If you want to nitpick bad scenes of this game you surely forget the awfull scenes of the previous. And if you only search for bad dialogue you sure as hell ignore the good bits.
Can you quote me some good lines from the game? I feel as though you're right, and I'm only hearing one side of the argument, but every cutscene I've seen (which isn't many to be honest) is...is pretty bad.
Or worse: "Only a minority was mad about the rest of the series and the writing. The mayority cared about the ending"
"There IS branching in the narrative of ME3, is just that it isnt enough for YOU, the entitled customer that in NO WAY needs to point out what the developers said before because developers lie all the time. Yes, even the planned trilogy thing was a gimmick to trick both loyal fans (who would have understood if BW said the truth) and everyone else into buying the thing because its too risky relying on the fans."
I wouldn't call them 'the worst fans ever' I'm sure people who are fans of things like genocide etc are probably a bit worse. This is just ME3 all over again, people getting upset on the internet because they don't like something.
I have one simple question: If the reboot uses nothing of the original IP except in name only, then why didnt they use an original IP instead of buying that one?
... They did not buy the IP. By any chances they were most probably told by the IP holder (Capcom) to make a DmC game. Because a reboot was needed in their eyes (4 did not sell well and was already pretty much 'lets do everything twice').
Still doesnt explain why they needed to change everything. A franchise doesnt equal only gameplay (otherwise every hack & slash ever would be know as Devil May Cry), the characters and the story count too.
Why Capcom thought it was the characters and not the lazy design of the last game that prompted the low sales?
AgentLampshade said:
Can you quote me some good lines from the game? I feel as though you're right, and I'm only hearing one side of the argument, but every cutscene I've seen (which isn't many to be honest) is...is pretty bad.
Trust me when I say that EVERY fanbase has some bad seeds that make everyone else look bad. For example:
SONIC: "Pairings warers" - Fans who fight with each other over who should be a pairing with who. Commonly referred to as "shippers".
POKEMON: "Nostalgists" - Fans who are fans of the original GBC games, and think everything after them suck. Even going so far as to call any game that's not the original GBC games "not a real Pokémon game".
Personally, all the hue and cry over DMC doesn't surprise me. There are going to be those who will NOT like change, no matter what those changes are. We just have to laugh and lump it.
Hello, meet the sports world's equivalent of fanaticism:
None of the fans in the video game industry can be considered "the worst fans" by comparison. I am unconcerned about angry gamers who just whine at length, because they are simply immature and do not deserve the important attention they so desperately crave with actions like their Whitehouse petition. In short, fuck 'em.
If that makes the series unrecognisable to what the story or the characters were about, then those deviations have no place. You may as well call it by another name.
I said already that reboots or reimagining or alternate interpretations is something that even Batman has suffered but never goes away from what Batman REPRESENTS (The "Never kill and no guns" thing as an example)
Let me use this extract from "Mother, May i see Metroid Other M" Liveblog by Korval on Tv Tropes, when he/she compared Samus to Batman (to ilustrate what i mean in a tangential sort off way):
Does this scene give Samus added depth? The answer to this is very complicated, due to the nature of the kind of character that Samus Aran has been up to this point. The easiest way to get it is via analogy.
Parents killed when a child. Raised by someone wise and caring. Trained as a fighter, and then decides to take the fight to those who killed the parents, but not out of revenge so much as this needs to be done and I'm the one who can do it.
Did I just describe Samus Aran? Or Batman?
Samus Aran is a Sci-Fi Superhero. She has many of the common elements of that kind of character. She has a secret identity (of a sort). She has superpowers; her suit is beyond anything else in the galaxy. She operates outside of the law (to a degree), and she fights evil. She's willing to fight evil wherever it is, whether in those who killed her parents or those who were once allies (the GF in Fusion and technically Other M).
She's also a very "larger-than-life" character; the things she does are amazing within the context of the story. The GF military tries to sack Zebes and failed. Samus, one woman, goes in and cleans it out. This happens again and again in the games. The Ing fought a two-decades long war against the Luminoth and were literally minutes away from wining,* until Samus came along and saved the day. By herself. In Corruption, when Dark Samus personally attacks Norion, there are four of the most badass bounty hunters in the galaxy present. When Dark Samus dives through the window and starts shooting, which one of these four doesn't get shot?
Even among her peers, she's the best. If they were the Justice League, she's Superman. She even has a symbol with an "S" on it.
