|
|
Post by MGNoxa on Jan 8, 2016 17:20:36 GMT -5
I think both of you make some solid points. When you say the enemies are watered down are you saying they have bad AI but lots of health. I think both of you should do a pro and con list of DMC1 and DMC3 to compare and contrast what elements you like style wise and challenge wise. I want to see exactly where the divide is. I'll do pros and cons but I'll keep it Gameplay based. DMC1 Pros Gameplay takes place in one area you become familiar with (Other DMC's do this but not like DMC1) Simplistic gameplay with depth Different versions of the same enemy can take you by surprise Shadows are some of the best Devil May Cry enemies. Cons Overall a very simple game Some enemies pose no threat Some attacks in the game allow you to cheese enemies/bosses and still get the highest rank Devil Trigger is overpowered Some enemies aren't aggressive enough which can leave you waiting Very easy to max out the style with certain combos and weapons Doesn't have Lady DMC3 Pros More gameplay options with styles More weapons More complex combo options Much more variety with enemies and in enemy groups keeping you thinking and all over the place The game will test you with every other encounter Best boss fights in the series The Damned Chess Pieces are some of the most inventive enemies in action games Many enemies require you to figure out their weakness Has Lady Cons None... (joking) Not beginner and sometimes user friendly Quicksilver can easily be abused Certain weapons are too good against certain enemies/bosses Some styles in the game are just all round better Some enemies (can't remember name off the top of my head) are a real pain in the ass to fight Some of the enemies which require you to figure out their weakness could've been utilised better |
|
|
|
Post by MGNoxa on Jan 8, 2016 17:33:51 GMT -5
They're completely different. How are they the same? The hells jailers/scythes will literally just stand there waiting for you to hit them and have like 2 attack patterns. Are you seriously telling me the scythes in DMC3 are like this: That's on Dante Must Die difficulty. In the video it's almost no different, in DMC3 they have attacks designed to hit you when you jump for them but if you aren't aggressive enough they will attack you on the floor or try and hit you with a really powerful attack. In this video if you skip to 01:20 you can see what it's like to fight them when you don't have a strategy to beat them, they end up very aggressive. I can't tell what difficulty this gameplay is set to but it's definitely no higher than normal, might be lower. (commentary in this one is very annoying) |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 8, 2016 17:54:54 GMT -5
Who's "they"? The seven hells? The one that have few attack patterns and can be telegraphed incredibly easily? Which ones are "they"?
Doesn't matter if it's dmd or not. His attack patterns is still superior to scythes on any difficulty.
You seriously arguing dmc 1 has simple enemies compared to 3. Name one enemy comparable to shadow, plasma or scythes?
Seriously show me a lesser demon like shadow for example.
This is a lesser demon btw. It has far more attack patterns and is far more aggressive than anything in DMC 3.
What's funny is enemy waves in DMC 1 consisted of far less enemies because the enemies were mote formidable. DMC 3 needs 10 enemies on screen regardless of the type for the same effect.
Er wha?
Ignoring that this was my complaint I levied against DMC 3. What enemies are standing around and waiting like 7 sins in DMC 3? There's an enemy with like one attack pattern.
|
|
|
|
Post by MGNoxa on Jan 8, 2016 18:28:53 GMT -5
Who's they? The seven sins have few attack patterns and can be telegraphed incredibly easily. Doesn't matter if itsdmd or not. You seriously arguing dmc 1 has simple enemies compared to 3. Name one enemy comparable to shadow, plasma or scythes? Seriously show me a lesser demon like shadow for example. What's funny is enemy waves in DMC 1 consisted of far less enemies because the enemies were mote formidable. DMC 3 needs 10 enemies on screen regardless of the type for the same effect. Er wha? Ignoring that this was my complaint I levied against DMC 3. What enemies are standing around and waiting like 7 sins in DMC 3? There's an enemy with like one attack pattern. The scythes in DMC1 can disappear for seconds at a time, the marionettes can stand around for ages and the skulls just sorta float about, there could be more but they are the ones that come to mind. They all leave you waiting, obviously the Scythes disappear to sneak attack you but they can disappear for a few seconds and sometimes they just go behind a wall and take ages to come back out. The basic enemies in DMC3 seem pretty aggressive to me and this is the first chapter on DMD seeing as you say it doesn't matter. (DMD makes enemies more aggressive) The only difference is the speed. DMC1 Dante moves a lot slower and so do the enemies. Both seem about as aggressive as one another. I don't want to argue with you but just because you used something as a con doesn't mean I don't think it's a con, can't think the opposite or whatever. As for the enemy with one attack pattern? Do you mean the bombs? They are supposed to have on attack pattern and that one attack is designed to make you move around and quickly react just because all it can do is explode doesn't mean it's a bad enemy. There is no enemies like the Shadow in DMC3 21:20 in this video is the closest the game has to them but that doesn't mean DMC3 is worst than DMC1 just because it doesn't have one of the best Devil May Cry enemies in it. I already linked one enemy similar to the scythes in previous posts, one played by someone that isn't that good at the game and one played by someone who knows what they're doing on DMD. I don't want to have an argument with you but this is kinda getting salty, so how about we just acknowledge that both games are great? I love both of them and each is better than the other in some way, I think Devil May Cry 3 is better in almost every way and you think the same of DMC1. One started the genre off and has been left behind, for better or worse, and the other many consider to be the perfect showcase of what the genre can be. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy 
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 8, 2016 18:41:12 GMT -5
I don't think more enemies necessarily equals bad design in difficulty. It could also be a style change. I don't mind a flashy game as long as the game play is still solid and not too braindead.
