Alpha Protocol - Review Mini Roundup

[Maylander]

Edit: A few spoilers, nothing major.

That's the thing though - in most games, the hot reporter would only be a hot reporter. In AP, she is far from just a hot reporter.

Also, the C&C is very much present:
- How you deal with people will affect how you do missions (i.e the attack on the drug lord will depend on who your ally is).
- You get access to different items (from the black market) based on who you decide to let live/die and who you treat well.
- Your dealings through the game will ultimately decide the outcome of the game, and what options you are given near the end. You can't just reload and try out various options - your influence with people like Leland will actually matter, and you build that throughout the whole game.
- The intel you manage to gather based on different dealings will give you access to quite a few different dialogue options, some of which will grant perks, items or other rewards.
- Tons and tons of hidden dialogue and background information that will only be available by doing certain things. It's impossible to discover all of it unless you play through the game quite a few times.
- The influence you have with someone will affect how they treat you, such as Heck being a trustworthy friend or a complete maniac (well, I suppose he is anyway, but he's a maniac you can trust). That will shape the outcome of Taipei quite a lot, as will the dealings you have with both the president and Deng.

The list goes on and on. The game really is very dynamic, dialogues adapting to previous dealings and so on. There are a few glitches (i.e it seems you are supposed to discover G22 in Taipei, as that is the only place you'll get an introduction - the other places you'll just get "what are they doing here?"), but that is quite natural considering all the variety AP has.

Basically, a lot of the options seem like the usual illusions presented in most games, where your answer will actually not have an affect. However, the outcome really does change in AP (unlike ME for example), which is probably what Badesumofu was referring to.

 

[DeepO]

But I personally think the C&C/story/characters are being blown out of proportion. I find them endlessly cliché for the most part - like the main character, russian hot babe psycho, rockstar drug addict, incredibly hot reporter, jealous counterpart that may or may not be evil, and I could go on.

Characters being cliché isn´t mutually exclusive with characters being well written/ having good script.
Besides, the whole game is a play on genre clichés. Which, however, doesn´t necessarily mean it has badly written story. The story as a whole may be cliché, but what´s really great about AP´s story is the dynamic delivery, as a part of which, btw, C&C play rather a big role - no one will uncover all its facets in one playthrough.

I also disagree on some characters you mentioned being cliché. Especially russian hot babe psycho and incredibly hot reporter (in this particular case you´d probably know what I´m talking about if you´d finish the game).

The C&C relies on mostly arbitrary decisions with little or no control from the player. If you're going to limit the time in which you can respond, at least give the player something to respond to BEFORE you start the timer.

In effect, it's not C&C - it's just C.

No.
The main point of this device is reactivity, aka things happen differently according to your actions/decisions. There´s absolutely no reason why player should be able to foresee all the consequences right away.
I agree that the time limit is quite often unnecessarily low, but player, also quite often, has enough opportunity to prepare beforehand via dossiers, previous developments etc and a lot of more important decisions, like killing or not killing a bad guy, can be decided before the confrontation.
Sometimes you need to improvise, but there´s nothing wrong with it.

 

[Maylander]

For more thorough examples, check out my C&C AP thread in the general forum. There is definetly a lot of dynamic content in AP, and loads of C&C.

 

[DArtagnan]

Characters being cliché isn´t mutually exclusive with characters being well written/ having good script.
Besides, the whole game is a play on genre clichés. Which, however, doesn´t necessarily mean it has badly written story. The story as a whole may be cliché, but what´s really great about AP´s story is the dynamic delivery, as a part of which, btw, C&C play rather a big role - no one will uncover all its facets in one playthrough.

I also disagree on some characters you mentioned being cliché. Especially russian hot babe psycho and incredibly hot reporter (in this particular case you´d probably know what I´m talking about if you´d finish the game).

Well, I can't know how they end the story - but the characters themselves certainly didn't strike me as innovative in the least, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt there.

Then again, cliché is subjective - because it depends on what the individual has experienced before and how you interpret things as cliché.

So that will always be a matter of taste, even though I find it surprising there's this level of diverse opinions.

You're right that they're not implictly bad for being cliché and I won't touch on good/bad writing - because that's EVEN MORE subjective.

Personally, I found the characters boring and bland, with a few notable exceptions like the main bad dude (the one SEEMINGLY being the main bad dude, anyway) - as he was sort of interesting.

The worst part is that I can't STAND Mike Thorton, aka the protagonist. He's so utterly cliché and downright uninteresting that I lack the words. If you force me into a role, then PLEASE make it good or interesting. In that way, it failed me big time.

