Well that was insulting.

[TWOxACROSS]

It's pretty obvious, that while his initial look was problem, there was another problem that you conveniently prefer to ignore. Bruised kid who looks like drug addict hanging from the hooks and smoking cigarettes BECUZ ITZ SO COOL AND EDGY was much more annoying than any hair color they could have come up with.
There was heavily implied story in this trailer, you have to be blind not to see it. And it's tone has little to nothing to with originals, so yeah, when people saw something that looked nothing like DMC and with it's name slapped atop, sure it was annoying.

What the hell did I ignore?! He's a bruised kid because he was chained up and tortured. And that's it! That's all you can get from that trailer - he was tortured when he was younger and now he's fighting demons in the street. Nothing about the dimensional Limbo, nothing about Sparda, Eva, Vergil or any of the other characters that exist in the game, and nothing about the "Mundus is a banker controlling the world through debt, propgandist news, and a spiked energy drink" antagonists. If you're saying you got any of that from a 90 second trailer of Dante being tortured and fighting random demons on the streets, you are a straight-up f#cking liar. Or you can see the future, in which case it makes total sense that you won the lottery and now spend your days sitting on a mountain of cash while spouting bullsh!t on the internet.

Furthermore, implying that it was all done simply for some stupid edgy coolness factor is to specifically dismiss and denigrate what is being seen; "I don't like this, so therefore it is being done for stupid reasons." Sh!t, the same "doing it because it's cool" criticism could have been levied against the classic series when it debuted for appealing to grimdark gothic elements, long coats, and duel pistols that was super popular at the time. The slight difference here is that the concept of torture has actual metric sh!t-ton of value to a story being told, and isn't all just a mash up of really cool sh!t like DMC was (not at all that that is a bad thing, mind you).

And people who said he looked like a drug addict, and ignored the entirely logical conclusion that his appearance was cuts and bruises from all that fighting he loves doing, are a bunch of foolish mouthbreathers. I can't think of any nicer way to put it, because actually paying any sort of attention to it and coming to that conclusion is just plain dumb.

And speaking of ignoring things, you are oddly quiet about how people ignored what the devs were saying and believed completely unfounded rumors about dial-a-combo and overheating guns. That boggled my mind the most when I followed the game, people constantly spouting it off as if it was true, that it was tangible proof that the game would suck, but there was nothing to corroborate the claims, all which were (like so many other rumors) proven entirely false.

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

Generally I agree with stuff you said. But since we were talking about 2010 trailer, there was no way for people to inform themselves with it. Because of that it was made to make first impression. Now irony is that Capcom wanted negative reaction and they got it. But for some reason many people trying to blame now it on those who gave this negative reaction, despite Capcom openly stating it was their goal.

True; it's difficult to make an informed decision from that alone; that's why I'm of the opinion that the "knee-jerk reaction crowd" should be "pardoned", so to speak.

I remember that, too; I'm not sure if they meant negative attention or not, but I do remember they seemed a bit too pleased with the amount of attention it was getting--despite most of that attention being negative. ^^;

But like I said...no idea what they really intended; I think they just had the, "any kind of press counts as good press" attitude at the time.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

I've probably said this quite a few times (then again, everyone else is on repeat too, it seems), but the outcry about the hair? I categorize it one of two ways:

1) People blew that out of proportion (as in, people say most of the complaints were about the hair, when they may not have been)

or

2) There was a very vocal minority, making it bad for everyone else--no matter where they stand on the spectrum.

I'm going with the latter; yes, most of us saw what happened--be it here or elsewhere--and there was a great deal of b*tching about the hair...though not necessarily from a lot of people, as so many assume, but from the same handful of people, over and over.

Handful is being used loosely here (obviously), merely as a comparison to the size of the fan-base.

That said? Not denying that there were knee-jerk reactions; people do that--all of us have done that, for one thing or another--so I think it's fair to say that particular argument should no longer be on trial. Once the dust settled, very few people clung to that knee-jerk reaction; some of them grew to like the game (if only marginally), while others still maintained it wasn't for them.

Moral of the story? You can't make people like what you do, just by virtue of the fact that you like it. However, people should at least attempt to make informed decisions, instead of parroting the same recycled information (some of which is incorrect) continuously. Again, you can't force them to make those informed decisions--but I do agree that they should at least try, before giving their final verdict.

Edit: Just FYI, this wasn't directed at any one person in particular; this is merely just my thoughts on the matter.

