• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Alpha Protocol Discussion Here:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Most people that have been playing it have said it's... well, not very good.

Horrible AI, wonky customization, bad graphics and animation, tons of bugs... it's too bad really.

I was looking forward to this and will probably still play it, but it's not looking up for Obsidian.
 
Yeah after checking out the live feed the other day and hearing how some people have gone through it in 1 day I'm starting to seriously consider just cancelling my preorder and putting that cash towards Blur.
 
WabeWalker said:
http://www.reviewwithextremeprejudice.com/?p=20
Click to expand...

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/xbox-360/2010/05/27/alpha-protocol-review/1

5/10.

And Gamespot gave it 6/10, but their review isn't up yet.

I'm not talking about press reviews anyway which are mostly bullshit; I'm talking about people actually playing through the game and discussing it.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted this game to be good, but it seems like everyone agrees on the flaws (bad AI, graphics, writing, useless stealth), and that isn't something you can ignore.
 
That bit-tech review is funny. If you look in the comments section you'll see that some people are being critical of the review itself, and that the guys at bit-tech are hitting back.

Interesting that they were highly critical of Alpha Protocol, but then when people were just as critical of them they didn't like it.

Anyhow, I need more than just one review to go by.
 
I'm seriously considering canceling my order as well after looking over all of that.

Like I wrote way earlier in the thread, my gut instincts tell me I'm going to see a game that comes out to mostly mediocre reviews and scores like 6's and 7's out of 10.

The only reason I ordered it at all was because Amazon really gave me an insanely sweet discount but it may not even be worth that.



AceCR42 said:
Most people that have been playing it have said it's... well, not very good.

Horrible AI, wonky customization, bad graphics and animation, tons of bugs... it's too bad really.

I was looking forward to this and will probably still play it, but it's not looking up for Obsidian.
Click to expand...

Where are you seeing this? Who are these "most people" ?
 
Last edited:
WabeWalker said:
That bit-tech review is funny. If you look in the comments section you'll see that some people are being critical of the review itself, and that the guys at bit-tech are hitting back.

Interesting that they were highly critical of Alpha Protocol, but then when people were just as critical of them they didn't like it.

Anyhow, I need more than just one review to go by.
Click to expand...

I thought Bit-techs review seemed a bit-harsh. Though according to their rating scale a 5 is "satisfactory." There a lot of games that are extremely flawed that people love like pretty much every Elder Scrolls game and the STALKER series.
 
The reviews, unfortunately, are coming out just about where I thought they would. It's a bummer, if only because the premise had potential.
 
I was pretty much unsold once the live feed leak hit. That guy completed the game in one sitting wearing the most epic beard I've ever seen. Sure he shot everyone, killed everyone, made everyone hate him, punched people, headslammed old men, and did kung-fu on fully armored marines and died but dammit he completed that game in one sitting.

I liked some of the animations but some of them were just bleh. There were loading screens in the middle of missions(I'm talking just out of fucking nowhere). The AI, oh my god the AI. "Hurr durr all these dead bodies are showing up I'll just stand here hurr durr!"

Chat ticker on the side blew up at one point: We all sat there and watched him use active stealth to take down a group of 6 enemies waiting in ambush with insta-knife kills with NONE of them reacting to their comrades falling over dead in front of them. Ridiculous.

Yep just stealth waddled over to each one and did the knife kill animation and the AI did NOTHING. I don't care he had the difficulty set on carebear mode, that's one thing thats NOT supposed to happen.

So I'll wait till the game comes down to a more acceptable price before nabbing it. I may have canceled my preorder but I'm still interested in it, just much much less than I was before.
 
I'm getting a "Mass Effect 0.5" type feeling here. Another iteration and it could be great. There's definitely a place for this kind of game in the world, but I think I'd go even more RPG on the combat and have AP-based targetting like "VATS".
 
