Aliens Vs Predator Studio Complains About 3 Bad Reviews

[chronobreak]

I wouldn't be surprised if they were a little upset at D-Toid. I mean, D-Toid did a shitload to hype up the game, gave really positive impressions of it, and then handed it over to who I believe to be the biggest hack game blogger out there, Jim Sterling, to review, without any other peer reviews as is standard over on their site. Granted, a 6.5 isn't bad, but it shattered the experience the other writers seemed to have had with the game, from their positive impressions.

 

[tcurt]

I think one of the reviews they're thinking of is the one from Game Informer, .

It's hard to say. If you go with MetaCritic like many have, GI isn't even one of the critic review that is used. I don't think we even know what reviews they are referring to. The only *terrible* review on MetaCritic was from GameSpot.

 

[tcurt]

Well I know xplay bashed this game pretty hard, don't know who the other 2 are though.

Gamespot was another one of the trio. They didn't say anything positive at all about it.

According to Metacritic, the three 'bad reviews' were from Giant Bomb, Game Revolution and 1up.

As well as these three.

Well, the game really isn't worth getting such low grades. It's not as if the game is shockingly bad. I'd personally settle with a seven out of ten. It's not perfect, but it does have its moments. Especially in multiplayer.

To be honest, any review giving this AvP under 60% is utter bullcrap in my opinion.

I think the developer is way to vague to make this discussable. Xplay isn't even one of the critics used in the MetaCritic score and only one score was below 60% - Gamespot with 55%. All the rest were 70% and above.

This all feels like data massaging to me. Throw out all the points on the curve that don't fit until you get the curve you like. Works for the studio, I guess.

 

[Burningsok]

it doesn't matter. The reviews are opinion based. A lot of my friends actually like the game.

plus GameInformer is the 2nd for giving it a bad score. 5.25 i think or was it 5.75 Also gameInformer is very lenient with it's scores, but at the same time really wants to see perfection before it gives the game a 10, so usually a lot of the games that most people consider to be 10 are usually 9.5 or 9.75 on GameInformer. A lot of the other critics i see are much more harsh (in general). But that's just what I've seen.

 

[Vigilantis]

Thats nice and all but how about a goddamn patch that fixes the lag issues and the matchmaking and host migration, when you get to that point then you can start commenting on how many shit reviews you are getting.

SERIOUSLY FIX THIS GAME I LOVE IT BUT HATE IT

 

[dagens24]

Wow, that's the greatest way to pitch a product ever; if you discount all of our negative reviews our product is getting some pretty good reviews. Smooth.

 

[Dys]

Well, if you make a bad, half assed game and release it before it's finished, you can't really expect to not get bad reviews..

 

[Furioso]

If he had explained why the reviews were fundamentally flawed, like how one of the major complaints GameInformer had was that Predators had to rely on stealth (no fucking shit; really?), it wouldn't sound like Mr. Kingsley was bitching.

As it stands, that's exactly how it sounds.

This, they also complained about the xenomorph movement, which I mastered by the end of their tutorial, the problem is that the game informer people can't play games, a bad career choice for them

 

[Treblaine]

Maybe the Americans gave it bad reviews because they have gotten used to being paid/bribed/threatened-with-firing to give good reviews.

Braid was very well reviewed even by American critics... and considering how relatively little was spent to make the game I'd say it would have been impossible to bribe or put any financial pressure on them.

To be honest it isn't a few bad reviewers that is bringing this game's aggregate score down, only 3 out of 30 reviews gave a score in above 80%, which I consider the threshold of investing 40 quid of my money on unless there is something very special about it.

I don't know why Rebellion are singling out the fact that American critics gave them lowest review scores, since due to the nature of how America makes up the largest market for this game and has a 5x larger population than the UK then most game reviews are going to originate from America. Then it is pretty likely if anybody gives a low review score then it'll be an American publication, same goes for the likelihood of a positive review or likelihood of a normal review score.

