Hello! This is long and I type like I talk, so rambling happens. I apologize.

So here's a thing that's been on my mind for a while now, especially now that the game is out and review are comming in, ect.

I have -zero- intrestin in playing this game, each review I see makes that more clear to me. That's ok, eveyone has tastes. I'm not upset at anyone who likes this game.

What I'm more intrested in is how this game, from annoucement to relaease day, was besieged with a lot of bad blood from certain fans of the series. Some more warented then others.

I admit I was part of the "THEY CHANGED THE HAIR NOW I HATE THIS SHIT!!!" faction. But after a time that arumenent bacame silly and as more trailers were released, my complant changed. I'm more annoyed with the company making this game then I am the product itself. Kind of like how I can't bring myself to read "Enders Game" becasue Orson Scott Card is a homophobe. Keep in mind I'm not equating Ninja Theory to that particular man I'm just making a comparison. It should also be clear that when I say, "Ninja Theory" I'm more refrencing Tameemi Antoniades.

Not since IGN's Greg Miller( a dude I have the upmost adoration for, real talk I love his work on IGN, specifically the podcasts) have I seen a reaction over a change in the way a video game character looks. I will agree that -AT FIRST- most of the criticism of this game was due to art style changes. But them something happened between the first reveal and now.

1) The issues with the game change from irritation with the look, to lack of confidence in the developer

2) Said developers reaction to the initial criticism*

3)Gamming media outlets perpetuating the idea that the rage was all about the hair and nothing else.*

*These two in particular are important. Namely because this what, from my perspective at least, came up the most when talk of this game arose. I'm watching some old preview videos for this game now, most of them make the easy "fans hating change, his hair is black now" joke. Harmless, not threating to anyones saftey, but drew away attemtuon from actual complaints or disscussions on art style choice and how something so drastically different, but changeing the same name can arouse ire in fans of something.

To use games in general as an example, I'm sure at one point or another you've been annoyed when someone confuses a game you enjoy for something else, especially if that soemthing else was something you did not like for whatever reason. You're a big Team Fortress 2 fan, but 8 out of every 10 people you meet keeps calling it Black Ops 2. This would more then likely annoy the shit out of you. Now imagine that the game you hold dear, in this example being TF2 was getting a new installment. YAY!!!!!!!!!!!11111

But instead of looking anything like TF2 or an improvement of that art style or anything remotely resembling the reasons you like TF2 to begin with, it looks -exactly- like BO2. And is being made by Game Loft. How would you react to this? Especially if in most outlets you looked about this new game, Game Loft kept calling TF2 "aged" "inferior" and assured, with out any evidence, that this new TF game would be better. I imagine you might be annoyed, to say the least.

That is kind of, not exactly, but kind of what we are dealing with in the case of DmC.

Next example.Greg Miller. Love the man and the company, they do great work. I listen to most every IGN podcast I can and I respect and take to heart the opinions of games. Greg is a smart dude. He also fucking raged when Cole from infamas got a redesign.

Pic here: http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID6894/images/gi-infamous2-wrap.jpg

Remember that shit? Were you mad at this? I did not care in the least. I don't own a ps3 so I had no dog in that race. Funny now considering how I feelt about DmC when it was announced. Shoe on the other foot and all.

Mill-money( and I'm gonna assume alot of fans) raged, they got a redesign, fanfair was had( I assume) and that was that.

DMC fans get mad, and apparently they hate change and should suck it up.

You can make the argument that Infamous was newer and didn't need to be jazzed up but the parallel lines hold up like a pushup bra made of Titansteel.

I should wrap this up. Here's the TLDR version of this, I think.

The fan and developer interaction of DmC is a interesting example of how a company, by way of who they choose to be the figure head of their produces and how they respond to all forms, good or bad, of criticism can cool the perception of their games. Even if the game itself it not torrid, attitudes can turn silver to copper. I do not doubt, for a second that if Ninja Theory had chosen to respond to angry fans in a way that said, "We understand why you are upset, we have a vision for this game and we want to make it something you enjoy. We will take this criticism to heart and bring you a Devil May Cry game you can be proud of." We might be having a different conversation. Sucker Punch Productions chose to work with the fans and not be labeled as "caving in". Ninja Theory, for one reason of another, instead of saying, "Lets talk." they said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qg6dTgRHB0

(But thats just my opinion, whats yours?)

