Aliens : Colonial Marines

pixelburp

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Must be reading a different article to me, cause it said that Gearbox outsourced the timegate, not sega.

Skimmed the article so muddled the detail there; though if development was taking that long, I can easily imagine there was pressure from Sega to make a decision either way & may have forced Gearbox's hand. 6 years though: you have to wonder what kind of project management goes on in that place, if any. Or who at timegate thought it was a good idea to junk so much of the work already done.

quad_red

pixelburp wrote: »

Skimmed the article so muddled the detail there; though if development was taking that long, I can easily imagine there was pressure from Sega to make a decision either way & may have forced Gearbox's hand. 6 years though: you have to wonder what kind of project management goes on in that place, if any. Or who at timegate thought it was a good idea to junk so much of the work already done.

As you said, it's a truly epic disaster of project management.

They massively over-promised with the demo. It seems pretty obvious this wasn't running on a level playing field now. Whether it was some sort of pre-render or the engine running on mega hardware, it's clear the game engine is such a shambles and so inefficient that it could not run on actual target hardware in any way with the original levels of detail and effects.

They basically had to dial it all down so it was basically playable.

The reddit stuff sounds pretty believable. That they had to shove it out in this window after fobbing Sega off so many times or they would have faced legal action. Sounds like TimeGate were in over their heads and Gearbox didn't give two craps.

How strange - even a mediocre game on this property would have sold like hotcakes. Guaranteed sequels, DLC blah blah.

Instead they dish up this tragedy which screws everyone. The IP holders, publishers, the developers and most of all, gamers.

BizzyC

The more I read, the clearer it becomes how Gearbox f*cked this up and tried to cover it.

They put it off till there was no time to do it, handed the ticking bomb to TimeGate and then went about trying to sell the game to soften the financial blow they were going to take in long term sales by beefing up release sales as much as possible.

I'll always buy more Borderlands games, since they give that the time needed to get it right, but I'm going to be very skeptical of any other games they developing in future.

Gbear

quad_red wrote: »

They massively over-promised with the demo. It seems pretty obvious this wasn't running on a level playing field now. Whether it was some sort of pre-render or the engine running on mega hardware, it's clear the game engine is such a shambles and so inefficient that it could not run on actual target hardware in any way with the original levels of detail and effects.

But the demo wasn't that impressive.

It looked like the normal standard for FPS these days.
How ****ty was the programming if serious hardware was required to run something of that quality? It's not in the same league as the likes of Crysis 2 - a game that's 2 years older and any middle of the road gaming PC can run that these days.

quad_red

Gbear wrote: »

But the demo wasn't that impressive.

It looked like the normal standard for FPS these days.
How ****ty was the programming if serious hardware was required to run something of that quality? It's not in the same league as the likes of Crysis 2 - a game that's 2 years older and any middle of the road gaming PC can run that these days.

I'm not saying it was. It's more of testament to how horrendously poor condition it was in. Nothing optimised, bloat and inefficiencies everywhere.

Notorioux

I want to see highmoon studios handle an aliens game.

CastorTroy

BizzyC wrote: »

The more I read, the clearer it becomes how Gearbox f*cked this up and tried to cover it.

They put it off till there was no time to do it, handed the ticking bomb to TimeGate and then went about trying to sell the game to soften the financial blow they were going to take in long term sales by beefing up release sales as much as possible.

I'll always buy more Borderlands games, since they give that the time needed to get it right, but I'm going to be very skeptical of any other games they developing in future.

Aren't Gearbox also the same ones blaming others for Duke Nukem Forever? If you're going to release a game, even if you didn't do all the work yourself, then make sure it's worth releasing. I'd say the fallout from a poor game is worse than the fallout from a game that's delayed for a valid reason.

Overheal

And people have given out to me about not buying a launch title. LOL

ACM is going to be hallmarked for a long, long time, as why the industry is in decline.

Duggy747

They kept holding this game off in favour of Duke and Borderlands 2, it bit them in the arse when they had a look at the campaign. Horrible project management left them here.

