Was The Reboot Really Necessary?

[TWOxACROSS]

They put this in a T.V. show!? Now I really felt like a caveman.

Strange, isn't it? The stuff that can be put on public TV these days, and yet people are worried about kids getting their hands on M-rated games that can't be sold to them without an adult

 

[WolfOD64]

I’m not going to go into the whole DmC vs. DMC topic because I don’t think either one is leaps and bounds better than the other. Both are fun and a feast for the testosterone, but they both suffer from an equal pile of problems. My love for the franchise goes only as far as my nostalgia for it…nowadays, I lean more towards Darksiders II or Ninja Gaiden. These games aren’t infinitely better than DMC or DmC, but they aren’t riddled with the problems that plague both. That’s why I enjoy them more.

As for the rebooting of the series, it all comes down to DMC4. I know many fans look at the game, and wonder: “Why reboot after this? It sold well enough.” But beyond its prominent advertising and rapid sales numbers, DMC4 was a clear sign that the franchise was losing steam. I know that probably sounds odd, especially how well the game turned out on the new MT Framework engine, fixing the series’ longtime camera and control problems, but it’s pretty obvious that the development for DMC4 was a rocky one. Oh, Capcom and the lead developers behind the game will probably never admit it openly in any interview, or confession, but the evidence is obviously there. It doesn’t take a lot of cognitive thinking to see how rushed out the game was: it repeated levels, the new character Nero had far less combat and depth than he was supposed, bosses and puzzles were rehashed to an almost atrocious degree, and Dante was thrown in there with every styles and moves copy-and-pasted from DMC3.

So why were all these features present? Because the development team probably ran out of intuitive gameplay ideas. Think about it: why else would the same set of levels and bosses be repeated so often? If that’s not a sure sign of mid-development struggle, I don’t know what is. Kobayashi hammered the point that he was creating a game enveloping the content of “DMC1-3 combined”…and what we got was a prettier, more functional, but watered-down version of DMC3. After cramming DMC3’s combat into the game without adding much in terms of innovation or evolution, Capcom probably didn’t know what to do with the franchise next. They had milked the combat to absurdity, had nothing to retool or evolve the series in terms of combat or gameplay…so the series would have to either improve or change completely to survive as a flagship franchise.

And Capcom went with the latter.

Ninja Theory, as proven by both interviews and early artwork, WANTED to make DMC5. They didn’t want to reboot the series, and were constantly making attempts to produce a sequel. But Capcom decided to make it as distant as possible from prior games….probably to test the waters and have the new game exist in its own universe so any damage or fallacies wouldn’t affect the main series. Now, if that sounds like a stupid tactic to take with a series like Devil May Cry, it’s probably because IT IS. Ninja Theory themselves wanted to make a sequel---****, some of the people that leapt on board to work on it were fans of Devil May Cry that wanted to make DMC5. But every step NT took to making DMC5, Capcom would yank their leash and set them back on the path of the reboot.

The fate of the series as of this point is anyone’s guess. I personally would be satisfied with a sequel to either lineage of games, but I hope whoever takes the reigns (especially in the wake of Capcom’s current financial state) will be more constructive and logical when attempting either one.

 

[mrrandomlulz]

U ARZ NOT T3H HARDCORZ

Considering Dragon told me his favorite book

I beg to differ

 

[DantesLink]

Kobayashi hammered the point that he was creating a game enveloping the content of “DMC1-3 combined"

Holy crap, I remember seeing that interview statement during 4's development. Could never find it again after all these years, thought I went a little crazy back then.

 

[DragonMaster2010]

Considering Dragon told me his favorite book

I beg to differ

 

[berto]

With that said, what purpose did DmC have?

DmC was Capcom's attempt at a pre emptive strike. Rather than wait for the series to get stale they decided to reboot before the chart on sales started to go down; as you probably know each game was more successful than the last with DMC4 been the best selling in the franchise. However, before things started to change they decided that it would be more profitable to reboot now, when the franchise is at it's peak and, like they did with DMC4, bring in new audiences, new western audiences. A new protagonist, younger to bring in the younger demographics, a new beginning so that people who never played the previous games didn't have to know anything and wouldn't be lost when turning on the game. While they were at it they could fix all the things the western audience constantly complained about, namely story and accessibility.

Did we really need DMC to be rebooted?

No, not in my opinion. My complains for both DMC4 and DmC are nearly the same.

