Game: Alpha Protocol
Publisher: Sega
Developer: Obsidian Entertainment
Genre: Espionage Action-RPG
Pros: Awesome story, amazing cause-effect engine.
Cons: Everything else.
Dear Obsidian,
I like you guys. I really do. You have given me Knights of the Old Republic II (though you botched the ending) and Neverwinter Nights 2, both of which were great. Because of this, I was really excited to play Alpha Protocol. All I could think was, “awesome, a spy version of Mass Effect.” I got totally hyped for its release. Well, I have been playing it for the past week, and it’s time for me to let you know what I think. I’m going to give you the bad news first, because I like to leave on a happy note.
First of all guys, the combat mechanics really suck. I know you guys are all gamers (obviously), but I can also see it from a creative perspective. Oftentimes as a writer I find that I do not notice how poorly a piece is written because I have gotten used to the voice, tone, quality, etc. from the beginning of the project. I’m sure artists have similar experiences. So, by the time you guys felt that you had fleshed out the issues with combat, I assume you were used to what it was. I also assume that your quality assurance team let you know how things were, but by the time a game reaches QA, it is too late to redesign something as integral as combat. Nevertheless, it is pretty horrible.
The aiming in Alpha Protocol is decent as long as you are a respectable distance away from an enemy. However, as soon as one gets too close, aiming pretty much goes out t window. I’ve found that close combat works decently as well, but it only works well as long as an enemy is caught off guard. If there is an enemy shooting at me and I try to move in for combat, he hits me once, stunning me, then backs up and continues to shoot. It really does make things rough on us.
Now, even though the actual act of aiming is decent from a distance, that doesn’t mean that it translates to shooting. I understand your desire to make Alpha Protocol feel as much like an RPG as possible, but the days of random dice rolls for combat are fading quickly. Gamers have made it quite obvious that we enjoy a real-time and equal translation of action in games. If my reticule is clearly over an enemies head, it makes me mad if my bullet strikes the wall behind him; it does not make me consider how awesome it is that my pistol stat translated into my shooting ability. I know that bullets stray the further away an object is, but Michael Thorton is supposed to be the best of the best. He should be able to compensate.
I hate to be the bearer of more bad news, but the AI is completely unbalanced. In an given instance it is either really stupid or really intelligent. I had one case where I was hiding behind a crate and a guy in a tower was shooting at me. There was a guy on the ground also shooting towards me, that is until he turned around and started shooting the guy in the tower. Honestly, I was grateful for the distraction, but why the hell was he shooting at his ally? In another instance, I was sneaking (if that’s what we’re choosing to call it in this game) into an area. I had tripped no alarms and had not been spotted. Nevertheless, the randomly super-intelligent AI knew I was there and had set up an ambush for me around a corner. Upon reload, the ambush was not there, and the AI was back to being stupid.
Speaking of things that are unbalanced, let’s talk about the mini-games. I like what you guys did with the hacking and security challenges. The lockpicking is actually really cool, by the way; it works well. However, even though I like the direction you took with the hacking and security challenges, they are so hard. I understand that upgrading the tech skill will help, but it seemed to me that the upgrade to challenge ratio did not translate well. If I started a character who was not initially technically apt, I could pretty much forget catching up to the challenges as I went along.
Ok, so I’ve said my peace on the things that I really hated about Alpha Protocol. Like I said above, however, it’s not all bad news. You guys tell an amazing story. It is very deep and engrossing. I care about the characters and their outcomes. Ironically, however, I care the least about Michael Thorton, but I can say conclusively that it is because the aforementioned mechanics of the game annoyed me so much, and Thorton became the avatar of my frustration. Furthermore, you guys nailed the conversation and cause/effect systems. Honestly, they are the best I’ve seen yet. Each conversation is a tense moment in trying to pick the best answer for my purposes. Do I want to piss Darcy off? What can I say to accomplish that? It is a great system, especially because it is based on timed reactions. Additionally, this is honestly one of the first times in a game that I’ve seen my actions and choices really, truly affect the game (with the exception of Heavy Rain, but that is a completely different beast). From the very beginning I noticed it. The way I treated the arms dealer affected arms sales in my region, and the system just got better from there.
All-in-all, you guys did a good job with Alpha Protocol. Though I do have a lot of complaints about combat, the story is engrossing enough to keep me going; I just simply do not try very hard any more. I arm myself to the teeth and run in with guns blazing. However, because I am forced to resort to this method, I am missing parts of the game that interest me, because the way in which I play opens up different paths. I would love to see a combat patch. If you guys patched the combat, say to feel similar to Splinter Cell: Conviction, this game would be amazing. Possibly even in the running for game of the year. However, what I suspect you’ll do (and recommend if you’re not going to patch combat) is make an Alpha Protocol 2 with these issues fixed. Either way, I’ll be happy to play.
Popularity: unranked [?]
No comments