As I thought

I really enjoyed DMC: Devil May Cry reboot.

Arguably more then Revengance but purely because I loved the art style of DmC. The club level reminded me off a darker Psychonauts level. Also, the simple but deep combat was something I could get my teeth into.

I've realised I'm not a fan of 'Character Actions games' much though. Poor writing and no good reason on why this person is fighting these enemies most of the time. Fun but never any real depth.

 

OH COME ON JAY DOESN'T HAVE TIME FOR THIS SHIT RIGHT NOW

HIS CAR WAS TOTALED FOR GODSAKES

 

And they say the art of conversation is dead.

Been there, done that, got the Nissan Micra.

Besides, don't you have a personal opinion?

 

It's hilarious because it was actually a good game but people are so ****ing stupid they dislike it based on HURR DURR NOT SILVER HAIR NOT COOL

 

When reviewing the game's controversy, I found the petition that demanded it be removed from shelves. What a bunch of immature babies.

A lot of fans usually feel entitled to a series' creative direction because they're fans. The bs from Mass Effect 3 'fans' who demanded a change to the ending were insulting.

Fans are just terrible when they don't get whatever they believed they were going to get. Like the devs are suppose to read minds or something.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the devs own the IP. They own the story. They own the characters and the setting, and everything that makes the game. They can do whatever they want with it. If people don't want to buy it, they don't have to buy it. If people don't want to play it, they don't have to play it. Doesn't mean others don't want to buy it and play it. The current gaming community is a disgusting embarrassment, and is its own worst enemy. The equivalent of a tumblr-warrior.

 

what, you're not a fan if you don't like everything it puts out? When the fans don't want something, it's the dev's job to fix it, not the fan's to suck it up.
I think the DMC outcry is silly, but the game sold a third as many copies as the fourth game in the same amount of time as a direct result. So they should have listened.
I don't think the Mass Effect 3 ending is silly though. That was a baaad ending, and I fail to see how it was insulting to say as much. What makes Bioware immune to critique? They wrote a bad ending, they were willing to try to fix the ending, and ultimately kinda sorta half apologized for it with the final DLC. Clearly THEY were willing to improve on it. I'd much rather the next Mass Effect be made by people who KNEW th ending sucked, rather than anybody dancing around the subject for their feelings

 

I think this is the only thread OP you've ever made that I agree with you on.

Scary times.

 

I for one support any chain of events that leads to the Citadel DLC.

Really though it depends on the complaints of fans. ME3's original ending from my understanding really didn't make good on the promises of the narrative in the rest of the series. It wasn't a reaction so much to an ending itself, but rather to the lack of a satisfying conclusion (though for the record I didn't play ME3 pre-DLC). The fans complaining about DMC are reacting to the new direction taken in the reboot. That's natural and understandable for a series with a dedicated, established fan base, but they don't HAVE to play or buy the reboot. They can safely ignore it's existence. I also don't believe that the existing DMC games ended with any kind of cliffhangers or incomplete story (but I also haven't played them so feel free to correct me), so it can't really compared to something like ME3, which is necessary to complete the story.

 

The only issue I have with the reboot is that they left of things about the previous story up in the air.

I haven't played it myself yet, so I can't say much about the game-play, but from a stylistic point I feel they did everything right with reshaping the setting and attitude of the renewed franchise. It's more modern and "in your face", which is fitting for a series that's always had this aggressive yet stylish vibe with post-Gothic overtones at it's center. So long as that's still there, then what's there to complain about?

As for all this talk about the fanbase , well, there's nothing stupider than a mob of Butthurt Barrys joined together to form a self-validating phalanx of closed-mindedness. Not really worth discussing, imo. The original had a good run but it's time for a fresh start. Deal with it.

 

I think some of you don't quite realize as to why people don't like DmC: Donte may **** YOU.

The biggest offender is the fact that the gameplay is not just a downgrade from every Devil May Cry game but most action games as a whole.

The game is first of all pathetically easy even on the highest difficulty. The way points are racked up means all it takes is one solid hit from your axe of death to get an SSS rank on EVERY enemy. This gif speaks for all http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121002173831/devilmaycry/images/6/64/SSSensational.gif
Enemies attack you one at a time and will actively wait for you to finish your billion hit combo before they start attacking you.


