A Pulse (Rifle): Colonial Marines Lives

They're called Colonial Marines because they're always finding themselves in the colon of the universe.

Could these be the worst screenshots ever? Well, no. PCG still talk about the time Kieron handed in a review that included a shot of some sand, with the caption “The game has a lot of sand”, and I once sent a review with a shot of the game’s loading screen. Also, Kotaku poster Stephen Totilo has an excuse other than laziness- he took these shots during a PAX presentation of Aliens: Colonial Marines where he was sat far to the right. The point of all this is (probably) that Aliens Colonial Marines is still coming out, despite Gearbox “halting” its development two years ago. At the time, Gearbox prez Randy Pitchford said that wasn’t the same as cancelling a game. Did you believe him? I can’t remember if I did.

Speaking of Aliens, did you hear that Ridley Scott’s filming a two-part prequel to Alien in 3D? Kieron mentioned it in the channel earlier. Interesting times, for aliens.


  1. Ian says:

    I think when it was announced we were getting Colonial Marines, an Alien RPG and a something else (which I assume is what subsequently turned into AvP) from the Aliens franchise it was Colonial Marines I was most interested in, so I’d be pleased to see it back on the agenda.

  2. Para says:


  3. Kieron Gillen says:



    • Junior says:

      That’s the kind of journalistic integrity I think we’ve all come to admire you for, if 10% of what you see is loading screens, I expect 1/10 screenshots to be of them.

  4. spod says:

    Good grief, 3d Aliens? Let me guess, there’ll be at least one shot of the little inside gob of the alien launching towards the screen in 3d. Ooo – scary!

    *sigh* :\.

    • AndrewC says:

      Ridley Scott is far too grumpily serious a director to do that and, anyway, we’ve already had that shot in Alien: Resurrection. There’s nothing you can imagine that Hollywood hasn’t stooped to.

    • Rich says:

      What little confidence I have that this actually be good, comes solely from the fact that Ridley Scott is directing.

    • Bret says:

      I ran into a possibly legitimate leaked script that matches up pretty well with the interviews so far.

      I have no confidence. At all.

  5. plugmonkey says:

    At the moment I keep having the same, repeated experience of seeing a trailer for a film that looks quite good, and then getting a phenomenal sinking feeling as I discover that if I want to go and see it in the cinema, I will have to have it ruined by 3D.

    • Surgeon says:

      Sounds like you need a pair of these fella…

      link to bbc.co.uk

    • Rich says:

      Or you could go watch a 2D showing.

      I look forward to the death of this particular fad.

    • plugmonkey says:

      If there is one, and if it’s on at a time when you can get to the cinema.

      2D glasses it is then.

    • AndrewC says:

      I look forwards to the really good directors getting a hold of the technology, like Aronofsky and Scorcese, who’s next will be in 3D, and Scott. They seem pretty excited about the possibilities.

    • Xercies says:

      Unfortunate that it doesn’t sort out the light problem. Which is my main concern with 3d, plus its a shit gimmick clearly designed to slowy stop the death of going to the cinema and gaining more money. I’ve watched toy Story 3 in 2d and i don’t need to watch it in 3d because it doesn’t gain anything.

    • AndrewC says:

      Well, that’s certainly told those film-makers.

    • stahlwerk says:

      I don’t know, but I like the effect, as in what it enables for the viewer to experience. Directors just need to learn how to use it correctly (no stereo window violations, use negative parallax as few as possible, avoid changing the eye separation and viewing axes during a shot), so that it moves from “fad” and “gimmicky” to “norm” and maybe even “art”. Think about stereo music and how engineers where totally clueless how to use it at first (see most Beatles original LPs) and just panned each instrumental or voice track either hard left or right.

      Disclaimer: I was perfectly able to sit through the 3 hours of avatar with a circular polarization projector without neither feeling nausea or dizzyness, nor having problems to ignore focusing on the scene instead of on the screen, but I can understand people having problems with that. Haven’t seen other movies yet, cause I don’t usually “do” cinema.

    • stahlwerk says:

      Also the guy who surgeon posted a link to came across a bit clueless, when he said that swapping the polarization filter of one eye to match the other would reduce “colour by 30%”.

      First of all, polarization filters reduce intensity (brightness) of non-polarized light by exactly 50%, constantly across all colours. Photons with the same polarization state are not filtered at all, the corresponding filter thus transmitting 100% of the incoming light.
      Secondly, each projector’s light is polarized before leaving the projectors lens, but the projectors are already compensating for that by simply having twice as bright light bulbs/lasers (or however projection is done).
      Thus, 200% times 50% times 100% for each respective polarization equal 100% of light arriving in each eye, independently of which filter one chooses to look through.

      (he may have confused it with cyan/magenta anaglyph 3d, but I don’t think many modern movie theatres are expecting their customers to pay a premium for that nowadays)

    • plugmonkey says:

      @ AndrewC

      The problem with 3D films is that they use stereopsis in a way that is utterly unnatural, and as a result causes a significant portion of the population extreme discomfort.

      Scorsese may be a very clever man, but he won’t be able to change that fact. He can either reduce the effect to the point where it is virtually unnoticeable, or he can give people migraines. Just the same as any other director.

    • AndrewC says:

      Would you say it was a similar significant proportion as those who get photo-sensitive epilepsy or those who get motion sick from handheld-camera shots?

  6. frosty840 says:

    Do reviewers still get to submit their own screenshots or is it all PR shots these days?
    I seem to be seeing the exact same shots in previews, then in previews, then in reviews…

  7. Robomutt says:

    I think Ridley Scott films in 3D anyway. The sets for Robin Hood were amazing, and he’d have five or six cameras per shot. Some of them were in shot sometimes, disguised with sacks etc.. Then he’d just run the scene two or three times. Okay there were some reversals, but I got the idea that firstly he imagines a place.

    He also reminds me of Roger from American Dad. I just mean physically.

  8. Snuffy (the Evil) says:

    I was under the impression this game was transformed into that horrid new AvP game.

    I’m glad to see I was wrong.

  9. Sören Höglund says:

    Just when the word “prequel” was about to sucker-punch my interest, the words “in 3d” leapt out, decapitated it, and tossed it in the wood-chipper.

    The only thing worse than being told about things you already know is being told it in expensive colour-leeching eye-strain-o-rama.

  10. pagad says:

    Thank god. I was so excited by this. I can’t believe, for all people’s griping about “generic space marines”, there was never a game directly based on Aliens (AvP doesn’t really count).

    • Rich says:

      They’re allowed to do generic space marines, since Aliens largely introduced them, at least in cinema. Big honking armour wearing British space marines are of course thanks to Warhammer 40k, but we’re talking about easily eviscerated, foul mouthed American cannon fodder.

    • Rich says:

      …which of course Starcraft managed to merge into big honking armour wearing, yet still easily eviscerated, foul mouthed American cannon fodder.