Picador said,

I played through Alpha Protocol and found it to be pretty enjoyable. It certainly had much better writing than 90% of RPGs I’ve played. I don’t remember any significant bugs, either. I think you’re right that this must have been a case of over-hype — I was lucky to be insulated from most of that, and bought it for $17 a few months ago. Neat little game, if not spectacular.

Robert said,

Alpha Protocol was a quite enjoyable game. Not one for RPG purists of course, but I enjoyed some of the RPG elements, the writing was good, and the action parts were mostly OK.

To note: I played it on the XBox, which had no glaring bugs that I know of.

My personal worst RPG would be Final Fantasy XIII: which bored me to tears after about six hours.

McTeddy said,

You know… this may lose me some respect… but I’ve played most of those games and I enjoyed them. I’m sorry Matt.

I loved Alpha Protocol… enjoyed LoL 3 and Myths of Drannor… and even didn’t hate Ultima 9. Hell… I am twisted enough that I actually enjoy the sequel to heroes of the lance quite a bit.

I think part of Matt’s distaste for these games stems from disappointment… which since I go BACK and plays I don’t get. I won’t argue that any of these games lived up to their predecessors… but I think that the ones I played could stand fairly well on their own.

I suppose though, if these games lead to Mass Effect 2 being called an RPG… damn all these games straight to hell, DAMN THEM!

Andy_Panthro said,

I pre-ordered Alpha Protocol. It was my first pre-order (my last was The Witcher 2. I will always wait in future), and I really enjoyed it.

It helped, I think, that I was playing it with a 360 pad (almost a necessity in these days of poor console ports), and I didn’t have any particular high hopes for it.

The biggest complaint I heard about it was bugginess, but I had far more bugs in Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2 (game breaking bugs or crashing to desktop). The only significant bug I had in AP was on a quicksave reload (enemies that were dead/unconscious fell from the sky and were alive again), and all that was required to sort it out was to load the save again.

It got a lot of hate, and I think that has something more to do with Obsidian than anything else. They now have a reputation for not living up to their hype, for delivering buggy or unfinished games.

I’m on more of a pro-Obsidian side (not that we should take sides or anything!), and am looking forward to playing New Vegas once I’ve finished VTM: Bloodlines.

Silent said,

I’m uncomfortable with “worst RPG” lists because too often a bad RPG is an excellent game that was branded as an RPG and wasn’t an RPG enough (or not under the right angle for the player). Also, when I dislike a game, I generally decide that it’s my fault, and that I fail to enjoy it through the right perspective. Is “Dungeon Siege” the worst RPG ever ? It’s a derivative hack’n’slash, but, hey, maybe a good derivative hack’n’slash. Is “Titan Quest” a bad RPG ? Who would even consider it an RPG ? Is “Final Fantasy” a bad RPG ? It’s got anime graphics, so YES.

The two RPGs I didn’t manage to enjoy were “Rise of Magic” and “Dungeon Lord”. And now, someone on this website claims he managed to enjoy the latter. Maybe I should just have tried harder.

Also, as someone pointed out in his comments, Matt Barton illustrates “Lands of Lore III” with a picture of “Lands of Lore II”, which was a very very charming game (though I believe it must have aged very badly, by now). Was it even an RPG ? I doubt so, but still, could a good RPG retroactively become a bad one ?

I love “Hammer and Sickle”, and I don’t know if it’s a good (aka proper) RPG, or just a turn-based tactical game. But I think it had some lethal flaws, in particular how your decisions would invisibly shape the story, leading to many dead-ends without you realising it or understanding why. I think it was very very ambitious, in that respect, but it aimed at an open gameplay that it couldn’t afford. Can a game be both one of my favorite and least favorite RPGs ?