If it's because of the inconsistent storyline than they could just explain all that in another sequel.

I don't think that was the case.

The inconsistency issues that we see are often times the product of 'lost in translation.' For example, Nero's heritage, who he is, and all the other questions people have about him; Capcom thought they addressed the character in the game but when Capcom heard that we didn't get it, it was too ambiguous in the west they rather liked the idea which says to me that ether the answer is more obvious than we think or a lot got lost in translation. Top that off with all of the materials regarding DMC been damn near all in Japanese (books, art, interviews, behind the scenes) and we are left in the dark about far too many things. Thus us saying 'I don't get it.'

So I wonder what was the point in the reboot.

Western appeal.

Honestly, I think they forgot what made the games appealing to begin with, why they were special in the first place, and focused more on those sales numbers more. The Resident Evil effect, but in this approach it was to get those people who said 'I don't like DMC because... ' to buy the game and those who might stay away for the same reason.

So why were all these features present? Because the development team probably ran out of intuitive gameplay ideas. Think about it: why else would the same set of levels and bosses be repeated so often?

Money and time. Both cut short. DMC4 is actually half the game it was supposed to be. Dante was meant to fight his own bosses, have his own levels, and even make another trip to hell, but it was all cut short from, as I've been told, preference to finance other games (RE5, I think)

Kobayashi hammered the point that he was creating a game enveloping the content of “DMC1-3 combined”

I think this one is a lie. He changed too much of the original formula to make that claim nothing more than promotional BS to please the audience. He also said that the game would have more enemy variety than the other games combined (or was it weapons).

Ninja Theory, as proven by both interviews and early artwork, WANTED to make DMC5. They didn’t want to reboot the series, and were constantly making attempts to produce a sequel. But Capcom decided to make it as distant as possible from prior games….probably to test the waters and have the new game exist in its own universe so any damage or fallacies wouldn’t affect the main series.

Actually I think this is inaccurate as well.

Someone posted the interview from the DmC artbook and in an interview the staff commented how when approached by Capcom, flattered and excited as they were, they warned that if they were allowed to do this it wouldn't be Capcom's DMC it be Ninja Theory's rendition and style, to which they responded that that was the reason they wanted them to do it.

 

[WolfOD64]

Holy crap, I remember seeing that interview statement during 4's development. Could never find it again after all these years, thought I went a little crazy back then.

We were all probably frothing over that godly description. Personally, I was just getting hyped at how story-driven and dramatic the trailers made the game seem during its ad campaign. I still want to see a future Devil May Cry game with a story that actually backs up the intense combat. So far none of the games have done that for me...but DMC4 came pretty close. I just wish Capcom had kept Bingo Moriashi's original plot and had fine-tuned it for a cinematic experience, maybe with the production value and celebrity power of other cinematic action games like Castlevania: Lords of Shadow. That would've been awesome.

 

[Demi-fiend]

DEE UM SHEE IZ NOT ABOUT T3H STORY HURR HURR

 

[Frazz]

From the fans perspective it was not necessary but for Capcom it may have been... I present two possibilities:

1) Capcom needed a lot of time to make a next-gen DMC5, this is highly unlikely but not impossible given that Arkham Origins was only made to give Rocksteady mire time for Arkham Knight. It has been too long since DMC4 for this to be overly possible as they haven't shown anything to imply that they are working on it.

2) They ran out of ideas and had a reboot to give them tine to think about whether or not they have the passion and ideas for a DMC5. In this case if they are unable to come up with future ideas for the series I'd wager that they'd either let it die or sell the rights to NT.

 

[Enigma]

From I understanding, reboots are often made to give an old franchise a fresh new look and start. To re- imagine the story under a more modern context or reinterpretation. Doing so is often done under the goal that said franchise is good and worth investing in but has died and won't be relatable to the modern audience.

With that said, what purpose did DmC have? Did we really need DMC to be rebooted? DMC is a rather influential franchise and Dante is a gaming icon. The franchise isn't all that old either. If it's because of the inconsistent storyline than they could just explain all that in another sequel. If it's to gain interest on the franchise, a sequel could do that too. The only explanation Capcom ever grave was that they wanted something different but did they need to go to another developer for that? They basically rebooted DMC with each sequel and gave us different experiences with each one.

What's worse is that while the reboot brought some unique things to the table, it was basically extending what we saw in past games (in terms of gameplay) and the story suffered from the same syndrome as the other games (just a little less severely).