There is no lock on Button which decreases the amount of moves that each weapon has.
Rebellion in DmC only has 10 moves as opposed to DMC3's 17 moves with Rebellion.

There are two buttons that do EXACTLY the same thing. Devil May Cry is known for taking full advantage of each button, in DMC3 most of those rebellion moves are done using only the Triangle button. So then why is there TWO dodge buttons in this game? What's the point? Why not use the button for more attacks or something DIFFERENT!? There does not need to be two dodge buttons.

Donte's pully suffers from the same thing that Nero's Devil Bringer did in that it makes combat an absolute sinch, there's no reason to move your character or jump around or anything, all you have to do is press button and the enemy will be pulled straight to you. Its boring and not very engaging.


The problem with DmC is that it falls flat on its face in every department
Combat the one thing an action game should actually be GOOD at is mindless and flat.
Writing the one thing the game told us was gonna be GOOD is fanfic level tier

Literally the only thing the game had going for it was environments but unfortunately that's about all there is to it.

 

The ending... even with the extended cut... is just kinda silly. Ignoring whether or not you like the whole Star Child thing, you are enver given a chance to even try to argue counterpoints during the ending, no matter what actions you took. It would have been easy if, say you made peace with the Quarians and Geth, to have a dialog choice where Shepard call him out on that, and he replies with "Sure they get along now but in the long term they'll fight wooooo I'm a ghost"
The completely lack of closure is also pretty bad, and what's worse is that from what I can tell it came from a completely lack of understanding from the devs that people could be invested in these characters. You don't see what comes of your romance, you don't get to see what your squadmates did afterwards. The ending was also slightly nonfunctional, if you get a low military rating, the squadmates you take on the final mission will die... and then show up again in the ending anyways.
Basically, it had all the signs of an extreme rush job, combined with a lack of player agency, weird out of the blue plot points... it was just kinda awkward.
And DMC does end with a cliffhanger, but it actually makes the complaints even more silly, becuase it's a cliffhanger that makes the game more in line with the previous ones (Dante gets silver hair, Vergil becomes the demons)

 

People play mass effect for the story? I was convinced they played it for alien sex.

 

The point about not being able to argue did bother me but that was really it--I selected the Destroy ending because I felt that there was strong possibility that not all of Star Child's predictions were correct (like the Geth and the Quarians). I maxed my military score so I didn't notice that, but it does make me laugh because yet had the same problem in KotOR... Which came out in 2003.

Spoiler

if you followed the light side path you could redeem Bastila but still kill her (she asks her you to actually). I imagine most people wouldn't do that because light side and Bastila is hot but if you did, she'd still appear in the ending

I agree that it was rushed, though I don't mind not having closure on your romance. Of course, I romanced Liara, which from my understanding has a bit more care given to it than other romances. Even so, the lack of closure would reflect

Spoiler

Shep's death, although my ending had her breathing so w/e

It was definitely rushed and had its problems but I didn't find it offensively bad like some. ME2 was so good that I didn't expect ME3 to supersede it. I also went into ME3 with very low expectations because I knew there was controversy but I was pleasantly surprised.

Also I meant that previous (not the reboot) DMC games didn't end unresolved to my knowledge.

 

It's a devs job to improve on what they've done, not to alter anything to appease a few pissed off entitled shouters.
But what did the big ending DLC do? Nothing for pissed off fans. Well, a few who got some closure, the ones who didn't feel the original ending explored enough and thus were more satisfied with explanations. Most people were pissed that they didn't get a happy ending. I saw the end coming from Mass Effect 2, and the foreboding in the entire of Mass Effect 3, having a last farewell to everything you've done. Just because it was sad shouldn't have been the reason they hate it. That's not a bad ending, that's an ending you disagree with. Doesn't deserve hate. Especially when the rest of the game was great.
I never said immune to critique, but no one should demand an artist, a story to just change because it's not the one they want. Bad ending or not, that's the published edition, you shouldn't change that for anyone, you should have the balls to say no. Clearly, you do better next time, not just sweep away the mistakes you've made.
Also, Citadel DLC was in the planning stage post ME3 release before the ultimate shitstorm.

