What should/shouldn't rub off from DmC into DMC5?

[VineBigBoss]

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).

It's not because the moves have one same trait that they are "redundant", this is just your levelling down things. They all have different properties to work with, try to Stinger one Enigma on DMD and then try to Gunstinger one and you'll see the difference. The monsters react different to shots and melee attacks in the game, and the three point black charged shots as follow-up are very useful as you don't really need to charge anything (just buffer).

Like I said, it looks more like they're just trying to fill up slots at this point.

The thing is that you just said, not argumented your point and don't presented any evidence that they don't have different uses within the game.

A variety of redundant moves.

Already answered: different properties and uses.

Like the opinions you have been spouting?

Can you point out some opinion without foundation or evidence i've written here?

These differences are too little to warrant two different moves.
Compacting them both into one was a better idea.

These "little differences" sums up to make very different usages of the move, just levelling things down again. If you can argue some more about how this was a better idea or promoves more variety into the game, feel free to do so.

So it's just "same thing but more powerful".
Sorry but I like DmC's idea of "powered shot with a new property" better.

Nope, it don't work that simple within the game mechanics. The first attack of Vergil's aerial rave actually deal more stun than the second one but deals less damage. The charged shots of E&I deals more stun and more damage, and you can charge at least 4 ou 5 shots per charging, allowing things that i said in the earlier posts that otherwise won't be possible to do staying in the ground and within a distance from the monster in juggle state (which allows more time for buffering).

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.

Still, it's only one shot. And a good example of how NT succeed in doing unbalanced moves like all Aquila's moveset and shot that alone practically juggle the enemy by himself for a good time.

Not "fact" when some of these moves are redundant copies or just plain useless.

They have different usages, and what move is useless?

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).

This happens mostly when doing Ninja Run, and you're not in "combat mode" when doing this. Just like when you're not locking on in 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.

Being an "ancient relic" doesn't sum up to be a bad mechanic, cancels started in fighting games as glitches in the 90s and compose the very foundations of combos and blockstrings in a lot of fighting games and hack'n'slashers.

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.

You don't demonstrated yet how it's a bad mechanic or doesn't fits DMC overall design.

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.

Interesting, how do you know what monster are you locking-on and from what distance can you do that?

You're already showing the "signs" of a bad arguer.

I was just simulating your own behaviour when you said to me that "I just defend this mechanic because of nostalgia". It's just play dumb to search for "hidden intentions" in another people instead of adress his arguments properly. This is just a sign that you are a bad arguer and can't keep up a debate without trying to create a negative impression around the other 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.

I grew up with it too, what a coincidence! And what this have to do with our conversation?

You've not yet proved how it's dysfunctional or outdated: you're just showing other designs that works too and forcing this "old mechanics are **** XDDDDD" talk to validate your point.

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.

I could argue in this same subjective way talking about DmC's mechanics to change weapons. "It's not functional to hold a button just to use a different weapon". What i said was not simple a vague word before, i adressed the minus that giving up the lock-on did to the franchise but never said that it's "not functional", it works well within DmC design but would not work in a more classic DMC game.

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.

You have the plus but still have the minuses of killing variety. I give you that: allows more freedom of movement, that's why you work an enemy to actually work with the character design that the player have in hand. This is not really an "issue" or "flaw", it's a trait of the mechanic itself. It's very different from a broken or non-existant mechanic that should be there (like at least a "free" lock-on in DmC for you to actually hit where you want to hit an Overdrive, for example)

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?

Nope, i beated DmC in DMD mode in two weekends in my friend's house while training SSFIV with him and teaching him OSes and some gameplans to his characters (Akuma and Yang).

I have played a bunch of other hack and slash games and they work.

The DMC system works too.

Vergil has it

In DMC3 both Vergil and Dante have it. You cannot just ignore the lack of a movement for Dante.

Crammed into Uppercut, which is a good choice, rather than making it a different move.

And how do they did that? It's pretty much a Rising Dragon and not a Real Impact. "Good chocie" is subjective: good choice for what? To fullfil what purpose? What we are discussing here is variety, no matter how you try to damage control, it is minus 1 movement for to have in your arsenal and apply in different situations for different outcomes.

Possible if "Demon Dodge" was converted into "Demon Guard" instead.
There's still a lot of room for cramming there.

Still doesn't exist in the game itself.

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.

Why do you need more than one movement if one is sufficient to kill an enemy? See the level of dumbness this "argument" reachs? It's a plus to have another cool animation that deals more damage than just plain shooting the enemy in the ground, this gives room for you to give the guns powerful moves but without overpowering the guns themselves (with their normal or charged shoots, for example).
The point of this Gunstinger example being?

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?

There's no such thing as "objectively better", it varies heavily on what is your goal. We can talk about what have "more" or "minus" something, in this case: variety that is the subject of this conversation.

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.

Good for you, man. But that's not the subject here, you liking the art design of the weapons has nothing to do with the combat mechanics.

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.

It's self-explanatory: if a game doesn't need a lock-on mechanic, why it should have it? It's not obvious?

I never said that they don't exists, i'll quote my very own post:

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.

You should learn to read properly before answering too

The need to hold down the button instead of toggle.
Loss of movement speed when locked-on.

Do I need to repeat myself?

I asked how this hurts the overall game design. Where it hurts the player? It's impossible to evade an attack? Impossible to get from a distance quickly while locking something? State the problems it brings so i can answer you. You doesn't liking the mechanic is not proof that it is flawled.

 

[Goldsickle]

It's not because the moves have one same trait that they are "redundant", this is just your levelling down things. They all have different properties to work with, try to Stinger one Enigma on DMD and then try to Gunstinger one and you'll see the difference.

So it just have a special effect on one type of enemy?
Guard-cancelling Spiral does a better job on Enigmas, from afar, so having GunStinger is just redundant.
And what purpose does it have in DMC4?

The thing is that you just said, not argumented your point and don't presented any evidence that they don't have different uses within the game.

You're overlooking the evidence.
A few moves doing pretty much the same thing, as well as some useless moves.

Already answered: different properties and uses.

That only a few people utilize and is overlooked.

Can you point out some opinion without foundation or evidence i've written here?

I've been rebutting them. Can't read?

