Is Alpha Protocol any good? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Starsign

2011-09-25, 10:19 AM

Positives: It's an Obsidian game. Even at the absolute worst, the writing is pretty good. The story is nothing groundbreaking, but it's good.

Unbelievable depth. This almost makes Mass Effect look like Final Fantasy in terms of player choice and details mattering (all aboard the Hyperbole Express!). I've started (not finished) at least 30-odd games, and I have never seen the exact same thing once.

The gameplay is pretty fun, although there's nothing great or spectacular in there.

Negatives: It can be a bit monotonous.

Some people have had bug trouble, although I've never encountered that.

---

Anyway, AP seems to be one of those games you either like or you don't. But it's two dollars. Buy it!
Yep, about sums it up for me as well, with one or two things needed to be added.

- Some people complain how bosses are more favored for combat/shooting characters, which is largely true, sadly. However that doesn't mean that bosses can't be taken advantage of your other skills. Enough Stealth allows the ability to turn completely invisible, combine with the pistol or melee skill that the Spy starting class has and you can deliver a sudden beatdown from behind before performing Chain Shot to completely mess them up.

And gadgeteers don't have it bad either. A large number of gadgets can really mess bosses up. Flashbangs, Stun Grenades, and especially Immolation Grenades. And really in the end once you know the tricks any boss can be beaten with an untrained Assault Rifle :smalltongue:

- There IS only one bug I remember seeing, unfortunately it's a bit of a big one even it it isn't truly game-breaking. Can't exactly say without spoiling however. I will say though to save before every mission and read the dialogue carefully in case for a contradiction to your actions.

But Alpha Protocol is really worth the price if you can get it cheap. I got it for $7 on Steam and never once regretted it. :smallbiggrin:

Androgeus

2011-09-25, 11:28 AM

But Alpha Protocol is really worth the price if you can get it cheap. I got it for $7 on Steam and never once regretted it. :smallbiggrin:

is $2 cheap enough?

Pronounceable

2011-09-25, 11:37 AM

Two crappy dollars is a total ripoff. You should be paying at least 15$ for Alpha Protocol.
....
Utter ridiculousness of the price and having the greatest story execution since Torment aside, AP does have technical problems. Such as enemies disappearing after loading from checkpoint and camera randomly going all kermit on you (http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b266/ebunnie/kermit.gif).

As for the aforementioned outstanding bug, it's an "event flag" bug on American Embassy mission. Make a fresh save before it as a precaution, and be ready to replay it if you don't like what you see in aftermath briefing.

Starsign

2011-09-25, 11:38 AM

is $2 cheap enough?

To put it in perspective, I feel the average price for such a game is like $30. Of course it's cheap enough :smalltongue:

Name_Here

2011-09-25, 11:39 AM

is $2 cheap enough?

For $2 jump in it. Alpha protocol has a ton of problems this is true, stealth is ishy, combat is a bit odd but Alpha protocol gets dialogue near perfect. You'll have people constantly talking about other stuff you have done and giving you plenty of opportunities to be an awesome spy and at the end of the game you are able to be an awesome mastermind in a way I've never seen before.

Grab it for $2 it is a completely unique experience even if you admit the game is only bad to decent you'll never be able to call it boring.

Toastkart

2011-09-25, 03:07 PM

Cheesegear

2011-09-25, 04:43 PM

I've been thinking of getting this game as well. I was thinking of getting it for 360 and wanted to know if there were any distinct differences between the two versions or if pc has a clear advantage?

Keyboard + Mouse >>>>>>>>>> Controller.

Also, price. AP on Steam is $3, you're highly unlikely to get anything near that price for a 360 game out of a physical store.

Liffguard

2011-09-25, 05:13 PM

It's a game that I really, really want to like but can't get into. I can't get past the bugs and clunky interface.

chiasaur11

2011-09-25, 05:19 PM

Keyboard + Mouse >>>>>>>>>> Controller.

Also, price. AP on Steam is $3, you're highly unlikely to get anything near that price for a 360 game out of a physical store.

Not for this it isn't.

Shame, since normally KBM is best for everything, but every review I've seen says AP is a controller game. Minigames get frustrating elsewise.

And yeah. For 2 bucks on PC, jump.

Cespenar

2011-09-25, 05:34 PM

Not for this it isn't.

Shame, since normally KBM is best for everything, but every review I've seen says AP is a controller game. Minigames get frustrating elsewise.

And yeah. For 2 bucks on PC, jump.

The difficulty of playing the hacking minigame with a mouse is a bit overrated. The only problem I can foresee is if you use your mouse at a rather high sensitivity, it can make it a little harder to lock down on the codes, but even that is arguable, because then one would have gotten used to moving the mouse around at high sensitivities.

Starsign

2011-09-25, 05:50 PM

The difficulty of playing the hacking minigame with a mouse is a bit overrated. The only problem I can foresee is if you use your mouse at a rather high sensitivity, it can make it a little harder to lock down on the codes, but even that is arguable, because then one would have gotten used to moving the mouse around at high sensitivities.

Keyboard + Mouse >>>>>>>>>> Controller.

Also, price. AP on Steam is $3, you're highly unlikely to get anything near that price for a 360 game out of a physical store.
I myself am a lot better with a mouse and keyboard than a controller. Though it's partially because I haven't played a first-person shooter since the N64 era :smalltongue:

And the computer hacking minigame is IMO more difficult than the others. Heck in fact I always take a lot of points in Technical Aptitude, the deals it has are way too good to pass up. Even if not a specialized skill, it's always worth putting it up to 10 ranks.

VanBuren

2011-09-25, 10:17 PM

It's an OK game. It has great ideas and ambitions, but it half-assedly executes most of them. I wouldn't pay full price for it, or even $30. But for $2? Yeah, give it it a shot.

Note: Dialog and reputation are one of the few things Alpha Protocol did amazingly. I did two playthroughs where I antagonized everyone and one where I befriended everyone. I don't remember if the game recognized the latter, but it definitely pointed out what I had done in the former.

Eakin

2011-09-25, 11:49 PM

Thanks to this thread I discovered the SEGA sale on steam and now own an additional 41 games to add to the already overwhelming backlog of games I really need to play.

Not bad for $9.49

DAMN YOU STEAM, FOR CREATING SUCH AWESOME DEALS!

king.com

2011-09-25, 11:57 PM

I cant support the purchase of this game enough, its Burn Notice: The Video Game. Obsidian does its usual job of great game, that feels buggy and and unfinished.

KingofMadCows

2011-09-26, 12:47 AM

Every Black Isle/Obsidian game that's heavily focused on the story, atmosphere, and morality is buggy. Fallout 1, 2, New Vegas, Planescape: Torment, KotoR 2, and Alpha Protocol all had major bugs and glitches. However, Black Isle/Obsidian games that focuses mainly on action are fine. Icewind Dale 1 and 2, and Dungeon Siege 3 didn't have any major bugs.

Cespenar

2011-09-26, 01:15 AM

Cheesegear

2011-09-26, 01:37 AM

Since I'm currently getting the game now, while it's installing, how does this game stack up against Deus Ex: HR?

chiasaur11

2011-09-26, 01:42 AM

From that data, I can produce the following equation.

Buggy=Awesome.

Counterargument:

X-Com UFO Defense has less bugs than Terror from the Deep.

SITB

2011-09-26, 01:47 AM

I cant support the purchase of this game enough, its Burn Notice: The Video Game. Obsidian does its usual job of great game, that feels buggy and and unfinished.

As opposed to DA2 DA or ME1?

Seriously, at least Alpha Protocol doesn't suffer horrendous memory leaks like DA.

stainboy

2011-09-26, 04:43 AM

Two bucks? Downloading this now.

Cogwheel

2011-09-26, 05:17 AM

Counterargument:

X-Com UFO Defense has less bugs than Terror from the Deep.

Then again, Arcanum was buggy. And amazing.

And then there's the entirety of Bethesda's works, which are good, whether I like them or not.

Funny how that works.

Oh, and Deus Ex was clearly entirely bug-free :smalltongue:

Trixie

2011-09-26, 06:39 AM

2$? Huh, EU is getting worse deal, again :P

Still, 2 Euro isn't a bad price. Though, I don't have any money on the only account Steam *might* accept right now <wonders how long this promotion is going to last>.

Misery Esquire

2011-09-26, 06:45 AM

n't a bad price. Though, I don't have any money on the only account Steam *might* accept right now <wonders how long this promotion is going to last>.[/SIZE]

About another 5 hours. (Maybe six.)

Worira

2011-09-26, 07:02 AM

Five is correct.

