Were the reviews really paid or people aren't buying it?

[VineBigBoss]

The problem lies with taking too seriously the reviewers who, by their own admission, intend their work to be entertainment more than an actual review. I still hold Yahtzee accountable in part for The Witcher's lack of success; he had just risen to popularity when he reviewed that game, and many gamers passed over it because he decided it was a MMORPG because of reasons. It took me years to give it a look after his review, and I realised how tragic it was that so many had missed out on such a great RPG.

In fact one of his primary criticisms of The Witcher was that it was too complicated, which most players will attest simply isn't the case. Look to his DMC4 review and he has next to nothing to say about the combat, while he lauds God Of War because it allows him to kill enemies outright by simply tapping the circle button.

This isn't a problem exclusive to Yahtzee per say, but he's definitely one of the more well known reviewers who has this problem of exaggerating minor flaws in games while glossing over major ones. Hell, if I was churning out a review a week, a column, and running a bar all at once I might do the same.

So for many reviewers they pick up DmC and say "Yep, the enemies let me kill them, these cutscenes look expensive and the platforming basically plays itself. That'll be worth $60 to John Q Public."

I do think it should be mandatory that a if a published journo reviews a game, he should at least have a rounded understanding of it's predecessors.

Yeah, this is the kind of thing that drags players out or in to franchises just for the hype. I've got a lot of "pressure" from my friends to play TES: Skyrim, they all said a lot of good things about the game, fus-roh-dah and etecera. The way they talked it to me and the reviews i've seen, i was like: "Wow, i will certainly buy this game when i get my PS3", then i played it and strongly disliked the combat and the general features of the game itself, obviously Skyrim isn't a bad game at all but the hype made me kinda "hate" the game because the reviews promised me one remarkable experience and i get something "clunky" that gives me little room to do things in a combat, mechanical and really playable aspect, the roleplay in Skyrim is wonderful but i really prefer to get into a real classic RPG experience like D&D 3.5 or Call of Cthullu if i wanted to roleplay in this fashion, it's not the kind of thing i really want to see in a videogame. But i've changed my idea after i played Demon's Souls, Demon's Souls was a good roleplaying and gaming experience at the same time, still, i've played more for the game itself than the roleplay and lore. The things is: the reviews that i've read do not really explained me what the game was all about, for the most part they've hyped me to see that medieval-fantasy world (that i like a lot) and an RPG, i was a fan of classic RPGs and the genre kinda died in this generation.

But it's how it works, sadly. The reviews works more like a publishing or bashing mechanic than a review itself, with little to no reasonable thought of what is being said or analysed. I don't see much reviews, if i want to know how a game plays out and don't have access to it i just look at gameplays in YouTube, they're much more explanatory than reviews in my opinion. Seeing the actual game being played gives you more information than people hyping or bashing something according to their preferences.

 

[Macabre]

Yahtzee says DMC 4's combat is fun but, the rest of the package is what really brings that game down and it's true. You can't say DMC 4 is worth $60. The choices made in the development for DMC 4 is downright pathetic. That game literally spits in your face as a consumer and a fan. I'm not going to shrug off this crap and act like it's ok.

I didn't ask you to chief; my point was that Yahtzee claimed in the review that he had some experience with the series in the past, but didn't have any meaningful commentary on what had changed in terms of combat gameplay. Which is strange because, you know, that's why you play a Devil May Cry game. There's plenty to be said for how the Exceed system encourages button mashing the Rev button to power up, which can be a chore, and that the abilities take perhaps too long to unlock for a casual player, which might be off-putting.

This is what I'm getting at; reviewers seldom get really in depth with how the gameplay changes between games, in part because the vernacular for describing gameplay minutiae is kind of vague (Is it "kinaesthetics" or "game-feel"? Will anyone understand what the hell I'm talking about if I use this termanology?), but also because it's difficult to make thorough analysis of a game's mechanics in the first few days of release. Unless you know the preceding games well you don't have the benefit of hindsight on your side, and a patch could come in at any time and render most of your analysis irrelevant in an instant.

