• Welcome to the Devil May Cry Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Devil May Cry series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Why I Avoid Platinum

@Innsmouth: I understand your point, and never said that I didn't agree with you to a certain extent. I can't stop people from making threads, nor will I discourage it even.

There's no harm in saying you're simply not a fan of something - movie, book, TV show, game etc., - that doesn't mean you necessarily hate that 'something', you might just not be as keen on it as others are.

I don't see anything being said about how others shouldn't like or enjoy Platinum Games. If that was the case, I would see it as bashing, and I'd close the thread too.

I haven't got much else to say about it other than what I've already said. You're completely entitled to your opinion, and you can find the thread pointless or meaningless, it's not a problem. It doesn't help anything though, and certainly does nothing but derail. I think we should both leave it and let others give their opinions.

@Blackquill: Which ones have you played? I've only ever touched a Bayonetta demo. It didn't exactly grab me either.
 
Blackquill said:
@LordOfDarkness
I've played Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising, Transformers: Devastation and a bit of Vanquish.
Click to expand...

Haven't actually played any of those games lol

I've heard a lot of praise towards Bayonetta. I wouldn't say it seemed like a bad game, but I'd much rather play DMC/DmC over it. Also, I thought people complain about how long Metal Gear's cut scenes are? Can't say I know all too much about it, haven't touched those games in a long while to be able to agree with that and call it an issue.

Vanquish, what type of game is that? I thought it was a shooter or something.
 
Vergilius said:
True. They really are.

I was especially dismayed to learn that they had won out against Monolith Soft when it came to developing the new Star F0x.

After seeing the new Xenoblade Chronicles game, I can only imagine what MS would've brought to the table...
Click to expand...
Alright, I wasn't initially planning on commenting on this thread, given my somewhat-limited experience with Platinum's work, but Star Fox was brought up, and I feel honor-bound to shed my opinion on Platinum's recent undertaking of the series.

I was originally really, really skeptical when I heard Platinum was the 3rd-Party support behind Star Fox: Zero, especially when I saw how uncannily-similar the game looked and played like Star Fox 64.

But then, with further research, I found out that the decision to make the game look and play the way it does was not made by Platinum...but by Nintendo. Shigeru Miyamoto explicitly stated that the game would be recycling assets, visuals, concepts, and gameplay ideas for the cancelled Star Fox game they had been making for the Wii many years back. Platinum's main role is to aid in the design of levels, bosses, gameplay obstacles, and---according to Miyamoto---the "tone and feel of the game's cutscenes."

The decision to play it safe and make the game as painfully-similar to 64 was Nintendo's: they want to re-imagine the game in the same way Crystal Dynamics "re-imagined" Tomb Raider into Anniversary, and slip into the series' continuity before continuing the series with a full-blown sequel that'll look and play drastically-different on its own.

And btw, Monolith was NEVER considered for the making of a new Star Fox game---and in response for their "boundless potential shown with Xenoblade Chronicles X", you have to understand how differently both games were made in terms of design intentions. Zero was made to replicate the arcade-shooter nature of the older Star Fox games, whereas Chronicles X was intended to replicate the immersion of mech-games like Mech Warrior and Steel Batallion. And for looking different graphically---Nintendo has already stated how the Star Fox Zero was intended to be a next-gen re-imagining of 64, so it'll naturally retain the original game's look and feel. They also said the simplistic art style was chosen to benefit the strain on the game's engine (since it has to project two very different images on two screens, while holding up a blistering 60 fps), whereas games like Bayonetta and Xenoblade only have to project ONE same image on two screens.

Now, the question is: will Platinum's involvement with the game harm or benefit the experience? In this instant, I'd say benefit.

The concept for the game, and core design has already been painstakingly laid-out by Miyamoto and the rest of Nintendo R&D---all Platinum needs to do is give it the necessary polish and extend some of its features.

And regardless of the varying quality of their core games, this is something Platinum has undoubtedly excelled at. All their games, in spite of how I feel about them, are all presented to a consistent standard of quality. None of their games are half-finished, buggy, unplayable messes like some of their competitors...and given how they have so little to mess up in this scenario, especially with the gaping delay for the game's release, I have faith in what they can bring to the table.

