Alien: Isolation Screenshots Show More Clues

By John Walker on January 20th, 2014 at 10:00 am.

A new collection of screenshots for Creative Assembly’s Alien: Isolation have appeared. Aliens, corridors, tools, and is that the chewed up remains of a Synthetic who’s been dragged across the floor?

So what can we learn from these? Well, it looks like there was – at least at some point – a Synthetic aboard your ship. He or she seems to have met the same fate of so many Synthetics in the Alien universe – ripped in two with white guts and sauce flobbing out all over the place.

We already knew that the alien was going to be faithfully modelled to Giger’s designs, and that looks increasingly true here. Of course, what we’ve not heard from anyone (or at least, I’ve not yet noticed), is whether the game will focus on the same themes as Scott and Giger’s original. Already clear is that this isn’t aiming for the action romp of Cameron’s Aliens, but rather the solitary terror of Scott’s original – but does it also plan to pick up on original scriptwriter O’Bannon’s exploration of male fears of sex, birth and rape? I’m going to guess probably not, although the core themes of orally invasive face huggers, stomach bursting births, and the ludicrously phallic nature of the alien design, does make it hard for the undertones not to be transferred across, no matter how intentionally.

Click on the pics to make them a bit bigger. And then rip you in two.

Cheers to Gamefreaks who spotted these new pics.

__________________

« | »

, , , .

96 Comments »

  1. Taidan says:

    It astounds me that this franchise is still regarded so fondly by so many as to still be newsworthy, considering the last quality release from it was almost 28 years ago now, and everything else since has been total dreck.

    (Oh Gods of Gaming, please let Isolation be good. Please.)

    • Ansob says:

      Nonsense. Alien 3 was great, since it’s basically A Very British Aliens.

      • FurryLippedSquid says:

        My uncle was the editor on that. And yes, great film.

      • MaVmAn says:

        And the “almost” director’s cut version is especially good, very much different than the amputated original cut.

        • fish99 says:

          Oooh, I shall have to give that a watch (since I already own it).

        • Taidan says:

          The “Special Edition” of Alien 3 was an improvement, that’s for sure, but it doesn’t pull the film back from being stunningly mediocre.

          Alien 3 is objectively the very epitome of a pointless sequel. It’s a great example of why sequels (with some notable exceptions) were so looked down upon in that era. It’s basically a re-hash of an existing entry, only not nearly as well made as the source material.

          The protagonist has next-to-no character arc and is almost a caricature by this point, the mythos of the franchise doesn’t grow in any meaningful way, and even the crowd-pleasing action set-pieces aren’t particularly interesting.

          Alien 3 is probably the biggest missed opportunity of all time, considering the richness of the source material and the fact that they’d managed to assemble an incredible cast, a visionary director, and some truly notable writers. (with some great ideas, by the sound of it.)

          • dontnormally says:

            Also, the original script was written by William Gibson. It was thrown out.

      • Muzman says:

        Wonderfully moody film. I don’t know why people hate it so much.
        Well, I kinda do. They wanted Aliens 2, with the Ripley-Hicks ass-kicking parental teamup. Xenos get smooshed, The Company gets justice and they all live happily ever after raising Newt as their own on some sun dappled frontier planet that looks a lot like Oklahoma or something.
        That Alien 3 is the complete opposite of that is kinda why I’ll never forget it. Its lumps and warts are real, but nowhere near worth the loathing it gets.

        • Sinomatic says:

          There was a lot about what happens in 3 that basically ‘undoes’ the apparent (and hard-earned) victory and successes of Aliens. I can see why that would get up a lot of people’s noses. It also had the essentially hopeless task of trying to be as good as the first two.

          I really like it myself – it is the more natural sequel to Alien, in tone and mood (singular enemy, lack of feasible weapons, confined and terrified population), just as Ressurection is to Aliens. Considering the problems I understand they had with making 3, it’s surprisingly good. The SFX really don’t hold up well though, which is a shame.

          • Spacewalk says:

            It really annoyed the group that I saw the film with but I bust a gut. There really is no victory, the only true way out is death. Hahahah you’re all gonna die.

          • Muzman says:

            It’s telling that so many rejected such a thing. Telling of what I’m not quite sure, but I’m sure it says something about audiences then and now and what they think this story is supposed to be all about. It is really an old fashioned Tragedy (well, if you want to get technical, Ripley isn’t brought down by any personal failing. She’s more cursed. But that’s what gives it its gothy, nineties existential angst flavour which I love to bits).
            Alien was conceived as the anti-Star Wars. But when it’s all said and done you can’t escape that. If you’re making a blockbuster sci-fi series, don’t get too psychologically interesting. Just stick with pulpy gratification on some level -or at least that seems to be the ultimate demand being made of it.

          • fish99 says:

            (reply to Sinomatic) Yup, watching Aliens and Alien 3 back to back is a kick in the teeth. All that effort to save Newt and then 5 minutes later she’s dead. The was no good reason not to just leave Hicks and Newt alive on the Sulaco. Also the idea that there was a facehugger on the Sulaco was laughable, as was the idea that Ripley had a queen growing inside her (surely drones become queens), plus why does Ripleys alien not emerge straight away like Kane’s did? And the Weyland/Bishop ending was just awful. Also the only good character, the doctor, was killed off straight away.

            Having said that it’s still a decent watch in isolation and it had it’s moments. It’s probably ten times better than Alien:Resurrection too :D

        • bill says:

          It’s a good movie, slightly undone by some crappy SFX (which I think was partly down to budget problems). It was a good idea, and I like the fact that each alien movie tries to go a different way.

          But come on, they killed off Newt and Hicks in the opening credits. Both killing 2 very well liked characters, and making the last 3rd of Aliens completely pointless. The first time I watched it I basically hated it from the first few minutes.
          I later re-watched it and enjoyed it, but it was still a dumb idea to do that.

          • Geebs says:

            Alien3 nailed the mood, but totally screwed up the plot. Plus they opened themselves up to terrible gotta-make-more-action-figures expanded universe bullshit like “the xenomorphs look and act a bit like the thing they incubated in, for no reason”.

            OTOH even though everybody goes on about how William Gibson’s script (which was much more Hicks-centric) would have been better – no it wouldn’t. I love his books, but that script was gibberish.

          • DrScuttles says:

            There was nothing wrong with killing Soldierman and Screamgirl or whatever they were called. But hey, if you’ve got a problem with that then you can always play Aliens: Colonial Marines!

        • PikaBot says:

          A mediocre movie begins by retroactively invalidating – nay, repudiating – the ending of the previous, much beloved entry in the franchise, and you wonder why it’s not better thought of? Really?

          It’s not even that Newt dies – if she died during the course of Alien 3, some people might be upset, but you wouldn’t have had such a vociferous reaction to it. But the way she died was narratively atrocious. The fact that an improbable facehugger happened to be on board meant that Ripley’s victory at the end of Aliens was retroactively not a victory at all.

          It’s not about the movie not coddling us, as you so condescendingly suggest elsewhere. It’s about the fact that the movie’s very first act is to undermine an existing, very successful narrative. And what do we get an exchange for this act of narrative demolition? An excuse to rehash Ripley’s character arc, and go through the same motions we’ve already seen. No thank you, that is not a good trade.

          • Muzman says:

            The phrasing of the argument you often get (including here several times and by you really) is that Newt and Hick’s death ‘renders the previous film pointless’.
            As I’ve said elsewhere as well, this particular choice of words is probably not to be taken too much at face value. But since it’s what we’ve got, that only says to me people weren’t really invested in the characters in the first place, despite how passionate they seem to be about this. They “bought” into the previous tale to get a particular and narrow range of expectations in the following. When what they expect isn’t supplied (even though it was never more than implied by the haziest of convention) they react like grumpy consumers sold a bum steer, not an invested audience. I would never back away for a second from saying that this trend and fear of running afoul of it is exactly coddling and fan service and why popular entertainment doesn’t make very many bold choices. This is regardless of whether or not Alien 3 is a good example of such a choice.
            But hey, people rioted when Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes, so it’s not exactly new.

