Poll: Alpha Protocol, is it worth it?

[Fidelias]

Wow, okay, so this is going to be a difficult decision.

It seems to me about half the people here think that this game is complete shit because of glitches and such, and the other half praise it for having awesome story elements and believe that the gameplay gets better once you get used to it.

So, I'm probably going to buy this game once the price is lowered a bit. I'm still not sure though...

 

[s0denone]

I just started my second playthrough. I'm playing on the PC.

The story, conversation-system and weapon-customization is awesome. I prefer the dialogue-system in Alpha Protocol to that of Mass Effect. Sentences are short, and people interact with eachother... Rather than Shepard asking one question, in one sentence, and the other party then spouting endless lines of boring shit.

That being said:
There are numerous graphical errors... And above all, the AI is super stupid.

This is what most people, the majority of reviewers even, do not understand:
People are complaining about the combat - that's because they don't understand what is going on. You remember those *actual* Arrrpeeegeees? You know, the ones with fantasy setting and proficiency skills? Like Baldur's Gate?

In those games you couldn't hit with a two-handed sword, even if you life depended on it, if you didn't have the right skills.

Alpha Protocol is exactly like it. It plays like a shooter, but it isn't a shooter!
If you haven't added points to your "pistols" skill, you won't be able to hit for shit... But if you have added points, alot of them, even, then you will hardly ever be able to miss.

There are some minor moments of irritation, like the fact that the "Stealth" skill looks to be incredibly useful compared to the others, and probably even needed for several points in the game.

Branching dialogue and story is fucking awesome.
The AI is shit.

A numerical value? 8/10.

EDIT:
Cannot be stressed enough. THIS GAME IS _NOT_ "LACKING" IN THE RPG-ASPECTS. People need to wake up, and actually consider stuff before spending their time writing shit on the internet. The combat is just as "RPG" as any fantasy-RPG released this year.

 

[sindremaster]

support Obsidian they do mostly good work

cough*kotor2*cough
so just because you like the maker of a game you should buy it even if the game is shit?
even though i like bioware I wouldn't buy a game from them that sucked just to support them.
im not saying alpha protocol is shit I never played it so i dont know.

 

[sindremaster]

support Obsidian they do mostly good work

cough*kotor2*cough
so just because you like the maker of a game you should buy it even if the game is shit?
even though i like bioware I wouldn't buy a game from them that sucked just to support them.
im not saying alpha protocol is shit I never played it so i dont know.

Do you know what the word mostly means, cause it doesn't look like you do.

i didn't say (much) about obsidian beeing good or not, i asked you if you would buy a bad game because you like the developer

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Alpha Protocol is exactly like it. It plays like a shooter, but it isn't a shooter!

In this it reminds me of Deus Ex and it got a lot of shit dumped on it when it first came out because you couldn't just pick up any weapon and be excellent with it, you had to invest in developing those skills for your character. 'Back in the day' there were a lot of people who posted online about how shit the game was and how they never even bothered finishing liberty island (aka the starting map) and they fully intended to punch Warren Spector in the face if they ever met him.


Honestly, I feel too many 'action-RPGs' are leaving the combat purely up to the skill of the player and ignoring the character entirely, using the character build only to define what equipment can be used and not how well it can be used (or adjust it so minorly that skilling up is the difference between consistent headshots and consistent shots to the pupil of the left eye). I like the change in this in Alpha Protocol. Maybe I'm strange. Maybe I'm the target market. Who the fuck knows?

Honestly, in my opinion, it's another flawed gem from one of my favourite flawed gem developers.


One thing that saddens me is that the mission based play style means there are no signposts for the content that never made it into the game, and there is always content that never made it into the game when Chris Avellone is Lead Designer. Although, maybe now we're in the Age of DLC there will be incentive for him to finish up that content and release it.

