With the topic about Brutal Legend compared to Sacrifice, I've noticed people bringing up the usual complaints about "the game was too hard to control!" and "you can't effectively micromanage, the controls are shit!" and "the 'RTS bits' were just a slog where you have to make the same troops over and over until you win!"
And while these complaints are all entirely valid, it's not because the game is bad: it's because it did an awful job of explaining how it was supposed to be played.
Simply put: it was not meant to be played as though it was an RTS. The controls were designed to work perfectly with the intended playstyle, which was moving your troops in a quick and simple manner while spending 90% of your time hacking and slashing enemies, using double team attacks with your troops, or playing guitar solos.
It wasn't meant to be played like a traditional RTS, flying high above the battle the whole time as though you're a mouse cursor, and directing troops from above without ever touching the ground.
If you're interested, here's a video of what the game was supposed to be played like:
Basically the problem was that the marketing of the game, along with the general structure of it, didn't inform players that all the hacking and slashing missions, the car stuff, the double team attacks (like using the mosh pit, or the stun attack on Lemmy's bike), the solos like battle cry and facemelter - these were tools which were gradually being added to your belt, with the stage battles being the points where they could be freely used in any way you wanted.
So when the first battle came up, it felt like it was just a 'RTS mission', instead of the reality of it being an all-out 'everything' action mission.
So basically: having watched the video, does that look any different from what you remember the game being like? Does it look better? Worse? Do you see my point?
And while these complaints are all entirely valid, it's not because the game is bad: it's because it did an awful job of explaining how it was supposed to be played.
Simply put: it was not meant to be played as though it was an RTS. The controls were designed to work perfectly with the intended playstyle, which was moving your troops in a quick and simple manner while spending 90% of your time hacking and slashing enemies, using double team attacks with your troops, or playing guitar solos.
It wasn't meant to be played like a traditional RTS, flying high above the battle the whole time as though you're a mouse cursor, and directing troops from above without ever touching the ground.
If you're interested, here's a video of what the game was supposed to be played like:
Basically the problem was that the marketing of the game, along with the general structure of it, didn't inform players that all the hacking and slashing missions, the car stuff, the double team attacks (like using the mosh pit, or the stun attack on Lemmy's bike), the solos like battle cry and facemelter - these were tools which were gradually being added to your belt, with the stage battles being the points where they could be freely used in any way you wanted.
So when the first battle came up, it felt like it was just a 'RTS mission', instead of the reality of it being an all-out 'everything' action mission.
So basically: having watched the video, does that look any different from what you remember the game being like? Does it look better? Worse? Do you see my point?
)
