Aliens Colonial Marines Full E3 Demo Footage

Started by ikarop, Sep 30, 2011, 05:00:30 PM

Author
Aliens Colonial Marines Full E3 Demo Footage (Read 68,136 times)

PsyKore

Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 04, 2011, 09:54:23 AM
I'm not trying to say heavy on-rails gaming is better. All I was saying that they never hid their intentions from anyone. As for those massive PR interviews they did, they firstly and mostly preached about the story and the cool things they did to make it authentic to the movies. They would then secondarily mention providing a co-op team based yada yada yada. From the footages it seems like you'll be getting that too.

Cinematic experience doesn't mean heavy rails as you said? You should lodge an official protest or complaint and teach them a thing or two about proper game design.

As far as I can tell, all of this backlash about the amount of rails is due to that person's own self-entitlement attitude and/or ignorance.

Yes, and all I'm saying is the amount of on-rails was not expected, and consequently is a concern for me and some others. Why don't you leave people to express their own opinions about it? There's no self-entitlement, just people who don't like on-rails gameplay. ::) Don't jump in, being holier-than-thou, saying people should see every single interview conducted, assuming people are ignorant and labeling it as backlash. It's just our opinion on the demo, which is a good indication of the final game, and GBX intentions don't change that. We all for the love of god know their intentions.


Xenomrph

Quote from: PsyKore on Oct 04, 2011, 08:39:32 AM
We all know it's intended to be cinematic and a sequel, which is fine, but I'm sorry, that doesn't justify on-rails gameplay. On-rails gameplay, similar to COD Black Ops, for instance, which this demo displays, is video game suicide.
CoD Black Ops had the best singleplayer campaign out of any CoD game.

The Crusher

Im excited about this game, but im a little bit worried from one thing from what ive seen about the shooting, not once did we see the player aim down his sights, surely you have the option to aim down your sights?

PLEXI

QuoteCoD Black Ops had the best singleplayer campaign out of any CoD game.
I highly disagree with that opinion..  PsyKore's point still stands about the campaign being linear.  It's worked for CoD because the main meat of the game is the multiplayer..  But it can seriously hurt replay ability, especially when a good portion of the focus for A:CM is a story driven singleplayer experience.

It's already been said that this E3 footage was put together as a showcase (more or less).  The question is just how much different it will be from the final product.

QuoteI don't remember GBX promising or saying anything about the amount of rails in the game before or after the release of these footages.
While true, I don't believe anything was officially promised regarding it.. but to go claiming self entitlement and ignorance of everyone who wants a less linear game is a little silly in my opinion.

@The Crusher
Aiming with the sights of your weapon is already confirmed, we have footage of it...  Unless they decide to remove it before release for some reason.  This might be demonstrating that it is entirely possible to play the game without using the feature though.

The Xenoborg

Aiming down the sights, does this mean using iron sights?
Because the player did use iron sights with a shotgun.

PLEXI

QuoteAiming down the sights, does this mean using iron sights?
Yup, just a more correct term..

On both the pistol(Jace Hall) and shotgun. I don't see why the other weapons would not be included, considering the M41A's nifty rail mounts now.

scm

Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 04, 2011, 04:40:56 PM
Quote from: PsyKore on Oct 04, 2011, 08:39:32 AM
We all know it's intended to be cinematic and a sequel, which is fine, but I'm sorry, that doesn't justify on-rails gameplay. On-rails gameplay, similar to COD Black Ops, for instance, which this demo displays, is video game suicide.
CoD Black Ops had the best singleplayer campaign out of any CoD game.
What is this I don't even...

Xenomrph

Xenomrph

#232
I loved the campaign in Black Ops, and I re-played every CoD game fairly recently. I really liked the plot twists and whatnot in Black Ops, and I actually cared about the characters. That, and the action was a lot of fun.

Then again I've got a soft spot for wacky WWII super-science and cold-war conspiracy shit, and that was pretty much the entirety of the plot in CoD Black Ops.

QuotePsyKore's point still stands about the campaign being linear.  It's worked for CoD because the main meat of the game is the multiplayer..  But it can seriously hurt replay ability, especially when a good portion of the focus for A:CM is a story driven singleplayer experience.
Did you play AvP2's campaign? If so, what did you think of it?
Because it's scripted as hell and it's entirely linear, and yet critics loved it.

