Legit though, DMC4 sucked.

[TWOxACROSS]

I'd say they each are great in their own way. They all have shortcomings, but not enough to make them utter trash.

 

[Innsmouth]

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.

lol, i can easily argue with this, since aside from your opinion, you can't really support it with facts. Lost=/= died. And even than Vergil was effectively "lost" at the end of DMC3

 

[Innsmouth]

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.

"Felt sorry" is far to subjective and i can imagine many can sympathize or at least respect Nelo before his demise. Once again, same GoT manages to force people feel sorry for characters who barely had 10 mins of screentime. As such your claim you should know character, to feel bad for him is pretty groundless and baseless.

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.

And where is definitive proof of your assumptions? I don't remember we've been told "on XX Date Mundus killed Vergil and Dante never heard of him since" Without it, all your theory falls under mere assumptions category and can't be used as proof of anything.

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".

Now let's see..LOST to evil. May as well mean that Vergil become evil. It's like wiht that Vaider example. Vaider was "lost to evil". It doesn't mean dead. To support it i can remind you, that despite having portrait of his mother, Dante didn't kept his brother pictures in his office in DMC1

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.

Or you was forced to THINK that he died. You know, writing is a little more complex that only things we've been told Besides that was implied. Not stated

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

I can agree with that "Lost to evil" could have meant either or; it didn't have to mean death-it could have very well meant he'd succumbed to it (which is how it played out).

Unfortunately, this is only in retrospect; my guess is, when DMC1 was created, the creators were going with Dante believing Vergil had been killed along with his mother that same night-which suggests he either saw it happen (but Vergil wasn't dead, as he appeared, and thus, was salvaged by Mundus to become his personal slave/general), or he didn't actually see the body, but assumed it.

Either way, there sadly is a lack of cohesion between 3 and 1, in this regard.

Oh, well.

 

[Innsmouth]

I can agree with that "Lost to evil" could have meant either or; it didn't have to mean death-it could have very well meant he'd succumbed to it (which is how it played out).

Unfortunately, this is only in retrospect; my guess is, when DMC1 was created, the creators were going with Dante believing Vergil had been killed along with his mother that same night-which suggests he either saw it happen (but Vergil wasn't dead, as he appeared, and thus, was salvaged by Mundus to become his personal slave/general), or he didn't actually see the body, but assumed it.

Either way, there sadly is a lack of cohesion between 3 and 1, in this regard.

Oh, well.

That's true. But than again, the only point where DMC3 contradicts it is when it's happened. Problem with this "plot hole" is that in DMC1 wasn't clearly elaborated when and how he lost Vergil. Or even Eva or even details of assault. As such by stating Vergil was "lost to evil" you can also connect it to his apparent death in DMC3

 

[Chancey289]

lol, i can easily argue with this, since aside from your opinion, you can't really support it with facts. Lost=/= died. And even than Vergil was effectively "lost" at the end of DMC3

So, all the stuff TwoX has been pointing out to you mean nothing? Look, you can even just do simple math here.

Dante is 28 in DMC 1 and Trish comes in telling him us he lost his family when he was 8.

In DMC 1 upon discovering Nelo Angelo was Vergil it is also proven how he hasn't seen or heard from his brother since they were kids. That's why you hear Dante remember their childhood. The amulet was the ONLY indication it was Vergil and the only memories he has with Vergil. He never knew until after the battle was over. That was the point.

In DMC 3 Dante is 19 and evidently everything DMC 1 did everyone was just plying dumb to. Because not only Bergil was alive but, he's been seeing him off an on within the past decade.

DMC 1 was a game that was practically a fluke. No one expected it to become the success it did and hell, it was just made off the foundation of a Resident Evil game. The story had no hindsight of future installments and the thing is Kamiya has never been aboard any other game besides the original.

Itsuno and the change of writers is what messed things up because they just did whatever they wanted. Everyone even admits this. That's the thing, you're trying to argue and justify something that is even admitted by the developers.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept that it's just f#cked up and a prime example of p!ss poor writing but whatever. It doesn't make the games bad because I still like playing them but it's just obvious everything about this plot its been trying to tell is all over the place.

