Dmc:Devil May Cry general discussion.

What did u guys think of it? Definitive version more so now that og release is obsolete.

I bought PS3 copy maybe 2yrs after release, beat PS4 version recently.

its a decent game overall, bosses r crap set pieces with barely any interactivity n forced cutscenes to detract from gameplay. A distinct lack of back n forth for bosses since they have phases for simply wailing on them as they r helpless, u should have to earn stun periods. Vergin is ok but I'd rather fight Vergil, Nelo Angelo or credo for rival fights.

They added some extra modes n costumes for rerelease, like hardcore mode, turbo mode n must style mode which only a allows mobs to take damage if style meter is at an S or higher.

I like how u can combo weapons into others so u don't have to start from the beginning of another weapons combo string e.i rebellion into arbiter.

It needed to be its own thing as no way dmc can be anything other than dmc, can't replace mah boii Dante.

Stupid name too, I think they called it devil may cry for the subtitle to act as an indication of a sequel or to make it not simply dmc.

I just got this today from a bargain bin for $34, perfect condition.

This game is always a sour point for me. I like it, but at the same time hate what it stands for. I remember borrowing it from a friend and getting the SSSSSSSSSSSS-rank or whatever complete in a few days along with my Platinum Trophy. It wasn't that it was a bad game, but it was a bad Devil May Cry (something the series is starting to get more known for than its two good games). The skill-ceiling was nill and combat experimentation was gone pretty quickly. What I always liked about DMC was how varied the combat could be and how there was always more to learn or master like Jump Canceling or staying in the air forever. Doing my first 'the floor is lava' run on DMC3 was a time of celebration for me, years of play rewarded me with this skill.

In DmC I was in the air infinitely in about 5 minutes after starting, it hurt me. DMC1 and 3 are games I can go back to for years and still learn new things, DmC I never learn anything new.

Again, it's not a bad game. It's fluid, has great combos and actually manages to combine 5 weapons without it becoming a mess (looking at you DMC4). Art-design was top notch (character designs...not so much), music was pretty cool and fit the tone, the news-bulletins were fun. But yeah what it stood for and what it did, it will forever leave a bad taste in my mouth.

There was a topic I wanted to make but not sure if it's a good idea. It was something like 'good mechanics in games you don't necessarily like'.

I felt it had too much potential to turn to shit though because you'd be saying a game was bad/average, and someone who loves every aspect might come along and disagree. The topic wouldn't be about trashing other games though.

@birdman: That sounds interesting, we would have to agree to disagree on if it's bad/average to an extent and focus on the mechanics we thought where good?

Are we to discuss mechanics we found good or just interesting?

I might not like something but that might be because of preference of genre, so I may not dislike it either. I don't tend to know much about games I dislike, maybe a bit but I'm still up to discuss mechanics if I can. I suppose we would need to discuss those mechanics in some detail, I might not be informed enough to give a detailed response, or really disagree/agree I might simply be impartial or intrigued.

Would you care to give an example for a test?

You could delete the thread if it doesn't work out, if that's an option.Best ask Roy I don't know what I'm talking about really, I'm not very good at arguing/discussing. I'm better at prompting responses and making topics I guess.

DmC is a good example and it will stay on topic. Roy's post is a perfect example too.

Personally I like the idea of only certain weapon types working against certain enemies. It gives more meaning to switching weapons. It might not be what DMC players wanted (I also agree and don't find it very DMC-like) but it's not a bad system by any stretch. Would have been better if it were a new game unrelated to the DMC series.

As for other games, I think it would be better to just make new topics.

@birdman I agree, I like the idea of making you prioritise switching weapons to vary your weapon uses up, to use the angel/demon weapons as your primary weapon for a time.
reminds me of the combat statues in dmc3 which could only be hit with a certain colour coded weapon.

Definitive edition changes it so you can hurt demon/angel enemies with any weapon but they only get stunned/comboed by their colour coded one, I think you can also stun them if you time a strike right. So now it's viable to start a combo from any weapon so it's how it should have been and not as awkward as being hit abruptly out of your combo. You don't have to use the coded weapon but it's now incentivised to do so.

I like how they did weapon switching mid combo so you can skip parts of other weapon combos you don't want, for instance I used rebellion into arbiter which was faster than just using arbiter for the same end move I wanted. Works much better in definitive edition due to not being hit out of moves from demon/angel enemies so the transition is more viable now.

