Killer Instinct Review - C-c-c-c-combo Breaker
- Thread starter Encaen
- Start date
I miss Rare. =(
They knew how to make a decent game back in the day; and if it wasn't decent then it was certainly enjoyable.
Like my Killer Cuts CD. Still jammin' to it 20 years later.
They knew how to make a decent game back in the day; and if it wasn't decent then it was certainly enjoyable.
Like my Killer Cuts CD. Still jammin' to it 20 years later.
Microsoft gave this to me for free with all characters included, so I can't complain too much when it comes out. I wasn't expecting much from a KI reboot, to be honest. It's definitely not the reason I'm getting an Xbox One, but as long as it's decent, I'm not going to give it too much shit. Of all the fighting games (I know I'm gonna catch shit for this), I actually prefer DOA, legitimately for the counter and multi-tiered level mechanics.
I honestly don't remember much of Killer Instinct from back in the day. Maybe I was too young, or I was just playing too much Mortal Kombat instead.
I honestly don't remember much of Killer Instinct from back in the day. Maybe I was too young, or I was just playing too much Mortal Kombat instead.
I think half the reason for playing KI back in the day was how good the Silicon Graphics workstation-rendered characters looked. To hear that the new game is a mediocre-looking (by present day standards) versus-only fighter without a story mode... well, it sounds both disappointing and tedious, to be honest. If all I wanted out of a game was to punch buttons in order over and over, I would still be working in data entry.
Single player will be coming later. [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-09-killer-instinct-wont-receive-arcade-mode-until-season-one-wraps-up]Seracen said:
Everyone that has checked this review should now head over to IGN and watch the video one. There's incredible depth in Dojo mode, they even teach you how to count frames !
Also, I have watched the final seconds of the video about 7 times until now. Oooops, 8. You will see why once you watch it. I can't buy a Xbone so I hope this will be good enough for a pc port.
Also, I have watched the final seconds of the video about 7 times until now. Oooops, 8. You will see why once you watch it. I can't buy a Xbone so I hope this will be good enough for a pc port.
Why? Fighting game campaigns have ALWAYS just been an excuse to fight a bunch of characters until you beat them all. Might as well play Survival, honestly. I have MK2011 and I've never played it for the Arcade ever. The only thing that could be complained about in KI is the lack of characters. They say they'll add more but... I'd just rather have the bulk of them all at launch.Seracen said:
The review itself was horribly anemic. It's missing so many details it hurts.
I know practically nothing that differentiates this game from other fighting games outside of C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER. Does it even feel like the other games in its own series? If I'm not familiar with Killer Instinct, what popular recent game is more comparable to? Just on the Mortal Kombat/Street Fighter spectrum will suffice, I can make the stretch from there. If I don't know anything about fighting games is this a good example of the genre or is it entirely different?
I'm at 3 useless reviews in a row on this game. At least slap a video onto it so I can see all the stuff you didn't bother to explain. I don't need flowery language about dreams of being good and all that other crap noobs use to delude themselves into thinking their scrubby matches are actually epic. I need a practical, efficient review about the game from someone who knows the genre well enough to describe a game on multiple levels. With niche genres like fighting games the investment levels vary wildly so you will need to provide entirely different types of information for the review to actually be helpful.
edit: holy crap the ign review is the most useful one so far is that normal i feel like it's not
I know practically nothing that differentiates this game from other fighting games outside of C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER. Does it even feel like the other games in its own series? If I'm not familiar with Killer Instinct, what popular recent game is more comparable to? Just on the Mortal Kombat/Street Fighter spectrum will suffice, I can make the stretch from there. If I don't know anything about fighting games is this a good example of the genre or is it entirely different?
