Does anyone LIKE DMC2?

[snausages]

But that's the thing. I'm not judging DMC1 by modern standards and never have done. I've judged by what else was out before DMC1. So the combat was under developed. It wasn't any special or what we haven't seen before with games like: Soul Reaver. There was nothing in DMC1 that redefined the action genre from that game alone.

I don't understand how anyone can praise the story when there is none.


What story is there? I don't understand praising a game that breaks game design 101. DMC1 isn't bad but way overrated.

DMC has never been praised for its story, so I'm going to have to assume that the praise you've heard for it only comes from this place because most people I know would agree that its story is not good. But it doesn't matter.

If DMC has its analogue in cinema then it would have to be martial arts films. You don't go into a film like that looking for a deep and involving narrative, you watch it because you want to see some dudes beating each other up. If you were disappointed by DMC's story then I'd argue that your poor experience with DMC was down to you misunderstanding of what the game was meant to be about than anything wrong with the game itself. As for combat, Soul Reaver doesn't come close. Legacy of Kain is in some respects the polar opposite of DMC. LoK subordinates combat to the story it's trying to tell. DMC does the opposite.

DMC, simply put, was a milestone for action games. It established a whole new paradigm for technical combat games. It is the Resident Evil of that genre.

 

[8BitHero]

DMC has never been praised for its story, so I'm going to have to assume that the praise you've heard for it only comes from this place because most people I know would agree that its story is not good. But it doesn't matter.

If DMC has its analogue in cinema then it would have to be martial arts films. You don't go into a film like that looking for a deep and involving narrative, you watch it because you want to see some dudes beating each other up. If you were disappointed by DMC's story then I'd argue that your poor experience with DMC was down to you misunderstanding of what the game was meant to be about than anything wrong with the game itself. As for combat, Soul Reaver doesn't come close. Legacy of Kain is in some respects the polar opposite of DMC. LoK subordinates combat to the story it's trying to tell. DMC does the opposite.

DMC, simply put, was a milestone for action games. It established a whole new paradigm for technical combat games. It is the Resident Evil of that genre.

I see you're point and well made. I've just heard plenty from this forum and elsewhere(outside of YouTube) that DMC1 has a great story. But it doesn't.

I'm looking at the combat for DMC1(as a stand alone game and not compared to anything else) and I really don't see anything that special. I'm not saying you're wrong here, but maybe you could tell me what's so great about the combat. Because I just don't see it as anything special.

 

[snausages]

Because at the time of its release there wasn't a single action-adventure title with the level of stylish depth that DMC had. No 3D other action title released at the time provided such a wealth of imaginative combat possibilities as DMC. Other action games didn't allow you to launch enemies into the air and swap immediately to your guns to shoot them. No other action game let you leap around like a ninja shooting lizards in the face with a shotgun and kicking them in the teeth. Few 3D action games had bosses as well developed as DMC's and even now DMC's bosses provide a level of challenge beyond that of most action games, DmC included. Fighting Shadows and sparring with Nelo Angelo was an exhilarating combat experience and there was nothing else like it at the time. As a technical action game it was fast, fluid and intensely satisfying. It might be hard to see now but the smooth blend of high-speed sword and gun-play was such a conceptually awesome thing.

 

[8BitHero]

Because at the time of its release there wasn't a single action-adventure title with the level of stylish depth that DMC had. No 3D other action title released at the time provided such a wealth of imaginative combat possibilities as DMC. Other action games didn't allow you to launch enemies into the air and swap immediately to your guns to shoot them. No other action game let you leap around like a ninja shooting lizards in the face with a shotgun and kicking them in the teeth. Few 3D action games had bosses as well developed as DMC's and even now DMC's bosses provide a level of challenge beyond that of most action games, DmC included. Fighting Shadows and sparring with Nelo Angelo was an exhilarating combat experience and there was nothing else like it at the time. As a technical action game it was fast, fluid and intensely satisfying. It might be hard to see now but the smooth blend of high-speed sword and gun-play was such a conceptually awesome thing.

Really didn't see that in DMC
The bosses were repeated over and over
Phantom 4 times with Phantom chasing you 2 additional times
Nelo Angelo 3 times
Griffon 3 times

As for Nelo, I just mashed at him. If you keep swiping at him he gets stuck in block stun. He always spends a long time staging his attacks, so you jump and then go back to swiping him. It was extremely mindless to fight him. Also, Shadows can be dealt with easily just be attacking them with guns, hit the orb and then purposefully getting grabbed by them so they kill themselves and thus end the fight quicker.

