This may backfire horribly, but I'm sincerely hoping to create a thread where we as a community can come together to share and discuss our opinions and criticisms of the game both positive and negative. I, like many of you, have seen (and to an extent participated in) the negative buzz surrounding this game. And while I don't think that behavior is completely without reason, I do think it's reached the point of irrationality.

When things change, passions run high, and I get that. That's just how things are, but unless we can come together and rationally articulate our views then we just end up being categorized and dismissed. People who level negative criticism against the game get shoveled into the fanboy category, while supporters are seen as some sort of casual (whatever that really means) or white knight. It makes it hard to honestly express your opinion when someone identifies you with a camp, then immediately dismisses you because of it. Also, while I realize that there is already a discussion and impressions thread, it seemed to me that it served a more general purpose in discussion. I'm hoping here we can specifically focus on, share, and discuss our criticisms of the game in a constructive and civil manner.

So all that said, here's hoping we can stay cool. Also, fair warning, if it survives I imagine this thread will become somewhat spoiler-heavy. So proceed with caution.

I'll get the ball rolling then with my impressions so far:

I just got the game today, and I'm currently infiltrating the prison. The game for me is something of a mixed bag. I'm incredibly underwhelmed by the writing, and surprised by how much fun the game is not having. In many ways it seems like a game at odds with itself. One moment Dante is tossing swears and dropping one-liners, and the next Kat is implying she suffered physical and/or sexual abuse by her step-father Combine this with the (in my opinion) ham-fisted social commentary with not-Fox news, not-anonymous, and insert-your-oppressive-government-here, and it just comes off as a story telling nightmare. It's a game that takes itself way too seriously, until it doesn't, but those shifts come at pure random and are incredibly jarring.

I don't think I'd be as surprised at this had Ninja Theory not been specifically chosen for their knack at storytelling. The past games, let's be real, only had a story because they needed a means by which to frame the action. Those games knew what they were, and weren't pretending to be anything different. There's no illusion here that prior to this game, the franchise was a rich narrative tapestry. But when you sell a reboot on it's emphasis on story telling? When you assure fans that the heart of Devil May Cry is intact and it isn't? That's when things become a bit frustrating.

Though again, I'm pretty sure I'm not even half way through the game, so maybe something changes. And as I said in another thread, I sincerely do hope something changes. I desperately want the game to start having fun, so I can too.

The criticism against this game's writing is something I clearly don't get, since to me, it perfectly fits the game. And for once, we have an attempt at storytelling, unlike the previous DMC which were really poor in that department. I think it also needs the story time it gets; it's a reboot, after all. They need to establish and explain, otherwise it'll just be another run-off-the-mill character action title.

I'm almost tempted to fire up my computer and find the first cutscene of DMC3. That, to me, personified the series and simply from what I've seen, this doesn't have much of that.
That said, I think the combat looks fun enough to peek into. I'm just not sure if I care much about the aesthetics and tone and writing, which all seems to be missing what I liked about DMC3.
Finally, it's worth noting that I am not a DMC fan- I just liked what I've played of the thord game and this doesn't have what I would have been looking for in another.

@believer258 said:

I'm almost tempted to fire up my computer and find the first cutscene of DMC3. That, to me, personified the series and simply from what I've seen, this doesn't have much of that. That said, I think the combat looks fun enough to peek into. I'm just not sure if I care much about the aesthetics and tone and writing, which all seems to be missing what I liked about DMC3. Finally, it's worth noting that I am not a DMC fan- I just liked what I've played of the thord game and this doesn't have what I would have been looking for in another.

There you go. I myself would like to hear from vets of the series that can talk about the combat and difficulty. I can't do it myself because I wont be checking out the game until I know what it really is and I can only get that information from them.

I haven't played DmC yet, but I look forward to playing it a lot more than if it was Devil May Cry 5 or whatever direct sequel they could have created instead. I played the first game and the fourth, and although those experiences were fine, a reboot of the series is enough for me to be interested. It could be complete dogshit once I do play it, but I could wind up like Brad and really enjoy it. I don't think I would have a better experience if it were Devil May Cry 5.

@Ataribomb said:

And as I said in another threat

ALREADY THREATENING HUH?

I've yet to play the game, but I think, from what I've seen, a lot of the outrage seems unjustified. As far as reboots go, the changes aren't that sweeping. What I saw in the quick look didn't look like a 5 star game, but again, I'll reserve judgement for after I play the game. And should I disagree, I can accept that my opinion is simply different. The game overall looks fine though, not really deserving the extremes of discussion it's received. Still have to play it to confirm that, however.

Is the writing "so bad it's good" or just plain "bad bad it's bad"?

@Ravenlight said:

Is the writing "so bad it's good" or just plain "bad bad it's bad"?

It's actually neither. From what I've played so far it's pretty good with no negatives really. I really like Kat's character and voice. Dante is alright as well. Vergil is a bit lacking for me right now. But that's cause I fucking loved OG Vergil.

@LiquidPrince:

Before today, DmC wasn't even on my radar but the more I hear about it, the more I consider buying the game.

How's the gameplay feel? If you had to compare it to another game, which one would most closely match the combat?

@Ravenlight said:

@LiquidPrince:

Before today, DmC wasn't even on my radar but the more I hear about it, the more I consider buying the game.

How's the gameplay feel? If you had to compare it to another game, which one would most closely match the combat?

Honestly, it feels like one of those games. As in Bayonetta or Devil May Cry. It has a smidge of Heavenly Sword in there where in Heavenly Sword the triggers made your sword into heavy mode or long range mode. Except now it change to Angel and Demon weapons.

@LiquidPrince said:

@Ravenlight said:

@LiquidPrince:

Before today, DmC wasn't even on my radar but the more I hear about it, the more I consider buying the game.

How's the gameplay feel? If you had to compare it to another game, which one would most closely match the combat?

