• Welcome to the Devil May Cry Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Devil May Cry series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Ninja Theory on Why Dante is Such a “Dickhead”

But I don't care about what a person did in the past. I care for what they are today and what they are going to do in the future whether they are real people or comic book characters. I don't care whether my friend grew up with very liberal and lenient parents, that doesn't justify him not respecting them or other people and authority. I don't care whether Batman's parents died or not because I don't care for the reasons for his actions, all I want to know is whether he is a hero now and whether he will remain a hero in the future and I want to know whether his actions will reflect that. I judge a person based on who they are, not what they were. What happened yesterday is yesterday's problem.

So, with Dante, telling me about his background isn't doing him any favors considering that I'm not caring about his past (especially since his backstory is the same as pretty much every other revenge character out there). What I want to see is the kind of man he is today and whether he'll grow up to be someone better in the future. It's the reason why I like Superman and Iron Man. Their pasts aren't a relevant factor in their lives, they do what they do because it is right and needs to be done. I just want to see whether Dante grows up to be a better person, that's all.

You're still looking at it as a justification (you keep using that word), when it's not. His past isn't a license for him to be a douchebag sometimes, it's just the reason why he's a douchebag sometimes, and this game focuses on him becoming what you wan him to be - a better person. It's called "character growth" for a reason, and it's always a much more intriguing experience when the character has to work through some sort of flaw, like Dante's jerky, hedonistic lifestyle. He's going to work through that throughout the course of DmC, and learn some humanity. It's been explicitly stated by NT for a long time. You keep complaining that Dante is a douchebag and that you "want to see whether Dante grows up to be a better person," and we're telling you just that! He's a douchebage because of his traumatic past, and he's going to grow out of it as the game progresses.

Even Nolan's Bruce Wayne went through this, when he wanted nothing more than explicit revenge on the man who killed his parents, and was chastised for it (Rachel slapped the sh*t out of him, remember). Later on, he learned that revenge wasn't necessary so much as justice itself was. Hell, even the classic Dante had little more motivation than killing every demon he came across "until he hit the jackpot sooner or later," eg, finally killing those that killed his family. Even looking at Iron Man, he did what he did because he was tired of seeing his products used to hurt people. The only person of the listed names that doesn't have any past to motivate them is Superman, and he is a very bland character.

When you're trying to craft a story, the last thing you want to do is create generic, two-dimensional characters who do stuff just because it's right. It's a wholly and completely missed opportunity for more character, and even world, development :/
 
It isn't important to me.

And for you to say that shows a complete lack of any actual understanding of what makes any story truly entertaining. You're refusing to see why the character is the way he is, and just b*tching about them for being the way they are, while simultaneously ignoring the entire prospect of his growth from the beginning of the story to its end.
 
It isn't important to me.
But then what's the issue?

You don't like Dante due to his actions and dialogue.
We explain 'why one would be in such a way'
But you dismiss it wanting to state that 'this Dante is just a douche' (essentially). Also is if to say character development isn't important.
There are those who don't like this new Dante for valid reasons, but yours seems to be that his past is pointless....

I use my point before, some characters are developed to be unappealing and not the heroic type like Lightning from Final Fantasy. Her background explains why she is like she is. Not all characters are heroic and not all characters that would be considered a douche are supposed to be likeable.

Edit: TwoxAcross said it better.
 
You're still looking at it as a justification (you keep using that word), when it's not.

No, I'm not. I was just putting up an example.

You keep complaining that Dante is a douchebag and that you "want to see whether Dante grows up to be a better person," and we're telling you just that! He's a douchebage because of his traumatic past, and he's going to grow out of it as the game progresses.

I know that. I've seen that. What I'm complaining about are the devs detailing his background just to give reasons why he is the way he is when I don't care for it. And either way it goes, he's still a douchebag to me, traumatic experience or not.

The only person of the listed names that doesn't have any past to motivate them is Superman, and he is a very bland character.

He's also my absolute favorite superhero. The fact that he's doing right for the sake of doing what is good is my favorite part about him and it is that aspect that makes him better than all the others. You can argue with me on that, but nothing's going to change my mind on it.


