Alpha Protocol, Or How Video Killed the Radio Star

[MetalCraze]

I can't believe you spent so much time writing a fanboying wall of text.
The review is terrible and gives out a fanboy blindness in you. And here are some reasons why:
- when you write about presumably positive things - you never back them up with examples - like "zomg what an amount of branching!" - what makes it worse is that so far there are 100% proof that AP has no branching and no C&C apart from flavour filler that doesn't affect the game progression at all (as your review also shows). You still complete objectives, you still win no matter what or who you choose and who you kill - only character models change.
And not a single example of branching (new quests, new levels, locked paths).

- yet when you "criticize" something it inevitably goes into finding excuses without a single example or argument why it's in fact good
"
Having said that, some of the abilities in the game were honestly fun. Sure, Chain Shot was overpowered. Shadow Operative was ridiculous (from a realism point of view). Martial Arts was underdeveloped. Focused Aim was mostly useless. But despite all this, AP's character and combat systems felt like they had surprising depth - for a FPS-RPG hybrid - and this is something I didn't expect."
So it was bad but it was good?

- you compare to the worst examples instead of the best
like here "I liked the equipment system, which was modeled after ME 1's. After seeing how Bioware dumbed down ME 2, I'm glad that Obsidian didn't imitate the Canadians there."
AP is a copy of ME1. ME1 is a very dumbed down game with a very primitive gameplay - you do nothing in it but shoot the same enemies and play single cell minigames. But disregard that - why won't you compare action-stealth gameplay to at least Splinter Cell?

"And it's not like ME's AI was infinitely better"
What about Thief AI?

Finally this is crowned by
" I'd be surprised if you could find a recent RPG that has as much C&C as Alpha Protocol does"
What about not recent, actual RPGs?

- also try know what you are talking about. Obsidian didn't use anything from ME. "ME engine/ME facial animations" are Unreal Engine 3.
Another thing
"All the AP characters sound unique and believable, and Obsidian has a solid grasp of showing personalities and accents through dialogue."
Then perhaps you can explain how exactly a mute emo chick or very badly dressed Sie that reminds more about some chick from MGS and totally not about professional mercenary, or flaming faggot Brayko manage to boss mooks around? Because that isn't believable or unique at all. It looks nonsensical like in MGS.
Now compare them to 24 "bosses":

I specially tried to read this review from a point of a neutral observer, but it caters only perhaps to fanboys. The general tone of every single feature described in it is "this is bad, but I just closed my eyes on it, and that was so good, but I can't tell you why"
So the review is bad, sounds like something IGN/Gamespot will write in their worst days - lots of saliva, zero substance.

Another thing - you keep calling this RPG - tell me then
Where are stats? Where are stat checks? Which roles can your character execute through the character system apart from shooting AIs which is a shooter thing?
There are more complaints, like you not actually telling anything in-depth about the gameplay (linear levels, enemies looking in opposite directions from thorton, messed up gunplay thanks to console-like targetting system, railroad without the ability to go the route you want - even in the open areas you are forced to stay on rails, like not being able to jump down in any other place besides where designers intended etc), which is the most important part in shooters, considering that shooter parts take about 80% of AP's game time.

 

[Azarkon]

I liked reading this, my thanks. Just one issue I'd like to bring up though:

Not so with AP. In AP, you have a huge number of choices, and almost every one of them makes a difference. But instead of making the choices obvious, Obsidian opted for a system where you played guess-what-this-option-means with the user interface each time you made a choice.

I figured out fairly quickly that regardless of what keywords appeared on screen, the tone would always be suave douchebag/aggressive/professional/action or dossier persuasion. So I really didn't have to think too much about which options I wanted to take. They probably should have been a bit more clear about it for people who aren't as keen in recognizing patterns (adding [Stance]?).

I think there's two class of dialogue decisions in the game. Stance dialogues (usually 3-4 options) and binary choice dialogues. They might very well have based the tones entirely on button position, but the game didn't express this well at all. Let me give you an example.

In the first meeting with SIE, near the end of the dialogue, you get the option to say one of the following:

1. My Terms [usually Aggressive slot]
2. Your Terms? [usually Suave slot]
3. Cooperate? [usually Professional slot]

This looks to most people like a decision between demanding that SIE accept the player's terms (1), agreeing to accept SIE's terms (2), and forming a compromise (3).

But as far as I can tell, the effect of this particular dialogue, either way, is that you cooperate until the end of the mission.