A great topic to bring up. Fandom is a really tricky thing. I think there's two camps of fans. The first camp being what you imagine to be a typical fan: someone who likes something, follows it, praises it, etc. The second camp is something entirely different. It's "fandumb", or the "fanboi". They act like the hardest of hardcore, waxing nostalgic about how "x game from x time was the best", nitpick every little thing, and throw massive fits over every slight change. Want some examples? The DmC "controversy" is a great recent example. Diablo 3, via the wasteland of trolls that is the battle.net forums, is another. Sonic fans bemoaning how they changed his eyes to green is yet another.

You know what I think developers should do? Ignore these so-called "fans" and do what they, as professionals, feel is right. These "fans" have no idea what they want, because their arguments and beliefs are all clouded by nostalgia, echo chamber discussion threads, and a lack of perspective.

---

You know what more people should do? Approach a game on it's merits alone. Don't look at, say, the DmC reboot, and say "well if they wanted to change so much, why do they still have to call it Devil May Cry?". Why does the name even matter? It's just a damn label. I'm seeing the same shit with games like Dead Space 3. People bitching, moaning, and screaming about how they're "moving away from survival horror" or whatever. Same with the move from ME1 to ME2 in terms of it's gameplay styles. If the game is still a blast to play, does this really matter in the end? They're games. You know, for having fun. Don't let these strict genre definitions, or previous gameplay experiences color the next games so much.

I dunno, maybe that's partially why I seem to have a great time with a lot of the games that the hardcore fanbois hate so much.

*EDIT* Another good example: Fez. "OMG FEZ SUCKS BECAUSE PHIL FISH IS A DOUCHE". No, the game has nothing to do with Phil Fish's personality or impulsive comments. If anything, Fez is the opposite. According to the haters, Fish is an angry, pretentious prick, right? Fez, on the other hand, is a peaceful, beautiful game. I find that interesting for some reason.

That was very well said.

I do think you made one important misstep in your DmC, inFAMOUS comparison. Infamous 2 was a direct sequel made by the original developer while DmC is a reboot created by a new developer.

Murdersmash, metal ass name btw, I've come to notice something about the second type of fan you mentioned. I've spend a lot of time on the battle-net WoW forums, because I've been playing for 4 years, and I've realized that the most ARDENT AND ANGRY of fans, be it of DmC, WoW, Star Wars are also the heaviest users of that particular media. The same guy who can talk for an hour about why episodes 1,2 and 3 are worst thing to happen to cinema, the guy who will swear up and down he can design PvP in WoW better then the entirety of Blizzards staff, they are also the people who are most likely to consume that media, be it good or bad. Their threshold for -not- enjoying something is monolithic. To an extent I admire that level of passon, but it can get out of and and off the rails. When that passion leads to outright uncompromising anger, that is when the straw man arguments are born and conversations get harder.

Yeah, what is up with every up and arms about the look.

@LotusPrince said:

Murdersmash, metal ass name btw, I've come to notice something about the second type of fan you mentioned. I've spend a lot of time on the battle-net WoW forums, because I've been playing for 4 years, and I've realized that the most ARDENT AND ANGRY of fans, be it of DmC, WoW, Star Wars are also the heaviest users of that particular media. The same guy who can talk for an hour about why episodes 1,2 and 3 are worst thing to happen to cinema, the guy who will swear up and down he can design PvP in WoW better then the entirety of Blizzards staff, they are also the people who are most likely to consume that media, be it good or bad. Their threshold for -not- enjoying something is monolithic. To an extent I admire that level of passon, but it can get out of and and off the rails. When that passion leads to outright uncompromising anger, that is when the straw man arguments are born and conversations get harder.

Heh, thanks. Funny thing is, my name is an inside joke from my old WoW days. :P

It's funny how that works, isn't it? Those people who say "Well, i've played 300 hours of Diablo 3 so far, and I think this game is terrible." Uhh...why on EARTH did you play this game for 300 hours if you think it's terrible?! It defies logic. Are they just trolling? Are they attempting to call attention to little details by saying their 300 hours of logged time gives them a sharper perspective?

Sorry, I kind of zoned out when you equated Ninja Theory to Gameloft.

Also I don't remember reading anything about Ninja Theory shitting on the original series. Got any sources for that?

I think producers/developers should come out from the beginning with the reasons why they are completely re imagining a series. In this case I feel it was the sales of the last game as well as wanting a fresh start with a new studio that are the reasons, yes there will still be fanboys upset but at least there is clarification rather than just completely ignoring the subject of change. I also don't believe that developers should concede and give fanboys what they want because developers should be able to deliver their own ideas.

