• 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

DmC vs Dmc4 graphics comparison(SPOILERS)

AlchemistFromEden

AlchemistFromEden

Well-known Member
now that both pc versions are out, a fair comparison of graphics can finally be made.
LIGHTING
in this regard i firmly believe that thanks to NT attention to detail and the fact that it came out five years later that DmC wins in this regard but goddamn dmc4 is definitely no slouch when it comes to lighting thanks to the MT framework
TEXTURES
once again, DmC takes the cake for the attention to detail in the texture detail, thanks to NT not only do the main male characters look amazing to look at, but pretty much every character is very detailed
FACIAL ANIMATION
re5 marked the first time that capcom started using facial motion capture, and the reason is probably because they were not that good at doing facial animation by hand, because most of the facial animation in dmc4 is just (if you actually look) their mouths are just moving without really syncing up to what they're saying unless the character speaking somewhat slowly,however, all of nero's angry faces look extremely well done. NT used avatar's motion capture studio and it showed in every single expression that the characters make with every subtle expression being captured near perfectly.
ENVIRONMENTS
Do I REALLY need to explain why Limbo looks much better than Fortuna other than the amazing lighting, extremely good environmental destruction, however anything outside of Limbo looks really dull which i really think was intentional so that the transition would make you go WOW LOOK AT THE COLORS
CHARACTER ANIMATION
this one is hard because capcom really put in work for dante and nero's character animation, with extremely so i'll categorize it
-cloth physics-DmC
-hair animation-DMC4
-movement-tie
-in-game facial animation-DmC
SO THERE YOU HAVE IT

 
There are 5 years between these games, it's ridiculous that there is even any comparison between them in terms of graphics. I do enjoy the style that DmC has been made in, and the graphics are better in general, but not by that much.

There was acres of improvement between halo 1 and halo 2, and those were both on the same console just like this game, and halo 2 didn't cut the fps in half.
 
JamboNessy said:
There are 5 years between these games, it's ridiculous that there is even any comparison between them in terms of graphics. I do enjoy the style that DmC has been made in, and the graphics are better in general, but not by that much.

There was acres of improvement between halo 1 and halo 2, and those were both on the same console just like this game, and halo 2 didn't cut the fps in half.
Click to expand...
halo 2 ran at 30fps -_- and so did halo 1 and so does EVERY halo game, also, the fact that you can compare them should be a compliment towards dmc4 for still looking good afters years, its like saying you can't compare wind waker to skyward sword
 
I'm only agreeing with you because I really don't like DMC4.

But still, DmC only beats DMC4 in environment and character animation being more detailed. Other then that, DMC4 has better graphics.
 
JamboNessy said:
There are 5 years between these games, it's ridiculous that there is even any comparison between them in terms of graphics. I do enjoy the style that DmC has been made in, and the graphics are better in general, but not by that much.
Click to expand...

But yet we all compare DMC3 and 4 with DmC in terms of gameplay.
 
Yes halo 1 and 2 obviously ran at 30fps because as far as i'm aware every game on consoles back then ran on that. My point was that it is that if they half the framerate, that gives them more room to increase the graphics of a game based on the limitations of the system.

What does gameplay have to do with anything? Some games from a decade ago have better gameplay than modern games, gameplay doesn't always improve, graphics is going to improve alongside the technology that has the capability to output it.

Also I've only played both games on the PC at max settings, maybe on the consoles there are more noticeable differences.
 
The PC version of DmC looks better than DMC4, but just the very fact that we're making this comparison already shows how damn well DMC4 aged, that is a great achievement from Capcom.

The console DmC is not that good though, I like DMC4 better than DmC on consoles, but the PC version is one of the best looking games I've ever played in my life.
 
JamboNessy said:
Yes halo 1 and 2 obviously ran at 30fps because as far as i'm aware every game on consoles back then ran on that. My point was that it is that if they half the framerate, that gives them more room to increase the graphics of a game based on the limitations of the system.

What does gameplay have to do with anything? Some games from a decade ago have better gameplay than modern games, gameplay doesn't always improve, graphics is going to improve alongside the technology that has the capability to output it.

Also I've only played both games on the PC at max settings, maybe on the consoles there are more noticeable differences.
Click to expand...
dmc 1,2,3 ran at 60fps, it doesn't matter how much the technology has improved, the amount of work a studio puts into a game's visuals is the main factor in how good it looks, because this game could've looked much worse
 
DmC looks better. There's alot of detail in the levels and the art direction for DmC is incredible. It's one of my favorite things about the game. I'm really digging the surreal art coming to life like Limbo can bring and definitely it adds a nice unique flavor on the whole thing more so than DMC ever did because it was always just something that would just as well work with a Castlevania game. Never brought anything special or new to the gothic fantasy table.
 
AlchemistFromEden said:
dmc 1,2,3 ran at 60fps, it doesn't matter how much the technology has improved, the amount of work a studio puts into a game's visuals is the main factor in how good it looks, because this game could've looked much worse
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to disagree with that one, pretty sure technology is a massive part. I don't see many games from 1995 look anywhere near as good as modern games, in fact it's hard to find any games that look as good from just 1 console generation prior.
 
JamboNessy said:
I'm going to have to disagree with that one, pretty sure technology is a massive part. I don't see many games from 1995 look anywhere near as good as modern games, in fact it's hard to find any games that look as good from just 1 console generation prior.
Click to expand...
wind waker has timeless visuals dude, trust me, that game has better animation
nightrunner_ks said:
Not sure if ignorant, uninformed or just plain stupid.
Click to expand...
not sure if annoying fanboy or weaboo or both for insulting me because i don't suck the dick of the MT framework which isn't better than UE3's max abilities, compare re6 to star wars 1313 alpha gameplay
 
AlchemistFromEden said:
wind waker has timeless visuals dude, trust me, that game has better animation
not sure if annoying fanboy or weaboo or both for insulting me because i don't suck the **** of the MT framework which isn't better than UE3's max abilities, compare re6 to star wars 1313 alpha gameplay
Click to expand...

Why the **** did you quote my post? I have no qualm with you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom