Post by: NWR_Neal on May 13, 2011, 01:40:48 PM
Thor sure looks pretty, but there isn't much to it.
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/review/26306
WayForward’s take on Thor on the DS is inspired to a degree. It features the wonderfully designed 2D animation and sprites that the Shantae developer is known for. Sadly, Thor is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill beat-‘em-up, and while that doesn’t make it a bad game, it makes it repetitive and, at times, boring.
Thor has a few attacks, most of which derive from his hammer Mjolnir, that help get him through the endless hordes of enemies. He has a variety of up-close melee attacks, a ground pound, and the ability to throw his hammer across the screen. You can string together combos, but you’ll soon realize that you can make mincemeat out of the enemies by just lining them up in the same area and ground-pounding them into oblivion. The Norse God also has God Powers, screen-clearing super attacks that are activated by a tap of the touch screen when the on-screen meter is filled.
 |  |
There are several chapters in the game, each with three acts and a different setting, but the game feels way too brief. With the simple gameplay, it wouldn’t have held up over a long game, though, so the brevity might be for the best. The best part of each chapter occurs at the end of the final act, as that is when you fight the two-screened bosses. While the bosses aren’t terribly challenging, they are quite a spectacle to behold, especially as you have to use both screens to combat them.
The bosses also help show off the game’s strongest aspect: the art style. While the graphics are nowhere near as spectacular as WayForward’s work on Shantae: Risky's Revenge, or even last fall’s Batman: The Brave and the Bold DS, it still looks great, and is highlighted by the stellar boss designs.
Thor DS, from what I’ve heard, might be the best Thor game, but it’s not much more than a slightly-better-than-mediocre brawler with great art. WayForward junkies and big Thor fans should be the only people that look into getting this game, though it should satiate those folks quite well.
BILinkHTMLBILinkHTMLPost by: Ceric on May 13, 2011, 02:00:11 PM
(insert link to respective reviews)
Best part of the review. Fixed.
Seriously though so its just pretty blah till the boss battles?
What so hard about making a good Brawler now...
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on May 13, 2011, 02:27:03 PM
Post by: NWR_Neal on May 13, 2011, 02:29:13 PM
But yea, the game felt kind of flat, especially in comparison to Batman: BatB DS, which was one of those games that was way better than it likely should have been.
Post by: Ceric on May 13, 2011, 02:31:10 PM
Good catch, Ceric. I added the review links and took out that reminder. Nobody's perfect. ;-)I blame Crimm.
Batman: BatB DS, I'll have to try that.
Post by: broodwars on May 13, 2011, 02:32:51 PM
Seriously though so its just pretty blah till the boss battles?
What so hard about making a good Brawler now...
Let's be honest with ourselves a bit here: just as a single-player experience, were Brawlers EVER good? I loved Turtles in Time as much as any SNES owner, but c'mon you played those games for the multiplayer co-op because when you get right down to it it's just hours of button-mashing against stupid opponents who either barely tried to fight back or were overwhelmingly cheap (quarter-munchers). The 3D Brawler has evolved to the point with the God of War formula where the game can still be entertaining played in single-player, but it's very dependent on spectacle and mood to mask how basic the gameplay is. Add any more interesting features away from combat, and you usually get an Adventure game of some sort like Zelda.
Post by: Ceric on May 13, 2011, 02:44:41 PM
Maximum Carnage was good. Double Dragon was good. PSO Single player is essentially a brawler as well. What made these games good where they had variety in how you made it through the levels or the combo system was interesting. Devil May Cry series is another. I like when these game have a bit of challenge in how they do things. That, for me, comes in best when you use a fighting system where its not just mash mash mash but, mash .5 sec mash 1 sec Mash. Making instead of frantic mashing more of a rythm game where you are happen to be beating up enemies. Very it for different weapons. Can change the order or cadence for different attacks. Throw in some decent platforming and you can have a fun game.Seriously though so its just pretty blah till the boss battles?
What so hard about making a good Brawler now...
Let's be honest with ourselves a bit here: just as a single-player experience, were Brawlers EVER good? I loved Turtles in Time as much as any SNES owner, but c'mon you played those games for the multiplayer co-op because when you get right down to it it's just hours of button-mashing against stupid opponents who either barely tried to fight back or were overwhelmingly cheap (quarter-munchers). The 3D Brawler has evolved to the point with the God of War formula where the game can still be entertaining played in single-player, but it's very dependent on spectacle and mood to mask how basic the gameplay is. Add any more interesting features away from combat, and you usually get an Adventure game of some sort like Zelda.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 13, 2011, 02:49:58 PM
What I don't like about brawlers is that every enemy is the close combat equivalent of a bullet sponge. Ninja Five-O allowed you to kill most enemies with one sword attack and yet it was never easy.