Moreover, stances are not enough to capture what Thorton actually says. Players might choose several stances during the course of a conversation, depending on what the NPC says, and indeed the game seems to support this. The problem comes when the player's expectation for what actually comes out of those stances differ significantly from what issues from Thorton's mouth. I recall situations in which I picked an option, knowing that it was a stance that roughly corresponded to what I had in mind, but then got something completely ridiculous from Thorton that didn't match how I wanted or imagined that the conversation would go.

This violation of expectations is really what's frustrating about the AP dialogue system, as you're constantly trying to second-guess what each option is actually going to do even when it seems obvious - in your own mind - what the option should do. This lack of transparency makes dialogue choices more of a meta-game process (ie guessing which pattern of abstract button presses would result in a desired response) than an in-game interaction, the latter being what it should be.

 

[Ausir]

But as far as I can tell, the effect of this particular dialogue, either way, is that you cooperate until the end of the mission.

Of this particular choice, yes, but in the next choice you can either say yes, no or be evasive. And this one, while it leads to the same outcome mission-wise, affects your reputation with SIE.

 

[Azarkon]

First of all, skyway, I think you have me confused with someone else. Because, last I checked, I was not a "professional reviewer" who claimed to be "objective," nor did I open this thread to encourage more people to buy AP based on my "objective analysis." Consequently, I'm not going to measure AP from a spread sheet of analytical factors in order to determine its proper rating for the Gamers R Us, June 2010 Issue. I prefer to talk about games as I perceive them, and this is a review from my own experience. If the level design, gunplay, etc. bothered me, I'd have mentioned them.

Having said that, a few points do deserve some response.

- when you write about presumably positive things - you never back them up with examples - like "zomg what an amount of branching!" - what makes it worse is that so far there are 100% proof that AP has no branching and no C&C apart from flavour filler that doesn't affect the game progression at all (as your review also shows). You still complete objectives, you still win no matter what or who you choose and who you kill - only character models change.

And not a single example of branching (new quests, new levels, locked paths).

"Only character models change." => Wrong

"You still complete objectives." => No shit. Find me a game where you don't complete plot objectives.

"You can only win." => If you lose, it's called a reload. The only constant criteria in AP is that you survive, and there's no logical reason why you need every one of your games to have "you die" endings. Isn't it obvious that Obsidian requires that you survive so that they could put you in a sequel?

Examples. Let's see - how about the number of different end game scenarios in the actual game, for starters? Depending on how you acted the rest of the game, you could (among other things):

- Kill Leland
- Arrest Leland
- Join Halbech, and then kill/arrest Leland
- Join Halbech, and then cooperate with Leland
- Save Mina
- Don't save Mina
- Convince Scarlet to be neutral
- Convince Scarlet to become your handler
- Kill Scarlet
- Convince Parker to work for you
- Convince Parker that Marburg killed his daughter, and have them fight each other
- Fight Parker yourself
- Fight Westridge

And that's not even mentioning the different handlers you might choose, which result in different dialogue, different characters appearing, different endings, etc.

yet when you "criticize" something it inevitably goes into finding excuses without a single example or argument why it's in fact good
Having said that, some of the abilities in the game were honestly fun. Sure, Chain Shot was overpowered. Shadow Operative was ridiculous (from a realism point of view). Martial Arts was underdeveloped. Focused Aim was mostly useless. But despite all this, AP's character and combat systems felt like they had surprising depth - for a FPS-RPG hybrid - and this is something I didn't expect."
So it was bad but it was good?

"Balanced" is different from "fun." Any MMO'er could tell you that. While both are desirable in a game, either can be present without the other.

- you compare to the worst examples instead of the best
like here "I liked the equipment system, which was modeled after ME 1's. After seeing how Bioware dumbed down ME 2, I'm glad that Obsidian didn't imitate the Canadians there."
AP is a copy of ME1. ME1 is a very dumbed down game with a very primitive gameplay - you do nothing in it but shoot the same enemies and play single cell minigames. But disregard that - why won't you compare action-stealth gameplay to at least Splinter Cell?

Right, because we all know ME 1 was an action-stealth game where you could stealth through entire levels without touching a single enemy, and where combat is totally based on picking the right time and place to ambush an enemy. A copy, indeed.

As far as comparisons to Splinter Cell goes, why would I bother? Splinter Cell, like Hit Man, is a pure action-stealth game, developed solely to promote this sort of gameplay. It's obvious that it would have a depth of gameplay, in this particular area, unmatched by a hybrid like AP, which has to spend significant resources in other areas. Besides, I said as much when I remarked, "AP is no Hit Man" => AP's action-stealth gameplay is no match for Hit Man's. But it's better than ME 1's and ME 2's, and those are the games AP *should* be compared to considering both ME and AP are Action-RPG hybrids.

