Well I didn't see much of that at all in youtube gameplay vids. Even if it happens a good amount of the time though it sounds like every game with AI companions ever made, including high reviewed ones.

Again I am not saying the game is good anyway, you're arguing about nothing here. What I am saying is when a game is universally bashed it doesn't mean it's one of the worst games ever, it means reviewers feel they can bash it. There could be a lot of reasons for that, not all of them specifically tied to the game's quality.

The amount of gameplay footage in the Angry Joe review was pretty damning. That's not an average game, it would actually be extremely kind to call it mediocre. No, I'm not saying it's hopeless, but it's probably best classed as disappointing. Even avoiding all the issues with the inconsistent gameplay video, there's enough things in this as a shooter to make it fairly tragic (humans can shoot through things, xenos back up after one attack and stand there, xenos basically just swarm forward with no tactics, boss battles are no more complex than "sidestep the charge then shoot in the butt", etc.).

On top of that they missed some really "cool" moments. The smartgun wasn't in the game for very long at all (everyone wants to use the smartgun), no using an exo-suit (loader? forget the name) to fight, etc. If they'd even attempted this kind of stuff and get it "right" I think the fans would have been more forgiving.

You could cut together the same damning video for Skyrim though and it's GOTY 10 million seller. Those videos are designed to back up the narrative he is pushing.

If you watch a clean hour long gameplay vid, like Giant Bomb's quick look, the game looks pretty normal and average. Even in that quick look they seem to think the game is fine, not good and not bad, and wonder when it gets as bad as their reviewer said it was. "Maybe the later stuff is much worse" they say toward the end.

I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it's 30-something metacritic average having as much to do with social aspects of reviewing games as the actual quality would not surprise me. I can't really call it either way until I play it.

I watched my roommate play it for a while and it was nothing but the bad stuff you see in those review videos. There was nothing average about it. If the AI was completely fixed, it might be an average shooter, but as it stands it's horrid. Friendly AI literally sit there and do nothing. Enemies come out of their hiding spot, run at you, but actually run passed you instead, and then just stand there and won't even attack you. It's probably some of if not the worst coding of AI I've ever seen in a game. If they can patch it up, it might be an average shooter. My roommate uninstalled it after 2 hours of gameplay and he is an EXTREMELY forgiving person when it comes to a game's shortcomings. He said he really wants to like it but it's just not fun and the poor AI really breaks any sense of immersion.

It's one of those games that's... well, it's probably worth it at a deeply discounted sale price, however when you have a backlog as big as I do, then there isn't even any point to buying it for even a buck. I'll never get around to playing it. I see no reason to add a below average shooter to my backlog.

Isn't that pretty bad now? CoD-like AI can't tell its arse from its elbow without extra scripting, the level design is usually shit, the most fun stuff happens in cutscenes, and collectibles are the only reason for replaying.

I like the game. The AI for squadmates is pretty poor, but I do remember AI team mates in CoD -series being even worse.

The aliens do attack, they even flank. I've been killed a few times by a Xeno lurking behind me.

I just don't understand all the hate. It's not a bad game. It's not a GotY either. But if a game is average, why is that suddenly a reason to bash it?

Okay, final question. This is for all who hate the game. Have you played it yourself, without bias or peer pressure? Without expectations?

When you are confident enough of the games qualities or when you know what to expect or if you played the past games of a series before then I see no reason for NOT pre-purchase. For example: I've played ME1 and pre-purchase (the deluxe edtion even) ME2 and ME3. Did not regret it one bit.

But this was regarding the risks - so why pre-order? I can get the games I want on day 1 without pre-order anyway? there is no queue, nor is there any risk of the games getting sold out, the only difference between a pre-order and a normal order is a matter of minutes or two as I would need to go through payment options... I can wait a minute or two... However, I have until that point in time to decide whether I am going to buy it or not.

The only reason I see is that you sometimes get some kind of DLC, but you can get those later anyway. Is it not better to be on the safe side and not risk getting burned?

