Alpha Protocol

[Uru]

The shooting is fine man. I've played it all day on hard and recruit kit set (the game doesn't get any harder than this) and have finished two countries. You just have to wait to get the reticles to line up before firing unless you are trying to play it like mass effect. Please try to remember, its a spy game.

The depth of view is way off (i get motion sick when its off the littlest bit from perfect) but the game is fun. I would probably be having way more fun had I not try to do the He-Man difficulty setting with extra disadvantages.

[DPB]

controls better on 360/PS3.

This game practically requires a 360 controller.  Mouse control was programmed wrong... or so I hear.

Yep, having got the game today this seems to be the case. There's nothing wrong with the controls themselves, it's WASD and mouselook like most PC games, but the mouse camera control is strangely erratic. Instead of scrolling smoothly, it just skips about, even when the framerate is 60 fps. Increasing the mouse sensitivity does help somewhat, but it's still there. If you use an Xbox 360 controller it's as smooth as it should be, though I've never been able to get the hang of aiming using analog sticks.

[Superflat]

The shooting is fine man. I've played it all day on hard and recruit kit set (the game doesn't get any harder than this) and have finished two countries. You just have to wait to get the reticles to line up before firing unless you are trying to play it like mass effect. Please try to remember, its a spy game.

Apparently you and I have different definitions of "fine." I shouldn't have to prepare a critical shot every time I want to actually hit something; this interrupts the flow of the gameplay and makes me feel as though my character is incapable. There is a legitimate problem with the game when I can empty a full magazine on an enemy and not hit him once. You say that I shouldn't be trying to play the game like I play Mass Effect, yet Mass Effect 2 is the gold standard for Third-Person Action RPGs. Also, classifying the game as a "spy game" does nothing to aid your argument. The sneaking (and shooting) elements are poor in comparison to games like Metal Gear Solid 4 and Splinter Cell: Conviction.

[DM Kyle E. Miller]

Thanks for pointing out that Kmart sale. Now we'll have a review.

[Sagacious-T]

So who at RPGFan is reviewing this?

[Serene Prophet]

From the sounds of it Kyle is picking up a copy at Kmart to review?

[Uru]

The shooting is fine man. I've played it all day on hard and recruit kit set (the game doesn't get any harder than this) and have finished two countries. You just have to wait to get the reticles to line up before firing unless you are trying to play it like mass effect. Please try to remember, its a spy game.

Apparently you and I have different definitions of "fine." I shouldn't have to prepare a critical shot every time I want to actually hit something; this interrupts the flow of the gameplay and makes me feel as though my character is incapable. There is a legitimate problem with the game when I can empty a full magazine on an enemy and not hit him once. You say that I shouldn't be trying to play the game like I play Mass Effect, yet Mass Effect 2 is the gold standard for Third-Person Action RPGs. Also, classifying the game as a "spy game" does nothing to aid your argument. The sneaking (and shooting) elements are poor in comparison to games like Metal Gear Solid 4 and Splinter Cell: Conviction.

Fine, the shooting is bad. All I know is that I just beat another country tonight. I play the game the way they want me to play it, not the way I think it should be played. If you are having such a shitty time playing this game, how bout you stop playing it? Why not get the taste of "bad" shooting out with Mass Effect, or the horrid sneaking with MGS? Im having fun playing it, shouldn't that be enough for me to continue?

[Sagacious-T]

I actually hope you guys review it based on the way the game is meant to be played and judge it from that experience. Don't be like the IGN "God Hand" reviewer.

[DM Kyle E. Miller]

I'll be reviewing the 360 version at least.

[Serene Prophet]

I broke down and got the PC version, since I found a deal on it locally, and I gotta say...addicting.  I was really worried, and while the mouse controls are ATROCIOUS, and the combat is a bit lame, I am still thoroughly enjoying it.  I had to make a few tweeks to keep stuttering down, but hopefully they patch it up to fix some things.  Still if I were to give it a A-F rating, since I like letter grades, it would definitely be a B-.  If they could fix the few problems I do have with the game, I would probably give it a B+, A-.  In case anyone is wondering, im running Windows XP Home, Pentium 4 3.0ghz, ATI AGP (yes I know I still run AGP) HD3850 1GB, 2GB DDR RAM.  I do have a few graphical settings turned off, mainly shadows, depth of perception, low particle count, and low tree and bushes setting, but its on 1280x1024 with everything else on.

