REVIEW: Alpha Protocol

Sega does this sometimes. They take a chance into unproven territory with some of their games and hardware. The VMU. Madworld. Shadow the Hedgehog. Unfortunately, being that guy who says "I'm going to do something different" usually means that different doesn't either sell or it just sucks.

When I first heard about Alpha Protocol, my mind immediately (and probably unfairly) thought Jason Bourne meets Mass Effect; an espionage action RPG. Obsidian, who made the follow-up to Bioware's Knights of the Old Republic and is now working on Fallout New Vegas would be developing the game, so good pedigree there. I was very intrigued, and excited, but also hesitant as to how this all would work together and play out. What I got when playing through Alpha Protocol was two feelings: 1.) this game has a lot of potential with a lot of great elements and 2.) Some people really have it out for Sega. Today's review will focus heavily on the first feeling, and then I will touch upon some of the (recklessly undue) haterade in the internet land.

You play as Michael Thorton, the quintessential new guy: discredited from his super-secret agency, goes rogue, tries to clear his name, possibly expose an evil corporation and save the country. The game actually plays out in flashback, as you are sitting with the head of Haliburton Halbech discussing how you managed to go through these missions, not get yourself killed, but also 'fail to see the big picture'. You will start out getting the feel for the game in Saudi Arabia, which as a n00b, you will not be very good at anything such as sneaking around and shooting. At that point, the game feels kind of clunky-- but as you move past that mission, you get to choose your next destination between Moscow, Rome and Taipei, things begin to open up, as well as the gameplay mechanics.

Just like in past games of Obsidian/Bioware's ilk, the dialogue drives the story, and you actually can dictate the direction you go by how you react in each coversation. To keep the pace moving, you aren't given specific lines to choose from, but more of a reaction like "frustrated", "flirtatious", "sarcastic", just as examples. This keeps the conversations moving at a seemless pace. Characters in the game will react differently to each style you choose and will either like you (and will provide bonuses and be more cooperative) or they will hate you. How they react and deal with you really does give the gamer a unique experience.  I was playing the game at the same time as a friend of mine and we would talk about a conversation, or email response option and sometimes my friend would have a similar experience, and sometimes he would be like "that didn't happen for me at all."

Some of the conversations that take place had me laugh out loud pretty easily, not because they were cheesy, but because they were well written and funny. You can be Mr. All-About-the-Mission or you can be a sarcastic jackass. Some situations will actually dictate your mood. When trying to romance a photojournalist, you can be mister mysterious and suave. With Steven Heck, the tinfoil hat wearing "bug out guy", its best to not to be a total prick, but some sarcastic options will lead you to plenty of humorous moments. I can't think of a character in the game that I could have done without, or thought was totally out of place.

Your playstyle is customizable as well. You are given skill points that you can put into certain abilities such as stealth, weapon proficiencies, tech, health, and melee. Each time you put a point in a category, it will unlock either and active or passive ability that will help you in missions. You can be Sam Fisher, Jr. Sneaking around taking people out by stealth, going 99% non-lethal by tranquilizing people, avoiding cameras. You can also be Arnold, Jr. just buzzsawing your way though missions leaving nothing but carnage in your wake.

During missions, you get a few hacking minigames that are both unique and challenging. Picking locks require you to push pressure sensitive pins to a certain point, and unlocking each pin to crack the lock. This is pretty easy with a three pin lock, pretty hard with a five pin. You bypass keycodes with a board in which you have to connect a numbered circuit in the correct order. The computer hacking mini-game makes you match up two numbered key codes within the grid where other numbers are cycling except for the passphrase. The code resets once within the time frame given, and sometimes I can find one key code, but have to wait for the reset to match the next one.

The combat is a bit of a mixed bag. I like the controls; you can duck in and out of cover, sneak up behind people and take them out quietly. I kind of wish the camera was pulled back about five feet; sometimes if a bad guy charges up on you, you kind of lose him because the camera will zoom into the back of your head. At the beginning, you won't be able to shoot for shit. Your weapon proficiencies aren't developed so you are going to spray bullets all over the yard. Alpha Protocol's mechanics are that there is a mathematical formula that will determine whether you can score a hit, depending on your weapon stats and your stats. That's a bit of a turn off for some people, but it worked for me. I ended up putting most of my points into Assault Rifle and Pistol, if I were to pick up an SMG or Shotgun in which I had no formal "training", I shouldn't be expected to hit a whole lot with precision, especially at range.

One other thing Alpha Protocol left me with, was a desire to see more things in a potential sequel. I want to be on record as saying I had a lot of fun with this game, and think it has a solid foundation, but I think there are some things that Obsidian/Sega can tighten up if we progress through a potential franchise:

- I would like to have the environment be a tad more interactive (save the exploding barrel or propane tank). Not to go all Splinter Cell, but I would like to be able to shoot out a light and move in the cover of darkness. There were times where I felt I was kind of backed into a corner stealthing around, and because I couldn't move to a better location because of the lighting, well, here we go with guns blazing.

- I would like the game to be longer. You will essentially go to four places, but I would like to have explored more cities, gained more contacts, etc. As it sits now, Alpha Protocol is about 15 hours or so... I could have easily been game for another 10.

- Tighten up the animation and gameplay just a bit. Things kind of do a 'slow render', and there are random spots that the game will pause to load (usually while I'm about to go through a door or up a ladder). Also Mike's "crouch walk" is a little humorous. I didn't mind the level design although its not spectacular, but I'm being pessimistic here.

Those are just a bit off my personal wishlist for the game. But now, I want to get into a bit of the critical reaction. The game has been scoring around a high 6 (out of ten) to a low 7. I think this a tad bit low, as a lot of attention has been paid to the technical aspects of the game (mechanics, gameplay, graphics) and not to the over all story. IF I were to score this game, I would put it in the mid to high 7's, maybe a low 8, depending on how a second playthrough went, and how it I liked the progression and variety of that second experience.  For anyone who likes a good spy game, a good action RPG, this is definitely a game you'd want to check out, for rent, buy, or buy on sale.

But then, there is Destructoid's review. I don't have a problem with a game getting a bad review, even if its deserved. But Destructoid gave Alpha Protocol a 2. Out of Ten. That is, quite frankly, irresponsible. One common complaint about the game is that it is buggy. I get that, there are a few animation glitches, but a game has to be unplayably buggy to warrant a score that low. I got through the game with no such bugs or glitches. Also, I don't think that any conversation was forced or "rambling" at all. Even so, each conversation would have to be Zero Wing in quality in order for me to be so dismissive that I would be like "God, this sucks".

I thought to myself, maybe the reviewer just had a bad experience and is sending a bit of hyperbolic message, so I checked out Splinter Cell Conviction's review on the site: a game that is somewhat similar in concept and execution, but a game I enjoyed way less than Alpha Protocol. Sure enough: 9. Not to go Steven Heck on anyone, but this is absolutely ridiculous. That is like saying Conviction is Star Wars and Alpha Protocol is Wing Commander (the movie); when at best, both movies are Attack of the Clones. I'm not going to go so far to say that the reviewer or Destructoid has it out for Sega, but its possible that they have it out for Sega.

As a reviewer, you want to present the game, and interject what worked for you and what didn't. Subjectivity is unavoidable, but  you don't want to get extreme. So when your review is 2, and average reader and critic scores are around 7, then you are either not seeing something the right way, played some half ass alpha version, or are just a straight up hater. I've quite frankly have no time for that, and you shouldn't either.

TL;DR- You should, however, have some time for Alpha Protocol. You'll enjoy it.