 

[nightwolf667]

I absolutely loved it. I loved it so much that I don't care that the graphics aren't the best or that the combat is hard in the beginning (putting skill points into weapons solves that one very quickly though.) It's just so damn fun. There are so many little details in it that really made me feel like I was playing a spy and when comparing the emails in Alpha Protocol to the emails in Mass Effect 2 (in Alpha Protocol you can respond for influence points or to extort money ), well there isn't a comparison. Every decision you make affects the outcome of the game, whether the characters like or hate you depends on the outcome of the game and the results you get, but not in a way that's "slap on the wrist, you made the WRONG choice", in Alpha Protocol there is no right way to play the story. For me that leads to some seriously cool replayability that other games just don't have.

I played it on the PC and on the X-box and honestly, I only saw a few of the bugs that people are complaining about. But overall it didn't affect how I viewed the game, it only took about an hour to really get the hang of it and then it was just no holds barred fun. But I can see where this wouldn't be the game for everyone and it can be brutally unforgiving. Still, it's incredibly underrated and well worth a buy or even just a rental.

It's dialogue, branching plot, and conversation system are done much better than Mass Effect IMO. Still, this is an RPG where you play a spy. It's imperative that one buy intel and dossier info before going into any conversation so that you know how best to manipulate your opposition (into either A) liking you or B) hating your guts, you will get different results and bonuses depending on which).

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Every decision you make affects the outcome of the game, whether the characters like or hate you depends on the outcome of the game and the results you get, but not in a way that's "slap on the wrist, you made the WRONG choice", in Alpha Protocol there is no right way to play the story. For me that leads to some seriously cool replayability that other games just don't have.

I like that even being Mr Ultra GoodGuy can not only piss some people off but have negative consequences in the end and being Mr Ruthless McJerkface or Mr Evil McBastard can have positive consequences.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

support Obsidian they do mostly good work

cough*kotor2*cough
so just because you like the maker of a game you should buy it even if the game is shit?
even though i like bioware I wouldn't buy a game from them that sucked just to support them.
im not saying alpha protocol is shit I never played it so i dont know.

Do you know what the word mostly means, cause it doesn't look like you do.

i didn't say (much) about obsidian beeing good or not, i asked you if you would buy a bad game because you like the developer

No of course I wouldn't, but Alpha protocol isn't a bad game neither was KOTOR 2. All obsidian games are on average ok having really awesome stuff balanced by some major jank. Usually though the latter part gets glossed over by fans because they're having so much fun with the former.

i would agree with this statement, obsidian starts off great and gives good foundations but everything else is bugged and unfinished, in which fans usually polish it to make it into a damn good game

OT: im thinking about getting this game, im not one to care about any kind of graphic glitches and i loved me 1 and 2 so this seems like the game for me

 

[Starke]

it's like ME1 except the story isn't shit and the combat's a bit shoddy. Definitely worth a buy, support Obsidian they do mostly good work

did you say me1s story is shit!? heresy!!! its a witch! burn him!

Well, aside from the parts that suck, which would be all of them, Mass Effect's story is pretty shit.

Mmmkay, I'll bite.

How would YOU have written it so it wasn't crap?

Either never give Shepherd Spectre status, or have the Council believe him about something, anything. They give him a massive position of trust and then never trust him, despite proof that he's right more often than the Council - nonsense.
Remove a large chunk of Noveria. Everything between the offices and the hot labs destroys the pacing.
Remove Saren's mega- jumpy Husk form. Either make him a slow, tough boss (to complement the previous fast boss fight) or have a final horde of Geth. Removing the entire "the final boss isn't dead!" shtick is a positive step forward for games in general.
Pace out the character deaths. Wrex was well handled, but the Aidan/Ashley an hour later was arbitrary and added nothing to the plot. A death on the last level would have highlighted the danger of the mission, and the Normandy clearly has time to pick up both in Saren's lab.
I know they were shooting for mind control, but Matriarch Benezia's sudden 'break' from Sovreign's Indoctrination would have been more believable if she'd shown signs of it slipping instead of leaving the revelations until after she's been shot. Even just a change in tone as you fight her would work.

That's a few off the top of my head. Mass Effecr was good, but it wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination...

EDIT - It's massively, massively flawd, but worth a play. I'd say Alpha Protocol was a solid rental.