 

[Innsmouth]

I can agree with that "Lost to evil" could have meant either or; it didn't have to mean death-it could have very well meant he'd succumbed to it (which is how it played out).

Unfortunately, this is only in retrospect; my guess is, when DMC1 was created, the creators were going with Dante believing Vergil had been killed along with his mother that same night-which suggests he either saw it happen (but Vergil wasn't dead, as he appeared, and thus, was salvaged by Mundus to become his personal slave/general), or he didn't actually see the body, but assumed it.

Either way, there sadly is a lack of cohesion between 3 and 1, in this regard.

Oh, well.

That's true. But than again, the only point where DMC3 contradicts it is when it's happened. Problem with this "plot hole" is that in DMC1 wasn't clearly elaborated when and how he lost Vergil. Or even Eva or even details of assault. As such by stating Vergil was "lost to evil" you can also connect it to his apparent death in DMC3

 

[Innsmouth]

Dante is 28 in DMC 1 and Trish comes in telling him us he lost his family when he was 8.

In DMC 1 upon discovering Nelo Angelo was Vergil it is also proven how he hasn't seen or heard from his brother since they were kids. That's why you hear Dante remember their childhood. The amulet was the ONLY indication it was Vergil and the only memories he has with Vergil. He never knew until after the battle was over. That was the point.

It's only one interpretation. I can come up with another one. How about that he remembered the only time they were happy together before Vergil become evil (lost to evil) or just his first memories about him.

In DMC 3 Dante is 19 and evidently everything DMC 1 did everyone was just plying dumb to. Because not only Bergil was alive but, he's been seeing him off an on within the past decade.

I already replied to it many times, so it kinda gets tedious, but if you reinterpret "lost to evil" as become evil, loose to his dark side, etc it all makes sense.

Itsuno and the change of writers is what messed things up because they just did whatever they wanted. Everyone even admits this. That's the thing, you're trying to argue and justify something that is even admitted by the developers.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept that it's just f#cked up and a prime example of p!ss poor writing but whatever. It doesn't make the games bad because I still like playing them but it's just obvious everything about this plot its been trying to tell is all over the place.

The whole "plot all over the place" argument gain strength and was promoted by developers only after DmC was announced, as such I see it only as attempt to justify DmC existence, nothing more.

 

[Chancey289]

Ok, whatever. You're just too stubborn. You're one of those people who are just all anti-DmC and act like the originals did everything right. As much as I also still like the original series it's not hard to recognize its shortcomings and where they effed up.

At least DmC knows how to get a decent narrative going and stick to it. It's not even just an opinion, when talking about story telling, DmC wins no contest.

 

[Innsmouth]

Ok, whatever. You're just too stubborn. You're one of those people who are just all anti-DmC and act like the originals did everything right. As much as I also still like the original series it's not hard to recognize its shortcomings and where they effed up.

At least DmC knows how to get a decent narrative going and stick to it. It's not even just an opinion, when talking about story telling, DmC wins no contest.

We actually didn't talked about DmC, but about stubborn attempt to bash what never existed. But as much as you try to bash for whatever reasons original DMC, narrative isn't really biggest problem of it. DMC3 has much bigger flaws that apparent "plot-hole". If you have said you thing enemy AI was bad in DMC3 i will be one of the first who stands with you on it. Instead you basically looks for things to nitpick about original franchise, and when i try to explain my point of you, blames me with worn-out "haterz" argument.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

"Felt sorry" is far to subjective and i can imagine many can sympathize or at least respect Nelo before his demise. Once again, same GoT manages to force people feel sorry for characters who barely had 10 mins of screentime. As such your claim you should know character, to feel bad for him is pretty groundless and baseless.

You're arguing your case by comparing a character who had ZERO screentime with people who had "barely 10 min of screentime". Vergil was a non-existent background character in DMC1 just like Eva was.