Superhero stories need those larger-than-life elements. Spiderman is all kinds of badass, able to defeat various threats and such. But he also has human qualities and weaknesses. They often complicate his crime-fighting life, but the superhero elements still remain. He may be "relate-able," he may have average, everyday problems, but he's still a superhero.
Now, take such a larger-than-life character and put them in the Ridley scene. Take Tim Burton's Batman, the scene where Bruce Wayne meets the Joker. The part where the Joker says his trademark line and Bruce realizes that he murdered his parents. Now, imagine if Bruce got a bout of PTSD right there, if he regressed to a crying 8-year-old boy when confronted by the Joker, and Viki Vale was killed because of it.
Such a thing is plausible in terms of character. It's a legitimate, defensible thing that could happen, using the understanding that this happens in reality. But there's no way a writer would ever write that. You just don't do it; you don't have the main hero go through something like that. At least not in the way that Other M did it. It destroys their larger-than-life status; it makes them seem too weak and frail. Even if Batman overcomes it by the end of the work, the audience will always remember that time Bruce turned into a crying boy in front of his nemesis.
That's not to say that superheroes don't break down. But they don't do it that way. Again, looking at Tim Burton's Batman, the character is affected by this. But he did not freak out; it was a more subdued thing that he expressed when he was alone and able to process it.
Superheroes most certainly do not turn into crying children on-screen and lose their superpowers because of moments like this. Doing this makes them, not just too human, but too fragile to have that larger-than-life sensibility. However plausible it might be in the real world, it just doesn't work in this kind of fiction. It sends the wrong message. These are supposed to be larger-than-life characters; they're a cut above the common people. Doing this destroys this aspect of their character.
But there's another problem with this scene; it has to do with the specific way in which Samus is a superhero.
Every superhero generally has two elements to them: a superpower (or suite thereof), and a single, defining personality characteristic. The superpower is simply that which makes it possible for them to be a superhero. Bruce Wayne would just be a guy working a 9-to-5 job if he weren't arbitrarily wealthy. Without the leisure time and resources needed to actually be Batman, he'd just be a guy with a tragic backstory. The defining characteristic is the part of their personality that makes them want to be a superhero. It's what makes them superheroic.
It is the combination of these two elements, ability and drive, that makes for a good, memorable superhero. Superman has his superpowers and his sense of justice. Batman has his money and resources, and he is driven by the tragedy of his youth and his unwillingness to see it happen to anyone else. And so forth.
Depth in such characters is created by giving these characters additional traits, typically those that add friction to the ones they already have. In Batman Begins, Bruce's drive initially leads him to revenge; he only narrowly avoids this path thanks to luck and the hand of a friend (literally). It takes him time to get his principles on straight: he has this drive, the will to prevent these tragedies, but he needs to maintain his morality while doing so. The Dark Knight takes this even further. It uses other elements, his relationships, and plays with them, pushing him to break his rules, rescind his morality in his quest to stop the badguy.
But notice how carefully this is all done; at no time does the story remove Bruce's drive. It adds elements to the character that create nuances and complexities. But it never tampers with his basic character trait: that desire to prevent criminals from hurting people. Instead, it creates circumstances where that trait is a liability or otherwise interferes with other traits, like what Batman won't do to achieve that.
Similar, Superman stories can revolve around elements external to his need for justice. For all the problems with Superman Returns, it introduced a major complexity: his son. A son he cannot raise or even acknowledge as his own. He can't very well tell Lois that he's the father; there's no Hallmark card for "We had sex, totally consensual I might add, but then I wiped your mind and ran off for 5 years. Sorry." It didn't change his quest for justice, his drive to save people. But it did add a snag for him as a person.
Indeed, even many bad superhero stories retain the basic elements of the character. Batman and Robin never changed who Batman was. It was Godawful for many, many other reasons.
So what of Samus and Other M? To judge this, we must first identify what her defining character trait is. Let's take a look at some of the things that happen in Metroid games.
Samus Aran is shot down, loses her superpowers, is left with a catsuit and a pistol that can only stun something and even then just once every 2 seconds. Between her and where she needs to go is a large Space Pirate ship, crawling with people who would like nothing better than to tear her limb from limb. She looks carefully at this situation and says, "Fuck it; I'm gonna Solid Snake this shit!" And then does it.
Samus Aran is being hunted by a sentient parasite that's using her own power armor against her. She can't last more than a few seconds in a fight against this creature. At one point, she hears the ominous footsteps of the monster. She's heard it before, only this time it's waiting for her. It's directly in her way. She's got no chance in this fight. But she jumps down there anyway. She can't kill SA-X, but if she does it right, she can get past it.