Honestly, it feels like one of those games. As in Bayonetta or Devil May Cry. It has a smidge of Heavenly Sword in there where in Heavenly Sword the triggers made your sword into heavy mode or long range mode. Except now it change to Angel and Demon weapons.

It also has Enslaved's ''close-camera finishers''.

@Travsaid:

@Ataribomb said:

And as I said in another threat

ALREADY THREATENING HUH?

Looks like Freud was right. :P

@Ravenlight said:

Is the writing "so bad it's good" or just plain "bad bad it's bad"?

In my opinion while the previous games fell into the "so bad it's good" category on writing, DmC's is just bad. I'm on mission 17 of 20, and so far it's still a conflicting mess of ideas. It's a game that asks you to have immature fun with the combat, but then attempts to be somewhat adult in how it approaches certain story elements such as torture and abuse. But instead of those elements standing as the pillars of character development that they could, they just come off as forced when seen through the afflicted and immature lens that is Dante. Again it comes down to this being a game that doesn't seem to have an identity. At times it tries to be fun and immature, other times it tries get serious and traumatic to tug your heartstrings, and it does all this while attempting to drive home a social message, and at all three (so far) it's failed.

@LiquidPrince said:

@Ravenlight said:

@LiquidPrince:

Before today, DmC wasn't even on my radar but the more I hear about it, the more I consider buying the game.

How's the gameplay feel? If you had to compare it to another game, which one would most closely match the combat?

Honestly, it feels like one of those games. As in Bayonetta or Devil May Cry. It has a smidge of Heavenly Sword in there where in Heavenly Sword the triggers made your sword into heavy mode or long range mode. Except now it change to Angel and Demon weapons.

Here's where I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. From my eyes, the combat is far too imprecise to be compared to previous DMC games or Bayo. The game clearly wants to feel like those games to an extent, but I'd argue it ultimately fails. The lack of a manual lock-on, while not the only reason, is the main point behind this. The game removes the ability for the player to accurately identify, prioritize, and maintain targets in combat. And in a combat system that becomes increasingly focused on throwing the various "puzzle" type enemies at you (i.e. ones that can only be damaged via certain methods) this is a problem. In larger groups of basic enemies this is almost unnoticeable as this game places a higher emphasis on crowd control attacks. So while you may not be hitting the enemy you wanted to, odds are you'll still hit something. To me that's not the type of combat that I look for in this franchise, and more on point, does not feel in any way like the games that came before it.

has a decent line of dialogue ever existed in any previous DMC game. as i recall it been utter drivel for the most part. just a reason to get to the next action scene.

So bad it's good is one of the worst phrases I've ever heard. To enjoy a game so unironically and have that as a defence for the story... Great.

I posted this in another thread, but I think it fits better here. Bear with me if you've already seen it.

I'm sooooo fucking hyped right now. Way back when it was announced it looks like everything I didn't want, but with the demo and the quick look played and watched, I can't fucking wait anymore. Game looks great, I don't regret being negative or pessimistic earlier. But i'm legitimately happy this seems to have worked out just about as well as it could.

That said, I still don't like the feel of the story or characters, but that was never the draw anyways.

Quick background: I loved DMC1, didn't hate 2 as much as others (but I didn't finish it). 3 was great, but went in a more punishing direction I didn't much care for, and 4 I played the demo and didn't care for the feel of the combat.

On to DmC: I've only played them demo, and it has piqued my interest. I was slightly skeptical about the Dante redesign, wondering why they'd change that of all things. But when I Devil Triggered in the demo it made perfect sense and I now love the choice.

I can't speak to the full game, but I can say that this game has about as much of my interest as is possible with a new DMC. And while I hope it does well, I'm still gonna wait for a price drop. $40 is as much as I'm willing to pay for a game I'll most likely tear through the story once (maybe twice if my girl decides to give it a go) then put in the back row of my collection.

As to the dismay of long-time fans: As an everlasting MK nut I can relate to the hatred of seemingly insignificant changes. But MK always sells in the millions, and if DMC were in that comfy position it would never have been handed to Ninja Theory in the first place. All I can say to the disappointed is that they can never undo your love for the games that came before this.

@wemibelec90 said:

I posted this in another thread, but I think it fits better here. Bear with me if you've already seen it.

I want to say a few things and don't know where else to say them. Just need to get them off my chest after reading countless comments and forum posts full of vitriol for this game.

Most of the complaints seem to be about the combat being not as complex as DMC3, with easier timings for things and getting SSS ranks on fights being much simpler. I don't really see why this is a bad thing. Ninja Theory went a different way with the combat, making it flashier (in a way I think fits with the DMC style) and less dependent on timing and more about being creative with mixing things up. A better point is that this is the first (of many?) game in the rebooted franchise. DMC1 was quite simple and it wasn't until the third game that things got nice and deep. Who's to say that won't happen here as well?

I understand the concerns for the story and the dialogue. Apparently, Ninja Theory talked it up big time and that has some gamers peeved (I didn't follow this game at all so I know nothing of this). Still, is this the first time a game has been talked up and then not followed through (*cough* Peter Molyneux *cough, cough*)? Sure, it isn't Shakespeare quality writing, but a game doesn't have to be about story. My favorite character-action game, Ninja Gaiden, has a stupid and nonsensical story that I groan at each time I replay the game. At least DmC has some fun with its character and story. It may not be to everyone's taste, but it isn't the end of the world.

As Jeff and the others have said, this is a new direction for the Devil May Cry franchise. Those people who worked on the original game are doing other things. There is no way that a game would be the same as one those guys made because every development team is different. It kinda sucks that we don't get another (potentially) great "real" Devil May Cry game, but this game was never going to be that. We knew that years ago when this was announced. This new reimagining is at least worth a chance. Maybe Ninja Theory will take those things hated about the combat to heart and make a stellar sequel.

These opinions are coming from someone who hasn't played the game yet (waiting on the PC version) but is looking forward to the game. I am currently playing Devil May Cry 3 and can see why fans are very reverent for that game. The intricacies of the combat rival a fighting game's complexity. It's pretty clear that the new game won't be as deep. Still, I can't wait to see how DmC turns out.