I don't like CAGs like I said. Usually because they're overly complicated, with more combos than I ever use and cater to their really niche hyperactive fans. DmC had this nice mix of fluid combat with simple attacks. It was perfect for my play style, it also wasn't so fast I was inputting combos in wrong like I usually do.
There was plenty of depth within DmC combat. You could juggle two to three different enemies if you're good enough, and it felt gratifying when I got an SSS rank, all but once I did get it.
Story in action games are generally pap, and DMCs was okay. Classic story of vengeance. I liked Dante when he was trying to do some good with his hate filled lost life, hated when he acted like swear box. From what i've heard, the original series story was pretty poor too.
Also, you played Heaven and Hell difficulty? One hit kills you? And that was still easy?[DOUBLEPOST=1392759648][/DOUBLEPOST]

Why was it silly? The ending was a shock, but nothing you couldn't put together or understand. The closure is also a writer's choice. you can leave a story as open ended as you like or wrap up everything or just allude to what happened. I've read a story about Kublai Khan's rise and it ends mid way into his life. The writer in their afterword said that he wanted to leave Kublai when he was at his happiest, his best before his fall into drunkenness, the death of his son and failure as a leader. That was the writers choice, even though he promised he'd do the whole of Kublai's life. But I wasn't mad, I was satisfied where it was left because I understood what the reader's intention was. It's their story, not ours, ever.

 

Excuse me but how exactly is Devil May Cry over-complicated?
Do you know how many attack buttons there are in Devil May Cry?
One
The triangle button.
What could POSSIBLY be so over complicated about using ONE button? That is in fact the exact OPPOSITE of over complicated.
It's simple enough for anyone to use but deep enough for an expert to be good at.

And juggling did not take any skill since like I just said there is an option dedicated to bringing the enemy towards you and in a game where the enemies attack you one at a time that is not a challenging feat.
That creates 0 depth, there is nothing spectacular you can do in DmC, juggling enemies is simply a manner of launching an enemy and firing away with Ebony and Ivory. The game is designed so that Donte stays in the air for thousands and thousands of hours before finally hitting the ground. You can wail on an enemy in the air forever and there is NOTHING the other enemies can do to stop you.

And as I said before, SSS ranks are based on damage, all you need to do is use the Axe in order to get an SSS rank on most every boss and enemy (SEE! GIF)

Enemies killing you in one hit means absolutely nothing when the enemies won't attack you unless you AREN'T attacking them.
As soon as you attack an enemy, the other enemies wait until you are done before attacking you. It's babby tier.

What seperates the two series in terms of story is that DmC tries to take itself seriously but comes off as a 10 year old trying to look like an adult. It's a laughably pathetic attempt at being serious or cool.

The original Devil May Cry had a simple story, Dante is the Son of Sparda, he owns a demon hunting business, every now and then folks come into his store with big conspiracies in mind and thus Dante goes out to kick some demon ass and in turn he just MIGHT save the world. It's simple and it does not try to be some sort of social commentary. The characters are larger then life and memorable, the bosses that you fight manage to have more personality in a single cutscene then every character in DmC has in the span of a whole game. The cutscenes are fun and crazy, you look forward to seeing what amazing feats Dante is going to pull of next.

DmC doesn't have anything going for it. It's story takes itself seriously and fails at doing anything that isn't laughably bad and it lacks the charm that any of the characters from the original series had.

 

Never played Devil May Cry. Played a bit of the third but got bored quickly. I can't judge it since i've never played it. I was generalising though, so i'm sure there are cases that aren't overly complicated.

You can't bring every enemy towards you, the big bruisers especially when in a big fight with a lot of enemies who can interrupt your attacks. Not to mention you can only do the one at a time.

I don't get the complaint that it's easy to get an SSS rank by spamming a move. Not only do you have to not be hit to keep it, but who plays a game, with a terrible story, to exploit it? I've played games where I can cheat in the best weapons and armour, but it made the game unchallenging, and as a result, boring. I would never try to exploit a game if I want to have fun with it. That's the gamers choice. Kingdom Hearts 2 is all Reflect to exploit, but That'd be a boring 10 hours.

