|
Gaj posted:Im going to derail this sad funeral for something else. Back in AVP2 the game we had some fleshed out baddies, Rykov the Russian PMC literally dragged himself from death valley and Eisenberg resorted to cannibalism to survive. Im a bit fuzzy on the docs story as his was the most vague, what exactly happened to Dr. Eisenberg before the game? I seem to remember the alien end game hes stuck to a hive wall with his arms and legs missing cause those are synth replacements. But I dont remember someone fill me in. He was the one who discovered the planet, and led the first expedition to it; everyone else died and he had to cannibalize them to survive; when he was rescued, he was nearly dead and they downloadeded his conciousness into a synthetic body.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
goku im piss posted:Just curious, what are you playing the game on? I don't expect this to be a cohesive experience spread over the consoles and the pc. Well I'm playing on PC myself. There was a period of a few minutes where for some reason I wasn't able to play any multiplayer, it just couldn't find any other players at all; but other than that hiccup, I never had anything weird happen in an actual multiplayer game. As I said though, I've only played for 2 to 3 hours. I'm sure that once I've played it more I'll see something bizarre or have a game crash or something like that. JebanyPedal posted:Perhaps in four years it will go the way of Daikatana and its expectations and hype will somewhat be separated from what it actually was and it'll just turn out to be astoundingly mediocre, but that stain is still going to be there and for now, it's just a fact that factoring in what a game was marketed as and presented as is an important thing to remember when assessing the final product. It's not like A:CM was marketed as a budget shooter by an indie developer, its faults are a lot less excusable. You do have a point - it's not just that people didn't get the scary cinematic experience they were expecting, they also didn't get a game that was even well polished. It's an OK Aliens game that seems like it was made by a budget studio. And that's not what you expect if the game has Gearbox on the box, and the box is a fancy collectors edition with a statue in it. However, that should mean that reviewers are more lenient on games that actually are by budget studios. But apparently they aren't. Inversion is a surprisingly competent imitation of Gears of War with good graphics and decent gameplay done by low budget Russian studio Saber Interactive, which was released on PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 with no marketing or hype whatsoever. You'd expect reviewers to be pleasantly surprised, "wow, it's Gears of War but for the PS3 and PC, and its come out of nowhere by some little low budget studio!" But instead reviewers crapped all over it and gave it 4 or 5 out of 10 for being a rip-off. Since when has games ripping off other games been a problem? And surely you should give a small developer some compliments for making such an expertly made rip-off, but nope, it got really low scores like 4 or 5 out of 10. And then Total Biscuit did one of his "WTF is" videos of the PC version, was pleasantly surprised and recommended it as a worthwhile purchase once the price dropped a bit. So yeah, I think it OK for reviewers to knock a mark or two off a review score for a billion dollar developer or publisher hyping up a product that looks great in previews but is actually unpolished, buggy and bad-looking (even if the gameplay is good). But by that same token, reviewers should be generous in giving extra marks to small low budget studios that produce something that looks and plays like a big budget game and puts the industry giants to shame, even if the game itself doesn't do anything new.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
your evil twin posted:Well I'm playing on PC myself. There was a period of a few minutes where for some reason I wasn't able to play any multiplayer, it just couldn't find any other players at all; but other than that hiccup, I never had anything weird happen in an actual multiplayer game. As I said though, I've only played for 2 to 3 hours. I'm sure that once I've played it more I'll see something bizarre or have a game crash or something like that. I've noticed that matchmaking takes a good long while sometimes. I loving hate matchmaking so much. I just noticed the logo on the door.  So I'm assuming that most of you that have played this game have died at least one in single player, right? Does anyone else think that the death effect is like the end of an episode of Police Squad. It's like they wanted the scene to freeze but couldn't figure out how to get all of the elements of the game to stop moving so every so often there's an AI partner that sort of wanders around or a Xenomorph whose head won't stop moving. Yodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Feb 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Yodzilla posted:So I'm assuming that most of you that have played this game have died at least one in single player, right? Does anyone else think that the death effect is like the end of an episode of Police Squad. It's like they wanted the scene to freeze but couldn't figure out how to get all of the elements of the game to stop moving so every so often there's an AI partner that sort of wanders around or a Xenomorph who's head won't stop moving. Oh God, you're making me actually want to play this loving game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
I love police squad. In fact I'm gonna say the fact that dying is like the end of an episode of police squad isn't a bug, it's a feature.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