NUB DESTROYER

Quote from: Dachande on Oct 04, 2011, 10:26:53 PM
Hold on hold on hold on.

I haven't seen the video but, by on-rails are we meaning linear, or Time Crisis?

On rails means guided action where the game sometimes dictate how your player will move in order to fit the story line while using a lot of cut scenes.

If I remember correctly, Time Crisis was very linear.

Xenomrph

Xenomrph

#234
Well there's a difference between a full-on rail-shooter like Time Crisis or House of the Dead, and a linear game that has one path the player is meant to take.

Most of the CoD games are linear, so is the Dead Space series, and many other games. AvP2 was linear, and I suspect Colonial Marines will be, too.
Games like Batman: Arkham Asylum, Grand Theft Auto (or pretty much any open-world sandbox game), or RPGs like Fallout or Mass Effect or whatever are nonlinear.

It's not a rail-shooter - it doesn't do the movement for the player. You can still walk around or backtrack, it's just that in order to complete the game you have to keep progressing forward the way the game wants you to. 'Aliens: Extermination' or 'Alien3: The Gun' were lightgun games, and were rail-shooters.
AvPClassic was largely linear in that you were meant to get from point A to B, but the enemy spawns and placement were randomized which made it less linear.

Quotei'd like to see how they are unfounded or nonsensical.
NUB's been doing a pretty good job of calling them out when they've been nonsensical and explaining why.

There ARE legitimate concerns, but not nearly to the degree people have been griping about them. The E3 demo gameplay is linear, but it's also pretty apparent that it's a heavily scripted demo (that ends with the player dying). To say that the actual final game will be like that is a bit premature. People have been complaining about the ironsights, or how you couldn't use them, or the pulse rifle sound effects, and some of those are unfounded (the ironsights stuff) and others might get addressed in the final game. People have been complaining about apparent plot/continuity problems, but those aren't nearly as major as people are making them out to be, and some of them are intentional and will be addressed over the course of the game.

In defense of linear gameplay, the vast majority of modern games (and especially FPS games) are linear. If you're a developer and you want a "cinematic experience" with setpiece battles and you want every player to get the same experience as you intend it, it's hard to do that without making the game linear.

That doesn't mean every enemy attack is going to happen exactly the same every time, but enemy placement or other triggered events (NPC deaths, whatever) will likely be scripted.
It's like a movie. Movies are linear, and are specifically crafted so you're experiencing it the way the director wants you to see it. The difference is that it's YOU doing the shooting or running or screaming, so you have some sort of control over whether your character lives or dies.

NUB DESTROYER

^^ Good stuff.

At the risk of making faulty assumptions, the people who voice their opinion about ACM are of a much lower age group than I sometimes project in my mind while I type stuff away here. It is a game after all. So yeah, I'll tone it down a bit.

chupacabras acheronsis

Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 04, 2011, 11:27:47 PM
Quotei'd like to see how they are unfounded or nonsensical.
NUB's been doing a pretty good job of calling them out when they've been nonsensical and explaining why.

There ARE legitimate concerns, but not nearly to the degree people have been griping about them. The E3 demo gameplay is linear, but it's also pretty apparent that it's a heavily scripted demo (that ends with the player dying). To say that the actual final game will be like that is a bit premature. People have been complaining about the ironsights, or how you couldn't use them, or the pulse rifle sound effects, and some of those are unfounded (the ironsights stuff) and others might get addressed in the final game. People have been complaining about apparent plot/continuity problems, but those aren't nearly as major as people are making them out to be, and some of them are intentional and will be addressed over the course of the game.

In defense of linear gameplay, the vast majority of modern games (and especially FPS games) are linear. If you're a developer and you want a "cinematic experience" with setpiece battles and you want every player to get the same experience as you intend it, it's hard to do that without making the game linear.

That doesn't mean every enemy attack is going to happen exactly the same every time, but enemy placement or other triggered events (NPC deaths, whatever) will likely be scripted.
It's like a movie. Movies are linear, and are specifically crafted so you're experiencing it the way the director wants you to see it. The difference is that it's YOU doing the shooting or running or screaming, so you have some sort of control over whether your character lives or dies.