Also must style mode which is optional mode you can use with any difficulty mode in definitive edition to have enemies only take damage if your style meter is S or higher,something I've wanted to see in dmc since forever(dmc4:SE should have had that option), along with hardcore mode which makes devil trigger less over powered as enemies don't remain stationary in the air and also do more damage to you, style meter goes down much faster also.

Really it did need to be more of its own thing much like how dmc came from re4, if anything dmc is holding it back and it will now only be remembered as that failed reboot of a beloved capcom series.

Off topic: It's also a waste to see ninja theory make a cinematic game when they clearly can make a solid action game if they wanted to, problem is it had to be dmc.

I heard they were assisted by Japan DMC team members though. Any truth to that? If so, they really have no ability themselves.

I'll look into it, never heard of that but I haven't checked its development history. That's a shame if it was not mostly them.

I didn't say 'not mostly', only that I heard they were assisted.

They were constantly consulting with Capcom to get the details of the mechanics right, it is generally considered that most of the gameplay stuff that works - works because of Capcom's involvement. The original build was a far-cry of what Capcom had hoped to see. Capcom also allegedly helped with the engine as it barely scrapped 30 fps, to help it reach a solid 30.

Wikipedia wrote:Most of the game was finished as of April 2012 with Capcom aiding Ninja Theory in tweaking few aspects for the final product. Capcom became heavily involved in the combat system to ensure the character's responsive moves and add new air combos never seen before in the franchise.^[21]The development team included over ninety members with nearly ten of them being from Capcom. While Capcom's Hideaki Itsuno oversaw the project, Jones and Motohide Eshiro acted as producers. They wanted to aid the Ninja Theory developers in making DmC play more like the previous Devil May Cry games.

One thing that was never really clear was why the engine of DMC4 wasn't re-used. Seriously that game looks gorgeous by todays standards and ran at 60fps which was crazy. The Unreal engine has no place in action titles, something that Killer is Dead reminds us of too.

But yeah they are mostly good at making storydriven titles, Enslaved was pretty good but gameplaywise it was just 'grab modern tropes and throw it in a blender'.

There was a topic I wanted to make but not sure if it's a good idea. It was something like 'good mechanics in games you don't necessarily like'.

Better not. Generally every action game has a reason to exist and I want to avoid 'this game is horrible' scenarios (though the GoW reboot is free to be hated upon haha).

Personally I like the idea of only certain weapon types working against certain enemies. It gives more meaning to switching weapons. It might not be what DMC players wanted (I also agree and don't find it very DMC-like) but it's not a bad system by any stretch. Would have been better if it were a new game unrelated to the DMC series.

Except it already existed, previous entries also had enemies that could only be beaten by weapon-x - the reason it felt more out of place is that generally in older titles more advanced ways did exist. Like the Blitz who originally was only vulnerable to guns could be hit with weapons and the knockback canceled with Royal Guard. It just doesn't fit in a game like this though where creativity is promoted - you're better of designing an enemy that's easier to fight with one weapon than others due to movesets etc than doing it cheaply like this. DMC3 had a nice mechanic for this in that some weapons dealt 200% extra damage to certain foes as they were weak to them, making weapon choice important but not essential. 



EDIT:

This little quote right here is what irks me the most about DmC.

Wikipedia wrote:Combat designer Rahni Tucker commented on how newcomers to the series have difficulties understanding how advance players from the classic Devil May Cry games could perform several combos that combined multiple skills and weapons. As a result, she designed the combat to be appeal to newcomers so that they could easily perform elaborated combos, while still offering gameplay that advance players would enjoy.^[20]

It's that type of mentality that ruins games imo.

have difficulties understanding how advance players from the classic Devil May Cry games could perform several combos that combined multiple skills and weapons.

As a result, she designed the combat to be appeal to newcomers so that they could easily perform elaborated combos,

How about communicating with advanced players and *gasp* LEARNING?

while still offering gameplay that advance players would enjoy.

It's a decent action game, and I don't believe they have to be full of 1 frame links to be good, but still, this didn't work out very well.

It's that type of mentality that ruins games imo.

Yep.

That explains it all then, it did seem odd how they managed to make an action game better than their other ones. They where never known for stellar action games.

On weapon weaknesses;Agni and rudra are good examples of weapon weaknesses, Nelo Angelo is weaker to ifrit I think, those are more subtle takes on weapon weaknesses, Beowulf is weak to Vergils Yamato since its dark element against beowulfs light.

