Found this article interesting. http://free-pc-guides.com/games/difference-of-opinions-alpha-protocol-eu-vs-us-reviews-whos-right-and-whos-wrong-01928
It compares EU reviews to the US ones.

US reviews are (usually) giving the game what it deserves. EU reviews are (usually) being consistent with their standard. I prefer the EU method just so that I don't have to jump through hoops and compare a bajillion different variables to find out how [censored] the review is.

I play on the ps3, and I've found the AI to be okay. They're pretty good at killing me when I don't use cover, anyway. I've noticed the AI sometimes chooses bizarre search patterns when alerted, and they sometimes use their habit of charging in close at the wrong times, but generally, it's a solid enemy AI.

As I asked before, can you put a scope on a pistol? Or is there a unique pistol with a scope?

Anybody?

I've only seen laser and reflex sights.

Huh?

Sort of. you can "put it on", but you can't look through it. You can press a button to zoom further than the regular zoom (for PC regular is RMB, and further is "F"). It's just modifies the accuracy of your gun and (I think) lets you zoom further with "F".

On an unrelated note, Steven Heck is the greatest videogame NPC ever conceived.

Made me laugh harder than it should have.

I'm a little late to this thread, but what the hell. I hadn't heard a word of this game until about 2 weeks ago, it looks alright I suppose, but it's not at the top of my list.

Ah that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Whats the use if you can't "Look through it"?

as for a gaming enthusiast like me, i rate the graphics outdated...looked like a low budget game to me

It raise the stats.

You know, like how in many fantasy RPGs the magic flaming sword got better stats than just a normal steel sword, yet you can't use it to put things on fire.

From what I see here I am not impressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjsvSDgcNUA

Neither am I.

Is it just me?

Don't those graphics look like something from around 4 years ago?


:blink:

Vanilla Oblivion has better graphics than that, without a doubt.

I don't usually but games based off of graphics, but those....... those just look really terrible compared to industry standards now. Still looks mildly interesting to me, always wanted a game like this one. Probably either give it a rent, or wait for bargain bin.

Nope, they're probably pretty old looking (I've heard from many people). I just don't really care anymore- so much so that I don't really notice anymore. all this talk about graphics makes me want to go play some more Darklands.

Edit: Definitely rent it if you own a console to see if you like it or not. It's very hit-and-miss if the reviews are anything to go by. I found it to be pretty much average, but it doesn't have a modkit like Fallout 3 had, so it doesn't have much hope in the near future.

Done, 13 and a half hours. Pretty damn easy with Shadow Operative and some patience. The only mission that didn't really work was the final mission, but my maxed pistol skills made up for that.

It was pretty good. Story felt... meh... but the presentation was excellent. I really didn't understand what Leland was going on about. How he "used me" and how I was "too dumb" to see the big picture. Doesn't matter now that he has a hole through his head. Camera was jerky but wasn't a problem in combat, just when moving around. I might do 1 more playthrough as a stealthy martial artist.

Killed Deng and Leland (and Madison I guess). Spared Shaheed, Sis, Westridge, and whoever else. I can't even bother remembering there names. Romanced Scarlet and Mina. Wanted to romance Sis but didn't get any opportunity. Hey, she can't say no, amirite?

leland's big picture is basically: get people afraid or trigger happy, then sell them data mining, security, civilian tracking equipment and guns. They were just creating demand. Not a very big picture, really.

Just finished this the other day - you know, it's one of those games (to me) that's inexplicably and simultaneously better than it really should have been, and worse than it had any right to be.

Sure, the graphics aren't... top-notch, but at the same time - they're not horrible or anything. To me, they felt more "dated" than bad - this probably wouldn't have been an issue two years ago or so. And at the same time - they're certainly serviceable enough; and it even pulls off a kind of clean aesthetic. The art direction isn't really notable enough to speak of, and that probably doesn't help either. More than anything, the graphics are simply "mediocre" more than anything else. And considering a target audience of "hard-core" gamers who are constantly spouting off about how graphics don't make a game, I think this aspect got a lot more focus than it probably should have.

