Brain Candy

Gameplay Vs. Game Premise


Some gamers need solid gameplay to lead them to the end of a game, and that's no fault on them. From old games like Doom to newer ones like the Black Ops or Modern Warfare 2, we see proof that solid, reliable mechanics are all it takes to drive a game home. Yes, Call of Duty games have a story, but that isn't the focal point. It's eight to ten hours of explosions to get you ready for multiplayer, and there's nothing wrong with that. Other gamers, like myself, are far more driven by story and development. The Mass Effect series comes to mind, especially since the gameplay in the first Mass Effect game was lacking in some areas. Of the two, gameplay or premise, which is more important?

A few days ago my brother bought Alpha Protocol. It was used and pretty cheap, but he bought it because I've been talking about it for a while. If you've heard of Alpha Protocol, than you know its sad, sad story. A story more twisted and intriguing than a serial killer, with character interaction and development punctuated by short- and long-term consequences to your actions, all lost under the sea of broken mechanics and shitty gameplay. I'm here to tell you that every bit of this is true. In the five hours I've had my paws on Alpha Protocol, several missions have been spoiled by AI that is borderline retarded. For example, a guard was suspicious of a noise I made to distract him, but instead of going to investigate the noise, he walked towards me. He didn't see me at all, but he was clearly homing in on my exact position.

Frustration after frustration, Alpha Protocol is a game that I can't stop thinking about, no matter how many times I try to tell myself it's terrible. Back to Mass Effect, one of the big hooks is actions and consequences. You can talk to people and be good, bad, or neutral. How people think of you affects your endgame in the form of your close friends dying or humanity thinking you're a total dick. That's great and all, but that game assumes everyone hates an aggressive person and loves a kiss-ass. The characters in Alpha Protocol have different expectations. There's a female character who dresses quite provocatively, and reacts well to aggressiveness and suave attitudes, but not very well to being objectified and viewed as a sex symbol. Another character, Sean Darcy, is a cocky prick who thinks he's the funniest guy alive. You can get on his good side by joking back to him and giving him underhanded compliments, but he's bothered by kiss-assery. These dynamic and unique characters give the game a truly unique feel, and takes away the written-in-stone lines between good and bad.

The game did not sell very well, despite its hugely engrossing world and interaction system, and it didn't sell because the action mechanics are, honestly, pretty terrible. As a result, the realistic consequence system and ditching of the almighty Karma meter are going to be buried and forgotten. The premise and scope of the game are pretty awesome, but it fell short of glory because of its broken gameplay. It feels janky and unpolished, and it's a shame because a few more months would have done the game well. I believe that mechanics are more important than the premise of a game but, with that said, I will always opt for a game with a good premise and promising features. People who make games should always try to push the envelope (within a reasonable amount, of course) and deliver unique, fulfilling gameplay experiences, and Alpha Protocol is oh so fulfilling.

When it works, that is.