Eh, I personally don't mind there being less moves, but I think that it is pretty important to those who play DMC on an advanced level, because even if one move is basically just a variation of another move, there is still a more or less big visual difference, allowing you to have a bigger variation in combos.
Having three types of Stingers is pushing it (Stinger, Straight and Gunstinger).
I know you can charge Straight and cancel Gunstinger into three Point Blank but they could easily cram all these applications into a single move (a Stinger you can charge that cancels into Million Stabs, canceling into three Charged Shots is redundant).
Like I said, it looks more like they're just trying to fill up slots at this point.
And we are talking about variety, which can be measured by the list of moves.
A variety of redundant moves.
Opinion. This has no value for the discussion of the mechanics itself.
Like the opinions
you have been spouting?
There's essentialy a lot of differences between this two moves even if they look similar: Rising Dragon do not have too much i-frame and don't have a direct follow-up too, not to talk about the damage and startup frames of the standard moves (non-charged). Real Impact have a lot of i-frames that make you safe after you connected the first hit and ends when you're nearly in middle-air. So, yes, they add variety and sum up to very different options to deal with bosses or stronger enemies.
These differences are too little to warrant two different moves.
Compacting them both into one was a better idea.
In DMC3 the charged shots can stop one Abyss to throw their scythe after their "teleport" move, it have another properties, higher damage and stun values and can be useful to sustain the airborne position of an enemy while charging things like Drive
So it's just "same thing but more powerful".
Sorry but I like DmC's idea of "powered shot with a new property" better.
The Rico-Shot allows me to stun
multiple enemies, staggering one, while juggling another, giving me more openings to charge stuff or follow up with another move.
No one said that. But it's a fact that "more moves = more variety and options".
Not "fact" when some of these moves are redundant copies or just plain useless.
I don't ever played ZOE, but in MGR it's possible because the camera mostly stays in Raiden's shoulders
It's not set like Gears Of War, where the camera is always behind him. You can see Raiden running in all directions.
Also, such camera is automatic in DMC4, for bosses. Even without locking on, the camera always focuses on the bosses (with the exception of Agnus and Echidna, where the camera frees up so you can focus on the minions they spawn into the field).
(which can be considered a "flaw" too, but it's a intentional design just like the lock-on from DMC)
The dumb lock-on mechanic from the first 4 DMC games are an ancient relic waiting to be discarded, not to be compared with the current over-shoulder camera, which is very functional for 3rd person games.
and it's possible to input commands without needing a more "hard" lock-on.
Which is something DMC needs to get rid off.
I'm glad they did so in DmC. Hopefully, it gets carried over in future incarnations of the series.
The difference being lock-on allows you to lock in every enemy you want from a distance. I was just answering your mistake to say that it's impossible to shoot without locking.
Yes, you can do that on DmC, via L3.
Not much difference, essentially.
Whenever you press R1 in the past DMC, you're not guaranteed to get the right enemy either and may need to toggle around.
The same way i can assume you're defending DmC's scheme because you're a casual that can't play anything properly and feels good playing a casual game.
You're already showing the "signs" of a bad arguer.
At some point, people who can't argue with me will pull the "you don't like it because you suck at it" reasoning or something similar.
In this case, you're calling me a "casual", with the implications that I'm a "less skilled" player.
Listen up, kid.
I grew up on the Resident Evil series since 1996.
The difference between you and me is that I am not deluded by nostalgia and can recognize when something is outdated or dysfunctional.
There's nothing functional about being forced to hold down a button just to focus on an enemy, while being forced to slow down when doing so.
If it's "important" because the moves "require" lock-on, then common sense dictates that the moves are revamped to make it not "lock-on dependent", allowing more freedom for the character.
Maybe
you are the casual, because you can't do anything unless there's some specialized mechanic that ensures you are always facing the enemy?
This is not really an issue, it's a necessary design choice when you look to the overall combat system, it wouldn't work the way you're proposing as i've already said in earlier posts. Unless they changed the overall combat system to work with a more "free" lock-on, which is just a dumb choice because you can create that balance working with the enemy design instead of changing all the core gameplay.
I have played a bunch of other hack and slash games and they
work.
And they pretty much revamped the controls from the ground up.
Vergil has it.
Crammed into Uppercut, which is a good choice, rather than making it a different move.
Possible if "Demon Dodge" was converted into "Demon Guard" instead.
There's still a lot of room for cramming there.
gunslinger moves like Wild Stomp, Gunstinger and so on.
You mean "RedundantSlinger".
Why do you need a "special" move to shoot a downed opponent, when you can just... shoot a down opponent?
And how much is Gunstinger different than a regular Stinger (especially in DMC4)?
I thought I could use that on a Blitz without taking damage, just to find out that it's a contact attack.
By the way, it's not about "the moves that i want" but whatever movement that allows me to adress every situation in unique and deep manners, not a system that makes me have to rely too much in the same things and don't offer me a different perspective to work in the game. This is what people calls variety and this is a very good thing to have in a hack'n'slash as you can create your playstyle around things that you like or simple take your time and master everything to use properly in combat whenever you think it's necessary: that's what DMC3 and DMC4 offers to us.
More moves is objectively better but if they're going to be redundant, similar and can only be inserted in a very special application that can only be utilized by the most hardened experts, what's the point?
DmC may not have screaming dual blades of separate elements or a guitar that shoots electric bats but I am liking how despite the mundane appearance of the weapons, they're very functional.
A lot of 3D games doesn't really need a lock-on. Why do you would have a lock-on on a TPS, adventure game or plataformer? Just if they really have some mechanic that needs a lock-on.
Why not?
You'll be surprised how there
are lock-on in some adventure game or TPS.
You should have looked around first before making that post.
You think it's not good, you don't showed how it's really flawed or doesn't work within the game design itself.
The need to hold down the button instead of toggle.
Loss of movement speed when locked-on.
Do I need to repeat myself?