What's the consensus on 2 btw?
|
|
|
|
Post by MGNoxa on Jan 8, 2016 19:15:07 GMT -5
I don't think more enemies necessarily equals bad design in difficulty. It could also be a style change. I don't mind a flashy game as long as the game play is still solid and not too braindead. What's the consensus on 2 btw? More focus on freedom of movement but the combat sucks, story sucks, characters suck (Lucia is kinda hot) and Dante is terrible... DmC is kinda like DMC2 but with better gameplay. Most fans hate it for pretty much every reason available, graphics, enemies, story, gameplay you name it they hate it. I'm a little softer on DMC2 because I like some of the enemy designs and they tried to have more focus on gun combat which was ehhhh because they still didn't play as well as the swords however a lot of the gun stuff is in 3 and 4, even DmC. It's one of the fastest Devil May Cry's thanks to the almost like free running aspect of the game and the open environments but the combat and story let it down massively. Some of the boss designs are pretty cool and while the story was crap Dante being sent to hell at the end of the game is pretty badass. DMC2 was the first game to feature multiple playable characters and it was a cool change something that they sadly dropped for the rest of the series until the Special Edition of 3 and Special Edition of 4, I would like to see Lucia return in DMC5 (assuming the franchise isn't dead... damn you DmC!) she has a cool design and if done right she could play totally different than Trish or Lady.  I do like to play DMC2 every now and then just because the gameplay is so strange and I'm still convinced to this day there's something in it that people haven't discovered yet, DMC2 was directed by Hideaki Itsuno the guy that went on to direct DMC3 the game that many consider to be the best one in the series... I just don't understand how you mess up so bad and then create what many consider a masterpiece. Also they teamed up with DIESEL (the clothes brand) for extra costumes and marketing which is one of the oddest marketing deals in gaming ever.  It made Dante look like a stereotypical puff. Lucia's other DIESEL outfit was pretty good though.  Lady is still the best DMC Girl  SHE HAS A SCHOOLGIRL SKIRT MADE OUT OF AMMO POUCHES! HOW IS THAT NOT SEXY AND BADASS! I've already linked this lady's videos several times today but if you are going to watch any footage of DMC2 make sure it's hers because she has the best DMC videos on YouTube. It also helps that she isn't an elitist jerk like may of the others that make Devil May Cry videos. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 8, 2016 19:27:29 GMT -5
Scythes disappearing into walls aren't idle because they have projectiles and they hide behind walls while using projectiles keeping you from shooting them down. That's not idle. They are still on the offense vetsus seven hells. Marionettes are the only enemies that are idle and won't move for long periods of time. Even then, they still have much more attack patterns then the hells. They even have a grab.
I never said DMC3 was bad game or even inferior. I said that I prefer the original because the enemies are better which they are. That doesn't mean the other game sucks. The original just has better enemies despite it's barebones combat.
Doesn't matter if people feel one game is the future since modern gamers often praise games for superficial reasons. Neither games are shallow mind you. But, that doesn't change the combat emphasis in the original versus the combo emphasis on the third.
There are no enemies like shadow or plasma either. The enemies in 3 a several steps down and have much smaller arsenal of moves.
The issue can't be speed because there is no set speed on enemies. Every enemy has their own unique speed. Even in easier difficulties and the enemies once again have a large diverse moveset to compensate combined with different patterns of attacks. Marionettes use numbers as do skulls, shadow is deceptively fast and plasma can copy your moveset. Far more variety than 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by MGNoxa on Jan 8, 2016 20:32:07 GMT -5
Scythes disappearing into walls aren't idle because they have projectiles and they hide behind walls while using projectiles keeping you from shooting them down. That's not idle. They are still on the offense vetsus seven hells. Marionettes are the only enemies that are idle and won't move for long periods of time. Even then, they still have much more attack patterns then the hells. They even have a grab. I never said DMC3 was bad game or even inferior. I said that I prefer the original because the enemies are better which they are. That doesn't mean the other game sucks. The original just has better enemies despite it's barebones combat. Doesn't matter if people feel one game is the future since modern gamers often praise games for superficial reasons. Neither games are shallow mind you. But, that doesn't change the combat emphasis in the original versus the combo emphasis on the third. There are no enemies like shadow or plasma either. The enemies in 3 a several steps down and have much smaller arsenal of moves. The issue can't be speed because there is no set speed on enemies. Every enemy has their own unique speed. Even in easier difficulties and the enemies once again have a large diverse moveset to compensate combined with different patterns of attacks. Marionettes use numbers as do skulls, shadow is deceptively fast and plasma can copy your moveset. Far more variety than 3. (Not everything in this post is a direct response to your quote, it's a response to everything as well as me just adding more thoughts as I think of them) But 3 has way more variety, there's 7 different Hells hence the name Seven Hells only two of them are clones and the other 6 are different, the weakest attack the slowest, there's a super quick one that can dodge, one that can summon enemies and one that can teleport, then of course the bomb one I mentioned earlier. They all attack in a similar fashion but these alone are almost more variety than DMC1. Of course DMC1 has the Shadows and Plasma but just because DMC1 has some really cool enemies doesn't mean it has more variety with it's enemies. DMC3 easily has more variety in the gameplay the enemies provide and the visual design of the enemies, Shadow looks cooler but every single enemy type in DMC3 is different and cool right from the ranged Enigma to the Blood Bat (can't remember it's name) Then you have the bosses which DMC3 has the best in the series, all three encounters with Vergil are better than any Boss fight in DMC1 with Nelo (Nero) Angelo being the only one that stands out, of course the final fight against Mundus is a spectacle but nothing compared to what DMC3 accomplishes. Each boss fight serves to teach you something in DMC3 where as DMC1 there isn't anything to learn other than how to dodge each attack. It's not just the bosses that teach you in DMC3 the same can be said about the enemies, each encounter teaches you the game. This isn't existent in DMC1 because while each encounter makes you better it doesn't train you, you're only becoming better because you're learning the game, whatever you learn in your first few fights might not be applied to the next boss fight or whatever you learn in the next boss fight might only be useful knowledge for that boss fight. As a result getting better in DMC1 is just a matter of knowing how to beat it. Devil May Cry 3 has more variety in every single way, even if you prefer the simplistic more deliberate combat of the original saying it has more variety is a lie. DMC3 has More Weapons More Combos More Enemies More Bosses The only way this wouldn't equal more variety is if they were all clones of one another. There's no way anyone can say anything in DMC1 has more variety. Talking about the simplistic combat this is a preference which some people will have and others don't. I like the original combat in DMC1 but it hasn't aged well and is quite clunky, it's clearly the first game of this type because they were learning how to make a game in this style while making the game (that's crazy.) The biggest difference between 1 and 3 is the speed. DMC1 moves a lot slower, the enemies move a lot slower and Dante moves and attacks a lot slower, DMC3 moves a lot quicker, enemies move quicker with more enemies on screen and Dante as a result needs to move and attack quicker. The quicker speed of DMC3 means more enemies need to be present otherwise it will get boring, the slower speed of DMC1 means you need less enemies which are slower and slightly stronger. It all comes down to balancing. The emphasis in both games is combat. Both games want you to do the combos to get the S rank. There is no difference other than speed. I could argue that DMC3 has the much bigger emphasis on the combat because of Boss fights in the game but there's no point entering that discussion because both games have the same emphasis one just does it in a barebones way and the other does it same way but with more meat to chew on. Quickly talking about artificial difficulty. just because DMC3 moves quicker with more enemies doesn't mean it has artificial difficulty, Dante is equipped to fight back and the game is fair therefore it's not artificial difficulty. I could try and argue that DMC1 has artificial difficulty but I'm not because I think for the most part that game is fair and well balanced. None of them have artificial difficulty because in order for it to have artificial difficulty it would have to play out like this "Dante is fighting a bunch of demons when out of nowhere a bomb lands in front of him but there isn't enough time to dodge the explosion." that's artificial difficulty because it was something that removes player skill out of the equation and none of them have it. Okay so both games are good in their own right, both have pros and cons. A lot of the problems you list with DMC3 are style changes going from 1 to 3. The only reason I'm keeping this going is because I just don't understand your stance, I understand why you prefer DMC1 I just don't understand the reasons why you listed it's better than DMC3 other than the simple gameplay. I think this video sums up why DMC3 is better than DMC1 (Hideki Kamiya, creator of Devil May Cry, went on to make Bayonetta and that game is better in every way and some consider it better than DMC3, it also plays similarly to DMC3 but it does it's own thing because it also has a barebones combat mode. I just wanted to mention this because Kamiya is an awesome developer and without him this genre wouldn't exist.) |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 8, 2016 21:56:11 GMT -5
