Poll: I really liked Dante's inferno.

[Aanorith]

Used the search function, didn't find any similar topic, if there was I am very very sorry, etc.

Anyway, so I've bin waiting a long time to buy Dante's inferno. I figured since it got such a low score the price would drop quite alot in a moderate time, which it did (20$ish used in Sweden)

I've always loved a good hack and slash so figured it would suit me and man did it ever. The environments are just mind blowingly awesome, everything feels appropriatly epic for a man to rush through all levels of hell.

So why did it recive such a low score? I've seen the one in gametrailers, read it in PCgamer and LEVEL. I just don't get it. Sure, it seemed to push alot of reviewers buttons that in certain places in the game where you died you had to go through a few tedious things again perhaps but I never thought it was bad. Just the enviroments are reason enough to play this game, but it's also in my humble opinion a good game, good enough story easy to appeal to my boyish "fuck yeah" side of gaming. Admitably a bit to short

So why the hate? Lemme hear your thoughts.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

It was fun, but I have no illusions that it's anything other than the most blatant God of War ripoff ever made.

The low scores were primarily because it was a 100% knockoff, and secondarily because it made a video game out of a beloved classic of literature whilst also having virtually nothing in common with said classic of literature beyond the title.

 

[Jonluw]

I did not like that game. Worst 600 NOK($100) I've ever spent.

The combat was boring, the cross was overpowered, and the story was uninteresting. The level design was sort of nice though. Not the platforms themselves, mind you. The ways in which you could move about a map weren't very creative, but it looked quite nice.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

I felt it was insulting to the source material.

Plus rather tasteless.

 

[Gxas]

It was way too easy and too short. Also, the Holy tree was ridiculously better than the Unholy tree.

Those are my main complaints about the game.

 

[Weaver]

My main problems with it was the punish/absolve system. In every combat I would never want to actually just KILL anyone, I always had to dance around, picking away at them then grab them to punish/absolve them for the precious points.

It's Ironic because a lot of the combos I wouldn't use because they would end up killing people outright instead of giving me absolve/punish experience points, which I felt I needed. It just ended up making combat frustrating.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Never played God of War so the term God of War ripoff never really had an effect on me and being in Hell is kinda cool. So I'd call it good but not great. I thought the whole marketing campaign was quite cute in its "Daaaawwwwwwwww (not so)SRS GAEM IS TRYING TO BE SRS" way.

 

[BlackHazard]

It was a good rent but never a buy.

 

[Lawnmooer]

I liked it.

It kept me interested until the end... Probably because I found the interpretation of hell quite enjoyable.

The only problem I had with it was the fact that my circle button probably lost about 5 years of life because of how many doors there were (Doors that only open when being stabbed then sliced by Deaths scythe are silly)

 

[Weaver]

I also think "God of War" ripoff is false to say, as god of war just ripped off Rygar: the legendary adventure.


But of course no one played Rygar so that means God of War inexplicably gets a free pass.

 

[Aanorith]

It was fun, but I have no illusions that it's anything other than the most blatant God of War ripoff ever made.

The low scores were primarily because it was a 100% knockoff, and secondarily because it made a video game out of a beloved classic of literature whilst also having virtually nothing in common with said classic of literature beyond the title.

Never played God of War so the term God of War ripoff never really had an effect on me and being in Hell is kinda cool. So I'd call it good but not great. I thought the whole marketing campaign was quite cute in its "Daaaawwwwwwwww (not so)SRS GAEM IS TRYING TO BE SRS" way.

I too have never played God of War so it doesnt apply to me either. 360 owner, woo.
Can't really say I view it as a GoW clone, when I look at this game all I think is hack and slash. Or action rpg if you perfer that. It always puzzled me why everyone seems to be so ticked off by copying things to start with. All FPS's are DOOM clones, all JRPGs are phantasy star copies or w/e game was first. It's a genre not a clone.

 

[scorptatious]

I've never actually played the game, but I have seen an entire lets play of it. And by the looks of it, I don't like it. The main character was annoying, the enemies lacked in variety, not to mention the final boss was very hard to take seriously due to his (ahem) manly features. It's definetely something I won't buy now or in the future, no matter how cheap it is.

Although there was an interesting point the LPer made about the game and "God of War" rip offs in general. Just because a game happens to be similar to God of War doesn't neccesarily mean it's a rip off. They just happen to be under the same genre. For the most part, I actually agree. You don't see people calling something like Blue Dragon a rip off of Chrono Trigger. They are both JRPG's in the most basic sense of the term.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

I also think "God of War" ripoff is false to say, as god of war just ripped off Rygar: the legendary adventure.


But of course no one played Rygar so that means God of War inexplicably gets a free pass.

