Review - 9/10? Yes.

[Gallus11B_TTV]

I've seen quite a few 4/5 and 9/10 reviews for the game and a lot of people giving those reviews flack.

The game is clearly a co op driven. It's a lot like borderlands or Left 4 Dead the sense that playing single player campaign isn't all that great, but soon as you bring in 3 other players and crank up the difficulty it's a ton of fun.

The VS mode online is also a ton of fun if you have a 4 man team to play with. Working with your squad of marines in voice chat and coordinating attacks with xenos is very rewarding.

I see this game exactly like I saw L4D / borderlands, and the reviews pretty much say the same thing. A reviewer looking for an intense single player campaign with revolutionary gameplay is going to be disappointed. But that's not what ACM is. ACM is a co op game from the ground up. That's like making a review about Starcraft 2 and complaining that the game isn't good because it's not a shooter lol.

it makes it even worst if the reviewer is not an Aliens fan (I LOL every time I read a bad review and they mention bad sounding weapons... THATS HOW THEY SOUNDED IN THE MOVIE! DERP! LOL).

Sometimes the reviewer is a huge Aliens fan, and they rip on the game because it's not as good story/character wise as the movie (Which is rarely even matched in movies to this day, so I believe that's just another case of having way too high of expectations).

So in the end, I'm personally very happy with the game, as both an aliens fan and a Co Op fan. The game has a few bugs, but I feel they will get ironed out, and no game releases bug free. To judge a game on a few bugs on day 1 is really stupid. To judge a game poorly because you prefer lone wolf shooters is stupid.

The over all experience is very rewarding when it comes to it's intended co op purpose and is leaps and bounds better than all of the AVP series games. (That says a lot to me, because I was a huge fan of AVP1 and AVP2.)

Too often co op is overlooked, so I'm glad to get another L4D style co op game, and I think the story does at least some justice to the original Aliens movie. It's not the most amazing story, but it's interesting and fun to play through. Over the past few of years I can count on 1 hand the amount of decent Co Op games that have released, and the fact that ACM is on that 1 hand, in my eyes, more than warrants a 9/10 rating at least.

[Gallus11B_TTV]

I've been playing it non stop with my wife and 2 friends. We've loved every bit of it. Co Op and VS mode.

People who aren't happy with the game are the same people who gave L4D and Borderlands ♥♥♥♥. You know it's nice to get a co op game once a year or 2. You want revolutionary single player experience head on over to any one of the 10000 titles released every month.

[Hooch]

You have seen quite a few 4/5 and 9/10 reviews? I'm calling bs on that one. The Meta is clearly average or worse, not "outstanding" as your reviews would have them say.

Please link the sites that are giving this game glowing reviews (personal blogs that no one reads are irrelevant btw).

FTY: Metacritic = 42
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/aliens-colonial-marines/critic-reviews

If you were not aware, Metacritic is an aggregate of various review sites from around the web. The vast majority of reviews are giving this game a bad rating. It is simply not the case that "quite a few" are giving it 4/5 or 9/10.

As far as it being a good game or not...I'm not speaking to that issue. I just don't like misleading claims.

[Lavian]

No, they're probably not (all of) the same people that gave L4D and Borderlands crap. If they were, then those two games would probably have relatively low aggregate scores too.

Look, if you like the game, then that's great, but it's pretty clear that it's getting hate from more people than just those who didn't like Borderlands and L4D.

[JUPITER141]

Originally posted by Lord of the Game:

I've been playing it non stop with my wife and 2 friends. We've loved every bit of it. Co Op and VS mode.

People who aren't happy with the game are the same people who gave L4D and Borderlands ♥♥♥♥. You know it's nice to get a co op game once a year or 2. You want revolutionary single player experience head on over to any one of the 10000 titles released every month.

listen, i am literally a borderlands junkie, i have clocked like 80 hours on that game, i had so much repsect for gearbox until this, until i found out about the gearbox developer on reddit, untill i saw all those ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ reveiws. until i found out i was scammed by a company who showed me fake footage and is going to get away with it because of my lack of consumer protection,if your standards for gaming so low that something so generic as this game is average to you, then you my friend need to be playing better games and seeing what real good fps games are like or horror games(whcih Aliens is not, not even a litte scared throughtout campaign)

[Chape]

I agree with this post - been playing through the campaign on ultimate badass with 3 others and its great fun!!

