Review Gamebanshee: Alpha Protocol Review

[Brother None]

I think it makes no sense to measure the game by what it's not designed to do. Sweeping consequences are one thing, and some games have a handful of such large consequences. Instead, Alpha Protocol has a lot of tiny taps. None of them are sweeping, but here's what's important: none of them are fake choices with meaningless consequences, as we see in other RPGs. That's why I don't classify it was C&C fail, like BioWare, just different than games like Fallout.

You are right in that it can be less appealing, and the complete lack of any mission ever closing or opening feels like a failing. I think it would've benefited from a few sweeping consequences, the closest it gets in is adding and removing boss fights. But I don't think that means you can just classify it in the same fail-category as others.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

You are right in that it can be less appealing, and the complete lack of any mission ever closing or opening feels like a failing. I think it would've benefited from a few sweeping consequences, the closest it gets in is adding and removing boss fights. But I don't think that means you can just classify it in the same fail-category as others.

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)

 

[AlaCarcuss]

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.

Yeah, reminds me of the infamous Eurogamer review of Darkfall, which recieved a thrashing and 2/10.

Aventurine produced server logs showing the reviewer spent somthing like an hour "in-game" and half of that time was spent in the character creation screen

 

[hoochimama]

 

[denizsi]

the flow of dialogue often much more natural than in most RPGs.

-Who are you?
-See the gun? That's who I am.

Very natural, indeed.

 

[Brother None]

Yeah, keep quoting that one exchange over and over and you might convince me.

 

[Forest Dweller]

So about this save game thing - there's just an auto-save? Except Brother None mentioned manual saves. So is there just no quicksave, or what?

 

[denizsi]

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.

To be fair, I liked the mission based structure as much as I disliked it. Thanks to that, missions are a breeze. It's so easy and smooth to play this game over again. You can finish the game in a single day.

 

[Brother None]

So about this save game thing - there's just an auto-save? Except Brother None mentioned manual saves. So is there just no quicksave, or what?

It's check-point based. It has one autosave slot for every checkpoint you hit, overwrites automatically at every checkpoint. It has one other save slot for your safehouse when you leave for a mission.

You can always manually save "the last checkpoint".

No quicksave. It's totally checkpoint based.

 

[denizsi]

Yeah, keep quoting that one exchange over and over and you might convince me.

Come on, do I need to take notes and post every silly line? Because there are plenty and you know it too. That's the line that stuck with me the most. Half the responses Mike gives to Marburg at the cafe are quite retarded and juvenile as well. Alike with half all the e-mail replies too. Mike himself is probably the dullest, shittiest, the most nonsensical joke of a character where the other characters shine in comparison, I'll give it that.

Marburg, for instance, comes across as an utter moron when you consider his background, motives and place in the story -not to mention unlikely and incongruous- but at least when you talk to him, he's got some style and character that can draw your attention.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Well how often are these checkpoints?

You can always manually save "the last checkpoint".

And what would be the purpose of that?

 

[denizsi]

So about this save game thing - there's just an auto-save? Except Brother None mentioned manual saves. So is there just no quicksave, or what?

It's check-point based. It has one autosave slot for every checkpoint you hit, overwrites automatically at every checkpoint. It has one other save slot for your safehouse when you leave for a mission.

You can always manually save "the last checkpoint".

No quicksave. It's totally checkpoint based.

That and you can keep as many saves as you like by manually saving to go back to various checkpoints.

 

[denizsi]

Well how often are these checkpoints?

You can always manually save "the last checkpoint".

And what would be the purpose of that?

Checkpoints are often enough that I didn't feel the need to have a regular save option -usually a few minutes of gameplay tops between the checkpoints BUT, between checkpoints, areas you leave behind often become inaccessible and the first time you're playing the game, it's likely you'll be fucked many times by leaving some door, locker or computer behind with the intention of returning to it in just a moment.

And that's why you might like to keep manual saves, to go to the previous check point and not get fucked by the silly closed off areas this time.

That and to experiment with dialogue / CnC branching.

 

[Brother None]

Because there are plenty and you know it too.

Silly? Sure. Inappropriate to the setting? No. It's a well-written game. Not the strongest ever, but the flow is much more natural than in most games.

Well how often are these checkpoints?

Frequent.

You can always manually save "the last checkpoint".

And what would be the purpose of that?

Keeping extra saves if you want to go back further, or want to correct mistakes. It'll often autosave right after dialogue, so if you don't like to stick with its push to have you make your choices and stick with them, you'll often have to have quicksaves ready further back. Not worth it in my opinion tho.

But in normal gameflow it has no purpose. Except when you hit a bug that means you can't finish the mission with the existing autosaved checkpoint, as happened to me.

it's likely you'll be fucked many times by leaving some door, locker or computer behind with the intention of returning to it in just a moment.

Eh? Why not just hack and lockpick right when you encounter them? Makes no sense.

 

[denizsi]

Because there are plenty and you know it too.

Silly? Sure. Inappropriate to the setting? No. It's a well-written game. Not the strongest ever, but the flow is much more natural than in most games.

Silly and well-written. Fallout 3 is well written.

And sometimes, the context for it to be appropriate or inappropriate is not even there because of how silly the dialogue gets. At times, the game turns into something entirely else for a moment.

it's likely you'll be fucked many times by leaving some door, locker or computer behind with the intention of returning to it in just a moment.

Eh? Why not just hack and lockpick right when you encounter them? Makes no sense.

Are you are saying that never happened to you? I found myself in plenty of FUUU situations in regard to this, sometimes because it wasn't clear whether either ends of a cross roads would meet or one would end up in a dead end with loot and I often happened to take the "right" way, missing stuff, and sometimes because the "right" way seemed less confrontational and more convenient so I thought I'd take out guards first and go back in safety (I must point out that I was OCD'ing over not having any alarms go off and not being detected and confronted)

 

[Volourn]

"-Who are you?
-See the gun? That's who I am."

