GRcade

Decided to have a read through the last few pages after seeing the topic title change (hadn't seen anything to do with the game till just now). Holy gooseberry fool, it's like the Driv3r of the the 360/PS3 generation - awful AI and graphics with a few obviously bribed review scores. Even the PC version looks like gooseberry fool for a 2013 game running on ultra. The 360 version looks like it's got no AA! What a disgrace!

Brerlappins little hat wrote:Wii U version shitcanned

And nothing of value was lost.

I guess the returns have been considerable, then.

Grumpy David wrote:Decided to have a read through the last few pages after seeing the topic title change (hadn't seen anything to do with the game till just now). Holy gooseberry fool, it's like the Driv3r of the the 360/PS3 generation - awful AI and graphics with a few obviously bribed review scores. Even the PC version looks like gooseberry fool for a 2013 game running on ultra. The 360 version looks like it's got no AA! What a disgrace!

The 360 version runs at sub-HD

I saw the TV ad for this last night on Challenge TV. Looks great!

I now feel so dirty

What's funny though is the 2 screenshots on the back of the box look like they are from that demo that was never in the final game

KjGarly wrote:What's funny though is the 2 screenshots on the back of the box look like they are from that demo that was never in the final game

Those are both levels in the game.

For what it's worth, fiddling about in the Nvidia control panel can yield some acceptable results in-game...

Mogster wrote:

TheTurnipKing wrote:Except that IS the PC version on full detail mode.

The console versions are butchered further still.

I know that, but it's not exactly rare for PC versions to be straight ports of the console build with no improvements bar higher AA and the like. It sounds like Gearbox barely got the console release ready on time, so they didn't exactly have time to focus on improving the PC release! The console versions are worse, but the textures, models and AI are as bad as each other in all versions.

I haven't played the game but surly it wouldn't explain everything that is wrong with the game, the AI sound and voice acting is terrible also the dynamic lighting shouldn't have taking up to much space as well.

Mafro wrote:

KjGarly wrote:What's funny though is the 2 screenshots on the back of the box look like they are from that demo that was never in the final game

Those are both levels in the game.

Sorry I meant how it looks. I know Hadley's Hope is there but they had that demo which looked miles better with the 'sophisticated AI' that can climb walls

Right, intro playing now. So far the menu isn't glitchy any more compared to the unpatched YARRR version I tried.

'derp marines'

I started playing AvP Classic thanks to this which I'd never touched until yesterday. Damn, that game is jumpy as hell with all the aliens jumping off the walls and gooseberry fool at you through the darkness.

StayDead wrote:I started playing AvP Classic thanks to this which I'd never touched until yesterday. Damn, that game is jumpy as hell with all the aliens jumping off the walls and gooseberry fool at you through the darkness.

It was strawberry floating terrifying iirc

The darkness is actually just pitch black and even if you use a flare it's still hard to see.

lex-man wrote:

Mogster wrote:

TheTurnipKing wrote:Except that IS the PC version on full detail mode.

The console versions are butchered further still.

I know that, but it's not exactly rare for PC versions to be straight ports of the console build with no improvements bar higher AA and the like. It sounds like Gearbox barely got the console release ready on time, so they didn't exactly have time to focus on improving the PC release! The console versions are worse, but the textures, models and AI are as bad as each other in all versions.

I haven't played the game but surly it wouldn't explain everything that is wrong with the game, the AI sound and voice acting is terrible also the dynamic lighting shouldn't have taking up to much space as well.

Of course it wouldn't explain everything. A bad game is a bad game no matter how good it looks!

There was more in that demo than just dynamic lighting, but it's kind of my point that what was there shouldn't have caused as many problems as it evidently did. It was meant to show what they hoped the game would have been like after all, but based on what's been said they ended up having to rush the game to release when it was in a state that simply didn't work. If they really didn't have time to properly optimise it then all they could do was rip stuff out until it worked.

It's not uncommon to showcase demos that aren't representative of the current state of a game. In fact that's pretty much what they have to be unless they're released at the same time as the game. One that springs to mind was Bungie's Halo 2 E3 demo, which they apparently had to throw together at a time when they didn't have anything in an acceptable state, and even then they had to have a guy behind the scenes manually deleting and spawning stuff on the fly to keep it running properly. Still, generally you'd hope that a game's engine would be pretty much locked down by the time the release date is looming, especially after six years!

At least Randy will be correct with his quote of last year saying the Wii U version will be the best looking. I'd imagine Gearbox have now bought it in-house in an attempt to get it up to snuff.

> In development for 7 years
> Gives 'rushed for release' as excuse