"Prison Architect" is one of those games that has too much and too little at the same time. All of the updates and content added really doesn't mesh well together most times, and at some point just becomes pointless bells and whistles. There's no coherence between a futuristic prison and a jungle one and an island bound one, and so very soon it just falls back into using the same things, which is mostly vanilla stuff.
But the game does have a good core mechanic at the heart of it. The management aspect is very well done and it does give you ample tools to create exactly what you have in mind; granted, that is a prison. It's a little weird (and dark) to play as a prison architect and trying to make the "best" prison, and there's so long I can go adding amenities to the prison before I realize I'm playing a very screwed-up version of Hotel manager. But the game does give you a series of interlocking system that allows you to cater to your own precise play style.
The campaign is kind of a joke in my opinion. It's good for telling you about the innerworkings of most systems, but it's so over-the-top that there's no connection to it; and yet it does want to have an emotional heart so it never goes too far to become interesting. It's not the best campaign for a management sim out there.
Overall, it's one of those games that I will get into for a few days and design an overly complex prison; and then will lose interest while it comes to micromanaging it because aside from "expansion" there's not much to do (unless you set your own goals). It's a good management sim, that sadly has a bunch of Paradox' crap on top of it, and maybe it can give you a few days of fun.

I have finished the two introductory campaigns, and started the economic campaign, but I have decided to shelf the game for now. It's not very fun. They have stripped down a lot of things that made "Stronghold" games unique in favor of making it speedy. When the biggest "military" strategy is spamming units and when it comes to kingdom building the variety is very low, it's hard to see what in this game will make me keep coming back to it.
It isn't without some strengths though. It looks pretty good (with enough of a throwback not to look sloppy), and it does have novelty of being a "Stronghold" game that isn't European-centric. Also, if you enjoy spamming and having fun with the battles, it's pretty good for that too. But when it comes to core gameplay, I found it very lacking. I will stick with the older ones for now.

I think I love the atmosphere and the concept art WAY more than I care for the gameplay. It hasn't aged well in terms of level design and combat, because both are very frustrating. It's not really fun to traverse the big open plains and the many buildings with convenient ladders attached to them, because after the first hour or two it loses its novelty and the game does nothing unique or interesting with it at all. What you see in the first hour of the game, is what you'll see in the last hour of the game; with little innovation in the middle. So, basically, it becomes a little bit boring.
When each level shows me the big open plain with buildings, routing my journey for me, I have two simultaneous reactions: first of all, I'm in awe. I like the architecture and the atmosphere. I want to know more about this world and explore it deep and see how it ended up the way it did. Secondly, I'm filled with dread. Because I know I have to go through all of these big open spaces, and have monotonous fights with enemies that either will shot at your vitals in their first try or run into a wall headfirst and let you shoot them in the back. But one is overpowering the other one, and that's because the story of the game is also very dumb. It's so lacking in depth that the enjoyment of this worldbuilding and steampunk is dampened heavily, and since the gameplay isn't anything to write home about, it just fizzles every bit of joy from you slowly.
I hate that this game isn't much more than it is. There are good things in it. I really can't say how much I enjoyed the concept of it and how it looks, because it looks good. Not only in terms of graphics (which it does look good for a game that's 15 years old), but in terms of cohesion of style. I really want a RPG game in this world where I can explore it. But this is a shooter. It's a poor shooter too. The parkour and vertical travelling would've been great, if "Assassin's Creed" didn't come out two years before this. It just showcases the jank in this more when you compare the two. It does have some moments that "look cool", but it rarely has any moments that "feel cool".

"Armies of Exigo" is a blatant rip-off of "Warcraft 3" (just look at the opening cinematic), but that doesn't mean it's all that it is. It does rip-off "Warcraft 3" when it comes to aesthetic and core mechanics, but tries to revamp the RTS genre by having two surfaces at all times. It's a fresh take on an old formula and it does lead to some awesome mechanics; which combined with the good graphics (especially for a RTS of its age) and good voice acting and some good music can make some really good moments for the player. There's also leveling up per unit which can incentivize keeping your units alive as long as you can and don't treat them as canon fodder. Sadly though, that is where the strengths of the game comes to an end.
"Armies of Exigo" is one of the worst games when it comes to balancing and strategy, which is a shame because it's also very lacking when it comes to management. On the building and management side it is very lacking, because it has a ton of redundancies. You need to have special buildings for creating unique unites, but those unites need a separate building to get their upgrades; and then those buildings are not needed. So, it becomes really hard to manage your settlement in a moment's notice and it can become very confusing.
On top of that, the game's AI really has issues with focusing on target and will get pummeled if you leave your army alone for a second; which is okay if not for big battles with multiple fronts that needs your attention at all times. Also the game just lacks a lot of quality of life features, which makes the game frustrating. Like how one remaining worker can rebuild a whole settlement for the enemy, but your own workers can barely function. And that's the key word here. Playing "Armies of Exigo" is not fun, it's a chore and it's frustrating.
I will not comment on the story and world-building, because this game really hasn't put enough thought in either of those. The most generic story, with the most generic world. It's "fantasy" in its most basic elements. It lacks cohesion or a history, and because of that just comes across as generic and lackluster, which it is.
When I had first played this game around 15 years ago, I managed to get to the beast section; but for the replay now I managed to go to the end of the empire section. This is one of those games where it supplements challenge for time-consumption. There's no joy in outwitting the enemy AI, because you know exactly how to win over them and it's not with strategy or planning, but with overwhelming numbers. There's no "right" combination of troops to help you get a leg up. It's just who has the most troops, and so it's just turtling until you rack up a massive force and attack them. It's not fun or engaging, and the story isn't compelling enough to make going to the end something you want to do.
It's a shame because there are certain mechanic and elements in this game that really does work and with a better story and balancing, and maybe some better level design, it could've become an instant classic. Right now it's a forgotten RTS, and sadly, it's easy to see why.

