Legit though, DMC4 sucked.

[Caiden]

No DMC4 is bad because there's no need for so many weapons and memorizing button mechanics if they serve no purpose.

Also, I didn't the ranking system was something that proved we were worth anything in life. Are you guys really saying that you need to get an S rank just to feel special about a game?

So wait. The game is bad for giving you weapons all of which are completely optional to use? k makes sense. Also using a variety of weapons and memorizing combos that work for you will only work to your advantage in the harder difficulties.

 

[Stylish Nero]

No DMC4 is bad because there's no need for so many weapons and memorizing button mechanics if they serve no purpose.

Also, I didn't the ranking system was something that proved we were worth anything in life. Are you guys really saying that you need to get an S rank just to feel special about a game?

You obviously didn't dive that deep into the mechanics of the gameplay (well when it comes to Dante).

Each move and weapon serves their own unique purpose when dealing with a certain enemy or chaining combos or just situational cases.

Just because you never found a purpose for them doesn't mean others didn't either.

That is like saying Bayonetta and Ninja Gaiden are terrible games because they give you a butt load of weapons and combos/moves that essentially aren't necessary or almost the same thing (Bayonetta has weapons that are essentially clones of another weapon and Ninja Gaiden has tons of combos that are just there for flash).

Also, yes it shows your performance and how well you did. A grade on a test. It may be a video game but people take stuff like leaderboards and scores in an Arcade game seriously. You'd think with DmC making the combat more accessible the grading system will either remain the same or get slightly stricter since its easier to do stuff and take on enemies than in DMC3 and DMC4.

Its hard to explain but if you're going to do a grading system it shouldn't be too lenient and just give out perfect scores like its charity otherwise might as well not have it all.

 

[The Final Offer]

Well. I made it through a MGR stage with no damage and still got a low score.

Don't let these games fool you into believing there's one way to play. That's not what I want in a game. Limiting me like that. So, what alot of you are saying you want is a game that isn't gamer friendly. You're not free to do as you choose. You gotta land that combo with helm breaker not Pandora's chaingun or rainstorm.

I never rely on the rank system of limiting play. But if a game (DmC) can understand my play-style and judge my skill level with it, then I'm grateful for it and will rely on it.

Some games have a system calculating how well you did on the stage before and comparing it to how you do on the next. You set the goal for yourself with the highest combo, the lowest damage, and the best time.

DmC gives you ideas of what you could do (loading screen), not what it expects you to do. It influences you to get better, it doesn't force you. If you want a maxed out Dante by the end of your first playthrough, then you're going to have to do better than what you have been.

So when you guys say a game isn't casual friendly, you're just warning me that I won't be free to play as I want. It's like paying someone to tell you, you suck even if you thought that kickflip, grind, ollie to a nosebleed was awesome,original, and fun to pull off.

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

Nah, it's that it gives you a sense of progress and position within the game's "skill system."

I can understand it, but honestly I think a games replayability will depend much more on the gameplay itself. I always play games to have fun, and DmC allows me to have a lot of fun. I like Devil May Cry games because of the stuff I get to do, not how well I'm doing it. I'll improve because I want to, not because a system told me I could be better.

I'd say it's a little bit of both for me. I do like to improve my rankings in DMC4, but I'm not so anal retentive that I won't quit until each level of difficulty is shining with S's. Some gamers do it without so much as breaking a sweat. However, I have set specific parameters for myself.

-Beating all of the Secret Missions (it took me awhile, but I did finally accomplish it, and it did make me feel good).

-Getting all S's in Devil Hunter. I was beyond ecstatic when I did this, because Mission 20 (the final battle against Sanctus) gave me so much grief not just in the sense of rankings, but in general. He's such a cheap bas*ard.

-Beating Bloody Palace (My hands hurt so bad after that; I am NEVER going to go after an S, there. It was bullsh*t enough just clearing all 101 stages! I got a D, but it doesn't bother me.)

Goals I'd like to achieve, but I'm not likely to keep pushing at them:

-All S ranks in SOS and DMD mode.

Realistic goal? Bring all lower rankings up to at least an A in both modes.

That being said about the ranking system? I spend more time just d*cking around for fun, laughing while I take out lesser enemies while practicing with some of my weaker combo sets. The ranking system isn't all important, and it doesn't make or break the value of a gamer; for me, it's all about personal goals.

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

Well. I made it through a MGR stage with no damage and still got a low score.

Don't let these games fool you into believing there's one way to play. That's not what I want in a game. Limiting me like that. So, what alot of you are saying you want is a game that isn't gamer friendly. You're not free to do as you choose. You gotta land that combo with helm breaker not Pandora's chaingun or rainstorm.

