Aliens : Colonial Marines

muppetkiller

Interesting article on gearbox here....kinda sums them up perfectly
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/03/15/from-codehunters-to-aliens-colonial-marines-how-gearbox-has-become-one-of-the-most-controversial-studios-in-the-industry/

Pixelbastardo

muppetkiller wrote: »

Interesting article on gearbox here....kinda sums them up perfectly
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/03/15/from-codehunters-to-aliens-colonial-marines-how-gearbox-has-become-one-of-the-most-controversial-studios-in-the-industry/

Thats one shaddy ass dev team... i dont get all the praise for borderlands, i thinks its utter garbage, just like any other game iv played that has anything to do with gearbox.

Azza

Gearbox are alright in my book.

Of there games I've played Half Life: Opposing Force which I thought was a good expansion. Brothers in Arms was a decent game, although the sequels didn't do much for me.

I really liked Borderlands 1 and 2. Gameplay is very addictive and its great fun in co-op with a friend. Story and humor is much improved in the second one, interesting art style too.

Aliens Colonial Marines I won't be bothering with.

Burgo

Pretty good comparison video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lGXDM3LGnk

really wish I could play that demo.

COYVB

Thought it would be worth reincarnating this thread to point out that Brandon Justice, the guy who gave it a 9 in his "review" hasn't published a single article in the 3 months since...

um7y1h83ge06nx

Seems he was pushed from EGM:

http://www.structuregaming.com/2013/02/18/brandon-justices-abrupt-and-unexpected-departure-from-egm-now/

EGM now, a respected video game website has been in the hot seat as of late. Much of the attention has been revolving around Executive Editor, Brandon Justice. The first blemish on EGM Now’s mostly positively received articles was a review of Master chiefs latest outing: Halo 4. In his review, Brandon states “If you played Rage, imagine the last level of that game, on repeat, for roughly 8 hours. That is essentially the structure of Halo 4. It forces you to use way too many bullets to kill the same enemies over and over and over again for hours with little variation on how that is accomplished”, taken from EGM Now. While not exactly a praise, Brandon found the game to be merely acceptible. Most fans were outraged and could not believe his given low score. Then there was his review of Aliens Colonial Marines, a game criticized by many for being an ugly, buggy incompetent shooter. Much praise was given to this game by Brandon stating, “All things considered, Colonial Marines is a consistently solid, occasionally spectacular shooter that does more than enough to honor the Alien name” in a review for EGM Now.

With all of the backlash that Brandon had received for these reviews from fans, one could speculate why EGM Now decided to let Brandon go. After reading EGM Now’s letter from the publisher, it seems clear that there were prior disagreements or conflicts that lead to Brandon’s departure, “let me state that his departure has absolutely nothing to do with his Aliens: Colonial Marines review and is actually related to actions that took place prior to last week”, states Steve Harris, publisher at EGM Now. The article also denies that any company or publisher may have given Brandon money or compensation in exchange for a highly positive review. “EGM wasn’t paid off. EGM didn’t sell advertisements to Sega or Gearbox or receive any compensation from anyone associated with Aliens: Colonial Marines. EGM didn’t attempt to change or influence Brandon’s opinions” states Steve Harris on whether Brandon’s high praise was genuine. All of the controversy revolving around Brandon Justice’s departure at EGM Now is well warranted considering the unique circumstances that the company has found itself in as of late.

It is unfortunate to see Brandon go. He may not have always sided with the popular views, but he sure knew how to speak his mind. Knowing that his much controversial reviews would spark something inside of every passionate gamer, Brandon still went through writing his articles. Taking all of the negative feedback and just letting it all soak in, he managed to create yet another controversial review with Aliens: Colonial Marines. While a critical bomb, Brandon had praised the game and gave it higher marks than the more beloved Halo 4. We may never know the real reason as to Brandon’s departure, but whatever lies on the road ahead, all our well wishes go out to a video game editor that was not afraid to take chances.



Editor’s Note:

It is important to note that writing a review is a highly subjective process. Every gamer will experience each game differently, and in no way was Brandon required to adhere to the norm. His reviews were the result of his subjective experience, and were found lacking by critical readers expecting another cookie-cutter review of an already totally slammed game. The thing to remember is that we writers are often just like the gamer, with a slightly more sophisticated vocabulary and ability to discuss how we felt about a game. There are few people who did enjoy the latest Aliens game, and if nothing else, it should be remembered that we are all entitled to our own opinions.

Let us know what you think in the comments below, and be sure to compare our review to his and make up your own minds:

Orim

That all seems a bit harsh. So a guy doesn't agree with the status quo and I'm assuming he was lambasted as being a shill?

