Don't buy Alpha Protocol.

[Bozwevial]

Seriously.

While I was waiting for my copy to install, I looked up a review or two absently and found that the game had been getting mixed reviews. Once I actually started up the game, I started to see why.

--Skipping. This might just be the PC version, but I've been getting a ton of skips, stutters, and hangups, despite the fact that I have no other programs running and my system far exceeds the specifications Obsidian listed.

--The cover system is terribly buggy. The game's never clear what functions as cover, so you have to use trial and error. And even if you find cover, expect the AI to put several bullets into you through the cover somehow. Even when it's literally impossible for them to do so. And good luck getting Michael into cover, because he apparently suffers from attention deficit disorder and wants to stay out in the open to learn what's making that beeping sound.

--The AI varies from locating you from a hundred yards away when you so much as cough to being so pants-on-head retarded (to borrow a phrase from Yahtzee) that they run in circles shooting at nothing. Or charge into your gunfire to punch you in the face. Or spam grenades (seriously, just about every firefight will involve grenades).

--The camera. Oh god, the camera. I am prepared to swear the camera is being handled by a drunken sadist who swings around tipsily trying to get the best shot of Michael being punched in the back of the head because the camera panned into the wall just as you tried to close in on a guard. It's honestly as bad as though someone were using a handcam at times--by which I mean all the time.

--Graphics are nothing to write home about at the best of times. They're not much better than KOTOR 2 standards, except that I'd actually prefer KOTOR 2 over AP's graphics, because frequently textures will be sluggish to load, leaving you with a blurry model. Less frequently they just never load at all.

--The gameplay isn't great because of the aforementioned reasons--stealth is an integral part of an espionage game but is nearly impossible to pull off because of the cover system and the AI (requiring you to sink nearly every point into the skill just to succeed), playing as a gadgeteer means spamming grenades, which leaves a combat specialist. Except that combat sucks. Obsidian tried to integrate RPG elements into the game, but only succeeded in frustrating many, many players by making shots miss even when the crosshairs are centered on an enemy model. This isn't a successful merger of the two genres, it just makes Obsidian look worse because their game appears to have terrible hitbox detection.

--The minigames used for hacking, lockpicking, and alarms have overly strict time limits and are extremely finicky. The lockpicking minigame in particular is horrible on the PC, and I can only imagine how it must be on a console.

--I want to mention the one thing I do like about the game, though. The conversations are at least a success, and I found myself trying to read NPCs more and more as I played. Unfortunately, the concept is rather reminiscent of Mass Effect, making the dialogue system derivative, and the story, while somewhat captivating, isn't terribly unique, Michael isn't a terribly deep protagonist, and to get to the conversations and progress the story, I had to actually play the game.

--The game as a whole is derivative, in fact. A third person shooter with RPG elements, a dialogue system with different areas corresponding to different tones of response, points awarded on levelling to be spent on various powers, cover-based gunplay--all we need now is a blue lesbian alien.

--Oh, right, melee combat. You can run up to people and punch them, I guess. It's not even worth mentioning because 1) this is a third-person shooter, meaning you will likely die of lead poisoning in the process 2) the terrible camera means you'll probably wind up punching the air more often than not and 3) it consists solely of spamming a single button for the same worn-out series of animations and requires heavy investment to be effective (surprise, surprise). You can also sneak up behind guards and perform takedowns in lethal and non-lethal flavours, but even if the stealth system and AI manage to let you pull this off, you might run into the same problem I did and wind up sprinting into the guard instead of stabbing him (the two buttons were the same, so presumably the game failed to recognize that it was offering me the prompt), leaving you inches from a guy holding a shotgun. It's like the game is dangling candy in front of your face, then yanking it away and laughing as your momentum leads you into a brick wall.

Don't get me wrong, I love the concept of Alpha Protocol. If they fixed these elements, I have no doubt the game would be decent, if not great. But Obsidian half-assed it, there's no denying it. As many praising review links as they post on their front page, their game is still a steaming pile of putrescent sludge. It's like it's still in beta. A disgruntled designer who work(s/ed) at Obsidian allegedly posted a statement anonymously not too long ago claiming that it should have been scrapped and that the designer Chris Parker apparently had a God complex.

