Support NeoGAF

[c0Zm1c]

The funny thing is, despite the poor critical reception, the game was a good earner for SEGA. I'm surprised a new Colonial Marines game hasn't been announced yet, helmed by a different developer obviously!

 

[UrbanDandy]

They're an LLC. They aren't publically traded. In other words, no shareholders.

I see.

 

[spineduke]

The funny thing is, despite the poor critical reception, the game was a good earner for SEGA. I'm surprised a new Colonial Marines game hasn't been announced yet, helmed by a different developer obviously!

Really? The title is heavily laced with negative connotations at this point. Thanks Randy! I mean, any sane dev would pick a new name, out of avoiding doing themselves a great disservice.

 

[The Spoony Hou]

He's insane.

He's not insane. He's a conman that will never back way from his lies.

 

[Bedlam]

He's not insane. He's a conman that will never back way from his lies.

I think he might actually suffer from some kind of narcissistic disorder though.

 

[The Spoony Hou]

I think he might actually suffer from some kind of narcissistic disorder though.

It does look like it. He probably has lots of people drooling on his balls to feed that, though. Maybe one day, when borderlands bombs, he will snap out of it. But for now his act is still earning him money.

 

[jiggles]

Refreshing to see an actual real-world use for vigesimal notation.

 

[Ban Puncher]

Nobody wanted a free copy of MemeLands 2 - Meme Harder.

 

[SolidChamp]

I've worked at EGM since 2011, been the Executive Editor since 2013 (basically stepping into the role Brandon was in before his departure). I've never once known that we were going to have ads for a particular game I was reviewing until I saw the the ads on the site—which has led to more than a few "oh man" moments when an ad campaign was suddenly starting up right when our review for the same game went up.

I don't know the exacts on why Brandon gave Alien CM the score he did, but I can say that wasn't the only game he reviewed where his score seemed decently off from the Metacritic average. His tastes in games, at times, seemed quite outside the norm.

To be fair, though, I've been in the same position before, just not with such a high-profile game as this.




Except he doesn't call himself that, because he doesn't work in this field anymore, and I'm not sure if he ever called himself that.

Really glad you're here to shed a bit of light on the subject. I'm the guy who engaged Brandon in a debate regarding the integrity of the piece itself, at the time of it's publication, via the FB comment section under the article.

I spent 5 years in South Korea reviewing films for the Busan International Film Festival. Yes, a review is purely subjective, but regardless of that I do know that professionally written reviews do (or should) adhere to formula and structure. This format can apply to a review in any medium, be it books, film, or video games.

The reason I took Brandon to task for his review (and boy, did I ever) is not because of the opinion itself, but because of his complete disregard for any coherent analysis or reasoning for it. A well-written review should at least TRY to include a hook, map, paraphrasing, illustrative analysis, a contrary penultimate paragraph (this one is important) and, of course, a conclusion.

Brandon's review was literally ALL hook, and read like a massive hype blurb on the back of the box. I felt the editorial standards were severely lacking there. He couldn't explain why he came to the conclusions that he did about the game and offered no further reasoning on his analysis on the game's strengths (and couldn't cite any weaknesses).

I'm also curious about your mention of the banner ads; at the time of Brandon's dismissal from EGM the editor-in-chief released a statement explaining that these weren't paid ads, but in fact artwork or original flair created by EGM itself. Are you suggesting that they are, in fact, publisher advertising?

When coupled with the fact that Pitchford constantly cites the EGM article as one that he "liked", it just really doesn't look very good for EGM, or Pitchford. I mean, sure the guy can claim that it's impossible to be "objective" about his company's own work, but come on! Constructive criticism on the things they could have done better can only help a developer, moving forward. Brandon's article offers none of that, and that's the review Randy chooses to hone in on and wave around.

It's just...baffling.

 

[hunnies28]

He seems like today's Dyack

 

[Timedog]

If anyone from egm is reading this, I'll write anything any publisher wants if I get free money. PM me if you need a new reviewer. Thanks, egm loved your sonic and knuckles 4person review in the November 1994 issue.

 

[deriks]

I love Ash so much

 

[Dandy Lyin]

At least Molyneux admits his previous games' short comings. This guy is just a lying crook.

 

[Clear]

At least Molyneux admits his previous games' short comings.

That's really working out great for him isn't it...

