DMC3 Retconned DMC1? I Wanna Know

[DarkSlayerZero]

Novels are not canon to the series. And they never mention how many swords Sparda had, DMC implies that he had Yamato too when we use his costume, but again, they never mentioned how much swords; at that time we only had clue to know Yamato, and as a matter of fact FE/Sparda.

I don't consider "Inuyasha May Cry" canon.

Yamato in DMC1 doesn't exist.

Even if there's some incronguency between dialogues and events, it kept all the continuity of the series. DMC1 still happens after DMC3, that's why they leave an opening to lead to the exact events that happened in DMC1; they've never touched what happens on DMC1 and is still a part of the timeline. A reboot should have to make "another DMC1" to continue that story. I think that should hit the point home and show why DMC3 can't be considered a reboot at all, even if it changed some things (like that implied past of Vergil in Trish's dialogue, that Dante itself not confirms that was exactly what happened) that would be later clarified by Kamiya, if it's not shown in official media it's not part of the story at all; what Kamiya had in mind is not what he showed to players, if he envisioned something different it's completely another thing, the official Devil May Cry is what we see in the games and whatever Capcom decide to consider canon (like the recently confirmed information that Nero is indeed Vergil's Son in the japanese artbooks, although no one knows who is he's mother or when she get pregnant of him).

Kamiya confirmed that the Vergil that appeared in the novel was Nero Angelo.

 

[V's patron]

I would say it was retconned but that's not always a bad thing since Metal Gear is built on retcons and yet it keeps going so retcons in general aren't a problem.

I think the problem with DMC is that they aren't thorough with their retcons so you are unsure how these stories fit together in a larger whole.

You have a sequence of events but you dont have account for the time in between them.

I think the light novel could still be canon with regards to DMC3 but its better off you write something else to take its place.

 

[VineBigBoss]

I don't consider "Inuyasha May Cry" canon.

Yamato in DMC1 doesn't exist.



Kamiya confirmed that the Vergil that appeared in the novel was Nero Angelo.

What you "don't consider canon" doesn't mean nothing, you're not the people responsible for these series; the opinion and decisions of their owners is what counts, for bad or good.

In that time was just a part of the Sparda costume, i think it was there just to make more difference between Dante and Sparda costume; but they worked on this idea and turned it into canon.

Novels aren't canon to the series.

 

[Chancey289]

Of course it contradicts the original canon. You can also just do some simple math to see that.

In DMC 1 Dante is 29 and we're told he lost both his brother and mother 20 years ago. DMC 3 takes place only 10 years prior to those events and Vergil is alive?

In DMC 1 when you beat Nelo Angelo Dante discovers the amulet only his brother would have owned and you hear a flashback of Dante's birthday party implying Dante has not seen his brother since they were children. He had no idea whatsoever he was fighting his brother. The amulet confirmed it.

The entirety of DMC 3 should have never happened logically because it just doesn't. Vergil isn't supposed to be there causing some sh!t because he's supposed to be dead. Becoming Mundus's puppet in the process.

I blame the new writers. They f#cked up this canon and made it forever cursed with continuity issues.

 

[Railazel]

Therefore, there's no contradiction if it was never mentioned. They've never mentioned how much swords Sparda had in DMC too.

DMC 1 clearly states that Force Edge was the sword Sparda left behind. Rebellion didn't appear until DMC 2 where it was just a random sword Dante had seemingly picked up sometime before the game starts and it didn't become relevant to the overall plot until DMC 3.

Trish really mention that he "lost his mother and brother to evil 20 years ago", which is inconsistent but not really contradicts DMC3 as it's not even a clear statement about all their past; as the story remains the same that Mundus (ordered to) kill Eva and separated Vergil and Dante in some way that we don't really know.

Dante says in DMC 3 that he and his brother hadn't seen each other in a year, which goes against DMC 1's stating that they hadn't seen each other in over twenty.

N
Even if there's some incronguency between dialogues and events, it kept all the continuity of the series. DMC1 still happens after DMC3, that's why they leave an opening to lead to the exact events that happened in DMC1; they've never touched what happens on DMC1 and is still a part of the timeline.

But, by this logic, DMC 3 has some plotholes that are major to DMC's storyline and consistency.

In that time was just a part of the Sparda costume, i think it was there just to make more difference between Dante and Sparda costume; but they worked on this idea and turned it into canon.

Actually, the Sparda costume was meant to be a "Timeskip" Dante where a tragic event happens and Dante changes in character. However, they couldn't add that in so they made it Sparda's appearance. If I am correct, Yamato was also meant to mark this change but became Sparda's weapon alongside Force Edge.

