Has Devil May Cry spoiled us in the hackn'slash genre?

[Jak]

(i made a conscious decision to place this under "general gaming" just fyi. i'm not a TOTAL dolt)

the hack n' slash genre seems to be getting less interesting as the years go by. i'm not saying that there aren't any good titles anymore, i LOVE the force unleashed games, and bayonetta and god of war. but when i play those games, they don't feel as intense. and i think that as amazing as DMC3 is that was the beginning of the end. i own DMC3 special edition. and i know that the game had some of it's teeth pulled in this version, but while playing it just off the heels of playing god of war and force unleashed 1, i came back to it and it felt much more rewarding. and i think i know why.

this is what DMC3/4 (and depending the level of difficulty DmC as well) are

those games reward you...but you work for it. they put your genitals through a meat grinder just to get an SS rating (little secret, i've only gotten SSS a grand total of four in DMC3...and it felt so damn good when i finally got it). where as most other hack n slashers like metal gear rising or lollipop chainsaw just felt waaayy to OP (ironic huh?).

don't take this as me saying that hack n' slash is dead and DMC/DmC killed it (trust me someone is going to make that conclusion). i'm just saying that it's peaked. kinda like star wars. Devil May Cry is "Empire" and everything else after it is "Return of the Jedi" (i'm speaking generally of course, so fans of ROTJ, please don't hand me).

 

[xMobilemux]

There's plenty of room for improvement and innovation, but the problem is gaming is trying to be for everyone now and everyone are lazy wussies who aren't gonna spend hours and hours trying to master the game for the ultimate rewards or become A+ players just to get to Level 2.
So now most HnS games water down the superior gameplay standard that DMC3 set so "everyone" can play them and will buy them.

Also it's not just HnS games, it's all games in general, FPSs have become linear narrative driven shooters while they peaked in the 90s with their complex level design and freedom, others even made very high standards with Deus Ex and System Shock 2, haven't seen much of them nowadays.

Also same with 3rd person shooters, nowadays they're just linear cover shooters, while back in the glory days there were fast paced shooters equal to the 90s FPSs and even very complex adventure games like Hitman Blood Money for example, Blood Money was the peak of the franchise, then Absolution watered itself down for the casuals and the best possible example I can give you of a great franchise watered down into casual garbage is this crap.

Even Hollywood is doing it with it's god damn addiction to PG-13 which will never surpass the greatness of the past, but I won't go into that.

Game's won't improve, innovate or surpass their glory days until they stop trying to be and/or stop being considered Art.
DMC3 wasn't Art, it was entertainment and a damn good entertaining game, so was DMC4 and so many other games of that time, but everything afterwards tried to be Art and started the trend of mediocrity.

EDIT: Also, I love Japan

 

[DragonMaster2010]

Game's won't improve, innovate or surpass their glory days until they stop trying to be and/or stop being considered Art.
DMC3 wasn't Art, it was entertainment and a damn good entertaining game, so was DMC4 and so many other games of that time, but everything afterwards tried to be Art and started the trend of mediocrity.

Dude ALL video games are a form of art. programming the character's movements is not only mathematics but also artistic. Drawing the characters; that's art. creating the setting; that's art. creating the terrain; that's art. video gaming IS art and has always been art. What you mean to say is video gaming has now become money driven. Games that are hard apparently don't sell well anymore and now have become accessible so more can play and thus more money. But if they made the games hard and less people buy it, that means that'll be the only game since sales were lousy. Back then hard games were all the rage, but now no one wants to put all that time and effort into the game because economy, longer work days, and a need to just chill with something easy to pass the time.

 

[WolfOD64]

I was already spoiled by Ninja Gaiden long before I touched DMC3, so I never had the bias of regarding it as the "begin-all-end-all of hack n' slashers."

And remember, not all action games strive for the same type of gameplay. Hack-n'-slash as a genre revolves around combat, and combat depends solely on the style and emphasis woven within.

Take the combat system in Lords of Shadow, Dante's Inferno, and God of War, for example: they emphasize their combat on brutality and widespread attacks to fit the merciless nature of their respective characters, which can damage an entire area of enemies rather than picking them off one at a time like in DMC. Things like dodging and maneuvering around enemies exist, but fall into obscurity in the larger presence of counterattacking and dealing wide and/or narrow blows.

