@Neoken:
I see your Aliens NS1 connection and raise you a StarCraft Amerigo:
Check out the similiarities:
The slow opening a door, viewed from inside the ship
A marine with laser sights walking through
A short cut to "marine vision"
...
Can you name more?
I can't wait until one day in the future ACTUAL GAMEPLAY graphics will be that good. /me when I was 15 lol
Thanks for this feedback guys. I will make sure Gorgeous gets a nice big post in the News Section. I selfishly wish Valve would allow us to post directly... But I understand why they might not want that.
Make sure you also include a cute picture of a gorge being....gorgeous.
The last AvP was so bad that I waited for the reviews of this game and that was good Imagine you would have bought both games, ouch!
I played the last AVP kinda late and the ones before it. Never really got into any of them, but what was the big deal with the last AVP (2010)? I played through all three campaigns and it's was fun (a bit too linear, but fun enough). Marines campaign was cake, Aliens was fun, Predator controls were a bit awkward. Multiplayer seems alright, except for Marines and Aliens being much stronger than Predator. Swarming with other Aliens (without using direct communication) is extremely exciting; the lighting off the aliens, models (tails whiping around), and other effects help bring it to life.
On topic:
UWE should copy some of the atmospheric elements, from the A:CM trailers, not the release; like in the swinging light, at 1:09 in the OP's video embed. Bring back more of the creepy (unsettling) atmosphere from NS1 (if you didn't turn the gamma up).
The really interesting bit is the dynamic lighting/shadows they showed in the original.
Far as I remember, Spark can still actually do that stuff in real-time.
I'd really like to see a 'horror' map put in, that would really use the Spark lighting system to its full capabilities for once.
You could probably put a very similar video together for NS2 as was created for the aliens game, the prerelease showings bear a striking difference to the actual released game.
So no, UWE can't *actually* deliver, the difference is that fewer people seem to care.
The degree to which we feared ACM was, in hindsight, crazy. Potential release dates for NS2 were discussed with reference to ACM's potential release date. Around the lunch table, we pondered the pasting reviewers would give us if they were simultaneously reviewing a AAA mega-budget aliens vs marines title.
At shows like GamesCom, PAX-East, and E3 I walked around the ACM super-booths in awe. I spoke to ACM PR reps and they had no idea what NS was. I watched the demos (especially the E3 one) and thought... 'How can we possibly stand up to these guy on the aliens v marine stage?' I walked around the Power Loader in multiple countries and shook my head at the poor luck of having to face this Sega/Gearbox monster in our launch window.
Now, I'm filled with sadness. Sadness at being an Aliens fan and not being able to experience LV-426 like I had imagined I would. Sadness that we spent so much time being afraid of a game that we have beaten on Metacritic by 38 points. Sadness that the launch trailer for ACM probably cost more than 30% of the entire development budget of NS2.
With that marketing machine, with that moneypot, with that kind of development time, with that kind of bullet-proof intellectual property, ACM should have been an absolute hit.
No, UWE won't be milking the poor reception of ACM. To do so would make us wankers, it would be dishonorable. Remember when Warfighter exploded? Activision ran a targeted ad campaign hitting every single Warfighter keyword with CODBLOPSII pre-rolls and banners. I'm sure it got them sales. But it also said much about the kind of company they are.
There is a very subtle aliens reference in the Gorgeous Trailer, but it was scripted in long, long ago. Well before we even realized ACM was landing at the same time as the update. Now, I just hope the press won't can us for 'trying to milk failure.'
EDIT: Corrected Meta-critic differential to 38 from miscalculated 30.
Hugh, your act of honor here will probably earn you more publicity than any amount of fail-riding could do. =D>
You could probably put a very similar video together for NS2 as was created for the aliens game, the prerelease showings bear a striking difference to the actual released game.
So no, UWE can't *actually* deliver, the difference is that fewer people seem to care.
That is a pretty unfair comparison. No one knocks games that show early behind the scenes glimpses of pre production tech as they are working on it, that ends up not making it into the game in that exact form. They knock games for releasing what is meant to be an example of a fully playable demo, or a trailer of actual final gameplay footage, but ends up bearing little resemblance to the final product.
All of the released material in our trailers that represented gameplay footage was either matched or exceeded by the final release product.
That's a bit subjective, for one, I think the finished product looks far worse than almost all of the prerelease stuff. I don't like the lighting style in finished NS2 levels, and I was rather looking forward to the features that were talked about or shown, but ended up being dropped.