Trixie

2011-09-26, 07:07 AM

Ah. A real pity, then :smallfrown:

Cespenar

2011-09-26, 08:05 AM

Counterargument:

X-Com UFO Defense has less bugs than Terror from the Deep.

Hey, it's not my own thesis, I just analyzed that piece of data.

Besides, you callin' TftD bad? :smalltongue:

KingofMadCows

2011-09-26, 10:33 AM

Counterargument:

X-Com UFO Defense has less bugs than Terror from the Deep.

That's an outlier.

Temple of Elemental Evil is also an outlier but on the other side. It's an action focused game that was also buggy.

Other companies seem to follow the trend too. Look at the Might and Magic and Heroes of Might and Magic franchise. They're all more focused on action and they don't suffer that much from bugs despite being made by a pretty small developer. Jon Van Caneghem pretty much made the first Might and Magic game and the first King's Bounty by himself. However, as newer games began to develop the story and lore, the bugs also increased. Might and Magic 9 and Heroes of Might and Magic 4 had the best written stories out of the franchise and they turn out to be the most buggy and incomplete.

GungHo

2011-09-26, 10:59 AM

It's not a bad game at all and it's a shame that SEGA killed the IP due to poor initial reactions from reviewers who were expecting a AAA game.

If you want to compare it to another game, I'd liken it to Mass Effect 1... clunky interface and clunky shooting, with a really good story. It's just on the ground instead of in space. Mass Effect 1 came out 3 years earlier, though, and had a much more fleshed out universe (though, given that Alpha Protocol is on Earth, there's a little less need to build a universe). Also, the other characters were Metal Gear-style voices in the headset rather than partners, so that was also a big difference... if your Michael Thor(n)ton had a weakness, there wasn't Garrus or Tali there to sew up the other side of the equation.

Initial perceptions on the game's polish (there wasn't any) were accurate. I almost think that if SEGA hadn't tried to pretend it was a AAA title from the outset that people would have been a bit more forgiving. They'd also have probably been a little more understanding if there weren't such large publishing delays as well... they pushed things back a 9 months and still came out with tons of stuff that looked like it must have been playtested by only 2 or 3 people. If it had come out from European studio like Paradox, CDProjekt, or GSC and published by THQ, people would have been all over it.

Also, I can't emphasize more that the game it's apeing the most came out in 2007. If Alpha Protocol had come out in 2007 or even 2008, people might have had lower expectations. However, in May 2010, there were other, great choices for cover mechanics, detailed stories, and other things that Alpha Protocol was trying to do, including Mass Effect's sequel.

SITB

2011-09-26, 02:34 PM

warty goblin

2011-09-26, 03:27 PM

Except that AP did the whole branching/reactive storyline far far better then ME ever did? I mean, the catchphrase of the whole marketing drive was "Your weapon is choice" and AP fulfill that promise beautifully. Also far more reaction from the supporting cast about Mike's actions.

And vastly more gameplay diversity as well. ME had, basically, shoot dudes or cast a biotic/tech power via a mechanism uncannily similar to shooting a dude in order to make him easier to shoot. AP had shooting dudes, an actual melee system, stealth, hacking that did more than unlock loot depositories, and some level of metagame resource management for the black market sniper rifle drops. Granted, those were basically useless, but it was a really nice idea.

Don't get me wrong, AP is janky as all hell, but insofar as I'm concerned it's about ten times as interesting of a game as Mass Effect 1 or 2.

Starsign

2011-09-26, 03:37 PM

And vastly more gameplay diversity as well. ME had, basically, shoot dudes or cast a biotic/tech power via a mechanism uncannily similar to shooting a dude in order to make him easier to shoot. AP had shooting dudes, an actual melee system, stealth, hacking that did more than unlock loot depositories, and some level of metagame resource management for the black market sniper rifle drops. Granted, those were basically useless, but it was a really nice idea.

Don't get me wrong, AP is janky as all hell, but insofar as I'm concerned it's about ten times as interesting of a game as Mass Effect 1 or 2.

What I really liked about AP was it wasn't a shooter with RPG elements, but an Action RPG with the RPG being an integral part of the game, something Mass Effect 2 wasn't so much inclined to go for. The feel of customization really was there for AP, as was the moral of choice. That is what made the game to be a worthwhile blast for me. I'd have to take it as Obsidian's best game they've made barring KotOR 2 with the TSLRCM 'patch,' which wasn't really made by Obsidian so it doesn't count. :smalltongue:

SITB

2011-09-26, 04:11 PM

Except that TSLRCM is literally the content that was cut from the game because Lucas Arts are a bunch of A-holes and cut that development cycle so the game would be released for christmas. Apparently Obsidian wanted to patch the game after launch but LA vetoed it.

Obsidian really has a past of getting screwed by their publishers.

GloatingSwine

2011-09-26, 04:23 PM

Counterargument:

X-Com UFO Defense has less bugs than Terror from the Deep.

It doesn't, it just has less game killing bugs.

For every three bugs in UFO, they took two out and put one new one in TFTD.

Cheesegear

2011-09-26, 04:57 PM

Repost.

How does this game stack up against Deus Ex: HR?

Was I ignored on purpose or does just no-one know?

Jeivar

2011-09-26, 04:58 PM

Alright, I picked up Alpha Protocol so I can at least give it a try when I find the time. It's only 2$, after all.

Thanks for the input.

Starsign

2011-09-26, 04:59 PM

Repost.

Was I ignored on purpose or does just no-one know?
I was avoiding that topic because I haven't played Deus Ex: HR. :smallredface:

warty goblin

2011-09-26, 05:00 PM

It doesn't, it just has less game killing bugs.

For every three bugs in UFO, they took two out and put one new one in TFTD.

As long as their were only a finite number of bugs that does in fact imply that Terror from the Deep had fewer bugs.

If x is the number of bugs in X-Com, then the number of bugs Y in Terror From the Deep is y = 2/3x = < x for all x in the natural numbers.

Note that if the number of bugs in X-Com is at least countably infinite, than this relationship implies that Terror from the Deep had exactly as many bugs.

VanBuren

2011-09-26, 06:41 PM

As opposed to DA2 DA or ME1?

Seriously, at least Alpha Protocol doesn't suffer horrendous memory leaks like DA.

DA2? Maybe. But I can honestly say that DA:O and ME1 felt substantially more finished that AP.

It's not a bad game at all and it's a shame that SEGA killed the IP due to poor initial reactions from reviewers who were expecting a AAA game.

If you want to compare it to another game, I'd liken it to Mass Effect 1... clunky interface and clunky shooting, with a really good story. It's just on the ground instead of in space. Mass Effect 1 came out 3 years earlier, though, and had a much more fleshed out universe (though, given that Alpha Protocol is on Earth, there's a little less need to build a universe). Also, the other characters were Metal Gear-style voices in the headset rather than partners, so that was also a big difference... if your Michael Thor(n)ton had a weakness, there wasn't Garrus or Tali there to sew up the other side of the equation.

Initial perceptions on the game's polish (there wasn't any) were accurate. I almost think that if SEGA hadn't tried to pretend it was a AAA title from the outset that people would have been a bit more forgiving. They'd also have probably been a little more understanding if there weren't such large publishing delays as well... they pushed things back a 9 months and still came out with tons of stuff that looked like it must have been playtested by only 2 or 3 people. If it had come out from European studio like Paradox, CDProjekt, or GSC and published by THQ, people would have been all over it.

Also, I can't emphasize more that the game it's apeing the most came out in 2007. If Alpha Protocol had come out in 2007 or even 2008, people might have had lower expectations. However, in May 2010, there were other, great choices for cover mechanics, detailed stories, and other things that Alpha Protocol was trying to do, including Mass Effect's sequel.

AP comes out more favorably if you were expecting a spiritual successor to Deus Ex--at least, it used to. I don't know if Human Revolution changes that up. Sega kept trying to push it as Mass Effect with Spies, which didn't do it any favors.

But yeah, pushing the release date back almost an entire year with hardly anything to show for it is... not a good sign.

As for Obsidian constantly being the victim of evil publishers, at what point does the pattern become consistent enough that we can suggest that maybe perhaps Obsidian isn't perfect?

Starsign

2011-09-26, 06:50 PM

AP comes out more favorably if you were expecting a spiritual successor to Deus Ex--at least, it used to. I don't know if Human Revolution changes that up. Sega kept trying to push it as Mass Effect with Spies, which didn't do it any favors.

But yeah, pushing the release date back almost an entire year with hardly anything to show for it is... not a good sign.