Y
When you're trying to craft a story, the last thing you want to do is create generic, two-dimensional characters who do stuff just because it's right. It's a wholly and completely missed opportunity for more character, and even world, development :/

A lack of backstory doesn't necessarily mean the characters will be "two- dimensional." But a really good character doesn't depend on his background for depth.
 
But then what's the issue?

Nothing is, I just don't like how the devs are mentioning his background like it's going to change anything.

There are those who don't like this new Dante for valid reasons, but yours seems to be that his past is pointless....

I'm not saying that it is pointless. I just don't care for it.

But then what's the issue?

You don't like Dante due to his actions and dialogue.
We explain 'why one would be in such a way'
But you dismiss it wanting to state that 'this Dante is just a douche' (essentially). Also is if to say character development isn't important.

I never said character development wasn't important.

And for you to say that shows a complete lack of any actual understanding of what makes any story truly entertaining. You're refusing to see why the character is the way he is, and just b*tching about them for being the way they are, while simultaneously ignoring the entire prospect of his growth from the beginning of the story to its end.

Nope. You're completely wrong.

To me, character development occurs from the beginning of the story to the end. Anything before that is just extra detail and anything after is just fluff. I want to see the character grow and change. I want to see him come from one state to the next. That's all. He doesn't have to be likeable in order to be a good character to me, but he also doesn't have to have a complex or sad background either. I just want to see Dante change and grow without the necessity of "depth" having to be provided by any other means than his own actions and words. Therefore, I'm judging not by his past, but by what he's doing and what he says. So far, he's a douchebag. That doesn't make him a bad character because there are moments where he feels the need to change the way the city works and help people out. That, to me, makes him a very moral person who understand that stuff like this can't be ignored. All I know is that I can't wait to see those moments.

With that said, my problem isn't with him but with his developers for putting so much of an emphasis on his background as if that's the source of his depth, which it isn't.

Edit: Didn't mean to double- post. My bad.
 
Can I ask how is it ok to even characterize this Dante when we really do not know how he acts fully?, we do not even know the full story or full background story yet so how can anyone even say he is a certain way or he is something when we have not went through the game yet to see him fully? I am really confused how he is a d-bag when from what I have seen nothing he has done shows he is? then again I am the type not to label anyone/character until I know better then just short contact.

I am going to just go eat some Peanut Butter Cap'n Crunch.
 
No, I'm not. I was just putting up an example.

That's a horrible "example" then, because all you're illustrating is that you think his past gives him a right to be a douchebag, and that's why you hate him. If that's not what you meant, then you should have a stopped saying it like that, and corrected us and yourself sooner.

I know that. I've seen that. What I'm complaining about are the devs detailing his background just to give reasons why he is the way he is when I don't care for it. And either way it goes, he's still a douchebag to me, traumatic experience or not.

It seems like you're looking at it completely backwards. They didn't decide to make him a douchebag and then form his past around justifying it, which puts us right back to what I said above about how you keep looking at it as them trying to give justification for his douchebaggery, instead of his douchebaggery being a byproduct of his past.

He's also my absolute favorite superhero. The fact that he's doing right for the sake of doing what is good is my favorite part about him and it is that aspect that makes him better than all the others. You can argue with me on that, but nothing's going to change my mind on it.

I'm not gonna fight you on what your favorites superheroes are, but the fact that one of the blandest is your favorite says a lot about how you approach a story and its characters, and it's rather sad. I loved Superman when I was six, but then I grew up, and wanted much more out of the characters I followed in media.

A lack of backstory doesn't necessarily mean the characters will be "two- dimensional." But a really good character doesn't depend on his background for depth.

No, it doesn't necessarily make someone two-dimensional, but it treads dangerously close to that line, and it forces too much emphasis on what the character is doing in the present, which makes it incredibly difficult to keep up that momentum. And invariably, everyone begins to question the past of a character like that. A character's past allows for much greater character growth and potential, and it gives us a greater understanding of where they came from, how they got to the present, and it makes us way more interested in where he's going.
 
Nope. You're completely wrong.

