smallfry on 22/6/2010 at 23:52
Well, I really enjoyed this game, more so than I thought I would. The gameplay left a lot to be desired but was good enough. I kept wishing it was more like splinter cell. One thing I didn't like was that most of the levels were very linear and, even though I was a sneaky guy, always ended up in a huge firefight against an army of enemies. I wanted to be covert, dammit!
And I'm so pissed at my ending... I took a wrong door at the end and wasn't able to save Mina. I really don't like the little quest markers, especially since you don't know which objective they're for. Several times I've followed the wrong marker and went through a one-way door.
But the conversation mechanics are pretty good, and I love how many things are affected by your previous actions. I'm starting up a new game right now just to do things in different orders, and to fix my mistake at the ending. I'm going to make checkpoint saves this time!!!
Zygoptera on 23/6/2010 at 02:04
The self closing doors are highly annoying, yes.
Easiest way to tell which objective you're heading for is to open the map and select the objective you want on it- doesn't always work if it's an objective you have to search for but the Mina one works OK.
I'm on a 3rd playthrough (don't think I've ever played through a game three times in a row before, and already feeling like a fourth as a sociopath) and doing stealth and finding it eminently feasible, so long as you're careful. Ghosting is very hard when it is even possible, but I've made it all the way through Saudi without a single firefight except the two unavoidable ones at the end of Jizan and the final Saudi mission.
Jason Moyer on 23/6/2010 at 15:26
Quote Posted by smallfry
I really don't like the little quest markers, especially since you don't know which objective they're for.
I'm sure you know this, but if you pull up your map and you click on an objective it will highlight the relevant marker (most of the time...another partially broken aspect of the game). Of course, it doesn't work in the final level where it's the most useful.
Matthew on 29/6/2010 at 17:00
Whee! I bought this in the Steam sale. Mostly due to your enthusiasm mothra so if it's terrible you owe me >:|
mothra on 30/6/2010 at 07:16
Quote Posted by Matthew
Whee! I bought this in the Steam sale. Mostly due to your enthusiasm mothra so if it's terrible
you owe me >:|
you have to make it pass saudi arabia, then the game starts. if you totally, completely don't like it, I gift you something thru steam summer sale :)
butsomuch on 1/7/2010 at 22:02
(
http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/98564-chris-avellone.html) Chris Avellone E3 2010 Interview at GameBanshee
Quote:
GB: Based on the reception the game (Alpha Protocol) has received, is there anything you would have done differently if you could go back? Chris: If I could go back and start on the project from the outset? Sure, absolutely - and don't take anything I say as this would somehow magically be a better game, it would just be different, and most likely have other things people hated about it. Anyway, I'd make a spy version of Kill Bill (if it had to be a spy game at all and not just a real world RPG title, which would be great), change the main character to not be a set character, screw the realism and focus on the fantastic, add more mission reactivity between missions and between cities, change the mission structure to the honeycomb mission structure our Systems Designer proposed 2 years in (and what our Exec Producer originally wanted), remove cinematic conversations, screw trying to compete with other stealth or shooter games that have already mastered those areas and look for ways to make the player feel like spies in other ways - again, assuming a spy game is what you'd want to do with a real-world RPG at all.
But that's all fantasy and wishful thinking, and again, it's easy to say that, and it would have most likely resulted in something else that people liked and disliked for different reasons. If I could go back to when I started mid-way through the project and was in the same situation? No, for logistical reasons. I'm sure the other leads felt the same way and so did our Project Director (who became Project Director at this time), and our Project Director who took on the role at this time saved this game from cancellation - or worse. We had a team that was low on morale, that felt like they didn't own the work they were doing (if you keep trading areas and design elements every other month, you can't focus on carrying something to completion), who were on the tides of iteration, and being able to go in there, give people ownership of interface, systems, an area, a Hub, make decisions, add more RPG elements, add more reactivity, restore focus and get rid of the blockages that were keeping people from moving ahead with work was satisfying. It took a while, and it was tough, and some of the decisions weren't ideal, but you can't always be in a perfect situation with development, so you do what you can. We had little to no time to redo anims, redo character models, redo locations from previous iterations, so we did what we could with what he had, and it made sense to us for the time frame (even when the time frame kept changing, we had no clue the release date would be what it became, and we didn't work toward that release date).
I'm proud of what we did during that time to help get the project going, organize the design staff, kill a lot of problems, and try to use what assets, locations, and story elements we had to work with to make a game that worked and took RPG elements in a new direction.
N'Al on 6/7/2010 at 15:35
(
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/alpha-protocol-will-only-live-once) Alpha Protocol will only live once. Poor sales to blame.
Obsidian will now probably peddle sequels to already-established franchises more than ever, rather than branching out into their own in-house IPs. Shame. I would've like to have seen the (design and writing) talent they've undoubtably got applied to more new IPs.
Ah well, at least they've got that. Not like Troika who just went belly-up without the chance to even do sequels.
Eldron on 6/7/2010 at 16:00
Quote Posted by N'Al
(
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/alpha-protocol-will-only-live-once) Alpha Protocol will only live once. Poor sales to blame.
Obsidian will now probably peddle sequels to already-established franchises more than ever, rather than branching out into their own in-house IPs. Shame. I would've like to have seen the (design and writing) talent they've undoubtably got applied to more new IPs.
Ah well, at least they've got that. Not like Troika who just went belly-up without the chance to even do sequels.
Obsidian seems to get so many chances, way more than other companies will ever get, I don't understand how they manage.
How many games did troika do now again? and how many of them sucked? See how fair that is that some companies have to go down and other not :(
Still, people having jobs is good, so hopefully they'll tighten up the act.
Sulphur on 6/7/2010 at 16:49
Considering that Obsidian actively tries to change up their game with whatever they do, I'm hoping they don't go the way of Troika.
So their games are unpolished and buggy, yeah. But even Alpha Protocol with all of its consolitis had an intriguing and downright enjoyable conversation/situation branching system, instead of being a tiresome linear trawl through identikit RPG quest lines. It must've been a lot of work to put that game together, and damn it, some of that shit was innovative, however else you might have sized up the rest of the game.
They're one of the few guys with a pedigree that can do Fallout justice, and I hope that New Vegas provides them the breakout success they deserve.