Yea I dont care what they say about AvP im still gonna buy it, and i agree with what you said.

[b]The game is pretty boring alone but great with friends![/b]

Its an alright game, what ruined it for me was all the nine and ten year old's in the servers.

Dude, the game is out here(don't know if you're in UK or what), and I found the demo ok.

Gameinformer isn't the only place to give it a bad score. GameSpot gave it a 5.5.

But who cares about them, the game is EPIC. The campaign has a great story, and the multiplayer is amazing.

You had me at: "The demo sucks BALLZ!" I laughed, a lot. So yea, I lol'd

[color=#bd527b] Um I'm really hoping that review was assigned with a tight deadline. How can ANYONE be old enough to have a job, not know more about the characters in this game than that reviewer who marked this barely better than average! All of the things being complained about that were pointed out were common knowledge for anyone without their head up their arse for more than the past Decade!

I kinda wish I didn't know about the crappy review but thanks for rebutting it Joe![/color]

Something to keep in mind, most pro reviews don't focus on an FPS's multiplayer. It's just tough to review well.
First off, you need other *good* players to get a true feel for any multiplayer, and usually game journalists are limited to whomever they can find around the office, not all of whom are into FPS, let alone good players.
Second, it takes more playthroughs to evaluate a multiplayer than any regular game mode because of the permutations of maps and game types.

:0 Calm down man...its ok...

Most "Professional" Reviewers tend give bad reviews. This is why we have people like you and Sage who'll give us the straight truth.

ive seen alot of reviews for this game and they all seem to say the same thing. its an average game with a fun multiplayer. which is fine by me :)

Don`t mess with joe you informer reviewer look at him he is mad... and he and his fans created a gun for game so take care reviewer... and joe your reviews are awesome and i like your taste in music :) you are subjetive but at the same time you deliver a lot of fun with your opinions keep it up

Awesome rebuttal of a lackluster review. Joe, did you dish out $5 for the AvP 2000 classic over steam? The nostalgia of it did not die, but the game feels too fast, and if you slow it down, the mouselook gets delayed and uncomfortable.

IMO AvP is one of the best suited multiplayer ideas ever.

Fuck Game Informer.

That was my first Game Informer and I saw that article about a day before I saw your review.

I'm waiting to see what you say about it.

Well I'll give Rebellion credit for making the game look and sound fantastically faithful to the movies, as I see from the various trailers and gameplay footage. Though it looks overall to me like a rental first, as it seems to be polarizing critics and gamers alike.

Ok, on the day the demo came out I downloaded it!
I was about to give up when a match (whith all 8 players!) started!
I played 3 more with people I never heard off (just went adding people like crazy to my PS3 account) and it was very, very, really, FUN!!

I'm usually not into multiplayer (I guess I must be the only one buying it for the campaign), but this is the one game I'm looking foward to play on-line!

I know [i]Modern Warfare[/i] may be a much superior on-line shooter, but I can't crawl walls on that! :P

I read his review earlier today, actually. I'm a bit embarrassed to say I was in a crowded Starbucks when I read the bit about Predators using "too much stealth" and blurted out, "Oh, THAT is BULLCRAP!"

But in all seriousness, I have semi-high hopes still for the game. My friends who played the demo said it was decent (they may be easy to please, but still), and aside from the multiplayer, it's friggin' Alien vs. Predator! This guy seems to complain about having more than one choice of who to play, that Aliens creep too much and Predators are too stealth-dependent. Well then, play as a Gawd-damn Marine, Binky-Boy! That's why we have choices! I used to think having a "Male or Female" choice was the shite, and now being able to be one of three different races, it's friggin' fantastic!

This reviewer just seemed to want another point-and-shoot game, not wanting the creative physical strengths and weaknesses each part gives. He can go God-mode on Army of Two, if he wants; I'll be ripping his spine out, thanks very much.

you always have sick music in your vids. Death fan?

Anyone who bases there opinion on reviews and hasn't actually played the game in question is a sheep who is unable of forming there own ideas.

IGN gave it a 7/10 and said it was pretty good.

Glad to see I wasn't the only one that thought the demo was shit. Not only was it bad in general, I heard it was the same one they used for E3 almost a year ago. That's practically a Beta. Demo's are supposed to give you the feel of the final release. Beta's are for testing your buggy game. Better off not releasing a demo at all then.