Grumpypants

Is it any wonder reviewers are now all falling in line like Lemmings.

Gbear

Orim wrote: »

That all seems a bit harsh. So a guy doesn't agree with the status quo and I'm assuming he was lambasted as being a shill?

He was either a shill or a ****ty reviewer.
Either way it's fair enough that it would lead him to losing his job.

tuxy

“let me state that his departure has absolutely nothing to do with his Aliens: Colonial Marines review and is actually related to actions that took place prior to last week”, states Steve Harris, publisher at EGM Now.

Gbear wrote: »

He was either a shill or a ****ty reviewer.
Either way it's fair enough that it would lead him to losing his job.

Wait, why did he lose his job? Do you have some kind of insider info that we don't have?

Orim

Gbear wrote: »

He was either a shill or a ****ty reviewer.
Either way it's fair enough that it would lead him to losing his job.

Why because the majority of people didn't like the game?

Personally I enjoyed the the game. I wouldn't have given it a 9, more of a 7ish going down to 4 or 5 if the person wasn't an aliens fan.

Based on the two reveiws (Reach and CM) I quite like this guy as a reviewer because it appears that his tastes and my own are somewhat in line.

But no lets lambast anyone that disagrees with the status quo and forever make the same bland games that AAA keeps dishing up.

Kirby

I agree to be honest. I've loved games most people have hated and disliked games that the masses loved. As long as somebody can adequately explain why they think a game is good, surely they should be allowed their opinion? I doubt he was fired for just bucking the trend. There was possibly internal stuff going on that we don't know about.

Either that or he wasn't a quality reviewer. Did he mention the massive issues with Colonial Marines at all? I suppose it gets a bit murky if a reviewer doesn't mention the flaws in a game. That is part of the job. It's one thing to highlight issues and say why you don't think they detract from the game ............it's another issue entirely to ignore them completely. That's poor journalism. Was he guilty of that?

Orim

Kirby wrote: »

I agree to be honest. I've loved games most people have hated and disliked games that the masses loved. As long as somebody can adequately explain why they think a game is good, surely they should be allowed their opinion? I doubt he was fired for just bucking the trend. There was possibly internal stuff going on that we don't know about.

Either that or he wasn't a quality reviewer. Did he mention the massive issues with Colonial Marines at all? I suppose it gets a bit murky if a reviewer doesn't mention the flaws in a game. That is part of the job. It's one thing to highlight issues and say why you don't think they detract from the game ............it's another issue entirely to ignore them completely. That's poor journalism. Was he guilty of that?

Seems to be internal stuff was the cause but I can't imagine that the storm caused by his "awful" reviews helped.

Having said they could be terrible reviews. I haven't read them but from the line quoted in the above article,

“All things considered, Colonial Marines is a consistently solid, occasionally spectacular shooter that does more than enough to honor the Alien name”

it doesn't seem that bad and it looks as if he did consider the flaws in the game.

Sarky

But Halo 4 was the same damn thing over and over and over...

gizmo

He was also on the receiving end of an inordinate amount of abuse for the aforementioned Halo 4 review where he gave it "only" 7/10. Not only that but the source of some of the abuse was rather surprising to say the least.

George Broussard on Twitter, for example.

super_furry

Sarky wrote: »

But Halo 4 was the same damn thing over and over and over...

Yep. I say this as someone who loved the series, but the single player campaign in Halo 4 is just dull.

COYVB

Orim wrote: »

That all seems a bit harsh. So a guy doesn't agree with the status quo and I'm assuming he was lambasted as being a shill?

I suggest you read his review. There's absolutely nothing in there that points at him ever actually playing the game

Orim

COYVB wrote: »

I suggest you read his review. There's absolutely nothing in there that points at him ever actually playing the game

Okay. Just did. I pretty much agree with him and he seems to have not played the exact same game.

It doesn't seem that bad to me, he mentions the subpar visuals, he mentions the Xenomorphs being too attracted to bullets. A little bit of hyperbole regarding the excellent level design (but if you include some of the multiplayer maps then I don't think it's too bad).

The score is a little too gushing but that's all I can see wrong with that review.

COYVB

It reads like the back of the box. There's absolutely no insight as to the game at all

Orim

COYVB wrote: »

It reads like the back of the box. There's absolutely no insight as to the game at all

Really. Maybe I'm reading a different review then. To paraphrase what I read:

Game is full of fan-service - True
Core Mechanics solid and mix up the objectives - True
Too much action not enough survival horror - True
Subpar visuals - True
Terrible squad AI - True
Overall an average game that an aliens fan could enjoy - True

It's short and simplish but it's not bad. In fact I think it offers more insight into the game than most other reviews. It gives the man's opinion rather than a description of a playthrough which seems to par for the course for most games journalists.

