Golden Joystick awards

[MultiBro]

When are they not?

Well, when you are not in them.

 

[DragonMaster2010]

Oh, I didn't know this was a whine thread.

I'm not whining. Just saying how DMC4 was from an honest stand point.

Well, when you are not in them.

And so many others.

 

[EllDawn]

There's a lot of people who are unfairly biased and condemned this game since day 1. They already go out of there trying to make sure DmC gets no props whatsoever. I don't think it will win anything. I wouldn't side with DmC on the best moment because I just love Vaas's monologue so much. That character was just so awesome to me.

However visual design should totally go to DmC. Limbo was awesome and with so many games that just look the same DmC's design was refreshing with its bright color pallet and also creative aesthetics. The artist were definitely some of the all stars of this game.

I agree that DmC probably won't win anything. Getting a nomination is pretty good in itself, so they are getting some recognition. And they are getting votes, which adds to it. I love DmC, but if it was being put up against Lords of Shadow I'd be voting for LOS. But it's not.

Again, DmC was the only game I played that they nominated. I voted for it in everything it was nominated for. I do think they should have chosen something different for best moment. Seeing Dante and Vergil fight together would have been a great one, just as Kat's capture would have been. I kind of think they went more by impressive visuals than what affected the player the most.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Like TwoX said, the irony in your rant is baffling. Sad thing is you will never even understand what we mean by that.

The thing is, while MGR doesn't necessarily carry the spirit of Metal Gear, it keeps up with the themes that the franchise is known for with all the political and conspiratorial jazz. It's just totally not a Stealth Action game. However, that was the point, because they wanted a game where we play as a cyborg ninja, and I think they delivered on that. The problem is that by default being the cyborg ninja changes much of the focus. Even playing as Gray Fox in VR Missions was less about stealth and more about killing all the targets. It's sort of a natural progression to turn that into more of a hack 'n' slash when taken out of that VR setting, and supplanting the crazy MGS-type bosses in it.

But yesh...irony in IncaDemo's post...quite a bit...

 

[Chancey289]

The thing is, while MGR doesn't necessarily carry the spirit of Metal Gear, it keeps up with the themes that the franchise is known for with all the political and conspiratorial jazz. It's just totally not a Stealth Action game. However, that was the point, because they wanted a game where we play as a cyborg ninja, and I think they delivered on that. The problem is that by default being the cyborg ninja changes much of the focus. Even playing as Gray Fox in VR Missions was less about stealth and more about killing all the targets. It's sort of a natural progression to turn that into more of a hack 'n' slash when taken out of that VR setting, and supplanting the crazy MGS-type bosses in it.

But yesh...irony in IncaDemo's post...quite a bit...

I just see the lack of Kojima's directorial flare in MGR. Metal Gear Fruit Ninja is just the popcorn Metal Gear game to me.

And even though I hate Raiden continuing his story in MGR kinda bugged me. Replaying MGS 4 not long ago he had his resolution and was done fighting. Having him suit up really killed the emotional impact of that whole resolution. And even though I don't care much for Raiden that body breaking sacrifice to save Snake from being crushed by Outer Haven was pretty damn cool. Pretty much the start of the retirement plan thinking too.

 

[Demi-fiend]

IAnd even though I don't care much for Raiden that body breaking sacrifice to save Snake from being crushed by Outer Haven was pretty damn cool.

This "body-breaking" sacrifice wouldn't be similar to the one Grey Fox did in MGS1, would it? Because if it is, then it would feel like it's treading old ground, from my own personal point of view.

 

[Chancey289]

This "body-breaking" sacrifice wouldn't be similar to the one Grey Fox did in MGS1, would it? Because if it is, then it would feel like it's treading old ground, from my own personal point of view.

Not really.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Technically, the MGS series loved retreading old ground. Hell, MGS2 was supposed to be a simulation of the Shadow Moses incident >.< It works well for the series though, because it's so self-referential that it's another part of MGS's 4th wall-breaking charm

Although admittedly, Raiden's sacrifice was different than Gray Fox's, considering Raiden is still alive an' all.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

How amusing that you repeat yourself TwoX.
Do you really believe MGR and DmC situation is really the same?

