If you go into Alpha Protocol expecting it to play like a pure-bred RPG, then you’ll be disappointed. If you go in wanting a Metal Gear or Splinter Cell game, you’ll still be disappointed. Yet if you accept it for the hybrid of genres that it is, you’ll be pleased with the end result.

While Alpha Protocol feels a lot like Mass Effect, there are some key differences between developers Obsidian and Bioware that keep the two games from being too comparable. Alpha Protocol is a very focused game where every mission holds importance to the story. You don’t have to do all the missions, and you can do the missions in any order you want, but other than that it’s a pretty straightforward affair. If you feel Bioware RPG’s are small compared to Bethesda games, then Alpha Protocol is going to seem minute.

The game also has no patience for long strings of text itself. While in Bioware games you are often given multiple different dialog trees to choose from to carry on conversation, Alpha Protocol forces you into choosing a response immediately to carry on the current discussion. As characters speak with you during cut-scenes you will be given three different responses tied to a corresponding button. Suave, Aggressive and Professional. If you have enough intel on a character or have chosen a specific class, you will also get a fourth conditional response option that you may not get as other classes or in other playthroughs.

For some this will seem as an RPG failure. The overall game is roughly twelve or so hours and part of that is because there is no option to sit in discussion and learn everything you possibly can for half an hour. Yet this also keeps the game very focused and engaging. It may take some adjustment but on the whole it is a dialog system that would do much better making cut-scenes interactive than those God awful Quick Time Events. Simultaneously, because you only get one chance at a response the replay value is greatly boosted.

Which is what Alpha Protocol has over the titles of Bethesda and Bioware. Sure their games offer a lot of hours on a single play through, but starting a new game requires a lot more dedication due to all the repeated content. They work much better on a first playthrough than subsequent playthroughs*.

The conversation system plays out very well, too. Most RPG’s align responses as good, evil or neutral. Instead Alpha Protocol takes a more morally ambiguous approach. If you so choose, everyone in the game can like you. At the same time, everyone can hate you. If you choose to play a specific personality you’ll find a decent enough mixture. It’s not about alignment but personality and how you deal with those people. The insane eccentric can be your ally or he can be your foe. Try and flirt with the Russian Mercenary or speak with her professionally and she’ll grow bored of you fast. Talk to her aggressively and she’ll be more and more attracted to you.

It’s a conversation system that not only sets the game apart from other RPG’s, but other games in general. The characters begin to feel more like people than archetypes due to how responses are handled. It will also have an effect on how many of the game’s events play out toward the end. This same philosophy carries over when the game asks you to make a plot-important choice. There is never a choice that is blatantly good or blatantly bad. They just determine future events as well as effect the replayability of the game itself.

The plot may not be some sprawling epic that stretches across forty to a hundred hours, but it’s certainly engaging and told in an expert manner. Unfortunately there’s also so much dossier information and so many characters it can be confusing for some players. In fact, I’ve already seen a number of reviewers claim it makes no sense on a first playthrough. I highly disagree, but in the end it’s going to depend on what sort of person you are. It made perfect sense to me, but maybe a section in the menu to summarize the events going on would have worked better.

As for the gameplay itself, that’s where things get really tricky. If you approach this game with the wrong mindset then you’ll likely have a tough time playing it. The best chance of survival you have is to pick one weapon and two or three other skills to specialize in, and they must all complement each other. If you want a stealthy character, then focus on a pistol, stealth and sabotage. If you want a tank then focus on something like the shotgun, toughness and martial arts. If you try to spread your abilities too thin then you will have trouble the entire game.

That said, no matter how well you match your abilities up the game is unbalanced. The pistol is almost single-handedly capable of breaking the game for multiple reasons. After taking a few levels you can line up headshots and fire while in cover, never popping your head out for enemies to see. Once bosses approach you can freeze time and line up as many head shots as you want, making short work of foes meant to take a while.

At the same time, the final level is so action-oriented that the pistol is almost a liability. It’s a weapon built on patience, and time is of the essence towards the game’s conclusion. Ultimately each weapon does have its use, and it would have been nice if there were enough skill points to become a master of two weapons. As it is, unless you specialize in machine gun, shotgun or submachine guns then there will be many situations that prove a severe frustration. In particular bosses, who have so much armor and health it’s almost an endurance test trying to defeat them.

Of course, the game does reward for clever gameplay, as each weapon and skill specialization has combat abilities that can be used to give the player the advantage. If you specialize in them gadgets can also come in handy, allowing you to spread traps and distract foes so that you can whittle them down, disable them and make short work of them. It all depends on how you play.

If you want to play the game as a straight-forward shooter, then you need to choose the appropriate stats for it and make sure you use your abilities well. This is where Alpha Protocol will either be a lot of fun or it will completely suck. That said, I still recommend specializing in pistol, stealth and sabotage. Playing this game as a super spy just feels so appropriate and makes it that much more fun on the whole.

What truly counts, and shoots this game well past Mass Effect in terms of gameplay quality, is the enemy A.I. They aren’t stupid. They aren’t just running around for the sake of moving. They seek out cover, shoot from cover and act differently depending on the sort of weapon they are carrying. They behave as foes in a shooting game should.

Which, on the whole, is what you get with Alpha Protocol. It may not be as big as a Bioware or Bethesda title and it may not allow the freedom. Yet what is there tends to be a lot more polished and fun. Which is interesting since the game was struck by many players and publications due to being very bugged. The game could be patched or it could depend on platform played, but the 360 version at least didn’t have much trouble when I played it. Take from that what you will.

In terms of games thus far released in 2010, I’d say Alpha Protocol is a prime candidate for being one of the best. If you play it with the expectations of being an RPG or being a shooter/stealth game, you’ll likely become disappointed. Yet if you have an open mind to it then there’s a lot of good to be found in both the story and the gameplay.

*Note this is coming from someone who played through both Dragon Age and Mass Effect two or three times each.

Discuss this game on the forums.