I'm at 3 useless reviews in a row on this game. At least slap a video onto it so I can see all the stuff you didn't bother to explain. I don't need flowery language about dreams of being good and all that other crap noobs use to delude themselves into thinking their scrubby matches are actually epic. I need a practical, efficient review about the game from someone who knows the genre well enough to describe a game on multiple levels. With niche genres like fighting games the investment levels vary wildly so you will need to provide entirely different types of information for the review to actually be helpful.
edit: holy crap the ign review is the most useful one so far is that normal i feel like it's not
I know there's sure to be reasons, but only six characters, that's got to be a mark against the game in a lot of peoples eyes. I am aware they are bringing character packs later, but a lot of people won't be.
Still, that makes it a very bare bones fighting game. Considering it's something that is supposed to help the machine sell early, I don't think not having some single player mode that isn't a tutorial would be a good thing.Eldritch Warlord said:
And that was good enough...once upon a time.Arnoxthe1 said:
Honestly, it's just my personal preference, why the heck should I bother playing a game, if I don't care about the characters or story involved?
Rarely do I make exception to that mindset.
That a campaign will arrive later in nice, but my point about a lack of variety is still galling. Angryjoe stated succinctly my wishes for fighting games in the modern age (with his review of MvC and MK).
The most negative post on this thread so far; not a fan of the tone, but I have to agree pretty heartily. I kind of wish Nex Cavalli wrote this review; I have not seen any fighting game reviews from Josh, but I have seen some rather competent ones from Nex[footnote]Of course, I'm ignoring staffing needs, AND assuming levels of fighting game experience from both reviewers. Not to mention treating the fighting game genre as a special little star.[/footnote].m0ng00se said:
And yes, color me surprised as well, that IGN covers the review right, and from the get-go; it's a review in progress. As this game is; heavily in progress. It basically gives you the engine for free, as in Jago is only available. You can still learn the nuts and bolts from this alone, and all the game modes are present. Characters, arguably the meat of the game, are what you pay for.
Then again, how much should a reviewer know about the game before reviewing it?
There will also be 2 more characters released for a total of 8 characters (which you get free when you buy the $20 pack), and another 'season' of 8 characters is in the works. 16 characters planned, 10 in the pipe. I also don't think the small roster is an issue. It's not priced too badly (As a frame of reference, Skullgirls is $15, and started with 8), and my parenthetical example can compare; Skullgirls is fantastic. It can make for a much tighter balance with a small character roster. A small roster is also pretty resistant to 'tier listing' and whatnot (I hope).
If anything, I just hope that Double Helix can keep up the dedication in playtesting this game out in the field (IE arcades, tournaments, etc.). It's the one thing that this game, and really ALL good fighting games need to stay up to date and fair. Especially as the roster for this game grows; but I do like the fact that they are making the effort to grow the game, and Microsoft would win BIG points with me if they can facilitate an environment and a trend of growth and improvement patches in released games.
I highly doubt it, what with the 360's patch policy as precedent, but *shrug*.....
i think that niche genre and head-to-head competitive (outside of "party") games need reviewers with a reasonable amount of familiarity with the genres to communicate to fans of said genres who are more interested in knowing if they should stray from their main game for a while or whatever.
if this review was for a retail release i'd have no clue if i should pay money for the game or not. i'd want the same "is this worth my attention normally reserved for league/call of duty/forza/starcraft" information from any competitive game.
i'd hope SRPG aficionados would be the ones reviewing the latest NIS releases or FF Tactics releases because their familiarity with the games would allow them to more accurately analyze the depth of the mechanics and gauge the challenge. knowing a reviewer likes hardcore action titles like bayonetta would give me more insight into their evaluation of difficulty and fairness in the levels. i remember there was one review for the new DmC which clearly stated "this game is a fun romp but if you are a hardcore fan of the old Devil May Cry games you will be disappointed by the lack of difficulty here and it's probably not really what you're looking for," and that is exactly the kind of perspective i want in a review of a niche title. it's informative for the hardcore who will know to avoid it, and it lets the newcomers feel alright about not playing the earlier installments.