And there's some glitches, but I actually didn't encounter anything game-breaking through my time playing the game. It's very "consolized" after a fashion, and most of my own gameplay problems stemmed from trying to use a mouse and keyboard on my PC. Once I broke down and plugged my XBox controller in, it played just fine. I got some odd graphical flaws on rare occasions, during the odd cutscene, but nothing big (and again - I thought we were "above" worrying about graphics... )

There's a certain lack of polish, if anything - which makes the gameplay itself feel like I'm actually playing a budget title. Which is where the strangeness comes in - because as far as the highly-vaunted "choices and consequences" concept comes in, it does that with flying colors. It actually took me by surprise when I started to figure out that what I was doing actually mattered. Literally everything you do, down to how you progress through a mission, has at least a nominal impact on the game - even if it's nothing more than the game saying "yes, I noticed that you did that." I honestly don't think I've played an RPG, ever, that has taken this concept as far as Alpha Protocol did. At times, some of it felt a little bit like Deus Ex, almost - without the realization at the end that all your choice was really an illusion and no matter what you'd done beforehand still boiled down to picking through the same couple of endings.

The plot kind of falls apart after a while, and throwing in boss fights was probably not a very good idea (I haven't sworn at a game in quite some time until I tried to get through Moscow...) Overall, it really isn't as good, on a game level, as it really should have been. A lot of the weapon specializations just didn't feel "right," etc. But if there's ever been a game that's in dire need of a sequel, it's this one. They didn't quite pull it off this time, but I respect these guys simply for attempting what they were trying to accomplish here, and I really hope they get a second chance to learn from these mistakes. Alpha Protocol 1 might not have been Game of the Year material, but an Alpha Protocol 2 could very well have the potential to blow a lot of minds.

In short, I was a little underwhelmed at a lot of the game, but when it comes down to it, I'm still going back for another playthrough, so it can't be all bad, either...

Yeah def bargain bin material.

Good to know. I'm debating it going on my Half.com wishlist.

It's already only about ￡15 on Steam. Thats why I wanted to look at the thread - see if it was worth my money. I'll probably give it a miss. Have a feeling it will be in their sale section before too long...

After my third and probably for a time final playthrough, I think Alpha Protocol is one of the hardest games to give a definitive rating. It's kind of like Fallout 2, only that some ideas are even less fleshed out than in that. Buggy sometimes, but great gameplay, mediocre graphics, but grand storytelling, some feeling of the game being stitched together like a Frankenstein creation, but filled with enjoyable scenes and likeable characters. A game that is worse than it should be, and better than it should be at the same time.
Really weird.

Just finished the game and I disagree with the reviewers who gave this 6.0's or lower. The graphics was just fine though glitching into cover in the middle of a fight and some other bugs were annoying and add that with absurd boss fights then yes I can understand why many would not find the game appealing (Many are into more major titles like MW2). But I do find the adversion to marksmenship based on skill to be without merit who many people does not seem to understand that this is a RPG and not as I have said before a run of the mill shooter and trys to be different from more mainsteam tastes and is criticized for it stemming from a dislike of the unfamiliar.

The plot was familar but not cliche and characters was interersting; if only obsidian were better programers as they were writers. Its also refreshing to have decisions make a larger impact then most other games and with many choices makes for a good deal of replayability. The game seemed a little short however but will still entertain those interested in RPGS. That and I liked how the game kept track on how many orphans you created (For me it was about 160). Chainshot and Shadow Operative as others have said does make many areas passable and add to that with some tech skills makes for a great playthough.

Overall its a good game for roleplayers and give it a 7.0-7.5/10

it keeps track of orphan creation? Damn, I wish I noticed that.

Yes it does. Even so that you can kill people who will likely have fewer children and get a lower "score". ^_^