 

[Saoshyant]

I never understood one thing about this situation. If EGM went as far as cut ties with that Brandon Justice guy, why did they never apologize for publishing his review or at the very least removed it from their website so it wouldn't be there staining their name? As someone who actually used to visit their website for reviews before this mess happened I was baffled they at least didn't sweep it under the rug. Instead they just opened themselves to permanent criticism from anyone who can link the review. It's weird.

 

[mollipen]

I'm also curious about your mention of the banner ads; at the time of Brandon's dismissal from EGM the editor-in-chief released a statement explaining that these weren't paid ads, but in fact artwork or original flair created by EGM itself. Are you suggesting that they are, in fact, publisher advertising?

The confusion comes because there's two answers. First, we have typical ads, both your standard banners and then other ads in the righthand column. Then, we have what I'd call hub pages for certain games. These are pages that basically collect all of the content we do about a particular game or series, and you can then subscribe to that page, and go there, when you want to see what's new on the site about that game. What these hubs also do—and this is what helped confuse things—is theme the site anytime you're looking at content for a particular game.

Here's three examples of how the site can look.

A review where we have no hub page: Street Fighter V
A review where we have a hub page but no extra visuals (you can see the hub banner at the top): Gravity Rush Vita
A review where we have a hub page with the extra visuals: THAT review

If you look at last link, you can see how the review looks without any actual advertising for the game—because, why would we have ads for it now? So, what you see at this point is what helped people think we had a giant ad campaign for the game. However, I don't remember the exacts of if we were actually running ads for the game or not at that time.

When coupled with the fact that Pitchford constantly cites the EGM article as one that he "liked", it just really doesn't look very good for EGM, or Pitchfork.

I can't begin to fathom why he'd bring it up at this point. He obviously knows how horribly that game was received and the stench it still has on it, so why not let that just linger in the past in hopes that people would start forgetting?

If EGM went as far as cut ties with that Brandon Justice guy, why did they never apologize for publishing his review or at the very least removed it from their website so it wouldn't be there staining their name?

I didn't think it'd be right to take it down. The review happened. Everybody knew about it. Removing it from the site would be like trying to hide from it, which isn't what I thought we should do. Had it been a different case—like, where a reviewer factually got things wrong and it was obvious they'd played little of the game, or didn't try to understand the game—that'd be a case where you consider pulling it and then giving the game a re-review. Or, if there was proof Brandon had been paid off for the review—which I've never seen, to be clear—that'd also be a reason to pull it. Pulling it out of embarrassment isn't a justifiable reason.

You get into dangerous territory when you decide to pull reviews from older employees not because their reviews were factually wrong, but because you disagree with their opinions.

 

[Stevey]

Here is why I will only forgive Pitchford when he apologizes for Colonial Marines.

http://www.gamespot.com/videos/aliens-colonial-marines-interview-with-randy-pitch/2300-6377485/



http://www.destructoid.com/gearbox-community-day-pitchford-duke-and-2-000-fans-204101.phtml



This is the crux of it. He acknowledges that he owes a debt to the Alien universe. He claims that Gearbox only do licensed games when they love the license, unlike other studios that are doing 'a work for hire' type of situation.

Then Gearbox farms the project out to Timegate to make the campaign so the internal team can focus on Borderlands 2 or whatever.

That's what I'll always want an apology for. You can't claim you owe a franchise a debt and go on about how you're making the game because you love that franchise... and then farm it out to someone else.

Fuck him.



By all accounts Sega wanted to sue Gearbox over the whole thing, but couldn't due to the terms of the contract. SEGA released the game as Gearbox delivered it to try and recoup some of the money they had invested in the project. Basically, by all accounts it went like this: Sega paid Gearbox to make A:CM believing that A: Gearbox would make themselves and B: Gearbox were committed to delivering a product up to standards. Gearbox took that money, and paid someone else to make the game for *Iess* than they were paid with minimal involvement from Gearbox staff. The rest of that money was spent on funding the development of Borderlands and Duke Nukem Forever.

Now there was nothing in the contract saying Gearbox *couldn't* do this, and they delivered a 'finished' game on time as per the terms of the contract.

If you want to blame Sega for something, blame them for taking Gearbox at face value, and blame them for shipping that awful game in an attempt to recover some of the money they paid Gearbox to make the game.

Pitchford spun Sega the same lies he spun all of us. That Gearbox loved the franchise. That Gearbox was indebted to the franchise and really wanted to make a great game based on the movies. If Sega didn't care about the quality of the final product, they'd have gone with someone else. Hell, they could have got Timegate to work directly with them for a fraction of what they paid Gearbox. They thought they were working with a developer who would deliver the best game they could, not a developer who would pay someone else to deliver a mediocre product that met all the contractual obligations.

