• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Dante's Inferno is actually really GOOD!

Q8D3vil

Member
I would say the combat is a combination of DMC and GOW3. It's a hell lot better than GOW1 and 2. But it's on par to GOW3.
i didn't read that

my friend played the gow collection after playing dante's inferno and he was blown away

before playing gow collection he gave it 8.5/10 after playing them 5/10 :lol

i played dante's inferno and finished it just because i didn't have anything else to do + i like hack and slash
 
It's brilliant. I've been saying that since it came out. For some reason being really similar to a great game is a bad thing. Oh no, now we have TWO games that are fun.

What I like most about it is how fluid and responsive the combat is. Everything is just so quick and satisfying. Going for 60fps really helped it in my opinion. Not enough spectacular bosses, but I'm a boss whore so whatever.
 

Jaroof

Member
I found this game much, much more frustrating than God of War.
Usually I have a lot of patience, especially with games. But this game was the exception. I just wanted to get it overwith, just so I could see the ending.
Tried to start out the game on Hard mode, but after about 30 minutes in (a little bit past the part in the demo), I gave up. I gave up at the part where I had to fight two of the average sized demons with the heavy, unblockable attack, while two of those flying fire-breathing things kept respawning every ten seconds, along with two little minions that kept respawning. So annoying >:p
I also found that enemies had TOO much health.. it took forever for some of them to die.
Even on Normal, I found myself dying to frustrating things, whether it be platforming, or just cheap deaths in combat.
Oh, and I hated the checkpoint system.
 

deepbrown

Member
It really isn't that great. The combat is pretty terrible. The moves are very seperate and static - they don't blend into one another like in Bayonetta and GOWIII.

Bayonetta is miles ahead of DI, but has some failings that GOWIII doesn't have. No doubt though, the combat in Bayonetta is genius.

Also DI has that TERRIBLE level where you have to complete 10 random challenges...like stay in the air for 20 seconds. WHAT has that got to do with hell!?

Edti. I will say that I thought the combat in GOWI was lame - I preferred the combat in POP:WW - and that's saying something.
 

WinFonda

Member
I didn't like it much. It was bad imitation. The setting was also a bit of a missed opportunity. And the animated movie does a better job of telling the story.
 
This game is an insult to everyone's intelligence. If we gobble this shit up we deserve annualized 0-creativity sequels.

Edit: Bayonetta ftw.
 

Spookie

Member
thebaroness said:
Did you even touch Bayonetta?

Vastly superior.

Vastly.

I despised Bayonetta. I could barely keep up with the action going on screen. Taking blows from enemies I couldn't see through the particle effects. Even after playing WoW for 4 years even with that cluster fuck of spell effects I still couldn't tell what was going on. (edit: The feeling that I had to turn it off every time someone entered the room didn't help either)

It doesn't help that I haven't got the reactions for it though. I thought Dantes Inferno was fucking awful too. Oddly enough I really enjoyed the God of War series though. :/
 

Majmun

Member
The one thing they didn't have to copy from GOW is the bad platforming. It's even worse than in the GOW games. The game has infuriating platforming. One of the worst I've seen.

But I've enjoyed the game overall.
 

roxya

Member
I loved the environments, and I think the player side of the combat system was good, but enemy design (behaviour) was fucking awful.

Enjoyed it, but not a patch on God of War.
 
Basically the two major gripes about DI are that it's a "GOW clone," and that it kinda fizzles out towards the end (basically a glorified challenge mode makes up a good chunk of the later stages).

The first "complaint" I couldn't give a fuck about. The second, I suppose, is justified, but it doesn't hurt the game on the whole, imo.

I think it's a pretty good game. Good sound, good graphics, GOW gameplay, decent VA work, cool concept ... I could go on.

The vibe I get is that it's a game people actually WANT to dislike. I rented it basically just to check out the story and the cutscenes (which are fucking sweet!) and mindlessly button-mash through some "lame" game and was caught by surprise when I actually found myself saying, "wow, this is kinda cool."

7.8/10
 
Captain_Spanky said:
It's brilliant. I've been saying that since it came out. For some reason being really similar to a great game is a bad thing. Oh no, now we have TWO games that are fun.
No. We have one good game and we have one game that gets constantly talked about because it tried to create controversy and draw attention to it self and ended up being shit.
 
i would have agreed if i had only played the demo. unfortunately for me i decided to play the full game and ended up witnessing the apex of repetition.

slide down bodies, swing on entrails and slash glowing object in order to precede, push some stupid fucking block or other object are a few of the many annoying repetitive tasks.

and the combat is ultimately boring. and then you get to the worst part of the game - the trials! they are a true test of your ability to stomach piss poor game design but if you complete them and end up finishing the game just pray that dante's inferno isn't the one to break your gaming spirit for all eternity!

HocusPocus said:
GaF just hated on it for cloning GoW3.

that may be true for some but when i played the demo i really thought it would be a good game and now that i've beaten DI i can say without hesitation that it is bad bad game.
 

zoukka

Member
Neuromancer said:
And for not respecting the source material. Some people here do read real books, you know.

...

:lol



GoW butchered the greek mythology way worse than Dante ever did. And it's true that GAF hates this game just because it ripped from the GoW franchise.

Oh and Bayonetta sucks. The great battle system almost makes me forgive all the other atrocities, but just almost.
 
Himuro said:
Definitely. Haven't played GoW3 though.

And I enjoyed the combat in DI's demo more than the entirety of the combat that's in GoW1 and 2.

Glad to hear I'm not the only who feels this way

Seriously, Dante's Inferno might have a poo poo last half, but the core combat and such is superior to GoW. It's just more satisfying. At least IMO...

Yes, DI is a geniunely good game that could have been great had Visceral tried to be a bit more distinct and distance itself form genre conventions...
 

timkunedo

Member
Neuromancer said:
And for not respecting the source material. Some people here do read real books, you know.

That would have made a horrible game dude. In one of the dev diaries they talk about this.
 

Big One

Banned
zoukka said:
GoW butchered the greek mythology way worse than Dante ever did.
That's probably cause Dante's Inferno doesn't touch Greek mythology. And even by analogy of which adapts the source material better, Dante's Inferno is way worse than this regard anyway. There is no definitive material in core ancient Greek religion while Dante's Inferno is based off an actual piece of literature.
 

Mar

Member
Rez said:
A bad game by all standards today, a bad game by PS2 standards.

Utterly mediocre in every single way.

It pains me to see such a good poster as yourself say such hyperbolic and generalized comments as above.

The game is good. Not a 'bad' game nor an insult to life itself. You may not find it as great an experience as some other games. But it deserves to be recognized for what it is. A good game.
 

Monocle

Member
I can't stand Dante's Inferno's clunky combat and hideous art design. Ninja Gaiden 2 has deeper, more varied combat. The same goes for Devil May Cry 4, but even more so due to Dante's style switching ability and Nero's Exceed system. Bayonetta's combat is nothing short of sublime, with its dense lattice of features and the unparalleled responsiveness of the controls. And all three games put Dante's Inferno's art, level design and replay value to shame.

zoukka said:
...
:lol

GoW butchered the greek mythology way worse than Dante ever did. And it's true that GAF hates this game just because it ripped from the GoW franchise.

Oh and Bayonetta sucks. The great battle system almost makes me forgive all the other atrocities, but just almost.
Remind me never to trust your opinions about action games.
 
timkunedo said:
That would have made a horrible game dude. In one of the dev diaries they talk about this.

So would lots of other pieces classic literature, Macbeth isn't exactly known for its split-second action filled fight scenes.
 
zoukka said:
...

:lol



GoW butchered the greek mythology way worse than Dante ever did. And it's true that GAF hates this game just because it ripped from the GoW franchise.

Oh and Bayonetta sucks. The great battle system almost makes me forgive all the other atrocities, but just almost.
Really? Really?! You really believe all this crazy you just spouted?!
 

hamchan

Member
zoukka said:
...

:lol



GoW butchered the greek mythology way worse than Dante ever did. And it's true that GAF hates this game just because it ripped from the GoW franchise.

Oh and Bayonetta sucks. The great battle system almost makes me forgive all the other atrocities, but just almost.
GOW's story and themes fit in pretty well with Greek mythology since the myths were originally quite brutal. It's

GAF hates DI not only because it ripped from GOW but also because it was a far worse game than what it was copying. I'm sure if the game was actually better than GOW people would be gushing all over it. Instead players were subjected to some really terrible game design eg. All the platforming bits and the trial s near the end.
 

Manus

Member
zoukka said:
...

:lol



GoW butchered the greek mythology way worse than Dante ever did. And it's true that GAF hates this game just because it ripped from the GoW franchise.

Oh and Bayonetta sucks. The great battle system almost makes me forgive all the other atrocities, but just almost.

Wat? The battle system is what makes Bayonetta so good. How can you say it sucks? Isn't the gameplay the most important part of any game?
 
SquirrelNuckle said:
Wat? The battle system is what makes Bayonetta so good. How can you say it sucks? Isn't the gameplay the most important part of any game?

Depends on what you want out of a game. Personally, I would take a good story over amazing controls, graphics or gameplay any time. Bayonetta fails as a game when it is not in combat, the puzzle/platforming is not that great, and drags out to much. But the combat is amazing.

And Dante's Inferno is such a run of the mill game, the way the picture hell is so trivial and I wish they would have taken some different takes on what hell could be. Like the desert and more unique takes on it. But sadly, it mostly boils down to blood, screams and boring fire looks.
 

00011000

Banned
No, No- OP is right, Dante's Inferno is a fucking amazing game. It at least matches GoW3 in almost every area and even surpasses it some areas too! Bottom line, everyone should give this game a[nother?] chance.


........not........
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
deepbrown said:
Edti. I will say that I thought the combat in GOWI was lame - I preferred the combat in POP:WW - and that's saying something.

I can't stand how outrageous the button pressing requirement is with the QTEs. The minotaurs are a good example; you're tapping the absolute fuck out of the circle button for a good 10 or so seconds and if you even slow up by 1ms, you fail. I went through the game expecting the PS3 DS3s face buttons to die.

Also, upgrading items with several-thousand orbs took forever. Why it took 3 games to get that aspect right is something I cannot fathom.
 

bishoptl

Banstick Emeritus
MyFaceIsOnFire said:
Why do people always come into threads like this and talk about other games?
OP said:
I would say the combat is a combination of DMC and GOW3. It's a hell lot better than GOW1 and 2. But it's on par to GOW3.

As a hack and slach freak, I just have to rank the combat, and it goes like this
1. NG franchise
2. DMC franchise
3. GOW3 and Dante's Inferno
woops
 

00011000

Banned
JaseC said:
I can't stand how outrageous the button pressing requirement is with the QTEs. The minotaurs are a good example; you're tapping the absolute fuck out of the circle button for a good 10 or so seconds and if you even slow up by 1ms, you fail. I went through the game expecting the PS3 DS3s face buttons to die.

Also, upgrading items with several-thousand orbs took forever. Why it took 3 games to get that aspect right is something I cannot fathom.

:lol GoW3 really makes me respect the durability of gamepads. They have to put up with sooooo much abuse and requires such intimate precision. Buttons are expected to withstand millions of presses.
 

Skilletor

Member
Vinterbird said:
Depends on what you want out of a game. Personally, I would take a good story over amazing controls, graphics or gameplay any time.

:lol

This is the funniest post I've ever read on Gaf. Seriously?

Man, this game is not fun to play, controls horribly, looks terrible, BUT I HAVE TO SEE HAT HAPPENS NEXT!
 

Massa

Member
Himuro said:
Definitely. Haven't played GoW3 though.

And I enjoyed the combat in DI's demo more than the entirety of the combat that's in GoW1 and 2.

You should use the Spear of Destiny in Gow2, it's very similar to Dante's scythe.
 

00011000

Banned
Skilletor said:
:lol

This is the funniest post I've ever read on Gaf. Seriously?

Man, this game is not fun to play, controls horribly, looks terrible, BUT I HAVE TO SEE HAT HAPPENS NEXT!

I think what he means is that all the areas regarding gameplay have to be up to a certain level- it must be enjoyable- but if the story is terrible, it would ruin the game.
 

hamchan

Member
JaseC said:
I can't stand how outrageous the button pressing requirement is with the QTEs. The minotaurs are a good example; you're tapping the absolute fuck out of the circle button for a good 10 or so seconds and if you even slow up by 1ms, you fail. I went through the game expecting the PS3 DS3s face buttons to die.

Also, upgrading items with several-thousand orbs took forever. Why it took 3 games to get that aspect right is something I cannot fathom.
Huh. In GOW 1 and 2 I tested how slow I could tap the button for the minotaurs and I foud I didn't have to tap the button all that much for me to succeed. It also only takes around 3 secs I think. If it were 10 seconds I would remember that. Unless GOW3 changes all this.
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
00011000 said:
:lol GoW3 really makes me respect the durability of gamepads. They have to put up with sooooo much abuse and requires such intimate precision. Buttons are expected to withstand millions of presses.

GoW2 and GoW3 are fine in this regard, it's just the original I have a problem with. The QTE button press requirement is about twice the amount it should've been. I can understand the QTEs were meant to convey some sense of the intensity you're seeing on-screen, but waiting for my face buttons to end up inside the controller is something I didn't enjoy. :lol

hamchan said:
Huh. In GOW 1 and 2 I tested how slow I could tap the button for the minotaurs and I foud I didn't have to tap the button all that much for me to succeed. It also only takes around 3 secs I think. If it were 10 seconds I would remember that. Unless GOW3 changes all this.

The button press requirement is FAR less in GoW2/3 than it is in GoW. I've spent the past week or so playing all three back-to-back (well, I'm still working my way through GoW3 at the moment). The amount of button presses needed in rapid-tap QTE event is one of the most obvious changes in GoW2.