Well now we're talking. first off i should clear that the whole shooter-on-rails thing was mostly an hyperbole and not an actual statement, at least from my part. some people may not be completely clear on the difference but i doubt anyone has made the relation seriously. in regards to the iron sights, i do agree that they look out of place but i could not care less if they prove to be useful, since the trench sights in the rifle carrying handle seem to be harder to use in practice(and i know the Gearbox guys did go shooting a lot with it) so i understand why they are there, and i haven't said a peep about them. however, other people may not be entirely on with the concept, maybe they do not like the aesthetic change and were bugged off by not even getting to see them in use, or simply do not like using iron sights in a game and don't see the point of them in a claustrophobic, close combat game like this.

on the plot problems, i don't think they are minor at all. we as hardcore fans may believe it's only us that noticed some inconsistencies, but it's not. every person i've discussed this with said that it's just plain stupid that the colony still exists. we may be used to being tooled with by Fox(sadly), but most people react with "that's really dumb" and don't bother anymore. this is something that turns people off the game and hurts it's success. it's not good when you have to say "it's videogame logic". it's a terrible thing to strive for mediocrity, and if this game is all about the story then it becomes even weaker.

about the gameplay, i don't doubt they can make a memorable experience, but once you beat it, then it IS going to be the same the next time. if enemy placement and NPC placement are static, then things are going to happen the same way, the AI will make the same decisions based on the same situations and the only thing that really changes is where one is at that point. it's good that they want players to have the best possible experience, but they should also encourage them to play with team and tactics in mind, because if the marines die regardless of your action you won't feel attached to them the same. it's not up to you, it's not something you can do anything about nor it influences what happens later.

it affects the characters when they are not "your" marines but the game's, it affects the survival factor, and it gives it a sense of futility when you can do your best and the game still will end up the same as you had half assed through. in the end you're an actor in the script for it to play out, you are not "in" the situation where your actions matter and affect what happens later on, you're an spectator stuck in the first person camera. you are not really playing.


NUB DESTROYER

Quotein regards to the iron sights, i do agree that they look out of place but i could not care less if they prove to be useful, since the trench sights in the rifle carrying handle seem to be harder to use in practice(and i know the Gearbox guys did go shooting a lot with it) so i understand why they are there, and i haven't said a peep about them.

As far as I know, Iron Sight is completely irrelevant in the footages. But people seem to bring it up for some reason whether to say they like it or dislike it.   

Quote
but most people react with "that's really dumb" and don't bother anymore.

People say something to this effect publicly. But those who don't think it's dumb are so supposed to not do anything about it? People who hate it can voice their opinion but those who don't hate it can't?

Quote
about the gameplay, i don't doubt they can make a memorable experience, but once you beat it, then it IS going to be the same the next time. if enemy placement and NPC placement are static, then things are going to happen the same way, the AI will make the same decisions based on the same situations and the only thing that really changes is where one is at that point.

Yes, you're right. All these are IFs.

PLEXI

QuoteDid you play AvP2's campaign? If so, what did you think of it?
Because it's scripted as hell and it's entirely linear, and yet critics loved it.
I loved it, played through its entirety a few times. I never said linear was a bad thing, its a design choice.  I was simply stating a fact that the more linear a game is, the less replay value it has.  This has been true of every game.
QuoteCalling out peoples' opinions when they're unfounded or nonsensical isn't a bad thing.
Well, it's an opinion.  Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and what not.
QuoteBut comparing ACM to CoD and saying that ACM won't have the same MP impact that CoD-
When did I say that?  All I did was make a comparison between the development priorities judging on each of the game's goals.  Completely misinterpreting the meaning of my post.
QuoteYes, you're right. All these are IFs.
Quite frankly that's all we have.  It's impossible to predict the final product with any degree of certainty, we might as well talk about it and give Gearbox feedback on the material presented though. 

NUB DESTROYER

QuoteWhen did I say that?  All I did was make a comparison between the development priorities judging on each of the game's goals.  Completely misinterpreting the meaning of my post.

And you know for a fact what GBX's development priorities are? You know for a fact they're actually NOT gonna target gamers who want to buy this game for MP only or for both campaign and MP equally?

Quote
Quite frankly that's all we have.  It's impossible to predict the final product with any degree of certainty, we might as well talk about it and give Gearbox feedback on the material presented though. 

That's exactly what I was thinking too but without making blanket statements like but once you beat it, then it IS going to be the same the next time

Quote
Well, it's an opinion.  Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and what not.

But if you throw around your opinion in an unfounded way, you're asking for a rebuttal just as easily as how you can throw around your opinion.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News