I saw several actual gameplay videos before deciding that this would be a waste of money. Too much good stuff coming in Q1.
How have they explained away the massive gap in time? The mission to LV-426 would be declared overdue after 17 days. So, assume a 34 day round trip, add in time to prep a ship and gather a crew and some marines, say, a week/10 days, round up to the nearest 10 for stopping aoof at the services for toilet breaks and you have 50 days. Where does 17 weeks come from?
How did Hadley's Hope survive a thermonuclear explosion the size of Nebraska?
Why are there so many Aliens running around when there could only have been a maximum (assuming they could outrun the aforementioned blast) of around 90 or so from 159 (number of colonists + Apone & Dietrich)?
How did the Sulaco survive the enchecked electrical fire which preceeded the EEV being jettisoned?
Bloody-Disgusting 3.5/5
Digital Gaudium 5/10
Gamespy 2/5
VG24/7 No Score
Arstechnica Verdict: Skip it
NowGamer 5/10
Polygon 3/10
Kotaku Should you play this game? No.
Eurogamer 3/10
Gamespot 4.5/10
Forbes 8/10
IGN UK 4.5/10
Destructoid 2.5/10
PCGamer 48/100
InsideGamingDaily 5/10
The Escapist 3/5
VentureBeat 60/100
CVG 6.2/10
PCWorld 1/5
Gametrailers 5.9/10
El33tonline 2/5
Gamerzines 58%
EGMnow 9/10
thesixaxis 5/10
OXM UK 6/10
Official Playstation Magazine UK 6/10
gamesradar 2.5/5
SPOnG 5/10
Metro UK 4/10
theguardian 4/5
Penny-Arcade No score
Adam Sessler 2/5
Someone on another forum gathered together all of the released review scores so far.
So yes, people are convinced that is going to be terrible because the overall consensus is that it is pretty terrible.
It is hard to expect anything good when it is being hit with constant low scores.
Funny thing there is, an awful lot of the reviews seem to be giving it around 6/10 and yet a review that gives if 9/10 is being criticised for being biased.
What about the reviews that are giving it really low marks, though?
I kinda get the impression that a lot of reviewers "smell blood in the water" and write a critical review on that basis.
I recall, when AVP2 was released, if faced similar criticism which history has taught us wasn't entirely deserved.
I saw several actual gameplay videos before deciding that this would be a waste of money. Too much good stuff coming in Q1.
How have they explained away the massive gap in time? The mission to LV-426 would be declared overdue after 17 days. So, assume a 34 day round trip, add in time to prep a ship and gather a crew and some marines, say, a week/10 days, round up to the nearest 10 for stopping aoof at the services for toilet breaks and you have 50 days. Where does 17 weeks come from?
How did Hadley's Hope survive a thermonuclear explosion the size of Nebraska?
Why are there so many Aliens running around when there could only have been a maximum (assuming they could outrun the aforementioned blast) of around 90 or so from 159 (number of colonists + Apone & Dietrich)?
How did the Sulaco survive the enchecked electrical fire which preceeded the EEV being jettisoned?
I asked many of the same questions in a previous post.
It's certainly doubtful whether or not the game could really be described as "canon" but that doesn't neccesarily mean it's a bad game.
Must say, I haven't played the game yet so I don't know what the story is but, having watched a couple of videos of the first levels, I also wonder where the aliens found sufficient hosts to provide the cannon-fodder for those levels.
Are we to assume that, after originally sending the Sulaco to LV426 with less than a dozen people aboard, the USCM decided to load up the Sephora with a full compliment of 90 marines then send most of them across to the Sulaco and then, when they all disappear, the remaining marines decide that the best thing to do is play cards for a week or so, in order than the aliens could gestate, hatch, grow and then go on to build a hive aboard the Sulaco?
Even then, it doesn't really work cos, let's face it, the Queen from Aliens couldn't have deposited a huge number of eggs aboard the Sulaco so you're looking at a couple of face-huggers zapping a couple of marines and then the other marines not noticing, or attempting to find them, for long enough that a Queen could emerge, start to lay eggs and provide more FH's to zap the remaining marines.
