Nero's mother and who she might be

[Hungry Alien]

I always thought Dante got more messy after DMC 1 because he reached his goal of vengeance. After DMC 1, he basically have nothing to drive him forward, leading him to fall into depression. There was Trish at first, but she eventually left because she needed to forge her own life and could not stay with Dante with his mother appearance.

So Dante spended many year alone in his office, got more and more depressed over time and realized that vengeance doesn't bring peace. But at this point, he was way too powerful and this alienated him to society. Rules and society are made for common people, not for overpowered being like him. So he isolated himself in his office and didn't cared about everything. The only person that could stay with him was his brother,, but he failed him in DMC 3, leading to his downfall in DMC 1. To me, that's why Dante cared so much about Nero. He is the last remnant of Vergil to him, and Dante wanted better for him. That's why he took on Urizen alone. He thought just witnessing Vergil's state would harm Nero, and thus tried his best to shoo him away, until Nero showed him that he didn't needed to stay alone. Vergil was right here, and Nero was ready to take after Dante. So Dante left with the only person he could be with, his brother.

I also think that I am overthinking, and that the DMC team has no clue about the story.

 

[Foxtrot94]

he reached his goal of vengeance

That's not overthinking, that's exactly what happened. XD
And he was already messy in 1. More so later on, sure, but still.

To me, that's why Dante cared so much about Nero. He is the last remnant of Vergil to him, and Dante wanted better for him. That's why he took on Urizen alone. He thought just witnessing Vergil's state would harm Nero, and thus tried his best to shoo him away

That's also not overthinking, or an opinion, it's literally spelled out in the actual game. The whole time he was trying to keep Nero out of the fight cause he didn't want him to kill his own father: "Now he needs an ass kicking, but I can't have you go kill your old man". Nero thought that Dante was constantly keeping him away cause he deemed him a weakling and not powerful enough ("I've got all the power I need. Right here!" "You don't understand. That's not what I mean") until that scene revealed the real reason.

Say what you will about the writing team, and you've got reason to, but give credit where it's due, that was actually meant and a legit plot point that is in the game, not some fan theory.

 

[V's patron]

Beyond the reference to DmC, Kat also was implied to be a victim of sexual abuse. So dealing with kind of trauma could be interesting if difficult for DMC. Maybe Vergil and Kat(DMC) didn't work out because two broken souls don't always fix each other?

I prefer her to be the one who drops off Nero at Fortuna than Vergil. I don't mind Vergil having kids but I just never saw him leaving his kid with a human. He'd raise his kid but he'd be a terrible parent- maybe i just wanted a Starkiller-esque version of Nero?

 

[Taramafor]

Honestly? I think Kat has simply had it hard in general. But that's all the more reason that she might toughen up afterwards.

I don't mind Vergil having kids but I just never saw him leaving his kid with a human.

Keep in mind Sparda did the EXACT same thing himself. The old saying of "Like farther like son". Who knows, maybe it's just a tradition to let the kid grow up without their farther which pushes them to get stronger or something.

Seems to be a going theme in games in general. Assassins Creed Odyssey did something like that. Sparda (the OTHER Sparda. The real one that's Greek) tossed his son off a ledge because of some dark prophecy. He's guilt ridden about it. That kind of thing can make for some good story telling. And knowing Virgil's obsession with power at the time, who's to say he might not have tried to perform some ritual or other to get the power he has? Doesn't have to result in trying to outright kill the kid of course. But anything involve inflicting pain or torture for the interest of power would do it. This also gives a good reason for the mother to break up with Virgil.

That just leaves what happens to the mother, leaving Nero on his own.

He does try to take his brothers blood for a ritual after all. Wouldn't put it past him.

 

[Foxtrot94]

Calling it now, it's the woman sitting on his right.

 

[windleopard]

Keep in mind Sparda did the EXACT same thing himself. The old saying of "Like farther like son". Who knows, maybe it's just a tradition to let the kid grow up without their farther which pushes them to get stronger or something.

