Inti Creates has made quite a name for itself on the Switch with quality titles like Mighty Gunvolt Burst, Blaster Master Zero, Bloodstained: Curse of the Moon, and Azure Striker Gunvolt: Striker Pack all offering up some excellent retro run ‘n’ gun action. Going back further, however, the company put itself on the map with the excellent Mega Man Zero series on GBA, which blended some hard difficulty with a more melee-oriented combat system. Dragon: Marked for Death – the latest release from Inti Creates – acts as a sort of spiritual successor to the Mega Man Zero games (with a hearty dose of RPG action thrown in), although it notably fails to hit the same lofty standards set by the developer’s previous efforts.
The story follows the Dragonblood Clan, a group of people aligned with a dead dragon known as the Atruum, as they tussle with the Medius Empire and its self-righteous ideals. When the empire burns down your character’s village, they form a pact with the dragon Atruum and acquire his powers – which manifest in different ways, depending on which character class you’re playing – and embark on a quest to get revenge on the Divine Family that runs the Empire. It’s a cliché but serviceable plot, and though we would’ve liked for there to have been more memorable characters (Ciel, anyone?) and interactions along the way, the plot isn’t very much of a focus in a mission-based game such as this.
How the gameplay unfolds depends entirely upon which character you’ve chosen to run with, of which there are four. For example, the Empress acts as the ‘basic’ unit, focusing on melee attacks and flamethrowers, while the Warrior is a heavy, axe-wielding tank that can also put out a small healing shield every now and then. As you’d expect, there are some noticeable differences in playstyle here, but it all ultimately boils down to the same process of punching everything that moves and watching the sparks fly. Stages are technically ‘different’ between characters due to the varied traversal techniques, but you ultimately end up in the same place at the end; whether you have to move a cart as the Warrior or wall-jump as the Shinobi, you’re still going to arrive at the same boss fight. Another thing that bears mentioning is that not all characters come with the base game; you pick between getting the Empress and Warrior or the Shinobi and Witch, with the other duo having to be bought as DLC.
You start out in a castle town that acts as a sort of hub for your characters, allowing you to buy new consumables and equipment to give you the edge in battle, or to talk to NPCs and potentially trigger new quests to be picked up in the bar. There’s no 'open' world to speak of here; the main loop consists of leaving on a mission from the bar, returning with gold and a slightly more levelled character, picking up better equipment, and starting over on a harder mission. A typical stage sees you running, jumping, and slashing your way through hordes of enemies, picking up treasure chests on the way as you fight towards a boss encounter.
Combat revolves around building up a meter below your health bar by landing basic attacks on enemies and then spending portions of that bar on your character’s unique ability to even the odds in battle. It’s the sort of thing that’s straightforward and easy to master, but Dragon: Marked for Death unfortunately becomes stale much too quickly as a result. The lack of a dodge button or varied combo chains inevitably leads to relatively monotonous and static fights in which you spam the same buttons to watch the same attacks before moving on to the next enemy to do the exact same thing again. In a word, the combat is uninteresting, and the speed at which it goes from being tolerable to tedious is disappointing, to say the least.
The issue seems to rest in how the game is clearly skewed towards co-op play, which considerably limits the single-player experience. Even basic enemies feel unnecessarily ‘spongy’ and offer up laughable rewards for bothering to finish them off; it’s bad enough that we ended up spending most missions running by as many enemies as possible to just get to the boss. Bosses are even worse with the damage sponging; in the early stages of our run as the Empress, some fights took a little over ten minutes as we chipped away at the otherwise easily defeated boss at an almost hilariously slow pace. When the combat system isn’t terribly deep or skill-based to begin with, having obnoxiously drawn-out fights greatly takes the wind out of a game’s sails, and this is unfortunately an issue that Dragon: Marked for Death struggles with.
It doesn’t help, either, that Dragon: Marked for Death feels old-school in some of wrong ways, too, such as how there are no checkpoints in any of the missions. We encountered a few situations where roughly fifteen minutes would go up in smoke because we lost a boss encounter, meaning that we had to slog through the entire mission again for another crack at it. And, to add insult to injury, all the health items and other consumables that we used on those failed runs weren’t refunded to our inventory, necessitating costly trips to the shop to resupply. Annoyances like this, combined with the ho-hum gameplay, could conceivably be balanced out if other areas of the game made up for it, but Dragon: Marked for Death never quite figures out a way to incentivize you to keep pushing on. It’s archaic and difficult in the worst way possible, and the rewards for overcoming its challenges are mostly just more challenges.