 

[seraphmaycry]

looking back, i dont think this thread could have gone in any other direction.

cool to know DmC was nominated but the fact that we dont all have DmC listed down as our favorite everything means we are going to disagree at that level that makes anything other then whining and arguing hard.

and all the MGR stuff, it is everything i have ever heard before and i wish not to read the entire thread to see it again.
MGR deserves, in my opinion NOTHING other then a soundtrack award. BUT IT IS NOT A LAW OF THE UNIVERSE SAME FOR EVERYONE ELSES OPINION

if it was up to me the games nominated for special recognition would be completely different WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME FOR EVERYONE ELSE.

i have adopted a bit of a holier then thou stance here, at least a little(probably a lot more then a little, but i cant accuratly judge myself on this), but someone has to recognize this can only end in disaster to at least try to teach someone SOMETHING important.

i would hope that the thread is locked, but the same arguments will rage, in the same forums/groups, with the same people.

the arguers do not think they are some sort of "one-hit, one-kill" powerhouse (but they do often seem to think they are a powerhouse) no it's the same people who will not shut up when common sense and basic knowledge and decency tell them they have gone far enough.
they will continue to say they are right and try to cast silence over the battlefield with a vague expression that hints that there opponents are wrong, but they will not never state why or how they just pretend.let me guess? this will be called "irony"(which, while irrelevant, is the use of words expressing something over then their literal intention), perhaps i have poor grammar and spelling, maybe you'll tell me to stop playing admin/dark protector of the forums? maybe i'm violent? maybe i need meds? maybe im cuhrazea? the list strecthes forever into an infinit black void of headaches and broken arguments.

this post will likely be quoted and each section will be responded to in a aggressive manner. i'll get the flash sweat ready for the flames.

 

[JessenReinhart]

Rapid Slashed your post

well, yeah the ost for MGR was awesome. even though i was more expecting epic music like the MGS Theme, or theme of tara remixed to heavy metal. i dont really like the vocals for a soundtrack, but the music was awesome.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

How amusing that you repeat yourself TwoX.
Do you really believe MGR and DmC situation is really the same?

Their situations are similar in several ways, but not the same.

The way you talked about MGR is ironic because you attributed elements from MGS that MGR has which you checked off, as to why MGR should be considered a Metal Gear game in more than just "name only." It's entirely possible to make pretty much the exact same checklist for DMC of DmC (custom combos, ranged and melee weapons, grading system, etc), albeit dealing with much more of the gameplay elements, rather than just things from cutscenes. People still say that DmC is a Devil May Cry game "in name only," even though to a lot people it plays and feels just like a DMC game but with a different look and tweaked controls.

Then, there's the...

The whole point of Rising became to do something new.
The point of MGR was to bring forth change, a new direction.
And it dam well did that, MGR has very good potential as a game and i look forward to MGR 2 whether it has Raiden, Gray fox or spongebob.

...which is exactly why Capcom wanted to try DmC. And DmC also has a lot of great potential for the things that it did. The funny thing is that, like MGR, it's not part of the main series, and has no effect on it - they got to try new things without them affecting the overall canon.

The difference here is that MGR's focus ended up with it falling into a different genre, while DmC was still part of the same hack 'n' slash genre that its predecessor was from, and played pretty much just like its predecessors, aside from the changes it had for the direction the game was developed with.

Being a fan of both franchises and specifically both games, I think I'm a little more qualified to talk about them than someone who isn't a fan of MGS and who doesn't like DmC.

But, anyway. Sorry kids.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

Their situations are similar in several ways, but not the same.

The way you talked about MGR is ironic because you attributed elements from MGS that MGR has which you checked off, as to why MGR should be considered a Metal Gear game in more than just "name only." It's entirely possible to make pretty much the exact same checklist for DMC of DmC (custom combos, ranged and melee weapons, grading system, etc), albeit dealing with much more of the gameplay elements, rather than just things from cutscenes. People still say that DmC is a Devil May Cry game "in name only," even though to a lot people it plays and feels just like a DMC game but with a different look and tweaked controls.

Then, there's the...


...which is exactly why Capcom wanted to try DmC. And DmC also has a lot of great potential for the things that it did. The funny thing is that, like MGR, it's not part of the main series, and has no effect on it - they got to try new things without them affecting the overall canon.