And some people had called “Hellgate London” an RPG. Probably before it was released. Oh dear, what can I say…

Xian said,

I agree with Dungeon Master II. I loved the first and Chaos Strikes Back, but the sequel just paled in comparison. I guess it was one of the first games I remember where the sequel did not improve on it’s predecessor. I was used to Ultima IV > Ultima III > Ultima II, Crusaders of the Dark Savant being better than Bane of the Cosmic Forge, and so on. These days it seems to be a common occurrence – the sequel not being as good as the original, but that is the first one I can remember being so disappointed.

I probably would have picked Ultima VIII over IX, though I didn’t dislike either. I had played both Crusader games before Ultima VIII so I was pretty used to that control scheme by then.

My worst would probably be jRPGs. I have tried multiple times to get into various ones, FF7, Chronoquest, and others that are highly rated and they just never grabbed me.

Barry Brenesal said,

“Hmm, Matt seems to have an ax to grind against action-game elements.”

I agree–and I happen to really like turn-based RPGs, too. He hits Lands of Lore III for that, for instance, while ignoring what’s arguably its worst feature–the completely exposed linearity of each part: get to the maze, go the exact opposite corner, and that’s where what you want will be. And he never mentions the truly innovative stuff: the four very different companions, complete with separate powers, AI, and personalities, depending on your professions choice, and the unique guild zone each profession gets, with distinct buffs and charges.

And Ultima IX wasn’t about action, at all. Though Matt gets it right that Garriott was haring off after an Idea, the Idea was being within your environment. He knew that this was what makes an RPG, and his mid Ultima releases had plenty of that, but then he began to feel that your character shouldn’t have time to think, since that took away from the experience–they should only have time to react.

So action is a symptom in Ultima IX’s case, not a cause of the problem. Well, that and the bad graphics engine, the awful AI, and the mind-numbing bugs.

AgreetoDisagree said,

I love me Matt Barton and especially his Matt Chat videos interviews.

However that Alpha Protocol entry on the list is rubbish. He offers absolutely no substantial criticism about it…so much so that even I doubt he even played it and just bought into the “it’s a typical Obsidian bugfest” agenda the popular gaming journalism was pushing.

Maybe he just wanted to type a quick rant out, fine. But if he laid out some examples of “OMG extreme bugginess it’s called Alpha because that was its state of release, lol” it will sit better with me, but I highly doubt he played it and seems like he’s just adding to the others who are misrepresenting an underrated gem.

Bad Sector said,

I didn’t like the “action = stupid” association. There are many action games that at points require thinking (like the first jedi knight) and many rpg games that require twitch reflexes (like, for example, Dungeon Master from his “best” list).

Other than that i cannot comment on the games themselves since i haven’t played them. But i’ve heard good comments about Alpha Protocol in general from players who usually go all “they dont make good rpgs anymore” (of course i’ve also heard about the game’s bug infestation problem).

Barry Brenesal said,

“Certainly the U9 dungeons are more fun than anything seen in Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallouts, etc.”

I would have to disagree with this. U9 dungeons were pretty simple and very plain, while Morrowind and Oblivion dungeons often have multiple areas to explore, sometimes with no single payoff (ie, get to the Great Goofball and bring me her Sword of Smiting +91). Oblivion, for all that it has a ton of problems, offers numerous different dungeon traps, multiple levels (so you can jump/fall down and continue exploring), and enemies that can heal/buff one another. Now, had you said Ultima Underworld, I’d be more inclined to say it drew about even with Morrowind: every dungeon, in every area, had a purpose. But U9 didn’t honestly impress me.

“As far as worst games, I remember Legends of Valour beging really bad back in the day. It came on the heels of Ultima Underworld, and was inferior in just about every way. It was a purchase I regretted. It came out in 1992, and I think it was published by SSI.”

Absolutely. And worse yet, one writer/editor who highly thought of himself (I worked for the guy, briefly, before he was fired) actually praised it as his favorite RPG of the year when it came out–because you could look in windows and see something resembling the interior. This, despite being one of the buggiest RPGs I’ve ever played, and one that was never fixed.

I reviewed LoV when it first came out, after submitting a list of bugs to the developers, and asking for some assistance. I never heard back. It was a disaster of a title.