The lead Platinum Memmber working on the game has also presented a number of ideas for a future Star Fox sequel, so I do expect them to work on any later entries.
 
So far I've played Bayonetta and MGR which I liked but haven't got interested in anything else they have done before Scalebound.

I think it just comes down I wasn't interested in any of the worlds they've built before scalebound. I played MGR/Bayonetta because of their past connections and curiousity so that why I'm not too interested in Platinum.
 
The problem with Platinum seems to be the dependency on context-sensitive actions and Quick Time Events.

If you're playing Devil May Cry 4, Nero has a button built for grabbing that you can do anytime, anywhere.
Even if the enemy isn't in a position to be grabbed, the action itself can still be used to interrupt or parry the enemy.

In Bayonetta or Metal Gear Rising, it's purely contextual, like you have to wait for the enemy to be dazed or for the game to tell you "okay, you can do something cool now" via some on-screen button prompts.

I don't know about other people but I am not a big fan of long dial-up combos.
You often find situations where either the enemy dies before the special ending move or they're too well-armored to get caught in the combo for you to get to the special finisher.

If it was Devil May Cry, the "finisher" at the end of the long dial-up combo is its own move that you can insert into the combo at any time.
 
It's threads like this that are always keeping me from talking about P* Games or P* making a DMC game here.

I love P* but I always seem to be alone in that opinion in this place so been a fan and constantly getting responses like this always leaves a sour taste in my mouth from all the complains. I'm always hearing about how they do this or don't do that and how these are the things that ruin their games and such and if the subject of them ever doing DMC is ever brought up it's always a resounding 'oh, no! Let me tell you about why in the everlasting glory of god that that would be the single worst thing to ever happen to the human race.' I have no problems with their game designs, They make fun and awesome games. Can their design choises be annoying at times? Yes. Do the the annoying parts ruin their games? Hell to the No. They make action games and they make action games right and that is why I go out of my way to play P* games and I always hope the will make a DMC title.

All of y'all can avoid all you like. I have a hell of a good time with them and have 0 to negative 3 of intentions of stopping. It's just too bad that if I want to talk about them that this isn't the place to do it in.
 
berto said:
It's threads like this that are always keeping me from talking about P* Games or P* making a DMC game here.

I love P* but I always seem to be alone in that opinion in this place so been a fan and constantly getting responses like this always leaves a sour taste in my mouth from all the complains. I'm always hearing about how they do this or don't do that and how these are the things that ruin their games and such and if the subject of them ever doing DMC is ever brought up it's always a resounding 'oh, no! Let me tell you about why in the everlasting glory of god that that would be the single worst thing to ever happen to the human race.' I have no problems with their game designs, They make fun and awesome games. Can their design choises be annoying at times? Yes. Do the the annoying parts ruin their games? Hell to the No. They make action games and they make action games right and that is why I go out of my way to play P* games and I always hope the will make a DMC title.

All of y'all can avoid all you like. I have a hell of a good time with them and have 0 to negative 3 of intentions of stopping. It's just too bad that if I want to talk about them that this isn't the place to do it in.
Click to expand...
I love P* Games as well, they're one of my favorite development teams out there so no, you're not alone.

But yeah it is sad that a forum about a faced paced action game is no place to discuss fast paced action games.
 
Ugh, only a couple people here are saying P* sucks.

The rest of us for the most part actually like P*, but we just don't think they're some godsend. I'm gonna be critical to them just like I do all game companies I like and dislike.

Because face it, they don't develop mind blowingly awesome games. They could use some room for improvement. Goddamn.
 
Goldsickle said:
The problem with Platinum seems to be the dependency on context-sensitive actions and Quick Time Events.

If you're playing Devil May Cry 4, Nero has a button built for grabbing that you can do anytime, anywhere.
Even if the enemy isn't in a position to be grabbed, the action itself can still be used to interrupt or parry the enemy.

In Bayonetta or Metal Gear Rising, it's purely contextual, like you have to wait for the enemy to be dazed or for the game to tell you "okay, you can do something cool now" via some on-screen button prompts.

I don't know about other people but I am not a big fan of long dial-up combos.
You often find situations where either the enemy dies before the special ending move or they're too well-armored to get caught in the combo for you to get to the special finisher.