Riftsaw said:
I liked some of the animations but some of them were just bleh. There were loading screens in the middle of missions(I'm talking just out of fucking nowhere). The AI, oh my god the AI. "Hurr durr all these dead bodies are showing up I'll just stand here hurr durr!"

Chat ticker on the side blew up at one point: We all sat there and watched him use active stealth to take down a group of 6 enemies waiting in ambush with insta-knife kills with NONE of them reacting to their comrades falling over dead in front of them. Ridiculous.

Yep just stealth waddled over to each one and did the knife kill animation and the AI did NOTHING. I don't care he had the difficulty set on carebear mode, that's one thing thats NOT supposed to happen.

So I'll wait till the game comes down to a more acceptable price before nabbing it. I may have canceled my preorder but I'm still interested in it, just much much less than I was before.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, every game I played is pretty much that dumb with AI. I get that same experience being a thief/assassin in any and all Bethesda games for example. Maybe there are games with good AI (generally speaking), but I haven't played them.
 
eloj said:
I'm getting a "Mass Effect 0.5" type feeling here. Another iteration and it could be great. There's definitely a place for this kind of game in the world, but I think I'd go even more RPG on the combat and have AP-based targetting like "VATS".
Click to expand...

Agreed but I think there's some fun to be had here as is.
 
from reading all the reviews, it seems it suffers from two sets of issues.

the first: bugs.
obsidian like troika make great games marred by bugs. NW2 did not become really great until the expansion when all the bugs were worked out.

the second issues, seems to be the deus ex 2 issue.
The limited system memory of the base consoles system has led to very claustrophobic levels and linear game play.
 
ikarinokami said:
The limited system memory of the base consoles system has led to very claustrophobic levels and linear game play.
Click to expand...

Yup - that's exactly what I said of Dragon Age.

Clearly, ALL games are suffering from this. Mass Effect 2 was also a victim of this. Linear and claustrophobic.
 
So... sounds like we have the weaknesses of Bioware games (small linear levels) + the weaknesses of Bethseda games (bugs and AI). Nothing new under the sun. I guess what remains to be seen is whether the strengths make up for those weaknesses.
 
And ultimately... you've heard other people say this... the only opinion that matters is my own.

Sure, I'll listen to what reviewers and the public have to say (I listened when they said that Catwoman was to be avoided at all costs, for example), but on a countless number of occasions I've been misled by what others have said.

Wolfenstein's single player is amazing - and look at the responses to that. If I had listened to people, and not bought Wolfenstein, I would've done myself out of one of the best FPS titles I've played in years.

I'll be buying Alpha Protocol and deciding for myself.

And if it sucks then I'll gladly come back here and tell you that it sucks... heh, heh, heh.
 
gamespot pc review on matacritic:

gamespot said:
You control Mike from a third-person perspective, but the camera is often zoomed rather close to him, which is a hindrance to taking in your surroundings or navigating close spaces. If you stoop, the camera pulls away somewhat and you get a better view, though the way Mike scuttles about while crouching is laughably awkward. As you progress, you find the camera can cause mild headaches in other ways as well. For some unknown reason, descending a ladder or jumping from a ledge (always a contextual action, never a freely controllable one) causes the camera to swoop to an overhead view and remain there, which is unhelpful and disorienting. At other times, you might pop up from behind cover to take a shot, only to have the camera shift into a useless position or even have your own body get in the way. These gaffes seem odd, considering most game developers seem to have worked through such basic obstacles years ago. You get accustomed to them, but these problems make the simple act of moving from place to place feel uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

I've been watching some streams from those with connections/mods, and I've got to say, this is totally true. the camera angles, crouch/walk posture, and animations I just don't understand, as if they wanted to save money on modeling/animation time and just bent him over instead of making a real crouch. it's exactly as it sounds, instead of crouching he scuttles around hunched over in some sort of choppy scooting position, don't know how else to describe it.

from all the gameplay I've seen, you need to approach this game as a "for teh lulz" title and play just for the humor and whatever it has resembling a coherent storyline. the voice acting for the most part is also laughably bad, besides a few key roles like his handler, since they picked a sexy fem voice with at least some talent and reasonable scripting (think grimstoddr's polar opposite). if you go into this expecting any serious effort in action mechanics, deep story/dialogue, or graphics, you're going to be very dissapointed.
 
