I know? What's your point/What are you getting at?

Aeolus451 said: As much shit as people are giving this game and they let bethesda get away with the level of quality in their games.

People give Bethesda a lot of shit when their games are broken. It's just that, at this point, people are used to fixing the games on their own before Bethesda gets around to it. Nobody is happy with Bethesda's lazy development practices, but we've just come to accept them since the included content and gameplay is usually good enough to give the technical hiccups, as many as they may be, a pass. When you buy a Bethesda game at launch, you know you're basically paying to be a beta tester. It's stupid, but it is what it is.

With Devil's Third though, you know the game won't be fixed. The developers aren't competent enough. They've made that more than clear. You can't fix the game on at least one platform either via the community because the game is only coming out on the Wii U. The game is ultimately beta level in appearance, alpha level in framerate stability and gameplay mechanics, and is pretty much amateur hour.

For the person that asked why this game is getting so much attention: Nintendo brought it to E3 2014 and spotlighted the thing. They made it clear that they brought the project back, and they expected it to be something great. E3 2014 showed something that definitely needed polish, but had a lot of potential. Now Nintendo is doing their best to release and bury it simultaneously as it's an exclusive they paid for, which is always a big deal when it's mature content on a Nintendo console, and it's clearly not a good game. If Nintendo had just left this one to Directs and such, people would still be disappointed, but not this disappointed. When you bring something to E3 though and stick it in the main presentation, the expectation is that the game won't be a total turd. It doesn't have to be amazing just because it was in the main presentation of one of the big three, but it will get publicly skewered if it's flatout bad.

Lol. I'm not sure there is a point. Must've been a misread.

The problem is that no one has the skills to play the game properly.

I'm quoting you but it goes to all people here bashing the game. Have you played it? What exactly is the reason you call it trash? Is it the graphics or the technology simply beeing one generation behind? What were you expecting from a developer with limited resources whose project had to change publishers mid-way? AAA quality? 

I dont quite get all this. To me i think you guys are simply trying to intentinally difamate Nintendo and Itagaki. I dont quite get what is so much fun or interesting about that, but to each their own i suppose.

The case where reviewers scored games lower because they didnt know how to play it isnt something that hasnt happened in the past. For example, you can see a video of greatly renowed youtuber totalbiscuit saying how bound by flame has terrible combat and is the worst game ever. In truth, he just didnt get the combat and its incredibly fun and satisfying, missing vital points like responsiveness wich are spot on and animations, wich are very satisfying. If its not mainstream and by a big publisher/developer, no one is interested in seeing these projects for what they are.

Meanwhile i'm playing Dragon Age inquisition, the so called game of the year in the game awards and its a boring snooze fest with terrible collision detection and responsiveness that i'm forcing myself to go through because of my love for Origins. I just wish i could see people judging games on how much fun they are and not how much money its cost or how much technology it pushes. That is not what games are about. Years from now, those graphics will mean nothing. Only the fun factor remains.