So I wonder what was the point in the reboot.

I'm not sure either. The DMC storyline has always been inconsistent: each DMC's story stood on its own. I think people had made their peace with that since DMC2, and otherwise since DMC3. After all, it (sort of) retconned the story. In DMC3, Dante had always known Vergil, while in DMC1, Vergil had been lost (to Mundus) since Dante was eight. However, DMC1 never went into the story much, so Capcom can get away with that. I actually don't care that DMC3 slightly retconned it.
So the story inconsistencies are not the reason for the reboot.

DMC4's story was not tied to old DMCs, so again the story wasn't a problem; Nero was. He was intended to be Dante's replacement, but we still don't know how to explain his existence. We also don't know where his arm came from, and I doubt Capcom themselves know. It would not make much sense for him to be Vergil's son, but Capcom refuses to come up with another explanation. They haven't even officially stated he is Vergil's son. There are several ways to explain Nero. There might even be ways to explain his DB arm, but Capcom just doesn't want to put the effort in. Their staff lacks original thinking.
Capcom said they wanted to westernize the series. They couldn't do that on their own, so they hired Ninja Theory. However, it's possible the westernization thing was an excuse - after all, the DMCs sold very well. I find it unlikely that after four games, they would suddenly want to westernize it.
They probably didn't know how to continue the story with Dante. They had planned to go on with Nero, but people didn't like him much, so they decided to 'save face' by rebooting. Of course, that begs the question: why not simply change Nero a bit? Make him grow as a character. Make him less whiny and more badass. Then people would actually like him enough. Again, Capcom didn't even try. Maybe they just wanted to take the easy way out - it could be as simple as that.

That still raises the question: why rehash old ideas? Why Vergil again? Why Mundus again, only now as the typical evil businessman? Hell, why Dante? Is their idea pool completely drained? And why such a throw-away story? I suppose it's a way to start a single coherent storyline over the span of several games, but that's all.
The big question is: why alienate a huge part of the fanbase by changing so drastically the characters, dialog, art style, atmosphere, and the overall world? If it were a bit more faithful to the old series in the aforementioned terms, and had better controls, I might've liked it. But now, I have no interest in DmC whatsoever. In essence, they erased DMC and turned it into DmC, a game I feel 'meh' about.

''I'm not going to get into P* here, I've played their games, and I didn't like them at all. To me, DMC3 and Darksiders II were a better by a significant margin''.
- Frostmourne

Platinum is unrelated. I've seen you compare Metal Gear Rising to DMC before, but MGR was not meant to be like DMC, so the comparison to DMC is pointless. Its gameplay is not the same as DMC, and was never meant to be. I suppose its characters can be DMC-like, but that's no surprise, as the game was made by P* and the man who developed DMC1. His views on characters and his likes will shine through with every game he makes. The same happened with Gears of War and UT3. Anyway, almost everybody agreed it's a good game.
Bayonetta, I guess, is more like DMC. Back then, Bayonetta was as good as a very decent Devil May Cry game. Similar to DMC3 in quality, I'd say. You could do some amazing combos... unless you didn't know what you were doing. Simultaneously, it added a number of interesting gameplay features, such as Beast Form, fun minigames, and the ability to improve combos by throwing in finishing moves (QTEs). There were some things wrong with it, but I'm not going to go into that now. Still, it isn't a Devil May Cry game, so holding it to all the same standards is foolish.

I find it sad... for the fans. It's like Capcom wanted to try something new, but never bothered to ask the fans if they were up for it. They didn't want to take the effort to explain Nero, or to think of new ideas, and took the easy way out with NT. And yet, DmC is 'old hat' in some ways. And in other respects, it's not enjoyable to many DMC fans. It should've been more faithful to the old games in terms of story, characters, style and atmosphere, but should've improved gameplay more (minus the boring platforming). It should've been more daring. I still hope DMC5 will be made, to rival how good DMC3 was at the time. DmC2 and DMC5 alongside one another would be nice.

 

[Demi-fiend]

So... the story inconsistencies are not the problem.

Sure they aren't.

 

[berto]

I'd wager that they'd either let it die or sell the rights to NT.

Wait. Why is selling to NT an option at all?
First, there are wealthier people you could sell DMC to. Then, if Capcom was in the market to sell, which they weren't at the time, why would they start with an active franchise as opposed to a dormant but still popular one like MegaMan or OniMusha?

