Vivian on 20/2/2013 at 12:56
What is so great about Alpha Protocol? I mean, you're not the first person I've heard say that, but it didn't sound too inspiring from what I read about it. And, given that RPG's tend to be dialogue/character heavy, the brief snippets of dialogue and characterisation in that Aliens video were fucking terrible. Like, placeholder-until-the-actual-writer-and-actors-arrive terrible.
Sulphur on 20/2/2013 at 14:10
Ah, Alpha Protocol. I think that's one thing JM and I can agree on. AP is not a great game in the conventional sense - it's got an essay's worth of stupid design decisions, from the awful hacking minigames to the at-times frustrating cover system to the fixed mantle/jump-points, it was released as the most bugtastic thing since KoTOR2, and its entire introductory campaign in Saudi Arabia is easily one of the blandest and most dull starts to a game ever. There's also the weird dissonance that comes from inexpertly fusing RPG systems with a shooter, with the result being that if you don't have enough skill with a particular weapon, enemies tend to soak up a shitload of bullets even if they're just wearing khaki pants and a shirt.
But all that is more or less forgiven by the amount of variables thrown into any given situation: the dialogue system is solid gold because whatever you choose to say has actual impact, either over the long-term or the short-term, and sometimes both. It's probably the first game I've played where pissing off your handler gives you a weapons bonus during the mission. Choosing aggression over stealth has consequences. Choosing to kill a boss, or not to, has consequences. Choosing to help one person instead of another has consequences. The (
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-01-06-alpha-protocol-retrospective) EG retrospective (which I'd recommend a read-through of) uses the word 'fractal' to describe its mission design, and while I wouldn't go that far, the level of detail certainly approaches it.
It's a massively fun game to replay because of these things; plus, despite it playing like a poor fusion of Mass Effect/Deus Ex's gameplay systems, most of the fundamentals just about work, so switching your approach to/from a stealth pistol build to an aggro close combat build to a generic rifle-slinger or to various combinations thereof makes for a refreshing change. Most of the bugs have been patched, so it's more or less stable and worth giving a shot.
gunsmoke on 20/2/2013 at 14:33
Alpha Protocol was great. One of the stand-outs that year, for me at least. Yeah, the intro is bland, but it kept me interested enough to finish it at a time when I would rarely play a game to completion.
june gloom on 20/2/2013 at 19:57
Alpha Protocol is one of those games I keep telling myself I'll replay and never do. But damn if I hate myself for not replaying.
Phatose on 20/2/2013 at 20:16
Yeah, it was a pretty good game.
Early on it had some aggravating save issues, that I think they fixed. Balance is a bit borked though - stealth works, but then it gives you an invisibility cloak ability that doesn't make much sense and is crazy overpowered. Come to think of it, the pistol's active ability was kind of ludicrously overpowered too.
Also had some issued about the vagueness of your responses - it says aggressive stance, but that could be anything from being all-business/cut the bullshit to insulting their shoes to slamming their head against a table.
That said, it did characters very well, and it wasn't anywhere near as obviously good/obviously evil in what you could do.
Yakoob on 20/2/2013 at 21:51
Quote Posted by Sulphur
SNIP Alpha Protocol
totally agree, narrative-wise, it's only one of the best (if not the best) examples of complex dialogue and actions having tangible consequences. Gameplay-wise, however, it was quite shit :/
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Alpha Protocol is one of those games I keep telling myself I'll replay and never do. But damn if I hate myself for not replaying.
Yea I'd actually love to replay the game to see how different choices pan off, but couldn't go through the annoying gampleay ungh!
gunsmoke on 27/2/2013 at 11:18
(
http://www.gamespot.com/aliens-colonial-marines/videos/why-aliens-games-never-live-up-to-expectations-6404200/) I'll just leave this here/
Interesting (for GameSpot) read on why Aliens games are never going to be as good as we expect. The nature of the movies goes against the nature of shooters etc...
I argue that Avs.P 2 was a high water mark and both a truly great game AND Aliens game.
Discuss. I personally think they missed the bus by not making an Aliens SurHor when the were in their heyday. It is the perfect IP for SurHor.
Phatose on 27/2/2013 at 14:59
Part of the problem is that the story in Aliens only works if the Colonial Marines are hilariously incompetent. The Xenos themselves aren't actually all that effective.
In that first battle on sublevel-C, despite only 4 of the Marines even being armed, the Xenos only actually take out Dietrich and Apone. Dietrich manages to take out 3 other marines herself, making her the Xeno's MVP. Vasquez basically kills Drake, and Gorman is a victim of Ripley's driving. And despite only 2 of them having guns that could damage the machinery, they still manage to destroy the cooling units and turn the whole place into a giant time bomb.
Hard to make a game like that. Your typical gamer ain't gonna play along just because the story requires the 3 stooges with pulse rifles.
Muzman on 27/2/2013 at 16:31
There's got to be some Milshooter that has you as part of some minor disaster at some point, by now surely.
Phatose on 27/2/2013 at 17:04
Yeah, they're a dime a dozen, I know. But in those, the enemy is at least reasonably effective when you're not chained to the idiot ball. Anytime the marines in Aliens aren't being incompetent, the Xenos become a turkey shoot.
