Gaming Alpha Protocol Review

Same here, actually! I loved the new AvP - personally I'd have given it an eight and a half (yes, I played the 2000 version back when it was first released). On the other hand, I think Far Cry 2 got an eight, whereas I'd have given it a four.

I think however that if a website gives a game five or less out of ten, it's safe to say the game is pretty rubbish. I've never enjoyed a game that's been rated that low.

 

To address some of the wild accusations; Lockaliber, I have played many RPGs, including Deus Ex. I've played Deus Ex so many times I can run it in my sleep. It's my favourite game ever and I've ranted about it often, as you'd see if you read the site a bit more.

And, if you mean, by that 'it has the same aiming system' that it has a dynamic crosshair then yes, you're right. Many games do. Alpha Protocol though isn't balanced for the fact very well, so if you want to make a pistol headshot then you have to aim for a uncomfortably long time, by which point the enemy will have noticed you or after which the alarm will go off anyway. This ties into the examples you asked for about stealth not being a great option in that, if you persevere enough, then you can sneak through levels without being noticed. However, given that the assault rifles are so overpowered that you don't even really need to aim at all, it's easier to just use that instead - especially since you can then deactivate the alarm and watch the enemies go back to usual and people in the next room be surprised when you walk in.

Comparing Alpha Protocol to Deus Ex is interesting, I think. It's a comparison I mentioned a few times in the review and which I've mentioned in podcasts too. It's worth noting that, in many ways, Deus Ex is not a great game once you analyse the details. It's got terrible voice acting, for example, and the guns all have zero feedback - emptying an assault rifle on someone in Deus Ex feels about as satisfying as peeling a banana. Yet it's fondly remembered as one of the best games ever, mainly because it's been hyped up, is older (and thus has different standards) and compensates for the weak combat with an incredibly brilliant script.

Deus Ex aside, I'll freely admit that my opinion of Alpha Protocol is a little harsh - truth be told, I was halfway between a 5 and a 6, but I leaned toward negative. I'll also freely admit that you shouldn't just take me at my word though. People have different opinions and, of course, when reading reviews it's important to find a writer you feel you generally agree with and to bear in mind that you still might have different opinions. If you love the game (even before it's been released) then good, power to you. That doesn't mean I have to like it and it doesn't mean it's objectively good. I'm not claiming to be infallible and, in cases where there's been a big outcry, we do have a precedent for re-reviewing games at a later date if there's cause to do so.

Lastly, it's important to consider the broken nature of scores in game reviews and remember that Bit-tech uses the entire 1-10 scoring scale, not the 7-10 that some other sites do. By giving AP a 5 I'm not saying that it's a totally broken, unlikable game. I'm saying it fails to meet some expectations and doesn't fulfill all the promises it makes, but that it's still a functional product which some people may enjoy. A 5 on our review scale doesn't class as 'Terrible' it classes as 'Satisfactory' while also making it clear that Alpha Protocol isn't as good as some similar products and may not be a game for everyone. There are some lowly rated games that I know I enjoy and there are some games I'd rate lowly which I do still enjoy - SiN, for example.

 

Hmmmm, game screens themselves don't actually appeal to me.

May pick it up when it's cheap.

 

To those complaining that the reviewer doesn't understand how good the game actually is, you'll be busy: more reviews are coming out, and they are saying much the same thing as he did.

 

Typical. After I say that, it turns out GamesMaster will be giving it 84%. Still in the minority, though.

 

Gamestar (Germany) - 83% (http://www.gamestar.de/tests/rollenspiele/2315232/alpha_protocol.html)
Official Playstation Magazine (Spain) - 89% (http://free-pc-guides.com/games/new...in-spains-official-playstation-magazine-01808)

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/sh...p;postcount=535
80 in Meristation.com (Spain)
85 in Hobby Consolas (Spain)
88 Playmania (Spain)

Another spanish review. (http://zonaforo.meristation.com/foros/viewtopic.php?p=24747202#24747202)

PC Games gives 82 %.