It seems like you're elevating DMC3 based on the fact you like it rather than any objective criteria. [(Not everything in this post is a direct response to your quote, it's a response to everything as well as me just adding more thoughts as I think of them) But 3 has way more variety, there's 7 different Hells hence the name Seven Hells only two of them are clones and the other 6 are different, the weakest attack the slowest, there's a super quick one that can dodge, one that can summon enemies and one that can teleport, then of course the bomb one I mentioned earlier. They all attack in a similar fashion but these alone are almost more variety than DMC1. No, that alone does not account for more variety. Not when one enemy from DMC 1 has a move list comparable to all 7 hells put together and can do what most of those can do by itself. One Scythe can: teleport, disappear, and have projectiles. They also, move around alot. Something none of the scythes minus one does and it does it without a set pattern. Even when it goes away it sends projectiles. So, really who cares if there are 7 hells when each has one or two attacks between them? Nevermind the easily telegraphed attacks and once again idle moments. The only fast one is one hell that moves back and forth in the same pattern before attacking in the same pattern. ..Whether you attack him or not...how is that variety? Of course DMC1 has the Shadows and Plasma but just because DMC1 has some really cool enemies doesn't mean it has more variety with it's enemies. DMC3 easily has more variety in the gameplay the enemies provide and the visual design of the enemies, Shadow looks cooler but every single enemy type in DMC3 is different and cool right from the ranged Enigma to the Blood Bat (can't remember it's name) I don't care how cool they look, I never argued which one looks cooler. I said one has a much bigger movelist than the other and attacks in less predictable ways. That has nothing to do with looking cool. Tons of enemies with a limited move list, easily telegraphed moves aren't more variety just because there are more of them. [ Then you have the bosses which DMC3 has the best in the series, all three encounters with Vergil are better than any Boss fight in DMC1 with Nelo (Nero) Angelo being the only one that stands out, of course the final fight against Mundus is a spectacle but nothing compared to what DMC3 accomplishes. Each boss fight serves to teach you something in DMC3 where as DMC1 there isn't anything to learn other than how to dodge each attack. Better how? The boss difficulty is roughly the same. Even if you argue 3 is better, the rest of the battles against regular enemies is crap. Outside of boss fights, that's 90% of the game. [ It's not just the bosses that teach you in DMC3 the same can be said about the enemies, each encounter teaches you the game. This isn't existent in DMC1 because while each encounter makes you better it doesn't train you, you're only becoming better because you're learning the game, whatever you learn in your first few fights might not be applied to the next boss fight or whatever you learn in the next boss fight might only be useful knowledge for that boss fight. As a result getting better in DMC1 is just a matter of knowing how to beat it. What are you talking about? The enemies in DMC1 are completely different from one another and some require you to be defensive because they are so aggressive. You're just throwing out claims without any points right now. How are the enemies in 3 teaching you the game? You mean when they stand their waiting for you to do a stylish combo on them? [ Devil May Cry 3 has more variety in every single way, even if you prefer the simplistic more deliberate combat of the original saying it has more variety is a lie. DMC3 has More Weapons More Combos More Enemies More Bosses Moe weapons and combos doesn't make a games combat have more variety. Because those are just tools. It's how you can apply them which makes them interesting. Dante has much more options in 3, true. But, his opposition has far less. In 1 the gap between Dante and his opponents are far less bigger. Neither do more enemies especially when the enemies are punching bags. If I fight and beat 1000 different lightweights with a small skillset. Does that mean I can beat 3 heavyweight boxers with a much wider skillset? It makes no sense, more combos doesn't make combat better because all combos are is a damage extender. The bosses are fine, but the average enemies are trash. So, that's 90% of the combat delegated to beating up dumb A.I. that just takes more damage at higher difficulties. [ The only way this wouldn't equal more variety is if they were all clones of one another. There's no way anyone can say anything in DMC1 has more variety. It's less variety because the enemies have very simplistic attack patterns which makes the differences less relevant. If there are two attacks between 20 enemies, why does it matter if there are 20 of them? That's not good game design. [ Talking about the simplistic combat this is a preference which some people will have and others don't. I like the original combat in DMC1 but it hasn't aged well and is quite clunky, it's clearly the first game of this type because they were learning how to make a game in this style while making the game (that's crazy.) The biggest difference between 1 and 3 is the speed. DMC1 moves a lot slower, the enemies move a lot slower and Dante moves and attacks a lot slower, DMC3 moves a lot quicker, enemies move quicker with more enemies on screen and Dante as a result needs to move and attack quicker. The quicker speed of DMC3 means more enemies need to be present otherwise it will get boring, the slower speed of DMC1 means you need less enemies which are slower and slightly stronger. It all comes down to balancing. You have no idea what you are talking about. The combat in 3 follows a completely different formula. 1 doesn't lay the ground work for it because 3 is completely combo oriented. I mean how are dumber enemies that have easily telegraphed moves and only offer higher challenges via more damage better? Your argument that because something is older that it's outdated is quite frankly silly. Is SF2 less complicated than MVC2 because it's older? Faster how? The enemies are so limited are dumb and rely on high HP. The emphasis in both games is combat. Both games want you to do the combos to get the S rank. There is no difference other than speed. I could argue that DMC3 has the much bigger emphasis on the combat because of Boss fights in the game but there's no point entering that discussion because both games have the same emphasis one just does it in a barebones way and the other does it same way but with more meat to chew on. How would having better boss fights means there's a bigger emphasis on combat. When boss fights are 10% of the combat, most combat is against lesser demons that are quite inferior to their counterparts in the first game. No, the emphasis is not the same because the A.I. and the enemy types are much harder to combo much more resistance to hitstun and force dante into a much more defense pattern because they are so aggressive. Dante shoots alot more in DMC1 than in 3 because getting close can men death. DMC 3 is 99% combos on less formidable opponents that telegraph their moves easily are easy to read and have a much limited move set. Quickly talking about artificial difficulty. just because DMC3 moves quicker with more enemies doesn't mean it has artificial difficulty, Dante is equipped to fight back and the game is fair therefore it's not artificial difficulty. I could try and argue that DMC1 has artificial difficulty but I'm not because I think for the most part that game is fair and well balanced. None of them have artificial difficulty because in order for it to have artificial difficulty it would have to play out like this "Dante is fighting a bunch of demons when out of nowhere a bomb lands in front of him but there isn't enough time to dodge the explosion." that's artificial difficulty because it was something that removes player skill out of the equation and none of them have it. Again, what are you talking about? Where did I say speed= Artificial difficulty? I said high damage to compensate for poor A.I. is bad design and artificial difficulty. Which it is. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 8, 2016 22:38:58 GMT -5
I didn't get a chance to comment on the videos: In this video if you skip to 01:20 you can see what it's like to fight them when you don't have a strategy to beat them, they end up very aggressive. I can't tell what difficulty this gameplay is set to but it's definitely no higher than normal, might be lower. (commentary in this one is very annoying) The fallen are good enemy types, I'll give you that. But, here's my beef: 1. DMC 1 has the same with the scythes 2. There are alot more variations with scythes. I'd argue the fallen are good, but still there's Shadow and Plasma too. Second set of videos, since I didn't get a chance to watch these either The basic enemies in DMC3 seem pretty aggressive to me and this is the first chapter on DMD seeing as you say it doesn't matter. (DMD makes enemies more aggressive) The only difference is the speed. DMC1 Dante moves a lot slower and so do the enemies. Both seem about as aggressive as one another. Yeah, because you're comparing them to the marionettes. Which ironically have a bigger move set than the sycthes and more attacks despite being the same. Marionettes can grab you for example. You yourself admitted DMC 3 didn't have enemies like Shadow and the closest it has to scythe are the Fallen. What about the Plasma? So, we have 3 powerful enemies in DMC 1 that only one enemy [The Fallen] and maybe two [Soul Easter] in DMC 3 are comparable to. Don't even get me started on the frost or the assaults. Furthermore, DMC 1 is so antiquated as you claim why did the enemies from 1 comeback in 4? Frost, Assaults and Marionettes? |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 9, 2016 1:59:47 GMT -5
I think much of this has to do with how people define "depth". I've seen this debate in several places in DMC1 vs DMC3. Many say DMC 3 had the most depth because of the "options".
I think depth should be about how meaningful your options are. If you have lots of options that are no good because they suck or because one is better than the rest then it's pointless. Kof is deeper than SF because it has a lot of options that are meaningful in the gameplay that give you multiple defensive and offensive tools. SF by design is a more limited game and you are often in situations where you can't do much of anything. A good example of this is Dhalsim vs Zangief. Many don't like these kind of matches where you have to play a certain way and this is why many don't prefer SF to other games like KoF. I like Kof for this reason but I can see the appeal of SF. People want to have a game where they feel it has a more basic approach.
I've had this in other games as well. Baldur's Gate 2 has more options than BG1 because it is a higher level campaign but how many options do you actually use when some are so powerful? BG1 had a more simplistic approach but everything mattered more and you had to manage your resources better.
Now the argument here is that DMC1 has smarter enemies and DMC3 has more stylized options. My ideal game would be a combination of both. I would like a lot of MEANINGFUL options (meaning none are so broken the rest are useless or that they're all useles or redundant) while also having smart enemies that don't rely on cheap tactics. This motivated me to go through the steam versions of these games and analyze these aspects further.
I think both of you are seeing depth differently though which is common.
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 9, 2016 2:05:57 GMT -5
That's what it comes down to: Game A the main character has far less options but fights powerful enemies or Game B the main character has lots of options but the enemies are watered down. The difference between DMC 1 and DMC 3 is that in DMC 3 Dante is here to kill the enemies while in DMC 1 the enemies are here to kill Dante.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 9, 2016 2:08:54 GMT -5
So you believe the enemies are just props to make Dante look good in the third game?
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 9, 2016 2:15:45 GMT -5
So you believe the enemies are just props to make Dante look good in the third game? For the most part outside of maybe the fallen. Yeah. . . the 7 hells are a joke. Very little attack options, easily telegraphed attacks and they send them in massive waves as well. there are many enemies with just one attack. There's nothing like this in DMC 3: |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 9, 2016 2:24:18 GMT -5
Makes me think of Shinobi vs Ninja Gaiden. One was more simplistic in design but relied on reflexes and being able to anticipate your opponents and set them up, the other had more attack options but the style was different.
Shame on the bad camera angles though.
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 9, 2016 2:26:49 GMT -5
Ninja Gaiden Black? That game was amazing probably the best hack n slash ever. Great A.I. Great weapon variation amazing boss fights. It's routinley up there along with DMC 1 for the crown.