I don't think your meant to play this alone - Get some buddies together and hit the campaign, it adds a dynamic element that wasn't programmed - I haven't laughed so much at my buddies demise and they on me - Try and get 4 people through the sewers!! Ones always going faster than the others or someone doesn't stop when they are supposed too >=)

Kaboooom...!!

Covering, reviving and keeping track of peeps when its all going off keeps things interesting. Friendly fire is an issue at the hardest difficulty too - Watch that crossfire :))

I played l4d with 3 others, didn't once play it single player and loved it. It would be great if more games used this model and not ignored the power of co-op

[darnj78]

But the coop mode was supposed to separate each player into different roles.... I played a two player coop game and we both had the same equipment. I do enjoy the coop but it didn't seem more difficult even on Ultimate Badass mode... do we get to see different enemies with more partners like BL2?

[Chape]

I think from mission 6 onward I started to see a variance, spitters, lurkers and soldiers, lots of them, they just keep coming :D

[Gallus11B_TTV]

@Aionion. There have been plenty of bad games that got good reviews, there are plenty of good games that get bad reviews. Which is why I never hold any stock in reviews at all. L4D had a ton of bad reviews when it first came out. People complaining about bad AI and crappy single player, and dated graphics, not enough this and that, and blah blah blah. Even though when it was released it was pretty much the pinnacle of co op games, nothing else came even close.

The reason for these kinds of low scores is because co op is the most important feature to a lot of people, and it's very unimportant for a lot of people as well. So a game built around co op is ALWAYS going to get some hard critics.

Borderlands got a lot of crap reviews too, and so Mass Effect 3. Both were very good games (ME3 is not co op I know, just saying it got a lot of undeserved flack).

Co op is just a rare thing that is always shat on by some reviewers for some reason. EGM gave ACM good review 9.0/10. Guardian gave it 4/5. Gaming bolt and AllthingsXbox gave it 8/10.

Before you come back with "Well those aren't good reviewers" or some nonsense like that, IGN gave WoW MOP a 8.7/10. WoW in general is the butt crack of MMORPGs. Like I said, reviews mean squat. If you only played games with good reviews we'd all be stuck playing mundane trash like CoD and WoW.

Some people understand what the point of this game is, some people don't. Like I said before, it's nice to get a co op game once every 2 or 3 years. You don't like it? Sorry for ya. Get some friends lol.

[Gallus11B_TTV]

@chape I agree 100%. I think co op offers the most amazing experiences you can have in video games. I mean, even think back to Contra, or the Gauntlet series. Turn on the co op and the fun level goes up 100 fold.

So many games these days completely ignore co op. Multiplayer is often a joke, being nothing more than glorified lone wolf gameplay and no team work at all. Just about the only place you can find team work now a days is in MMORPGs, and in many cases MMORPGs are starting to stray away from co op gameplay and glorify solo combat. It's pathetic.

Like I said in all my other posts, I'm glad they made this game around co op, and they did a great job. I haven't had so much fun online since L4D released. All the haters can go get a refund lol

[Gallus11B_TTV]

@darn. The campaign team work is more based on picking each other up, sticking together and watching different fields of fire to cover each other. You don't really get into roles until you get in VS modes, with tracker range increase perks and different weapon load out mixes. VS more requires a lot more team work to be successful, and a bit more strategy.

[Lil C]-[ew C]-[ew is ☂д☂]

See is like what did happen when rage launched.....those reviews are pure bulls*** to advertise the game.But honestly...honestly this game at least should get 7/10 on max....it didn´t get to close of be called good. About the coop in singeplayer liked a bit but still it could be done much better.