Also, while I'm at it, I've always thought the entire premise of A³ was a bit of a cop-out.
The Queen in Aliens appeared from inside the drop-ship landing-gear recess where, presumably, she hitched a ride.
Are we to assume that, upon arrival at the Sulaco, this 20ft tall alien sloped off, dumped a bunch of eggs in a dark corner and then crept back to the drop-ship so she could surprise Ripley and Bishop?
And, of course, in A³ the flight recorder reveals that the Sulaco's sensors detected the FHs aboard.
That being the case, how come the alarms didn't go off due to the eggs the Queen left lying around or, indeed, alert Ripley to the presence of the bloody Queen?!
But, erm, yeah.
Nonsense? Certainly but not neccesarily detrimental to the actual game.
Funny thing there is, an awful lot of the reviews seem to be giving it around 6/10 and yet a review that gives if 9/10 is being criticised for being biased.
What about the reviews that are giving it really low marks, though?
I kinda get the impression that a lot of reviewers "smell blood in the water" and write a critical review on that basis.
I recall, when AVP2 was released, if faced similar criticism which history has taught us wasn't entirely deserved.
A 6/10 is barely average, yet a 9/10 is a near perfect, they are very different scores.
I honestly don't think it's a case of everyone jumping on board the hate bandwagon, fans who have bought this are saying it is terrible, and they have spent their money on it, they have no reason to say it's bad unless they really think it is.
Gameplay videos are shockingly bad, graphics look like something from the original XBOX, glitch videos popping up all over the place,
It is currently sitting on a not too impressive 50 on Metacritic.
A 6/10 is barely average, yet a 9/10 is a near perfect, they are very different scores.
I honestly don't think it's a case of everyone jumping on board the hate bandwagon, fans who have bought this are saying it is terrible, and they have spent their money on it, they have no reason to say it's bad unless they really think it is.
Gameplay videos are shockingly bad, graphics look like something from the original XBOX, glitch videos popping up all over the place,
It is currently sitting on a not too impressive 50 on Metacritic.
Meh,
I'd say that 5 or 6 out of 10 is probably fair for a run of the mill FPS, on the assumption that the next COD/MOH game gets a similar score as well.
For what it is, it doesn't seem that bad to me. Course, I'm looking at the PC version rather than the console game.
Funny thing there is, an awful lot of the reviews seem to be giving it around 6/10 and yet a review that gives if 9/10 is being criticised for being biased.
How many is an "awful lot"? And you don't think the 9 is biased? Most people give it a 4/4.5. You don't think that one 9 is farcical?
It's got some good stuff in it. The Sulaco looks great (I haven't got any further than that at the min) but the A.I in the aliens is terrible. They just seem to jump around all over the place and the graphics aren't very impressive.
5/10 at the min. Think I will be trading it in at the end of the week.
I'd say that 5 or 6 out of 10 is probably fair for a run of the mill FPS, on the assumption that the next COD/MOH game gets a similar score as well.
.
Metacritic Scores;
Black Ops 2 - 83
Battlefield 3 - 84
The latest MOH game garnered a whole 55, and that combined with rubbish sales has meant an end to the franchise.
007 Legends got a 45, the studio that developed it has now been closed.
These games were considered so bad they killed their respective franchises, and this game is sitting right with them review wise.
In fairness I have read in a bunch of the reviews that the graphics are much better on a PC, but that still won't change the major internal problems it seems to have at its core.
It's got some good stuff in it. The Sulaco looks great (I haven't got any further than that at the min) but the A.I in the aliens is terrible. They just seem to jump around all over the place and the graphics aren't very impressive.
5/10 at the min. Think I will be trading it in at the end of the week.
I recall, when AVP2 was released, if faced similar criticism which history has taught us wasn't entirely deserved.
Did it? I thought AVP2 garnered generally favourable reviews I've still got the game and just looking at the case i see that PCZone magazine gave it 93%. The Metacritic score for the game is also at a fairly high 85% from 27 positive reviews (interestingly, there are no mixed or negative reviews! The lowest score being 78% from GameSpy).
I'd say that 5 or 6 out of 10 is probably fair for a run of the mill FPS, on the assumption that the next COD/MOH game gets a similar score as well.