No he didn't. Sparda was in his kids' lives up until his death.

 

[windleopard]

I prefer her to be the one who drops off Nero at Fortuna than Vergil. I don't mind Vergil having kids but I just never saw him leaving his kid with a human. He'd raise his kid but he'd be a terrible parent- maybe i just wanted a Starkiller-esque version of Nero?

It's implied he didn't know he had a son to begin with.

 

[Taramafor]

No he didn't. Sparda was in his kids' lives up until his death.

Except he wasn't even in the building when that happened. Whatever the circumstances, at the point in time Mundus invaded Dante's, Virgil's and Eva's house, as far as we know Sparda wasn't there.

Unless he was off screen fighting demons outside of the house or something. But then he'd likely be fighting Mundus himself. I highly doubt he'd leave Eva alone.

Regardless, the events still set up Dante and Virgil to grow up without their farther.

This also means that even if Sparda was fighting nearby for some reason... Where the blazes is he? The games never point this out.

 

[V's patron]

@windleopard
I'm just referencing the DMC4 light novel because its more closer to an actual explanation than 5 is. Plus its my first impression of it.

@Taramafor
I'd disagree because Classic Sparda wasn't given a reason for why he left. Reboot Sparda did leave Dante and Vergil with other people but that was more of backup plan than anything else.

 

[windleopard]

Except he wasn't even in the building when that happened. Whatever the circumstances, at the point in time Mundus invaded Dante's, Virgil's and Eva's house, as far as we know Sparda wasn't there.

Unless he was off screen fighting demons outside of the house or something. But then he'd likely be fighting Mundus himself. I highly doubt he'd leave Eva alone.

Regardless, the events still set up Dante and Virgil to grow up without their farther.

This also means that even if Sparda was fighting nearby for some reason... Where the blazes is he? The games never point this out.

He wasn't in the building because he was dead. The opening for DMC 1 states this outright.

Spoiler: DMC 5 special edition

New dialogue in the special edition in Vergil's playthrough even states that Sparda did raise Dante and Vergil together with Eva.

And where was it stated Mundus personally went to kill Eva and the twins himself?

There is nothing in any of the games to even imply Sparda left Eva and their sons alone. I have no idea where this misconception comes from. Even the Ninja Theory reboot got this right and that's the game half the fan base claims misunderstands every single character.

 

[Taramafor]

That vid ONLY states the line "Until his death". At no point does it say WHEN Sparda died. It also doesn't imply if he died and then was revived (so we're in the dark either way there).

This just leaves us with more questions. If Sparda was around to raise the kids... Then wasn't around... It's POSSIBLE he died somehow. But if so then HOW? THAT is the question.

And if it ISN'T for that reason then does this mean Sparda died later when he was separated from the kids? Could perhaps Mundus and his demons have dragged him to hell and cause Sparda to become isolated?

And even if Sparda did die it wouldn't be the first time a game has brought a character back that seemed to die. Especially when it involves someone as powerful as Sparda. Mundas has been beaten a few times for example. Virgil too. DMC 1 being such an old game is more likely to have it's lore tweaked a bit in places. Considering we have a black landlord and elements from the reboot in 5 that doesn't seem impossible. Is he "dead dead" or "maybe dead"? One single line isn't a lot to go on and can be easily brushed aside if the devs want to bring him back. Might not be a bad thing if Sparda turns out to be a main boss or ally in a sequel. With so much talk of him we never get to play as or face him (or did that happen in 1? I never played it).

Would be funny if Sparda was basically sipping a beer kicking back on a beech leaving his kids to it.

 

[windleopard]

That vid ONLY states the line "Until his death". At no point does it say WHEN Sparda died. It also doesn't imply if he died and then was revived (so we're in the dark either way there).

What? Why would it even imply that?

This just leaves us with more questions.

No it doesn't. The question of "what happened to Sparda?" has been answered. You're just creating wild theories to prove your head canon that Sparda abandoned his children despite evidence to the contrary.