What I understood at the time was that those videos were released using in-engine technology and art, and were to be representative of the final product. Some of them are official trailers for the game, others are demos of the engine as it was functioning at the time. That's exactly the sort of thing people are asking in the aliens video. 'This technology obviously existed in some form, why isn't it in the final game?'
My confusion is simply that people seem, in the aliens example, to be doing exactly what you said people don't, objecting to the game because they showed an early example of the tech and the final game ended up looking dramatically different. Those NS2 videos are clearly using ingame art, the engine can certainly produce those particle effects and animations, and the lighting engine as far as I know, used to be able to run in realtime looking very much in the style of chiaroscuro or tenebrism, but this is not in the final game.
I entirely understand that there are a lot of reasons why that may not be the case, but I still am not entirely sure what is very different between the NS2 early/teaser videos and the ACM early/teaser videos, both of them look far more interesting than the finished product. Whether you cut the more interesting aspects because they didn't work out from a gameplay perspective, or because they never ran quite right, or because of time constraints, or whatever other perfectly rational reason there may have been, the fact remains that things are missing.
It is odd to me that ACM 'obviously' was wrong in what they cut, despite all of those reasons being quite possibly applicable to them as well, while NS2 apparently was so right in doing it that it rewrote history to the point that nothing was ever cut at all?
About the only difference I can see is that ACM looks like a dreadfully dull game that was entirely relying on its cut atmospheric features, while NS2 can still be fun even without some of its more promising features. Seemingly, the complaint is that ACM is a Bad Game and thus everything it ever did is wrong, whereas NS2 is Not A Bad Game and thus its changes are entirely understandable and even commendable design decisions.
That's a bit subjective, for one, I think the finished product looks far worse than almost all of the prerelease stuff. I don't like the lighting style in finished NS2 levels, and I was rather looking forward to the features that were talked about or shown, but ended up being dropped.
What I understood at the time was that those videos were released using in-engine technology and art, and were to be representative of the final product. Some of them are official trailers for the game, others are demos of the engine as it was functioning at the time. That's exactly the sort of thing people are asking in the aliens video. 'This technology obviously existed in some form, why isn't it in the final game?'
My confusion is simply that people seem, in the aliens example, to be doing exactly what you said people don't, objecting to the game because they showed an early example of the tech and the final game ended up looking dramatically different. Those NS2 videos are clearly using ingame art, the engine can certainly produce those particle effects and animations, and the lighting engine as far as I know, used to be able to run in realtime looking very much in the style of chiaroscuro or tenebrism, but this is not in the final game.
I entirely understand that there are a lot of reasons why that may not be the case, but I still am not entirely sure what is very different between the NS2 early/teaser videos and the ACM early/teaser videos, both of them look far more interesting than the finished product. Whether you cut the more interesting aspects because they didn't work out from a gameplay perspective, or because they never ran quite right, or because of time constraints, or whatever other perfectly rational reason there may have been, the fact remains that things are missing.
It is odd to me that ACM 'obviously' was wrong in what they cut, despite all of those reasons being quite possibly applicable to them as well, while NS2 apparently was so right in doing it that it rewrote history to the point that nothing was ever cut at all?
Okay guy, here's what you're spurring your criticism with: a typical triple-A game with the oh-so-popular scripted footage of a player 'cinematically' experiencing set-pieces that serve as publicity filler better than any other section of the severely lacking game (Aliens in this case), with an indie game that at every single turn, has allowed its players access to the engine, allowed them to read development updates, give feedback, and experience the soon-to-be-released content update of a 25 dollar game (not to mention all the previous updates).
Oh and here's the kicker, according to a video released comparing the 60 dollar title to earlier marketing footage, they apparently edited scenes with the aforementioned scripted sequences and graphics that are not representative of the final console product. Your comparing something that could be righteously called fraud with an indie game that's exposed itself from day 1.
That's a bit subjective, for one, I think the finished product looks far worse than almost all of the prerelease stuff. I don't like the lighting style in finished NS2 levels, and I was rather looking forward to the features that were talked about or shown, but ended up being dropped.
What I understood at the time was that those videos were released using in-engine technology and art, and were to be representative of the final product. Some of them are official trailers for the game, others are demos of the engine as it was functioning at the time. That's exactly the sort of thing people are asking in the aliens video. 'This technology obviously existed in some form, why isn't it in the final game?'