Of course, this is a game that’s primarily meant to be played in co-op, and there’s fortunately an online mode that features both regional and worldwide matchmaking so you can always have someone else to run missions with. What’s a bit more puzzling, however, is how Dragon: Marked for Death chooses to handle local co-op. A game such as this would seem to be an ideal fit for brief spurts of split Joy-Con play with a buddy, but this game doesn’t allow local multiplayer in split-screen; if you happen to have a friend nearby, they need to have both their own Switch system and a copy of the game to play with you. Perhaps this is a holdover from the game’s origins as a PSP ad-hoc game, but it puts unnecessary limitations on something that doesn’t have to be complicated.
Mercifully, Inti Creates’ signature pixel art style is here in full force, going for a lovely 32-bit look that’s packed with detail and fluid animation. Multi-layered backgrounds smoothly scroll behind your characters as they run through the stages and even if the environmental designs are rather uninspired, they’re nonetheless as well-realized as they can be; things like turning windmills and scattering fireflies help to make places feel more alive. You may not be totally blown away by this pixel art, but it’s a cut above what you’d expect from a typical indie title.
Given the high standard of gameplay that Inti Creates has shown in many other titles it’s released over the last several years, it’s hard not to be disappointed by Dragon: Marked for Death. Although the art direction is a definite plus, this is merely an inoffensive and unimaginative co-op side-scrolling RPG at best. But looking at the bigger picture, particularly the archaic design elements and baffling exclusion of split-screen play, makes this a release that’s admittedly hard to recommend to anyone that’s not a die-hard fan of the company. If you liked the Mega Man Zero series, this is a passable attempt at recreating that series’ gameplay style and it might resonate with some of you, but we’d otherwise recommend you take a pass on this one.
Oh my... Already preordered. Looks like I'll have to see if I agree with this article in my first impressions (and eventual review).
Still got high hopes for this one!
Man, it's a shame to hear it doesn't seem to have lived up to expectations, as I'd been looking forward to it ever since it was showcased at one of the nindie presentations. I'd thought it would be a solid mid-sized RPG to work on in between bigger games, but unfortunately that doesn't even seem to be the case. Disappointed, to say the least.
Wow shocked to see this score. This was high on my wishlist! Will check with some other reviews to see if they agree with this
It looks fun but having to pay extra to have everyone is a turn off for me.
@Kalmaro You aren't paying extra. The game is £30, you're merely buying half the game.
Hmm. I'm still going to buy this and see for myself. One thing mentioned as a negative here, I would call a positive. No combo chains. I hate games where you mash out chain combos. It is so boring and repetitive. I prefer older action RPGs like Cadash, Wonder Boy, and SOTN, where you hit and move.
I would probably pass if the game had those mash combos. Lord's of Shadow Mirror of Fate is the worst 2d Castlevania I've ever played, all because the chain combos slow down the game and make it boring.
If you don't like grindy games it is not for you, but it was designed well overall, it is meant to be enjoyed as a co-op game just like monster hunter it shines best in the co-op setting.
That sounds right up my alley then. Lotta games these days are too overbloated and complicated. I dig most musou games when they mash with another IP (Hyrule Warriors, DW: Gundam, Fire Emblem Warriors, Fist of the North Star). If that's the case then this should be a good time. And at $16, it's gotta be worth the value.
Ok, I guess I was right not to have faith in this review. Seems to be getting 7/10 other places.
Weird. NL gives everything 7/10 or higher. Now all of the sudden this gets a 5. I always see people in the comments saying NL scores games too high. Maybe they are trying to shake things up.
This game is at most a 3. Just another example of NL bumping up scores because it's a Switch exclusive. smh
I'll read some more reviews and impressions before deciding whether to get it or not. Would have grabbed it at launch if the physical version released at the same time so it might end up being a good thing that the physical copy came later.
@BenAV Plus there is a bunch of story DLC coming down the line that is included free with the Physical edition.
@Kai_ Why split it up in the first place? What if you like one person from each DLC? Just seems poorly planned.
The base game is $15. To get the full experience you have to pay extra, there's no getting around that, and you aren't getting much extra. Just two more characters apparently.
@Kalmaro You just buy both and it ends up being the same as the physical edition, plus they plan on adding more characters to the game down the road so I think this is just the way they wanted to structure it.
@Jokerwolf Meh, just seems like a goofy plan. That's my only real gripe though. By them showing that you can play the game with two people, now all the DLC feels like you're paying about 7 dollars for another character each. Doesn't seem like a lot of bang for your buck.
Wow... Having Pre-order this maybe not had been the best idea.... never imagine that score.