Shepard wannabe. I like it.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

"-Who are you?
-See the gun? That's who I am."

Shepard wannabe. I like it.

 

[Silellak]

"-Who are you?
-See the gun? That's who I am."

Shepard wannabe. I like it.

And you will KNOW my name is the LORD

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

"-Who are you?
-See the gun? That's who I am."

Shepard wannabe. I like it.

That one's actually the capstone of an official trailer.

"Lover, Not a Fighter"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMWKKlGtcvQ


I'm enjoying the game, but it does feel a bit overblown at times.


Still, the Brayko fight alone was worth it for me. Brayko, Deng and Marburg are relentless on Hard.

 

[Volourn]

Seriosuly guys, that dialogue is supposed to be over the top and cheesy. At least that's the whole point of if for ME's Shepard. Dunno if it fitst a 'relaistic' spy thriller but still hilarious either way. So, trying to use it as an 'example' of 'bad' writing is retarded.

 

[Brother None]

Alpha Protocol is not a "realistic" spy thriller. That's a tag some people decided to put on it, but it was never billed like that. In fact
There won’t be charm spells, but the world of Alpha Protocol is not entirely realistic. “We started real-world,” sighs Parker. “It was boring, so we made it a little more extreme: not comic-book levels, but still, how realistic is it to blindfire a shotgun over your head?”

Obsidian’s term is ‘exaggerated realism’, and aside from several undisclosed semi-superhuman abilities gained during the game, it’s showing up most in the rest of the cast. Thorton himself may be blandly handsome at the moment (it’s uncertain how deep the character creation runs, but he currently resembles a man who might be demoing power tools at the local Homebase if he wasn’t firmly attached to the neck-breaking business) but Alpha Protocol’s supporting characters are a lot more extreme, ranging from a jailbait teen with twin handguns and a hoodie to a silver-fox general sporting the kind of outfit that gives you an insight into what SS uniforms would look like if they were designed by the Samsonite luggage team rather than Hugo Boss.

I don't think the game can work if you try to take it seriously. Its plot is too contrived and full of unrealistic conspiracy theories and international machinations. Its action is too RPG-centric. Its dialogue too camp if you choose to go that way. As I said in the review, if you don't pick up on the tone, I don't think this game will work for you.

So yeah, I'm with Volourn here...

...Who'd ever think I'd say that.

Fallout 3 is well written.

Really? I mean...really?

At times, the game turns into something entirely else for a moment.

Never noticed. The mocking or giving lip dialogue often worked for me, particularly when talking to Brayko or Heck, or even Marburg.

Are you are saying that never happened to you?

Nope, not a single time. All my characters had constant awareness (it's too useful a skill, even for a shooting build), which makes it easier to tell when you cleared up an area (since guards in the next area can't hear you no matter what you do). Also note that it's often obvious when you're entering a new area, because moving from the open to closed, or through an elevator, and it's pretty clear you can't go back.

But no, seriously, it never happened to me, not once. Because I lockpicked every door and hacked every computer as soon as I knew the area was safe. I think that's how Obsidian figured everyone would play the game.

 

[themadhatter114]

Because there are plenty and you know it too.

Silly? Sure. Inappropriate to the setting? No. It's a well-written game. Not the strongest ever, but the flow is much more natural than in most games.

Well how often are these checkpoints?

Frequent.

You can always manually save "the last checkpoint".

And what would be the purpose of that?

Keeping extra saves if you want to go back further, or want to correct mistakes. It'll often autosave right after dialogue, so if you don't like to stick with its push to have you make your choices and stick with them, you'll often have to have quicksaves ready further back. Not worth it in my opinion tho.

But in normal gameflow it has no purpose. Except when you hit a bug that means you can't finish the mission with the existing autosaved checkpoint, as happened to me.

it's likely you'll be fucked many times by leaving some door, locker or computer behind with the intention of returning to it in just a moment.

Eh? Why not just hack and lockpick right when you encounter them? Makes no sense.

Well, there are also situations like "Do you want to save this girl or come after me!?" and there are 3 doors and you're not really sure which is which or that it's going to autosave if you don't go in the 3rd door and talk to another certain female before going to save the other one. Locking doors behind you IS annoying.

But it's definitely handy to have a manual save at critical points like that, particularly late in the game, so you can see the different results.

 

[Ausir]

You are right in that it can be less appealing, and the complete lack of any mission ever closing or opening feels like a failing.

Actually, there are missions that close based on your choices.

 

[Brother None]

You are right in that it can be less appealing, and the complete lack of any mission ever closing or opening feels like a failing.

Actually, there are missions that close based on your choices.

Lots of conversation missions can close, sure, but they're not really missions. I guess "Prevent Surkov's escape" can close. Meh. Not exactly the scale of changes we're talking about. No branches.

But thanks, I know I can always rely on you to obsessively correct me.

Well, there are also situations like "Do you want to save this girl or come after me!?" and there are 3 doors and you're not really sure which is which or that it's going to autosave if you don't go in the 3rd door and talk to another certain female before going to save the other one. Locking doors behind you IS annoying.

It is pretty annoying, sure, but it does communicate itself clearly to you when forcing you to make these choices.

 

[Ausir]

Lots of conversation missions can close, sure, but they're not really missions. I guess "Prevent Surkov's escape" can close. Meh. Not exactly the scale of changes we're talking about. No branches.

But thanks, I know I can always rely on you to obsessively correct me.

Yeah, "Prevent Surkov's escape" is what I meant.