As for Obsidian constantly being the victim of evil publishers, at what point does the pattern become consistent enough that we can suggest that maybe perhaps Obsidian isn't perfect?
When I first saw it, I definitely was thinking "Mass Effect with Spies." I was not expecting Mass Effect quality however as I've know Obsidian's track record well before knowing about Alpha Protocol. (let's just say Neverwinter Nights 2 did not leave me pleased, neither did vanilla KotOR 2) So what I went in expecting a flawed, but interesting experience and got exactly what I expected, and came out smiling. It's certainly not GotY quality, but it was a worthwhile purchase at $7 :smallbiggrin:

DaedalusMkV

2011-09-26, 08:15 PM

Repost.

Was I ignored on purpose or does just no-one know?

Sure, why not. I've played both fairly recently, so let's give it a shot.

They're actually fairly similar games, at the end of the day. AP is 3rd person while HR is 1st, but the general principle of the thing is the same. First off, I played both games on the PS3, so I arguably got the best possible experience for AP and the worst for HR. Keep that in mind for the rest.

First and most important: The Gameplay. Human Revolution wins out here, by a fair margin. It controls more smoothly and fluidly, feels a lot more open and gives you a ton more leeway in terms of how to go about your missions. HR tends to offer at least four methods to achieve any given objective, while Alpha Protocol usually only provides two, or at most three. Human Revolution has better gunplay and better stealth mechanics, though AP actually does melee combat a lot better than HR. Primarily because HR does not do melee combat. HR also offers more varied scenarios and a little bit more play-time. Overall, though, in my experience the gameplay was fairly similar. HR just did the job better. The area that AP really shines is its dialogue system; as well as HR did dialogue, AP manages to make it even more fluid and intuitive. It never needs to hold your hand, and it doesn't try to turn conversations into battles like HR did. AP simply feels fluid and natural, and you (the player) need to either get your planning done ahead of time or really think on the fly to get the most out of it, which heightens the sense of accomplishment. Still, it's not enough to overcome HR's overall superior gameplay.

Second: The plot. Human Revolution wins out here, but not by as much as you'd expect. Of course, they're entirely different genres, but we can still compare them to some extent. Both games have engrossing, if somewhat predictable, plots involving a secret conspiracy by 1+ powerful individual(s) to manipulate global events in their favour, and both of the plots are more than servicable enough to keep you interested all the way through. Without going into spoilers, Human Revolution explores some fairly interesting and relevent themes, especially towards the endgame, while Alpha Protocol is more of a summer blockbuster where the plot is more focused on being fun. Overall, HR is a lot deeper. That said, if you play your cards even remotely right you'll come out of Alpha Protocol feeling like a badass master-spy who legitimately came out on top on his own merits. HR didn't do that for me, so in some ways it was a little less satisfying. Also, AP really manages to nail down a solid branching storyline. Without giving much away, the endgame varies drastically based on the choices you made and your performance in a ton of areas all through the game. It's quite well executed; there are a ton of different possible endings, and the fate of pretty much every single character in the game depends on your actions, unlike in HR where all that really matters is the very end.

Third: The RPG elements. I don't think it would be fair to declare a true winner, here, since they're trying to achieve different things. HR's major RPG flaw, if you can call it that, is that by the end of the game a player with an even remotely completionist bent will have enough Praxis to unlock pretty much every Aug there is, while in AP you'll need to pick 3-4 areas to specialize in and maybe another 1-2 to dabble in. On the other hand, DE is far better balanced than AP is and has a vastly superior inventory system. Alpha Protocol's system makes it a bit more replayable, especially in combination with the branching plotlines, but is notably less polished and balanced than HR.

Overall: HR is a better game than AP. But not 25 times better. At $2, AP is giving you at least an order of magnitude more value for your money than Human Revolution is at $50.

As an aside, in my two playthroughs of AP I experienced exactly as many serious bugs as I did in my one of HR. One. Yes, Alpha Protocol is a little less polished than most top-budget games. Yes, I played the PS3 version, which is far more stable than the PC or 360 versions, but I hit more bugs in an average 2-hour STALKER session than in something like 30 hours of Alpha Protocol. The bugs are not a deal-breaker.

Triscuitable

2011-09-26, 09:26 PM

And now I want AP. And I missed the sale. Awesome.

deuxhero

2011-09-26, 11:20 PM

Uh, it's still on sale...

Can I turn the turn blur off? It adds to the loading times (there is a pause to load it the first time I turn after loading) and looks stupid.

It's not a bad game at all and it's a shame that SEGA killed the IP due to poor initial reactions from reviewers who were expecting a AAA game.

Obsidian owns the IP, it's just no one else wants to pick up a sequel with the poor sales of the first.

chiasaur11

2011-09-26, 11:22 PM

It doesn't, it just has less game killing bugs.

For every three bugs in UFO, they took two out and put one new one in TFTD.

Gonna disagree there, with all due respect.

There were bugs fixed, yeah. (Most notably the big one in UFO defense, the difficulty selection problem.) But looking at the wiki, TFTD added more than they cut. See, for instance, the behavior of large units when MC'd.

Which makes sense. Rushjob to start, and there are some nice sized changes with incredible glitch potential. Then there's all the ones you need weird circumstances to find, things get... messy.

houlio

2011-09-27, 01:00 AM

SITB

2011-09-27, 02:03 AM

DA2? Maybe. But I can honestly say that DA:O and ME1 felt substantially more finished that AP.

DA and DA2 had memory leaks. DA and DA2 also had a lot of confused event flags, I had more crushing game bugs in ME then in AP.

So yeah, complex RPG games tend to have bugs and AP bugs get to be blown blown out of proportion because Obsidian.

But yeah, pushing the release date back almost an entire year with hardly anything to show for it is... not a good sign.

As for Obsidian constantly being the victim of evil publishers, at what point does the pattern become consistent enough that we can suggest that maybe perhaps Obsidian isn't perfect?

Except that Obsidian isn't the paragon of perfectness? The pushing back a year was because SEGA insisted (And I'm pretty sure I read that it was frozen for a year, not developed for another year); and ignoring that, the Lead Designer quitted his job halfway through the development. It was really a mess of development cycle and despite that, apart from AP having janky comabt, it stacks pretty well. It's not perfeect but the reactivity of choices is probably the beast in games that was released so far.

I've really been enjoying this game, but I just got to the Brayko fight. Now I'm not so sure anymore. The change in tone and difficulty is rather jarring . Anyone else have a similar issue with this guy?

What weapons are you using? Do you run away from him every time he cokes up and becomes invincable?

deuxhero

2011-09-27, 02:43 AM

Also: Unlike Bioware and Bethesda (I need fan 3 patches, a 4th and 5th for SI 6 counting OOO, plus one for each of the DLC, to get Oblivion half-way stable and not have each quest include major bugs, and the early main quest STILL has major bugs), Obsidian games get well done patches.

Starsign

2011-09-27, 07:01 AM

I've really been enjoying this game, but I just got to the Brayko fight. Now I'm not so sure anymore. The change in tone and difficulty is rather jarring :smallfrown:. Anyone else have a similar issue with this guy?

Bosses in general can be a headache, it's really quite a shift from how the rest of the game is. It all depends on your build and progress.

Firstly, you can avoid Brayko right now and go to the other areas first, it'll make things much easier. Secondly, what skills and build do you have set up for?

Brayko is about the most difficult as there isn't really a sweet spot that makes things a lot easier to take out via Assault Rifle. No shame in having difficulty with him.

houlio

2011-09-27, 12:49 PM

Bosses in general can be a headache, it's really quite a shift from how the rest of the game is. It all depends on your build and progress.

Firstly, you can avoid Brayko right now and go to the other areas first, it'll make things much easier. Secondly, what skills and build do you have set up for?

Brayko is about the most difficult as there isn't really a sweet spot that makes things a lot easier to take out via Assault Rifle. No shame in having difficulty with him.

I primarily focus on stealth, pistols, and sabotage, with a little assault rifle and marital arts mixed in just in case. I can easily beat most normal encounters just by hiding, waiting for the perfect moment, and using chain shot to kill a couple people with my pistol, and then mop up with an assault rifle.

I had some problems with sis before too. I think it's mostly due to the fact that I can't use chain shot to get those headshots which insta-kill everybody else. I'm going to try fighting Brayko one more time with a fresh outlook, and if I lose I might just back out and do some other missions.

Cespenar

2011-09-27, 01:00 PM

If that bossfight causes you enough distress to counter the fun you should be having playing the game, just look up a youtube video of Brayko's fight or find a walkthrough.