@Kalmaro Ya that is the way I see it, if you are looking for a solid 2D RPG with awesome co-op this is the way to go, but it seems more akin to monster hunter where the game is much faster with others which is understandable since everything is probably balanced for more players.
@Jokerwolf The thing is, I usually LOVE grindy games; Monster Hunter, Diablo, and Warframe are among my most played games on switch. For me, Dragon just doesn't nail the reward loop, there's not much here to keep you wanting to grind everything out.
@Jokerwolf It's actually 10 dollars more for the physical but you get the DLC as well as all the characters. Wondering if future DLC unannounced is also free with physical.
@SwitchVogel How much of it have you played through?
Disappointed that this sounds like a slog, but at least Downwell came out today to help scratch that 2D action itch, and it's only 3 dollars!
@Fake-E-Lee If I obsessed over scores I would not have bought this already lol.
I'm bummed to hear this isn't couch co-op. I kept seeing local multiplayer, but I guess I was expecting something different.
Make up your own mind people.
Edit: Without insulting the reviewer who is only giving their opinion of the game.
Still wanting to check this and WarGroove out if I can fit em into my budget for February, probably won't be able to, but definitely have em on my want list.
Wow, only a 5. Had high hopes for this. But yeah, it feels kinda repetitive, bland and uninspired. Not the best Metroidvania I've played.
@Tim_Vreeland Strange. It's almost as if reviews are subjective?? Fascinating.
Honestly I was extremely excited for this game, what's most disappointing is that I thought this game had same screen multiplayer after it was advertised as having "local multiplayer". Was looking forward to playing through it with my wife. Seems like a major over sight.
I'm struggling to find some steller campaign local co-op games other than Diablo and Full Metal Furies.
Was hoping this was the one.
@Fake-E-Lee It depends, it looks beautiful and has the advance wars/fire emblem feel to it. If you don;t like those games then I would say no.
I would think that a score of 5 out of 10 would be held for games that just simply suck.
To me, it sounded like you just didn't like the direction that the game designers took on various things.
Is it an ugly game? No.
Does it crash? No.
Are there features broken in the game? No.
Does the multiplayer not work? No.
Are the levels artificially too difficult to complete? No.
Does the game play stutter? No.
All the things that would qualify for making a game get such a low score were NOT in your review of the game.
Instead, you did not like the fact that the game is designed primarily as a co-op game. You didn't like the fact that if your friend wants to play locally, they have to have a switch and the game as well. You didn't like the fact that this hack and slash side scrolling arcade style game didn't have an open world.
And, the worst excuse for not liking the game ever; you didn't like that this game had what you call archaic game design features. I am so tired of seeing game reviewers use that cliche card anytime someone doesn't make a game "different". Stop pushing "different". If it is fun, then why make it different just so a game reviewer can say "this game pushed the envelope by changing how x, y, and z are handled". No. Games don't have to be different to be great games. What you call archaic game design others might call GOOD game design.
Last time I checked, hard games that punish you for not making it through the level AND killing the boss at the end of it were considered challenging games rather than archaic. When's the last time you heard someone say "that Mega Man series is crap because it has archaic game design"? No. They say "its a great game with punishing difficulty".
You have taken what effectively looks and sounds like a great little side scrolling arcade game and reviewed it as if it was a pile of crap simply because it did not meet YOUR ideas of what it should have been, and that's what is wrong with reviews these days. You are aren't the end all be all on what is good. It's up to us, the customers, to decide that.
Ouch! ...I’m a sucker for a good logo and this has a great one. ...I appreciate you review and some saved dollars.
@PharoneTheGnome 5/10 means average, not bad
I just bought the emperess and warrior version of the game on Nintendo.com, and I can't wait to get home and play it. The game looks great in the videos, and considering the review said absolutely NOTHING about the game play being bad (sluggish, stuttering, bugs, etc) and is only $14.95, why wouldn't I buy it.
@RibbonLass I’ve seen a lot of people saying otherwise.
@gamecrawler Once I found out there was no couch co-op my interest in the game dropped immensely. Unfortunately the people I would want to play this game with don't own consoles.
"Given the high standard of gameplay that Inti Creates has shown in many other titles it’s released over the last several years..."
The only things of any value that I've seen their logo on were MM9 and SatPC. Everything else: LOL
@Zeraki Same here. Considering it's a 2d multiplayer focused game it's crazy they didn't include multiplayer on one switch.
they should work on differentiating their visuals between games. All their stuff looks the same and it all looks super meh
I like the game but the DLC pricing is laughable.