            What really lies at the heart of this reaction is hard to see and more complex, I would assume. But why when faced with such an opening scenario so many people go “Nope! I’m out. Screw you movie, writers, Hollywood, I want my money back and to strike the film from canon” where as I go “Damn. That’s sad. I wonder what happens next?” (not a charity I extend to Alien Resurrection btw) – why that is is rather fascinating.

      • Didden says:

        Given how good Aliens was as a follow up to Alien, what we got then, was the killing off of the surviving characters of the second film in the first few seconds, albeit a brief interlude with the cyborg – one of the most interesting characters in both previous films – thus tied down to a cameo, and making the point of the saving the girl in the second film – so important to Ripley, null and void, as well as removing the marine. Yeah, great start. Ended by killing the main character. And you rate it? Urgghhh. It was terrible.

        • Muzman says:

          This argument will fascinate me forever. Although I don’t think people quite mean what they say when they suggest that there’s no point saving someone if they just might die later.
          It’s such weird teleology I have to think they weren’t all that involved in the previous installment either, really. It’s all just functional “You rescue the girl so you can have a story with the girl. If I don’t get see some continuation of that scenario I don’t care”.

          • bill says:

            If they had died in some meaningful or dramatic, or even shown way, then it might have been worth it. But they essentially just disappear during the interlude. It comes across as them just being chucked away because they were in the way for the story they had in mind for the sequel.

            Imagine you watched Fellowship of the RIng, and then when you started Two Towers there was an introductory voiceover that said “Frodo and Aragon caught a serious flu and died a few days later. Sam decided to continue to mordor…”.

          • fish99 says:

            ^ lol :p

          • Muzman says:

            It would depend entirely on how they handle it. In A3 they categorically do not just wave off their characters but their tragic loss underpins the whole film in tone and narrative.
            We’ve been coddled by our fiction for a very long time now. It’s clearly what people expect, but if any series ought to be allowed to break that trend it’s the rough and nasty one where outer space isn’t a nice place.

          • fish99 says:

            Although it’s a while since I last saw Alien 3 and my recollection isn’t 100%, I can’t really agree with that assessment. To me those characters were killed off with a minimum of fuss and effort. Just a couple of short scenes, one where Ripley sees their bodies in the morgue, and then they’re forgotten for the rest of the film.

            Like I said a few screens up, they should have been left asleep on the Sulaco. It added nothing to the film to kill them, and just pissed people off. The whole point of the Aliens story was Ripley losing her daughter and then Newt becoming her replacement daughter. To just throw all that away because ‘ooh it’s dark and gritty’, no that’s just lazy writing.

          • Muzman says:

            Since you’re still looking, you are mistaken. It clearly affects Ripley very deeply that they’re gone. The fact of it really underscores her utter loneliness and isolation to begin with. Hicks doesn’t get a great deal of attention, but he took the crash the worst. And Newts death receives a lot of attention thanks to the rather traumatic decision to have to do an autopsy. Their funeral/cremation is then a pretty significant character point between Ripley and some of the prisoners.
            All of this then sets the tone of deciding to carry on the face of general apparent hopelessness of the situation. Now I’m not telling anyone they have to like this sort of tale, but it’s not in any way a cheap or invalid story approach, as it is so often accused of being. Behind the scenes stuff may have forced the writers’ hand, but they didn’t short the emotionality of the narrative they chose to make. They made their choice and they embraced it fully.

            Leaving them alive is interesting (or have them fired off in a different escape pod or something). But I don’t know. Something could be made out of it for sure, theoretically. Anything is possible. But on the face of it it seems like some of the arguments you hear would be pretty similar “They got rid of the people I cared about just to have a retread of the first film”. Them being abstractly alive somewhere else might not make any difference. I might even agree with those arguments then too. Facing up to their demise and the whole curse/tragedy subtext is actually what gives A3 a whole extra dimension, elevating it above being a mere retread. As far as I’m concerned anyway.

