Review: Aliens: Colonial Marines | OnlySP

OnlySP: Six years. Six years I’ve been waiting for the release of Aliens: Colonial Marines, ever since I first saw it in a Game Informer cover story all the way back in 2006. The visuals, the concept, the gameplay and pretty much everything else about it looked great on paper, and I was certain I’d one day have it in my hands and be able to satisfyingly conclude the long road of hype I’d been travelling. Unfortunately, as you probably already know, the game is an utter disappointment, and in no way reflects six years of time and effort.

The story is too old to be commented.

I find it a great game for those who loved the Aliens movie. 9/10 for those that do.

COD fanatics will find interest here as well. Gameplay structure is similar. 9/10 for this group. High fun factor.

For those that have been following the game throughout development....5/10. It's rated on the letdown of high expectations without the promised delivery by Gearbox.

NeXXXuS1979d ago (Edited 1979d ago )

Why would you even consider giving it a 9/10?
There's already an article here on n4g saying that sega and gearbox knew the game was crap when they were working on it and putting it on shelves.


Why are you so concerned about what everyone else is saying? I went out and bought the game, played it, and formed my own conclusion. That's why. You pulled a link from a rumor and drew yours. Do you see the problem here?

The problem with this gaming community in recent years is the ever-so-evolving trend of relying on everybody else to think for them.

They go to friends, review sites, forums, and magazines to see what they thought about the game. The point of doing this is to gather information about it so that you yourself can do some critical thinking. It isn't to take the final number, score, or bottom line and conclude it factual.

We don't buy games because a family or friend has it, nor do we buy games because a family or friend says it's good. We also don't go out and buy a game because a review site (regardless of fairness) says so. We buy them because we like the game, tried it, or somehow came down to an opinion founded somewhere within the person's own tastes or values.

I like Aliens: Colonial Marines because I played the game. If I would have listened to everyone else I'd likely miss one of the greatest experiences in my 30+ years as a gamer.

I'm not going to play a game because everyone else is playing it or because it's popular. It's been proven many times the last two generations that popular games don't mean great games. It doesn't necessarily stand for quality either. It's also been proven that low quality games have been given higher than normal scores just to join in on the bandwagon of other review trends.

My suggestion is to rent the game before jumping to conclusions. I myself haven't experienced the complaints people are talking about. Maybe the update fixed them all. As for online players? I don't see anyone complaining. They're all having a good time AND there are a lot of people playing which is uncommon for most online PS3 games.

antz11041979d ago (Edited 1979d ago )

Maybe he gave it a 9 because he likes it. Good for what the companies knew, it still doesnt affect his enjoyment of the product.

Ah, now I get it, you're plugging your own articles.

Godmars2901979d ago

There's also claims that Gear Box only worked on a 3rd of the game. If you want to defend them best to look for a better game and accept that this one is flawed.

Accept that game devs aren't perfect. Protecting their mistakes only excesses them to make more.

Irishguy951979d ago

Incredible bias will make this game good.

I'm an Alien fan, and a predator fan. I've play most 'good' Aliens games and some predator games. Bad game is bad game. No matter how much I love these franchises. May as well say Alien 3 is good because it's an Alien film. Or AvP2 is good.... Or if your a transformers fan...Bays movies must be amazing.

Just no.

NeXXXuS1979d ago (Edited 1979d ago )

People buy games to have fun. A broken game that was even said to be broken by one of the testers of the actual game should not be bought by anyone. They didn't intend for the game to be good. I buy my video games depending on my tastes and by my friends' opinions, my own opinions, and by actualization. This game is an actualization. People are saying it's bad, critics are saying it's bad, and even people that worked on the game said it's bad and unplayable so I'm not getting it. You're probably just trying to deny that it's a terrible game because you don't want to feel like you wasted your money on something that is being given poor reviews by the community as a whole.

Also, this game is nothing like call of duty in terms of gameplay structure. where in the world did you come to that conclusion?

edit: And nice job giving out disagrees. It just proves my point even further.


How many games are released broken on the 1st day? 1st month? There are plenty, including the most popular titles. It doesn't mean the developer "didn't intend for the game to be good"...or maybe they did.

In either case I'm not a fan of any game being released in a broken state. I think it's a really stupid way to do business for the customers. However, they're all using online updates as a crutch to cut corners. So, whether or not your developer intentions theory is true, it would have to apply to all games this generation, not just Aliens: Colonial Marines.

More specifically, you can't conclude what their intentions are. Not when releasing broken games are happening everywhere, without complaint. Furthermore, if broken games are the norm then that means most testers are playing broken games. Heck maybe the reason a tester is there is to report these bugs in the first place. That is why they call them testers.

So, the game was released Feb 12th. I installed the game the same day and got a major patch on release day. How can you conclude they never intended the game to be good if they released a fix that quickly? Again, you can't. Why? Well because there is nothing indicating support for your side of the argument except what everyone else says. I'm proving my end through a little bit of critical thinking and actual personal experience with the game.

As for your accusations about my feelings of denial toward the game. You have some accuracy in that regard (though not from certainty, just assumption).

I denied the game was bad before I bought the game. I denied the game was bad after the reviews came out. I started to believe the game was bad after they showed the comparison videos of what was promised vs. what was shown. Because of the graphical differences and all the reasoning about what was missing I began to conclude that the game wasn't that good. That was until I played it.

The comparison videos did a good job of making the viewer focus on what was missing. Everyone, for that matter, is too focused on what was missing instead of what was there. I played the game. It is extremely fun. It is very dedicated with content for those that loved the movie. Plus there is many things NOT promised that I discovered within the game. This is probably the ONLY situation in my entire gaming experience that all the videos, opinions, and reviews didn't help shape an accurate picture of playing it.

