I have not played Devil May Cry 4, and as such the purpose of this post is not to say that I disagree with the verdict of Mr. Hunt's review. Instead, I want to share my concern that the content of this review gives me no reason to trust that verdict. Mr. Hunt starts the review by clearly stating his bias (through talk of his disdain for "animoos" and games of japanese origin), but I recognize that this in itself isn't much of a problem. We all have our opinions and biases and it's best to get those out in the open, though perhaps it would be wise for Mr. Hunt to refrain from being overtly offensive ("animoo") while doing so, and I personally find it strange that a professional reviewer of video games is often "filled with rage" by Japanese games, which have traditionally been a huge and influential part of the video game market. We all better keep him away from Mario and Zelda games, he might go berserk! The real problem here, however, is that the reviewer demonstrates quite clearly that he is ignorant about past Devil May Cry titles, which makes me give serious pause as to whether or not I consider his opinion on the fourth game in the title valid. Over the course of the review Mr. Hunt says that the first DMC was "tedious", comparing it to Dynasty Warriors, while Game Revolution previously praised the title as "pure gold for the PS2." He clearly states that he hasn't played the third DMC, but that according to "the rumor-mills of the internet," apparently it was hard. To be frank, I find this unacceptable for a site that once prided itself on giving reviews that praised innovation in a series and faulted games for a lack thereof - this is impossible when a reviewer is so unfamiliar with the series and what it has established. This ignorance made itself known implicitly in a few other areas as well: there was no mention whatsoever of the "style rating" system from previous titles, which was one of the most interesting features of the series and one of the main ways it distinguished itself from other action titles (I suspect that Mr. Hunt is likely unaware of its presence or function in the earlier games in the series, and is thus incapable of making a comparison here); nor is there any mention of the item collection and upgrade system, familiar to players of other games in the series. If these gameplay elements are present in DMC4, I'd expect them to garner a mention; if they were absent I'd expect the same, given their importance in previous titles. In Mr. Hunt's review we get neither - the only feature he seems to recognize from previous titles are awkward camera angles, but I don't think it takes someone paid to review video games to accomplish that. In short, I don't really find this review helpful in the least. It does far too much to discredit itself with its ignorance and incongruity with other reviews on the site for me to take it seriously. I'm sure that Mr. Hunt raises valid points about the game in his review, and I'm not saying that he has to like the game or give it a favorable review. What I am saying is that this review comes off much more like a personal opinion than a professional review, and this site claims to present us with the latter.