          • fish99 says:

            Thank you for explaining it. I guess my recollection of the film isn’t as good as I thought it was. I’m not necessarily agreeing with you, but I clearly need to see the film again before I can make a reasoned judgement.

            It’s still my opinion that the main reason they were killed is that they were inconvenient to the writer, and then he found a way to use that in the film. It’s one of the problems the series has, that the tone changes so much from film to film as the writers and directors change.

            I kinda view alien as three separate universes. The real story is the one from Alien and nothing outside of that first film is canon to me. In this universe the alien is cunning, lethal and mysterious. Then there’s a second universe where I grudgingly accept that Aliens happened, despite all the plot holes it introduces, a universe where the aliens are just canon fodder for the marines to mow down. This universe ends where Aliens ends. Then there’s a third universe with all the other films, where the story logic has totally broken down and the films, IMO, are just being made to make money.

      • GepardenK says:

        Alien 3 is not a bad film at all, my problem with it is that it is simply Alien (1) all over again. They killed off all the characters from aliens to make a reboot and that was it. The entire thing felt a pit pointless if you watched 1 and 2 first

      • Spacewalk says:

        At least it got a good lampooning in Mad Magazine.

        We should rate films based on how good a Mad parody they get.

      • harr0p says:

        100% fact alien and alien 3 were the best in the movie canon. As for the games they have all been very wishy washy

    • MuscleHorse says:

      The original AVP from 2000 was and is a great game.

      • melnificent says:

        Ah the game with the grandfather of horde mode. And 3 properly decent campaigns.

        The only decent implementation of wall crawling too. It was logical, but slightly confusing.

      • derbefrier says:

        oh yeah, I started up a MP match a couple months ago and even got a decent amount of people to randomly join. Was a fun way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

      • BobbyFizz says:

        Also AVP 2, I thought that was fantastic and is one of my all time favourites. The first section on the Marine was perfect.

        • jorygriffis says:

          People diss AVP2 all the time. I think it’s a fantastic game. The Predator campaign kinda sucked, honestly, but the Alien and especially the Marine are atmospheric and fun.

    • c-Row says:

      By that logic a new Star Wars game wouldn’t be newsworthy either.

    • John Walker says:

      Well, AVP. And this is Creative Assembly.

      But asides from that, it’s a new PC game, so you know, it’s news.

    • Baboonanza says:

      I think that fact that everything released recently in the franchise is crap is part of the reason people still want something good. The Aliens universe built by the first 2 films had so much potential for awesome Sci-Fi stories that it’s almost criminal that it’s been wasted to badly. You only have to look at the quality of the graphic novels set in that universe to see where they could have gone with it.

    • Don Reba says:

      I rather enjoyed Resurrection, actually. Sure, it was not on par with the first two films, but they do set an extremely high bar.

      • jon_hill987 says:

        The best thing about Alien: Resurrection was that it was a prototype for Firefly.

      • fish99 says:

        Problem with Resurrection is the whole plot is built on the premise of memories being stored in DNA, which even my dog knows isn’t possible. It’s such a criminally bad bit of SF writing. Also the whole Ripley getting back to earth thing was so silly when it was a clone and Ripley was still 100% dead. It was just a money grab, there was no reason to make the film otherwise. The film was also exceedingly gross and weird.

        • Don Reba says:

          There are epigenetic changes, which are heritable, yet occur under the influence of the environment. I can grant that the aliens store some sort of memory in their epigenetic structure.

          • fish99 says:

            That’s not what I’m talking about. The Ripley cloned from her DNA has Ripley’s memories from her lifetime. I’m sorry but human DNA does not include memories. The Ripley clone also, even more bizarrely, has the alien queen inside her, like somehow it’s become part of her DNA that she has an alien growing inside her.

