Review Gamebanshee: Alpha Protocol Review

[Claw]

Fallout 3 is well written.

By what definition?

 

[racofer]

Fallout 3 is well written.

By what definition?

Oblivion was badly written.

 

[MetalCraze]

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.

It was delayed by SEGA, however it is unknown IF SEGA provided funding during this delay for "polish".

They most likely did. Judging by how they patiently gave money for two years for Obsidian's Alien shooter only to get a very badly made demo in pre-alpha stage two years later - yeah SEGA are very patient guys when it comes to this.

I really wish Obsidian would develop good games. Man, wouldn't that be something?

You need the talent to make good games - that's why even when Troika went "shooter-ish" it still was way better than Obsidian's turd. You either have it or you don't. Obsidian continue to prove they have none.

 

[KalosKagathos]

Judging by how they patiently gave money for two years for Obsidian's Alien shooter only to get a very badly made demo in pre-alpha stage two years later

Come on, even you aren't that stupid. The leaked video didn't show the latest build of the game.

 

[MetalCraze]

It doesn't matter if it was compiled 2 seconds before or after SEGA got fed up with Obsidian burning their money for nothing.

What matters is that in two years Obsidian failed to deliver anything. Not even screenshots (which AP had a year into development mind you), just a bunch of stupid concepts ("stealth against aliens" durr hurr) and silly concept arts with alien fatso.
(Some more lulz can be extracted if you imagine how that "stealth" would've worked judging by retarded AP's implementation)

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

*yawn*

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 attempted a re-play, and got bored. but i can give a "seconded" to the "i can't remember the last game i finished" sentiment. in however many years, it's been CoP and AP. that's it for games i gave enough of a shit to finish.

take that for what it's worth.

 

[KalosKagathos]

What matters is that in two years Obsidian failed to deliver anything. Not even screenshots (which AP had a year into development mind you), just a bunch of stupid concepts ("stealth against aliens" durr hurr) and silly concept arts with alien fatso.
(Some more lulz can be extracted if you imagine how that "stealth" would've worked judging by retarded AP's implementation)

Jesus, it was made perfectly clear that stealth would consist of setting up boobie traps and ambushes, not sneaking up on aliens and backstabbing them for a massive damage multiplier. Why do you and Rosh completely ignore it?

 

[Cassidy]

stealth would consist of setting up boobie traps and ambushes

So it was used just as a buzzword to make a standard traps skill sound cooler. How surprising.

 

[KalosKagathos]

Marketing departments: telling it how it isn't since forever. Not sure how a bad name would make it a crappy mechanic, though.

 

[Jim Cojones]

stealth would consist of setting up boobie traps and ambushes

So it was used just as a buzzword to make a standard traps skill sound cooler. How surprising.

No, it was an internal term for design documents only, not meant to be used ingame.

Jesus, it was made perfectly clear that stealth would consist of setting up boobie traps and ambushes, not sneaking up on aliens and backstabbing them for a massive damage multiplier. Why do you and Rosh completely ignore it?

According to Rosh, he ignored it because

As I've dropped clues before, I don't really care what they internally reference to game mechanics. They could have called it "beanie weenies" for all I cared (and said before). I was digging for a bit more insight into their development methods to possibly explain why their promising games get shitcanned while they work on derivative SLAM DUNK! titles and their own IPs are a fucking joke (AP, again).

 

[Mangoose]

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.

I think it is still quite unsatisfying to not have sweeping consequences. While the intent of the game design was for a bunch of small story-based consequences, the premise is still a spy game, and spies typically consider socio-political ramifications of their actions, not just how their actions affect close friends and allies. Not to mention there are instances where you are advised not to harm innocents, but the only thing that affects is your personal story and barely any thought is given to its effects on the world (besides a few lines at the end of the game).

 

[KalosKagathos]

According to Rosh, he ignored it because

As I've dropped clues before, I don't really care what they internally reference to game mechanics. They could have called it "beanie weenies" for all I cared (and said before). I was digging for a bit more insight into their development methods to possibly explain why their promising games get shitcanned while they work on derivative SLAM DUNK! titles and their own IPs are a fucking joke (AP, again).

