The Other Worlds Shrine

Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about... 

  • No More Heroes

  • Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.
Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.
 #120054  by RentCavalier
 Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:44 am
Anyone gotten this one? It's an oddly out of place, yet perfectly fitting Wii-game: A base, vulgar, glorious celebration of kung-fu violence, blood, guts, and massive amounts of swearing.

It's like somebody dropped a lot of acid and made a bastard child out of Grand Theft Auto, Kill Bill, and Afro Samurai.

The game itself is oddly flawed--it has some truly bland open-world segments in-between the relatively similar stages (where you basically have to kill a wave of enemies until doors unlock, though they have made a point of having something new and different occur in each stage.)

The game's biggest appeal is the amazingly amazing boss fights--there are a bunch of assassins who form the crux of the game's plot, and you must kill them in order to become number one. The first couple are relatively easy--just intense and fun, but once their patterns are memorized, there's not much challenge.

I just beat the third boss, though, and holy FUCK did they amp up the difficulty. She has a pattern, sure, but the basic strategy is just to dodge constantly to break into her block--which can be hard when you get too deep into a combo and are struck by her counter-attack. But the REALLY obnoxious thing is that she has a fucking instant kill move where she hits you with a charged attack and then proceeds to cut you into sushi.

Oh, you fight her in an empty storehouse next to a highschool.

And she's wearing a school girl outfit.

Aaaand she kills a bunch of unarmed people tied to chairs.

aaaand to charge your weapon, you have to jerk off your Wiimote.

The game is super sweet. ^_^

 #120058  by SineSwiper
 Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:12 am
GI gave this game a bad review because it was something with a lot of potential, but the story was extreme just to be extreme.

Over many years of gaming I’ve lost patience with design philosophy that dictates punishing a player for turning on a game. You know what I’m talking about. Giving players boring, meaningless tasks to unlock miniscule rewards. Making boss fights needlessly long to try the player’s patience. Obscuring the story behind a confusing script. No More Heroes embraces these ideas to their fullest extent, going out of its way to push away all but the most fervent players.

The combat system in No More Heroes has a lot of promise. The combination of button pressing and motion controls is visceral, bloody, and fun at first. Unfortunately, beyond the boss fights, the complexity of the lightsaber-esque fighting never elevates past button mashing. The stylized graphics of the game certainly evoke memories of 8-bit goodness, but they also suffer from frequent pop-up and lack any real texture work. The flow of gameplay is also crippled by some odd decisions – why is there no retry option after a failed side mission? Why does the boring gas pumping minigame net more money than some of the more exciting assassination quests?

Then there’s the issue of the subject matter. Protagonist Travis Touchdown is a sociopath, killing largely for pleasure’s sake, but we never really get to explore why he is the way he is. There’s also a sick fascination with linking love and sex with extreme violence – Travis at one point waits to confess his love to a woman only after she’s blown her own head off with a grenade. In short, there are some things here designed from the ground up to shock and offend.

No More Heroes certainly gets a nod for being wildly different. It’s a unique take on open world play, and its almost nihilistic fixation on violence for the sake of violence has a satirical and darkly comedic edge. Unfortunately, the repetition and lack of substance behind the flash left me cold.

 #120061  by Shellie
 Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:29 am
Actually sounds like a game I'd like.

 #120062  by bovine
 Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:44 am
I'm pretty sure I'm the only one in the world who enjoyed Killer 7, I just never got around to picking this one up..... probably will get it off of ebay eventually. Thanks for the reminder.

 #120065  by RentCavalier
 Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:38 am
I haven't gotten far enough to really start getting the meat of the story yet, but that GI review seems sorta unfair for several reasons:

One: It's fucking Game Informer. They gave Blue Dragon practically a 9 'cause they are clearly retarded and in big game company's pockets.

Two: The script isn't anymore confusing than, say, a Quentin Tarentino movie. The dialogue is, at times, laughably cheesy, but I am almost tempted to say it is so on purpose. The game seems to be a wildly vibrant parody of typical anime/samurai norms, as well as just a celebration of being weird.

While I won't be one to defend the poor game design revolving around the open-world environment, I can assuredly tell you that the game's philosophy isn't neccessarrily being "weird for the sake of weird"---it's a little better than that. It's taking the envelope and pushing it into new and interesting ways.

 #120067  by Chris
 Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:51 am
RentCavalier wrote:I haven't gotten far enough to really start getting the meat of the story yet, but that GI review seems sorta unfair for several reasons:

One: It's fucking Game Informer. They gave Blue Dragon practically a 9 'cause they are clearly retarded and in big game company's pockets.

Two: The script isn't anymore confusing than, say, a Quentin Tarentino movie. The dialogue is, at times, laughably cheesy, but I am almost tempted to say it is so on purpose. The game seems to be a wildly vibrant parody of typical anime/samurai norms, as well as just a celebration of being weird.