If Sparda was around to raise the kids... Then wasn't around... It's POSSIBLE he died somehow. But if so then HOW? THAT is the question.

There is no if about it. He is outright stated to be dead. As for how, the most reasonable answer is "old age".

And if it ISN'T for that reason then does this mean Sparda died later when he was separated from the kids? Could perhaps Mundus and his demons have dragged him to hell and cause Sparda to become isolated?

You seriously don't think that would have come up at any point in the series if that were the case?

And even if Sparda did die it wouldn't be the first time a game has brought a character back that seemed to die. Especially when it involves someone as powerful as Sparda. Mundas has been beaten a few times for example. Virgil too. DMC 1 being such an old game is more likely to have it's lore tweaked a bit in places. Considering we have a black landlord and elements from the reboot in 5 that doesn't seem impossible. Is he "dead dead" or "maybe dead"? One single line isn't a lot to go on and can be easily brushed aside if the devs want to bring him back. Might not be a bad thing if Sparda turns out to be a main boss or ally in a sequel. With so much talk of him we never get to play as or face him (or did that happen in 1? I never played it).

Would be funny if Sparda was basically sipping a beer kicking back on a beech leaving his kids to it.

This is a totally different argument in general.

 

[Taramafor]

What? Why would it even imply that?

Gee. You mean no game has ever done it before? Could that by why? Come on... don't pretend it's not a possibility. We've had Mundas and Virgil come back after being presumed dead. Don't see what it would be impossible with Sparda after that. That doesn't have to translate to sunshine and rainbows if he is back either.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. I'll get to that. Right now I'm saying you're saying something that isn't true. Which is exactly what the vid could be doing.

You're just creating wild theories to prove your head canon that Sparda abandoned his children despite evidence to the contrary.

WHAT evidence? You just said it yourself.

"old age".

Except, again, the vid NEVER at ANY point stated WHEN Sparda died. You don't know if he died when he was with Eva. And it CAN'T have been before that. Because he's alive then. It can VERY easily be MUCH after that event. I highly doubt he's near death at the time Mundas attacked. My whole point here is that nothing is SHOWN. So yes, it DOES leave us with more questions. Such as "What's he doing" and "Where is he" along with "At what point does he die". Your complaints about my theories do not change the fact that it's all unknown. At least admit that. And why even jump to the conclusion it's old age at all? What evidence do you have to support that claim? I at least deal with "what ifs". We at NO point see a dead Sparda. You don't know if he's alive at that point in time or not any more then I do.

You seriously don't think that would have come up at any point in the series if that were the case?

Lot of characters in 5. And then we got Virgil being the focus. Tossing Sparda in would be overwhelming at that point. So if he's in the next game that would be neat. If not then ah well. But that's kind of what I'm getting at here. We know there's a Sparda. Dead or not, why don't we get to play as or against him? (even in a flashback). All we do is hear about him. So that just makes it even worse. We got all this hype built up around this guy and we never really get to the guy beyond seeing his illusion with Arkham. So here the question is "Why do we never get to see more of Sparda himself?" Put it in as a past memory. Job done. Unless making him a boss or an ally to fight with because he was PRESUMED to be dead. Just because we have that one line of him being dead doesn't mean we have concrete proof to the claim. If Sparda is indeed dead (or believed to be dead) then the question is why.

Do you have that answer? If not then all you are doing is proving that we're left with questions after you said we don't. So what is it. Do we have questions about how, where and when he dies or don't we? You can't have it both ways.

 

[windleopard]

Gee. You mean no game has ever done it before? Could that by why? Come on... don't pretend it's not a possibility. We've had Mundas and Virgil come back after being presumed dead. Don't see what it would be impossible with Sparda after that. That doesn't have to translate to sunshine and rainbows if he is back either.

Mundus was never presumed dead and he hasn't been seen since DMC 1. Vergil coming back does not mean Sparda is still alive or that he will come back.