It's hard to say, in your mention of the latter, just how large of a minority it was, since they made it incredibly well-known they were upset :/ Of course, it's really just that people got that upset of 90 seconds of footage with zero information to back up so much of what they were angry about, and like I mentioned with what Alex Jones said, straight up ignoring what was in the video or mentioned in succeeding interviews >.<

IIRC, I seem to remember people making a proper fuss over the fact that Cole MagGrath (in his first I2 gameplay trailer) grew his hair and thus no longer looked like a generic bald supremacist.

It was actually pretty sad. Like, no one considered that hair grew...and that getting a haircut was probably the last thing on Cole's mind at the time. "The Beast is heading for New Marais! but first...I gotta get these nails done *tsk tsk tsk*"

Oddly, he looked slightly more generic with hair, but it was still okay, and just made sense.

Generally I agree with stuff you said. But since we were talking about 2010 trailer, there was no way for people to inform themselves with it. Because of that it was made to make first impression. Now irony is that Capcom wanted negative reaction and they got it. But for some reason many people trying to blame now it on those who gave this negative reaction, despite Capcom openly stating it was their goal.

That's the point, with very little information, you're only supposed to take it at what it is, and wait for more information. The knee-jerk reaction, while understandable, is unacceptable given the complete lack in so much of what people were worried about at the time.

Capcom didn't want a "negative reaction," they were just very aware that the shift if design and focus would ruffle a few feathers. Being ware of it and wanting it are two entirely different things.

 

[Innsmouth]

And people who said he looked like a drug addict, and ignored the entirely logical conclusion that his appearance was cuts and bruises from all that fighting he loves doing, are a bunch of foolish mouthbreathers. I can't think of any nicer way to put it, because actually paying any sort of attention to it and coming to that conclusion is just plain dumb.
.

You can call it whatever suits you better, but he does look like drug addict, not because of brooses. Poorly clothed kid, who obviously neglects his look and hygiene can lead to 2 conclusion: he either druggy or hobo.
Whole "authority is evil" was known from very first trailer. It was pretty obvious he was hunted by authority and he was some sort of "rebellious teen" who opposes them, but no there was no story in trailer #irony.
Trailer was obviously "in the face" edgy and attempting to show it with all possible means, so reaction it got was completely logical.

And speaking of ignoring things, you are oddly quiet about how people ignored what the devs were saying and believed completely unfounded rumors about dial-a-combo and overheating guns. That boggled my mind the most when I followed the game, people constantly spouting it off as if it was true, that it was tangible proof that the game would suck, but there was nothing to corroborate the claims, all which were (like so many other rumors) proven entirely false.

And now you just switched theme, since we weren't speaking about combat, but about initial reaction. You just picked some rumors that spouted later and has nothing to do with reception of hair or 2010 trailer. If you want to play this game, how about some glitches discovered in demo, that never were patched before release, because NT pretended they never existed?

That's the point, with very little information, you're only supposed to take it at what it is, and wait for more information. The knee-jerk reaction, while understandable, is unacceptable given the complete lack in so much of what people were worried about at the time.

Capcom didn't want a "negative reaction," they were just very aware that the shift if design and focus would ruffle a few feathers. Being ware of it and wanting it are two entirely different things.

If you KNOW something and do it nevertheless instead of trying to make edges not so hard to soften impact, 1+1 conclusion: they knew it happens and wanted to stir controversy. And one more thing, maybe it shocks you, but nobody entitled to give game a chance if it's tone doesn't appeal. And radical change in tone was obvious from a get go.

True; it's difficult to make an informed decision from that alone; that's why I'm of the opinion that the "knee-jerk reaction crowd" should be "pardoned", so to speak.

I remember that, too; I'm not sure if they meant negative attention or not, but I do remember they seemed a bit too pleased with the amount of attention it was getting--despite most of that attention being negative. ^^;

But like I said...no idea what they really intended; I think they just had the, "any kind of press counts as good press" attitude at the time.

Well it was pretty obvious attempt to stir controversy and they managed to do it. Problem that they never managed to calm down it, and it only lead to more controversy and problems.

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

@TWOxACROSS True; it's difficult to say just how many people actually spoke out against it. I don't think we'll ever really know; factoring in things like single persons with multiple user names/multiple comments from the same user, I assume that by now, most of it has been lost in the depths of cyber-space.

Not that it particularly matters; what's done is done, right?

You also made another fair point; they may not have been pleased with the amount of attention, so much as surprised by the sheer number of ruffled feathers--and well, sometimes people laugh because of the shock, not because they intend to offend people, further (been there, done that).