AP is great, so his argument is invalid.

 

[Brother None]

I think it is still quite unsatisfying to not have sweeping consequences.

Would it have been a better game for it? Sure. Is it necessary though? Not really. Alpha Protocol doesn't "fail" for not having sweeping consequences when it's dotted with so many smaller ones, is all I'm saying.

Would it have kicked ass if you could significantly alter levels or even open up whole new areas by your choices. Yes. But let's keep a bit of realism in mind here. C&C-design is avoided like the plague by developers because it's so f'in expensive, and while more is always better here, designers do have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[hoochimama]

Alpha Protocol doesn't "fail" for not having sweeping consequences when it's dotted with so many smaller ones, is all I'm saying.

But if the biggest selling point of the game is "little consequences"and it fails to make the player care about them then it's off to a running start towards "failing", making a huge part of the game one expensive worthless gimmick.

C&C-design is avoided like the plague by developers because it's so f'in expensive

Quality "C&C" perhaps.

and while more is always better here, designers do have to draw the line somewhere.

So you think they drew the line at making many small voice-acted consequences because it was cheaper than giving the player different missions according to his choices?

Am I the only one who remembers an old obsidian video interview where they claimed that because of the c&c in AP it was more expensive per gameplay minute than any other game out there?

I really, really doubt the cost of AP came from the simple linear maps they designed...

 

[Achilles]

Yeah, sadly it doesn't make much sense to 'lock out' a part of the game's content in order to encourage a second playthrough, especially since most games are too short anyway. Today's console audience constantly craves teh new shit and will forget the previous game as soon as the next 'blockbuster' arrives, and game companies would rather sell a new game or DLC instead of having the players replay their already purchased game.

Flavor C&C and lots of small choices is probably the most that we can expect from mainstream games.

 

[Brother None]

it fails to make the player care about them

If it fails to do so, yes. It didn't for me.

Quality "C&C" perhaps.

Real C&C. I'm not talking about BioWare-style fake choices here.

many small voice-acted consequences

Whoa now. Have you played the game? I'm not referring to small voice-acted consequences, though indeed many choices just have tweaks in what people say but also tweaks in what people do. The guards at the embassy depend on how you approached Grigori. Who is on your side during that fight depends on who your handler is. How you enter Brayko's mansion depends on who you chose as an ally. Whether or not that ally is still available later depends on a choice you make there. Getting Marburg to fight you to the death is possible but only if you do things in a very specific way. etc. etc. etc. There's many smaller non-dialogue consequences too, such as new weapon dealers and discounts becoming available.

And Alpha Protocol weaves it all out so that it feels like part of the game when you fail to find out a key fact about one of the NPCs, act too rashly and kill a possible ally, or get most but not all info. It's full of consequences, but it doesn't ram them in your face all the time. It's the most sweeping attempt I've ever seen to have both real consequences and yet be accessible to mainstream gamers. It's a shame it fell flat on execution.

If this were just tweaks in dialogue that we were talking about I'd be a lot less positive about it.

Am I the only one who remembers an old obsidian video interview where they claimed that because of the c&c in AP it was more expensive per gameplay minute than any other game out there?

I remember the game looked like it'd be very different from what it ended up being in early preview videos. Big shock there.

 

[hoochimama]

it fails to make the player care about them

If it fails to do so, yes. It didn't for me.

I think that's probably the big make-it-or-break-it part of the game. Have yet to see anyone who hated the game saying they cared for its story and characters, and vice-versa.

The guards at the embassy depend on how you approached Grigori.

Are you saying I can't talk my way in peacefully if I wasn't nice to Grigori?
Or are you just referring to how competent they are at shooting the hostile npcs?(which changes nothing as far as I'm concerned)

Who is on your side during that fight depends on who your handler is.

So the hostile npcs will be in either VCI or G22 uniforms, and no matter who I'm killing I can still reach max needed disposition with SIE/ALbatross just through the disposition mini-game.

How you enter Brayko's mansion depends on who you chose as an ally.

And you end up shooting everyone in the courtyard either way.

Whether or not that ally is still available later depends on a choice you make there.

