You'll never guess who drags down the gameplay in Alien: Isolation

Is there a story reason for why the revolver can't kill the alien?

Corrections:
"to experience it as it[']s laid out in the story"
"differenence"

Differenence is a difference that is REALLY different.

I'm afraid I can't agree much with Tom. The point of an Alien game is the existence of the Alien as the ultimate threat and nemesis. The very stuff of nightmares. You're meant to walk into the shoes of Ripley (well, her daughter), not into those of a visitor to a theme park featuring an "Alien" attraction who casually eats his ice cream cone while watching a sad animatronics xenomorph doing the same routine every 90 seconds.

The xenomorph in this game works because it really feels like the one in the first movie. A relentless menace that will kill you in the blink of an eye. Weapons? Try to raise that revolver and aim before the alien is on top of you. Good luck with that.

The only bit I'll concede is that the save points feature - which has been dutifully ported to PC to my dismay - is generally a crutch and a pain in the ass. But, take no offence Tom, but this is no "walking simulator". It is meant to challenge, frustrate and create a compulsion on the player. And good "arcade" games are machines of compulsion, otherwise they wouldn't be played at all.

Instafail stealth requires save anywhere to have even a chance of working and it's still a tedious save/load foxtrot. Without save anywhere you've created a frustration machine, not worth it for anyone with limited time to play (e.g. 95% of adults). Teens with nothing but time on their hands, go to town.

Aliens come with antilock brakes now?

Well for some games to work, they just have to be fun, but unless it's an arcade shooter, most games also give the player a sense of progress. Sometimes it's like a 2d mario where you're just losing a few minutes max of progress. Other times it's like RE4, where the tension is rarely about whether I will survive and gain more progress, but more about whether I'll use too many resources to survive and end up screwed later on. Then there's Demon's or Dark Souls. Without the tension built by the chance of losing lots of time, effort, and progress, the game would be a lot more bland.

It's a tough determine how much lost progress is tolerable I'm sure, but when I'm in the mood for it, the tension of losing progress and time is what sucks me in to a game. It's like poker; I can't have any fun playing the game unless there's something at stake.

The new Wolfenstein got a less interesting when I learned that death usually meant 1 min max of lost game progress (and an infuriatingly long load screen :) )

Then there's shadow of mordor, where dying results in promotions of orc leaders, refilling of empty leader spots, and the need to do a lot more interrogation in the field to find out about the new opponents.

"... creeping from save point to save point is something I've long since lost patience for."

Then you probably shouldn't be reviewing a STEALTH game. You can't YOLO your way through Splinter Cell either, but that's hardly the game's fault.

There's the easy setting for people who don't want the challenge and who don't have the patience - and it's much more forgiving. Lost progress is a necessary evil when providing the sensation of danger in a convincing way. With frequent save points or quick-save, the Alien would soon be nothing special - as there'd be no real danger involved. The game needs the player to accept the basic premise - and it's not a surprise that some of the big mainstream sites gave in to frustration, as the game doesn't play "fair". That's actually the point of the whole experience - and the strengths are about immersion and palpable tension. As a huge fan of games that make me feel something genuine - and who're bold enough to challenge the player in new ways, I consider Alien Isolation a milestone. I don't blame reviewers for not working with it, though - and some people prefer purely subjective responses, instead of trying to understand the design of the game they're playing - and adapting to what they're not used to. Fair enough. Essentially, I don't agree with the review at all - and I think it's narrow-minded.

Save anywhere feature won't help you to make the game less frustrating. It will create lots of broken saves because people will made a quick save when it's already too late. It's a survival horror game after all. Manual save points is the best possible solution.

You haven't unlocked the racing game in Alien: Isolation yet? It's like Mariokart but with more fire and acid.

Anyhoo... I read the reviews of A:I, saw how much people loved it and knew it wasn't going to be a game I'll ever play. Much like Amnesia. I just have no interest in that style of gameplay. I would no more play it than I'd play a Madden. Happy to watch other people play it on Youtube/Twitch though.