Difference is, God of War is way better than Rygar.

Besides, how many years were there between Rygar and GoW? A lot more than there were between GoW and Dante's Inferno. (And I'm not talking about that awful PS2 update of Rygar, which was pathetic.)

Never played God of War so the term God of War ripoff never really had an effect on me and being in Hell is kinda cool. So I'd call it good but not great. I thought the whole marketing campaign was quite cute in its "Daaaawwwwwwwww (not so)SRS GAEM IS TRYING TO BE SRS" way.

If you've never played a God of War game, I don't understand how or why you'd even be interested in Dante's Inferno.

 

[GundamSentinel]

I liked it. Sure, the combat was God of War copypasta, but the story was better than either God of War 2 or God of War 3. I liked the atmosphere as well. Hell really looks like a place you don't want to end up. Sure, it wasn't anything like the source material, but who cares?

 

[Weaver]

I also think "God of War" ripoff is false to say, as god of war just ripped off Rygar: the legendary adventure.

But of course no one played Rygar so that means God of War inexplicably gets a free pass.

Difference is, God of War is way better than Rygar.

Besides, how many years were there between Rygar and GoW? A lot more than there were between GoW and Dante's Inferno. (And I'm not talking about that awful PS2 update of Rygar, which was pathetic.)

To answer your questions:

Rygar came out at the tail end of 2002, GoW came out March 2005. There were two years and 5 months in between GoW and Rygar: TLA.

Dante's Inferno came out Febuary 2010, thus leaving a 4 year and 11 month gap between Dante's Inferno and the first God of War.

What I don't get is that yes, God of War is a better game. Why does that matter? Everyone HATES everything which copies God of War for the seeming reasons of unoriginality, and yet when I point out GoW stole all of it's "original" ideas that doesn't matter for some reason.

I mean hell we can argue Rygar was just following in the shoes of DMC which basically started the whole "Stylized Slasher" business to begin with.

My argument here really is that if Dante's Inferno "copied" God of War; so what? God of War copied Rygar: TLA and everyone loves it, so I don't think Dante's Inferno should automatically lose points for unoriginality.

 

[Bullet Alchemist]

I personally much preferred it to GOW. The combat was much more fluid than many of the same genre. The levels were staggering and the enemy design was very nice. I didn't like how much it strayed from the original text but I do acknowledge that to make a hack and slash title based on such difficult material would be hard so I'll let that pass.

 

[Ampersand]

It was like a good version of god of war(which was like a bad version of alot of other games). I really enjoyed it.

 

[LavaLampBamboo]

The fact that it was a GoW knock off on multiple levels really riled some reviewers. The whole classic literary setting, family stolen away, over the top kills, it was a little to similar.

However, I still enjoyed it. It WAS fairly short but it wasn't a bad game. Some of the bosses were inventive and the narrative flowed well. I think they should have said it was inspired by the book, not a video game version.

I wonder if they are still doing the sequel that was rumoured a while ago.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

I also think "God of War" ripoff is false to say, as god of war just ripped off Rygar: the legendary adventure.

But of course no one played Rygar so that means God of War inexplicably gets a free pass.

Difference is, God of War is way better than Rygar.

Besides, how many years were there between Rygar and GoW? A lot more than there were between GoW and Dante's Inferno. (And I'm not talking about that awful PS2 update of Rygar, which was pathetic.)

To answer your questions:

Rygar came out at the tail end of 2002, GoW came out March 2005. There were two years and 5 months in between GoW and Rygar: TLA.

Dante's Inferno came out Febuary 2010, thus leaving a 4 year and 11 month gap between Dante's Inferno and the first God of War.

What I don't get is that yes, God of War is a better game. Why does that matter? Everyone HATES everything which copies God of War for the seeming reasons of unoriginality, and yet when I point out GoW stole all of it's "original" ideas that doesn't matter for some reason.

I mean hell we can argue Rygar was just following in the shoes of DMC which basically started the whole "Stylized Slasher" business to begin with.

My argument here really is that if Dante's Inferno "copied" God of War; so what? God of War copied Rygar: TLA and everyone loves it, so I don't think Dante's Inferno should automatically lose points for unoriginality.

I already said I wasn't talking about that idiotic PS2 remake. When did the original Rygar come out? Mid 80's at the lastest?(Or was that before your time? Did you not even realize that the PS2 version was a remake?)

It matters that GoW was better than Rygar and DI wasn't better than GoW. If you can do something better, then by all means do it. If you can't, then what's the point?

Not to mention that I already said I don't really care that DI ripped off GoW. Fun is fun, whether it's original or not.

I'm just saying that, whether GoW ripped of Rygar or not, it certainly surpassed it, and made the gameplay style its own.