• 63 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Sweep (8950 posts) -

In future, please do not mark threads as answerable questions unless there is a specific reply you are searching for.

The question tag from this thread has been removed.

Moderator
#52 Posted by SmilingPig (1341 posts) -

The game looked competent in the quicklook.

#53 Posted by mrcraggle (1974 posts) -

So much of the review just sounds like PR bullshit, regurgitating what the likes of Randy Pitchford have said they wanted to accomplish. Statements like "thanks largely to some excellent level design and solid alien AI" are complete horseshit. Just looking at the QL was indicative of the opposite. The levels seemed uninspired and just funneled you through gun fight after gun fight and when it was time to face the actual Xenos themselves, they were largely nonthreatening, just standing around, waiting to be killed.

The review is just incredibly ropey. Certain parts read like bulletin points that Sega wrote down and that the reviewer must make mention of and then when it comes to actual criticism of the game, it's then backed up by more bollocks. He comments how the graphics are subpar in spots only then to say "overall aesthetic makes creeping through the shadowy, blood-soaked wreckage with a group of Marines a real nail-biter." Here is the demo from last year, if the game was even remotely like this, I think we'd be seeing much different scores.

#54 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

I could say the same thing about Brad giving Far Cry 2 and RAGE such high scores.

#55 Posted by cbarnes86 (559 posts) -

I personally have played this game and while the game itself is fully functional, there are so many blaring core problems with it that are just ridiculous. The level design is very copy paste, the lighting is poor, AI is terrible, and so many things looks like they went un-play tested. I watched a video yesterday comparing the gameplay demo from E3 (I think) and the final version and the demo looked way better (in terms of lighting and atmosphere). The only thing I disagree with most reviews is the multiplayer. I don't see it being unbalanced, but I do suck with the Aliens. The other teams I played seemed to do just fine. Either way, I think it is a mediocre shooter with core design flaws that can't be fixed with a patch. The game is definitely not worth 60 dollars. Maybe 20... MAYBE

#56 Edited by EpicSteve (6495 posts) -

@thepaleking said:

An 8 paragraph review and only 2 paragraphs dedicated to talking about actual content in the game, and even then extremely vaguely. He calls the game awesome and epic yet he never brings up an actual example of any "awesome" experience that he had. The whole review reads like a strung together series of those game box review blurbs.

This line is particularly laughable: "The main show offers a 4-player co-op experience that’s a significant step forward from the storytelling in Borderlands—which, in my book, makes it a pretty big event for the genre as a whole."

I guess he just forgot about a game called Left 4 Dead, a game in which the story actually manages to acknowledge the presence of more than just the hosting player.

I can't say the man is coming out of left field because I haven't played Aliens. Maybe he saw something special in this game. Although, his review doesn't articulate a lot of that. There are a lot of examples of great co-op, but that can also be something the reviewer values. Maybe he isn't as fatigued with shooters as some of us are and his fandom (I'm assuming) of the Aliens franchise combined with his love of co-op guided the opinion. Perhaps he played with a buddy and they just had the best-case experience. A great co-op buddy and some moment-to-moment events between players in reality and an ok game can build an incredible experience out of what is ultimately mediocrity.

#57 Posted by probablytuna (3806 posts) -

If you like a game, that's fine, but to say that this game has great AI when it does not is outright lying. Or maybe the copy of the game he played happen to work without any of the problems mentioned in other reviews, which would be a god damn miracle.

#58 Edited by Ghostiet (5289 posts) -

It's not a problem of the guy having a controversial opinion - it's okay. People have them all the time and most of them have a good justification for having them. Even if they sound of the ass, most of the time a person at least sounds believable.

Brandon Justice's review doesn't. It's so vague that he might as well copy the press pack. He just beats around the bush in his entire short text, not even pretending that it's based on actual gameplay, not trailers and screenshots. Same thing happened with Dead Island, where he wrote about the game not shying from mature storytelling echoing the game's reveal trailer. It's just bullshit. He's not even pretending to sound like someone who played the game from start to finish. It's like the Driv3r scandal from years back.