I'm guilty of the knee-jerk reaction, but it wasn't about the hair, I assure you--truth be told, I don't remember much about what I thought when I saw the very first trailer; I mostly remember the one just before the game's release, so it had a fair bit more content. I wasn't happy about it, but I wasn't that vocal, either. I had more of a problem with people raking me over the coals for things taken out of context, than the game itself. >.> (In other words, the people; the people p*ssed me off, lol).

 

[Viper]

It's the end of 2014 and I'm sitting here thinking - oh my Sparda, we are still arguing over same old things. Milk has been spilled, some have liked the game, others had their reasons not to. Capcom will never really listen to whatever fans say, you ain't really getting anything special from converting someone who thinks differently, so what's the point in arguing than giving yourself an ulcer eventually?

If I knew anyone would actually care, I'd say I want all you angry chihuahuas to go to your corner, have fun with the game you like, prepare for holidays and leave the other side alone, fans and characters included.

But now that I said what's on my mind, I'm gonna go draw, maybe even write... much better way to pass time than this debate.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

You can call it whatever suits you better, but he does look like drug addict, not because of brooses. Poorly clothed kid, who obviously neglects his look and hygiene can lead to 2 conclusion: he either druggy or hobo.

Uhm...are you seriously that dense...? "Poorly clothed kid, who obviously neglects his look and hygiene" because he was being held captive and tortured in a goddamn insane asylum run by demons. Where in that scenario would any person be allowed to clean some nice clothes and tend to their wounds. Then when he's fighting demons in the street, he's scuffed up from, y'know, fighting demons in the street. Plus, it's pretty obvious he isn't neglecting his appearance considering he's both completely clean shaven and has a f#cking designer haircut.

Whole "authority is evil" was known from very first trailer. It was pretty obvious he was hunted by authority and he was some sort of "rebellious teen" who opposes them, but no there was no story in trailer #irony.

Complete bullsh!t dude. You can't gleam the plot points of DmC from the trailer, because the only things it ever addressed was Dante and his being tortured by demons who he then fights.

And now you just switched theme, since we weren't speaking about combat, but about initial reaction. You just picked some rumors that spouted later and has nothing to do with reception of hair or 2010 trailer. If you want to play this game, how about some glitches discovered in demo, that never were patched before release, because NT pretended they never existed?

I, myself, was talking about the overall reception of the trailer, and the junk that I saw surrounding it, including the overreactions about the hair, as well as the unfounded gameplay rumors - rumors that were not spouted at some later date either mind you, they were things said congruently with complaints about hair. It astounded me that people were believing things that could not be proven, and actually completely contradicted what the devs were saying at the time, or just made very little sense to begin with.

And glitches discovered in the demo? Well I'm pretty sure they patched all the ones that they actually could without having to completely rewrite the code of the game. A lot of the glitches weren't things you would ever experience in normal gameplay anyway, it was sh!t you actually had to try to do. However, what this has to do with initial reception is beyond me...

If you KNOW something and do it nevertheless instead of trying to make edges not so hard to soften impact, 1+1 conclusion: they knew it happens and wanted to stir controversy. And one more thing, maybe it shocks you, but nobody entitled to give game a chance if it's tone doesn't appeal. And radical change in tone was obvious from a get go./QUOTE]

Your math is incorrect, and very assumptive. Knowing does not at all equal implicit desire.

And sure, no one has to give anything a chance if they don't want to, but you can't expect people to sit quietly when they start b!tching about something due to faulty information, or a complete lack thereof.

@TWOxACROSS True; it's difficult to say just how many people actually spoke out against it. I don't think we'll ever really know; factoring in things like single persons with multiple user names/multiple comments from the same user, I assume that by now, most of it has been lost in the depths of cyber-space.

Not that it particularly matters; what's done is done, right?

You also made another fair point; they may not have been pleased with the amount of attention, so much as surprised by the sheer number of ruffled feathers--and well, sometimes people laugh because of the shock, not because they intend to offend people, further (been there, done that).

I'm guilty of the knee-jerk reaction, but it wasn't about the hair, I assure you--truth be told, I don't remember much about what I thought when I saw the very first trailer; I mostly remember the one just before the game's release, so it had a fair bit more content. I wasn't happy about it, but I wasn't that vocal, either. I had more of a problem with people raking me over the coals for things taken out of context, than the game itself. >.> (In other words, the people; the people p*ssed me off, lol).

