I've never played DMC1, but my brother said DMC3 has Lucia in it because you don't know much about her in DMC2, so you never will know until it actually comes out
Printable View
I've never played DMC1, but my brother said DMC3 has Lucia in it because you don't know much about her in DMC2, so you never will know until it actually comes out
Firstly DMC kicked butt- DMC2 was so bad i refuse to acknowledge its existance. Anyway, DMC3 is a prequal. it also seems to have fallen back on the system from DMC, so no amulet system (woo!) If i get a chance I'll try to post some screenshots i found- there not much but they must be pretty accurate considering its being shown at E3.
It is the only game someone bourght for me at Christmas that I haven't finnished. Not that I'm no good, but I hate it too much to play. 1 hour in, I took it out and never touched it again. Too annoying and the overuse of the Devil Trigger made it less of a novelty, more like a lock on button in Syphon Filter.Quote:
Firstly DMC kicked butt- DMC2 was so bad i refuse to acknowledge its existance
CAPCOM RUINED IT.
DMCIII needs to be like the first one, gothic locations are far better.
Why do you think DMC2 is so bad, I thought it was quite good
Did you play the original? if you did, you should easily find flaws with two. Still, each to their own....its not like i can force you to dislike it!
DMC2 was a about guns, that was it's problem, it was a reasonable gun game, but that's not what DMC is supposed to be about.
Never once did I use my sword in DMC2, because I really didn't need to, just used Ebony and Ivory, and when I got the SMGs, that was it.
Heck, it even had a gun switch button on a REALLY EASILY accessible button, unlike the weapon change button on DMC which was R3 (push down the Analog stick).
The camera angles were horrible too, Bolverk would have been easily if it wasn't for running into a corner and the camera shifting so I can't see him while Freki and Geri attempt to massacre me while I jump around like an idiot shooting with the SMGs.
And why is it that Ebony and Ivory kept you in the air while you shot, but the SMGs don't? Surely a faster fire rate would keep you up for longer?
Also, the Grenade Launcher > Rocket Launcher, all I needed was that to beat the second to last boss.
I mean, what the hell? Argosax the big pile of refuse? Omg! Adding in a part of Griffon MUST make him cool!
And what about...uhh, I forget the name of the spider, but that reappeared? And Dante didn't react AT ALL, no cool quips from him, no quips from the spider, just straight into a very unnimpressive battle using the SMGs yet again.
Basically, DMC2 was poor as a sequel to the first game, but for a quick laugh run and gun game it was passable.
That would be why I, at least, don't want DMC3 to be like DMC2.
Need a challenge, need swords and guns combined in a stylish, slick and smooth game that just oozes cool and charm.
Personally, I liked DMC2 better than the first.
People judge DMC2 based on it's difficulty too much. There was one stage in DMC2 that probably required too much use of the guns(the helicopter), but for the most part I really did like the game.
The first game had some serious problems, mainly the camera angles. They fixed it a bit in the 2nd, but the 1st game was just atrocious. I found myself "shotgunning" out of the screen and often lost track of my enemies.
Often, the bosses had unavoidable attacks, playing that giant bird was often a pain because Dante had limited manuverability when it comes to an open field and you had to resort to guns to actually kill the bird.
In DMC1 I often relied more on items than actual skill, not because the game was difficult, but because half the moves Dante had were useless. Not to mention the fact that bosses in the later stages took forever to kill.
Although DMC2 was easier than the first, the graphics and gameplay was better. The camera wasn't as much of a problem and Dante actually had some useful moves. Double jumping and running up walls helped me often in a few situations.
dmc2 biggest flaw was the combat wernt anywhere near as good as the first or the monsters and it succedding in doing the unimaginable...creating a worse story then the original(which makes it biblically bad!) it also cut out the cheesy dialogue segments of the first which were nice 2 laugh at.
Well, anyone who actually thought the story in DMC1 mattered should get their head examined. This isn't a total insult, and I respect people's opinions, but Capcom didn't even hire a writer for DMC1 or DMC2 as far as I can tell.
So the cheesy dialogue was nice and such, but it wasn't the lack of it that made DMC2 bad.
What made DMC1 worst than DMC2, IMO, was the lack of a good camera and lack of effective moves. Sure Dante had the slash and jump, but half of his moves were useless. You ALWAYS had to be hit by the enemy(mainly by bosses) because Dante lacked the moves to dodge them. Even experienced DMC1 players would have to get hit because it's part of the game. DMC1 was more on survival than on skill. Some of the later enemies in the game were impossible to kill because they were too fast, too many of them, and took too much to take down. Normally I don't mind this, but my god, give Dante a chance at least...I barely beat the game, despite practicing on the game for weeks.
What made DMC2 better was that it was longer, Dante actually had some useful moves, and the camera was great. DMC1 was just a game that was flashy and flawed. DMC2, while not a great game, was a less flawed game with more USEFUL moves and based more on skill rather than survival.
That sounds like blasphemy to some of you, but many people really failed to fully explain why DMC2 was so bad, other than saying "No way DMC2 compares to DMC1."
i disagree on your point, i,d say number 2 was just like dino crisis 2...dumbed down demon destruction and i like a challenge...believe me those USELESS moves were essential in beating bosses like final virgil in dante must die mode.
but even if what u say is true, dmc2 still falls short...simply because dmc2 is boring. it has nothing to keep your attention and that is a fatal flaw.
See, what was it that DMC2 lacked to keep attention? As far as I can tell, DMC2 was the same game as DMC1 in terms of gameplay mechanics. The enemies were the same and such, but DMC2 definitely had challenge. Trimagia, and the last bosses of the game were definitely hard to beat, though not impossible. But some stages in DMC2 were boring, mainly destroying that helicopter that took eons to beat.Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris2001x2
But what you're saying is that the moves weren't useless unless you played DMD mode. IMO, the flaw in that statement is that you actually must beat the game 2 times over to actually get a good product out of a game that should've presented the good product when you first play it.
lol calm down i,m just debating for debates sake, devil may cry is hardly one of my fav games. i just think for me dmc2 monster designs were boring (except that thing from the skyscrapper) and it was way too easy, though i agree those faces and dante last boss were tough...though not a patch on mundus...espically dante must die mundus (my god what a boss that was).
I agree with all those points that say DMC2 was better than the 1st.
Another thing I would like to add to that is how much better the bosses were in the 2nd one.
You didn't fight the same boss 3 different times. There were more bosses. And I like bosses. I had so much fun with that giant building boss. The only boss I did not have fun fighting was the chopper. That was more frustrating than anything.
I also had more fun with the final boss of DMC2. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather fight The Despair Embodied than Abe Lincoln.
i,d rather fight the emperor of all demons then a huge blob but whatever turns u on...
The Despair Embodied was not a huge blob. That was Argosax the Chaos.
The Despair Embodied was that flaming angel with the whip. And as his name implies, he is all the despair of the world embodied.