| Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Replies:
|
| DarkZero
18th Post
 
New Customer
|  "Re(1):DMC2?"
, posted Sat 19 Apr 19:17
quote:
just wondering .. for anyone who thinks it sucks (or fails compared to the first DMC), why do you think so? i haven't even completed the first DMC so try to keep spoilers to a minimum ^-^ i've heard a few people say this. i'm just wondering
I have yet to play Devil May Cry 2, but I'm told that it's missing all of the key things that made me and all of the other Devil May Cry fans love the original game.
First was difficulty. The original Devil May Cry's difficulty level clocked in somewhere just under Megaman Zero and Shinobi. It followed that familiar-yet-wonderful system of being frustrated for a long time, then being good enough to slowly complete the stages, and finally kicking tons of ass. It also, much like Shinobi, relied almost entirely on gameplay. Most of the normal enemies were really, really boring, but the challenge that they presented was fun. That was a nice reversal of the way most games work these days. Unfortunately, every review I've read has said that DMC2 is exactly the opposite. I'm told that it's actually pretty easy and makes up for that in other areas where the first game was weak. The problem is that if you want the game almost solely for its difficulty, the fact that the game is stronger in other areas doesn't mean much to you. DMC fans wanted the game almost solely for its difficulty.
The second part, which isn't as important, is how wonderfully cheap (as in production value) the first game was. It was the gaming equivalent of a B movie, which is something that I haven't seen very often in video games. Whereas I consider most games to either be very good and solid or cheap rushjobs that really, really suck, DMC had the combination of a small budget (or a poorly spent one) and some great ideas that make B movies so lovable. Take the bosses, for instance. The bosses actually have some character to them, because they keep coming back. They kept reusing the same bosses over and over, which is an extremely cheap way to lengthen the game, but it worked. It gave the boss fights some meaning and kept the game from bringing out crappy bosses. I'd rather fight the same original, well thought out boss three or four times instead of ending up with something like Metroid Prime. "Oh gee, a rock boss! I bet someone spent a lot of sleepless nights thinking that guy up! And oh, look, a plant boss! I hope someone got a promotion for that one!"
I can't really judge the game because I haven't played it, but those are the two major complaints that I've seen about DMC2 and they seem to be true. So even though DMC2 might be a good game, it doesn't really strike me as being my type of game. I'm told that it fixes a lot of the flaws that DMC2 had, but unfortunately it fixed the flaws that made the game fun for me. It's kind of like the reaction that a Silent Hill fan would have if the next Silent Hill game had tight, speedy controls that let you beat the Hell out of every enemy in the blink of an eye. The "flaws" of the game are really the whole point of the game.
Oh yeah, they also changed Dante's voice actor. That's just blasphemous. No one outside of Bruce Campbell did cheesy B movie lines that well. If you don't look at the game as a beautiful pieces of Japanese art torn to pieces by English voice acting, he actually did a good job.
|
| Mosquiton 713th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member
  
    
   
|  "Sequels do have a responsibility."
, posted Mon 21 Apr 12:50:
quote:
I think they're all a bunch of spoony bards!
Agreed. Instead of simply tinkering about with the same game engine from DMC1, Capcom actually went in and made real changes to the way it played. So instead of players complaining that Capcom recycled and milked another franchise they complained that they changed it. Whether or not you like the changes you have to view DMC2 as a different game.
And just as you view DMC2 as a different game, you also have to realize that it's tied to Devil May Cry by a common name, characters, and core idea.
When you make a sequel to a book, movie, game, or what have you, you do have some responsibility to the source material. Capcom consciously made that decision to put these games side by side for comparison.
My objective view of DMC2 is that it's a better than average action game with some poor design decisions. It's also my opinion that it's a piss-poor sequel.
I feel DMC2 abandoned many of the positive qualities that DMC had. Most notably, DMC2 suffers from poor pacing and an inconsistent/bland atmosphere, doesn't push the player to develop his or her skill, and features a combo and upgrade system that fails to adequately reward the player. I find the new mechanics and playable characters to have little positive impact on the quality of the game.
Even without Devil May Cry as a reference, these are still what I consider objective thoughts and criticisms.
But all this is beside the point. What I'm trying to say is this:
Nobody is justified in saying that a game sucks because it doesn't live up to their expectations, or it pales in comparison to something else.
However, if someone feels that a game is a poor sequel, that's their opinion and its as valid as anybody elses. If they find that this adversely affects their enjoyment of the game, that's perfectly legitimate. Personal taste ALWAYS factors into one's enjoyment of a game.
And I am not a spoony bard. That is all.
EDIT: Oh yeah, on topic... I think it's been a great year for gaming and it's going to get much better. My personal highlights so far have been Wind Waker, Shinobi, ZOE2, and GGXX. Many more to come!
/ / /
[this message was edited by Mosquiton on Mon 21 Apr 12:53] |
| Iron D 2169th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
    
