Review: Alpha Protocol
- Thread starter Susan Arendt
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I agree, but I got the feeling that game isn't broken (at least not on PC and 360) just sort of... under developed. I also got the feeling that it's something I might enjoy (interesting and well told story? choices that are squarely in the grey area and do affect the way story plays out? stealth play with miopic NPCs hard of hearing? Yes, please). I also have pre-emptive low expectations and at GBP 24.99 (USD 36.51) it is affordable mistake. I shall know in 2h26m...pneuma08 said:
The PC was a port of the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions. Also, I can confirm that I have had absolutely no problems on the Xbox 360.Nimbus said:
Maybe the review versions sent out were f---ed up the arse? Cause I haven't had any problems whatsoever. In fact, I freaking love the game!
Although I was honestly rooting for Obsidian here, I was expecting very little after playing KOTOR II. It seems they just don't know how to finish making a game before releasing it.
This bodes poorly for New Vegas.
This bodes poorly for New Vegas.
I wish companies would do something to salvage things like this. A lot of these ideas seem really good, just crappy workmanship. Ya I know AI is beyond tweaks and polish, but I'd buy this game if they got a good review from escapist. Plus, the bad reviews will act like a skeleton to scare other companies from making a similar game. So RPG and spies won't be together in any future games for a while.
That's a shame... it looked like a really sweet idea too. Thanks Susan for the honest review about the bugs. I'm sure it'd be awesome if Ubisoft worked on it 
That's what I am thinking, as I have had no problems with the pC version. I did have the controls not respond once, but that was cause the batteries in my keyboard died >_>Nimbus said:
This was nearly Obsidian's last hope. If they mess up New Vegas I expect the studio to fold. They really had no excuse with this, no strict timeline, not like KOTOR 2 (which considering the development time was a great game - Obsidian's only saving grace).
Obsidian is ending up like Ed Wood. Has the passion but not the talent.
Obsidian is ending up like Ed Wood. Has the passion but not the talent.
I'm on my third playthrough and I have yet to run into the mass number of bugs people are bitching about. Only a few times has the AI retarded out on me and most graphical glitches have been few and far between. As for the shooting, well it's trying to be somewhat realistic in the fact that you have to steady your aim before you can start putting caps between eyes. There are glitches but the story and the working parts of the gameplay over ride that for me.
I'm quite shocked this review failed to even mention the story and the fact you have so many different ways of playing through the game or the fact that there are about 32 endings depending on what choices you made or the fact that people will react and mention things you have done and said in the past and that this will affect how you are percieved in the game .
I'm quite shocked this review failed to even mention the story and the fact you have so many different ways of playing through the game or the fact that there are about 32 endings depending on what choices you made or the fact that people will react and mention things you have done and said in the past and that this will affect how you are percieved in the game .
Not at five meters, and only a little bit more at thirty-five.Two Angels said:
And the extent of my firearms training was a powerpoint presentation and a trip to the shooting range. I didn't even make Marksman and barely qualified.
I love the game, to be honest. I'm about 80% of the way through it on the PS3, and I don't understand how my experience is so different from most other peoples.
Yes, the graphics are bad, but that doesn't bother me. The texture pop is, for the most part, minimal, the lip syncing isn't bad... I think that the numerous delays just make the graphics seem worse than they would've been.
The stealth isn't entirely broken. Your armor choices, the speed you move, the powers you utilize all make a difference. Don't put any points into stealth, and if you don't stay far, far away using silenced weapons, the enemies will respond. Sure, sometimes you get away with sneaking up on someone you shouldn't have, and sometimes an enemy will spot you from across the way, but I think the hidden dice have something to do with that, not just less than stellar AI. My biggest issue here was that the bodies disappeared, so unless an enemy was staring at another enemy when you shot him, you could get away with it. The bad AI comes in smaller doses, like climbing ladders mid firefight, or not taking cover. But even that doesn't bother me so much... mooks are always stupid in spy movies. Also, they can never hit for anything, so really, if this was accurate to spy movies, I'd never get hit, except maybe in a dramatic cutscene.