[Fei]

My opinion on the shooting is a little different, especially when compared with Mass Effect 2.

The combat in Alpha Protocol feels more like Hitman 2.  I pay no mind to the cover system (which I think has ruined shooters, sue me) and just mow down hordes of enemies like it was 10 years ago.  Having said that, I am probably enjoying it for the wrong reasons.  I could honestly say the shooting is more fun than in ME2, as I enjoy Doom 2 more than Whack-A-Mole. 

This is the first time that hype has actually made a game harder for me to enjoy.  I was expecting some Mass Effect level style and substance, and seriously thought "what the fuck is this ghetto shit?" at the start of the game.  By the time I accepted that this game looks and feels like its 10 years old, I found my stride and am actually quite addicted.  That weak shooting argument I made is the only edge I would give AP over ME2, because nothing in ME2 felt as generic as this.

Generic but fun.

[Superflat]

The shooting is fine man. I've played it all day on hard and recruit kit set (the game doesn't get any harder than this) and have finished two countries. You just have to wait to get the reticles to line up before firing unless you are trying to play it like mass effect. Please try to remember, its a spy game.

Apparently you and I have different definitions of "fine." I shouldn't have to prepare a critical shot every time I want to actually hit something; this interrupts the flow of the gameplay and makes me feel as though my character is incapable. There is a legitimate problem with the game when I can empty a full magazine on an enemy and not hit him once. You say that I shouldn't be trying to play the game like I play Mass Effect, yet Mass Effect 2 is the gold standard for Third-Person Action RPGs. Also, classifying the game as a "spy game" does nothing to aid your argument. The sneaking (and shooting) elements are poor in comparison to games like Metal Gear Solid 4 and Splinter Cell: Conviction.

Fine, the shooting is bad. All I know is that I just beat another country tonight. I play the game the way they want me to play it, not the way I think it should be played. If you are having such a shitty time playing this game, how bout you stop playing it? Why not get the taste of "bad" shooting out with Mass Effect, or the horrid sneaking with MGS? Im having fun playing it, shouldn't that be enough for me to continue?

I should clarify, I am enjoying the game. The plot and characters are largely interesting, and I like the sense of pressure created by the timed dialogue responses (you could even say that prefer Alpha Protocol's dialogue system to Mass Effect's). Last night I found myself unreasonably excited when I found I had saved up enough money to buy the best set of stealth armor. It has been a while since I've had that sort of response to a game. I definitely intend to finish the game and I imagine I'll have a great time doing so, but more than anything I'm bummed out that it's not a better game (as it most certainly could have been).

[LaVal]

I play the game the way they want me to play it, not the way I think it should be played.

Is the entire premise of the game not the fact you can choose how you want to play it, and how to accomplish your goals?  Even the back of the game box says it in big bold letters.  The tutorial made itself very clear that should you want to, you can walk right into the middle of the enemy base with guns blazing.  Granted I'm early into the game, but so far I've found it's easier to run straight into the middle of a firefight, and karate the shit out of an enemy than it is to take cover and shoot them.

[Sagacious-T]

I play the game the way they want me to play it, not the way I think it should be played.

Is the entire premise of the game not the fact you can choose how you want to play it, and how to accomplish your goals?  Even the back of the game box says it in big bold letters.  The tutorial made itself very clear that should you want to, you can walk right into the middle of the enemy base with guns blazing.  Granted I'm early into the game, but so far I've found it's easier to run straight into the middle of a firefight, and karate the shit out of an enemy than it is to take cover and shoot them.

You're taking it way out of context. There's a difference in variety of gameplay, and trying to make the gameplay something that it is not.

[Ashtrot]

The whole "play the game how it should be played" argument is ridiculous. If a game is shit, it wouldn't matter what way you play it. This was the same argument made for Resident Evil . It didn't fly there, and it won't fly here.