Review Gamebanshee: Alpha Protocol Review

[StrangeCase]

Not saying that they don't. Just wondering why AP was so universally panned for them, but FO3 wasn't.

As I understand it, BN's point is that FO3 is also guilty of being bug-ridden. If you're asking why other reviewers went easier on FO3, you'd have to ask them, because he doesn't seem interested in defending them.

Anyway, I liked the review. I thought it was thorough and well-written, and BN's assessments of the game's strengths and weaknesses seemed insightful and appropriate.

This line in particular deserves an :

The “big thing” is achievements that encourage obsessively exploring every nook and cranny, not a game that – Frith save us – actually tells the player he failed at something.

But I'd argue that achievements are about much, much more than that. Broadly, with simply beating the game considered too unfulfilling and failure considered too frustrating, they're little pats on the head to convince you to keep playing. Worse, it's like the developers/publishers are conditioning you to enjoy certain things. "Here's how to have fun with this game!", is the message: "Achieve these goals!" I feel like how I enjoy a game should be up to me, and I don't appreciate games second-guessing my preferences.

 

[AlaCarcuss]

And yeah, the game is pretty damn bad on some levels, but yet it succeeds so well on the levels that you mentioned in the review that it's the first game I've finished in years, let alone replayed. And I'm on my third playthrough now.

This actually speaks volumes.

I've been really on the fence about picking up AP after reading multiple reviews and trowling all the threads here on the codex. The fact that a learned codexer, who by his own admission doesn't finish a lot of games, finds it interesting enough to play through three times (despite it's flaws) - well, that's good enough for me.

 

[Felix]

What's funny is that when this game got delayed for close to a year Obsidian stated it was so they could polish the fuck out of it.

Yeah.

That was a business decision by Sega, nothing to do with polish.

At least AP is the most bug free Obsidian's game on my comp..while supposedly"polished" Bioware's games always decide to glitch on me most of the time, really bad one at that...


..and it's not broken like Troika's games, good time

god, I hate poles.

 

[Fat Dragon]

What's funny is that when this game got delayed for close to a year Obsidian stated it was so they could polish the fuck out of it.

Yeah.

That was a business decision by Sega, nothing to do with polish.

Obsidian certainly didn't hold back on the claims they were making good use of that time to polish the game up well. Which they didn't actually do, I guess they lied about it.

 

[Mystary!]

It's the first honest review that makes the game sound interesting.

 

[Ausir]

As I understand it, BN's point is that FO3 is also guilty of being bug-ridden. If you're asking why other reviewers went easier on FO3, you'd have to ask them, because he doesn't seem interested in defending them.

Yeah, not critizing BN here, just the mainstream gaming media that ignore bugs in FO3 while they complain about them in AP. FNV should make them schizophrenic in this regard.

This actually speaks volumes.

I've been really on the fence about picking up AP after reading multiple reviews and trowling all the threads here on the codex. The fact that a learned codexer, who by his own admission doesn't finish a lot of games, finds it interesting enough to play through three times (despite it's flaws) - well, that's good enough for me.

Well, it is also very much thanks to me finally buying a computer that I can actually play modern games on. And it's partly because AP is pretty short. I probably wouldn't be so inclined to replay so soon it if it was significantly longer.

 

[Jora]

At first they said they're going to use the delay time to polish the game but later admitted that it was just a business decision on the part of Sega and that they didn't receive the money to continue to work on it.

 

[Roguey]

Obsidian certainly didn't hold back on the claims they were making good use of that time to polish the game up well. Which they didn't actually do, I guess they lied about it.

People who aren't honest upset me very much.
Avellone in October

Essentially, on Alpha Protocol the Obsidian design staff is now acting as quality assurance as well, playing the game frequently and just looking for new bugs since our bug queues are pretty low and most people have moved off to other projects.

November

Now came time to test all the content. SEGA was extremely supportive of the story iteration, but to make things even better, they also enacted cohesion strike teams and actual quality assurance teams dedicated to the RPG reactivity and story cohesion to make sure all the reactivity was correct, that there weren’t any plot holes depending on the paths you chose, and that the variable tracking was working as intended.

In our narrative story presentations to the company, we also made it clear to the developers and quality assurance that story and voice-acted lines can have just as many bugs concerning delivery, content, and that these incidents should be written up as bugs in the bug tracker (if QA is commonly making fun of a particular line or mocking a certain sequence because of its presentation or the delivery of a certain line, it should be filed as a bug and pick-ups of that line done or the sequence removed). There have been times in the past where story seems to be considered more a question of aesthetics in terms of what’s flawed about it, but my opinion has always been that if a line sounds odd, if you catch yourself going “huh?” at a sequence, or if your stance choice delivery doesn’t match your expectation, write that **** up in bug tracker.