To me, character development occurs from the beginning of the story to the end. Anything before that is just extra detail and anything after is just fluff. I want to see the character grow and change. I want to see him come from one state to the next. That's all. He doesn't have to be likeable in order to be a good character to me, but he also doesn't have to have a complex or sad background either. I just want to see Dante change and grow without the necessity of "depth" having to be provided by any other means than his own actions and words. Therefore, I'm judging not by his past, but by what he's doing and what he says. So far, he's a douchebag. That doesn't make him a bad character because there are moments where he feels the need to change the way the city works and help people out. That, to me, makes him a very moral person who understand that stuff like this can't be ignored. All I know is that I can't wait to see those moments.

With that said, my problem isn't with him but with his developers for putting so much of an emphasis on his background as if that's the source of his depth, which it isn't.

You're getting exactly what you're asking for, then! His past is merely the outline for his behavior that will be changing as the game progresses.

And this actually completely brings us full circle where I said the only reason the developers keep mentioning his background is because everyone keeps b*tching about it! They aren't trying to toss it out there for emphasis, but everyone is being so critical of the game so often that they have to keep mentioning it every time his attitude is brought up.
 
And this actually completely brings us full circle where I said the only reason the developers keep mentioning his background is because everyone keeps b*tching about it! They aren't trying to toss it out there for emphasis, but everyone is being so critical of the game so often that they have to keep mentioning it every time his attitude is brought up.

That is very true. Most of them don't get it as they prefer the old Dante. Actually, Classic Dante is a definition of badass. Try to tell him a sad story and he'll just laugh at it. DmC Dante can be interesting since his attitude is similar to the old Dante yet has more layers on his personality, especially on his backstory.

I'm a big fan of character-driven stories, whether on comics, films and animated works, even anime. Through character progression and interaction, you can even love a certain douchebag character yet he develops into a better person as the story progresses. It depends on the writers on how they can do that.

Take a look at Casino Royale. That Bond film is character-driven as a whole. And it got the negative backlash almost the same as DmC with the introduction of Daniel Craig being the new Bond actor. But the morons were silenced and in awe on how excellent Casino Royale is. It became one of the best Bond films of all time because of Craig's portrayal of Bond: more intense, more real, more human. And at the same time, a badass. His portrayal is what Ian Fleming originally envisioned: a ruthless killing machine.


This is actually my all time favorite Bond song. The song and its lyrics tried to illustrate Bond's psyche in the film, seeing him as a conflicted and a tough spy with emotional depth; actually, "You Know My Name" has more meaning and more symbolic compared to other Bond songs. It really introduces Bond despite of his appearances in previous films, stating that "introducing himself to what may be the rest of his life and how he will live it and what it will mean", according to Chris Cornell. Even Casino Royale's OST is the basis for this song; that's why the "James Bond Theme" was played in the end of the film to complete his character arc. That's why Casino Royale being my favorite Bond film and Craig being my favorite Bond actor.

Another example is most of the films from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I'll take those films over Nolan's Batman films because not only they stayed true to the source material, but also the characters as well, and how were they introduced and developed. I prefer Captain America over Superman because he is more human yet he is the source of inspiration in the Marvel Universe. He has his own struggles yet he fights for what he believes is right; no compromises. "Captain America: The First Avenger" is an origin story and how he was developed as a character. The beauty of "The Avengers" is that its excellent character interaction even though it has a very simple plot. No wonder why it was the highest grossing film of this year. And I'm happy for that. :)

That's why I have no problems on DmC Dante. I'm starting to love the character itself due to his backstory. Now I'm interested on how he will grow, same as Vergil.
 
That's a horrible "example" then, because all you're illustrating is that you think his past gives him a right to be a douchebag, and that's why you hate him. If that's not what you meant, then you should have a stopped saying it like that, and corrected us and yourself sooner.

Correct myself? I've said what I meant in the way I meant to say it. Sorry if my message wasn't clear to you.


It seems like you're looking at it completely backwards. They didn't decide to make him a douchebag and then form his past around justifying it, which puts us right back to what I said above about how you keep looking at it as them trying to give justification for his douchebaggery, instead of his douchebaggery being a byproduct of his past.

I'm not looking at it in any particular fashion neither have I said anything to imply that I believed that they formed his past based around his character. All I've been saying is that I don't care for his past at all. I don't know any clearer way of saying that.