So many resort to just looking at that first impression, that most basic playthrough on medium difficulty, and if it's accessible and has enough perfunctory gratification then it's an easy 8/10 right out of the gate.

 

[Chancey289]

DMC 4 deserves all the grief it gets and I stand by with it being one of the worst in the series.

You don't have to get all scientific and analyze this game like it's some special specimen under a microscope. When it comes to passing your judgement it can come down to the most simplest of explanations.

Games are first and foremost entertainment. I get the impression that people sometimes just forget that these are just video games. I can understand getting in to those tiny cracks and discover things about games the average player may overlook. Thing is don't forget, you should also play games to have fun.

When I got DMC 4 I was having some fun fighting. I was also getting annoyed by how much I had to just repeat the same thing over and over again and also suffer through some very pointless and obnoxious design choices. It's hard to disregard the flaws in design when the game itself is constantly reminding in your face how lazy it is.

After I finished the story I got Bloody Palace and that's all I wanted to play. Sure it was a little distraction because it was some fun but I stopped and thought about it for a sec.

I loved playing DMC 1 and 3 over and over again. I didn't mind going through the story mode multiple times. I liked replaying them because I still had just as much fun. I didn't want to go through those story mode missions again in 4. I just wanted to stay in Bloody Palace. I just realized I wasted $60 on a Bloody Palace mode which is not enough considering I actually liked going through the missions over and over again from previous installments.

Do you see where I'm coming from? I buy my own games and also as I grew older I had to cut my spending. I'm now very stingy when it comes to games because I only buy games I'm confident will please in the long run. I don't plan to buy a new game full price until Grand Theft Auto 5.

DMC 4 was a game that did not give me my money's worth. It did not capture the same feeling I got playing DMC 1 and 3.

 

[Macabre]

Of course I'm getting Blood Dragon. Blood Dragon just sounds like a lot of fun. To me, it's what Duke Nukem Forever should have been.

In part, perhaps, but what defined Duke Nukem 3D for me was the level design. You don't see games with design like Duke 3D, Blood or Shadow Warrior anymore, with hidden secrets, interactive elements and unforgiving traps all over the place.

In fact, why the hell haven't we gotten a game with enemy damage decals on par with the original Soldier of Fortune yet?

When I hit a man in the shoulder with a twelve-gauge, I want his arm to fly off, god damn it.

You know what would be really awesome, a Jurassic Park game that's kind of like Far Cry 3. That sounds like a recipe for success and good times. I heard someone is working on a mod like that.

For my money it'd have to be balanced as more of a survival horror game rather than an action romp for that to work well. I enjoyed Dino Crisis 2, but I'd still prefer to be desperately on the run from raptors rather than plugging them with an M60.

Yeah, this is the kind of thing that drags players out or in to franchises just for the hype. I've got a lot of "pressure" from my friends to play TES: Skyrim, they all said a lot of good things about the game, fus-roh-dah and etecera. The way they talked it to me and the reviews i've seen, i was like: "Wow, i will certainly buy this game when i get my PS3", then i played it and strongly disliked the combat and the general features of the game itself, obviously Skyrim isn't a bad game at all but the hype made me kinda "hate" the game because the reviews promised me one remarkable experience and i get something "clunky" that gives me little room to do things in a combat, mechanical and really playable aspect, the roleplay in Skyrim is wonderful but i really prefer to get into a real classic RPG experience like D&D 3.5 or Call of Cthullu if i wanted to roleplay in this fashion, it's not the kind of thing i really want to see in a videogame.

Vine, you might type massive run-on sentences, but you are one classy Brazilian gentleman.

I don't see much reviews, if i want to know how a game plays out and don't have access to it i just look at gameplays in YouTube, they're much more explanatory than reviews in my opinion. Seeing the actual game being played gives you more information than people hyping or bashing something according to their preferences.