Grumpypants

What happens is there is such a build up in reviewers who are too scarred to mark down COD or Halo as they will sell 15mill copies and that is a lot of people to upset. These games get a free ride with 8 or 9's.

Then to try and give themselves a sense of credibility they slam a FPS that is tracking to sell 1-2 mill like Aliens or Medal of Honor. Jim Sterling being a fine example. MW3 9 out of 10 MOHW gets 4 out of ten, Aliens 3 out of ten. !!!!

Shameful clown.

SeantheMan

Orim wrote: »

Too much action not enough survival horror - True
Subpar visuals - True
Terrible squad AI - True
Overall an average game that an aliens fan could enjoy - True

What score did he give it ?

Orim

SeantheMan wrote: »

What score did he give it ?

I'm going on what he wrote. I admitted above that the score was overly gushing but that's not the only aspect of the review. And if you weight more heavily towards the multiplayer then I can see that score creeping up.

Further to this, in this day and age it seems like 9 is an average score. 10 is a good game, 9 is an a average, anything below is atrocious.

CastorTroy

Reviews and the internet rarely agree. How often have we seen reviews for games before the game's released and already people are complaining about the score being either too high or too low?
Then we have games getting great scores that everyone loves and a few weeks later it's cool to hate the same game and make fun of it.

I haven't played this game but gong by comparisons it isn't what was originally shown. Good job Sony didn't do that at the PS3 reveal. But with so many negative reviews I do wonder are people hating it because they're supposed to.

And didn't deadly Premonition get negative reviews yet that's supposedly liked by a lot of people?

btkm8unsl0w5r4

This games is total crap, and this coming from me who thought Sniper Ghost Warrior 2 was alright. This thred keeps popping up and every time I see it I give ACM another try, usually only lasting about 5 minutes before swearing at the screen and turning it off.

Yeah sometimes opinions differ, but in this case it should be on how bad the game is.

muppetkiller

Has anyone downloaded the 8gig patch ? Apparently did alot to address the graphical issues. No idea about the AI though.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

muppetkiller wrote: »

Has anyone downloaded the 8gig patch ? Apparently did alot to address the graphical issues. No idea about the AI though.

The entire crysis 3 is only slightly bigger, the patch does nothing for the graphics or AI as far as I can tell except adding in a few effects and allowing you to remove the stupid film grain.....I have it on steam so you have to update it to play. 8gb of my monthly allowance on this tripe.

COYVB

Orim wrote: »

Really. Maybe I'm reading a different review then. To paraphrase what I read:

Game is full of fan-service - True
Core Mechanics solid and mix up the objectives - True
Too much action not enough survival horror - True
Subpar visuals - True
Terrible squad AI - True
Overall an average game that an aliens fan could enjoy - True

It's short and simplish but it's not bad. In fact I think it offers more insight into the game than most other reviews. It gives the man's opinion rather than a description of a playthrough which seems to par for the course for most games journalists.

But there are no specifics of any of that? Anyone couldve watched a trailer, read a press release and regurgitated that without the need to play the game. It reeks to high heavens of a review written without any first hand experience

Orim

COYVB wrote: »

But there are no specifics of any of that? Anyone couldve watched a trailer, read a press release and regurgitated that without the need to play the game. It reeks to high heavens of a review written without any first hand experience

Okay I'll agree there's no specifics but I would question why we need them. As I said above I'm sick to the teeth with "reviews" that read like a playthrough guide with a number stuck on the bottom. Granted there could be a few in his review but it's quite a short review so there's not really room (I was having difficultly locating another review on that site so I don't know if that's the way they do things or perhaps he was a shill but kept it short because he was so disgusted with himself).

I would love to see the press release or trailer that projected how oblivious the squadmate AI was.

Again, this whole thing reads like the main issue is that he disagrees with the majority.

COYVB

If the review read like he'd played the game, then I'd have no issue with it as it would definitely be his opinion. The problem here is that it looks like he took a look at some promo stuff, checked out some previews and took a stab at it based on what he thought would be an average review for the title. He was assuming, from what I can tell, that what he wrote would, more or less, prove to be the norm, and it would disappear under all the other reviews. Believe it or not, it's surprisingly common for reviews to be written without playing a game for more than an hour in this industry - you can usually tell easily enough too, mainly through the use of sweeping statements and lack of specifics about, well, anything at all