Again, sorry for a bit of a rant here. I just wanted to post these thoughts somewhere so they would stop floating around inside my head.

I disagree.

A lot of the complaints came from two points.

#1 - How Capcom allowed Western Developers to handle their franchises up to the announcement of DmC at Gamescom. Remember Dark Void? Remember Bionic Commando? What went into these games were almost entirely controlled by those developers, most notably Wife Arm. It's that kind of track record that got people worried about it when the rumor popped up. When it was finally unveiled and the initial design of Dante, aka, the drug addict, that made people go 'oh go no' when they first saw it.

#2 - What Ninja Theory had done from a development standpoint, including framerate, controls, etc. Heavenly Sword didn't have the best controls in the world and Enslaved had segments where the game was on auto pilot. So how could a developer like this possibly make a highly-skilled action game like Devil May Cry? That's the thinking behind this really. You also have to remember that they use Unreal Engine 3, meaning the game would automatically have no chance of being in 60fps on consoles, which is a downgrade. How, as a Devil May Cry fan, could you not be worried?

But literally, it stems from those two points. You can talk about reboot, their PR bullshit about it being before DMC3 to alternate timelines all you want, but the track record of both leading into this was something to be highly concerned about.

I posted this in another thread, but I think it fits better here. Bear with me if you've already seen it.

I want to say a few things and don't know where else to say them. Just need to get them off my chest after reading countless comments and forum posts full of vitriol for this game.

Most of the complaints seem to be about the combat being not as complex as DMC3, with easier timings for things and getting SSS ranks on fights being much simpler. I don't really see why this is a bad thing. Ninja Theory went a different way with the combat, making it flashier (in a way I think fits with the DMC style) and less dependent on timing and more about being creative with mixing things up. A better point is that this is the first (of many?) game in the rebooted franchise. DMC1 was quite simple and it wasn't until the third game that things got nice and deep. Who's to say that won't happen here as well?

I understand the concerns for the story and the dialogue. Apparently, Ninja Theory talked it up big time and that has some gamers peeved (I didn't follow this game at all so I know nothing of this). Still, is this the first time a game has been talked up and then not followed through (*cough* Peter Molyneux *cough, cough*)? Sure, it isn't Shakespeare quality writing, but a game doesn't have to be about story. My favorite character-action game, Ninja Gaiden, has a stupid and nonsensical story that I groan at each time I replay the game. At least DmC has some fun with its character and story. It may not be to everyone's taste, but it isn't the end of the world.

As Jeff and the others have said, this is a new direction for the Devil May Cry franchise. Those people who worked on the original game are doing other things. There is no way that a game would be the same as one those guys made because every development team is different. It kinda sucks that we don't get another (potentially) great "real" Devil May Cry game, but this game was never going to be that. We knew that years ago when this was announced. This new reimagining is at least worth a chance. Maybe Ninja Theory will take those things hated about the combat to heart and make a stellar sequel.

These opinions are coming from someone who hasn't played the game yet (waiting on the PC version) but is looking forward to the game. I am currently playing Devil May Cry 3 and can see why fans are very reverent for that game. The intricacies of the combat rival a fighting game's complexity. It's pretty clear that the new game won't be as deep. Still, I can't wait to see how DmC turns out.

Again, sorry for a bit of a rant here. I just wanted to post these thoughts somewhere so they would stop floating around inside my head.

(Note, I have not played this game yet. I Intend on getting it on PC)

In reference to points about the story, I remember playing DMC2 years ago and not having a clue what the hell was going on. The story seemed incomprehensible and utterly meaningless to me. IT was certainly not the main focus of the game. I couldn't have cared less though, as I enjoyed the game anyway. It was a hell of a lot of fun.

Bayonetta is also a favourite of mine, and to this day I still have no clue what it was about. The story seemed weak (apart from some genuinely funny moments). They could have done or said anything and I would have accepted it as crazy Japanese nonsense and gone back to flying around in space on bits of exploded planet.

Am I right in thinking that Ninja Theory have veered away from the anime/manga style of story-telling and have taken a more western approach?

That does not seem like a bad idea. I watch a hell of a lot of anime/manga and while I love that style of story-telling, I find it somewhat distracting when I am trying to play an action game.

I am definitely digging the game and even though I understand and agree with some of the criticisms to the extent I really am having fun with the game. As far as Dante goes, I am up to the Prison and so far I am not seeing why the character is/was hated that much at all. To me nothing sticks out to being the absolute hateful character, but he also doesn't stand out to being the "best" Dante either. He's just pretty good and I can get along with him through the game so far.

I am finding the story enjoyable so far, I think it is good but not overtly exciting. Again, I am really just having a good time with that as well.

The combat is definitely more "accessible" but not to the point where it is bad and not enjoyable to some extent. I think people will still figure out some cool things when it comes to combos/cancelling/dashing and the moves that are available in the game.

And whether I agree or disagree with people it is good to see that in this thread the people who have criticisms or don't like the game are well articulated into expressing why they feel so. It is good to see that.

Like Dante I think the writing in this game is a nephilim (?). It's neither bad nor good. I kinda look at stuff and say to myself: "This should really bother me. But it doesn't" or "I should really enjoy this. But I don't" and I don't even want to imply that the writing is boring or uninteresting, it just kinda.....is.

I played the demo on PS3 and felt that the voice acting just wasn't good, the framerate was choppy at best (I blame my new PC for this, I'm too accustomed to 60fps now) and the combat had become too easy (got an SS combo in the second group of monsters; that is not how "Devil May Cry" should play). I'm not much of a fan of the older games but I understand why a purist wouldn't like this one. It just didn't feel right to me.

Only two levels in and I'm liking it from a pure action game standpoint. I do miss some signature DMC stuff, like how the stinger move is executed and the lack of lock-on in general, but it's a reboot. I wasn't going into this expecting a sequel to DMC4, I went in expecting an action game with some Devil May Cry DNA and so far that's exactly what I'm getting. Only real complaint is how easy the game is so far, it's kinda ridiculous.

