DmC (Devil May Cry 5) Page 15

  • Page

    of 25 First / Last

  • JinTypeNoir 21 Jan 2013 14:03:26 4,365 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Eat keyboard-fu, monster, you don't belong in this world!

    Dave_McCoy wrote:
    I like how it's getting good reviews generally from the critics but all the internet are practically frothing at the mouth. Calm down, don't like it, don't play it...or rather don't pretend you've played it and slag it off. I have played DMC1 and 4 and to be honest, the Rebellion and gunplay at least, it doesn't feel that much different.
    This is rich, because the reviewing on this game is overall is just as critically incompetent as most video game reviewers always are these days. The extent of their critical abilities is "I like it, so there." They think they are backing up their opinion, but it isn't really anything of the sort. Most videogame reviewers make an opinionated statement, then give an example or expound on it. Criticism begins AFTER this part. This is just the setup, and yet this is where most reviews always end. Let's look at Eurogamer's review of this one.

    "The animation throughout DmC is exquisite and Dante is the showcase, his hundreds of potential moves stitched together into the most incredible extended sequences."

    Or, the animation is exquisite because there is lots of it and it looks pretty. How does the amount of it and extended sequences contribute to something good? We don't know. It stops here.

    "There's a big inheritance from Devil May Cry 4's Nero in the pair of chains that Dante can use either to zoom towards enemies or pull them in, giving you incredible flexibility of movement. These moves quickly become a near-automatic piloting system during combat, setting up enemies beautifully. You whip into huge rucks and arrive with an uppercut before eviscerating everything around with a whirling scythe that becomes more powerful with each hit - or you yank irritating cherubs out of the sky and pound them into paste before they fly off again."

    I'm going to have to set aside the strange inconsistency in the first and second sentence, and that I entirely disagree with this paragraph in order to keep on point. This comes as a description of how this game follows the lineage of Devil May Cry's combat and how good it is in this game. The idea is that its good because you set up combos and then go to town with all sorts of moves. The set up is certainly okay, but the execution? Okay, you basically told me the idea behind it is similar or the same sd the other games, and that's it. Is there a reason there are so many? Does the flair get old? How hard or easy is it to control? You get a lot of description after this paragraph about what the system entails, and later on about boss battles and the ending and difficulty levels, but not a lot of evaluation of what that ultimately amounts to. It all comes down to: you have lots of options and they are whiz bang.

    Well yeah, I would hope so, considering Devil May Cry is the originator of the type of 3D action game is infamous for. Your job as a reviewer is to tell me something interesting about this game, whether I'm a fan or not. You don't even need to get bogged down into technicalities of really minute gameplay ideas to express something that people can take away of critical value.

    So is there any?

    Well, let's look at this:

    "One aspect of the mobs that doesn't sit so well is the colour-coding. After a while, blue and red demons will begin appearing, which can only be killed by the same colour of weapon. Hit them with anything else and Dante bounces off, exposed. It's baffling that the game builds such a free-flowing combat system and then at certain points funnels you down it. This proscriptive tendency also shows up in some of the larger 'standard' enemies, who have obvious weak points in their patterns and have to be dealt with in more or less the same manner every time. They can still deal you some serious damage, of course, but fighting them always feels like the same fight."

    It sure reads like criticism, but it isn't really. People call me long-winded but the entire paragraph can be summed up with "The weapon color-coding leads to a system where the enemies weaknesses tend to be binary." There's the statement, and some exposition on it. So its simple. So how this is bad or good? Which comes in the last sentence. It "always feels like the same fight."

    Wait, but I have tons of options and fighting things and you just explained in detailed paragraphs about that, and now at this color-coding paragraph you say this? Which is it? Lots of options, but hollow ones without any ludic satisfaction, or intensely satisfying despite the color-coding system, or what? Think we can get a little expansion on this?

    Nope. How does this factor in Son of Sparda, which in the reviewer's viewpoint elevates the fighting system? No discussion there, just "Oooh, hard, so choose better whiz bang." But that describes tons of games. That's pretty much the essence of combat action games. I would never review romantic comedy and say, "It isn't any good because contrived plot threads conspire to keep them apart before they get together at the end." No shit, really? It really doesn't take much to expound, skilled writers can do it in a few words. The only thing you really get is detail that can be read off the website or the manual for the game or even the back of the box. That the author gives us opinion like scythes stabbing looks awesome or on hard, it gets harder doesn't help constitute criticism.