It's perhaps one of my favorite games of all time and one of the best strategy games of all time. I know it will always live under the shadow of "Age of Empires II", but the variety of units and the crazy atmosphere, mixed with one hell of a campaign that keeps you coming back to it over and over again, makes the game incredibly fun.
This might be one of my most cherished games when it comes to a narrative, because of its mechanics and uses of it, and it's an RTS game! The campaign is the cherry on top. The skirmishes are also very fun. Sadly haven't played any multiplayer so I can't comment on that, but the game as a whole is so fun and so incredible that it is one of my easiest recommendations to anyone.

There's a lot to enjoy in this game, and I did enjoy parts of it very much. It's not like an espionage RPG is something so abundant that we have a lot to compare this game to, but at the same time even based on its own merits the game does have a myriad of issues. I think it's best to divide the good and the bad.
The good stuff about the game are usually about the variety of choices. It is obvious that the game is trying to have enough branches to satisfy your playthrough. Though it does suffer from a lot of stylistic choices that was prominent in its release date (like the timer on the dialogues and vague titles for where the conversation would lead). The cover-shooting is also quite fun. Though it is not the best of its kind, it is still fun to hide behind some covers and try to shoot your enemy; and the game does force you to do it a lot as well.
There's also a lot of different ways of approaching your mission, and a lot of different toys for different play styles. My own play style was mainly using pistols with silencers, and trying to stay hidden. That meant not using any explosives or big guns, but I could see how you can approach the missions in a different style as well. Another strong point is the characters. Though they are not beyond cliches, they are still fun to interact with. The fact that you can skip fights and talk to them, and get out information from them is fun. Even though the story is kind of obvious (you can almost see everything coming a mile off), the characters make it fun to experience that story. I can say that one full star of this review is reserved for characters like Mina, Heck, Marburg and definitely Parker.
The dialogue options and the variety of them is also worthy of commendation, and is the reason I kept on playing the game. The fact that there are so many different dialogues based on what you've done (and the order you've done them in), makes the game appear incredibly replay-able. I say appear, because I don't think I want to replay the game.
Probably the biggest issue with the game is an identity problem. It does let you tailor your own play style, but it doesn't matter what you do, because at the end you will have to fight a group of people coming at you. It does show that we have been spoiled by "Hitman" games, because for a game that does have a stealth mechanic it is very lacking in stealth options. As I said, my preferred method of dealing with the missions was going in stealthy and just using my pistol with a silencer. But I still couldn't escape "boss fights" or horde modes (where lots of enemies start approaching a tight corridor to fight you). It makes it feel like you've done something wrong that you can't leave unannounced, before you realize that's where the game was going to go nevertheless.
Also balancing is another problem. It's really easy to min-max your character and break the game. Throughout the second half of the game, I was just running up and hitting people, because I knew the stealth mechanics weren't fully fleshed out and that was the most "silent" way. My character was so overpowered in hand-to-hand combat that I even beat three of the bosses by punching them. Though that might sound fun, the problem is that boss fights and fights in general can either be so easy that they're unsatisfying, or so repetitive and broken that they become annoying. Marburg is the worst offender because if you don't want to hide behind a statue and shoot him and want to actually "engage" with him, it's nearly impossible to beat him. So the game actually encourages you to cheese it.
Also, it is kind of a missed opportunity that the game's ending really is "the ending" where it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. I know it's an older game, and I do not want to nitpick, but I was hoping to discuss the aftermath of my choices with some people. There were some connections made with the characters that I wanted to explore in the aftermath, but the game ends with a cutscene and it's all over. And that cutscene, though it does reflect certain choices, is not conclusive enough to be satisfying.
Overall, I think "Alpha Protocol" was an ambitious title. Sadly, it didn't reach its own ambitions. Despite it trying to have enough story branches and little moments to immerse you, it does lack in terms of mechanics to make it engaging. It's not a bad cover-shooter, but it wasn't made to be one. So, the fact that it pushes you into it makes it almost unforgivable. It's a game that needs re-playablity, but the sum of its parts is not fun enough to make you want to go back and replay it. I don't suggest it, unless you are very keen in trying it. As I said, the market for espionage rpgs is not very wide, so, if you have to, I guess you can. It does run pretty well for a decade old game, and I didn't encounter many issues in playing it other than the occasional bug. It does have some outdated playing mechanics, but nothing that makes it unplayable.

It is an interesting blend, with lots of good ideas. The old graphics does also add to the charm. The problem is mostly in UI optimization (I have done so many stuff that I didn't want to do that it's almost embarrassing), and the aim for complexity makes the game a little too hard to get into. Despite the tutorial, it feels like so many features and other things are either hidden or not explained properly. I do enjoy the idea and the mixture of "Crusader Kings" and "Total War" in it, but I don't think I will clamor to get back to it; despite the apparent charm.