Enemies attacked me when I didn't attack. Don't know what your problems were with that. Actually I don't think I ever use the dodge button, I just jumped or ran. Forgot it was there most of the time.

Opinions. I hated the cocky narcissistic original Dante who acted like the kind of guy who would talk sarcastically all the time. This one was clearly a cocky selfish man child, but he was a dick trying to do something with his crap life. The original story also sounds like an anime, which I find increasingly boring because they try to be over the top but it feels all forced and like i'm watching an 80s action film. At least DmC tried to make parts serious, and therefore play on some ideas. It also made it seem even weirder when the preposterous swearing came about. Actually, it felt like it was commenting about trolls and other groups that hate serious topics and swear about them like idiots. Got a smirk out of me.

 

I honestly understand why a lot of people dislike the DMC reboot. I mean Capcom basically took four games, roughly seven years of work, and basically said, "That did not happen." All those events, for good and for bad, were considered not worth continuing. Not worth reminding people that they ever happened at all. Of course this isn't just a Capcom problem, the attitude of any reboot seems to be "Sorry if you liked these things before but now they never happened. Doesn't matter if you were emotionally invested, it never happened. Now we're going to tell the same stories but not as good or possibly even worse then before."

It's the equivalently of your beloved pet dying and your parents telling you, "That's okay, we'll just get you a new one." They don't understand that it's not about having a dog or whatever, it's about having this particular thing and the uniqueness of it.


And speaking of the ME3 ending I hear that originally that the ending was going to reveal that the reason the Reapers harvested people was so they join minds of every race to find a solution to stop the expansion of dark energy from consuming everything (you remember dark energy, right? That subplot that was very subtle in ME2 that disappeared in ME3) and Shepard had the choice of destroying the Reapers and finding a different solution or allowing the Reapers to continue on. The reason the ending was scrapped was because it apparently got leaked (of course I've never heard about it until recently) and they changed it to 2001: A Space Odyssey kid so there wouldn't be any spoilers. So they basically went from Gurren Lagann to "Yo dawg, I put a car in your car so you can drive while you drive, dawg." No word if they wouldn't give us closure on everything else or if it would be like it was in the final product where it just ends.

 

Nope. nope nope nope.
NOOOOOOPE

What about it is silly? A weapon created by civilizations over hundreds of thousands of years that nobody understands, which was actually created by the Reapers which were actually the first spacefaring civilization which created robots that would destroy all life when robots got too advanced, melting down the life they kill to make more robots before the other robots can kill them, thus saving them from being killed and giving them eternal life as a robot that kills all of live to make more robots. Which they placed the manifestation of a Reaper inside of said weapon which, when reached, would give the person who reached it three options based on how much of an army they built up to fight the Reapers: destroy the Reapers, undoing hundreds of thousands of years of work, control the Reapers to basically make planet destroying space police... or fuse all of life with machines so they develop a hive mind of supersepcies that lead the universe into a golden age, but this fusion couldn't have been done earlier because apparently everybody in the universe had to be ready for it, and Shepard making it to the weapon somehow proves this. Then, depending on your choice, and explosion of varying colour comes out and either blows up the Reapers or makes them go away and promise to be good. Despite this explosion having no negative effects on anything but, at worst, synthetics, the Normandy immediately retreats, abandoning Shepard. All the Mass Relays, which deliver the science lasers that will destroy, or control the reapers... or fuse life with machines. This causes the Mass Relays to be destroyed, destroying practical space travel, and trapping the combined military forces of all the united major species on a now ravaged Earth. Then the Normandy lands on a random planet, and either everyone dies, or they're stranded. If you have a high military score and destroyed synthetics, Shepard breaths at the end. Then it turns out Mass Effect was a story told by someone on some planet to a kid who may in fact be the one Shepard saw die, and who represented the Reaper on the crucible.

Yeah no that sounds pretty silly.

 

That at least sounds more in line with the other ethical choices of the games.