Anyone else really enjoy Vanquish?

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I am probably not asking the right questions here. I'm sure fans want to yell at me, but I'm expressing my opinion here.

I don't care if Vanquish is your cup of tea or not, but don't dislike it for the wrong reasons. There's lots of games I don't like just because of the subject matter, I hate Star Wars so I don't want to play any Star Wars game no matter how good the game is. Saying Vanquish is the standard cover shooter where you play whack-a-mole is just plain false. There is no need to stay behind cover and take pot shots at the enemies, get up in their face, you have the ability to do so. You chose to play Vanquish as 3rd person duck and cover shoot-em up game.

 

[omega 616]

Doesn't all high level play seem easy when you watch it? It is much harder to execute than it looks. The demo was easy, in the main game, it's your first major fight so it's just a warm up. And, the Dodge Offset in Bayonetta is a huge game changer (it's actually pretty tough to execute when you first try it), no other beat'em up has this mechanic. Smoking is used to distract enemies and it can save your ass. What other shooter allows you to slide around and use slow-mo? I don't think there are any, if that's not innovative, then I don't know what is. Vanquish is also designed with speed runs in mind, but the rest of the game is definitely not as easy as the demo area. Try the other demo (the Challenge room), it's much tougher. CoD is only hard on Vet because of the nade spam. There is no nade spam in Vanquish and God Hard difficulty is much harder than any CoD game.

Yeah, that is usually the case but sliding round on your ass like that isn't hard.

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.

Actually, there isn't that much nade spam in the second MW, it's mostly being out gunned and it only takes 3 or 4 bullets to put you on your ass.

I am not saying COD is the hardest game ever 'cos it's one of the easiest games around. (SP that is)

EDIT. You have just said sniping has been nerfed in black ops, which is just wrong. It has been corrected, meaning no more abusive kids boasting about there quick scoping skillz aka there aim assist abusing skillz.

Sniping has always meant staying back, zooming in with the scope and waiting, with a claymore protecting your ass ... you didn't see sniper wolf running round quick scoping, did you? Then COD came out with this over powering aim assist with rifles that always centered on your target, even if you were miles off, now some people consider this the norm.

The guys at treyarch are smart enough to say "were going to restore sniping to it's former glory!" and I say bravo to you sirs!

Uhh... Someone with an AR or SMG has a huge advantage over a sniper in mid to close range. Quickscoping only gives a sniper an outside chance of getting the kill, nothing more. It's just plain bullshit that when you scope in, you don't scope at the middle point of your screen. If you get quickscoped, you are the noob because with an AR or SMG, you have a huge advantage over a sniper no ifs, ands, or buts. Aim assist is sticky aim and it follows your target for a bit when you already aimed at them. You can easily score higher by using an AR or SMG than sniping.

"Restoring sniping to it's former glory" Uhh... What about no kill cams? What about you actually finding the sniper?

Sorry, what!?

A common set up usually has scavenger as a perk, so against a quick scoper you can aim quicker. It also takes more than one bullet for an AR or SMG to kill, it takes you one bullet to kill at the range quick scopers work at so you definitely have the advantage.

Due to the sudden termination of quick scoping I have noticed a massive surge in the amount of them I am facing, in the past 5 games at least 3 of the opposing team has been quick scoping. The only way I have found to kill them quickly is a runner class with a difference, UMP (FMJ), G18 (akimbo) the only way to make them miss is move quicker than they can react.

I have seen a vid were some guy got a 360 no scope, if you paused as soon as you heard the gun shot, the reticule wasn't even over the guy (and you know how huge a sniper's reticule is during running and jumping) and he still got the kill. That's how quick scoping works.

I can try to find the video if you like.

How can you say "you can score much higher with AR and SMG" when quick scoping is so well used? And how they get so many kills 'cos if they had this huge advantage even the worst players would be able to dominate them time and time again, which would mean quick scoping would never be used.

There are millions of montage clips flooding youtube of these snipers getting the most cheap kills I have seen.

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.

(man, that was hard to explain!)

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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/Uncharteds 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 Bayonetta 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 Bayonetta 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.

 

[rythter]

really liked it fast fun, the boss wasnt too bad, and i only died from being a friggin moron

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Gears of War popularized the taking cover thing, and that came out how long ago? 2006? Are we expecting the entire shooter genre to re-invent itself in four fucking years? Honestly?

Fuck, people, think about these things. And regenerating health is a good thing, at least to me.

This whole generation is about Halo/CoD FPSs and Gears/Uncharted cover shooters (at least Uncharted has platforming and puzzles). I expect some evolution during a generation. FPSs have devolved, you can't even LEAN in them anymore, that's just some bullshit. Why can't we have someone make another Black? I never played Black but it at least looked like the developer was trying to make a FUN FPS. And online multiplayer gameplay just keeps getting more dumbed down and worse; Black Ops has completely nerfed sniping because one of the devs is a noob for crying out loud. I think my only hope this gen for a new good online game is SOCOM 4, and hope is dwindling on that front as well. Regen health is stupid for online play. I don't hate it in single player, it can work in single player if something technology-wise allows it to make sense. Remember when The Getaway first did it and everyone said it was stupid, well, they were right.

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.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

 

[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.