I agree with you. But at least for me, it's more for the experience than for anything else. I like the feeling you get when you know the time for to play your highly antecipated game is coming. Starcraft 2 comes to mind here =)

Jim Sterling tore this game a new asshole

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6863-Previewed-Preordered-Prescrewed

The reason the smart gun isn't in the game much is because it's severely overpowered. It's designed to be, and always has been in every single game. Every AVP game was limited in giving it to you for any length of time for that reason. In MP it's insane in the hands of a marine who has good cover, though it limits you to 120 rounds instead of the SP's 600 rounds.

An auto-tracking, almost instant kill machine gun is pretty game breaking if you're given access to it for most of the game.

Hm. AvP 2010 did limit the use of the smartgun to two short occasions, but AvP and AvP 2 didn't really do that. Those games gave players more than enough quality time (and ammo) with the good ol' smartgun. :) And with AvP 2000's generally high difficulty, it didn't even feel that overpowered, tbh.

I get why GB (or whoever made that decision) did what they did, but it's still somewhat disappointing.

In the original one (by that, I mean the ~1999 game) it has hardly overpowered. In fact, I preferred the Pulse Rifle over it any day.

Alright, here is an honest to goodness review. I know there are quite a few in this post, (Quite good ones in fact) but i'll add my two cents. And for the record, I don't read reviews anymore,Too many bad reviewers, too many skewed points ETC ETC, Yadda Yadda. My platform for this is Playstation 3.

The game is dated. I'll say that right out of the gate. It reminds me of Duke Nukem Forever in this way. The graphics are not sharp, the animations need work, the weapons need a bit of re-balance (Assault Rifle recoil anyone? Even with the stock upgrade?). The A.I Is problematic at times, with marines not even reacting to nearby aliens, or the aliens themselves charging in and disregarding stealth as was stated earlier. But to be honest, that doesn't much make a difference in just how fun this game is.

If you like the films, as I do having grown up with them, you will appreciate all the scenery and the way it's changed since the events of Aliens. Dark corridors, the sound of air vents above you moving with unseen weight, and the ever ominous clicking of your motion tracker. Good stuff. And the Aliens, yes they charge you, hit and run tactics, but trying to spray an alien in napalm while it hops from hallway wall to hallway wall, while worrying about the ones behind you and the reason why your armor is steaming and hissing makes for tense fun. XP earned in game through challenges, which unlock weapon camos and such, also counts in the most refreshing feature of this game, the multiplayer.

All bugs aside, the multiplayer is a blast to play, stalking players as an alien spitter, sniping them from afar, or shooting that one firebomb that will save the squad and allow an escape. Everything is here, from Team Deathmatch to Escape (A Left 4 Dead feeling mode) are present. The only problem i've encountered so far is some mic problems, as in the audio chopping up via latency issues. But overall, this is not CoD or Battlefield, but a refreshing change of pace.

I hope this helps some out there to decide on the game, it's not perfect, but it's a great ride.

Is that a valid question though, really? Good consumers absolutely should have expectations of products they purchase. Otherwise, you could purchase a vacuum cleaner that blows out instead of sucking in, and say "Oh well, I shouldn't be upset because I went into this purchase with no expectations." Purchasing a game is no different. You expect a game to be as bug free as possible, and you expect a product to be as-advertised, and you hope that the game will be enjoyable. You can't expect a game to be fun, you can only hope it will be, because even a well-received game may not necessarily be fun for you. There's always going to be some risk involved with purchasing a digital PC game since they usually can't be returned if you are dissatisfied after playing. But, when you see an E3 demo and the final product turns out to be completely different, that's pretty ridiculous. If you bought a box of knives with pictures of knives on the front of it, and then you opened it to find that it only contained forks, should you not be displeased?

Having expectations helps keep businesses in check. They aren't doing us a favor by selling us shit - they're in the business of producing goods in exchange for currency, and they should fear the power of consumer opinion should they try to sell people dog shit by calling it a cupcake.