You're kind of reaching with that statement. DMC4 doesn't force you to do it one way, and one way only. I've pulled S ranks off with multiple strategies, and on-the-fly techniques. :/ It doesn't force you to kill an enemy with only one weapon. As I recall, there are weapons in DmC that do that, however. Maybe not against all enemies, but against specific ones. So isn't it a tad hypocritical to criticize DMC4, if it did have the same concept? But like I said, it doesn't. However, specific weapons sometimes work better on one enemy or another. You can kill all enemies with any weapon; it just depends on what you want to do; more combos, or if you want to wipe them out as quickly as possible.

DmC gives you ideas of what you could do (loading screen), not what it expects you to do. It influences you to get better, it doesn't force you. If you want a maxed out Dante by the end of your first playthrough, then you're going to have to do better than what you have been.

Again, DMC4 isn't forcing anyone's hand, either. You don't have to have a maxed out Dante and Nero; you can improve if you want to, but it's not a prerequisite. :/

 

[Bazilican]

So wait. The game is bad for giving you weapons all of which are completely optional to use? k makes sense. Also using a variety of weapons and memorizing combos that work for you will only work to your advantage in the harder difficulties.

No, to me it sucks that they give you all these weapons, and there's no need for them if you can just get by with guns and swords.

You obviously didn't dive that deep into the mechanics of the gameplay (well when it comes to Dante).

Why bother? I can just button mash with guns and a sword just to beat the whole game anyway. Dodge when I need to, and go to town.

Each move and weapon serves their own unique purpose when dealing with a certain enemy or chaining combos or just situational cases.

Unique? Or all doing the same purpose, but one looks prettier then the other?

That is like saying Bayonetta and Ninja Gaiden are terrible games because they give you a butt load of weapons and combos/moves that essentially aren't necessary or almost the same thing (Bayonetta has weapons that are essentially clones of another weapon and Ninja Gaiden has tons of combos that are just there for flash).

And that's my issue with Bayo and most NG games. Though I enjoy NG 2's style of limiting attacks and moves to one set instead of pushing weapons all on one button layout, I also hat the fact that most of those weapons seem to just fulfill the same purpose as the other one.

Its hard to explain but if you're going to do a grading system it shouldn't be too lenient and just give out perfect scores like its charity otherwise might as well not have it all.

Well when you put like that, i can at least see how it would be a prime factor, but I still think it's not the real importance of a game. You don't buy a game just so you can be on leadboards and get high ranks, you play it for the fun of the game itself. I feel like that's something some games these days have forgotten. It's not about your level and its not about your skill, it's about having fun.

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

Well when you put like that, i can at least see how it would be a prime factor, but I still think it's not the real importance of a game. You don't buy a game just so you can be on leadboards and get high ranks, you play it for the fun of the game itself. I feel like that's something some games these days have forgotten. It's not about your level and its not about your skill, it's about having fun.

This I can agree with; I couldn't care less about how I compare to some random strangers online.

 

[The Final Offer]

You're kind of reaching with that statement. DMC4 doesn't force you to do it one way, and one way only. I've pulled S ranks off with multiple strategies, and on-the-fly techniques. :/ It doesn't force you to kill an enemy with only one weapon. As I recall, there are weapons in DmC that do that, however. Maybe not against all enemies, but against specific ones. So isn't it a tad hypocritical to criticize DMC4, if it did have the same concept? But like I said, it doesn't. However, specific weapons sometimes work better on one enemy or another. You can kill all enemies with any weapon; it just depends on what you want to do; more combos, or if you want to wipe them out as quickly as possible.




Again, DMC4 isn't forcing anyone's hand, either. You don't have to have a maxed out Dante and Nero; you can improve if you want to, but it's not a prerequisite. :/

I was talking games in general. Used DMC 4 as an example to better translate my point.

With that being said. DMC 4 has several weapons with different points attached to them. I don't think the point system goes any higher than what the weapon you're using maxes out at. Which is why we needed DmC's weapon switching system. Why didn't they think of it before! >.<

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

I was talking games in general. Used DMC 4 as an example to better translate my point.

With that being said. DMC 4 has several weapons with different points attached to them. I don't think the point system goes any higher than what the weapon you're using maxes out at. Which is why we needed DmC's weapon switching system. Why didn't they think of it before! >.<

Ah, I see. And I'm not sure; maybe they did, but were unable to utilize it at the time? Your guess is as good as mine, on that. >.<

 

[Lionheart]

No, to me it sucks that they give you all these weapons, and there's no need for them if you can just get by with guns and swords.
Why bother? I can just button mash with guns and a sword just to beat the whole game anyway. Dodge when I need to, and go to town.

Well when you put like that, i can at least see how it would be a prime factor, but I still think it's not the real importance of a game. You don't buy a game just so you can be on leadboards and get high ranks, you play it for the fun of the game itself. I feel like that's something some games these days have forgotten. It's not about your level and its not about your skill, it's about having fun.

Why would you want to limit yourself like that? Just be happy with all the extra weapons. They give you more ways to play the game, more unique visuals, more this and more that. I wouldn't want to play a game that gave me *one* weapon and told me to just mash buttons. One of the points of multiple weapons is to help you create your own, personalized play style. Personalized combos. Doesn't matter if all weapons work equally well, or if some aren't strictly necessary. As far as I know, all the weapons in DMC4 served a useful purpose.
I really don't understand gamers sometimes - when we get the chance to customize Lightning in Lightning Returns, people suddenly nag about how it's a dress-up game. Man, I'd just be happy I get a chance to give suits my own color. They're not necessary, but they make playing a lot more interesting. It's like saying your food could do without seasoning. Sure, but why limit the taste? Besides, you don't need to use all the weapons. If you want to use the Rebellion only, then you can.

I don't think anyone said rankings are incredibly important. But when they exist, they should serve their purpose. When you play Final Fantasy XIII, you get graded on the amount of time it took to beat the enemies. It could do without that, but why should it? The game rewards you for doing well; you get the standard prize if you get like *no* stars, and you get more the more stars you get. You get more incentive to actually put some effort into it and strategize, and no punishment if you don't. Though I suppose it could seem like you're getting punished in, say, DMC4, if you don't get SSS ranks, but that's an illusion: you're just getting the standard amount of proud souls and stuff.

 

[Caiden]

We live in an age of gaming where people like to pay more attention what's wrong with a game than what it does well at.

 

[DragonMaster2010]

We live in an age of gaming where people like to pay more attention what's wrong with a game than what it does well at.

Like DmC, Killer is Dead, Assassin's Creed 3, Tomb Raider, BIoshock Infinite, etc etc

 

[Caiden]

Like DmC, Killer is Dead, Assassin's Creed 3, Tomb Raider, BIoshock Infinite, etc etc

Yep. Although I have to admit that there was a lot wrong with Assassin's Creed 3. But it was mostly fixed in 4 so I'm cool with it.

 

[berto]

So DMC4 is bad because it's not casual friendly?

On the flipside; is DmC bad because it's "casual friendly"?

You both realize that DMC4 and DmC were 'casual friendly,' right? The only difference is that 4 tried to please both by having the one character for new players and another for more experienced gamers but DMC4 had almost the same reasoning behind Nero as DmC did for their very existence.

 

[InfernalOverkill]

You both realize that DMC4 and DmC were 'casual friendly,' right? The only difference is that 4 tried to please both by having the one character for new players and another for more experienced gamers but DMC4 had almost the same reasoning behind Nero as DmC did for their very existence.

Debug mode = Dante all day every day

 

[Demi-fiend]

That's just criminal...

 

[MigsRZXAStylish]

You both realize that DMC4 and DmC were 'casual friendly,' right? The only difference is that 4 tried to please both by having the one character for new players and another for more experienced gamers but DMC4 had almost the same reasoning behind Nero as DmC did for their very existence.

I just learned something new. Thanks, berto!

EDIT:

We live in an age of gaming where people like to pay more attention what's wrong with a game than what it does well at.

Like DmC, Killer is Dead, Assassin's Creed 3, Tomb Raider, BIoshock Infinite, etc etc

True that, guys! So let's look at the positives more and the negatives less, shall we? What's so hard about that? There is always a light at the end of the dark tunnel figuratively...

 

[Caiden]

I think we should still be somewhat critical about the games we play for the purpose of showing developers what to avoid in the future. (Again AC4 is a great example of this. I think that they took some pretty big steps to improving it in only a year.) But at the same time don't just call a game bad because of a few blemishes. You could sit here and talk about how bad DMC2 is but also remember that DMC2 would help lead to the style system. Despite how bad it might have been, it still had qualities that worked well and were developed on in DMC3.

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

Lol! Damn it, the song isn't even playing, and it just got stuck in my head. >.<

Edit: What the hell? There was a Michael Jackson videogame?! XD

 

[Rolanthas]

Lol! Damn it, the song isn't even playing, and it just got stuck in my head. >.<

Edit: What the hell? There was a Michael Jackson videogame?! XD

Oh yes, and it was as bizarre as you can imagine.