    The level design is the next topic.

    "A fighting game needs something to change up its rhythm and give players a respite from full-on face-bashing."

    The last part of the review I'm going to mention. THIS is the only really statement in the entire review. Considering there are a lot of classic games that are pretty much only full-on face-bashing, it is also slightly contentious, even this day and age of "variety is everything, weeeee! for rollercoasters" gaming. Why we do need something to change up its rhythm? Why can't it just be fighting? Considering that's the bulk of the gameplay and appeal of Devil May Cry, this idea may need a little expounding upon. But is it?

    Nope. Just a "hooray for fun show carnival stuff, oops but not when I'm clumsy, screw this shit" paragraph. (Which apparently, going by the critical climate of this generation is not okay when it is a mini-game collection aimed at all skill levels and ages, and a-okay when it is couched in narratives about people kicking ass aimed at males). Again, may I repeat that what goes on for criticism here certainly sounds like it, but is not? No, because you're already sick of it? Okay, just checking, but seriously it is another paragraph of "I didn't like it because I didn't like it." He has lots of traversal abilities, but he is no Mario? Why? He feels uneasy in the air? Is that him or you? There are clever sequences that depend on repeating action? Well guess what Mario is all about? That's right, its clever sequences that depend on the repetition of Mario's most common and most repetitive action: jumping.

    Frustration ensues with reviews like this because I want to hear real criticism on what makes this game good or bad, not high school English getting a gold star because the writing is at least not incompetent. There is not much detail about the story here, which is odd, considering how much of a controversial factor it is, but not damning. You can write a review, as a professional reviewer about anything, as long as it is about the thing in question primarily. But all professional reviewers should aspire to be professional critics or otherwise there is nothing professional about it at all.

    So does anyone do this? Yes, of course. This is a paragraph about Final Fantasy XIII-2 in a review that is overall not a glowing recommendation of the game with a score of 2/5 stars:

    "A lot of XIII-2 is an emphatic reaction to criticism that XIII was too linear. Hence this game’s cool time travel framework, in which you bop around among various levels and time periods, pursuing optional quests and gathering collectibles. The story ties neatly into this conceit, with lots of earnest hand-wringing about destiny and changing the future, and a few memorable time twists and alternate timelines. This works partly because it gives the game license to wildly vary, but it mainly works because of the two main characters. They’re each slickly animated, neatly adorned with distinct visual flourishes, and enthusiastically voice acted by Laura Bailey and Jason Marsden, often in spite of some godawful dialogue. And, most importantly, they’re both likable. I might go so far as to say I actually — could it be? — cared about each of them. When Noel starts to unveil his endgame secret, I didn’t have to pretend to be interested."

    This is a marvel of a paragraph compared to the review I just mentioned. First of all, the set up, backing up the opinion and then saying something about it all go on several times and each serve to give a really nuanced idea about what this guy thinks of the game. There's a time travel mechanic and the author thinks it is overall well-done, but not without complaints. The backing up of his opinion is that the story ties into it, there optional quests and collectibles to get, there are twists and alternate timelines. This is the start. The criticism then comes in with stuff like "lots of earnest hand-wringing about destiny and changing the future," which sounds like part of the description, but is actually a bit expounding on why all the variety introduced by time travel is cool. Apparently its because the game has a sincerity (earnest hand-wringing) that works in its benefit to lend the time travel a levity that helps all those optional quests and collectibles feel satisfying. No the reviewer doesn't outright say this, it is implied easily by his writing. The second part of the paragraph is more straightforward, explaining the non-linear time travel works because the two main characters make it work. This is not only an interesting idea and opinion, but its really well argued and supported by his mentioning the voice-acting, the writing, and ultimately the ability to make you care about its characters when often in this genre, there are many games where you stomach the bad stories for great gameplay. However, there is no sense that he thinks this is Shakespeare, just well-handled for the time travel conceit. You cannot sum up this paragraph by saying "I like it because its got time travel and time travel is cool" or essentially "I like it because I like it," like the this site's review. The argument is that the two main characters make time travel a cool framework.