Finally this is crowned by
" I'd be surprised if you could find a recent RPG that has as much C&C as Alpha Protocol does"
What about not recent, actual RPGs?

Video killed the radio star, skyway. Didn't you get the memo?

- also try know what you are talking about. Obsidian didn't use anything from ME. "ME engine/ME facial animations" are Unreal Engine 3.

Except they poached most of the features Bioware added to the UE 3 for ME. Whether they actually shared technical expertise - let's just say I have my suspicions. They certainly did for almost all their previous games (IE, Odyssey, Aurora).

Another thing
"All the AP characters sound unique and believable, and Obsidian has a solid grasp of showing personalities and accents through dialogue."
Then perhaps you can explain how exactly a mute emo chick or very badly dressed Sie or flaming faggot Brayko manage to boss mooks around? Because that isn't believable or unique at all. It looks nonsensical like in MGS.

Believable != realistic (suspense of disbelief, impossible vs. improbable, blah blah). AP is not a game heavy on realism, nor do I cast realism as one of its strong points. If this wasn't obvious when you could walk through hallways filled with enemies by turning on Shadow Operative, it should have been when they introduced bosses who can take a dozen point-blank shot gun blasts without having pieces of their flesh hanging all over the room.

Another thing - you keep calling this RPG - tell me then
Where are stats? Where are stat checks? Which roles can your character execute through the character system apart from shooting AIs which is a shooter thing?
There are more complaints, like you not actually telling anything in-depth about the gameplay (linear levels, enemies looking in opposite directions from thorton, messed up gunplay thanks to console-like targetting system, railroad without the ability to go the route you want - even in the open areas you are forced to stay on rails, like not being able to jump down in any other place besides where designers intended etc), which is the most important part in shooters, considering that shooter parts take about 80% of AP's game time.

Stats -> skills (Don't tell me you don't know about skill-based RPG systems).

Stat checks -> there are several. One is during the Brayko Mansion raid, where if you had a high enough Technical skill you could rescue both the hostage and get the data, whereas if you didn't, you could only do one. (An alternative is to have Veteran status).

The rest -> Who the fuck cares? If I wanted Splinter Cell, I would've played Spinter Cell. The part of AP gameplay that I wanted to stress is that it's surprisingly fun. And you seem to have missed the part where I said that AP's combat is flawed.

 

[Azarkon]

But as far as I can tell, the effect of this particular dialogue, either way, is that you cooperate until the end of the mission.

Of this particular choice, yes, but in the next choice you can either say yes, no or be evasive. And this one, while it leads to the same outcome mission-wise, affects your reputation with SIE.

Thanks for the clarification, Ausir. Actually, yes/no/evasive is an even better example. You could still interpret it in terms of professional/aggressive/suave, if you really had to, but the mapping is even less obvious.

 

[Roguey]

Actually, yes/no/evasive is an even better example. You could still interpret it in terms of professional/aggressive/suave, if you really had to, but the mapping is even less obvious.

How is it not obvious? Evasive - Smug bastard, No - Aggressive and Yes - Professional doesn't seem like a stretch by any means.

 

[Azarkon]

Actually, yes/no/evasive is an even better example. You could still interpret it in terms of professional/aggressive/suave, if you really had to, but the mapping is even less obvious.

How is it not obvious? Evasive - Smug bastard, No - Aggressive and Yes - Professional doesn't seem like a stretch by any means.

Why does Aggressive => No? Can't I aggressively accept a proposition? The only reason this mapping makes sense at all is if you knew what Thorton would say when you clicked "My Terms" - which actually doesn't translate to "we'll work together but under my terms" but actually to "stay out of my way - those are my terms." Only then does Aggressive => No make sense, but you'd never know this from just looking at the button labels.

 

[SuicideBunny]

Why does Aggressive => No?

because "no" in this case effectively means you will be killing her doods just for fun.

 

[Mangoose]

Hey Azrael, you faggot, tell me which end-fight you are talking about or else.

 

[hiver]

One thing; those old games are loved because they were progenitors of something, a beginning of ... something that didnt go on. Never evolved properly.
They still point forward saying "this is the way" with every feature, every good and bad thing in them.

Nobody thinks they are perfect.
They are great.

I don't necessarily think it's that, either. I think it was simply that they were just really good games. They all had their flaws, and PS:T's combat is easily the most picked on. There was a cohesion to these games, though, that new games don't have (with few exceptions). Basically, the whole was greater than the sum of its parts. PS:T had a really great story and really great characters, and while the combat sucked, at least your stats effected the gameplay significantly in dialogue.