Metal Gear Rising's combat system is tailored off of a frantic and speedy system of blocking, parrying, and attacking...at least from what little gameplay I've seen (I've steered clear of the game because of the Kojima logo on the box, and therefore have refrained from touching it).

Ninja Gaiden has a far trickier combat system to master, since it requires an extreme emphasis on dodging and weaving through enemies that react and attack at a blazing rate. Some combos are quick, but others have an extreme delay to allow for cancelling and dodging in the middle of mashing combos.

Devil May Cry's combat system is different because it offers a number of different play styles for different situations. However, each of these styles are limited in how far the player can take them into progression...in other words, you can't dedicate all your skill to one style like Swordmaster or Royal Guard, and have that exist as your exclusive combat style with every move tailored by it, like picking a permanent class in an RPG. The game was designed around you shifting through the styles and using all of them. Sure, you can have one that you use the most, but there are levels and enemies where shifting to a more appropriate style is needed.

It's like a jack-of-all trades combat system. There's variety and freedom to experiment, but there's a restriction on how far you can take each style, preventing you from mastering and defining one and ONLY one.

 

[xMobilemux]

Dude ALL video games are a form of art. programming the character's movements is not only mathematics but also artistic. Drawing the characters; that's art. creating the setting; that's art. creating the terrain; that's art. video gaming IS art and has always been art. What you mean to say is video gaming has now become money driven. Games that are hard apparently don't sell well anymore and now have become accessible so more can play and thus more money. But if they made the games hard and less people buy it, that means that'll be the only game since sales were lousy. Back then hard games were all the rage, but now no one wants to put all that time and effort into the game because economy, longer work days, and a need to just chill with something easy to pass the time.

No games are not art, artists creating the characters, scenery and all for the game is only part of the development process, the games as a whole back then were not created to be art forms, they were created to be fun video games, the art style of the games or the art put into the games never made them works of art, it just suited the type of game they wanted it to be, games these days focus on their stories, graphics, character development and emotional crap, they're trying to be paint a picture, therefor are trying to be art.
DMC3 was not trying to be art at all, sure it had a lot of art put in it like the stylish characters, cool environments and such but that doesn't mean the game as a whole is a work of art. It knew it wanted to be a video game and it ended up becoming the best of it's genre, DmC tried to be art by focusing on it's story, graphics and such and it sucked as a video game.

Video games that try to be video games end up being awesome, fun to play and even innovative, DayZ, Borderlands, Just Cause 2, Ninja Gaiden, DMC3, Shadow Warrior 2013 and such to name a few and those games do things that next to no games do these days and they've all sold well enough to keep the franchises going, but games that try to be art entirely, Shadow of the Colossus, Last of Us, DmC, and pretty much everything else these days are boring and not worth playing again cause they just try to focus on all the artistic points such as the story, graphics, character development and such while their gameplay ends up being generic, lazy and boring.

 

[Chancey289]

No games are not art, artists creating the characters, scenery and all for the game is only part of the development process, the games as a whole back then were not created to be art forms, they were created to be fun video games, the art style of the games or the art put into the games never made them works of art, it just suited the type of game they wanted it to be, games these days focus on their stories, graphics, character development and emotional crap, they're trying to be paint a picture, therefor are trying to be art.
DMC3 was not trying to be art at all, sure it had a lot of art put in it like the stylish characters, cool environments and such but that doesn't mean the game as a whole is a work of art. It knew it wanted to be a video game and it ended up becoming the best of it's genre, DmC tried to be art by focusing on it's story, graphics and such and it sucked as a video game.

Video games that try to be video games end up being awesome, fun to play and even innovative, DayZ, Borderlands, Just Cause 2, Ninja Gaiden, DMC3, Shadow Warrior 2013 and such to name a few and those games do things that next to no games do these days and they've all sold well enough to keep the franchises going, but games that try to be art entirely, Shadow of the Colossus, Last of Us, DmC, and pretty much everything else these days are boring and not worth playing again cause they just try to focus on all the artistic points such as the story, graphics, character development and such while their gameplay ends up being generic, lazy and boring.

You really have no clue of what you're talking about.

 

[Demi-fiend]

You really have no clue of what you're talking about.

This. Some people refuse to think before they talk...

