Not really. To me, most bosses are a matter of dodging attacks, then hitting them in different ways. No real need to do anything specific to win, which isn't a problem, but I can't really see the varied complexities. DMC1, and Nero were the only things that usually stood out for me. DMC1 with the bosses requiring strategy, while Nero needed the devil breaker attachments, but for some of Nero's bosses, you don't even need DB to win.
I feel it would still be compared because it would be a game made by Capcom that is as Hack n Slash as DMC, and people would judge it for being an attempt to replace classic Dante and the classic DMC with a new IP. It's not like Sengoku Basara, which was a Musou game. It would've been a bonafide hack n slash that played similar to DMC, and had elements similar to DMC. In my experience in this fandom, some DMC fans are VERY protective of Devil May Cry, and anything that rivals it, is compared with the intent to prop of the Devil May Cry series.
So naw, I think even if DmC was named 'Limbo City', people would still be like "Hey, this game plays like Devil May Cry! Why not just make another Devil May Cry game? Why bring us Limbo City? Is this a replacement? Are you REPLACING Devil May Cry?! WTF Crapcom?"
Also, this "New IP" would've come out the same time as Capcom's Western phase, where their games were being given to Western Developers to appeal to a western audience, so Capcom being like "Limbo City is being done by NT," all it would get is "So this Western group is trying to be like DMC? THey'll never replace DMC! #banlimbocity! #notdante!"