That wasn't even in response to you, it looks like he was agreeing with the person above him.
There was nothing said about depth in his post.
Let's Talk About That Combat! DMC & DmC.
- Thread starter EA9Sol
- Start date
TWOxACROSS
Hot-blooded God of Guns
Apologies, but if you've been through this a dozen times and still believe there's no lock-on feature like you say...well that's just ignorant.
Because people usually say that there's a lock on system within DmC when, I believe, swagmaster is talking about a definitive Hard Lock-On system. One with a visual cue and a extreme focus on the current target.
Waggy is talking lock on in general. 2x is right to think that way about it.
TWOxACROSS
Hot-blooded God of Guns
If he does mean specifically a hard lock, that's fine, but they did just say "lock-on feature" which is sorta broad. I mean, it's true - there's no hard lock in DmC. However, that's not exactly a detriment to the game. If you know how to use the lock-on feature that does exist in the game, you get by just fine. Videos from people like michellegun and OppWri are evidence of that...
DMC3 and DMC4 far exceed the others in combat (for me at least). It's easy to pick up be difficult to master and that just makes it so much more rewarding. Between the two, it's a hard choice but I think I'll have to go with DMC4 only because of the on-the-fly style switching. DMC3 is certainly superior in the weapon category though.
-DMC1 was less about combat and more about backtracking, puzzle solving and just plain surviving. That being said the combat was still damn great for its time.
-DMC2 has an okay combat system I guess. But it lacks substance and speed. The only thing that makes it as good as -DMC1's is Trish's gameplay.
-DmC is its own little thing. Can't say weather I like or dislike it yet as it is almost as p*** easy as DMC2. Plus the not having a lock on really gets on my nerves. But hey at least there aren't any QTE's.
-DMC1 was less about combat and more about backtracking, puzzle solving and just plain surviving. That being said the combat was still damn great for its time.
-DMC2 has an okay combat system I guess. But it lacks substance and speed. The only thing that makes it as good as -DMC1's is Trish's gameplay.
-DmC is its own little thing. Can't say weather I like or dislike it yet as it is almost as p*** easy as DMC2. Plus the not having a lock on really gets on my nerves. But hey at least there aren't any QTE's.
No, it's simply the previous DMCs having Lock On and DmC NOT having Lock On.
Lock On is basically keeping focus on your target by holding a button (in defaut PS3 controls, R1). As long as you hold this button, you CANT lose track of the enemy unless you switch targets by pressing L3 or move too far away from the enemy (very far). There's a reason why it has the word "LOCK" in it. There's no such thing in DmC, the targeting system is basically same as not using Lock On in DMC4, such as having to move your left analog stick towards the enemy to shoot it with ebony and ivory.
I don't have to look at the interviews, especially from laughable developers. All I have to do is test DmC and the previous games, sometimes check some gameplay videos.
Sorry, I was talking about depth in combat. The animation was ok in DmC, I didn't find anything special from it. This also doesn't make the term "spam" any logic here because how something looks =/= how something is.
LOL there's no reason to enemy step? Really, after all the talk about advanced DMC4 mechanics, you believe this? Ohh there's certainly no use to Jump Cancel Ecstasy and then JC other moves, even though it gains you height and keeps you in the air longer, safe from non-flying enemies. Perhaps it is you that cant have variation in your Jump Canceling, not the game. Again, something that looks the same= something that is the same, how does Fullhouse, Splash, and Aerial Rave look the same? You don't need to JC in DmC as well (since its so easy to stay in the air using whips), unless you want to be stylish, which is why people JC in DMC4 as well.
Its very possible to destroy those statues with one weapon, its just more tedious.
What if DMC4 had all the weapons DmC has? It's combat would be deeper than DmC's. I don't understand what that paragraph had to do with anything.
Nope, its when a forum seems to have strict regulations but seems to leave trolls like him pass along.
inb4itsnotoffensivetome
He was mocking people that are trying to keep combat objective. The only people trying to keep combat objective were the ones who were trying to keep the depth of combat objective.
Agreeing to the person above him and mocking me (because the person above him replied to me). But no, as long as he clearly states its an insult, its not :shifty:. Before long, it will be like examining contracts.
But hey, if it wasnt an insult, it still doesn't add anything to the discussion, which can be considered as spam. Wait, does he have to say he's spamming for it to be considered spam?
But again, if you want to delude yourself, its fine.
I'll stop replying because I don't argue with troll defenders.
Or maybe I don't agree with claims that fail to prove itself.
I didn't even hear the term soft lock in the series until DmC came along, and I only heard it coined by fans. again, Lock On requires you to hold a button down in order to keep track on that enemy, which is why you LOCK and enemy into your focus. Soft Lock is simply no Lock On.
Combat IS subjective.
But whether or not combat has depth(or how much it has) is not.
And he does not say anything about depth in his post.
So him agreeing with someone that DMC4 is terribly is somehow mockery and an insult towards you specifically?
So?
Does something not exist simply because you personally haven't heard of it before?
Did you just make up that definition on the spot?
TWOxACROSS
Hot-blooded God of Guns
DMC4 actually had the same soft lock that DmC uses. I forget which lock option it was, but it was the "Relative to stick tilting - which greatly helped to make a more functional targeting. Hell, the soft lock existed since DMC2, it's what subtly directs your gunfire or melee attacks.
