Bond, Bauer or Bourne?
Which path will you take in Alpha Protocol? Trick question! It’ll probably be the same buggy one. It’ll also be rather enjoyable.
Published: July 1, 2010
Over the years, Obsidian entertainment has gotten something of a reputation for two big things, and neither of them is especially enviable. They’re known for shipping games after their release dates have slid more than a bit, and when they finally do ship a game... it doesn’t seem done -- often with serious chunks of the game still residing on the disc that are completely unplayable. This happened, most notably, with their work on Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2, taking over where BioWare left off in the first chapter.
Here’s the problem, though: for all the bugs and the lack of polish, all the missed release dates and cut content, there’s very clearly a good game just waiting to be played. The things that should detract from other games somehow manage to be nothing more than missed potential and could’ve-beens. Such is the case with Alpha Protocol, a game that has been in development for ages, and demonstrates two very salient points about Obsidian’s particular way of doing things: they aim ridiculously high with their concepts and ultimately end up somewhere between abject failure and blockbuster status.
Alpha Protocol is not a bad game. It’s not the game it could have been either, but despite being a mess of unpolished rough spots, it’s still an experience worth, well, experiencing, and that’s something I rarely say about a game so obviously mired in confused developmental directions. Something happened during the course of this game’s germination from initial concepts to final burned product to keep it from properly becoming what it should have been, and that’s a shame. It would be an even bigger one, though, to simply discount it as a horribly confused mess without giving it the chance to really shine.
If there’s one trend that has emerged recently, it’s that of giving the player multiple choices along the way to make of their game what they will. Heavy Rain did it most famously on the PS3 earlier this year, but it’s something that has bubbled through the libraries of the PC and 360 just as often with games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2. The idea that small interactions with characters can have lasting repercussions on both the world your heroes/heroines are traipsing around in and in future conversations with those same characters is a heady one.
Imagine if game characters didn’t have the long-term memory of a lobotomized amnesiac? Imagine that if you said something one way, that statement would follow you through the rest of your relationship with that person you’ve interacted with? We’re not quite to that point yet, but it’s important to see where the goalposts are as we get there, and Alpha Protocol deserves as much a spot at the head of the movement as any other game.
The whole idea, if you weren’t informed enough by all those videos we’ve been posting for what seems like years now, is that you’re allowed to approach every conversation with three basic kinds of responses: Suave, Aggressive and Professional. There’s plenty of wiggle room to mix and match, but these effectively line up with three of the biggest spy archetypes out there; James Bond, Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne, respectively. It allows for a potentially incredible amount of escapist role-playing -- precisely what these games are supposed to offer -- but the end result is far less spectacular.
Here’s the problem, though: for all the bugs and the lack of polish, all the missed release dates and cut content, there’s very clearly a good game just waiting to be played. The things that should detract from other games somehow manage to be nothing more than missed potential and could’ve-beens. Such is the case with Alpha Protocol, a game that has been in development for ages, and demonstrates two very salient points about Obsidian’s particular way of doing things: they aim ridiculously high with their concepts and ultimately end up somewhere between abject failure and blockbuster status.
Alpha Protocol is not a bad game. It’s not the game it could have been either, but despite being a mess of unpolished rough spots, it’s still an experience worth, well, experiencing, and that’s something I rarely say about a game so obviously mired in confused developmental directions. Something happened during the course of this game’s germination from initial concepts to final burned product to keep it from properly becoming what it should have been, and that’s a shame. It would be an even bigger one, though, to simply discount it as a horribly confused mess without giving it the chance to really shine.
If there’s one trend that has emerged recently, it’s that of giving the player multiple choices along the way to make of their game what they will. Heavy Rain did it most famously on the PS3 earlier this year, but it’s something that has bubbled through the libraries of the PC and 360 just as often with games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2. The idea that small interactions with characters can have lasting repercussions on both the world your heroes/heroines are traipsing around in and in future conversations with those same characters is a heady one.
Imagine if game characters didn’t have the long-term memory of a lobotomized amnesiac? Imagine that if you said something one way, that statement would follow you through the rest of your relationship with that person you’ve interacted with? We’re not quite to that point yet, but it’s important to see where the goalposts are as we get there, and Alpha Protocol deserves as much a spot at the head of the movement as any other game.
The whole idea, if you weren’t informed enough by all those videos we’ve been posting for what seems like years now, is that you’re allowed to approach every conversation with three basic kinds of responses: Suave, Aggressive and Professional. There’s plenty of wiggle room to mix and match, but these effectively line up with three of the biggest spy archetypes out there; James Bond, Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne, respectively. It allows for a potentially incredible amount of escapist role-playing -- precisely what these games are supposed to offer -- but the end result is far less spectacular.