So what? Pick a handler, he'll get kidnapped and tortured, you can save him or let him rot/kill him. You can let your allies die or even kill them yourself in Bio games too. Miss out on combat support and extra dialog, fluff consequences.

Getting Marburg to fight you to the death is possible but only if you do things in a very specific way.

No, you also get to kill him near the end if you didn't suck up to him and didn't try to turn him.

There's many smaller non-dialogue consequences too, such as new weapon dealers and discounts becoming available.

Which is also fluff, never felt the need to buy anything aside from intel (did it change much? no) By the end I just bought myself the most powerful handgun and batman's armor for kicks because I had too much cash.

It's full of consequences, but it doesn't ram them in your face all the time.

Now it's my turn to ask you, did you play the game? Every little fart you do gets an eventual dialog line from a handler and a perk to remind you "Hey, you made a choice™!"

It's the most sweeping attempt I've ever seen to have both real consequences and yet be accessible to mainstream gamers.

I think it's the most sweeping attempt to peddle off cosmetic changes as C&C since Bioware's latest offering.
I do agree that it is however a lot more accessible to mainstream gamers, mostly because of the mission select menu->linear map design, same as splinter cell.

It's a shame it fell flat on execution.

As far as I'm concerned the problems come from its core: the design. Not just an execution or implementation flaw.

If this were just tweaks in dialogue that we were talking about I'd be a lot less positive about it.

And if the factions you joined/attacked actually offered up or closed missions, if there were missions that involved social camouflage(think hitman's costume play), stake-outs, tracking people through crowded streets, assassinating, escaping from an attempt on your life, if you had skills that served for something other than navigating a splinter cell map and your skills allowed you to succeed or fail missions, if there was a semblance of an actual breathing gameworld that had npcs whose lives could be affected(a news report about us soldiers or taipei citizens getting killed gets less time than fluff talk about some fashion designer), if all those things were different, I might like it.

Heck, it might even feel like an rpg, but it would be an entirely different game.

Am I the only one who remembers an old obsidian video interview where they claimed that because of the c&c in AP it was more expensive per gameplay minute than any other game out there?

I remember the game looked like it'd be very different from what it ended up being in early preview videos. Big shock there.

I'm not talking about game footage that showed things that didn't make into a game, I'm talking about some developer conference where obsidian honchos were there to talk about their onyx engine or something and at some point it turned to choices&consequences in rpgs and they used AP as an example to say how it made the game around 10x(not sure) as expensive per minute of gameplay than any other game.

And now that AP is out the statement seems ridiculous.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Overall impressions to-date: like all the different options and choices a lot, really want to replay the game, try different things, and see what happens, but playing the game is so painful sometimes. I'm definitely not the target audience.

Good: characters, writing, dialogues, choices (and hopefully consequences).
Bad: the rest. Ok, maybe the rest isn't bad but just uninspiring and mediocre, but who the fuck cares?

The biggest problem is that "good" takes about 10% of the gameplay, so most of the time you're just playing a mediocre game that I would never ever play for more than 10 minutes, if not for the good parts.

It's more like 5%, but otherwise it's spot on. You have to wade thru a pile of shit to get to the good parts that are far inbetween, for me it wasn't really worth it.

 

[Brother None]

I think it's the most sweeping attempt to peddle off cosmetic changes as C&C since Bioware's latest offering.

*shrugs* As I said, people can have unreasonable expectations towards C&C. Your reply is a prime example of that, no matter what they do it's not enough because you can dismiss it all as cosmetic. If that's the attitude you wish to take, that's fine. It's your loss if you can't see how so many small choices means the game does have a different narrative for every player, even if the levels are boring linear shit. If you wish to equate this design to BioWare's sparse offering of limited choices inside a linear narrative, then you're wrong.

Now it's my turn to ask you, did you play the game? Every little fart you do gets an eventual dialog line from a handler and a perk to remind you "Hey, you made a choice™!"

Not what I'm referring to, though yes, it does, I was referring more to how the game doesn't remind you if you miss stuff. Execute Brayko without listening to him, never find out about Scarlet or Madison's details, it won't tell you "hey you failed". That's more important to how the game works than you might think.

And now that AP is out the statement seems ridiculous.

