This game is much better than critics are willing to admit.

#1 Posted by Icarus405 (22 posts) -

It ain't perfect by any means, but it's still bloody good fun (emphasis on the bloody part). The human campaign was pretty standard stuff, but playing as an alien and especially as a predator is fun and different.
Hell of a learning curve though and the lock-on attack doesn't always connect, but other than that... If you see this in a bargain bin and it ain't next to The Orange Box, then I'd recommend it.

#2 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -

What benefit do the critics get for pretending it's bad?

#3 Posted by delorean99947 (227 posts) -

I rented it. The Marine campaign was fun, typical horror shooter. Predator was the best, like Crysis gameplay with the cloaking. Hated the Alien. Weak as hell, climb walls the whole time, and it was really short. Also got really disorienting for me sometimes. As for the multiplayer, seems unbalanced. The match I was in, I got owned by the predators. Also not a lot of people playing. Good game for $15 to $25. Might have been worth $60 back then when the multiplayer was booming.

Online
#4 Posted by GoofyGoober (937 posts) -

There are way better games and things you can spend your money on folks. The game was mediocre.

#5 Posted by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -
@Icarus405
"This game is much better than critics are willing to admit."
 
You understand that an opinion can never be a fact, right?
 
So no, you are wrong. The most you can say is "I think this game is better than it is thought to be" or "I like this game more than most of the critics".
#6 Edited by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -

I had fun initially with the game - the first two marine levels set up the right mood. But when I was done with the game I was pretty disappointed with it overall. The majority of the few levels the game had just sucked.

#7 Posted by Skald (4367 posts) -

@GoofyGoober said:

There are way better games and things you can spend your money on folks. The game was mediocre.

There are much better things to do with your time. I'd rather play Tiny Wings or Project Zomboid than touch this licensed piece of crap.

#8 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

It looks better than the previous two games but plays a lot worse. It's far too generic in terms of controls.

#9 Posted by ReyGitano (2467 posts) -

@HandsomeDead said:

What benefit do the critics get for pretending it's bad?

I can't imagine that somewhere a critic is going "I should give this game the score it deserves, but I'm afraid to do so, and so I'll rate it lower to fit in".

If somewhere someone is saying that, I want him fired and I want his job.

#10 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -

Critics are "willing to admit"? 
 
Grow up. 
 
You can enjoy the game, there's nothing wrong with that, but to act as if the majority of critics have some hidden shame or some shit making them unable to admit that this game is actually good is retarded. 
 
Also, it was mediocre. This from someone who has wracked up more hours playing AVP2 than the average person who's played WoW from the start has wracked up in WoW.

#11 Posted by Landon (4130 posts) -

Buying a bad game for $10 and buying a bad game for $60 will give you two completely different feelings. I played Dark Sector for $15 and really enjoyed it, and that game wasn't exactly critically acclaimed.

#12 Posted by Chris2KLee (2328 posts) -
@Pinworm45 said:
Critics are "willing to admit"?  Grow up.  You can enjoy the game, there's nothing wrong with that, but to act as if the majority of critics have some hidden shame or some shit making them unable to admit that this game is actually good is retarded. 
Yep, pretty much the same thing that is happening with DNF now. Some people start building these massive conspiracy theories about why reviewers are giving a game bad scores, when the reality is that a lot of people just didn't like the game. I wish people could just be happy they enjoyed something, and not start pointing fingers at people who have a different opinion.
#13 Edited by CaptainCody (1505 posts) -

I don't get why some people still think when someone says a game is mediocre that means, "No fun allowed." Mediocre means average to begin with. Secondly, $60 is a lot of money to have some fun, the same amount of money can get you pretty much whatever you want. Be it a cheap whore, 6 movies, big night at the bar, drugs, or a better videogame. By those standards this game is shit. The value of a dollar, duders.
#14 Posted by HistoryInRust (6274 posts) -

@HandsomeDead said:

What benefit do the critics get for pretending it's bad?

I love saying this to people. A friend of mine is a Green Lantern gomer, and tried to refute my telling him the Green Lantern movie is getting slaughtered critically by saying, "They're all biased anyhow."

I said, flat out, "What bone do critics have to pick with Green Lantern? The fuck do they care?"

---

ON TOPIC: I've wanted to play this game for a while. But I am not-in-a-million-fucking-years paying more than bargain-bin price for it.

#15 Posted by jmic75 (262 posts) -

It was ok, but lacked content in both single and multiplayer modes, and the multiplayer was pretty boned on the pc at least at launch.

#16 Posted by Adamsons (877 posts) -

I had a blast with friends playing the marines vs aliens survival mode.
 
I picked it up way after launch for about £2.99 on steam though.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.