several genres of games have difficult barriers to entry, most of which i (and i assume most people who frequent video gaming websites) have cleanly surpassed, so how inviting a game is for casual players and newcomers is unfortunately not sufficient information for me. i'm well aware that this information needs to be there but if i can't trust that the reviewer has sufficiently explored the mechanics then i can't glean any valuable information from the review that isn't immediately available from a gameplay trailer. yes, i know deadlines are a problem which is why a degree of talent and experience with the genre would help on multiple fronts. better players can learn faster and apply fundamental gameplay knowledge immediately, allowing them to more accurately assess the long term gameplay appeal (which will of course be just a guess but at least an informed one) and the value of things like KI's dojo which sounds like it is easily in the top 3 training modes of all time, alongside Injustice and Virtua Fighter 5 if I'm remembering it correctly.
their familiarity would allow them to draw useful comparisons to more dedicated fans, and combined with a degree of writing skill should still be able to made useful for readers for whom the references do not immediately illustrate the point. a comparison to the "more methodical pace and relative simplicity of street fighter 4" or the "busyness and insanity of MvC3" or "nigh-bottomless technicality of Virtua Fighter" illustrates a gameplay feel and attitude to more familiar readers without necessarily causing unfamiliar readers' eyes to gloss over due to not getting the reference. more specific examples to illustrate the point could likely be written in a way that they are immediately apparent but do give the unfamiliar a cursory understanding of why the comparison was made.
i dunno i might be asking for a lot here i guess but i feel like even i could handle a solid, informative writeup after a day or two online with most fighting games. (speaking of which, we hear no mentions of the netcode quality or the fact that there are no lobbies outside of 1v1)
if this review was for a retail release i'd have no clue if i should pay money for the game or not. i'd want the same "is this worth my attention normally reserved for league/call of duty/forza/starcraft" information from any competitive game.
i'd hope SRPG aficionados would be the ones reviewing the latest NIS releases or FF Tactics releases because their familiarity with the games would allow them to more accurately analyze the depth of the mechanics and gauge the challenge. knowing a reviewer likes hardcore action titles like bayonetta would give me more insight into their evaluation of difficulty and fairness in the levels. i remember there was one review for the new DmC which clearly stated "this game is a fun romp but if you are a hardcore fan of the old Devil May Cry games you will be disappointed by the lack of difficulty here and it's probably not really what you're looking for," and that is exactly the kind of perspective i want in a review of a niche title. it's informative for the hardcore who will know to avoid it, and it lets the newcomers feel alright about not playing the earlier installments.
several genres of games have difficult barriers to entry, most of which i (and i assume most people who frequent video gaming websites) have cleanly surpassed, so how inviting a game is for casual players and newcomers is unfortunately not sufficient information for me. i'm well aware that this information needs to be there but if i can't trust that the reviewer has sufficiently explored the mechanics then i can't glean any valuable information from the review that isn't immediately available from a gameplay trailer. yes, i know deadlines are a problem which is why a degree of talent and experience with the genre would help on multiple fronts. better players can learn faster and apply fundamental gameplay knowledge immediately, allowing them to more accurately assess the long term gameplay appeal (which will of course be just a guess but at least an informed one) and the value of things like KI's dojo which sounds like it is easily in the top 3 training modes of all time, alongside Injustice and Virtua Fighter 5 if I'm remembering it correctly.
their familiarity would allow them to draw useful comparisons to more dedicated fans, and combined with a degree of writing skill should still be able to made useful for readers for whom the references do not immediately illustrate the point. a comparison to the "more methodical pace and relative simplicity of street fighter 4" or the "busyness and insanity of MvC3" or "nigh-bottomless technicality of Virtua Fighter" illustrates a gameplay feel and attitude to more familiar readers without necessarily causing unfamiliar readers' eyes to gloss over due to not getting the reference. more specific examples to illustrate the point could likely be written in a way that they are immediately apparent but do give the unfamiliar a cursory understanding of why the comparison was made.
i dunno i might be asking for a lot here i guess but i feel like even i could handle a solid, informative writeup after a day or two online with most fighting games. (speaking of which, we hear no mentions of the netcode quality or the fact that there are no lobbies outside of 1v1)