These "little differences" sums up to make very different usages of the move,

Very little different usage.
It's better to just cram things, rather than making 2 moves that do similar things.
If Real Impact and Divine Dragon was crammed into one move, we'd get Hurricane as an on-command move, rather than a Crazy Combo cancel.

The charged shots of E&I deals more stun and more damage, and you can charge at least 4 ou 5 shots per charging, allowing things that i said in the earlier posts that otherwise won't be possible to do staying in the ground and within a distance from the monster in juggle state (which allows more time for buffering).

You're just repeating your point, so I will repeat my rebuttal: it's just a redundant, "same thing but more powerful move".
I'd rather have a move with different properties when charging.

Having Dante and Nero side-by-side is a good comparison.
Charging Blue Rose gave it the shotgun's knock-back property from afar, while giving more properties the longer you charge, especially the delayed detonation.
Back to Dante, you get only slight variations of shooting the E&I.

Still, it's only one shot.

That hits enemies multiple times, leaving you free for something else.
And when you get the upgrade for Rico-Shot to continuously bounce back and forth on a single enemy, you could totally have the bullets harass enemies like Ravager and Rage while you charge up the Aquila or a level 3 Drive.

They have different usages, and what move is useless?

Too little differences to warrant it being another move.
I don't see any usefulness in Backslide, since it requires two enemies to work just for one fancy shot.

This happens mostly when doing Ninja Run, and you're not in "combat mode" when doing this. Just like when you're not locking on in DMC.

You could have just said "sorry, I haven't played the game and only watched some videos".

Raiden runs in all directions, regardless where the camera is facing, regardless whether he is Ninja Running or not.

Being an "ancient relic" doesn't sum up to be a bad mechanic,

Of course, I'm not saying it's bad "just because it's old".
I'm listing a lot of objective flaws, aren't I?

You don't demonstrated yet how it's a bad mechanic or doesn't fits DMC overall design.

You've not yet proved how it's dysfunctional or outdated

Forced walking during lock-on and the need to hold down the button instead of toggle.
How many times must I repeat myself?

And "fit DMCs overall design"?
That implies that there's a "correct" mechanic for the series.
It doesn't matter how a game starts, if some changes or revamping is seen fit, then it will change.
With the way gaming tech is going, there's almost no such thing as a "correct controls for the correct genre" and even the idea of genre is blurring.

Interesting, how do you know what monster are you locking-on and from what distance can you do that?

Hey, I didn't say DmC's system was perfect.
As I mentioned in my earliest post, I said: "I'd like the current mechanic to carry over but with lock-on added".

I was just simulating your own behaviour when you said to me that "I just defend this mechanic because of nostalgia".

Oh, so you were so hurt by that remark that you saw it fit to "get back" at me by calling me a poor player?

But seriously, it's just your nostalgia blabbering here.

I grew up with it too, what a coincidence! And what this have to do with our conversation?

To point out that I'm not so "casual" as you make me out to be.

"It's not functional to hold a button just to use a different weapon".

That's what I thought too.

Until I actually played through the whole game with the mechanic.
Holding down to change modes or weapons was actually good for muscle memory.

You still need to toggle to change specific Angel, Demon weapons and guns but I find myself looking at the screen less to remember what Style or sword I'm equipped with. The Rebellion always being there by default also helps.

This is not really an "issue" or "flaw", it's a trait of the mechanic itself.

A flawed trait.

Something being a "staple" or "trait" doesn't make it perfect.

The DMC system works too.

The need to hold down a button just to focus on an enemy, while slowing you down, plus signature moves that are dependent or heavily dictated by the lock-on doesn't really "work".

In DMC3 both Vergil and Dante have it. You cannot just ignore the lack of a movement for Dante.

Dante didn't have Million Slash, Ultimate, Trick Shot, etc. in DMC4, so does that make DMC4 a bad game for having some of Dante's moves not recurring?

And how do they did that?

They just did.

Real Impact's "lift any enemy up" properties was attached to the full charge of Uppercut.

"Good chocie" is subjective: good choice for what?

The number of moves allowed is ultimately limited.
Best to cram two/three similar moves into one, leaving more space for totally different ones, with different properties.

Still doesn't exist in the game itself.

Wouldn't you want it to?

Why do you need more than one movement if one is sufficient to kill an enemy?

Different moves with different properties to suit different types of enemies?
What I'm arguing against is the inclusion of moves with similar properties or appearance.

It's a plus to have another cool animation that deals more damage than just plain shooting the enemy in the ground,

The requirement doesn't match the "rewards".
The enemy has to be down on the ground, you have to be up close (with the enemy head-first?) and you have to be mashing the button.
All you get is some move that's all show and doesn't really damage the enemy that much.
And when it's initiated, I think you can't move from the spot, if I'm not mistaken?

Nero does much more with a single button press of the Devil Bringer.
Probably explains why the move is absent in DMC4.

The point of this Gunstinger example being?

"It's a Stinger! Only with a shotgun!"

The definition of redundant.

it varies heavily on what is your goal.

Functional controls.

Good for you, man. But that's not the subject here, you liking the art design of the weapons has nothing to do with the combat mechanics.

Please reread the sentence a bit more.
My point is not on the art design.

It's self-explanatory: if a game doesn't need a lock-on mechanic, why it should have it? It's not obvious?

What is "needed" or not can change with the technology, trends and time.
Playing many sequels throughout the years, I always thought I knew what a game "doesn't need", until the developers surprise me.

But in this case, playing several other hack and slash, action adventure and even platform games made me realize how DMC's old "survival horror" controls are outdated and dysfunctional.

I asked how this hurts the overall game design.

Inconvenience.

Games like Megaman Legends and Metal Gear Rising shows that the forced walk during lock-on is totally unnecessary.
Why can't I maintain lock-on while running? All you can do to defend this is to point out work-arounds like "use Stinger to move fast, lol". Why can't I just run like in the other games?

You doesn't liking the mechanic is not proof that it is flawled.

Illiteracy at large here.
I think I made myself clear that it has more to do than me not liking it.
The mechanic isn't bad-as-**** but playing a lot of other games made me realize that it could be better.

Based on how Capcom handled DmC, it probably shows that they too realized that the old "hold R1 to walk slowly for no good reason" was outdated.
Just like how RE6 carried over some mechanics from Operation Raccoon City, I'm not surprised if DMC5 carries over some mechanics from DmC.[/i][/i][/quote]

 

[Stylish Nero]

So anyway I just got back from prom.....well I got back hours ago but I just woke up and I cared to tell you about it.....wait what am I doing....better take this elsewhere....don't wanna derail the thread.

 

[VineBigBoss]

So it just have a special effect on one type of enemy?
Guard-cancelling Spiral does a better job on Enigmas, from afar, so having GunStinger is just redundant.
And what purpose does it have in DMC4?

It's just one example of the usage of this move. This will work in another enemies that have a design that get hurted only by shoot movements or that you can ignore some of their defense tools (Arachnes parries being an example): You can approach Bloodgoyles while dealing damage to their "blood-form", you can use this as substitute when you don't have Beo or Reb equipped and need a more safe or quickly way to get near than A&R's Jet-Stream who has more recovery frames and works better with specific enemies (Arachnes or monsters without DT that stun easier or have attacks with longer recovery animations).

You're overlooking the evidence.
A few moves doing pretty much the same thing, as well as some useless moves.

You don't setup evidence about what moves are useless until now

That only a few people utilize and is overlooked.

"Only few people utilize" is not an argument to just scrap out the variety, the thing is still in the game and can be used. Eventually a player that want to face a more difficulty level will learn to utilize things in their best scenarios given the situations and his desire for experimentation; he can experiment a lot if he's willing to.

I've been rebutting them. Can't read?

You've been spellings general words that points out more things that you don't like in the design than actual flaws, avoiding further explanation.

Very little different usage.
It's better to just cram things, rather than making 2 moves that do similar things.
If Real Impact and Divine Dragon was crammed into one move, we'd get Hurricane as an on-command move, rather than a Crazy Combo cancel.

It's up for you to prove or show some evidence about all this things you're stating, i'm done arguing if you insists in the same point even being show examples about how to cover other scenarios with these different moves.

Anda i insist: they're not crammed, it's just a copy of Rising Dragon and share more similarities with it than with Real Impact that grants a lot of i-frames upon impact and cannot be charged but have a very slow startup. You can juggle every enemy with just Rising Dragon in DMC, it's just a matter of actually knowing the stun system and the values of moves within the system and using them after a set number of hits on the monster that meet or surpass the number that causes stun in that specific monster, the point of the Rising Dragon is to give a juggle opportunity or a rising move to Beo alone and Real Impact is to deal gigantic damage on bosses but have to meet a strict scenario to actually hit the boss or monster, this is a VERY different scenario to use both of them.

You're just repeating your point, so I will repeat my rebuttal: it's just a redundant, "same thing but more powerful move".
I'd rather have a move with different properties when charging.

The same comparison and measure you're taking from Stinger/Gunstinger can be made with Hightime and Uppercut/Rising Dragon, or DmC's Stinger and Osiri's command moves are exactly the same **** when one have a wider range than another, in the surface these moves have the exact same purpose, the same goes to the weapons combos that in the surface just serves the purpose of stunning enemies to deal more damage without having the risk of being attacked, you can even say that Rico-Shot is nearly useless because Aquila's Round Rrip have nearly the same effect but keeps the enemy in juggle state for longer and doesn't need to be charged. They can easily be scrapped out from the game from what you've been saying here, but the thing is: this "very little differences" is what make the difference of how much you can experiment and explore in a hack'n'slash game, most weapons have to share common traits for them to not became useless in the end of the day, but you can add "exotic" weapons like Cerb, Lucifer or Nevan to fill the purpose of a slightly differente style of play and moves (Cerb doesn't have a launcher neither a "charge" attack similar to Stinger, that's the scenario when Gunstinger can comes in hand).

Having Dante and Nero side-by-side is a good comparison.
Charging Blue Rose gave it the shotgun's knock-back property from afar, while giving more properties the longer you charge, especially the delayed detonation.
Back to Dante, you get only slight variations of shooting the E&I.

Yeah, this is true and i agree that Nero charged shots have a very different purpose and usage than the common shots compared to E&R and Shotty normal and charged.

That hits enemies multiple times, leaving you free for something else.
And when you get the upgrade for Rico-Shot to continuously bounce back and forth on a single enemy, you could totally have the bullets harass enemies like Ravager and Rage while you charge up the Aquila or a level 3 Drive.

This is more of a trait of DmC alone than a general thing. DmC is much more about crowd control and obviously will have moves that focuses on hitting more than one enemy at the time. DMC's moves are more focused on a single enemy with some exceptions like some of Nevan's or Lucifer's moves.

Too little differences to warrant it being another move.
I don't see any usefulness in Backslide, since it requires two enemies to work just for one fancy shot.

It can serve the purpose of not letting go of the lock-on while attacking other enemy. But it's not that show of a move, if it worked with a charged shot it would be better to guarantee not being attack by behind.

You could have just said "sorry, I haven't played the game and only watched some videos".

Raiden runs in all directions, regardless where the camera is facing, regardless whether he is Ninja Running or not.

I've played the demo on my PS3 for a while and some parts of the full game in another console. I never said that he not runs in all the directions, but to grant precision on the command moves most of the time when you start to attack some one the camera will be like in a more fixed angle (Ninja Running or with no enemies locked is the exception for this). Otherwise it would be a complete mess to use the command moves.

Of course, I'm not saying it's bad "just because it's old".
I'm listing a lot of objective flaws, aren't I?

"Losing speed while locking-on" is not a objective flaw if doesn't have real consequences that hurt the game in its design. That consequences is what i'm asking you to list here as i believe that you will have tools to deal with all scenarios presented in the game while locking-on different enemies.

Forced walking during lock-on and the need to hold down the button instead of toggle.
How many times must I repeat myself?

Read above.

And "fit DMCs overall design"?
That implies that there's a "correct" mechanic for the series.
It doesn't matter how a game starts, if some changes or revamping is seen fit, then it will change.
With the way gaming tech is going, there's almost no such thing as a "correct controls for the correct genre" and even the idea of genre is blurring.

