DmC's cons and fails
- Thread starter Valcorn
- Start date
mrrandomlulz
Monsuuuta moonssuta mo mo mo mo monsuuta
Vagrant
Well-known Member
....Blitz in dmc4?
That's right, DMC3 has both, DmC none, thanks for proving my point
DreadnoughtDT
God of Hyperdeath
Yeah, I think if you had read all of my post before quoting you'd have seen that I said that plenty of enemies in other games do that.
@Valcorn: In your opinion.
MultiBro
Darkest Dungeon
Well, atleast Mundus' Spawn and Vergil moved around, that is atleast something!
Vagrant
Well-known Member
I'll wait to play the bosses on dmd before deciding anything about the difiiculty
Hah, I knew that comment would rustle some people's jimmys. XD
I see people are still making their opinions out as facts.
@ SpawnShooter:
There is not ONE boss in DmC which isn't related to the main plot of the game. They are all relevant to Dante's progress. In the original series, the bosses were mostly just mere encounters that were just more powerful than the average foe. They didn't really have anything to do with the main plot, except for a few, like Nelo Angelo, Arkham/Jester and Angelo Credo. All the rest, as cool they may be, like Shadow, Berial, Nevan etc, they are random encounters.
That said, then yes, it would be cool with a few more relevant bosses in DmC. Like maybe encounter Mundus in his human form first before his big demon badass form. And maybe encounter Lilith on her own instead of just the spawn. Or maybe have Phineas betray Dante and have him as a boss as well. They are characters who are relevant to the story, quality characters, who could easily fill out more boss-slots to please those who seems to like alot of bosses in a game.
So when I say "Quality over Quantity" it means that I don't want more bosses just for the sake of there being more bosses, if that makes sense.
I see people are still making their opinions out as facts.
@ SpawnShooter:
There is not ONE boss in DmC which isn't related to the main plot of the game. They are all relevant to Dante's progress. In the original series, the bosses were mostly just mere encounters that were just more powerful than the average foe. They didn't really have anything to do with the main plot, except for a few, like Nelo Angelo, Arkham/Jester and Angelo Credo. All the rest, as cool they may be, like Shadow, Berial, Nevan etc, they are random encounters.
That said, then yes, it would be cool with a few more relevant bosses in DmC. Like maybe encounter Mundus in his human form first before his big demon badass form. And maybe encounter Lilith on her own instead of just the spawn. Or maybe have Phineas betray Dante and have him as a boss as well. They are characters who are relevant to the story, quality characters, who could easily fill out more boss-slots to please those who seems to like alot of bosses in a game.
So when I say "Quality over Quantity" it means that I don't want more bosses just for the sake of there being more bosses, if that makes sense.
Quite right, the DMC3 bosses had excuses for being there... but they weren't story relevant, just an excuse for there to be bosses. Like DMC4 and the Hell Gates randomly placed around the city.
mulalleybs
Well-known Member
Yes, that's quite evident. Now go put your mommies camcorder away and go to school, go talk to all your playmates about how much you dislike DmC.
TWOxACROSS
Hot-blooded God of Guns
Y'know...I really liked fighting the Hunter, and Killing Face, and Drekavac...and Vergil...Mundus was also interesting. Poison was okay, but I fought against her too much in the demo, so she's boring to me now 
Barbas...uh...he's also an interesting fight, beating on a giant head that reels back realistically, the sounds of his lasers, and the enemy swarms when you go through his eyes. That's all of them, isn't it? Well, I guess I liked all the boss battles
I do like that they were relevant to the story, too. No random bosses that just happen to be in the way.
Now, my big concern is - what are you looking at as cons? Things that the game itself could have done, or needlessly slamming it for not being like the classics - because remember, this isn't supposed to be exactly like the classics :/
Barbas...uh...he's also an interesting fight, beating on a giant head that reels back realistically, the sounds of his lasers, and the enemy swarms when you go through his eyes. That's all of them, isn't it? Well, I guess I liked all the boss battles I do like that they were relevant to the story, too. No random bosses that just happen to be in the way.
Now, my big concern is - what are you looking at as cons? Things that the game itself could have done, or needlessly slamming it for not being like the classics - because remember, this isn't supposed to be exactly like the classics :/
You still make your personal opinion out as a fact. Please stop that.
ChaserTech
Well-known Member
The only thing you got to do is just get rid of his electric shield. After that you can attack him normally. Not to mention Blitz was kinda the only enemy that required you to do a certain thing before actually hurting him. Mephistos and Fausts didn't require you to get rid of their cloaks. You could just attack them normally. (which is what I prefer to do). Even for Angelos in DMC4, you didn't have to get rid of their shields before damaging them.
In DmC you had enemies in which:
You need to get rid of their shield first. (Witches, Knights, Bathos/Pathos)
You need to attack an enemy at a certain weakpoint. (Tyrants and Butchers)
You need to attack an enemy with a certain weapon. (Hell/Frost Knights, Ghost/Blood Rage)
ChaserTech
Well-known Member
Double post, but maybe this could be considered as a pro/con about DmC :troll:
But in all seriousness, I just wanted to show this.
But in all seriousness, I just wanted to show this.
How come a footage before your own eyes ain't a fact? Denial much?
Kishido
Hunter
Con
I already want to play DmC2
I already want to play DmC2