Therumancer said:
To be honest it seems to me that everyone has hated Dante's look once they changed it from the original. I'm kind of amazed Capcom hasn't just done the rational thing and just put the series the way people want it. I personally can't get behind it being "all a scam to sell DLC" since it seems to have been going on far too long.
Well, Capcom didn't actually make the new Devil May Cry, it was made by Ninja Theory and published by Capcom. When Dante's new look was first revealed, a lot of people drew comparisons between the new Dante and the head of the company (not Capcom) and were really pissed at what his company was doing with the series. So, you can't exactly slander Capcom for this game just being a DLC cow, as while I'm certain without a doubt that there was going to be DLC for the game, this fault lies mainly with Ninja Theory not listening to the fans.
Therumancer said:
I'll also say that this article in an offhanded way could be taken as a slam on reviewers. To be honest I think there is a problem when a reviewer evaluates whether a product is good or not purely on it's own merits as a game when there are other issues involved. To be honest when your dealing with franchises and ongoing intellectual properties the characters and how they are treated is part of the overall property. A game that might play well, but is disrespectful to the established continuity and characters, deserves to be slammed on those elements. Beyond a certain point you have to make the distinction between whether something is a good game, and whether something is a good game of X label. If a game decides to slap a franchise or series name on something but changes so much that it no longer resemebles or continues to build on previous parts of the series, that should be viewed as an epic failure, and scores should reflect that.
I agree with you that a video game that is based in a well established series should definately be scrutinized to a degree for changing characters to a point where in which they are more just people with similar names and that's it. I HATE, the new Dante, Virgil is a dishonourable fuck, and changing it so that they are brothers AND Angel/Demon hybrids kinda just makes the title, "Devil May Cry" and the original series very redundant. However, this is still a game, and there would have been people (Mostly 10 to 15) whom would have never played the original series and would have none of these biased opinions. Also, seeing as how "DMC Devil May Cry" is essentially a reboot/different universe's version, it is easy to see how a reviewer can put their opinions and the original franchise behind them and focus on the new game just as if it were an entirely new title. While most people will agree the game is crap compared to the originals, the new game is alright, if you can get past the main character being an angst ridden emo.
Therumancer said:
I point this out because as time goes on I'm becoming increasingly irritated to hearing how something "reviewed well" despite outrage from the fans. Perhaps the most epic example of this being "Mass Effect 3". If a reviewer doesn't get what the big deal is, and his reviews and criticisms reflect this, and he might outright say "I don't understand the big deal" I increasingly feel that's a sign that someone doesn't belong reviewing. A reviewer is supposed to be telling the fans, the users, if they are going to like a product or not. As a professional your allegedly supposed to be tied into the pulse of gaming enough to make an informed desician. If there is a massive group of people complaining, and someone even overreacts to the point of a presidential petition, and your reviewing the game highly... well obviously your out of touch and not doing your job well since your score is hardly reflecting the reality. This is also part of why you see people becoming so hostile towards reviewers, and increasingly focusing on how their livelyhood, or perhaps more accuratly that of their hosts, is tied to the industry, and the technique of padding review scores in hopes that high reviews and good hype can turn that into reality virally since it's worked before, but is becoming harder to do as reality increases.
I think a good reviewer today is not just someone who can say whether a game works well on a technical level, and how good it is on it's own merits, but understands things like how what color the jacket of the protaganist of an ongoing series is can actually make all the differance and why that is. If you don't understand this, and it seems like I'm talking alien to you or way out in left field, your kind of demonstrating why you shouldn't be a reviewer.
This is the problem with being a reviewer for art. Art is subjective, and while generally the majority of peoples opinions tend to mean that something is good/bad, it does not mean that others cannot find the good/bad. For example, with the Mass Effect 3 debaucle, I thoroughly enjoyed Mass Effect 3 and even would put it in my top 10 games of my life. Most reviewers saw no problem with the ending and based the game off of how it performed as a game. It had tight mechanics, it was easy to pick up and play, the story was compelling, and the game lasted for about 20-30 hours if not more. While most people will jump up and down over the games ending and start talking about how it didn't add a certain character, or potentially slipped up on it's feet etc etc, a reviewer comes into the game and says, "did I have fun, was the game broken in anyway, was the story compelling, did I feel as though I wanted to go back to this game, was it better/ worse than *insert game here*". Using a formula similar to this, a reviewer then makes their decision, and bases the score of the game off of other games that they have played. This of course is then their opinion, a personal opinion on a piece of art that is entirely subjective.
