Anyone else really enjoy Vanquish?

[Ironic Pirate]

Do you realize that not everyone has fun the same way? Just getting that out of the way.

A spiritual successor to Black is being made. By most of the same Dev team.

How is the sniping in Black Ops dumbed down? I haven't heard anything about that...

Streamlining is not the same as dumbing down. The lean button (in 99%) of games, was functionally useless. The games were it could be useful, still have it. Look at that, efficiency! Also, just because you don't like something doesn't make it stupid.

And finally: there are enough games for everyone. Every game doesn't have to be perfect for you. You know that, right? Plenty of games (Bodycount, Brink, Vanquish, etc) have a sense of fun to them, play them. Don't like CoD? Don't play it. Ignore it. Stop telling everyone how everything is being ruined forever when it isn't.

I realize that everyone's definition of fun is different but I don't think nobody (that's like over 10) thinks playing whack-a-mole is fun. All these cover shooters have you waiting for an enemy to pop out of cover so you can shoot them, that's not fun and it's extremely repetitive. If you think whack-a-mole is fun, you have the brain of a kid. There's no reason not to have leaning in a FPS unless you are replacing that functionality with another function; that is not happening, leaning is just being removed while nothing is added in it's place. Leaning just allows for the extra bit of gameplay depth so if you remove it, replace it with something else that offers depth.

In Black Ops, when you scope in with a sniper rifle, the rifle scopes in on a random area of your screen instead of scoping in on the center of the screen or your aiming cross-hair.

When the market is flooded with same-y FPSs and cover TPSs, you better make a damn near perfect one for me to play it. Go and make something different, unique, and/or innovative, and then it doesn't have to be really good/perfect because it's something new and different, you know, a new experience.

I haven't heard of Bodycount but Brink seems kinda interesting. But Brink is only online, right? Anyways, the online is a big part of the game so it has to be properly balanced to work, and most online games lately have had very big balance issues.

Playing a cover shooter like whack-mole will get you killed hilariously quickly. And if no one found them fun, they wouldn't get made, would they? Want to know what the lean mechanic has been replaced by? A cover mechanic.

Wait, what? Where did you hear that? That is pretty fucking stupid, if true.

Most of these alleged "same-y" games are actually rather different from each other, due to being on different engines. You know how many third person shooters the PS3 has? 52. Honestly, how many of them are "same-y"? Especially when there's ones like Lead and Gold or RDR?

Brink isn't only online, but it seems to be the emphasis. Single-player is kind of glorified bots, but it's there.

 

[Hosker]

I played the demo; I had a moderate amount of fun but the boss just ruined it for me. So boring.

 

[archvile93]

What other shooter allows you to slide around and use slow-mo?

The FEAR series?

 

[omega 616]

I am losing respect for your arguments the more you go on, firstly you compare FPS and TPS games, now your calling bay a beat 'em up.

So smoking distracts enemies? 1)how? 2) for how long? 'cos if I remember rightly you can't do anything during your smoke.

Matrix, max pain and that John Woo game, off the top of my head.

The only time I used TPS and FPS together is when I said both genres of shooters have stagnated by saying FPSs have devolved and TPSs are pretty much all cover shooters; so you have your Halos/CoDs and your Gears/Uncharted's and that's pretty much it. I never compared them in any other way. The shooter genre as a whole needs to focus on FUN more than anything else. The shooters like CoD that try to be realistic and hardcore fail because they are not realistic or hardcore; regen health is not realistic and devolving the FPS controls (no lean, one button nade tossing, etc.) is the opposite of hardcore. And, then with the TPS cover shooters, playing whack-a-mole over and over isn't fun; it may be realistic since in a real life shoot out, I would take cover and wait to get a shot at the enemy as well.

I use the terms hack and slash and beat'em up interchangeably. To me, they are pretty much the same. What would you classify Bayonet ta as? I'd say it's less hack and slash since that term makes me think of a game that primary uses swords to kill enemies. Look up Bayonet ta on GFaqs it's classified as a beat'em up: PlayStation 3 » Action » Beat-'Em-Up

Tossing a cig distracts an enemy for maybe 5 seconds. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it literally does save you life against the game's toughest enemy, the bogey, when you are overheated and the bogey is closing in on you for the kill.

