Aevers' Devil May Cry Review

10 members like this
1 member adds this to his share list
Have the comments sent to your PM!
0 thumbs!
^
adchick Oct 22, 13
Seems a bit harsh giving such a low score purely for the camera angles, especially when I had no issue with them.
1 thumbs!
^
Polarity Oct 22, 13
I've only had a few big issues with the camera myself, mainly in fights where it'd inexplicably change angles. It can be rather frustrating when you get cheap shotted in this fashion and it does put a damper on the overall experience.

That said, I do agree with the implication that it's not quite as bad as Aevers makes it out to be and a 5.5 is a bit over the top. Then again, I think her initial impression of the control scheme (yeah, I still think triangle and not X for jumping is a bit stupid), having to fight the same four bosses three times each and a groan zone level story and writing (see also: so bad it's.. just plain bad) might've aided in the low score.
0 thumbs!
^
Aevers Oct 22, 13
quote
Seems a bit harsh giving such a low score purely for the camera angles
And it seems a bit petty to consider a review unhelpful just because of a disagreement.

Admittedly, a 5.5 is a bit harsh - I raised it to a 6.5, but that's mainly because in retrospect, what it did right, it did quite right, certainly more than the score would give it credit for. At the same time, any game where you have to fight in close quarters out and out requires you to actually see your enemies and bosses. It's not exactly a fun time when a dangerous enemy or a boss who can hit like a truck can either disappear off camera and hit you from an obscure location, or the camera just abruptly changes and you get *bleep*ed up off screen.

quote
especially when I had no issue with them.
Whoopee
0 thumbs!
^
adchick Oct 25, 13
I believe it is an unhelpful review. Most of it is fairly positive, then to drop it so many point on a minor negative seems a bit harsh, that was all I was saying. People might just look at the score and think it's rubbish, whereas if you read the review, it actually paints a positive picture. Probably around an 8.

Constructive criticism is all I'm giving.
0 thumbs!
^
Wolfi Kurisu Oct 25, 13
If only there was a lock on button, eh?
1 thumbs!
^
Stalagmite Oct 25, 13
*shrug* Can't say this review really did your side of the fence any justice.

There was really nothing wrong with the story except maybe some of the other characters' dialogue. Dante's lines were good. Not quite Devil May Cry 3 good, but they managed to at least get a smile out of me and after witnessing his actions, he was a certified badass. He was no different from an 80s action hero that Sylvester Stallone would've played... well, okay, it's more over the top, but so were his lines and it's not exactly as if he was human anyway.



Your diatribe on the camera is disproven by what Wolfi Kurisu said - lock on. It doesn't perfectly ameliorate the issue; what it does do is help out quite a bit as you can shoot up far away enemies and then combo them to oblivion. So while the camera is far from perfect at times and it's definitely not a good solution against bosses, it's not as if they're always off screen or anything. I feel like having this as your central problem is quite silly when you've likely demonstrated that you had no will to try and work with it. Lock on is your best friend in this game. Yes, Devil May Cry 3 and especially God Of War showcase much better fixed camera angles in battle, but Devil May Cry 1's camera is actually not too bad. Especially in the outdoor and other such open environments.

Also, yeah, even a 6.5/10 is a bit low. I definitely agree that a bad camera can kill games like this, but... well, the paragraph above would prove that wrong. Personally, at least based on what you've written, I'd give it a 7 or a 7.5/10 (imo 8's a bit high).

Yeah, I didn't dig the control scheme myself, but it wasn't that bad. Platforming was a bit iffy too, the Resident Evil style puzzles were a bit lame and yeah, it is frustrating when you're unlucky enough to get destroyed by bosses off screen, but a lot of what you said reeks of a lack of understanding. I can't tell if you had these exact problems when you first played the game in your pre-teen years and just couldn't get over them or you just wanted to write up a semi-controversial review (if the latter is the case, mission accomplished), but what I can say for sure is that it's not exactly a good review by any means. Perhaps if you can counter everything I've said decently, I'll give this review a thumbs up. Otherwise, I'm keeping my thumb out of this.
0 thumbs!
^
Aevers Oct 25, 13
adchick - If I only had problems with the lame story, lamer dialogue, recycled bosses and odd control setup, then I would totally agree with you and this game would be an 8.5/10 (imo 9 is reserved for classics like Bionic Commando and the first four Silent Hill games - this doesn't quite come close to that standard). That shit is minor. But when you have a camera that works against you more often than not when it has no business doing so, that's kind of a big problem. Bad camera angles kill hack and slash games, especially if it prevents the bosses from being as fun to fight as they could've been.

