Talk:Alpha Protocol

Reception

The reception area of this page is very biased as to present that the game received reviews either praising the game or calling it mediocre. Where the facts are that the game has received mostly poor reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.141.198 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact is the game is barely available, so it is too soon to tell how well or bad it is received.MarkHavel (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's actually biased towards the negative reviews, it goes into detail explaining the lower reviews but just kind of brushes aside the more positive ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.213.244 (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Should we mention for all the non russian speaking folks that the official trailer featured a plaque with text in russian that if directly translated into english will be "In case of fire (in big letters) steal kill f#ck ducks wait for return call"? =) 83.255.121.215 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Mention should be made that the pc version has recieved considerably more favorable reviews than the xbox 360 or PS3 version, as the pc version has a metacritic rating of 74/100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.251.148 (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like it shipped about 80% complete. But anyone who has played a game developed by Obsidian should not be surprised. 72.73.44.104 (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The funny part is how they manage to be better then those games that ship 100% complete.

-Grand Commander13 (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much of an interest in Alpha Protocol but I couldn't help but notice the reference of the Australian show Good Game. Their two presenters are essentially everyday gamers pulled off the street. To refer to them as legitimate reviewers and their opinions as notable is a bit much and for me, just outlines how absurb it is how WP relies on the opinions of anyone with a fancy title above their name to define a game's reception. Stuntaneous (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm Australian and I fully agree with this comment. I really don't think they're notable enough as reviewers to even be mentioned. 180.216.110.175 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

First Pass

Started going through and rewriting/citing some of the citations based on the GamesRadar first look, which I added to the references section. I also added a preview from CVG. I'm still pretty new to editing Wikipedia (hoping to learn some of the language by editing this page), so if anyone wishes to clean up my edits, feel free to do so; I'll learn from your edits. Mellisan (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The hub city of...winsted CT?

Gee, wasn't that one located somewhere near the country of Africa? Gimmick Account (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

High five dude.--76.174.34.216 (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Characters

We know the names of several characters in the game. Isn't it time someone updated that section? I'd do it myself but I'm working two jobs right now and am pretty busy. Skyrocket (talk) 22:10, 8 August 30 2009 (UTC)

I've already set up a wiki for all AP in-universe information; I think that should be the standard editing grounds for now. PastramiX (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[|http://alphaprotocol.wikia.com/wiki/Alpha_Protocol_Wiki]

Release Date

The release date is wrong. I've seen it quoted a lot of places, but Word o' God says it's going on November Second.

I'm a lazy twat though so I don't feel like updating the article.

Only one thing does say that.Don't see it on the other gaming sites like G4 and Gamespot.I say wait --Forrestdfuller (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2009 (EST)

• The problem is no source can seem to argee. Some announced spring, the official website still says october. --24.67.119.56 (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[1] says october, but [2] says spring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.16.4 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• The official release date has now been added, confirmed by Sega and Obsidian --The_PC_Gamer (talk)

• There is a new pack front image for this game. Can someone please update the image on the page? It's located at [3]. Sigmaration (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Customization Flaw?

Mentioned under the customization section is "A large list of guns is shown in some demos as well, mostly under fictional names. Some exceptions to this are the FN Five-seven, FN P90, the FN F2000 and the M4A1.". However, none of these weapons actually show up in game. Does that warrant removal? HaikenEdge (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The video game style guide states that it's inappropriate to list gameplay items and weapons. The game has already been released, so demonstration information should be removed. Yes, you can remove that information from article. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Useful source

• http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-09-06-the-making-of-alpha-protocol-obsidians-secret-best-rpg Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alpha Protocol/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 12:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   I'd wikilink third-person perspective in the lead

   "whose level caps are fifteen" - this isn't helpful; fifteen in comparison to what? I'd drop this, or just specify level caps exist without assigning an arbitrary number to it.

   "a photojournalist with many contacts whom he meets in Taipei" - does he meet the photojournalist of the photojournalist's contacts in Taipei?

   'the game was a "Jason Bourne adventure"' - accordingly to whom?

   "They also took inspiration from other games and films" - I'd separate the games and films, as in 'they took inspiration from games X, Y and Z, as well as films A, B and C', but up to you

   "and can "never really sure" who their" - grammar in direct quote?

   "sending quality assurance and cohesion strike teams avoid problems" - grammar

   "to avoid competition with other blockbuster titles" - specifying what these were would be of interest, if the information is available of course

   'received the "Exclusive Assault Pack" and the "Stealth Weapons Pack"' - this could use some more explanation for non-gamer readers. Perhaps mention the packs give the players access to additional weapons, assuming that is the case

   "found to be dumb" - this seems a bit un-encyclopeadic, I suggest rewording it

   "calling boring when it tries to be serious" - grammar?

   "Tan called it a strange hybrid with disappointing and average gameplay, and provocative RPG systems, and called it a divisive title" - this is a very awkward sentence (two used of 'called' reads poorly)

   "Retrospectively, the game's reputation improved" - define retrospectively; mention what years these subsequent reviews came out

   "and other games should learn from it" - syntax? How about 'and said that other games should learn from it"?

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   The 1UP source is dead. An archived version exists though: [4]

   Copyvio finds one match at 42%; I'd try and trim it down a bit: [5]

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Some of the prose is a bit clunky. I made some copyedits myself, but I think it could benefit from some more. I'm happy to pass it once the issues above are addressed though. Looks very good overall. Placing on hold. Freikorp (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: - Thanks for the review! I have addressed the issues you have mentioned above. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm happy to pass this now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)