Chancey289
Fake Geek Girl.
You can develop tons of interesting adventures for Dante and co. that doesn't involve Sparda and his bloodline. It just takes a little something called.....
@Morgan
You misunderstood completely.
The reason why humans who seek the power of Sparda are depicted as bad is not because "only being born with power is good, if you wanna gain it, it's bad", it's because those humans who wanted it, looked for it for bad intentions.
It's not "power is bad as long as people seek it", it's "power is bad as long as people seek it for evil". Nero, for example, gained his devilish arm pursuing a good cause (protecting his loved one), and he did good things with it.
Likewise, your point about "being born a demon is good, becoming one is awful". That's evidently false at first glance. Mundus is "born a demon" but he's not any good. While Credo, for example, becomes demon, but he is good. It's the same as earlier: the games don't show that becoming a demon in itself is a bad thing, they show that evil motivations that drive you to do so are a bad thing.
That's why your point falls apart.
How are we even still doing this.
Actually, no. The intro to DMC3 suggests it was more of a side-effect, wherein that because the Demon world was sealed away from the Human world, Sparda's power was sealed too. There could be a dozen reasons why specifically or how it played out, but that is the rundown.
Did we play the same game? Argosax didn't express any villainous desire of his own in-game, he was just a tool for Arius to absorb, and gained sentience after a botched ritual. Arius was the main villain of the game, Argosax was just the antagonist and the final boss to close the story. Just because we fight him last doesn't make him an 'ultimate evil' except if 'ultimate' means 'last' rather than 'greatest', by that logic Vergil was more evil than Arkham. Arkham was clearly the villain. Vergil was just an antagonist. The fights were placed at the end to tie up loose ends. I get that Argosax was described as "the most evil god of all time" in the book, but then Mundus is also described as "the most evil". Between the guy that took up most of the plot of the first game and the 'afterthought boss' from the second game, Mundus should be "most evil".@Morgan
...And in fact Argosax wasn't Mundus's minion. And it was the key for Arius's plan as well as the freaking final boss for the game, representing the ultimate evil to beat.
Did we play the same game? Argosax didn't express any villainous desire of his own in-game, he was just a tool for Arius to absorb, and gained sentience after a botched ritual. Arius was the main villain of the game, Argosax was just the antagonist and the final boss to close the story. Just because we fight him last doesn't make him an 'ultimate evil' except if 'ultimate' means 'last' rather than 'greatest', by that logic Vergil was more evil than Arkham. Arkham was clearly the villain. Vergil was just an antagonist. The fights were placed at the end to tie up loose ends. I get that Argosax was described as "the most evil god of all time" in the book, but then Mundus is also described as "the most evil". Between the guy that took up most of the plot of the first game and the 'afterthought boss' from the second game, Mundus should be "most evil".
There already were two artificially made soldiers in DMC universe, Trish and Lucia, so I'd rather have Nero be Vergil's son, not only cause of that, but also cause it could give Vergil layers in personality and it would be some nice symbolics if father's failures got sort of redeemed through son.This raises an interesting question.
Would y'all prefer a simple explanation like Nero is his son with the devs stretching out the timeline so the dates match.
Or would a more complex answer be more preferable, such as Nero being a result of secret cloning experiments (The Sons of Vergil) to create the ultimate soldier.
I'm not sure which one I would go for.
This raises an interesting question.
Would y'all prefer a simple explanation like Nero is his son with the devs stretching out the timeline so the dates match.
Or would a more complex answer be more preferable, such as Nero being a result of secret cloning experiments (The Sons of Vergil) to create the ultimate soldier.
I'm not sure which one I would go for.
Because a story of Humans turning to evil for their own gain is more involved and despicable than a story of a Demon being evil because it's a Demon.Why did we have three games of humans seeking power for evil means and only one game with an actually evil demon, not counting his minions?
There are still more good demons and bad humans than there are bad demons.
I'm gonna be honest, I'm not taking seriously any video that claims to "solve" something like the timeline and still thinks Vergil conceiving Nero must be canon while calling itself a theory and therefore only possibly true but not explicitly proven, used to merely explain what's going on, then needs additions from commenters using information that the creator of that video failed to take into account.
Ten years passed between Devil May Cry 3 and Devil May Cry 4.
DMC4SE cites Vergil's visit to Fortuna, in two separate translations of the text (the Japanese and the German subtitles), as "over a decade ago" (Lit. "Fortuna, over 10 years ago..." for the German, and “十数年前 , フォルトゥナ" or “jyuusuunen mae, Forutuna”/“Fortuna, about a decade ago” for the Japanese.) Singular, and not plural "decades" that the English subtitles have.
Nero being Vergil's son means either he's the wrong age in his own game, or Vergil was the wrong age when conceiving him and that age isn't depicted accurately (or at all) in the Special Edition.
and write his personality as Dante-lite
When games and supplementary material contradict each other, or the fans just hate it that much, the games take precedence
(Nero has a 'notoriously twisted' personality? The same character whose haters call him a 'pansy' and 'girly' because he cried a couple of times? The same character whose only crime is maybe dropping an F-bomb, flipping a finger, and saying church puts him to sleep? That's 'twisted'?)
Really? Because the manga and the game manual's 'forbidden Vatican texts' from which Arkham derives his knowledge of Sparda both tell a different story.
Sparda feared his power, then the games before and after that don't align as the sword has not yet corrupted a hero or helped a villain.
So if he is to be the lead and outside of his connection to Sparda, what should his stories tackle?