Legit though, DMC4 sucked.

[TWOxACROSS]

Actually i think there was enough drama, alone from audio that played during Nelo Angelo's demise, where Dante remembered their past. I think it has much stronger impact that explanation like "it's sad, because---"

I would disagree. Vergil was not a character on people's minds for the majority of the game, and even with all the little hints of who Nelo Angelo might be, he wasn't a major player in the plot. We as an audience are told outright he is Vergil after Nelo Angelo's death, but there is little impact to be had, because Vergil has no character development - he's the supposedly dead brother and nothing more (until DMC3).

Let's compare Nelo Angelo/Vergil to the most famous familial twist of all: Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker. Before the reveal at the end of Empire Strikes Back, there was quite a bit of information detailing who Anakin was, which was contrasted by the evil that Darth Vader was, while also pinning the blame of Anakin's death on Vader. When we find out that they're one in the same, there's a sense of shock to be had because we knew so much about the hero Anakin to find it tragic that he had become the villainous Darth Vader.

With Vergil in DMC1, we know literally nothing about him other than he's a dead twin brother. We have lots of hints that Nelo Angelo is Vergil, but those don't paint us a picture of who Vergil was, just what Nelo Angelo used to be. As I said, DMC3 retroactively adds a bit of drama to the Nelo Angelo twist, but even then they did nothing to explain why Vergil was even alive in the first place.

 

[Innsmouth]

As I said, DMC3 retroactively adds a bit of drama to the Nelo Angelo twist, but even then they did nothing to explain why Vergil was even alive in the first place.

They managed to show that Dante understood his loss only when it was to late to do anything about it. We learn enough to know that Dante and Vergil had happy childhood together, before Mundus came. And after Nelo Angelo's death he lost it forever. Besides whole scene with Nelo Angelo was made not to introduce Vergil, but to show that Dante isn't just bunch of muscles. In that scene we have more than enough information to prove that Dante cared about his family and his brother, and he can feel sadness about his final demise. DMC1 is 3-hour long game. They put enough drama in it, considering how short it was. And what does it even means, "why he was alive"?

 

[TWOxACROSS]

One sound bite of children laughing on their birthday does not give us enough to go on that they had a super happy fun-time childhood. And we had more than enough information well before the Nelo Angelo twist to know that Dante was a caring individual, but now you're arguing something that I'm not.

WE as an audience had very little emotional investment in the scene because we know next to nothing about Vergil. The biggest reaction one can have at the time is "Oh, well that sucks," but there's very little actual drama to be had about it. Even if the point of the scene was to show Dante had a lot of heart, it used a dramatic element that held very little drama to it for the audience.

And what does it even means, "why he was alive"?

Why the hell was Vergil alive in DMC3 to be the antagonist in the first place? What history we know tells us that Vergil was supposedly killed with Eva, but Dante and Vergil carry on as if it never happened. The one flaw of DMC3's show of the relationship between Dante and Vergil is that by putting more dramatic emphasis on DMC1's Nelo Angelo twist, they inadvertently removed any importance of Vergil's supposed death along with his mother.

 

[Chancey289]

Do people still not grasp how DMC 3 f#cked everything up by contradicting the established canon of the original?

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

That is one thing in DMC3 that bugs me; the only thing they kind of allude to is that Dante and Vergil had met a year before-which obviously explains why Dante wasn't surprised to see him alive, then, but I can't deny, it does contradict some of the elements in DMC1 for that exact reason...though even that is simple enough to explain away.

It would have been nice if Capcom had taken that much care, but honestly, I don't think there's much point in b*tching further over spilled milk, guys. What's done is done; it's been years. It doesn't make DMC3 a bad game, either; it just means Capcom does a sh*t job of making their stories cohesive.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Yeah, I mean, it's no use whinging about it now. The canon has been jiggered a bit too much and would take a great deal of care to really cement it.

But yes, this doesn't make the games sh!t or anything, just...they're a downside

 

[Chancey289]

Well, of course everyone still likes to play DMC 3 but there's no denying they dun goofed in the the story department.

 

[Innsmouth]

One sound bite of children laughing on their birthday does not give us enough to go on that they had a super happy fun-time childhood. And we had more than enough information well before the Nelo Angelo twist to know that Dante was a caring individual, but now you're arguing something that I'm not.

Nelo twist, as you call it, wasn't made for us to learn or to care for Vergil, so you entirely missed my point. And the small audio was more than enough to show they had real family relations as kids

WE

as an audience had very little emotional investment in the scene because we know next to nothing about Vergil. The biggest reaction one can have at the time is "Oh, well that sucks," but there's very little actual drama to be had about it. Even if the point of the scene was to show Dante had a lot of heart, it used a dramatic element that held very little drama to it for the audience.

Well i guess it depend on audience. It has enough emotions for me. So it kinda absurd that you tries to decide how others MUST react. Like i said, i still think it makes stronger impact when everything isn't explained over and over beforehand.