Yes, it does. I'll get to that. Right now I'm saying you're saying something that isn't true. Which is exactly what the vid could be doing.

I honest to God don't know if you're trolling at this point.

WHAT evidence? You just said it yourself.


Except, again, the vid NEVER at ANY point stated WHEN Sparda died. You don't know if he died when he was with Eva. And it CAN'T have been before that.

And I never said it was before he met Eva. What the hell are you talking about? Are you even reading what I said?

Your argument is all over the place. You seem to be simultaneously arguing that Sparda is either alive or is dead and will come back at the same time.

Because he's alive then. It can VERY easily be MUCH after that event. I highly doubt he's near death at the time Mundas attacked.

I have specifically stated he was dead before Mundus's attack. Please respond to what I've written instead of shifting the goal posts.

My whole point here is that nothing is SHOWN.

Because nothing has to be shown. You got all the story you needed in the opening text crawl of the first game.

So yes, it DOES leave us with more questions. Such as "What's he doing" and "Where is he" along with "At what point does he die".

All have been answered.

Your complaints about my theories do not change the fact that it's all unknown. At least admit that.

I don't have to admit anything. You're the one who keeps ignoring what's actually said in the games that doesn't suit your theory that Sparda's a deadbeat.

And why even jump to the conclusion it's old age at all? What evidence do you have to support that claim?

He sacrificed a huge portion of his power to seal the entrance to the demon world. It very likely left him in a weakened state where he couldn't fight off the effects of aging as easily as he could at full power. It's certainly more evidence than your theory that he's still alive.

I at least deal with "what ifs". We at NO point see a dead Sparda. You don't know if he's alive at that point in time or not any more then I do.

Until we see that he's been alive all this time, I'm going to do the crazy thing and go with the information I've been given that he's dead.

Lot of characters in 5. And then we got Virgil being the focus. Tossing Sparda in would be overwhelming at that point.

And what about the previous other games where he was mentioned? What excuse did they have for him not showing up (Other than him being dead)?

So if he's in the next game that would be neat. If not then ah well. But that's kind of what I'm getting at here. We know there's a Sparda. Dead or not, why don't we get to play as or against him? (even in a flashback). All we do is hear about him. So that just makes it even worse. We got all this hype built up around this guy and we never really get to the guy beyond seeing his illusion with Arkham. So here the question is "Why do we never get to see more of Sparda himself?" Put it in as a past memory. Job done. Unless making him a boss or an ally to fight with because he was PRESUMED to be dead. Just because we have that one line of him being dead doesn't mean we have concrete proof to the claim. If Sparda is indeed dead (or believed to be dead) then the question is why.

Do you have that answer? If not then all you are doing is proving that we're left with questions after you said we don't. So what is it.

We don't get to see Sparda because his importance to the story is as a famous legend in universe. That is his role. Sparda is not the main protagonist, Dante and now Nero are. It's not a problem for him not to show up in a story where he is not the main character.

Do we have questions about how, where and when he dies or don't we? You can't have it both ways.

"We" don't. You do because you refuse to accept what is unambiguously stated on screen.

 

[Taramafor]

Virgil has came back from "seemingly dead" already.

AND we're talking about the power of sparda, who for all we know might even be able to resurrect. That aside, that still doesn't rule out a possible flashback with him in the past in a future game. If Mundus and Virgil comes back from APPEARING to be defeated (or even "dying" for all intensive purposes) then I don't see why Sparda should be any different in that regard. dante gets stabbed with swords and can "look dead" on a daily bases. SAYING sparda died doesn't necessarily MEAN Sparda died. It could just be "appears dead".

And if Sparda is dead, could it be like in Legacy of Kain, where Sparda IS the sword itself? Therefor giving the weapon a reason to be called "Sparda" due to containing his very soul? Which Devil May Cry 3 might imply. Considering bosses turn to weapons then we have to consider this possibility.

What even happens to a soul once it's dead? Can it reform? Do these "demon weapons" stay weapons, or can they have physical bodies again?