Yuss, you are correct. All we can see now is that holy crap was it there O_O YouTube's shenanigans with usernames and comments certainly did a number on a lot of records, too.

Man, I remember when I saw the teaser, and I was just like "Okay...somethin' is definitely up." However, because I'm a fan of Metal Gear Solid, I immediately put too much thought into how they might be twisting things. Then when I got to see some interviews it was "Oh, okay, so it's a reimagining" *puts Kojima-decoder away*

 

[Innsmouth]

Uhm...are you seriously that dense...? "Poorly clothed kid, who obviously neglects his look and hygiene" because he was being held captive and tortured in a goddamn insane asylum run by demons. Where in that scenario would any person be allowed to clean some nice clothes and tend to their wounds. Then when he's fighting demons in the street, he's scuffed up from, y'know, fighting demons in the street. Plus, it's pretty obvious he isn't neglecting his appearance considering he's both completely clean shaven and has a f#cking designer haircut.

Well he had enough to buy cigarettes or you forgot that he dressed differently before his hanging on hooks and fighting demons scene

Complete bullsh!t dude. You can't gleam the plot points of DmC from the trailer, because the only things it ever addressed was Dante and his being tortured by demons who he then fights.

There was not even single demon implication. There was videocamera, cell and scenery reminded of First Blood. He was questioned in some obvious prison/asylum and there was no demons during questioning. So keep facts in check

I, myself, was talking about the overall reception of the trailer, and the junk that I saw surrounding it, including the overreactions about the hair, as well as the unfounded gameplay rumors - rumors that were not spouted at some later date either mind you, they were things said congruently with complaints about hair. It astounded me that people were believing things that could not be proven, and actually completely contradicted what the devs were saying at the time, or just made very little sense to begin with.

Devs were jumping from one bandwagon to the other making some poorly stitched excuses. First they told it was prequel in official universe. Than they said it was reboot. Than it was reimagining. Than it was reboot with reimagining. That it was spin-off. Do you expect people to take them seriously with such atrocious marketing machine?

And glitches discovered in the demo? Well I'm pretty sure they patched all the ones that they actually could without having to completely rewrite the code of the game. A lot of the glitches weren't things you would ever experience in normal gameplay anyway, it was sh!t you actually had to try to do. However, what this has to do with initial reception is beyond me...

Almost EVERY person experienced boss passivity glitch, where bosses sat in one place and did nothing. It was addressed and who could have thought? ignored. I had this glitch on very first playthrough. Also wether it was obvious or not obvious glitches, they had info on them but they were to lazy to do anything about them, and they adressed them only along with balance patch. (which by the way removed load of missteps in development that was once again pointed after demo)

Your math is incorrect, and very assumptive. Knowing does not at all equal implicit desire.

And sure, no one has to give anything a chance if they don't want to, but you can't expect people to sit quietly when they start b!tching about something due to faulty information, or a complete lack thereof.

Once again. Different example. Kojima stated Ground Zero/MGSV will have plotholes and it's ok. He tried to lower impact. NT instead marched in there, threw their teaser and put attitude "F*CK you it's your new DMC. Deal with it." So yeah knee jerk backlash was well deserved.
And yeah spreading reverse misinformation or trying to white knight game or prove somebody's opinion is wrong because you think otherwise is just as bad as spreading misinformation about game. But this is debate for another topic.

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

Yuss, you are correct. All we can see now is that holy crap was it there O_O YouTube's shenanigans with usernames and comments certainly did a number on a lot of records, too.

Man, I remember when I saw the teaser, and I was just like "Okay...somethin' is definitely up." However, because I'm a fan of Metal Gear Solid, I immediately put too much thought into how they might be twisting things. Then when I got to see some interviews it was "Oh, okay, so it's a reimagining" *puts Kojima-decoder away*

Lol, I can definitely attest to the insanity on youtube. Flippin' gods, people were ballistic on there.

Pity I've never had the opportunity to get into the MGS franchise; I could probably find a couple of their games, but even if I did...gaming's been at an all-time-low for me, lately. >.<

I digress...^^;

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Well he had enough to buy cigarettes or you forgot that he dressed differently before his hanging on hooks and fighting demons scene

I'm not sure you realize that the shots of Dante being chained up and tortured in the asylum are from a completely different frame of time than the shots when he's fighting the demons. That's why he looks way thinner at those points than when he's fighting, because the shots in the asylum are from when Dante was younger. The dev D0NN1E who came to chat with us even clarified that, but plenty understood it from the beginning.

