorists but with a twist" plot has been beaten to death, but I really doubt the game was intended to indicate that the US is behind Al Qaeda.

 

I'd give AP an 8.7/10 - for reference, I'd give ME1 a 9/10 and ME2 a 7.5/10.

Because of the numerous references to real-life concepts, like the Patriot Act, and the critical nature of these references, it's quite clear to me they were intended as political statements.

The Museum bombing was clearly another reference to real world terrorist attacks in Europe and Shaheed clearly matched Bin Laden

For reference I gave ME1 a 7/10 and a 5/10 to ME2 demo.

[Purkake]

I can't help, but notice that you are clearly ignoring the disclaimer that I posted a few posts back.

 

What's your game, Wrath?

[Achilles]

Why not a gentlemanly deal? You finish ME2 and Volo will finish AP and then you can have a pistol duel at dawn to determine which game is truly better.

You seem to have missed the thrust of my last several messages: Why? The two games aren't comparable.

 

My argument has been "Why are you (general usage) invoking ME(2) when ME(2) isn't even the same genre of game".

 

If V wants to insist on doing so, then he's either proceeding on story (in which case he'll lose) or he'll do so on shooting mechanics (in which I'll concede...because AP isn't a shooter).

 

And if you want beleaguer the point, I've played (and finished...multiple times) ME. He cannot same the same of AP.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I can't help, but notice that you are clearly ignoring the disclaimer that I posted a few posts back.

 

What's your game, Wrath?

 

Then how do you explain **** Cheney with a shotgun being the final boss, huh, huh?

 

[Achilles]

LMAO!

 

Well done