That implies that have a same basic mechanic released in the classic games until now.
I've never said this is wrong, i just think that DmC controls have nothing to do with a classic DMC game.
Never said that too, but each game has his own mechanics and controls schemes to work along the entire design of the game: this includes level design and enemy design.

Hey, I didn't say DmC's system was perfect.
As I mentioned in my earliest post, I said: "I'd like the current mechanic to carry over but with lock-on added".

It was a little implied that it worked out exactly like in other DMC games. But the whole point was not to compare but just to say what is possible to do with the so-called "flawled trait".

Oh, so you were so hurt by that remark that you saw it fit to "get back" at me by calling me a poor player?

But seriously, it's just your nostalgia blabbering here.

Seriously, it's just you being a casual here.

To point out that I'm not so "casual" as you make me out to be.

>implying RE is a hardcore game

I seriously don't get why you're trying to prove that you're not casual if even i don't said thatas argument for something. As i said: i just simulated your own behaviour of attacking the arguer and not the argument to show how retarded it is in the middle of a discussion.

That's what I thought too.

Until I actually played through the whole game with the mechanic.
Holding down to change modes or weapons was actually good for muscle memory.

You still need to toggle to change specific Angel, Demon weapons and guns but I find myself looking at the screen less to remember what Style or sword I'm equipped with. The Rebellion always being there by default also helps.

As i said before: this is you personal experience with the game. I have no big deal with DmC or DMC control scheme going on. I was pointing the "hold the button to change weapon" thing more as a mechanic than a actual execution flaw, it works "okay" within the game but kills the potential of using the same button to change more than one weapon, limits the game control scheme overall to put in more variety.

A flawed trait.

Something being a "staple" or "trait" doesn't make it perfect.


The need to hold down a button just to focus on an enemy, while slowing you down, plus signature moves that are dependent or heavily dictated by the lock-on doesn't really "work".

Never said that it's perfect.

Man, what you doesn't seem to understand is that saying this is like saying that MGS is a flawled game because Snake can't jump or that you actually have to stop to enter in the first view mode to shoot. The thing is the same way lock-on interacts with DMC overall design these lacking and existing features in MGS works with his design as a game too and doesn't really sum up to a flaw that ****s the player by itself.

Care to explain why the command moves dictated by lock-on "doesn't really work"? This design choice surely has its flaws and technical problems too, but every design choice comes with a price to be paid in some aspects and i don't really see how lock-on dictated command moves ****s up the game. You're putting more a matter of preference than actual pointing flaw, your MGR example made this clear: you prefer to not have a hard lock-on because you like to run around freely, and that's pretty much what you're trying to say here as you doesn't showed how "forced walk" hurts the game itself.

Dante didn't have Million Slash, Ultimate, Trick Shot, etc. in DMC4, so does that make DMC4 a bad game for having some of Dante's moves not recurring?

Nope, and the point was never to say that DmC is a ****ty game. You're assuming that i think DmC is a ****ty game by itself when i never said that. I even said that i think DmC is an above average hack'n'slash, i really have nothing against it but i clearly see more good aspects in the old DMCs that i want to play instead of DmC in his place.

They just did.

Real Impact's "lift any enemy up" properties was attached to the full charge of Uppercut.

This isn't even how the system to launch the enemy works, and Real Impact mostly kills most common enemies even is DMD mode, but it's very hard to pull out a Real Impact in the middle of a battle considering that generally the enemies will surround you and knock you off from the startup animation. Each move in the earlier DMCs has some "value" (here's a list of some for Vergil) and each enemy has some specific value that they will get stunned, if you use any move in the moment this value is reached they will be launched in the air. You doesn't need a specific attack for a specific monster, if the monster will be stunned and the attack that meet this value is a launch attack he'll be launched.

The number of moves allowed is ultimately limited.
Best to cram two/three similar moves into one, leaving more space for totally different ones, with different properties.

This is not an excuse to limit the overall possible movements with the control scheme.

Wouldn't you want it to?


Different moves with different properties to suit different types of enemies?
What I'm arguing against is the inclusion of moves with similar properties or appearance.

It can be good, but there's not really a need to limit the overall moveset with the control scheme to do this.

The requirement doesn't match the "rewards".
The enemy has to be down on the ground, you have to be up close (with the enemy head-first?) and you have to be mashing the button.
All you get is some move that's all show and doesn't really damage the enemy that much.
And when it's initiated, I think you can't move from the spot, if I'm not mistaken?

Nearly everytime you juggle one enemy you can do an extended Rain Storm while buffering the inputs to instantly get your Wild Stomp as soon as you reach ground level near the enemy, some combo videos showcase this in a lot of another possible setups for this movement. The damage is quite relevant to finish stronger enemies like Lusts, but it's really nothing on Real Impact or even a 2 full-orb just-release which is understandable because it's very easy to use this move compared to the other two (different risk/reward).

Nero does much more with a single button press of the Devil Bringer.
Probably explains why the move is absent in DMC4.

Nero is a character designed to fit a more casual audience while having his share in some advanced gameplay. Nero kills a potential move of the style-system with the Buster, but yeah, it's a lot more meaningful in damage and functionality than Wild Stomp (but doesn't look so stylish on some enemies)

"It's a Stinger! Only with a shotgun!"

The definition of redundant.

"It's Hightime with! Only with Eryx (chargeable), Osiris and Aquila"

As i've already answered: this simplistic comparison applys to a lot of moves in both DmC and DMC movesets.

Functional controls.

The controls doesn't respond well to your inputs? I think it's very polished. Again: you're using simplistic and general words to define something, it's impossible to simply make a counter argument based on this "argument". This defines nothing clearly and mostly states an personal impression and experience than anything else.

Please reread the sentence a bit more.
My point is not on the art design.

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.

Could you be more explicit? I mean, i can't get nothing more than an visual design statement about the weapons here. Seriously, i'm not being sarcastic or "trolling".

What is "needed" or not can change with the technology, trends and time.
Playing many sequels throughout the years, I always thought I knew what a game "doesn't need", until the developers surprise me.

But in this case, playing several other hack and slash, action adventure and even platform games made me realize how DMC's old "survival horror" controls are outdated and dysfunctional.

This can really be factors that can change a game. But if they work and fill its purpose to exist in a convincent way there's no really need for major changes. Cool, me too.

