IGN and Gamespot have posted up their video reviews for the reboot of Devil May Cry, one of my favorite franchises to date. It has been on the recieving end of a lot of controversey since its announcement, but the reviews have been positive and a lot of people have been swayed by the demo, accepting that while the combat has been changed it's because it's trying to be more accessible for newcomers, and judging it for being what it isn't trying to be is a little unfair. Still, there's people who haven't been swayed by the demo, which is entirely understandable. However, if you've not tried the demo and refuse to look at the game just because it's different, I do recommend at least giving it a shot without judging it against the previous games too much. Hard to do, but accept it for what it is and it's a blast.
Frankly, as much as I love Devil May Cry, I didn't want another direct sequel, so I'm pretty pleased with Capcom taking a big risk and changing it up. It'll be interesting to see whether there's still a lot of dislike after launch or not. Either way I reckong
it'll sell a lot because of the controversey alone. What do you think?
On another note, this does remind me a bit of a topic brought up in the last ever issue of Xbox World mag. One of the articles put forward the point that while the state of games journalist has a lot to do with the companies, publishers and journalists,
it's also partially because of the gamers and the internet. It put forth the point that you're not allowed to have an opinion on the internet anymore, that differing views from the herd get shouted down. Things like downvotes ensure that a different opinion
is never seen. In short, it points out that reviewers who say anything that the herd disagree with get shouted down, accused of being paid off, threats, abuse, called biased, called unproffesional etc. The IGN video review is case in point when you look at
the comments. Good score, but that goes against the herd, and so that's it. The reviewer gets bashed. The Gamespot review scored it an 8, and people still accuse of being paid off? Are we partially to blame for the state of games journalism? The article suggests
that because of this, reviewers end up beng swayed to agree with the herd and never say anything against them. Likewise ad revenue plays its part there: reviewers that go against the grain don't get a look in because they disagree, hitting ad revenue hard
which is often needed to keep a site going.
An interesting topic, I feel. I'm still mulling it all over, but I'd love to hear your thoughts.