Sega in April

Revealing that developer Obsidian have reduced the amount of bugs in the game from a staggering 40,000 to “almost none”, the Sega manager also touches upon what some people refer to as “bugs” becoming what’s known in the industry as “features”. Such elements, as long as they don’t detract from the quality of the game, are not removed before shipping.

Okay, I believe the part about removing 40,000.

 

[Kingston]

The lackluster mechanics of AP don't bother me much, but I just cannot find myself interested in what is going on. I've only played one mission and started another, but I really can't be arsed to go on. I just don't care about the fate of the world or the characters - you could call it gameworld apathy. In contrast Bloodlines had pretty bad mechanics too, but I got to be a cool vampire discovering the world of the supernatural.

I guess the problem comes down to content. A good content game with mediocre mechanics will probably trump a game with good mechanics but mediocre content. Also, I don't like the dialogue system. While I'm trying to figure out what each stance could mean in this situation the time has already run out and I've picked one without really knowing what it means.

 

[Ausir]

You might try to finish Saudi Arabia and see if the game gets more interesting for you then, it gets much better after that.

 

[The Ninth Circle]

You might try to finish Saudi Arabia and see if the game gets more interesting for you then, it gets much better after that.

x2. The game especially starts to take off in Moscow (or whichever you choose to do first).

 

[denizsi]

"Much" better is an exaggeration. The way story develops is still as dull as it gets. Some story elements are pretty LOLWUT (Sung is dead, this will surely force independence of Taiwan!). Dialogue is equally dull and often just bad (-Who are you? -See the gun? That's who I am).

I think my biggest problem with the game is the lack of "adventuring". There are no missions where you need to chase or stalk people, break in and get out of places to gather information (as opposed to being teleported to the place). No "avoid or sneak past authority in train station, airport, city" to actually move to another hub. Prepare for a raid (or don't even know about it, get caught and then break out). NONE of the really good stuff from Bond/Bauer/Bourne. You're teleported in, you are teleported out.

In Rome safe house, seeing the roofs of building wakes in my mind imagery from several movies and games: rooftop action. And it never happens.

I wonder if their choice of locations is a particular spy game trope. NOLF2 takes place in very similar levels in an almost identical set of locations: a far eastern Asian place (even a very similar park as an opening level). Some snowy places in Russia. And some places in Rome. Granted, NOLF2 is a far better game -almost an RPG- on all accounts.

 

[Brother None]

I've been really on the fence about picking up AP after reading multiple reviews and trowling all the threads here on the codex. The fact that a learned codexer, who by his own admission doesn't finish a lot of games, finds it interesting enough to play through three times (despite it's flaws) - well, that's good enough for me.

I always finish games to review them, obviously, but I played Alpha Protocol through twice in a heartbeat before reviewing it.

That was a business decision by Sega, nothing to do with polish.

I just hope SEGA finds some business interest in patching this game. That's in no way guaranteed.

"Much" better is an exaggeration. The way story develops is still as dull as it gets. Some story elements are pretty LOLWUT (Sung is dead, this will surely force independence of Taiwan!).

It's a spy schlock story. What'd you expect?

 

[Deleted Member 10432]

So... pointing out AP's bugginess is both erratic and not unique when you specifically highlight it in your review is meaningless, because it's both erratic and not unique. Right.

What? Is this supposed to make sense?

It's a précis of that part of your previous post which I quoted, highlighting your own illogic.

I think you're trying to say a counter-argument to complaining about bugs is that they don't happen to everyone. But that's exactly the nature of bugs, it's not a meaningful remark. The nature of any game's bugginess is erratic and different for everyone (I don't understand what you mean by "not unique"), so...does that mean reviewers shouldn't mention them because not everyone will run into them? That's ridiculous.

 

[Brother None]

*golf clap*

 

[denizsi]

It's a spy schlock story. What'd you expect?

Heh. A lot of people say the same for Oblivion and much worse stuff. Anyway, my problem is not that but rather that it's handled and progressed VERY poorly.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

It's a spy schlock story. What'd you expect?

Heh. A lot of people say the same for Oblivion and much worse stuff. Anyway, my problem is not that but rather that it's handled and progressed VERY poorly.

It's not even good for what it is.

 

[Brother None]

I think it is. The story is poor, but adequate. The characters are really strong though, and the flow of dialogue often much more natural than in most RPGs.

