Today we take a look at the history of one of gamings most revered developers, Rockstar Games. From humble beginnings in the music industry to a standard of gaming quality few can match, Rockstar has expanded into eight separate studios and a library of high-scoring and, more importantly, high-quality titles. Welcome, ladies and gents, to Gaming History 101
VGChartz's Mark Nielsen: "Upon finally finishing Devil May Cry 5 recently - after it spent several years on my “I’ll play that soon” list - I considered giving it a fittingly-named Late Look article. However, considering that this was indeed the final piece I was missing in the DMC puzzle, I decided to instead take this opportunity to take a look back at the entirety of this genre-defining series and rank the entries. What also made this a particularly tempting notion was that while most high-profile series have developed fairly evenly over time, with a few bumps on the road, the history of Devil May Cry has, at least in my eyes, been an absolute roller coaster, with everything from total disasters to action game gold."
Me leaving it out should be telling of my thoughts on it. Better than 2 as a DMC game.
Still a good game though.
3,1,4,5 to me, never played 2. 5 gameplay is amazing but level design was really disappointing to me, just a bunch of plain arenas, the story felt like a worse written rehash of the 3rd and the charater models looked weird ( specially the ladies ). Another problem with 5 was that there was not enough content for 3 charaters so I could never really familiarize with any of them
2.
Dmc.
4.
5.
1.
3.
God DMC2 was an awful game.
And in case this isn't obvious it goes worst to best
Order changes depending on your focus. I tend to focus on gameplay/fun factor, so...
5, 3, 1, 4, 2.
I really didn't like 4 but commend Dante's weapon diversity. The retreading of old ground was pretty unacceptable to me.
But even then... Still more enjoyable than 2 for me
GB: "With this feature, we will be taking a look at 15 of the best games from the PlayStation 2's vast library."
With so many games fighting for players' attention and interest losing out over time, time sink games are at risk of eventually losing steam.
It was worrisome to begin with.
It's a niche genre with only a handful of hits that can stand the test of time.
I like the sound of that!! I will for sure never support these gaas games.
Sony must be shocked at gamer's reaction, making them cancel a few of these and hopefully go back to the good heavy hitters they had us used to..
now bring on that PSPro reveal and show us some SP 1st party awesomeness.
It's pretty ridiculous.
Imagine having a breadth of data at your disposal to see the statistically low success rate of these games, only to be laser focused on the exceptional case studies.
Only a few will catch on. You need a perfect storm to be successful in GaaS and a bit of luck on top of that. But a potential cash cow will keep them trying and some will go out of business because of it.
Helldivers 2 manages just fine…
Keep production costs low… don’t just make custscenes until the mechanics and enemies are perfected first.
Make so much content that you can drip extra content for years, and the game already feels complete without them.
Most importantly: make weapons, enemies, levels, and mechanics that will stand the test of 1000 hours. This might require more devs embracing procedurally generated leveled, which I think separates Helldivers 2 from Destiny’s repetitiveness.
tagged for later
As the site owner and hard working sole writer of http://gaminghistory101.com I'm curious why your site previously had a retro section called "RetroVania" and now you're using "Gaming History 101" in this one-off piece. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and say you're unaware of my site, which I respect.
I would prefer you not use the Gaming History 101 title to your articles, but I have neither the ability nor the right to force this. For the record, this writer and article is not associated with Gaming History 101, its podcast, or anything associated with my site.
Hi Spydersvenom,
Retrovania and Gaming History 101 are two very different feature templates, which a look through previous editions of Retrovania will show you. Retrovania is a retrospective review of game from years gone by, while Gaming History 101 is a factual (and on-going) series focusing on the history of a certain genre, franchise or – in the case of this particular article – a developer. I hope that helps clear up any confusion between the two features.
The 'Gaming History 101' template title is simply a title to clearly differentiate the article from other content on the site, and while it's use is far from set in stone, I feel it sums up the aim of the series and should appeal to both a UK and an international audience. I appreciate your desire to avoid confusion, but I'm sure the users on here are savvy and experienced enough to avoid confusing our feature with your website.
Thanks again for the feedback,
Dom Reseigh-Lincoln
Content Editor
infiniterobots.co.uk
Heya,
Don't worry about it, you've some great content on your site so I'm sure you'll have some very respectable viewing figures regardless of what name you're using.
All the best bud,
Dom