If I'm not mistaken don't the games you mentioned that having sliding just do for style? You can't slide around any of those games at the speed that Vanquish allows for. I'll concede that Vanquish isn't super innovative but it definitely has some uniqueness that sets it apart from almost every shooter.

I have seen a kill were a guy was stood in the glass corridor, on the C side (if you play domination) between the vending machine and the doorway to the escalators, he shot through the metal door and killed somebody near the burger shop thing.

The only issue I have with quickscoping is the aim assist. The coding for how aim assist works should be adjusted but since that is harder to do, Treyarch has resolved quickscoping by having the sniper rifle scope in on a random part of your screen. The fact that in Black Ops when a sniper scopes in, he won't scope in on the middle of the screen (where he is aiming) is just plain bullshit; I have seen no other game do this EVER.

Different strokes for different folks, people find todays FPS games fun (the likes of COD and Halo) who gives a rats ass if you can't lean? Even in games I could lean I never did. I think COD has some realistic features (firing through things) but it all revolves around fun, the thing you want them to aim for.

I can't actually think of a game without one button nade tossing? Haven't played PC shooters in years mind you.

I don't actually like TPS anyway, the aiming is always weird, to me it's like I am holding two sticks that are "Z" shaped and trying to do everyday things ... does that make sense? I will try to explain better, it would be better if the camera wasn't over the shoulder but over there head.

If your so intent on realism play ARMA 2, thats exactly what that game is for, hardcore shooter fanatics. Most people play COD 'cos it's fun, has a shallow learning curve and doesn't get bogged down trying to be ultra real.

Your hating COD and Uncharted for trying to be realistic and failing, even though I doubt thats what COD is shooting for (no pun intended) and I have never played Uncharted but praising vanquish for not being realistic, try looking at COD (atleast) while thinking it isn't trying to be realistic.

Bay plays like DMC and GOW, both of which are hack and slashers, so I would class it as hack and slash. Beat 'em up is tekken, MK, virtual fighter, primal rage, soul calabur etc, could maybe inculde UFC and fight night type games with that aswell.

Wow, enemies on vanquish are very easily distracted.

The games I mentioned use it the same way as vanquish does, do you have to use it? Nope, do you use it? Oh hell yeah! Just 'cos you feel the proper way to play vanquish is to slide around doesn't mean it is the right or only way.

It has no innovations, I will seriously have to look up the name of that other title.

I don't think treyarch will make you zoom in on a building an inch to the left of your target, just maybe 1 cm from it so you actually have to adjust your aim. If they didn't do that you could still quick scope, something they obviously don't want.

Edit. Sorting out spelling mistakes ... don't shout at me yet!

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Playing a cover shooter like whack-mole will get you killed hilariously quickly. And if no one found them fun, they wouldn't get made, would they? Want to know what the lean mechanic has been replaced by? A cover mechanic.

Most of these alleged "same-y" games are actually rather different from each other, due to being on different engines. You know how many third person shooters the PS3 has? 52. Honestly, how many of them are "same-y"? Especially when there's ones like Lead and Gold or RDR?

I'm talking about the lean only with FPSs. Not many FPSs have a cover mechanic. Now, TPSs have a cover mechanic almost all the time. Therefore, most FPSs have taken out the lean while not replacing it with something else that offers gameplay depth.

It doesn't matter if the game engine is different if the gameplay is the same. Vanquish and Bayonetta run on the same engine but are completely different gameplay-wise. I'm done with Rockstar's boring sandbox games ever since Mercenaries on the PS2 evolved the sandbox game and Rockstar has yet to make a game as good or better than Mercenaries (Mercs2 sucked ass though).

Wait, what? Where did you hear that? That is pretty fucking stupid, if true.

From this topic [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.240820-Quickscoping-Gimped-in-Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops?page=3#comment_form] and this post:

Have you heard HOW they're gimping it though?

Basically right now on consoles, your crosshairs slowly pull in as you pull up your scope, eventually reaching a point, before the scope is actually up, where they are just as accurate as the sniper scope. This, along with "sticky aim" (not aim assist, or auto aim) allows for quick, relatively accurate shots if you time it correctly and have good aim. It is in no way cheap, overpowered, broken, or anything of the sorts.

