Despite the mixed opinions surrounding Aliens vs. Predator, Rebellion is rather pleased with itself. The game debuted at number one in the United Kingdom, and the team is already in talks to develop a sequel. As far as the critical performance goes, studio head Jason Kingsley has swept the bad reviews under the carpet, claiming that the bad ones were "totally sh*t."
"We wanted Aliens vs. Predator to be a critical success as well as a commercial success," beams Kingsley, "which we think we have achieved. The reviews have been mostly good. We’ve had three totally shit reviews by some Americans, which is a bit odd. Some of them were inexcusably bad. If you discount those poor reviews AvP is averaging high for us."
You can't fault that logic: If you ignore all the bad things people are saying, only good things have been said!
As far as a sequel is concerned, Rebellion is in talks: "We’re also in discussions with Sega about ongoing support for AvP, and also about a sequel to the game. I won’t say what stage those negotiations are in, but we would love to revisit the franchise. Fox are excited about what we’re doing, and we feel we’ve added value to the franchise."
It's safe to say that AvP disappointed me, as my review plainly shows. The sad part is that the game was full of stuff that could have been fixed with a little more care and attention. The core gameplay was terrific, but it was shoddily put together. In light of that, I feel a bit insulted that Rebellion is beaming about its success and choosing to ignore the bad reviews. Still, I guess he who ends the game with the most money wins. Congratulations on your victory, Rebellion.
Rebellion elated with AvP success, wants sequel [Develop]
Contest:
3:00 PM on 02.23.2010
| 
i mean, i could just say "obsidian and gearbox" and then "rebellion" and asked which one sounds like "quality"/ i'm not Sega, though
Discounting bad reviews for being bad is retarded, though. Such reviews should grab the attention of developers and highlight areas that need improvement. Such reviews should never be discounted if they cite areas for improvement.
They're not bad reviews. They're someone's opinion and they're also generally well written.
Not Bad Scores.
2 of those "Bad reviews" are definitely Game Informer and Gamespot.
I can't think what the other one is that he's talking about. But there were more than 3 bad reviews, even excluding the ones he's "Discounting".
It's a good game, Not amazing, but not as bad as some people are making out.
Everyone is expecting Uncharted 2 level of brilliance with every game now. Which is a totally unreasonable expectation. So when games don't come close, people get steamed.
Glad I borrowed it from a friend.
Oh wait - no. It means that history will repeat itself, and AvP2 will be no better than AvP1.
Granted, I haven't played AvP and can't form an opinion of it, but ignoring or flat-out dismissing criticism is not exactly a healthy attitude.
I mean, there's one 4, and a half dozen in the 5-6 range.
PLENTY of people thought this game was pretty crappy. Over a third of reviewers thought this game was a 6 or lower. That's a group of people trying to tell you something there.
Even looking at GameSpots 5.5, I agree with everything they're saying.
And if you wanna talk multiplayer, releasing a game WITHOUT host migration is utterly inexcusable.
That said I've learned enough while hanging on DToid that quotes are always up for interpretation.
That being said; I fucking hope they fix some of the faults in the current game. I really want to love the game, but it's so hard when it takes 20 minutes to find a ranked game on the PS3... and even then there might only be 4-6 players in the game.
lol :)
I.m gonna get both, fuck it.
Talk of a sequel, already? I still think a game with three different characters like this is a bad idea. Focus a game on one species, then you'll have something more credible and fleshed out. The relyance on the first game AvP template, has its good and bad points.
On a brighter side, this bodes well for the game we really want, Colonial Marines. After Borderlands, Gearbox are on a sweet creative high, and I have confidence in them delivering the goods.
mean yeah sure they are not listening to constructive criticism and stuff like that but they after all do have the #1 game in the UK which is a big feat.
I seance that you are really angery at these guys cause you didn't get what you wanted from them and now you are using the internet to rant about how stupid they are.
even though I am causing you to get paid, I would like to point out that your sort of being an @$$
my question, When was the last time that you had the number one selling game in the UK?
I loved the Marine campaign, the Alien campaign seems great as well so far.
I thought the 1up review was terribly written, it's only about half a page long, it doesn't even mention basic things like graphics, and what's there is incoherent. I think the length & incompleteness might be due to the more horrible inaccurate and badly written parts being edited out later. It was one of those that sounds like he barely bothered to play the game before reviewing; for instance, he didn't even know about being able to turn on auto surface switching for the alien in the options, which would have fixed a problem he complained about & took off points for. He also complained quite a bit about the "fatality"animations repeating etc.... This would be like someone complaining about Gears of War because they chose to do nothing but spam the chainsaw the whole game. Talk about repetitive animations, that would be the same one over and over, as opposed to AvP's wide variety.
The IGN and GameSpot reviews were more competently written than 1up's but I still don't agree with many of their complaints - They called the graphics terrible, and I don't see that at all. I played all night with no frame rate issues, and i think the detail & design is awesome. They also complained about the game simply not being Modern Warfare i.e. not having "progression" in multiplayer (perks). They also called the level design awful - it's not as good as MW2 but that doesn't make it terrible. The maps could perhaps have been a little more exciting and inspired but to call them TERRIBLE is I think going too far.
I admit, the number of multiplayer maps is disappointing, and I wouldn't even mind seeing some more impressively designed. The addition of dedicated servers and host-migration would be great too, but I will still get enjoyment out of it. Scores like the ones this game have been getting should be reserved for crap with no redeeming value. not games that are flawed but still fun.
For AvP however, one of those upgrades will be a fixed multiplayer. How lucky for us eh?
GamingXP.com 84%, Gamez.nl 86/100, PC Zone 82%, Seraphic Gaming 8.6/10, Gamers.AT 81%, Burn360.net 3/5, IGN US 7/10, Electricpig 3/5, OXM FR 16/20, 3DJuegos 7.8/10, Play.pr 7/10, Gamervision 7.75/10, Meristation 7.5/10, Multiplayer.it 7.2/10, Eurogamer.it 7/10, PC Powerplay 7/10, Jeuxactu.com 7/10, Games.Tiscali 7/10, Everyeye.it 7.5/10
Bit-Tech 7/10, Polymania 3+/6, TeamXbox.com 6/10, Actiontrip 6.1/10, Original Gamer 6.5/10, PS3bloggen.se 60/100
GameReactor 6/10, Gamespot 5.5/10,Game Informer 5.75/10, Gamespy 2.5/5, Fz.se 2/5
annnd there
To be fair, considering the other crap Rebellion has squeezed out in recent years, he's probably correct when he says "AvP is averaging high for us."
Although this does explain a lot of the game's issues. Kingsley: "Well, if you ignore all the bugs, the game works 100%.Time to ship!"