2 million or nothing...

[The Final Offer]

This is hilarious. This is literally hilarious.

Capcom's financial goals and decisions never cease to amaze me. With the exception of Street Fighter, Resident Evil, and Monster Hunter, almost EVERY SINGLE ONE of their recent projects have scuttled around the 1 million mark.

And now they're going to flat out cancel any franchise that doesn't make 2 million? SERIOUSLY? That's 3/4 of their inventory right there.

Then again, these are the same people that expected DmC to outsell every previous entry in the Devil May Cry series, and expressed disappointment at Resident Evil 6's 6 million sales and Lost Planet 3's 2.4 million sales, because they didn't mirror the sales numbers of franchises like Call of Duty or Halo.

And that's to say nothing of their outlandish expectations for a brand-new IP like Dragon's Dogma.

Maybe if they didn't pour so much money into MAKING these games, and tried to make them with cheaper and more down-to-earth assets, they wouldn't set such high financial goals for games that never demanded such immense budgets in the first place. Games like Call of Duty and Madden are released every year on half the budget, and their sales dwarf the financial success of every competitor in the gaming market.

You wouldn't be in your current financial situation if you had just kept your expectations a little closer to the ground, Capcom. And this new plan of rounding all sequel potential to 2 million sales, will not be your downfall.

See, 'downfall' implies you could fall any lower.

Lost Planet 3 was sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo bad.

 

[Kam]

my guess is capcom is cleaning major house right now. They had 3 (4?) triple A games, flagships of their respective IPs, all release around the same time, and all of them were received like ****. They blamed outsourcing for one of them, but they can only make excuses for so long. Something's screwed up over there

 

[xMobilemux]

DMC has been story and cattering since DMC2. Why are you surprised?

What?

DMC went to it's prime gameplay wise with DMC3 and 4, the stories in those were just excuses for the action and I don't know where you got catering to the casuals from with those 2 games.

 

[Bazilican]

What?

DMC went to it's prime gameplay wise with DMC3 and 4, the stories in those were just excuses for the action and I don't know where you got catering to the casuals from with those 2 games.

Pfft. Please. DMC 1-4 may have focused on gameplay, but it's obvious that story was also a number one priority. One group focuses only on gameplay as the bigger concern but another group focuses story as the number one concern. And dude, DMC is all chatty and story. DMC is built on story first and gameplay second. Stylish action would be nothing without something to carry it. This is like what, basic video gaming 101.

and DMC has been a catterer. DMC2 basically threw all difficulty out the window along with fun, DMC3 may have been hard, but in my experience, it was ****poor simple when you know how to dodge, and DMC4 was like playing DmC: stay in the air and slash away with Nero like a pansy, and just keep using rising dragon with Douchte.

Easy.

 

[Meg]

It got a lot of negative attention. Maybe this was a psychological marketing ploy of NT's that backfired on them?
In hindsight, it kind of looks like Capcom did it on purpose. Make a bad DmC game, give it mass publicity, punt it even more when the fans backlash, and voila, the fans will no longer be demanding another Devil May Cry after the rip-off DmC game they got, hence, The End of DMC.
Maybe this was their way of getting rid of the franchise? Outsourcing it, not selling it so anyone else can profit from it, just so it can die in the graffiti covered coffin it came in.

I'm just speculating, though.
Chances are if Capcom made DMC5, it would sell better than DmC. Maybe not as much as DMC4. Somewhere in between. Maybe just enough for them to recoup.

It got so much positive and negative attention all swirling together it created a black hole where anyone who even so much as mentions DmC gets sucked in and becomes part of the discombobulated mess that is the Devil May Cry fan base with no hope of escape. So basically, DmC created this website's current state. OOOOOOOoooooooOOOooo!!! *ba-dum-tiss*

 

[Lord Nero]

Pfft. Please. DMC 1-4 may have focused on gameplay, but it's obvious that story was also a number one priority. One group focuses only on gameplay as the bigger concern but another group focuses story as the number one concern. And dude, DMC is all chatty and story. DMC is built on story first and gameplay second. Stylish action would be nothing without something to carry it. This is like what, basic video gaming 101.

and DMC has been a catterer. DMC2 basically threw all difficulty out the window along with fun, DMC3 may have been hard, but in my experience, it was ****poor simple when you know how to dodge, and DMC4 was like playing DmC: stay in the air and slash away with Nero like a pansy, and just keep using rising dragon with Douchte.

Easy.

I don't know, I don't think DMC has ever been so focused on story. DMC1 started off right in the middle of a story nobody seemed to want to explain very well. Dante had almost no backstory, and Sparda and his legacy were used as the main plot device, pretty much. Sure, the DMCs had stories to ''carry'' the gameplay, but that goes for every game, except Bejeweled 'n shizz. The main concern for DMC has always been gameplay, even though DMC1's (2001) gameplay is thoroughly unimpressive today. Its secondary concern would be the characters, and the overall story comes in third. Then comes the graphics, and the soundtrack is last (I think). DMC has not been catering to the masses much, imo -- well... maybe it has for the Japanese. DMC1 was a new IP, and nobody really knew if it would stick in North America and Europe. Hell, it was pretty much a mistake that was born from the first concept for RE4.
Also, if you played DMC4 that way, you were doing it wrong. I mean, I see so many people complain about games' gameplay, even though those people often use exploits or stick to one strategy. It's similar to what people are saying about Metal Gear Solid V: ''the game's too easy, you can just airlift every enemy out of there!'' Uuh, only if you choose to. Only if you want to lose points and play the game in the most boring way. You're supposed to get better at games the more you play them: they are supposed to be challenging, they can be mastered, and should get more fun the more control you have over it. Same with DMC3: you won't get many points for constantly dodging enemies, hitting them a few times, then dodging again. I know some people who play the DMCs that way, but that's just no fun. The focus should be on dispatching enemies as stylishly as possible, and fast enough to gather the amount of points you need.

 

[Pale Rider]

Good move, Capcom. While you're at it, perhaps also double the prices of your DLCs and tell the gaming world to buy it or leave it? Perhaps even threaten to end the production of DLCs if the sales number doesn't get to thrice the number of the related game sold?

 

[Innsmouth]

Good move, Capcom. While you're at it, perhaps also double the prices of your DLCs and tell the gaming world to buy it or leave it? Perhaps even threaten to end the production of DLCs if the sales number doesn't get to thrice the number of the related game sold?

that's actually will be awesome :greedy:

 

[Bazilican]

I don't know, I don't think DMC has ever been so focused on story. DMC1 started off right in the middle of a story nobody seemed to want to explain very well. Dante had almost no backstory, and Sparda and his legacy were used as the main plot device, pretty much. Sure, the DMCs had stories to ''carry'' the gameplay, but that goes for every game, except Bejeweled 'n shizz. The main concern for DMC has always been gameplay, even though DMC1's (2001) gameplay is thoroughly unimpressive today. Its secondary concern would be the characters, and the overall story comes in third. Then comes the graphics, and the soundtrack is last (I think). DMC has not been catering to the masses much, imo -- well... maybe it has for the Japanese. DMC1 was a new IP, and nobody really knew if it would stick in North America and Europe. Hell, it was pretty much a mistake that was born from the first concept for RE4.
Also, if you played DMC4 that way, you were doing it wrong. I mean, I see so many people complain about games' gameplay, even though those people often use exploits or stick to one strategy. It's similar to what people are saying about Metal Gear Solid V: ''the game's too easy, you can just airlift every enemy out of there!'' Uuh, only if you choose to. Only if you want to lose points and play the game in the most boring way. You're supposed to get better at games the more you play them: they are supposed to be challenging, they can be mastered, and should get more fun the more control you have over it. Same with DMC3: you won't get many points for constantly dodging enemies, hitting them a few times, then dodging again. I know some people who play the DMCs that way, but that's just no fun. The focus should be on dispatching enemies as stylishly as possible, and fast enough to gather the amount of points you need.

See I don't belive that to be true for a second because each part of the process has their own job to have a top priority on. One group on gameplay is told to make it a top priority, and another is told story is their top priority. One group failed. and that's how we have DMC whose only redeeming factor is gameplay. story is mediocore and characters are laughable at best. They can use the excuse of saying "Oh! You don't take them seriously! They're suppose to be laughable!" not when you're trying to convey actual feelings into the story with Vergil's death, Nero and Kyrie's story and expecting me to belive that Nero's bitch tears were suppose to be a serious moment.

You seem to say that, but yet people seem to chastize DmC for being bad and when people make up the same excuse as you are for its fawlty gameplay that "do this or do that to make it more fun" they're don't wanna do that because they already hate the game. You say what you want, but those games were simple even when I didn't need to dodge and attack. Their moves are predictable in DMC3, and DMC4 is just sloppy when it comes to gameplay variety with Nero. Douchete is redeeming but even then why waste time with all these unnecessary button mechanics and weapons when one is all I need? It's just a waste of time in my opinion.

 

[Vinosh]

DmC will not be continued.

 

[The Final Offer]

Seeing as the franchise's team helped create DmC. That would mean their latest efforts failed and simply changing back to the original story and character wouldn't guarantee 2 million in sales.

Damn, no more DMC at all.

 

[Meg]

See I don't belive that to be true for a second because each part of the process has their own job to have a top priority on. One group on gameplay is told to make it a top priority, and another is told story is their top priority. One group failed. and that's how we have DMC whose only redeeming factor is gameplay. story is mediocore and characters are laughable at best. They can use the excuse of saying "Oh! You don't take them seriously! They're suppose to be laughable!" not when you're trying to convey actual feelings into the story with Vergil's death, Nero and Kyrie's story and expecting me to belive that Nero's bitch tears were suppose to be a serious moment.

You seem to say that, but yet people seem to chastize DmC for being bad and when people make up the same excuse as you are for its fawlty gameplay that "do this or do that to make it more fun" they're don't wanna do that because they already hate the game. You say what you want, but those games were simple even when I didn't need to dodge and attack. Their moves are predictable in DMC3, and DMC4 is just sloppy when it comes to gameplay variety with Nero. Douchete is redeeming but even then why waste time with all these unnecessary button mechanics and weapons when one is all I need? It's just a waste of time in my opinion.

What? :laugh:

You're joking right? This is a joke. Why bother having more combat variety? Uh, to mix things up? So you're not just using one weapon and style the whole time? So you can experiment with different combinations of attacks? Right? But, of course I don't have to explain something akin to an old person complaining about all the extra features of a smart phone because you were joking. If not, then I really don't understand why you're on this forum because you seem to really hate Devil May Cry.

 

[Vergil'sBitch]

I can't say I'm surprised.

DMC4 was (at best) a debatable effort.

I still think they outsourced DmC to NT because they thought that, if it went wrong, NT would be blamed, and not Capcom (and Capcom made a hash of the DMC timeline which had more holes than a piece of cheese). NT might have got the death threats, but Capcom lost the money.

No matter what game was going to be made next, DmC or DMC5, some part of the fanbase would moan or find fault in development. Let's face it, nearly 2 years after it's release, DmC still splits the fanbase and causes 'trouble' (I still see it on Facebook).

I'm not surprised that the HD Collection didn't do well. In my opinion, it was a 'half-a$$ed' effort (especially the PS3 version).

At least the future of the series is (a little) clearer than it was a few months ago.

 

[Lord Nero]

See I don't belive that to be true for a second because each part of the process has their own job to have a top priority on. One group on gameplay is told to make it a top priority, and another is told story is their top priority. One group failed. and that's how we have DMC whose only redeeming factor is gameplay. story is mediocore and characters are laughable at best. They can use the excuse of saying "Oh! You don't take them seriously! They're suppose to be laughable!" not when you're trying to convey actual feelings into the story with Vergil's death, Nero and Kyrie's story and expecting me to belive that Nero's bitch tears were suppose to be a serious moment.

You seem to say that, but yet people seem to chastize DmC for being bad and when people make up the same excuse as you are for its fawlty gameplay that "do this or do that to make it more fun" they're don't wanna do that because they already hate the game. You say what you want, but those games were simple even when I didn't need to dodge and attack. Their moves are predictable in DMC3, and DMC4 is just sloppy when it comes to gameplay variety with Nero. Douchete is redeeming but even then why waste time with all these unnecessary button mechanics and weapons when one is all I need? It's just a waste of time in my opinion.

You can't have multiple top priorities -- that's why it's called a top priority. You make gameplay, graphics, soundtrack, or story your top priority... not all of them. If every aspect were incredibly important, they'd get in the way of each other.

If they made the product the way they envisioned it to be, how did they 'fail'? As far as I know, DMC1 turned out pretty much the way they intended it to turn out. If they wanted it to have a deeper story and better characters, they would've made it that way. Nobody 'failed' at making the story or characters deep, they just didn't try.
And yeah, the characters are not meant to be the typical western representation of deep characters. As far as I know, DMC was never meant to have exceedingly deep characters we could all relate to. Heck, Dante is more like a superhero than a relatable character. If you've played any DMC game, you'll notice that it's more about witty writing and combo-centric gameplay than it is about emotional, deep characters or a cohesive story. Sure, the DMC games do include some emotional scenes, but that seems meant to give characters an extra dimension- nothing else.
I don't know in what sense you think the characters are laughable, but they are meant to be like basic anime characters, almost superhero-like. If you dislike that the characters sometimes seem superficial, well, that's your opinion. If you want a deep, awe-inspiring story, I really wonder why you ever started playing DMC. :laugh:
Also, I still don't see how Nero being emotional is such a huge issue for so many people. All I see is people who are probably too macho to admit that men have feelings too. To me, frustration and pain seems like a normal response to your girlfriend getting snatched and possibly killed. I think the Japanese might find that more acceptable than most western gamers, as they have different cultural values.

Also, not all video game development companies work that way, I think. We can't assume they all do. Not all developers have multiple teams that work on *one* thing alone. No doubt, that is the most efficient way of handling it, but I think that's reserved for the largest video game developers, who have the money to hire story specialists, gameplay specialists and so on.

Well, DmC, in my opinion, is just as bad as any DMC game we've had. To me, it's just bad in a more annoying kind of way. Some of the writing and characters are absolutely obnoxious, and not very well made.
Uuuh... you want fewer button mechanics and fewer weapons, ''because you only need one''? Yeah, see, that's the point of the DMCs: they give you a lot of freedom and choices to make. It's meant for increasing the fun factor - to let you find your own style of comboing, and to make combos deeper and more diverse. Your not wanting that is a bit odd.

 

[The Final Offer]

I can't say I'm surprised.

DMC4 was (at best) a debatable effort.

I still think they outsourced DmC to NT because they thought that, if it went wrong, NT would be blamed, and not Capcom (and Capcom made a hash of the DMC timeline which had more holes than a piece of cheese). NT might have got the death threats, but Capcom lost the money.

No matter what game was going to be made next, DmC or DMC5, some part of the fanbase would moan or find fault in development. Let's face it, nearly 2 years after it's release, DmC still splits the fanbase and causes 'trouble' (I still see it on Facebook).

I'm not surprised that the HD Collection didn't do well. In my opinion, it was a 'half-a$$ed' effort (especially the PS3 version).

At least the future of the series is (a little) clearer than it was a few months ago.

They outsourced, in my opinion, because they thought it'd build their reputation as far as work ethic. That would mean more investors and more developers coming to them. They simply thought it was going to be easy to communicate between studios. Which it wasn't. Which caused the decline in quality.

I think alot of people are not conscious of how outsourcing works. Capcom can't be in two places at once all the time, because of several factors with their employees including families, responsibilities, etc. They were thinning and tiring themselves out trying to help and create.

Capcom simply found out where they were weak at through 2010-2014.

 

[Bazilican]

Seeing as the franchise's team helped create DmC. That would mean their latest efforts failed and simply changing back to the original story and character wouldn't guarantee 2 million in sales.

Damn, no more DMC at all.

Dude, fans are dying for DMC. At this point they'd be stupid to not just do a DMC5 and get it over with.

What? :laugh:

You're joking right? This is a joke. Why bother having more combat variety? Uh, to mix things up? So you're not just using one weapon and style the whole time? So you can experiment with different combinations of attacks? Right? But, of course I don't have to explain something akin to an old person complaining about all the extra features of a smart phone because you were joking. If not, then I really don't understand why you're on this forum because you seem to really hate Devil May Cry.

I don't hate the gameplay of DMC and DmC to a point, just its faulty story and lame as dirt characters. And what I mean by what I say is that all the unnecessary button layouts and weaponry that's put all in one with a ****-ton of moves that I won't bother use for anything just thrown at me at once is sloppy. I preferred DMC3's style choosing where I could have chose the one I want and stick with it strictly. But in DMC4 it's just sloppily thrown together. Why should I have to work my fingers to the bone to have fun with a game?

You can't have multiple top priorities -- that's why it's called a top priority. You make gameplay, graphics, soundtrack, or story your top priority... not all of them. If every aspect were incredibly important, they'd get in the way of each other.

If they made the product the way they envisioned it to be, how did they 'fail'? As far as I know, DMC1 turned out pretty much the way they intended it to turn out. If they wanted it to have a deeper story and better characters, they would've made it that way. Nobody 'failed' at making the story or characters deep, they just didn't try.
And yeah, the characters are not meant to be the typical western representation of deep characters. As far as I know, DMC was never meant to have exceedingly deep characters we could all relate to. Heck, Dante is more like a superhero than a relatable character. If you've played any DMC game, you'll notice that it's more about witty writing and combo-centric gameplay than it is about emotional, deep characters or a cohesive story. Sure, the DMC games do include some emotional scenes, but that seems meant to give characters an extra dimension- nothing else.
I don't know in what sense you think the characters are laughable, but they are meant to be like basic anime characters, almost superhero-like. If you dislike that the characters sometimes seem superficial, well, that's your opinion. If you want a deep, awe-inspiring story, I really wonder why you ever started playing DMC. :laugh:
Also, I still don't see how Nero being emotional is such a huge issue for so many people. All I see is people who are probably too macho to admit that men have feelings too. To me, frustration and pain seems like a normal response to your girlfriend getting snatched and possibly killed. I think the Japanese might find that more acceptable than most western gamers, as they have different cultural values.

Also, not all video game development companies work that way, I think. We can't assume they all do. Not all developers have multiple teams that work on *one* thing alone. No doubt, that is the most efficient way of handling it, but I think that's reserved for the largest video game developers, who have the money to hire story specialists, gameplay specialists and so on.

Well, DmC, in my opinion, is just as bad as any DMC game we've had. To me, it's just bad in a more annoying kind of way. Some of the writing and characters are absolutely obnoxious, and not very well made.
Uuuh... you want fewer button mechanics and fewer weapons, ''because you only need one''? Yeah, see, that's the point of the DMCs: they give you a lot of freedom and choices to make. It's meant for increasing the fun factor - to let you find your own style of comboing, and to make combos deeper and more diverse. Your not wanting that is a bit odd.

There is something such thing as "More then one group of people working on different things" You don't go to the writer and ask "how's that gameplay mechanic going" or you don't go to the scenery adviser and ask "how are production sales going in the market." Each group of people does have their own initiative they have to work towards and they can either do well or, like DMC, do mediocre.

The reason I say they failed is to do with the fact that people seem to belive that DMC's story was just trying to be a laughable excuse for gameplay or something that was meant to be for the hell of it, but from my impression it seemed as though they were focused on trying to make a cohesive story that had character and emotion to it along with a deeper plot under all the stylish action but instead came out as a sterotypical shonen series that's been done to death with barely any originality to it. And Dante's so-called "hero characteristic" is completely over-shadowed by his stale delivery of corny one liners mixed with annoyingly douche personality as of DMC3 to DMC4 that would make the actors on Vampire Diaries jealous. You may like that stuff, but to me, it's just lousy entertainment.

I can assume that not all video game companies work that way, however every one person has their own job, and DMC has way too much work, lore, and mythology in its story and plot to end up with the crap we got in the final cut.

DmC is just as you said. And DMC is right behind it. Both have obnoxious characters that they wanted to take seriously, both have a dried out and horrid story, and both are just bad at what they tried to present with the exception of gameplay (not counting DMC2). But for me, both had good lore but was wasted for the terrible stories we got for them in the final cut. I see a lot of DMC vs DmC for which had the better story and characters when really neither of them had anything worth snorting at.

Like I said to meg, I despised having so many annyoing mechanics for no reason. Why press fifty buttons to do one attack and then work my fingers off just to have fun. Its ridiculous and unnecessary in my opinion.

 

[Lord Nero]

- And what I mean by what I say is that all the unnecessary button layouts and weaponry that's put all in one with a ****-ton of moves that I won't bother use for anything just thrown at me at once is sloppy. I preferred DMC3's style choosing where I could have chose the one I want and stick with it strictly. But in DMC4 it's just sloppily thrown together. Why should I have to work my fingers to the bone to have fun with a game?

- There is something such thing as "More then one group of people working on different things" You don't go to the writer and ask "how's that gameplay mechanic going" or you don't go to the scenery adviser and ask "how are production sales going in the market." Each group of people does have their own initiative they have to work towards and they can either do well or, like DMC, do mediocre.

- Like I said to meg, I despised having so many annyoing mechanics for no reason. Why press fifty buttons to do one attack and then work my fingers off just to have fun. Its ridiculous and unnecessary in my opinion.

- Meg and I have already explained why the DMCs work that way. DMC3 is more restrictive than DMC4, that's right: you could only use one style per mission, and two weapons per attack type (melee or guns). But I honestly don't see why you'd want a game to go back to its restrictive past. You said you won't use all the moves in the arsenal - well, that's your choice. The point is that it makes for less varied combos, and an overall blander experience, in my opinion. Most people prefer more choice in their games, and honestly, you don't have to switch weapons and use all the combos all the time. It's a choice you can make for yourself. If you want to stick to the Swordmaster style, or even only use the Rebellion and maybe the Yamato, you can do that. No problem. To fault DMC4 for giving you more (optional) choices seems weird.

- Yes, I know that - I devoted an entire (large) paragraph to responding to that. Sooo... have you even read my entire comment? Because your reply seems more like a monologue than an attempt at conversation or debate. You understand I'm not going to repeat what I wrote.

- The only problem is, you didn't have them for no reason. If you can't find a reason or use for them, that's your problem. I switched between styles many times and used all kinds of combos. The best DMC players usually take advantage of the full range of abilities. That's not 'for no reason', that's to play more stylishly, with more fun, and with more depth. You don't even have to work your fingers to the bone. Everything is located under just a few buttons: switching styles on the 360 is done with one directional button per style. It's all pretty simple.

''from my impression it seemed as though they were focused on trying to make a cohesive story that had character and emotion to it along with a deeper plot under all the stylish action but instead came out as a sterotypical shonen series that's been done to death with barely any originality to it.''

Naah. I mean, for the love of f*ck-all, DMC4 is about an evil religious leader who basically wants to destroy the world. That's not deep, that's like the plot of every Power Rangers show, and everything else that's meant to convey a simple story to accomodate the action.

Anyway, to each his own, I guess.

 

[Meg]

Dude, fans are dying for DMC. At this point they'd be stupid to not just do a DMC5 and get it over with.

I don't hate the gameplay of DMC and DmC to a point, just its faulty story and lame as dirt characters. And what I mean by what I say is that all the unnecessary button layouts and weaponry that's put all in one with a ****-ton of moves that I won't bother use for anything just thrown at me at once is sloppy. I preferred DMC3's style choosing where I could have chose the one I want and stick with it strictly. But in DMC4 it's just sloppily thrown together. Why should I have to work my fingers to the bone to have fun with a game?

Like I said to meg, I despised having so many annyoing mechanics for no reason. Why press fifty buttons to do one attack and then work my fingers off just to have fun. Its ridiculous and unnecessary in my opinion.

Seriously, what? Allowing people to switch between styles on the fly if they want to isn't sloppy. It sounds to me like you aren't that good at the game, but rather than admit that (I'll readily admit I'm only decent) you instead insult the combat's complexity. You're not going to use certain moves therefore their inclusion is sloppy? What are you talking about? It's about experimentation. You are not pressing fifty buttons for one attack. You're pressing ten buttons in different combinations to get loads of different attacks. Your argument really makes no sense and really sounds like someone complaining about this "gosh darn over complicated gizmo with all these buttons! Back in the day we only had one style and one was enough. Now kids these days got five styles switching back and forth faster than I can think. Makes my head spin. I can't wrap my head around something so therefore it is wrong!"

Jokes aside, it's one thing to prefer a certain style and use it more than others. It's one thing to not switch styles on the fly a lot because you haven't developed the skills yet to be able to do it really well. It's another thing entirely to say the whole thing is flawed because it requires skill you don't have yet.

 

[Bazilican]

- Meg and I have already explained why the DMCs work that way. DMC3 is more restrictive than DMC4, that's right: you could only use one style per mission, and two weapons per attack type (melee or guns). But I honestly don't see why you'd want a game to go back to its restrictive past. You said you won't use all the moves in the arsenal - well, that's your choice. The point is that it makes for less varied combos, and an overall blander experience, in my opinion. Most people prefer more choice in their games, and honestly, you don't have to switch weapons and use all the combos all the time. It's a choice you can make for yourself. If you want to stick to the Swordmaster style, or even only use the Rebellion and maybe the Yamato, you can do that. No problem. To fault DMC4 for giving you more (optional) choices seems weird.

- Yes, I know that - I devoted an entire (large) paragraph to responding to that. Sooo... have you even read my entire comment? Because your reply seems more like a monologue than an attempt at conversation or debate. You understand I'm not going to repeat what I wrote.

- The only problem is, you didn't have them for no reason. If you can't find a reason or use for them, that's your problem. I switched between styles many times and used all kinds of combos. The best DMC players usually take advantage of the full range of abilities. That's not 'for no reason', that's to play more stylishly, with more fun, and with more depth. You don't even have to work your fingers to the bone. Everything is located under just a few buttons: switching styles on the 360 is done with one directional button per style. It's all pretty simple.

''from my impression it seemed as though they were focused on trying to make a cohesive story that had character and emotion to it along with a deeper plot under all the stylish action but instead came out as a sterotypical shonen series that's been done to death with barely any originality to it.''

Naah. I mean, for the love of f*ck-all, DMC4 is about an evil religious leader who basically wants to destroy the world. That's not deep, that's like the plot of every Power Rangers show, and everything else that's meant to convey a simple story to accomodate the action.

Anyway, to each his own, I guess.

Dude, like I just said; It seems useless to have to press 100 buttons just to do one move and be thrown a whole bunch of weapon with some of them being useless in the grand scheme of the entire game. Maybe that is just me but I consider it ridiculous an unnecessary.

I've said what I needed. I can't help it if you don't get what I'm trying to say.

For you it may be simple, but for someone who prefers to have fun with a game and not need finger twitching just to do more then one move, its annoying as f*ck.

So you just proved DMC and its terrible plots while trying to be something more then what it should have been but fell on itself and came out with nonsense in the final cut. And some fans praise this as great writing? That's ridiculous in my opinion.

Seriously, what? Allowing people to switch between styles on the fly if they want to isn't sloppy. It sounds to me like you aren't that good at the game, but rather than admit that (I'll readily admit I'm only decent) you instead insult the combat's complexity. You're not going to use certain moves therefore their inclusion is sloppy? What are you talking about? It's about experimentation. You are not pressing fifty buttons for one attack. You're pressing ten buttons in different combinations to get loads of different attacks. Your argument really makes no sense and really sounds like someone complaining about this "gosh darn over complicated gizmo with all these buttons! Back in the day we only had one style and one was enough. Now kids these days got five styles switching back and forth faster than I can think. Makes my head spin. I can't wrap my head around something so therefore it is wrong!"

Jokes aside, it's one thing to prefer a certain style and use it more than others. It's one thing to not switch styles on the fly a lot because you haven't developed the skills yet to be able to do it really well. It's another thing entirely to say the whole thing is flawed because it requires skill you don't have yet.

Where in my post did you get the impression I was some master player? I do admit I'm average at DMC3 and DMC4. I can JC and juggle just fine. However I find it unnecessary that there needs to be this useless button mashing and stupid button layout all to do like, what, 3 attacks at best? I just see that as wired. But apparently I'm the wired one in this discussion but who cares? If I see it as stupid, I just think its stupid and that's just how I'll always see it no matter how much excuses you two throw in my face.

 

[Innsmouth]

So...if you don't like DMC combat...and you don't like DMC story, and same goes for DmC...why do you debate with somebody about this games in the first place? It's just not your cup of tea. I think we all have games like this?