What are you currently playing? 4.0

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I didn't mean that they were garbage games (except for 2), just that what would have happened had they actually let Kamiya work on a sequel to Devil May Cry how awesome it would have been.

Bayonetta might have been even better.

I always thought it was Kamiya's own choice not to work on any sequels to DMC. He seemed to lose interest in his own series after the first game, anyways, from what I can tell.

That said, I still think that Capcom did right by the series for DMC3. Until Bayonetta came out it had the most robust combo system out of any other game in the genre. It also pretty much perfected the art of the tounge-in-cheek attitude for video games (which Bayonetta itself incorporated into its style). Whereas DMC1 mostly took itself pretty seriously (although was unintentionally funny due to horrible English voice-acting), DMC3 was completely over-the-top and hilarious, with a few serious moments here and there which actually worked and felt more special because they were more rare in the game. Overall though the whole game just felt fun from every part of it that I played (except for those boring-ass statue enemies).

As for Kamiya, had he worked on DMC3 (or even 2, for that matter), I'm indeed sure that it would have been better, but in that regard it would have really been better in terms of the other aspects of the game, like the level design and such. Capcom still did a fantastic job on the combat system of that game.

[Kiddington]

M&L had a tradition of overly long final bosses. 3 thankfully fixed it by having a bunch of boss fights in a row near the end, making it less of a chore. But I still haven't beaten the original game because that final boss took too long. I don't even know why I slogged through the second game's final boss. I guess I just didn't want to have an excuse to ever replay it.

Now that you mention it, is 2's final boss worse (read: longer) than Cackletta?

Honestly, there aren't too many final bosses that actually took me several years to get around to beating; Cackletta's final form in the original is one of 'em. It was one of the only things about that game I didn't like. The funny thing is, she's not even hard, either; it's just a painstakingly long process of repeating the same moves over and over and over again. The hard part really comes from just trying to maintain your focus, due to the battle dragging on for so long.

I think if 2's final boss is that bad, I might not even bother.

[Spark Of Spirit]

M&L had a tradition of overly long final bosses. 3 thankfully fixed it by having a bunch of boss fights in a row near the end, making it less of a chore. But I still haven't beaten the original game because that final boss took too long. I don't even know why I slogged through the second game's final boss. I guess I just didn't want to have an excuse to ever replay it.

Now that you mention it, is 2's final boss worse (read: longer) than Cackletta?

Honestly, there aren't too many final bosses that actually took me several years to get around to beating; Cackletta's final form in the original is one of 'em. It was one of the only things about that game I didn't like. The funny thing is, she's not even hard, either; it's just a painstakingly long process of repeating the same moves over and over and over again. The hard part really comes from just trying to maintain your focus, due to the battle dragging on for so long.

I think if 2's final boss is that bad, I might not even bother.

I actually don't remember how long it was total, but it had multiple forms that each took too long to beat. If you get to the final boss and beat the first form and think that was too long for your taste, well... it doesn't get better after that.

Despite not liking the final boss in SS, I'm still going to replay it and hopefully beat it one day, but I don't think I'll ever replay PiT. The experience is not worth slogging through again for the boring as hell final boss.

[talonmalon333]

I thought PiT was the best M&L, slightly moreso then BiS and definitely more then SS. BiS had battles that went WAAAAY too long (much longer then the others) with annoying mini games, and SS was hard to get into.

But all 3 of the PM's are way better then the M&L's. 8)

[Kiddington]

M&L had a tradition of overly long final bosses. 3 thankfully fixed it by having a bunch of boss fights in a row near the end, making it less of a chore. But I still haven't beaten the original game because that final boss took too long. I don't even know why I slogged through the second game's final boss. I guess I just didn't want to have an excuse to ever replay it.

Now that you mention it, is 2's final boss worse (read: longer) than Cackletta?

Honestly, there aren't too many final bosses that actually took me several years to get around to beating; Cackletta's final form in the original is one of 'em. It was one of the only things about that game I didn't like. The funny thing is, she's not even hard, either; it's just a painstakingly long process of repeating the same moves over and over and over again. The hard part really comes from just trying to maintain your focus, due to the battle dragging on for so long.

I think if 2's final boss is that bad, I might not even bother.

I actually don't remember how long it was total, but it had multiple forms that each took too long to beat. If you get to the final boss and beat the first form and think that was too long for your taste, well... it doesn't get better after that.

Despite not liking the final boss in SS, I'm still going to replay it and hopefully beat it one day, but I don't think I'll ever replay PiT. The experience is not worth slogging through again for the boring as hell final boss.

Hmm... well, we'll see I guess.

This is all provided that I even make it that far. I lost interest in this game the first time around for a reason.

I thought PiT was the best M&L, slightly moreso then BiS and definitely more then SS. BiS had battles that went WAAAAY too long (much longer then the others) with annoying mini games, and SS was hard to get into.

But all 3 of the PM's are way better then the M&L's. 8)

Your opinions are bad and you should feel bad. 