I'm not gonna fight you on what your favorites superheroes are, but the fact that one of the blandest is your favorite says a lot about how you approach a story and its characters, and it's rather sad.
You call it sad, I call it brilliant. My approach to a story is at its meaning and value, the same goes for its characters. You can give your story as much depth as you want but it means nothing if you just leave with it being "entertaining." The characters must mean something to you and, trust me, you don't fall in love with them because they are "realistic," you fall in love because, somewhere between their words, within their actions, they represent something personal to you. That's why Superman is still a famous character. Because he represents something to everybody. He's that true hero that everyone wishes to be; that one bit of goodness that lies within all those with goodwill in their hearts. You can call him a "generic, two- dimensional" character but, to many others, he's still a source of inspirations towards doing good for the sake of doing of what's right.
I think that's what all writers and storytellers should aspire to do. Of course I'm not saying that they should make another Superman but to make characters that mean something to people. The X- Men, Bruce Banner/Hulk, Captain America, Wonder Woman, etc. all those guys, with their corny costumes and weird relationships, mean something special to people. If you like a character because they are deep, complex, or realistic (any character of any media), then you are either missing the true value of the character or the creator of the character just missed the point of why we love these characters in the first place.
No, it doesn't necessarily make someone two-dimensional, but it treads dangerously close to that line, and it forces too much emphasis on what the character is doing in the present, which makes it incredibly difficult to keep up that momentum. And invariably, everyone begins to question the past of a character like that. A character's past allows for much greater character growth and potential, and it gives us a greater understanding of where they came from, how they got to the present, and it makes us way more interested in where he's going.

Then I must be the odd one out then.

You're getting exactly what you're asking for, then!

That's what I've been trying to tell you.
 
But Dante has never played the hero

Pardon me for quoting an older post but uh..."Never played the hero"? Then what do you call what he did at the end of DMC 3 when he went off to fight Arkham? He said so himself after confronting Lady that he learned through her what he had to do sheerly out of the responsibility of being part of a family. It's not word-for-word "Playing the Hero", but it's still a very close-knit scenario that may as well be.
 
I'm not looking at it in any particular fashion neither have I said anything to imply that I believed that they formed his past based around his character. All I've been saying is that I don't care for his past at all. I don't know any clearer way of saying that.

So you don't care for his past or for his present douche-baggy self. Understood. You wish he was more like the old Dante (from the PAST games) I get it. Lets just leave it at that for now till after we've played the full game. I'll like to hear what you think then. Though it might not really change your mind but who knows right?
 
So you don't care for his past or for his present douche-baggy self. Understood. You wish he was more like the old Dante (from the PAST games) I get it.

Actually, that's not it either. I don't want him to be like the old Dante at all. I would prefer him to be his own character.
 
If you like a character because they are deep, complex, or realistic (any character of any media), then you are either missing the true value of the character or the creator of the character just missed the point of why we love these characters in the first place.

I think you are completely wrong on that. Why do you think people crave characters with depth and complexity while calling out two-dimensional characters as bad and all that? People love complexity in the characters because it makes them more believable, and sometimes even relatable. Complexity and realism aren't bad things at all, and only serve to enhance a character.

A character's true value lies in all parts of them, not in their past or their present, but all of it. No one here is saying that it's all about past, but past is important to a lot of the greatest characters ever created. To say that people are "missing the true value" because they like complex characters is extremely foolish, because that complexity is part of their value, and to say creators are missing the point is highly insulting to the people making complex characters that people will find value in.

I can only imagine how many great stories you missed out on because of that obtuse way of seeing stories and characters :/

I'm done here, you're depressing me :/
 
Correct myself? I've said what I meant in the way I meant to say it. Sorry if my message wasn't clear to you.




I'm not looking at it in any particular fashion neither have I said anything to imply that I believed that they formed his past based around his character. All I've been saying is that I don't care for his past at all. I don't know any clearer way of saying that.



