Tell me about Alpha Protocol

[ShadowDragon8685]

Iirc those are exaggerations, but the Gametrailers video review mentions the dice rolls in the combat as an issue. They don't complain that point blank shots miss though, just that they think it's bad design.

This is the best quote ever. Not only are there no 'die rolls' involved, EVERY RPG USES DIE ROLLS, like... Fallout3. Nobody complains about physically impossible bullet emergence from guns in Fallout3. Most modern 'tactical' games have massive conefire on unironed weapons, so stuff like Vendetta shows of people running around like a maniac missing is not an AP-specific problem (if it was a problem at all).

Shadowdragon, stealth is NOT 'absolutely critical'. My most amusing playthrough was complete gung-ho; the game supports both types of play. Shadow Ops also turns off when you attack. If you go toughness you can just get back up when you die, and knockdowns with every shot on the shotgun is mega-cheese. Using stealth properly (ie finishing a level without ever been seen) is still a challenge.

But combat not like Splinter Cell = reviews hate it, so everyone who actually played it can laugh.

Shadow Ops doesn't go down at the highest level if you only use melee takedowns - I have literally done this. Just activated Micheal's personal cloaking field, ran right up to the bad guys and started ripping out throats.

As for finishing a level without ever being seen, it's overrated. I prefer finishing a level without ever having been seen but having left a tremendous trail of corpses in my wake.

[Stark]

Ha! Shows how much I've used the special powers.

But stealth isn't 'absolutely critical' when you sneak around, get seen, then just blast everyone with a shotgun. At least on hard alarms actually spawn more guys, because the alarm is almost meaningless on normal so there's little real incentive for stealth. I can't think of a single objective you fail for being seen.

[ShadowDragon8685]

The Rome infiltration into the CIA safehouse?

In Alpha Protocol, it's pretty hard to outright lose a mission for reasons other than being killed (barring that DAMNABLE escort quest at the end of the moscow embassy clusterfuck where you have to protect Surkov,) but you'll miss a lot of the bonus objectives and stuff.


I find it a lot more fun to be the ghost of death that nobody sees coming. I love nothing more than to be so well-hidden that I can shoot a guy right in front of his pal, the other guy freaks out... Then I shoot him, too.


As for alarms... The sound fucking pisses me off. That alone is a good enough reason to try and prevent them.

[Peptuck]

Although for added hilarity Gametrailers apparently reccomend avoiding the pistol at all costs, advice which was set to a video of someone completely using it wrong. Never in the whole video do you see them line up a solid fully charged critical, and he claims the pistol is hopeless when he's emptying it wildly at a running target, a situation where an SMG or shotgun would be the thing to use.

(The pistol is almost game breakingly powerful if you use it properly).

It's a pretty clear case of five year old child syndrome. When something doesn't appear to be working, blame the game rather than considering for a second that ur doin it rong.

I saw a similar review on the Angry Joe Show. The video opened with an example of how "bad" the game was by showing him sitting there out in the open trying to snipe with a pistol and missing constantly, and then getting angry at the game because he got killed. It was particularly egregious because if Joe had A) used cover and B) moved forward a couple of meters, he would have been in range to get a critical, and the entire clip of how "bad" the game was never would have occurred - and if you'd played the game, you'd know that was what you're supposed to do with the pistol.

I mean, I liked Angry Joe, but it was so glaringly obvious to anyone who'd actually played the game that Joe was either doing it very wrong or deliberately setting up a situation where the game would look bad. So either Joe's ridiculously incompetent or he's dishonest - either way, I've lost any hope of him being a good reviewer.

[adam_grif]

Alpha Protocol sells 700,000 units.

Wow, Alpha Protocol is so stealthy it sold nearly a million units while never once being spotted on a sales chart.

The reviewers clearly tried to assassinate it but the dice said they missed.

[Vympel]

Well, there ain't going to be a sequel, so the damage is done. I'll get it when it's like $7.00 on Steam.

I like it how Iron Man 2 sold more. Piece of shit movie tie-in games, I wish people with no clue about games would check up on these awful mediocrities before purchasing.

[adam_grif]

Well, there ain't going to be a sequel, so the damage is done. I'll get it when it's like $7.00 on Steam.

I like it how Iron Man 2 sold more. Piece of shit movie tie-in games, I wish people with no clue about games would check up on these awful mediocrities before purchasing.

Most buyers being totally uninformed isn't exactly new of course.

[Stark]

While griffo talking about informed is funny as shit, that isn't the issue. I could start a thread and get pages of angry justifications for bugs in HoI or Total War or ARMA or how you have to 'learn' the bizarre approaches to mechanics.