In Black Ops, when you pull up your scope, it is no longer where you were actually aiming. It pulls the scope up in a random-ish position on your screen. This not only breaks quick scoping, it breaks sniping PERIOD. Unless you're sitting in a corner staring down your sights (which means you're basically an idiot), then sniping is no longer possible.

I predict this will be patched to more closely resemble CoD4 sniping, which in my opinion was the best and most balanced.

 

[omega 616]

Wait, what? Where did you hear that? That is pretty fucking stupid, if true.

From this topic [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.240820-Quickscoping-Gimped-in-Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops?page=3#comment_form] and this post:

Have you heard HOW they're gimping it though?

Basically right now on consoles, your crosshairs slowly pull in as you pull up your scope, eventually reaching a point, before the scope is actually up, where they are just as accurate as the sniper scope. This, along with "sticky aim" (not aim assist, or auto aim) allows for quick, relatively accurate shots if you time it correctly and have good aim. It is in no way cheap, overpowered, broken, or anything of the sorts.

In Black Ops, when you pull up your scope, it is no longer where you were actually aiming. It pulls the scope up in a random-ish position on your screen. This not only breaks quick scoping, it breaks sniping PERIOD. Unless you're sitting in a corner staring down your sights (which means you're basically an idiot), then sniping is no longer possible.

I predict this will be patched to more closely resemble CoD4 sniping, which in my opinion was the best and most balanced.

I don't remember typing that. Oh dear.

Anway, that post could just be rumour or hear say.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Playing a cover shooter like whack-mole will get you killed hilariously quickly. And if no one found them fun, they wouldn't get made, would they? Want to know what the lean mechanic has been replaced by? A cover mechanic.

Most of these alleged "same-y" games are actually rather different from each other, due to being on different engines. You know how many third person shooters the PS3 has? 52. Honestly, how many of them are "same-y"? Especially when there's ones like Lead and Gold or RDR?

I'm talking about the lean only with FPSs. Not many FPSs have a cover mechanic. Now, TPSs have a cover mechanic almost all the time. Therefore, most FPSs have taken out the lean while not replacing it with something else that offers gameplay depth.

It doesn't matter if the game engine is different if the gameplay is the same. Vanquish and Bayonetta run on the same engine but are completely different gameplay-wise. I'm done with Rockstar's boring sandbox games ever since Mercenaries on the PS2 evolved the sandbox game and Rockstar has yet to make a game as good or better than Mercenaries (Mercs2 sucked ass though).

Wait, what? Where did you hear that? That is pretty fucking stupid, if true.

From this topic [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.240820-Quickscoping-Gimped-in-Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops?page=3#comment_form] and this post:

Have you heard HOW they're gimping it though?

Basically right now on consoles, your crosshairs slowly pull in as you pull up your scope, eventually reaching a point, before the scope is actually up, where they are just as accurate as the sniper scope. This, along with "sticky aim" (not aim assist, or auto aim) allows for quick, relatively accurate shots if you time it correctly and have good aim. It is in no way cheap, overpowered, broken, or anything of the sorts.

In Black Ops, when you pull up your scope, it is no longer where you were actually aiming. It pulls the scope up in a random-ish position on your screen. This not only breaks quick scoping, it breaks sniping PERIOD. Unless you're sitting in a corner staring down your sights (which means you're basically an idiot), then sniping is no longer possible.

I predict this will be patched to more closely resemble CoD4 sniping, which in my opinion was the best and most balanced.

That is hilariously broken. I mean, quick scoping is bad, but there are much better ways to fix it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I can't actually think of a game without one button nade tossing? Haven't played PC shooters in years mind you.

If your so intent on realism play ARMA 2, thats exactly what that game is for, hardcore shooter fanatics. Most people play COD 'cos it's fun, has a shallow learning curve and doesn't get bogged down trying to be ultra real.

Your hating COD and Uncharted for trying to be realistic and failing, even though I doubt thats what COD is shooting for (no pun intended) and I have never played Uncharted but praising vanquish for not being realistic, try looking at COD (atleast) while thinking it isn't trying to be realistic.

Bay plays like DMC and GOW, both of which are hack and slashers, so I would class it as hack and slash. Beat 'em up is tekken, MK, virtual fighter, primal rage, soul calabur etc, could maybe inculde UFC and fight night type games with that aswell.