But I’m sorry to see SSI went away. During their heyday, they did some interesting and distinctive games, and put some money behind things that were at least a bit imaginative. Unlike the big games companies nowadays, ruled by their accounting departments.

user@example.com said,

Also, you should really play it again – the wonderful thing about it is that the replay value isn’t in “playing it again with a different play style” as such, it’s more “playing it again and making different decisions and doing things differently, even minor background things, and seeing just how much the game is willing to change in events, cutscenes and conversations to accommodate your changes”. Speaking of conversations… the combination of good dialogue, a Mass Effect style dialogue wheel (that’s implemented /well/) and a timer so that you have to choose the next option on the fly works brilliantly. The conversations feel much more natural than anything else I’ve played, and some of the tensest and most dramatic moments in the game are in conversations.

There’s also an achievement for hanging up on lots of people mid-chat, which helps, and when I mention “good writing” above I feel I should warn you that choosing “suave” options often ends up with terrible Bond one-liners that cause nearby NPCs to facepalm, but hey.

It’s relatively short for an RPG, too. Well worth giving it another go! As long as it doesn’t stop you working on your own game, of course. I’ve been following its development for a while and am looking forward to it!

Silent said,

Having played half of it so far, I understand why people would rank it amongst the worst RPGs. It’s indeed badly bugged (often freezes and requires ctrl-alt-del on reload), it’s a series of very linear missions with kotor physics (your superspy can hack through security doors but is hopelessly blocked by a stool on his path – invisible walls make everything a corridor), the dialogues are based on very vague and ambiguous answer choices (I’d prefer more awareness of the answers you’re about to select, I also prefer answering AFTER the question was asked instead of having to select your line while your interlocutor is still talking), and other type of choices are artificially explicit (you’re often presented with the clear choice to go avert one of two catastrophies occuring simultaneously, a bit in the fashion of old school batman drama). And the interface constantly reminds you that you are not supposed to be playing this on a PC.

So, the RPG aspect feels like a very rigid branching system, often dependant on opaque dialogue choices (labelled with just one word). And the gameplay itself is a bit clumsy : the sneaking aspect isn’t fantastic, fields of visions are a bit arbitrary, new baddies get spawned by absurd scripts, and this poor mechanic is compensated by your ability to turn invisible for a few seconds (out-of-place mass effect technology). It suffers terribly from the comparison with other sneaking games – NOLF was doing it brilliantly, Death to Spies aswell with the added sense of infiltration (and variety of approaches) given by the possibility to use disguises, making it feel much more like a spy game than Alpha Protocol. This is just a sub-Hitman, with the added gadget of a branching story (it’d take a replay to evaluate to what extend) and its impact on mission parameters (such as NPCs being allies of enemies depending on your relation to such or such faction).

I am actually enjoying it, just like I have been enjoying Mass Effect, because it’s quite decent if you don’t expect too much. If you hope to really incarnate a character, you have to be warned that this is a bit impossible – 3 or 4 dialogue options, indirectly selected, seldom letting you feel your actions are yours. If you hope to sneak around and infiltrate various guards-filled locations, be aware this is no NOLF, Death to Spies or Arkham Asylum, and avoid playing it right after one of these. If you felt lost in Hammer & Sickle (the closest attempt at RPG spying with obscure repercussions decisions), be warned that Alpha Protocol may be awfully overcompensating some of its flaws. But as an earthly Mass Effect with fewer dialogues, fewer decisions, less clarity, but potentially more significant choices, it’s amusing enough.

Also, in my opinion, any game that generates very contrasted opinions is worth playing. I imagine quite a few readers would be curious about a Coyote opinion. I hope Alpha Protocol will get its blog entry here some day. It’s an interesting game, for what it attempts to be (or not), and for the flaws and qualities that different players see in it. It’s cheap enough, nowadays, to be worth being tried out. And maybe it illustrates well what different people expect of what they call RPGs.