I started to ask myself what Sega and or Rebellion Studios did to piss off GI? Or is GI possibly in a competitors pocket and trying to clear the way for bigger shooters that are releasing in the beginning of next month?
What's scary though is that my next thought was not “No way, games journalism is better than that!” it was “Well, we have seen this kind of thing before.”
After reading the review, I was amazed that it was even published in the first place. Could Ben Reeves give any less information, or points that would validate such a low score? It honestly read like he had played the game for fifteen minutes, and then spent another five writing the review. For someone who references the great movies that inspired the game itself a few times in this very, very, short review, I'm forced to ask....dude, did you even watch the movies? Let's take a look at some quotes from the review.
“The human marine section (he is speaking of the campaign here) is set up like a survival horror FPS. There are a few good scares within these corridors, but after getting locked inside a room and having to fight off a horde of Xenomorphs for the 100th time, the repetition drowns the experience. It doesn't help that your flashlight is as useful at lighting up dark corners as a laser pointer.”
What exactly was Mr. Reeves expecting? Did he want a colorful conversation system where the player could befriend and finally seduce one of the Xenomorphs. Go back and watch Aliens again, it was all about being locked into a small area with many, many aliens trying to punch a hole in your skull. Also, if you want to experience a truly useless flashlight go play Doom 3 my friend. The flashlight in AVP is a god damn spotlight in comparison. Let's move on....
“Curiously, Rebellion's 1999 PC release Aliens Vs. Predator, was well received, but this update captures none of that game's unique spark. Instead we have a title trying to live off the fumes of two dormant franchises.”
So basically your praising the 90's release on PC for the exact same style of gameplay that you are bashing this new title for. Me thinks he never played the PC game he speaks of with such regard. Also, how are these franchises dormant? Both are getting new comic lines from Darkhorse, and they have had a wildly successful series of movies.
“The Aliens campaign plays like a combination of the other two. Like the Predator campaign, it has stealth focus, and like the Marine campaign, it sucks.”
Wow, you really are a wordsmith aren't you Mr. Reeves.
I could go on quoting and picking apart this review all day, but that would just be tiresome. I'll hit a few of the highlights for you though. Mr. Reeves bashes the Predator for it's heavy focus on stealth. He then goes on to bash the way the Aliens move in game saying it will cause motion sickness. If you complain about the Predator being a stealth based character than once again I point you towards the source material. If you complain about the way the Aliens move and that it gives you motion sickness then take a Dramamine sissy boy. Yes, playing the Aliens takes some getting used to. That being said, it also feels very true to the species itself and is something that Rebellion should be applauded for.
This review seems less like an unbiased piece of journalism, and more like a blog rant on game mechanics that Mr. Reeves does not like in his games. I say this because through my personal experience with the game I do not see how anything that is brought up in his review would warrant such a low score. I have spoken with a few other people on Steam and that work for this site to make sure I am not being unfair here. All of them agree that this review is overly harsh and seems more like a smear job than an actual review. So once again I ask, what the hell is going on over at GI? The multiplayer alone deserves a higher score than a 5.75. Obviously Mr. Reeves and the editors over at Game Informer need to check on the captain of their brain ships because they are drunk at the wheel again.