Eurogamer (Germany): 8/10 (http://www.eurogamer.de/articles/alpha-protocol-test)

I can go on and on, but you catch my drift. Almost all reviews so far has been in the 80's,

As for Joe Martin's comment. I see what you mean but from all other sources on the internet so far, I'll have to say that you are giving a pretty dishonest or uninformed review of the game. If you hadn't considered this, perhaps it's time to start thinking critically when games from major studios are being released as well. Then perhaps a score like this could be valid.

 

Some additional reviews:

Eurogamer.de - 8/10
http://www.eurogamer.de/articles/alpha-protocol-test?page=4

Official Playstation Magazine (Spain) - 89
http://free-pc-guides.com/games/new...in-spains-official-playstation-magazine-01808

GameStar - 83
http://www.gamestar.de/tests/rollenspiele/2315232/alpha_protocol.html

Galdriel Video Review - 7.5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yDhZYoWk2E

Make it of what you will.

 

For what it's worth (and without wishing to brown-nose in any way), I trust bit-tech's game review scores beyond any other website's. If nothing else, they're an honest opinion, so I think lockkaliber should think twice before using the word "lies". But thankfully they are more than honest: coming from Joe, they're invariably well-informed and backed up by a long history of game playing and loving, in all genres. I respect the fact that he places a high premium on simple fun, presentation, and big / original ideas - the things that go the furthest towards making an impression.

I think bit-tech's reviews have called it right on other controversial titles like Far Cry 2 and Mirror's Edge, and I'm inclined to believe that they're right again about Alpha Protocol. Everything I've seen of the game, and all we know about Obsidian's past performance, suggests to me that this review and the accompanying score are accurate.

 

Thanks for that, but I'd never suggest someone should just take our word for it - consult a variety of sources you trust. In all honesty, there are definitely games I like back on and wish I could tweak the score of - and in AP's case it was close between a score of 5 and 6. There are innate problems with the nature of reviewing, the nature of scoring and the nature of being human which can always get in the way.

As before; just because a score is low doesn't mean you won't like the game out of hand.

 

Ouch! I was really looking forward to this.

 

I'm amazed this game is reviewing so well elsewhere. Watching Joe play it was dire. People seem to dictate that unless your review agrees with everyone else's your review is rubbish and you're wrong. In fact, isn't a review just someones opinion, and therefore impossible to be wrong in that respect? I know I won't be playing Alpha Protocol, on PC of Xbox.

 

What's the score, eh, GameSpot?
Alpha protocol score at Gamspot LOOOL

http://bit.ly/c3JcJR

 

Eurogamer (UK) - 7/10
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/alpha-protocol-review

Reviews are just opinions that is true, but there are some people out there who will not play games that didn't get a "good enough review." I personally think this review came to such prominence simply because it was one of the first out there. I'm somewhat curious if the review felt this was between a 5 and a 6 then why did the reviewer on a different site (Den of Geek) give it a much lower score and scathing review?

 

Ooh! Look at all the Alpha Protocol advertsing on the Gamespot website!

 

He didn't. Check the author. It was the same opinions (though put across more succinctly, for a different audience and with a touch less explanation) and a comparable score adjusted for a different rating system.

Personally, I'm enjoying reading the Eurogamer review comments.

 

So someone who is paid to give his opinion does so, and you accuse the review of being uninformed, and worse, accuse him of being dishonest? What possible reason would Joe have to lie? He just didn't like the game, get the **** over it.

 

For as long as I live I will never understand the mentality of people who sign up to a forum just to complain about a review score. Apparently some dude named Joe has mystical powers that can cause your own personal enjoyment of the game to rise or fall depending on a bunch of mysterious numerical values. Joe = Jacob?!?!

Anyway, why are so many fringe European sites getting reviews up of this game before the 'major' publications? Embargoes or were reviewers simply not sent early copies and had to wait for a retail version?

 

Sites were embargoed until 2PM today. We didn't get any embargo information (nor review code from Sega) until the review had already been posted though, so we didn't even know it was an issue and ended up posting a day early.

 

That would explain why Gamespot pulled the review. But I don't expect it to go back up until the ads have finished.

 

Gamespot's merging of the editorial and marketing department has become so intertwined that it's impossible to distinguish between the two.

They're now a shill for the advertisers and are happy to be it.