Polygon has run an extensive interview with Devil’s Third developer Tomonobu Itagaki, former leader of Team Ninja and current leader of Valhalla Game Studios, to discuss just went wrong with the action packed third person shooter Devil’s Third. As you would expect Itagaki is extremely defensive about his game. You can read the full interview here.
JM: The reviews for Devil’s Third weren’t stellar. A lot of reviews were saying that if it had come out in 2008 it would have been fine, but now it seems dated. The general view was that the game was stuck in the late Xbox 360 era. So, since nobody knows about your plans for a Devil’s Third trilogy — I’m guessing this interview is the first anyone will learn of them — because of the reviews and the long wait of the release versus the end result, a cynical response to this is that these are the sequels that nobody asked for. How would you respond to that?
TI: Let me explain this in parts. First, the reason the reviews were so poor. I have analyzed the reason. This game was designed to be a massive shooter, so it would be fun if there were at least a thousand players in the game. But Nintendo didn’t set up online matches for reviewers. So there was no way for reviewers to experience the online mode as we designed it, and they reviewed the game based mostly on the single-player story mode. If it had been Microsoft that had published the game, they would have given the game to a group of 500 players who had signed an NDA to play for the reviewers to experience the massive online mode. But NOA didn’t do that.
So I don’t blame the reviewers for underestimating the experience of the online mode. There’s no value to the review of someone who’s evaluating a piece of art with blindfolds on. That was 95 percent of the negative criticism toward the game. The remaining 5 percent was by people who wanted to build credibility by criticising the game. And this is my assumption, but one person wrote a negative review and NOA didn’t do anything to stop or change the review, so others followed suit. So I don’t really believe that the reviews were credible. Although I haven’t read all the reviews, the reviews I saw were not very objective, more emotional.
No, your game received poor reviews because it was a bad game!
I have seen many who played your game stating they liked the multiplayer but found the single player campaign to be either generic or plain bad! Whatever side they’re in, all reviews I’ve seen support the idea that the multiplayer is the best part!
“So I don’t blame the reviewers for underestimating the experience of the online mode. There’s no value to the review of someone who’s evaluating a piece of art with blindfolds on. That was 95 percent of the negative criticism toward the game.”
No, Itagaki. The only one with blindfolds here is you! You made a bad game – admit it! Understand why people are talking so bad about your title and fix its issues on your next work! Be humble and admit that your work is not perfect! The more you keep finding excuses for your title instead of addressing its issues, the more YOU lose your credibility with gamers!
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/dd/14/37/dd1437dec5906bf234fdd26c336c7652.jpg
My question to you is have you played the game? If you have not played the game, you would not understand why he is saying that. The online mode is so great even now. Although it will end next month on the Wii U, the people who are playing now including myself are hoping for a sequel. I may switch to PC Online if it will still be going. I don’t enjoy shooter with first person but I don’t mind this one because it is third person with first person shooting. Sieges are so fun and can get very intense. Carnival and Chicken mode is just a blast to play and can make me smile or laugh when playing. transporter and cargo is good quick fun. All other modes are fun, just they the typical modes. The single player is a lot of fun and doesn’t take itself too seriously. Reminds me of GI Joe episodes. The reviewers do not help gaming at all. If reviews were without scores and without opinions, games that weren’t bought that people would have enjoyed would have been bought and their own opinion of the game would count. A review suppose to be just that a review of a product and not an opinion of the product. It should be called Opinion Review and produce a score. A review of a game should just be the facts of the game and the person can make their own choice whether to buy the product.
That guy is delusional lol I haven’t played the game it never really caught my attention but from the trailers it seemed a little bit outdated and not really that fun, of course these are just my thoughts I’m sure someone out there enjoyed the game
You are correct. See me above you.
I rented this from GameFly and I actually enjoyed it a lot. The whole thing is a little corny and over the top and once I found my footing I was enjoying myself way more than I thought I would. I tried to play some of the multiplayer, but at the time no one else was playing. It’s all just dumb fun.
Nintendo pretended this game game didn’t exist. Pretty disrespectful to the developer after Nintendo got it all to themselves, regardless if it was bad or not. Respect for Nintendo = -1
Felt like a PS2 game. It was alright, but just felt like a generally mediocre bargain bin title from the get-go.
Such a fantastic, underrated game imo. Could be my favourite game on U. Definitely in top 2 for me!!
I really like the game is very fun in every sense, the only thing it needs is more people to play with and it will be fine. It’s a shame they taking off the online multi-player next month.
The campaign was garbage, the man character looked like a horrible 70’s sci-fi movie b-rated character, with crappy dialogue to boot as well, and the gameplay is worse than all of the Ninja Gaiden games combined! Itagaki is one of those creators whom ego led him to believe he can do no wrong, and the only credit he is entitled to is this act, he saved Tecmo from going under with the rival of Ninja Gaiden for the xbox and the Dead or Alive series, that’s it.
“One person wrote a negative review and NOA didn’t do anything to stop or change the review”
…is that guy legitimately crazy? What should NOA have done? Bribe them? Blackmail them? LOL.