In DmC, as you can see in Sam D's video, you can continue a combo after switching a weapon and if you want to, you can reset that combo like in previous Devil May Crys. This demands players to be creative with their combos. You can start a Rebellion combo and switch (fluidly) in the middle of the combo to an Arbiter finisher or just a smash and finish the combo off with an Osiris finisher. That's 2 medium strikes, 1 heavy, into 1 light. I hope you know what I mean by this because in other games you had to start at the beginning of the weapon's combo when you switched. I mean, you can do the directional attack in those games to give a false sense of fluid combat, but usually the directional attacks are always strong and throw the opponent.
Malice is different an aspect of the gameplay to immerse the player in the game. That type of stuff never actually happened in any Devil May Cry. An enemy you can't destroy in Devil May Cry. It does, force you to run. It grounds Dante and lets you know that he isn't an overpowered being. He has something there that can stop him from progressing and it shows during the story. In the previous games, there was force that kept you in the room and just threw enemies at you. Malice actually reacts and creates obstacles during combat.
People on the forum or the fact that in interviews and articles they've said they're working closely with Capcom on the combat. NT's first attempt at combat gameplay can be seen in their first gameplay trailer. The environmental moves and finishers. That's not how Devil May Cry worked in the combat department. I think Capcom went in, listened to the weapon ideas, made a moveset for those, excluded anything that could slow the pace of the combat down.
Now the devil trigger bid. It does not force you to fight aerially. You can fight on the ground if you wanted. The whole point of the DT in DmC was to influence you to try out the vast amount of combos in the air. Other games did not have this and it's why I don't rate them high.
The game scored high because of these changes and on the surface, the game has more options than Bayonetta does in the air (at least). At least, from what I can remember Bayonetta felt like a direct rip off of DMC. I didn't like it because of that feeling while I was playing it. I enjoyed it though.
People can say Platinum Games has awesome gameplay. They can't say that it's something new or that it innovates. All it is "flashy flashy flashy PAUSE flashy flashy Really flashy." Seriously, when you're playing a Platinum game, just say that as you do a combo. You'll understand what I mean. I'm not saying they suck for that, I'm just saying they need to innovate and stop remaking the same game and adding a few new flashy moves to the list.
- ''
You can continue a combo after switching a weapon''. You could do that in previous DMCs too (at the very least in DMC4). If you were too slow to do it, that's not the game's fault.
- ''
Malice is different an aspect of the gameplay to immerse the player in the game''. Sounds like a sales pitch to me, not an actual argument. It kills you if you don't move at the right time, therefore it is nothing more than a QTE in disguise. It can shorten game levels substantially by stretching them out, putting huge stretches of *nothing* (holes in the ground, etc) between platforms. This gives the illusion that the levels are big when in fact they're quite small.
So no, it is not an amazing innovative gameplay feature. Haven't gotten obstacles created during combat either: only when I progress through the game by moving forward.
- People on this forum (who support DmC) specifically said that to me. If they were wrong and I was indeed right, then I guess they only said that to support their arguments at the time. Kind of annoying. Also, what first gameplay trailer? I remember a trailer that showed Dante fighting enemies, shooting them with his guns and stuff, and grappling and throwing cars on top of them (I think), but it did
not show off the gameplay: it was just an introduction video. Just like the intro video of Halo 3 (with him using a bubble shield and jumping into a pack of brutes) wasn't gameplay either.
- Well, it doesn't literally force you to, but it does throw enemies into the air without your consent. It's kind of a shame: the DT makes you powerful, but then slaps you in the face by telling you to ''try out combos in the air'', as you put it. If you want to fight on the ground, there's not much you can do. You can fire ebony and ivory at those flying enemies, or you'll have to bring them down to the ground one by one. Or wait for them to come back down. It's just very restrictive. Period.
- If Bayonetta felt like a ripoff of DMC, that might be because it was... you know... made by the guy who developed DMC1. It's also kind of weird to call it a ripoff if the same developer made it - that's like saying the sequel to any game is a ripoff of it. Anyway, Bayonetta had several gameplay features that set it apart from DMC. You could transform into different animals, becoming able to fly or run at high speeds. You could pick up enemies' weapons. You could start QTEs yourself and increase the power of your combo. There were minigame-like things you could do, like flying in a ship, shooting enemies out of the sky. And there's probably more that I can't remember.
''They can't say that it's something new or that it innovates. All it is "flashy flashy flashy PAUSE flashy flashy Really flashy. Seriously, when you're playing a Platinum game, just say that as you do a combo. You'll understand what I mean.''
- Well, that was the idea. Bayonetta and DMC were kind of like that, wouldn't you agree? Platinum did plenty of new things with Bayonetta, like I said in the previous paragraph. Just because you don't want to acknowledge it (or think it's less important than DmC's new things) doesn't mean it's not true. Also, they're not ''remaking the same game over and over''. Does Bayonetta have exactly the same story as DMC3 or DMC4 or something? Does it have the same characters? Does it have the same combos? The same weapons? The same world? I could go on and on, but I think you're criticizing Platinum too harshly. Why do I think that? Because I remember several people bashing Metal Gear Rising for 'not being DMC, but trying to be DMC'. Well, I never got the idea that Rising tried to be anything other than Rising. If it plays similar to DMC, that's probably because it has some of the same gameplay features, like giving you the possibility of doing combos. It's even made by the same guy who did DMC, so his likes, humor, and interests are obviously reflected in all of his games. I'm not going to whine about how Mighty No. 9 looks so much like Mega Man, because it's common sense that it looks similar.
I'm also getting sick of this view that each and every game needs to innovate. Seriously? So when devs can't come up with new things anymore - because they've already tried almost everything, or another developer already has - does that mean they should go bankrupt because they can't innovate anymore? I'm certain there are plenty of games from the '90s that didn't innovate at all, but were excellent nonetheless. I think Croc might not have done anything new either, but it was still a decent game. Shouldn't innovation take a back seat to good gameplay? Gameplay that doesn't
force you to do anything?
PS: I'm not going to reply again, because I really should take a break from this site. If I don't, I might get problems with my school work. I also don't want to completely derail the thread.