For what it is, it doesn't seem that bad to me. Course, I'm looking at the PC version rather than the console game.
This was my problem. We've been waiting for this for years and then they churn out a vanilla FPS with an Alien-universe skin.
I have a lot of love for Gearbox but it seems the only game they take pride in is Borderlands.
I have a lot of love for Gearbox but it seems the only game they take pride in is Borderlands.
THIS. I don't even know if they have an active Brothers In Arms game in development anymore.
Always seems to be about Borderlands, which is a shame.
The rumour going round though is the development of the single player was outsourced to Timegate whilst Gearbox worked on the Multiplayer portion. Whether that is just spin from Gearbox as to why the single player portion is getting panned is not really known yet.
THIS. I don't even know if they have an active Brothers In Arms game in development anymore.
Always seems to be about Borderlands, which is a shame.
The rumour going round though is the development of the single player was outsourced to Timegate whilst Gearbox worked on the Multiplayer portion. Whether that is just spin from Gearbox as to why the single player portion is getting panned is not really known yet.
and to think there is a game out there that is worse then 007 Legends and MOHW....
i think ill get Metroid Prime out, 11 years old and is still an awesome game
How many is an "awful lot"? And you don't think the 9 is biased? Most people give it a 4/4.5. You don't think that one 9 is farcical?
I didn't say it wasn't.
I was just pointing out that if you've got a game which, objectively, is worthy of maybe 6/10 then it's just as unlikely that a score of 2/10 is objective in just the same way that it's unlikely that a score of 9/10 is objective.
I can see how a game worthy of a score of, say, 5/10 might be marked 4/10 or 6/10 but a score of 2/10 is just as ridiculous as a score of 9/10 and for people to then labour the fact that certain reviews marked it 2/10 is equally ridiculous.
Beyond that, I'm not quite sure how "fair" it is to be hyper-critical of a game simply for being "average".
I mean, COD: MW got massive scores when it was released but now it's fashionable to be bored with FPS's a game would, even if it was better than COD: MW, still get a lower mark.
Did it? I thought AVP2 garnered generally favourable reviews I've still got the game and just looking at the case i see that PCZone magazine gave it 93%. The Metacritic score for the game is also at a fairly high 85% from 27 positive reviews (interestingly, there are no mixed or negative reviews! The lowest score being 78% from GameSpy).
It's hard to believe that game is 12 years old!:eek:
Heh, I wonder if the scores from back in those days reflected the more conservative views of reviewers?
I recall that the the various forums, at the time, were largely negative about the game but I guess, maybe, we remember what we want to remember.
After so much salivating over the release of this game me and 3 friends got together last night to play the campaign on my mates big-ass TV and....well....oh dear.
4 hours on the top difficulty and we were finished....it was rediculously easy.
Alien AI is laughable.
Graphics are awful.
The story is pretty naff considering what was promised.
Gameplay is really slow.
It's just not scary.
Combat is sub-par, hit boxes are really dodgy and the general feel of the combat is stale.
So, after laughing our asses off at the terrible game we were ripping through at a silly pace we tried pvp....and there is got a little better, but not much and we wound up playing BOPs2 instead.
Im not saying i didn't get my moneys worth, we had a fun night screwing around playing "spot the bug" and "exploit the crap ai" but ..... yea......it's a pretty poor game.
THIS. I don't even know if they have an active Brothers In Arms game in development anymore.
Always seems to be about Borderlands, which is a shame.
The rumour going round though is the development of the single player was outsourced to Timegate whilst Gearbox worked on the Multiplayer portion. Whether that is just spin from Gearbox as to why the single player portion is getting panned is not really known yet.
It's entirely possible. They outsourced the DLC dev on B2. That's why a lot of people are a bit meh about the DLC so far.
I called this just over a year ago when one of the trailers came out. I said it would be crap, I knew it would be crap, and its very easy to know it almost every time.
Although its partly a curse this series, quite a few of the games based on the Alien universe have been bad, and gearbox really only has borderlands to hold in its good corner, and an AWFUL lot of crap titles as well.
