SJWs said this game is shit. Fuck "professional" reviewers.
what game?
sure does look like a steaming pile of shit, sjws arent always wrong ;)
>>331471064
Devil's Third.
Nothing to do with SJWs you pleb. It looks like a turd in every aspect.
>>331471318
>implying any other generic shooter on the market is better.
>>331471192
Yeah they are.
>>331471575
Most are, yeah.
>>331471905
I'd rather have something more original and funny, than something totally bland and boring like generic battlefield.
>>331472087
Battlefield has something called quality. Devils Third doesn't.
>>331472087
>this game is completely unfun, has shit mechanics, the entire concept is garbage, but hey it sure is "original and funny" so it's better in my book!
>>331471013
Devil's Turd is actually really bad regardless of how much testosterone it's trying to perpetuate. Shitty cheap ass bosses, horrible characters, cliché plot, bad gameplay, non-inspired environments.
>>331472442
>>331472469
The concept is perfectly fine. It's supposed to be a pastiche of 80s action movies. And other than the stiff aiming, it plays just fine. Anyone who actually cares about "hurr durr top top grafix" needs a head check because so long as they're decent who gives a shit.
>>331472205
Battlefield does not have quality. It's a generic glitch ridden overdone borefest.
Online is pretty awesome but the campaign is a little dull. I do agree that it is much better than advertised.
>>331473196
I'm fucking sick of the whole "it's bad but we're making fun of it" thing. Playing an ironically bad game is as fun as playing a bad game.
Other anon never mentioned graphics so it's clear you're trolling, enjoy the (you)
>>331474227
A bit more linear than i like but lots of fun for me. Haven't tried online yet.
Someone post the oatmeal cookie.
>>331474494
I don't even like it ironically. I actually like it. And the graphics were a very common complaint about the game. Thx 4 playin.