Sure, it's his opinion, but a review is kind of much more than an opinion - it's supposed to be an assessment of the merits and flaws of a work according to the reviewer's taste, but once the reviewer fails to address the game in more detail and talks about stuff that is factually wrong, then it's a bad review. We have a case of it here. There's plenty opinions and evidence that the co-op in the game doesn't fit the level design and that you the other 3 players are basically shoehorned into the game. He's writing how it's transcending the idea of co-operative play in video games, making it a completely different, storytelling experience. How? Then there's that Dead Island stuff. Come on.

Rex Reed's review of The Dark Knight proved that the man had no idea that Nolan's films are not sequels to the Tim Burton saga. Was it still just an opinion no one should be worried about? Stop excusing reviewers for their incompetence.

#59 Posted by Nilazz (630 posts) -

So much of the review just sounds like PR bullshit, regurgitating what the likes of Randy Pitchford have said they wanted to accomplish. Statements like "thanks largely to some excellent level design and solid alien AI" are complete horseshit. Just looking at the QL was indicative of the opposite. The levels seemed uninspired and just funneled you through gun fight after gun fight and when it was time to face the actual Xenos themselves, they were largely nonthreatening, just standing around, waiting to be killed.

The review is just incredibly ropey. Certain parts read like bulletin points that Sega wrote down and that the reviewer must make mention of and then when it comes to actual criticism of the game, it's then backed up by more bollocks. He comments how the graphics are subpar in spots only then to say "overall aesthetic makes creeping through the shadowy, blood-soaked wreckage with a group of Marines a real nail-biter." Here is the demo from last year, if the game was even remotely like this, I think we'd be seeing much different scores.


I love that none of that is in the actual game, what a freaking bummer! Cause I remember seeing this and getting HYPED! The atmosphere and the mood in that video is what I want from a game based in the Alien universe.

#60 Posted by Svenzon (728 posts) -

Maybe he's just in complete denial?

#61 Edited by mrcraggle (1974 posts) -

@nilazz: This is where a lot of the buzz came from. If you're in the press and you saw that demo or played it, then you'd probably come away from it being fairly impressed and would publish a favourable preview of the game and thus get people interested or excited to buy the game. This is where problems of embargos come into play. Because of demos like this that completely misrepresent the final product(or should that be the final product misrepresents the demo in this case), people have all ready pre-ordered the game and are going to end up spending $60 on something that simply isn't worth it. From what I've seen, the game isn't a 1/5 star like Alex's review gives but I can see where he's coming from.

This stuff that's in this video is actually in the game though but it's mostly unrecognizable in the final version. The dynamic lighting simply doesn't exist and the game just looks dull and bland but scenes created in this demo were completed changed in the final game. This is the video making the rounds at the moment comparing the demo and final game.

#62 Edited by Nilazz (630 posts) -

@mrcraggle: Jeez! I had no idea the difference was that big! That video really ask some good questions, thanks for sharing it.

#63 Edited by Slaegar (737 posts) -

@superfriend said:

The guy gave Halo 4 a lower score because it doesn´t have ironsights, right?

So, I guess there´s a good chance the reviewer just has no idea about games in general and the review wasn´t paid for.

Wow. That's amazing. That doesn't even sound like a money hat. That sounds like a crazyhat.

@mrcraggle: Wow. You know what that demo looked like? It looked like Metro 2033. That could be done with a higher end pc, but it looks like they targeted consoles for the final game and still had to scale it down. It seems like they didn't optimize for the consoles.

Online
#64 Edited by Branthog (5595 posts) -

Considering the nefarious history of gaming journalism, I don't see any reason for the trite responses to people suggesting that there could have been something shady going on. However, that it's the only review that is so ridiculously out of the scope of reality suggests that may not be the case, this time. It seems unlikely that there would be much point to influencing (either with or without payola) just one outlet would be fairly fruitless.