Samus Aran is confronted by a planet made of a living, corruptive force that has already consumed an entire species, as well as three of the best hunters in the galaxy. This same force has infested her body and is starting to consume her. She takes one look at this planet and decides to go down there, find a vulnerable spot, and blow it straight to hell.
For my money, Samus Aran is defined by her boundless courage. There is no task so big that Samus won't take on. Stop alien threats to the galaxy? End a decade's long war while she's in the neighborhood? Halt invasions from beyond the galaxy? And so on.
The Ridley scene is nothing less than a direct assault on her courage. It takes the thing that defines her and annihilates it. You can talk about PTSD till you're blue in the face, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that this character's most defining trait, the thing that drives her to be a superhero, is crushed by this scene. It is thrown on the floor and viciously savaged.
So this scene doesn't add complexity to her character; it removes something. She goes from being a larger-than-life embodiment of courage to being a victim. She's transformed from a superhero into a human with fancy power armor. There's nothing super about her anymore except for what she can do.
Even if I were to accept the statement, "the scene gives Samus added depth as a character," this depth is created at the expense of that which made her special and larger-than-life. It doesn't make her a more interesting character; it makes her a weaker character. It takes the elements that were strong and good about her and erodes them. People make the argument that you have to do this to give the character greater complexity, but that's bullshit. As previously stated, superhero stories avoid this all the time; you can add complexity and depth without taking away what makes a superhero special. There is a difference between giving a character weaknesses and making the character weak.
For example, what if she got people killed because of her courage? What if Adam was killed because Samus's boundless courage led her to arrogance and overconfidence, getting herself into a tight situation? Maybe that's what led her to leave the GF and become a solitary bounty hunter. Maybe she thinks human beings are easily frightened, perpetually terrified creatures, that she thinks of herself as better than they are. She was raised by aliens after all. I can keep going with this, but my point is clear: you can maintain what works about the character while adding depth.
This scene, and the game as a whole, does not.
So no, not buying it. I'll take flat and superhero over "depth" and weak any day.
So tell me, what is the essence or characteristic that defines Dante as a character, and makes us recognice him even in his new form? (this question goes to the fans as well)
I'll weigh in my two cents on this, for what it's worth.
First of all, let's consider why sequels are released or why the concept of an IP (intellectual property) exists. Through establishing a name for a product, the consumer associates this name with a familiar sense of quality or a certain attribute that they like about it. If someone buys "minty fresh aquafresh toothpaste", they expect the same taste and cleaning quality each time they buy it. The formula may get tweaked, but it's always to improve the product. Similarly, with films and other media, we expect a certain experience from each product. If we watch a Die Hard film, we expect over-the-top action, if we read a Harry Potter book, we expect a fantasy world of wizardry. Regardless of the developers behind it, by calling a game "DmC: Devil May Cry", you're appealing to the fanbase of the original 4 games. In fact, the game was even advertised at one point to have "Dante, from the Devil May Cry series" if I'm not mistaken. Ninja Theory, right off the bat, regardless of how they approached it, were appealing to the existing audience of the Devil May Cry series.
Public relations have been a nightmare for Ninja Theory, the people tasked behind this reboot. Their attitude towards the existing fanbase has been shoddy at best, with the white hair/mop scene already pointed out beforehand. Though it wasn't Ninja Theory's fault, the reviewers using the "different hair" as a rebuttal to any valid criticism was unjust and comes across as childish. The game was publicly demo'd at places such as E3, where people recorded fights against The Secret Ingredient/Succubus garnering an SSS style meter from repeating one combo. While it was fixed when the demo was made to download, it's still frighteningly easy to get a high style rank from similar tactics. This marks one of the first valid criticisms that people could place against the game; that the style system was flawed (or if you believe that's a fair way for a style system to work, then it is considerably easier). Comparing this to the difficulty of stringing together an S+ style rank in DMC4 (several statues required you to do this for a health upgrade), you can see a distinct lack of difficulty in attaining style.
