Tell me about Alpha Protocol

[Stark]

Even with suave bonus and an underlay chain shot just can't cooldown fast enough for me.

[PREDATOR490]

Got it on Friday... been playing non-stop since then and I find it a decent game.

The customisation options for weapons could do with an improvment. It gets a bit tedious trying to sort through dozens of mods over and over. That said, the Pistol and AR have served me well and chain shot is just godly. The conversation choices as usual end up being obscure at times for games like these and unlike Mass Effect they dont have the infinite time aspect on selection.
Fair enough, it makes it more imersive but I would have preferred that kind of 'timed' choice for tense situations rather than ALL the time.

I started straight into HARD / RECRUIT and I see myself doing a few runs of this game with other options just to see how it plays out.

I'm a real fan of the stealth / takedown attacks which I think this game captured perfectly to get the right feel for the game. I'm hoping this game ends up with mods at least to throw in some more weapons. The ones they have are entirely generic for all their customisation options.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I think the timer on responses is frickin' brilliant. When I first read about the feature I did a double-take; I'm used to the Baldur's Gate school of RPGs where I can read each line and carefully decide which fits my character the best. Upon further thought, however, the mechanic strikes me as long overdue, especially with the style of game AP purports to be. It's supposed to be in the same vein as Mission: Impossible, Bourne, and other spy-action fiction of rapid-fire badass "spies", so it makes sense that your dialogue choices are equally spur-of-the-moment.

[Havok]

So what are the bad reviews saying about AP? Is it really just 'game not what I am used to. Can't be ultimate badass fast enough. Sucks.' or are there legitimate gripes that aren't being touched on here?

[Ghost Rider]

This is based solely on the review I read from Gamespot. A small preface, before reading this I looked at a review for a strategy game that had dating elements, and this fucking piece of garbage was rated high rather high(7 of 10) for reasons I am unsure of.

To give an idea, they claim lengthy campaign, tight turn based combat, and interesting mix of sexu...dating sim and RPG made the list of good. The bad is gameplay is repetitive and drab enviroments. Why do I list this? Look at that list above. How the fuck is lengthy campaign and tight turn based GOOD is the gameplay is repetitive? It's akin to telling you a car handles nicely but is shit to drive. Worse still the majority of the game is within bland enviroments. Yes, thank god for it being LONG. I just wanted people to note this because the review pretty much was a chatterbox of what they noted of the good and the bad making one wonder how can the good be good if attached to the shit. And that got a 7 out of 10.

Alpha Protocol got a 6 out of 10. So shittier then a shitty japanese strat game with hint of boob. Their good is "Your choices have lasting impact on the story and gameplay Lots of ways to approach missions and develop your character.". Their bad? Flaky, glitchy cover mechanics, Bland visuals further marred by texture pop-in and bad animations, Terrible AI affects both the shooting and the stealth, The story lacks soul and character.

Okay, I will let others handed the cover mechanic and terrible AI. The bland visuals is something I think the reviewer was bitching because it wasn't FFXIII or something. It was nothing horrible to note, in fact it felt somewhat standard background. Something you'd find in Resident Evil, Half Life games, and such not where you've seen one ancient European Red Ballroom...you've seen them all. Then again neither was ME 1-2 or Fallout 3 to be honest. Texture pop ups can be marring but it happens and I can forgive it rather easily. Now to the final part.

The story lacks soul and character BUT your choices have lasting impact on the story and gameplay. Okay the problem of this reviewer goes into that the story has a myraid of complex notions, plot points and actions but lacks soul because you can't get your groove on with the Polly Polygon or your character isn't displaying the proper gravitas to events. But wait...if they are your choices, doesn't that mean at points that's why and what changed? And really...raise your hands; how many of you goobers gave a shit of how much of your groove you got on with Hooter McGee? Very few games ever develop romance beyond a silly dalliance that your main has, so to prove to the gaming public he's not stuffing up the fudge pipe with his androgyneous nemesis.