Thats what i said.
Only in another form.

Each of those games was best at one or a few different RPG ends of spectrum, very often achieving a gestalt effect you cannot find by taking them apart.

And that whole way and philosophy were abandoned and left for a long time.

 

[1eyedking]

Hmm. I like skyway's comments better. The second part of the review was pure fanboyism and didn't explain clauses from the first one that definitely needed more expansion ("It's not that bad, but you'll have to take my word for it").

Though you can almost taste skyway's rage in all of his posts, at least he shows more intelligence than 90% of the Codex.

 

[Melcar]

Skyway is too beautiful for The Codex.

 

[Silellak]

Hmm. I like skyway's comments better. The second part of the review was pure fanboyism and didn't explain clauses from the first one that definitely needed more expansion ("It's not that bad, but you'll have to take my word for it").

Though you can almost taste skyway's rage in all of his posts, at least he shows more intelligence than 90% of the Codex.

Too bad his posts are often nigh-unreadable because he doesn't seem to grasp the basic concepts of "formatting" and "grammar".

 

[FeelTheRads]

Don't care about any of this Ass Protocol bullshit, just this:

As an old school skeptic, I didn't understand, for a while, why people looked back so fondly upon the age of isometric RPGs, and I agreed with Chris Avellone, one of the gods of the Golden Age(mostly for his work on PST), when he said that the genre needed to move forward. That it needed to forget the age of dialogue trees, just as we have forgotten the age of text-based adventure games, and embrace the next gen.

GTFO faggot.

Or was it the virtually non-existent C&C and skill use?

What the fuck are you talking about dumbshit? Non-existent skill use?



And Fallout story-driven? Seriously, go die.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

I think he deserves an Obsidian Fanboi tag.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Though you can almost taste skyway's rage in all of his posts, at least he shows more intelligence than 90% of the Codex.

eh, not really. He keeps insisting on retarded shit like:

"Thief stealth was better" - One of the best games focused on stealth has better stealth, no shit

"You still complete objectives." - As opposed to those games where you're just dicking around and killing enemies with no clear objective in mind, eh

"You can only win." - As opposed to those games that delete your save and format your drive if you die once, preventing you from reloading

 

[Fat Dragon]

I don't see anything wrong with comparing Thief's stealth to AP's. JE Sawyer has even said in one of his formspring answers that he doesn't know why RPG developers don't put more effort into stealth play since Thief's mechanics wouldn't be that hard to implement. Apparently the designers are just too lazy to do it right.

 

[Garm]

Finally this is crowned by
" I'd be surprised if you could find a recent RPG that has as much C&C as Alpha Protocol does"
What about not recent, actual RPGs?

Can't you fucking read? He specifically said RECENT RPGs, so why the fuck did you say "Not recent, actual RPGs"? That's just fucking stupid. It'd be like if someone was making a list of top sports teams of the 1990s and you brought up a team from the 70s. They aren't relevant to the comparison taking place.

 

[1eyedking]

eh, not really. He keeps insisting on retarded shit like:

"Thief stealth was better" - One of the best games focused on stealth has better stealth, no shit

"You still complete objectives." - As opposed to those games where you're just dicking around and killing enemies with no clear objective in mind, eh

"You can only win." - As opposed to those games that delete your save and format your drive if you die once, preventing you from reloading

You know, CK, except for your usual buffoonery that is occasionally pleasurable to read, when you attempt to troll, you plainly suck; so stick to being the Codex's clown.

 

[Azarkon]

Don't care about any of this Ass Protocol bullshit, just this:

As an old school skeptic, I didn't understand, for a while, why people looked back so fondly upon the age of isometric RPGs, and I agreed with Chris Avellone, one of the gods of the Golden Age(mostly for his work on PST), when he said that the genre needed to move forward. That it needed to forget the age of dialogue trees, just as we have forgotten the age of text-based adventure games, and embrace the next gen.

GTFO faggot.

You realize the whole section you quoted was a setup to say that I was young and naive?

But I do want to make one correction - story-driven wasn't the best phrase to use to describe the era. Dialogue-driven is more like it.

 

[Azarkon]

Hmm. I like skyway's comments better. The second part of the review was pure fanboyism and didn't explain clauses from the first one that definitely needed more expansion ("It's not that bad, but you'll have to take my word for it").

Though you can almost taste skyway's rage in all of his posts, at least he shows more intelligence than 90% of the Codex.

Has skyway even played the game? He strikes me as someone who's only heard of it on various forums, and is bitching strictly from theorycraft.