Okay, so the reviews are mixed.

That's good enough for me. I'm buying it. Jesus, I was going to buy it anyway. I'm a whore when it comes to gaming.
 
WabeWalker said:
Okay, so the reviews are mixed.

That's good enough for me. I'm buying it. Jesus, I was going to buy it anyway. I'm a whore when it comes to gaming.
Click to expand...

I'm going to be out of pocket all of $26 for it thanks to a bunch of generosity on Amazon's part so I can be forgiving to a point. I think this will scratch a few itches for me and if it's basically Mass Effect 1.5 with its own wrinkles then that's good enough for me.
 
Q-BZ said:
I'm going to be out of pocket all of $26 for it thanks to a bunch of generosity on Amazon's part so I can be forgiving to a point. I think this will scratch a few itches for me and if it's basically Mass Effect 1.5 with its own wrinkles then that's good enough for me.
Click to expand...

Check the video I linked to. It seems like its really not. Everything in combat is controlled by stats and essentially dice rolls so its not really the full "Action RPG" experience you get from ME1. Looks more like what you'd get if you added guns to Dragon Age then removed the companions and pause function.
 
Derangel said:
Check the video I linked to. It seems like its really not. Everything in combat is controlled by stats and essentially dice rolls so its not really the full "Action RPG" experience you get from ME1. Looks more like what you'd get if you added guns to Dragon Age then removed the companions and pause function.
Click to expand...

And honestly THAT'S exactly what I had been expecting all along - combat that was controlled by stats.

I was confused by the Mass Effect comparison. I had been led to believe that Alpha Protocol was going to be more of a classic RPG, whereas Mass Effect 2 was really just a shooter with RPG elements. The mistake that people have made with Alpha Protocol - in my opinion - is that they've seen the graphics, and have jumped to the conclusion that this is going to play like Mass Effect.

Time after time, we see reviewers, and regular people, reviewing games, not as they were intended to be, but rather as the person playing the game had hoped they would be.

Here's something that was written almost one hundred years ago by a person introducing a novel, which the critics had attacked (apparently, for all the wrong reasons):

"It is a pity that so many professional critics devote their ingenuity to explaining how an artist could have done something quite different much better, how he could have improved his work out of all recognition by doing what he never intended to do. Such critics tend to forget that the critic's job is not to indulge in irreverent smartness at the artist's expense, but to try by patience and insight to find out what the artist meant to do, and then to estimate how well he succeeded in doing it."

I'm not saying Alpha Protocol is a great game (I haven't played it yet) but this game was never intended to be Mass Effect, and most people have jumped to that conclusion, based purely on the graphics.

Some people, attempting to cut the game down, have even said that Alpha Protocol is really just "Mass Effect 0.5" - those people are doing exactly what this person above wrote, they're indulging in irreverent smartness without ever having asked what Obsidian's intentions were, and then gauging how well they succeeded in doing it.

If the combat in Alpha Protocol is based heavily on stats, then there's no way anybody is going to like this game if they go into it expecting or hoping for Mass Effect.

Honestly, Derangel's description of Alpha Protocol (that it's similar to Dragon Age if you added guns and removed the party members) is exactly what I had been expecting. I had been expecting more of a pure RPG, but one set in modern day times. At one point I even wrote that I was expecting a Neverwinter Nights 2 based in modern day times, but with only one party member. And why did I think that? - because that's what Obsidian said we were going to be getting.
 
Last edited:
Derangel said:
Check the video I linked to. It seems like its really not. Everything in combat is controlled by stats and essentially dice rolls so its not really the full "Action RPG" experience you get from ME1. Looks more like what you'd get if you added guns to Dragon Age then removed the companions and pause function.
Click to expand...