Heck, even Final Fantasy is bringing dead characters back from past games. It's. Been. Done. It can happen again. That's a fact. "Weird demon magic" can do that. And SAYING Sparda died doesn't translate to ACTUALLY dead. Countless games go "Dead" but then pull a "actually not dead and was just believed to be by the people in the world/universe until shown otherwise". Considering we only have ONE line, from the OLDEST game, I'm going to remain sceptical. Not to mention DMC has done minor retcons before. It can happen. It HAS happen in other areas.

The most we have about Sparda dying is that it JUST says he died. With NO indication about where, when how or even if he was or wasn't with Eva when she died. How do you know he wasn't fighting demons off screen and getting separated from his family? And if Sparda isn't at home then why not? It's not enough to just go "up and leave with no reason given". There's just no closure there. There's no reason for it. At the very least this has to be considered a plot oversight.

If Sparda left his kids, then WHY? Quit making this about his fate alone and start looking at the picture picture. Plot. Gaps.

You jumped to the ASSUMPTION that he died of old age, with no proof or evidence to that claim. I didn't go "This happened, that happened". I said "might". You went "best guess" with no reason given. As if you're speaking in facts. We're talking about demons that might even stop ageing due to regen abilities. Some of these demons are MILLENNIA old. You think a few hundred years is going to phase a demon? Not likely.

Also, what evidence is there that sparda abandoned his children? What if he was simply separated, say by demons getting in-between them? Demon magic. Portals to hell. Heck, the house itself is underground when we find it in 5. Imagine what happens DURING a fight when Mundus opens up portals all over the place which can lead to people getting separated or even trapped in hell once moving into (or tossed into) a portal.

Or, hell, what if he simply went "I'm not one to settle down" with Eva and was simply having adventures while Eva raises the kids when Sparda visits? In which case, where is Sparda AFTER the attack? Why doesn't he see his kids again? Or did he and we haven't seen it happen yet?

 

[DragonMaster2010]

In Devil May Cry, death is just a state of mind.

 

[Thaddeus]

Fan Theory:
Matier is the biological template for the Secretaries, explaining why Lucia has a normal human form innately, later gaining a DT from her training in youth.

**** it, let's say Arius' other defects were salvaged by the Order of the Sword. Later Vergil would bed one, leading to the birth of Nero.

 

[V's patron]

Fan Theory:
Matier is the biological template for the Secretaries, explaining why Lucia has a normal human form innately, later gaining a DT from her training in youth.

**** it, let's say Arius' other defects were salvaged by the Order of the Sword. Later Vergil would bed one, leading to the birth of Nero.

That's one way to reconcile 2 and make Lucia relevant again. It feels contrived but it could work as a misdirect.

 

[Trish67]

I recently discussed this with a fellow cosplayer at a recent anime con. He said he didn't think Vergil would sleep with just anyone. And I agreed. I said I figured she was someone he'd known for a long time.

 

[Taramafor]

Can we try and keep it a bit more chill please? I'm seeing things getting a tad personal and there's really no need.

You're all smart and lovely people - let's keep it that way

There is a need. If it isn't personal then are you even yourself with your own strong opinions?

You're the one getting more personal too btw. Why make that comment if you're not having personal concerns? So your very own statement contradicts itself.

how would Nero know Dante went to Hell in DMC2 yet not know who Dante is on-sight.

2 is before 5 isn't it? Dante meets Nero in 4. 4 is after 2? By the look on Nero's face in 4 that was the first time he saw Dante. Clearly didn't know him. However, Dante seemed to know Nero. "For a long time now I suspected Virgil is your dad". LONG time, he said.

It seems Dante's been keeping an eye on Nero before they met in 4. From afar somehow. Probably heard about the sword being an arm and had Trish keep an eye on him. Who was a spy in the order, right? She was looking like somoene else after all.

The problem with DMC4 is that it doesn't really touch on the finer details here. It was a rushed game that could have had more polish. Can still read between the lines though.