Consoles are the Reason Why Aliens: Colonial Marines Sucks Compared to the Demo

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Shawn Zipay
    Managing Communities 24/7
    • Apr 2003
    • 69279

    #1

    Consoles are the Reason Why Aliens: Colonial Marines Sucks Compared to the Demo

    Kotaku spoke to some anonymous sources who apparently had first hand knowledge of the development on Aliens: Colonial Marines. One of the hot topics discussed is why the demo for the game looked so much better than what finally shipped.

    BIG SURPRISE! The reason the final game looks so bad is because of the limitations of current consoles. Instead of making a PC version of the game that isn't restricted by set hardware requirements, they just made every version the same and thus crippled the hell out of (at least) the PC version. Brilliant.
    According to a few sources I spoke with, the demo for Colonial Marines was built by TimeGate—with animation assistance by Gearbox—and ran in real time. As is standard for E3 demos, it ran on a high-end computer with specs that would be unfeasible for a normal console game.

    "We were told many times through demo production, 'Don't worry about performance, just make it awesome,'" said one source. "There was a reason [the demos] were never playable."

    (Press attending E3 2012 could join hands-on multiplayer sessions, but the single-player demo was not playable there.)

    The demo looked better than the game does because the demo didn't have to be optimized for old hardware. Though these games are created using powerful PCs, any console game has a "performance budget"—the ceiling above which an Xbox 360 or a PS3 cannot go. The Colonial Marines demo was way over performance budget, and the development team had to cut back significantly for the final product.

    "We were constantly cutting back more and more in terms of texture, shader and particle fidelity, in order to fit into the jacked memory restraints," said another source.

    In the middle of 2012, once Gearbox had finished most of Borderlands 2, they took the project back from TimeGate. And Gearbox changed everything—partially because what TimeGate had produced was not very good, two sources told me, and partially because it couldn't run on the PlayStation 3.

    "[Gearbox made] big changes to lighting, texture and shader complexity," said one source who had not played the final game, but was familiar with some of the later builds. "Design elements were altered or redone entirely. It looks like a lot of [TimeGate's] assets remained intact, with the exception of lower-res textures and faster-performing shaders."

    This is perhaps another very telling remark about the game's development from these sources.
    "The game feels like it was made in nine months, and that's because it was."

    Ugh...

    (via Kotaku)
  • K-16
    ...
    • Sep 2026
    • 2018

    #2
    As an additional note, journalists can only play as the Marine side on their multiplayer demo (one game and then you're rushed out the door). None of them had a chance to play as aliens. The PR excuse was that playing as aliens had a steep learning curve, so they held it off and restricted alien gameplay to staff-only. I'm actually surprised to be reading this now, because I didn't know about the journalist hands-on experience until earlier today (which mirrors what you said along with this additional note).

    I can understand the graphics looking worse than the demo, if it still met the bar of quality of other console games running Unreal Engine (even without deferred lighting). Right now, the game is graphically dated compared to other console games running Unreal Engine 3 without that Red Ring renderer techno jargon bull$#!+. The only part I'm willing to believe is when Gearbox finally had time to focus on Aliens: Colonial Marines after Borderlands 2, TimeGate forgot how to develop for Unreal Engine 3 (despite their experience from Section 8), and gave an unoptimised broken game to Gearbox, where Gearbox had nine months to bug fix and strip the crap out of the game because Sega is getting furious. The fact that the game isn't functionally broken, and how the bugs are minor tells me that Gearbox did a decent job of finishing a rush project. Too bad people pre-ordered with $60, and Sega spent who knows how much on marketing, for a nine-month rush project.

    Comment

    • CptainCrunch
      I am the 1%
      • Oct 2007
      • 12976

      #3
      I havent played the game, so I dont have a hands on comparison, I just have some pictures and Zips non-review; Do you think this story is legit? I mean to blame it on consoles for its brokenness, lack of graphics, and other items removed?

      The reason I say that is why remove graphics across all platforms? Why not put a graphics slider on it in the controls for PC? I saw a picture of the demo and then the live level and there was a guy standing next to a ship and he was gone along with the dialogue with that scene. Why take dialogue out on all platforms?

      I dont doubt that the game was rushed in 9 months, but I personally think they are blaming console for the smoke and mirrors of it. I think they never had anything to begin with. Their deceit was revealed and they are doing some damage control and I think that blaming console is a diversion. They simply wasnt given the time and they cut corners to release a game.

      Hopefully they will learn from this and not do it again.
      Twitter: @CptainCrunch
      Battlelog/Origin: CptainCrunch

      Comment

      • Jez-
        Member
        • May 2009
        • 37

        #4
        Yeah blame it on the consoles. We have seen how modern games still look great on such old consoles. Take Crysis 3 for example.

        Comment

        • Shawn Zipay
          Managing Communities 24/7
          • Apr 2003
          • 69279

          #5
          The consoles are just one aspect to this but it's an easier headline than saying "Aliens: Colonial Marines Sucks Due to a Lack of TLC from Gearbox, a Reduction of Visual Fidelity Thanks to Consoles and the General Movement from Developers to Not Develop for Each Platform Independently that Would Have Resulted in the PC Version Having Had A Far Different Experience and Perhaps Included a Supported Video Card List More Recent Than 2007"

          Comment

          • CptainCrunch
            I am the 1%
            • Oct 2007
            • 12976

            #6
            I dont think your headline is misleading. I just think Gearbox did wrong and they are stating the reasons why, but I personally dont buy the "console forced us to downplay it."

            There are a large number of games that look great on console, for what they are and thats why I feel they are trying to find an easy excuse for the final product. They went into the game half-hearted and thats the outcome.
            Twitter: @CptainCrunch
            Battlelog/Origin: CptainCrunch

            Comment

            • K-16
              ...
              • Sep 2026
              • 2018

              #7
              Agreed to both Zips and CptainCrunch (and Jez's point shows how ineffective the console excuse is). However, I feel like I should clarify that the game ISN'T broken. Whatever bugs the game has won't hinder gameplay, and can be ignored without frustration. Guns shoot, QTEs respond, and aliens/people die when attacked. Motion tracker works, turret fires (crappily and unhelpfully), multiplayer connects online, game modes work as intended, computer/console does not freeze nor crash, etc. etc. It's just the design was so lazy, the story is so shoddy (Mr. Neumann's imposter I presume), and the AI is so retarded, that the game is not fun to play, and does not look good. Still... It's a solidly developed title. Gearbox is pretty good at fixing utter $#!+ back into a disappointing game in such a short amount of time (probably did non-stop sprints to the publishing deadline).

              Comment

              Working...