But in all fairness, anyone who bought this and has access to the internet deserved it. Everything about this turds was obvious from the get go.
THIS. I don't even know if they have an active Brothers In Arms game in development anymore.
Always seems to be about Borderlands, which is a shame.
The rumour going round though is the development of the single player was outsourced to Timegate whilst Gearbox worked on the Multiplayer portion. Whether that is just spin from Gearbox as to why the single player portion is getting panned is not really known yet.
I was just pointing out that if you've got a game which, objectively, is worthy of maybe 6/10 then it's just as unlikely that a score of 2/10 is objective in just the same way that it's unlikely that a score of 9/10 is objective.
I can see how a game worthy of a score of, say, 5/10 might be marked 4/10 or 6/10 but a score of 2/10 is just as ridiculous as a score of 9/10 and for people to then labour the fact that certain reviews marked it 2/10 is equally ridiculous.
Is it even worth 6 though?
Metacritic has 23 critic reviews, 6 reviews scored 6 or over (9, 6.5, 6. 4, 6, 6). but 17 reviews 5 and lower.
Comments
Why did they not consult you during development??
Funny thing there is, an awful lot of the reviews seem to be giving it around 6/10 and yet a review that gives if 9/10 is being criticised for being biased.
What about the reviews that are giving it really low marks, though?
I kinda get the impression that a lot of reviewers "smell blood in the water" and write a critical review on that basis.
I recall, when AVP2 was released, if faced similar criticism which history has taught us wasn't entirely deserved.
I asked many of the same questions in a previous post.
It's certainly doubtful whether or not the game could really be described as "canon" but that doesn't neccesarily mean it's a bad game.
Must say, I haven't played the game yet so I don't know what the story is but, having watched a couple of videos of the first levels, I also wonder where the aliens found sufficient hosts to provide the cannon-fodder for those levels.
Are we to assume that, after originally sending the Sulaco to LV426 with less than a dozen people aboard, the USCM decided to load up the Sephora with a full compliment of 90 marines then send most of them across to the Sulaco and then, when they all disappear, the remaining marines decide that the best thing to do is play cards for a week or so, in order than the aliens could gestate, hatch, grow and then go on to build a hive aboard the Sulaco?
Even then, it doesn't really work cos, let's face it, the Queen from Aliens couldn't have deposited a huge number of eggs aboard the Sulaco so you're looking at a couple of face-huggers zapping a couple of marines and then the other marines not noticing, or attempting to find them, for long enough that a Queen could emerge, start to lay eggs and provide more FH's to zap the remaining marines.
Also, while I'm at it, I've always thought the entire premise of A³ was a bit of a cop-out.
The Queen in Aliens appeared from inside the drop-ship landing-gear recess where, presumably, she hitched a ride.
Are we to assume that, upon arrival at the Sulaco, this 20ft tall alien sloped off, dumped a bunch of eggs in a dark corner and then crept back to the drop-ship so she could surprise Ripley and Bishop?
And, of course, in A³ the flight recorder reveals that the Sulaco's sensors detected the FHs aboard.
That being the case, how come the alarms didn't go off due to the eggs the Queen left lying around or, indeed, alert Ripley to the presence of the bloody Queen?!
But, erm, yeah.
Nonsense? Certainly but not neccesarily detrimental to the actual game.
A 6/10 is barely average, yet a 9/10 is a near perfect, they are very different scores.
I honestly don't think it's a case of everyone jumping on board the hate bandwagon, fans who have bought this are saying it is terrible, and they have spent their money on it, they have no reason to say it's bad unless they really think it is.
Gameplay videos are shockingly bad, graphics look like something from the original XBOX, glitch videos popping up all over the place,
It is currently sitting on a not too impressive 50 on Metacritic.
Meh,
I'd say that 5 or 6 out of 10 is probably fair for a run of the mill FPS, on the assumption that the next COD/MOH game gets a similar score as well.
For what it is, it doesn't seem that bad to me. Course, I'm looking at the PC version rather than the console game.
How many is an "awful lot"? And you don't think the 9 is biased? Most people give it a 4/4.5. You don't think that one 9 is farcical?
