Alpha Protocol

[lobotomy42]

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/08/14/impressions-alpha-protocol/

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

I like the idea of making choices / alliances before a mission, and having that choice affect what information is available to you. Also the description of some choices have consequences that the play can't immediately see. And of course, I generally love Obsidian's story-telling.

I guess the challenges here are making sure the action bits live up to the rest of it? All of Obsidian's games thus far have been "tragically flawed" in some way, so I'm hoping this one isn't.

[Marek]

I like being able to choose a handler as a way of forcing yourself to play a certain way. In games that allow the stealth approach, diplomatic approach, brute force approach etc. I often just lazily go back to my default favorite approach rather trying different things each time. Choosing the stealthy handler for instance will kind of guide you along that stealthy path just for that mission, so that rules.

[lobotomy42]

This is coming out soon! I'm pretty excited. Is anyone else?

[juv3nal]

I'm excited. It's their first original IP, innit?

I hope the actiony bits aren't awful.

I'm pretty confident that the npc interaction/rpg stuff will be decent enough.

[brkl]

I hope there's an ending.

[Garden Ninja]

I'm cautiously optimistic. Everything about it looks awesome. I haven't played any of their games, but Obsidian doesn't have a great track record. Yes, I'm aware it was founded by former Black Isle people, and that their past couple of games were buggy and had bad endings because they were rushed by their publisher. That's part of why I'm optimistic. The problem, is that being founded by people from an awesome studio doesn't imply being awesome yourself. Plus Fallout 1 and 2 were quite buggy until the patch, and Planescape: Torment had a stupid ending. That's why I'm cautious.

[Nachimir]

I've been put off this a little by this:

http://www.gamecritics.com/alex-raymond/women-arent-vending-machines-how-video-games-perpetuate-the-commodity-model-of-sex

[lobotomy42]

I'm cautiously optimistic. Everything about it looks awesome. I haven't played any of their games, but Obsidian doesn't have a great track record. Yes, I'm aware it was founded by former Black Isle people, and that their past couple of games were buggy and had bad endings because they were rushed by their publisher. That's part of why I'm optimistic. The problem, is that being founded by people from an awesome studio doesn't imply being awesome yourself. Plus Fallout 1 and 2 were quite buggy until the patch, and Planescape: Torment had a stupid ending. That's why I'm cautious.

This is a question of priorities, I think. I don't mind the bugginess of their previous games - I thought both Kotor II and NWN 2 were huge improvements on their predecessors, even with slightly abbreviated endings.

[twmac]

That was an interesting read, thanks for posting as it nailed some of the things that have bothered me about the 'transactions' that are sex in Mass Effect, Dragon Age and Alpha Protocol.

Divorced from that criticism I am still cautiously optimistic about AP, the actual combat and non-cutscene orientated stuff looks fun. Not sure it is an instant purchase but if they do some kind of day 1 discount then I might be swayed.

[lobotomy42]

I've been put off this a little by this:

http://www.gamecritics.com/alex-raymond/women-arent-vending-machines-how-video-games-perpetuate-the-commodity-model-of-sex

Romance was also presented as a commodity in Dragon Age (where you could literally bribe your companions into liking you.) Dragon Age handled it a lot better, obviously, in that gender and sexuality were under the player's control, whereas they clearly are not in AP. (Although I guess Thorton could be abstinent.) Also, as in most role-playing games, once you romance *one* person in Dragon Age, you can't romance anyone else. I'm not sure this is a much more realistic model of human behavior.

I agree that the heternormative implications of Alpha Protocol are pretty bad, but I'm not sure it's fair to extrapolate that the game is putting forth a universe in which all women will sleep with MT just because, in the game, up to three women sleep with MT.

[Nachimir]

I didn't mean to pooh pooh the game by posting that link, it might be amazing.

I didn't realise it was just three women, and thought it was a lot more. The representation of sexuality in games really does bug me though.

People are generally so different, as well as being in such variable circumstances, that I doubt there is one single realistic model of sexual behaviour. It also annoys me that representations of sex are so transactional and lead to something that's basically a bit of titillating bum and side boob.

[miffy495]

Yeah, me as well. That article made me sad. The hope is that because it's from a year ago that the game has changed a bit for the better since?

[lobotomy42]

Yeah, me as well. That article made me sad. The hope is that because it's from a year ago that the game has changed a bit for the better since?

Allegedly, the game has been more-or-less finished for about 9 months and they've been sitting on it for marketing reasons. So, probably not.

[juv3nal]

looks like it's getting pounded a bit in the reviews:

http://www.vg247.com/2010/05/28/alpha-protocol-reviews-go-live-we-round-em-up/

The unscored joystiq one is not kind.

[lobotomy42]

The destructoid one used the word "feces" in its review - that's gotta be the worst.

On the other hand, the Eurogamer review is mostly positive.

[juv3nal]

Yeah, but it's Jim Sterling who's basically a professional troll, isn't he?

He's the guy that gave Deadly Premonition a 10.

I'd say the joystiq one hurts more especially if this comment is for reals (not saying it is)

[lobotomy42]

I'm not sure what to make of the Joystiq one. Joystiq has been one of the few sites actively *promoting* the game for about a year now. Every new trailer, release date change, etc, has gone up on Joystiq even while they've ignored other, seemingly bigger, titles.