The tech demo didn't look incredible but it did have atmosphere and little touches which suited the game and Aliens. Plus, people are getting pissed off because it was this kind of footage they kept peddling as what the final product would be.

I'm more than halfway through the game meself, it has gotten a bit better but the glitches and AI freak-outs have also gotten worse. It's incredibly easy to fool the Xenos or you just run and they'll forget about you. I jumped over a tiny ledge at a door and watched 3 Xenos stall, not knowing what to do.

The fight

of you in a Powerloader Vs. a giant Xeno was a horrific buggy and glitchy mess. No collision detection so most of the time I was inside the Xeno as I swung my arms all over the place where it then went under a box and vanished as I killed it.

The best part of the game which has any sort of tension and atmosphere is the part where you don't have a gun. By the sounds of everyone else it seems to be the best part of the game.

Ultimately, though, I find the game too generic and find that too many cheap deaths keep me quitting.

hooradiation

CastorTroy wrote: »

If you're going to release a game, even if you didn't do all the work yourself, then make sure it's worth releasing.

Yeah...... as nice as that might seem, that's not how things work though.
Deadlines and contractual obligations trump everything else.

Overheal wrote: »

ACM is going to be hallmarked for a long, long time, as why the industry is in decline.

True.
People do have a tendency to repeat stupid shit ad nauseum, I will give you that.

CastorTroy

hooradiation wrote: »

Yeah...... as nice as that might seem, that's not how things work though.
Deadlines and contractual obligations trump everything else.

Yeah, I know it's not easy, which i added the part about fallout.
I mean they released Borderlands which is liked, then Duke Nukem, which was panned. Borderlands 2 which was liked and now Colonial Marines. So if I was looking at their next release and saw it wasn't a Borderlands game, then based on their other recent releases I would not be in a rush to buy it.

So in the long run it would be better to take the hit by delaying than taking a hit to the reputation. Like look at GTA. Rockstar have delayed it yet people accept it's to perfect it and I'm pretty sure fans won't boycott it because it wasn't on time.

Of course in this case Sega were supposedly breathing down their necks. Nothing at all to do with poor time/resource management. :rolleyes:

COYVB

Overheal wrote: »

ACM is going to be hallmarked for a long, long time, as why the industry is in decline.

I don't think so to be honest. If the ACM nonsense becomes the norm, maybe, but it's not the norm

Patser

EGM gave it 9 out of 10 and left the review page open for comments, the vitriol is just pouring in. And once or twice the reviewer - Brandon Justice - responds but mostly to try to say he wasn't paid for the review - in one case thanking a commentor who calls him an 'a$$hat' while defending his right to an opinion.

Feel free to add comments yourselves, it sounds like more fun than the game;

http://www.egmnow.com/articles/reviews/egm-review-aliens-colonial-marines/

COYVB

People don't get paid for good interviews. It doesn't happen. It's a fallacy and it's not something that's present in the industry. However, some people feel pressured to be nice to the people who are nice to them. For example, if Brandon had, for example, been brought out to the studio a few times for early looks at the games, knew Randy relatively well, or had a strong relationship with Sega, it would potentially be more difficult for him to slate the game, depending on his personality.

However, what likely happened in this case from reading his "review" is that he didn't play the game for more than a few minutes, if at all. This one was likely a case of trying to get out there with a traffic magnet "first" or early review by guesstimating what the general perception of the game would be and upping the hype a touch. That IS something that's prevalent in the industry. Chances are that Brandon had that written weeks ago, ready to go live when the embargo ticked over.

Patser

^^^COYVB

I agree definately, you just have to read the review and see the pics to see that it is vague, using publicity shots rather than screen grabs and smacks of not having played the game. And I'd agree that he didn;t get paid, might have just been believing the hype about the game and was 'guessing' that it'd be good and he'd be the first to shout it.

Instead his review has brought the metacritic average up (and a Guardian review helped) and might swing a good few more towards buying a game that by all other accounts is just not worth it. I mean that game is going for €50 on steam right now and while more reviews are being added to drag the metacritic score down and down, if you were interested in buying the game and happened upon his review, you might be tempted to buy it.