If it was Devil May Cry, the "finisher" at the end of the long dial-up combo is its own move that you can insert into the combo at any time.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Platinum tends to make that kind of action games, which I'm fine with, to be honest, they're fun, but I will always put DMC's mechanics a step on the pedestal above those.
 
Platinum Games have the passion and capabilities of making the next DMC game.

It's just:

- Lay off the context-sensitive stuff. Make moves that you can pull off regularly, rather than something you can only do when the enemy/boss is dazed or when the game tells you.

- Cut down on the "press X or die" Quick Time Events. I'd hate having my final score stained with one random death because I didn't press a button that isn't in the regular moves list.

- Make the bosses less scripted. Cut a tentacle, QTE, cut another tentacle, button-mashing sequence, cut another tentacle, QTE, cut off final tentacle and get ready to press an on-screen button prompt so you can finish off the boss in some cinematic sequence.
I recognize the appeal of scripted battle sequences like this (as seen in Metal Gear Rising) but they shouldn't make it too scripted.

- As I mentioned, I am not a big fan of long dial-up combos. The DMC series kinda did it right by having mini combos, with a lot of signature moves that you can perform in almost any order to suit your own custom combo or the enemy.
 
I enjoyed MGRR immensely and I think Platinum could pull off a DMC if so long as they remove QTEs and remove the light attack/ heavy attack thing as DMC doesn't do that nor does it need it. I think P* would make a pretty good DMC but for the moment I'd rather Capcom made it so that P* can focus on other things.
 
The main problem I have with a lot of Platinum's spectacle fighters is that they're short. Really short. Transformers Devastation? I beat that in a weekend, and that's kinda disappointing. I realize they probably made it short because they were on a tight schedule and they wanted to increase replayability, but they could at least make the higher difficulties fun to play. Making the enemies three times as fast and drastically reducing the window for dodges doesn't make it more fun, it makes it an exercise in tedium and frustration when your enemies are constantly blocking your every attack and you can ONLY hit them while in focus.
 
DreadnoughtDT said:
The main problem I have with a lot of Platinum's spectacle fighters is that they're short. Really short.
Click to expand...
True enough.

584_20141022100732357.jpg
 
WolfOD64 said:
True enough.

584_20141022100732357.jpg
Click to expand...
For $16 you don't get to have an 8 hour campaign. For $16 you get a budget game. A better example would've been MadWorld, actually; full retail but obviously a game needing just a bit more all around to justify the full price tag it asks for.
 
berto said:
For $16 you don't get to have an 8 hour campaign. For $16 you get a budget game. A better example would've been MadWorld, actually; full retail but obviously a game needing just a bit more all around to justify the full price tag it asks for.
Click to expand...
...or you know, another budget-priced downloadable title with a much longer campaign like say, Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon or Shovel Knight?

And unlike Korra, recent project Transformers: Devastation was priced at a full-retail price. And before anyone says "it's an arena game with robots, of course it's going to be short", don't assume too much. A game in the same kind of genre, made with even lower production values but sold at the same price, was Earth Defense Force 2025---otherwise known as that crazy kaiju vs robots vs insects arena game with EIGHTY-FIVE MISSIONS in its main campaign.
 
WolfOD64 said:
...or you know, another budget-priced downloadable title with a much longer campaign like say, Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon or Shovel Knight?

And unlike Korra, recent project Transformers: Devastation was priced at a full-retail price. And before anyone says "it's an arena game with robots, of course it's going to be short", don't assume too much. A game in the same kind of genre, made with even lower production values but sold at the same price, was Earth Defense Force 2025---otherwise known as that crazy kaiju vs robots vs insects arena game with EIGHTY-FIVE MISSIONS in its main campaign.
Click to expand...

And they just released EDF2 and the remake of 2025, so that's a combined total of almost 200 missions. I should know, I freaking love the series.
 
Transformers devastation was priced 35€ at release at least in europe. For this money you get 6 hours game, or 5 hours if you rush it through. Considering this is the length of titles like Onimusha and original Devil may Cry, whole complaint about length is pretty weak.
And while QTE complaint is there + over usage of assets and codes, their game are still nice change of pace from tons of subpar attempts in action genre. After played Vanquish and original Gears of War back to back, its hard for me not to notice that from gameplay feeling it was like playing current gen game and Ps2 title.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom