YukoAsho's comments

Posted by YukoAsho

@robo said:

@yukoasho said:

I do have to say, I'm dissapointed by the "I hate Dynasty Warriors, but it's Zelda..." vibe here. Really? Is that all you want Nintendo to do? Nostalgia mine?

That has kind of been their primary MO for the past decade and a half if you look past the one or two gimmicky controls/mechanics they shoehorn in every now and then.

This game is extra disappointing because it doesn't even have that. At least that can be fun. This is just the same old story tacked on to tedious Dynasty Warriors gameplay.

Well, I wouldn't agree with DW being tedious, being a recent convert myself. It's quite a fun beat-em-up in the tradition of Final Fight or Streets of Rage, without being stupidly cheap in that arcade way.

Even this game is substantially different from recent DW games in the way the characters move, the way they grow more powerful, and the like (and no horse, at least in as far as I've gotten). However, a lot of it feels, much like the upcoming Pokken Tournament, like Nintendo just saying "Just make your games with our characters!" It's a worrying trend, especially if we end up with truly stupid shit like a Call of Duty in an Advance Wars skin. Really? Is this the only way to get Nintendo fans to try non-Nintendo games?

Edited by YukoAsho

You know, having no voice acting here actually bothers me MORE than in the core games. In the core games, you can read at your own pace, but here, that's not really an option, so if you're distracted by trying to kill something, you might miss out on something vital.

I do have to say, I'm dissapointed by the "I hate Dynasty Warriors, but it's Zelda..." vibe here. Really? Is that all you want Nintendo to do? Nostalgia mine?

Posted by YukoAsho

@beyondstrange: Dynasty Warriors had 14 years to reach a roster that big however. The spin-off games like One Piece and Fist of the North Star had small rosters with their first games that were increased with the sequels. I always thought it was weird that people were expecting a 30-40 character roster with this game.

Indeed. It's grown exponentially over the years. And I agree with you that there wasn't really much potential for a roster. The Zelda series doesn't really have a lot of TRULY memorable characters, as it's very much a gameplay series. Like I said, sad to see, but it can't really be helped.

Now an FF6 Musou, that would be interesting.

Posted by YukoAsho

I think we can all agree that this review is totally diesel.

@yukoasho: I thought this game had 13 characters? Is that not a lot? This is a legitimate question by the way. I haven't played a dynasty warriors game in 13 years, so I can't remember how many characters they usually have.

Weirdly, I will probably pick this up, despite the fact I am a huge Gundam fan and have resisted picking up any of the Gundam ones.

Dynasty Warriors 8 Xtreme Legends has over 80. 145 characters are available in Warriors Orochi 3 Ultimate.

Posted by YukoAsho

I guess I'm the only one who never really gave a crap about Zelda post-SNES/GBC but is totally hyped for this because she loves Dynasty Warriors? Sad there are so few characters, but it can't be helped.

Posted by YukoAsho

You know, coming to this article again, I've come to another conclusion about games media that I find troubling, along with the suppression of dissenting ideas and the overt friendliness with indies.

There's a lot of 'there can only be one' declarations.

"PC/Consoles is/are dead!"

"Mobiles are taking over!"

"Digital only future!"

"Gamers are dead!"

"Single player disappearing!"

Games media has been worse than partisan news for a very long time, obsessed with short-term thinking, pushing an agenda, or both. It's increasingly easy to see why gamers have always been so distrustful of the media.

Posted by YukoAsho

@hailinel said:

@gamerpigeon said:

This is sadly a very lazy looking HD remake. The ground texture is unforgivable imo. Looks terrible and I like these games

It's not an HD remake. It's an upgraded port. (And the game was HD to begin with on PS3 and 360 in its first release years ago.)

To say nothing of Hyper for the Wii U.

Actually, if you have save data from Warriors Orochi 3 on the PS3, you can transfer it over to the PS4 game.

Edited by YukoAsho

I don't think this is really that much of a trend at all. I feel that this piece is a little bit reactionary because he happens to be playing 2 games at the same time where playing online co-op is an option. The article neglects to mention the fact that D3 on new consoles is simply a re-release with RoS added in for the complete experience. So to say that all of a sudden these kind of games are coming out and taking over single-player-only experiences would be rather misleading.

There are plenty of games that have come out in recent times, coming out this year, and also next year that will have a true single player element to it. The Last of Us was primarily a single player game. Far Cry 4 is a single player game. Arkham Knight is one too. I can name plenty more but I think it's reasonable to say that single player games won't be going away any time soon. Besides, I think there is more of a trend of games trying to find a way to add multiplayer into the mix, rather than take away the single player experience.

Most recently, there was Wolfenstein: New Order, a hotly-anticipated release with no multiplayer whatsoever. While there will always be many games that try to push multiplayer, I wonder how many of them will succeed without a compelling single player game. The fact that Call of Duty, Battlefield, Halo, Gears, Counter-Strike, Street Fighter and other extremely long-lived games continue to dominate multiplayer gaming suggests that people are hesitant to spend the necessary time getting good at a large, diverse group of games.

A game that's mainly multiplayer, be it co-op or competitive, requires a hell of a lot of commitment to get pleasure from it. How many people are still playing Tomb Raider multiplayer? Sniper Elite? Uncharted?

Without compelling single player games, the mainstream market would almost certainly contract severely. Quite frankly, any company that can't outdo Call of Duty goes multi-only at their own peril.

Posted by YukoAsho

So basically, the co-op fails where Borderlands succeeds, and the competitive fails where CoD and Battlefield succeed.

It pains me, having been such a fan of Bungie's work on Halo 1-Reach, but if this is their idea of a connected game, please give us a single-player game again, guys...