However, again, that's subjective.

No.
The main point of this device is reactivity, aka things happen differently according to your actions/decisions. There´s absolutely no reason why player should be able to foresee all the consequences right away.
I agree that the time limit is quite often unnecessarily low, but player, also quite often, has enough opportunity to prepare beforehand via dossiers, previous developments etc and a lot of more important decisions, like killing or not killing a bad guy, can be decided before the confrontation.
Sometimes you need to improvise, but there´s nothing wrong with it.

Reactivity, sure - choice? Not very often.

C&C stands for choice and consequence. Making a decision based on pretty much no information is strictly a choice, yes, but it's not the kind of choice I personally find interesting. It might as well be a die roll, and the "choice" would be when to throw the die.

Nah, I require the chance to think about something - however briefly - for it to be a choice, and in the vast majority of conversations, the line is not spoken in time for anyone to make an informed choice. You're actually GUESSING what the line will be, and hope your choice will match somewhat how you intend to react.

In reality - as in real life, you will notice that most people wait until the line is spoken before responding, and if they don't - it's because they feel sure what the line will be. That's not what this game is about, obviously.

If you think that's fun, great, I don't.

I know you can research and find out what "stance" you're supposed to take, but you really have no idea what will come out of your mouth, so you're just doing what you're told with little real influence.

It certainly didn't work for me, but evidently people feel like they're making informed choices or "under pressure" choices - and I suppose that's great.

I just hope it will be adjusted SIGNIFICANTLY in any potential future iteration.

 

[DArtagnan]

For more thorough examples, check out my C&C AP thread in the general forum. There is definetly a lot of dynamic content in AP, and loads of C&C.

Again, sure, but I don't think the choices are what choices are supposed to be.

But that's just me.

I'm not saying there aren't a ton of choices and TONS of consequences. That would be logically false.

The problem is that the choices are not made with any meat to base them on, so you're basically picking stances in the dark, or adhering to some strict research info without knowing what you're doing, really.

Obviously, if you've replayed the game several times already (I know you well enough to assume that) - you might forget how random the first time seemed.

Maybe I'm not smart enough to "think" the way you're supposed to think, but I have to say in that case - the majority will suffer the same issue.

 

[Dhruin]

So the reviewers are lying when they say its a buggy/glitchy game with bad AI, controlls, cover system, bad save system etc? From reading the reviews you get the impressions that it is very buggy, from reading forums posts on another forum i also get that impression.

Ah, double-edged sword. Are you sure you want to base an argument on reviews and forum posts?

To answer your question: most aren't lying - but that doesn't mean they are right. Many of them haven't played very far and most of them simply misunderstand the focus of the game. Even Rock, Paper, Scissors - a site I respect - said the gunplay wasn't very good so they put points into stealth. If they'd put points into an appropriate gun - you know, being an RPG - the gunplay improves dramatically (funny that).

In terms of reviews in general, I'm sure you've seen plenty of Oblivion reviews with scores of 10/10. Do you agree? Were they lying? If I'd listened to reviews, I wouldn't have played Vampire: Bloodlines, one of my top 10 favourite games ever.

In terms of your specific points, I dispute the general tag of "buggy". The AI is lacklustre, as it is in the most respected game in the stealth/action/RPG genre, Deus Ex. I wouldn't call it "bad" (actually, it's quite good at some things). The controls are fine, though one mini-game has a definite issue. The cover system isn't always reliable (some surfaces can't be used for cover) but Mass Effect was the same. The save system is checkpoint - just like many others. I don't like checkpoints but did it stop GTA being one of the best selling series ever?

These are all valid reasons not to like the game but, again, I point at Vampire: Bloodlines. It released in a far worse state than this and has as many design flaws, including ordinary combat. It's also one of the best games ever made.

Now that has hardly been the critique against this game in reviews and in forum posts.

Sure, because all across the net, people are comparing this to Gears of War and/or Mass Effect 2 and focusing on those differences. It's partly OBS fault for making a game that looks like a real-world shooter and therefore attracts Gears of War and even Modern Warfare fans, who have different expectations.

In my opinion, the combat is quite enjoyable if you play to your character build and the reactive script is stellar, making it well worth playing.

 

[bemushroomed]

You have some good points Dhruin, i guess i'll buy it once the price has dropped and once i don't have anything interesting to play.