You see, that's why I'm so interested in the PS4 and the connotations of the Share button. Gamers are already conditioned to check footage on Youtube for games they're thinking of getting; the increased interconnectivity and ease by which the PS4 is claimed to grab footage for social networking will streamline that process even more. Gamers will be able to find out about a game, cross reference popular opinions from Let's Players and their friends and watch hours of footage without restriction without leaving the console, and conclude whether or not to buy a game based on that crowd sourcing alone.

The games journalism industry is sitting on the brink of a new development that could potentially destroy them, and they don't even realise it.

DMC 4 deserves all the grief it gets and I stand by with it being one of the worst in the series.

That still isn't what this is about, so nevermind.

Games are first and foremost entertainment. I get the impression that people sometimes just forget that these are just video games. I can understand getting in to those tiny cracks and discover things about games the average player may overlook. Thing is don't forget, you should also play games to have fun.

The thing is, when you simplify your impressions of a game and fail to describe how it's mechanics are similar to or differ from other games, it limits how much the person reading the review can relate to what you have to say. Each player approaches a game with a different set of values and hopes from what it will give them, and if you can't break down the mechanics enough to emphasize to the reader what they can expect from the experience, you aren't giving them good consumer advice.

Demonstrably there are players who really enjoy the way DMC4 plays, but if a person beat 3 and wants to see what 4 adds to the existing mechanics, they probably won't look to a mainstream review for a breakdown.


For another example, I'm very fond of Dragon's Dogma. Lots of reviewers harp on about the repetitive travel sequences, but that element doesn't bother me too much. What does bother me is that the inventory system is incredibly fiddly and unintuitive, without even a Vendor Trash button to make sorting your loot easier. I've never seen a reviewer mention this, but it's almost a game breaker for me, and I've seen other players have trouble with it all over the place. Yet to the average reviewer, it's only a minor detail, so why mention it?

A review exists to help anyone who reads it to see if they'll enjoy the product in question, not just the people who match the reviewers tastes in every way. That's why it's so hard to do well.

And come on, you don't need a microscope to see why people have problems with DmC.

 

[Chancey289]

And I explained why I don't think DMC 4 is worth it.ugh.

This is like running a circles.
Oh look it's Superman petting Batman.

 

[Macabre]

And I explained why I don't think DMC 4 is worth it.ugh.

Well, DMC4 WAS worth it to the millions of people who bought and enjoyed it, and if you wrote a review that didn't adequately articulate it's mechanics that put them off buying it you'd be doing them a disservice, QED.

Just like the people who read the DmC reviews and felt that they didn't adequately articulate it's flaws. And I laid out why I think such reviews were, are and will be written.

 

[nightrunner_ks]

Well, DMC4 WAS worth it to the millions of people who bought and enjoyed it, and if you wrote a review that didn't adequately articulate it's mechanics that put them off buying it you'd be doing them a disservice, QED.

Just like the people who read the DmC reviews and felt that they didn't adequately articulate it's flaws. And I laid out why I think such reviews were, are and will be written.

Objective flaws/complaints about DMC4: Verbose story which did added more questions instead of answering them, backtracking, poor lighting/shadows, unoriginal or boring boss fights (I'm looking at you, hit the giant statue in its blue jewels fight), general lack of originality with the weapons, Dante, and Nero.

Objective flaws/complaints about DmC: Slower animations (animations, combat is still quite fast paced), Colour Coded enemies, Graphical and framerate issues on the PS3, DLC out the wazoo, anti-climactic ending, easy boss fights, overpowered axe + demon dodge (before AND after patch), questionable writing.

Every other complaint about either game is subjective.

 

[Macabre]

Objective flaws/complaints about DMC4: Verbose story which did added more questions instead of answering them, backtracking, poor lighting/shadows, unoriginal or boring boss fights (I'm looking at you, hit the giant statue in its blue jewels fight), general lack of originality with the weapons, Dante, and Nero.