    What's even better is the rest of the review also has some praise for the game, but it goes on to explain why the framework and its interaction with the two main characters ultimately can't save the game from bigger problems, hence the 2/5 stars. But this type of review is really rare. (It is by Tom Chick, of Quarter to Three, BTW.)

    I don't like saying I hate people I don't know. Oh, I certainly insult the work of people I don't know. I realize that when people say they hate Ninja Theory or Capcom many of them seem to be using a form of metonymy. Still I can't get over the fact that these companies are made of people and people are way more complex and unknowable than what they create, as well as more valuable. So you won't find me in the masses saying I hate Ninja Theory or Capcom, I usually always try to write something more specific than that. (Like the fact that Capcom has always been shameless and money grubbing and people who think this is a new trend are hilarious revisionists.)

    On the other hand, I'm always writing about how the games media and whiny gamers who mistake their endless bitching for intelligent criticism is doing a big disservice to gaming as a whole and how unintelligent and poorly, poorly thought out it all is. There is a whole element of infuriating anti-thought that goes: "If you don't agree with me, then you're a hater. The people I agree with are just expressing their opinions, why you gotta hate? When I bitch, its okay. When you bitch, you're a bitch." And the whole reason it is annoying is because of criticism like the kind I called out in this post. It's all, "I'm right because I am and will always be so, here are examples and talk that don't really say anything." It is isn't my job to really think critically and not superficially do so, because I'm not a reviewer, but I like to think I try to do it because its a more honest and productive way of dialogue then the sensationalist tabloid fever that so much of gaming media has become.

    If you want to call it hating, well, there are words for people like you, but today, maybe just today, I won't be using them.

    Yeah, yeah, boring, who gives a fuck, too long, didn't read, write a book, start a blog, go fuck your grandma with a cancer-infested frog.

    Edited by JinTypeNoir at 14:04:41 21-01-2013
  • Deckard1 21 Jan 2013 14:07:08 27,231 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    You don't really expect anyone to read that shit do you?
  • King_Edward 21 Jan 2013 14:07:24 11,454 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    DarkSpaceDS wrote:
    @King_Edward "Even RE4 and FFXII managed to piss off a portion of there fanbase."

    Just proves gamers are massive hypocrites. They cry and whine like women when they are tired of the same shit in sequels yet when the dev actually changes the formula up they still complain.
    Sure. If you look at gamers as a sort of homogenous blob of opinion that makes sense. It seems more likely to me that the same people moaning about change are not the same ones moaning about the lack of it.
  • Murbal 21 Jan 2013 14:08:17 21,931 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    JinTypeNoir wrote:
    Yeah, yeah, boring, who gives a fuck, too long, didn't read, write a book, start a blog, go fuck your grandma with a cancer-infested frog.
    Jin! O_o
  • neilka 21 Jan 2013 14:11:00 15,672 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I'll supply the frog
  • Deckard1 21 Jan 2013 14:21:23 27,231 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    How would you fuck her with a frog anyway? Just ram it up there with you rfist or would that not count as fucking? Wearing the frog like a condom would be an option, but due to the small size of a frog you're going to run a serious risk of tearing the frog while putting it on. I think a toad would have been a better option here Jin, even with your tiny japanese penis you're going to struggle to get a frog on there long enough to fuck an old lady. I don't think you've really thought this through.
  • King_Edward 21 Jan 2013 14:22:23 11,454 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I read all of that Jin, thank you.
  • JinTypeNoir 21 Jan 2013 14:48:01 4,365 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    King_Edward wrote:
    DarkSpaceDS wrote:
    @King_Edward "Even RE4 and FFXII managed to piss off a portion of there fanbase."

    Just proves gamers are massive hypocrites. They cry and whine like women when they are tired of the same shit in sequels yet when the dev actually changes the formula up they still complain.
    Sure. If you look at gamers as a sort of homogenous blob of opinion that makes sense. It seems more likely to me that the same people moaning about change are not the same ones moaning about the lack of it.
    Ha ha, I was going to write the same thing. Ultimately I think it comes down to this: even if they aren't the same people, something about the Internet inspires people (me too sometimes) to some it up or some corner of it in generalizations and companies have to fight these generalizations to get the right image. It's a tricky balancing act.