DaedalusMkV

2011-09-27, 02:10 PM

You're a pistol specialist? Well, that's all you need, then. Chainshot is broken as all hell, easily the best weapon special ability. All you need to do is use it, line up all your shots on his head and watch a big streak of critical hits wipe out half of his health. Start the battle this way. Now, use the big crate right in front of where you start to run around in circles away from him until Chainshot recharges, then do it again. If you have maximum rank Chainshot, he will now be defeated. If you're one rank short of this, you'll need to hold him off for another minute. Don't forget to use Chainshot immediately upon starting the fight, because taking him into the second phase screws with the enemies that are supposed to spawn. If they do spawn, Smooth Operator your way into a useful corner or, better yet, behind one of the groups that comes in through a door, and take them out while Brayko tries to figure out where you are.

If you abuse Chainshot and Smooth Operator, Brayko (and all the other bosses, too) is a joke. I recommend you do so.

Typewriter

2011-09-27, 02:12 PM

Repost.

Was I ignored on purpose or does just no-one know?

I bought Alpha Protocol on 360 on launch day and loved it to death. I played through it twice, and intended a third but never got around to it. There is a lot to the game that feels clunky, but it always felt like there was also a good way to do things. I felt like I had to work to be good at something, and that made it fulfilling.

There's been a few times I've wanted to play through it again, but I find the intro to be so slow it kind of kills it for me.

I also bought DE:HR on 360 on launch day and have played it to death. It is only the fourth game I've ever strived to get all the achievements on, not because I love my gamerscore, but because it gives me additional goals when playing. HR is a much more polished, efficient game than AP.

Story: Both are meh, but at least in AP you get to feel some impact. In HR I felt like my choices always led to the same outcome (3 playthroughs). AP always felt new and fresh on each playthrough.

Exploration: HR wins hands down here. The hub areas are great for exploring and finding side quests and the like, plus you can search huge areas for fun/info/wealth/power/etc. AP just can't really compare.

Gameplay(Encounters): Whatever you choose to do in HR you're going to be good at. If you want to stealth through the game you can do so right off the bat. There is not a single area in the game where stealth is difficult in my opinion. If you want to run/gun then do so and you're fine. Ammo might be a bit in short supply, but you're lethal. In AP there are a lot of areas where it's hard to avoid detection unless you've got certain powers, but if you specialize then you become a ninja. No one sees you, you just dominate. If you want to use a lot of guns you're going to start off doing little damage and having trouble aiming, but specialize in the right powers and you'll be able to clear a room in 3-7 seconds. The pistol dominates here. For me AP had the better gameplay, just because I felt more rewarded for leveling up. HR has some nifty combat abilities, but I never felt like they added anything special.

Gameplay(Other): In AP you go through areas and fight/avoid people. That's about it. Exploration is minimal. Both games have hacking, and it's better in HR. HR also has multiple paths, the ability to break through walls, the ability to jump higher, the ability to fall any height, etc. etc. HR has abilities that match it's exploration and that makes it the clear winner here, IMO.

Overall:
Alpha Protocol: RPG with FPS mechanics
Deus Ex: FPS/Stealth game with RPG elements

All of this is in my opinion, and that's my 2 cents.

Starsign

2011-09-27, 02:31 PM

I primarily focus on stealth, pistols, and sabotage, with a little assault rifle and marital arts mixed in just in case. I can easily beat most normal encounters just by hiding, waiting for the perfect moment, and using chain shot to kill a couple people with my pistol, and then mop up with an assault rifle.

I had some problems with sis before too. I think it's mostly due to the fact that I can't use chain shot to get those headshots which insta-kill everybody else. I'm going to try fighting Brayko one more time with a fresh outlook, and if I lose I might just back out and do some other missions.

You're a pistol specialist? Well, that's all you need, then. Chainshot is broken as all hell, easily the best weapon special ability. All you need to do is use it, line up all your shots on his head and watch a big streak of critical hits wipe out half of his health. Start the battle this way. Now, use the big crate right in front of where you start to run around in circles away from him until Chainshot recharges, then do it again. If you have maximum rank Chainshot, he will now be defeated. If you're one rank short of this, you'll need to hold him off for another minute. Don't forget to use Chainshot immediately upon starting the fight, because taking him into the second phase screws with the enemies that are supposed to spawn. If they do spawn, Smooth Operator your way into a useful corner or, better yet, behind one of the groups that comes in through a door, and take them out while Brayko tries to figure out where you are.

If you abuse Chainshot and Smooth Operator, Brayko (and all the other bosses, too) is a joke. I recommend you do so.
Yeah, Chain Shot is hilarious. The trick is being able to use it effectively. Don't activate it until he's in your sights completely. Practice makes perfect!

Now since you're stealth too, you can also use Shadow Operative (you DO have that, right?) to safely get in proper range. When the mooks come is where things get a bit complicated. Do what you can to take them out while avoiding Brayko. This is about the best advice I have atm. If you can get past this, most of the other fights shouldn't be that bad.

chiasaur11

2011-09-27, 04:35 PM

Gameplay(Encounters): Whatever you choose to do in HR you're going to be good at. If you want to stealth through the game you can do so right off the bat. There is not a single area in the game where stealth is difficult in my opinion. If you want to run/gun then do so and you're fine. Ammo might be a bit in short supply, but you're lethal. In AP there are a lot of areas where it's hard to avoid detection unless you've got certain powers, but if you specialize then you become a ninja. No one sees you, you just dominate. If you want to use a lot of guns you're going to start off doing little damage and having trouble aiming, but specialize in the right powers and you'll be able to clear a room in 3-7 seconds. The pistol dominates here. For me AP had the better gameplay, just because I felt more rewarded for leveling up. HR has some nifty combat abilities, but I never felt like they added anything special.

Eesh, this bit?

Seen more than one designer mention it as the bane of RPGs. Good critics, too. Obsidian, to their credit, was forced to toss it in last minute at the demand of higher ups. Interviews after called it a mistake.

Because it's no fun to be powerless at the start.

Oh, less powerful, sure. Given. But being the incompetent nimrod who doesn't know how to use a pistol when the player has the skills explode heads easy and the character is secret agent super dragon is one of the big complaints tossed at DE uno, and that's an all time classic that didn't go half as far that way as AP.

Basically, Human Revolution and Mass Effect 2 take the proper route. All GnC stuff. If you look like you're shooting, shoot. If you're rolling dice, roll. Don't go for a janky middle, and let the player start competent and get amazing rather than be frustrated taking fifteen turns to kill a rat.

(Fallout New Vegas is alright here, mind. Discussion gets even more complicated that way, so it gets put aside for the moment.)

Jibar

2011-09-27, 04:53 PM

Worira

2011-09-27, 11:10 PM

I play pistol/unarmed, myself. Which also makes bosses hilariously easy. Chainshot to the face, rage, punch repeatedly. If they're still alive, use your now-recharged Chainshot for another burst of ridiculous damage. Plus your melee damage reduction makes bosses who like to punch you in the face much less of a threat.

Starsign

2011-09-28, 04:43 AM

And here was me about to ask if I'm the only one playing as a kung fu expert because I find guns so impossible to use. The bullet is going into the guy and the shot doesn't count. My foot goes into his face that counts, no failure.
Also running kick is kind of amazing to watch. I feel bad for everyone I hit with it.

Heh, first playthrough I actually played a melee nonlethal specialist (or extremist, considering bosses was the only time I brought out a gun :smalltongue:). Worked a lot better than I expected

Mr.Bookworm

2011-09-28, 05:09 AM

Yeah, Pistols and/or Martial Arts are juuuuuuust this side of broken.

You can literally beat Brayko (and pretty much anyone else) in less than a second by putting 5 or 6 rounds into his head right as the fight starts. If you go Martial Arts, you get Point Blank Shot, which you can use to stunlock and murder literally everything in the game. Not that it isn't incredibly satisfying to go through the entire game like a human whirlwind of death, but it makes everything else look kind of inadequate (I don't believe I've ever actually used SMGs).

Also, if you're having trouble with Brayko, I'm guessing you haven't been to Taiwan? If you meet up with Heck and are buddies with him (and there is absolutely no reason not to be BFFs with Heck), he'll poison the coke for you for a bit of cash, making the boss fight waaaaay easier.

Lord of the Helms

2011-09-28, 05:43 AM

As opposed to DA2 DA or ME1?

Seriously, at least Alpha Protocol doesn't suffer horrendous memory leaks like DA.

I did not play Mass Effect until long after its release, so I can't comment on any bugs since if there were any, they'd have been patched out by then, but I can't recall any particular bugs from Dragon Age 2 even though I played it literally within hours of its release, and the only bug I encountered in the first Dragon Age was that my trigger for the Stone Prisoner DLC quest was broken and I had to re-install it manually. Also, what's a memory leak and what effect does it have on a game?

On Topic: Hmm, I don't see a special offer now, but Alpha Protocol is still available for $ 20 on Steam, which is like 14€, which is a pretty fair price.

Typewriter

2011-09-28, 08:49 AM

Eesh, this bit?