Then again, with all things considered, I bumped up the score just a little more. But I'm not going any higher than 7.

Wolfi Kurisu - That mainly works on enemies because they're more vulnerable to gun shots. Even then, it mainly locks on to the closest enemy, rather than the one who decided to disappear off screen. At least when it locks onto the one that's blocking the player's view of Dante, it works alright. Bosses, unfortunately, take about bugger all damage and don't slow down or stagger when they're getting shot, meaning that it's still easy to get hit/killed by them when they're off screen.

Stalagmite - What do you mean by "your side of the fence"? Somebody who would enjoy the game more if the camera didn't blow chodes? Also, while some of Dante's lines were fine, the others more or less elicited more groans than Chuggaaconroy's puns. Even at its best possible moment, the story was pretty much filler.

It's a bit smug, saying that you won't give this a thumbs up unless I counter your arguments to your standard.
1 thumbs!
^
Wolfi Kurisu Oct 26, 13
Are there even a handful of enemies that are a problem when they're off-screen? If they're off-screen then they're away from you, and with the stylish fighting you'll be dodging ranged attacks, anyway.
What!? Each boss has about 2-4 attacks; prediction is easy.
It's rare that bosses disappear off screen, especially if you're locking on.
What else's rare, is that a boss will take you out off-screen. If you're at health low enough to be one-shot, then it's your risk and your fault.
I don't care about the rating, I just can't believe you're complaining this much about a camera which isn't a big deal.
0 thumbs!
^
Stalagmite Oct 26, 13
There are very few non RPGs or non point and click games where the story isn't just filler. Devil May Cry cuts the bullshit and gives you what you need. That's cool if you don't like it, but I think you're expecting Legacy Of Kain from a game that's essentially a creepy cheesefest.

I understand somebody having some issues with the camera, especially with a lack of visibility at times. Sometimes, the camera mildly annoyed me, too. What I (and Wolfi) don't understand is why you acted as if it's out to kill you. It just sounds to me like you're exaggerating what probably, at worst, resulted in a few deaths, rather than something that'll consistently *bleep* you over in hard mode or whatever.

Aevers, for the love of *bleep*ing god, reread everything that you've said about the camera carefully and then honestly ask yourself "does this sound right or does it sound like I'm exaggerating"? I only asked because, judging by your last response, it seems like you're making a mountain out of a molehill. If you still feel perfectly justified in spouting the shit that you've spewed, then you will make a halfway convincing counterargument in response to us.

We are not suggesting that you change your views; rather, we're suggesting that you carefully consider the way of which you express them. Exaggeration in an otherwise professional looking review that isn't for the sake of humor is bad writing.
1 thumbs!
^
Lukas Oct 26, 13
Wait a sec--

I thought Dante could take a fair amount of damage before dying, Aevers? Trying healing. This isn't Resident Evil where you have to take every little morsel of healing material to the grave or save them until you have a quarter of a percentage of an electron of a sintilla of health left. I remember there being a few shops in missions here and there too, so you can get more items to heal with if you used up a few you got from the shop before entering a mission.

Maybe if Dante died in like two or three hits, it'd be perfectly understandable. But he can take a licking and still keep on kicking. It really isn't that bad.
0 thumbs!
^
Stalagmite Oct 26, 13
If this was Youtube, this would be the top comment.
0 thumbs!
^
Praetorian_Lord Oct 28, 13
Am I right in thinking that most of this 'controversy' is coming from people who've played the game and disagree with her opinion? Because I've not played Devil May Cry, and I thought this was a good review.