If you really loved Police Squad, you wouldn't insult it like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Glad I didn't preorder this. Regarding a spoiler in the intro, though: I realize that bringing Hicks back retcons Alien 3, but didn't everyone pretty much agree that Alien 3 sucked, and that William Gibson's alternative story dropping Ripley for Hicks and Bishop killing aliens all the time sounded way cooler? The RPS review made it pretty clear that the dialogue sucked, but I think if the game had been well done, retconning Hicks' death would have probably been an awesome thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Apparently people are having issues with installing the game to their hard drive on the 360. Sometimes you'll turn the system off and come back to the game later (why you would do this I have no idea) and all single and multiplayer progress is erased. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
your evil twin posted:However, that should mean that reviewers are more lenient on games that actually are by budget studios. But apparently they aren't. Inversion is a surprisingly competent imitation of Gears of War with good graphics and decent gameplay done by low budget Russian studio Saber Interactive, which was released on PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 with no marketing or hype whatsoever. You'd expect reviewers to be pleasantly surprised, "wow, it's Gears of War but for the PS3 and PC, and its come out of nowhere by some little low budget studio!" But instead reviewers crapped all over it and gave it 4 or 5 out of 10 for being a rip-off. Since when has games ripping off other games been a problem? And surely you should give a small developer some compliments for making such an expertly made rip-off, but nope, it got really low scores like 4 or 5 out of 10. And then Total Biscuit did one of his "WTF is" videos of the PC version, was pleasantly surprised and recommended it as a worthwhile purchase once the price dropped a bit. People are talking about a particular game from a very well known IP called Aliens that is advertised everywhere with interviews with the game director stating that it's actually a full blown sequel to the movies but in gaming form. When this particular game turned out mediocre-to-poo poo it received additional backlash it was asking for by deliberately building hype to irrational proportions beforehand. This has nothing to do with Inversion receiving poor reviews because they were given for completely different reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
JerikTelorian posted:Glad I didn't preorder this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Here's the full version of that 'I can't believe this poo poo' co-op video from earlier... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0GM-vZ6myE I'm so glad I didn't pre-order this. My rental turned up and I sent it back within a couple of hours. What a trainwreck. The guys in this video nail it, saying the game seems like it's been made by someone who hasn't seen the films, just been given a checklist of what's in them, and a picture of an alien.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
your evil twin posted:However, that should mean that reviewers are more lenient on games that actually are by budget studios. But apparently they aren't. Inversion is a surprisingly competent imitation of Gears of War with good graphics and decent gameplay done by low budget Russian studio Saber Interactive, which was released on PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 with no marketing or hype whatsoever. You'd expect reviewers to be pleasantly surprised, "wow, it's Gears of War but for the PS3 and PC, and its come out of nowhere by some little low budget studio!" But instead reviewers crapped all over it and gave it 4 or 5 out of 10 for being a rip-off. Since when has games ripping off other games been a problem? And surely you should give a small developer some compliments for making such an expertly made rip-off, but nope, it got really low scores like 4 or 5 out of 10. And then Total Biscuit did one of his "WTF is" videos of the PC version, was pleasantly surprised and recommended it as a worthwhile purchase once the price dropped a bit. Except Inversion was dreadful. It's like a parody of the modern 3rd person shooter except they're totally serious about it. You fight the same boss literally 5 or 6 times, and the plot is so incredibly stupid it's hilarious. I mean come on now, the plot twists are that the Earth is actually a dome on a spaceship and your daughter, the primary motivation for the entirety of the game, was dead the whole time and your partner didn't tell you because reasons. Also about half way through the difficulty goes from "can finish this with one arm tied behind my back" to "bosses can instantly kill you and has attacks that cannot be dodged." Inversion is a bad game is what I'm trying to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 16:16
|
|
I found this thread after the total biscuit video about preordering games came up in my feed, and it's been very entertaining. So thanks, goons.Palpek posted:Jesus, you post huge walls of text in this thread where you completely detach from the main point being discussed with every coming paragraph. It sounds kind of like a roundabout defense of the game, but where one doesn't want to actually openly defend the game (intentionally or not). "Well, if I point out the double standards regarding reviews, I can cast doubt on the entire review process, and this will allow me to pretend that an absolute poo poo game is possibly maybe mediocre." It's like a Pinky and the Brain plot though, the dots just don't connect the way the Brain thinks they do.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Oh god, I found out why I was having problems with the challenges. You have to unlock all of the challenges IN ORDER. That is quite possibly the dumbest thing. So before I can get the reward for  Killing a Marine from a wall or ceiling I have to first pounce 3 marines in 10 seconds with the lurker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Couldn't play more than 30 minutes of this game in co-op last night. Tried versus out solo and it seemed okay but aliens seems really weak. Normal run speed is slow and without any AI to distract getting the surprise on people seems very hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