...Holy shit. This is like Daikatana all over again, except without half the hype.

[Johannixx]

Sounds like the bastard love-child of Deus Ex and Gears of War.

[ragincajun2288]

I hate shitty games. Do your job people, that would be like me going to work and doing nothing all day.

[Littha]

I hate shitty games. Do your job people, that would be like me going to work and doing nothing all day.

I think you underestimate how hard it is to pull off a good game with production companies pushing you for a release.

[Bozwevial]

I hate shitty games. Do your job people, that would be like me going to work and doing nothing all day.

I think you underestimate how hard it is to pull off a good game with production companies pushing you for a release.

And then the company's sales drop because you put out a beta instead of the finished product. Yes, no one wants a Duke Nukem Forever, but no one wants a Daikatana either.

[Solo]

I think you underestimate how hard it is to pull off a good game with production companies pushing you for a release.

Blizzard.

Check, your move.

[Littha]

I think you underestimate how hard it is to pull off a good game with production companies pushing you for a release.

Blizzard.

Check, your move.

Its hard not impossible... besides that blizzard produce their own games (and haven't made anything good since warcraft 3)

[Solo]

World of Warcraft. Starcraft 2. Diablo 3.

[Littha]

World of Warcraft. Starcraft 2. Diablo 3.

Exactly

[Solo]

Well you sure showed me with your witty and incisive comments.

[Dictum Mortuum]

Didn't they say that the release date for Diablo 3 would be in 2010?
I still think it's a typo. They probably meant 2100.

[ragincajun2288]

Dude Starcraft 2...

I think the beta's out for that actually, at least my friend from overseas says he is playing it.

[X-Codes]

World of Warcraft. Starcraft 2. Diablo 3.

Exactly

World of Warcraft's only flaw is a lack of imagination and the problem of having to do the same thing over and over again as you grind up to the level cap and then go do PvP/Raids/Whatever.  In other words, it's the best MMORPG released for quite some time, and no MMORPG released since World of Warcraft has even approached it's level of quality.

Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 haven't been released yet.  Starcraft 2 is coming out next month, and despite questions about Battle.net 2 and the removal of TCP/IP games, it looks like Starcraft 2 is going to become the new standard by which all RTS games are measured, not unlike the original Starcraft.  Not to ignore Diablo, which has been such a ridiculously awesome and successful franchise that all other 3rd-person Action RPGs are collectively known as "Diablo Clones."

Any list of the best game developers has to include Blizzard.  Many other developers can match them in terms of quality, but few in terms of consistency.

Didn't they say that the release date for Diablo 3 would be in 2010?
I still think it's a typo. They probably meant 2100.

No, Blizzard has never announced a release date for Diablo 3.

In the opinion of one nerd that has no affiliation with Blizzard, I think Diablo 3 will be a 2011 Holiday release.  *Maybe* a 2012 Summer release.  Their last major announcement was that they had completed their much-hyped Skill Rune system.  Because of how the Skill Rune system works, this basically necessitates that they've also completed every Skill in the game, which makes up about 99% of the classes, which makes up about 50% of the game.  Since they showed off each of their classes with a new environment and monsters, the other 50% of the game is likely close to completion, too.  To top it off, Blizzard has been really quiet recently, and they're telling everyone that asks about D3 to look ahead to Blizz Con.  I suspect they're going to make a big announcement, and that announcement will be Beta Testing.

[Littha]

World of Warcraft's only flaw is a lack of imagination and the problem of having to do the same thing over and over again as you grind up to the level cap and then go do PvP/Raids/Whatever.  In other words, it's the best MMORPG released for quite some time, and no MMORPG released since World of Warcraft has even approached it's level of quality.

There are a lot of MMORPGs that are better from a design point of view than WoW, EVE online being the big one. WoW has a large playerbase because it is easy to pick up and play (which is a merit in itself) not because it is the highest quality MMO on the market as its graphics are outdone by games years older (FFXI) storyline is a joke and PvP is repetitive and unimaginative.

This is not to say that I dislike WoW, I actually own a copy and have hit level 80 on my shaman but I could not say it is the best MMORPG or even the MMORPG with the highest level of quality with a strait face. It is a fun game though I will say that but then again what game isn't that actually manages to sell. 