Edit: To be clear, I'm specifically referring to the QTEs in which you have to rapidly press a button. It most(/all?) cases this is circle, and the Minotaur is the most pertinent example.
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
Spookie said:
I despised Bayonetta. I could barely keep up with the action going on screen. Taking blows from enemies I couldn't see through the particle effects. Even after playing WoW for 4 years even with that cluster fuck of spell effects I still couldn't tell what was going on. (edit: The feeling that I had to turn it off every time someone entered the room didn't help either)

It doesn't help that I haven't got the reactions for it though. I thought Dantes Inferno was fucking awful too. Oddly enough I really enjoyed the God of War series though. :/
I got that feeling with the XBL demo. The full game is paced a lot better, thankfully. I don't know why they didn't just use the E3 demo.
 
Vinterbird said:
Personally, I would take a good story over amazing controls, graphics or gameplay any time.
You do realize that the gameplay is what makes a game, you know, a game as compared to say a movie or some other medium?
 

Skilletor

Member
00011000 said:
I think what he means is that all the areas regarding gameplay have to be up to a certain level- it must be enjoyable- but if the story is terrible, it would ruin the game.

I think it's hilarious for anybody to hold any aspect of a videogame up above gameplay. It's still funny.
 
Skilletor said:
I think it's hilarious for anybody to hold any aspect of a videogame up above gameplay. It's still funny.

Different strokes for different people. Of course games can be fun and have great gameplay, like Uncharted 2. But a game can have shitty gameplay and horrible controls, but stll be an absolutely amazing experience that is above anything else this year, like Heavy Rain or The Last Express.

I would like to see games move above the "it has to be entertaining or funny" in order to be a good game. A game can be an experience, and be something else. Fuck fun, make something else, something bigger then that. Heavy Rain proved that could happen, and as much as I love Unhcarted 2, it keeps banging you over the head with the "game" and "gameplay" part, which is sad, since it does so much right with the overall experience.

Scythesurge said:
You do realize that the gameplay is what makes a game, you know, a game as compared to say a movie or some other medium?

A game doesn't have to have the typical gameplay strcture to be an interesting experience. As long as it is participatory or require some sort of player input, it can be an engaging experience, and that is what makes games unique. Not the "now you control the story" aspect.
 
Ehh. It was alright. It really starts out strong during the decesnt and the first few circles are great, but then as the levels wear on it becomes more of a chore and is lackluster. The last 1/3 of the game is extremely disappointing and feels rushed.
 

cacildo

Member
Himuro said:
Better than God of War.

ipv43l.jpg
 

beast786

Member
Vinterbird said:
Different strokes for different people. Of course games can be fun and have great gameplay, like Uncharted 2. But a game can have shitty gameplay and horrible controls, but stll be an absolutely amazing experience that is above anything else this year, like Heavy Rain or The Last Express.

I would like to see games move above the "it has to be entertaining or funny" in order to be a good game. A game can be an experience, and be something else. Fuck fun, make something else, something bigger then that. Heavy Rain proved that could happen, and as much as I love Unhcarted 2, it keeps banging you over the head with the "game" and "gameplay" part, which is sad, since it does so much right with the overall experience.



A game doesn't have to have the typical gameplay strcture to be an interesting experience. As long as it is participatory or require some sort of player input, it can be an engaging experience, and that is what makes games unique. Not the "now you control the story" aspect.


I actually do agree with you. Different things about a game can entertain me. Gameplay is not the only requirement. Gameplay is part of the package and not the only defining part, I can enjoy game/movie etc etc not soley based on one must single category
 

Massa

Member
Skilletor said:
I think it's hilarious for anybody to hold any aspect of a videogame up above gameplay. It's still funny.

It's not that uncommon so it shouldn't be hilarous to you. For example the gameplay in Bioshock 2 is much superior and some people still prefer the original game for other reasons.

Vinterbird said:
Different strokes for different people. Of course games can be fun and have great gameplay, like Uncharted 2. But a game can have shitty gameplay and horrible controls, but stll be an absolutely amazing experience that is above anything else this year, like Heavy Rain or The Last Express.

The gameplay in Heavy Rain is absolutely great for what the game is.
 

Manus

Member
Yet when 95% of the game is being spent in combat and that's considered gameplay, I would consider it the most important feature.
 
Massa said:
The gameplay in Heavy Rain is absolutely great for what the game is.

I agree, for the most part it works. But it was the easiet pick because so many people hate the controls, that it would make the most understandable argument.

SquirrelNuckle said:
Yet when 95% of the game is being spent in combat and that's considered gameplay, I would consider it the most important feature.

My statement was speaking of games in general. As said, games can be focused on gameplay, but then they need to actually pull it off well. Dante doesn't do that, and then the game completely falls apart, because there was nothing else worth taking note of.
 

Majmun

Member
Maybe it's just me, but I had more fun with Dante's Inferno than with Bayonetta. I would give both games a score between a 7/10 and an 8/10. DI has a better setting an overall design. That's why I'd personally score it higher than Bayonetta.
 
Top Bottom