General DMC 5 Discussion

[ray029]

Hope the game has mouse and keyboard support.

 

[ShiningTempest]

DMC5 Tips 6

Spoiler

 

[berto]

The pattern in the body reminds me of Ito Junji's art:

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Well why don't we wait and see so you guys can be disappointed after the game comes out. We won't get anything concrete on Urizen, Vergil, and V until the game comes out....or until we get more leaks (bizarrely we never got any leaks that claimed Urizen and V has a connection to Vergil but instead that V has a connection to Nico and her family).

So this came out

DMC5 Tips 6

Spoiler

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA cool cool.

Well, that's your interpretation of the cutscene.

They never actually showed that happen. For me, I heard him teleport away with the same blue glow as prior cutscenes. His death was never actually confirmed, either. All up to interpretation.

Looking at the cutscenes, on the first and second encounters, Nelo Angelo glows white, turns into a mass of violet fire, and then floats away into the sky, but then on their final encounter, Nelo Angelo literally explodes in a burst of flame, leaving behind the amulet.

 

[Foxtrot94]

That's not the point.

It very much is. You keep talking about its "significance" and "weight" but if there's no weight to it in the first place because of how hollow and relatively insignificant the moment felt, then you're complaining about a non issue, really.

Also it's not true that "reviving" a character is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it can turn into a blessing. For example, I've never seen the Star Wars animated shows but I keep hearing about how much justice they did to Darth Maul. So I mean, considering there's nothing to lose and everything to gain, I don't really see where the problem is.

what matters is that once a character dies more than once death no longer bares the same weight.

With the weight point out of the way, I still don't know what you're talking about. More than once how? Vergil's only been shown supposedly dying one time in a scene that's honestly pretty open to interpretation and that's it. Which other times has he died? I can't recall any moment where he did. DMC3? Nope. DMC4? Double nope.

Are you perhaps referring to the fact that he was believed dead as a kid, as part of the incipit for DMC1's story? Cause that doesn't really count, come on. And if you're referring to Gilver in the as far as I know non canon novel, please note that I'm talking strictly about the games here (which is perhaps the source of our disagreement admittedly), cause that's the main, undisputed canon narrative and the story the vast majority of people know and are invested in. And in the games, Vergil didn't die multiple times (if at all). Just once (maybe) in a scene that's honestly pretty open to interpretation. Just one time.

 

[Rezvan]

While no one in-universe actually says he's dead, the fact that the Order recovered both his body and the Yamato and used fragments of the former to create the Bianco Angelo seems to strongly imply as such. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Plus, as 2xA pointed out, if he never actually died at all then it makes Dante mourning him twice completely pointless in retrospect.

I've heard many interpretations:

Some say he exploded (died). Some other people say Mundus punished him (?) and send him away. Others say that maybe it was the armor that got broken/exploded. Etc.

So, maybe Agnus had found pieces of the 'armor' and created those Angelos?

 

[DarkSlayer54]

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA cool cool.



Looking at the cutscenes, on the first and second encounters, Nelo Angelo glows white, turns into a mass of violet fire, and then floats away into the sky, but then on their final encounter, Nelo Angelo literally explodes in a burst of flame, leaving behind the amulet.

He doesn't literally explode, since we don't have enough proof to know what actually happened. He's a type of enemy that can teleport with the same kind of blue flames, and the camera purposely cuts away before he disappears. The audio can easily be interpreted as teleportation as well.

It's all speculation. My logic though, is why would he explode after having a mental breakdown? Makes more sense for him to be powering up, and teleporting as far away from Mundus as he can muster, so that he can (hopefully) have one second of his own free will back.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

He doesn't literally explode, since we don't have enough proof to know what actually happened. He's a type of enemy that can teleport with the same kind of blue flames, and the camera purposely cuts away before he disappears. The audio can easily be interpreted as teleportation as well.

It's all speculation. My logic though, is why would he explode after having a mental breakdown? Makes more sense for him to be powering up, and teleporting as far away from Mundus as he can muster, so that he can (hopefully) have one second of his own free will back.

But it's different from what he normally did when teleporting away the first two times. It's significantly different, and the cutaway means very little when we hear an burst of energy and there's nothing left but the amulet. Why would Nelo Angelo leave the amulet behind this time? Something that he'd had with him the entirety of the story up until that point, if the body it was draped around wasn't gone.

But, whatever, I guess we'll see.

 

[DarkSlayer54]

But it's different from what he normally did when teleporting away the first two times. It's significantly different, and the cutaway means very little when we hear an burst of energy and there's nothing left but the amulet. Why would Nelo Angelo leave the amulet behind this time? Something that he'd had with him the entirety of the story up until that point, if the body it was draped around wasn't gone.

But, whatever, I guess we'll see.

The difference in visual look can be explained by the large buildup of power needed to teleport a great distance. He only ever teleported short distances prior. If he had a brief moment of "control" over himself, then I'd imagine he'd want to instantly teleport far away. Waste as much power in the process as well, so that he can't change his mind and return.

He knew Dante needed his father's power to defeat Mundus, and threw off his amulet before teleporting away.

 

[Foxtrot94]

He knew Dante needed his father's power to defeat Mundus, and threw off his amulet before teleporting away.

I dunno, even to me this sounds like a stretch to be honest.

 

[DarkSlayer54]

I dunno, even to me this sounds like a stretch to be honest.

A bit of a stretch, yeah. It could probably just be explained by pure luck - the buildup of that much power happened to knock it loose.

Would also explain why it fell straight down as opposed to being tossed across the room. I'm over thinking the hell outa it, but w/e.

 

[berto]

I don't remember ever seeing this footage of the secret mission:
(3:31)

And I saw this footage when it came out, too. The thing is, I've been playing DMC4 and it just reinforces how much I dislike that game and the fact that DMC5 plays like it doesn't really leave a good taste in my mouth. The secret missions were more of a chore than a challenge so I get anxious and a bit frustrated when the game shows more things that are similar to 4.

 

[berto]

It very much is. You keep talking about its "significance" and "weight" but if there's no weight to it in the first place because of how hollow and relatively insignificant the moment felt, then you're complaining about a non issue, really.

No, it very much isn't. Dying more than once is not a great thing to have in anything fiction related. It has become a joke:

This is what I mean by weight. You think if Vergil hadn't turned out to be almost as popular as Dante that he wouldn't still be death? You think that if there is a 6 and it gets a Special Edition he won't get something, irrelevant of the timeline, or maybe even effect the placement of the game just to have him? The point isn't how well they executed the scene in the first game, the point is that once we learned that Vergil was still around cemented the idea that death is not that permanent. Ever seen Supernatural? Sure, they try to make it seem like death is a big deal but we know that no one stays death and it's stagnated the show. It doesn't matter if this is the first time they do it here, the concept has already made a negative mark everywhere else it's happened. The idea was that when a character dies, specially a loved one or popular one, it means that we also have to say goodbye to them, but now, well, just see example above. The death of Superman would've been more impactful if they'd actually stuck with it.

Are you perhaps referring to the fact that he was believed dead as a kid, as part of the incipit for DMC1's story?

Nope.

 

[Foxtrot94]

It doesn't matter if this is the first time they do it here, the concept has already made a negative mark everywhere else it's happened.

No, not everywhere. See Darth Maul in Star Wars, see the very premise of the Witcher games, see F.E.A.R., just to mention the first things that pop up in my head on the spot. Maul "died" but came back, Geralt, same in the books (which is where the games pick up from), Fettel also, same. It didn't stop those products to have an awesome and engaging narrative where death very much IS significant and not a joke at all. Hell, in some cases having a character come back actually was beneficial to the character itself. lt all comes down to the context and execution. Yet you deliberately choose examples where they're notoriously lackluster and to ignore everything else where it's been done well and where it doesn't imply that death loses its significance because a character came back from apparent death. Believe it or not, the two things can coexist.

 

[BrawlMan]

No, it very much isn't. Dying more than once is not a great thing to have in anything fiction related. It has become a joke:

This is what I mean by weight. You think if Vergil hadn't turned out to be almost as popular as Dante that he wouldn't still be death? You think that if there is a 6 and it gets a Special Edition he won't get something, irrelevant of the timeline, or maybe even effect the placement of the game just to have him? The point isn't how well they executed the scene in the first game, the point is that once we learned that Vergil was still around cemented the idea that death is not that permanent. Ever seen Supernatural? Sure, they try to make it seem like death is a big deal but we know that no one stays death and it's stagnated the show. It doesn't matter if this is the first time they do it here, the concept has already made a negative mark everywhere else it's happened. The idea was that when a character dies, specially a loved one or popular one, it means that we also have to say goodbye to them, but now, well, just see example above. The death of Superman would've been more impactful if they'd actually stuck with it.


Nope.

This pretty much why I stopped caring for Dragonball Z and Shaman King (manga version only). That and the latter's bad storytelling in the final half.

Here is some donguri.

 

[berto]

No, not everywhere. See Darth Maul in Star Wars

That is a horrible example. Maul gets cut in half, oh, that's ok, his species can survive that, plus a fall of god know how many miles, and he's got a degree in medicine, robotic prosthetics and specializes surgical attachments of flesh to mechanical parts. He didn't survive because his species doesn't need the bottom half, as dumb as that sounds, he survived because he popular. Maul was never a compelling character, either, he just looked bad ass and people liked him just for that and any actual character traits were just added afterwards because he was as devoid of character as they came. Like it all you want but the Maul story is dumb and it doesn't help to sell your point to me.

As for the other 2 I've never played Witcher and after I realized that F.E.A.R. 1 was just a standard 1st person shooter with a few horror scenes that in no way shape or form affect the actual gameplay I tapped out on those games.

Yet you deliberately choose examples where they're notoriously lackluster and to ignore everything else where it's been done well and where it doesn't imply that death loses its significance because a character came back from apparent death.

Well, first of all you'd make a lousy lawyer with that approach. 2nd, that's because I couldn't think of any. It's a soap opera cliche. Dante's already got an evil twin, this isn't helping to improve his disposition, to find out that said evil twin didn't die in that island like he originally thought.

Hell, in some cases having a character come back actually was beneficial to the character itself.

Updating their status from death to alive? Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good prognosis, doctor.

Believe it or not, the two things can coexist.

I know they can, if it's done right, so the issue isn't that it might be pulled off right, that's the hope, the issue is that it rarely does. So rarely, in fact, that I couldn't think of any examples where that went well for the story, franchise or whatever. I already don't like the way the story and characters have progressed in 4, the anime and the radio drama so this little turn of events isn't exactly making me go get a second job for that DMC van.

Could it turn out good? Sure. In fact, I'm very much hoping that it will, but do I think that it will? No, that's why I raised my concerns, because I never seen it done well and with all the other issues I've had so far I get a sense of underwhelm... ness. In fact, before we raised this discussion to this point my position on this whole thing was just that, an underwhelmed sense of acceptance. A sort of "Oh... are we doing this? Ok, whatever. It's fine, I guess."

 

[Foxtrot94]

F.E.A.R. 1 was just a standard 1st person shooter

Hey now, watch your words, fella. FEAR is an FPS milestone. To this day, FPS games can't boast an AI as advanced and believable as that game's, or a level design so intricate and multi-approach friendly, or combat as polished and spectacular at the same time.

with a few horror scenes that in no way shape or form affect the actual gameplay

Course they do, in certain points of the campaign. I guess the most memorable example is the whole final mission.

But yeah, putting aside the utter blasphemy I just HAD to correct you hombre heathen on, that plus the Witcher games are glaring examples of "resurrections" done right.

2nd, that's because I couldn't think of any.

If I make a lousy lawyer, you sure make a lousy prosecutor. Gotta go research possible counterexamples, tsk tsk. :ninja:

Updating their status from death to alive? Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good prognosis, doctor.

Thanks, the relatives will be happy indeed. But I actually meant from a narrative standpoint.

 

[V's patron]

I'm hoping Vergil comes back as a ghost seeking to regain his body. It doesn't take away from his "death" scene and gives him a whole new range of story possibilities.

 

[windleopard]

Youtuber J lists what he would like to in DMC 5.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

No, not everywhere. See Darth Maul in Star Wars, see the very premise of the Witcher games, see F.E.A.R., just to mention the first things that pop up in my head on the spot. Maul "died" but came back, Geralt, same in the books (which is where the games pick up from), Fettel also, same. It didn't stop those products to have an awesome and engaging narrative where death very much IS significant and not a joke at all. Hell, in some cases having a character come back actually was beneficial to the character itself. lt all comes down to the context and execution. Yet you deliberately choose examples where they're notoriously lackluster and to ignore everything else where it's been done well and where it doesn't imply that death loses its significance because a character came back from apparent death. Believe it or not, the two things can coexist.

I would say because those instances handle the deaths and revivals of those characters well; DMC, Supernatural, and many others, use it as a crutch for dumb cliffhangers and exploiting the audience's emotions.