Just gonna say that inFAMOUS 2 was a direct sequel so the different look was incredibly jarring. He was supposed to be the same person but was completely unrecognizable. DmC is a reboot/reimagining so mixing it up is a given. The two situations aren't comparable.

There's no "reaction" or "interaction", there's a bunch of rage from angry forum trolls who can't get over the fact that the sanctity of their childhood was violated with a reboot. I haven't heard or read a single logical, rational argument as to why the game is bad. Also when I say trolls, I mean in the literal sense, as these users are literally Norwegian bridge trolls. The internet is their contact with the rest of the world, where they get to be nasty, vitriolic, self-entitled assholes.

Yes, people complained about the Cole redesign, because it was a fucking dumb idea. Why completely redesign your character to be basically unrecognizable to the first game, and at the same time just so happen to make him look almost exactly like Nathan Drake? But that's not something I'm going to write a mildly incoherent essay about on an internet forum, because not only is it not that big of a deal, it's not going to affect whether I play the game one way or another.

Reboots bring lots of new things. They bring new actors, new characters, new settings, and changes to storylines. Look at the J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. William Shatner wasn't even in it. Bottom line, some people will always find something to be butthurt about, especially the groups of people who regularly visit and post in internet forums.

I don't really mind change, especially when we're what, the fifth game in the series? Because, I'm one of those guy who really dislike playing another iteration of Call of Duty and another Halo that is just exactly, exactly the same thing. You could say that DMC didn't need to change, but to be honest, I feel like they passed the torch to Platinum Games in term of good ole' Japanese character action game with titles like Bayonetta.

Change is fine, as long as they stay true to the roots of the series. And that, DmC did. It's exactly what a DMC game should be, including the secret missions, items, upgrades, scoring system and upgrade statues. Minus the japanese-esque characters ( like that beetle-angel long-haired dude with glasses from DMC4). For me in particular, I need change, sometimes. And change is something that, for instance, MGS managed to reach marvelously. And in DmC's case, how can you not like the direction they took? Those levels are absolutely insane, in a good way, and so is the action. Sure, I miss the lock-on. I do. But apart from that, there's little else that I miss from the old DMC games.

But hey, I speak only for myself.

Devil may cry only had 2 out of four good games.people keep acting like its sacred ,and trust me I loved threei beat it on my ps2 and it was dope, but four was hot trash.however much I wanted to see where Dante's story with Nero was going and all that I think the boys at capcom had no ideas.nothing.look at poor mega man and realize you will never get another 3.the people that made 3 are gone.you would get another four or....another two.i for one am thankful we got this version. It's like ultimate dmc.and ninja theory did a good job.get off their nuts man.

People, especially those that use the internet, love to hate things. Anything that's popular, different, gone through a change, etc is going to be hated by some or a lot of people. 

Most people are also stubborn and set in their ways. When someone makes a snap judgement that they don't like something it's very unlikely their mind is ever going to be changed. I'd even say the opposite happens. Small instances or points will be focussed on and blown up in order to justify their increasing hatred as if to say "See I'm right, this is so bad." Purely annecdotal evidence but it's like when your friend hates a movie, they'll bring up miniscule points, such as background coreography and inconsequential plotholes, in an attempt to devalue it. Brad's quicklook of RE6 is another example. Brad obviously didn't like the game, and he had good reasons, but there are instances where he complains vehemently about things such as not being invincible when you stomp an enemy, enemies jumping at him too fast, etc that really aren't a big deal.
 
I think you're right in saying that developers fostering good relations with consumers does help, but only to an extent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuoUfyMUQTc
This video kind of describes what I see as the problem regarding this situation and others like it. People didn't like new Dante. His personality and his look were disliked early on. I've not really been following this game but the video makes it out that Dante's personality was changed to reflect the original Dante more. They even made his devil trigger form resemble the original Dante. But the video goes on to bash pandering to the fans, it's almost as if there's no way to win.
 
Final Fantasy XIII-2 is another good example of this. They set out to improve some of the major criticisms people had with the first game, they were open with admitting that. The game still got a ton of hate directed towards it. 
XIII lacked any sort of post release content, people complained they'd finished the game and wanted new content. XIII-2 rolls around and it's announced there will be periodic new content for months after release. Costumes, boss battles, story content, etc. So many people complained at the time that SE were just trying to scam money by removing this stuff from the game.

I think it is just a knee jerk reaction. The internet and the convenience of instantly getting your opinion across without much thought has painted people and forums very poorly.