My confusion is simply that people seem, in the aliens example, to be doing exactly what you said people don't, objecting to the game because they showed an early example of the tech and the final game ended up looking dramatically different. Those NS2 videos are clearly using ingame art, the engine can certainly produce those particle effects and animations, and the lighting engine as far as I know, used to be able to run in realtime looking very much in the style of chiaroscuro or tenebrism, but this is not in the final game.
I entirely understand that there are a lot of reasons why that may not be the case, but I still am not entirely sure what is very different between the NS2 early/teaser videos and the ACM early/teaser videos, both of them look far more interesting than the finished product. Whether you cut the more interesting aspects because they didn't work out from a gameplay perspective, or because they never ran quite right, or because of time constraints, or whatever other perfectly rational reason there may have been, the fact remains that things are missing.
It is odd to me that ACM 'obviously' was wrong in what they cut, despite all of those reasons being quite possibly applicable to them as well, while NS2 apparently was so right in doing it that it rewrote history to the point that nothing was ever cut at all?
Okay guy, here's what you're spurring your criticism with: a typical triple-A game with the oh-so-popular scripted footage of a player 'cinematically' experiencing set-pieces that serve as publicity filler better than any other section of the severely lacking game (Aliens in this case), with an indie game that at every single turn, has allowed its players access to the engine, read development updates, give feedback, and experience the soon-to-be-released content update of a 25 dollar game.
Pick another time to cry out for attention.
I'm not sure what your argument is, beyond possibly 'stop picking on small developers'.
Yes, things change in development, why are people trying to suggest that changing things in development is objectively wrong?
I've edited my message, but you responded so quickly because—I assume— a part of your brain realizes you're starting an argument or complaint, from two scenarios that can't be reasonably compared.
Yes, things change in development, why are people trying to suggest that changing things in development is objectively wrong?
I've edited my message, but you responded so quickly because—I assume— a part of your brain realizes you're starting an argument or complaint, from two scenarios that can't be reasonably compared.
With NS2, you could certainly buy the game and find out that it looks and plays rather strikingly different from how the trailer looks.
But... isn't that sort of a problem? Yes you can buy the game and find out, before it's been officially released in fact, but that isn't really the argument is it? The complaint is about the publicly released material misrepresenting the game. If you have to buy the game to realise that somethings a bit amiss, that's what presumably a sizable portion of the aliens fanbase just did.
I mean, to me, looking at this: (sorry, this should be the link for the first section of my first post, I'll amend it) it looks pretty much like the ACM trailer featured in the video.
Nice ingame assets, cool dramatic lighting in high contrast, prerendered animations, much slower than the final product would obviously have to be in order to be remotely playable, completely misrepresntative of the final gameplay, entirely normal for what early trailers are when compared to their finished products nowadays.
Yes, things change in development, why are people trying to suggest that changing things in development is objectively wrong?
1) ACM is not bad solely because of the problems of the 'gameplay demo' (which was supposed to come from real ingame footage) being superior to the finished product. The game itself is short and horribly buggy, unimpressive visually, and generally a huge letdown. That's why people are disappointed.
2) You cannot reasonably compare early stage prototype demos (which is what you're picking out from the NS2 videos - these are things that were proposed LONG before we even were reasonably sure that NS2 would even make it through the idea phase, much less hit alpha/beta/release) with an official gameplay demo that was shown off at E3.
Yes, things change in development, why are people trying to suggest that changing things in development is objectively wrong?
1) ACM is not bad solely because of the problems of the 'gameplay demo' (which was supposed to come from real ingame footage) being superior to the finished product. The game itself is short and horribly buggy, unimpressive visually, and generally a huge letdown. That's why people are disappointed.
Which is an entirely legitimate set of objections. If the game sucks (and I entirely agree that it looks terrible for pretty much all of those reasons) then it sucks. I am not in any way trying to suggest that ACM is a good game, because honestly it looks like the AVP game they released a while ago and I didn't like that one either.
2) You cannot reasonably compare early stage prototype demos (which is what you're picking out from the NS2 videos - these are things that were proposed LONG before we even were reasonably sure that NS2 would even make it through the idea phase, much less hit alpha/beta/release) with an official gameplay demo that was shown off at E3.
Most of those are, supposedly, representative of the state of the game at the time of their release. As, presumably, people thought that the ACM demo was representative of the state of the game at the time of its release.
If changing the game between the released demo and the final product is inherently objectionable, then it must be objectionable for both parties. If it is afforded the possibility of being for rational, necessary reasons, then it must be afforded that for both parties.
Yes, things change in development, why are people trying to suggest that changing things in development is objectively wrong?