$15 for some quests, $23 for the other two characters, really!
Base game was $30.
Eh, I'm enjoying it a fair bit so far. The action is fun enough for me to keep pressing forward and the MMZ vibe does strike me fondly.
That said, I do see a fair amount of flaws (samey areas in some quests, lack of dodging options, the enemy stats designed for multiplayer, etc.), but these are things that I feel that can be fixed in a jiffy.
@PharoneTheGnome 5 is average and judging by the review that is what the reviewer felt it was. Plus this is the reviewers opinion. You might think the game is a 9 and you would both be right.
5 out of 10 is average and until you play the game who are you to say the reviewer is wrong?
It does if you aren't a fool who has already decided there are only some scores for a game you are wiling to accept.
quite an harsh review considering what got away with the standard 7/8 here.
I ve playet a bit and it is fun to me. It fits a niche that it is very welcome in the Switch lineup. It has super nice graphics, good gameplay, cooperative multiplayer. I see it like a light monster hunter where you can enjoy the grind and spongy enemies (yes some people like it) while investing less effort/time.
@PharoneTheGnome Completely agree <3
Very weird score for this games. Didn't believe it at first when I saw the 5.
5/10 is a skip in my book. Anything that gets that kind of score is not worth my limited play time.
@KingBowser86 Blaster Master Zero says hello. Such a fantastic remake with added DLC characters changing the whole way the game is played! Shovel Knight meets Blaster Master? Yes please!
@Fake-E-Lee Yeah it sounds like a side scroll beat-em-up. What did the reviewer expect ftom that genre?
@Mando44646 This game looks nothing light Bloodstained: Curse
@Lando_ It’s not a ‘metroidvania’ at all. It’s a side scroll platformer, beat-em up
@onex Oh yeah! Forgot about that one (but that's not Inti's fault). I enjoyed the demo but that just wasn't my thing.
Still gettin this. Was intrigued by the trailers, I like Inti Creates and their games, big fan of Mega Man and similar games, and the game looks gorgeous to me.... while I grew up with NES first, SNES is still my fave era and graphical style.
It’s downloading now, I’ll post my thoughts (if anyone cares) after I get a chance to play.
Here's the thing with Reviewers. They are biased from the start. They already have a certain metric they are looking for and if it doesn't fit that then it fails. And if you look around lately gamers come in all strips and flavors. No no two gamers will play or think alike on the same game. Until you play from begin to end then you can give a review of it but if your putting it up against some metric then forget that the review is open and honest. That's how I see reviews until you play it don't just blindly follow the blind.
Well I'll still get it and see for myself. Waiting on the physical version. Although I disagree on your description of archaic design. I for one, can't think of a single game where your health items were replaced when you got a game over. That's not bad game design, its just standard period.
I'm really enjoying it right now TBH. This is coming from someone who didn't really play much of the Zero games. Goes to show a reviewer doesn't always represent the opinion of another. And for anyone who thinks the two version pricing model is unfair, it's really not. AFAIK the game was always going to be $30, not $15 plus a 2 character DLC paywall. They merely just gave you the option to buy it half the price. And if you didn't like it, you essentially got 15 bucks off on a full game just minus 2 characters.
@PharoneTheGnome I’m not gonna argue your arguments about the reviewer’s specific gripes. But your last line is pretty much what every customer should prescribe to. I wouldn’t let a review get me riled up
@SwitchForce I have absolutely no clue what point you’re trying to make in regards to Black Panther. There was plenty of hype and anticipation for the movie from everyone
An abandoned PSP game, that is dumped on the Switch 10 years later "as-is"... has "archaic design". Shocking!
It can join the other "32-bit look... Multi-layered background" clutter in the eShop. All this stuff really needs their own tab.
Would have grabbed it if there was same system multiplayer.
I still like the look of it, pity about lack of couch coop. Wargroove gets my February gaming dollars.
@PharoneTheGnome My favorite responses are well its a 5/10, that's average.....you haven't played it... blah blah.
What I like on what you touched on that some NL reviews have been lacking are the technical aspects of the game. I get that a genre might not connect with a person reviewing a game but that in no ways makes a game bad, just not for them.
Very good on pointing that out.
Here we have here Nintendolife reviewing a previously unreleased PSP game in a more modern light & it shows within the first few sentences.
Really is if fair to compare this game to other games the devoloper did even f most of them really never conceived until after this games original cancelation? No.
Then why compare then like they are DMFD predisuccerrs when really they were in a since successors.
Just like Duke Nukems forever been reviewed as a modern game instead of a late 90’s.