While I can't comment on how closely Aevers' opinion reflects reality, it doesn't sound like she's invented a problem that doesn't exist. If the camera ruined the experience for her, that doesn't change just because you thought it was fine. She's entitled to her opinion, her opinion is helpful to someone who's never played the game, and frankly I think that the whole point of a review is to discuss the pro's and con's so that someone who's thinking about buying it can make a more informed decision. Otherwise it's just pissing off those who disagree and circle jerking with those who agree.
0 thumbs!
^
Wolfi Kurisu Oct 30, 13
Praetorian Lord
(S)he's throwing it way out of proportion, basically creating issues which don't exist. That doesn't make a good review.
That's like me saying the controls are too complex and ruin the gameplay; they aren't and don't, so I'd be lying. Even if someone did feel this, generalising one person's experience to a review which will reach many is stupid.
All of the top reviewers talk about the public's reaction to pro's and con's, not solely their own.
In summary, this review's no good.
0 thumbs!
^
Praetorian_Lord Oct 30, 13
How on earth would you know the issues that she had with the game? Are you actually accusing her of outright lying? Why would she do that?

Two people's experiences of the same game are often very different. If she had this issue, chances are other people have, and will, too. The 'top reviewers' just pander to the masses and tell them what they want to hear, which is absolutely useless. I'd much rather hear one person's experience and opinion, than someone trying to guess what everyone else thinks.
0 thumbs!
^
Watain Oct 30, 13
quote
I'd much rather hear one person's experience and opinion, than someone trying to guess what everyone else thinks.
especially since the "top reviewers" are only really doing it for ad revenue money. what drives it home for everybody on a daily basis was when Jeff Gerstmann got fired from Gamespot over his 6/10 review of Kane & Lynch - Gamespot were rolling in that K&L ad revenue money and Jeff just didn't care for the game itself but probably said "thanks for the money anyway I spent it on stuff I actually enjoyed, hahahahahahaha" (or is that just what I'd say).

Wolfi, if it's a triple A game like Call Of Duty or Assassin's Creed where they're getting a *bleep*ton of ad revenue, of course they're going to write fluff pieces that serve as glorified advertisements-- I mean reviews that "talk about the public's general reaction" because they don't want to piss the developers/publishers after the whole K&L fiasco and shit, they want more money, but the truth doesn't make that mad cash like embellishing the pros do! they have a lot to gain from sucking off what's usually a rather mediocre or even above average at best game - and the funny thing is that I probably don't even have to have played any Call Of Duty game post-MW1 or Mass Effect 3 to figure that they're probably making mundane shit out to be gold. yeah, cue the fact that every single review that "top reviewers" do get trashed on for either being total bullshit or being a glorified advertisement (the latter of which you probably wanted this review to be).

maybe it's because I spend a lot of time on Metal Archives, but if I'm being honest (and I am), reviews that serve as glorified advertisements are more outdated than this game's camera, by the way. besides piracy and rental services, there are also Giantbomb's Quick Look videos, Twat--I mean Totalbiscuit's WTF Is videos, and other sorts of gameplay footage on Youtube. not to mention that this game is, what, 12 years old now? if you first heard of it from Aevers when she put up the review... welcome to Devil May Cry! really, the idea of reviews - or at least ones that aren't predicated by ad revenue - is to give your perspective on a game whilst actually analyzing it. simply gauging the public's reaction (aka just pointing out facts) is boring and they can already get all that shit by looking up a Youtube video or whatever.

if you're looking for a discussion on something like camera angles, fair enough. if you're criticising the review, fair enough (I know I do plenty of that ). but if you're calling a review shit because YOU think the camera is alright (and ignore the rest of it), well, there's nothing any of us can do to help you there.

gee, I wonder why Aevers hasn't responded????
0 thumbs!
^
Aevers Oct 31, 13
quote Wolfi Kurisu
(S)he's throwing it way out of proportion, basically creating issues which don't exist. That doesn't make a good review.
That's like me saying the controls are too complex and ruin the gameplay; they aren't and don't, so I'd be lying. Even if someone did feel this, generalising one person's experience to a review which will reach many is stupid.
All of the top reviewers talk about the public's reaction to pro's and con's, not solely their own.
In summary, this review's no good.