Seeing the most things you exposed here, they give you that impression, you feel like DMC's controls are dysfunctional and outdated. Or at least this is the maximum that someone can read in your statements here, you've not yet proved how its dysfunctional or outdated, just give me your impression about this but doesn't really made clear why the things you dislike in the overall design can be considered flaws or how changing to DmC control scheme can change the game to get more deepness or any other trait in specific areas of the design and gameplay.

Inconvenience.

Definition of inconvenience:

an inconvenient circumstance or thing; something that causes discomfort, trouble, etc.

This is all sums up to your personal experience with the game, as many many other players can play the game fluid having no trouble with this things you point out. The game give tools to covers the weakenessess of this design choices (roolling, back jumping or double jumping, neutral jump and double jump Sky Star, RG parries, Stinger/Straight a monster far away). That's why it cannot be called a "flaw", like the lack of solid lock-on in DmC that makes you rely in luck for an Overdrive to hit an enemy from afar.

Games like Megaman Legends and Metal Gear Rising shows that the forced walk during lock-on is totally unnecessary.
Why can't I maintain lock-on while running? All you can do to defend this is to point out work-arounds like "use Stinger to move fast, lol". Why can't I just run like in the other games?

Because the game is designed to work this way and it's a limitation it have, the same way DmC is limited in the movelist by not having so many command moves; it's called a design choice. Again: this is your personal frustation with the game, the game GIVES you tools to deal with this things and improve your displacement or defensive options in the battlefield. It's not like you have to rely on luck or doesn't have a single way to move around with speed or avoid attacks while locking.

Illiteracy at large here.
I think I made myself clear that it has more to do than me not liking it.
The mechanic isn't bad-as-**** but playing a lot of other games made me realize that it could be better.

What you doesn't seem to understand is that this is a NECESSARY trait for a DMC game because the way it is designed. Why the **** do you would want all the games to have an equal way of playing it and equal lock-on? Just because you the mechanic doesn't fit your playstyle doesn't mean it's flawled. You're proposing losing a piece of variety in the hack'n'slash genre and DMC strong points for the sake of nothing, for the sake of your personal crusade agains't "lock-ons that made you slower". DMC will be what it has to be, DmC is another story and it has some unique traits that are solely DmC's, but most of them don't belong in a classic DMC game because their design and purposes as hack'n'slash games are substantially different.

Based on how Capcom handled DmC, it probably shows that they too realized that the old "hold R1 to walk slowly for no good reason" was outdated.

Nope, Tameem itself said that they wanted to make a game to be easy and cool for casuals to play, and the reason he get rid of command moves with lock-on is because he thinks this is "too complex" for a casual player. This control scheme all turn-around acessibility while discarding another traits of the franchise for the sake of this goal.

Just like how RE6 carried over some mechanics from Operation Raccoon City, I'm not surprised if DMC5 carries over some mechanics from DmC.[/i][/i]

The "worst" RE game of all time? I mean, this game went completely banana and even Capcom recognized this (for the first time) in official interviews. RE6 mechanics seems too out of place for a survival-horror game that RE6 tried to be to some extent, it ended being nothing but a caricature of a TPS and a survival-horror. But, by the way, i think this is just a bad example, you could have used the total revamp of the controls they did in RE4 and it turned out to be good in a purely mechanical aspect without taking into the consideration the survival-horror aspect of the game. People are saying that Revelations mostly showed to us that it's possible to take RE4 mechanics and make a good survival-horror, but i don't even played the demo until so i can't say much about it.

 

[Demi-fiend]

Dark Drakan is so gonna close this thread.

 

[VineBigBoss]

Dark Drakan is so gonna close this thread.

There's no reason to close this thread. Me and Goldsickle are still discussing DmC and DMC mechanics and the minuses ans pluses of applying them in a new DMC game.

 

[Demi-fiend]

There's no reason to close this thread. Me and Goldsickle are still discussing DmC and DMC mechanics and the minuses ans pluses of applying them in a new DMC game.

Shh... remain silent.

 

[VineBigBoss]

Shh... remain silent.

 

[Goldsickle]

This will work in another enemies that have a design that get hurted only by shoot movements or that you can ignore some of their defense tools

You can just shoot them at close range.
See? Redundant.

And you didn't mention it's purpose in DMC4.

You don't setup evidence about what moves are useless until now

I mentioned Backslide a few times. It's just you who can't read.
You need two enemies just to have this move work.

"Only few people utilize" is not an argument

Trying to get players to utilize moves can be an issue with developers.
For example, developers who made Dead Space realizing that players don't use Stasis and Telekinesis.
What they did was try to make the moves more easier to use or make them more functional in subsequent games.

That's the problem with some of the moves in DMC3 & DMC4.
Flashy, has certain requirements and lack the rewards (like Wild Stomp).
In DMC3 especially, where one of the requirements is "choose one Style, leave the rest".

Overall, there's always the dilemma of "why bother utilizing a whole arsenal of moves when a few of them works just fine?".

You've been spellings general words that points out more things that you don't like in the design than actual flaws, avoiding further explanation.

So, you can't read?
Are the words I'm using too complicated to understand?

It's up for you to prove or show some evidence about all this things you're stating

Evidence shown. I've always thought that it was redundant for them to have two different type of "rising uppercut" move and tried my best to look at what little differences they had.

Uppercut in DmC only made having both Divine Dragon and Real Impact look more redundant.

it's just a matter of actually knowing the stun system and the values of moves within the system and using them after a set number of hits on the monster that meet or surpass the number that causes stun in that specific monster,

No thanks.
I prefer "this move guarantees launching/knocking back any enemy", thank you.

Like how in DMC4, no matter how powerful the enemy is or if they're Devil Triggered, you can guarantee that a Charged Shot 3 from Blue Rose will always knock away/launch an enemy.

The same comparison and measure you're taking from Stinger/Gunstinger can be made with Hightime and Uppercut/Rising Dragon, or DmC's Stinger and Osiri's command moves are exactly the same **** when one have a wider range than another,

"It's Hightime with! Only with Eryx (chargeable), Osiris and Aquila"

To begin, Uppercut and Streak (can't be bothered to learn their names?) has different elemental properties.
That automatically makes them different (although I'm not big on color-coded enemies, to be honest).