The difference here is that MGR's focus ended up with it falling into a different genre, while DmC was still part of the same hack 'n' slash genre that its predecessor was from, and played pretty much just like its predecessors, aside from the changes it had for the direction the game was developed with.

Being a fan of both franchises and specifically both games, I think I'm a little more qualified to talk about them than someone who isn't a fan of MGS and who doesn't like DmC.

But, anyway. Sorry kids.

Metal Gear R focus ENDED up with falling into a different genre? It was always planned to be a game with action:

Or did you see alot of stealth in that short gameplay demonstration?

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Oh my God...semantics IncaDemo, I just mean that because of its focus it wasn't the same genre as MGS.

Although, originally, MGR did start out as MGS:R (which is your video there), which played a helluva lot like a Stealth Action game with a new cutting ability (played extremely similarly to Gray Fox VR Missions or the end of MGS2 when Raiden got his HF Katana). However, since they wanted the player to be able to do all the cool stuff they saw Raiden do in MGS4, they scrapped most of it and turned it into MGR, a straight-up, over-the-top, hack 'n' slash action game.

That video shows off the cutting mechanic, but notice how not over-the-top it is? That's because when it was still MGS:R, they were still focusing on it playing just like any other MGS, but with a sword, and the Zandatsu mechanic that was to be used for different things (for getting energy cells and sensitive data). You can't go off that trailer alone, just like DmC I was following that game from its inception, so I can tell you how it started out.

So...technically their focus did end up changing it's genre, because originally, it was still trying to be a Stealth Action game. It essentially went from a Tenchu game with a Metal Gear skin to Ninja Gaiden with a Metal Gear skin.

 

[DragonMaster2010]

Their situations are similar in several ways, but not the same.

The way you talked about MGR is ironic because you attributed elements from MGS that MGR has which you checked off, as to why MGR should be considered a Metal Gear game in more than just "name only." It's entirely possible to make pretty much the exact same checklist for DMC of DmC (custom combos, ranged and melee weapons, grading system, etc), albeit dealing with much more of the gameplay elements, rather than just things from cutscenes. People still say that DmC is a Devil May Cry game "in name only," even though to a lot people it plays and feels just like a DMC game but with a different look and tweaked controls.

Then, there's the...


...which is exactly why Capcom wanted to try DmC. And DmC also has a lot of great potential for the things that it did. The funny thing is that, like MGR, it's not part of the main series, and has no effect on it - they got to try new things without them affecting the overall canon.

The difference here is that MGR's focus ended up with it falling into a different genre, while DmC was still part of the same hack 'n' slash genre that its predecessor was from, and played pretty much just like its predecessors, aside from the changes it had for the direction the game was developed with.

Being a fan of both franchises and specifically both games, I think I'm a little more qualified to talk about them than someone who isn't a fan of MGS and who doesn't like DmC.

But, anyway. Sorry kids.

You know he/she doesn't likes to be wrong. You should come to realize this.

Metal Gear R focus ENDED up with falling into a different genre? It was always planned to be a game with action:

Or did you see alot of stealth in that short gameplay demonstration?

That really doesn't make you any less hypocritical.

Either action or not, MGR was something intended to be different and it did so.

DmC isn't in the same boat, bu both are sailing in the same direction.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

You know he/she doesn't likes to be wrong. You should come to realize this.

I can't help myself, I guess :/

That really doesn't make you any less hypocritical.

It's mostly just how IncaDemo defended MGR with pretty much the same sound defense that's used for DmC, while DmC's still applies more considering its scope never changed, and the game feel is pretty much retained - it's still about sword and gun wielding, custom-combo hack 'n' slash action with a grading system that awards bonus points for aggression and variety.

Either action or not, MGR was something intended to be different and it did so.

DmC isn't in the same boat, bu both are sailing in the same direction.

Now I just have an image of Dante and Raiden out on the water in different dinghies, waving at each other all pleasant-like, haha. "Nice day for sailin'!"

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

DmC and MGR is not the same situation. You like to say they are, but they arent.

DmC: a reboot, overwritting what has been
MGR: A spin off branching into a new direction

DmC did the same old thing that past DMC games did but at a lesser degree, and with less focus on what a DMC game is about.