            I get that as writers you sometimes regret killing off a character and want to bring them back, but that was an exceptionally dumb way to do it.

        • Kittim says:

          Somewhat late to the party but I’d like to say something about Resurrection that truly annoyed me.
          I’m talking about the scene where Ripley meets her other “clones”. She’s clearly upset by whats been done and wants to put an end to the suffering of the clone still living. So what does she do? SHE SETS HER ON FIRE! Hardly an act of compassion, killing someone in probably one of the most painful ways possible. It’s not like they were short of guns or anything.

          IMO Fox is akin to EA, both have dickheads in suits that think they know better and won’t leave creativity to the people who actually have some.

    • Razumen says:

      The 2010 release of Aliens Vs Predator was actually pretty good, considering it was may be the same developer as the 1999 original. Sure, the marine campaign wasn’t quite as terrifying as the first, and they made some questionable decisions with multiplayer (grabs? counters?? ugh) but it was faaaaaaaaaaaaar from being dreck.

    • P.Funk says:

      You could say much the same of Star Wars nearly. New trilogy is dreadful, 90% of the Star Wars games are godawful, most of the rest that aren’t Kotor, Tie Fighter vs X-Wing, or Jedi Knight, are pretty average anyway, soooooo… shut up? Complainy complainerson?

      • Dances to Podcasts says:

        Maybe both those franchises are oversaturated and should be put to rest for a while?

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      I dunno, Tolkien hasn’t written anything good lately either.

    • Calabi says:

      I like the nihilism of Aliens 3. In the end the Alien always wins.

  2. Armante says:

    Looks fantastic. Pity I’ll never play it, as games like Amnesia and it’s ilk scare the crap out of me

    • Sinomatic says:

      This is what youtube ‘let’s plays’ are for (if people are even allowed to make those these days).

      I have watched the Alien films more times than I care to admit – they’re my go-to dvds to fall asleep to (yes, really), yet I will never, ever, be able to play this.

  3. madeofsquares says:

    The alien looks absolutely amazing.

    • Ross Angus says:

      DROOL SHADERS x100%

  4. Goodtwist says:

    Am I the only one who is reminded of CA’s PR crusade for TW: Rome 2?

    Me thinks CA pursues exactly the same route with Alien Isolation now: trickle screenshots every there and then. PR polished interview pieces with the developers, carefully crafted “insights”. Next, I expect “gameplay” videos in the coming weeks.

    Why does that bother me? I wanted to contribute in a sensible way AND TW: Rome 2 was/is a piece of shite- a wasted opportunity says the internet, so it must be true.

    • Zenicetus says:

      Yep, it’s the same approach. They’ll spend half their budget on marketing and building hype for an essentially captive audience (because who else makes TW games, or is currently holding this Alien franchise?) before the game is released.

      BTW, I wouldn’t say Rome 2 is complete shit, at least not yet. It was a major disappointment, and it will never be what most of us wanted. But the campaign is a little better now, many of the lesser bugs have been patched, and there is still hope they’ll figure out how to program the currently brain-dead siege AI. And maybe rework the political system. They probably still have some DLC in the pipeline that they’d like to move, and there won’t be much of an audience for it if they don’t keep patching up the game.

    • riverman says:

      whenever I read “me thinks”, I get a vivid visual image of a husky lad with a LOTR shirt typing that sentence out, then stoping to adjust his fedora.

      • misterT0AST says:

        So now we play the “fedora” card every time someone uses an unusual word.

      • Goodtwist says:

        You forgot the *The Dwarf Song in the background* reference me thinks. All in all I’m happy I could enkindle your imagination.

      • Stupoider says:

        I get that image reading half the comments on RPS.

    • darkChozo says:

      I think you may have inadvertently described every marketing campaign for any major game, ever.

  5. aldo_14 says:

    I’m loving the attention to detail in the environments shown so far. Still not sure how they can sustain the horror gameplay over a ‘normal’ length game, mind you, unless they insert breaks with gunplay against Some Other Thing.