In fact, it is safe to note that the Yamato in DMC 3 is different from the one used by Sparda in DMC 1 since, in DMC 1, it had a golden hilt as opposed to a white one. This can also be evidence of DMC 3 being a change to DMC's storyline, however this little tidbit can be easily overlooked as a design oversight.

 

[VineBigBoss]

DMC 1 clearly states that Force Edge was the sword Sparda left behind. Rebellion didn't appear until DMC 2 where it was just a random sword Dante had seemingly picked up sometime before the game starts and it didn't become relevant to the overall plot until DMC 3.

And how do this exclude the existence of other swords?

Rebellion really came out from nothing in DMC2, but i don't know what's the point here.

Dante says in DMC 3 that he and his brother hadn't seen each other in a year, which goes against DMC 1's stating that they hadn't seen each other in over twenty.

The video where Trish states that Dante had lost his brother to evil twenty years ago is in this thread; it remains implied that they not did really meet until the events of DMC, but DMC1 is not even clear about that too.

But, by this logic, DMC 3 has some plotholes that are major to DMC's storyline and consistency.

Yes, it's a big plothole, but don't really retconned anything as there was nothing clearly stated anywhere. The point is that there's no reboot whatsoever in DMC at that point.

Actually, the Sparda costume was meant to be a "Timeskip" Dante where a tragic event happens and Dante changes in character. However, they couldn't add that in so they made it Sparda's appearance. If I am correct, Yamato was also meant to mark this change but became Sparda's weapon alongside Force Edge.

In fact, it is safe to note that the Yamato in DMC 3 is different from the one used by Sparda in DMC 1 since, in DMC 1, it had a golden hilt as opposed to a white one. This can also be evidence of DMC 3 being a change to DMC's storyline, however this little tidbit can be easily overlooked as a design oversight.

Yes, they are different, Yamato by that time was just a concept about another sword Sparda had; they've changed somethings, i'm not sure if it was only for gameplay purpose but if you remember well, Yamato turned you into Alastor in DMC. I think it was there just to make the costumes even more different, but the concept was used in the storyline afterwards.

 

[Chancey289]

And how do this exclude the existence of other swords?

Rebellion really came out from nothing in DMC2, but i don't know what's the point here.




The video where Trish states that Dante had lost his brother to evil twenty years ago is in this thread; it remains implied that they not did really meet until the events of DMC, but DMC1 is not even clear about that too.



Yes, it's a big plothole, but don't really retconned anything as there was nothing clearly stated anywhere. The point is that there's no reboot whatsoever in DMC at that point.




.

How is it not clear? Dante's main objective is revenge because demons killed his family when he was a kid. Just because no one says the word "dead" doesn't mean that's not what it's implying.

Like I said earlier, when you beat Nelo Angelo Dante discovers his brother's amulet and you hear flashbacks of them as children doing some kind of birthday party. He only remembers his brother when they were kids because that's all he knows.

DMC 3 doesn't logically exist in the canon when you look at the original game. DMC 3 went of and did it's own thing and has now pretty much riddled the canon with plot holes and continuity issues. It's like no one every thought ahead.

 

[ToCool74]

LOL at some of the comments on this thread.

The first 4 DMC games all take place in the same universe. I'm sure most other DMC fans would agree with that. If you believe otherwise, you need to get you're head examined. Yes, there are retcons, but they're negligible. What video game franchise doesn't have retcons? Just ignore the stuff in DMC1 that contradicts what happened in DMC3.

And the reason Dante wasn't using Rebellion in DMC1 was because after he obtained Force Edge he started using that as his main sword and retired use of Rebellion. But after he gave the Force Edge/Sparda to Trish, he resumed use of Rebellion.

You revived a dead thread....

Would be best to have a look at these before continuing further,
http://devilmaycry.org/threads/rules-and-whatnot.3211/

 

[ToCool74]

Knew this would happen. But I couldn't help it. And I didn't spam. I needed to give my opinion. Doesn't hurt anyone.

Its against the rules though to revive old threads, forums have rules for a reason, Your new and I'm just trying to give you some friendly advice if you wish to stay a part of the forum.

From your post you knew that you where breaking a rule but just did not care.....that is the wrong attitude to have on a forum if you wish to actually stay a part of the forum.

 

[Lord Nero]

Its against the rules though to revive old threads, forums have rules for a reason, Your new and I'm just trying to give you some friendly advice if you wish to stay a part of the forum.

From your post you knew that you where breaking a rule but just did not care.....that is the wrong attitude to have on a forum if you wish to actually stay a part of the forum.