 

[Ausir]

I always finish games to review them, obviously

Too bad this is not so obvious in most of the gaming media these days.

 

[Brother None]

I always finish games to review them, obviously

Too bad this is not so obvious in most of the gaming media these days.

Yeah. I hate to accuse people without proof, but with a lot of the reviews I can't help but feel they didn't play past Saudi Arabia.

Ah well. Professionals.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Maybe it's just me, but how did the game get better after Saudi? I mean, seriously. The story for the game was shit. You can chalk it up to it being a spy/action story, but it wasn't even good for that. The combat is shitty throughout, although I do think it get worse as time goes due to some ridiculously overpowered abilities.

It's one of those things that people say, but my experience doesn't really add up to that. Saudi is a perfect example of what the rest of the game has to offer, with the same "C&C" and the same "quality dialogue".

 

[Jim Cojones]

I always finish games to review them, obviously

Too bad this is not so obvious in most of the gaming media these days.

Yeah. I hate to accuse people without proof, but with a lot of the reviews I can't help but feel they didn't play past Saudi Arabia.

Ah well. Professionals.

Are you two trying to suggest a reviewer should play a game for more than a couple of hours? What a ridiculous idea! What kind of person could spread such bullshit? I'm confident in my ability to detect a forum troll, and you're it. You're very clever trolls, but trolls nonetheless. Banned.

 

[Brother None]

Are you two trying to suggest a reviewer should play a game for more than a couple of hours? What a ridiculous idea! What kind of person could spread such bullshit? I'm confident in my ability to detect a forum troll, and you're it. You're very clever trolls, but trolls nonetheless. Banned.

Almost perfect, but you forgot "We love criticism"

Maybe it's just me, but how did the game get better after Saudi? I mean, seriously. The story for the game was shit. You can chalk it up to it being a spy/action story, but it wasn't even good for that. The combat is shitty throughout, although I do think it get worse as time goes due to some ridiculously overpowered abilities.

Saudi has long dragged out sequences in mission preparation, and a less interesting characters. The missions are mostly a bit shoddy in level design and gameplay throughout the game, though some are better than others, but the character interaction improves, as do the characters overall (Nasri and the Sheikh are just uninteresting, compared to Brayko, Heck or even Sis/Albatross).

The choice and consequence certainly improves, because so much of it is long-term stuff. What you do in Saudi Arabia affects later missions, Rome affects SIE in Moscow, Heck can be available for Moscow, your choices before affect Marburg's initial response.

Alpha Protocol lacks big, sweeping consequences. I think it's a mistake to equate that with bad C&C tho. It's more that it works in a well-designed patchwork of tiny consequences. I found it impressive, and superior to any other RPG in recent memory. The flow of choice and consequence is really the major selling point of this game.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I always finish games to review them, obviously

Too bad this is not so obvious in most of the gaming media these days.

Yeah. I hate to accuse people without proof, but with a lot of the reviews I can't help but feel they didn't play past Saudi Arabia.

Ah well. Professionals.

You know shit is fucked up when professional game reviewers are so busy sucking dick that they can't be arsed to perform the main function of their job.

But they're game journalists now, so I guess it's in character

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

I just think it's a misnomer to call them consequences, at least as a gameplay element. For story purposes, sure, there are consequences. Maybe it's my issue with the mission-based gameplay itself, but I don't think so. Actually, upon further reflection, mission based is probably easier than open world for C&C, but I just don't think AP does it.

Perhaps it's unfair, but I compare it to the C&C in Fallout, where whole quest-lines are shut down based on numerous factors, and you have the opportunity to fail quests without ending the game. In AP, all of the consequences just make the missions you play through each time slightly different, but not in a meaningful way. Why couldn't they simply offer up different Consequences for tapping G22's computers in Taipei that led to *different* missions?

What C&C is supposed to add to a game is the feeling that no two playthroughs are alike. AP does this, but not in sweeping ways. Everyone can bitch about how hard Brayko is, how lame the embassy mission is, etc. and while their experiences within these boundaries may vary, the boundaries are still the same. I really think C&C is a fine mechanic, and it's not badly done in AP (which may be the only mechanic in AP I can say that about), but it's nothing mind-blowing, and it's certainly not something that makes up for the numerous mediocrities and poor gameplay decisions that are evident in the rest of the game.

The C&C may in fact be better than any in recent memory, and that's not something I'd even dispute, but why do I feel forced to look at 10 year old games for examples of true C&C done right? Maybe that's the frustration I experience with AP (and other modern RPGs).