Stinger can be cancelled into Trillion Stab, while Streak attacks in 360 degrees. Switching to Osiris might be a better choice, if you want to attack multiple enemies (something difficult to do with Trillion Stab), the enemies are of Angel element or if Osiris has been charged and does greater damage.

High Time's speed makes it more versatile and easy to cancel, while Uppercut is something you whip out for shielded enemies, demon-elemental enemies or big and heavies.

you can even say that Rico-Shot is nearly useless because Aquila's Round Rrip have nearly the same effect but keeps the enemy in juggle state for longer and doesn't need to be charged.

You're trying too hard, honestly.
Rico-Shot is a gun, while Aquila is a Devil Arm.
Like your defense with RedundantStinger, shooting or slashing an enemy has different effects (tears off the wings of a Harpy, knocks Ravagers out of it's 'super armor' state, puts Rages in a daze, etc.).
Rico-Shot bounces all around a crowd and is faster to whip out on the move, while Round Trip can hold an enemy longer but requires you to be static while charging.

The difference is so apparent, I wonder if you did play this game or maybe you didn't play it enough.

Yeah, this is true and i agree that Nero charged shots have a very different purpose and usage than the common shots compared to E&R and Shotty normal and charged.

This is why I support move-cramming than having two of the same moves with slight differences.

DmC is much more about crowd control and obviously will have moves that focuses on hitting more than one enemy at the time. DMC's moves are more focused on a single enemy with some exceptions like some of Nevan's or Lucifer's moves.

More like DmC fixed the series' crowd controlling moves, where the previous games have failed.

It can serve the purpose of not letting go of the lock-on while attacking other enemy.

That toggle lock-on is starting to sound better and better.

but to grant precision on the command moves most of the time when you start to attack some one the camera will be like in a more fixed angle (Ninja Running or with no enemies locked is the exception for this).

Uhuh.

He still runs in all directions when you're running and not standing still to do a totally different move.

"Losing speed while locking-on" is not a objective flaw

After playing a bunch of games that didn't make the characters lose speed during lock-on, I'd have to say it is an objective flaw.

Like I said, the only rebuttal you have about the forced walk is to "work around it", by side-rolling, Stinger, Dash or jumping.
Nope, I don't want to "work around" it. I just want to be able to run.

I've never said this is wrong, i just think that DmC controls have nothing to do with a classic DMC game.

That's your ****ing nostalgia talking.
When change is necessary, change happens.
Even Resident Evil and Metal Gear Solid revamped their controls from the ground up.
DMC, where the controls are based off old 90's scheme was almost guaranteed to follow.

It was a little implied that it worked out exactly like in other DMC games.

Nope. The system I'm thinking of (which I mentioned multiple times) will work better.

Seriously, it's just you being a casual here.

More like me knowing when a system is outdated, while you cling on to dysfunctional schemes due to nostalgia.

>implying RE is a hardcore game

>put words in mouth

attacking

Get a thicker skin, hon.

kills the potential of using the same button to change more than one weapon, limits the game control scheme overall to put in more variety.

Weapon swapping can be done with the d-pad.
As seen in Vergil's Downfall, it's possible for the triggers to create different usage for a single weapon, rather than changing to a different weapon.
This can potentially give characters a huge moves list (provided that they're not copies or redundant).

you actually have to stop to enter in the first view mode to shoot.

That is a mechanical flaw.
By MGS4, the mechanic was abandoned, in favor of a more functional over-shoulder shooting, that allows you to move while aiming specific targets or parts.

Even in the 3DS port of MGS3, they discarded the old "first person shooting", in favor of the over-shoulder one, while adding more stuff, like crouch-walking (which was never in the original game).
They didn't defend the old controls with excuses that "these controls are unique/suitable for MGS" or any **** like that.

Some mechanics just become outdated at some point.
This is something you have to realize.

Even the functional mechanics of today will eventually become outdated when we are able to transcend controlling characters with dual-analog gamepads (or mouse + keyboard).

The problem is that people just can't let go of something they grew up with, even at the cost of stunting development, forcing developers to add older schemes as a control option, instead of moving on.

I've had this conversation a thousand times, honestly.
Defending "slow walk" is no different than defending tank controls or stand-to-shoot in Resident Evil.

Care to explain why the command moves dictated by lock-on "doesn't really work"?

You really think that the need to lock-on, point a specific direction just to perform a move is better than doing it with a single button press?

I don't need to lock on to an enemy and specifically point left or right to roll in DmC.

Putting High Time on one button makes execution easier and faster.

Nope, and the point was never to say that DmC is a ****ty game. You're assuming that i think DmC is a ****ty game by itself when i never said that.

No implications, just summing it up based on your logic.

but it's very hard to pull out a Real Impact in the middle of a battle considering that generally the enemies will surround you and knock you off from the startup animation.

Which automatically makes Real Impact as redundant as RedundantStinger.
I could just dodge out of charging an Uppercut but can't do so with Real Impact.

"It's like Divine Dragon, except.... you can't move!"

This is not an excuse to limit the overall possible movements with the control scheme.

It can be good, but there's not really a need to limit the overall moveset with the control scheme to do this.

As pointed out, it's possible to have a bigger move set if the triggers are used to access different modes and execution of a single weapon, a la Vergil.

Nearly everytime you juggle one enemy you can do an extended Rain Storm while buffering the inputs to instantly get your Wild Stomp as soon as you reach ground level near the enemy, some combo videos showcase this in a lot of another possible setups for this movement.

Yeah, look at all the hurdles and flaming hoops you have to jump just to shoehorn this useless move.

Nero is a character designed to fit a more casual audience

And this was said where?

I think it's very polished.

If your nostalgia says so.

Could you be more explicit?

Couldn't you be more illiterate?
Read the sentence again.

feel like DMC's controls are dysfunctional and outdated.

No "feels" here, nope.
Objective points of it being outdated.

I know because it doesn't feel like a burden when you don't loose speed or dependent on lock on to perform moves in other games.

The game give tools to covers the weakenessess of this design choices (roolling, back jumping or double jumping, neutral jump and double jump Sky Star, RG parries, Stinger/Straight a monster far away).