    • Turkey says:

      Yeah, I agree.

      I wonder if you could alleviate the final slog of a horror game by using a similar structure to a 3-act horror movie, so the horror doesn’t actually occur until like two thirds of the way through and you’re not alone with the horror until the final act.

  6. lautalocos says:

    that alien is so, so tall.

    perfect. by it being bigger than you they are actually scary. not like those from alien colonilal marines. those things looked like teen aliens. at least, i think they where smaller

    • RedViv says:

      They grow less when they had smaller hosts. Paint the rest of the picture in your mind.

    • Taidan says:

      It’s weird, they’ve added an extra joint in the leg where the foot of the actor wearing the suit would normally sit, and put what would be a “stilt” in below in, were that a practical effect and not CG. The thing looks like it’s leaning quite far down to get through that door.

      As a result, that Alien is waaaay taller than the one shown the original movie. Looks very cool.

      • JoeX111 says:

        Having just watched the original film on Blu-Ray the other day, I feel pretty confident saying the alien is supposed to be big. They may have changed this in the sequels, but in Alien, the xenomorph towers over the Nostromo crew, always looking down at them while moving in for the kill. The characters even talk about how “huge” it is at one point.

  7. Kefren says:

    I love the shot of it walking through the door, really gives both the scary size of it and the inhuman gait. None of the games have got the size right, they always scale them down. My favourite game is AvP1, but even that shrunk the aliens. I applied a mod once which was really good – it added other marines (only to the bit with the APC, so you were on your own the rest of the time), auto-sentries, and increased the size of the aliens – and it really did make me jump more when one appeared behind me and I had to look up a bit to see its face.

    Forgive me, but I completed Aliens: Colonial Marines this weekend. So many problems with it, and it could have been so good. But to the size thing – again, the aliens were quite small. And instead of being ‘alien’ clunkers they sort-of flowed like fish, which somehow wasn’t as scary. But that was less of a fear-killer than their scripted appearances (you _knew_ they weren’t hunting you throughout the level as they did in AvP1). Other problems with A:CM:
    - the silly targeting (in one bit they ran along pipes above me to attack the macho marine who had gone on ahead, ignoring me completely because the game expected me to have stayed behind him);
    - the awful story and dialogue (he let his girlfriend die in agony?; he blew himself up _after_ a chestburster came out?; there were hundreds of WY soldiers?; chestbursting was a comical 1 second tidy event, not the long-drawn out horror it should be; a certain marine being alive);
    - acid that did nothing and evaporated with the alien a second later (had none of them watched Alien?);
    - my torch blacked out whenever the base lights did, leaving me in darkness, to be ‘scary’ even though it made no sense (I think they just applied a darkness filter and forgot about the torch being independently powered).
    I’d better stop, I’m getting depressed.

  8. RedViv says:

    Please don’t be shite. You’re too gorgeous for that, game!

  9. melnificent says:

    Obligatory “Does it have rift support?” post.

    • riverman says:

      with the excessive DOF effects in those screenshots, I think it would be *absolutely amazing* if the rift had IR eye tracking, so it could render the DOF based on what you are looking at with your eyeballs instead of the orientation of your head. I think the immersion benefits would be unreal

      • Don Reba says:

        But using Oculus Rift, there is no need for a fake DOF effect. You have the real thing already.

        • HybridHalo says:

          That’s not how it works – depth perception and focus tend to be two different things when we’re talking about a 3d image on a screen (or the Oc rif in this case) – and whilst a focal plane will set what you’re seeing as ‘at screen depth’ – your eyes won’t defocus the background of that digital screen.

          • Don Reba says:

            Oh. That makes sense. But then, I think you would need to have eye tracking to use DOF with Oculus. The device does not know what the wearer is looking at.

          • gnuhest says:

            Hoping for a non DOF version for the rift, and then hope for an internal eyetracker for the consumer version 2 in the future.

