I'm tempted to find out what the deal is for myself.

Wow, I'm not. I don't give a shit about what game reviewers say now, because I know it's all completely meaningless. Why should I care what they have to say about games when I think far deeper and more often about games than they do?

I know you said you were interested in the game because it was rated "hard". Well, here's my two guesses as to what that means:

-It's not actually hard, the reviewer is just full of shit on that issue like everything else.

-It's "hard" because, like other beat'em'ups, when you're button-mashing on an enemy, occasionally it'll just punch you anyway and you can't really do anything about it. Yawn.

Years and YEARS ago when I was first trying to get people to have some appreciation of challenge, they'd always throw some crappy game with shit control back at me that was hard because of its shit control, as if that issue doesn't have a response. Well, actually, it creates its own response: Ideally, the source of a game's challenge should come from level design (or similar things, such as boss pattern design).

And beat'em'ups don't have level design.

It's amazing, this spiral of retardedness that mainstream gaming is falling into. A few years ago, I wrote as PARODY

Super Mario Land
This game is short and has bad play control and has no challenge and Mario is virtually invisible and the music is annoying and the level design is simplistic, but who cares, it's fun!

Now what the fuck can you do to parody stupidity? Clipping errors make a game fun? These "serious" reviews are more ridiculous than the parody.

I really could have predicted this downward spiral years ago when so many people were fixed on "fun". As I've said many, many times before, looking at "fun" just naturally tends to be an unintellectual, shallow way of judging games. And it just encourages judging games in the future to be more shallow. It's like how once you stop exercising, you just get fatter and fatter. Once you get intellectually lazy, you just get stupider and stupider.

Here's a recent post of mine in which I critiqued the concept of "fun" for judging games.

Not only did I criticize that concept, I even suggest a couple of ways it could be made slightly more palatable. Did any "fun advocates" ever suggest any such thing? Do they actually implement any such thing? Of course not. They don't think.