Obligatory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADqIh9_zAp4

 

[Alebrije]

It seems he will never advance from the denial stage.

 

[Saoshyant]

I didn't think it'd be right to take it down. The review happened. Everybody knew about it. Removing it from the site would be like trying to hide from it, which isn't what I thought we should do. Had it been a different case—like, where a reviewer factually got things wrong and it was obvious they'd played little of the game, or didn't try to understand the game—that'd be a case where you consider pulling it and then giving the game a re-review. Or, if there was proof Brandon had been paid off for the review—which I've never seen, to be clear—that'd also be a reason to pull it. Pulling it out of embarrassment isn't a justifiable reason.

Ah, thank you for the insight, I wasn't aware someone from EGM staff was around here.

While I'd say there is indeed no actual proof Brandon was paid for the review, I personally cannot see how a review that outright says such misleading, wrong statements such as "thanks largely to some excellent level design and solid alien AI" or things that seem outright absurd in the face of the finished product like "the talented team at Gearbox, they’ve gone a long way toward reminding us that, for folks who love the craft of building great games, the best challenges only seem impossible." as a work from someone who actually played the game fully and didn't get the facts wrong.

You get into dangerous territory when you decide to pull reviews from older employees not because their reviews were factually wrong, but because you disagree with their opinions.

I understand this sentiment as any form of censorship will always be a hairy issue. But perhaps sometimes it's better to face the problem head on and avoid future issues like a certain Randy Pitchford reminding the world that such a review exists?

Either way, I really appreciate you taking the time to reply to my post in earnest. I think I'll stick EGM back in my morning reading bookmarks.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

I'm sure Randy loves taking the piss out of us real Aliens fans and likes to rub it in, that he got away with the law suit that came from the whole sad situation.

9/10 my ares Randy, it was average at best and that's being kind about it. Thankfully Creative gave us an Alien game that really delivered and Gearbox went on my list of never getting any of my money (never played Borderlands so don't give a shit about that either)

 

[thomasmahler]

I'd love to know what the mood is at Gearbox. Do people see Pitchford as a dude who you can't tell that he just fucked up? I mean, this is a similar situation to what Lionhead was in with Molyneux helming it and saying the most outrageous things that got everyone in trouble... I'm just guessing that Pitchford probably also isn't the kinda guy who'd be OK with being criticized and people are probably afraid of being fired if they stand up. None of that is any good.

This kinda thing never goes unpunished - shipping a bad game is bad enough, but deceiving your customers (Yes, games go through various stages in development, but the shit they pulled on Colonional Marines is far from okay) will undoubtedly fire back in the harshest way possible.

And the sad thing is that this would be such an easy PR Fix: Admit that you fucked up, apologize and promise that you'll make better games - Even if YOU like it, YOU are not the goddamn market. The market told you that it hated Colonial Marines and you're to blame for that, so do the right thing and be straight... Jesus.

 

[Clear]

And the sad thing is that this would be such an easy PR Fix: Admit that you fucked up, apologize and promise that you'll make better games - Even if YOU like it, YOU are not the goddamn market. The market told you that it hated Colonial Marines and you're to blame for that, so do the right thing and be straight... Jesus.

Why bother? Seriously.

Trying the sack-cloth and ashes approach that Moly did, just doesn't work. The only thing that will salvage your rep (if you indeed care what the internet thinks, and whether you should is a whole other story...) is making your next title a winner.

Talk is cheap.

No matter how sincere or heartfelt your apology, no matter how conclusively you can prove that it wasn't your fault that your last title stank, there will always be haters and nay-sayers.

The bottom line, as always, is that its just a game. So you made a bad game. Big deal.

Try harder next time.

The business doesn't give a shit so long as it made money, and your "good rep" with the fickle public can turn on a dime. Especially when most publishers in my experience are more than ready to KS class-A bugs in order to hit shipment dates.

 

[spookyfish]

Randy. What are you doing, Randy? People had almost forgotten about us running that review.

Why, Randy? Why?

Manu of us hadn't forgotten. I saw the headline and immediately thought "Do you mean EGM?"

 

[Triggerhappytel]

The funny thing is, despite the poor critical reception, the game was a good earner for SEGA. I'm surprised a new Colonial Marines game hasn't been announced yet, helmed by a different developer obviously!

Do we have more up-to-date sales figures for it than this? Because 1.31 million sales for an FPS from a dev with a decent track record and based on a popular movie licence doesn't seem particularly impressive.