The games I mentioned use it the same way as vanquish does, do you have to use it? Nope, do you use it? Oh hell yeah! Just 'cos you feel the proper way to play a vanquish is to slide around doesnt mean it is the right or only way.

It has no innovations, I will seriously have to look up the name of that other title.

Metal Gear Online and MAG don't have a one button grenade toss; MGO is my favorite online shooter this gen and MAG is my favorite FPS this gen.

I don't need a shooter to be realistic, I love Vanquish. I'm not really hating on CoD for realism moreso for trying to be hardcore when it's not. If I'm supposed spend 100+ hours playing online, it better have hard-to-master gameplay that is deep (that is my definition of hardcore). CoD is the opposite of that. I'm not hating on Uncharted, I love Uncharted 2 (the 1st game is just very average though), but Uncharted is not a pure cover shooter, it has platforming and puzzles. Uncharted is just like a good Hollywood summer blockbuster, it's not trying to be anything else whereas CoD thinks it's the end-all-be-all of FPSs when it's, in fact, just a dumbed down FPS.

I call games like Tekken, Street Fighter, etc. just fighters or fighting games. It doesn't really matter if we call them by different names, we both agree what kind of game Bayo is and what kind of game Tekken is.

Did you not read the reply I made to you about "how to play Vanquish"? I said Vanquish should be played somewhere between the video I posted and a cover shooter. You shouldn't play Vanquish as a cover shooter but you don't have to play it like in the video I posted either, that's just how far you can take it, not that you HAVE to.

That other game you talking about is called Quantum Theory and it's just a very generic cover TPS, nothing more. Vanquish is completely different from that game, the only thing they have in common is that they both are Japanese developed. Again, I don't think any shooter lets you ROCKET slide over that battlefield like Vanquish, that's some innovation, not huge, but it's something. You can't deny Vanquish has a unique feel to it even though it's a parody of a cliche.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I played the demo; I had a moderate amount of fun but the boss just ruined it for me. So boring.

This is an acceptable complaint about Vanquish. The bosses require hitting their weak points and exposing more weak points. I think it works but I can see how others wouldn't be impressed by it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

That is hilariously broken. I mean, quick scoping is bad, but there are much better ways to fix it.

That's exactly my point; fix aim assist but don't break sniping.

 

[llew]

I've only played the demo.
I found the sliding too hard to control, the controls a bit fumbly and the boss whooped my ass.
I gave up on it.

This is because you my good sir, suck honestly, ive only played the demo and found it quite fun. the only part that annoyed me was how the melee destroys your shields and you ave to regenerate them before you can do any bullet-time shiz

 

[icame]

I just had to many problems with the demo to really give it a fair chance. Mainly with the weak controls and weak feeling guns.

 

[Harlemura]

I've only played the demo.
I found the sliding too hard to control, the controls a bit fumbly and the boss whooped my ass.
I gave up on it.

This is because you my good sir, suck

I don't recall denying my suckitude.
Besides, you should still be able to find a game fun if you have to take a few shots at it. I didn't have fun.
Vanquish is a game I just can't be bothered to try over and over.

 

[omega 616]

I don't need a shooter to be realistic, I love Vanquish. I'm not really hating on CoD for realism moreso for trying to be hardcore when it's not. If I'm supposed spend 100+ hours playing online, it better have hard-to-master gameplay that is deep (that is my definition of hardcore). CoD is the opposite of that. I'm not hating on Uncharted, I love Uncharted 2 (the 1st game is just very average though), but Uncharted is not a pure cover shooter, it has platforming and puzzles. Uncharted is just like a good Hollywood summer blockbuster, it's not trying to be anything else whereas CoD thinks it's the end-all-be-all of FPSs when it's, in fact, just a dumbed down FPS.

I call games like Tekken, Street Fighter, etc. just fighters or fighting games. It doesn't really matter if we call them by different names, we both agree what kind of game Bayo is and what kind of game Tekken is.

Did you not read the reply I made to you about "how to play Vanquish"? I said Vanquish should be played somewhere between the video I posted and a cover shooter. You shouldn't play Vanquish as a cover shooter but you don't have to play it like in the video I posted either, that's just how far you can take it, not that you HAVE to.