[X-Codes]

There are a lot of MMORPGs that are better from a design point of view than WoW, EVE online being the big one. WoW has a large playerbase because it is easy to pick up and play (which is a merit in itself) not because it is the highest quality MMO on the market as its graphics are outdone by games years older (FFXI) storyline is a joke and PvP is repetitive and unimaginative.

Never played EVE Online, but if it happens to be better than WoW then I'm fairly confident in saying that it's the only game that is.  Most everything that has come out since WoW has sought to simply rip off WoW for easy money.

Neither graphics nor storyline are incredibly important in MMOs.  Top-notch graphics on an MMO will tax system hardware and internet connections, excluding potential users that don't have high-speed internet or hardcore gaming machines.  A quality backdrop for the story is nice, but the modular nature of a quest-oriented MMO makes it difficult for even the best storyline to retain credibility when you stop and consider that everyone in the game is on the exact same epic quest.

Battlegrounds in WoW are, quite simply, the best PvP ever in an MMO.  The only thing that has ever come close are Banes in Shadowbane, but that games other flaws got in the way of that being a similarly awesome experience.  If you're talking about the Arena, however, then I'm afraid I'd have to agree.  The whole idea of Arena combat in a game already including Battlegrounds is just fail, for lack of a better term.

This is not to say that I dislike WoW, I actually own a copy and have hit level 80 on my shaman but I could not say it is the best MMORPG or even the MMORPG with the highest level of quality with a strait face. It is a fun game though I will say that but then again what game isn't that actually manages to sell.  

It's the best by default.  WoW is better than anything that came before, and every game that has come out since has been terrible.

I probably should have worded my post a little better to avoid the implication that I thought that WoW was the best thing since sliced bread.  I really enjoyed the Battlegrounds and found some of the instances interesting, but the rest of it was simply good and got repetitive by the time you got within spitting distance of the level cap.  Not worth the monthly fee, IMO, and that's why I don't play anymore.

[Littha]

You should really put some substance behind your arguments, just stating its the best does not make it so.

In my experience the best pvp to be had is in EVE and FFXI has the best storyline, neither use any of WoWs systems as they are older than WoW.

EVE has fleet battles which as far as a tactics and planning point of view go would be hard to top, it also has much better graphics than WoW despite being a year older because it was updated for free a year or two ago.

FFXi is something of a personal favourite, the control systems are a bit of a pain to get used to but past that it has nicely designed characters and a compelling plot.

I think you may only have played the clones that WoW has spawned (Warhammer online, Aion etc) which would understandably jade your view on the subject, i have played them and despite being a Warhammer fan I really hated the MMO.

[Solo]

You should really put some substance behind your arguments, just stating its the best does not make it so.

The market has spoken.

Love,
Solo

[Littha]

Because the game is easy to play when you start and then designed around keeping people playing for as long as possible. Not because it is all that good.

It is hard to get across the point I'm trying to make without sounding repetitive or hypocritical.
WoW starts off large and gets smaller in terms of content you can do as you level up ending in raiding and pvp.
Eve starts small (mining, Missions, Trading) and expands to near infinite with its pvp aspect and its player driven market.

I don't think EVE will ever be as popular as WoW just because it is exceptionally hard to play but it rewards cunning and thought rather than grinding for the majority of its aspects (missions aside).

All I can say is try the EVE trial and see for yourself, I have played just about all the MMOs (WoW EVE FFXI CoH CoV EQ EQII Aion D&DO WAR etc)on the market currently and enjoyed most of them but short term enjoyment and addiction isn't indicative of good game design.

[Solo]

It is hard to get across the point I'm trying to make without sounding repetitive or hypocritical.
WoW starts off large and gets smaller in terms of content you can do as you level up ending in raiding and pvp.
Eve starts small (mining, Missions, Trading) and expands to near infinite with its pvp aspect and its player driven market.

I don't think EVE will ever be as popular as WoW just because it is exceptionally hard to play but it rewards cunning and thought rather than grinding for the majority of its aspects (missions aside).

I have heard varying opinions on the subject.

[Littha]

We all know Yahtzee offers perfectly balanced opinions on everything.

Besides that he does not like MMORPGs and didn't join a corporation (Guild).

How fun is WoW without a guild to talk to or people you know playing it?