Very few people enjoy changes and even though X or Y franchise isn't your cup of tea there is always one franchise, character that you feel particularly attached to. I understand having an initial tentative reaction to a franchise reboot but give the game a chance and play it and then make an informed opinion about the game.

People tend to forget that the people who created the game (and the people taking over) are fans too and have just as much an attachment to it. They are more invested in (both emotionally and especially financially) than people tend to realize.

I haven't played the game yet, but I am very open minded to it. The franchise was creatively stale and aside from the stylish combat, had nothing else going for it. Which is exactly why I believe Ninja Theory was brought in, because combat was there weakness, but story, level and character design was top notch. Together Ninja Theory and Capcom could make a relevant DMC. Interested to find out.

The internet is a fascinating place full of the most psychotically detached individuals on the planet. You know, the kind that make death threats over game reviews. These same individuals often turn a regular person's disappointment into a complete, spergous rage that borders on delusion. Trying to predict the behavior of fans is... a curious thing. Honestly, the best possible solution for a game company would be to simply not reboot anything ever. They could have made this game anything they wanted, they didn't have to call it Devil May Cry. This game would have been quite a bit more successful, in my opinion.

Maybe, just maybe, game companies will take the hint and they won't go into remaking and rehashing every game released before 2008. Probably not, but it'd be a nice positive from all of this insanity. Either way, it's best not to try and learn from the craziest people you can find. It's best to kind of just... ignore then and hope you don't piss 'em off on accident.

Nobody cares that Link used to be Left-Handed? No reason to change that shit. Just pure Left-handedism. What about that?

@morrelloman said:

Nobody cares that Link used to be Left-Handed? No reason to change that shit. Just pure Left-handedism. What about that?

Heh, I remember that argument.

There's an interesting conversation that the giantbomb boys had maybe..2 or 3 years ago, basically discussing what the time and situation was for developers to ignore the whining of their fans. To their credit, and for the first time ever, Capcom and Ninja Theory handled the PR for this game well. Both companies are going to make a substantial amount of money on this game and, in the end, their decisions to move in this direction seems to be the correct one.

The issue that capcom, specifically, has is their that upper management and thusly PR for of almost every IP they have been attempting to recapture the new generation of gamers in such a staunch way that they were are changing the direction of progress for everything they've made over the past 15 years. Nothing they've put out this generation even resembles what they did last generation and it's leaving a lot of legacied fans in the cold. But those fans don't matter as much as capturing and holding the market share, which is why going after new blood and making things more accessible and changing how things used to be is in their best interest. It has it's ups and downs (Marvel 3 was a step in the right direction, RE6 was not), but they want to be assured that if that older fanbase grows up and stops playing video games, interest in the products they're making doesn't simply fizzle out.

DmC will do will with people who have never played a Devil May Cry game before, and that's a LOT of people (DMC3 was 7 years ago now). It doesn't really NEED to capture that old audience, though I'm sure Capcom wants to try and hit both demographics.

And to be honest, of all that stupid DmC mewling that happened when the first artwork was shown, the only genuine commentary about how DmC exists differently from Devil May Cry 1-4 is that the combat is more simplistic and open to abuse. That's it. DmC is every bit as stupid as Devil May Cry 1-3 was. Sessler said it best, and i'm paraphrasing, "DmC is the most comprehensible the series has ever been, and that almost works against it because it makes understanding just how stupid everything really is that much more apparent".

@MURDERSMASH said:

A great topic to bring up. Fandom is a really tricky thing. I think there's two camps of fans. The first camp being what you imagine to be a typical fan: someone who likes something, follows it, praises it, etc. The second camp is something entirely different. It's "fandumb", or the "fanboi". They act like the hardest of hardcore, waxing nostalgic about how "x game from x time was the best", nitpick every little thing, and throw massive fits over every slight change. Want some examples? The DmC "controversy" is a great recent example. Diablo 3, via the wasteland of trolls that is the battle.net forums, is another. Sonic fans bemoaning how they changed his eyes to green is yet another.

You know what I think developers should do? Ignore these so-called "fans" and do what they, as professionals, feel is right. These "fans" have no idea what they want, because their arguments and beliefs are all clouded by nostalgia, echo chamber discussion threads, and a lack of perspective.

