Gbraga
Well-known Member
That makes a lot of sense actually.
Metal Gear Rising VS DmC
- Thread starter Noel
- Start date
berto
I Saw the Devil
That cat is a bad ass!!
Which is exactly what they have done in MGR. It may not be what the game is about, but it's there. So your statement is incorrect.
crush
Well-known Member
If there is too much stealh, it will mostly look like assasins creed. I hope other games won't even dare to try copying it.
I think if there is a pro that DmC could likely win against MGR will be the ability to mix weapons seamlessly, and doing combos in a more high rate against multiple enemies. (MGR seems not able to do this. because it locks on on a single enemy)
I guess in that point DmC is wise because it casted away the lock-on.
And, yeah we have more faster firearms that could make more chaos, and finishing angles.
MegaMad9
The Mad Man
Well, all of the previews that we've seen have the guys playing the game on the medium difficulty. Play any DMC game on medium and tell me it's not easy to get SSS on the style meter if you know what you're doing
MegaMad9
The Mad Man
What you see is not stealth: Raiden runs by a few guys (with very loud footsteps by the way) who just so happen to have their backs turned to him and then he goes behind them and brutally murders them. I don't think that constitutes as stealth
MGR is a cool action game, they only put in this second-rate stealth system to appease fans
But aren't there a stealth mode implanted into the game? Like backstabbing, cut-throating, one-hit kills? Stealth kills.
CheeseKao
Lord Cheesington
There's stealth in MGR but I think that it's just tacked on and there for the sake of it.
Well, it's what I will try and use the most. I love stealthy ninja assassin type of games, and though MGR has alot of hack'n slash gameplay as well, I will go for the stealth kills whenever possible. ^^
CheeseKao
Lord Cheesington
I believe Raiden WAS a stealthy ninja assassin. Now he's just an out of control chainsaw.
TWOxACROSS
Hot-blooded God of Guns
Metal Gear Rising's version of stealth is different than Metal Gear Solid titles. In MGS, the stealth action was all about hide and seek, with Snake as the one hiding (preferably in a box). Metal Gear Rising's "hide and seek" stealth is the other way around - it's Raiden seeking out enemies for items and possibly information.
Regardless of how unstealthy Raiden goes about it, getting one-hit kills on foes caught unawares is one of the most basic principles of stealth gameplay.
Regardless of how unstealthy Raiden goes about it, getting one-hit kills on foes caught unawares is one of the most basic principles of stealth gameplay.
MegaMad9
The Mad Man
Sure, but if you go by those standards, then Call of Duty is a stealth game, too lol
TWOxACROSS
Hot-blooded God of Guns
A one-hit kill stealth gameplay does not make.
However, actively moving up on an unaware enemy, and taking him out in whatever fashion you choose - that's stealth gameplay. It may not be "refined" by the system itself, but that's stealth >.<
However, actively moving up on an unaware enemy, and taking him out in whatever fashion you choose - that's stealth gameplay. It may not be "refined" by the system itself, but that's stealth >.<
I never said MGR is a stealth game. I said there was stealth in it. However, you said there couldn't be stealth in a hack'n slash game which there seems to be in MGR, hence why you are incorrect in that statement.
Thank you, that is all I wanted to know. ^^
Frazz
General gamer
Tbh I like both, but I think that DmC has more reasons to replay it as it presumably has alt costumes and it has secret rooms so yeah... I also think DmC has more (main) weapons as MGR has a few secondary but idk how many primary weapons it has. Both look great though 2013 will be an expensive year^_^
berto
I Saw the Devil
Well, not quite. One's a spin-off the other is a reboot. Both are been made as aproduction of the original developer handing it of to another developer. The biggest difference is that DmC is a take on it's source material while MGR is a side story on one of the characters.
Edit: I do agree, though, they are very different games and have a few similareties but not in terms of gwameplay and design. It'd be more just to compair them to games that are more reminisent of each.
CheeseKao
Lord Cheesington
"These are a few terms that get thrown around a lot but what are the specific connotative meanings behind them? Here's how I would basically break it down:
A "remake" is taking basically the exact same story and doing it again with changes. Such examples of this would include Rob Zombie's Halloween, Gus Van Sant's Psycho, and the 1995 version of Sabrina with Harrison Ford & Julia Ormond.