You call it sad, I call it brilliant. My approach to a story is at its meaning and value, the same goes for its characters. You can give your story as much depth as you want but it means nothing if you just leave with it being "entertaining." The characters must mean something to you and, trust me, you don't fall in love with them because they are "realistic," you fall in love because, somewhere between their words, within their actions, they represent something personal to you. That's why Superman is still a famous character. Because he represents something to everybody. He's that true hero that everyone wishes to be; that one bit of goodness that lies within all those with goodwill in their hearts. You can call him a "generic, two- dimensional" character but, to many others, he's still a source of inspirations towards doing good for the sake of doing of what's right.
I think that's what all writers and storytellers should aspire to do. Of course I'm not saying that they should make another Superman but to make characters that mean something to people. The X- Men, Bruce Banner/Hulk, Captain America, Wonder Woman, etc. all those guys, with their corny costumes and weird relationships, mean something special to people. If you like a character because they are deep, complex, or realistic (any character of any media), then you are either missing the true value of the character or the creator of the character just missed the point of why we love these characters in the first place.


Then I must be the odd one out then.



That's what I've been trying to tell you.

a character cannot be a character without a background story. It's like saying Superman was born in his tights and cape, or Spiderman was just born a teenager and automatically knew to fight villains. In order to get down to the nitty-gritty, you must first learn how this character is becoming who he is going to be at the end of the story. Even Superman had an origins story. You cannot just magically whisk superman into reality without first explaining why he is there and how he came to be. That's like saying the Earth just appeared and everyone was already on it and everyone was technically advanced enough to create everything that has been created today.

So it would be impossible to like any of the aforementioned characters in your previous posts because they have no origin, they have no background, so they were never born if things were as you wanted them to be. You are who you are because you were a kid, your parents lead you through most of your life and every challenge and every mistake and at the end of your day you learned from those mistakes and became who you are at this present moment.

So one cannot simply just create a character with feelings or any type of emotion to relate to if they are just created and only aimed at making people liking them with their wit and humor. Which is why everything has to have a reason why they act the way they do so people CAN relate to them and CAN enjoy them more.

I should know all about character development since I have been in several classes in high school and not only did I get A's and A+'s throughout for every english related subject, I placed in the most advance English class in college based on testing scores.
 
I envy you, I want to become a English teacher and write books on the side. That is my dream.

Judging from your personality here, I think you'd make a bombin' English teacher. All of mine were fantastic individuals much like yourself, and they kept me going and urged me to continue writing :3
 
Judging from your personality here, I think you'd make a bombin' English teacher. All of mine were fantastic individuals much like yourself, and they kept me going and urged me to continue writing :3
Really? why thank you dear sir! I don't know if this sounds weird but you made me blush! (no I'm not kidding >.<) I hope to be a bombin' english teacher, and I think you are a fantastic individual yourself. To me a story is like creating life...It feels amazing. I constantly have ideas in my head for stories and worlds that I don't think (and hope) exist yet. This is why I envy you. I never have time to just sit down and put my ideas to paper, but I do try. Unfortunately I can be somewhat of a perfectionist at times and I will go back to my material and end up re-writing it into a revamped version of what I had before.

I have also been playing around with my ideas of reversing the chronological timeline (end>middle>beginning) and what I can do with it. Always full of ideas and it would be a tremendous pleasure to help others bring that out within themselves as well cause it feels freaking amazing.
 
Really? why thank you dear sir! I don't know if this sounds weird but you made me blush! (no I'm not kidding >_<) I hope to be a bombin' english teacher, and I think you are a fantastic individual yourself. To me a story is like creating life...It feels amazing. I constantly have ideas in my head for stories and worlds that I don't think (and hope) exist yet. This is why I envy you. I never have time to just sit down and put my ideas to paper, but I do try. Unfortunately I can be somewhat of a perfectionist at times and I will go back to my material and end up re-writing it into a revamped version of what I had before.

I have also been playing around with my ideas of reversing the chronological timeline (end>middle>beginning) and what I can do with it. Always full of ideas and it would be a tremendous pleasure to help others bring that out within themselves as well cause it feels freaking amazing.
Try to finish a story without going back and revising it until it's done; Write drunk, revise sober. Granted, I suffer from much the same problem, even with similar ideas (I want to really play around with the notion of flashbacks, including flashing back to memories that aren't the perspective character's, and involuntarily flashing back within another flashback).
 
Back
Top Bottom