MGR: Did something what MG games usually aren´t known for.
And MGR exists side by side with rest of MG games

From a gameplay perspective DmC barely brought any innovation to previous gameplay of DMC. Infact DmC regressed by focusing on dynamic enviroments and graphics over gameplay.
The only new thing DmC did was motion capture and dynamic enviroments, which are least priority of a DMC gameplay.

So from a gameplay perspective DmC did barely anything new. It a lesser version of past DMC gameplay formula.

While Rising...brought a new type of gameplay to MG serie.

And that´s the difference between MGR and DmC.
But i guess your going to continue with this "DmC did what MGR" bulllsit.
If that was true, DmC would have been a new game, spiritual successor, with similar fundamental gameplay but new character, new concepts and a new story.


One game was a reboot that attempted to overwrite original story and characters and focused on story and graphics over gameplay (gameplay = what DMC was known for). End result being a lesser iteration of past DMC gameplay with little innovation.

The other game, is a spin off that paved way for potential of a new serie with focus on Hack and Slash but within Metal Gear world. And haven´t affected Solid games.

And saying that DmC has alot potential is like saying Call of Duty has alot of potential. Does DmC have alot potential because Ninja theory made a awesome and interesting gameplay, or does it have potential because the gameplay in DmC is based on the gameplay in DMC.
DMC gameplay...one of the best Hack and Slash gameplay in the industry.
So it´s obvious why DmC has "potential".

Where as Rising, has potential not because it´s based on a previous gameplay formula from a previous Metal Gear Rising game.

If a different studio made a Metal Gear Solid game, their game with help from Kojima would easily have potential. Because Metal Gear Solid has a big legacy, just like DMC does with it´s four games. That legacy is passed onto a reboot, and it makes it look good..."potential".

And that´s the difference between Rising´s potential and DmC. Rising has potential in a much better way than DmC does.
DmC has potential...doesn´t DMC or DMC 5 specifically also have amazing potential?

Oh wait...DmC is a new gameplay formula. It has never existed before. Its why it has potential.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

DmC and MGR is not the same situation. You like to say they are, but they arent.

I didn't say they were the same, I said they had similar (definition: resembling without being identical) situations.

DmC: a reboot, overwritting what has been
MGR: A spin off branching into a new direction

Wow, wrong right out of the gate. How can you say that when everyone from both Capcom and Ninja Theory said it had nothing to do with the classic series and affected it in no way, shape, or form?

MGR is also not part of the Metal Gear Solid canon - Kojima stated it as a "what-if" type story for the game. In that regard, it's no different than Metal Gear Solid: Ghost Babel, which was a totally different story that was told in place of MGS1 for the PSX on the series' timeline.

DmC did the same old thing that past DMC games did but at a lesser degree, and with less focus on what a DMC game is about.

Yeahp, it plays like a DMC game, but with a split focus on narrative, and a more accessible difficulty. Those were the big ol' changes that was the entire point of DmC - narrative and accessibility.

The different here is that while MGR's focus changed the very genre that an Metal Gear game is, DmC's focus retained the genre of its predecessor, as well as the overall gameplay feel it has.

This comes back to how I said their situations were "similar," but not "the same."

MGR: Did something what MG games usually are known for.
And MGR exists side by side with rest of MG games

Uh...no it didn't. MGR is a hack 'n' slash action game. The rest of the Metal Gear series is not. The themes of the overall series were intact (political and conspiratorial things), but it is by far not using a similar gameplay system that makes MGS the popular Stealth Action game that it it's known as.

From a gameplay perspective DmC barely brought any innovation to previous gameplay of DMC. Infact DmC regressed by focusing on dynamic enviroments and graphics over gameplay.
The only new thing DmC did was motion capture and dynamic enviroments, which are least priority of a DMC gameplay.

That's pretty subjective, because I could argue that the Angel/Demon mode weapon-switching Stances are rather innovative (Heavenly Sword is the only other game I know of that uses it), as well as having the dynamic environments. Lawl at "focusing on graphics" though.

So from a gameplay perspective DmC did barely anything new. It a lesser version of past DMC gameplay formula.

Again, very subjective, especially considering how much it handles like the older games. A differing difficulty module =/= lesser gameplay formula, unless you put way too much emphasis on difficulty.

While Rising...brought a new type of gameplay to MG serie.