And now I feel perfectly justified in forgetting to respond to your second comment.
0 thumbs!
^
Wolfi Kurisu Oct 31, 13
By "top reviewers", I didn't mean 'professional' reviewers, just people who praise and critique the medium to the extent it should be.
This is a rant about camera angles which really aren't that bad, as anyone else who's played the game would tell you. Like I said earlier, his/her issues include things such as 'death by off-screen bosses', which is absolutely unjustified, and is only a problem if the player puts themselves in that position. Because of this, I think this review's bad. As critique, it's mediocre at best.
0 thumbs!
^
Stalagmite Oct 31, 13
Praetorian_Lord

Though I'm not even sure if Wolfi and I are on quite the same page anymore (my issues with her rant on the camera are with exaggeration and general wording, rather than her having issues with the camera period, but I might be reading the last couple of comment wrong), I think it's fair for us and most any other person to say that she is in the wrong in regards to that particular paragraph. Not entirely wrong in and of itself, mind you - there do exist camera issues, but never to the point of repeatedly dying. Perhaps if she had justified her opinion in a way that doesn't sound like she... I dunno, lucked her way through Dante Must Die mode - maybe if she got more into what made the camera bad instead of "welp you die off screen a lot", she wouldn't get herself into this pickle that she's currently in.

In other words, I'm not suggesting that she changes it because "muh opinions xd" or because game critique is supposedly objective (what a load of bollocks - personally, I believe every review has some level of bias and you'd have to be deluded to think otherwise); I'm, more or less, asking her to consider the way she expresses certain issues a lot better than she presently has. The only reason she'd gotten comfortable with this is because nobody really called her out on her other 35 reviews. Add on some other things that can strengthen your argument, reword certain parts so it better reflects your point - all that good shit.

And for the record Wolfi, lock on in DMC1 doesn't work the same way that it does in DMC3 and 4.
0 thumbs!
^
Wolfi Kurisu Oct 31, 13
Stalagmite - Not that I've played it for a while, but even in DMC1 I'm pretty sure it works welp enough to give you a clear idea of where the enemy is. Since I was talking about a remedy to off-screen deaths, I figured that would be enough to sort the problem; once you've got an idea where the enemy is, closing in on them will end any attack prediction games.
0 thumbs!
^
Praetorian_Lord Oct 31, 13
And that's fair enough, but that still sounds a bit like guessing her experience on the basis of yours - are you certain that it's exaggeration, and that she didn't genuinely die multiple times purely because of shitty camera angles?

And even then, we've all been guilty in the past of exaggerating to make a point. Perhaps it's part of the style she's trying to create for herself, rather than out-and-out bad writing. It might be a bit misleading if her reader chooses to take it literally, but I think it's consistent with her general style which (from what I've read) tends to be quite light and comical, so as long as you read between the lines a bit it's entertaining as well as letting her get her point across.

I dunno, 20 comments, one dislike and one abstaining just seems like a storm in a teacup.
1 thumbs!
^
Polarity Nov 1, 13
quote Stalagmite and Wolfi Kurisu
BAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW


But it seems as if communication is what killed that paragraph and to be fair, I kind of understand where you two are coming from, at least from that angle. I honestly wouldn't mind if Aevers went into more elaboration about the camera because to me, it reads like she didn't quite finish her thought, nor did she polish it up before submission... hence those two having a sook.
0 thumbs!
^
Wolfi Kurisu Nov 1, 13
I probably went over the top saying the review was bad, but constantly bringing up one problem, which I honestly don't think was as big of a deal for her as she's making out, against the positive points seems a littpe pointless. HOWEVER, if exaggerating the negatives for comic effect is her style, then I'm guilty in not noticing that, and the reviews pretty solid. If not, then Aevis had a lot of issues which I, and I presume others, didn't/didn't experience to that degree.
0 thumbs!
^
Wolfi Kurisu Nov 1, 13
Ignore the typos; I can't correct anything with this junk phone..
^
Sponsored



(0.1422/d/web6)