However, those suggesting "hey, it's just the guy's opinion" seem to be dismissing the entire review itself. It isn't just that this guy supposedly thought it was a tremendous game. It's that, if you actually read the review, he doesn't seem to have played it. His review reads like a middle school student who had to give a book report, didn't actually read the book, and then composed a book report based on some quick information he could find in an encyclopedia (or even just off the blurb on the back of the book). It's filled with over-hyped PR-speak and lacking entirely in details of his experience playing it. It reads like something put together by someone who didn't play through a game, and just assembled a bunch of bullshit until they hit the required article length.

Anyway, all this being said, I don't understand why people are surprised. You mean, a movie-licensed game from a franchise from a half-decent franchise from thirty years ago sucked? Why, I am absolutely fucking shocked.

#65 Posted by Kidable (127 posts) -

Hey man, Duke Nukem Forever had its audience too that weirdly liked it. However, both the review text and score is off-putting to me. I could even wager that this review was not done under the proper enviornment that reviewing games should be done. Maybe he was just dropped this game a day or two before embargo and just did a quick gloss through the campaign and maybe 1 or 2 hours of multiplayer. This game has been on people's radars for months before this came out, and the general consensus has always seemed to be "Yeah, it's looking good". The fact that it was in fact terrible came as quite a shock to a lot of us, so on the one hand I kinda sort of expected 1 or 2 reviews to kinda slip through the cracks of proper in-depth reviewing, and just churn out a review that falls in line with a lot of what people were expecting. I'm not exactly sure why, but there you go. If the game were even just mediocre or just on the nose of "average", I'm not sure this review would not be making the rounds across the expanse of the internet as much as it has. 'cause it's just a dude that really liked a sorta-bad game, and Lord knows THAT isn't exactly rare. I dunno, I think maybe we're just looking to far into this and kind of WANTING a scathing controversy over this game and expecting a rabbit hole of back alley deals and money under the table type shindigs, whereas what's actually going on is just either a lazy review or a unique opinion.

Dog.

#66 Posted by Draxyle (1888 posts) -

Score aside, that really is just a bad review. Reading through it I feel like I've learned absolutely nothing about the game; it's full of nothing but vague and empty words. While we can't be certain it's a bought review, with the giant Aliens banners plastered all over it's really hard not to put the two and two together. This guy hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt.

@branthog said:

However, those suggesting "hey, it's just the guy's opinion" seem to be dismissing the entire review itself. It isn't just that this guy supposedly thought it was a tremendous game. It's that, if you actually read the review, he doesn't seem to have played it. His review reads like a middle school student who had to give a book report, didn't actually read the book, and then composed a book report based on some quick information he could find in an encyclopedia (or even just off the blurb on the back of the book). It's filled with over-hyped PR-speak and lacking entirely in details of his experience playing it. It reads like something put together by someone who didn't play through a game, and just assembled a bunch of bullshit until they hit the required article length.

Very much this. It reads like some PR guy trying to sound like a hip fifteen year old (epicness is not a word that belongs as a descriptor in a review).

#67 Posted by XChairmanDrekX (307 posts) -

I'm I the only one sick and tired of the "Well the game works so eh 7/10 it's mediocre” argument? Just because a movie plays all the way through without stopping doesn't automatically save it from not being shit. Like this game. With so many FPS games out there, this game compared to them deserves to be utterly ripped apart and given very low scores. It's what the numbers 1 through 4 on the 1 through 10 scale were made for.

#68 Posted by FunkasaurasRex (847 posts) -

All this talk about EGM just makes me sad that the name's been effectively run into the ground. I remember when it was part of the 1up network. I remember when it was cool maaaaan.

#69 Edited by Mrsignerman44 (1100 posts) -

It's moments like these that really put reviews into perspective, because at the end of the day I could say that Duke Nukem Forever is a 10/10(oh god no) and I'd be right in my own way because it's my opinion. Games and movies are so subjective that it seems odd to really rate and criticize anything legitimately anymore. Also, for people who are calling this guy a liar and shit like that, maybe he likes the game, and if he likes the game it's a valid review.

Because it's all opinionated...I don't know. Someone save my faith in video game reviews.

#70 Posted by coakroach (2492 posts) -

Those are not 9/10 Alien models.