Even if Timegate made the entire SP campaign Pitchford could claim it was 80% by Gearbox. That's why statistics are fun and meaningless, you can make them say what you want. Multiplayer could be called half the game, shit they could say it was 3/4ths of the game if they considered it a focus. Writing and design and license procurement could count for large percentages. Timegate could make the entire campaign and still be considered 20% of the process easily, if that's how Pitchford wants to see it or present it.

Humans are fun.

Uh lol. I've been watching my roommate play it for a bit -- it looks horrendous. He already uninstalled it for the time being. The AI is some of the worst I've seen in a game, ever. His teammates just stand there and do nothing. The aliens will run at you, then past you, and then just stand there and not attack. It's the goofiest thing I've ever seen. A lot of people seem to be getting refunds from Steam in the form of Steam Wallet -- better than nothing, I guess.

Also, the gun and alien sound effects seem right, but the beeping from the tracker sounds a bit off. Not sure how you mess that up.

It looks horrendous? Uhuh, mine looks just fine. The tracker sound is the one from the movies. AI may be a bit off, but I guess this is meant to be played Co-op. And the aliens I've encountered do tend to attack, not just walk by...

So guys, please, before you bash away happily, try it yourself. Don't be a sheep.

By "looks horrendous" I was referring to the quality of the gameplay, not the graphics. Graphically, though it looks a bit dated, it's fine I think. Also, the tracker sound is not the same from the movies. Every Aliens game to date that I'm aware of has emulated the tracker sound perfectly, but it's off in this game. It's pretty easy to notice. In fact, my roommate just recently played through the last Sega AvP game to get hyped up about this one, and there is most definitely a difference in the tracker sound. And before you call someone a sheep, if you had read my post you'd see that I was watching my roommate play it over his shoulder. That's practically the same as 'trying it myself'. After seeing it on his computer, I can honestly say that it isn't really worth any amount of money to me at the moment.

If you enjoy it, hey that's great. But there is supposed to be a difference between an opinion piece and a journalistic game review, and you can practically call it a fact that objectively, this game is no 9 out of 10.

Okay, why isn't it a 9 out of 10? Reviews are opinions, no? How is a review that states a game is 9/10 worse than one stating the game is poor 3/10?

Two opinions, both are correct.

Hmm why do I feel that in a few years there is going to be a small but rabbid fan base that will be saying it was "overlooked" and "wrongfully hated" classic and that everyone else was wrong for hating it.

.

Edit: after looking through this thread it seems the whole "it's wrongfully hated" and "people who are dissing it haven't played it" crap has already started. That didn't take long..

That particular review seems to throw objectivity (an important aspect of journalism) out the window. When you've got 25 other review sites putting up reviews anywhere between 2.5 and 6, and then all of a sudden here comes the site you linked with a 9/10 -- that doesn't raise any flags for you? I'm not saying that game reviews should be the end-all in your decision to play or not to play a video game, but simple powers of observation should make you question the sincerity of a review that stands out so far from the rest like that.

ex:

3
2.5
3
4
2.5
5
4
6
6
9 <--- (SOMETHING ISN'T RIGHT HERE!)


I'm not questioning your taste in games or criticizing you about liking the game -- I am just being critical of the review you linked, that's all.

I am -still- saying reviews are opinions. Is there some rule that dictates how one can rate his/her review?

It doesn't matter what the others write, as it is -your- opinion. You write the review, you review the game, based on your experience. Every review ever made is legit, as it is the opinion of the reviewer. No one has the power or authority to say this review is not proper and this is. They're all opinions.

I am so very glad that I haven't bought this one. I had a feeling, and it was right. I'll stick to AVP 2010.

To be honest, you can't (or shouldn't, imho) criticize a review just for giving an outlier score. Opinions do differ, and the reviewer may just have focused on aspects that the other reviewers didn't pay much attention to.

If one reviewer praises the game's AI while everyone else is stating that the AI is dumb as a rock, then, yes, there's reason to be skeptical. If a review is full of marketing buzzwords and sounds as if it was written from the publisher's marketing department, then again there's reason to be skeptical (because it might just have been). However, if a reviewer (hypothetical example) praises a game because of its excellent music, and all others slam it because of the mediocre controls, then the first reviewer simply put an unusual focus.

tl;dr: Outlier scores by themselves don't disqualify a review, you have to look at what's actually written.

Please God save us from a GOG release in 2015 . :p

Yeah, I agree. The point I was trying to make was that consumers should expect a certain level of objectivity from professional gaming review sites. If opinions are all a person is concerned with, then you can read a non-professional review on someone's blog or watch a random youtube video of the gameplay. When you have a review score from a professional site that deviates so much from what other sites are saying, I think it's important to consider that the reviewer may have been... motivated... to write that review with less objectivity than should otherwise be expected.

Wrong.

1) If the information upon which an opinion is based is incomplete or inaccurate, then the opinion can be disregarded. Despite popular belief, an opinion can be wrong.

2) Calling something 'an opinion' does not magically protect it from criticism. If an opinion, certainly in the form of a review, fails to take into account aspects (or issues) that are apparent to everyone else, then the opinion and its author can be taken to task.

3) Professional reviews are held to a higher standard than non-professional reviews. Fanboy gushing and tales of a games lack of flaws are fine from amateur bloggers who just want to spout their view. If a professional does the same, they had better be right.

When a glowing review of a game fails to mention or point out issues that are apparent to everyone else, then the foundation upon which the review is built becomes suspect, and the review itself can be considered at best 'wrong', and at worst 'dishonest'.

More so with games, there are some aspects that are not subjective. For example: excessive reuse of the same map, ropey AI, low res textures, missing or incomplete animations etc. If these things, which are likely apparent to everyone else, are not mentioned in a review, then the review becomes suspect, and the reviewer can be considered incompetent.

So, no. You can have two differing opinions, you can have a hundred differing opinions, but not all of them will be right, or valid, or in any way useful. And the argument of "it's only their opinion" is an invalid one, as it exists solely to try and stifle debate, and to attempt to protect the incompetent reviewers from critique.

I don't mean to be a smug asshole but I love it when a game that I have nowhere enough of a system to play turns out to be shit. It makes me smile when I go back to my fossil PC, rev up the AOE 1, and play play play, enjoying every second of it.