"Lost progress is a necessary evil when providing the sensation of danger in a convincing way."

Some people can be frightened by video games, some people can't and no amount of re-loading is going to enhance that. Frustration is not going to be analogous with danger.

Here's the thing, the game has had largely positive, gushing even, reviews from people who love stealth games. It's easy to get caught up in that. The occasional review that lays out exactly why some people will hate this game seems fair. It's a little contrarian, but if people don't like that they probably shouldn't be coming here for the critiques.

So what you are saying is, that just like your Age of Wonders 3 review, you are giving a game a very low score because YOU do not wanna leave your comfort shell and find some patience for a well done mechanic that follows the movie depiction of the alien quite well. Huzzah for instant gratification and the death of objectivism I guess.

Here's an idea, never score your review's again. Just have an ending paragraph, it will get the point across much better ("The game is really creepy and atmospheric but I found it very tedious to hide and wait for the alien to go away" for ex) and make you sound a lot less like the absolutist you are. Not everything has to be to your liking and not everything is bad for that reason.

You clearly do not know what "objectivism" means, though it does make your comment funnier.

another hater review by Quarter to Hate ..
a game is not to blame for the fact that your mum is a penis-addicted crackwhore that gave you a homosexual name like Tom. So please die by cancer or something which is as painful as that

go fuck yourself

The dread of having to replay a section of the game is in my opinion soon outweighed by the dread taken away from dying because you see the horrific xenomorph over and over again. While Dallas' death in the vent is very effective the first time, seeing it on an infinite loop until you happen to press the right button is less so.
You can offset that by making it easier for the player to read the game and the system so they can be afraid of fucking up, rather than of the game deciding that now would be a good time to arbitrarily let them die, or by giving them more options on how to approach the situation, so that at least you die in new and interesting ways.

Love your reviews, Tom. Great, well-reasoned arguments here.

Wow, this review sounds similar to IGN's (this game is too hard QQ some more) plus the fact the revolver would not be affective because normal bullets will not work on Xenomorphs. To kill a Xenomorph you can only use bullets with explosive rounds e.g. the pulse rifles. Did the reviewer even have an ounce of a clue of what the Alien world entails? Doesn't look like it, at least get your facts straight and not get butthurt over a deliberate game mechanic before you write something as ridiculous as this. I give this review 1/10.

It's not about not liking the review. I simply don't agree, and I had to read it to know that.

I'm simply speaking my mind about it - and I don't think a balanced set of reviews changes that the game is not trying to cater to the impatient or intolerant gamer.

It's a bold game in that way, and I think the developers took a real chance with it.

Anyone with eyes and insight into the gaming industry can tell from the first 10 minutes with this game that at loooot of love went into making it. It becomes clearer and clearer as you progress through Sevastopol. A true work of passion is what we're dealing with.

It is, indeed, a video game - and the developers can't have the Alien reach out of the screen and kill you. They have to put something in place that makes the player feel real tension and fear. Shock and cheap thrills only work so far, and the Alien would lose its power if you know you can simply reload instantly without losing any progress.

Is it an ideal solution? No, I don't think so. But I don't think there's much of an alternative.

If you play with caution and you bother to learn how the mechanics work, and especially, if you learn to temper patience with appropriately timed action - you can minimize the lost progress.

At first, it will be very frustrating - but once you adapt to the game, it's not that hard. But it does take an effort to get to that stage. I almost gave up on it myself, at first.

This is the effort you have to be willing to invest, and the difficulty level is how you match the experience to your disposition.

Do NOT play on Hard, or even Normal, if you're not in love with the experience. Easy, however, is very forgiving - and I'd say lost progress will be minimal unless you're a really impatient person who refuses to adapt to the game.

But, ultimately, to each his own.

Nope. In Aliens, both Gorman and Vasquez killed an alien with a pistol in the air ducts. Also, earlier Hicks used a shotgun to kill an alien. You think that had explosive slugs?

Get your facts straight.