Well, you can keep most of Noveria, but shift it around, so it's optional. If you want to force your way past the Administrator, or you can shoot your way through the base, but then offer bonuses for working with the administrator or the internal investigation, so you have three path ways.

As for Saren, yeah, the dead boss isn't dead routine is grating. So that could have used some work. Additionally, a nitpick with Saren is, he starts out with the geth augmentations at the begining of the game. It would be a very nice touch if they had two or three models for him, that reflected the expansion of his augmentations through the game.

The biggest thing I would change is making the previous worlds increasingly relevant to the later worlds. So your choices would be relevant within the game. For instance if you wiped out the colony on Feros, then it would be entirely reasonable for the Noveria administrator to be scared of you. While if you'd saved them he'd be dismissive of your threats to put a bullet in his head. Stuff like that.

Beyond that, I'd ditch the Mako sequences entirely, I mean, I like it, but it breaks flow a bit. The side mission worlds could have been put together in custom maps the way they are in 2.

The two major changes I would make, and this is hindsight, is to add the illusive man to the Cerberus missions in 1. Not as an actual voiced character, but as a shadowy enigma, like the Shadow Broker was, who other characters talk about in hushed tones, and who's name you find stamped on the communiques in Cerberus installations. That way when you do meet him in 2 it isn't this new character out of nowhere, he's his own new thing. And add references to the collectors somewhere in the game. Possibly on a relevant codex entry for one of the non-council races, or have them mentioned in passing someplace else. They're the boogiemen of the galaxy, but when they start appearing in 2, they wouldn't be an insertion, they'd be an expansion of what we'd already heard about. I know why these weren't present, it's because they were new elements that were developed while ME2 was in dev, but still, you asked.

Though, in deference to those defending it, my biggest issue with Mass Effect is how ME2 completely botches the connective tissue between games.

 

[Starke]

Nobody is saying Mass Effect's writing/story is perfect. But better than Alpha Protocol's? By miles. And better than most games? Yes.

Indeed. AP is fantastic. I was critisizing ME's writing, and was suggesting how to improve ME's writing.

Sorry, I misread your post. Nevermind. Mass Effect's writing just isn't that good.

If you think AP's plot wasn't good, then I suspect you may have missed, you know, large chunks of the plot. I'd recomend a replay, but I doubt it would help you. Given that Mass Effect's straight forward plot is more your speed... well, there's nothing really wrong with that for you. For me, I'd like something with a little more meat.

Compare Mass Effect's story to Oblivion's or Fallout 3's or pretty much any JRPG, and you'll be damn thankful that Bioware is still around. Nobody else truly puts story first on the priorities list.

Well, I am rather glad they still exist, but more for gameplay than their writing.

 

[nightwolf667]

Every decision you make affects the outcome of the game, whether the characters like or hate you depends on the outcome of the game and the results you get, but not in a way that's "slap on the wrist, you made the WRONG choice", in Alpha Protocol there is no right way to play the story. For me that leads to some seriously cool replayability that other games just don't have.

I like that even being Mr Ultra GoodGuy can not only piss some people off but have negative consequences in the end and being Mr Ruthless McJerkface or Mr Evil McBastard can have positive consequences.

I like that too. For me it's really a matter of variety and as a spy, you're supposed to be manipulating these people but the best part about the game is that you get to manipulate them however you want. The best way is to do the research on who you're meeting and then put on whatever front they want to see, or if you really hate a character you can purposefully make them hate you. What makes it worth it is that every little decision can change who you fight at the end, who helps you, and how everything plays out. It's brilliant really.

Bugs yes, but it's so very fun.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

I've been over to my friend and got him the game for his birthday - it's not very good in the whole gameplay department but it's actually a pretty damn good game.
Yes, I know this sounds impossible.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Deus Ex is my favorite game of all time. This is important because many of the very real problems people have were conventions that I actually liked back in the Deus Ex days.

First, in spite of what the advertisements say, you really only have two choices for playing the game. You can shoot everyone and not care about alarms, and in the end I suspect most people will go this route. Or you can try and sneak using a system that involves a lot of trial and error.