Shinobi is underrated as a hack n slash unfortunately. Same with the other Castlevanias. Not sure where I would rank them, but all great games.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 9, 2016 2:34:10 GMT -5
Ninja Gaiden Black? That game was amazing probably the best hack n slash ever. Great A.I. Great weapon variation amazing boss fights. It's routinley up there along with DMC 1 for the crown. Shinobi is underrated as a hack n slash unfortunately. Same with the other Castlevanias. Not sure where I would rank them, but all great games. Sigma was an upgraded version of Black, and that's the one I played for the PS3. They both had solid mechanics. I just can't get into those bad camera angles at all after a while. Ninja games routinely have this problem. Old school Shinobi and Ninja Gaiden were something. Remember when Shinobi 2 had all of those... cameos like Spider-Man? |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 9, 2016 2:40:24 GMT -5
I didn't like the later Ninja Gaiden games, I heard Sigma was good. 2 was bad and 3 was worst. Black was amazing and that's a game I swear by. I played Shinobi and Nightshade for Ps2 back in the day. Very different, but pretty good.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 9, 2016 2:52:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 9, 2016 2:58:45 GMT -5
haha I remember that video. You also fight The Hulk, Terminator and Godzilla too.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 9, 2016 3:06:46 GMT -5
Copyright laws were different then. Did you play the one on Game Gear?
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 9, 2016 3:16:57 GMT -5
I don't remember which of the early Shinobi games I played before the reboot. Another Ninja Game [That had some good ideas but was really bad] was Ninja Blade
I liked it, but it was a bad game lol.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 9, 2016 3:25:34 GMT -5
What did you think made it so bad?
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 9, 2016 3:27:25 GMT -5
dumb enemies, slow clunky and poor controls.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 9, 2016 3:31:08 GMT -5
Poor controls are a no-no in games like this.
Did you play Nightshade?
|
|
|
|
Post by MGNoxa on Jan 9, 2016 12:08:15 GMT -5
JACK-2 I tried quoting you but there's so many quotes in quote that it became to much for me to edit so I'll try and be clear which parts I'm responding to.
Artificial Difficulty - I still don't understand what you mean by this, that's why I assumed you meant more enemies which I was trying to explain because DMC3 is a quicker game it needed more enemies to balance back out. Enemy Variety in DMC1 - DMC1 has some really cool enemies (I mean that in terms of visuals and gameplay) DMC4 is the only other Devil May Cry to come close to the Shadows (Bayonetta actually features enemies like plasma) but just because DMC3 lacks the strong enemies of DMC1 doesn't mean it lacks the same depth DMC1 has, the strength comes from the variety of the enemies you fight and the bosses. Enemy Variety in DMC3 - You know full well that the enemies have more than two attacks. It's true I'm not going to lie but it's true that the Shadows and the Plasmas have more attacks and variety than a single enemy in DMC3 that still doesn't change the fact that DMC3 is full of variety when it comes to enemies. Each encounter throws something different at you it's like playing a high speed version of chess because you need to carefully navigate the battlefield to take the important pieces first in order to get the highest rank, and on top of that you need to know how to kill the enemies. DMC1 is literally just killing the enemies. DMC1 Doesn't Teach You - DMC1 does teach you but it only teaches you how to play the game, you get better by playing, the same way every other game does it but when the game challenges you all it ever is is a elevation of difficulty. It will throw a stronger enemy into the mix but the fundamental rules of the game stay the same in each encounter, you just sometimes play it more offensive or defensive. DMC3 Teaches You - Every enemy in DMC3 is designed to teach you something, dodging ranged attacks, stringing combos, breaking shields, cancelling, when to DT, when to switch weapons and what weapons to use. Then the Boss Fight comes, now you can win it without learning anything, you could spam items or get lucky, but the game expected you to learn everything leading up to the Boss and then apply it to the Boss fight in order to win. Think of the bosses like a school test, why do you think you fight Vergil three times? Which brings me on to Why Bosses Matter - DMC3 is built around the Boss encounters, you fight your first Boss in the second mission (A mini boss which becomes a regular enemy later on) already the game is saying "Hope you've been paying attention." Then the next mission you fight Cerberus, before this fight you were introduced to ranged enemies and how to dodge them, what does Cerberus do? He has ranged attacks. The game at this point pretty much says "You don't know what you're doing? Go back and play the earlier missions." After the Cerberus fight you get a new weapon and the game wants you to use it for the next fight and the next boss requires you to know how to use both Cerberus and Rebellion. Why Bosses Matter p2 - Vergil. He is the final boss and there's a reason you fight him three times, the game wants you to learn how to beat him. All because when you fight him the third time, you're fighting a stronger version of yourself. All three boss fights against Vergil have way more depth than any of the fights in DMC1. When people talk about DMC1 it's always Phantom or Nelo Angelo because they were the best moments of the game but none of those moments even come close to Vergil. The stand out of Devil May Cry 3 is Vergil because still to this day there hasn't been a better one on one fight in any action game, that alone should tell anyone about the depth of the combat in DMC3. Difference in Depth - The Big Daddy C-Master is right. More options doesn't mean anything if they aren't meaningful. In DMC3 everything has a meaning to it, even Quicksilver and Nevan, every weapon has a purpose, every combo and every style you choose. DMC3 doesn't just assault you with options to pick from for the sake of variety everything is well thought out and implemented almost perfectly. The depth in DMC1 can be compared to Demon's Souls or Dark Souls, it's there, there's no lying about it the game has tons of depth but Bloodborne is DMC3. You see Bloodborne looked at the combat of the Souls series and said "We want to make the combat have more meaning." They introduced more combos with the weapons and more movement options as a result this gave us much more exciting encounters (for the most part but this isn't a Souls discussion) with basic enemies and the bosses. It's the same between DMC1 and 3 they both have depth but DMC3 explored the depth. Weapons - You're right more weapons don't mean more depth but it does when you talk about DMC3. Every single one is important. DMC1? You could get through that whole game without even switching to Ifrit and it wouldn't give you much trouble. DMC3 on the other hand while you can beat the game just using Rebellion, some bosses and enemies are designed so you have to switch weapons mid-combo in order to easily kill them. Even the guns in DMC3 have more depth, they are now incredibly useful to use on their own and gunslinger style makes them hell of a lot more interesting than anything in DMC1. Combo Orientated Gameplay - Both, All Devil May Cry games are based around combos. Devil May Cry 1 has much simpler combos DMC3 has more complex combos. The complexity doesn't change that the emphasis in both games is the same. "Look how stylish I am while I fight." Close Quarter Death - Dante shoots a lot in DMC3 because the fans wanted better gunplay, not because death happens when enemies get close. The only enemy that kills you up close is the bomb, the ranged enemies are still beast death by dodging and getting in close, the flying enemies the same and every other enemy still gets killed best with melee attacks. Only the bomb enemies require guns and even then you can get in close make them start to explode and dodge.