    As an example, someone said just a page ago they didn't try Devil May Cry 4 because they didn't know what was going on with the plot at that point. Not trying to being mean, but I haven't encountered the username a whole lot, so now, in my mind, he has become a guy who posted a page ago in this thread. (Sorry!) In my brain, it might be filed under people who are intimidated into getting into a sequel when they haven't played any of the originals.

    The homogenous blob seems to form unless you actively fight it, kind of like the movie. :D
  • Murbal 21 Jan 2013 15:03:31 21,931 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Just out of curiosity Jin, do you use Twitter? ;-)
  • MrTomFTW Moderator 21 Jan 2013 15:05:21 37,378 posts
    Seen 49 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Considering the original DMC was initially going to be a Resident Evil game, and was only created to showcase the new PS2. Considering the story was an nonsensical after thought, laughably bad even by Japanese standards. Considering DMC2 was terrible, DMC3 was merely OK and DMC4 suffered from having to go through every area twice in a lame padding exercise. Considering the only reason these games are worthwhile is the combat system...

    Considering all that, it makes me laugh how offended people are getting about DmC. A good to great reboot of a poor-selling arguably over-rated, dead in the water franchise.

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • JinTypeNoir 21 Jan 2013 15:15:57 4,365 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Should I? I don't dislike it as much as I do Facebook, it seems rather fun, but other than reading others from time to time, I feel like it might be turn me into an addict worse than Hideki Kamiya, because it seems I always have something to say about everything.

    Tweet: "Oh my god, Cookie Time has blueberry-cherry-strawberry cookies now! I'll take ten please!"

    Tweet: "People say the farting ferrets in Dragon Quest breathe their farts, not air. Buh?"

    Tweet: "I can't stand Bill O'Reilly either, but really, Ninja Theory? REALLY?"

    Tweet: "Why does my coworker always smell like canned corn lately?"

    Tweet: "If Kirby sucked up Jesus, what kind of religion would result from it?"

    Edited by JinTypeNoir at 15:21:17 21-01-2013
  • Murbal 21 Jan 2013 15:16:49 21,931 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    You'd fit right in ;-)
  • SomaticSense 21 Jan 2013 18:30:38 7,965 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    MrTomFTW wrote:
    Considering the original DMC was initially going to be a Resident Evil game, and was only created to showcase the new PS2. Considering the story was an nonsensical after thought, laughably bad even by Japanese standards. Considering DMC2 was terrible, DMC3 was merely OK and DMC4 suffered from having to go through every area twice in a lame padding exercise. Considering the only reason these games are worthwhile is the combat system...

    Considering all that, it makes me laugh how offended people are getting about DmC. A good to great reboot of a poor-selling arguably over-rated, dead in the water franchise.
    DMC3 was amazing, but you are spot on with the rest ;)

    People seem to have forgotten that just a few years ago the last 'true' sequel got it's arse royally pounded by Bayonetta. A game which it was what DMC creator Kamiya saw was the next step for the genre. Capcom had to do something drastic with the franchise or it was at huge risk of dying.

    And what we've ended up with is a more story-focused DMC game, with less back-tracking, gorgeous and imaginative environment design, a couple of ingenious and genuinely exciting set-pieces, and a fluid combat system bettered by no other non-Kamiya birthed game in this genre (and which is far closer to the roots of the franchise than anyone was expecting).

    For starters, how the hell does a game like that deserve such idiotic criticism? And secondly, the franchise could well have died such was the spanking by the Umbra Witch, but instead we have a potential GotY based on quality alone and one of the best of the genre, ever.

    Edited by SomaticSense at 18:32:10 21-01-2013
  • Feanor 21 Jan 2013 19:11:47 14,061 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Ultrasoundwave wrote:With DmC, i think the main theory to authorising the reboot was to attract people new to the series AND get the DmC fans to buy it.

    For example, i have never played a previous DmC game. I could pick up DmC4 for the 360 but i wouldnt have a clue whats going on.