Lock on functions are about focusing. The hard lock simply focuses the camera too. It's more of a semantic argument than anything.
If you want to call system that does the targeting without Lock On, "Soft Lock", fine, just don't call it Lock On.
I was already aware that DMC3, DMC4 and DmC (don't know about DMC2) work very similar without using Lock On, you simply move the left analog towards the enemy shoot with Ebony and Ivory. Ebony and Ivory will hit an enemy at the direction you're shooting. This mechanic, according to you, is called Soft Lock.
On the other hand, Lock On simply maintains hold of this target as long as you hold down the Lock On button. If you were in a neutral position (not moving or attacking), holding the Lock On button chooses a target for you, usually the one that is in front of you and closest, pretty much with the help of Soft Lock. But without a Lock On button, DmC doesn't have Lock On.
As you said, Lock On affects the camera in the previous DMCs so that the camera tries to focus on the enemy. Interestingly enough, DmC also focuses the camera on enemies, usually if you're attacking them or if there's only one enemy in the room, however its a lot more subtle. This is evident in boss fights.
Short note, DMC1 didn't call this button Lock On, it called it "Aim", it wasn't coined until DMC2 or DMC3, I forgot.
TWOxACROSS
Hot-blooded God of Guns
Sorry I can't conform to the definition you made up >.> Who gives a sh!t what it's called? I'm not gonna argue semantics because that's just absurd, but they all have functional lock-on mechanisms that focus your attacks. It just so happens that DmC's isn't as restrictive and requires different methods to use and override.
GOD DmC FANBOYS, STOP PROVING THE ELITISTS WRONG. GEEZ.
IT'S NOT LIKE THEY ASK YOU TO ARGUE WITH THEM OR ANYTHING.
IT'S NOT LIKE THEY ASK YOU TO ARGUE WITH THEM OR ANYTHING.
But not Chaser, guy actually knows what he's talking about.
Still, the guy taught me 6 new mechanics I didn't even know existed in DMC4.
I know. It's just that they've managed to refute most, if not all, of the points he and his ilk have already brought up dozens of times before.
had the most fun with DMC3. Enemies are challenging, and punish you for mistakes, but aren't unfair or annoying (with the exception of those floating angels. Not fun to fight at all). Clean, consistent audio telegraphs mean royal guard is a load of fun and you can perfectly parry enemies even if they attack from offscreen, as long as you're listening. Bosses are satisfyingly difficult and the weapon rewards are varied and awesome. On a side note, nevan is basically the best way to represent the DMC series in a nutshell -- you rock out on a demonic guitar and slay demons with music, lightning, and demon bats.
The thing I probably enjoyed most about DMC3 boss fights is that the first time you encounter them, their entire kit appears to consist of unfair bullshit. But even though the bosses seem unfair at first, you start to learn their patterns, and maybe if you're creative you even discover a weakpoint that makes the fight much easier! Some of them are obvious: beowulf lost an eye to sparda, and if you (the son of sparda) attack his other eye, he takes extra damage and sometimes becomes stunned (though it is usually followed with some wild swings and an enrage). Other bosses have less obvious weaknesses, like how attacking geryon to the face will interrupt his circle gallop and knock him down, allowing you to work in some much needed damage, or how vergil can be blasted out of devil trigger with a well timed trigger explosion of your own.
When you beat a DMC3 boss, you feel like the game was being unfair to you and trying to prevent a win, but you took it anyway because you're just that badass. It's a far cry from a more recent trend of highlighting the exact method you are expected to use for winning, and then the boss just allows you to do it. DMC4 features a boss covered in glowing blue "THESE ARE WEAK POINT" crystals, and despite being a floating titan of a boss, will occasionally swoop right up to you and expose his face crystal to you, for no apparent reason, for several seconds. It's like this boss just wants you to kill him and is handing himself to you, and when you beat him it just feels cheap, like all you did was follow a platforming segment to its natural conclusion and now the game is rewarding you for some reason.
The thing I probably enjoyed most about DMC3 boss fights is that the first time you encounter them, their entire kit appears to consist of unfair bullshit. But even though the bosses seem unfair at first, you start to learn their patterns, and maybe if you're creative you even discover a weakpoint that makes the fight much easier! Some of them are obvious: beowulf lost an eye to sparda, and if you (the son of sparda) attack his other eye, he takes extra damage and sometimes becomes stunned (though it is usually followed with some wild swings and an enrage). Other bosses have less obvious weaknesses, like how attacking geryon to the face will interrupt his circle gallop and knock him down, allowing you to work in some much needed damage, or how vergil can be blasted out of devil trigger with a well timed trigger explosion of your own.
When you beat a DMC3 boss, you feel like the game was being unfair to you and trying to prevent a win, but you took it anyway because you're just that badass. It's a far cry from a more recent trend of highlighting the exact method you are expected to use for winning, and then the boss just allows you to do it. DMC4 features a boss covered in glowing blue "THESE ARE WEAK POINT" crystals, and despite being a floating titan of a boss, will occasionally swoop right up to you and expose his face crystal to you, for no apparent reason, for several seconds. It's like this boss just wants you to kill him and is handing himself to you, and when you beat him it just feels cheap, like all you did was follow a platforming segment to its natural conclusion and now the game is rewarding you for some reason.
Just the angels?
I thought the shield guys were a pretty pointless enemy.
oh yeah, you're right **** those guys. Also those fog demons, **** them too