[Paradise Decay]

Sites like Metacritic are hurting the games industry, just watch a TB video on the subject! Never judge a game by its metacritic score!

[Hooch]

Wow Lord of the Game...where to start? SO much bad reasoning here. But seeing as how I teach Crit Thinking....I believe it's important that we address some serious flaws in your reasoning here else others may be misled (and I really have a thing for when people mislead others through deceit or bad reasoning).

Originally posted by Lord of the Game:

@Aionion. There have been plenty of bad games that got good reviews, there are plenty of good games that get bad reviews.

This is a red herring fallacy (it is irrelevant). I did not say that good games do not get bad reviews, nor the reverse. READ carefully before you respond.

L4D had a ton of bad reviews when it first came out.

No it didn't.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/left-4-dead/critic-reviews

And that a game may have a FEW bad reviews or a FEW good reviews, is entirely irrelevant. What matters is the reception by and large.

L4D received extremely positive reception, especially when compared with ACM. ACM on the other hand, has been received both by the community and editorial review boards as being at best, average, but mainly a pretty bad game. There are plenty of reasons why it is not a well received game (many of which are already posed in this forum; others are posted by those who work at Gearbox (see another thread for that bit).

Regardless, the issue is not "Can a game receive ANY good reviews or ANY bad reviews?" That's just silly. The issue specifically was "Did this particular game receive any great reviews of worth?"

You claimed yes. Yet this is not true and you know it. You were challenged to support it by providing links. Obviously, because none exist...you could not provide any. That was my ONLY point in posting in this thread. You are mislead others through that false claim. Nothing else about the quality of the game itself is addressed by me,

The reason for these kinds of low scores is because co op is the most important feature to a lot of people, and it's very unimportant for a lot of people as well. So a game built around co op is ALWAYS going to get some hard critics.

1) It isn't merely due to co-op. Read the other threads. There are dozens and dozens of reasons why it is not being received well. Hint: The developer for the campaign is a different company than the co-op. The game is a 7 yr or so legal battle with several extensions, several companies involved, outsource, miscommunication between companies, and a non-negotiable release date that could not be pushed back further due to apparent pending legal action if it occurred one more time. RESEARCH is your friend, my friend.

2) When an entire gaming community "condemns" a game, it is not simply the case that "A lot of people just want co-op and it didn't work out so well." When 95% of both the player base and review boards (such as IGN, PC Gamer, Gamespy, Eurogamer, etc...) give it below average reviews, it's telling.

It is FINE to disagree with their experience (editorials + gaming community). It is FINE to enjoy the game. No one is saying otherwise. What is not fine however, is to make a false claim such as "There are quite a few 4/5 and 9/10 reviews for this game and they are unfairly getting hate." That is simply not true. Those "quite a few" reviews you claim exist...do not actually exist (see below). That's my ONLY objection to your post.

Borderlands got a lot of crap reviews too, and so Mass Effect 3.

Again, NOT TRUE (for Borderlands 1 and 2).
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/borderlands/critic-reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/borderlands-2

With regards to ME3, it received negative PLAYER reviews, yes:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3

However, all that is ENTIRELY irrelevant. It was never once claimed that:

1) X game does not receive ANY pos or neg reviews.
2) X game sucks.
3) No one likes (or everyone likes) X game.

Instead, I merely objected to your false claim that:

"There are quite a few 4/5 and 9/10 reviews for ACM."

And that is simply a false statement (unless you are counting irrelevant, meaningless and arbitrary Bloe Joe, average gamer reviews who don't provide reasons as to why a particular game is good or not." And then, you made the follow-up claim that it is these specific reviews that people are "giving them flack." Saying the same thing over and over again won't make it true.

You also seem to be confusing the concept of "a few" with "a lot."

Co op is just a rare thing that is always shat on by some reviewers for some reason. EGM gave ACM good review 9.0/10. Guardian gave it 4/5. Gaming bolt and AllthingsXbox gave it 8/10.

FINALLY...some real data given...but is it really?