We also found out from this demo that mission rankings were dictated less by overall combat performance in the mission and more by general "completion" of the level. Deaths became irrelevant (there are unedited pictures out there of people with 40+ deaths in a mission in DmC getting an S rank overall) and the game became less about the stylistic and efficient approach to clearing enemies and more about finding collectables. The mission rankings were a hallmark to the difficulty of previous DMC games. You could not clear the hardest difficulties with an S ranking without a deep understanding of the combat system, something that is mimicked in games such as Bayonetta. This added to the replayability of the games by giving the player something to strive for. The difficulty, from what I hear, has also been toned down across the board in DmC, with some likening DMD mode in DmC to Normal/Hard in previous entries.
This makes DmC, from a combat standpoint, much shallower than previous entries. It creates less of a challenge for the player and gives him or her less incentive to play the game for plenty of hours.
This is before commenting on the change in the game universe, which I understand is part and parcel of any reboot anyway. The story is something which could actually be interesting and I'd love to see it executed better. In fact, there are plenty of ways that this game's universe could actually "work". I've heard a theory stating that the new Dante is actually insane, seeing demons where they don't exist. Mundus is just a rich and powerful man, Virility is just a soft drinks company, the demons are just people who represent something Dante doesn't like about the world. There's even a dialogue between Kat and Dante in which this could even be suggested (they talk about being "crazy" for seeing demons in mission... 5-6, the mission starting in the Virility factory). However, from what I hear, there isn't enough substance in the game to make this seem intentional/real.
The game universe would also work if Dante was always supposed to be the villain we unknowingly play. (END-GAME SPOILERS in this paragraph for those who don't want to read them). At the end of the game, we see Vergil and Dante defeat Mundus and expose the world to the existence of demons. They leave carnage in their wake and leave mankind to suffer. If the game ended here, the plot would be plausible. Give enough hints that Dante just wants to watch the world burn and you have something akin to Spec Ops: The Line, but this wasn't the case.
So with most of the alternatives shot down, we're left with what the game offers us. We have an unlikable main character who has nothing of the style or substance that old Dante had. He's not witty nor likeable, his one liners are rarely "nailed". Old Dante may have been a 1-dimensional character, a man never to be taken seriously for he himself takes little seriously, but this is what gave his character appeal and charm. His fighting was over-the-top in the same sense that most action flicks (Die Hard, Machete, Rambo to name a few) are over-the-top and it's what made him so fun to watch in cutscenes. They were never serious games with serious stories, they always had an air of self-parody. If you need a reminder of this, you only need to watch the cutscene before Dante's encounter with Agnes in DMC4.
DmC takes itself too seriously. It's too concerned about making a social commentary that it lacks the sense of self-parody the other games had. This would be alright if the characters nailed their performances, but they don't. The mop/white hair joke was meant to be funny, it wasn't. The flurry of cussing and offensive slurs that new Dante spews out are meant to make him look cool and mature, but he just comes across as juvenile and childish. The entire narrative comes across as serious, but we never really find out what is so bad about Mundus and the raptor news network except that they rule over the populous. There's little detrimental effect to this control and as can be seen by the ending (SPOILERS) the world is not a better place afterwards because of this. (END SPOILERS)
The game was hyped up to have fantastic writing and to revolutionise the series, but it fell flat on its face in every regard. Dante is not a more likeable character, Mundus isn't the "big evil" he's cracked up to be, the combat is weaker, the game has less depth... it may be an average or even good games by its own standards, but it's a bad entry to the Devil May Cry series. It would have been better if Ninja Theory created this game as its own IP/series, since then it could have been judged on its own merits as a game. The backlash from the fans is because of this and I feel it's wholeheartedly justified. This isn't just "we don't like his hair". This game marks the almost definite end of any sequel to the original 4 games. If the fanbase is mad because of that, can you blame them?
So tell me, what is the essence or characteristic that defines Dante as a character, and makes us recognice him even in his new form? (this question goes to the fans as well)
For that I need a good description of the previous Dante to begin with. All the essence that I got from him is that he is a cool, non-caring badass.
And this is really well represented in DmC. But not only that, it actually creates stakes for him and lets him go through character development where he keeps his cool, non-caring attitude but changes in motivations.
But for the sake of argument I go by the Devil May Cry wiki.
"Earlier in the series' story, Dante is incredibly flippant, casually mouthing off to even the most powerful of demons, and he generally enjoys rubbing people the wrong way."
It happens the same way here. The taunts are there and beyond that one hater-loved scene there is not that much profanity involved but more or less fitting, known one-liner.
"Dante is sometimes presented as a show off as, on several occasions, he performs exaggerated and over-the-top moves."
He does not show off that much, that I agree with.