Sure they both have flaws, but they are games that have late releases & should really be reviewed as such, not a modern games.
Still buying. Lol I love this type of game.
@UmbreonsPapa then you missed the theme of it.
Bought the JP version and NA version since the JP has extras.
So basically its a 2D hub MMO-type deal and not at all what I was expecting. Might cancel my physical preorder and stick with my Lapis Labyrinth preorder as that seems to be more of what I was expecting.
Alright played a bit tonight, and it’s fun! Plays just like the video looks - a Mega Man-like rpg. For anyone that thinks that idea sounds fun, then pick up the game.
Further testing - Played through the opening tutorial with all 4 classes.
Witch and Warrior are the toughest to start as. Warrior mainly because he’s slower, and his starting def/hp doesn’t quite match the stats and speed of others, and his gauge builds the slowest, making it harder to use his special ability. Witch because it’s a typical mage class so takes more damage, but also because of the way spells are cast - it’s a combo of buttons - like Y, Y, Y, Y casts Wind, but to enchant it to be stronger you have to hit B,Y,B,Y,B,Y,B,Y, then a final Y to cast it. Def learning curve, but I can see this being very fun.
Empress and Shinobi play almost exactly like typical Mega Man / Azure Striker / Mighty Gunvolt Burst characters - dashes, double jumps, etc, and are thus much easier to start out / solo as.
More impressions as I progress. Maybe this weekend.
@Kawaiipikachu It doesn't matter that the game was conceived for the PSP when it's first release is now. I would agree with you if this game came out in 2009 and was judged by current standards, but they decided to release it in 2019. So it should be treated like a modern game.
IntiCreates should have either changed up the game to be up to modern standards or simply shelved it. Especially as they released several games between conceptualizing Dragon: Marked for Death and its actual release.
@gamecrawler I just did the review for Unruly Heroes; if you and your wife are into Rayman Legends-esque platformers, that's a fantastic game to run through with her.
I've always wondered why more co-op action games don't scale the difficulty level depending on the number of players. It seems like such an obvious and relatively easy to implement feature, but I've rarely seen any games do it.
@Kalmaro Only the characters are split up. The base game is the same for both versions. They claim that they did this to make it more affordable. It still a bit confusing though
The game itself doesn't sound bad, but the pricing structure is absolute crap. Just trying to nickel and dime for the sake of it. Lame.
@PharoneTheGnome Last I checked, a 5 meant an average game on this site, and that's exactly what the review sounded like. If it had some of those issues you cited, it would've scored even lower than a 5.
Also, he basically did say the levels are artificially too difficult to complete by not including checkpoints and making the enemies into health sponges in solo play. Those are indeed archaic design elements that should not be included in modern games.
(Also, yes, the classic Mega Man games would be even better if they had checkpoints. They are good games, but the punishing difficulty they have without including any other options is still a bad thing. Thankfully, Mega Man 10 & 11 at least included an easy difficulty option.)
For anyone complaining about the price (that means you can play the game for a decent price), splitting game content into different version is something that Nintendo has been doing it since forever with Pokemon, the only difference they are charging full price for every edition. I am quite happy that I got the chance to buy it for a modest price, rather than paying 30 quid upfront. It is more likely that you can convince a friend to play it with you, you know having a strong focus on multiplayer.
@Kalmaro if I looked at it correctly you buy the game and which two characters you want for 14.99 if you like it you can buy the dlc pack which gives you the dlc and I “believe” the other two characters for 9.99 so 24.99 total. If you buy the physical it comes with everything for 30. I don’t think they’re trying to rip you off just give you options which is great nowadays.
People ask for old school harder games, get such games, then complain about such games. What can ya do. I’m personally glad they don’t have combos in this I can’t stand remembering them. I’m still gonna pick this up as This is the lowest review I’ve seen. I think this game is directed towards a specific audience and obviously this reviewer is not one of them.
@SBandy I played the game last night, and it's definitely not a 5/10 game. It's not a 10/10 either. I would give it a 7/10. The game is a lot of fun to play if you like side scrolling beatem ups. The difficulty seemed just right to me. I'm really enjoying the game.
@Draxa exactly. I bought and played it yesterday, and I appreciated the fact that I could get the game for about $15 to play, and then decide if I want to spend the money for the other characters. I chose the empress and warrior version, and played as the empress. It feels like a beatem up with light platformer design, and so far I enjoyed it. I honestly did not find it terribly difficult compared to more brutally difficult games like the Megaman series. Maybe the difficulty ramps up further in to the game.