The problem is that the shooting mechanic is poor at best. It presents a third person action game, when in reality much of your success relies on using the systems you've been given. Just because you can line up a shot doesn't mean the game thinks you did. The end result is that until you approach a very high level of mastery in a given skill (I only managed to max a single skill in a playthrough) you are forced to do a lot of waiting for your crosshairs to give you the go ahead to take the shot. The entire premise of action is thus handily broken when gunfights quickly become little more than sit and wait affairs.

The stealth mechanic is just as broken. Enemies have a reasonable ability to see you from the front yet lack any vestige of peripherial vision. This means that even with mastery in the sneak skill and the appropiate gear, you're still forced to wait for every enemies' back to turn before you can progress. Often, you'll use the sneaking mechanic to take down enemies and you'll find that when many of them stand in a group, so long as you do not cross a certain threshold of vision you can murder them in plain view. In more than one case, I took down three guards in a group of four standing in a very small room simply because the system is quite fundamentally broken.

That said, both of these mechanics were present and acceptable a decade ago when I played Deus Ex, so I am far more forgiving than the average player. Still, I can recognize the problem that is presented: these are conventions that didn't really work at the time and we have plenty of examples for how they OUGHT to work now.

The story itself isn't terribly interesting, nor are any of the characters. The tale is one we've already heard before and there is no real mystery to unravel. Inside of the first three hours all but the most oblivious know almost exactly how the story is going to turn out. Yet, it was precisely the story that kept me playing.

The key thing here is that you are often forced to make a choice that will affect the outcome of the game without knowing the full extent of your actions. Do you kill the known terrorist leader in the opening hours or release him? When forced to choose between information to save which is more pressing - the information regarding an assassination or the information pertaining to a plot to incite widespread rioting? Through much of the game you are forced to deal with people without knowing if they are, in fact, friendly. Though the story I'm navigating isn't worth mentioning, the complex relationship between my choices and results was. The trouble is, for all the things this sytem does right, it can go disasterously wrong. That it isn't always obvious if you want befriend a character or not is not the problem; instead, it's that it is often unclear which option will result in the desired result. More than once you'll make a choice only to find that your character says something completely different from what you intended.

Alpha Protocol well and truly earned every knock it's recieved. For a game that was delayed 8 months, I'd expect many of these problems to have been resolved. Like Obsidians other offerings (KOTOR 2 and NWN 2), there are a lot of good ideas in play - it just feels like most of them aren't finished. If you're the sort of person who LIKED Deus Ex, it's almost certain you'll like Alpha Protocol. That said, it will most often be compared to a contemporary game like Mass Effect 2, but you'll quickly find that Mass Effect made a far more intelligent set of compromises. Many of the systems in ME 2 are present in Alpha Protocol, and while Alpha Protocol executes some portions far better (the aformentioned choices with unknown results), the actual mechancs in play are inferior in all respects.

In my book, Alpha Protocol is a game that is worth playing, but for most it can happily wait until it reaches the bargin bin.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

No No No No No, No No No No, No no No no no, na na no no no.
*bow*

...[/youtube]

 

[Starke]

I need a game with story good enough to base books on.

I'd prefer, you know, good books.

That's Mass Effect...three and counting.

Resident Evil has 10. By that metric Resident Evil has a better story. And I'm sure you really believe that, but, seriously? There's more Twilight books than Mass Effect books. So, again, by that metric Twilight's writing is better than Mass Effect's. Hmm.

Yeah, sorry, there's this thing called marketing. It lets talentless hacks like Karpyshyn get published.

Will they ever make a book based on any part of Alpha Protocol? Highly doubtful.

God, I hope not. I've yet to see a good novel adaptation of a video game.

Partially because it steals more than enough from Mass Effect to begin with, and partially because the game will be in the bargain bin in three months.

Yeah, funny thing. Planescape Torment didn't do well in release. But a decade later, we all remember it, and disk copies can run for over $100. But I'm sure you can list off all the blockbuster games with shitty writing that came out that year and are now worthless for resale... right?