Objective flaws/complaints about DmC: Slower animations (animations, combat is still quite fast paced), Colour Coded enemies, Graphical and framerate issues on the PS3, DLC out the wazoo, anti-climactic ending, easy boss fights, overpowered axe + demon dodge (before AND after patch), questionable writing.

Every other complaint about either game is subjective.

I think you'll find most of those points are subjective anyway; there are people on this forum who have been contesting them for literally years.

This is why you have to avoid generalizing or oversimplifying in a fully fledged review.

 

[Chancey289]

Well, DMC4 WAS worth it to the millions of people who bought and enjoyed it, and if you wrote a review that didn't adequately articulate it's mechanics that put them off buying it you'd be doing them a disservice, QED.

Just like the people who read the DmC reviews and felt that they didn't adequately articulate it's flaws. And I laid out why I think such reviews were, are and will be written.

DMC 4 was like Spider-Man 3. A lot of people payed money to play it but, it wasn't well received. I don't know if you missed all that. A lot of people didn't like DMC 4.

RE 6 sold quite a bit too. I'm guessing that means they enjoyed that Micheal Bay Resident Evil then. Why would it be getting rebooted back to its roots then? Hmm fishy. Oh wait, because we all did hate RE 6.

Sales don't prove the quality of a game. A lot of people were against DmC as soon as they saw Dante's new look and pretty much were so stubborn they didn't give it a fighting chance at all. I think just simple spite was also in play here. I'm willing to put money that quite a bit of people who hate DmC never even played the game.

Fandoms in a nutshell.

 

[Chancey289]

The rest of us evidently just don't understand DMC 4 according to Mac here.

Well, when I look at my wallet who's starving most of the time I have to think there has to be a better alternatives. Hmm well, I still have just as much fun playing DMC 1 and 3 which are full gaming experiences minus the annoying design choices. I'll just play 3 if that's cool with you.

As for DmC, this game's got some really cool levels. Thanks for not letting me repeat them though. I can see they at least didn't just decide to copy and paste. Oh and what do you know, it's still fun. Combat still holds quite a lot of variety that may be a little less than the predecessors but still has a lot of great combo potential in the hands of certain players.Just browse Youtube.

Hmm, well I may not find Dante in DmC all that compelling and the story is still just as dumb as the previous games. It also has that colored coded enemy thing and some rather lackluster boss fights but, this was suppose to be something new. They weren't going to try and be a carbon copy and not bad NT. I was skeptical at first but, it went better than expected. I can see a very encouraging building block to improve upon and even if we see DMC 5 next it should adapt things that this game introduced.

And I can't hate it that much when it's just simply......

DmC could use some polish to work out the kinks but it's not all bad. Definitely not as bad as the fanatical side what's to try and make it out to be. They are acting like NT and Capcom killed their dog and raped their parents and this is the worst game ever. Man, you've really never played a bad game if this is your nightmare. I think there's better reasons to hate Capcom, *cough MY MEGAMAN cough*

But DmC is still a fun full package I don't regret playing. Not my personal favorite in the series but a pretty decent attempt to steer Devil May Cry in a new direction after it was at a creative dead end. To hate is like other people do is silly.

Not bad DmC.

 

[Alittleacorn]

DMC 4 was like Spider-Man 3. A lot of people payed money to play it but, it wasn't well received. I don't know if you missed all that. A lot of people didn't like DMC 4.

RE 6 sold quite a bit too. I'm guessing that means they enjoyed that Micheal Bay Resident Evil then. Why would it be getting rebooted back to its roots then? Hmm fishy. Oh wait, because we all did hate RE 6.

Sales don't prove the quality of a game. A lot of people were against DmC as soon as they saw Dante's new look and pretty much were so stubborn they didn't give it a fighting chance at all. I think just simple spite was also in play here. I'm willing to put money that quite a bit of people who hate DmC never even played the game.

Fandoms in a nutshell.