So after reading it, it did strike as hilarious that they made a lot of mountains of molehills, yet other stuff get 7-9 because...it's dismal shiny or whatever mixture of contradictions you want to lay into it.

[Stark]

I've seen reviews criticising everything from only being able to carry two guns to the 'romance' being 'inconsistent' or 'too easy' or something. These are both 'wah it isn't ME' complaints.

The texture stuff is a polish issue, because it's UE3 and you need to take account of it. That said, it's only really visible in inventory screens, so who gives a shit? This is just a bandwagon complaint.

The cover thing is funny because it's Gears cover; the placement of 'cover' attributes is a bit strange, but I think the complaints are simply due to what Peptuck mentioned where you can be 'in cover' and still get hit if bits of you are sticking out. This is just a 'oh dear I suck' complaint.

The AI idea is just laughable; I mean, Hitman and ME and such have such great AI, right? I've finished the game three times and I've seen the AI freak out on two guys.

The stealth thing is nuts. It's 'broken' in that if someone sees you they call it in, and if htey hear you the go over and investigate UNTIL THEY FIND SOMETHING rather than giving up in two seconds. This is 'wah it's not Splinter Cell' complaint.

Things like level design, general art like the gun mods etc, and many textures are legit complaints. In particular any time Mike's hand gets close to the camera in a cutscene you can see it's really badly textured and his watch strap 'leaks' onto his arm... but this is a pretty minor thing.

It's pretty much like a review saying 'Splinter Cell sucks because I ran into a room full of guys and ran out of bullets then died. How crappy!'

And I liked the story. Some elements worked and some didn't, but at least the voice work was good. Oh sorry, reviews say it sucks too. But... Alan Wake's VA is excellent! Resolving in-game mysteries and inparticular the 'Thorton, Inc' ending are great stuff. What, the ending isn't just choosing who's on the high council?

[Vympel]

Update- there's nothing wrong with AvP. You guys are crazy.

[Stark]

Call me back in an hour when you've finished the entire game. Spot the one line of dialog that isn't a quote from Aliens... if you can!

[Vympel]

LOL. Well I only paid $40 for it.

[Whiplash]

Sorry it took me so long.

So it's ok to propagate this right? Hint: Just because you are a marketing shill doesn't mean I have to be.

Its not a matter of me hearing something and just believing it. I see a well reviewed game, I try it out when I get the chance. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't.

Can you back up this statement with any kind of logic other than "I am incredibly naive and refuse to believe that people can be dishonest"?

Not what I was saying.

Believe it. Pretty much every reason you named HAS heavily affected reviews, over and over again. How many examples do we have to point out of games that got 5 star reviews...for the all the same reasons as games that got 1 star reviews?

No one is going completely bash a game for being a little glitchy. I've played good games with some glitches (and other MINOR issues) and bad games with a lot of glitches (and other MAJOR issues).

My only complaint about Scribblenauts would be the shoddy controls, but I don't think anyone completely bashed the game because of it, they might simply said, in spite of some shoddy controls, its still a good game.

Stark can point you to reviews where they pretty much say "this game isn't like Splinter Cell so I didn't like it". I can point you straight to a review where, I shit you not, the reviewer gives the game a demerit because Thorton can only carry two fucking guns. If that's not biased journalism to you I don't know what the hell is.

Any jackass can paraphrase something to make it sound like what they want it to sound like (we've all done it). If anything, its too much like (insert game) is normally a criticism.

Might I add I think mean, A reviewer, there's not end all be all corrupted reviewer out there. Pick the people who's opinion you trust and follow them. Am I always going to agree with them, no, but as long as I do most of the time, there's no issue.

No, but I can honestly say you finding a couple of bad games with bad reviews doesn't do shit to help your point. It also doesn't help that a lot of those examples suck.

Well I prepared to give a well thought out response, but this quote right here says it all. Bad games got bad reviews. And no, I'm not paraphrasing.