That other game you talking about is called Quantum Theory and it's just a very generic cover TPS, nothing more. Vanquish is completely different from that game, the only thing they have in common is that they both are Japanese developed. Again, I don't think any shooter lets you ROCKET slide over that battlefield like Vanquish, that's some innovation, not huge, but it's something. You can't deny Vanquish has a unique feel to it even though it's a parody of a cliche.

Kind of messed up description of hardcore but ok. I think of hardcore as the kind of games that get tournaments built around them, starcraft, unreal tournament etc.

How does CoD thinks it's the end-all-be-all of FPSs? I think it is just pumped out every year and makes millions, I don't think it claims to be better than it is. Maybe the kiddie winks who play it do but I am sure CS players do the same.

I can't see how it is dumbed down? Although if your thinking of it as simplified, is that always a bad thing? I think COD is made to be fast paced, so having MGO style gameplay would seriously fuck up that goal.

I said Vanquish should be played somewhere between the video I posted and a cover shooter

Why should it?

I think quantem theory (thank you!) is more innovative than vanquish, throwing your friend round to do special attacks, I can only thin of one other game like that (some stupid kids game, were you kill ink creatures with a giant key) and three that only had it in very small parts (resident evil 4+5 and MGS3 with eva), although you could only give boosts, not attacks.

Is rocket sliding innovative or a gimmick? Something to set it slightly apart from it's competitors?

 

[Googenstien]

Ive heard very good things about it from respectable people on these boards and it got good reviews from sites and reviewrs I like.. my issue is its length. I will wait for a price drop, but I have no doubt I will like the game.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Kind of messed up description of hardcore but ok. I think of hardcore as the kind of games that get tournaments built around them, starcraft, unreal tournament etc.

How does CoD thinks it's the end-all-be-all of FPSs? I think it is just pumped out every year and makes millions, I don't think it claims to be better than it is. Maybe the kiddie winks who play it do but I am sure CS players do the same.

I can't see how it is dumbed down? Although if your thinking of it as simplified, is that always a bad thing? I think COD is made to be fast paced, so having MGO style gameplay would seriously fuck up that goal.

I have a problem with your description of hardcore because that excludes single player games from being hardcore. Playing other real people instead of the AI is definitely harder; however, there are gameplay mechanics that just don't work in an online environment like the rocket sliding and slow-mo in Vanquish. Online games sacrifice single player only gameplay mechanics that can add more depth for the depth added when you play against real people.

I think Activision, most CoD players, and the gaming media (the major review sites) think CoD is the gold standard for FPSs (and probably Halo for sci-fi FPSs). That makes me feel that a lot of people think CoD is hardcore. I don't mind simplified; if there is some kind of control scheme that is simpler than the current one and allows all the mechanics to stay in the game, then I have no issue with that. I think dumbed down comes into play when things are removed (like leaning) and changed in way that makes the game less tactical. I think one button grenade toss breaks the balance of the game because in order to throw a grenade (a very powerful and destructive attack) you should be vulnerable, you shouldn't be able to throw a nade with your gun still out, that's my opinion and I stand by it (I don't mind this in single player but in online I HATE it). Regen health also sucks online because there is no penalty for moving through open areas while getting shot (but not killed) since you will be back to 100% in a few seconds. Don't get me wrong, simplified and dumbed down are pretty close to each other so it's kinda hard to explain.

Depending on the game mode and map, MGO can be very faced paced. In one map, it literally takes 10 seconds (maybe even slightly less) to get to the other team's spawn, that's makes for fast paced play. Some modes like team sneaking are very slow paced, and depending on a team's strategy, it can also be fast paced; rushing the other team is a tactic that can make a slow paced mode rather faced paced.

I said Vanquish should be played somewhere between the video I posted and a cover shooter

Why should it?

I think quantem theory (thank you!) is more innovative than vanquish, throwing your friend round to do special attacks, I can only thin of one other game like that (some stupid kids game, were you kill ink creatures with a giant key) and three that only had it in very small parts (resident evil 4+5 and MGS3 with eva), although you could only give boosts, not attacks.

Is rocket sliding innovative or a gimmick? Something to set it slightly apart from it's competitors?