    
 
| "Re(4):Sequels do have a responsibility." , posted Mon 21 Apr 14:40
Due to a lack of money, I haven't bought a single game that was released this year. Dominus does have both GGX2 and Wind Waker, both of which look like a lot of fun. Heck, with a new Zelda, that alone makes this a worthwhile year.
Looking forwared to SC2 on PS2 (HEIHACHI BABY!), CFAS, SvC, Sonic Adventure on GC (all of the GG Sonics!), Viewtiful Joe, Red Dead Revolver and whatever other goodness will be released this year.
You know, overall I don't tend to be disappointed by any year. As long as at least a few good games come out (and I can't think of any year where that didn't happen) I'm happy.
Iron D-itude fact 1: Iron D has been at MMCafe since February of 2001.
Iron D-itude fact 2: Iron D's favorite food is lasagna. In fact Iron D loves just about all Italian food.
|
| Ishmael 598th Post
New Red Carpet Member
| "Re(1):Sequels do have a responsibility." , posted Mon 21 Apr 18:45
quote:
And just as you view DMC2 as a different game, you also have to realize that it's tied to Devil May Cry by a common name, characters, and core idea.
When you make a sequel to a book, movie, game, or what have you, you do have some responsibility to the source material. Capcom consciously made that decision to put these games side by side for comparison.
My objective view of DMC2 is that it's a better than average action game with some poor design decisions. It's also my opinion that it's a piss-poor sequel.
I feel DMC2 abandoned many of the positive qualities that DMC had. Most notably, DMC2 suffers from poor pacing and an inconsistent/bland atmosphere, doesn't push the player to develop his or her skill, and features a combo and upgrade system that fails to adequately reward the player. I find the new mechanics and playable characters to have little positive impact on the quality of the game.
Even without Devil May Cry as a reference, these are still what I consider objective thoughts and criticisms.
But all this is beside the point. What I'm trying to say is this:
Nobody is justified in saying that a game sucks because it doesn't live up to their expectations, or it pales in comparison to something else.
However, if someone feels that a game is a poor sequel, that's their opinion and its as valid as anybody elses. If they find that this adversely affects their enjoyment of the game, that's perfectly legitimate. Personal taste ALWAYS factors into one's enjoyment of a game.
And I am not a spoony bard. That is all.
EDIT: Oh yeah, on topic... I think it's been a great year for gaming and it's going to get much better. My personal highlights so far have been Wind Waker, Shinobi, ZOE2, and GGXX. Many more to come!
First off, my apologies for completly hijacking this topic.
Most of my grousing came from me being tired of DMC2 being used as the whipping boy of 2003. While I can certainly understand why people could be disappointed with the sequel since I liked most of the changes found in DMC2 I occasionally end up getting a bit snippy about the whole thing.
This, however, does raise an interesting point. How much can or should a sequel to a game change from the original? If there are minimal changes will fans feel that the company is simply trying to get more money out of the franchise with an easy sequel? If it changes too much will it be accused of alienating it's original fans in an attempt to try something different? Is it possible to find a happy medium? The lure of proposed sales to repeat customers must be pretty tempting since there are so many things ["The game shouldn't be in 3D", "Why are strikers in the game" or what have you] that can set fans off.
|
|
|
"DMC2?" 
MESSATSU 
"Re(4):2003: What do you think about it so far" 