You're right. DMC4 had the fortune of all the hype from DMC3. It was the same for RE6 with hype from RE5, but also a promise we would be getting a new sort of gameplay that would please both fans, which sadly wasn't the case.

First impressions mean anything and DmC's debut trailer didn't help,or how Ninja Theory handled those first interviews [you could tell they were really excited, but I think lack of experience and the need for better wording got the better of them] nor did the fact that some fans got really stubborn even when changes were made. Some never wanted to give the game a chance, didn't want to believe any good review or comment on it praising the game and tried putting off anybody who did want to go in with an open mind, in fact, there's still regulars doing it now on youtube [and by regulars, I mean the same people just going on DmC vids just to drop an insult about the game.]

And they think buying the DMC HD collection will work as a protest? @_@ They're just putting more money in Capcom's pocket. They might not be buying DmC directly, but they're still handing over their money, that and ignoring the fact people out there will still be getting the HD collection anyway after buying DmC, I sure well did. But it's like AngryJoe said, DmC isn't a shining gem, I've pointed things out in my review to believe that, but it is certianly not a piece of poop. And even though I don't agree entirely with everything he said, I damn well praise him for being honest instead picking at it for excuse after excuse why it's a terrible game when it's not.

Sales don't mean quality. Anybody brings up as a reason to say something is awful, they know nothing about what a great game is and are using it as an insult to win an arguement.

And I...really shouldn't have been staring at your gif when I saw that vid :lol: :

"I don't want change! I don't want change! Everything has to stay the same!"

 

[V's patron]

I think at the end of the day, the only review that matters is your own so just go with how you feel on it.

For me, DmC is a 7 out of 10 because it don't do enough with the story and gameplay to say its groundbreaking or that the changes/hype/controversy was worth it.

It's not as bad as haters make it out to be nor as good as supporters give credit it. Its not worthy of game of the year nor does it elevate gaming or but it is a good experience worth about 20 bucks.

 

[VineBigBoss]

The rest of us evidently just don't understand DMC 4 according to Mac here.

Well, when I look at my wallet who's starving most of the time I have to think there has to be a better alternatives. Hmm well, I still have just as much fun playing DMC 1 and 3 which are full gaming experiences minus the annoying design choices. I'll just play 3 if that's cool with you.

As for DmC, this game's got some really cool levels. Thanks for not letting me repeat them though. I can see they at least didn't just decide to copy and paste. Oh and what do you know, it's still fun. Combat still holds quite a lot of variety that may be a little less than the predecessors but still has a lot of great combo potential in the hands of certain players.Just browse Youtube.

Hmm, well I may not find Dante in DmC all that compelling and the story is still just as dumb as the previous games. It also has that colored coded enemy thing and some rather lackluster boss fights but, this was suppose to be something new. They weren't going to try and be a carbon copy and not bad NT. I was skeptical at first but, it went better than expected. I can see a very encouraging building block to improve upon and even if we see DMC 5 next it should adapt things that this game introduced.

And I can't hate it that much when it's just simply......


DmC could use some polish to work out the kinks but it's not all bad. Definitely not as bad as the fanatical side what's to try and make it out to be. They are acting like NT and Capcom killed their dog and raped their parents and this is the worst game ever. Man, you've really never played a bad game if this is your nightmare. I think there's better reasons to hate Capcom, *cough MY MEGAMAN cough*

But DmC is still a fun full package I don't regret playing. Not my personal favorite in the series but a pretty decent attempt to steer Devil May Cry in a new direction after it was at a creative dead end. To hate is like other people do is silly.

Not bad DmC.

To some extent, i would agree with him if he implied this. Because in playable features DMC4 much evolved from DMC3 and introduced new concepts more acessible to the casual crowd, there's no way it could be a complete disaster, but i agree that it not played out so well as an "complete package"; still, it's not even half as bad as you claim it to be.