 

[EA9Sol]

Yeah, I think Devil May Cry has spoiled me a little. I've played God Of War and Bayonetta , but unlike those games I've never felt the need to improve in them like I try to in DMC. DMC 3 I'm trying to max out all the styles while trying to get a SSS on all levels I'm only getting A's lol. DCM 4 I'm trying to master the art or JCing and in DmC I'm played on higher difficulties. And that is very rare. The only other game that I played on every difficulty level was No More Heroes. And I'm currently trying to beat Metal Gear Raising but, it's not as fun as playing DMC. :/ I like the game, but not as much as I like to.*

 

[Lord Nero]

''this is what DMC3/4 (and depending the level of difficulty DmC as well) are:
those games reward you...but you work for it. they put your genitals through a meat grinder just to get an SS rating (little secret, i've only gotten SSS a grand total of four in DMC3...and it felt so damn good when i finally got it). where as most other hack n slashers like metal gear rising or lollipop chainsaw just felt waaayy to OP (ironic huh?).''

Meh, that's your opinion. I got SSS ratings pretty often in DMC3. Probably even more often in DMC4. Hell, with Vergil, you get them every minute or so. I'm not saying it doesn't take some skill, but I think many gamers have lost their skills, and the newer generations of gamers (even people who are now 17/18) have no idea what 'hard games' are, because they grew up playing easy, mainstream games that hold your hand.
The DMC games really aren't that hard, they just ask you to find your own play style. You can create all kinds of combos, and getting high scores is easy. The reason why it feels so rewarding is because you get to do awesome attacks, and because you can make your own combos. It's a learning process that yields nice rewards, which most games nowadays don't have. Most modern games just tell you ''do this simple action -- now do it fifty times in a row and you get an achievement! Gud joooowb!'' *gives you a pat on the head*. I think I have gotten spoiled by most old games, because they still had unlockable content, easter eggs and other rewards you had to fight for. You weren't asked to repeat, repeat, repeat just to get nonexistent rewards called 'achievements' or 'trophies'.
In this sense, I also agree with xMobilemux -- games are too watered down and created to suit everyone, and it's all just to squeeze every last bit of money out of them. I don't agree with xMobilemux about games not being art, though. Some games told stories that felt like they were taken right out of literature, and I loved that. Nowadays, games are just about 'assassins!' and 'zombies!' and 'oooo, corporations are bad' and blah blah... blaaaaah. Games seriously need an infusion of culture... even if it's just the shallow kind.

Also, DMC3 was about doing fast, stylish attacks. Maybe some gamers (incl you) have indeed gotten bored of other H&S games because they don't feel as 'intense' because they aren't very fast-paced, but plenty of H&S games do their own thing. You're acting like the goal for H&S games is to be the next DMC... well, it's not, and most people don't even care about their style ranking. God of War for example is liked by many people, even those who've played DMC3/4. It seems to me that GoW is more about doing powerful, brutal attacks, and that's fine too. Different people, different tastes. Aside from that, those games' stories are sometimes pretty decent, so H&S games are not only about the gameplay.

 

[DreadnoughtDT]

''this is what DMC3/4 (and depending the level of difficulty DmC as well) are:
those games reward you...but you work for it. they put your genitals through a meat grinder just to get an SS rating (little secret, i've only gotten SSS a grand total of four in DMC3...and it felt so damn good when i finally got it). where as most other hack n slashers like metal gear rising or lollipop chainsaw just felt waaayy to OP (ironic huh?).''

Meh, that's your opinion. I got SSS ratings pretty often in DMC3. Probably even more often in DMC4. Hell, with Vergil, you get them every minute or so. I'm not saying it doesn't take some skill, but I think many gamers have lost their skills, and the newer generations of gamers (even people who are now 17/18) have no idea what 'hard games' are, because they grew up playing easy, mainstream games that hold your hand.
The DMC games really aren't that hard, they just ask you to find your own play style. You can create all kinds of combos, and getting high scores is easy. The reason why it feels so rewarding is because you get to do awesome attacks, and because you can make your own combos. It's a learning process that yields nice rewards, which most games nowadays don't have. Most modern games just tell you ''do this simple action -- now do it fifty times in a row and you get an achievement! Gud joooowb!'' *gives you a pat on the head*. I think I have gotten spoiled by most old games, because they still had unlockable content, easter eggs and other rewards you had to fight for. You weren't asked to repeat, repeat, repeat just to get nonexistent rewards called 'achievements' or 'trophies'.
In this sense, I also agree with xMobilemux -- games are too watered down and created to suit everyone, and it's all just to squeeze every last bit of money out of them. I don't agree with xMobilemux about games not being art, though. Some games told stories that felt like they were taken right out of literature, and I loved that. Nowadays, games are just about 'assassins!' and 'zombies!' and 'oooo, corporations are bad' and blah blah... blaaaaah. Games seriously need an infusion of culture... even if it's just the shallow kind.