@Draxa But here's my problem, both games are the same. You're literally paying 14 dollars just to play with two characters. That's a lot of money for two characters, $7 each. I don't think they are worth that much each.
They could have made them cheaper, like, maybe 4 dollars each and let you buy them separately. Then you don't need multiple versions.
@SwitchForce What extras?
@Kalmaro ?. But you’re not paying 14 dollars for two characters. It’s a thirty dollar game not a fifteen dollar game they are making it more affordable for players to choose how they want to purchase it. You can get the game with your two preferred characters for half off or pay the initial full price of 30 they want it to be for everything. Also the physical is 50 not 30 I misquoted that but I’ll be getting the 15 digital anyways.
@PharoneTheGnome yea I’m def gonna pick it up I like the idea of the multiplayer aspect, it’ll give me something to do between grinding out tales of Vesperia
@Draxa So it's thirty dollars for all the characters
Or about 15 for two, which is half of the current roster. We know that both versions of the game have the same content, so the only difference is really the people you play as. If the DLC is about 15 dollars, that means you are basically paying 15 dollars for two characters, right? Assuming you have the 'base game' already.
They should offer a discount if you already own the game.
@SwitchForce The theme of your post or the theme of the movie? The latter was quite clear. I still have no idea how that relates to game reviews and ratings
Well the Issue which i have with the Review is, i have no problem with an different opinion or score, but for me it reads like you handle down Monster Hunter to an Solo-RPG Player wo did expect an Dragons Dogma instead.
If i read about such things like Checkpoint, i think "why?" Does Monster Hunter have Checkpoints? Nope because if it would've it would make the Mission->Quest->Concept kinda worthless. It's meant to finish in one go and if you aren't able to do so(and i want to point out you can die in mission quite often like 3 or 5 Times or so, and you revive at the exact place where you died), than you have to retry it "like" Monster Hunter, because that's the Spirit of the Game. To offer an great co-op experience like similiar Games...
Also i have hugely disagree with the spongy argument. If you know to play, even in Solo you can kill monsters and bosses pretty fast, due it seems they have an scaling system for Solo and MP. And the Classes play so distinctive that you, if you swap from Empress to Witch you feel like you play an complete different Game...
Well, for me it seems there is a scaling system. However such a thing can't fix the Questdesign. That might be the only aspect (besides the missing Co-op Experience on one Switch) where i can understand Solo-Enthusiasts who prefer handcrafted predefined solo experiences, some quests aims toward groups and teamplay and for that it can be somewhat stressfull for solo players who aren't used to the Monster Hunter Approach.
DMFD is more comparable to Dragons Crown than Odin's Sphere (or Muramasa) if people know Vanillaware Games...
I would still argue it's nice gesture and a good concept. I know some Games, even Indie Games, which deserves more than the common Pricing of 15-20 Bucks, but due some Prejudgment of Folks or due they aren't sure if they can enjoy an Game long enough to see the value in it or to worth it for them, 30-40 Bucks for an Indie-Game even more for an Pixel-Look can pretty problematic.
This is actually pretty good trade off. You sell the Game cheaper like an starter-kit for the half of price with half of the roster... 15 Bucks are pretty easier to handle, and if you enjoy the game you buy the rest of the game as well.
@TheLightningYu "15 Bucks are pretty easier to handle, and if you enjoy the game you buy the rest of the game as well."
THAT'S my problem. You aren't buying 'the rest of the game'. The game is in the base package. You are only buying 2 extra characters. The story doesn't change at all with the DLC.
So in the end, the DLC feels over priced because you're paying the price of the base game but only getting two fighters. They should have made the DLC cheaper.
Ouch, I hoped it would score a lot higher.
the more I play the more it feels like the reviewer barely touched the multiplayer. There is barely any mention on it, and the whole review sounds like a single player play, while the game is clearly tailor to be a multiplayer game. Yeah you can play it solo, I mean you can play Ff online or Phantasy Star Online solo, but would that give you a clear vision about the game and would you do it?
That's where in my opinion you are on the wrong end. They can't make the DLC Price cheaper, because if they would do that, than the whole Game wouldn't be the 30 Bucks they had for their game in mind... except they would've sold it for 20 bucks and than 10 bucks for the DLC Characters...
We aren't talking about a Game, which ask you to pay for another Fullprice-DLC to an Fullprice Game, if we'd argue about let's Battlefield or CoD with their Season-pass / Premium Pricetag, than i would've understood your point, but we talk here about an Concept, where they sell a Game for it's half price so it's easier for most folks (and except some very few examples like you, most people i know enjoy that approach) to give it a try and see how it is going.