In my opinion I feel that generating unfounded conclusions toward a video game without playing it is a bigger disservice to the gaming community than having a developer underdeliver in the communities eyes. Was the PS3 any worse of a gaming console because Sony lied? No. Was it any worse when the console was 600.00? No. What made it worse is people rating the quality of a product based on factors that have absolutely nothing to do with it's performance. Games don't suck because a company lies. They don't suck because it costs 99.99. They suck because the content of the game doesn't coincide with your interests.

As for the game then talk to me.

As for disagrees... I disagree with your opinion therefore I clicked the disagree. If your point was to prove that I disagree with you then you win...because I do.

antz11041979d ago

As a big fan of Aliens, and COD, and someone who played the game through AND tried the multiplayer....

I respectfully disagree. To each their own but I dont believe this game has any replay value, nor is worth the $60 pricetag. Dont get me wrong, its not horrible but it could be alot better.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1979d ago
RankFTW1979d ago (Edited 1979d ago )

The game sucks sure but it can be funny as hell with 3 mates. The laughing alone makes it worth the £15 I paid for it.

ufo8mycat1979d ago

I would give this game a 7/10.

The ALIENS atmosphere when you visit Hadleys Hope is SPOT ON. I felt like I was revisitng ALIENS it was that immersive.

Atmosphere - It really made me feel like I was playing ALIENS, especially when you visit Hadleys Hope. The immersion was so strong and atmosphere spot on, that I felt like I was there, visitng the same place Hicks and the rest of the Marines from ALIENS were.

SOUND - From the firing of the pulse rifle, to the tracker going off, to including the same sound effects from ALIENS - again this really added to making me feel I was IN ALIENS.

FIRE-FIGHTS - Because of the above, I actually enjoyed the firefights, even though the Alien AI pretty awful, the PROS above made me forget about that and made me enjoy it.

Of course the AI of the Aliens wasen't really realistic, but the immersion and spot on with the atmosphere sort of helped me forget about that.


Alien AI/Animation - No explanation needed really

Fighting Weyland Soldiers - Not that I hated fighting them, was still enjoyable, but would of preferred if there was less fire-fights them them.

Now of course there are other little PROS, like customizing your weapons and CONS like some clipping (which I only experienced once) but that would just be nit-picking.

Oh no so the graphics in the demo shown were better. So what? Even if they were up to the standard, guess what - you would still be playing the same game. Nothing would change. Therefore I am not even going to bother including the graphics as a Con, as this did not matter TO ME.

People are including their HATE towards Gearbox in reviewing this game, because it wasen't what they were expecting.

Theres people that hate it because the graphics weren't up to standard - oh well thats your problem for being sensitive to graphics in a game.

It's definitely not a 1/10 or 2/10 game.

7/10 for me.

Bring on the hate :P

NeXXXuS1979d ago

You do realize that this game was released unpolished on purpose, right? Click the article I posted under the OP.

ufo8mycat1979d ago (Edited 1979d ago )

Yes I know that.

But I am reviewing the game for THE GAME itself. I am not saying it's polished, it's unpolished for sure, but it didn't have much impact on me enjoying the game.

The game could of been even more tense if they got the Alien AI right.

I am not including the bad ethics shown by SEGA, or my hate towards them for this, in my review. Just reviewing based on the GAME itself and nothing else. I am keeping the hate and bad ethics out of it.

If you want me to review the ethics shwon by SEGA I would give it an automatic 1/10.

Do I want the game to succeed ? No. Any publisher that has these sort of ethics towards a game, don't deserve the sales. Even though I bought it anyway.

Should the ethics shown by SEGA be included in PROFESSIONAL game reviews? Yes I do.

But I didn't include it - I am simply reviewing it based on ONLY the game and my enjoyability levels.


I feel the same way toward the game. I think it's a great game for the fans of the movie. Those that followed the promises will be disappointed.

After much thought I realized that they under delivered with the lighting effects, some key nostalgic moments, and missing/reduced graphical qualities. For me, the final lighting effects, while noticeably inferior to the demo, still did a great job keeping the atmosphere.

I don't see how they didn't care because the compromised lighting effects like strobes were creative and well placed. Any gamer who pays attention will see that they put a lot of effort into the game. I think their ambition was set a bit too high for consoles. Not saying consoles can't do it but they may have needed more resources, experience, or tools to accomplish the task.

The game is definately made for Aliens fans. The content is there in spades, easily missed by those who don't know or don't care. That in itself is 90% of the experience. So, I wouldn't doubt most would have values placed elsewhere, like graphics, or COD standards for shooters. It's just another shooter to most people and they will never relate, or relive the experience we had in 1986. It's an emotion felt by a past a different mindset of people.

EbeneezerGoode1979d ago

Well said!

It has THE atmosphere which is the main thing with aliens. And it's not a broken or un-enjoyable game to play. 7/10

fhizikz1979d ago

MP is great fun with friends

000000000000000000011979d ago

IMO any review giving this game less than a 6/10 shouldn't be doing reviews period.

Perjoss1979d ago

Reviews are just opinions, so are you saying that everyone should just agree with you and throw their own opinions out of the window?

PockyKing1979d ago

This game barley deserves a five man. The gameplay is horrible, and in an industry that's full of competition, there's so many shooters that do what Aliens: Colonial Marines better. The AI in this game almost breaks the experience. The Aliens are supposed to be deadly and hard to fight, yet they come in swarms and do nothing to put up a threat. The human AI was even worse for that matter. I had enemies spawning right in front of my face at times.

The graphics are ugly and so on. The only good thing about this game is the atmosphere, and that's why it got the 5 out 5. It matched the atmosphere of the movies as promised, but sadly everything else went to shit.