1) EGM - Yes. 9/10. And they have indeed recieved a lot of flack for it as many gamers are pointing out that what is being claimed in the review is NOT represenative of the game itself. Charges have been made that there is a vested interest. So should this review be taken as gospel or with a grain of salt? The latter. Why? As one responder points out (perhaps someone from the classes I teach :) ):

This review is completely vague, tells us almost nothing about the game or how it plays, and it seriously looks like you just got some bulletin points from the product description and decided to added another 300 words to it to make this "review" seem more legitimate. Seriously, this is a smattering of words that could be summed up in a single sentence and that's "This game is good and it has some bad things." It doesn't ever go beyond that. D

In addition, the review posts marketing shots of the game...not actual game footage. There is nothing in this review to lead us to believe that the reviewer had experience w/ the release version.

Not exactly strong support for you PD.

2) Guardian - The reviewer admitted to playing the consolve version. He also admitted that there were problems witht the PC version. It is the PC version that we are primarily interested in since that is the version that everyone is referring to here in the Steam forums. The reviewer does provide what seem to be actual screenshots and does actually speak as if he's really played the game. This is much better than #1...but again, we must take it with a grain of salt because it is not a PC review. A game's quality will differ across platforms (all gamers know this, you should too). Just because something may work fairly well on PS3...does not mean that it being ported over to PC will work well (see Resident Evil and Assassins Franchice + many more).

3) Gaming Bolt - we are talking about the PC version, this is STEAM after all. It also suffers from the vagueness and promotion only images of #1.

4) AllthingsXbox - we are talking about the PC version, this is STEAM after all.

There is a distinction to be made with QUALITY PD. You just aren't making it. It is as if all you think that one has to do to be persuaded is find SOMETHING in existence that makes a claim. That is not how to properly evaluate arguments PD.

Before you come back with "Well those aren't good reviewers" or some nonsense like that, IGN gave WoW MOP a 8.7/10. WoW in general is the butt crack of MMORPGs. Like I said, reviews mean squat. If you only played games with good reviews we'd all be stuck playing mundane trash like CoD and WoW.

A review is not deemed "unqualified" by its score...but by the quality of the review itself. You are taking your own egocentric, subjective opinon, and essentially saying "All reviews that agree with me = true, accurate...and all those that disagree = false, not accurate." Again, that is not the exercise of proper reasoning.

If we were to use that "logic" then you would have a self-defeating position. Your favored review sites above rated the World of Warcraft (latest, Mists of Pandora) rather highy:

http://www.egmnow.com/digitalnoob/world-of-warcraft-mists-of-pandaria-review/ 8.0
http://gamingbolt.com/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm-reviewed 8.5

Some people understand what the point of this game is, some people don't. Like I said before, it's nice to get a co op game once every 2 or 3 years. You don't like it? Sorry for ya. Get some friends lol.

And of course...the icing on the cake. An ad hominem fallacy to round out all the bad reasoing employed in the thread.

1) I did not say I did not like the game.
2) Having friends or not having friends has no bearing on you using bad reasoning.
3) Personally attacking others to distract from the argument is an exposure of a lack of proper reasoning skills.

Try to stick to the issue instead of having knee-jerk, emotional reactions because you are struggling with supporting your argument when asked to do so.

[Sergeant Scryed]

Co-op is ok, but honestly this game could have been so much better it was like they made it in 5 months, BY ACCIDENT.

But honestly you maybe only have about 6-7 hours of co op, then there is nothing else to do except wait and purchase bughunt which should have been included in the game.

[Hooch]

Originally posted by Paradise Decay:

Sites like Metacritic are hurting the games industry, just watch a TB video on the subject! Never judge a game by its metacritic score!

Metacritic is an aggregate of both professional and user reviews. All it does is COLLECT data. It's like saying "Researchers just hurt the products and services they research because they collect data then share it with consumers and organizations." Again, more really bad reasoning there PD.

What you probably mean to say is that no one ought to make their mind up about something based on 1) a single review and 2) an improper/unqualified review.

If so, I agree 100%. But as your current wording stands, it is inaccurate, and thus, false.