Day one purchase.

Itagaki promised to much and held nothing. Sad that some people at Nintendo believed him.

It couldn't even be a good game without those issues because of the combination of cover mechanics and auto health.

But I still get this at a bomba price, it's a nice oddity to have as a collector.

Contract obligations maybe? Seems like they cut all the ties that they could (amazon exclusive in japan, silent about it elsewhere)

This.

i will wait for a review and see it for myself. graphics ain't that great, gameplay of shooter + hack n slash seems okay. the one thing i don't like are those chicken or something thrown for whatever reason they have that mode. lol. which doesn't make sense.

so their idea or concept, we don't know how they really want to pan it out. will wait how the single player campaign would really be.

not that optimistic but saying something this game is horrible just watching, that is a spectator point of view not a gamer point of view. i don't know yet the previews on how in-depth they really played the game.

for all i know the graphics aren't great and that not so good watermelons or chickens, or anything irrelevant was added which is dumb to begin with.

some would normally downplay because it is Nintendo and it is an M game which doesn't suit Nintendo. of course, if it did great and people say negative stuff. Nintendoomers would be happy. Look what happened to Splatoon. they ate crows. of course, doomers would say 'told yah, lightning won't strike the second time and nintendo failed on this M game'.

i'm not even a diehard Nintendo fan as i have more PS consoles than a Ninty one. and i play back then PC games and Fifa, plus several RPGs which i'm now trying to play from Wii U/Wii, PS3 and PS4.

so overall, it is in my amazon wishlist for Devil's Third but we don't know who would publish it in NoA. if it is really not that good, it shouldn't be sold $60 from the get go.

... I like the sound of this. Will hopefully pick up a bargain bin copy down the line.

Don't think anyone is surprised by this, like, at all. It waa never going to be a masterpiece IMO, it was just how bad was it going to end up. Answer seems to be "very "

Really? I find this to be a pretty strange position. It's now the publishers job to teach developers how to make an acceptable game?

This game has been in development forever, this is rarely a good sign. Nintendo gave Valhalla the time and (presumably) the money to turn this game around, but by the sounds of it they've done a piss poor job of it. Now it would appear that after five years of development Nintendo have finally opted opted to stop throwing good money after bad, on a game that is extremely unlikely to ever turn a profit.No one's getting thrown under a bus, they've obviously realised it's time to stop flogging the dead horse.

And if the game is in fact as bad as it sounds, it may very well be that the developers are just as happy to turn their backs on what was likely a troubled development process, avoid the negative press associated with the high profile release of a crappy game and turn their attention to new projects.

Lol, I was banned a couple of months ago because I said that it looks like a 2008 game. Now it also plays like it's 1996. You'll have to ban a lot of people I guess...

Some more previews:

• Nintendo Life - We still have a little way to go in the campaign, but so far it's been a messy, frustrating experience.

• Nintendo Insider - Whatever has happened behind closed doors, the end result sees Devil’s Third shaping up to be a disconcertingly inconsistent experience.

• Nintendo World Report - Let us hope that the multiplayer can save this game.

• Neogaf user that reviews games - It is a bad, bad game.

I can honestly say that I can't recall another instance where previews would go and straight up say that a game is bad in the way they are doing it here, the game must be horrible (the singleplayer at the very least)