Your argument holds no weight.

And where is definitive proof of your assumptions? I don't remember we've been told "on XX Date Mundus killed Vergil and Dante never heard of him since" Without it, all your theory falls under mere assumptions category and can't be used as proof of anything.

They are not assumptions! The f#cking games told us that sh!t. Here's a timeline for you...

Eva and Vergil killed when Dante is young (told to us in DMC1)
Dante meets Vergil for some shenanigans a year before DMC3 (DMC3 told us this)
Dante and Vergil fight in Temen-Ni-Gru (f#cking DMC3)
Dante fights Nelo Angelo on Mallet Island and learns that he is Vergil (f#cking DMC1)

That is literally what we were told! The goddamn games themselves are the definitive proof.

Now let's see..LOST to evil. May as well mean that Vergil become evil. It's like wiht that Vaider example. Vaider was "lost to evil". It doesn't mean dead. To support it i can remind you, that despite having portrait of his mother, Dante didn't kept his brother pictures in his office in DMC1

So a gain you ignore that Eva and Vergil were counted together as a subject, and since Eva was killed, the implication is that Vergil was to.

Yes, there are plenty of ways "lost to evil" can be taken, but because we knew of Eva's fate (which she shared with Vergil), it means killed by demons. Just because we know Vergil was alive for DMC3 means nothing, because you can't bring knowledge of DMC3 into this argument.

I'm criticizing DMC1, and how it was when it came out.

Or you was forced to THINK that he died. You know, writing is a little more complex that only things we've been told Besides that was implied. Not stated

What the f#ck are you even talking about? That's the whole goddamn point of this! The game forces you to think he's dead because everyone in the game says so! That's what the twist was supposed to f#cking BE, that "Surprise! Vergil wasn't dead but was Nelo Angelo this whole time! And you just killed him! Gratz!"

I'm not even arguing that. This whole time I've been arguing that Vergil wasn't developed at all for the twist to be dramatic. Pay attention...

As such by stating Vergil was "lost to evil" you can also connect it to his apparent death in DMC3

No, because in DMC1 Trish says "You're the man who lost a mother and a brother to evil twenty years ago". Eva and Vergil were lost in the same incident. In DMC3, Vergil wasn't defeated by Mundus until...what? A year or so before DMC1? Those don't sync up.

It's only one interpretation. I can come up with another one. How about that he remembered the only time they were happy together before Vergil become evil (lost to evil) or just his first memories about him.

Except for the aforementioned desync in events above

I already replied to it many times, so it kinda gets tedious, but if you reinterpret "lost to evil" as become evil, loose to his dark side, etc it all makes sense.

It's just as tedious as you trying to force a reinterpretation into the discussion where it doesn't fit. Stop throwing DMC3 into this.

The whole "plot all over the place" argument gain strength and was promoted by developers only after DmC was announced, as such I see it only as attempt to justify DmC existence, nothing more.

Uh...no. It was always a huge talking point within the DMC communities that the franchise's canon was jiggered because of all the different writers' hands the series passed through. This was before DmC was ever even a thing. Hell, if people weren't talking about gameplay mechanics or new tricks, it was invariably discussion on "wait, was this novel canon? It explains this" and all that.

------------------------------------

Here, let's get the criticism of mine straight, for future generations, shall we?

DMC1 did a p!ss-poor job of making the audience empathize with the tragic twist of Nelo Angelo being Vergil. We were explicitly told throughout the game that Vergil supposedly died along with Eva twenty years ago, but ta-da~ he's been alive this whole time as Nelo Angelo, whom Dante invariably kills and feels remorse. It's extremely difficult for an audience to empathize with Vergil/Nelo Angelo, and by proxy even Dante himself, because Vergil had no character development, or more succinctly no character at all with which to empathize with. He wasn't some hero tragically turned to the dark side, he wasn't some character pushed to his limits until he broke, he wasn't anything. He was simply a name.

DMC3, however, made the Nelo Angelo twist a bit more dramatic because Vergil is an actual character, but in doing so also still ruined some of the overarching narrative, because the events and information from DMC3 didn't jive with what was told in DMC1 where Vergil was killed at a young age along with Eva, something corroborated by Dante throughout DMC1, and perpetuated by all of the characters - even the ones who know that Vergil is still alive.

Put simply, in Dante's eyes, he knew both Vergil and Eva had been killed, and believed so until Nelo Angelo's identity was revealed. Then, in DMC3, we see that Dante has known Vergil was alive for several years before DMC1 with all of their past run-ins, which directly contradicts Dante's own belief of Vergil's death in the first game.

The lack of foresight in the franchise has left us with a hodgepodge of canon with a lot of questionable content. Especially since Kamiya hates making sequels, so he never made DMC1 with any broader narrative in mind.

 

[Innsmouth]

You're arguing your case by comparing a character who had ZERO screentime with people who had "barely 10 min of screentime". Vergil was a non-existent background character in DMC1 just like Eva was.

Your argument holds no weight.

Vergil not. Nelo Angelo yes

What the f#ck are you even talking about? That's the whole goddamn point of this! The game forces you to think he's dead because everyone in the game says so! That's what the twist was supposed to f#cking BE, that "Surprise! Vergil wasn't dead but was Nelo Angelo this whole time! And you just killed him! Gratz!"

I'm not even arguing that. This whole time I've been arguing that Vergil wasn't developed at all for the twist to be dramatic. Pay attention...

Seriously...if you didn't saw connection between Nelo and Dante...I dunno. Guess not everyone pay attention.

No, because in DMC1 Trish says "You're the man who lost a mother and a brother to evil twenty years ago". Eva and Vergil were lost in the same incident. In DMC3, Vergil wasn't defeated by Mundus until...what? A year or so before DMC1? Those don't sync up.

now, we talking at least it some proof of plot whole and time continuity.

Uh...no. It was always a huge talking point within the DMC communities that the franchise's canon was jiggered because of all the different writers' hands the series passed through. This was before DmC was ever even a thing. Hell, if people weren't talking about gameplay mechanics or new tricks, it was invariably discussion on "wait, was this novel canon? It explains this" and all that.

it still doesn't change that back in the day there were barely people B*tching about "plot all over the place* .

DMC1 did a ****-poor job of making the audience empathize with the tragic twist of Nelo Angelo being Vergil. We were explicitly told throughout the game that Vergil supposedly died along with Eva twenty years ago, but ta-da~ he's been alive this whole time as Nelo Angelo, whom Dante invariably kills and feels remorse. It's extremely difficult for an audience to empathize with Vergil/Nelo Angelo, and by proxy even Dante himself, because Vergil had no character development, or more succinctly no character at all with which to empathize with. He wasn't some hero tragically turned to the dark side, he wasn't some character pushed to his limits until he broke, he wasn't anything. He was simply a name.

DMC3, however, made the Nelo Angelo twist a bit more dramatic because Vergil is an actual character, but in doing so also still ruined some of the overarching narrative, because the events and information from DMC3 didn't jive with what was told in DMC1 where Vergil was killed at a young age along with Eva, something corroborated by Dante throughout DMC1, and perpetuated by all of the characters - even the ones who know that Vergil is still alive.

Put simply, in Dante's eyes, he knew both Vergil and Eva had been killed, and believed so until Nelo Angelo's identity was revealed. Then, in DMC3, we see that Dante has known Vergil was alive for several years before DMC1 with all of their past run-ins, which directly contradicts Dante's own belief of Vergil's death in the first game.

The lack of foresight in the franchise has left us with a hodgepodge of canon with a lot of questionable content. Especially since Kamiya hates making sequels, so he never made DMC1 with any broader narrative in mind.

only Vergil apparently dies in the end of DMC3. Which fits into whole belief that he died. Whole twenty years ago kinda confirm it as a plot whole. So i can agree on whole plot hole. Still you once again tries to ignore that ending of DMC3 doesn't contradicts Dante's belief about Vergil's demise.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Vergil not. Nelo Angelo yes

And Nelo Angelo is a villain that did little more than show up and fight. There is little way to empathize with him either. A suit of armor that fights and chuckles, and then is revealed to be a character that has no qualities or traits? Neither had qualities worth empathizing.