The disrespect DmC shows for dmc legacy is even more despicable when they only made it as competently as they did due to help from itsuno and crew, kinda makes it pointless to even have ninja theory, since they where hired for making compelling stories, look how that turned out.

while still offering gameplay that advanced players would enjoy

Nero was already a starter character for newcomers, while still having his own advanced mechanics for high level players to use. When developers talk about making games 'accessible' it usually means making them easy and casual friendly but only focus on that making the skill ceiling suffer.
You don't need to do crazy custom combos in dmc you can play without them on lower modes at least. Also dmc has always had easy modes, same with most action games.

Dmc moveset is simple enough, Dante in dmc3-4 only has 1 rebellion air combo it's how you link the moves together is where the complexity comes from, i can't do crazy custom combos but I can still use all the moves due to how simple they are individually as opposed to bayonettas long dial and pause combo strings of which I can only remember a few, can't even dodge offset yet.

I gotta go to bed now guys had to get this comment out, sorry if it's a mess for now.

Gabriel Phelan Lucas wrote:I gotta go to bed now guys had to get this comment out, sorry if it's a mess for now.

Will replay later, but serious man you're writing is day and night compared to before - excellent job!

If you can, google "Dante is, Dante isn't" to see parts of a developer presentation on the charaterisation of Dante in DmC: Devil May Cry. It's pretty scary to look at and how they diss the original source. One thing that's really easy as a designer is to talk down the current form and praise yours as the best, you even see this in comics or coding where if a new team comes in they will generally just dismiss what exists and start fresh - not a good way to do things.

DmC's combat had some nice quirks and you could pull of some really fun moves and those ninja-like enemies were a blast to engage with, but you really got to be curious: where did Ninja Theory do it and where did Itsuno say "this is how it's done".

Has anyone here played the DLC, how is it?

Vergil dlc is meh, he discount Vergil nothing you don't know already, he doesn't animate or play as well as donte, I don't like his moves he only has Yamato with some boring basic moves for angel/demon versions,I didn't finish dlc it was too dull to play, I'd rather play Vergil in dmc3-4. Best see for yourself, but you likely won't be surprised. Donte has some cool weapons and moves but vergin is so bland with his single weapon and lazy move set.

Given ninja theory's track record for action games I'd say mostly itsuno and crew since they where involved, they would have no clue how to make a game like dmc, it's most likely way beyond them. dmc3-4 are the most complex out of any action game for sure so that's a tall order. It was ninja theory but not really without itsuno, they didn't really care(fug yu). Also definitive has dmc1-3 Dante costumes but they fucked that up too since donte looks like he got the wrong cosplay costume the details are all wrong.

I heard but didn't know that ninja theory actually dissed Dante like that, which is out right dispicable given they are making a dmc game with help from the damn dmc3-4 team. Also Jim sterling defends DmC, for no other reason than being a contrarian and missing the entire reason for DmC backlash I suppose, he doesn't make a solid case for it as he doesn't know his action games from his cinematic games to be real here.

I heard but didn't know that ninja theory actually dissed Dante like that

It's so funny how much they shit on DMC and Dante's design, when their vision is the most dead basic degenerate, trailer trash, rebellious teenager. The absolute epitome of unoriginal.

NT seemed to really take issue with how Dante looked in DMC. Other than that, DmC Dante acts almost exactly the same way.

I have to admit, I found the 'not in a million years' joke quite funny.

It made me "heh, okay then" when I saw it but paired with the whole buzz around it made me more annoyed. I'd be okay with it if the original Dante was a hated stupid character no-one loved, but the original was one of the most popular characters among fans and very iconic. To diss on him so badly really put them in a bad light. Pair that with "shakespearian plot" and well, there we go.

One thing that still grinds my gears though is people saying "the game was hated because of the hair", that was completely incorrect.

I didn't touch the vanilla version until recently and only just got DE so the joke wasn't annoying or anything. I get how it would be back then though.

I didn't mind the joke, the audacity was commendable though, I bought original yrs later maybe 2015, was ok but didn't have much replay value compared to dmc1-3. Got definitive recently its a much better game for the improvements and options it added(must style and hardcore mode) bosses are still trash. They actually made an effort to appeal to fans since they are the only ones interested at that point or in the first place(Dante1-3 costumes even though they look shit on donte because they got the details wrong for them, donte looks like a right twat with them on and I feel a bit dirty using them but it's better than his actual design)

Thoughts on Bloody Palace in this game?

