The straight dope on Killer 7

[if76]

1up.com's (http://www.1up.com) Shane Bettenhausen posts his thoughts on the last of the "Capcom 5" Killer 7 and his comments (http://egmshane.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=5137896&publicUserId=1002415) aren't exactly flattering.
But as amazing and unexpected as this game's story is...the gameplay is bad. Plain-out bad. Embarrassing, really.
When I read the first real preview for this game a few months ago, it reminded me of the crap they used to put on Sega CD. Some nice presentation and then a shooting gallery for the gameplay.

[StoneGut]

eeep... this isn't going to be good for sales.

[Furious Wang]

Told ya so just doesn't seem to be a strong enough phrase...

The funniest thing, though, was that Nintendo Power still gave the game an 85 or so while even in the review they say absolutely nothing positive about it but skirt around actually declaring the gameplay for what it is: shameful.

This, of course, after their preview that claimed that "future developers will look back at gaming divided into two eras: before Killer 7 and after Killer7".

Now, here's some quotes from their review:
"..story makes absolutely no sense..."
"...generic lock and key puzzles..."
"...troublesome controls..."

and so forth.

Oh, and the last thing I want from a Japanese game is their punditry on American politics.

See:

"No longer will America think they can police the world forever!"
Saddler
Resident Evil 4

eeep... this isn't going to be good for sales.

Don't worry, their whole 7/7/2005 marketing scheme will assure them millions! Genius!

I guarantee that unless you approach Killer 7 with an agenda to love it, you'll be disappointed. The shock of newness quickly wears off, revealing the shoddy, boring, and tragically limited game underneath. It's an interesting failure, and it's bloody creative, but it's not a good game. Why did other magazines score it so highly? Hmm...well, Famitsu seems to review the publisher as much as the game these days, and maybe the U.S. mags didn't want to shit all over a game they'd put on their cover. O r maybe they did lots of shrooms before they played. Or maybe they don't know how to properly use a 10 point scale. Or hell, maybe they're just wrong. I'm not sure.

Quite possibly the best quote ever.

[EvilBob46]

I'm not surprised. Just as Capcom produces some of the best games, they also produce some of the crappiest. And after Viewtiful Joe and Resident Evil 4 it was about time for another one of their stinkers. O well.

[Blade]

At least GTA had decent gameplay..

Killer 7 is just bait for the video game violence/sex debate without any other redeeming "game" qualities!

Like Night Trap, which is why I enjoyed your Sega CD comment if76!

[Borys]

Nothing ever interested me in this game and nothing ever will.

Zelda will be my next Cube purcahse.
Sadly, it will also be my last Cube purchase.

[Rommel]

So how did the Capcom 5 turn outm in the end? One good game that sold poorly? Or was RE included in that list?

[Swat]

Nothing ever interested me in this game and nothing ever will.

Zelda will be my next Cube purcahse.
Sadly, it will also be my last Cube purchase.

Ditto Borys, I was actually looking forward to Killer 7 - ahh well, the media hype machine creates and destroys yet again.

[Somefool]

RE4 was one of the five. So with Viewtiful Joe and RE4 we have two gameplay successes, with PN03 and Killer 7 two gameplay failures, and with Dead Phoenix one neat looking game that dissapeared for no good reason.

Hrmm. That's a better ratio of success to failure than Capcom is usually capable of.

[Paranoia]

I don't know why Killer 7 got a lot of rave in the first place. My first impression watching the trailer was "where is the gameplay"?

[fitbabits]

And to think, the so-called "Capcom 5" were supposed to be the saviors of the GameCube and show the world just what the machine was capable of. And so much for them being exclusive to the GC - money talks and Sony has a big mouth.

[eeje13]

... money talks and Sony has a big mouth.

I would say they have a loose mouth more than anything.

Loose lips sink ships?

Nevermind.

[falak]

But this game was supposed to be new and exciting! It turns out it's bad in new and exciting ways.

[Syl]

I'm still grabbing Killer7, and despite the fact that i'm sure the gameplay is sub-par, i would never go by a single review on a title - espicially 1up, whom i have found has some of hte absolute worst opinions when it comes to game quality.

[fitbabits]

I'm still grabbing Killer7, and despite the fact that i'm sure the gameplay is sub-par, i would never go by a single review on a title - espicially 1up, whom i have found has some of hte absolute worst opinions when it comes to game quality.

Then why buy it when you've already accepted that the gameplay will be sub-par? Why not rent first? I agree with you on 1Up, though - fecking pish. For what it's worth, Play Magazine (or, if you prefer, Dave Halverson's mouthpiece) gave it 9 out of 10.

[Furious Wang]

Then why buy it when you've already accepted that the gameplay will be sub-par? Why not rent first? I agree with you on 1Up, though - fecking pish. For what it's worth, Play Magazine (or, if you prefer, Dave Halverson's mouthpiece) gave it 9 out of 10.

Because he's a zombie. The type of customer that enables gaming developers to continue to create subpar games knowing that if they simply create enough hype with their partners in the media that there will be zombies out there who will buy the game no matter what anyone else says about it.

These are are guys who pour over every preview for the game, sucking up every little tidbit of hyperbole until they vibrate with excitement in anticipation of the release. Then, when the reviews come out, they ignore anything said that would go against their ideal vision of what said game was imagined to be from the previews. Finally, they buy they game, throw objectivity out the window, put on the fanboy goggles and force themselves to enjoy a crappy game simply because they put so much effort into hoping it would be good. Afterwards, they go on message boards defending their purchase claiming the game was underrated and enjoyable to play. They may even admit to the game having some faults but they inevitably still feel the game was worth the money spent and will never be swayed otherwise...because they've already spent the money.

[Himsa II]

I thought It looked cool. :(

[Last of the Red Hot Mamas]

But I'm assuredly not the average gamer...I recently imported a rare David Lynch laserdisc, for Christ's sake...

We're all awfully impressed over here.

Apparently there's "6 to 8 hours" of "engaging gameplay" before diminishing returns start to set in, so it should at least be a decent rental. On another system this might've been a neat light gun game, but oops, the Cube doesn't have a light gun.

[Heretic Machine]

These are are guys who pour over every preview for the game, sucking up every little tidbit of hyperbole until they vibrate with excitement in anticipation of the release. Then, when the reviews come out, they ignore anything said that would go against their ideal vision of what said game was imagined to be from the previews. Finally, they buy they game, throw objectivity out the window, put on the fanboy goggles and force themselves to enjoy a crappy game simply because they put so much effort into hoping it would be good. Afterwards, they go on message boards defending their purchase claiming the game was underrated and enjoyable to play. They may even admit to the game having some faults but they inevitably still feel the game was worth the money spent and will never be swayed otherwise...because they've already spent the money.

The sad thing is that for all our refined tastes, these guys get to enjoy gaming more than we do.

[zeeeg]

Yeah I don't see how anyone can be expecting great gameplay out of Killer 7 if they've been paying attention at all. I probably won't pay 50 bucks for it but I think I'll love it when I eventually do get it. I'm not looking for a gameplay experience; I want a unique experience of any kind, which is a rare thing in games.

[fitbabits]

Yeah I don't see how anyone can be expecting great gameplay out of Killer 7 if they've been paying attention at all. I probably won't pay 50 bucks for it but I think I'll love it when I eventually do get it. I'm not looking for a gameplay experience; I want a unique experience of any kind, which is a rare thing in games.

May I suggest you add Drake to your collection as well then. Or even Aquaman, Trigger Man, and Batman: Dark Tomorrow (hey, what's with all the Somethingman games being shite?) I mean, if you're not bothered about gameplay and all...

[Hellstorm]

Then why buy it when you've already accepted that the gameplay will be sub-par?

Why did people buy Fable? This is a game like Snatcher. I like Snatcher, I will probably like this game. I knew full well what I was going to get with this game. I didn't need some loud-mouth hack Brit to tell me about how trees will grow for months and months, then suddenly find that "feature" cut.

[fitbabits]

Why did people buy Fable? This is a game like Snatcher. I like Snatcher, I will probably like this game. I knew full well what I was going to get with this game. I didn't need some loud-mouth hack Brit to tell me about how trees will grow for months and months, then suddenly find that "feature" cut.

The difference here is gameplay. The gameplay of Fable was solid, even though some of the features were left out.

[zeeeg]

May I suggest you add Drake to your collection as well then. Or even Aquaman, Trigger Man, and Batman: Dark Tomorrow (hey, what's with all the Somethingman games being shite?) I mean, if you're not bothered about gameplay and all...