I repeat: I don't buy work-arounds.
Lemme run while locked-on, Capcom.

Because the game is designed to work this way and it's a limitation it have,

Because the game is designed as an RE4 beta and has outdated "hallway crawler" controls as a base.
Improving upon that base will only cause problems later.

DmC is basically the developers stop and realizing "hey, we don't really need to keep these controls up...".

What you doesn't seem to understand is that this is a NECESSARY trait for a DMC game because the way it is designed. Why the **** do you would want all the games to have an equal way of playing it and equal lock-on?

DMC isn't the only action-adventure/hack and slash game in existence.
Playing a bunch of other games and pooling my experience with them together makes it apparent that DMC's controls are outdated.

It's like playing Dead Space, Silent Hill: Homecoming or Fatal Frame and realizing that Resident Evil 5's controls are dysfunctional and outdated.

It's easy to know objectively good or bad when there are a lot of examples floating around.

and the reason he get rid of command moves with lock-on is because he thinks this is "too complex" for a casual player. This control scheme all turn-around acessibility while discarding another traits of the franchise for the sake of this goal.

More like "too complex", period.

"Discarding traits of the franchise"? More like discarding dead weights.
"Hallway crawler" controls are irrelevant nowadays.

RE6 mechanics seems too out of place for a survival-horror game that RE6 tried to be to some extent,

Other than the head-popping punch and leg sweeps, I don't see anything "out of place" with the controls.
The characters are trained soldiers, law enforcement and mercenaries (Resident Evil protagonists have always been experienced with combat or have some training and not "everyman" characters like in Silent Hill or Siren).
Is there a law that dictates you not allowed to dive roll when something big comes charging your way?

What they do shouldn't be out of place, unless you want to preach me on "correct controls for the correct genre" crap.

 

[Demi-fiend]

I've been rebutting them. Can't read?

Apparently not. :/

 

[MultiBro]

P

Apparently not. :/

Oh man, you are really adding so much to this discussion.

 

[VineBigBoss]

You can just shoot them at close range.
See? Redundant.

And you didn't mention it's purpose in DMC4.

Because i played DMC3 much more than DMC4, so i can't really give you good examples in that case. And the enemy design in DMC4 is very ****ty like in DmC an doesn't get to the level of DMC3 and DMC1. Because, how you say: there's a lot of things to compare around so it automatic justifys my statements as objective, like you mention in your post.

I mentioned Backslide a few times. It's just you who can't read.
You need two enemies just to have this move work.

And how this turns to be useless? You only need to attack an do combat when there's enemys in the room.

Trying to get players to utilize moves can be an issue with developers.
For example, developers who made Dead Space realizing that players don't use Stasis and Telekinesis.
What they did was try to make the moves more easier to use or make them more functional in subsequent games.

I never played Dead Space so i can't dive too much in that example to see what are these flaws in these mechanics.

That's the problem with some of the moves in DMC3 & DMC4.
Flashy, has certain requirements and lack the rewards (like Wild Stomp).
In DMC3 especially, where one of the requirements is "choose one Style, leave the rest".


Overall, there's always the dilemma of "why bother utilizing a whole arsenal of moves when a few of them works just fine?".

In DMC3 this was much more a limitation on how they worked the style mechanic than anything else. And as i said before: the styles are there for people to use, people who like to try and master all of them can do it, no problem. It's different from not even having this concept and design to even work within the game and change the playstyle substantially. In DMC4 you had access to all of them on the fly in this was a major step from DMC3 to 4.

So, you can't read?
Are the words I'm using too complicated to understand?

Nope, but you're avoiding further explanation of your thoughts to evade debate. It's like saying: "My gun is better than yours because his trigger is softier, it's a more modern technology and i like it more this way", but refusing further explanation about why a heavier trigger (and even without a more precise measurement) is a flaw on my gun, and ignoring all the context that comes within it (that is comparable with the game design) like: which gun has a greater firepower? Which of them has the faster fire rating? A heavier trigger was unnecessary to use this guns with all its other aspects?

Evidence shown. I've always thought that it was redundant for them to have two different type of "rising uppercut" move and tried my best to look at what little differences they had.

Uppercut in DmC only made having both Divine Dragon and Real Impact look more redundant.

Yeah, a lot of evidence you put in there.

No thanks.
I prefer "this move guarantees launching/knocking back any enemy", thank you.

Like how in DMC4, no matter how powerful the enemy is or if they're Devil Triggered, you can guarantee that a Charged Shot 3 from Blue Rose will always knock away/launch an enemy.

"I prefer". This is the best you can do, by the way.

This only serve as evidence that DMC4 enemy design flawled for them to work as a challenge, not a coincidence that DMC4 suffered some backlash because it was too easy compared to DMC3. If you can control so easily the effects your moves takes on an enemy regardless of the situation or difficulty mode this creates an easy game that will play nearly the same in all difficulty modes and the differences will just be numerical (you have to score more hits to kill and take less to die). A thing that makes DMD mode in DMC3 be so hard is that you lose the ability to just do a Hightime/Rising Dragon and juggle one enemy while still being farily safe from some other monster's attacks, you have to actually score some hits to weaken the monster for you to be able to juggle them and this chances completely the way you have to approach and hit enemies in DMD.

To begin, Uppercut and Streak (can't be bothered to learn their names?) has different elemental properties.
That automatically makes them different (although I'm not big on color-coded enemies, to be honest).

Stinger can be cancelled into Trillion Stab, while Streak attacks in 360 degrees. Switching to Osiris might be a better choice, if you want to attack multiple enemies (something difficult to do with Trillion Stab), the enemies are of Angel element or if Osiris has been charged and does greater damage.

High Time's speed makes it more versatile and easy to cancel, while Uppercut is something you whip out for shielded enemies, demon-elemental enemies or big and heavies.

To use your own argument: this don't makes too little difference to warrant two different moves? It's fun how all of sudden this changed so badly: because Straight, Stinger, Gunstinger and Jet-Stream doesn't even are so equal and Streak and Stinger from DmC are sooo different.