And if they would've cut half of the content, so it fit's more of your "pricetag" vision, it would have even more problematic, because you can't enjoy the Game to the fullest with the Characters you have... so it would force people to buy the second edition / dlc anyway and than you have ask yourself, why to do this concept anyway? You can deliver the fullpackage in store for 30 bucks instead... it doesn't makes any difference anymore...
@TheLightningYu That's sounds like a problem on their end. The instant they admitted that you could play half price but enjoy the full game with the characters given, it brings into question the price of the DLC.
They are asking for the price of the base game and two characters, just to buy two additional characters who don't add more content to the game. The only way this could be fair is if the two extra characters added more story or something. Hence, I think the DLC is overpriced and the full game price is too high.
They screed up, plain and simple. They should have made the base game higher, like about $20~$25 dollars. Then made the DLC fighters cheaper. That would give the impression that the base game is more worth the price and the fighters are just a little extra. Instead, they showed us that the base game isn't worth much at all.
When the Nintendo Life Amazon link hype machine gives a Switch game a low score like this I pay attention. Crap - I love Mega Man Zero and this had the same artist....
@SwitchVogel Thanks for the recommendation. Will look into that one for sure!
Those that are arguing that the “dlc price” is off, all I can do is shake my head at you.
Neither pack is dlc, they’re both full games, with choice of characters. It only SEEMS like dlc when you purchase one and also want the other. This pricing structure is LITERALLY no different than Pokémon games. You’ve got a Red version and a Blue version. Each game is the same, minus the characters you can use, just like Pokémon.
The devs actually priced this right if you think about it from the standpoint that not everyone wants to be a Warrior and only want to be DPS or healer, this gives players the option of only paying for the characters they want to play as, instead of charging them full price to have access to chars they may never play as.
Honestly, the only point one can argue on the pricing structure - those of us that want to play every character could get a discount on the actual dlc quests.
Edit - And regarding Pokémon, I know a ton of players that always buy both copies of the game when it releases, if only to play through a second time while keeping their first save file, to trade with themselves, to get the version legends legit, and/or just to keep a sealed copy. And while I do this all too, it’s a lot less understandable considering price difference ($40 vs $15) and considering you can trade for everything that isn’t in one version on Pokémon.... granted it may or may not be legit.
@Dm9982 That argument holds water until you consider when someone buys the half 'game' deal.
The assumption then is, if you buy the other half, you get a full game! However, you aren't getting the full game because the entire game is essentially in the half you already bought. All you are buying are just the characters. This puts the dev in a bad position because it forces the consumer to ask "How much are these characters worth?"
They can't be worth $7 a piece, then how did we get the first purchase of half the game for the same price? There's no way the game minus any characters is so cheap.
If they are worth LESS than $7 a piece, then why are you having to pay $15 for both of them if you already purchased half of the game? There's no additional story in the other half that you are purchasing. The only explanation is that you are paying an inflated price. It brings into question how much the game is ACTUALLY worth.
As for pokemon, apples and oranges. You can buy one game and trade with someone else. You never had to get both games unless you were sad and alone with no one to play with you. With this game, you have no choice.
@Kalmaro From having listened to inti creates talk about the game in a live stream I believe they said they were initially just going to make the digital version $30. They then decided it would be a good idea to be generous and let the customer get the game for half price if they only wanted to play as a certain character instead of all 4. That's the heart and reasoning behind it.
Seems to me like this has backfired a little and everyone would have probably just been happier if the game was just $30 after all.
@gamecrawler Thier 'generosity' ended up making this game look cheaper. I'm sure that wasn't thier goal but making two character cost the same as the base game was a bad move. If only they had made the base game $20 or $25.
Then the DLC wouldn't look so bad
@Kalmaro Yeah I do agree with you there. It makes buying the other 2 characters feel like a rip off to the consumer.
What they should have done in fore sight is make both packs $20 then when you buy one the other pack gets reduced so you still end up paying $30 for 4 characters but dont feel as bad for doing so.
Again, giving access to the game for a lower price is good to gather player base for multiplayer.
Why would you prefer paying more to access the game and less for the dlc is beyond me.
A cheaper price is an incentive to buy for normal people. Making it more "worth" with an higher price is just nonsense. It's not an exclusive Lamborghini or a luxury thing that you can brag about being able to afford it.