@JTB123 said:

Only two levels in and I'm liking it from a pure action game standpoint. I do miss some signature DMC stuff, like how the stinger move is executed and the lack of lock-on in general, but it's a reboot. I wasn't going into this expecting a sequel to DMC4, I went in expecting an action game with some Devil May Cry DNA and so far that's exactly what I'm getting. Only real complaint is how easy the game is so far, it's kinda ridiculous.

I tried going in with the same expectations, and with regards to the combat that's what I got for sure. It's not the same by a mile, and I still consider it to be wildly imprecise, but the fighting is fun. I guess my main problem is, and I kind of mentioned this before, is that I'm having a very hard time reconciling the silliness the game expresses in the fighting, with the seriousness the story tries to hit the player with. There are some very serious topics touched on, including but not limited to torture and both physical and sexual abuse. How do I go from having that type of story laid on top of me, then still feel motivated to style on fools for my SSS rank? Not trying to beat a dead horse, I just can't help but wonder if anyone else is picking up on the same tension.

The divisive factor here I think will be the main character and the story. If you're not digging the absurdity of it all and/or are really attached to the old Dante then you're going to not like/hate this game. Makes sense that Adam's score is lower that Brad's cuz he didn't like the absurdity as much.

I don't really get all the negative backlash this game is getting. I can understand if you were such a huge fan of the original and you're sad to see it go, but if you were a take it or leave it fan of the original, there really isn't a reason you should avoid DmC reboot. The main character seems like the type that would annoy the hell out of you but honestly, he comes off as funny and at times sincere. He's an absurd character in an absurd world and it works. If they tried to put him in a real life environment, it wouldn't work, but in this world he fits right in.

The combat is similar enough to the older games in the series (from what I remember) and it's not incredibly tough although it does get pretty touch on normal difficulty the further in the game you go (in the beginning I was barely getting hit, but now with the multiple enemy types, you need to doge and use all your weapons correctly to live.)

If you are on the fence about this game, give it a shot. It's a solid game that I had a blast playing yesterday.

I am going to say that it is better than DMC2. I don't have enough information yet to form an opinion beyond that. Yes, I am aware that it doesn't take much to be better than DMC2, but I'm trying to only say nice things here.

@Ataribomb said:

I tried going in with the same expectations, and with regards to the combat that's what I got for sure. It's not the same by a mile, and I still consider it to be wildly imprecise, but the fighting is fun. I guess my main problem is, and I kind of mentioned this before, is that I'm having a very hard time reconciling the silliness the game expresses in the fighting, with the seriousness the story tries to hit the player with. There are some very serious topics touched on, including but not limited to torture and both physical and sexual abuse. How do I go from having that type of story laid on top of me, then still feel motivated to style on fools for my SSS rank? Not trying to beat a dead horse, I just can't help but wonder if anyone else is picking up on the same tension.

The difference between the silliness and the seriousness of Dante is who he is doing that with. In the beginning he was a bit of a smart ass and cocky with Vergil and Kat. Now he takes them seriously after what he's been shown and he's only completely cocky and silly with the demons. So I am not really having trouble with that aspect and think the disconnect twith his attitude is minor.

Also I do not think the game is easy. I have it on hard and although it wasn't that bad in the beginning the game definitely starts to make you work out your fingers in later levels. The types/moves I see from enemies and the combination of stuff I imagine that they could do with them in SoS and DMD gives me the impression that it will most definitely be no cake walk at all.

I haven't enjoyed a DMC game since the first one unfortunately. I enjoyed the more puzzle-y Resident Evil style game it was over the combo-based game it has become.

@Sanious said:

The difference between the silliness and the seriousness of Dante is who he is doing that with. In the beginning he was a bit of a smart ass and cocky with Vergil and Kat. Now he takes them seriously after what he's been shown and he's only completely cocky and silly with the demons. So I am not really having trouble with that aspect and think the disconnect with his attitude is minor.

That's actually a really valid point that I didn't consider. It doesn't completely alleviate my problems with the tone of the story versus the combat, but it certainly helps. I'll hopefully beat the whole shebang tonight so I can really digest the experience as a whole. So far though, I'm settling on this being a very solid action game, but a somewhat troubled Devil May Cry game if compared to the prior entries (again, DMC2 does not exist).

@Syphous said:

I haven't enjoyed a DMC game since the first one unfortunately. I enjoyed the more puzzle-y Resident Evil style game it was over the combo-based game it has become.

I hear that. Though I'm in love with DMC3, the first one will still always fill my dark heart with light. The setting and atmosphere were nearly perfect as far as I'm concerned. Makes sense seeing as it started off as early RE4. In many ways though I do lament the absence of puzzles in the later entries, especially in this most recent one. I've not encountered a single puzzle and while some players may dig that, I'm a tad disappointed by it.

@Ataribomb said:

@Sanious said:

That's actually a really valid point that I didn't consider. It doesn't completely alleviate my problems with the tone of the story versus the combat, but it certainly helps. I'll hopefully beat the whole shebang tonight so I can really digest the experience as a whole. So far though, I'm settling on this being a very solid action game, but a somewhat troubled Devil May Cry game if compared to the prior entries (again, DMC2 does not exist).

I agree, there is still a disconnect but I think that falls in general when it comes to certain characters in specific games. The story is serious but the character is not in battle and it makes you question how serious the character is actually taking the situations going on. Although I guess it could be argued that the character acts in that way to be able to deal with a messed up situation(s).

At this point I am definitely feeling another play through in me and I am 13 chapters in. Definitely want to do all the challenge rooms and collectors stuff. Whether or not it is a good DmC game I am at least glad that it is a good game in general.