Seen more than one designer mention it as the bane of RPGs. Good critics, too. Obsidian, to their credit, was forced to toss it in last minute at the demand of higher ups. Interviews after called it a mistake.

Because it's no fun to be powerless at the start.

Oh, less powerful, sure. Given. But being the incompetent nimrod who doesn't know how to use a pistol when the player has the skills explode heads easy and the character is secret agent super dragon is one of the big complaints tossed at DE uno, and that's an all time classic that didn't go half as far that way as AP.

Basically, Human Revolution and Mass Effect 2 take the proper route. All GnC stuff. If you look like you're shooting, shoot. If you're rolling dice, roll. Don't go for a janky middle, and let the player start competent and get amazing rather than be frustrated taking fifteen turns to kill a rat.

(Fallout New Vegas is alright here, mind. Discussion gets even more complicated that way, so it gets put aside for the moment.)

See, I kind of disagree here though. I felt fine at the beginning of AP, and had no trouble getting through the starting areas. Sure, you were weaker, but the enemies were weaker as well and environments were set up a bit easier than later in the game.

I'm a big fan of RPG* mechanics in game - it was enough to get me to pick up Dead Island even though I hate zombies. Most of the ones in HR are nifty, but I didn't feel that they actually improved me greatly. Sure some combinations were awesome or powerful, but they didn't really get me doing anything I couldn't have done without them. AP made me go from a weak recruit to a murdering machine, or to a ninja who can clear the game without being seen.

One of the games you mentioned was ME2. I love this game. I've played it 4 times front to end, and I love it. That being said I consider the first game to be far superior. I enjoy the mechanics of the first game, and the fact that in order to hold a sniper rifle steady I have to invest in it. I love the fact that every level makes me better. Playing ME1 from beginning to end feels like I'm playing through a game in which the main character goes from standard gunner to powerhouse. In ME2 I feel that I end the game at the same power that I started, and for me that's unfulfilling in an RPG*.

On my first playthrough in HR I spent all my initial points on hacking levels, then hacking detection, then hacking turrets and robots. I took the things that made it so I could carry more, and I got the ability to jump higher, to survive falling from any height, the better radar, etc. etc. but none of these were things that really made me feel more powerful. Sure I could have taken the ability to reduce recoil, but I wasn't having any issues with recoil. I could have taken the stealth abilities, but I wasn't playing a stealth specialist and didn't see the point. My second playthrough I went full stealth and ignored everything else. I wound up with around 14 unspent Praxis kits at the end of the game, and only actually had to use the stealth powers to get by a few times. My third playthrough (incomplete) I went full murder, and all of the upgrades seem worthless. Reduced recoil? Woo. Aiming redicule stops getting whacky while I move? Who cares?

If a game is going to have RPG* elements I want them to make a difference. I don't want it to seem unnecessary. I want these elements to change the game drastically, to see my character get more powerful. In HR half the augments I always get feel more like game/gui improvements than they do character upgrades (Radar, more inventory), and everything else is completely optional. Sure you can jump higher, but you don't need to. Sure you can stealth better, but you can stealth fine without it. In ME2 you have the abilitiy to hurt shields or armor. Or you can use weird ammo? Charge is a fun ability, but the rest are just "Do X damage" and never really impressed me. In ME1 if you don't level your weapons you're going to suck at aiming them, you're going to do less damage, and your abilities are going to suck. In AP if you don't purchase some of the stealth upgrades you are going to be seen.

*For simplicity sake I'm saying RPG in place of "Level up mechanics". I consider all of these games RPGs to one degree or another, but for the purpose of this post I'm simply referring to the mechanics that RPGs commonly employ as a leveling system.

It's all a matter of taste, and I get that, that's why I tried to be clear that it was all opinion.

warty goblin

2011-09-28, 09:53 AM

One of the games you mentioned was ME2. I love this game. I've played it 4 times front to end, and I love it. That being said I consider the first game to be far superior. I enjoy the mechanics of the first game, and the fact that in order to hold a sniper rifle steady I have to invest in it. I love the fact that every level makes me better. [QUOTE]Playing ME1 from beginning to end feels like I'm playing through a game in which the main character goes from standard gunner to powerhouse. In ME2 I feel that I end the game at the same power that I started, and for me that's unfulfilling in an RPG*.

I felt like ME 1 took me from handling a gun like my Mom - who to the best of my knowledge has never actually shot a firearm - to, forty hours later, being more or less as good as the dude I could start as in Gears of War or pretty much any other third person shooter out there. I don't mind RPG systems making my character better, but I'd rather not start out sucking immensely, particularly when I'm supposed to actually be quite good.

I was unable to stomach ME 2 for unrelated reasons, but to me it felt like they finally got the shooting almost mostly right. The guns still lacked personality and heft, but at least the starting accuracy wasn't abysmal anymore.

In terms of starting skill abilities, I thought AP did that better than ME, since it was possible to begin the game with enough skill in one area or another to actually feel partways competent in it. I put most of my points in assault rifles, and they generally sent bullets where I told them to, which is about all I ask. Playing a soldier in ME felt like it was my first day on the firing range, not that I was already a highly skilled special forces operator.

Typewriter

2011-09-28, 09:56 AM

In terms of starting skill abilities, I thought AP did that better than ME, since it was possible to begin the game with enough skill in one area or another to actually feel partways competent in it. I put most of my points in assault rifles, and they generally sent bullets where I told them to, which is about all I ask. Playing a soldier in ME felt like it was my first day on the firing range, not that I was already a highly skilled special forces operator.

Yeah, I did like that AP started out giving you a few points to allocate. I think that 3/5 times I've played ME1 I've focused heavily on Sniper Rifles, and that's especially rough at the beginning of the game. Grab a pistol or machine gun or shotgun or something and you can make do. Grab a sniper rifle and your aiming reticule goes wild.

warty goblin

2011-09-28, 10:09 AM

Yeah, I did like that AP started out giving you a few points to allocate. I think that 3/5 times I've played ME1 I've focused heavily on Sniper Rifles, and that's especially rough at the beginning of the game. Grab a pistol or machine gun or shotgun or something and you can make do. Grab a sniper rifle and your aiming reticule goes wild.

Like I said, it started me out with the gun handling skills of my Mom. I mean seriously, I am far from a good shot IRL but I can put ten rounds into a two foot square target at twenty or thirty feet no problem. First few levels of ME? Hell no.

Typewriter

2011-09-28, 10:12 AM

Like I said, it started me out with the gun handling skills of my Mom. I mean seriously, I am far from a good shot IRL but I can put ten rounds into a two foot square target at twenty or thirty feet no problem. First few levels of ME? Hell no.

Yeah, but I think that's the difference in how we look at games like this. You look at ME and see that it's a shooter, so you expect to be able to shoot. I look at the game and see an RPG. Sure it has a combat mechanic, but whatever that mechanic is I'm going to suck and get better. To me that's simply what I want in an RPG. Doesn't matter if it's shooter based or anything else. I expect to suck hardcore and then improve.

It goes back to what I said earlier. AP is an RPG with shooter elements, where HR is a shooter/stealth game with RPG elements. Now talking about ME1/2 the same thing could be said. ME1 was an RPG in which I used guns, ME2 was a shooter in which I could level up.

GungHo

2011-09-28, 10:38 AM

Except that Obsidian isn't the paragon of perfectness?
And that's ok. But they (and their publishers, and their fans... which I am one of) shouldn't be surprised when that level of attendion to detail burns their hand. Again, if they were aiming for the middle-tier of the gaming world as a "good idea farm", they might get a much better reception than they're getting at the AAA level.

I play pistol/unarmed, myself. Which also makes bosses hilariously easy. Chainshot to the face, rage, punch repeatedly. If they're still alive, use your now-recharged Chainshot for another burst of ridiculous damage. Plus your melee damage reduction makes bosses who like to punch you in the face much less of a threat.
I have philosophical issues with the idea of bringing a pistol (or your bare hands) to a rifle/machine gun fight, but that works out in vidya games and specifically in this game, so this is the way I went. It saves a lot of irritation.

SITB

2011-09-28, 11:30 AM

I did not play Mass Effect until long after its release, so I can't comment on any bugs since if there were any, they'd have been patched out by then, but I can't recall any particular bugs from Dragon Age 2 even though I played it literally within hours of its release, and the only bug I encountered in the first Dragon Age was that my trigger for the Stone Prisoner DLC quest was broken and I had to re-install it manually. Also, what's a memory leak and what effect does it have on a game?

I had ME crash several times when playing and at least once Shepard caught in one piece of the scenery and couldn't move forcing me to restart. Also, DA2 had two skills that didn't work at launch (http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/308/index/6438694), and the auto attack was disabled for consoles (http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6395493&lf=8) .