Yeah being able to switch from swords to guns on the fly was an interesting mix. But it felt pointless. Plus the huge amount of pointless guns. Plus Dante only had 3 combos.

And I hate the controls of the swimming section. Oh man do I hate that swimming.

 

[snausages]

Each boss fight was a unique experience. Griffon was repeated three times but you can't say that each of those three fights were identical. Fight 2 took place on a pirate ship and demanded a completely different combat strategy to fight 1. Angelo 3 and Nightmare 3 were absolutely insane. It's a testament to how well designed DMC is that it managed to get so much out of 4 basic boss enemies.

You say that fighting Nelo was mindless, but it sounds like your speaking from the position of someone spoiled by modern game design. DMC's combat mechanics are extremely obvious when you've played the game a lot and have worked out its kinks, but it doesn't follow from that that there was little thought put into them. Someone getting into DMC for the first time won't realise at first that shadows aren't susceptible to swords. The basics of parrying and side-rolling won't be so obvious to them either.

Swimming was ****, yes.

 

[Marionette Cherry]

The swimming sections in DMC were brief and easy to control, yes I'm willing to defend them.
DMC2 was worse with its swimming, you were forced to fight a boss underwater with its slow controls, in DMC1 you just look at something and shoot and be on your merry way it's that simple.

 

[8BitHero]

Each boss fight was a unique experience. Griffon was repeated three times but you can't say that each of those three fights were identical. Fight 2 took place on a pirate ship and demanded a completely different combat strategy to fight 1. Angelo 3 and Nightmare 3 were absolutely insane. It's a testament to how well designed DMC is that it managed to get so much out of 4 basic boss enemies.

You say that fighting Nelo was mindless, but it sounds like your speaking from the position of someone spoiled by modern game design. DMC's combat mechanics are extremely obvious when you've played the game a lot and have worked out its kinks, but it doesn't follow from that that there was little thought put into them. Someone getting into DMC for the first time won't realise at first that shadows aren't susceptible to swords. The basics of parrying and side-rolling won't be so obvious to them either.

Swimming was ****, yes.

The very first time I played against Nelo(2 weeks ago), I just kept mashing against him to see how he attacks, what the block stun is and whether Dante is affected; and realised you could keep doing it. From then on, I've done the same on since my first playthrough.

Nightmare isn't so hard either since you have plenty of room to hit the switches which then allows you to jump onto his back and start swiping at the orb(regardless of the difficulty) it wasn't much of a challenge.

The first time I fought a shadow I found swords didn't work so used the shotgun up close. Gets 'em every time. The only real annoyance with them is that they jump off-screen at times. Shadow and Nightmare the same tactic, expose their orb and hack away. That's less originality there.

 

[snausages]

You only played DMC1 for the first time 2 weeks ago? In that case I'm really not surprised that its impact on the action genre escapes you.

Look, it's not a question of how difficult it is or how obscure enemy weaknesses are. If you thrashed Nightmare so easily then that's great, but this isn't really a discussion about player skill or dick-waving. You seem to be conflating the game's difficulty with its quality. That is not what I am talking about. What I am saying is that the versatility of DMC's combat was unparalleled. DMC did things with its combat that no other game designer thought possible. You simply cannot name another 3D action title that came out before DMC1 that had superior combat. DMC broadened the possibilities for technical action games. It essentially invented the genre as we now know it.

 

[Marionette Cherry]

I still think it holds up today to be honest it's a fine atmospheric horror/hack 'n' slash game.

 

[Shadow]

Look, it's not a question of how difficult it is or how obscure enemy weaknesses are. If you thrashed Nightmare so easily then that's great, but this isn't really a discussion about player skill or ****-waving. You seem to be conflating the game's difficulty with its quality. That is not what I am talking about. What I am saying is that the versatility of DMC's combat was unparalleled. DMC did things with its combat that no other game designer thought possible. You simply cannot name another 3D action title that came out before DMC1 that had superior combat. DMC broadened the possibilities for technical action games. It essentially invented the genre as we now know it.

You seem very protective of DMC1, seeing as you keep telling off everyone who disagrees with you about the game, so I'm just forewarning you that I'm not trying to pick a fight...I just disagree with you. Yes, it was revolutionary. But its shoddy controls made it nigh unplayable to me especially after playing 2 through 4, where the controls felt much more fluid...or, at least, they were actually usable. Using guns in DMC1 is still something that I loathe doing to this day, and changing enemies on the fly takes far too much time. If I didn't know the story before playing the game, I'd wonder if there even was a story. I'm not saying it's a bad game, but, as far as the series is concerned, it feels mediocre to me.

 

[Marionette Cherry]

Shoddy Controls?

Plays fine to me, calling it unplayable is way too much of a stretch, there's a reason why people recommending the games say to play DMC1,3 and 4 but skip 2.

 

[Shadow]

Like I said...it's my opinion. I played DMC1 once and the controls are why I've never played it since.

Edit: Also, isn't this a conversation about DMC2? Why are we even bothering to discuss DMC1 here?

 

[Marionette Cherry]

Because we're comparing DMC1 to 2?

 

[snausages]

You seem very protective of DMC1, seeing as you keep telling off everyone who disagrees with you about the game, so I'm just forewarning you that I'm not trying to pick a fight...I just disagree with you. Yes, it was revolutionary. But its shoddy controls made it nigh unplayable to me especially after playing 2 through 4, where the controls felt much more fluid...or, at least, they were actually usable. Using guns in DMC1 is still something that I loathe doing to this day, and changing enemies on the fly takes far too much time. If I didn't know the story before playing the game, I'd wonder if there even was a story. I'm not saying it's a bad game, but, as far as the series is concerned, it feels mediocre to me.

Telling off? Picking fights? Protective? No. If my posting style seems abrasive then I'm sorry. But if I do come across that way it's because it's a generally accepted truism amongst fans of action games that DMC is the game that pushed the genre forward into the 21st century. It's no surprise that 3 and 4 play better when they had such a rich foundation with which to work upon. So I'm shocked that a DMC fan forum of all places seems prepared to argue that DMC wasn't very good. That is why I thought that 8-bit hero was just playing devil's advocate for the sake of it, or perhaps there's some historical revisionism going on around here.

If your first exposure to DMC1 came after experiencing more technically advanced games then it is no surprise that you had a poor experience with it. I definitely wouldn't put DMC1 beyond criticism. It has a rubbish story (but this is not something I consider a major flaw), rubbish swimming sections and it completely loses focus by the end and takes some absurd tonal shifts. I wouldn't try to argue that DMC1 plays better than 3 or 4 although I can't agree that DMC2 is more fluid either. Less rigid perhaps, but definitely not fluid.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that when you're evaluating a game like DMC you really have to rid yourself of all current gen predilections and try to reimagine what it must have been like for people playing it in 2001. It was a revelation.

(I'm not beyond sympathy for you either. I recently played RE1 for the first time and had a miserable time with it. I get why it's a big deal though.)

 

[Shadow]

Telling off? Picking fights? Protective? No. If my posting style seems abrasive then I'm sorry. But if I do come across that way it's because it's a generally accepted truism amongst fans of action games that DMC is the game that pushed the genre forward into the 21st century. It's no surprise that 3 and 4 play better when they had such a rich foundation with which to work upon. So I'm shocked that a DMC fan forum of all places seems prepared to argue that DMC wasn't very good. That is why I thought that 8-bit hero was just playing devil's advocate for the sake of it, or perhaps there's some historical revisionism going on around here.

If your first exposure to DMC1 came after experiencing more technically advanced games then it is no surprise that you had a poor experience with it. I definitely wouldn't put DMC1 beyond criticism. It has a rubbish story (but this is not something I consider a major flaw), rubbish swimming sections and it completely loses focus by the end and takes some absurd tonal shifts. I wouldn't try to argue that DMC1 plays better than 3 or 4 although I can't agree that DMC2 is more fluid either. Less rigid perhaps, but definitely not fluid.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that when you're evaluating a game like DMC you really have to rid yourself of all current gen predilections and try to reimagine what it must have been like for people playing it in 2001. It was a revelation.

(I'm not beyond sympathy for you either. I recently played RE1 for the first time and had a miserable time with it. I get why it's a big deal though.)

While I thank you for the apology, I should also say that I'm not saying DMC1 didn't push the genre forward, because I definitely agree that it did. I think the thing is that, though it's a fan forum, we're also comparing the games to each other. Compared to the other games, in my personal opinion, it doesn't quite compare. As a stand-alone game, it's also nothing special to me except for the fact that it began DMC's series...which is the reason I'm not standing up for it. All gamers formulate their own opinions about games based on the experiance the game provided and most of us don't bother to think about how the game impacted the genre/industry/ etc especially when summing up our opinion of the game. If we did, more people would still play Pong (which, while revolutionary in and of itself, can't be considered the epitome of modern game design).

I agree with you there, for the most part. (As a writer, storyline is a big thing for me; when I can't keep track of the story or of what's going on, it kills the experiance for me almost everytime.) Like you said, DMC2 wasn't completely fluid, but it was a step in the right direction (if you want to look at each game as a stepping stone to where we are now). Each of the games had their strong points.

But...yeah: it's hard to look beyond the current "spoiled gamer" mindset where most games play like heaven, have great storylines, characters, weapons, enemies, etc. etc. to look back at what was. Seeing as I was 8 in 2001, I don't really remember what most games were like back then enough to step to the side and look at it objectively. :/ (Especially since the only games I'd played at the time were Sims, Kirby, original Nintendo, and N64 games, which are...yeah. XP) Also...I apologize if I was brusque or arguementative.... *would like to continue the conversation, but is going to take her leave since the thread is getting a bit off topic*

( :S Oh dear...that doesn't give me high hopes for playing the first RE. Perhaps it's just a first-game-in-the-series thing.)

 

[snausages]

Like you said, DMC2 wasn't completely fluid, but it was a step in the right direction (if you want to look at each game as a stepping stone to where we are now). Each of the games had their strong points.

I get what you're saying, the basics for gunslinger and trickster are in DMC2 in an inchoate form. But just as I wouldn't want to retroactively re-evaluate DMC1 because of its archaisms I'd similarly resist giving DMC2 a pass because it laid the foundations for DMC3. It just wasn't a good game and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what made the original so great.

 

[Rilgar]

Having recently become one and acquainted with the classic Dante, by finally mustered up the courage to take my dusty copy of the DMC collection off of the shelf, I have since played through the three games. What immediately stood out to me was DMC2, even though it was the last game I played (chronology ftw), and the one I took my time with too, I instantly liked the 'look' and 'feel' of it. Okay, so the story was lacklustre, the final boss slightly underwhelming and Dante's change in attitude leaves a lot to be desired. But even so, it was the instalment that still appealed to me the most. That, and Dante had a rocking outfit. <3

 

[DreadnoughtDT]

Having recently become one and acquainted with the classic Dante, by finally mustered up the courage to take my dusty copy of the DMC collection off of the shelf, I have since played through the three games. What immediately stood out to me was DMC2, even though it was the last game I played (chronology ftw), and the one I took my time with too, I instantly liked the 'look' and 'feel' of it. Okay, so the story was lacklustre, the final boss slightly underwhelming and Dante's change in attitude leaves a lot to be desired. But even so, it was the instalment that still appealed to me the most. That, and Dante had a rocking outfit. <3

Even the Diesel outfit looked good on Dante. I still dig that jacket and scarf. Makes him look like Leon.

And I agree with you about the look and feel of the game. It felt gritty, like everything was really old. And it felt more... Open than other DMC games.

 

[Dante Redgrave]

Honestly, the look and world of DMC2, beyond teh awesomess that was DMC2 DT and DDT, are some of teh reasons I like teh game. Yeah, this version of Dante more warrents the "Donte" titling since only once or twice does he say anything resembling the typical Dante Snark, and Matt Kamenski was a HORRIBLE VA for Dante, but it did lay down some of teh foundations for styles, and gave us a really rundown and gritty lived in world for Dante to run around and slay in. Plus it's on of teh few games that shows Dante actually using DT...IN CINEMAS! And I don't mean "random transformations that he does nothing with", I mean actively using it.

 

[Mister Z]

I like DMC2 in small doses. I play it for a good half hour and I'm able to enjoy its goods. A little longer than that, tho, and the bads make me want to turn it off and never touch it again for a long while.