His credibility is shot

COYVB

Yeah the guy will never be able to review a game again and be taken seriously. Epic screw up. Re the publicity shots though, everyone uses them. There aren't many people who bother grabbing their own any more with the resources available - it's just that most of us actually look for the least used imagery, rather than doing what Brandon did and taking what would appear to be the first results on Google image search.

Can't see him getting out of this one smelling of roses

SB2013

Patser wrote: »

EGM gave it 9 out of 10 and left the review page open for comments, the vitriol is just pouring in. And once or twice the reviewer - Brandon Justice - responds but mostly to try to say he wasn't paid for the review - in one case thanking a commentor who calls him an 'a$$hat' while defending his right to an opinion.

Feel free to add comments yourselves, it sounds like more fun than the game;

http://www.egmnow.com/articles/reviews/egm-review-aliens-colonial-marines/

His dismissive attitude will likely be the end of him. he's clearly in the wrong but cannot accept it. Putting it down to different opinions and not wanting to spoil the game.

Retr0gamer

COYVB wrote: »

People don't get paid for good interviews. It doesn't happen. It's a fallacy and it's not something that's present in the industry. However, some people feel pressured to be nice to the people who are nice to them. For example, if Brandon had, for example, been brought out to the studio a few times for early looks at the games, knew Randy relatively well, or had a strong relationship with Sega, it would potentially be more difficult for him to slate the game, depending on his personality.

However, what likely happened in this case from reading his "review" is that he didn't play the game for more than a few minutes, if at all. This one was likely a case of trying to get out there with a traffic magnet "first" or early review by guesstimating what the general perception of the game would be and upping the hype a touch. That IS something that's prevalent in the industry. Chances are that Brandon had that written weeks ago, ready to go live when the embargo ticked over.

What I would say happened is that he was invited to the developers to play an early build of the game weeks before release, played a good few hours of it, maybe even finished it, in one sitting with the developers watching him and was told that all the bugs and glitches would be ironed out for the release build. I'd say he gave it a high review thinking these glitches and poor graphics would be fixed only for the game to come out a train wreck. Happens all the time unfortunately. Also not the first time this has happened with a Sega game. Sonic 06 got some 9/10 reviews from early reviewers who were invited to play early builds of the game and told problems would be sorted in the release version. Still I'm not sure Sega is top blame this time or Gearbox. This is unfortunately all too prevalent in the industry, only a few sites won't do it, Eurogame which has stopped attending PR shindigs and 1up which won't review a game until the reviewer has beaten it or has put enough hours in which sometimes results in late reviews.

COYVB

There's no way he put any reasonable amount of time into the game based on what he's written. It's as vague as they come and avoids anything remotely specific that would point to intimate knowledge of the product. I genuinely don't believe he played the thing beyond a potential level or two of a demo

SeantheMan

Retr0gamer wrote: »

What I would say happened is that he was invited to the developers to play an early build of the game weeks before release, played a good few hours of it, maybe even finished it, in one sitting with the developers watching him and was told that all the bugs and glitches would be ironed out for the release build. I'd say he gave it a high review thinking these glitches and poor graphics would be fixed only for the game to come out a train wreck.

Complete speculation.
Not saying that it didn't happen that way, but we don't know.
Reviewers should be held to a higher standard and professional integrity.

I never trust review sites in general, more often than not I'll do my own research, and check the consensus on here.

Just reading the guys latest "tweets and responses" , such arrogance not to admit he is wrong.

hooradiation

CastorTroy wrote: »

So in the long run it would be better to take the hit by delaying than taking a hit to the reputation. Like look at GTA. Rockstar have delayed it yet people accept it's to perfect it and I'm pretty sure fans won't boycott it because it wasn't on time.

Not really comparable, is it. Seeing as Rockstar is not contracted to make the next GTA for someone else.

Also, nerds boycotting videogames? oh wow.
That's up there with "I am going to turn this car around this instant" when it comes to toothless threats.