    At least with this reboot, i have no reservations about giving it a go at some point.
    DMC 3 was a prequel, so getting the HD version cheap and starting there is a good idea. It's two great games for a bargain price.
  • nickthegun 21 Jan 2013 19:13:19 58,863 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    DMC4 was a half hearted attempt at that. It ejects a lot/most of the back story and introduces nero in a totally separate story, so you can just pick that one up without any real problem.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Feanor 21 Jan 2013 19:16:36 14,061 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    MrTomFTW wrote:
    Considering the original DMC was initially going to be a Resident Evil game, and was only created to showcase the new PS2. Considering the story was an nonsensical after thought, laughably bad even by Japanese standards. Considering DMC2 was terrible, DMC3 was merely OK and DMC4 suffered from having to go through every area twice in a lame padding exercise. Considering the only reason these games are worthwhile is the combat system...

    Considering all that, it makes me laugh how offended people are getting about DmC. A good to great reboot of a poor-selling arguably over-rated, dead in the water franchise.
    DMC 3 SE is one of, if not the best action games ever made. Calling it merely OK means you must be clueless about the genre.

    DMC was anything but dead in the water after 4 sold around 3 million copies on PS3, 360 and PC. But it might be now if the sales in America follow the one-third pattern from the UK.

    It makes me laugh when people are so desperate to defend Ninja Theory that they have to try and rewrite history about the DMC series. It has never been poor selling in the action game genre, where only God of War really moves major units. Capcom and NT are finding out right now how difficult getting anywhere near the 5 million sales figure is.

    Edited by Feanor at 19:23:42 21-01-2013
  • Feanor 21 Jan 2013 19:27:55 14,061 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    SomaticSense wrote:
    MrTomFTW wrote:
    Considering the original DMC was initially going to be a Resident Evil game, and was only created to showcase the new PS2. Considering the story was an nonsensical after thought, laughably bad even by Japanese standards. Considering DMC2 was terrible, DMC3 was merely OK and DMC4 suffered from having to go through every area twice in a lame padding exercise. Considering the only reason these games are worthwhile is the combat system...

    Considering all that, it makes me laugh how offended people are getting about DmC. A good to great reboot of a poor-selling arguably over-rated, dead in the water franchise.
    DMC3 was amazing, but you are spot on with the rest ;)

    People seem to have forgotten that just a few years ago the last 'true' sequel got it's arse royally pounded by Bayonetta. A game which it was what DMC creator Kamiya saw was the next step for the genre. Capcom had to do something drastic with the franchise or it was at huge risk of dying.
    What we've got is a game that averages two whole points higher on MetaCritic, but sold a third as many copes in the first week in the UK as DMC 4 did.

    DMC is at greater risk of dying now than it was back in 2008.
  • nickthegun 21 Jan 2013 19:34:38 58,863 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The sales thing is a bit of a specious indicator of quality.

    You could say that the first multiplatform DMC on the 'next gen' consoles sold so well because a lot of people wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

    They were then so put off the series they couldnt be arsed to buy this one.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • MrTomFTW Moderator 21 Jan 2013 19:41:53 37,378 posts
    Seen 49 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Feanor wrote:
    DMC is at greater risk of dying now than it was back in 2008.
    Well since there wasn't going to be any more DMC games in that vein I would say at worst it's in the same position as they were back then.

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • Feanor 21 Jan 2013 19:45:23 14,061 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    But the sales thing is a good indicator of whether a franchise is close to dying.

    Blaming the sales of a reboot on a game that was released five years ago is a good sign that the rebooting was unsuccessful. They've had years to show gamers that the new version is different and better. If TReboot sells poorly are we going to blame that on people not liking Underworld?
  • MrTomFTW Moderator 21 Jan 2013 19:47:54 37,378 posts
    Seen 49 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I think it would be a fair observation. Plus people have been whinging about Lara's re-imagining as well.

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • King_Edward 21 Jan 2013 20:02:18 11,454 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    The sales thing is a bit of a specious indicator of quality.

    You could say that the first multiplatform DMC on the 'next gen' consoles sold so well because a lot of people wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

    They were then so put off the series they couldnt be arsed to buy this one.
    This is true. I absolutely adore DMC4, but it did get a lot of the same criticism this one is getting. Too accessible, bitch main character and so on.

