The Legacy of Aliens: Colonial Marines

I'm on Spring Break at the time of writing this.  While that means that I don't need to make a blog post for a grade, I figure it's good to stay in the habit of posting regularly.  I originally planned to not bother posting, but I came up with a decent topic so I'm going to roll with it.  I was originally going to talk about computer-controlled allies in games, citing reviews by Yahtzee where he complains about hyper-competent computer-controlled partners playing the game for him, as well as talking about my own experiences with a particularly frustrating section of Fire Emblem: Awakening where I had to protect a computer controlled NPC with no self-preservation instincts.  I was even going to bring up the upcoming The Last of Us for showing off the next step in AI partners.

But then a tiny spark of doubt ignite in my mind.  What if all the trailers and promotional demonstrations of The Last of Us were set up to look nicer than the final product?  What if all of the interviews and design logs and all those things that make me want to give Naughty Dog my money were engineered to wring as much money out of the consumer?  Some of you might be asking yourself why I'm being so paranoid over something I've been excited for, while others might know the phrase "Aliens: Colonial Marines" and thus be more familiar with where I'm coming from.

This boxart is a visage of dread.

 For those not familiar with it, Aliens: Colonial Marines is a first-person shooter game set in the universe of Ridley Scott's successful Alien franchise developed by Gearbox Software, probably best known for Borderlands.  What happened was the demo and PR ended up being significantly stronger than the actual game was, which caused outrage when it finally reached the hands of consumers.  Game journalist and reviewer Jim Sterling broke his regular schedule to point out the differences between the game and the demo on his weekly video feature, The Jimquisition.

What I am not trying to do with this post is incriminate Naughty Dog for something that they very very very likely haven't done.  The Last of Us has received lots of  attention outside of a controlled environment and has had a lot of gameplay videos and interviews and articles that assure it to be the genuine article and not a company's fabrication.  The point I am trying to make by pondering over the legitimacy of a product whose quality seems high if paranoia.

Gearbox' shenanigans have done more than make a lot of people very mad at them, they've spread paranoia in an environment where consumers are already angry at sleazy business practices like locking content on the game until additional money is paid.  Gearbox not only made themselves look bad, but also made consumers paranoid about being lied to.  Gearbox' actions put consumers in a position where they may second-guess themselves out of buying a legitimate product, not just from Gearbox, but any game currently on the market.  If you can't trust gameplay videos and game demos, then what should the consumer trust?  Post-release reviews that have likely come out after the game has been sold?  Pre-release reviewers who take paychecks from developers to falsely promote their games?

It's good to be wary of a product.  If its creators make it out to be the second coming of whichever deity you worship, then chances are it might be overblown.  It pays to be patient and listen to unbiased opinions of games without being swayed by what you've heard about them.  And as time passes, hopefully more companies will learn from the mistakes of Gearbox and not flat out lie about their product.  "Buyer beware" is a popular enough phrase, but I'd like to think that companies won't take try to make a trend out of tricking consumers, no matter how much they want your money.

Further reading
Colonial Marines' demo vs the finished product

Image Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens: Colonial_Marines