Okay so talking about the videos. I compared the enemies in DMC3 to the Marionettes because both are the starter enemies in the games, both are designed to introduce you to the mechanics of the game.They are about equal in time to kill but the Marionettes do have some strong attacks but the only way you'll get hit by them is if you're idle, Kamiya put it in the game to tell you "Keep attacking, don't stand still or you'll die." Why did enemies in 1 come back in 4? Because of fans? Because 4 is set after 1? They play differently anyway so there's no point comparing how they are in 4 to 1. (There are no Marionettes in DMC4 unless you mean the Scarecrows.)
I think I only have one more post on this left in me, I'm not saying I've strategically held back information, It's just tiring me typing out massive posts being critical of one of my favourite series.
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 9, 2016 17:18:16 GMT -5
Since this is the only point I was arguing right from the get go. I'm going to focus on this. I don't get how this is hard to accept. Boss battles constitute a minority of enemy encounters, most of the time you'll be fighting regular enemies. We both agree that DMC 1 has enemies that cannot be found in DMC 3. So, what exactly is the issue here? How could DMC 1 just be killing enemies if we both agree the enemies are more versatile?
All I'm saying is DMC 3 has a much more combo focused combat. While DMC 1 is simply more combat oriented, not Combos but Combat oriented. It relies on tougher enemies overall: Shadow, Frost, Plasma, etc. That doesn't mean combos don't take skill, but the emphasis on stylish combos watered down the basic enemy types. The bosses are fine, but the basic enemy encounters are inferior to 1. Doesn't mean 3 sucks, but compared to 1 the enemies aren't up to par and rely on large health and high damage to be a threat. They also have much fewer attacks. [Yes, there are enemies with one attack].
|
|
|
|
Post by MGNoxa on Jan 9, 2016 18:44:35 GMT -5
Since this is the only point I was arguing right from the get go. I'm going to focus on this. I don't get how this is hard to accept. Boss battles constitute a minority of enemy encounters, most of the time you'll be fighting regular enemies. We both agree that DMC 1 has enemies that cannot be found in DMC 3. So, what exactly is the issue here? How could DMC 1 just be killing enemies if we both agree the enemies are more versatile? All I'm saying is DMC 3 has a much more combo focused combat. While DMC 1 is simply more combat oriented, not Combos but Combat oriented. It relies on tougher enemies overall: Shadow, Frost, Plasma, etc. That doesn't mean combos don't take skill, but the emphasis on stylish combos watered down the basic enemy types. The bosses are fine, but the basic enemy encounters are inferior to 1. Doesn't mean 3 sucks, but compared to 1 the enemies aren't up to par and rely on large health and high damage to be a threat. They also have much fewer attacks. [Yes, there are enemies with one attack]. Boss Battles are the focus of DMC3, it's where all the attention is, it's where most of the depth is and it's the one thing most people talk about when they talk about DMC3. What you just said is me saying "This 2 hour long movie only has 30 minutes of action, therefore the action isn't important." The regular enemies are the bread and the bosses are the juicy filling. I don't understand this Why does the lack of DMC1 enemies in DMC3 mean that the enemies in DMC3 don't have as much variety? We've established that DMC3 doesn't have Shadows or Plasmas but the lack of two well designed enemies doesn't mean that DMC3's enemies are suddenly all watered down. Both games balance out in different ways, DMC1 has fewer enemies with more health due to the lack of speed, DMC3 has more enemies with less health due to the speed. The enemies in 3 have their own versatility to better suit the tools that are given to you as a player and as a result they are the best enemies for that game. You can't throw Shadows or Plasmas in because they wouldn't work. It wasn't until DMC4 when they threw in Blitz and that was only because Nero had the skill set to match him, when you fight Blitz as Dante it's almost like fighting a boss because it's incredibly hard. The only reason Shadows and Plasmas work in DMC1 is because of the speed of the game, everything is slower which means you can react to the attacks which means the enemy can have some more tricks up their sleeve. Just because a few enemies in DMC1 have tricks up their sleeves doesn't meant the enemies in DMC3 are any sort of lesser enemy in any Devil May Cry game. Both games are balanced to be the best that they can as a result the combat in DMC3 consists of multiple enemies that rival one Shadow because that's how the game was balanced. I still don't understand this argument of focusing on combos versus focusing on combat. They both focus on the same thing. One game has more weapons and combos and the other has less. They are both games that focus on combat through the use of stylish combos. The whole appeal of DMC1 is the crazy stuff you could do. I just don't understand why there's a disconnect for you when it comes to the difference between DMC1 and 3 in terms of gameplay. The enemies in DMC1 rely more on large health pools and damage. Some enemies in DMC3 can take a lot of damage like the Chess Pieces but in DMC3 the enemies can be killed insanely quick versus DMC1. Obviously DMC1 has some enemies that can be killed quicker than their counterparts in 3 but DMC1 enemies tend to have more health and rely on dealing more damage, DMC3 enemies rely on catching you off guard with numbers or variety in enemy types. Obviously if you want to include enemies that DT in DMD mode then I think you might be right, DMC3 enemies have more health if you let them DT but you aren't supposed to let them DT anyway.