Memory leaks means that there isn't a proper allocation of memory pointers or release, meaning that the more the program works the more memory it takes untill it crashes down the computer/program because there is no more available memory.

I had AP crash twice, less then ME, but YMMV. Both have problems though.

And that's ok. But they (and their publishers, and their fans... which I am one of) shouldn't be surprised when that level of attendion to detail burns their hand. Again, if they were aiming for the middle-tier of the gaming world as a "good idea farm", they might get a much better reception than they're getting at the AAA level.

Compare DA2 to AP. Or hell, the first ME.

VanBuren

2011-09-28, 03:48 PM

Compare DA2 to AP. Or hell, the first ME.

I found both games to be better than Alpha Protocol. Just because you like AP more doesn't make it objective fact.

SITB

2011-09-28, 04:10 PM

I found both games to be better than Alpha Protocol. Just because you like AP more doesn't make it objective fact.

As opposed to your own objective opinion?

warty goblin

2011-09-28, 05:18 PM

Yeah, but I think that's the difference in how we look at games like this. You look at ME and see that it's a shooter, so you expect to be able to shoot. I look at the game and see an RPG. Sure it has a combat mechanic, but whatever that mechanic is I'm going to suck and get better. To me that's simply what I want in an RPG. Doesn't matter if it's shooter based or anything else. I expect to suck hardcore and then improve.

It goes back to what I said earlier. AP is an RPG with shooter elements, where HR is a shooter/stealth game with RPG elements. Now talking about ME1/2 the same thing could be said. ME1 was an RPG in which I used guns, ME2 was a shooter in which I could level up.

I think I mostly agree with this. However I wouldn't say I look at a game like ME or AP and see a shooter; I'm definitely cognizant of the RPG component. That means I expect to get better at whatever it is that I do in the game through some sort of leveling mechanic. That doesn't excuse being stupidly bad at that thing when I start out. As I said I don't object to AP's skill leveling as much because I could start out reasonably competent in at least one area, although I certainly improved over the course of the game.

ME's problem is that I start out being really, really bad at everything. There's really no in-game justification for this - I'm supposed to be playing somebody who's already in the top few percent of human combat ability and training, and my performance is absolutely terrible by pretty much any metric one cares to set. The only reason for it is so that I can feel good about becoming more powerful later. I'm fine with getting more powerful later, that can be plenty good fun, the thing is it shouldn't require starting so weak that the game isn't fun. ME, for me, toed if not outright crossed, that line.

Long story short, getting better at things is fine, starting out sucking enormously is (generally) not. Very rarely you get a game where your complete weakness is the point, but those tend to be based on quirky Eastern European fantasy or science fiction and a definite tendency towards masochism.

Lord of the Helms

2011-09-29, 01:25 AM

[QUOTE=Typewriter;11930630]
I felt like ME 1 took me from handling a gun like my Mom - who to the best of my knowledge has never actually shot a firearm - to, forty hours later, being more or less as good as the dude I could start as in Gears of War or pretty much any other third person shooter out there. I don't mind RPG systems making my character better, but I'd rather not start out sucking immensely, particularly when I'm supposed to actually be quite good.

I was unable to stomach ME 2 for unrelated reasons, but to me it felt like they finally got the shooting almost mostly right. The guns still lacked personality and heft, but at least the starting accuracy wasn't abysmal anymore.

While I didn't particularly like how crazy steep your power curve is from beginning to end in Mass Effect 1 in terms of your abilities (at the beginning, you have one or two rather weak powers you can use every minute or two and are pretty damn frail, at the end you have a half-dozen or more crazy powerful abilities you can throw around all over the place), the weapons didn't seem like much of an issue. I was a competent shooter with any weapon I was proficient in straight from the beginning (except with the sniper rifle, but I put that one down to myself since I sucked with it even on maximum skill level) and just became more and more deadly due to better damage and special powers to use with that weapon, but hitting a target with my pistol or shotgun at starting level wasn't actually much harder than hitting it at top levels.

I did prefer Mass Effect 2's mechanics in terms of levelling overall, and the weapon choices were much improved with tons of guns that actually handled differently and except for one or two all head a justification to be used during most of the game, but I would have preferred to have some kind of weapon-specific powers I could learn, or specializing in a particular weapon type to become more effective with it.

Err, back to Alpha Protocol: I think I'll be getting it soon, after I finish my second Deus Ex playthrough and Bulletstorm. Is Melee a viable choice for most of the game, or should I get at least some measure of shooting skill?

VanBuren

2011-09-29, 08:24 AM

As opposed to your own objective opinion?

What an odd and unsupported assumption.

SITB

2011-09-29, 09:32 AM

What an odd and unsupported assumption.

Let's look at your post again:

I found both games to be better than Alpha Protocol. Just because you like AP more doesn't make it objective fact.

Call me crazy, but it does seem here that you insinuate that AP is objectively worse then ME or DA2 because you like those game better; even more so, because the thrust of my argument wasn't that AP is the better game (even if I do think so) but rather that those games have game breaking bugs too but get passes because they were made by Bioware.

GungHo

2011-09-29, 10:00 AM

Actually, I think he's saying it's subjectively worse.

With him being the subject.

Philistine

2011-09-29, 10:24 AM

Err, back to Alpha Protocol: I think I'll be getting it soon, after I finish my second Deus Ex playthrough and Bulletstorm. Is Melee a viable choice for most of the game, or should I get at least some measure of shooting skill?
CQC is very strong in the game, especially if paired with stealth. The default level of shooting skill is "competent" - if you're specializing in CQC, the default will likely be plenty for the few times you need firearms.

As for the question in the OP: both DA:O and ME2 came out before AP, and received generally better reviews. Even so, I've completed as many playthroughs of AP as both of the others combined. Despite its real flaws, the things AP does well it does very well indeed; and it just so happens that those are some of my very favorite things.

GloatingSwine

2011-09-29, 11:05 AM

Oh, less powerful, sure. Given. But being the incompetent nimrod who doesn't know how to use a pistol when the player has the skills explode heads easy and the character is secret agent super dragon is one of the big complaints tossed at DE uno, and that's an all time classic that didn't go half as far that way as AP.

The thing with AP is that you are really powerful at the start, if you know how to play the game. If you use the critical hit mechanics exclusively, the weapons are all hugely powerful, and given that once you have two points in Pistol you can get criticals without leaving cover, the game is essentially broken...

Reviewers don't notice this, and keep trying to play the game like every other shooter because they are stupid.

SITB

2011-09-29, 11:31 AM

Actually, I think he's saying it's subjectively worse.

With him being the subject.

That's cool.

It still has nothing to do with what my point was though.

Trixie

2011-09-29, 05:08 PM

The thing with AP is that you are really powerful at the start, if you know how to play the game. If you use the critical hit mechanics exclusively, the weapons are all hugely powerful, and given that once you have two points in Pistol you can get criticals without leaving cover, the game is essentially broken...

Reviewers don't notice this, and keep trying to play the game like every other shooter because they are stupid.

Care to elaborate? :smallconfused:

VanBuren

2011-09-29, 08:51 PM

Actually, I think he's saying it's subjectively worse.

With him being the subject.

This would be the correct interpretation.

Calemyr

2011-09-30, 01:47 AM

Because I have no life and have to pipe up when opinions are asked for:

Alpha Protocol is a standard Obsidian game, which is to say that someone hired Obsidian to do what Bioware already did, but with less money and less time. This is Obsidian's take on Mass Effect.

I've played the PC version with KBM since the blasted game came out and never had significant problems with bugs. Granted, the texture pop-in that plagues Unreal Engine games is painfully prevalent at times, and the hacking minigame is just plain cruel more often than not, but the game was always quite stable for me. And the game is a lot of fun.

First, the combat. As has been said, Pistols and Martial Arts pretty much win this game fore you, doubly so if combined with Stealth. The fact that there's a VERY high quality silencer available early on (Rome, listening post mission) makes the pistol a good call in the first place, and the weapon style's action ability is a sick combination of bullet time and VATS, allowing you to call up to seven headshots in an instant, all of which take place the second time runs out. Being surrounded very quickly ceases to be a problem at that point. Add to that the fact that there's an effective non-lethal ammo for the pistol and a lot of good rewards for non-lethal takedowns, and you can become pretty powerful pretty fast.

Second, the plot. It's plenty twisty and clever, but we've seen so many of this style of story that there's not much left as can surprise us. Can black ops facilities be trusted? How about private military companies? Is the only good terrorist a dead terrorist, or is a living terrorist pissed off at your enemies even better? Would you ever eat a gelato given to you by a man who just used a scoop to scratch his butt? Deep and serious questions, one and all, but I'm pretty sure we've already made up our minds about each long before starting the game. Well written and witty, but there's really so very new ideas left under the sun.