DmC did had cool levels and no backtracking at all, still this not compensate the many flaws and downgrades in combat, who turned out to be the main aspect of DMC games mainly in DMC3 although it was an really important part of DMC1, it was like the natural evolution of the game tendencies that made the hack'n'slash genre become reality. DMC1 have much backtracking too, and you would fight the same bosses for like 3 times, obviously in each subsequent fight they get new moves and more durability. DMC3 had some of it too.

With the story thing i agree with you. But being a "new thing" don't justify dumb design, let's get fair in that analysis, bosses design and enemy design on DmC overall is weak mostly like DMC4 was, but differently. Scripted bosses, cutscenes in the middle of the battle and mostly nothing on their designs made you explore different tools at you disposal (like Griffon do in DMC1, encouraging the player to use more his firearms and projectiles to do well in the fight, or Agni and Rudra in DMC3 who made you explore your ability to control the health of the bosses and kill the two nearly at the same time to not have to deal with the double-wielding one); DmC clearly lacked the creativity work in that aspect of design, just look at bosses like Succubus or Mundu's Spawn and you'll see what i'm talking about. The only real similar games on the original series was DMC3 and 4, the other two work very different from 3 and 4, thus the whole series is not only a "copy-pasta", and talking about copy-pasta, it's incredible that you don't see any similarity between DmC and DMC3 and 4 gameplay, they've basicaly taken the same path but with less depth, changed the button layout (and hurted the variety with this decision) because the previous were "too complex" (here is a thing i never understanded, what's complex about activating a launcher by pressing the analog away from the monster you're locked and pressing triangle?).

DmC have to be polished in many aspects and correct many flaws if it's going to have new installments. DmC is not a bad game by itself, but compared to its predecessors it's really weak, in some aspects it is even weaker than the first DMC game (bosses and enemy design). People who say that DmC is pure **** are being unreasonable, the same way people say it's a good or magnificient game compared with other games within the DMC franchise. Having "better reasons" to hate Capcom doesn't justify bad another bad decisions.

The same as you. I had some fun playing DmC, but it's not worthy my money if it's coming to replace the old series and it's own aspects as a videogame.

 

[Ters]

I never got why people spout off CHANGE CHANGE DIFFERENT IS ALWAYS GOOD NO MATTER WHAT in regards to this game. of course nobody wants things to change when they change to be worse. Consider how well Mortal Kombat's reboot was received in comparison

these same people also seem to complain about the low odds of there being a DmC2 when you would expect them to embrace it with open arms.

It's a change, right? \(`~`)/

 

[Chancey289]

No one said all change is good but, DmC isn't the terrible change people try to make it out to be. The fanatical side is over-reacting.

Now I saw Iron Man 3 today and the change made in that movie is bad. My heart is hurting. What they did to The Mandarin in that film is ridiculous.
*sees Mandarin*

Yea, off topic but that's just running through my head all day. Entertaining flick but, what they did to The Mandarin is far far worse than anything that's happened to Dante.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

^ ive seen countless people use "People are afraid of change" as if change was only a good thing.

I've even seen this on this forum as well.

 

[Alittleacorn]

^ ive seen countless people use "People are afraid of change" as if change was only a good thing.

I've even seen this on this forum as well.

And there's a problem with that?

Personally I think Devil May Cry needed change. It's just a shame the fandom is a train wreck.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

And there's a problem with that?

Personally I think Devil May Cry needed change. It's just a shame the fandom is a train wreck.

Yes...change isn't synonymous with positive.

 

[Terrutas]

And there's a problem with that?

Personally I think Devil May Cry needed change. It's just a shame the fandom is a train wreck.

There's a difference between change and replacement.

In this case, it's more of a replacement than change seeing as everything is drastically different from the other if not the complete opposite, and most of what people actually liked about this series is pretty much gone.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

There's a difference between change and replacement.

In this case, it's more of a replacement than change seeing as everything is drastically different from the other if not the complete opposite, and most of what people actually liked about this series is pretty much gone.

That too actually, but i couldn't bother telling people that Capcom tried to replace DMC with DmC.
Noone would believe me even if i make logical points with sources and all