Why the hell was Vergil alive in DMC3 to be the antagonist in the first place? What history we know tells us that Vergil was supposedly killed with Eva, but Dante and Vergil carry on as if it never happened. The one flaw of DMC3's show of the relationship between Dante and Vergil is that by putting more dramatic emphasis on DMC1's Nelo Angelo twist, they inadvertently removed any importance of Vergil's supposed death along with his mother.

Supposedly killed. maybe. and maybe not. Because you can't actually tell what happened between DMC3 and Eva's death. It's all based on your assumption that that was last time Dante ever saw Vergil...which is actually don't has any support, since it wasn't stated anywhere. And how Vergil's death supposed to make any importance if this was established since DMC1 that he didn't died with Eva?

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Nelo twist, as you call it, wasn't made for us to learn or to care for Vergil, so you entirely missed my point. And the small audio was more than enough to show they had real family relations as kids

You're arguing a point that I am not, though.

Well i guess it depend on audience. It has enough emotions for me. So it kinda absurd that you tries to decide how others MUST react. Like i said, i still think it makes stronger impact when everything isn't explained over and over beforehand.

That's legitimately poor writing, and it's common knowledge. There's very little impact to be had when you know nothing important about a character.

Claiming it was supposed to be explicitly for showing Dante's softer side and denouncing that it was supposed to be a dramatic twist is silly. You're ignoring what isn't convenient to the debate.

Is it emotional? Sure, caught up in Dante's outcry and the swelling music. Is it well-written? Narp.

Supposedly killed. maybe. and maybe not. Because you can't actually tell what happened between DMC3 and Eva's death. It's all based on your assumption that that was last time Dante ever saw Vergil...which is actually don't has any support, since it wasn't stated anywhere. And how Vergil's death supposed to make any importance if this was established since DMC1 that he didn't died with Eva?

That makes no sense, because Dante at the first sign of Vergil in DMC3 says "It's been a year since we last met." In bringing Vergil to life as the antagonist in DMC3, they jiggered the canon from DMC1. In DMC1 Vergil was supposedly killed/captured and turned into Nelo Angelo and Dante hasn't seen him since the day their mother died. However, once DMC3 rolled around, suddenly Vergil has been alive and well for at least like...what? Two to four years prior to DMC1, and we now we know full well that he didn't die with Eva, and yet his past is still a giant question mark. What happened that "year since we last met"? What happened prior to that? We don't know.

 

[Chancey289]

Supposedly killed. maybe. and maybe not. Because you can't actually tell what happened between DMC3 and Eva's death. It's all based on your assumption that that was last time Dante ever saw Vergil...which is actually don't has any support, since it wasn't stated anywhere. And how Vergil's death supposed to make any importance if this was established since DMC1 that he didn't died with Eva?

But it like, totally was established that Dante lost both his mother and brother on that night.

 

[Loopy]

But it like, totally was established that Dante lost both his mother and brother on that night.

Yep, 'lost' meaning dead. Not 'lost' meaning Vergil wandered off somewhere only to come back years later.

But, DMC3 changed all that and decided that Vergil was running around with Arkham in the manga 1 year before DMC3. Even being in DMC3 contradicts what was said about Vergil in DMC

 

[Innsmouth]

That's legitimately poor writing, and it's common knowledge. There's very little impact to be had when you know nothing important about a character.

Claiming it was supposed to be explicitly for showing Dante's softer side and denouncing that it was supposed to be a dramatic twist is silly. You're ignoring what isn't convenient to the debate.

Is it emotional? Sure, caught up in Dante's outcry and the swelling music. Is it well-written? Narp.

Depending what you define by "good writing". If you define by it characters that had you know absolutely everything about...nah. It's not good writing. You may name star wars, but i can say that Games of thrones has much deeper and stronger emotional impacts with characters that barely has screentime, than whole Dart Vaider scene.

That makes no sense, because Dante at the first sign of Vergil in DMC3 says "It's been a year since we last met." In bringing Vergil to life as the antagonist in DMC3, they jiggered the canon from DMC1. In DMC1 Vergil was supposedly killed/captured and turned into Nelo Angelo and Dante hasn't seen him since the day their mother died. However, once DMC3 rolled around, suddenly Vergil has been alive and well for at least like...what? Two to four years prior to DMC1, and we now we know full well that he didn't die with Eva, and yet his past is still a giant question mark. What happened that "year since we last met"? What happened prior to that? We don't know.

They are not jiggered it at all. There wasn't established that he didn't saw him since his mother died. It's purely your assumption, that once again lacks any proof. We know how DMC3 ends..and it fits perfectly into DMC1. As for "year since we met", it's not plot hole. Part of story wasn't told, and it basically confirms, that Dante met Vergil after their mother's death. And apparently DMC3 wasn't their first meeting. Once again, you trying to prove anything based on claim that somewhere in DMC1 it was established, that he hasn't met Vergil since the day Mundus killed his family. Problem is, that it wasn't confirmed by any source.

