2 years ago#21
This game is more innovative than Call Of Duty!
I don't know Call of Duty was pretty impressive. First time anybody ever said, WW2, most bad ass war in history. Tons of sides, lets use that.
Then lets add in some realistic physics and weapons.
Oh wait... did you mean Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Because that was where they did that with modern weapons.
Oh I'm guessing your just bashing them for MW2+. In which case, you're right.
2 years ago#22
I liked the colonial marines comic series.
Damn, GameFAQs is dying.
2 years ago#23
The game is not good :/ The story is pretty bad - marines being the focus as an excuse is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Marines were the focus of the movie Aliens.
No if that was true the movie would have been called "Marines". It's always been the story of the Aliens.
2 years ago#24
It's not fanboy goggles, it's the fact OP needs to try justify the money he spent pre-ordering it.
Not a justification, if it was actually a bad game he would feel buyer's remorse. I don't feel that way about this game.
2 years ago#25
Not really. People aren't finding this game fun. I do find the game fun, but I'm not going to blow smoke up anyone's ass. It doesn't do anything particularly special. From a technical stand point it is barely competent while still containing several gamebreaking bugs. For me, its a 6, maybe a 7 if I'm feeling generous, and that is mostly because I am enjoying it in spite of all it's flaws, no measure of technical or narrative production.
If people are playing it, and not enjoying it in the least, they can't mark it with "well at least it was designed well".
2 years ago#26
From: sjwho2 | #003
Sorry, its a decent game. The reviews/scores on this game are outright ridiculous.
That's just your opinion, and it doesn't make the opinions of the reviewers giving Colonial Marines bad scores wrong. The game is however good you think it is, and its however bad they think it is. There's no wrong here.
"I can't buy a pack of smokes without running into 9 guys you've ****ed!"
2 years ago#27
From: MR_Smarty_Pants | #002
I think your fanboy goggles are too thick if you don't think this game is getting the scores it deserves. My advice is to take them off and then play the game.
IGN: Scary Tree
If a tree falls in a forest and no-one is around to hear it... A hipster will buy the soundtrack.
2 years ago#28
I'm glad to find someone else that likes the game. I've been enjoying the single-player game so far. People are being to harsh on this game. Sure, its not perfect but I'm still enjoying myself.
Right, remind me to ignore any review you ever write, then. "I liked it so 7-8/10" is not the proper way to write a review.
I'd say a solid 7 because it has very good music from the movies.
Never going to trust a review from you either.
"Jak and Daxter does not have a sequel so that doesn't prove anything." - DesperateMonkey
(edited 0 seconds ago)
2 years ago#29
The game is okay. Could have been a lot better, especially once compared to what could have been. A solid 6 is what I'd give it.
I think review sites are too polar, to begin with. Either a game has to be an 8 or a 9 or it's gotta be a 4 or a 3.
Objectively, there's nothing about this game that deserves a score that low. I'm pissed that the game failed to live up to expectation, but it's playable, very playable.
When you score a game in the 2, 3, or 4 range there has to be something wrong with it outside of you just not enjoying it. It has to be broken, glitched beyond repair, or so buggy that you wonder if it was even tested.
CM has its bugs, but BO2, Skyrim, New Vegas, and WWE '13 all launched with just as many problems and they still scored in the 8 or better range.
Overall, I think reviewers need some sort of consistency. How can you criticize Aliens for "not doing anything new" but then give BO2 a 9 when it's essentially been the same game, since MW 2.
The First to Fight: A NEW blog dedicated to combat sports, films, pro-wrestling, comics, and much more
2 years ago#30
Most scores seem pretty fair. I have not looked at all of them, and if any one is scoring it a one or two that seems unfair. The game is mostly functional (bug ridden to be sure) but not unplayable.
Anywhere in the 4 to 6 range seems more than fair as this game is average at its very best and subpar at worst. Poor fanfiction like story, bland cardboard characters, average at best voice acting, less than stellar sound, lackluster weapon feel, campaign is far too easy, aliens are not threatening enough, ai is laughably bad, standard corridor shooter, bugs everywhere, multiplayer is a unbalanced mess with bugs galore, p2p, no host switching, AAA price tag on a game that looks and plays like a budget title, DLC passes, the list goes on.
Anyone who says the game is above average or good is lying to themselves. If you like it thats fine, but the game did not remotely deliver on what it had been selling itself as. Disappointing is the ONLY word I can use to describe this game. Giving it ones and twos as scores is dishonest because the game is playable and not a broken mess. Any middling score are more than fair because this game is at its very best a mediocre entry into the shooter genre. Rating it a 8+ would be dishonest as well since the games flaws are not only present but GLARING and that with the overall lack of polish prevents any good score from being taken seriously.