IGN - Go behind the review and find out why IGN thought Dante's adventure was "great" and not "amazing."
as if we care ign........
Your indifference is obvious. I mean, it's not as if you took the time to click on the link and then comment. On topic: The performance issues cited by the reviewer don't seem all that bad from the videos posted by Digital Foundry. Anyone have noticeable framerate issues on PS3?
No screen tear, just some almost unnoticeable frame drops, 2 hiccups in transitioning between a cutscene in engine and pre-rendered (one was in chapter 15 when Mundus unleashes) Though I must say I swapped my HDD with a 7200 RPM (Western Figital 500GB) and I suffer way less problems than I read in review, I have less pop-ups, shorter loading times, shorter installation times, less frame drops and the such. I could play Skyrim without almost any problem even pre 1.01 patch for example.
the funny thing I find is that 0.5 is the difference between "great" and "amazing" edit: come to think of it I din't know how how "amazing" is better in the scale than "great", or the order of wonderful, fantastic, splendid, marvelous
So it's not enough to review and than give a explanation on why it didn't score higher? Maybe you should send this to NT so they can improve on this for the sequel I guess to generate his you have to provide something but I believe the resources over at ign could have been put to better use Like whats gonna happen to THQ within next 24-48hrs
So they wanted to be "Great" not "Amazing"? OK.
yup and more proof MGR will get a 9 :)
Who cares. Shitty game is shitty. Nuff said.
Unhappy troll will troll. Nuff said.
Low standard person had low standards. Nuff said.
Low standards? You know nothing about my standards. I merely called you on what you are based on your non-constructive contribution. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Clever response though. Your copy/paste skills are phenomenal.
^troll fed +1
I honestly don't care about IGN nor probably ever will and am stating this up front. So with that said, do we really need a video/article on how a video game didn't gain just one more point in an already flawed review system? I mean are they going to to this with every game. "Now let's take a look at why Dead Space 3 got a 93, but not a 92." ^ I'm calling this scenario right now and it's pathetic.
I clicked agree. Keep an eye out for my upcoming article about why I didn't click disagree.
Why didn't they cover these issues in the original review?
Because it blatantly doesn't deserve a 9.
*IGN: Makes a review of a pretty reasonable score* *Makes a further "review" as to why it didn't score higher* They totally aint aiming for hits...
I find these stupid DmC fans hilarious Did people forget what both NT and Capcom said in 2010? 1) NT at TGS said "there are things in previous DMCs that were only possible in the cutscenes but not in gameplay, we wanted to change that" 2) Capcom expects 5 million sales on this title. 3) Game was going to be 15+ hours, ended up being half that on initial play through. They definately failed on point 1 (no two some time, no lock on, wheres these moves that can now be done via cutscenes in gameplay). 5 Million sales? Dont see it breaking the barrier of 5 million, more closer to DMC4 sales, and the game, completed within 7 hours on Nephilim mode. All these stupid articles about "DMC fans want DmC off the shelf, getting white house involved" are attention seeking hoes who got nothing else better to do. If you simply disagree with this comment on the basis of what CAPCOM and NINJA THEORY have said, then you clearly delusional. The game is not bad, its just not a Devil May Cry game, regardless of the shape shifting environments and the great mo cap.
DmC isnt even going to scratch DMC4 sales
It will get closer to 15 hours with the Vergil Dlc.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.