 

[WorstUsernameEver]

Bemushroomed, I'm interested to know what version you want to play, and where do you live, because if there's something I can't complain about, is that Alpha Protocol price was too much to me.
23 € for a new game (PC version) was quite low.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Bemushroomed, I'm interested to know what version you want to play, and where do you live, because if there's something I can't complain about, is that Alpha Protocol price was too much to me.
23 € for a new game (PC version) was quite low.

Nice. It's 50€ on steam right now...

 

[bemushroomed]

I usually buy games from Steam because i get it within minutes and not days + i don't like having to switch CD's all the time + i dont need to care about patches since it handles that too. Steam is very expensive though, especially in europe, twice of what you would pay from a store, which sucks.

 

[DArtagnan]

Yup, Steam is incredibly expensive - which is why I try to limit my purchases there.

I find it particularly ironic, that a digital delivery service is almost twice as expensive as buying the boxed copy locally, here in Denmark.

Considering the production aspect of paper manuals, physical transportation, and distribution is entirely removed - I have to wonder what the hell is making it cost MORE, not less.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Well I usually only buy their specials, which are often really cheap. I guess the pricepoint is mostly to keep retail viable. Although server and bandwidth costs might also be a factor - don't know.

 

[DArtagnan]

Well I usually only buy their specials, which are often really cheap. I guess the pricepoint is mostly to keep retail viable. Although server and bandwidth costs might also be a factor - don't know.

I have no doubt it has a lot of cost involved, but I can't get it into my head - that server costs/maintenance and administration, distribution deals and things of that nature - can possibly match what retail is up against.

Especially not when we have stuff like Impulse, Gamersgate, and GOG.

I know GOG is about old games only, but they have servers and all those other things too, right?

I guess I'm ignorant or maybe Valve is as greedy as I suspect

 

[bemushroomed]

I think so too (that Valve are greedy) how else could i order a game and have shipping, CD, box etc ~45% cheaper than from Steam? Is, for example, bandwidth more expensive than sending an actual item by post.. i don't think so. Valve are greedy bastards, but their specials are nice at least

 

[WorstUsernameEver]

I usually buy games from Steam because i get it within minutes and not days + i don't like having to switch CD's all the time + i dont need to care about patches since it handles that too. Steam is very expensive though, especially in europe, twice of what you would pay from a store, which sucks.

Ok, understood. Personally I limit my Steam purchase to incredibly low-price deals (like Jade Empire and Stalker during the Christmas holiday season ), I've got so used to DVDs that I don't find switching games a problem (especially since most just need to be installed and run without it), but I can understand your motivation.

In that case yeah, considering Alpha Protocol's price on Steam, waiting seems to be an intelligent course of action.

 

[Dhruin]

You guys realise the publishers set the price on Steam, right? So…that's still just Valve being "greedy"? Just wanted to make sure I understood that Valve is the bad guy, regardless of who is actually responsible.

On AP, it absolutely makes sense to wait if you are unsure. Nothing to lose from that.

 

[bemushroomed]

Steam translates $1 to €1, i really doubt that every publisher out there has agreed to that pricing. If so i'd like the source for that information.

 

[Dhruin]

That's a different issue to the cost of the box, shipping etc, no?

 

[Badesumofu]

C&C stands for choice and consequence. Making a decision based on pretty much no information is strictly a choice, yes, but it's not the kind of choice I personally find interesting. It might as well be a die roll, and the "choice" would be when to throw the die.

Sorry, but you're just wrong about this. There amount of information on characters, plots, factions, events etc in AP is astounding. That information can inform the choices you make, as well as paying attention during dialouge. I've found that the summaries the game gives you are generally less misleading than in ME, if you're paying attention, then Mike will say basically what you expect him to.

It's certainly a game that requires a significant buy-in from the player, to suggest that there isn't real choice in this game is frankly just asinine. The choices in this game are often easy to miss althogether if you're not paying attention, other times they're big and obvious.

I played and loved Bloodlines (several times including once each as a Nossie and Malk), but the player agency in that game was pretty limited compared to this.

A good comparison between ME2 and AP by Tom Chick can be found here: http://fidgit.com/archives/2010/06/11_ways_alpha_protocol_is_bett.php

There are a lot of people around the web saying a lot of very god things about this game. For those who can get past the issues, there's an amazing game to discover underneath.

 

[bemushroomed]

That's a different issue to the cost of the box, shipping etc, no?

That wasn't what you responded to, you implied they arent greedy, i say they are because of how they (again, i doubt its the publishers) set the pricing in euro.