"Dante is seemingly unflappable, not showing fear whether he's being attacked by the Seven Hells in his office or being swallowed by a giant serpentess demon."
The last thing he shows in this game is fear. Especially if it comes to scenarios where he personally is uncertain if it'll work (as in, jumping into a deathpit without hesitation after Kat says that her plan will work), playing the distraction which involves catching the attention of Mundus or going off against his most valueable underlings.
"With the exception of Devil May Cry 2, Dante rarely shows any seriousness. He can be serious when the situation calls for it, but he still maintains a fairly laid-back demeanor during such situations and is never without a witty taunt or comeback."
Well buck, I provided a link where he is shown to be really serious in this one. He was in a situation where all his power could not save a friend so I think it is understandable. But overall? He is mostly laid back, as long as he is the target he is in a non-caring attitude.
"Dante can seem at times to be uncaring or even callous, but actually has a very strong sense of justice and prefers to fight fairly. He can be counted on to do the right thing, even if he makes cynical quips about it the entire time."
Applied to the new Dante. Both of them. He fights fair due to his boldheaded nature (his plan is R for rush the place) and when
proposing the trade to Mundus his plan and goal was to keep both of the hostages (as in Kat and Mundus' Span) alive. And in the end he chooses to stand up against his brother to protect and free mankind.
Should I go on? Because it is boring. Every one of those characteristics fits with the new Dante. He is pretty much like the old one but younger - a lot younger.
And yet this is still an imitation of the original character. This character is mean,everything he says comes out with a kind of snarl. Just like Nero...Which he isn't supposed to be. They just merged a personality into this character that already had issues because it was not distinct enough from that of Dante in the first place. At his core he is a mean character which makes him fundamentally different from the original character. This is what makes him unrecognizable. Everything else is a more superficial set of traits that Dante shares with most action heroes ever created.
And yet this is still an imitation of the original character. This character is mean,everything he says comes out with a kind of snarl. Just like Nero...Which he isn't supposed to be. They just merged a personality into this character that already had issues because it was not distinct enough from that of Dante in the first place. At his core he is a mean character which makes him fundamentally different from the original character. This is what makes him unrecognizable. Everything else is a more superficial set of traits that Dante shares with most action heroes ever created.
Video related. This mean spirit of Donte is really what ruins this character. While the original Dante was constantly mocking the bosses you faced, it was always to attack their feelings of superiority, to "take them down a peg". Dante didn't elevate himself above others and outright mocks and insults the demons who do, which makes him such a charming character.
Donte on the other hand simply insults them. The tone here is the important thing. Dante didn't take himself and his enemies seriously, so his lines are delivered with a hefty dose of sarcasm and satirical hyperbole/melodrama.
Donte slurs and snarls constantly, making him sound like drunk trailer trash. This would be fine if the game was written around it, but the presentation leads me to believe that I am supposed to like and sympathize with him and I simply can't.
And yet this is still an imitation of the original character. This character is mean,everything he says comes out with a kind of snarl. Just like Nero...Which he isn't supposed to be. They just merged a personality into this character that already had issues because it was not distinct enough from that of Dante in the first place. At his core he is a mean character which makes him fundamentally different from the original character. This is what makes him unrecognizable. Everything else is a more superficial set of traits that Dante shares with most action heroes ever created.
Video related. This mean spirit of Donte is really what ruins this character. While the original Dante was constantly mocking the bosses you faced, it was always to attack their feelings of superiority, to "take them down a peg". Dante didn't elevate himself above others and outright mocks and insults the demons who do, which makes him such a charming character.
Donte on the other hand simply insults them. The tone here is the important thing. Dante didn't take himself and his enemies seriously, so his lines are delivered with a hefty dose of sarcasm and satirical hyperbole/melodrama.
Donte slurs and snarls constantly, making him sound like drunk trailer trash. This would be fine if the game was written around it, but the presentation leads me to believe that I am supposed to like and sympathize with him and I simply can't.
I think the scene with Mundus where Dante is all "Yea we killed your kid." was great for the kind of mean spirited character that he is. The only reason that part fails is because it ends up making Mundus sympathetic. But then again am I expecting far too much when the character does not even match the combat aesthetic?
I'm thinking the petition itself is little more than a joke. The existence of a reboot doesn't necessarily force fans to choose between the original and the new one. And to be blunt, I'm not all that surprised by this. The White House petitions have become something of a joke in a matter of days thanks to the internet being the internet.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
[/sub]
