Another DmC review. this time it's from the Sun News

[AlchemistFromEden]

l

But why should I have to be told to hate something just because this guy can't take change?

Why is it that he expects me to humor him just because he's mad?

I mean why is it now that if someone says "don't buy DmC, cause it sucks" it's normal, but if someone were to say "Don't by DMC3, it sucks" that's odd?

DmC has the gameplay, and a story.

But you know what? I'm just blowing hot air at this point, now that it's near its release date, so I'm just gonna stop here.

s
spoken like a boss

 

[mrrandomlulz]

DmC deserve 10/10

6/10 would be more fair.

 

[DragonMaster2010]

Because for one, they're fighting games, and in a completely different genre. I haven't played SF 3 or 4, but I have played fighting games and realize that they're a different genre. And I made a point to say I don't think, based on the videos you've shown me. It was a vague guess and if you had any reading comprehension I thought you would pick up on it. I have however played Gears 1 and 2 and the changes aren't nearly as different as DMC to DmC. There's changes, but don't even pretend they're as drastic as DmC's changes.

Again, we're talking about DmC here. Stop trying to redirect the discussion to other games. As a side note, I have no clue why you made the decision to put your text in all bold. Your point wasn't changed by it.

You also completely evaded my points on how the combat changed for the worse.

It didn't change for the worse. What are you talking about?:/

 

[Macabre]

DmC will review well even with publications which aren't on the take, because it's the kind of game that usually does.

It has superficially impressive elements like the transforming city dynamic and the kind of soundtrack that a quick google search will reveal to be popular with the game's target demographic, but the most important feature is the very low required skill level to progress.

Reviewers can have to review up to five games a week to stay competetive in the current market, especially if they freelance, so being ably to beat a game in two sittings and barely, if ever, having to retry a level or alter their playing style to progress. They can't just play it on Easy difficulty because their commentary might reveal this. Thus any game that has a very forgiving Normal mode will appeal to any reviewer.

Then there's the obvious fan controversy. No reviewer wants to come in on the side of the fanbase. It tends to poison your relationship with any publisher. It's easiest to just ignore it and gloss over any issues.

I mean, it's the Sun we're talking about here, but you can see these trends across most outlets. The easiest way to notice that a reviewer is on the take is if they don't mention flaws of any kind of their reviews. Or if they have an IGN logo next to their words.

The game might still make for a good entry-drug for people who've never experienced CUHRAYZAY before, but without the gratification of difficult play it might not make an impression even with the casuals.

 

[8BitHero]

Because for one, they're fighting games, and in a completely different genre. I haven't played SF 3 or 4, but I have played fighting games and realize that they're a different genre. And I made a point to say I don't think, based on the videos you've shown me. It was a vague guess and if you had any reading comprehension I thought you would pick up on it. I have however played Gears 1 and 2 and the changes aren't nearly as different as DMC to DmC. There's changes, but don't even pretend they're as drastic as DmC's changes.

Again, we're talking about DmC here. Stop trying to redirect the discussion to other games. As a side note, I have no clue why you made the decision to put your text in all bold. Your point wasn't changed by it.

You also completely evaded my points on how the combat changed for the worse.

I put my text in bold so it was easier for you pick out what I had type. What do you mean by emphasising my point? Dude, it was to make it easier for you to pick out what I had typed.

You're still completely missing my point. Both DMC and Street Fighter have gone through a reboot transition that has effected the gameplay AND the way the game feels. BOTH still retain their indepth mechanics however they are slightly altered. Why do I keep talking about this? Because a change in a game system DMC4 to DmC isn't necessarily bad. Street Fighter has proven that a change in gameplay takes time to adjust. This isn't about genres. This isn't about what the title of the game is. It's about how indepth games have changed and while DmC may seem bad it still retains the strong factors that make DMC what it is. Whether it's a fighting, third person shooter, MMORPG, Hack n slash etc etc. Seriously, how many times must I explain this comparison? A change that still maintains that level of depth ISN'T a bad game REGARDLESS of the games speed. if the games speed was a factor as to whether the game was slow then Darksiders would be bad.
You're saying that DmC running as 30FPS is bad. I'm someone who learned Darksiders 2 over the last 2 months.

That game runs at 30FPS and has ZERO effect over the gameplay.

No, The change between Gears 1 to Gears 2 isn't as drastic as DMC4 to DmC BUT it was still a noticeable change(I said this before) BUT, despite the change the game was still the same game underneath BECAUSE it kept what was true to the series. It had the learning curve. SF3 to SF4 was A HUUUGE change that easily rivals DMC4 to DmC. I'm trying to show that this game is another on the list of games that have gone through a change but still maintain it's core elements. I've seen people say it 's clunky which isn't the case. It takes time to adjust to the new gameplay style. MUCH LIKE how we did with SF3 to SF4. See?
Dude, do you still need this explained?