Seriously...if you didn't saw connection between Nelo and Dante...I dunno. Guess not everyone pay attention.

THE CONNECTION ISN'T THE POINT! It's that one part of the entire connection had nothing to it, therefore making the dramatic twist fall flat on its face.

now, we talking at least it some proof of plot whole and time continuity.

That is literally what we have been saying this whole time...

it still doesn't change that back in the day there were barely people B*tching about "plot all over the place* .

There needs to be more plot before we can bitch about it being all over the place. By the time DMC4 was rolling in, there was plenty of discussion about the hair-brained canon between the games, a bunch of books, and manga.

only Vergil apparently dies in the end of DMC3. Which fits into whole belief that he died. Whole twenty years ago kinda confirm it as a plot whole. So i can agree on whole plot hole.

F#cking finally.

Still you once again tries to ignore that ending of DMC3 doesn't contradicts Dante's belief about Vergil's demise.

No I'm not, because if you were paying attention you would have seen that I had said pretty much right away that DMC3 helped make the Nelo Angelo twist more dramatic, because it gave Vergil a character to empathize with. However, in so doing caused the plot inconsistencies of Vergil actually being alive and the corroboration by everyone involved in DMC1 that Vergil had been thought dead for twenty years. Yes, the belief of Vergil's death still remains, but in DMC1 everyone agrees that it happened twenty years ago - that's part of the contradiction.

 

[Demi-fiend]

I love the smell of hatorade in the morning. It's the only reason to get up, you know.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Seriously...if you didn't saw connection between Nelo and Dante...I dunno. Guess not everyone pay attention.

THE CONNECTION ISN'T THE POINT! It's that one part of the entire connection had nothing to it, therefore making the dramatic twist fall flat on its face.

To expand on this point, let's take the Star Wars example again: take all mention of how awesome Anakin Skywalker was or his death at the hands of Darth Vader, and remove them from the original trilogy. So all we know is that Anakin Skywalker was Luke's father and he died a long time ago. Come up to the reveal in Empire Strikes Back that Vader is Anakin, and it falls flat on its face - because it's missing one entire side of what would make the twist work.

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

^



*Cough* Sorry, sorry....I couldn't resist.

And dammit! You guys came in when I was going to put it under Two's long post. XD Ba$tards...you ruined the joke. :'(

I love the smell of hatorade in the morning. It's the only reason to get out of bed, you know.

Popcorn?

 

[Demi-fiend]

Popcorn?

Please.

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

Please.

*Hands it over*

I'm not kidding; I've been killing myself laughing; every post, Two...every post you've made has been that much more exasperated.

I'm totally not laughing at your suffering, I swear....XD

*Looks contrite* Sorry, comrade.

 

[Innsmouth]

And Nelo Angelo is a villain that did little more than show up and fight. There is little way to empathize with him either. A suit of armor that fights and chuckles, and then is revealed to be a character that has no qualities or traits? Neither had qualities worth empathizing.

He did enough to make so many people like him

There needs to be more plot before we can bitch about it being all over the place.

Well that what you have being doing since your first post on this thread...




Yes, the belief of Vergil's death still remains, but in DMC1 everyone agrees that it happened twenty years ago - that's part of the contradiction.[/QUOTE]
Actually the only contradiction.

 

[Innsmouth]

To expand on this point, let's take the Star Wars example again: take all mention of how awesome Anakin Skywalker was or his death at the hands of Darth Vader, and remove them from the original trilogy. So all we know is that Anakin Skywalker was Luke's father and he died a long time ago. Come up to the reveal in Empire Strikes Back that Vader is Anakin, and it falls flat on its face - because it's missing one entire side of what would make the twist work.

Well that aside whole scene with emperor was nothing but comedy from the very beginning.