    • MajorManiac says:

      Holy hell. Can you imagine the whip-lash your neck will get from that.

  10. LionsPhil says:

    Ooh, it’s got a nice technical sci-fi aesthetic going on. I honestly can’t remember if that’s accurate to Alien, but I think it’s in the right ballpark, and it’s in a ballpark I like (the same one Moon plays in).

    That airlock.

    • JFS says:

      I guess we all just love aesthetic airlocks.

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      Apparently the dev team has obsessively recreated loads of props and sets from the original movie. Also they have this rule whereby if it couldn’t be built in 1979, it doesn’t go in the game. Obviously they didn’t have space ships in 1979, but you know what I mean.

      Well, yes, ok, they did have space ships, but SHUT UP.

  11. Mittens89 says:

    Lease give that wonderful looking alien some equally impressive animations. This game looks fantastic.

  12. derbefrier says:

    please don’t suck please don’t suck please don’t suck

  13. torchedEARTH says:

    If you fancy reading some more about it. Get the latest copy of Edge with the gorgeous green cover and read the article.

    The AI for the Alien and the description of how that translates into it’s movements sounds truly amazing.

    http://www.edge-online.com/magazine/e263-creative-assemblys-alien-isolation-finally-a-game-the-sci-fi-masterpiece-deserves/

  14. Krekeris says:

    I love how Rome II is still buggy mess and instead of fixing it, they making another game. Rome II looked really great in videos and pictures but we get pile of crap wich is worse than Empire.

  15. fish99 says:

    Why is the alien going into that room while you stand clearly visible 15 foot away ‘hidden’ behind a 1 inch wide pipe? See it’s doing the thing all alien games (and many of the films) do wrong where the alien just isn’t as cunning or remotely as lethal as in the original film. This seems to be a game about hiding behind boxes or in lockers (with your obligatory motion detector bleeping away but only you can hear it) and waiting until the alien ‘goes away’. It just strikes me as somewhat comical.

    • Razumen says:

      Maybe the player just peeked around the corner for a split second? Maybe the motion detector actually only makes a sound in your players headpiece, maybe you’re over analyzing mockup shots for a game still in development?

    • Flea says:

      It must be awesome to posess the skill of figuring out everything that will suck about the game by looking at just one early screenshot.

      • fish99 says:

        I’m not basing this just off that one shot, there was a trailer too with gameplay in it, and an interview talking about how the alien AI works, and they mentioned losing the alien by hiding behind boxes and in lockers, and that sounds a bit dumb to me.

    • P.Funk says:

      Perhaps the rational answer is that the Alien has terrible peripheral vision. Maybe it tracks by different means.

      They’ve never, at least in the films, gone over the “senses” that the alien possesses. Lets remember that in Alien the crew were basically bashing around the whole time making a lot of noise, so its not hard to imagine that sound is probably a big one.

      I assume it doesn’t smell, unless there’s a nose inside its second mouth.

      • drinniol says:

        How does it smell?

        Terrible!
        ….
        I’ll let myself out.

      • fish99 says:

        I always got the impression the alien had excellent senses and was a stealthy hunter. It hardly ever makes a sound, it stays out of sight and descends from above to grab people, and it’s able to keep so still it doesn’t show up on a motion tracker, which is how it spooks Dallas.

        Being able to stand there watching it just wondering about aimlessly from room to room, it just doesn’t feel right to me. Or hiding behind a box in the room with it, and peeking out to see if it’s gone yet. To me if you get that close to it, you should be dead.

  16. LennyLeonardo says:

    Edge magazine’s preview seems to suggest that this game’s going for all the icky themes of the film. Also, there’s only one alien. For some reason this gives me much hope. I’m quite excited.

  17. tomimt says:

    I really dig that they’ve gone with Scotts Alien aesthetics rather than Camerons. It has always puzzled me why anyone hasn’t tried to make an actual Alien horror game before.

  18. sirzagsalot says:

    Creative assembly got their last dollar from me with TWR2. I just have zero faith in them as a company.