New Devil May Cry, bitches.

[Yggdrasil]

Over the years I've read pretty interesting stuff online about why DMC2 ended up being the way it did. All that mess seemed to start for money and lack of vision in a team that didn't even work on the original game back in the early 2000's.

In other news, there was a big outrage on GiantBomb over Brad Shoemaker's review of DmC and then on the forums on GB a user by the name of Ghost_of_Denis_Dyack did three good post talking about the problems of DmC.

[AJR]

This game is really good.

That's all.

[Taelus]

I had hoped once this game came out and (if) it got good reviews, people would stop and accept that while it may not be the game they were hoping for, it's still a good one.

Evidently I was wrong, because we now have scholarly theses on "why this reviewer doesn't get it."

Yes, everyone gets it, hardcore DMC fans: you miss the high-level play and other aspects of the series that are purportedly missing in DmC. It sucks when a series you love is redesigned. You think I'm happy that 2D Castlevania is now Mirror of Fate? Nope. But them's the breaks.

Stop telling people they're wrong for enjoying the new game. Skip it, hope Capcom makes another 'old-style' DMC, and stop raining on people's parade. I can't stand how much of a need there is for "people to realize why Brad is wrong! Or how silly it is that IGN's review was bought because obviously the game has absolutely no merit whatsoever!"

(Also this wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but rather the general sentiments I'm seeing across 'dawebz')

[Parn]

Another traditional DMC is unlikely to happen.  That team was busy working on Dragon's Dogma, which is probably why DmC was handed off to Ninja Theory.  They're now working on Dragon's Dogma 2 for next-gen consoles (which I am really excited about).

[Yggdrasil]

I had hoped once this game came out and (if) it got good reviews, people would stop and accept that while it may not be the game they were hoping for, it's still a good one.

Evidently I was wrong, because we now have scholarly theses on "why this reviewer doesn't get it."

That's because a bunch of people in forums and the gaming press genuinely thought that the main reason why fans have a problem with DmC was only because of the white hair thing, which I don't know when it started in the first place. Either way is good that there are fans commited enough to make those long post making clear why DmC despite being an OK game has the problems that it has.

Another traditional DMC is unlikely to happen.  That team was busy working on Dragon's Dogma, which is probably why DmC was handed off to Ninja Theory.  They're now working on Dragon's Dogma 2 for next-gen consoles (which I am really excited about).

A lot of people still doesn't seem to know that Dragon's Dogma is the reason why DMC5 wasn't made (not yet anyway).

[Taelus]

I had hoped once this game came out and (if) it got good reviews, people would stop and accept that while it may not be the game they were hoping for, it's still a good one.

Evidently I was wrong, because we now have scholarly theses on "why this reviewer doesn't get it."

That's because a bunch of people in forums and the gaming press genuinely thought that the main reason why fans have a problem with DmC was only because of the white hair thing, which I don't know when it started in the first place. Either way is good that there are fans commited enough to make those long post making clear why DmC despite being an OK game has the problems that it has.

Another traditional DMC is unlikely to happen.  That team was busy working on Dragon's Dogma, which is probably why DmC was handed off to Ninja Theory.  They're now working on Dragon's Dogma 2 for next-gen consoles (which I am really excited about).

A lot of people still doesn't seem to know that Dragon's Dogma is the reason why DMC5 wasn't made (not yet anyway).

I agree that it's great that there are passionate fans, but I just don't think it's fair to Ninja Theory, since by all accounts they appear to have made a good game. Disappointment that it isn't what they expected is totally fine, but to slam the game for not being something it never claimed to be just seems to be missing the point.

That said, perhaps you'll see a DMC5 in the future. Capcom certainly is scrambling to build up good press among 'hardcores,' especially with their Megaman push.  Though on the other hand, all the meh/hate towards RE6 didn't say nearly as much to them as 'DOLLA DOLLA BILLS, YALL' did when the game sold well. So who knows. Incidentally, I just bought DMC3/4 on PC :)

[Zendervai]

I think a good way to describe my response (I don't like the new one very much) is that it is a very good Ninja Theory game, but it's not a very good DMC game. You end up with this awkward position where coming up with a score is rather difficult.

Although, the one thing that I will say I think is just bad is the writing. Excessive swearing is not good dialogue. If you must use excessive swearing, balance it out with truly witty dialogue. If a character constantly swears and never proves that they can say anything interesting on their own merits, they are not well written. It is incredibly obvious that this is Ninja Theory's first game where they didn't bring in an outside writer to work on it. Heavenly Sword had Rhianna Pratchett and Enslaved had Alex Garland. This just has Tameem and, while his worldbuilding is interesting, his characters really aren't written well. The game also gives really mixed signals about who is supposed to be sympathetic and not in a good way, the pacing is extremely inconsistent and the only character I liked is one of the villains.