In all seriousness though, you really liked Partners in Time more than the other two? Huh. That... is a first. Not seeing where the claims of 3's battle length come into play, either. If anything, 3 fixed a lot of the length issues from the previous games.

...but, I guess that's your call. different strokes for different folks, as they say.

[Foggle]

The retarded story is one of the many great things about Bayonetta. Shit is hilarious. Have you spotted all the obvious Clover and Capcom references in the first 3-4 chapters? They include:
God Hand
Viewtiful Joe
Okami
Devil May Cry
Resident Evil 4
Also, one of the Torture Attacks looks suspiciously similar to one of the finishers in MadWorld...

Have you played DMC3? I've played a lot of both DMC3 and Bayonetta. Bayonetta is an overall better game, but it basically just takes the DMC formula and perfects it, not reinvents it (and for the record if Bayonetta was a 10/10, DMC3 would be at least an 8 in comparison, so its not like its far behind). I know Kamiya is great and all, but really DMC3 is honestly a lot more fun and advanced than the first game. People kind of overrate it when it hasn't aged as well as later hack n' slash games, in all honesty.

I know you hate Capcom now, but I really disagree with your opinion on the later DMC games except for 2. The 3rd game is a HUGE step forward for the series in the combat department. It totally went above and beyond what Kamiya did with DMC1's combat, and since these types of games are primarily about the combat, I certainly can't fault it for that.

DMC4 was a step back for the series again, but once again Dante's combat is exceptional and Nero is at least above average (though inevitably underwhelming compared to Dante, since Capcom got lazy with his combat and only gave him 1 weapon to use throughout the whole game).

Still, as much as I love Bayonetta its not the evolution of the franchise that Kamiya claimed. Its just a perfection of the formula he created with DMC, which itself was refined in DMC3 quite a bit.

Agreed completely. DMC 1 was definitely more visionary and original, but 3 was by far the superior game, IMO.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Yeah, the first DMC is still a great game and always will be, and what keeps it so fresh is that Kamiya focused on more than just the combat and also had great level design and had a pretty epic boss fight at the end followed by a fun little plain-ride to finish off the game, but really the genre he created with DMC is primarily about how much fun the combat is. There's just no denying that other hack n' slash games to have come out since have totally advanced the combat system far beyond what DMC accomplished for its time (which is still commendable, but lets face it, its not even close to the best anymore, especially compared to Bayonetta).

Also, for what its worth I still liked DMC3's level design. Unlike DMC4 the whole castle environment felt way more interesting and inspired so I didn't mind backtracking through familiar areas. Also being able to play as Dante through the whole game is great.

In fact, comparing DMC3 to DMC4, I have to say that while Nero would be fine on his own if Capcom just gave him his own little spin-off game or something, he should NOT be the primary character in a DMC game with how much more limited his combat system is than Dante's. After playing as Dante in DMC4, I didn't want to go back to playing as Nero and couldn't understand why Capcom decided to make Nero the primary character of that game while giving Dante the back-seat. I mean, the designers of the game of all people surely should have been able to see for themselves just which character was more fun. Nero should have only had a few levels and served more as a palette-cleanser to give the game a bit of variety and let you play as someone other than Dante from time-to-time. Dante should have still been the main focus of the game, though, since he would have carried it much better than Nero did. Also, Dante's over the top and hilarious cutscenes entertained me quite a bit. Nero's serious and whiny moments just bored me half to sleep.

[Foggle]

Also, Dante's over the top and hilarious cutscenes entertained me quite a bit. Nero's serious and whiny moments just bored me half to sleep.

And yet, DmC Dante is shaping up to be a stupider-looking version of Nero. DAMN IT, CAPCOM!

[talonmalon333]

Your opinions are bad and you should feel bad. 

In all seriousness though, you really liked Partners in Time more than the other two? Huh. That... is a first. Not seeing where the claims of 3's battle length come into play, either. If anything, 3 fixed a lot of the length issues from the previous games.

...but, I guess that's your call. different strokes for different folks, as they say.

BIS battles are twice as long because of the coop between Mario & Luigi and Bowser. You'd enter a battle with Bowser, something would start to flash, you'd have to take 1 turn to inhale them, Mario and Luigi will then battle using their severely low attack power, those enemies will eventually die, and then you finish the battle as Bowser.

As for the rest of my feelings on game, you can read part of my little review I posted on a different site. But beware spoilers, in case you haven't beaten BIS.

I have to be the only person in the entire world that thinks Partners in Time is better. Why? Well first of all, the gameplay feels downgraded. Without the babies, it goes back to the puzzle solving of Superstar Saga. Also, while the gameplay with Bowser is fun, I don't like the sections with Mario & Luigi inside of him very much. They feel like a downgrade. And sometimes they were like a chore to me. I also found all the mini games, without exception, to range from mediocre to just plain grating. ESPECIALLY the pollen one. Another problem I have with this game is Starlow. She's not as bad as Stuffwell, but I think she's a jerk and a know-it-all. The way she treats Luigi bothers me a lot...
And on that topic, I'm fed up with Mario & Luigi games making fun of Luigi. It was funny for a time, but now it's annoying and I feel sorry for him. They should take a tip from the their sibling series, Paper Mario

[Spark Of Spirit]

I thought the battles were way faster in BiS because of the lack of babies slowing down and clunking up the gameplay.