I didn't have any control issues either, other than the occasional issue of what I have dubbed "Gearsofwaritis", wherein too much shit is mapped to one button. Cover, drop from ledge, pick up loot, hack, lethal takedowns.... sometimes it would mess that up, but not often. The closest thing to a control issue I can think of is a flincky camera in tight spaces... it zooms in too close and is a tad uncontrollable.
And actually, the guns do play fairly differently. Each one has its own mechanic. Pistols must be trained on a person to activate their critical hit, but you can move the cursor and maintain that damage bonus as long as you stay on your target, with a skill that lets you stop time to aim a bunch of shots a la Red Dead Redemption's Dead Eye. ARs don't need to stay on a target, but they lose their critical hit if you adjust your aim, though they have a skill that lets the game track an enemy for you while still gaining critical. Shotguns build up knockdown chance the longer you aim down the sights, with an ability that removes the need for charge time to get said knockdown. Get full, and even one pellet will knock someone down from well beyond the range a shotgun does any respectable damage (which seems to me like a perfect use for Flechette rounds). And SMGs build damage the longer you spray one target, and they have a skill that lets you have a bottomless clip, so who needs accuracy? Sure, you're likely to stick with your favorite, and maybe have a few points in a backup but that happens in every game (Hell, that's how I played Mass Effect too), plus you can only carry two guns anyway.
But really, the key here is the story, which as Ms. Arendt says is quite good. The voice acting is generally good, the story is fun and believable and more dynamic than just about any other game out there (where what you do, how you do it, and in what order actually dramatically change the story), the characters are interesting and engaging, and you can feel your impact on it.
Honestly, I think Alpha Protocol's biggest roadblock is that most reviewers seemed to have wanted Mass Effect 3: The Moderning (yes, I made up a word). And while it bears a resemblance on the surface, it's not that. Sure, it could've used more polish, and the AI could've used a bit of beefing up. But the game is still good, and it's gotten an unfairly harsh rap.
Story: 5
Graphics: 2
Gameplay: 3 for the action, 5 for the dialogue
Sound: 2 for the SFX, 4 for the voice acting
Replayability: Well once I beat it tonight, I plan to immediately restart and pick different stuff, so 5.
TOTAL: 4 out of 5
As a side note, I think this may be one of the first times I've disagreed with Ms. Arendt.
Yes, the graphics are bad, but that doesn't bother me. The texture pop is, for the most part, minimal, the lip syncing isn't bad... I think that the numerous delays just make the graphics seem worse than they would've been.
The stealth isn't entirely broken. Your armor choices, the speed you move, the powers you utilize all make a difference. Don't put any points into stealth, and if you don't stay far, far away using silenced weapons, the enemies will respond. Sure, sometimes you get away with sneaking up on someone you shouldn't have, and sometimes an enemy will spot you from across the way, but I think the hidden dice have something to do with that, not just less than stellar AI. My biggest issue here was that the bodies disappeared, so unless an enemy was staring at another enemy when you shot him, you could get away with it. The bad AI comes in smaller doses, like climbing ladders mid firefight, or not taking cover. But even that doesn't bother me so much... mooks are always stupid in spy movies. Also, they can never hit for anything, so really, if this was accurate to spy movies, I'd never get hit, except maybe in a dramatic cutscene.
I didn't have any control issues either, other than the occasional issue of what I have dubbed "Gearsofwaritis", wherein too much shit is mapped to one button. Cover, drop from ledge, pick up loot, hack, lethal takedowns.... sometimes it would mess that up, but not often. The closest thing to a control issue I can think of is a flincky camera in tight spaces... it zooms in too close and is a tad uncontrollable.