Understood.
 
WabeWalker said:
And honestly THAT'S exactly what I had been expecting all along - combat that was controlled by stats.
Click to expand...

Exactly, like in Mass Effect. You know, the game where you level your skill in assault rifles, pistols shotguns and sniper rifles? Remind you of anything?

I was confused by the Mass Effect comparison.
Click to expand...

This suggests you're not familiar with Mass Effect, though I know that you have indicated not only that you've played it but that you loved it.

I had been led to believe that Alpha Protocol was going to be more of a classic RPG, whereas Mass Effect 2 was really just a shooter with RPG elements.
Click to expand...

Led to believe by trailers such as this presumably? Look, you can talk about how people shouldn't let their expectations influence their opinion, but that's impossible. We're all ruled by expectations to some degree. Knowing this, it's up to developers and publishers to guide those expectations by talking truthfully about their product. What we get instead is crap like the aforementioned trailer and all the Dragon Age PR which is among the most horrible I can remember.

Don't take that as some grand admission, I really had no firm expectations of this game and I haven't been following its development week-to-week.

It seems to be making the same mistakes that Bioware did in ME. Bioware then fixed the problem in ME2. Now, you might not like HOW they fixed it, but they knew they had a problem and they took care of it, and the result was a great game. If I understand your world correctly, a second title in this series would more be about educating the market to like it like it is than to actually change the combat mechanics?

Anyway, that is why I brought up ME. This game seems like it could be the same kind of diamond-in-the-rough. They also share a lot of mechanics, but that was secondary.

The mistake that people have made with Alpha Protocol - in my opinion - is that they've seen the graphics, and have jumped to the conclusion that this is going to play like Mass Effect.
Click to expand...

I haven't played it yet, but based on the game play footage I've seen, it plays like a clunky Mass Effect. It's certainly closer to ME than to Dragon Age in any event! ME combat was ALSO based on dice-rolls, so I don't understand how this comparison could be remotely surprising.

Time after time, we see reviewers, and regular people, reviewing games, not as they were intended to be, but rather as the person playing the game had hoped they would be.
Click to expand...

I haven't reviewed this game so your review-rant is kind of moot.

Here's something that was written almost one hundred years ago by a person introducing a novel, which the critics had attacked (apparently, for all the wrong reasons):
Click to expand...

You should source your quotes.

I'm not saying Alpha Protocol is a great game (I haven't played it yet) but this game was never intended to be Mass Effect
Click to expand...

You seem to know a lot about the intentions of the developers.

,and most people have jumped to that conclusion, based purely on the graphics.
Click to expand...

If you replace graphics with "game play", then sure. It looks like it plays like a duck and quacks like a duck. It's a fricking duck.

Some people
Click to expand...

That's me!

attempting to cut the game down
Click to expand...

Now you're being disingenuous again, I've never tried to cut this game down.

If the combat in Alpha Protocol is based heavily on stats, then there's no way anybody is going to like this game if they go into it expecting or hoping for Mass Effect.
Click to expand...

This.. just doesn't make any sense since combat in ME was ALSO heavily based on stats. But even so, that's just a binary fact, there's also the little matter of Quality of Implementation, and the QoI of AP doesn't look that great.

Honestly, Derangel's description of Alpha Protocol (that it's similar to Dragon Age if you added guns and removed the party members) is exactly what I had been expecting.
Click to expand...

So you were expecting something completely different, in fact, you seem to have been expecting something WIDELY different from what we got, which is an action-CRPG (litmus test: When in combat, does the player's reaction time matter? Yes -> It's an action RPG)

I had been expecting more of a pure RPG
Click to expand...

I just don't undestand why you'd been expecting this. Nothing I've seen communicated about this game made me believe this would be anything like "Dragon Age with guns and just one guy".

And why did I think that? - because that's what Obsidian said we were going to be getting.
Click to expand...

