@TamaRock: The remake will add some plotlines, I believe, but like major media outlets said: ''Nomura also stressed that key storylines and themes running through the game would not be messed with''. So no, the remake is not a variation of the old FF VII story. The main changes they're making is that the gameplay is no longer turn-based and will probably include some more things that bring it into the modern era. It seems to be kind of similar to the FF XV demo in that regard. In other words, it's not exactly going to be deep gameplay-wise, but then, FF VII never was.
I'd just wait for the remake: no sense in experiencing the same story twice, certainly not with outdated gameplay and graphics the first time around. Unless the remake's gameplay is somehow shallower than it's supposed to be.
"Sure, you may baulk at Dante's trendy new haircut, or maybe even miss a little of that B-movie Devil May Cry insanity," said GameSpot's Mark Waltonin his 8.0 review of DmC, "but the heart of what makes the series so enticing and so much fun to play holds true here."
Sorry I'm late to the party, but what Mark Walton said is a veiled insult, because the fans of classic DMC didn't care about Dante's hair color -- it certainly wasn't an important thing. Sure, there was a vocal minority of fans that criticized new Dante's appearance (not just his hair color!), but those were only the first complaints, and they came in response to the first trailer. That trailer didn't show any gameplay yet -- only what Dante and Limbo looked like (at that stage of development). A vocal minority was (understandably) still p*ssed off from the sudden change, and it wasn't the type of change they wanted. So what... those were just some of the fans' opinions, so why whine about that?
And it's not just that 'B-movie charm' DMC fans miss -- that's another veiled insult by Walton. What DMC fans miss is the over-the-top characters, the anime/horror style, the unpretentious and simple stories, and its unrestrictive and deep and rewarding combat system. Basically, they miss the quality and the series' original identity. DmC had none of the aforementioned; it had boring characters, a pretentious half-baked conspiracy theory plot, and restrictive gameplay of ''hit the blue enemy with the blue weapon''. Its boss fights revolved around circling the bosses and wailing on them with overpowered (and some severely underpowered) weapons. The game threw out SSSes like candy too.
Heck, do you even know that DmC only had HALF the amount of combos DMC4 did? And the combos it did have were pretty choppy compared to DMC3 and DMC4's combos. And the ending... urgh. Suddenly Dante the uncaring a-hole wants to defend the humans? Because...? Because of Kat, the annoying childish b-word that keeps running away and whining? Ergh... anyway, plenty of people know the ending's just stupid.
Aside from that, DmC just tried too hard, in too obvious ways. The game must've repeated the words 'f*** you' at least six times, when you count the three times Dante said it. Dante said things like ''my name, btw, is Dante!'' and ''You can call me Dante the demon killer!'' He's an arrogant jackass.
The game tried too hard to be 'edgy', and it was juvenile because of that. Sometimes the writing didn't make any sense.
So you see, it's not just resistance to a type of change people didn't want, it's resistance to a drop in quality. Honestly, I did find DmC mildly fun, but objectively speaking I could only give it a 6.5/10. DMC3, on the other hand, was worth a 9/10 to me.
And don't even start with that ''the fans caused DmC to fail'' bull. DmC was made to appeal to a huge audience, but it only attracted a small audience. That's the game's fault, not ours.
@NuarBlack I think their point is that in terms of looting, it can't compare to RPGs like Borderlands. That's where the comparisons end. Destiny certainly seems pretty mediocre as both an RPG and a shooter. It doesn't do anything new, really, and its story is supposed to be lackluster. The gameplay is repetitive. It doesn't matter if it gets recognized as its own genre - it will still be held to the same standards, and it would still be mediocre.
This game definitely seems way too repetitive, and I don't even know what its story is. The beta didn't really give a good idea of why all that's happening is happening. It would logically follow that the game doesn't either. The graphics are nice, and the soundtrack sticks with you slightly, but I'm not particularly impressed about any of its other facets.
''Grimoire Cards can be related to this passage. You have to unlock them and they are an indirect way of learning the lore. Apparently these lore items are uninspiring and do not motivate to seek answers. 'That last part is an opinion, which shouldn't really matter to you'.''