A "reimagining" is looser. It takes a similar premise as the original but does it in a very different way. Examples of this would include Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes, Death Race with Jason Statham, and Ronald D. Moore's Battlestar Galactica. (I'm also tempted to put the new Conan the Barbarian movie here but it doesn't quite feel the same. It's almost not a "re-" anything because it feels so unconcerned with any previous Conan productions.)
A "reboot" only comes into play when you're dealing with an ongoing series that doesn't want to acknowledge any of its previous incarnations for whatever reason. The Amazing Spider-Man, Batman Begins, & Casino Royale are the best examples I can think of for this.
There are also other, lesser levels of reboots where a movie will have some newness but also some attachment to the previous continuity, like Superman Returns. There are occasionally "agnostic" movies like TMNT (which even strategically places a crack in the ooze cannister so that we can't tell whether it's from "TCRI" or "TGRI") and Terminator Salvation (which is presumably a follow-up to Terminator 3 but might also be in some way a successor to The Sarah Connor Chronicles). People will argue about how exactly X-Men: First Class fits into the continuity of the previous X-Men movies. And then there's the very rare animal of the 2009 Star Trek movie, which is set in a new timeline but it is a new timeline specifically created from some of the characters time travelling and changing history.
Then there's the "revival," which is just a straight up continuation of the old thing but done in a way that is specifically designed to appeal to new people that never saw the old thing. The new Doctor Who falls into this category, as do the new versions of 90210, Knight Rider, & Melrose Place. (I would also count the 2002 version of The Twilight Zone, although The Twilight Zone is an anthology series so it doesn't really have a continuity to adhere to anyway. They did do a direct sequel to the old episode "It's a Good Life" called "It's Still a Good Life." But they also did remakes of the classic episodes "Eye of the Beholder" & "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street.")
How would you define these sometimes nebulous terms"~The Borgified Corpse
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=146941
I hope that helps. Re-imagining is the same as rebirth by the way.
A "remake" is taking basically the exact same story and doing it again with changes. Such examples of this would include Rob Zombie's Halloween, Gus Van Sant's Psycho, and the 1995 version of Sabrina with Harrison Ford & Julia Ormond.
A "reimagining" is looser. It takes a similar premise as the original but does it in a very different way. Examples of this would include Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes, Death Race with Jason Statham, and Ronald D. Moore's Battlestar Galactica. (I'm also tempted to put the new Conan the Barbarian movie here but it doesn't quite feel the same. It's almost not a "re-" anything because it feels so unconcerned with any previous Conan productions.)
A "reboot" only comes into play when you're dealing with an ongoing series that doesn't want to acknowledge any of its previous incarnations for whatever reason. The Amazing Spider-Man, Batman Begins, & Casino Royale are the best examples I can think of for this.
There are also other, lesser levels of reboots where a movie will have some newness but also some attachment to the previous continuity, like Superman Returns. There are occasionally "agnostic" movies like TMNT (which even strategically places a crack in the ooze cannister so that we can't tell whether it's from "TCRI" or "TGRI") and Terminator Salvation (which is presumably a follow-up to Terminator 3 but might also be in some way a successor to The Sarah Connor Chronicles). People will argue about how exactly X-Men: First Class fits into the continuity of the previous X-Men movies. And then there's the very rare animal of the 2009 Star Trek movie, which is set in a new timeline but it is a new timeline specifically created from some of the characters time travelling and changing history.
Then there's the "revival," which is just a straight up continuation of the old thing but done in a way that is specifically designed to appeal to new people that never saw the old thing. The new Doctor Who falls into this category, as do the new versions of 90210, Knight Rider, & Melrose Place. (I would also count the 2002 version of The Twilight Zone, although The Twilight Zone is an anthology series so it doesn't really have a continuity to adhere to anyway. They did do a direct sequel to the old episode "It's a Good Life" called "It's Still a Good Life." But they also did remakes of the classic episodes "Eye of the Beholder" & "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street.")
How would you define these sometimes nebulous terms"~The Borgified Corpse
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=146941
I hope that helps. Re-imagining is the same as rebirth by the way.