Also, DMC3 was about doing fast, stylish attacks. Maybe some gamers (incl you) have indeed gotten bored of other H&S games because they don't feel as 'intense' because they aren't very fast-paced, but plenty of H&S games do their own thing. You're acting like the goal for H&S games is to be the next DMC... well, it's not, and most people don't even care about their style ranking. God of War for example is liked by many people, even those who've played DMC3/4. It seems to me that GoW is more about doing powerful, brutal attacks, and that's fine too. Different people, different tastes. Aside from that, those games' stories are sometimes pretty decent, so H&S games are not only about the gameplay.

I'm 19 going on 20 and I've been playing DMC since I was 8, so I'm pretty sure I'm at least fairly skilled in difficult games. Heh.

 

[Lord Nero]

I'm 19 going on 20 and I've been playing DMC since I was 8, so I'm pretty sure I'm at least fairly skilled in difficult games. Heh.

Cool. Yeah, what I mean is, new generations of gamers who haven't taken the time to play difficult (or old) games. So, sooo many people don't even know about games like DMC3, but they do know about Assassin's Creed and Gears of War and shoite. Games do seem to be getting less skill-demanding and 'made for everyone' all the time. I think some people are lucky to have been introduced to these kinds of games, really. As for me, I'm 23, so I must've been 14 when DMC3 was released... and well, that was pretty much my hayday of gaming. It's just too bad for people who don't have the chance to grow up with those kinds of games.

 

[WolfOD64]

Cool. Yeah, what I mean is, new generations of gamers who haven't taken the time to play difficult (or old) games. I can't tell you how many people don't even know about games like DMC3, but they do know about Assassin's Creed and Gears of War and shoite. Games do seem to be getting less skill-demanding and 'made for everyone' all the time. I think some people are lucky to have been introduced to these kinds of games, really. As for me, I'm 23, so I must've been 14 when DMC3 was released... and well, that was pretty much my hayday of gaming. It's just too bad for people who don't have the chance to grow up with those kinds of games.

My 12-year-old cousin asked me if I had any good games in my collection like God of War, so I decided to enlighten the little rascal and lent him my copy of the DMC: HD Collection. He was skeptical at first, but I told him to at least give 1 and 3 a try before judging the game outright.

About a week later, when I asked for my copy back, he told me to "flock off" and ask for it next week. I'm guessing he liked it. Hopefully, I can introduce him to Darksiders II, but I still need to play that first.

 

[Chancey289]

Ok, what does that even mean when people are saying the plot for DmC somehow interfered with the gameplay? The game's cutscenes put together chalk up a smaller run time than both DMC 3 and 4 who spent a lot more time TRYING SO HARD to tell a decent plot.

4 has cutscenes that if put together nearly reach 2 hours, and I seriously think there was no reason for those opening scenes to DMC 4 to be unplayable.

 

[Lord Nero]

Ok, what does that even mean when people are saying the plot for DmC somehow interfered with the gameplay? The game's cutscenes put together chalk up a smaller run time than both DMC 3 and 4 who spent a lot more time TRYING SO HARD to tell a decent plot.

I have no idea. Xmobilemux has said that before, I think, but I still don't see any arguments for it. I don't agree on DMC3 and 4 trying hard to tell a decent plot, though. They both told simple stories, and I don't think their developers tried hard to tell a great plot... just a decent plot to get from A to B, nothing more. Maybe telling a simple story does give the developers more money to spend on the gameplay? I guess that's one simple explanation.

 

[Lord Dante]

I have no idea. Xmobilemux has said that before, I think, but I still don't see any arguments for it. I don't agree on DMC3 and 4 trying hard to tell a decent plot, though. They both told simple stories, and I don't think their developers tried hard to tell a great plot... just a decent plot to get from A to B, nothing more. Maybe telling a simple story does give the developers more money to spend on the gameplay? I guess that's one simple explanation.