If Capcom wanted to sell DMC it wouldn't be to NT, it be to the highest bidder.

Edit: 2001 Likes, b!tches. A Mexican Odyssey for the 21st century!

 

[Jak]

i don't know. i enjoy it. but to be honest, i don't believe anything after DMC3 was necessary. that wrapped up the story. it was full circle. if anything, DMC4 is just as superfluous as DmC. both are things that are experimenting with new concepts. is that bad? no. were they well received? no...and yes. both have their own fan bases. and both exposed people to devil may cry in some way. so...i guess my final answer is yes. DmC was necessary.

 

[Enigma]

Sure they aren't.

I'm not saying it was a good thing that the DMCs didn't follow one particular story. It's just that people (Capcom too) accepted that each DMC had a different story to tell. Therefore, it wasn't the reason why DMC was rebooted. If it were, DMC would've been rebooted a long time ago, after DMC2 or DMC3.

 

[EllDawn]

From I understanding, reboots are often made to give an old franchise a fresh new look and start. To re- imagine the story under a more modern context or reinterpretation. Doing so is often done under the goal that said franchise is good and worth investing in but has died and won't be relatable to the modern audience.

With that said, what purpose did DmC have? Did we really need DMC to be rebooted? DMC is a rather influential franchise and Dante is a gaming icon. The franchise isn't all that old either. If it's because of the inconsistent storyline than they could just explain all that in another sequel. If it's to gain interest on the franchise, a sequel could do that too. The only explanation Capcom ever grave was that they wanted something different but did they need to go to another developer for that? They basically rebooted DMC with each sequel and gave us different experiences with each one.

What's worse is that while the reboot brought some unique things to the table, it was basically extending what we saw in past games (in terms of gameplay) and the story suffered from the same syndrome as the other games (just a little less severely).

So I wonder what was the point in the reboot.

From what I understood, it was pretty much an experiment for Capcom. They wanted to try something different with Devil May Cry and, instead of using the original games, they chose a reboot instead. Doing something different also included going to a small company to make something that was generally different from what they had done.

As for if the reboot was needed, that isn't something that everyone will agree on. It's all opinion. To go by what's been done with movies, there are some that aren't that old that have still been redone. Just as there are movies everyone has forgotten being remade. So there's no minimal time for such a thing. Some movies still don't have questions answered in a remake, no matter how much people want it. A lot of people would rather have these movies left alone while others want them updated.

I, for one, think they were making the games so different from each other anyway that it can't entirely be called a series. They also kept rushing the process every time a previous game was successful. That's how we got DMC2 and probably 4. So a reboot to try and reign things in a little, try to be in less of a hurry to appease everyone, was, I think, a good idea. But that's me.

 

[DragonMaster2010]

I'm not saying it was a good thing that the DMCs didn't follow one particular story. It's just that people (Capcom too) accepted that each DMC had a different story to tell. Therefore, it wasn't the reason why DMC was rebooted. If it were, DMC would've been rebooted a long time ago, after DMC2 or DMC3.

Actually DMC3 WAS a reboot. And like DmC, it was met with backlash, insults to Reuben, and death threats

 

[Demi-fiend]

i don't know. i enjoy it. but to be honest, i don't believe anything after DMC3 was necessary. that wrapped up the story. it was full circle. if anything, DMC4 is just as superfluous as DmC. both are things that are experimenting with new concepts. is that bad? no. were they well received? no...and yes. both have their own fan bases. and both exposed people to devil may cry in some way. so...i guess my final answer is yes. DmC was necessary.

This. All of this.

 

[Railazel]

So, the consensus is that it wasn't necessary but it did whatever job was given?

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

So, the consensus is that it wasn't necessary but it did whatever job was given?

Pretty much. ^^;

 

[WolfOD64]

Someone posted the interview from the DmC artbook and in an interview the staff commented how when approached by Capcom, flattered and excited as they were, they warned that if they were allowed to do this it wouldn't be Capcom's DMC it be Ninja Theory's rendition and style, to which they responded that that was the reason they wanted them to do it.

I remember Ninja Theory saying something about wanting to make "Devil May Cry 5 with 5% more improvements", or something like that. I don't know which interview, though...so don't quote me on that.

I do know that Keiji Inafune was the Capcom Dev who greenlit the idea of a more "western" DMC game in its early incubation period.