I'm having fun discussing with you but I said on my last post that I think I only have one more post in me to discuss this. So how about we make a DMC thread and we discuss something other than the difference in depth, enemy variety, combos or whatever this has become. We could talk about DMC4:SE, DmC, DMC1, DMC2 or DMC3, heck let's talk about the story because that's why I fell in love with DMC, the intro to DMC1 with Sparda and then Trish coming to Dante's shop and impaling him with the sword and throwing the bike "Time to go to work guys." It's so cool. You up for a DMC thread? |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 9, 2016 18:59:48 GMT -5
Do you guys feel that DMC3 is more like Kirby and that the challenge comes from the bosses?
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 9, 2016 19:10:13 GMT -5
Why does the lack of DMC1 enemies in DMC3 mean that the enemies in DMC3 don't have as much variety? We've established that DMC3 doesn't have Shadows or Plasmas but the lack of two well designed enemies doesn't mean that DMC3's enemies are suddenly all watered down. Both games balance out in different ways, DMC1 has fewer enemies with more health due to the lack of speed, DMC3 has more enemies with less health due to the speed. Mgnoxa, when we debate we use facts not opinions but facts. The enemies in DMC 1 do not have less health and they are not slower. You keep repeating the same untrue assertion. It's getting annoying frankly. This is blatantly false. It's more than 2 enemies, I listed four enemies. Frost and Blades. Here are frost @ 6:41: It's not just 2 randomly well designed enemies. Even the marionettes have more attacks patterns despite being slow. Seriously what are you on about? The enemies in 3 have their own versatility to better suit the tools that are given to you as a player and as a result they are the best enemies for that game. You can't throw Shadows or Plasmas in because they wouldn't work. They don't have any versatility in comparison and it's oriented that way to make Dante have an easier time doing stylish combos. It's not simply different it's worst. The only reason Shadows and Plasmas work in DMC1 is because of the speed of the game, everything is slower which means you can react to the attacks which means the enemy can have some more tricks up their sleeve. Just because a few enemies in DMC1 have tricks up their sleeves doesn't meant the enemies in DMC3 are any sort of lesser enemy in any Devil May Cry game. Both games are balanced to be the best that they can as a result the combat in DMC3 consists of multiple enemies that rival one Shadow because that's how the game was balanced.Give me a break seriously. How are Shadows slower than the pathetic hells with easily telegraphed Scythe attack What are you talking about?! Shadows have instantaneous attacks with zero start up. I still don't understand this argument of focusing on combos versus focusing on combat. They both focus on the same thing. One game has more weapons and combos and the other has less. They are both games that focus on combat through the use of stylish combos. The whole appeal of DMC1 is the crazy stuff you could do. I just don't understand why there's a disconnect for you when it comes to the difference between DMC1 and 3 in terms of gameplay. You don't understand because you're making the assumption that they are both focused on stylish combat. DMC 1 is not, I dunno how many times I have to repeat myself. But, you not seeing something doesn't mean it's not there. DMC 1 has a different focus. You yourself just admitted there are enemies that cannot be done in DMC 3 that are in 1. But, you claim it's the speed even when the speed is the same. The enemies in DMC1 rely more on large health pools and damage. Some enemies in DMC3 can take a lot of damage like the Chess Pieces but in DMC3 the enemies can be killed insanely quick versus DMC1. Obviously DMC1 has some enemies that can be killed quicker than their counterparts in 3 but DMC1 enemies tend to have more health and rely on dealing more damage, DMC3 enemies rely on catching you off guard with numbers or variety in enemy types. Obviously if you want to include enemies that DT in DMD mode then I think you might be right, DMC3 enemies have more health if you let them DT but you aren't supposed to let them DT anyway. They have more health overall in higher difficulties because they scale the health more in DMC 3 because the enemies aren't that tough. |
|