Wait, did you just say his opinion shouldn't matter? He is a *reviewer* - opinions are his business. There is no such thing as an objective reviewer. Even if there were, nobody would need them, since we can tell just fine what is objectively good/bad about Destiny. I'll say it again, just like I did with Halo 4: you shouldn't be forced to unlock things just to get a clear picture of the story. Plenty of people don't have the time or energy to unlock stuff, or to go online to read up on the plot.
So... it basically looks the same, only Redux has the brightness and contrast set way too high. Do they seriously think this looks great? I thought the entire point of the original was that it was sort of dark and bleak, not white and gray and dull.
@snaketus XIII-2 is dreadful. It constantly tells you ''you can't go here yet! The monsters/bosses are too strong!'' then gives you no clues on where to go. The characters are... well... probably worse than XIII's. The plot seems childish when compared to older FF titles. Lightning is now working for Etro or some shit. The time traveling is nothing more than an attempt to convince you that the game is 'open world' like previous titles, when it's actually exactly the same as XIII's world. No reason to even go back to previous places, unless you love the side quests (fetch quests) so much. Some maps even come back a few times with only slight alterations, which is just lazy design to make it seem acceptable for Square Enix not to develop actual locales.
Yeah, I suggest you spend your money on something better. I think Dark Souls 2 is close to being released. There's also the expansion for Diablo III, but it doesn't seem too worthwhile. It's such a shame that RPGs are so few and far between, and that most western RPGs hold your hand and solely give you choices between 'good' and 'evil'. Time to get back into a golden age of gaming.
Ok, I haven't played the game, and I'm not sure I want to, but I've got to say this.
At first, I thought this reviewer's criticism of the time limit was well-founded, but the more I hear about the game, the less certain I am. I've seen people say that the time constraint is not an issue at all: that they were able to do all side quests and the main storyline with plenty of time to spare. So, since the problem the reviewer had apparently does not apply to all gamers, it doesn't belong in the review. The more I hear that people had no issues with it, the more I get the sense that this reviewer simply took an illogical approach to the game, yielding poor results. Those results were then falsely attributed to the game rather than the player. It would be an easy mistake to make. I mean, yeah, if you randomly go exploring instead of finding side quests near you that you can complete soon and easily for a time bonus, you might get in trouble later. You shouldn't travel to a huge desert if you have little time left. Of course, I don't know if the game handles side quests and their locations well. If you're not told where certain quests are or how much time they yield, that could indeed pose a serious anti-exploration problem.
@mirage_so3 @Goukakyuu91 Oh. Well, I wouldn't know, I haven't played XII because I heard it was disappointing. My brother used to hate it, but a while ago he said it was actually pretty good, especially the combat and stuff. But hey, he's been wrong before. It just still seemed like a Final Fantasy game, unlike the XIII series.
XIII-2 seems like the worst FF so far for me (unless this game is indeed worse). Almost finished it, but it's so painful to play.
I was afraid the time limit would prove to be more a nuisance than a useful feature. It seems that assumption was correct. Some of the things mentioned here might not be completely accurate, though. The reviewer complained about how the camera angles didn't work in battle, but I'm pretty sure even the demo offered the option to change camera movement/position. The schemata system is interesting, but in the demo it was disappointing due to how you're unable to change the main color of certain sets. I mean, really, there's some awesome suits in the game, but some of them are purple and whatnot. So... yay, purple armor... and I can only alter some spiky things attached to the arms. It's fugly. It's awful.
And the fighting was a bit confusing in the demo, because each attack seemed equally powerful, yet all the while the game's telling you to aim for weak spots, which necessitates change to another schema. So *technically* you can't even really play the way you want to.
Aside from technical flaws, I truly believe people when they say the characters aren't interesting. They weren't interesting in FFXIII, and definitely not in XIII-2 (insipid, convoluted game, probably worse than XIII), so why would they be now?
I'm done with Final Fantasy for now. These games should not be called Final Fantasy, because they're not developed by the same people. Aside from that, the heart and soul of the games up to, say, XII - the essence of what makes it a FF game - is not there. Square Enix, think of something new and good, and give it a new name. Get inspired.
Goukakyuu91's comments