BadLlama posted:Couldn't play more than 30 minutes of this game in co-op last night. Tried versus out solo and it seemed okay but aliens seems really weak. Normal run speed is slow and without any AI to distract getting the surprise on people seems very hard. The easy way to win in Versus as aliens is to get Rupture for the spitter class. Then you simply run into the group of marines and get yourself killed. The resulting pool of acid is enough to kill all 4 marines in Escape and Survivor. I've done so several times now. I don't know why I'm still playing this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
JerikTelorian posted:but didn't everyone pretty much agree that Alien 3 sucked No. 3 is not quite as good as 1, and 2 is a fun action movie that's okay but a bit out of place. 4 was some sort of reality prototrolling experiment. ImpAtom posted:the director's cut helps it a lot. Yeah three is my second favorite, and on some days I may say it's first, but only the extended cut. The theatrical version is a patchwork mess. Lord Frankenstyle fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Feb 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Yeah Alien 3 is a masterpiece compared to 4.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Alien 3 was a bad sequel and a problematic film but it had some interesting stuff and the director's cut helps it a lot. Alien: Resurrection was pure poo poo aside from some fun quips.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Alien 3's the best Alien film after Prometheus and Inseminoid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
Alien: Resurrection makes more sense when you realize that it was written by Joss Whedon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Yodzilla posted:Yeah Alien 3 is a masterpiece compared to 4. Joss Whedon and Jean-Pierre Jeunet together with the acting of Ron Perlman could not produce a movie with anything more interesting than the scene where the aliens tear one of their own number up to use its acid blood to escape containment. The fact that the mess of the heavily edited, changed, redone and budget cut Alien 3 is better than that is astounding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Joss Whedon and Jean-Pierre Jeunet together with the acting of Ron Perlman could not produce a movie with anything more interesting than the scene where the aliens tear one of their own number up to use its acid blood to escape containment. The fact that the mess of the heavily edited, changed, redone and budget cut Alien 3 is better than that is astounding. Yea the only thing I remember from Alien 4 is that scene and that abortion of a alien at the end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Alien 3 was the last film made in the Aliens universe. You all must be mistaking some other things as Alien films.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
I haven't seen mention of THE BEST game involving aliens, from 1994: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTHS2TIISUE. That machine was a serious allowance funnel for me and a friend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Joss Whedon and Jean-Pierre Jeunet together with the acting of Ron Perlman could not produce a movie with anything more interesting than the scene where the aliens tear one of their own number up to use its acid blood to escape containment. The fact that the mess of the heavily edited, changed, redone and budget cut Alien 3 is better than that is astounding. The underwater kitchen scene was pretty cool too, especially when you watch the making of and see what a bitch that scene was for the actors (not to mention the poor bastard in the alien costume)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Am I a terrible person for thinking this game isn't the worst thing ever? It's very average at best, kinda boring at worst. I've played a few hours of the campaign and might finish it, if only to see what wacky hijinks The Company get up to. But yea, a big disappointment considering the sheer potential of the franchise, and a warning to myself not to pre-order stuff on Steam until I've read the reviews, but not the barely-working shitpile the reviews make it out to be. (that said, I'm on the PC version, which I've heard is technically solid compared to the console versions which are riddled with bugs. A reverse-lovely port, inconceivable!)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Rookersh posted:Oh, and it was finished.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
I'd fully support the trashing of this game and the company that made it (or didn't make it) if only it would lead to meaningful changes in the industry. But it won't so whatever. As I said, there are enough pre-order fools and Youtube-commenting "average gamers" out there that it'll still pull a profit. Sure, people probably won't buy the DLC but it's not like they had to work extra hours on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
your evil twin posted:So yeah, I think it OK for reviewers to knock a mark or two off a review score for a billion dollar developer or publisher hyping up a product that looks great in previews but is actually unpolished, buggy and bad-looking (even if the gameplay is good). But by that same token, reviewers should be generous in giving extra marks to small low budget studios that produce something that looks and plays like a big budget game and puts the industry giants to shame, even if the game itself doesn't do anything new. Reviewers should rate games based on whether or not they offer a good game experience to the costumer. Reviews should be for the benefit of the people in a position to purchase a game, not for developers no matter how big or small they are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Mr. Pumroy posted:Reviewers should rate games based on whether or not they offer a good game experience to the costumer. Reviews should be for the benefit of the people in a position to purchase a game, not for developers no matter how big or small they are. Sure, but what score correlates with "nobody should buy this game"? Apparently 2/5 is too low for "nobody should buy this game".
