Jimquisition: A-LIE-ns: Colonial Marines

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
Yokillernick said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
OK...

But WHAT ABOUT THE MULTIPLAYER? I've already asked this in a similar thread but everyone's apparently still too busy crying about the campaign. Yes, it's crap. Didn't happen. Sorry. Let's move on now, shall we?
I'm not 100% sure how many people actually bought an Aliens game for the multiplayer. It's like asking how many people bought Battlefield 3 solely for the singleplayer, it just doesn't happen.
Y- You're kidding, right? Go to any forum discussing any Aliens game, and it's going to be 90% topics discussing the multiplayer (balancing issues, how to play as certain races, etc), 8% topics saying that the game doesn't measure-up to AvP1999, and 2% topics about the actual campaign. Give or take.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
Damn that demo looked good. A whole game along them lines was exactly what I was hoping for when I heard about the game in the first place.

Grouchy Imp said:
I'll start right off the bat by saying I don't know when this demo was made, but surely a game that has been in development for seven years will have some content cut from it that was at some point meant to be included? Fair enough if this demo is six months old then there is no excuse for it, but if this demo is older than that and is showing a sequence that was going to be in the game but then got cut after the demo was made, well, is it that bad?
)
A good point, but the issue I think isn't just that these things do not exist, it's that they do not represent actual game-play. That the game itself, is actually worse than the demo, as the AI is not as smart, the graphics are not as good, the animations are not as smooth and so on.

If all the things they showed were a part of the game, but not quite how it was shown, then I don't think it'd be a problem. As it is, the demo quite simply is of a higher quality than the game itself, and that amounts to false advertising.

Not that they will get in trouble for it, as they said it was a "work in progress."
 

Monsterfurby

New member
Mar 7, 2008
871
0
0
Wait, scores in the FORTIES!? Holy jumping mother of god in a sidecar with chocolate jimmies and a lobster bib - they REALLY screwed up.

At least this proves that not all review scores can be bought.
 

The Lugz

New member
Apr 23, 2011
1,371
0
0
well, at some points i was thinking meh so they made a new level for the demo that's not so bad
but then i was all.. nah they've totally made a new, better more polished and complete version of the game
so why didn't this make it into the final game? did they hire a workforce of competent people for the demo
and just slack jawed yokels for the game development?

it's flabbergasting, and shocking and completely illogical
i mean, seriously if your demo is this good vs the rest of the game,
then delete the game and use the demo level
 

Kenjitsuka

New member
Sep 10, 2009
3,051
0
0
Sweet demo. But for 90% of it to be a lie?
Someone should get fired for this, or sued for false advertising.
 

Monsterfurby

New member
Mar 7, 2008
871
0
0
I'm still trying to come up with an explanation for how they did not re-use the assets from the demo.

I mean, I may have no clue about how this works whatsoever, but couldn't you - theoretically - if you have a texture or model or so set up for a high-poly pre-rendered CGI section just take that and reduce the poly count/resolution and fit it into the game? There is absolutely NO discernible reason whatsoever for them to take out things like the cracked glass in the landing bridge sequence, or alter the textures that much, or omit most of the animations.

WHAT ON EARTH HAPPENED?

Theory: The demo was created by an external contractor, who either went bankrupt or made off without giving Gearbox access to the assets. Something like that.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Honestly I am legally blind without my contacts in, and even with them in my eyesight is shit, so all of this just seems like bitching about nothing when talking about the graphics .Please don't interpret that to mean that you don't have a right to *****, you do. I am just unable to commiserate with you on the subject as they both look very similar to my eyes (saves me lots of money on graphics cards). Still though I'm in the pissed off boat.

It was the AI for me that did me in. I checked out the demo videos before I plopped down my 50 on the PC version (got a pre-order deal) and loved how the aliens moved. I loved the AI and the pathing and how everything screamed Aliens. Then I played the game and got suicide bomber shooter #8. I went back and checked the other difficulty settings (I played on normal first), and there wasn't any noticeable change in the AI.