There was not even single demon implication. There was videocamera, cell and scenery reminded of First Blood. He was questioned in some obvious prison/asylum and there was no demons during questioning. So keep facts in check

And then demons being fought in the street. But yes, you're right, there aren't any demons explicitly hinted at in the torture scene - so then how in hell can you say that the trailer implies so much for you to know what the plot is?

Devs were jumping from one bandwagon to the other making some poorly stitched excuses. First they told it was prequel in official universe. Than they said it was reboot. Than it was reimagining. Than it was reboot with reimagining. That it was spin-off. Do you expect people to take them seriously with such atrocious marketing machine?

Reboot and reimagining are the same thing, and when people heard "prequel" they were saying origin story that takes place even before Dante was where he was in DMC3.

And yeah spreading reverse misinformation or trying to white knight game or prove somebody's opinion is wrong because you think otherwise is just as bad as spreading misinformation about game. But this is debate for another topic.

Innsmouth, kill the holier-than-thou bullsh!t, why is it bad for me to try to keep information straight among all the people bickering over things, but it's perfectly fine for people to sh!t on something because of wholly ignorant interpretations and sometimes blind hatred? I don't now about you, but I'd rather err on the side of positivity and seek to clarify stuff, pardon me for just wanting to make sure that people are informed. You can live in your ignorance.

I'm done. Go suck a rotten egg.

Lol, I can definitely attest to the insanity on youtube. Flippin' gods, people were ballistic on there.

Pity I've never had the opportunity to get into the MGS franchise; I could probably find a couple of their games, but even if I did...gaming's been at an all-time-low for me, lately. >.<

I digress...^^;

Metal Gear is certainly a lot of fun, but it's a faily huge investment by this point. If you ever get the chance, definitely give it all a try. Luckily they've made it pretty easy to get each of the games by this point, and Peace Walker looks gorgeous in HD (and has better controls ).

 

[Innsmouth]

I'm not sure you realize that the shots of Dante being chained up and tortured in the asylum are from a completely different frame of time than the shots when he's fighting the demons. That's why he looks way thinner at those points than when he's fighting, because the shots in the asylum are from when Dante was younger. The dev D0NN1E who came to chat with us even clarified that, but plenty understood it from the beginning.

Pretty much what I've said. So his hobo look doesn't has anything to do with asylum.

And then demons being fought in the street. But yes, you're right, there aren't any demons explicitly hinted at in the torture scene - so then how in hell can you say that the trailer implies so much for you to know what the plot is?

Hinted by asking "what's his name" while watching through camera. Thanks for explaining something that never was there

Reboot and reimagining are the same thing, and when people heard "prequel" they were saying origin story that takes place even before Dante was where he was in DMC3.

reboot and reimaigining are 2 different things, but whatever. Go look in dictionary.

Innsmouth, kill the holier-than-thou bullsh!t, why is it bad for me to try to keep information straight among all the people bickering over things, but it's perfectly fine for people to sh!t on something because of wholly ignorant interpretations and sometimes blind hatred? I don't now about you, but I'd rather err on the side of positivity and seek to clarify stuff, pardon me for just wanting to make sure that people are informed. You can live in your ignorance.

Maybe because you act just like them. Most of your information has no basis. And I already proved it on numerous occasion. So how are you different than them? You stating something that you can't prove , only defend something that doesn't really needs to be defended. What are you trying to prove? That game didn't deserved controversy? But it did. And if it turned better controversy didn't mattered at the end of the day, because 90% of people were convinced by game not by some interviews devs made. It didn't happened, end of story. Wether you like it or not.

I'm done. Go suck a rotten egg.

If posting gifs best you can do , don't bother next time

 

[WolfOD64]

Denial, with a strong supplement of nitpicking.

I saw it back in 2010, and I'm seeing it now on this thread.

 

[DarkSlayerZero]

Reboot - a discarding of much or even all previous continuity in the series, to start anew. Effectively, all previously known fictive history is declared by the writer(s) to be null and void, or at least irrelevant to the current storyline, and the series starts over.

Remake -Â generally used in reference to a movie which uses an earlier movie as the main source material, rather than in reference to a second, later movie based on the same source.

Reimagining -Â remakes that do not closely follow the original. The term is used by creators in the marketing of films and television shows to inform audiences that the new product is not the same as the old. Reimaginings often contain tongue in cheek references to the original with characters and concepts of the same name, but significantly changed.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

I don't really want to start anything, but seriously - let's take a look at how, from those descriptions, DmC both ignores the continuity of the classic series to start over (reboot), and is a new product that is not the same as the old, with characters and concepts of the same name, but changed (reimagining). To an extent, it also is a remake, since it still uses the classic series as source material like characters and elements of gameplay, albeit with some changes (sometimes significant) because it is a reimagining.