@Sanious:

Same here with regards to the second playthrough. The completionist in me just can't allow anything else. Though I'm also hoping that on the higher difficulties I can really open the combat up. Sketchy targeting aside, the part of the demo that actually sold me was trucking around in SoS mode, not Nephilim. Also I've actually got some seriously high hopes for the Bloody Palace once it drops. Hopefully, given enough time, I can figure out what this combat system expects of me. Right now I'm trying to play it like a Devil May Cry game, and it's pretty obvious that's not a good idea. I keep having to remind myself that despite some similarities, this game is its own entity and should be treated as such.

Just completed it and I loved it really liked the ending and hop ninja theory get to make a sequel. Gonna start playing on the harder difficulties now I've unlocked them.

@KingBroly: These seem like complaints people had before the game came out, before they knew what the final product might be (although I can understand concerns about Ninja Theory doing a combat system). I'm just listing complaints I've seen online in the past few days with my thoughts because it was bugging me.

@ViciousReiven: It is absolutely less intricate. However, remember how much simpler 1 is than 3? I do, having just played both of them. DMC 3 was an evolution of the series, built upon the framework of the last two games as the developer learned what worked and what didn't. I think Ninja Theory should be given the same chance. If the next game remains rather simplistic and NT doesn't do any work to make it better, I think an argument could be better made at that point. I would have been shocked to see a company like NT, one that hasn't developed a great combat system before, to make something as crazy complex as DMC 3.

For me partialy is similar thing that i had with Bayonetta. I hate the characters and dont really "feel" the setting but still enjoy it overall. Also it really lacks the Dante is real badass moments DMC3 had. For the difficulty it seems a bit too easy compared to previous games. Combat also seems a bit watered down. Still I find the game enjoyable and it has its moments.

@wemibelec90 said:

@KingBroly: These seem like complaints people had before the game came out, before they knew what the final product might be (although I can understand concerns about Ninja Theory doing a combat system). I'm just listing complaints I've seen online in the past few days with my thoughts because it was bugging me.

@ViciousReiven: It is absolutely less intricate. However, remember how much simpler 1 is than 3? I do, having just played both of them. DMC 3 was an evolution of the series, built upon the framework of the last two games as the developer learned what worked and what didn't. I think Ninja Theory should be given the same chance. If the next game remains rather simplistic and NT doesn't do any work to make it better, I think an argument could be better made at that point. I would have been shocked to see a company like NT, one that hasn't developed a great combat system before, to make something as crazy complex as DMC 3.

I suppose taken from that perspective you could say that this DmC could go towards DMC3 levels of complexity in the next game. However, lets remember that there was nothing like DMC when it was initially made. This game had a plethora of examples from which to build from and it decided to largely ignore them, but I guess we wont know until they make DmC2 and see if the combat gets more complex.

To be honest... this thread has been much more insightful to me then everything else I've seen about this game. Thanks for making it! Unfortunately, I have the feeling I won't be picking up this game from what I hear of the combat being simplified. The complexity and variety of combat and the multitude of ways you could approach every encounter was the main reason I enjoyed DMC3 and 4, and I'm sad to hear its gone by the wayside a bit.

I think the internet needed another whipping boy since 'no one cares' about Mass Effect 3 anymore.

@Alkaiser said:

To be honest... this thread has been much more insightful to me then everything else I've seen about this game. Thanks for making it! Unfortunately, I have the feeling I won't be picking up this game from what I hear of the combat being simplified. The complexity and variety of combat and the multitude of ways you could approach every encounter was the main reason I enjoyed DMC3 and 4, and I'm sad to hear its gone by the wayside a bit.

Good to know that the thread was helpful. :D

Also I just beat the game. I'm going to let it sit until tomorrow and digest so I don't make any knee-jerk reactions, because right now I really just want to sell it back to Gamestop. I guess the only thing I can say right now is that the game as a whole most certainly did not float my boat. More on that tomorrow once I can properly put my thoughts in line.

Hi. Some of you may remember me from another topic about DmC and the review another night but it was locked. Like the topic title suggests, this seems like a civil place to resume. I'll begin by posting my thoughts from before but with a few mistakes corrected and additional information to clarify some points that may have been vague previously.

PART 1: THE REVIEW AND THE BACKLASH

I think the problem is that there isn't one single problem. A LOT of people are upset for a LOT of different reasons, which means sorting through this is going to take a while. We have some people that are upset about the review, and we have people who are upset about the reaction to the review.

I'll begin with the review itself, which has a number of problems.

"I think it became easy to like Devil May Cry because it seems somewhat aware of itself; the game is so damn committed to having fun with its absurdity, you can't help having fun along with it... The best sort of dumb fun is the kind that knows how dumb it is, and I consistently got the sense from Devil May Cry knew that the entire time I was playing it."

I honestly can't wrap my mind around this statement. People calling each other "sacks of s***," comparing d*** sizes, murdering a pregnant woman, and then gloating about it is now fun? Why are none of these paramount moments, which range from juvenile to unsavory, even mentioned in the review? Has Brad honestly never read an interview with Tameem? This is a man who is on a crusade to prove the validity as video games as an art form. The first thing you see on Ninja Theory's website is their logo and declaration: ""...an opportunity to elevate the games experience into one that can rival film and literature...." This isn't Saints Row, the 'humor' in DmC isn't intentional at all.

"Classic DMC" took a while to find itself. DMC1 was borderline horror, stemming from its development as the fist attempt at making Resident Evil 4, and DMC2 was an identity crisis in both the gameplay and narrative senses. With DMC3, the team found itself. A combat system that was easy to understand and follow but also rewarded players for learning advanced techniques (seriously, the skill ceilings in DMC3 and 4 are insanely high). It drifted away from DMC's horror atmosphere to create an action-comedy narrative in a traditionally Gothic world defined by a small cast with sharp characterization. DmC has none of that.

Had Brad played the other DMC titles, he would know this. He would know that the controls have been simplified.