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
Spalec posted:The underwater kitchen scene was pretty cool too, especially when you watch the making of and see what a bitch that scene was for the actors (not to mention the poor bastard in the alien costume) Have you been playing it online? I did a couple of levels of online campaign last night and it was a mess - weird animations, weird animation syncs, characters blocking one another in confusing ways, and more - which not only ruined the immersion (key for an Aliens game) but actually made it really frustrating to play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Dezztroy posted:The easy way to win in Versus as aliens is to get Rupture for the spitter class. Then you simply run into the group of marines and get yourself killed. The resulting pool of acid is enough to kill all 4 marines in Escape and Survivor. I've done so several times now. I just tried this. It really does make Escape a joke. And that's with only me being able to play that class on the team. If you had 4 Rupture aliens then it would be impossible to ever complete the second objective on either maps (I'm assuming you could still get the first just by rushing to it and not bunching up). This really just completely breaks MP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
rope kid posted:The Aliens RPG was not even remotely close to being finished. Any chance that the Aliens RPG may be revived?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
MadJackMcJack posted:Am I a terrible person for thinking this game isn't the worst thing ever? Nope. I'm jealous of everyone who is sincerely finding some fun in it despite it's flaws. It beats being a guy like me, who will wait to buy it used for fifteen bucks long after multiplayer is dead, and then sit and play it feeling bitter and drunk and pissed off that I just had to get it because it's an Alien title, and I can't resist the need to own it. Hell. My SO just got me one of these for Valentines day,  and I secretly wish she'd known this game was coming out and got it for me instead, so I could own it without feeling stupid for giving Gearbox money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:Any chance that the Aliens RPG may be revived? . Aliens RPG revive news right here in the Something Awful forum's failed Aliens game thread. Stay tuned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Mr. Pumroy posted:Reviewers should rate games based on whether or not they offer a good game experience to the costumer. Reviews should be for the benefit of the people in a position to purchase a game, not for developers no matter how big or small they are. That was the thing I was saying originally, that the review score should reflect the experience for the consumer. And that the PC version of the game deserved at least a 5 rather than a 4, due to having fun multiplayer and a disappointing campaign that was still enjoyable if you did it co-op with friends. It seemed like the reason it was getting a 4 from some places was to punish the developers for over-hyping the game.. To me that didn't seem fair... But then it was pointed out that when something is super hyped-up and made by a well-known developer then people expect a high quality product. If Colonial Marines was made by a lesser known low budget developer then some of the flaws might have been overlooked. That has actually happened sometimes. Look at STALKER Shadow of Chernoybyl, and Clear Sky, they were ridiculously buggy and had terrible AI issues but reviewers cut them some slack for being a small developer making an ambitious game, while warning readers/viewers that the games were buggy and issues. And then I brought up Inversion because I was pointing out that unfortunately reviewers aren't consistent that way, sometimes a small developer will make something decent and get crapped on because it isn't up to to the standard of the big boys and there hasn't been any hype to get the reviewer excited about it. Inversion is a much better game than Colonial Marines, it looks good and it is well polished and the shoot-em-up action is just as decent as other popular 3rd person shooters (plus it has the extra gravity power gimmick stuff). So it seems spectacularly inconsistent for reviewers to give a score of 4 to both Colonial Marines and Inversion. Yeah, you heard me, Inversion is better than Colonial Marines. (Though that isn't really saying much, heh.) At least Edge magazine gave Inversion a 6, and Edge are known for being tough reviewers, willing to upset fanboys and be harsh on big titles. So why Gamespot gave it 4 out of 10 for "being the same old thing you've seen before in Gears of War" is beyond me. 30.5 Days posted:Sure, but what score correlates with "nobody should buy this game"? Apparently 2/5 is too low for "nobody should buy this game". Except I think Aliens fans should buy this game, if they can get it for £10. I found the the multiplayer to be decent, but certainly not worth the launch