I played through it once and beat it first try which...surprised me haha. Pretty fun!

I dare say Hell and Hell is exhilarating. Having Mission 17 Devil's Dalliance cleared without Continue? is fun. So are the later stages.

Here's a 'toon bomb for ye: I hate it when developers paddle back to extend an olive branch to the 'dome. That's what the D Edition is for me. We want you to like it so naturally we give you what you want and already know. Gimme your luv. Please?

DmC:DE really was the 'fine...we'll listen' edition, while with the original they made a ton of 'damage control' statements like 60fps not being a noticable improvement over 30fps or that lock-on isn't needed. Only to then add them here.

DmC gets shit on a lot, but it is still a fun game. Had a lot of fun playing it. Just plays strangely more efficient, lots of ring-out tricks too.

Royta/Raeng wrote:DmC:DE really was the 'fine...we'll listen' edition

That makes DMC5 the 'this is what you want...this is what you get' entry then.
Call me names, but I don't think it supposed to work this way. Say you don't enjoy your Choke soft drink of choice anymore. You blame the producers for changing the formular, since they felt it to be necessary to mix it up in order of the a-changin' times and tastes. You expect the company to change back. Or you could taste some other stuff. See if it's enjoyable. The times they are a-changing, but the peeps they are a-not.

Royta/Raeng wrote:Just plays strangely more efficient, lots of ring-out tricks too.

Personally I dig the friendly fire, appropriatly dubbed Wrong Team in the score details.

Nothing wrong with what you're saying, in fact I promote it. Games - and media in general - are far to deep into what people want. The problem is that people don't know what they want. The infamous Miyamoto Skit comes to mind.

You saw this a lot in the feedback forms that Nioh got. A lot of it was complaining about things like difficulty and camera, seeing us end up with a bonkers easy game with a bad camera compared to a hard game with a good camera. If you try to listen to everyone, you'll only make bad decisions.

One thing I learned as an art-director is "you're the professional, act like it". Meaning, listen to the client, but don't take it at face value. Don't jump when they ask, but wonder why they ask you to jump.

Royta/Raeng wrote: The problem is that people don't know what they want.

Yet they seem to know what they don't want. Often enough that's how I find out what I like, to be honest. But I try not to make a 'tude out of it.

Royta/Raeng wrote:The infamous Miyamoto Skit comes to mind.

*snort*

I did not know that one. The emulated ethnic trope is the icing on top.

"True words are not beautiful, beautiful words are not true."

> Yet they seem to know what they don't want.

Often not the case. People would clamour against an idea, yet when it is released they'd love it. Sometimes they don't even know they want something i.e. Dishonored or Xcom which were surprise hits.

DmC: Definitive Edition is really good for action game beginners that are interested in getting into the combo-heavier side of the genre. Primarily because it allows for both easy, and casual play, while also having plenty of good options for more enthusiast players as well.

The game is packed with alternate modes, and difficulty levels, which makes the game pretty solid for all levels. And I will never understand why DMC5 doesn't have a Must style mode. Because this is basically the one mode in the entire series that actually forces you to play at your absolute best the whole time. Yeah, Dante Must Die is pretty damn hard in the other games, but at the same time, you don't necessarily need to play super well to pass.

It's weird how the internet can align at times, I just made this post regarding DmC on Gamefaqs:

It is an okay game. The combat, when viewed apart from the series, is quite well done since it's based on a solid foundation. There's some really weird decisions like the low skill ceiling etc. but also some good ones like playing with ring-outs for quick kills and I can imagine some people really enjoy its soundtrack and visual style.

I'd go as far as to say, it is a really good title if you want to start playing Action Games. It's not too hard in terms of difficulty, combos are easy to pick up - it isn't a game you have to invest a lot of time into for it to become really cool or interesting.

Most of my real-life friends are (filthy) casual players. Having them start off with something like Astral Chain, Shinobi, Ninja Gaiden, DMC3 and even God of War etc. that just doesn't work. I've had the most succes converting people to the genre at large with DmC and Korra of all things. Sure, they aren't the best, but they're good entry-titles.

So yeah, I fully agree.

hahaha The anti-Genma guy strikes again.

This is pretty much exactly how I see DmC. Anyone with sense should see it the same way. I'll crack the odd joke but the DE is solid.