Well yeah, that tends to happen with you make a new game in a series with the intention of it being different. Once MGS:R changed into MGR, it was a whole new ball game, because they was no longer any attempt to try and keep it Stealth Action.

And that´s the difference between MGR and DmC.
But i guess your going to continue with this "DmC did what MGR" bulllsit.

Well, I'm not, because you're operating under the assumption that I said their situations were exactly the same, when, once again, I said they were similar. Please remember the definitions of words, or we're gonna get our wires crossed.

If that was true, DmC would have been a new game, spiritual successor, with similar fundamental gameplay but new character, new concepts and a new story.

That's a pretty stringent set of rules to arbitrarily place on something. All in all, DmC does have similar fundamental gameplay, with a new character (Dante being in a different universe), new concepts (Limbo's dynamic environments and the weapon stances), and a new story (what with this being in a different universe and all). Funny that you also used the word "similar."

One game was a reboot that attempted to overwrite original story and characters and focused on story and graphics over gameplay (gameplay = what DMC was known for). End result being a lesser iteration of past DMC gameplay with little innovation.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooope. Again, DmC has no affect on the classic series whatsoever. Do your research, or perhaps just read all of mine.

The other game, is a spin off that paved way for potential of a new serie with focus on Hack and Slash but within Metal Gear world. And haven´t affected Solid games.

Yeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaahp.

And saying that DmC has alot potential is like saying Call of Duty has alot of potential. Does DmC have alot potential because Ninja theory made a awesome and interesting gameplay, or does it have potential because the gameplay in DmC is based on the gameplay in DMC.
DMC gameplay...one of the best Hack and Slash gameplay in the industry.
So it´s obvious why DmC has "potential".

Of course Call of Duty has potential, it's formula is so generic that there's so many ways they could expand it. Hell, they have over the years in different ways. Even Black Ops II gave Scorestreaks that emphasized playing the objective instead of just killing opponents. Anyway, that's beside the point.

I say DmC has potential because of the things that Ninja Theory and Capcom collectively made an awesome and interesting game. The story has plenty of potential (considering I'm even writing a theoretical sequel), and the gameplay has plenty of potential with how it was changed, from how all combos are on one button (instead of something like Aerial Rave being on a separate button), how inputs for skills are used (there's lots of ways they can expand that, which has been talked about in other threads), and how the stance system works in offering you all your weapons and abilities at once without being as slightly clunky as Dante in DMC4 was (the only time you have to bypass a weapon you don't want in DmC is with the firearms).

It doesn't really matter that DmC is building off of DMC's gameplay formula, because what matters is that it IS building off it.

Where as Rising, has potential not because it´s based on a previous gameplay formula from a previous Metal Gear Rising game.

Who cares!? More fun games! Wooooo!

And that´s the difference between Rising´s potential and DmC. Rising has potential in a much better way than DmC does.
DmC has potential...doesn´t DMC or DMC 5 specifically also have amazing potential?

Most games have potential...especially when they lay out some new groundwork, like both MGR and DmC did.

Oh wait...DmC is a new gameplay formula. It has never existed before. Its why it has potential.

O____________o Way to misconstrue what I'm saying. For everything that DmC did that was new or unique to the overall DMC formula, it gives it potential. Hell, it gives the whole of the DMC formula potential, not just DmC. Who knows what things Itsuno learned from DmC's development that might show up in DMC5.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

To be really blunt, IncaDemo, you're defending MGR for being more than "in name only" with pretty much the same defense that is used for why DmC is more than just "in name only." Except with DmC's, there's more elements of gameplay to the defense, than just things from cutscenes like you mentioned previously with Metal Gear.

In fact, in trying to describe the differences between MGR's and DmC's situations, you've inadvertently agreed that DmC is very much a DMC game, when you have previously argued time and time again that it wasn't.

Maybe now you understand a little bit more of what our side is talking about. Difficulty/accessibility and claims of "lesser degrees" is irrelevant, it's the overall feel behind it, and how DmC carries on many of the same action-based traditions the series is known for - difficulty notwithstanding, since it was a necessary change for that whole idea of accessibility.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

Prolly learned not to rush a game. And no, i am not defending MGR with same thing as DmC.

That´s your thinking.

Your a person who replied to my point about MGR calling it ironic instead of adressing content of my post , and u think u understand me?

U dont. Its ur assumption.