It was never a meaningful statement anyway, other than making a general point about C&C and why publishers don't want it.

 

[hoochimama]

*shrugs* As I said, people can have unreasonable expectations towards C&C. Your reply is a prime example of that, no matter what they do it's not enough because you can dismiss it all as cosmetic.

You got me wrong there: I don't expect much from C&C in rpgs. I enjoy rpgs that don't have them and when they have the just the illusion of C&C or cosmetic ones then it's a nice extra that contributes to making me feel like it's a reactive gameworld, and if they have real consequences, stuff that changes the gameplay experience, all the better, immersion x2 + replay value!

I would probably have liked AP and loved its peppering of small consequences had its story & characters you could talk to(all two dozen of them) worked for me. I wouldn't even bother talking about it then.

However it didn't work for me, and what was apparent shortly after finishing the game's introduction zone(SA), was further proved by a second playthrough: your choices don't change your gameplay experience, no matter what factions you side with, how you treat people, how you build your character, you'll be getting dropped in the same splinter cell type mission maps with the same objectives etc

Was it unreasonable to expect a full-priced short game that sells itself as "Your weapon is choice" ,sports a plethora of factions, and ditches all manner of adventuring/exploration for a glorified mission select menu to have some amount of choice-specific content as was done by similarly recent 3d expensive games like gothic/risen and to a lesser degree witcher/bio stuff? Maybe.

Is it unreasonable to expect the codex to call a spade a spade and not have double standards? I hope not.

If that's the attitude you wish to take, that's fine. It's your loss if you can't see how so many small choices means the game does have a different narrative for every player

That's the thing though, the narrative doesn't change, the dialogs change depending on choices made, intel collected(if you pick the dossier option) and stances used but the scenarios remain the same. This is not a choose you own adventure deal. Your actions won't take you to different places and you won't be faced with different problems(and I use "different places" here generously, as selecting missions from a menu and being dropped there like in a shooter kinda misses the point of the exploration/adventuring element common to most rpgs) you won't be carving a different path or ending the game without having acquired the 4 mcguffins and finally going to the AP island.

They're still fluff consequences and AP is a shorter game with a smaller scope than its competition and costs the same yet its selling point and supposedly redeeming feature is supposed to be its c&c.

However the competition's c&c routinely gets bashed here for being fluff, what gives? AP may have more fluff per minute of dialog but it also has less dialog and far fewer characters.

Fans may say that it's the C&C that sets it apart, but how can you tell whether that really is the case or just the fact that they like the game's writing so much more that any consequence that affects the characters feels all the more important?

I played a stealth goody two shoes on my first go, an assault rifle murderer on my second go. The difference feels superficial.

even if the levels are boring linear shit. If you wish to equate this design to BioWare's sparse offering of limited choices inside a linear narrative, then you're wrong.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, does AP not offer as well "limited choices inside a linear narrative"? I'd agree that as far as fluff choices go AP probably has everyone else aside from heavy rain beat.

I was referring more to how the game doesn't remind you if you miss stuff.

Well throughout my first playthrough I kept assuming the game was just being subtle about the real c&c the fans kept talking about, and that was why all I could see as I played the game was fluff stuff. So much for that.

Execute Brayko without listening to him, never find out about Scarlet or Madison's details, it won't tell you "hey you failed". That's more important to how the game works than you might think.

Considering I talked Parker out of it and got Scarlet on my side without knowing who Parker's daughter was or knowing about Scarlet's other job I'd say it's only important if you care to know more stuff about a character's background or if you care about what happens to Parker which is the problem with fluff consequences to begin with.

And now that AP is out the statement seems ridiculous.

It was never a meaningful statement anyway, other than making a general point about C&C and why publishers don't want it.

Sounded like they were praising the C&C in their game "You gotta see this, it's so fucking expensive, our C&C will blow your mind", now to me it only seems to have cost extra voice resources, expensive sure, but enough to make it an order of magnitude more expensive per minute than other games?

Anyway, choices!

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

they forgot to add:

Albbmtrmph! *mouth full*

 

[Felix]

Anyway, choices!

The attitudes are pretty different, the actual responds are different, cool story bro.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Anyway, choices!

Trying too hard.