Sorry, I thought we were talking about Killer 7, so I did not need to specify that my comment was about Killer 7. All those games you listed are boring and trite, regardless of gameplay quality. Killer 7 is an unusual concept with an interesting execution, regardless of gameplay quality. For some people (apparently) a game hinges completely on gameplay, and that's understandable. For me, if a game does other things in an interesting way, then I can probably get past shoddy gameplay. (of course, the most widely accepted game like this is the GTA series, which plays like shit but has great appeal due to it's complete open-ended world and distinct personality)

[AnthraxKitty]

I'm just really happy to see other people view Play magazine the same way as I do: the most pretentious assholes on the planet.

I once read a review for Tony Hawk in it, and it got a sub-par review because it, AND I QUOTE, did not "capture the spiritual side of skating." I don't even like Tony Hawk and I almost puked.

They gave Capcom Fighting Evolution a 9 and Game of the Month. Know why? It was the only 2d game I saw in that issue. I'm so sad I subscribed so quickly...a lot of their previews were quality, but I had no idea their reviews got THAT bad.

[fitbabits]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about Killer 7, so I did not need to specify that my comment was about Killer 7. All those games you listed are boring and trite, regardless of gameplay quality. Killer 7 is an unusual concept with an interesting execution, regardless of gameplay quality. For some people (apparently) a game hinges completely on gameplay, and that's understandable. For me, if a game does other things in an interesting way, then I can probably get past shoddy gameplay. (of course, the most widely accepted game like this is the GTA series, which plays like shit but has great appeal due to it's complete open-ended world and distinct personality)

Jeez! No need to apologize.

I'm all for experiencing new and innovative concepts in gaming, but if they're executed as shoddily as Killer 7's appear to be, then what's the point?

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. I'd rather play a good game with solid gameplay than play a broken game (any game) with a unique concept.

[Last of the Red Hot Mamas]

I'm just really happy to see other people view Play magazine the same way as I do: the most pretentious assholes on the planet.

How does Play Magazine enter into this at all?

[fitbabits]

I'm just really happy to see other people view Play magazine the same way as I do: the most pretentious assholes on the planet.

I once read a review for Tony Hawk in it, and it got a sub-par review because it, AND I QUOTE, did not "capture the spiritual side of skating." I don't even like Tony Hawk and I almost puked.

They gave Capcom Fighting Evolution a 9 and Game of the Month. Know why? It was the only 2d game I saw in that issue. I'm so sad I subscribed so quickly...a lot of their previews were quality, but I had no idea their reviews got THAT bad.

Dave Halverson absolutely has an agenda and he's simply using Play to promote it. I subscribed in the early days thinking I was signing up for some quality writing, but instead I got what amounted to no more than a glossy fanzine written by a bunch of pretentious assholes.

For fans of Play, I urge you to compare it to something like Edge or gamesTM (both UK magazines, both available in Barnes & Noble). I can almost guarantee you'll never look at Play the same again.

[zeeeg]

I'm all for experiencing new and innovative concepts in gaming, but if they're executed as shoddily as Killer 7's appear to be, then what's the point?

But they're not executed shoddily. The gameplay may suck, but the story is still twisted & confusing and the style is still cool. According to this 1up guy anyway.

[fitbabits]

How does Play Magazine enter into this at all?

I mentioned it in one of my earlier comments. To quote myself:

For what it's worth, Play Magazine (or, if you prefer, Dave Halverson's mouthpiece) gave it 9 out of 10.

[fitbabits]

But they're not executed shoddily. The gameplay may suck, but the story is still twisted & confusing and the style is still cool. According to this 1up guy anyway.

Would it be accurate then to say that you prefer style over substance? I appreciate that the question is not black and white, and I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to get a better understanding of where you're coming from.

[zeeeg]

Would it be accurate then to say that you prefer style over substance? I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to get a better understanding of where you're coming from.

No I don't prefer one or the other. In a perfect world, I would want all my games to have style and substance. But in reality, I'll take what I can get. Sometimes that will be a game which is frustrating to play but has other aspects that are enjoyable, and other times it's a game which is fun to play but clearly has no artistic ambitions. Rarely a game gets both aspects right, and I don't see any point in limiting my options. If a game has fun qualities, I'll try to find them. (although, to be honest I probably just have a different set of things that piss me off than most people. Like I really hate the game PoP:Sands of Time because it's attempts at being cinematic annoyed me and I couldn't get past that to enjoy anything else in the game.)

