HeartlessNinny said:
I dunno man. I guess maybe cheap isn't the right word, then. But I will say this: I've been playing DMC4 for several hours now, and that means I've killed hordes of these fuckers. And I haven't really found it fun, at all. Kinda okay at best.
As always, though, there are enemies that are more fun (and less) to fight than others. Scarecrows die too easily, and Frosts can be annoying without Nero.
I know so. If I were to compose a list of the worst DMC enemies, it would go something like this.
1./Enigma (DMC3; whoever honestly thought these things would be a good idea deserves one of Nero's drop kicks to the face)
2./The Fallen (DMC3; probably the worst flying enemies in the series)
3./Damned Knight (DMC3; the stomping pisses me off more than anything else about them)
4./Soul Eaters (DMC3; completely pointless enemy, BTW)
5./Arachne (DMC3; the little spiders that could actually hurt you by latching onto you unless you shot them all merely added insult to injury)
6./Hell Lust (DMC3; the priority on the uppercut they use on higher difficulties couldn't be more idiotic)
7./Geryon (DMC3; just a lame boss, really)
8./Nobodies (DMC1; simply no fun to fight)
9./Blood Goats (DMC2; I'm not sure what was worse, their lame ass somersault kicks or their fireballs with nothing short of godlike tracking)
10./Cutlass (DMC4; still not too sure how to fight them effectively, to be honest)
Tying this into the next point...
This helps make my point. I haven't watched it yet, but bosses that require you to expoit the AI... That's just piss-poor, right there. The Dante fight is retarded, straight up. I shouldn't have to look up an exploit online in order to beat him. It should be a fun and engaging fight, not an exercise in internet research.
Fortunately, he's the only one as such. In DMC3, playing for rank (especially on DMD) usually boiled down to abusing stupid or boring tactics.
All the more reason not to put in stupid puzzles then. Also note I said platforming as well. This game has several places where you have to use the Devil Bringer to jump around like a shitty grapple beam, like the room with the spikes on the ceiling. All the places you had to do this sort of thing were just bullshit, and frustrating as hell.
Truth is, I wouldn't complain if they ditched puzzles altogether, instead thinking up some other means of balancing the pace between combat and exploration. The spike ceiling puzzle was a problem for me until I found out the idea is to grapple the orbs as quickly as possible to avoid to hitting them (not defending such platforming here, mind you).
Call me daring then, I hate using stupid charge gun attacks as my primary source or ranged damage. It disrupts my momentum. It's just dreary, really. Compared to Dante's guns, the Blue Rose is a real piece of shit, plain and simple. And I've got that other shit, and I do know how to use it. Doesn't make it any more fun.
The main idea is to buffer the charge during combos, usually mixing it in with everything else. It's things like Blitzes you want to use it for at long range (makes taking their shield down much easier). But, if EX-Act/Max-Act still doesn't make the combos any more fun for you, then I guess there's nothing else that can be done about that.
I never said DMC3's story was stellar or anything. I just said it's better than the boring drek that is 4's story. It's hardly a deal-breaker, it's just one more thing that sucks about this game.
I will concede, however, that there was much more action in DMC3 (particularly during cutscenes).
Well you're sure not going to win me over with condescending remarks man. I've played with Nero for a few hours now, and I rack up SS combos with regularity (which still somehow nets me a 'D' in style points at the end of the mission, by the way...). He's just boring, boring, boring! Same shit weapons, lame devil trigger, and as you point out, the Devil Bringer is overpowered. So like I said, I'm hardly what you'd call an expert, but I'm familiar enough with Nero. Dude, he just sucks, straight up. Playing Dante or Virgil in the other games is much more fun to me, pure and simple. I guess some people are going to disagree with me, but in the end, I find playing this game to be a real chore. Why should I take the time to truly master playing it if the game is frustrating and boring? DMC3 was hard, by any measure. But I kept coming back for more because I wanted to master it, and it was fun as hell to play. When I got bored with Dante's weapons, I'd switch to another pairing. Same thing with the styles.
Getting to S/SS/SSS isn't the issue so much as keeping it going is (the higher your rating at the time, the more points rewarded during combos). As long as you earn stylish points with regularity, you shouldn't be scoring anywhere near that low, so I'm not too sure why that's happening (I don't think I've ever gotten lower than a B for end mission stylish points just yet).
His Devil Trigger is quite useful for me (changes Buster properties, adds phantom swords to shots, which can also be fired in the middle of throws, Showdown makes killing Fausts in one go that much easier, activation launches enemies about 90% of the time and has invulnerability frames), but that's me. Personally, as accustomed to playing Dante as I was before, it feels like something's missing after getting used to Nero. More or less, I could say he's the closest thing to applying God Hand conventions to DMC (dodging in time with attacks with Table Hopper, an arm that can grab enemies from afar, and context-specific attacks/counters, only without on-screen prompts in this case).
Why should I take the time to truly master playing it if the game is frustrating and boring? DMC3 was hard, by any measure. But I kept coming back for more because I wanted to master it, and it was fun as hell to play. When I got bored with Dante's weapons, I'd switch to another pairing. Same thing with the styles.
Anyway, to be fair, I would hardly call this a bad game. But compared to the previous installments (2 doesn't count), this game is sub-par. And, at the very least, it's over-scored in the reviews I've read. I'd give it a 7 out of ten, at best. Because I'm mad, I'd be tempted to give it a 6.5, but I have to admit a 7 is more fair.
But the 8s and up I've seen it get... Man, I wish I had access to whatever those reviewers are smokin. 'Cause there's no way this game is an 8 in my book, let alone a 9.
We'll just have to agree to disagree (in spite of its flaws, I'd still view DMC3 as an 8, but DMC4 is a 9 to me).
I don't expect Lost Odyssey to be a revelation or anything, I just want some solid gameplay. I guess my lofty expectations were what caused me to hate this game so much, but what does that tell you?
That depends. Personally, I knew what to expect of DMC4. It could have been even more than it was, but I wasn't expecting much more than another evolution, either.
And finally, as a parting shot, I cannot fucking understand why Nero is in this game at all. Does anyone think he's better than Dante, whether it's gameplay or attitude we're talking about? And if someone does like Nero better... Well, they're clearly certifiable. That makes me say, why the fuck is Nero there, then? Dante's gameplay was hardly getting stale, there wasn't any need to mix it up. And fuck, if they really did want to mix it up, they should have done better. I'd have been happy if we got to play as Virgil, for example. He was really fun to play as in DMC3:SE, even if he was more limited than Dante. Either way, I'd take him over Nero any day.
He was mainly introduced as a means of easing new players into the franchise. As it is, most players have been finding themselves overwhelmed with everything available to Dante when the switch happens (gun, sword, and style switching being the reason for that). Even though I liked playing Vergil as well, overall, I preferred Nero. Between Nero and Dante, they're different yet fun enough to warrant alternating for me.