This brings us to an important question: Should Brad had been given this game to review? It's not that he hasn't played the other DMC titles, but he doesn't appear to be familiar with the action genre AT ALL. If he was familiar with God of War or Bayonetta or Ninja Gaiden he could compare DmC to those and understand how pedestrian DmC is. While DMC, Bayonetta, GoW, and NG make me think about strategy, I can practically sleepwalk through DmC because it's so incredibly easy even on the higher difficulties. The enemies are slow and there so few of them onscreen. There is a reason Jeff almost exclusively reviews fighters for GiantBomb. He is familiar with the genre. Ryan reviewed God of WarandBayonetta. Alex reviewed Ninja Gaiden 3. They seem to understand what to look for in an action game. Why weren't either of them assigned DmC instead?

Brad's tagline for the review is "The character action genre hasn't been this stylish or crazy in a good long while," but how would he know that? Brad admits to never playing DMC3 or DMC4. Most telling, he doesn't compare DmC to any other action title. Not God of War, Bayonetta, or Ninja Gaiden, so how does he know the genre has been "this stylish or crazy in a good long while?" Nothing about his review makes me confident about his knowledge of the genre. Ultimately, putting Brad on DmC is perplexing.

Think of it this way--if I was the editor of Consumer Reports, why would I assign my computer/tech expert to review Ford's newest cars? I wouldn't because he doesn't know what to look for. It's not to say Computer Guy is bad at reviewing, but cars just aren't his field of expertise and he wouldn't know what to look for. At most he could tell me if the car took him from Point A to Point B, whether it was automatic or manual, and whether the gas meter was properly displaying. Basically, he could tell me if the car worked or not. Much like Computer Guy on Ford, Brad can at least testify that DmC is indeed functional. But we are digging deeper than that. Is it safe? How does it perform under different circumstances? Is the price justified?

On top of that, others seem to see a pattern with some of Brad's recent reviews. Diablo III's high score in the face of the public's incredibly low opinion of it is unusual. He also gave high marks to Metroid: Other M, a complete train-wreck of the franchise so bad Nintendo's had to put Samus into suspended animation. It seems easy to excite him so much that he then forgets or fails to list a game's faults. But if the point of the review to steer consumers to quality products and they end up being recommended to purchase inferior goods, consumers aren't going to be happy. Consumers are going to re-evaluate who they trust, and I think this is exactly what is happening (hence the backlash here and pretty much every other review site right now).

Now, I haven't seen the comments that are supposedly dividing the GB community, but I'll assume they're insulting. Which is, of course, no way to conduct oneself. But if one is mad that people are simply because others are disagreeing with Brad's review (or any other), then he needs to realize people have differing opinions. People will discuss them, and hopefully we will all become better for it as ideas are communicated, scrutinized, and then proven to be valid or invalid.

Additionally, I imagine DMC fans feel burned by how dismissive GB has been of them in the past. I haven't kept up with the Bombcast in a while, but I know they essentially reduced the grievances with DMC fans had with DmC to "they're mad his hair isn't white, just ignore them." Which is wrong and irresponsible of them as journalists. However, at least it's not insulting like other press outlets have been (which I'll get to later).

Just finished it myself and I am fine with the ending. I am not overtly impressed by the game but I am still pleased by it and enjoyed my time with it. My only complaint or criticism was that the bosses were pretty mediocre and cliche when it came to attack patterns and stuff. The very last fight was most definitely the most worth while fight in the whole game. Going to go to playing it on SoS and see how it fairs.

The inherent problem with trying to have a civil discussion about criticism against DmC is that there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what criticism is.

A lot of assertions, assumptions (sometimes outright lies*) and opinions are being trotted out as objective fact, and then aimed at the developer, reviewers and enthusiasts as proof that they are (in order) bad, wrong and stupid.

These people aren’t out to share their opinions and discuss the game on its merits and flaws – they are out to discredit it, the people who made it, and anyone who likes it.

I don’t know if it’s possible to have a reasonable, civil discussion with zealots. I don’t think so. They don’t want discussion – they want to browbeat a thing out of existence.

You know what would be great? If people could just say, “I hate it.” None of this trying to prove objectively how objectively bad everything about it objectively is. Just, “I don’t like anything about this.” That’s completely valid. There’s nothing anyone can say to dispute that – it’s yours, you own it. You can even go through why you hate it, in great detail, and create interesting, worthwhile conversation.

But no, you** can’t just dislike something, or disagree with someone. You have to prove you are right and they are wrong. You have to dehumanize the people you disagree with. You escalate disappointment and dissatisfaction to Being Wronged. You want to burn it to the ground and salt the earth.

Criticism is about persuading readers to an opinion: these are my thoughts, and this is why I think the way I do. It can be well presented or poorly argued. You can take it or leave it. You can agree with Brad or not – but you can’t make a reasonable argument that his opinion is wrong or invalid. You can only decide what it means to you – do Brad’s tastes line up with yours, does his opinion mean something to you? If yes, then take the review as given. If not, then it doesn’t matter one lick.

But that only counts if this whole crazy-pants reaction was about criticism and integrity and all that jazz. And it’s very clearly not. People don’t want this game to exist, can’t accept that it does, won’t accept that other people actually like it, and are doing everything in their power to try and prove everyone is wrong for having different opinions.

You can’t just shout down things you don’t like and wish didn’t exist. That’s not discussion. And you certainly can’t do it with interpretive ‘evidence’ as ‘proof’.

You, me, anyone, can state what they do and don’t like, and why, but you can’t prove it truth, because it isn’t.

DmC has been an object lesson in perspective and proportional response. I wish more people could just accept that they don’t like it, instead of needing their dislike validated. That, to me, would be the first step to civility.

*The most recent ‘fact’ I’ve seen brought up everywhere (including this thread) is that Dante “murders a pregnant woman and then brags about it”. This is an ‘example’ of how ‘objectively bad’ the storytelling is, and how the game cannot be ‘fun’; thus, anyone who calls the game fun has an illegitimate opinion. The only thing that statement proves is that some people will make up evidence to prove an opinion.

**Here I’m using ‘you’ as a stand-in for this type of fan who has gone way overboard.

Main thing I've noticed about the story telling, and mainly dialogue early on (I'm only on the 6th mission), is that I'm very confused as to why they have Dante always just summarize everything that Vergil says. Vergil explains their parents, in detail, and then immediately Dante gives a cliff note version in the form of a question. It's like the writers didn't think the player could follow along in the first place, so they jam it down our throats.

@Tidel: I think you are really going on about a non issue

In a discus you aren't going to add to the end of every state meant that it is you opinion. Everyone knows that. When discussing opinions you talk about them like you believe that is right as of course you believe your opinion is right. There is also nothing wrong with saying you think someone's opinion is wrong or uneducated. In the review comments I had to defend myself several times because I disagreed with Brad's opinion and said not because they had counter points but people saying how dare I say I disagree with someone's opinion and say I don't think they are right. When someone disagrees with someone that doesn't mean they are saying the person can't hold the opinion they just disagree. Brad and everyone else is free to enjoy the game. Others are completely free to say they dislike it and neither have to keep saying it is just their opinion as we all know that.

Also using one example of how something is fine in a short discussion like the comments on a review, you aren't going to go into essay form about it. And no one there said "this part is bad so the whole game is objectively bad" that is just an example of how the game can be bad in one area.

@Tidel:

I think in some ways you are absolutely correct. There are many who express their opinions as fact, and attempt to discredit any viewpoint that disagrees. There are absolutely people who take their frustration to irrational and embarrassing levels. However in this thread, at least for the most part, I've not seen much of that. People are here expressing their opinions, what they like, what they don't like, and why that is. I can respect that. Just because the game didn't do much of anything for me, doesn't at all mean I look down upon others for finding it fun or interesting. Am I disappointed that a franchise that I've loved since the beginning is taking a direction that no longer appeals to me? Sure, and to an extent that's frustrating because it's not what I wanted. But that doesn't mean I think people should feel the way I do. In many ways it's the reverse. I wish I saw what other's are seeing, and I truly wish that I had the same amount of fun everyone else is seeming to have with this game.

--------

All that said, I think I can finally convey my total thoughts on the game having finished it. I found the action to be completely passable with no real frustrations apart from the targeting. When the combat worked, I thought it worked really well. But when it didn't, especially in later levels where you're hit with the weapon or location specific enemies, I thought it fell apart. To me, not being able to quickly and accurately prioritize targets resulted in deaths that just felt undeserved. It felt like the game wasn't allowing me to do what it expected me to do. Of course, other people's experiences will probably vary. Those are just my thoughts.

If it were just the combat though, I hardly think I'd have a problem at all. The writing though, at least through my eyes, is the game's most troubling aspect. Normally something I'd pay no attention to, the writing both from the developers and critically has been acclaimed as some of the best in the series, and I'm still struggling to see how that is. Now, as I've already said the writing in the past games is nothing short of secondary. It by all metrics is cheesy, ambiguous, and mainly just an excuse to throw the character into a situation to fight some demons. But the difference is that it never pretended to be anything different. Ninja Theory was chosen to tell a story, the game was marketed on its story, and game publications praised the story, so I was actually looking forward to it. I've also already mentioned my thoughts on the conflicted tones of combat and story, so I wont go into them here. Also seriously fair warning, I go into some spoilers here.

What I experienced though was something completely different. The writing seems to mistake trauma for compelling character traits, touching on the topics of sexual abuse, torture, and self-mutilation. It provides the characters with all manner of emotional baggage but does nothing with it. Kat was abused she says, but never goes any further with it ever. Her character developed the strength to cope with that ordeal off camera and before she met Dante. Superman Vergil was the one who swooped in and gave fragile Kat the strength she needed to recover and re-focus herself, but we're not even shown that either. We're not shown anything, we're merely told. I'm of the mind that such topics should not be present in any form of media unless the writing is prepared to adequately explore and deal with the implications of such an ordeal. In the end I wondered why such a thing was even brought up.

I also take issue with Dante's development or lack thereof. Many people see his transformation from sweary loner, to team player as a substantial leap of character but I have to disagree with that. It's character progression to be sure, but Dante as a character never seems to actually learn and grow. His attachment to Kat exists because he tells us it does, not because we're shown how they grow together as a pair of characters. Same with his brother. His trust and (brief) reliance on Vergil occurs because we're told they're brothers and that's what they should do. Vergil reveals his final hand at the end, not because there was anything in the writing that led up to it, but because he just does. Granted that will more than likely be detailed in the DLC, but when you need to hide better writing behind 7 dollars, isn't that something of a problem? Vergil's abilities are also something of a writing issue to me as they'd never once before the final two missions even been hinted at. They were never seen, mentioned, or otherwise utilized in any strategic way that one might expect from his character. So he can slice holes in dimensions for travel? Why only use that as an escape method? Why not use that in conjunction with Dante to move him around quickly and quietly? The hole he opens clearly doesn't enter into Limbo as he demonstrates the ability after it and the Earthrealm (ha) had already merged. Also this is really nit-picky, but NT basically adapted his DMC3 move-set to the letter, but to my eyes it came off as looking poor. Why make those the elements you keep the same between the two characters? In personality he and his DMC3 counterpart are absolutely nothing alike, but in move-sets they're nearly identical. It's an odd move, and I'd of preferred it if NT had taken more liberties with his abilities.

In all though, with regards to the story, it came across as wanting to say too much all at once, so it ended up saying nothing at all. If NT wanted to focus on the core three characters and their emotional developments as they worked together to overthrow Mundus with Dante taking center-stage, I think they should have focused on that. It would have provided a much more compelling characterization of the core three characters, somewhat in the way DMC3 did (with Lady representing Dante's human side, and Vergil being his demon side) but much better. But as it stands, to me, this is as story that tells more than shows, and attempts to mask that flaw behind trauma and social commentary. I think partially this flaw is brought out all the more when combined with the sense of realism that the game conveys. Though trivial, a games aesthetics can do much to add or detract from the narrative. Yes these characters look like they could possibly exist in real life, but what does that add really? All it does for me is make their questionable characterization stand out all the more.

Story aside, I truly thought the art direction in this game was superb with the chalk board effects leading up to Mundus being a standout moment. That seriously made me praise the game out loud when I saw it. I also think that the music fits the game perfectly, and thought it's nothing I'd ever listen to on my own, within the context of the game there were some times I got pumped. I'm also a serious fan of the collectibles in the game, and thought that some of the hiding spots were rather devious and fun. And thought I mentioned it before, I'll say it again, when the combat does work, it really does work. It's fast, it's fun, and can be very satisfying. And the two stand-out enemies have to be the Drakavaks and Dreamrunner. Those enemies were serious fun for me.

And finally I have one final nit-pick that's neither here nor there, but I wanted to mention. I wish there was a way to disable the completion rank to make it not factor into your overall rank. Once you 100% a level, you forever have a SSS rank buffer to pad out your score. Maybe this changes on the higher difficulty levels, but for me the end ranks always seemed cheapened somehow because I found some keys and doors. That has nothing to do with my combat or time.

So what's all this mean? Well basically, for me, I think that this is an extremely solid action game with a very troubled story. I recognize and respect that this DmC is entirely its own entity, and am expressing my opinions based on that. It's not perfect, but it will most assuredly improve and I certainly wish all the new fans well in that regard. For me though, I played it and gave it an even chance, but I'm getting off here. It was a fun ride while it lasted, but the direction the new DmC is going is not where I want to go. I'd still give this a sold 3/5 though. It's not perfect, but there is good to be found.

And though it goes without saying, all that crap is seriously just my opinion. I know for a fact there are others who are having a hell of a time with the game, so I welcome that discussion. I really do want to see what you see.

@Blimble: If this isn't about you and your behaviour, okay. Then it doesn't apply to you. But I'm talking about things I've seen across the internet for years, ever since the first reveal -- and I am emphatically not talking about adding 'imho' to everything, because that's asinine.

I checked out a few of your comments. This is your first one on the QL.

"Really think they should have more knowledge of the previous games when reviewing this. A lot of stuff they complement was done in the past games and better like multiple weapons and style meter. The game actually has less to the combat than before and I'm not getting that so dumb it is fun vibe like Brad is. The creators even said they were making a serious story

I'd argue you didn't have to defend yourself because you stated a dissenting opinion. You probably had to defend yourself because you preemptively called people who disagree with you 'idiots' -- you came out of the gate defensive and aggressive. That's not civil. But regardless, it is besides the point. No one should be attacking your character, either.

There is a class of argument about DmC that just wishes it doesn't exist and can't accept it does -- and it goes to great lengths to 'prove' it. If you're suffering harassment because of your opinion, I would suggest it's because all dissent is getting sucked into the crazy hate-vacuum that has accurately characterized a lot of the conversation up to this point -- which is another reason why the need to be validated is a problem.

*This will mostly be in regards to the actual combat gameplay*

It's disappointing, but understandable. DmC was not made for me (discovered DMC3 first, absolutely fell in love with the combat and went back to play the other games), who played each game for hours on end, doing my utmost to keep my actions in-game fresh so as to keep the style meter as high as possible. Going to replay mission 1 in DMC3 over and over again on Dante Must Die mode with different weapon/style sets to see what I could do with the robust combat system, whose moves were thought out in style AND functionality. There were limits that were placed intentionally, design decisions that would force players to try different approaches to do certain actions. Actions that, working with said limits, could let one find a way to fly indefinitely through a battle, not once touching the floor. But that required a lot of thought on the player's part, almost like learning a particularly advanced fighting game.

DmC was made for a new audience, who may not have done things similar to what I've done, who may not notice the nuances in the combat system. Where precision and stylish functionality reigned supreme, DmC goes for a far more lenient direction. It's visually appealing, to be sure, but functionality took a step back to make room for that. Many attacks have either incredibly long reach or wide arcs (both, for the angel weapons), and the combat system has/lacks limits that were not so carefully and intricately thought out as those that came before. There are enemies who absolutely MUST be dealt with in a specific manner (usually in the form of "use angel/demon weapons for these enemies!"), limiting players' options in a way completely unlike what you would expect from a game/series that held the idea of "style" fairly high.

But that's fine. It's not for me. They're trying to draw in a new audience. As much as it disappoints me, it's something I can accept. Even if I can't help but compare DmC to past titles, it's still competent. While it's not anything close to what I'm looking for from a game bearing the name of Devil May Cry , the action itself isn't bad, the visual flairs are pleasing... And while there are decisions I'll never be able to get past (no lock on, REALLY? In a game where there are specific enemies that I have to use specific weapons on)?, it's at least an average game that deserves a look at. It's sad to think that the Devil May Cry that I used to know may never emerge again, but I still have the last two games. Even if Dante's sections in 4 are kind of short, at least the combat system is still super slick.

Overall, while I'm personally rather disappointed, it gets the job done. It's not anything particularly great, but it's not entirely bad. It at least can be fun. Y'know, aside from the times where you fight multiple enemies that require different weapon types. Those are just annoying. Earlier missions are where the game's at its best. To me, anyway. It's just different. Went from a distinctly Japanese style of hack n' slash to a Western one (by which I'm comparing the likes of previous DMCs, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden, God of War, Dante's Inferno, etc).

*This may or may not be very coherent; I'm tired from work, sick, sleepy... So, sorry for that. Hope it gets the point across.*

i think id feel better if ninja theory didnt just come off as a bunch of dicks about the whole thing. when game companies start running their mouth i get very turned off by their games.

@Ataribomb: You have a great attitude about it, for sure. Good review.

I admit, the baggage I'm bringing comes from a few hours sifting through various sites and reviews where the comment sections have become cess-pools of acrimony and bile and a lot of this, "you're objectively wrong because I disagree," type stuff. I also just read that Ninja Theory received death threats about the game, which is just... sickening.