It's got some good stuff in it. The Sulaco looks great (I haven't got any further than that at the min) but the A.I in the aliens is terrible. They just seem to jump around all over the place and the graphics aren't very impressive.
5/10 at the min. Think I will be trading it in at the end of the week.
Metacritic Scores;
Black Ops 2 - 83
Battlefield 3 - 84
The latest MOH game garnered a whole 55, and that combined with rubbish sales has meant an end to the franchise.
007 Legends got a 45, the studio that developed it has now been closed.
These games were considered so bad they killed their respective franchises, and this game is sitting right with them review wise.
In fairness I have read in a bunch of the reviews that the graphics are much better on a PC, but that still won't change the major internal problems it seems to have at its core.
wall boobs, does it have wall boobs.......?
Did it? I thought AVP2 garnered generally favourable reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/aliens-versus-predator-2
It's hard to believe that game is 12 years old!:eek:
This was my problem. We've been waiting for this for years and then they churn out a vanilla FPS with an Alien-universe skin.
I have a lot of love for Gearbox but it seems the only game they take pride in is Borderlands.
THIS. I don't even know if they have an active Brothers In Arms game in development anymore.
Always seems to be about Borderlands, which is a shame.
The rumour going round though is the development of the single player was outsourced to Timegate whilst Gearbox worked on the Multiplayer portion. Whether that is just spin from Gearbox as to why the single player portion is getting panned is not really known yet.
and to think there is a game out there that is worse then 007 Legends and MOHW....
i think ill get Metroid Prime out, 11 years old and is still an awesome game
I didn't say it wasn't.
I was just pointing out that if you've got a game which, objectively, is worthy of maybe 6/10 then it's just as unlikely that a score of 2/10 is objective in just the same way that it's unlikely that a score of 9/10 is objective.
I can see how a game worthy of a score of, say, 5/10 might be marked 4/10 or 6/10 but a score of 2/10 is just as ridiculous as a score of 9/10 and for people to then labour the fact that certain reviews marked it 2/10 is equally ridiculous.
Beyond that, I'm not quite sure how "fair" it is to be hyper-critical of a game simply for being "average".
I mean, COD: MW got massive scores when it was released but now it's fashionable to be bored with FPS's a game would, even if it was better than COD: MW, still get a lower mark.
Heh, I wonder if the scores from back in those days reflected the more conservative views of reviewers?
I recall that the the various forums, at the time, were largely negative about the game but I guess, maybe, we remember what we want to remember.
After so much salivating over the release of this game me and 3 friends got together last night to play the campaign on my mates big-ass TV and....well....oh dear.
4 hours on the top difficulty and we were finished....it was rediculously easy.
Alien AI is laughable.
Graphics are awful.
The story is pretty naff considering what was promised.
Gameplay is really slow.
It's just not scary.
Combat is sub-par, hit boxes are really dodgy and the general feel of the combat is stale.
So, after laughing our asses off at the terrible game we were ripping through at a silly pace we tried pvp....and there is got a little better, but not much and we wound up playing BOPs2 instead.
Im not saying i didn't get my moneys worth, we had a fun night screwing around playing "spot the bug" and "exploit the crap ai" but ..... yea......it's a pretty poor game.
It's entirely possible. They outsourced the DLC dev on B2. That's why a lot of people are a bit meh about the DLC so far.
Although its partly a curse this series, quite a few of the games based on the Alien universe have been bad, and gearbox really only has borderlands to hold in its good corner, and an AWFUL lot of crap titles as well.
But in all fairness, anyone who bought this and has access to the internet deserved it. Everything about this turds was obvious from the get go.
Yup, just seen that claim here:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/390655/aliens-gearbox-only-made-multiplayer-alleged-ex-employee-claims/
Yup, outed earlier today, a few pages back: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=64205886&postcount=107
Is it even worth 6 though?
Metacritic has 23 critic reviews, 6 reviews scored 6 or over (9, 6.5, 6. 4, 6, 6). but 17 reviews 5 and lower.
That is really lame.
I wouldn't touch it at half price!
ASDA were getting rid of Binary Domain for £10 after 4-5 months... I'm not even sure I'd blow a tenner on A: CM...