CastorTroy wrote: »

Of course in this case Sega were supposedly breathing down their necks. Nothing at all to do with poor time/resource management. :rolleyes:

You understand that both can be the case as Sega were, allegedly, ready to take them to court for breach of contract.
It's preferable to ship the damn thing rather than go to court over it, because one will bleed you of money over a long time and the other involves having a game with a bad review score - big deal. There'll be some foaming at the (virtual) mouth for a while after launch, but really for a company the size of gearbox, it's not the end of the world.

Agricola

Someone in the EGM comments thread hit the nail on the head. If the publisher was that desperate to be sure of one good review for this game, they would surely try to secure it from one of the big sites, not this one!

Ah its nonsense anyway. This reminds me of the laura wainwright fiasco on Eurogamer a while back. Just a case of a "journalist" who has little to no actual interest in games and is just biding their time to get into PR or some other related field in the industry. If they can ease that passage by giving some interest groups happy clappy reviews, then so be it.

"Its only games people, its not serious business!!!" (Something these people would surely say!)

Mr Justice actually attempted to defend himself in the thread by replying that he wrote the piece weeks ago and didnt get a chance to see other site's scores before the review was published! My god!

muppetkiller

hooradiation wrote: »

Also, nerds boycotting videogames? oh wow.

I think you're missing a point here. It's probably more accurate to say Nerds boycotting actually paying for videogames from a particular Studio .

COYVB

Agricola wrote: »

Mr Justice actually attempted to defend himself in the thread by replying that he wrote the piece weeks ago and didnt get a chance to see other site's scores before the review was published! My god!

Pretty much exactly as I assumed. Written weeks ago with little or no play of the game

hooradiation

muppetkiller wrote: »

I think you're missing a point here. It's probably more accurate to say Nerds boycotting actually paying for videogames from a particular Studio .

Just one of the many ways that nerds are terrible human beings who will never change anything with their nonsense.

Retr0gamer

SeantheMan wrote: »

Complete speculation.

I never said it wasn't but that's the best explanation I can come up with and similar has happened before.

Agricola

The real travesty here is that people are forking out full RRP for this turkey and no one bats an eye. Its up on Steam, its on shelves across the world, waiting to rip people off. Could you imagine going into a film where the special effects were only at previs quality, or the audio track was out of sync? You'd be demanding your money back. Games exist in a weird no mans land were rubbish like this is largely accepted.

Reekwind

Agricola wrote: »

The real travesty here is that people are forking out full RRP for this turkey and no one bats an eye. Its up on Steam, its on shelves across the world, waiting to rip people off. Could you imagine going into a film where the special effects were only at previs quality, or the audio track was out of sync? You'd be demanding your money back. Games exist in a weird no mans land were rubbish like this is largely accepted.

The problem with the games industry (or this week's problem, at least) is the poor state of reviews. If a film is a disaster then the only people likely to get burnt are the punters on the opening weekend, and only then if they didn't read advance reviews. Film critics will stick the knife in where necessary and do so in pretty public places

In contrast, those magazines that review games are specialist organs that have practically no credibility any more, thanks to their cosy relationships with developers/publishers. And at the same time you have a constant push by publishers to encourage pre-orders, ie skipping the review process entirely

Patser

Reekwind wrote: »

The problem with the games industry (or this week's problem, at least) is the poor state of reviews. I

In contrast, those magazines that review games are specialist organs that have practically no credibility any more, thanks to their cosy relationships with developers/publishers. And at the same time you have a constant push by publishers to encourage pre-orders, ie skipping the review process entirely

Well to be fair, the vast majority of the reviews for this game have rated it poorly. It's this fact that has made the EGM review and the Guardian one stand out so much - and drawn the spotlight straight in Mr Justice.

Take those 2 reviews out and all others have been fairly fair and accurate. In fact quite a few high profile websites are freely discussing what went wrong and contrasting demo to full game.

IMO you're far more likely to see dodgy reviews for movies with scores all over the place, than for games.

CastorTroy

But at the same time, people choose when to listen to reviews. I mean Dredd 3D got great reviews in the cinema yet no many people went to see it. Seems if someone wants to see/get something, they'll go ahead. It's only people who are interested in it but waiting on the reaction that base their purchase on reviews.

In my opinion.