While I won't be one to defend the poor game design revolving around the open-world environment, I can assuredly tell you that the game's philosophy isn't neccessarrily being "weird for the sake of weird"---it's a little better than that. It's taking the envelope and pushing it into new and interesting ways.
did it just start snowing in hell....because I totally fucking agree with you. love the hel out of the game....also loved killer 7. That may be my love of wacky over the top style (insane style has saved a lot fo games for me) I'd give it a solid B grade. it took a while to get used to cntolling things and the open world mechanics are kinda pointless but the game can e ridiculously fun too..

and hey you ever think that since reviews are a subjective thing that maybe the reviewer just really liked blue dragon?

 #120068  by RentCavalier
 Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:56 am
No, Game Informer has a history of being fucking stupid as hell.

 #120069  by Chris
 Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:14 pm
RentCavalier wrote:No, Game Informer has a history of being fucking stupid as hell.
because they disagree with you......glad to know it.....hell even I won't put bluedragon at that high but I know more than a few people who just absolutely loved the game and swore by it.....then I played it and was just kinda....meh......wish they actually let toryama paint something rather than force the DBZ into it (which this took and made even more ridiculous....) Seriosuly...if you are gonna take his style make it DQ 8 or something...this.....ugh.....seriously though.......the guy can paint beautifully and I would love a game that took that more as the design than telling him to go dragonball....he's sorta been stuf in that realm where it seems poeple just ask him for dragonball instead of letting him really g wild with designing. He's like a less awesome version of christopher waken.....they can do fuckin' anything int heir field yet all they ever do nowdays is charactures of themselves.......

 #120073  by M'k'n'zy
 Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:23 pm
Manfarb wrote:
RentCavalier wrote:No, Game Informer has a history of being fucking stupid as hell.
because they disagree with you......glad to know it.....hell even I won't put bluedragon at that high but I know more than a few people who just absolutely loved the game and swore by it.....then I played it and was just kinda....meh......wish they actually let toryama paint something rather than force the DBZ into it (which this took and made even more ridiculous....) Seriosuly...if you are gonna take his style make it DQ 8 or something...this.....ugh.....seriously though.......the guy can paint beautifully and I would love a game that took that more as the design than telling him to go dragonball....he's sorta been stuf in that realm where it seems poeple just ask him for dragonball instead of letting him really g wild with designing. He's like a less awesome version of christopher waken.....they can do fuckin' anything int heir field yet all they ever do nowdays is charactures of themselves.......
Honestly? I have formed the same opinion of GI's reviews. They give a lot of really good games bad reviews because they aren't well known, and a lot of games that weren't that great reviews better than they deserve.

On the other hand going back to the topic AT hand, I have been debating if I should pick this up or not. I think mabye after Persona 3 FES and Mario Kart I am going to have to get it.

 #120076  by Chris
 Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:03 pm
oh no I don't think their reviews are motivated by greed. I think they are motivated by mental retardation.....seriously....the grammatical ineptitude shown in that magazine is off the charts. it's almost as bad as Wizard when it comes to the bastardization of pop culture......although just a little above since after laying off most of their writing staff they actually do farm their message boards for articles to use without paying the poeple who wrote em.....fucking douchebags.....so yes...game informer id second on my list of magazines run by douchebags

 #120083  by RentCavalier
 Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:30 pm
Yeah, I just watched that.

It's pretty spot on--good reccomendation and surprisingly positive towards the minigames.

 #120347  by SineSwiper
 Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:53 am
Dutch wrote:Holy shit! A game he doesn't hate!
There's a few of them: Bioshock, Orange Box, Pschyonauts, Super Mario Galaxy. He still makes fun of their shortcomings, but that's exactly what a review should be doing.

 #120351  by Julius Seeker
 Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:45 am
His reviews are comedy, not meant to be taken seriously.

 #120361  by RentCavalier
 Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:08 pm
No, they're reviews which are comedic. In the end, he's still giving an opinion about a game based upon its perceive merits and value.

Whether you disagree with his reviews or not, they are still valid reviews--the only difference is that they are funny, and thus more interesting than a non-funny review.

 #120367  by SineSwiper
 Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:38 pm
Aye. His reviews are more spot on than most other reviewers.

 #120372  by Blotus
 Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:28 pm
SineSwiper wrote:Aye. His reviews are more spot on than most other reviewers.
What do you guys base this on?

 #120375  by SineSwiper
 Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:45 pm
Black Lotus wrote:What do you guys base this on?
Actually playing the game, and then watching the reviews.

Most reviewers will just praise a game as if Jesus himself made it. ZP will at least talk about the game's shortcomings, even if it is a great game and he really likes it.