I've edited my message, but you responded so quickly because—I assume— a part of your brain realizes you're starting an argument or complaint, from two scenarios that can't be reasonably compared.
With NS2, you could certainly buy the game and find out that it looks and plays rather strikingly different from how the trailer looks.
But... isn't that sort of a problem? Yes you can buy the game and find out, before it's been officially released in fact, but that isn't really the argument is it? The complaint is about the publicly released material misrepresenting the game. If you have to buy the game to realise that somethings a bit amiss, that's what presumably a sizable portion of the aliens fanbase just did.
I mean, to me, looking at this: (sorry, this should be the link for the first section of my first post, I'll amend it) it looks pretty much like the ACM trailer featured in the video.
Nice ingame assets, cool dramatic lighting in high contrast, prerendered animations, much slower than the final product would obviously have to be in order to be remotely playable, completely misrepresntative of the final gameplay, entirely normal for what early trailers are when compared to their finished products nowadays.
I'm having difficulty seeing the difference here.
It's a teaser. A teaser that obviously doesn't represent what we would define as "game-play" because it's a teaser (obviously), There is no footage that represents what the player will experience from a gameplay angle. It's pre-rendered as you said.
Aliens showed footage of what players assumed to bes game-play footage. It's in first person form, it's got an aiming reticle, and the camera movement seems to be of an analogue stick. It's being deliberately deceitful.
Not to mention the game actually looks much better than the teaser. I'm not what you've seen. Maybe look at screenshots section on the forum?
Yes, things change in development, why are people trying to suggest that changing things in development is objectively wrong?
I've edited my message, but you responded so quickly because—I assume— a part of your brain realizes you're starting an argument or complaint, from two scenarios that can't be reasonably compared.
With NS2, you could certainly buy the game and find out that it looks and plays rather strikingly different from how the trailer looks.
But... isn't that sort of a problem? Yes you can buy the game and find out, before it's been officially released in fact, but that isn't really the argument is it? The complaint is about the publicly released material misrepresenting the game. If you have to buy the game to realise that somethings a bit amiss, that's what presumably a sizable portion of the aliens fanbase just did.
I mean, to me, looking at this: (sorry, this should be the link for the first section of my first post, I'll amend it) it looks pretty much like the ACM trailer featured in the video.
Nice ingame assets, cool dramatic lighting in high contrast, prerendered animations, much slower than the final product would obviously have to be in order to be remotely playable, completely misrepresntative of the final gameplay, entirely normal for what early trailers are when compared to their finished products nowadays.
I'm having difficulty seeing the difference here.
It's a teaser. A teaser that obviously doesn't represent what we would define as "game-play" because it's a teaser (obviously), There is no footage that represents what the player will experience from a gameplay angle. It's pre-rendered as you said.
Aliens showed footage of what players assumed is game-play footage. It's in first person form, it's got an aiming reticle, and the camera movement seems to be of an analogue stick. It's being deliberately deceitful.
Not to mention the game actually looks much better than the teaser. I'm not what you've seen. Maybe look at screenshots section on the forum?
I own the game, I don't think it looks very good, for basically the same reason as the ACM review states. The geometry is all there, but the style is just... not as good as the teaser. I can't fault the art assets or the fidelity, but I do fault the stylistic decisions.
And yes, the ACM thing does look a bit more like gameplay (though, even still, it's really obviously not because no FPS game in the world would actually be playable at that sort of speed and responsiveness) but almost all the complaints are leveled against the atmosphere and visuals of the game. And those are exactly that the NS2 teaser seems to be showing off, and they are also what is such a marked departure from the teaser in the final version of NS2. It's gotten far less stylised from the teaser, there's been a steady change towards being much less visually striking as development has gone on, generally for gameplay reasons as I recall, there were problems with the lighting interfering with the gameplay.
And so it makes sense to change it, NS2 has decided that it is first and foremost about gameplay, and that's fine, but still, what was advertised is not what was presented, and either that is wrong, or it is explainable, and it must be so regardless of who makes the game.
Which is an entirely legitimate set of objections. If the game sucks (and I entirely agree that it looks terrible for pretty much all of those reasons) then it sucks. I am not in any way trying to suggest that ACM is a good game, because honestly it looks like the AVP game they released a while ago and I didn't like that one either.
Then it stands to reason that people would feel cheated and/or misled when earlier gameplay demos (which may or may not have been pre-rendered for E3, but were touted as in-game footage) look much better graphically.
Most of those are, supposedly, representative of the state of the game at the time of their release. As, presumably, people thought that the ACM demo was representative of the state of the game at the time of its release.