I'll give you the "Vanquish has no single gameplay mechanic that is innovative" card. When all the parts of Vanquish are summed up, you get a cover shooter that stresses that you stay out in the action and NOT take cover, which I feel is refreshing change of pace. The sliding, the slow-mo, the enemies, the level design, etc. all come together to achieve this goal. So alone, I guess, not one mechanic is innovative but combined, I think there's some innovation there, maybe just a little, but I think it's there. If it's not there then that's OK because Vanquish is definitely unique and it's own game even if there's nothing innovative there, and that is why I really love the game. I definitely disagree that the sliding is a gimmick.

I just had to many problems with the demo to really give it a fair chance. Mainly with the weak controls and weak feeling guns.

1) The controls aren't weak, it's takes a bit of time to get used to them but once you do, they are very tight controls.

2) The guns aren't that weak. The assault rifle is the weakest gun in the game and I barely used it in the main game; I'm guessing you used the assault rifle most of the time. The heavy machine gun is pretty strong and the shotgun is strong up close like a shotgun should be. It only takes like 3 shots to the legs of the boss to take out his leg. And, the guns upgrade and get more powerful during the game.

Ive heard very good things about it from respectable people on these boards and it got good reviews from sites and reviewrs I like.. my issue is its length. I will wait for a price drop, but I have no doubt I will like the game.

Kmart had it for $35 this week. If you get into Vanquish, you will get at least 20hrs out of it. It is really a game you'll want to play twice for sure, and the challenges are pretty tough. If you are just going to play it once through, then it's not worth the $60.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

played the full version of the game, thought it was fun (i found boosting behind the enemy trenches to fire a shotgun blast into their backs rather satisfying, the lock-on laser was rather fun too, not much use indoors though).

its definately in the vein of "so bad its good" and "a guilty pleasure". sure its purely style over substance, sometimes that is what you need to break the monotomy every now and then.

it could do without the quicktime events though

Is rocket sliding innovative or a gimmick? Something to set it slightly apart from it's competitors?

not sure, it certainly isn't something new, as mecha based TPS games like Armored Core and Another Centurys Episode (and everything with the name gundam in it) have been using rocket sliding for ages

the only part that annoyed me was how the melee destroys your shields and you ave to regenerate them before you can do any bullet-time shiz

if you have the disc launcher you can melee without the boost/shield guage being knocked down to zero and waiting for it to regenerate

 

[Ulfur]

I love this game. It's just plain fun. I've always liked shooters and especially tactical ones with cover and teammates. I also like sci-fi. This game takes those things and kicks them into high gear. It's tactical and frenetic at the same time. It's hard to run straight with guns blazing, but you also can't just sit behind the same wall and take potshots. It forces you to be both clever and fast and gives you the power to fight in many different ways.

Sure it has it's little glitches and annoyances like any game, but they are few and far between. It's probably not a game for everyone but they sure made it available to anyone that wants it with 5 different difficulty levels, the lowest with auto aim and the highest with ungodly zero margin for error and no weapon upgrades. The skill cap is pretty damn high. There are so many well implemented features in this game that I find it hard to criticize it.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I'm not buying Vanquish for two reasons:

1) The story/characters are fucking god-awful. A lot of people defend this shit on the grounds that it was intentional, but I think that line of reasoning is plainly idiotic. 99% of videogame writing is mediocre or horrendous, so it seems entirely too convenient that we're suddenly churning out this nonsense "on purpose". I think it's just easier to go with the standard writing effort (none) and declare yourself ironic - even if your work bears no discernable signs of carefully-crafted satire.

2) The single-player is inexcusably short. Everything I've read puts it in the 5-6 hour range. I'm well aware that skill-intensive games like Vanquish trade heavily in replay value, but no amount of mundane challenge modes is going to compensate for a game I can easily finish in one sitting. It's Alan Wake all over again, and I'm taking the exact same approach here; if devs are going to offer me one evening's worth of entertainment, I'll wait until it costs exactly what one evening's worth of entertainment should.

 

[TailstheHedgehog]

I enjoyed it, though I didn't think the action was quite as good as Platinum Games' Bayonetta, and I wouldn't have minded a bit more close-quarters combat, but I'll buy the sequel for sure (assuming it's definitely in the works). Still, it wasn't my favourite game of 2010, but was brilliant in its own right.