---

You know what more people should do? Approach a game on it's merits alone. Don't look at, say, the DmC reboot, and say "well if they wanted to change so much, why do they still have to call it Devil May Cry?". Why does the name even matter? It's just a damn label. I'm seeing the same shit with games like Dead Space 3. People bitching, moaning, and screaming about how they're "moving away from survival horror" or whatever. Same with the move from ME1 to ME2 in terms of it's gameplay styles. If the game is still a blast to play, does this really matter in the end? They're games. You know, for having fun. Don't let these strict genre definitions, or previous gameplay experiences color the next games so much.

I dunno, maybe that's partially why I seem to have a great time with a lot of the games that the hardcore fanbois hate so much.

*EDIT* Another good example: Fez. "OMG FEZ SUCKS BECAUSE PHIL FISH IS A DOUCHE". No, the game has nothing to do with Phil Fish's personality or impulsive comments. If anything, Fez is the opposite. According to the haters, Fish is an angry, pretentious prick, right? Fez, on the other hand, is a peaceful, beautiful game. I find that interesting for some reason.

I think you're right in terms of your comments about branding i.e. looking at a game based on its merits not its franchise.

Sort of extrapolating from that, rebranding efforts are seen as an affront to self for fans. I hear the phrase "my childhood is ruined" thrown around a lot w/r/t this. Companies really really WANT us to consider ourselves "fans" and identify with a product. Especially today, our identity or sense of self is understood through what media we consume: See any online dating site where people describe in detail what books, movies, music, games they like in order to get across what type of person they are.

So the complaints about the new DMC game are borne out of this sort of insult to identity that is "the reboot". That said, I don't think the complaints have legitimacy--they're very naive and poorly reasoned--but it's an interesting social phenomenon the way people react to reboots as if their childhood, or more broadly their previous experiences, are being delegitimized.

To the topic at hand, I don't think this is an issue of developer/fan relationships, but more brand/fan relationships. No one is saying this game doesn't have the marks of a Ninja Theory game, rather they're upset about what is happening to the brand.

I frankly don't know what is being argued here. I'm glad Ninja Theory made the game they wanted to make and reinvented the series. After DMC4 that is what I wanted.

@Example1013 said:

There's no "reaction" or "interaction", there's a bunch of rage from angry forum trolls who can't get over the fact that the sanctity of their childhood was violated with a reboot. I haven't heard or read a single logical, rational argument as to why the game is bad. Also when I say trolls, I mean in the literal sense, as these users are literally Norwegian bridge trolls. The internet is their contact with the rest of the world, where they get to be nasty, vitriolic, self-entitled assholes.

For God's sake, not everyone that complains about the game are trolls. They are gamers with their own legit grievances like you and me.

The only thing that I don't understand is, why they didn't just change the fucking character design. I don't care about old Dante or the new one, in fact I don't even care about DMC in general. But it seems just silly to insist on such a minor detail that makes all the fanboys blood boil. Its probably a marketing thing, and marketing does some pretty stupid stuff sometimes. I don't know, whatever. In a week or two nobody important will care anymore.

@Nettacki: You're fighting the good fight, but it's time to give up on these forums. These people are utterly convinced that we're all whiny children who hate change, despite the fact that the two most loved entries in this series are wildly different in tone and content.

@CityHunter: Well it doesn't help that about 75% of the people complaining about the game were whiny children (dunno if they hate change). The other 25% that are more level-headed, like you and me, have been buried underneath the rage of others.

Also, the ones who like the game don't mind criticism if it's coming from level-headed people who don't go off on a tantrum like that one guy in the 400 post thread (Terramagi, I believe. That guy meant well, but he was far too hotheaded for his own good).

And if the thread that's attempting a civil discussion of the game's criticism if of any indication, it seems that there ARE people speaking their minds about the game in a level-headed manner, far more present than in the 400 post shitfest of a thread.

@Nettacki: The problem is, at one point we were rational people. Two years of being mocked and generally slighted by not only your peers, but also "journalists" and the world's most unprofessional developers wears on even the most patient mind.

@CityHunter: Yeah, I can understand the frustration of going through that crap. BTW, just for future reference, do you have any links to particularly dickish comments from the press and/or the developers?

One difference between the Cole redesign and the Dante redesign is Cole was the character in Infamous 2, a direct sequel to Infamous. Dante, is the lead character in DMC, a remake of the Devil May Cry franchise.

It makes sense for them to redesign one character, but not the other.

Just use the "Classic Dante" costume if it bothers you so much. FYI, he looks duuuuumb in that costume in this game. Their redesign is far better.

@handlas:there's a Classic Dante costume? Do you have to unlock it?

@Nettacki: A veritable laundry list. Would you prefer the "journalists" being abhorrent dickstains or Tam-Tam and Alex Jones making asses of themselves?