Where? Cetainly nowhere in the promo materials I've seen, but then again, didn't follow it too closely. They've said it was going to be an RPG and "RPG" appears in the tagline, but there's not much information in those three letters anymore. In the old days they gave you a whole lot more information than they do today.

I think the reason this is reviewing as it is, is because it does what it does badly, not because it does what it does but people expected something else. You argument, if you can call it that, is unconvincing.
 
LOL!

What a lot of hot air. Derangel pretty much nailed it: Alpha Protocol is much more like Dragon Age with guns (minus the party members) than it is like Mass Effect.

It sounds to me like you don't want to hear that.
 
WabeWalker said:
That bit-tech review is funny. If you look in the comments section you'll see that some people are being critical of the review itself, and that the guys at bit-tech are hitting back.
Click to expand...

1 guy is doing the complaining and no one is hitting back. I was pretty hyped for the game, but the sheer amount of negative reviews has dampened my hype for it. Guess I'll be sticking to Fallout 3 and waiting for New Vegas to satisfy my rpg itch.
 
the decision system *or whatever they call it* reminds me of heavy rain and the fallout series, as its always good to get multiple stories from a single game :)
 
Climber said:
1 guy is doing the complaining and no one is hitting back. I was pretty hyped for the game, but the sheer amount of negative reviews has dampened my hype for it. Guess I'll be sticking to Fallout 3 and waiting for New Vegas to satisfy my rpg itch.
Click to expand...

The Bit-tech review is the perfect example of this:

"It's a pity that so many professional critics devote their ingenuity to explaining how an artist could have done something quite different much better, how he could have improved his work out of all recognition by doing what he never intended to do. Such critics tend to forget that the critic's job is not to indulge in irreverent smartness at the artist's expense, but to try by patience and insight to find out what the artist meant to do, and then to estimate how well he succeeded in doing it."

They seem to have reviewed the game, and indeed played the game, expecting Mass Effect.

It's not Mass Effect.
 
Regardless if it's supposed to be Mass Effect or not, it's not a high-quality game, either. Ambitious, sure, but not the finest implementation of the idea.
 
WabeWalker said:
They seem to have reviewed the game, and indeed played the game, expecting Mass Effect.

It's not Mass Effect.
Click to expand...

Mass Effect wasn't broken. A lot of his complaints seem to be around weak mechanics and broken skills, and a crappy story which several other sites are also railing against. That is what is making me hesitant.
 
So I was looking at some of the other reviews posted by Bit-tech, and here's how they commenced their Red Dead Redemption review:

"Red Dead Redemption is not, contrary to what many people are saying, a universally excellent game. It has some very definite weaknesses and, if we had to summarise them quickly, we’d say simply that it’s the narrative missions which are the main culprit – and possibly the main character too."

Laughable.

John Marston is easily one of the most interesting characters I've seen in a video game in years. I thought the game itself was kind of silly - but the character, Marston, carries the game.

And what the fuck - the narrative missions are also the main culprit? What class of nonsense is this? The sandbox element of Red Dead is just downright boring and silly. The missions themselves however are original and engaging - going out and rounding up cattle with the ranchers was such a wonderful break from the tediousness of having to go out and kill people.

Yeah, I can see that Bit-tech isn't the site where I'm going to be wanting to get information about Alpha Protocol.
 
Take a look at that Giantbomb video.

I mean, the way he's playing it... jesus, I don't think you're supposed to play it like that. He's just going in guns blazing, even though he's built a stealth character? That's kind of silly if you ask me.

Finally he gets it right in the end - but only because he's finally decided to use his stealth skills. He pumped almost all of his points into stealth, but then repeatedly attempted to get through that part of the level using guns.

I fear that people are going to pick up pistols in this game and believe that they should be able to fire them without actually pumping tons of points into pistols.

I think that people probably aren't going to 'get' this game.

They're going to want to play it like it's Mass Effect.
 
I think I'll easily get my $26 worth out of Alpha Protocol and then some on its own merits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top