The industry decided they hated the game and happily deliberately lied to kill it. If only Dragon Age was subjected to the same scrutiny?

[CaptHawkeye]

The industry just needs to die again. It's dominated by conservative dorks who have a set view of how a game should be designed and absolutely refuse to see it any other way. As long as they make up the population of consumer and developer nothing will change. I just want the industry to hurry up and crash like 83' again so new room can be made for people who don't worship shitty games from the 90s. So far it looks like i'm getting my wish.

[Stark]

Look we can all accept reviews giving Starcraft 100% because they'd never pander to the masses or make massive errors of fact, right?

[CaptHawkeye]

Of course! It's not like the journalists work for companies who are out to do something as weird as make money. It's downright impossible that these companies have huge marketing deals and tie ins with publishers so that they're both poised to make immense amounts of cash on any product they see fit.

[adam_grif]

The industry decided they hated the game and happily deliberately lied to kill it.

Dead games sell 700,000 units?

In the same fucking link, Iron Man 2, which has a metascore of less than 50% (AP = 73%) managed to sell over a million units. Bullshit like Carnival Games on the Wii sell zillions of copies while critical favorites like Eternal Darkness managed not to break 100,000. Assassin's Creed 1, despite being horribly broken and repetitive with mediocre-to-ok scores is one of the best selling games of the generation. The industry is filled to the brim with examples of games getting great scores and selling like shit as well as games getting terrible scores and selling like hotcakes.

There's obviously more going on here than "OH NO BAD REVIEWS MEANS GAMES WILL NOT SELL". What the fuck do you think happened anyway? Do you think they got together for some secret underground game assassination plot, because they all hate Sega or something? Why are the scores consistently bad? Why would almost everybody "deliberately lie to kill it"?

[Stark]

Licenced games always sell, despite always sucking. So what? Have you played Iron Man 2? Have you played Alpha Protocol?

I enjoy you totally dodging the fact that they flat-out lied. The reviews of Iron Man 2 were probably honest. Even the hilarious Starcraft 2 reviews are probably honest, since fat people really did just want the same game again.

Oh shit your edit is awesome. What's your explanation for every game reviewer on the internet making shit up, distorting and lying about a game? Conincidence? Obviously, once the blood was in the water, reviewers could show their 'critical' chops by bagging on the 'crap' game; nobody's going to play it so lying doesn't matter. Unless we're marking every game down for 'conefire' and 'can only carry two guns' now?

The best part for me is that you mindlessly defend the accuracy of reviews without even bothering to test it. You can try AP for zero dollars, but it's safer for your fragile mind to just accept the magic men on the internet's word about it.

[Aaron]

Theres probably a simpler reason why AP wasn't a success; it was poorly marketed.

I didn't see one single TV ad for it, as opposed to say ME2 which had ads run constantly. I only found out about AP because I happened to buy a gaming mag that had a brief blurb on it and I followed it until release. Chances are I never would have discovered it if it weren't for the mag.

[Stark]

Maybe they spent their marketing budget poorly; the AU sites were relatively friendlier to it despite it getting no marketing. I knew nothing about it until I bought it for a laugh.

So 98% of the marketing was 'roffle can only carry two guns' nonsense. Maybe marketing budget should have been more bribes.

[Aaron]

I have to laugh at that complaint, actually I think someone in this very thread made it. How many guns do folks think real soldiers carry at a time anyway?

[Stark]

Enough to not have to make meaningful weapon choices before a mission.

[Stofsk]

I would like to know which review made that complaint in the first place.

[Stark]

I think Hawx posted about it earlier.

[Stofsk]

Cool. I sent him a PM about it. Anyway, how many units did AP need to make to be considered a success? And Aaron made an interesting point about how there was zero marketing for it. Usually I don't see this as a huge issue, after all I prefer to buy games via word of mouth. But I can see a lot of people wanting to see a TV ad to know about a game before deciding to purchase it.

[Stark]

I guess people are defining 'dead' due to the developers saying it failed; they clearly didn't meet their business goals. And nobody is going to try a game every review trashes when bugfests get 80s.

Well, except me. But I'm a rational and critical consumer; can't count on millions of sales there.

[CaptHawkeye]

Here's that review for anyone who's interested.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... a-Protocol

1:18 mark has the "lol can only carry two guns" fuck off comment. It's snide as shit.

[Stofsk]

Thanks CaptHawkeye. What a lame review.

[Stark]

It's difficult to imagine people making reviews like that after playing the game out of any sense of honesty or integrity.

[CaptHawkeye]

I like the part about the controller "gaining a mind of its own".

Look bitch, just because YOUR game pad is broken doesn't mean the game is. You're just fucking retarded.

Oh look, it's another review making up problems about the game that don't even exist!