Shadows of the Damned Review

[PhiMed]

Juvenile humor? Linearity? It's difficult to take these as substantial criticism when Suda51 is involved.

His first game was literally on rails, with some of the worst controls imaginable. I fucking loved it, but it's the truth.

His second and third games (third was a sequel of the second) contained some of the most juvenile humor of all time. The games, taken together, could be listed in the Guiness book of world records as the world's longest dick joke.

That's his MO, man.

 

[CrawlingPastaHellion]

Heh, blaming a shooter for being repetitive is like blaming ice-cream for being sweet.

As much as I adore Shadows Susan does have a point. The gunplay does very little to distinguish itself from it's spiritual predecessor Resi 4. While a few of the upgrades add a little pzazz, the exploding bubble charge for example, the core combat is very basic.

Of course some people would call that a virtue. Like most of Suda's game Shadows seems like a title with all the fat stripped away. Leaving only the core, fun, parts.

I highly recommend it.

CONFIRMED.

The core gameplay of any shooter is always the same. All you can do to spice it up is change the locales and add new gizmo's and enemies. But the core never changes. That is what I meant: when you decide to play a shooter you pretty much know what to expect. Susan was blaming exactly that and as I pointed out: it is like blaming a mouse for not being able to fly.

A good shooter is pretty much defined by (just add "good" at the beginning of each statement):

1. graphics
2. controls
3. gunplay (i.e. how smooth and viceral it is)
4. pacing
4. variety in both the vistas, foes and arsenal

My own fault: I know I have to formulate my thoughts more clearly than I often do.

 

[The Wooster]

Heh, blaming a shooter for being repetitive is like blaming ice-cream for being sweet.

As much as I adore Shadows Susan does have a point. The gunplay does very little to distinguish itself from it's spiritual predecessor Resi 4. While a few of the upgrades add a little pzazz, the exploding bubble charge for example, the core combat is very basic.

Of course some people would call that a virtue. Like most of Suda's game Shadows seems like a title with all the fat stripped away. Leaving only the core, fun, parts.

I highly recommend it.

CONFIRMED.

The core gameplay of any shooter is always the same. All you can do to spice it up is change the locales and add new gizmo's and enemies. But the core never changes. That is what I meant: when you decide to play a shooter you pretty much know what to expect. Susan was blaming exactly that and as I pointed out: it is like blaming a mouse for not being able to fly.

A good shooter is pretty much defined by (just add "good" at the beginning of each statement):

1. graphics
2. controls
3. gunplay (i.e. how smooth and viceral it is)
4. pacing
4. variety in both the vistas, foes and arsenal

My own fault: I know I have to formulate my thoughts more clearly than I often do.

Actually I still disagree. A good, varied shooter uses changes in enemy type and weapon availability to make you rethink your tactics and approach. Halo, would be a good example in that the approach you use to fighting the flood is different from the approach you use to fight the Covenant. Shadows only really forces you to switch up your routine once or twice.

 

[CrawlingPastaHellion]

Heh, blaming a shooter for being repetitive is like blaming ice-cream for being sweet.

As much as I adore Shadows Susan does have a point. The gunplay does very little to distinguish itself from it's spiritual predecessor Resi 4. While a few of the upgrades add a little pzazz, the exploding bubble charge for example, the core combat is very basic.

Of course some people would call that a virtue. Like most of Suda's game Shadows seems like a title with all the fat stripped away. Leaving only the core, fun, parts.

I highly recommend it.

CONFIRMED.

The core gameplay of any shooter is always the same. All you can do to spice it up is change the locales and add new gizmo's and enemies. But the core never changes. That is what I meant: when you decide to play a shooter you pretty much know what to expect. Susan was blaming exactly that and as I pointed out: it is like blaming a mouse for not being able to fly.

A good shooter is pretty much defined by (just add "good" at the beginning of each statement):

1. graphics
2. controls
3. gunplay (i.e. how smooth and viceral it is)
4. pacing
4. variety in both the vistas, foes and arsenal

My own fault: I know I have to formulate my thoughts more clearly than I often do.

Actually I still disagree. A good, varied shooter uses changes in enemy type and weapon availability to make you rethink your tactics and approach. Halo, would be a good example in that the approach you use to fighting the flood is different from the approach you use to fight the Covenant. Shadows only really forces you to switch up your routine once or twice.

You're once again confusing the core gameplay with auxiliary variety. The grand scheme behind shooters will always remain the same: run 'n gun. Tactics is a function of the supplementary elements, such as the enemy diversity. I wasn't talking about these and neither was Susan in "The basic combat never really changes all that much", I am quoting her here. She was also talking about strategies more or less remaining the same throughout the game, but my grudge is with that one sentence above. The basic combat of all the shooters is always the same. It's once we go advanced combat, like using different tactics and so on, we can hope to get some diversity.

 

[The Wooster]

Heh, blaming a shooter for being repetitive is like blaming ice-cream for being sweet.

As much as I adore Shadows Susan does have a point. The gunplay does very little to distinguish itself from it's spiritual predecessor Resi 4. While a few of the upgrades add a little pzazz, the exploding bubble charge for example, the core combat is very basic.

Of course some people would call that a virtue. Like most of Suda's game Shadows seems like a title with all the fat stripped away. Leaving only the core, fun, parts.

I highly recommend it.

CONFIRMED.

The core gameplay of any shooter is always the same. All you can do to spice it up is change the locales and add new gizmo's and enemies. But the core never changes. That is what I meant: when you decide to play a shooter you pretty much know what to expect. Susan was blaming exactly that and as I pointed out: it is like blaming a mouse for not being able to fly.

A good shooter is pretty much defined by (just add "good" at the beginning of each statement):

1. graphics
2. controls
3. gunplay (i.e. how smooth and viceral it is)
4. pacing
4. variety in both the vistas, foes and arsenal

My own fault: I know I have to formulate my thoughts more clearly than I often do.

Actually I still disagree. A good, varied shooter uses changes in enemy type and weapon availability to make you rethink your tactics and approach. Halo, would be a good example in that the approach you use to fighting the flood is different from the approach you use to fight the Covenant. Shadows only really forces you to switch up your routine once or twice.

You're once again confusing the core gameplay with auxiliary variety. The grand scheme behind shooters will always remain the same: run 'n gun. Tactics is a function of the supplementary elements, such as the enemy diversity. I wasn't talking about these and neither was Susan, as far as I understood her point. Correct me if I'm wrong.

An arbitrary distinction. You can keep on breaking down gameplay elements into smaller and smaller elements until all criticism becomes meaningless. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

 

[CrawlingPastaHellion]

An arbitrary distinction. You can keep on breaking down gameplay elements into smaller and smaller elements until all criticism becomes meaningless. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

I edited my last post. Yes, I rewatched the review to see what got under my skin so much. I apologize for the inconvenience.

 

[Susan Arendt]

I really enjoyed the game, minors faults aside, it made a hell of a ride; heck a friend of mine that hates phallic humour got some giggles.

Too bad it doesn't have unlockable stuff, like costumes and such...

 

[LewsTherin]

*Looks outside*

Doesn't seem to be the 1990's.

Sounds like a fun time, at any rate.

 

[SageRuffin]

The entire game is a massive dick joke, pun not intended. But it has a certain charm to it, definitely.

And who wouldn't wanna hear Steve Blum in an ironically convincing Mexican accent?