Thank god for you Jim, too bad I didn't see this sooner...
 

aenimau5

New member
Dec 19, 2010
133
0
0
I hadn't paid any attention to colonial marines until all the crappy reviews came out but that demo was so good I got retroactively excited just watching it. Kind of wish I hadn't traded in AvP now.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Awesome video.
The one thing that is really mind-boggling about this is how much work they obviously put into that demo only to throw it away afterwards... I mean, there's plenty of animations there they could have used, they voiced 10 minutes of what looked like a game etc... that's TONS of content just down the drain.
Other than that, Gearbox really should apologize for this kind of BS.

After all this I'm really glad I didn't preorder the game's collector's edition like I intended to after watching that demo.
 

uzo

New member
Jul 5, 2011
710
0
0
The original AvP game in `99 or so was phenomenal. I crapped myself sooooo many times it wasn't funny. No saves as you go through, xenomorphs respawning here there and everywhere meant you couldn't 'stay put', and having to freakin' double back through a place you went through before and thought 'oh Jesus I'm glad I'm not going the other way because this would SO be a place for an ambush...' .... phenomenal game. Just phenomenal.

And then there's this apparent sham/fantasy ... a SHAMTASY!

Hell, in a few months when it's on Steam's Easter Sale or whatnot for $2 I might buy it. But based on the bad press I've heard so far they can go fuck emselves.

Seriously people @ Gaybox or whatever you're called .. you work in fucking IT. You know how quickly word travels on the Internet when you take a beloved IP with almost 30 yrs of history and love put into it, some of the most freakin' awesome moments of cinema history, bend it over and fuck it dry. Look at George Lucas and that fuckin' Jar Jar, or Indiana being raped by crystal skulls n whatnot ... Jesus you fucktards. Your moron managers with their sham MBAs need to go back to kindergarten. Let's see them finger paint a green Mickey Mouse and see how the kids react to them and their 'vertical fucking slice'.

Vertical slice wtf marketing bullshit is that ?!
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
Legion said:
Damn that demo looked good. A whole game along them lines was exactly what I was hoping for when I heard about the game in the first place.

Grouchy Imp said:
I'll start right off the bat by saying I don't know when this demo was made, but surely a game that has been in development for seven years will have some content cut from it that was at some point meant to be included? Fair enough if this demo is six months old then there is no excuse for it, but if this demo is older than that and is showing a sequence that was going to be in the game but then got cut after the demo was made, well, is it that bad?
)
A good point, but the issue I think isn't just that these things do not exist, it's that they do not represent actual game-play. That the game itself, is actually worse than the demo, as the AI is not as smart, the graphics are not as good, the animations are not as smooth and so on.

If all the things they showed were a part of the game, but not quite how it was shown, then I don't think it'd be a problem. As it is, the demo quite simply is of a higher quality than the game itself, and that amounts to false advertising.

Not that they will get in trouble for it, as they said it was a "work in progress."
The inclusion of the phrase "work in progress" kinda renders this whole shitstorm pointless, surely. Seems about half the ads I see on TV for videogames have the disclaimer "Not representative of actual gameplay" in the bottom of the screen and no-one kicks up a fuss over them, so if this particular A:CM trailer states "work in progress" then I fail to understand the magnitude of this uproar. It's a shame that the finished product didn't have all the features Gearbox wanted to implement, sure, but at no point did Gearbox promise these things to us. They aren't going back on some contract by witholding these features, as cool as it would have been to have then in the final product.
 