The combat is fine and the game looks okay, if aesthetically somewhat ugly, but it's just the writing that ruined it for me.

[Ashtrot]

How does it compare to DMC1? Because comparing it to 3 and 4 is unfair, since the original DMC team had years to polish and refine the gameplay, while this is only Ninja Theory's first DmC. If it is as good (or better) than vanilla DMC gameplay wise I'd call it a success.

[Raziel]

How does it compare to DMC1? Because comparing it to 3 and 4 is unfair, since the original DMC team had years to polish and refine the gameplay, while this is only Ninja Theory's first DmC. If it is as good (or better) than vanilla DMC gameplay wise I'd call it a success.

Well, I don't think the original is such a good point of comparison, either. It might be Ninja Theory's first DMC, but it most definitely is not their foray into the action genre. Considering that Devil May Cry pretty much laid the groundwork for most of the action games in that style, DmC doesn't quite have as much going for it. It's not only the developers of the first game who had the time to hone their craft, it's the industry in general. If anything, the best comparison would be Ninja Theory's previous games (I can't recall what genre Enslaved was exactly, but Heavenly Sword was a GoW clone, wasn't it?).

[insertnamehere]

I think that reviewers being paid for reviews on this is a reasonable guess, or at very least a possibility for IGN since it baaaarely glazed over its plot, and seemed to praise the dialogue like nothing was wrong with it.

[Taelus]

I think that reviewers being paid for reviews on this is a reasonable guess, or at very least a possibility for IGN since it baaaarely glazed over its plot, and seemed to praise the dialogue like nothing was wrong with it.

As much as the cynic in me would like to agree that reviews are often "bought," I just don't accept that explanation. Reviewing is completely subjective. My friends tell me the dialogue in CoD is awesome, and I want to smash them.

[Ashtrot]

I think that reviewers being paid for reviews on this is a reasonable guess, or at very least a possibility for IGN since it baaaarely glazed over its plot, and seemed to praise the dialogue like nothing was wrong with it.

Please stop talking. You don't have to agree or even like the reviews but accusing every single reviewer that gave DmC a decent score corrupt is idiotic.

Well, I don't think the original is such a good point of comparison, either. It might be Ninja Theory's first DMC, but it most definitely is not their foray into the action genre. Considering that Devil May Cry pretty much laid the groundwork for most of the action games in that style, DmC doesn't quite have as much going for it. It's not only the developers of the first game who had the time to hone their craft, it's the industry in general. If anything, the best comparison would be Ninja Theory's previous games (I can't recall what genre Enslaved was exactly, but Heavenly Sword was a GoW clone, wasn't it?).

Well, the problem is that Ninja Theory made VERY DIFFERENT action games from the DMC team before DmC. Comparing their first DmC game with DMC 3 and 4 (the pinnacles of the DMC team's development) hardly seems fair, especially since it looks like the DMC team didn't give them anything to work with and Capcom just made them do everything from the ground up.

[Eusis]

Actually the original DMC1 team was largely gone after that game I believe, so 3 at least wouldn't really be that unfair of comparison. But as I recall that team started with DMC2, and... ah hahaha, it sounds like you'd have a very hard time convincing anyone Ninja Theory DIDN'T do a better job than that. I doubt we'll see the same level of improvement though, as I recall DMC2 wasn't originally a Devil May Cry game, so 3 and 4 was when they developed with that in mind specifically, whereas all along DmC was meant to be a wildly divergent take (stylistically anyway) on the series.

And lots of people are having fun with the game that are in no position to be paid off, so I don't buy that kind of crap at all. A lot of people really are having fun with the game, the ones who're most disappointed seem to be higher level players which most reviewers wouldn't be.

[insertnamehere]

I think that reviewers being paid for reviews on this is a reasonable guess, or at very least a possibility for IGN since it baaaarely glazed over its plot, and seemed to praise the dialogue like nothing was wrong with it.

Please stop talking. You don't have to agree or even like the reviews but accusing every single reviewer that gave DmC a decent score corrupt is idiotic.

I didn't accuse every single reviewer that gave it a decent review of doing that, it just seems too "convenient" for me.
I could understand even giving it a positive review, but having its story pretty much overlooked is suspicious to me and thinking that some reviews may be influenced by Capcom giving incentive is reasonable.

[Eusis]

Well, we're talking a DMC game. 3 got some praise for its story, but otherwise it's not really something people give a damn about.