No, just no. The items in those videos were presented as ideas that they wanted to put into the game. If you even bothered to listen to the videos (e.g. the prototype dynamic infestation vid from 2006...a whole 6 years removed from release), charlie says clearly that they hope to be able to include it in release. They were never shown off as final products. Look at the game trailers since the game hit alpha. Cory is correct, and you are just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it.
If changing the game between the released demo and the final product is inherently objectionable, then it must be objectionable for both parties. If it is afforded the possibility of being for rational, necessary reasons, then it must be afforded that for both parties.
That's such a strawman. I don't even want to bother.
Which is an entirely legitimate set of objections. If the game sucks (and I entirely agree that it looks terrible for pretty much all of those reasons) then it sucks. I am not in any way trying to suggest that ACM is a good game, because honestly it looks like the AVP game they released a while ago and I didn't like that one either.
Then it stands to reason that people would feel cheated and/or misled when earlier gameplay demos (which may or may not have been pre-rendered for E3, but were touted as in-game footage) look much better graphically.
Yes because people are prone to attacking with vehemence that which they percieve to have wronged them, and people percieve anything which causes them discomfort to be a personal wrong to them.
Essentially, if people get it in their heads that a game is going to be utterly amazing and wonderful and then it turns out not to be, they will probably go on to say that everything ever related to that game is the spawn of satan.
That this is quite common and understandable, does not make it logical however.
Most of those are, supposedly, representative of the state of the game at the time of their release. As, presumably, people thought that the ACM demo was representative of the state of the game at the time of its release.
No, just no. The items in those videos were presented as ideas that they wanted to put into the game. If you even bothered to listen to the videos (e.g. the prototype dynamic infestation vid from 2006...a whole 6 years removed from release), charlie says clearly that they hope to be able to include it in release. They were never shown off as final products. Look at the game trailers since the game hit alpha. Cory is correct, and you are just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it.
But they were shown off in engine, or so I understood at the time. The video demos particularly were shown as running on dev PCs. They were quite clearly showing 'this is what our game can do now, because look, it's doing it, on our PCs'. Even the infestation video states that it's running over a standard BSP level. It is pretty clearly saying 'we can do this ingame at the moment'.
So why aren't they in the later game? They don't appear in later trailers, no, but as I recall, ACM released quite a bit of utterly dreadful recent footage before its release, looking basically like it does in reality. There's a thread full of it in offtopic if you're curious. Is a newer video contradicting an older video enough of an excuse for missing content? If so, why isn't it enough for ACM?
If changing the game between the released demo and the final product is inherently objectionable, then it must be objectionable for both parties. If it is afforded the possibility of being for rational, necessary reasons, then it must be afforded that for both parties.
That's such a strawman. I don't even want to bother.
I wasn't aware that a request for logical parity and an absence of double standards was called a straw man nowadays.
Yes because people are prone to attacking with vehemence that which they percieve to have wronged them, and people percieve anything which causes them discomfort to be a personal wrong to them.
They did wrong them; many of these people pre-ordered the game based off of the E3 demo. They paid money and ended up getting a far inferior product. I would be pissed too. Nevertheless this contrast video and the reaction to it is only a small part of why people are angry. A piece of circumstantial evidence, if you will, that when combined with all other factors paints an extremely unfavorable picture of ACM and its developer(s).
Essentially, if people get it in their heads that a game is going to be utterly amazing and wonderful and then it turns out not to be, they will probably go on to say that everything ever related to that game is the spawn of satan.
That this is quite common and understandable, does not make it logical however.
What you mean to say is that it is not 'rational.' It is completely logical that people have adverse reactions when disillusioned.
But they were shown off in engine, or so I understood at the time. The video demos particularly were shown as running on dev PCs. They were quite clearly showing 'this is what our game can do now, because look, it's doing it, on our PCs'.
There was a period of time during alpha and beta when it was clear that the prototype DI would not make it into the game in its original form, and the devs were still accepting requests for refunds. If you were displeased at that time you could have requested one. It would probably have been better if you did.
So why aren't they in the later game? They don't appear in later trailers, no, but as I recall, ACM released quite a bit of utterly dreadful recent footage before its release, looking basically like it does in reality. There's a thread full of it in offtopic if you're curious. Is a newer video contradicting an older video enough of an excuse for missing content? If so, why isn't it enough for ACM?
I'm not aware of this new footage, but if that's the case then caveat emptor. Gearbox still deserves ridicule, blame, and criticism for its handling of the game.