@CityHunter: A little bit of both, if possible. At least it's relevant to the discussion.

I don't understand why people think that DMC4 was bad? Level design? In terms of gameplay it was and still is the best DMC.

My biggest issue with DmC is lack of depth to the combat, forcing me to use certain weapons against certain enemies is not depth. This reminds me of when I used to play Street Fighter without knowing what combos or cancelling is, I used to play against a couple of my friends and all we did was stand back and throw fireballs all day and we thought that we were good, it wasn't till I played against someone who knew what they were doing that I realised that there's more to the game. Same thing with DMC, it wasn't till I saw a video of crazy combos that I realised that there's more to it than just launching enemies and shooting them with guns.

Watch these videos and you might understand why DMC4 is great in terms of gameplay and why DmC is lacking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YALYaSVjyBU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOIc5m6PwNY&NR=1&feature=fvwp these videos are tutorials of advanced techniques, something that most players won't even realise is in the game. Some people actually have DMC4 combo competitions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORgSuIIesIE

@Fire_Of_The_Wind: So by your logic, if you spend some time with DmC and study the combat system more maybe you will find that depth there too, or are you automatically writing it off because you threw a few fireballs and thats it? I'm sure when they come out with that tower wave based DLC people will start posting crazy combo videos for the new game as well.

Also the main reason people regard DMC4 as a bad game is because they literally stopped halfway through and mirror it. That is incredibly lazy and poor level design. On top of that you fight all the same bosses who have the same attack patterns, that was like adding insult to injury. The game itself was fine, just that level design was inexcusable in a modern day game.

@Nettacki said:

@CityHunter: Well it doesn't help that about 75% of the people complaining about the game were whiny children (dunno if they hate change). The other 25% that are more level-headed, like you and me, have been buried underneath the rage of others.

Also, the ones who like the game don't mind criticism if it's coming from level-headed people who don't go off on a tantrum like that one guy in the 400 post thread (Terramagi, I believe. That guy meant well, but he was far too hotheaded for his own good).

And if the thread that's attempting a civil discussion of the game's criticism if of any indication, it seems that there ARE people speaking their minds about the game in a level-headed manner, far more present than in the 400 post shitfest of a thread.

Funnily enough, basically the same thing happened to me with ME3. I really didn't like the ending however I never felt that the game "destroyed my childhood" or "now the last 100hours of fun somehow weren't fun" or something like that. But good luke trying to talk about that without being mistaken for a "Occupy Citadel" nutcase. The problem is, that there really ARE a lot, and I mean a lot, of people that hate on DmC in a childish and stupid way so any sort of "real" criticism gets drowned by a shitton of stupid comments.

I can understand why people were "outraged" that they initially redesigned Cole for Infamous 2, but I personally actually rather liked that they did. Considering that there are already too many gruff male protagonists with shaved heads and 5 o'clock shadows (and especially considering that Sony already had such a protagonist in Resistance's Nathan Hale), I thought that redesigning him and giving him some hair on his head was a good step toward giving him at least a visual distinction that separated him from the rest of said group of male protagonists. I was willing to sacrifice cosmetic continuity for that, but clearly, that wasn't really a priority for a very vocal portion of the fanbase. Apparently, they somehow found that shaved head + 5 o'clock shadow look to be appealing and relatable. And we wonder why there are so many of them.

Then again, I also didn't have a problem with Ninja Theory's redesign of Dante for DmC. It's a reboot. I thought it fit with the visual style for the world they sought to create, and they seem to have been successful at creating a stylish and interesting reimagining of the Devil May Cry fiction.

@Humanity: No I didn't just throw fireballs automatically wrote it off, I played enough of the game. A lot of made the combat deep or creative in the previous games is removed from this one, there's no style switching, guard cancelling or most of what is in that first video tutorial, the lack of a lock-on means less finesse, it doesn't take much to stay up in the air, it is just not as satisfying as the previous games for me at least. I'm not a die hard fan, I'm not opposed to change, but change has to be as good or better than the previous games to make it acceptable and in this case the gameplay is step back. It is not a bad game, just very average.

@Fire_Of_The_Wind: There are no advanced guard-break techniques but there is the dodge mechanic in its place - I think the entire game is a lot more aggressive than previous DmC titles where you're supposed to go on the offensive a lot more.