asking price. It's worth picking up in a Steam sale if you are an Aliens fan and want to be part of a squad of marines or a pack of Xenomorphs. An Actual Bear posted:Except Inversion was dreadful. It's like a parody of the modern 3rd person shooter except they're totally serious about it. You fight the same boss literally 5 or 6 times, and the plot is so incredibly stupid it's hilarious. I mean come on now, the plot twists are that the Earth is actually a dome on a spaceship and your daughter, the primary motivation for the entirety of the game, was dead the whole time and your partner didn't tell you because reasons. Also about half way through the difficulty goes from "can finish this with one arm tied behind my back" to "bosses can instantly kill you and has attacks that cannot be dodged." Seriously? It has identical gameplay to Gears of War, better graphics and physics (fully dynamic and lights and shadows, destructible cover), and it is actually quite colourful sometimes rather than everything looking grey and brown. And yes, it also has loving annoying repetive miniboss fights in the second half. gently caress those loving Slave Drivers. You shouldn't have experienced a difficulty spike in the second half or have problems with "undodgable" boss attacks if you had remembered that half way through the game you gained a Shield ability that allowed you to make yourself invulnerable as long as you have energy for it. Personally, I thought the big plot twist was great.  It was an amazing alternative to the typical alien invasion story that everyone expects. There were actually clues earlier in the game as well, like the fact that 3 or 4 times characters refer to the edge of the world and while going through a cemetary "this must be ancient, no-one has buried the dead in hundreds of years". Because in a world with very limited space, cemetaries would be a waste of land.So yeah, repetition of boss fights and a "love it or hate it" plot twist, those are its faults. (And who gives a poo poo about the plot in Gears of War games?) Somehow that gets it 4 out of 10, while three Gears of War games are released that are essentially identical and the third one still gets 8 or 9 out of 10. Personally I'd give Colonial Marines a 5 and Inversion a 7. If Microsoftor or Epic games are going to be dicks and not give me Gears of War 2 or 3 on the PC, then I'll get some more Gears of War somewhere else, and Inversion did the trick nicely. Shyfted One posted:I just tried this. It really does make Escape a joke. And that's with only me being able to play that class on the team. If you had 4 Rupture aliens then it would be impossible to ever complete the second objective on either maps (I'm assuming you could still get the first just by rushing to it and not bunching up). Oh gently caress. Unless they end up patching the game and nerfing that, it looks like I might be changing my personal score to a 4 then. 
your evil twin fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Feb 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
your evil twin posted:Oh gently caress. Unless they end up patching the game and nerfing that, it looks like I might be changing my personal score to a 4 then. Are they like boomers in L4d though so that when you melee them they fly back 100 feet and are dazed for an hour? VV I don't think anyone is defending it but just saying the multi-player is "okay" / not as lovely as the single player. BadLlama fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Feb 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
If any of you find multiplayer in this game playable then do yourself a favor and just go buy Natural Selection 2 or even Primal Carnage. Both of those games do the same thing but better by an order of magnitude. It's laughable when Colonial Marines is being defended by mentioning a completely skippable and unbalanced multiplayer mode when really solid alternatives exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Yeah, I am still going to blame Gearbox for this travesty. First off, because all this crap I keep hearing sounds like hearsay other than the Sega announcement. Second off, the development was given to Gearbox, and they didn't even check up on the game that they apparently outsourced? This is from several pages back but it really needs bearing in mind. These "anonymous leaks" stink of being a PR damage control exercise. If Gearbox PR can shift the medium long term narrative to "Gearbox were lazy and choose the wrong people to subcontract to" that'll be a hell of a lot better for their image than "Gearbox made a bad game." JebanyPedal posted:I really hope the Creative Assembly one is an RTS, I was pretty fond of Extinction despite how average it was, it was a fairly cool concept. rizuhbull posted:It's not so much that Hicks is actually alive, it's how they brought him back. Quite literally "it's a long story". Fanfiction is generally better written.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 18:32
|
|