I wasn't aware that a request for logical parity and an absence of double standards was called a straw man nowadays.
The request for logical parity isn't the strawman. The fact that you're equating NS2's situation with ACM's is. Being willfully ignorant is not a good way to win arguments.
The situations are different in the sense that they are different games by different studios with some different practices and different budgets, and quite a lot of differences really.
I'm not suggesting NS2 = ACM, I'm saying there are things ACM is being accused of that NS2 has done as well, but apparently it's fine in NS2s case. I don't hold with double standards and, as you put it, willful ignorance.
NS2 has many things to recommend it, and ACM has many things to say it's a pretty dreadful game, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support flat out lies about how NS2 is soooo perfect and would never ever do anything so dreadful as to cut previously advertised content.
Favor won on the basis of blind partisanship is worth nothing. If people say NS2 is good without subjecting it to a very harsh and exacting examination, then their praise is worth nothing. I'll say NS2 is a quite good game, and I'll say that because I find a lot wrong with it, but still a lot of good. There is a surprising amount of NS2 that is very, very hard to find fault with, but you have to look for faults nonetheless, otherwise it's just being a fanboy. Something that stands up to harsh criticism is much better than something that is not criticised.
So, I don't like it when people make false claims about it, it devalues its actual merits.
You could probably put a very similar video together for NS2 as was created for the aliens game, the prerelease showings bear a striking difference to the actual released game.
So no, UWE can't *actually* deliver, the difference is that fewer people seem to care.
For me, its less that neither game delivered everything it ever hinted (overpromising is so pandemic that its become mundane), but that UWE has been much more open about what is and isn't in the game than GBX. There has been a wealth of NS2 videos since the engine test basically chronicling every minute change in NS2. Until its release, nobody knew anything about A:CM except for the carefully controlled demo and trailers. Even worse, the gaming press we're embargoed, such that when they finally got to see the final product, they couldn't tell preorderers what a terrible mistake they were making until it was too late. I think its basic ethics that you should as accurately as possible represent the product you are selling people. UWE has done a much better job of that than GBX.
chris, shit changes when things are in development. get over it.
That's... entirely the point?
Yes, things change in development, why are people trying to suggest that changing things in development is objectively wrong?
If you honestly can't tell the difference between several huge rich companies more or less committing fraud, and a handful of indie dev's not meeting your expectations, but being honest about it every step of the way, then plz PM me, I've got a "Ferrari" to sell to you really cheap. *puts ferrari sticker on 1982 skoda"
Comments
I can't wait until one day in the future ACTUAL GAMEPLAY graphics will be that good. /me when I was 15 lol
Make sure you also include a cute picture of a gorge being....gorgeous.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/15/natural-selection-2-aliens-colonial-marines/
Wow. Good thing Hugh was careful with what he said as I never imagined they would quote him directly from these forums.
Quoted? Ha, the "quote" is practically Hugh's entire post and over 3/4 of the article. Hugh deserves a cut from the author.
I played the last AVP kinda late and the ones before it. Never really got into any of them, but what was the big deal with the last AVP (2010)? I played through all three campaigns and it's was fun (a bit too linear, but fun enough). Marines campaign was cake, Aliens was fun, Predator controls were a bit awkward. Multiplayer seems alright, except for Marines and Aliens being much stronger than Predator. Swarming with other Aliens (without using direct communication) is extremely exciting; the lighting off the aliens, models (tails whiping around), and other effects help bring it to life.
On topic:
UWE should copy some of the atmospheric elements, from the A:CM trailers, not the release; like in the swinging light, at 1:09 in the OP's video embed. Bring back more of the creepy (unsettling) atmosphere from NS1 (if you didn't turn the gamma up).
I hope someone does a Slanderman Mod :-D
Technically, no they can't.
There are some pretty majorly featured elements in the prerelease material that are simply absent from NS2.
Maps are not lit dramatically and in this sort of detail, and there is no such thing as door welding/destruction, nor anything like that sort of animation or particle detail. (edit: this section should link to here instead) Infestation does not procedurally grow, nor is it one contiguous mesh. Interactive level pieces and aliens changing the illumination of the level with their structures is non-existent.
You could probably put a very similar video together for NS2 as was created for the aliens game, the prerelease showings bear a striking difference to the actual released game.
So no, UWE can't *actually* deliver, the difference is that fewer people seem to care.
Hugh, your act of honor here will probably earn you more publicity than any amount of fail-riding could do. =D>
All of the released material in our trailers that represented gameplay footage was either matched or exceeded by the final release product.