Actually, it's not against the rules. It's permitted if you think you have a good reason:

''Double-posting or reviving 'dead' topics is only allowed under very specific conditions. Use common sense to determine whether or not you have a legitimate reason to engage in either.''
Since these 'specific conditions' were not explained, I think what Steve meant was that you simply need to decide for yourself if you have a legitimate reason to revive it.

If replies to this thread are not allowed, it should be locked. Plain and simple.
So... somebody please lock this thread.

 

[ToCool74]

''Double-posting or reviving 'dead' topics is only allowed under very specific conditions. Use common sense to determine whether or not you have a legitimate reason to engage in either.''
Since these 'specific conditions' were not explained, I think what Steve meant was that you simply need to decide for yourself if you have a legitimate reason to revive it.

Pretty sure they mean use common "forum sense" as in how most forums only allows bumping or reviving a old thread when updating with important updates.

I've been a part of many forums and those "very specific conditions" usually only entails that it is ok to bump a thread with relevant information rather than bumping it for the heck of it.

If you don't believe me than just pm one of the staff members, pretty sure they will tell you the same, its against the rules bottom line UNLESS you have important information to add.

 

[Chancey289]

What video game franchise doesn't have retcons? .

Lots.

 

[Lord Nero]

Pretty sure they mean use common "forum sense" as in how most forums only allows bumping or reviving a old thread when updating with important updates.

I've been a part of many forums and those "very specific conditions" usually only entails that it is ok to bump a thread with relevant information rather than bumping it for the heck of it.

If you don't believe me than just pm one of the staff members, pretty sure they will tell you the same, its against the rules bottom line UNLESS you have important information to add.

Alright, then now I know. Still, the thread should just be locked, otherwise people might revive it more than once.

 

[Kam]

Of course it did, How does Dante go from a frat boy to somehow caring about avenging his mother?

you see this as a retcon and not a character development?

 

[Lord Nero]

What a lot of people fail to realize is that in DMC1, Dante and Vergil had not seen each other since they were eight. Vergil had disappeared since that age, and only resurfaced when Dante was 28. That's why in DMC1 Dante has a flashback of him and Vergil as kids fighting over a piece of chocolate. Trish also said Dante had lost his brother to evil twenty years ago. Since he was 28 in DMC1, that means he lost Vergil at age 8.

DMC3 retconned it by making Dante and Vergil meet on the Temen-Ni-Gru at age 19. There Dante even said ''it's been a year since we last met''. So yeah, DMC3 was a retcon. That said, you could simply explain the flashback in DMC1 as 'one of Dante's fondest memories' of Vergil, and that they had indeed met when they were 18/19. Trish wouldn't have known about his meeting with Vergil on the Temen-Ni-Gru, because she didn't exist yet in DMC3.

 

[ef9dante_oSsshea]

Great way of putting it pyro

 

[Lord Nero]

Thanks!

But now that I think about it, I suppose you could explain all the things mentioned as plot holes. Like I said in my previous post, Dante's flashback in DMC1 could just be a flashback to his fondest memories of Vergil, because that's how he wants to remember him. Trish wouldn't have known about D&V's meeting on the tower because she hadn't been created yet.

The Yamato not existing in DMC1 can be explained by saying that after Vergil was enslaved by Mundus (after the battle in DMC3), the Yamato was lost. Nero Angelo probably wouldn't have any use for it, since he already had a shiny zweihänder. Anyway, the Yamato was then found in DMC4 by the Order of the Sword, possibly because Trish found it and gave it to them as Gloria.

 

[ef9dante_oSsshea]

Or possibly yamato was found and brought to agnus through the hell gate by one of his demons.

 

[Lord Nero]

Or possibly yamato was found and brought to agnus through the hell gate by one of his demons.

Yeah, anything's possible, really.

And undoubtedly, people want to say that the Yamato's outward appearance was retconned too, and sure, maybe it was. But that doesn't invalidate DMC3's entire story. In DMC1, wasn't the Yamato available as an unlockable weapon after you finished the game? So its appearance doesn't really matter - it's just a nice bonus weapon.

 

[Director Bison]

i think of it as the Trish knows of the incident 20 years ago when Eva died because it was demons who did it so they brag about there victory

but in DMC 3 the only ones involved in the Temen-Ni-Gru incident that actually survived were Dante and Lady all the demon's who where involved were killed

and i don't think Dante or Lady would bring up the Temen-Ni-Gru in an average conversation

Mundus mabey didn't care how Vergil got to the demon world or wanted Dante to think of his dead mother so Trish would have more of an effect on him