The VG Resource

what quicktime event
i didnt get one, i was too busy killing the boss in under 10 minutes from across the map

the one where you kill the first one

and then you exchange lightning fast blows with both of them AT THE SAME TIME

Wow. I'm very suprised anyone took to this game. The demo didn't really hold my attention. Just felt like another shoot 'em up that didn't live up to the hype. I personally wasn't a fan of the control scheme, that's what made it a no-go for me. Now that I see the campaign is short and there's no multiplayer. definately not buying.

(10-23-2010, 12:27 PM)Alpha Six Wrote: [ -> ]the one where you kill the first one

and then you exchange lightning fast blows with both of them AT THE SAME TIME

oh right that one
that one was ok

(10-23-2010, 12:43 PM)Little_Wamp Wrote: [ -> ]Wow. I'm very suprised anyone took to this game. The demo didn't really hold my attention. Just felt like another shoot 'em up that didn't live up to the hype. I personally wasn't a fan of the control scheme, that's what made it a no-go for me. Now that I see the campaign is short and there's no multiplayer. definately not buying.

too bad you're 100% wrong about it being bad

(10-23-2010, 12:43 PM)Little_Wamp Wrote: [ -> ]Wow. I'm very suprised anyone took to this game. The demo didn't really hold my attention. Just felt like another shoot 'em up that didn't live up to the hype. I personally wasn't a fan of the control scheme, that's what made it a no-go for me. Now that I see the campaign is short and there's no multiplayer. definately not buying.

Way to not get adjusted to the controls. Once you get used to them (it doesn't take long) it plays a lot better than pretty much every 3PS on the market.

I actually ranted about this somewhere a while ago-- Vanquish is coded better and has better pacing than pretty much ANY 3PS you can think of. Platinum Games knows how to code a solid ANYTHING. Another thing that you need to understand is that Vanquish isn't about COVER COVER COVER like other shooters-- you're supposed to be on the move as much as possible. It's not just a shooting game, it's also an intense action game.

Ignorance is bliss.

it's also literally an arcade game but people still bitch about I WANT CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AND A STORY AND BLAH BLAH

(10-23-2010, 12:45 PM)Cure For Cancer Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2010, 12:27 PM)Alpha Six Wrote: [ -> ]the one where you kill the first one

and then you exchange lightning fast blows with both of them AT THE SAME TIME

oh right that one
that one was ok

(10-23-2010, 12:43 PM)Little_Wamp Wrote: [ -> ]Wow. I'm very suprised anyone took to this game. The demo didn't really hold my attention. Just felt like another shoot 'em up that didn't live up to the hype. I personally wasn't a fan of the control scheme, that's what made it a no-go for me. Now that I see the campaign is short and there's no multiplayer. definately not buying.

too bad you're 100% wrong about it being bad

What? I never said it was bad?

(10-23-2010, 12:57 PM)Little_Wamp Wrote: [ -> ]What? I never said it was bad?

really because yes you did

(10-23-2010, 12:43 PM)Little_Wamp Wrote: [ -> ]Wow. I'm very suprised anyone took to this game. The demo didn't really hold my attention. Just felt like another shoot 'em up that didn't live up to the hype. I personally wasn't a fan of the control scheme, that's what made it a no-go for me. Now that I see the campaign is short and there's no multiplayer. definately not buying.

right here
you even quoted it

LOL. Where'd I say "this game is bad"?
I just gave my opinion on why I wouldn't purchase it. I didnt bash the game in anyway.

You said "you're surprised anybody even took to this game"-- implying it's bad.

Anyway, for you folks complaining about multiplayer, I suggest you read this.

(10-23-2010, 01:08 PM)Alpha Six Wrote: [ -> ]You said "you're surprised anybody even took to this game"-- implying it's bad.

Anyway, for you folks complaining about multiplayer, I suggest you read this.

I'm wasn't trying to imply it was a bad game. I was literally surprised because its a shooter with a short campaign and no multiplayer.

and all I gathered from that article is that they didn't want to compete with other shooters that are multiplayer.
"It kind of boils down to whether you have the multiplayer but you don't have that much impact, and end up being like everyone else ... or even below par."

The difference here is that Vanquish is a completely original game. The only thing that would be considered less than original is the story-- and even then, SPACE RUSSIANS.

The gameplay is in its own league from pretty much every 3PS out there-- which is exactly what this topic has been saying for the past 8 pages (and what I've been saying for like, four). It's a game built around single player-- and FUN single player. You have so many more action options in this game than in any other shooter-- something that wouldn't work in multiplayer. They didn't want to nerf the gameplay just for a multiplayer element; so they didn't.

Which is something that nobody seems to understand. Few had a problem buying Bayonetta at the $60 price tag with no multiplayer-- this is essentially the exact same formula but applied to a third person shooter. Shooters don't HAVE to have multiplayer to be worth the money-- and neither does any other genre.


(except fighting games)

you could play through this game 5 times and not even come close to half of the ways to kill an enemy or a boss, or find out the weapon combinations that work best for you, or notice some of the subtle(and some not so subtle) differences between melee attacks


even if it's a short campaign, it has more depth than most games out there

>No Multiplayer
>3rd Person Shooter
>Heavily focuses on single player
>amazing graphics
>Rediculous beat-em-up esque actions
>Lots of replay value


SIGN ME THE FUCK UP

ps im scared to try god hard mode

the jump between normal and hard is already insane but
hnggggghhhhh

the difficulty names own:
casual auto
casual
normal
hard
god hard