[Tolya]

Update- there's nothing wrong with AvP. You guys are crazy.

Of course there isn't. It's just, what Yahtzee noticed, just a next "THE Alien game". And Im sick and tired of the same cliches being repeated over and over and over in a tireless attempt to milk the franchise.

I mean, this stuff was excellent when "Aliens" was released. In 1986. So please, either put gramps to the ground and don't try to revive him over and over or invent something new for a while.

[Whiplash]

Sorry about the grammatical errors, I guess I should read over my post before hitting submit from now on.

[Stark]

Your post is rendered pretty meaningless by your claim that 'nobody' is going to rag a game for being glitchy, when that's 75-80% of what reviews for Alpha Protocol do. Reviews are useless, unless you happen to be a fat game reviewer who wants every game to be Starcraft/Counterstrike/Mass Effect.

[Whiplash]

Your post is rendered pretty meaningless by your claim that 'nobody' is going to rag a game for being glitchy, when that's 75-80% of what reviews for Alpha Protocol do. Reviews are useless, unless you happen to be a fat game reviewer who wants every game to be Starcraft/Counterstrike/Mass Effect.

You're joking right? Read what I fucking said, and then comment, because I'm pretty sure you didn't.

One thing you should know about me. I really hate it when people

paraphrase something to make it sound like what they want it to sound like

.
^ See how I already mentioned that. That full quote was directed toward you.

[Stark]

No one is going completely bash a game for being a little glitchy. I've played good games with some glitches (and other MINOR issues) and bad games with a lot of glitches (and other MAJOR issues).

Fuck off. This is obviously wrong, and in context of 'wah reviews are useful' it's absurd to say a reviewer won't bag out a game for being glitchy. Indeed, technical problems of that nature are almost the only thing reviews ARE useful for.

[CaptHawkeye]

Its not a matter of me hearing something and just believing it. I see a well reviewed game, I try it out when I get the chance. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't.

So then shut the hell up. All you're saying here is "sometimes I don't agree with the reviews". Well no shit! I would have found that a foreign concept if you hadn't had brought it up.

Not what I was saying.

Yes you were. Sorry people on this website like to cut the heart of the issue. It turns out we don't speak bullshit, but we try our best to translate it.

Well I prepared to give a well thought out response, but this quote right here says it all. Bad games got bad reviews. And no, I'm not paraphrasing.

No, this quote says it all. You still don't fucking get what we're talking about, do you?

[PREDATOR490]

Finished my first run through and I think the game is pretty good. Havent encounter any bugs that but the game does suffer from being unpolished.

The item customisation could have done with a bit of improvement to streamline it and actually explain what the stats / mods do. A testing range would have been ideal as well so they could be tested to see what works.

The pistol + chain shot seems to be the best combination in the game making all other weapons effectively useless. I'm going to see if I can get through the game only using non-lethal means which makes the pistol the natural choice anyway. It seems the Samuel weapons are the best you can get which I found a bit disappointing. I never good get the top grade Hamiltons which seem to be the only ones that come close to matching them.

[Stark]

Samael guns are low damage. I generally prefer the UC pistols and Ritter ARs, because damage is the hardest stat to increase and particularly pistols don't need any other stat.

I'm pretty sure 'stability' reflects the movement penalty, but I have nonidea really.

[PREDATOR490]

Samael guns are low damage. I generally prefer the UC pistols and Ritter ARs, because damage is the hardest stat to increase and particularly pistols don't need any other stat.

I'm pretty sure 'stability' reflects the movement penalty, but I have nonidea really.

I found the Samael pistol and AR decent enough and easy to acquire beyond the equivelent high grade counterparts. I ended up just using the Pistol + Takedowns by the end of the game anyway leaving the AR effectively useless.

Not sure if Damage will actually affect the Tranq darts. They really started to suck towards the end on the Samael because the enemies dont go down as quick even with head shots. They seem to last long enough to alert others so the faster they go down the better.