    I doubt another in-house DMC would've sold as well as DMC4 did.
  • Derblington 21 Jan 2013 20:04:31 21,331 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Starting from scratch can actually help too. I wouldn't have thought they were expecting huge numbers of this, but it's the potential for growth moving forward.
  • King_Edward 21 Jan 2013 20:12:33 11,454 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    2 million is there stated target. Presumably this one cost quite a bit less to make than DMC4 anyway. Smaller team, Unreal and so on.
  • Dave_McCoy 21 Jan 2013 21:16:53 2,771 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    @JinTypeNoir

    Jeez...haters gonna hate :)

    What level did you get to?
  • khaz 21 Jan 2013 22:25:11 2,727 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    SomaticSense wrote:
    MrTomFTW wrote:
    Considering the original DMC was initially going to be a Resident Evil game, and was only created to showcase the new PS2. Considering the story was an nonsensical after thought, laughably bad even by Japanese standards. Considering DMC2 was terrible, DMC3 was merely OK and DMC4 suffered from having to go through every area twice in a lame padding exercise. Considering the only reason these games are worthwhile is the combat system...

    Considering all that, it makes me laugh how offended people are getting about DmC. A good to great reboot of a poor-selling arguably over-rated, dead in the water franchise.
    DMC3 was amazing, but you are spot on with the rest ;)

    People seem to have forgotten that just a few years ago the last 'true' sequel got it's arse royally pounded by Bayonetta. A game which it was what DMC creator Kamiya saw was the next step for the genre. Capcom had to do something drastic with the franchise or it was at huge risk of dying.

    And what we've ended up with is a more story-focused DMC game, with less back-tracking, gorgeous and imaginative environment design, a couple of ingenious and genuinely exciting set-pieces, and a fluid combat system bettered by no other non-Kamiya birthed game in this genre (and which is far closer to the roots of the franchise than anyone was expecting).

    For starters, how the hell does a game like that deserve such idiotic criticism? And secondly, the franchise could well have died such was the spanking by the Umbra Witch, but instead we have a potential GotY based on quality alone and one of the best of the genre, ever.
    Ninja gaiden black, ninja gaiden 2, dmc3, dmc4, god hand, vanquish, demons souls, dark souls are all games with superior combat systems and crucially, considerably more challenging games. It's nowhere near to being one of the best of the genre ever. It is however surprisingly good and for once actually feels like a proper game considering its ninja theory. The colour coded enemies are grating though, not sure why they're in the game at all. It's like they want to punish the player for no reason whatsoever. Argh!

    I'll have a better feel of the game on the harder difficulties but i'm worried it'll be a simple case of more enemies with more hp and not much else. Can someone confirm it's not simply a case of repeating the same moves on normal and whittling them down? And is that telltale glint gone from the monsters as they attack? And are the colour coded monsters there as well?

    Its the first time a ninjantheory game hasn't made me claw my gaming self out and I even kinda like it. But personally I don't think it's gonna do as well as the two previous games in the series simply because it feels like one step above a by the numbers 3rd person hack and slash but lacking that final thing to make it special. It sure is purdy though.

    Ultimately it boils down to the combat and this dmc feels good but not as instinctive as the games I listed above. Another observation is that it feels a lot more forgiving whereas the games I listed punished you hard for a mistake. This is a personal preference but I prefer the latter approach.
  • Syrette 21 Jan 2013 22:26:24 43,107 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Wait, this is a Ninja Theory game?

  • andywilkie35 21 Jan 2013 22:28:34 5,338 posts
    Seen 12 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    100% on all missions, and all secret missions complete.

    Absolutely brilliant game, well done Ninja Theory.

    PSN ID & Xbox Gamertag: Wedjwants

  • King_Edward 21 Jan 2013 23:06:16 11,454 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @khaz

    Totally different enemy arrangements on harder difficulties. They still telegraph their attacks quite early.

    Also, Ninja Gaiden 2? Really? Urrrgh.
  • DFawkes 21 Jan 2013 23:13:54 22,611 posts
    Seen 26 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I know roughly 0.0001% of people care about such things, but is the story a part of the same series as the first 4? I think it's was set before the first 4 (and before 3, the first in the series chronology), but given it's a reboot I'm not sure if it takes place in the same universe.

    As far as I can tell, it looks like it's the same sort of reboot as the Incredible Hulk film - not really covering the same time period as Hulk so it doesn't go against the existing story as such, but it isn't really a sequel. Any thoughts? Or more specifically, does anyone but me care about the story?

    I'd kick the living daylights out of the producers of Tipping Point - Ghandi

  • Page

    of 25 First / Last

Log in or register to reply