-Cory
What I understood at the time was that those videos were released using in-engine technology and art, and were to be representative of the final product. Some of them are official trailers for the game, others are demos of the engine as it was functioning at the time. That's exactly the sort of thing people are asking in the aliens video. 'This technology obviously existed in some form, why isn't it in the final game?'
My confusion is simply that people seem, in the aliens example, to be doing exactly what you said people don't, objecting to the game because they showed an early example of the tech and the final game ended up looking dramatically different. Those NS2 videos are clearly using ingame art, the engine can certainly produce those particle effects and animations, and the lighting engine as far as I know, used to be able to run in realtime looking very much in the style of chiaroscuro or tenebrism, but this is not in the final game.
I entirely understand that there are a lot of reasons why that may not be the case, but I still am not entirely sure what is very different between the NS2 early/teaser videos and the ACM early/teaser videos, both of them look far more interesting than the finished product. Whether you cut the more interesting aspects because they didn't work out from a gameplay perspective, or because they never ran quite right, or because of time constraints, or whatever other perfectly rational reason there may have been, the fact remains that things are missing.
It is odd to me that ACM 'obviously' was wrong in what they cut, despite all of those reasons being quite possibly applicable to them as well, while NS2 apparently was so right in doing it that it rewrote history to the point that nothing was ever cut at all?
About the only difference I can see is that ACM looks like a dreadfully dull game that was entirely relying on its cut atmospheric features, while NS2 can still be fun even without some of its more promising features. Seemingly, the complaint is that ACM is a Bad Game and thus everything it ever did is wrong, whereas NS2 is Not A Bad Game and thus its changes are entirely understandable and even commendable design decisions.
Okay guy, here's what you're spurring your criticism with: a typical triple-A game with the oh-so-popular scripted footage of a player 'cinematically' experiencing set-pieces that serve as publicity filler better than any other section of the severely lacking game (Aliens in this case), with an indie game that at every single turn, has allowed its players access to the engine, allowed them to read development updates, give feedback, and experience the soon-to-be-released content update of a 25 dollar game (not to mention all the previous updates).
Oh and here's the kicker, according to a video released comparing the 60 dollar title to earlier marketing footage, they apparently edited scenes with the aforementioned scripted sequences and graphics that are not representative of the final console product. Your comparing something that could be righteously called fraud with an indie game that's exposed itself from day 1.
Pick another time to cry out for attention.
I'm not sure what your argument is, beyond possibly 'stop picking on small developers'.
That's... entirely the point?
Yes, things change in development, why are people trying to suggest that changing things in development is objectively wrong?
With NS2, you could certainly buy the game and find out that it looks and plays rather strikingly different from how the trailer looks.
But... isn't that sort of a problem? Yes you can buy the game and find out, before it's been officially released in fact, but that isn't really the argument is it? The complaint is about the publicly released material misrepresenting the game. If you have to buy the game to realise that somethings a bit amiss, that's what presumably a sizable portion of the aliens fanbase just did.
I mean, to me, looking at this:
Nice ingame assets, cool dramatic lighting in high contrast, prerendered animations, much slower than the final product would obviously have to be in order to be remotely playable, completely misrepresntative of the final gameplay, entirely normal for what early trailers are when compared to their finished products nowadays.
I'm having difficulty seeing the difference here.
1) ACM is not bad solely because of the problems of the 'gameplay demo' (which was supposed to come from real ingame footage) being superior to the finished product. The game itself is short and horribly buggy, unimpressive visually, and generally a huge letdown. That's why people are disappointed.
2) You cannot reasonably compare early stage prototype demos (which is what you're picking out from the NS2 videos - these are things that were proposed LONG before we even were reasonably sure that NS2 would even make it through the idea phase, much less hit alpha/beta/release) with an official gameplay demo that was shown off at E3.
3) you're dumb.
Which is an entirely legitimate set of objections. If the game sucks (and I entirely agree that it looks terrible for pretty much all of those reasons) then it sucks. I am not in any way trying to suggest that ACM is a good game, because honestly it looks like the AVP game they released a while ago and I didn't like that one either.
Most of those are, supposedly, representative of the state of the game at the time of their release. As, presumably, people thought that the ACM demo was representative of the state of the game at the time of its release.
If changing the game between the released demo and the final product is inherently objectionable, then it must be objectionable for both parties. If it is afforded the possibility of being for rational, necessary reasons, then it must be afforded that for both parties.
And you're the height of class.