And actually, the guns do play fairly differently. Each one has its own mechanic. Pistols must be trained on a person to activate their critical hit, but you can move the cursor and maintain that damage bonus as long as you stay on your target, with a skill that lets you stop time to aim a bunch of shots a la Red Dead Redemption's Dead Eye. ARs don't need to stay on a target, but they lose their critical hit if you adjust your aim, though they have a skill that lets the game track an enemy for you while still gaining critical. Shotguns build up knockdown chance the longer you aim down the sights, with an ability that removes the need for charge time to get said knockdown. Get full, and even one pellet will knock someone down from well beyond the range a shotgun does any respectable damage (which seems to me like a perfect use for Flechette rounds). And SMGs build damage the longer you spray one target, and they have a skill that lets you have a bottomless clip, so who needs accuracy? Sure, you're likely to stick with your favorite, and maybe have a few points in a backup but that happens in every game (Hell, that's how I played Mass Effect too), plus you can only carry two guns anyway.
But really, the key here is the story, which as Ms. Arendt says is quite good. The voice acting is generally good, the story is fun and believable and more dynamic than just about any other game out there (where what you do, how you do it, and in what order actually dramatically change the story), the characters are interesting and engaging, and you can feel your impact on it.
Honestly, I think Alpha Protocol's biggest roadblock is that most reviewers seemed to have wanted Mass Effect 3: The Moderning (yes, I made up a word). And while it bears a resemblance on the surface, it's not that. Sure, it could've used more polish, and the AI could've used a bit of beefing up. But the game is still good, and it's gotten an unfairly harsh rap.
Story: 5
Graphics: 2
Gameplay: 3 for the action, 5 for the dialogue
Sound: 2 for the SFX, 4 for the voice acting
Replayability: Well once I beat it tonight, I plan to immediately restart and pick different stuff, so 5.
TOTAL: 4 out of 5
As a side note, I think this may be one of the first times I've disagreed with Ms. Arendt.
Four different systems, four different guns:nipsen said:Um.. thought about something.
Pistol:
You hold the aim button (L.Trigger on the 360 controller) and put your targeting reticule near the guy's hitbox or on it, and hold it. The reticule will turn red and shrink and a bunch of little arrows will draw closer to the dot at the center. And its shrunkenist and reddest, firing will result in a Critical hit.
Extra points for headshots. Moving, standing, or dropping your reticule off the target will spoil your aim, and the reticule will grow larger and less red. At level zero, the whole process takes a little more than three seconds.
Firing spoils your aim completely and the reticule grows to maximum size. You can only precision aim at nearby targets (five meters or so)
Assault Rifle:
You hold the aim button and hold the reticule in one spot, four arrows at the "corners" will slowly close and converge on a red "x" in the centre. All three bullets in the compulsory three-round burst will land between the arrows. Moving or shooting completely spoils your aim, nudging the stick, standing or couching only slightly affects your aim. The AR is actually good for precision and mano-a-mano close combat.
SMG:
Spray and Pray and Sell at First Oppertunity. These are nothing resembling accurate. There is no real "aim system. Hold the aim button will give you a (large) reticule and a bar which climbs with every hit. The higher the bar, the higer you damage multiplier for each successive hit. Reloading resets the modifer.
Shotgun:
Hold aim, put target in reticule. When the whole thing is red, pull the trigger for maximum damage and probable knockdown effect.
I wasn't looking forward to this game much so this doesn't bother me. What does bother me is the fact that Obsidian is also working on Fallout: New Vegas, a game I was very much looking forward to. Now...I'm more than a little cautious.
Obsidian, you had your chance. You were finally given a decent time schedule for a game and your blew it anyway. I was looking forward to seeing a blending of the old and new Fallout in NV but now not so much.
Obsidian, you had your chance. You were finally given a decent time schedule for a game and your blew it anyway. I was looking forward to seeing a blending of the old and new Fallout in NV but now not so much.
Our opinions are actually fairly close, but given what a buggy experience I had, naturally I scored lower than you. Really quite befuddled by the number of people who say they had no problems at all on the PS3. I'm wondering if perhaps the version of PS3 you have makes any difference at all. Because if something happens once, maybe twice, I'm happy to chalk it up to my imagination, but these issues were just too frequent to be all in my head.Korhal said: