• Welcome to the Devil May Cry Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Devil May Cry series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Nero's mother and who she might be

Hungry Alien

Well-known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
93
Reaction score
74
Points
60
Age
24
I always thought Dante got more messy after DMC 1 because he reached his goal of vengeance. After DMC 1, he basically have nothing to drive him forward, leading him to fall into depression. There was Trish at first, but she eventually left because she needed to forge her own life and could not stay with Dante with his mother appearance.

So Dante spended many year alone in his office, got more and more depressed over time and realized that vengeance doesn't bring peace. But at this point, he was way too powerful and this alienated him to society. Rules and society are made for common people, not for overpowered being like him. So he isolated himself in his office and didn't cared about everything. The only person that could stay with him was his brother,, but he failed him in DMC 3, leading to his downfall in DMC 1. To me, that's why Dante cared so much about Nero. He is the last remnant of Vergil to him, and Dante wanted better for him. That's why he took on Urizen alone. He thought just witnessing Vergil's state would harm Nero, and thus tried his best to shoo him away, until Nero showed him that he didn't needed to stay alone. Vergil was right here, and Nero was ready to take after Dante. So Dante left with the only person he could be with, his brother.

I also think that I am overthinking, and that the DMC team has no clue about the story.
 

Foxtrot94

Elite Hunter
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
7,339
Reaction score
10,666
Points
15,215
Age
26
he reached his goal of vengeance

That's not overthinking, that's exactly what happened. XD
And he was already messy in 1. More so later on, sure, but still.

To me, that's why Dante cared so much about Nero. He is the last remnant of Vergil to him, and Dante wanted better for him. That's why he took on Urizen alone. He thought just witnessing Vergil's state would harm Nero, and thus tried his best to shoo him away

That's also not overthinking, or an opinion, it's literally spelled out in the actual game. The whole time he was trying to keep Nero out of the fight cause he didn't want him to kill his own father: "Now he needs an ass kicking, but I can't have you go kill your old man". Nero thought that Dante was constantly keeping him away cause he deemed him a weakling and not powerful enough ("I've got all the power I need. Right here!" "You don't understand. That's not what I mean") until that scene revealed the real reason.

Say what you will about the writing team, and you've got reason to, but give credit where it's due, that was actually meant and a legit plot point that is in the game, not some fan theory.
 
Last edited:

V's patron

be loyal to what matters
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
7,858
Reaction score
5,769
Points
12,915
Beyond the reference to DmC, Kat also was implied to be a victim of sexual abuse. So dealing with kind of trauma could be interesting if difficult for DMC. Maybe Vergil and Kat(DMC) didn't work out because two broken souls don't always fix each other?

I prefer her to be the one who drops off Nero at Fortuna than Vergil. I don't mind Vergil having kids but I just never saw him leaving his kid with a human. He'd raise his kid but he'd be a terrible parent- maybe i just wanted a Starkiller-esque version of Nero?
 

Taramafor

Well-known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
17
Points
110
Age
32
Honestly? I think Kat has simply had it hard in general. But that's all the more reason that she might toughen up afterwards.

I don't mind Vergil having kids but I just never saw him leaving his kid with a human.
Keep in mind Sparda did the EXACT same thing himself. The old saying of "Like farther like son". Who knows, maybe it's just a tradition to let the kid grow up without their farther which pushes them to get stronger or something.

Seems to be a going theme in games in general. Assassins Creed Odyssey did something like that. Sparda (the OTHER Sparda. The real one that's Greek) tossed his son off a ledge because of some dark prophecy. He's guilt ridden about it. That kind of thing can make for some good story telling. And knowing Virgil's obsession with power at the time, who's to say he might not have tried to perform some ritual or other to get the power he has? Doesn't have to result in trying to outright kill the kid of course. But anything involve inflicting pain or torture for the interest of power would do it. This also gives a good reason for the mother to break up with Virgil.

That just leaves what happens to the mother, leaving Nero on his own.

He does try to take his brothers blood for a ritual after all. Wouldn't put it past him.
 

Foxtrot94

Elite Hunter
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
7,339
Reaction score
10,666
Points
15,215
Age
26
Calling it now, it's the woman sitting on his right.

You must be registered to view media
 

windleopard

Well-known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
160
Reaction score
123
Points
1,165
Age
27
Keep in mind Sparda did the EXACT same thing himself. The old saying of "Like farther like son". Who knows, maybe it's just a tradition to let the kid grow up without their farther which pushes them to get stronger or something.
No he didn't. Sparda was in his kids' lives up until his death.
 

windleopard

Well-known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
160
Reaction score
123
Points
1,165
Age
27
I prefer her to be the one who drops off Nero at Fortuna than Vergil. I don't mind Vergil having kids but I just never saw him leaving his kid with a human. He'd raise his kid but he'd be a terrible parent- maybe i just wanted a Starkiller-esque version of Nero?
It's implied he didn't know he had a son to begin with.
 

Taramafor

Well-known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
17
Points
110
Age
32
No he didn't. Sparda was in his kids' lives up until his death.
Except he wasn't even in the building when that happened. Whatever the circumstances, at the point in time Mundus invaded Dante's, Virgil's and Eva's house, as far as we know Sparda wasn't there.

Unless he was off screen fighting demons outside of the house or something. But then he'd likely be fighting Mundus himself. I highly doubt he'd leave Eva alone.

Regardless, the events still set up Dante and Virgil to grow up without their farther.

This also means that even if Sparda was fighting nearby for some reason... Where the blazes is he? The games never point this out.
 

V's patron

be loyal to what matters
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
7,858
Reaction score
5,769
Points
12,915
@windleopard
I'm just referencing the DMC4 light novel because its more closer to an actual explanation than 5 is. Plus its my first impression of it.

@Taramafor
I'd disagree because Classic Sparda wasn't given a reason for why he left. Reboot Sparda did leave Dante and Vergil with other people but that was more of backup plan than anything else.
 

windleopard

Well-known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
160
Reaction score
123
Points
1,165
Age
27
Except he wasn't even in the building when that happened. Whatever the circumstances, at the point in time Mundus invaded Dante's, Virgil's and Eva's house, as far as we know Sparda wasn't there.

Unless he was off screen fighting demons outside of the house or something. But then he'd likely be fighting Mundus himself. I highly doubt he'd leave Eva alone.

Regardless, the events still set up Dante and Virgil to grow up without their farther.

This also means that even if Sparda was fighting nearby for some reason... Where the blazes is he? The games never point this out.
He wasn't in the building because he was dead. The opening for DMC 1 states this outright.

You must be registered to view media

New dialogue in the special edition in Vergil's playthrough even states that Sparda did raise Dante and Vergil together with Eva.
And where was it stated Mundus personally went to kill Eva and the twins himself?

There is nothing in any of the games to even imply Sparda left Eva and their sons alone. I have no idea where this misconception comes from. Even the Ninja Theory reboot got this right and that's the game half the fan base claims misunderstands every single character.
 
Last edited:

Taramafor

Well-known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
17
Points
110
Age
32
That vid ONLY states the line "Until his death". At no point does it say WHEN Sparda died. It also doesn't imply if he died and then was revived (so we're in the dark either way there).

This just leaves us with more questions. If Sparda was around to raise the kids... Then wasn't around... It's POSSIBLE he died somehow. But if so then HOW? THAT is the question.

And if it ISN'T for that reason then does this mean Sparda died later when he was separated from the kids? Could perhaps Mundus and his demons have dragged him to hell and cause Sparda to become isolated?

And even if Sparda did die it wouldn't be the first time a game has brought a character back that seemed to die. Especially when it involves someone as powerful as Sparda. Mundas has been beaten a few times for example. Virgil too. DMC 1 being such an old game is more likely to have it's lore tweaked a bit in places. Considering we have a black landlord and elements from the reboot in 5 that doesn't seem impossible. Is he "dead dead" or "maybe dead"? One single line isn't a lot to go on and can be easily brushed aside if the devs want to bring him back. Might not be a bad thing if Sparda turns out to be a main boss or ally in a sequel. With so much talk of him we never get to play as or face him (or did that happen in 1? I never played it).

Would be funny if Sparda was basically sipping a beer kicking back on a beech leaving his kids to it.
 

windleopard

Well-known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
160
Reaction score
123
Points
1,165
Age
27
That vid ONLY states the line "Until his death". At no point does it say WHEN Sparda died. It also doesn't imply if he died and then was revived (so we're in the dark either way there).
What? Why would it even imply that?
This just leaves us with more questions.
No it doesn't. The question of "what happened to Sparda?" has been answered. You're just creating wild theories to prove your head canon that Sparda abandoned his children despite evidence to the contrary.
If Sparda was around to raise the kids... Then wasn't around... It's POSSIBLE he died somehow. But if so then HOW? THAT is the question.
There is no if about it. He is outright stated to be dead. As for how, the most reasonable answer is "old age".
And if it ISN'T for that reason then does this mean Sparda died later when he was separated from the kids? Could perhaps Mundus and his demons have dragged him to hell and cause Sparda to become isolated?
You seriously don't think that would have come up at any point in the series if that were the case?
And even if Sparda did die it wouldn't be the first time a game has brought a character back that seemed to die. Especially when it involves someone as powerful as Sparda. Mundas has been beaten a few times for example. Virgil too. DMC 1 being such an old game is more likely to have it's lore tweaked a bit in places. Considering we have a black landlord and elements from the reboot in 5 that doesn't seem impossible. Is he "dead dead" or "maybe dead"? One single line isn't a lot to go on and can be easily brushed aside if the devs want to bring him back. Might not be a bad thing if Sparda turns out to be a main boss or ally in a sequel. With so much talk of him we never get to play as or face him (or did that happen in 1? I never played it).

Would be funny if Sparda was basically sipping a beer kicking back on a beech leaving his kids to it.
This is a totally different argument in general.
 

Taramafor

Well-known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
17
Points
110
Age
32
What? Why would it even imply that?
Gee. You mean no game has ever done it before? Could that by why? Come on... don't pretend it's not a possibility. We've had Mundas and Virgil come back after being presumed dead. Don't see what it would be impossible with Sparda after that. That doesn't have to translate to sunshine and rainbows if he is back either.

No it doesn't.
Yes, it does. I'll get to that. Right now I'm saying you're saying something that isn't true. Which is exactly what the vid could be doing.

You're just creating wild theories to prove your head canon that Sparda abandoned his children despite evidence to the contrary.
WHAT evidence? You just said it yourself.

"old age".
Except, again, the vid NEVER at ANY point stated WHEN Sparda died. You don't know if he died when he was with Eva. And it CAN'T have been before that. Because he's alive then. It can VERY easily be MUCH after that event. I highly doubt he's near death at the time Mundas attacked. My whole point here is that nothing is SHOWN. So yes, it DOES leave us with more questions. Such as "What's he doing" and "Where is he" along with "At what point does he die". Your complaints about my theories do not change the fact that it's all unknown. At least admit that. And why even jump to the conclusion it's old age at all? What evidence do you have to support that claim? I at least deal with "what ifs". We at NO point see a dead Sparda. You don't know if he's alive at that point in time or not any more then I do.

You seriously don't think that would have come up at any point in the series if that were the case?
Lot of characters in 5. And then we got Virgil being the focus. Tossing Sparda in would be overwhelming at that point. So if he's in the next game that would be neat. If not then ah well. But that's kind of what I'm getting at here. We know there's a Sparda. Dead or not, why don't we get to play as or against him? (even in a flashback). All we do is hear about him. So that just makes it even worse. We got all this hype built up around this guy and we never really get to the guy beyond seeing his illusion with Arkham. So here the question is "Why do we never get to see more of Sparda himself?" Put it in as a past memory. Job done. Unless making him a boss or an ally to fight with because he was PRESUMED to be dead. Just because we have that one line of him being dead doesn't mean we have concrete proof to the claim. If Sparda is indeed dead (or believed to be dead) then the question is why.

Do you have that answer? If not then all you are doing is proving that we're left with questions after you said we don't. So what is it. Do we have questions about how, where and when he dies or don't we? You can't have it both ways.
 
Top