 #120376  by bovine
 Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:48 pm
I like how he really acknowledges that around 99% of stories in games are TERRIBLE. What I don't like is how he doesn't consider multiplayer a valid part of a game to review. Obviously, like every other review you see/read, take it with a grain of salt.

 #120377  by RentCavalier
 Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:48 pm
SineSwiper wrote:
Black Lotus wrote:What do you guys base this on?
Actually playing the game, and then watching the reviews.

Most reviewers will just praise a game as if Jesus himself made it. ZP will at least talk about the game's shortcomings, even if it is a great game and he really likes it.
Again, this is subjective opinion. All I'm saying is that you can agree with what he says or not--the fact of the matter is that they ARE reviews. To agree or not is subjective, but...I will say, almost all of his reviews I find to be quite accurate.

 #120384  by Julius Seeker
 Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:17 am
Nah, it's comedy, he exagerates BIG TIME for the purpose of being funny. It doesn't even approach accurate let alone spot on. A review that doesn't discuss the games good points is as poor of a review as one that doesn't discuss the negative points.

 #120385  by bovine
 Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:25 am
to defend, I don't think it's so much exaggeration as it is his personal opinion of the game. He doesn't really talk about subtle genre evolutions or the quality of graphics/sound, it's more just his visceral opinion of the game. You can obviously say that he doesn't spend enough time with the game to give a professional opinion, but I'm not looking for a professional opinion here. I'm looking for a comedic gist of a game. It also helps that his taste in games is similar to mine, I would find his reviews stinky and terrible... full of holes and demeaning if I did not share his overall taste. He didn't like Galaxy as much as I do, likes Zak and Wiki WAY more than I do, didn't enjoy Uncharted, whereas I love it, etc. But just as I find one of the greatest first person shooters to be Star Wars: Republic commando, I don't always agree with reviewers.

 #120395  by SineSwiper
 Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:19 am
bovine wrote:I like how he really acknowledges that around 99% of stories in games are TERRIBLE. What I don't like is how he doesn't consider multiplayer a valid part of a game to review. Obviously, like every other review you see/read, take it with a grain of salt.
Well, 99% of stories in games -ARE- terrible! And multiplayer is only as good as the 13-year-olds playing the game.
bovine wrote:to defend, I don't think it's so much exaggeration as it is his personal opinion of the game. He doesn't really talk about subtle genre evolutions or the quality of graphics/sound, it's more just his visceral opinion of the game. You can obviously say that he doesn't spend enough time with the game to give a professional opinion, but I'm not looking for a professional opinion here. I'm looking for a comedic gist of a game. It also helps that his taste in games is similar to mine, I would find his reviews stinky and terrible... full of holes and demeaning if I did not share his overall taste. He didn't like Galaxy as much as I do, likes Zak and Wiki WAY more than I do, didn't enjoy Uncharted, whereas I love it, etc. But just as I find one of the greatest first person shooters to be Star Wars: Republic commando, I don't always agree with reviewers.
Well, my examples of really good reviews from him are: BioShock, Orange Box, Mass Effect. Though I didn't completely agree with his review of DMC4, I can at least see his points about it.

 #120397  by Zeus
 Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:09 am
SineSwiper wrote:And multiplayer is only as good as the 13-year-olds playing the game.
Why I don't play multiplayer much and, by extension, cannot justify paying to play online. The only real fun I've ever had online is when I play with people I know

 #120404  by Julius Seeker
 Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:16 am
I think I recall him comparing something in a game to taking an awesome grilled cheese sandwich out of your mouth and replacing it with wood and semen. You don't think that is even the slightest bit of an over-reaction? Because I would think that s FAR more terrible than anything within a videogame could be.

Online gaming, most of the time I just see it as repetitive and despite the supposed social nature of online gaming, it almost always tends to be a very anti-social experience.

 #120430  by RentCavalier
 Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:48 pm
Dutch wrote:I think I recall him comparing something in a game to taking an awesome grilled cheese sandwich out of your mouth and replacing it with wood and semen. You don't think that is even the slightest bit of an over-reaction? Because I would think that s FAR more terrible than anything within a videogame could be.

Online gaming, most of the time I just see it as repetitive and despite the supposed social nature of online gaming, it almost always tends to be a very anti-social experience.
It was a metaphor. He said that the sudden shift from stealth to combat was LIKE you were eating a nice, if not bland sandwich with the occasional bite of Branston Pickle (his favorite food, I guess) only to have it snatched away to be replaced with watery ejaculate between two cardboard slats.

It's funny, but its point is that it's a jarring and unpleasent change that leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

 #120707  by EsquE
 Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:38 am
Was planning on giving this one a try...just wish more companies were actually pushing the Wii to make cool games instead of mindless games full of mini games that are the same game over and over.