Interestingly the PC version is rated quite a bit higher than the 360 version, aggregate 73% to 65%, with higher user ratings as well (PC = 8.1 to XB360 = 7.8). PS3 version rated slightly better than 360 version by not by any significant amount.

I don't have all that much faith in any one review and I won't quibble over 5% either way but I think that maths like mean averages can decipher meaning from the noise, aggregate scores like Metacritic are a very good guide and metascore of 65% should set alarm bells ringing and people should be VERY cautious about buying.

Most of the dozens of games I have played on both consoles and PC I've found have earned a metascore of 80% to 90%, only a handful of the games I actually liked have scored in the mid to high 70% range and even for those games I admit their shortcomings. But I have yet to find a game that is earns a metascore of as low as 65% and is still worth playing let alone worth buying new at launch price.

 

[SilentVirus]

If you discount those poor reviews AvP is averaging high for us.

ya don't say....

that's probably the dumbest statement i've ever read.

Rofl, This. Well If the game was good, it would've gotten good reviews . But since it wasn't all that good, It didn't get all that good reviews .

 

[jackknife402]

I know IGN gave them an average score because the levels weren't rendered up to their standard, and they used to the whole freaking "Get new weapons in mp" from call of duty that mp was pretty poor indeed because you couldn't increase the strength of your character....damn I hate the current gen's "standards" right now.

 

[pwnzerstick]

Well its a huge step up from their last game, Shellshock 2: Blood Trails

 

[Canid117]

I believe IGN, Gamespot, and Xplay all gave it low scores.

The biggest gripe seems to be the poor controls of the Aliens and the generic feel of the Marines campaign.

 

[Spiner909]

3 bad reviews? Oh nooooo. I tried the demo, pretty fun. Seriously guys. How many reviews do you have out there?

 

[NoNameMcgee]

If they don't want to see shit reviews then they shouldn't have made a shit game.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Snipped for brevity

I actually havent played the game, my decision to get was largely influenced by some of the negative stuff said a bout it, I have no free will. Damn Consumerist marketing.

Is it as bad as they say? Is it tolerable? Are they making mountains out of molehills?

 

[DalekJaas]

I am loving AVP, playing it slowly and have finished both the Aliens and Predator campaigns on a reasonable difficulty and I thought it was fantastic.

I can't see how any one couldn't enjoy playing as the predator, the way you can toy with marines is fantastic, and the trophy kills are quite well designed.

 

[Brad Shepard]

good or bad reviews, people are still going to play the game for a few reasons

but heres my view, you should play a game yourself to try it out, because you might like it even though the reviews smash it.

If i listen to people reviews, like my friends, i wouldent have gotten great games like Okami and SOTC

 

[Treblaine]

Snipped for brevity

I actually havent played the game, my decision to get was largely influenced by some of the negative stuff said a bout it, I have no free will. Damn Consumerist marketing.

Is it as bad as they say? Is it tolerable? Are they making mountains out of molehills?

Well yes, there is always the chance that one or two critics will be biased and make mountains out of molehills... but almost ALL the critics who have reviewed the game have given poor scores and SEVERAL have given extremely low ratings.

I have faith in crowds, it is a central tenement of democracy, and metacritic is a more democratic way of criticising games, no one person has final say on the "general perception" of a game. A metascore of 65% is pretty serious for a product you are supposed to spend a lot of time and money on.

I know 65% is actually a "Mixed to average" score but remember Sturgeon's Law: '90% of everything is crud' and average puts it firmly in the "crud" range of the spectrum.

Until I have seen some explanation for why so many completely independent journalists all come to such "meh" conclusions that I would not have come to then I will not be getting this game till a SERIOUS price drop. I'm talking 5 pounds sterling.

I played the demo and for the very little that there was (only multiplayer, only peer-to-peer matchmaking *shudder*) I found it a frustrating and shallow experience that was not helped by choppy lag, large maps and small player-capacity.