Gaming Revisiting Alpha Protocol

I feel that if there are significant technical issues then they do bear mentioning - not being able to read critical text, broken load points and terrible modelling in cutscenes are all BIG problems. It's always worth communicating this sort of information because

A) It can be one of the biggest factors in the customer's enjoyment
B) It doesn't matter how good the game is if it doesn't work
C) It's often indicative of the overall quality

It's also worth putting the point across that I haven't and still don't really recommend Alpha Protocol, unless you get it super cheap (in which case you get what you paid for). It isn't a very well made game.

In both the review and this article the technical flaws aren't the whole story though - it's not just "It's got bugs in it, 5/10". It's cumulative. It's got a fairly pedestrian, predictable plot and the gameplay is unbalanced in several big way (pistols, hacking). The level design is antithetic to the intended design, the cast is bloated, etc. AND it's buggy as well.

I found it quite hard to communicate in this article in all honesty, but the point I was trying to make wasn't just "First I thought Alpha Protocol was quite rubbish, but some pals said it was good and I played it again and they were right", if only because I can't end up on a wholly positive note. The point was more "First I thought Alpha Protocol was quite rubbish, but some pals said it was good and I played it again and, while it is still rubbish, it does at least have this one thing going for it which I didn't fully appreciate before."

On review approach as a whole, I don't really see there being a huge difference between reviewing hardware and reviewing games. Sure, one is backed up by figures and the other is wholly subjective, but in both cases you're essentially reviewing a PRODUCT that people have to pay for. For games, yes you have to communicate the overall feel of the game, but when the technical information is part of that feel...

 

Fair enough. Even though it is still my opinion that you shouldn't review games in this manner, I can accept that someone may think differently. I feel that the most important part of the game is it's "essense", ie if it's fun to play. Dissecting each part of a game and judging it independently is kinda missing the point, as it is only as a whole that a game can be judged accurately. Games that attempt to give something different to the gamer should be rewarded, otherwise you end up with generic games like Mass Effect 2. Honestly, I feel that the 6 point difference between Mass Effect 2 and and Alpha Protocol is unjustified, since a lot of the problems with Alpha Protocol are also true of ME2 (mainly pedestrian plot and linear level design). Alpha Protocol may be be flawed but, in my opinion, it deserved both a better score and a more positive review.

 

I like the game much as i did like mass effect, and both are buggy as hell, if mass effect got good scores i dont see the reason why this one cant too.

 

Tried this a couple of times, still couldn't enjoy it :/

 

Bought the game on the strength of this revisit. Completed it today. thought it was easily worth the fiver I paid for it at christmas.

The plot is fairly decent as computer games go. I like the dialogue system, it is similar to mass effect but there is a timer so you have to decide your choice quickly. This is good becasue it encourages you to make instinctive replies, and what you say in a conversation can have long term repercussions. There are a lot of points that you are called upon to make a quick decision which can have far reaching effects on the plot. I also thought the voice acting was decent.

IT is clearly lacking a bit of polish. For example the shooting mechanism can be a bit frustrating. It takes too long to target your shots. Some of the skills you could developm seem unecssary e.g I could break all locks, hack computers and alarms right through to the end without ever developing skills in this category. Personally I think if it had been given a couple months longer in QA, then the average review score could have been upped 10-15%.
I feel a bit sorry for the developers as it is clear that a lot of work was put into the game. It went past too many deadlines and sega pushed them to releasing it when it wasnt perfect, possibly shoot themselves in the foot as mediocre reviews = poor sales.
I would give it 79% or 8/10, as despite it flaws it was a fun game.

 

i bought this game on a steam sale, played for 15 minutes and never touched it again, really bad game.

 

It is deffinately worth perseveringly past the intro, it improves massively.