I'm still iffy, since there were things I didn't like that weren't cause of a demo, but I might give it a rental. Maybe the console version will be abit tighter. Just wasn't into the feel of the game itself too much, but Deathmatch really leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

That wasn't the only thing that confused me about that issue of GI. Not only was I surprised to find that they'd given a low score to a game that, from what you previewed, looked pretty damn awesome, but the way their BioShock 2 review talked, the game was just anywhere from "just good" to "meh" to "boring" for the first ten hours but the last three were amazing, and yet the score it gained was an eight out of ten at least. They have a right to say if they think it's bad or not, but what bugged me was how the actual review seemed to say one thing while the numerical score suggested something completely different.

Bottom line, a game like AvP can be average or slightly above average and still awesome for the fans and those interested. PSM, when they were still called PSM, described it best when they said that a six out of ten was, "fun if you enjoy the subject matter", I say.

That wasn't the only thing that confused me about that issue of GI. Not only was I surprised to find that they'd given a low score to a game that, from what you previewed, looked pretty damn awesome, but the way their BioShock 2 review talked, the game was just anywhere from "just good" to "meh" to "boring" for the first ten hours but the last three were amazing, and yet the score it gained was an eight out of ten at least. They have a right to say if they think it's bad or not, but what bugged me was how the actual review seemed to say one thing while the numerical score suggested something completely different.

Bottom line, a game like AvP can be average or slightly above average and still awesome for the fans and those interested. PSM, when they were still called PSM, described it best when they said that a six out of ten was, "fun if you enjoy the subject matter", I say.

So the game could still be pretty damn awesome regardless.

Gametrailers gave it a 7.7

I'll be checking it out, but only for the single player, I'm not a fan of competitive multiplayer.

[b]I've had the game for a few days now (infact i did a review of it on my ScrewAttack Europe Youtube account) and it's actually not too bad![/b]

I quite enjoyed the demo on Xbox personally but yeah, it can't be a good representation of the full game if it's a tiny portion of it.

Oh, and a pet peeve of mine is when people use the wrong "your" or "you're". Forum people I can understand but you should be setting an example Joe and not encouraging poor english! "I hope your right Joe" - quite ironic as you weren't ;)

The ONLY thing this game updates from the original AVP is the graphics. I found almost NOTHING to be different between the two games. I actually find the original to be much more balanced and easier to play than this release. I also thought the original's campaigns were far superior. Why would you pay $60 for AVP 2010 when AVP 1999 is almost identical and sells for like $10.

Also the game has an average score of 65% on gamerankings. Many big name reviewers pegged it as 5/10 or 6/10. What it sounds like to me, is if you're a fanboy of AvP you'll probably enjoy this game a bit. If not, there's no reason to buy it.

Maybe Ben Reeves dosen't know anything about previous games but you don't either Joe. Lets face it, most of that "new stuff" was already in Monolith's AvP2. So basically this new AvP is just same game with better grafics. Then again AvP2 is exelent FPS so its not bad thing if this new one is as good as it was.

I don't know if it's jsut me, but Joe I find your reviews to be nothing but "first glimpse responses", I.E you pay the game once and then you give your interpretation. You argue that the demo sucked because it didn't have the features the game will eventually have, and that it was limited to 8v8 FFA. All I could say is: "So?" FFA, no matter the limit, has always been the stand by for beta testing/demo releases, why should this be an exception? If all the species were limited to their primary attack, then yes I could see the problem; however, if not, then it is a perfect size to see how the mechanics of each race works and in the full game would having all the features it does would overall make the game that much better. Hell, Left 4 Dead's demo was just the first... two maps of No Mercy I believe, and not even a Versus mode, and that game became huge.

Your next point about that Ben guy giving it a 5.75/10 gave me a couple of nods, generally these guys don't full immerse themselves into the game to know what it's truly about or how much fun the average gamer would have from the game; but really why is there such a reliance on a critic score for games anyway? I really do think you should address that trend. I mean, did we care about what people thought back in the day when Star Fox or Diablo came out?

Overall, a normal review I've come to expect, all around good and filled with energy.

6/10 may be average to you, Joe, but for most gamers, it's crap. The "hardcore gamer" mindset is a false dichotomy, perceiving every game as either flawless or complete crap. "Average" and "above average" are just synonyms for "crap" to them. And, of course, anyone who actually liked those games is a mindless drone who only buys popular games with pretty graphics and doesn't REALLY enjoy them, any only liked them because they're a fad, and will abandon them as soon as something else comes along.


In short, self-proclaimed hardcore gamers are shmucks.