 

[Innsmouth]

Yep, 'lost' meaning dead. Not 'lost' meaning Vergil wandered off somewhere only to come back years later.

But, DMC3 changed all that and decided that Vergil was running around with Arkham in the manga 1 year before DMC3. Even being in DMC3 contradicts what was said about Vergil in DMC

And how about "lost" meaning that he fell into the hell without any hope to return? Like in DMC3 ending?

 

[Chancey289]

And how about "lost" meaning that he fell into the hell without any hope to return? Like in DMC3 ending?

How about "lost" as in dead and Mundus's mind controlled b!tch like the original game established. Face it, DMC 3 contradicts the canon and effs some stuff up here. You can't argue this.

DMC was always pretty terrible at writing and storytelling. They can't keep a cohesive narrative worth a sh!t and DMC's canon is riddled with plot holes and continuity issues.

 

[Demi-fiend]

DMC had the best writing since Debbie Does Dallas.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Depending what you define by "good writing". If you define by it characters that had you know absolutely everything about...nah. It's not good writing. You may name star wars, but i can say that Games of thrones has much deeper and stronger emotional impacts with characters that barely has screentime, than whole Dart Vaider scene.

When you really get down to it, "good writing" isn't all that subjective. There are very concrete things that are necessary to create decent narratives. DMC1 trying to make a dramatic moment out of a character that the audience had no way of feeling sorry for is just plain bad, because they missed imperative elements of making it dramatic - the character development.

Maybe "bad" sounds too harsh, but it's just...they didn't do it right.

They are not jiggered it at all. There wasn't established that he didn't saw him since his mother died. It's purely your assumption, that once again lacks any proof.

You kidding me? We are told in DMC1 that Dante had not seen or heard of Vergil since Eva and Vergil's death, and then in DMC3 they retconned it that they've meet for the events of DMC3 and some undisclosed event from a year before then. As the canon stands now, Dante hadn't seen his brother from Eva and Vergil's death up until a year before DMC3. We can only go on what we are told, and that's all we've been told - any more is conjecture, and the burden of proof would fall upon you to say otherwise happened.

We know how DMC3 ends..and it fits perfectly into DMC1. As for "year since we met", it's not plot hole. Part of story wasn't told, and it basically confirms, that Dante met Vergil after their mother's death.

Yes, and then it contradicts DMC1's implication that Vergil had died with Eva like was said and that he hadn't seen them since.

And apparently DMC3 wasn't their first meeting. Once again, you trying to prove anything based on claim that somewhere in DMC1 it was established, that he hasn't met Vergil since the day Mundus killed his family. Problem is, that it wasn't confirmed by any source.

Saying that "lost" in DMC1 means something instead of "death" is splitting hairs and ignoring the implication that the game made in saying "the man who lost a mother and a brother to evil". The subject of discussion is about both Eva and Vergil, together. We know for a fact that Eva was killed, that's how she was "lost to evil", and since Vergil was also part of that, Vergil was also killed, "lost by evil".

And how about "lost" meaning that he fell into the hell without any hope to return? Like in DMC3 ending?

He was dead, Jim. It was implied that both Eva and Vergil were killed.

And please, keep in mind that DMC1 was not created with any sort of franchise foresight in mind. They did not plan ahead, which is part of the reason why the canon is so mucked up in places.

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

Classic DMC had the best writing since Debbie Does Dallas.

:laugh: I'm not going to lie, I laughed pretty hard at this.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

:laugh: I'm not going to lie, I laughed pretty hard at this.

I knew he was good for something.

 

[Chancey289]

Dante Does Dallas.

The crossover you've all been waiting for.

 

[MigsRZXAStylish]

So all in all...

DMC3 = Best gameplay. Retconned DMC1's canon, discarding everything Hideki Kamiya made from the ground up.

DMC1 = Best story. Best Dante ever. Gave the franchise the beginning of how it should be done.

So these are the only "good" DMC games then, huh? Then that means the "bad" are...

DMC2 = still the worst DMC game, but still had moves Dante can use in the subsequent games, especially DMC3

DMC4 = copy+pasted DMC3's gameplay, poor backtracking by making Dante backtrack Nero's path, make a younger Dante copy+paste in Nero, not to mention Dante is now full of swag (Hiroyuki Kobayashi must have his own swag!). This must be why Bazilican disliked DMC4 so much.

DmC = a very controversial reboot with buggy and easy gameplay, but put a different Dante whose character development is similar to DMC3 Dante's. It was the answer to those disliking DMC4, particularly Nero and Dante's interpretation there. Its story was rather well-structured, but could not even top DMC1's...

Only DMC4 and DmC is where I have mixed feelings for... While both were good on their own, they can't be backed up by what made it bad.
Why do I say this? It is the concept of duality. The Yin-Yang symbol anyone?

White = good; black = bad
Simple!