Third, the main character. Michael Thorton is my hero. I've seen the Zero Punctuation review of the game and came to a very different conclusion about our black ops viking. He is a great combination of witty, sarcastic, and biting, and a lot of his snarks are quite amusing. He also is given a lot of leeway on how to solve problems, and a lot of choices have bonuses and penalties however you play them. You can play the master manipulator, tempered professional, and bitter veteran, and dance between them pretty smoothly. His dialog options were designed to be divided between the three J.B.s - James Bond (suave), Jack Bauer (aggressive), and Jason Borne (professional). All three have their use, as everyone responds differently to each approach, though Suave was always a favorite for me.

One interesting aspect is that the game keeps track of how often you use one of the three types, and (in a precursor to DA2), reliance on a particular one creates prejudices in certain people before you even meet them. One boss in particular very smartly decides to run when he gets outclassed. He's obviously going to return and bite you in the ass later in the game, but if you've favored Suave options almost exclusively and done everything you can to piss him off, you will be able to goad him into killing you first - allowing you to put and end to this feud right then and there. We've got enough recurring villains in this story, thank you very much.

Although it can be a fun and interesting game, and the order you approach objectives can really screw with how they pan out, the replay value isn't exactly stellar. A lot of missions only have decisions right at the end, so the only difference between them is the conclusion, and some of them don't really effect the gameplay as much as the interspersed cutscenes. As a result, there is some monotony. Personally, I'd put it between ME1 and ME2: more replayable than ME1, but significantly less than ME2. And since the pistol, stealth, and martial arts skills are so freaking superior, it can be hard to justify other playstyles. Really, there's not much reason to play this game more than twice: once as a "recruit" (which is surprisingly fun, as long as you focus on the big three skills) and one as a "veteran", which is so powerful that it might as well be called "god". Both have unique dialogue and veteran allows you the skillpoints to toy with other skill trees without hamstringing you.

It ain't perfect, but it's pretty darn good if you can look past the flaws. In other words, it's a standard Obsidian game.

Lord of the Helms

2011-09-30, 04:48 AM

10 Dollars for AP on Steam? As in, like, 7 Euros? That's almost nothing. Bought, installed, will try it this weekend after finishing Bulletstorm.

As an aside, I have an unhealthy habit of buying way more games than I can play. I must have at least a dozen games on my PC that I have not played at all, or not more than for a short time.

And yet I keep buying more. :smalltongue:

I had ME crash several times when playing and at least once Shepard caught in one piece of the scenery and couldn't move forcing me to restart. Also, DA2 had two skills that didn't work at launch (http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/308/index/6438694), and the auto attack was disabled for consoles (http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6395493&lf=8) .

Memory leaks means that there isn't a proper allocation of memory pointers or release, meaning that the more the program works the more memory it takes untill it crashes down the computer/program because there is no more available memory.

Ah okay. Never had that memory leak thing happening with either one, and the mentioned issues with DA2 seem console only, so it's no wonder I never encountered them - I'm pretty much a pure PC player.

spectralphoenix

2011-09-30, 12:01 PM

To be honest, I found the dialog a bit frustrating at times -sometimes I'd click something and Thorton would say something completely different than what I was expecting.

Also, I specialized in assault rifles, and some of the boss fights were a pain. I'd line up a headshot, hit them hard enough to take out their armor and do a sliver to their health, and they'd just go behind cover again. I poured a truly ridiculous number of bullets into their foreheads before they'd go down.

Lastly, I'm a bit tired of the Intro -> three missions in any order -> endgame approach to video game storytelling. It was new the first time or two I saw it, but now it just makes the game feel shorter and that you keep starting over from square one.

deuxhero

2011-09-30, 12:05 PM

Obsidian at least does it well here, as all the missions effect others

SITB

2011-09-30, 12:47 PM

Although it can be a fun and interesting game, and the order you approach objectives can really screw with how they pan out, the replay value isn't exactly stellar. A lot of missions only have decisions right at the end, so the only difference between them is the conclusion, and some of them don't really effect the gameplay as much as the interspersed cutscenes. As a result, there is some monotony. Personally, I'd put it between ME1 and ME2: more replayable than ME1, but significantly less than ME2. And since the pistol, stealth, and martial arts skills are so freaking superior, it can be hard to justify other playstyles. Really, there's not much reason to play this game more than twice: once as a "recruit" (which is surprisingly fun, as long as you focus on the big three skills) and one as a "veteran", which is so powerful that it might as well be called "god". Both have unique dialogue and veteran allows you the skillpoints to toy with other skill trees without hamstringing you.

How is AP not replayable and ME is? I mean, in Ap people actaully seem to notice your behaviour and their attitude towards Thorton changes if you change your playstyle/choices.

BRC

2011-09-30, 01:11 PM

My thoughts on Alpha Protocol

I generally liked it, I ended up getting frustrated near the end of the game and havn't touched it in ages, but it's all-around pretty good. I would describe it as Deus-Ex by way of Jason Bourne with delusions of Mass Effect 2.

From a gameplay perspective, it's flaws are twofold, as has been mentioned, it lets you specialize, but still forces you into situations where Combat is the only option. The Hub-based mission setup works fairly well, and since things you do in one mission impact other missions (And even missions in other hubs), it dosn't feel like every mission is taking place in a vacuum. Normally when games talk about Actions having Consequences, what they mean is "If you shoot the Orphans you get an evil looking hat and guys in Blue hats come to kill you. If you save the Orphans you get a good looking hat and guys in Red hats come to kill you". In Alpha Protocol, the correct Actions mean that areas are more heavily guarded, potential Allies become enemies, ect.
It dosn't seem to have inherited the western RPG's fear of having one "Correct" way to play the game which requires twisting the plot to make all player choices equally valid.

Now, here are my problems, because you knew they were coming.
The Dialog system is painfully imprecise. They were trying to do the Mass Effect thing of giving the player an IDEA of what the character was going to say (When asked to relinquish weapons, "Hell No" becomes "I'll relinquish one bullet, where do you want it), but they decided to shorten their summaries to one word, usually a word that, while it describes the TONE of the response, gives you no clue about the CONTENT of the response. For example, you want a guy to like you, so you select the "Witty" response, thinking it means Mike will open the conversation with a joke, when what it means is Mike opens the conversation by insulting the guys tie and then chuckling to himself.
Remember what I said about Deus Ex and Mass Effect, because I’m going to mention it again. In Deus Ex, JC Denton was fairly pre-determined. You got to make some choices and pick some dialogue options, but they were usually close-enough together that it seemed like you were controlling one person, merely picking different approaches. In Mass Effect Paragon Shepard is a distinctly different character from Renegade Shepard, and the game rewards you for building a consistent version of Shepard. Alpha Protocol goes for the second approach, but isn’t willing to commit. Professional Thorton, Suave Thorton, and Aggressive Thorton all feel like totally different people, however, since there is no incentive to be consistent it feels less like you are discovering your version of Thorton through play, and more like you are picking which of three ghosts got to take a turn driving the Mike Thorton Meat Suit.
The game also does the Deus Ex thing of having consequences be totally binary. I remember one point where I broke into a CIA safehouse, I carefully tried my hardest to take out all the guards nonlethally ( I had nothing against them, they were just between me and information I needed), however at one point a guard was about to hit the Alarm and, without checking to make sure I had Tranq rounds in, I shot him. That was my only fatality during the entire mission. Now, there were consequences for this, which I didn’t mind, what I minded was the way it was presented.
My one, accidental kill forced by the spur of the moment somehow turned into a one-man killing spree. People started yelling at me for having Massacred a safehouse full of innocent CIA analysts, I had to justify myself like I had just slaughtered a village and built a throne out of the corpses of the children. At one point I was shown pictures of the hallways of the safehouse strewn with corpses and with the walls splattered with blood.

Early on they seem to be introducing an interesting mechanic, each mission early on comes with a “Handler” who gives you a bonus and serves as the voice in your ear for the mission. I assumed this would mean that eventually I would be selecting which Handler I wanted for which mission, depending on whose expertise I wanted and which Bonus I would find most useful. This was not to be. After the first area, 90% of the game is spent with the exact same handler who grants you a generic boost to health.