No one who's played the game would make statements like "there are 100% proof that AP has no branching and non C&C apart from flavour filler that doesn't affect the game progression at all."

It's argument for argument's sake. Is AP a revolutionary game with regards to C&C? Nope, and no one ever claimed such. Does it have more C&C than recent games praised for their C&C, like MOTB? Absolutely.

As far as fanboyism goes, I was actually more critical in the second part than in the first. But it's hard, because gameplay is by far the easiest part to bitch about when it comes to AP, though I'm curious what you think I should've expanded on from the first part.

When you get to things like writing, characters, and C&C, AP just has much better resistance. But, if we're keeping record, I did bitch about a number of things:

- Cliche plot
- Underdeveloped characters
- Unresolved subplots
- Unsatisfying/rushed ending
- Lack of polish

But if this was all I focused on, it would give off the impression that AP is a shit game with no redeeming factors, which would run contrary to the fun I actually had playing it. Reality checks are important.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Who praised MOTB for C&C? It's normally praised for being one of the first games to actually do Evil right.

 

[Azarkon]

Who praised MOTB for C&C? It's normally praised for being one of the first games to actually do Evil right.

Vault Dweller, among many other people at the time. It was kind of hard to ignore since it was plastered on the Codex front page. Here:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=159

Quests, choices, consequences...

That’s where the game starts to shine so brightly that you completely forget about any flaws the game has and get lost in a well crafted gameworld. It’s like a dream come true – a non-linear game loaded with well-written dialogues, interesting quests, more choices than you can handle, and enough consequences and to make the game highly replayable. It’s hard to imagine a better feature list.

I can't stress it enough. The choices are everywhere. There are plenty of consequences. What you did may even cost party members their lives. Many characters respond to and recognize your choices, commenting on what you did and affecting your gameplay. I couldn't believe how many opportunities to do things differently the game offers. Here is an example:

So, I was told that I have this curse. Well, that kinda sucks, but oh well... Then some kid shows up and says that it's a gift. Well, well, well, isn't that interesting. The motherfuckers lied to me about the curse thing. My buddy Okku the bear-god and I go to visit that place where the kid is from. Nice touch, I'm thinking. Instead of going with a one-dimensional “you are cursed, sucks to be you!” approach, you are given an alternative opinion and path. Anyway, these, uh, "people" are kinda evil. They want to eat me and pass the gift on to someone more worthy. Well, not exactly what I expected, but I guess these days you can't expect meaningful choices and truly different options.

Then I replay the game with a different character. I devour Okku's spirit and decide to visit my old evil pals. This time the conversation is completely different. Turns out they approve of my choice to end Okku’s existence and see it as a sign of awesome – in a very evil way - things to come, so they won’t eat me and will even teach me a new power that my predecessors had. After I bring them some people to eat. Even here I was given a choice. I could send them a sweet girl or give "I know a good shortcut" tip to a merchant and his family. Then I was given a choice to use the new power on my new friends. Then I was given an option to spare or kill their kids, which isn’t something you see in games often these days.

I know a great shortcut...

Here is another example that surprised me. There is a small garrison near a spirit-infested forest. Two witches are in charge of the garrison: one helps you, one doesn’t. At a certain point you are a presented with a reasonable option to start a revolt against the witch in charge, the one who doesn’t help you. You even get a quest to talk to all berserkers and get them on your side through persuasion, intimidation, or other abilities. It seemed to me that that’s the only option to move forward and the only real choice here is how many berserkers you manage to sign up. Sure, there was a “no” option somewhere in the dialogue tress, but I thought it was one of them fake options, i.e. you say “no”, she says "well, if you change your mind, I'll be, like, here" and then the game waits for you to change your fickle mind and aint going anywhere. On my next playthrough, I actually said "no". Much to my surprise, this option was viable and actually gained me a short-term ally in an upcoming battle. Overall, there were 3 outcomes there and different reactions from the witches in a nearby town.

The game is filled with stat and skill checks, so just like in Planescape: Torment, playing a straight fighter could be the least interesting of all options. Lore, Spellcraft, Wisdom, Charisma get a lot of love, so don't miss out.

Even after finishing the game twice, I haven’t explored all the possibilities and outcomes, and if that aint the highest praise the Codex can give a game, I don’t know what is.

 

[Felix]

Though you can almost taste skyway's rage in all of his posts, at least he shows more intelligence than 90% of the Codex.

An apprentice kiss his retarded mentor's ass, cute.

 

[Dionysus]

I don't see anything wrong with comparing Thief's stealth to AP's.

I think it's fine as long as the comparisons don't stop there. For example, how does Thief's interactive narrative stack up against AP's?