PainInTheAssInternet

The Ship Magnificent
Dec 30, 2011
826
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
PainInTheAssInternet said:
You have AVP. You don't need this one. Enough games go to shit because they crowbar-in multiplayer.
AvP2 is unbalanced in the predators favor and AvP is too old. I don't know about AvP 2010 but I'm sure nobody plays that anymore as well.
It would've helped if it wasn't such a pain in the ass (heh) to just get to the game. Seriously, whose idea was it to make a single person be able to launch a game without an automatic timer? I swear there are people who start lobbies and then leave it running just to troll. Then there are the idiots who insist on trying to fill all the slots who have obviously never played online meaning that they just end up getting a revolving door of players and never launch.

And if someone drops out, they can't be replaced for some stupid reason, meaning that if a game becomes unbalanced, it's impossible to balance them unless someone on the other team (or two teams) quits as well.

But I stand by what I said; Aliens Colonial Marines was sold on the signale-player, as it should have been, thus their failure to accomplish that is very notable.

Though it might have been because they knew multiplayer was such a mess.
 

xDarc

New member
Feb 19, 2009
1,333
0
0
This is why I don't pre-order anything and wait for the actual game to be out a week or two.
 

MrCollins

Power Vacuumer
Jun 28, 2010
1,694
0
0
In UK law, it is a legal requirement that if you sell goods by sample then, according to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the product must correspond to the sample.
Now sure how that would work in the case of a video-game, mind you. Also, gearbox could argue it wasn't a sample.
Still, interesting thought, I wonder if we'll ever get an answer.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
Grouchy Imp said:
Legion said:
Damn that demo looked good. A whole game along them lines was exactly what I was hoping for when I heard about the game in the first place.

Grouchy Imp said:
I'll start right off the bat by saying I don't know when this demo was made, but surely a game that has been in development for seven years will have some content cut from it that was at some point meant to be included? Fair enough if this demo is six months old then there is no excuse for it, but if this demo is older than that and is showing a sequence that was going to be in the game but then got cut after the demo was made, well, is it that bad?
)
A good point, but the issue I think isn't just that these things do not exist, it's that they do not represent actual game-play. That the game itself, is actually worse than the demo, as the AI is not as smart, the graphics are not as good, the animations are not as smooth and so on.

If all the things they showed were a part of the game, but not quite how it was shown, then I don't think it'd be a problem. As it is, the demo quite simply is of a higher quality than the game itself, and that amounts to false advertising.

Not that they will get in trouble for it, as they said it was a "work in progress."
The inclusion of the phrase "work in progress" kinda renders this whole shitstorm pointless, surely. Seems about half the ads I see on TV for videogames have the disclaimer "Not representative of actual gameplay" in the bottom of the screen and no-one kicks up a fuss over them, so if this particular A:CM trailer states "work in progress" then I fail to understand the magnitude of this uproar. It's a shame that the finished product didn't have all the features Gearbox wanted to implement, sure, but at no point did Gearbox promise these things to us. They aren't going back on some contract by witholding these features, as cool as it would have been to have then in the final product.
But that's the difference. It may say work in progress, but it also says in-game footage. While you are correct in saying that the former means that they admitted it's not the final product, the fact that the final product is worse, is another matter entirely.

Although it is never explicitly stated, it is taken as a given that when somebody advertises something, and what they show is a "work in progress", it is meant to say "Don't judge it too harshly, as it's still got more work to be done."

In this instance, the "work in progress" is actually better than the final product, so people are pissed off, because it is effectively false advertising. Nobody looks at a work in progress and expects it to be better than what they are getting, even if the phrase doesn't guarantee otherwise.

Like Dexter said, you are defending poor business practices. It doesn't matter that they have absolved themselves of any legal issues by claiming it was a work in progress, they deceived people by advertising a superior product than the one they actually released. Nobody expects a half done product still being worked on to be better than the one they buy.
 

Proverbial Jon

Not evil, just mildly malevolent
Nov 10, 2009
2,093
0
0
I can't believe I got suckered into this too. I'm sending my copy back right away. In fact I'd forgotten that I'd even preordered it in the first place! Seeing it arrive today was like being told I was a complete loser. I think I'm going to have to start being more sensible with my video game purchases in future.