A thing I really liked was the ability to spend money on bonuses for specific missions. You could buy maps, guard routes, or passwords. You could bribe guards to call in sick that day, or pay somebody to hide a sniper rifle at a convenient position, that’s an idea I really like.
In fact, I could imagine an Espionage Game that really embraces that. With each mission you are given a very limited selection of gear you can bring with you depending on the nature of the mission (A Pistol and a few concealable gizmos for an embassy infiltration, a backpack worth of gear for a commando raid), everything else must be found in-mission or gathered at pre-arranged drop points, but I digress.
Otherwise, the Economic system wasn’t anything to write home about. Once you found the two weapons you brought with you on every mission (Pistol and Assault Rifle for me), it was the usual three choices: A Baseline weapon of each type for your stage in the game, a weapon that was slightly more powerful but slightly less accurate, and a weapon that was slightly more accurate but slightly less powerful.
One more thing, unlike Deus Ex (It’s biggest inspiration by far), Alpha Protocol was all but incapable of mixing Social and Action approaches. Each mission usually fell into either “Have a single conversation” or “Run through some buildings shooting dude, picking locks and hacking computers”, and you could always tell which was which instantly. If Thorton was wearing his casual clothes, you were just there to talk, if Thorton was wearing his combat gear, it was time for a firefight. This led to an interesting situation where Thorton, on his way to meet a contact, is lounging nonchalantly against a pillar in a crowded subway station while wearing full combat gear, which in my case was a bulky pocket-festooned bulletproof fest hanging with grenades.
Another part of the story that bugged me was the speed with which they introduced characters. Thorton would have a tense, two minute conversation with somebody which concluded with them deciding to temporarily work together to achieve non-contradictory objectives against a mutual foe. Later on I’m given the option to call them in to help me with a mission against their own allies.

As usual I’ve spent 90% of my time complaining about a game that’s actually pretty good. Alpha Protocol is good, but it has the potential to be great.

GungHo

2011-09-30, 04:00 PM

Professional Thorton, Suave Thorton, and Aggressive Thorton all feel like totally different people, however, since there is no incentive to be consistent it feels less like you are discovering your version of Thorton through play, and more like you are picking which of three ghosts got to take a turn driving the Mike Thorton Meat Suit.
Totally stealing this for my new D&D campaign.

Knaight

2011-09-30, 04:33 PM

Like I said, it started me out with the gun handling skills of my Mom. I mean seriously, I am far from a good shot IRL but I can put ten rounds into a two foot square target at twenty or thirty feet no problem. First few levels of ME? Hell no.

Are you talking about a pistol without a scope here? Because the first time I used a scoped rifle, I could put ten rounds into a two foot square target at seventy yards, no problem. And I'm not exactly a great shot either. Thirty feet is incredibly close with any ranged weapon worth the name, to the point where I'd be confident with an old west revolver.

Sholos

2011-09-30, 10:34 PM

Now, here are my problems, because you knew they were coming.
The Dialog system is painfully imprecise. They were trying to do the Mass Effect thing of giving the player an IDEA of what the character was going to say (When asked to relinquish weapons, "Hell No" becomes "I'll relinquish one bullet, where do you want it), but they decided to shorten their summaries to one word, usually a word that, while it describes the TONE of the response, gives you no clue about the CONTENT of the response. For example, you want a guy to like you, so you select the "Witty" response, thinking it means Mike will open the conversation with a joke, when what it means is Mike opens the conversation by insulting the guys tie and then chuckling to himself.
I agree with this part, though reading through the different characters' dossiers gives you a pretty good idea of how they'll respond to different tones.

Professional Thorton, Suave Thorton, and Aggressive Thorton all feel like totally different people, however, since there is no incentive to be consistent it feels less like you are discovering your version of Thorton through play, and more like you are picking which of three ghosts got to take a turn driving the Mike Thorton Meat Suit.

If you remember the early conversation about why Mike is recruited in the first place, it's specifically mentioned that one reason is because of his ability to manipulate people. In other words, one of the things he does best is use the right tone for what he wants to happen. You're not supposed to stick to just one. You're supposed to go, "I want this guy to behave this way, how do I need to talk to him?"

Philistine

2011-10-01, 01:01 PM

One more thing, unlike Deus Ex (It’s biggest inspiration by far), Alpha Protocol was all but incapable of mixing Social and Action approaches. Each mission usually fell into either “Have a single conversation” or “Run through some buildings shooting dude, picking locks and hacking computers”, and you could always tell which was which instantly. If Thorton was wearing his casual clothes, you were just there to talk, if Thorton was wearing his combat gear, it was time for a firefight. This led to an interesting situation where Thorton, on his way to meet a contact, is lounging nonchalantly against a pillar in a crowded subway station while wearing full combat gear, which in my case was a bulky pocket-festooned bulletproof fest hanging with grenades.
You have the option to wear civvies for that mission; doing so makes a slightly better impression on your contact at the expense of making the final stage* of the mission slightly more difficult.

* Assuming you're stealth-focused. If your playstyle involves you taking more hits as a general rule, you'll likely find yourself missing the armor more and earlier.

DaedalusMkV

2011-10-01, 04:07 PM

You have the option to wear civvies for that mission; doing so makes a slightly better impression on your contact at the expense of making the final stage* of the mission slightly more difficult.

* Assuming you're stealth-focused. If your playstyle involves you taking more hits as a general rule, you'll likely find yourself missing the armor more and earlier.

While this is technically true, there's no reason for you to believe that you have to do it manually. The game always just puts you in your civvies whenever it's a noncombat mission and the mission description heavily implies that this is just going to be a 'go there and have a chat' mission, so I can't think of a single reason why you would manually switch out of your armour for it on your first playthrough. In subsequent games, yeah, sure.

Not that that particular contact has any right to get snippy with me, given how he and his cronies spend the entire mission in full Chinese Secret Police uniforms in the middle of Taiwan...

Psychonaut

2011-10-05, 11:06 AM

Obsidian owns the IP, it's just no one else wants to pick up a sequel with the poor sales of the first.

Sadly, they don't. An Obsidian dev stated this a while back, I think on Something Awful, but he was mistaken. I don't know how to link to a specific Twitter post, but see Chris Avellone's posts from October 3 here (http://twitter.com/#!/chrisavellone).

And yeah, I pretty much agree with Typewriter about character progression. I'd rather play an ARPG where leveling up feels fulfilling than one where you gain very little power (relatively) over the course of the game in an attempt to be realistic. (Although I prefer ME2 over ME1 for other aspects of its gameplay.)

To be honest, I found the dialog a bit frustrating at times -sometimes I'd click something and Thorton would say something completely different than what I was expecting.

Also, this. Why on earth did every gaming publication in existence praise Mass Effect's horrible dialogue system that prevents you from being able to see what your character will actually say as some kind of brilliant innovation? And AP made it even worse.

BRC

2011-10-05, 05:45 PM

Also, this. Why on earth did every gaming publication in existence praise Mass Effect's horrible dialogue system that prevents you from being able to see what your character will actually say as some kind of brilliant innovation? And AP made it even worse.
For me, the appeal of ME's dialogue system is that it lets the player choose dialogue without that sense of redundancy.

Lets say I select the dialogue option "Put down your weapons, I don't want anybody getting hurt". If the next thing my character does is say "Put down your weapons, I don't want anybody getting hurt", I'm not really paying attention, I know what they are going to say, after all, I just picked it. If I have subtitles on, then I also get another chance to read "Put down your weapons, I don't want anybody getting hurt". So there is about a three second period during which I'm not interested in what I'm hearing, because I already know exactly what my character is going to say.

With the Mass Effect system, if I select "Put down your weapons, I don't want anybody getting hurt" and Shepard says something like "We can still solve this peacefully, just put down your weapons", it keeps my attention a little longer. Sure Shepard is basically saying the same thing, but the simple fact that I don't know how they are going to word it means that I actually want to hear the line, instead of spacing out until I hear the other character's response. It may not sound like much, but in a game with as much dialogue as Mass Effect, it means a lot. The dialogue both told us what Shepard is going to say, and roughly how he/she is going to say it.

Now, Alpha Protocol, by boiling things down to one-word descriptions (professional, aggressive, suave) told us how Thorton was going to respond, but gave us no idea what his response would be. This works if he's just saying Hello, but if you're trying to talk an informant into giving you information, it could mean very different things. Does "professional" mean you're going to tell him exactly who you are and why he should help you in a monotone, or does it mean you're going to just ask for the information in a polite manner? Does Aggressive mean you're going to snarl a little, or does it mean you're going to slam his face into the table? Does "Suave" mean you're going to pick up the tab and ask him for the information in a roundabout way, or does it mean you're going to go sleep with his daughter, and then describe every step in detail unless he tells you what you want to know.

Mind you, I kind of like Deus Ex: HR's system. Responses were categorized by one-word descriptions of what you were trying to do (Lie, Comfort, Compliment, Change Topic), but by scrolling over you could see exactly what Adam's response would be, but you didn't need to read it fully in order to make your choice.