Maybe the harsh review is a case of bitter disappointment?

Obviously we have no way to vouch for the veracity of internet comments, but the one you cite doesn't sound far-fetched. This is Obsidian's third new game (not counting the two NWN2 expansions), and all three have arrived at launch day as ambitious-but-incomplete-buggy-messes. This is a shame - I'm a real sucker for Avellone's writing. Obviously this isn't the "Finally They Got it Right!" moment I'd hoped it was.

On the other hand, beyond the Joystiq and Destructoid reviews, the consensus seems to be "buggy and annoying, but some cool ideas." Which I'm betting I can live with. I guess I'll find out next week when it arrives in the U.S.

[Moelman]

I've been looking forward to this one for a while (I've had it pre-purchased on Steam since last October when it was supposed to come out) but I'm also trying not to set myself up for a let down since there is definitely more negative than positive press about this game. I really like Obsidian though so I am hopeful, and the overall premise of the game is interesting at least.

[lobotomy42]

Okay, so I finally have my hands on the game. I haven't played more than the first mission or so, but here are my first impressions.

It basically plays, more or less, like a slightly more awkward version of Mass Effect (the first) with the addition of stealth elements. Shooting people never feels smooth or graceful, but on the other hand, it never feels fundamentally broken, either. The stealth portions are fine, albeit simplistic. It's the same sort of basic elements we've seen over and over again - guards have a cone of vision, there are cameras and alarms, etc. It's not ground-breaking, but like the shooting, it never feels broken, either. There are also some mini-games, which again are serviceable but not noteworthy.

(Note: This game might have benefited from looking at No One Lives Forever 2 for how to do a spy-themed shooter-RPG hybrid. They got the shooter, stealth and gadgets thing down EIGHT YEARS AGO. Just sayin')

The one significant factor that alters both the stealth and shooting elements is the vast array of skills and items at your disposal. Every weapon and armor piece is customizable with various add-ons, ammo types, etc. You can also take up to four* gadgets with you on any given mission. There's also multiple pieces of intel available for each mission - some of which is just information given to the player ("These guards are much tougher to deal with than those other guards!") but some of which seems to actually alter the level itself. For example, you can hire someone to throw a party near the location of one of your missions, thus luring some guards away, or arranging for their weapons dealer to deliver "sub-par" weapons the week before, thus making their damage to you slightly weakened for that mission. This aspect of the game is clearly better developed than the shooting elements. If you liked inventory management in Mass Effect 1, then you'll love inventory management in Alpha Protocol.

The major disappointment of the game so far has been its most touted feature - the character interactions and reactivity. It's true that you are making decisions in seemingly every conversation and that you're given a brief window to choose a dialogue "stance." The first problem is the dialogue choices. Mass Effect abbreviated the sentences of dialogue trees into short phrases. ("It's okay!" vs "Sorry, you must die.") Alpha Protocol further abbreviates these down to one-word descriptors which, combined with the short countdown timer, often leave you *clueless* as to what the actual response will be about, and even more clueless about the consequences. (This is the opposite of Mass Effect's color-coded "SAVE THE PERSON" and "KILL THE PERSON" dialogue choices, which clearly delineate what choice you're making and what the direct effect will be on the story.)

The other major problem is the reactivity. It's completely unclear to me what effect, if any, my dialogue choices have on the story or missions. I'm constantly making so many choices, big and small, that it all becomes a bit of a blur, and the causality is lost in the shuffle. I'm told that there are multiple ways to play through the game from the game's own marketing, but I'm not sure that a player would ever know that from a single play-through of the game itself, which renders the impact of the choices somewhat moot. (This may be because I'm not very far into the game yet, however. Perhaps I'll have a better grasp of my decisions after the consequences play out.)

Criticisms aside, I am definitely having fun with it. It does a good job of engrossing me into the spy world and the RPG systems are engaging. Also, Avellone's dialogue still sucks me in. I think the harsher criticisms of the gameplay are strangely out-of-touch - it's another Unreal Engine 3 game, and doesn't play THAT differently from Mass Effect 1.

Edited June 7, 2010 by lobotomy42

[Roderick]

Alpha Protocol might just be the worst title ever for a product which desires to make you want to play it. Wat waren zij denkende?

[Garple]

Alpha Protocol might just be the worst title ever for a product which desires to make you want to play it. Wat waren zij denkende?

What's so bad about it?

[Roderick]

I can not think of a more bland, uninspiring term. It sounds like a line of browser code. Perhaps it doesn't immediately pop out as ultra bad because game titles have a tendency to be shit. The Conduit? Really?

[lobotomy42]

Alpha Protocol might just be the worst title ever for a product which desires to make you want to play it. Wat waren zij denkende?

Technically, it's called Alpha Protocol: The Espionage RPG. See? Soooo much better.

[Garden Ninja]

Could be worse. Could be "Shooter 2: The Shootening"

[Nachimir]

I'm told that there are multiple ways to play through the game from the game's own marketing, but I'm not sure that a player would ever know that from a single play-through of the game itself

I think this is a big problem with any kind of game that has a system handling choice and consequence in terms of narrative and characters. What was possible in games has created an expectation of being railroaded, so when a game can manage it, we either think "That's how it would have happened anyway" or it has giant flashing neon signs saying CHOICE HERE!