I think Xmobilemux meant those unskipabble parts in DmC where you have to follow Kat and do nothing.
Those were irritating.

 

[Chancey289]

I have no idea. Xmobilemux has said that before, I think, but I still don't see any arguments for it. I don't agree on DMC3 and 4 trying hard to tell a decent plot, though. They both told simple stories, and I don't think their developers tried hard to tell a great plot... just a decent plot to get from A to B, nothing more. Maybe telling a simple story does give the developers more money to spend on the gameplay? I guess that's one simple explanation.

Dude, I see it's trying too hard to actually get a better plot going, but failing. DMC 1 was simple and straightforward. It knew what it was doing. DMC 3 and 4 just have to focus on poorly written character dynamics. Like Nero and his cardboard cutout love interest really is something to focus on. Unless you want me to mute my TV or fall asleep.

And like I said, the total run time for the cutscenes are less than both 3 and 4. 4 being the most reaching nearly two hours. It doesn't spend as much time on a plot than those two games do. Story and gameplay are also handled by different people.

 

[Chancey289]

I think Xmobilemux meant those unskipabble parts in DmC where you have to follow Kat and do nothing.
Those were irritating.

That happens, what? Twice? And if you put it together it was only like about a couple of minutes. Yea, that REALLY took away from all the hack n slashy stuff. You must have a VERY short attention span if that really took you out of it.

The example I can think of when it comes to the cutscenes interfering with gameplay regarding Devil May Cry is in 4 where there are multiple cutscenes that I see no reason for being unplayable.

 

[Lord Dante]

That happens, what? Twice? And if you put it together it was only like about a couple of minutes. Yea, that REALLY took away from all the hack n slashy stuff. You must have a VERY short attention span if that really took you out of it.

The example I can think of when it comes to the cutscenes interfering with gameplay regarding Devil May Cry is in 4 where there are multiple cutscenes that I see no reason for being unplayable.

Nope. I just found the game to be dull and boring. Those sections could've easily been avoided with cutscenes.

 

[Chancey289]

Nope. I just found the game to be dull and boring. Those sections could've easily been avoided with cutscenes.

Of course. :meh:

 

[Lord Nero]

Dude, I see it's trying too hard to actually get a better plot going, but failing. DMC 1 was simple and straightforward. It knew what it was doing. DMC 3 and 4 just have to focus on poorly written character dynamics. Like Nero and his cardboard cutout love interest really is something to focus on. Unless you want me to mute my TV or fall asleep.

And like I said, the total run time for the cutscenes are less than both 3 and 4. 4 being the most reaching nearly two hours. It doesn't spend as much time on a plot than those two games do. Story and gameplay are also handled by different people.

Sure, DMC4 has a very simple love theme going on, but it's just used as a plot point, not as an amazingly profound part of the story. The writers of DMC4 did NOT try hard to create a good love story.
''Like Nero and his cardboard cutout love interest really is something to focus on''
That's just it: it's not something to focus on, and it wasn't meant to be. DMC4 is about Nero, and his journey to find himself, or rather to accept that he's a demon. Kyrie is not the least bit important (which is why she's absent for the largest part of the story). They just wanted to create a love story as a plot point, for Kyrie to get captured, etc. Anyone can see that it's not meant as a deep love story: their goal was to create a simplistic love story that served the overall plot.

DMC1's story was no better than DMC3's. They both tell a simple story, and I don't see why DMC1 is suddenly the holy grail here. You often criticize DMC3 and DMC4, but really, DMC1 is in most respects no better. It also has pretty shallow characters, and the whole thing with Trish and Dante was pretty mediocre too. When I play DMC1 today, it stands out as a worse game than DMC3, and not just because it's older. So maybe you're letting nostalgia cloud your judgment.

''It (DmC) doesn't spend as much time on a plot as those two games do.''

So... the amount of time spent on a plot = the amount of effort spent on the plot? It doesn't work that way. DMC4's cutscenes are often pretty drawn-out, yeah, but that doesn't mean they spent a lot of effort on the plot. The writers of DMC4 weren't ''trying too hard'', they simply decided to make their (very simple) plot points as impressive as they could... which is the whole point of cutscenes. Why the hell would you blame them for that?