But there certainly is style switching. You have 5 styles you can cycle through at will. Two light, two dark weapons and your regular sword which has the most amount of varied attacks if were not going to count the guns which also add diversity to the combat. I mean how is the angel/demon weapon mechanic that much different than switching Dantes style? Not trying to change your mind, just curious.

Lock On would have been nice, they have a weird focusing mechanic by clicking in the stick but thats not exactly the same thing. I think it's mostly the control scheme they chose that made adding a lock-on impossible. Although the more I think about it the more I feel that switching angel/demon to the shoulder buttons as opposed to the triggers would be a better idea.

@Humanity: I wasn't talking about guard-break techniques but about guard-cancelling, you could cancel the animation of some moves by guarding. Also, the dodge mechanic was in the previous games. I don't think that you have to be more aggressive in this game since your rating only goes down if you're hit.

In DMC3&4 different styles changed the way you play and each style gives you different abilities and moves, the circle or B button was dedicated to style moves, in DMC4 the ability to quickly change between styles AND weapons gave you a huge variety of abilities and moves. In DmC it is not changing styles as much as it is just changing weapons, yeah every weapon has it's own moves but your basic abilities stay constant between them.

@Fire_Of_The_Wind: Thats fair enough, I did forget about the fact that you moved a bit different depending on your style since I played DMC4 quite a while ago and didn't get that deep into it apart from beating the campaign.

I think this is the best showcase of combos in DmC I've seen yet and while they may not include cancels apart from doing ground slams to get below the enemy quicker it's still a pretty nice video. Not gonna change anyones mind about the combat but maybe will inspire others to try some new stuff.

Sorry to derail the thread a bit since it's supposed to be about a developers relationship with fans etc. Thats it from me about combos and stuff.

@Nettacki said:

@handlas:there's a Classic Dante costume? Do you have to unlock it?

It was a preorder bonus... atleast if you preordered from the PSN store. It came with 3 alternate costumes. It says on the skins menu that you can get alt costumes from the PSN store or from "beating the game" or something like that as well. I don't know if it's the same costumes (I didn't see any costumes on the store yet though).

That said, his default is better than any of the 3 alts imo.

@Nettacki: I mostly count shitty little references about the hair. I'm trying to get a few more solid things together, because otherwise I'd have to list every article ever written about DmC. In the mean time here's the most recent example of how awful modern games journalism is.

http://www.vg247.com/2013/01/15/dmc-devil-may-cry-fans-are-a-crying-shame/

@CityHunter:that woman seemed like a real bitch. And apparently she complained about the Tomb Raider reboot too, so not only is she a bitch, she's a hypocrite.

@CityHunter said:

@Nettacki: I mostly count shitty little references about the hair. I'm trying to get a few more solid things together, because otherwise I'd have to list every article ever written about DmC. In the mean time here's the most recent example of how awful modern games journalism is.

http://www.vg247.com/2013/01/15/dmc-devil-may-cry-fans-are-a-crying-shame/

She gave out her opinion. She has the right to do so. That is, I agree with most of what she said. Most of the loudmouths who bitched about this reboot had very little to say except '' Its not 30 frames per second, it's not castles and gothic shit, not white haired enough and horrible writing. '' As a writer of seven published sci-fi and steampunk books in french, I can defend DmC right there. It has a good storyline. It's paper thin, it's simple, but it's well told and actually believable within the established world of DmC. It's a character action title, you can't do miracles with a 9 hours long action game based on a dude slicing demons while eating pizza and body surfing on fiends. But hey, once again, it's just my humble opinion. Please take it like a grain of salt.

@Klei said:

Most of the loudmouths who bitched about this reboot had very little to say except '' Its not 30 frames per second, it's not castles and gothic shit, not white haired enough and horrible writing. ''

you forgot the part where they complained about the combat being too easy and button-mashy. But other than that, I can respect your opinion if you can tell me, in detail, what exactly makes this storyline so good.

Also, about the lady in that article. She too has a right to her opinion. Doesn't mean she has the right to make deliberate flamebait for the sake of clicks and lulz. The comments made by the fanboys about the DmC reboot are similar to the comments she herself made about the Tomb Raider reboot. Some say that's hypocrisy, others say its understanding of the situation. What say you?

@Klei said:

She gave out her opinion. She has the right to do so. That is, I agree with most of what she said. Most of the loudmouths who bitched about this reboot had very little to say except '' Its not 30 frames per second, it's not castles and gothic shit, not white haired enough and horrible writing. '' As a writer of seven published sci-fi and steampunk books in french, I can defend DmC right there. It has a good storyline. It's paper thin, it's simple, but it's well told and actually believable within the established world of DmC. It's a character action title, you can't do miracles with a 9 hours long action game based on a dude slicing demons while eating pizza and body surfing on fiends. But hey, once again, it's just my humble opinion. Please take it like a grain of salt.

Well, at least I can tell how this is going to go. First off, nobody who criticizes DmC ever brings up the hair, it's the least of the game's problems to us. It's almost like you're the ones obsessed with it. Your whole "wah it's her opinion" defense falls flat when you consider that she's a journalist, as in a PAID PROFESSIONAL. She doesn't get an opinion, and she certainly doesn't get to insult her readers. It may come as a surprise to some, but feelings and opinions have no place in a professional field. I find it kind of funny that you would make the claim that "Most of the loudmouths who bitched about this reboot had very little to say" when the second page of this very thread starts with a detailed analysis of the story's problems. In fact, it's one of three such analyses, check his post history for the other two. And before you try to hide behind the "most of" part, he compiled that piece from several sources, some of which have been steadily building for two years. You see, there's a heavy focus within the community on being thorough, though obviously the effort is lost on most of you. Also, great job on simplifying the DMC3 storyline, it makes it obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

One more thing: I don't give a shit how many books you've supposedly written in France, it doesn't somehow not make you an ignorant asshole, nor does it suddenly make DmC anything other than a poorly written copy of They Live with some Futurama tacked on.

@CityHunter said:

@Klei said:

She gave out her opinion. She has the right to do so. That is, I agree with most of what she said. Most of the loudmouths who bitched about this reboot had very little to say except '' Its not 30 frames per second, it's not castles and gothic shit, not white haired enough and horrible writing. '' As a writer of seven published sci-fi and steampunk books in french, I can defend DmC right there. It has a good storyline. It's paper thin, it's simple, but it's well told and actually believable within the established world of DmC. It's a character action title, you can't do miracles with a 9 hours long action game based on a dude slicing demons while eating pizza and body surfing on fiends. But hey, once again, it's just my humble opinion. Please take it like a grain of salt.

Well, at least I can tell how this is going to go. First off, nobody who criticizes DmC ever brings up the hair, it's the least of the game's problems to us. It's almost like you're the ones obsessed with it. Your whole "wah it's her opinion" defense falls flat when you consider that she's a journalist, as in a PAID PROFESSIONAL. She doesn't get an opinion, and she certainly doesn't get to insult her readers. It may come as a surprise to some, but feelings and opinions have no place in a professional field. I find it kind of funny that you would make the claim that "Most of the loudmouths who bitched about this reboot had very little to say" when the second page of this very thread starts with a detailed analysis of the story's problems. In fact, it's one of three such analyses, check his post history for the other two. And before you try to hide behind the "most of" part, he compiled that piece from several sources, some of which have been steadily building for two years. You see, there's a heavy focus within the community on being thorough, though obviously the effort is lost on most of you. Also, great job on simplifying the DMC3 storyline, it makes it obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

One more thing: I don't give a shit how many books you've supposedly written in France, it doesn't somehow not make you an ignorant asshole, nor does it suddenly make DmC anything other than a poorly written copy of They Live with some Futurama tacked on.

I can't help but feel there's a discrepancy in tone within these two responses.

DMC4 was a poorly concieved game and was quite bad. DMC is a fresh take that is just way more fun to play with some of the best level design in any character action game.

Gotta love how much the gaming press constantly shits on its readers. Any time that a majority (or a vocal minority, perhaps?) of gamers get up in arms about anything, we have to hear how shitty THE INTERNET is on every podcast that week.

I never gave a fuck about Dante's change in appearance, what I gave a fuck about was Ninja Theory developing a game where the combat is clutch to the experience. Played the demo and it seems like they did a pretty good job, though. I'll give it a rental and buy it for 20 if I like the full game.

Fan relations are a weird thing. You can keep beating the same drum like Nintendo does or you can reinvent your franchises and risk losing long time fans. I used to adore Final Fantasy titles, but they've become rent first games to me. On the flip side, sight unseen I'll still buy any Zelda or 2D castlevania game .

The "fan" rage was completely insane. Oh no, they changed Dante from a pretty-boy with white hair to a pretty-boy with black hair!? HOW DARE THEY!

DMC fans seem to think old Dante was some paragon of masculinity while new Dante looks too much like Justin Bieber. They forget that old Dante was actually pretty effeminate. Hell, in DMC3 he looked like he'd just stepped out of a bondage club.