Topic: Devil's Third - OT

I'm still gonna buy it because it looks pretty cheesy storywise and I'm always up for an action game.

i remember this was what it was supposed to look like hahahah

Considering all the problems it went through during development, I'm not surprised it looks the way it currently does.

@Aromaiden: im thinkin that Nintendo just gave them a very limited budget compared to what THQ was willing to give way back then.

Well, I don't think I'd consider buying it until it was under $20, but I really wanted to know why Ivan was playing the drums in the trailer.

@Tubalcain: I'm not sure tbh. From what I heard the game went through "development hell" where it was constantly being changed due to all the events it went through.

@CaviarMeths: maybe he was drunk, or just ran out of porn to watch. hahaha

@Aromaiden: yeah i know, cross generational games usually have problems. what i mean is that they should have started from scratch, rebuilding the entire game from the ground up. the problem I think is that it would cost a ton of money and Nintendo is not willing to foot a bill that big on an untested project. just look at it, they didn't even change the engine even knowing that Wii U does not support UE 3

@Tubalcain: The Wii U supports UE3. You must be thinking of UE4 which can run on the Wii U and Bloodstained will be running on that, but it's not natively supported. Not sure what the hell went on with Devil's Third's development since it's re-unveiling last year, I mean, they've had a year to fix all these problems. Game was supposed to look BETTER - is looking WORSE now. Framerate was an early concern, should've been ironed out, is probably WORSE if not just as bad now. Gameplay was the one department that seemed like it should have been good and until recently seemed like a lot of fun though apparently the converse is true. What a mess this game has become.

@TromboneGamer: ah yes I apologize, I was looking earlier at UE 4 subscription plans, must have jumbled things up.

With regard to Devils Third, I really think its about budget and time. I think that when Nintendo picked it, as I said ealier, they gave it a low budget which means dialling back on programers, artists, etc. I also think that Nintendo is forced to release this game looking like this since they need this game to pad their release schedule. 1 year could not fix this game's problem, optimization takes months, quality control takes longer and that's only with regard to performance. if they really intended to spruce up the graphics, it would take years, since they would have to replace the texture maps, post processing effects, animations etc. its just a case of Nintendo looking for a game which they can release in a short period of time and hoping that the game would still be good.

@Tubalcain: Interesting. That would explain a lot. Would be a damn shame if that were the case.

i can accept splatoon that does not have any of it modes but it did later though out summer,
i can deal of waiting on updates for a game on 59.99 (like Smash Bros,)
but.. this nah this isnt worth $60 Gameplay looks very meh, and looks like it has bad graphics from there to here,
if the game gets a lower price then i'll get it, ortherwise, not getting it Any Time Soon (well wait and see if Multplayer looks fun but im still not getting it whenever the game comes NA)

Unless you've been taking some strong hallucinogens, there's no way "parts" of this game look like a N64 game.
And it neither looks like a PS2 game. It looks like what it is: a very regular PS3/360/WiiU shooter
I'm not entirely sure why people who write for NintendoLife are trying so hard to convince readers that this looks like a PS2 game - don't we always say that graphics don't matter much? Or that applies only when we decide to apply it?!

Anyway, Itagaki went as far as to say that journalists didn't have enough skills to play the game, therefore they didn't "get" it. It's a risky thing to say because there's no way he's going to get unbiased reviews now, considering how touchy the press usually is. So he either really believes in this game, or he's been taking the same kind of drugs of the dude above.
The reception so far has been awful and yet it looks like a completely normal game to me. I will probably get it at some point because I can't see obvious flaws in it so far. I tried to watch a few video commentaries and all I could hear was laughter at how bad it played but I couldn't see where the commentators were coming from.

@spizzamarozzi: maybe you're just more forgiving than other gamers. I laughed when I saw the floating corpse, the objects without texture and shoddy effects used in the game.

Pandora's Tower wasn't "well-received" by critics either, in spite of a serious push by fans to localize it in the US. Yet I hear it's an ok game...

@MamaLuigi: i personally loved pandoras tower. it's far better than it given credit.

Well, I can see discussion of this game is gonna be a s***storm until the game finally releases eh?
I gotta real feeling this probably gonna be one of those cases of critical dissonance and probably end up a cult hit despite the huge rough edges.
Of course, I could be wrong and it could just be garbage, but looks like we'll have to wait and see about that.

@ZeroZX-Dev: You know I really do hope that the game is enjoyable enough to be worth a purchase, but at the moment the general consensus is pointing a big old NOPE. If the multiplayer is good, and hopefully, reasonably balanced maybe that will be its saving grace.

hahaha I'm so enjoying reading the comments in all the DTs articles so far. its full of people clutching at straws, arguing about the graphics bragging that its early gen 360 atleast, I mean, come on! when third party games looks like crap or have bugs, people here are so ready to jump on it. now suddenly when a Nintendo Exclusive looks like its gonna be a bad game, people are defending it! I mean yeah it could be fun but that's not the issue, I had fun playing playing Aliens: Colonial Marines but I still wouldn't recommend it to anybody.

If you had fun, why wouldn't you recommend it? You need qualifiers when you recommend anything anyways (well, if you want to be taken at all seriously, at least) - "It's a fun game if you can overlook its technical flaws", "It's a fun game if you're looking for an ironically fun time messing with glitches", and "it's a fun game if you want to play something 'so good it's bad'" are all fine recommendations regardless. I can't think of anything more pretentious than to believe that a game you're enjoying isn't worth anything simply because it doesn't meet a strict set of requirements...

...Oh wait, I did that with Phantasy Star 1 just yesterday, didn't I? I'll be right back...