the last of us had actually really good third person shooting parts in between long periods of dialogue and walking simulation. but the parts that had actual action were pretty top tier. just not nearly enough of it and too much bullshit in between. if you played the game on its 1 good difficulty (turn it up until spider sense turns off, then play) its a solid 7/10.

was wonderful 101 actually good though? i hear alot of mixed things about it. most agree the game is super short (which i'd prefer over lengthening it with walking simulation and dialogue if the action is solid) but i've heard its kinda easy and repetitive, but "unique". doesnt really sell it for me. and gameplay looks pretty generic. what's good about it?

>>14118660

>get all perfect scores on the hardest modes which require mastering the game's mechanics.

so im guessing this doesnt fall into the pitfall of "whats fun becomes completely unviable, and whats tedious becomes the only viable strategy"? thats pretty refreshing if true.

>>14118822

"professional game reviewers" said they beat the game in like 4-6 hours.

your other metrics are clearly speedruns.

aside from that, your "a" point was just "unique" which i already said i heard about it. your "b" point could you elaborate more on this? most non-rpg games i play i have all the stuff available to me from the start, but then theres usually a "best" way to do something so that all goes right out the window and it just turns into only using abilities that arent the "best" for specific enemies. what does this game do to keep it interesting?

>>14118980

professional game reviewers are trash, confirming my point that the game seems easy and short. if the guy beat the game without ever learning a main defensive option, doesnt that mean it's not that important?

but before we get into that

i have played all of those games, when they were new. except i never beat viewtiful joe, because that game's trash.

if you cant even concede that dmc1 takes longer than 90 minutes to beat, im going to just disregard your opinions altogether since youre not capable of rational thought.

>10+ weapons

how do you use these different weapons without having to switch to them?

ok, so only a few enemies actually force you to beat them a certain way, so doesnt that mean the rest of the enemies can be beaten with the "best" combo making the game repetitive? i mean, it kinda sounds like the game can be beaten with button mashing and not even blocking, and youre arguing you CAN do more. but if its not required, and if the game doesnt offer enough of a challenge to require it of you, whats the point? so you can be more stylish? or beat the enemies faster?

>>14119072

most of the reviews complaint was the game was short, followed by them saying that.

oh… so the game has continue rules like bioshock? that sucks.

>wonder liner

what? so you basically switch weapons by drawing different shapes? anon… that's not unique and is no different from just a hotkey or keypad. and its not much different from just scrolling through them.

ok, so yea, to beat the game you can just button mash. doing "better' just gets you a better score, but is entirely optional.

i didnt ask how many ways to skin a cat, i asked if i can skin all the cats the same way, and you already answered that. and its a yes, aside from a couple enemies that require you to skin them a different way.

>>14119092

you guys are pretty much confirming what i heard, but justifying it. thanks for the info though. doesn't sound like it's for me.

>>14119226

i was asking questions, not "talking in hypotheticals", blame people answering my questions if thats what i got out of it.

it sounds like a super easy game that had potential and depth but at the last second some retard made a stupid decision to casualize it for children.

i wasnt aware how weapons worked, hence why i asked. it sounds like a gimmicky "drawing" system done with some depth, but outside of that the rest of the game seems pretty standard. but outside of that, all of that depth is rendered obsolete when you can just repeat the same combo to beat the majority of enemies. aside from the few that force you to beat them in a specific way.

>never want to learn to play correctly, then I suppose you can "beat" the game, sure.

that should never be the case. do you have any idea how shitty that is?

>>14119434

i never said the reviews were true about the length. i just said what i heard. stop projecting.

>with a DMC-style life system

they managed to make it eaven more cheating than quicksaving anon. you cant think of ANY other continue system? maybe a checkpoint system? anything would be better. stop defending casual bullshit.

>>14119434

>I have NO idea where you're getting that from.

read the thread instead of shitting it up with your autism.

>"what i got out of it" is admitting that you're speaking hypothetically

read the thread instead of shitting it up with your autism.

>>14119515

>Nobody ever told you that every enemy could be beaten with the same combo.

i never said that you illiterate subhuman.

>second hand knowledge.

and what would you consider the info i'm getting in this thread? first hand?

god you're a dumbass.

you're projecting that i accept everything i hear as fact.

>>14119670

>every enemy could be beaten with the same combo

>the same combo to beat the majority of enemies

9/10 illiterate retards can't spot the difference! can you? apparently not, dipshit

it's time to stop posting anon. just go play your shitty easy game.

>>14119907

>difference between all and most

>pedantic

nigger, most enemies apparently can be beaten with the same combo, since only a few pigeonhole you into doing something different. please prove otherwise.

>>14120046

>autism: the post.