Aliens showed footage of what players assumed to bes game-play footage. It's in first person form, it's got an aiming reticle, and the camera movement seems to be of an analogue stick. It's being deliberately deceitful.
Not to mention the game actually looks much better than the teaser. I'm not what you've seen. Maybe look at screenshots section on the forum?
I own the game, I don't think it looks very good, for basically the same reason as the ACM review states. The geometry is all there, but the style is just... not as good as the teaser. I can't fault the art assets or the fidelity, but I do fault the stylistic decisions.
And yes, the ACM thing does look a bit more like gameplay (though, even still, it's really obviously not because no FPS game in the world would actually be playable at that sort of speed and responsiveness) but almost all the complaints are leveled against the atmosphere and visuals of the game. And those are exactly that the NS2 teaser seems to be showing off, and they are also what is such a marked departure from the teaser in the final version of NS2. It's gotten far less stylised from the teaser, there's been a steady change towards being much less visually striking as development has gone on, generally for gameplay reasons as I recall, there were problems with the lighting interfering with the gameplay.
And so it makes sense to change it, NS2 has decided that it is first and foremost about gameplay, and that's fine, but still, what was advertised is not what was presented, and either that is wrong, or it is explainable, and it must be so regardless of who makes the game.
No, just no. The items in those videos were presented as ideas that they wanted to put into the game. If you even bothered to listen to the videos (e.g. the prototype dynamic infestation vid from 2006...a whole 6 years removed from release), charlie says clearly that they hope to be able to include it in release. They were never shown off as final products. Look at the game trailers since the game hit alpha. Cory is correct, and you are just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it.
That's such a strawman. I don't even want to bother.
Thanks. I always give people their due.
Yes because people are prone to attacking with vehemence that which they percieve to have wronged them, and people percieve anything which causes them discomfort to be a personal wrong to them.
Essentially, if people get it in their heads that a game is going to be utterly amazing and wonderful and then it turns out not to be, they will probably go on to say that everything ever related to that game is the spawn of satan.
That this is quite common and understandable, does not make it logical however.
But they were shown off in engine, or so I understood at the time. The video demos particularly were shown as running on dev PCs. They were quite clearly showing 'this is what our game can do now, because look, it's doing it, on our PCs'. Even the infestation video states that it's running over a standard BSP level. It is pretty clearly saying 'we can do this ingame at the moment'.
So why aren't they in the later game? They don't appear in later trailers, no, but as I recall, ACM released quite a bit of utterly dreadful recent footage before its release, looking basically like it does in reality. There's a thread full of it in offtopic if you're curious. Is a newer video contradicting an older video enough of an excuse for missing content? If so, why isn't it enough for ACM?
I wasn't aware that a request for logical parity and an absence of double standards was called a straw man nowadays.
What you mean to say is that it is not 'rational.' It is completely logical that people have adverse reactions when disillusioned.
There was a period of time during alpha and beta when it was clear that the prototype DI would not make it into the game in its original form, and the devs were still accepting requests for refunds. If you were displeased at that time you could have requested one. It would probably have been better if you did.
I'm not aware of this new footage, but if that's the case then caveat emptor. Gearbox still deserves ridicule, blame, and criticism for its handling of the game.
The request for logical parity isn't the strawman. The fact that you're equating NS2's situation with ACM's is. Being willfully ignorant is not a good way to win arguments.
I'm not suggesting NS2 = ACM, I'm saying there are things ACM is being accused of that NS2 has done as well, but apparently it's fine in NS2s case. I don't hold with double standards and, as you put it, willful ignorance.
NS2 has many things to recommend it, and ACM has many things to say it's a pretty dreadful game, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support flat out lies about how NS2 is soooo perfect and would never ever do anything so dreadful as to cut previously advertised content.
Favor won on the basis of blind partisanship is worth nothing. If people say NS2 is good without subjecting it to a very harsh and exacting examination, then their praise is worth nothing. I'll say NS2 is a quite good game, and I'll say that because I find a lot wrong with it, but still a lot of good. There is a surprising amount of NS2 that is very, very hard to find fault with, but you have to look for faults nonetheless, otherwise it's just being a fanboy. Something that stands up to harsh criticism is much better than something that is not criticised.
So, I don't like it when people make false claims about it, it devalues its actual merits.
If you honestly can't tell the difference between several huge rich companies more or less committing fraud, and a handful of indie dev's not meeting your expectations, but being honest about it every step of the way, then plz PM me, I've got a "Ferrari" to sell to you really cheap. *puts ferrari sticker on 1982 skoda"