Every boss also required me to utilize a strategy and unlike PiT, I didn't simply result in spamming an item to kill him and they all had unique patterns and attacks that utilized that platforming influence in the battle system better than either game by far. (SS required a lot of trial and error and pinpoint timing and PiT discouraged this because of the addition of the babies)... The Bowser boss battles were pretty bad ass too, and fighting with him added a whole new level of strategy.

But yeah, I do think it's the best Mario RPG by far. No filler, perfect difficulty, lack of backtracking needlessly, optional exploration, gameplay variety (I think only two of the minigames sucked because they weren't based on skill style platforming/RPG battles like the others)... The perfection of the platforming elements thrown in and the RPG elements that are always best when simple, I think it's probably one of the best RPGs ever. It also has a glorious soundtrack.

PiT was just boring. Music was pretty forgettable, too.

[talonmalon333]

I thought the battles were way faster in BiS because of the lack of babies slowing down and clunking up the gameplay.

Every boss also required me to utilize a strategy and unlike PiT, I didn't simply result in spamming an item to kill him and they all had unique patterns and attacks that utilized that platforming influence in the battle system better than either game by far. (SS required a lot of trial and error and pinpoint timing and PiT discouraged this because of the addition of the babies)... The Bowser boss battles were pretty bad ass too, and fighting with him added a whole new level of strategy.

But yeah, I do think it's the best Mario RPG by far. No filler, perfect difficulty, lack of backtracking needlessly, optional exploration, gameplay variety (I think only two of the minigames sucked because they weren't based on skill style platforming/RPG battles like the others)... The perfection of the platforming elements thrown in and the RPG elements that are always best when simple, I think it's probably one of the best RPGs ever. It also has a glorious soundtrack.

PiT was just boring. Music was pretty forgettable, too.

You think it was better then the PMs?

[Spark Of Spirit]

I thought the battles were way faster in BiS because of the lack of babies slowing down and clunking up the gameplay.

Every boss also required me to utilize a strategy and unlike PiT, I didn't simply result in spamming an item to kill him and they all had unique patterns and attacks that utilized that platforming influence in the battle system better than either game by far. (SS required a lot of trial and error and pinpoint timing and PiT discouraged this because of the addition of the babies)... The Bowser boss battles were pretty bad ass too, and fighting with him added a whole new level of strategy.

But yeah, I do think it's the best Mario RPG by far. No filler, perfect difficulty, lack of backtracking needlessly, optional exploration, gameplay variety (I think only two of the minigames sucked because they weren't based on skill style platforming/RPG battles like the others)... The perfection of the platforming elements thrown in and the RPG elements that are always best when simple, I think it's probably one of the best RPGs ever. It also has a glorious soundtrack.

PiT was just boring. Music was pretty forgettable, too.

You think it was better then the PMs?

The only PM I really enjoyed was the second one, and it did have some tedious backtracking from what I can remember. The first was good, but way too easy for me. The third one isn't even an RPG, and as a platformer it's easier than Kirby.

So yeah, I'd probably say it was better than the PMs. Not to say they suck or anything, cause they don't.

[Kiddington]

Yeah, Super Paper Mario isn't really a Paper Mario title at all. It's got cardboard flat character designs, and the writing is as witty as ever... but as far as gameplay goes, Paper Mario this ain't. It's a true, blue platformer through and through.

IMO, the battle system also sucked, while we're on the subject. Overly complicated, and very out of place in a game of this ilk. Despite that, I enjoyed the 3rd one for what it was... but still though, it was by far the weakest of the brood, and doesn't hold a candle to the best of what the M&L series (or Thousand Year Door, for that matter) has to offer.

[talonmalon333]

Yeah, Super Paper Mario isn't really a Paper Mario title at all. It's got cardboard flat character designs, and the writing is as witty as ever... but as far as gameplay goes, Paper Mario this ain't. It's a true, blue platformer through and through.

IMO, the battle system also sucked, while we're on the subject. Overly complicated, and very out of place in a game of this ilk. Despite that, I enjoyed the 3rd one for what it was... but still though, it was by far the weakest of the brood, and doesn't hold a candle to the best of what the M&L series (or Thousand Year Door, for that matter) has to offer.

So a game staring a paper Mario isn't Paper Mario? News to me?

And don't forget the story, guys. It easily has the best in the RPG series, and probably one of the best game stories ever.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Super Paper Mario's story was good, yeah. But gameplay-wise it was just lacking compared to the others. If they made it a 2D platformer like NSMB and then switched to 3D Galaxy style exploration, it would have been brilliant. But platforming in the Paper Mario games have never really been all that good, and they should have adjusted it for this game.

It's a decent game, however.