Because of this, there will never be a game that is widely accepted as a good/bad game. I know I really, REALLy don't like Dishonoured and Half-Life, but I accept that many other people do. Yes, a good reviewer should take into account a games franchise, but because we are all different and have different emotions and investment towards certain games. Add to that that a reviewer has to play many games as quickly as possible so as that their review comes out on the day/a few days after the release of the game it is quite easy to realise that they can miss things that others would have picked up on. Again, good example with the Mass Effect 3 shindiggery, lots of fans were angry that the 'Dark Energy' sub-plot was dropped completely instead of becoming the main thing in ME3, but how can a game reviewer, whom has to play lots of games every year, making it hard for them to go back and replay and re immerse themselves, remember details such as the 'Dark Energy' sub-plot 3 years later. Sure, a good reviewer should try and remember the events of the previous entries in a franchise, but then where are they going to find time to review other games, be they the first of their series or the 6th. It's too much to expect from a person.
Therumancer said:
A bit lengthy and in an odd direction given the article, but it's largely what I thought of in reading this. Truthfully I've never been a big DMC fan, but I'm aware of the issues, and honestly I don't like people messing with my favorite franchises and characters that way either (as I've gone off about in other cases). This article mentions the uproar over the game, as well as the review scores, so I think it serves as a good example of the overall problem, which I think actually came to a head during the entire "Mass Effect 3" fiasco (which is still ongoing) with critics, reviewers, and inudtry watchdogs somehow not really getting how an ending can decimate not only an otherwise solid product, but an entire franchise retroactively.
Given the fan reaction the first question when dealing with a game series or franchise is whether it's a true continuation of that franchise, above and beyond anything. If someone trots out "Devil May Cry" but with rebooting, a main character that doesn't even look the same way anymore, etc... that should automatically be a "fail" before it even enters consideration because it's not truely the product it's claiming to be. Sort of like the differance between an action figure of "Spider Man" and one of "Spider Warrior"... the Japanese Knockoff. Sure it looks vaguely similar, and might be a perfectly servicable toy that functions just as well as an actual "Spider Man" one, and might even have a few extra points of articulation that could make it better, but at the end of the day it's not "Spider Man" and your kid who is a Spidey fan is not going to accept it as the same thing even if you paint the name "Spider Man" accross the chest. You failed to please your child, the toy sucks, as he is the final arbitor of whether it's good or not. As a parent if you thought it was "good" or "the same thing" you failed in your analysis if you thought so genuinely (as opposed to trying to save a few bucks) just as a reviewer fails when he say tries to pass off a counterfeit Dante with the franchise name emblazoned on it as the real thing.
I respect your opinions, but it looks as though you are saying that reviewers are not consumers. you have brought up many valid points that perfectly suffice your argument, but it hardly seems fair saying that a reviewer cannot have their own opinion on a video game. It's unjust to say that a different persons perception/thoughts on a certain piece of work, be it novels, paintings, songs, films or video games is wrong or right, especially how so much of it is very subjective. This includes if the product is part of a series. Example, I listen to Metallica and enjoy most their music, but that doesn't mean there aren't songs/albums that I just don't like of theirs. I don't like Saint Anger, but I like Death Magnetic, and while most people would agree with me about Saint Anger, there are those whom disagree with my opinion of Death Magnetic. As you can see, while I don't like 1 album of a certain band, that hasn't ruined any of their original/newer work for me. So in the end, to say that someones opinion is wrong and that they need to re-evaluate their entire situation is quite rude and makes you look like an entitled dick (I'm not calling you an entitled dick). Just because I don't like Orwell's, "1984" doesn't make those who think it's a good book wrong. Just because I don't like Justin Beiber or One Direction, doesn't make those who do wrong. Just because I like the "American History X" doesn't mean those who don't are wrong. So, while you have every right to love/hate any novels, films or video games such as Mass Effect 3 for example, it is ignorant of you to then say that other people are failing at their position when their entire job is about giving the best possible review to other consumers on a product that is entirely subjective. Thus, they could say it's bad, you could say it's good, and vice versa.