[fitbabits]

No I don't prefer one or the other. In a perfect world, I would want all my games to have style and substance. But in reality, I'll take what I can get. Sometimes that will be a game which is frustrating to play but has other aspects that are enjoyable, and other times it's a game which is fun to play but clearly has no artistic ambitions. Rarely a game gets both aspects right, and I don't see any point in limiting my options. If a game has fun qualities, I'll try to find them. (although, to be honest I probably just have a different set of things that piss me off than most people. Like I really hate the game PoP:Sands of Time because it's attempts at being cinematic annoyed me and I couldn't get past that to enjoy anything else in the game.)

Thanks for the explanation. Can you think of any game(s) that have come close to getting it right? I'm intrigued now.

Funny you should mention PoP: Sands of Time - I gave up on it after spending far too long being ambushed and outnumbered by endlessly spawning enemies with a collective AI IQ of 50.

[Last of the Red Hot Mamas]

I mentioned it in one of my earlier comments.

Sorry, missed that.

For the record, the word "pretentious" was invented specifically for Edge Magazine.

[fitbabits]

For the record, the word "pretentious" was invented specifically for Edge Magazine.

Perhaps now, but back in the old days... gamesTM is now what Edge once was - peerless.

[Last of the Red Hot Mamas]

Perhaps now, but back in the old days...

I was talking about the old days, though. I haven't read Edge in years, the cost is way too rich for my blood now.

[president_fred]

No I don't prefer one or the other. In a perfect world, I would want all my games to have style and substance. But in reality, I'll take what I can get. Sometimes that will be a game which is frustrating to play but has other aspects that are enjoyable, and other times it's a game which is fun to play but clearly has no artistic ambitions.
Amen to that. I will probably pick up killer7 once the price has gone down a wee bit. If it has no reedeming features so be it but I may be pleasantly surprised and it may try to do something different with the story.

[fitbabits]

I was talking about the old days, though. I haven't read Edge in years, the cost is way too rich for my blood now.

Oh! :eek:

[zeeeg]

Thanks for the explanation. Can you think of any game(s) that have come close to getting it right? I'm intrigued now.

Funny you should mention PoP: Sands of Time - I gave up on it after spending far too long being ambushed and outnumbered by endlessly spawning enemies with a collective AI IQ of 50.

Ocarina of Time is one that springs to mind immediately, an obvious choice. I suppose more recently, Psychonauts had a great style and humor while still being fun to play. Katamari Damacy, Beyond Good & Evil also have a good balance.

[fitbabits]

Ocarina of Time is one that springs to mind immediately, an obvious choice. I suppose more recently, Psychonauts had a great style and humor while still being fun to play. Katamari Damacy, Beyond Good & Evil also have a good balance.

Thanks again - I now have a clearer understanding of where you're coming from.

King Kong is being made by the same people responsible for Beyond Good & Evil. I just hope that Peter Jackson doesn't get too involved in the making of the game.

[Achilles]

So you’ve got this, and you’ve got PN03, a game that was canceled (Dead phoenix), RE4, and Viewtiful Joe. Together they are the glorious Capcom 5. Well 2 out of 5 ain’t bad really. It says more about Capcom as a company that they’d let something like PN03 and Killer 7 ship. A creative game is a great thing, but a game at the end of the day is all about gameplay and if that's not there it's a bad game.

[Wyrm]

You have to wonder about a company that ships a game who's main character shakes her ass too and fro while shooting green blobls from her hands.

[kizke]

Killer 7 always sounded intriguing, and from what I read sounded like it had potential.

Ah well. Viewtiful Joe deserves a solid 8 or 9 out of 10 in my mind, and RE4 is one of my three most favorite Gamecube games (tied with Smash Bros. Melee and Wind Waker).

As for the battle over style and substance, I don't know if I should even get involved. I read so much hype about Ico and how it posessed both in spades, and I got it for $15, and I still feel ripped off. Guess I'll never understand the appeal of a game where you hit shadows with a stick and drag a girl around a vapid castle.

[Phades]

Zeeeg, I'm curious if you liked The Getaway series? Those were a couple games where I thought the gameplay was horrid but the presentation aspects were so well done I kept playing. Kind of the same for Soul Reaver 2. The gameplay was merely "meh." But the story and puzzles were great.

[Kelegacy]

I'll still try the game out due to it's weirdness factor. It did seem an awful lot like an "on rails" game. You choose which direction your character goes by hitting the adjacent direction (up, left, or right) and as if76 says, it is very reminiscent of the old Sega CD movie-games (though I did enjoy a couple of them, at least for the first play through)

[Kelegacy]

Killer 7 always sounded intriguing, and from what I read sounded like it had potential.

Ah well. Viewtiful Joe deserves a solid 8 or 9 out of 10 in my mind, and RE4 is one of my three most favorite Gamecube games (tied with Smash Bros. Melee and Wind Waker).

As for the battle over style and substance, I don't know if I should even get involved. I read so much hype about Ico and how it posessed both in spades, and I got it for $15, and I still feel ripped off. Guess I'll never understand the appeal of a game where you hit shadows with a stick and drag a girl around a vapid castle.

You didnt like Ico? I absolutely loved it. Art direction, the emotional bond you felt with the onscreen duo, and the satisfying feeling of playing something different and wholesome. It was a short game, but it was like a well-rounded meal that left me very satiated. It's not entirely a game...it's more like an experience.

[kizke]

You didnt like Ico? I absolutely loved it. Art direction, the emotional bond you felt with the onscreen duo, and the satisfying feeling of playing something different and wholesome. It was a short game, but it was like a well-rounded meal that left me very satiated. It's not entirely a game...it's more like an experience.

That experience was lost on me. I felt simply irritated by the vagueness of the game. I can appreciate why people liked it and what they liked about it, but for me the setting was just too spartan, the enemies too similar, the environment too bleak. Maybe one of these days I'll give it another whirl.

[mister_slim]

I'm still planning to pick up Killer 7. Seeing as magazines I respect somewhat (Play & NP) are scoring it fairly well and magazines I have little respect for (EGM) are apparently scoring it poorly, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Game Informer, who I respect about as little as EGM, gave it an alright score as well. If I'm going to spend my money, might as well give it to something pushing the envelope.
King Kong is being made by the same people responsible for Beyond Good & Evil. I just hope that Peter Jackson doesn't get too involved in the making of the game.
Apparently Jackson choose Ancel and team because he was very impressed by Beyond Good & Evil, which bodes well.

[kizke]

Apparently Jackson choose Ancel and team because he was very impressed by Beyond Good & Evil, which bodes well.

On that note, I'm really happy that Jackson picked that team. BG&E is such an underrated and underappreciated game.

[zeeeg]

Zeeeg, I'm curious if you liked The Getaway series? Those were a couple games where I thought the gameplay was horrid but the presentation aspects were so well done I kept playing. Kind of the same for Soul Reaver 2. The gameplay was merely "meh." But the story and puzzles were great.

I haven't played The Getaway series, but thanks for reminding me that I should give it a try.

[mister_slim]

The funniest thing, though, was that Nintendo Power still gave the game an 85 or so while even in the review they say absolutely nothing positive about it but skirt around actually declaring the gameplay for what it is: shameful.

This, of course, after their preview that claimed that "future developers will look back at gaming divided into two eras: before Killer 7 and after Killer7".

Now, here's some quotes from their review:
"..story makes absolutely no sense..."
"...generic lock and key puzzles..."
"...troublesome controls..."

and so forth.

You know, quotation marks are generally used to indicate some particular text is directly attributed to a particular source. A paraphrase, however poor, is usually noted as such.

[Furious Wang]

I'm still planning to pick up Killer 7. Seeing as magazines I respect somewhat (Play & NP) are scoring it fairly well and magazines I have little respect for (EGM) are apparently scoring it poorly, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Game Informer, who I respect about as little as EGM, gave it an alright score as well. If I'm going to spend my money, might as well give it to something pushing the envelope.

This is the guy I was talking about earlier.

[Furious Wang]

You know, quotation marks are generally used to indicate some particular text is directly attributed to a particular source. A paraphrase, however poor, is usually noted as such.

Oh you little shit head I love you so much.

The third reference is the only one paraphrased. Here's the actual quote:

"The pacing and movement restrictions (particularly in areas where the paths take needlessly circuitous routes) will frustrate players who are looking for more conventional play..."

Do you also require footnotes and a bibliography, sir? I would very much dislike receiving a poor grade on my thesis.

[mister_slim]

Oh you little shit head I love you so much.

The third reference is the only one paraphrased. Here's the actual quote:

"The pacing and movement restrictions (particularly in areas where the paths take needlessly circuitous routes) will frustrate players who are looking for more conventional play..."

Do you also require footnotes and a bibliography, sir? I would very much dislike receiving a poor grade on my thesis.
Are those quotes from some Furious Wang-only version of NP? Because none of your three original "quotes" are in the magazine.