According to the little help you get stability somehow makes it easier to aim on the move I think but ideally I want to increase the stats that will allow me to one shot folks in the head using that funky 'pop' out of cover critical hit ability you get with the pistol. I'll have a pop at trying to get the UC.

[Stark]

Yeah since you'll basically only use criticals and chain shot accuracy, stability and recoil are useless. Mag size is pretty useless for pistols too since it'll be about 20 by endgame anyway. A UC with a muzzle booster is nearly as powerful as an AR.

And shotguns are useful for knockdown even on hard, but they're useless against armour. But that's what the stomp button is for.

[Tolya]

Hotfoot tells me the PC version of AP is crap due to control issues. It's ok if you plug in a 360 controller though, which Aly obviously won't have. Ironing guns being a hold is pretty typical of shooters on PC, however. Hots had the same issues with the hacking, since it's a really shit translation from two sticks.

Apart from the hacking thing which is obviously designed for a double stick gamepad, I don't see any problems with the PC control scheme. It's functional and easy. And if you played any WSAD game before it will feel right at home.

As for the game though, the reviews are too harsh. I've only played through the initial Saudi Arabia missions, but the game is quite well designed in terms of the story.

The only problem the game has are the mission levels. They feel like an unpolished Splinter Cell Conviction clone. Regarding any actual bugs, the PC version never crashed on me, but it suffers from constant loading effects. Every time you reach a new portion of the level the game freezes for a moment to load. The guards suddenly appear only then. Which makes it similarly stupid to games like Splinter Cell or Rainbow Six Vegas, where you could detonate a nuclear bomb in one room and no one in the other will notice. Sounding the bloody alarm should really have more consequences apart from the fact that the guards start shooting at you and an occasional 2-3 men reinforcement appears.

Also, the graphics are not up to par with today's PC standards, but quite frankly, I don't care. Im not a graphics whore. But still, I must admit that the "depth of focus" effect is used too blatantly. If you use it right, you can focus on the subject matter much more easily. But if you overuse it, the player starts wondering whats ugly underdeveloped graphics the devs are trying to hide.

I will write more when I finish the game, but overally I like it. The fact that your decisions actually change something in the plot, rather than triggering another conversation line during the next cutscene is a big refresher. They could have spent more time designing the actual gameplay mechanics - and Im not talking about the RPG shooting mechanics, which are quite competent. They make the shootout much more hectic and difficult. In SCC you could headshot someone 20 meters away just by sticking your gun over the corner.

Overally, I recommend the PC version.

[Tolya]

And really...raise your hands; how many of you goobers gave a shit of how much of your groove you got on with Hooter McGee? Very few games ever develop romance beyond a silly dalliance that your main has, so to prove to the gaming public he's not stuffing up the fudge pipe with his androgyneous nemesis.

If someone is saying that a game is bad because it lacks a romance option, then it strikes me that the reviewer is an insecure adolescent kid who has issues with his love life - most probably not having one. And most probably spends too much time wanking off to internet cartoon porn based on game characters. Or Futurama.

I mean, if you have to go to computer games to experience emotional attachment and sex, then there is something very wrong with you. I steer clear of the romance options because they are useless and provide very little entertainment. Throwing the romance option as a series of conversation lines with a pixel grinder at the end without any actual meaning to the plot itself is just bad design.

If we go in this direction, in 5 years game reviewers will be bitching about cRPG's being lame because there is no "emo" option for the character.

[Stark]

The Saudi levels are easily some of the least polished levels. They're better later on, but they never really lose the substandard level of polish. I nearly gave up on the game during the airfield one because it looks like crap, it's really small, there aren't many guards, etc.

[Tolya]

Oh, and one more thing. Mass Effect devs should play this game. And implement the bloody conversation system. It is among the very best I have ever seen.

[Stark]

Oh, and one more thing. Mass Effect devs should play this game. And implement the bloody conversation system. It is among the very best I have ever seen.

It only gets neater when you play again and notice all the details that change to reflect your actions.