Having more persons buying the game for a cheaper price is more beneficial to the publisher and to the game than this mythical person that doesn't buy the game JUST because it is not expensive enough. Does such person even exist? LOL
@RauTheSlasher The game was originaly 30 dollars. It was just recently they cut that in half for the sake of paying just for the characters you possibly could have wanted. They're just giving you an option — the original $30 bucks for the whole thing or $15 for a full game just minus 2 characters. I'd guess that if you were interested in buying the game in the first place before they announced a 2 "version" release you would've still bought it at full price
If they did what @Kalmaro is suggesting then they wouldn't have gotten their money's worth for a game that was supposed to be $30 bucks + paid DLC down the line (Maybe they could make it work, I dunno).
I get what people are saying that you guys think it's a cheap trick for easy pennies. But if you'd look at it from a different angle and factoring in the reason's Inti did this in the first place then it's clearly not. Well.. — opinions!
We're entitled to criticize their pricing model on this and I also think they could have done better. But I think it's not fair to accuse like it is anti-consumer or shady practise w/c imo is not.
@gamecrawler I think that is what they should have done too.
I picked this up despite the low score and love it. The combat is very fun and addictive. The multiplayer works great and solo is fun too.
I totally agree with this score. Played the game for around 2 hours but gave up because the single player mode is just too difficult to handle. Every enemy just feels too strong, boss fights take forever and the items you get after beating enemies are a joke. And the missing check point system is unacceptable.
I really tried liking this game, but I just couldn't get into it. At first glance, the aesthetics look fantastic and the opening level which is basically a tutorial it fun enough, but as soon as you start doing quests, I lost enjoyment for the game.
While I understand that people like hard games, the developers could have handled the difficult better. Solo is just unbalanced, and please don't say "just play co-op", no! There is a single player mode in the game and I mostly enjoysingle player games. I l enjoy hard games as much as the next person, but when enemies are just bullet sponges, it saps all the fun.
Some other user mentioned Megaman. Megaman is widely accepted as a good game because it comes from an era on how games were back then and a certain type of generation still like that kind of challenge, no checkpoints and not saving when you like. Then comes a game like Shovel Knight and shows how a megaman inspired game can work in modern gaming. There's also the time limit to complete missions. So basically you have limited time, no check points and enemies are sponges. A really bad combination.
This game hard for the sake of being hard. I hope they release some patches to at least balance out single player mode. I tried all 4 characters and probably enjoyed playing with the ninja-type character the most as he is pretty good at combing and getting CRIT hits, But I only put in a limited amount of time in before it became tedious.
@SwitchVogel I think you were way off in your review. You mention that MHGU, Warframe and Diablo are your most played games on the Switch but then criticize this game for it's emphasis on multiplayer. I've been playing this for the past couple days and it is so much fun. Getting a good group together and tearing through levels grabbing all the loot is such a blast and highly addictive. I'm curious how far you ended up getting? The endgame is really good. Making builds and working with your team is handled very well. For me, this game is a 8/10 easily. Some of the combat could be more interesting, but this is a solid game and it's sad to see it so low on Metacritic because of this review. I just hope more reviewers score this game and play it multiplayer. I mean, you wouldn't go through all of G rank solo and then criticize the game for being overly harsh, would you?
@TheLightningYu Yeah, this was sort of reminding me of Dragon’s Crown when I was watching the trailers. Have you played DMFD solo, and if so, how enjoyable was it? I know I really enjoyed playing through a fair amount of Dragon’s Crown in single player, and if this game is as good as that was without co-op, then it definitely sounds worth it to me.
Pretty much agree with everything Mitch said. Before i even came to see other reviews i had already said half of what he said about the game to my friends who were considering this game and im only at the beginning. I want to give this game a chance because the story seems up my alley and the art is amazing but unfortunately it jus seems this game overall punishes you for playing it. Like, this game seems to be a hack n slash but doesn't make the center piece of its main mechanics fun, which would be hacking and slashing, thats my MAIN gripe with the game. Like, there is a fun way to implement a lot of game play design elements but it almost seems as if they purposely went in the opposite direction with it. I personally wouldnt have given it a 5/10 only because for me the single player experience is so distasteful that i kinda dont even want to slog through the rest of the game to see what happens in the story and im only at the begining. 4/10 for me.
Saw the new patch with updates is out for this. Bro, I can't believe people are still paying this piece of junk.
@Turbo857 Well... did you like it? 😛
Heh-heh, thanks for asking! If the walkthrough of all DLC and main quests on our YouTube channel is any indication = me and the co-hosts loved the game! Especially after the updates, great multiplayer game!
@Turbo857 Oh hey, thanks btw! Maybe I’ll go check out your channel! (Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Easter, etc. lol)
Tap here to load 110 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...