While each is their own words obviously, they are pretty synonymous, considering it's difficult to reimagine something without first foregoing previous continuity, and rebooting something is damn near useless if certain elements aren't changed or reimagined.

While they aren't wrong, the clarity of the devs having one specific thing to call it would have certainly helped matters.

 

[WolfOD64]

I don't really want to start anything, but seriously - let's take a look at how, from those descriptions, DmC both ignores the continuity of the classic series to start over (reboot), and is a new product that is not the same as the old, with characters and concepts of the same name, but changed (reimagining). To an extent, it also is a remake, since it still uses the classic series as source material like characters and elements of gameplay, albeit with some changes (sometimes significant) because it is a reimagining.

While they aren't wrong, the clarity of the devs having one specific thing to call it would have certainly helped matters.

Anyone with common sense would've looked at the game for what it was, and how far it strayed from the original lore and ideas to stand on its own two feet, and should've seen it as a reboot/reimagining.

Comics do this kind of thing all the time, and have been exercising it as a commonplace practice for years. Characters with a much longer and significant legacy than Dante's have been retooled, rebooted, reimagined and reconstructed countless times, at the hands of numerous creators and artists. Traits and traditions that are considered "sacred" or "trademarks of the character" have been abandoned or ignored for the sake of free creative reign...and some of the best comics ever written, from Frank Miller's Batman comics, to Marvel's Ultimate run in the early 2000's, to Daredevil's reimagining from the 80's and onwards, have been produced with this kind of practice.

But apparently, changing a character or lore from a franchise as vague and shallowly-explored as Devil May Cry after just four games was too much for people to handle, and whatever creative potential the reboot could've had was squandered on such a hostile and nit-picky fanbase.

 

[Innsmouth]

Problematic of so called reimagining that it far to often serves as poor excuse to slap franchise name on independent product. Creative reign is nice and all, but unless somebody wants to respect original material, they better do their own product instead of attempting cheap cash-in on bigger franchise name. And considering huge amount of reboots that respected their source originals, there is really no excuse to do so

 

[DarkSlayerZero]

How can capcom cash in on their own product? Since you seem to be implying that DmC is cashing in on DMC.

DmC respected the basics of the DMC franchise.

 

[Innsmouth]

How can capcom cash in on their own product? Since you seem to be implying that DmC is cashing in on DMC.

DmC respected the basics of the DMC franchise.

DmC isn't product of Capcom. It was made to cater to different audience and DmC respects DMC franchise as much as Lords of Shadows do it with Castlevania (AKA it doesn't care)

 

[Bazilican]

DmC isn't product of Capcom. It was made to cater to different audience and DmC respects DMC franchise as much as Lords of Shadows do it with Castlevania (AKA it doesn't care)

I don't know if you're just blinded by hate or not but even the whiniest of a fanboy knows when they're just throwing sh!t to throw sh!t. And buddy, you're really slinging feces everywhere.

Obviously I don't like DmC (f*cking hate it), however itwas obvious and I do recognize that DmC did respect DMC. All DmC did was do things different but still stayed the same like every other DMC only in a western setting which is pretty much the same as DMC in its eastern setting. It's just you and a sh*t ton of other nay-sayers were too blinded by black hair and no fashionista style that you couldn't see it at all and that's a damn shame.

 

[Innsmouth]

I don't know if you're just blinded by hate or not but even the whiniest of a fanboy knows when they're just throwing sh!t to throw sh!t. And buddy, you're really slinging feces everywhere.

Obviously I don't like DmC (f*cking hate it), however itwas obvious and I do recognize that DmC did respect DMC. All DmC did was do things different but still stayed the same like every other DMC only in a western setting which is pretty much the same as DMC in its eastern setting. It's just you and a sh*t ton of other nay-sayers were too blinded by black hair and no fashionista style that you couldn't see it at all and that's a damn shame.

Irony on everything you wrote is that DMC was western-oriented form a get go. It wasn't inserted in usual manga setting. And DmC just slapps name on top of characters without much connection to original one. And for final word, make your mind. You claim how DmC is bad, than you claim how DMC is bad, than you claim you hate whole franchise, now you claim it's shame people didn't appreciated DmC...you know, it's hard to tell if you just attempt trolling or you just don't know exactly what you think about whole thing.