You're trying too hard, honestly.
Rico-Shot is a gun, while Aquila is a Devil Arm.
Like your defense with RedundantStinger, shooting or slashing an enemy has different effects (tears off the wings of a Harpy, knocks Ravagers out of it's 'super armor' state, puts Rages in a daze, etc.).
Rico-Shot bounces all around a crowd and is faster to whip out on the move, while Round Trip can hold an enemy longer but requires you to be static while charging.

The difference is so apparent, I wonder if you did play this game or maybe you didn't play it enough.

Hahaha, "rico-shot is a gun, while Aquila is a Devil Arm". What a coincidence! Not the same difference between Shotty and Reb/Beo/A&R?

And this doesn't make little to no difference to warrant a new move? As you've stated before? You're overcompensating DmC while using differentes measures to DMC and it's proving it by these posts. Wait, because there's more:

This is why I support move-cramming than having two of the same moves with slight differences.

More like DmC fixed the series' crowd controlling moves, where the previous games have failed.

That toggle lock-on is starting to sound better and better.


Uhuh.

Nope, they turned nearly every move in the game into crowd control moves by using big and nearly broken hitboxes. And this not exclusively comes from Dante's attacks, but from the enemies hurtboxes too (look where the black sprite appears when he jumps, that is suppose to happen when in contact whit the enemies hurtboxes), they've turned them gigantic (mainly when being juggled) to turn jump-cancels more acessible. So it's more like "DmC broken some features to be able to make a crowd control acessible, the same for jump-cancels".

He still runs in all directions when you're running and not standing still to do a totally different move.

After playing a bunch of games that didn't make the characters lose speed during lock-on, I'd have to say it is an objective flaw.

How another games turns this a objective flaw? Hahaha, it turns out to be an "objective flaw" when it hurts the gameplay itself and has no way to use something to reach the purpose you're trying to reach, like this when Dante is supposed to attack the enemy he was already juggling, but the game makes it turns in to a big mess because the soft-lock is worked and limited, this is the kind of a thing that can be only be worked out by devs or player that take their time to actually mod their game to fix it.

Like I said, the only rebuttal you have about the forced walk is to "work around it", by side-rolling, Stinger, Dash or jumping.
Nope, I don't want to "work around" it. I just want to be able to run.

"I want". Here we go again.

That's your ****ing nostalgia talking.
When change is necessary, change happens.
Even Resident Evil and Metal Gear Solid revamped their controls from the ground up.
DMC, where the controls are based off old 90's scheme was almost guaranteed to follow.

Nope, you don't demonstrated how this change is necessary until now.

Nope. The system I'm thinking of (which I mentioned multiple times) will work better.

Which, by the way, is not the system DmC applied in that game. That's all the point of the discussion, look at the name of the thread.

More like me knowing when a system is outdated, while you cling on to dysfunctional schemes due to nostalgia.

And you cling to broken and unbalanced systems because casual.

>put words in mouth

>implying

Weapon swapping can be done with the d-pad.
As seen in Vergil's Downfall, it's possible for the triggers to create different usage for a single weapon, rather than changing to a different weapon.
This can potentially give characters a huge moves list (provided that they're not copies or redundant).

This could work, but how much practical do you think that it would be to swap more than one weapon with the same d-pad button? This would kinda limit the ability to change weapons while running or controlling your movement direction, kinda alike to DMC4 and that's why these combo makers master such techniques like Sky Rave to have more mobility while juggling with just some touching the d-pad for a while and quickly returning to their finger to change styles with the d-pad.

That is a mechanical flaw.
By MGS4, the mechanic was abandoned, in favor of a more functional over-shoulder shooting, that allows you to move while aiming specific targets or parts.

Nope, they don't abandoned it, it's still there but with some additions like walking while in this mode.

Even in the 3DS port of MGS3, they discarded the old "first person shooting", in favor of the over-shoulder one, while adding more stuff, like crouch-walking (which was never in the original game).
They didn't defend the old controls with excuses that "these controls are unique/suitable for MGS" or any **** like that.

The 3DS MGS3 is the only one that have this feature. Even the PS3 HD and Vita versions have the original mechanics, and the Vita version was released after it, so it can have more to do with some console limitations or exclusive features than with "improving the game" by itself.

Some mechanics just become outdated at some point.
This is something you have to realize.

And i understand that. But i understand too that some mechanics and design choices never gets bad: take for example fighting games. A lot of them tried to be 3D and in the end they've returned to 2D action (Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, The King of Fighters and so on) because it was a good design choice even if its old and is applied since the 90s. See how this "outdated" thing doesn't apply if the mechanic actually work and provide a diverse and complex game?

Even the functional mechanics of today will eventually become outdated when we are able to transcend controlling characters with dual-analog gamepads (or mouse + keyboard).

Not necessarily, they will become "outdated" historically, but it's perfectly possible to make good use of it without meaning that you are not improving the games that comes after. Again: the fighting games shows us a lot about this.

The problem is that people just can't let go of something they grew up with, even at the cost of stunting development, forcing developers to add older schemes as a control option, instead of moving on.

I've had this conversation a thousand times, honestly.
Defending "slow walk" is no different than defending tank controls or stand-to-shoot in Resident Evil.

It's not just a matter of "taking off my nostalgia goggles". RE6 was a bad game even with all this "beautiful and modern mechanics". The most well-made and praised RE title in this generation was Revelations and that's why he was ported to another plataforms too, and you actually have a much more limited movement while firing your guns; this things relates to what purpose the game was intended to reach, and it tried to be a survival-horror game this time (which it claims to be, by the way) and that's why it got all that praise. The control scheme have to evolve or change in a "logical direction" regarding what ir your PURPOSE with the game, DMC started as being a challenging game, then with DMC3 it evolved to be a diverse, "make your playstyle" challenging game and with DMC4 we see the actual epitome of DMC3 legacy having even more freedom to play whatever way you would like to play; DmC had a very different purpose: make the game fit the casual audience while making it look like a Devil May Cry game.

You really think that the need to lock-on, point a specific direction just to perform a move is better than doing it with a single button press?

I don't need to lock on to an enemy and specifically point left or right to roll in DmC.

Putting High Time on one button makes execution easier and faster.

I think it allows you to input more moves per button, as i said. I can't really say it's better, having one button exclusively for Hightime makes it acessible put kills potential in the same way, and the opposite is true to the classic DMC controls.

No implications, just summing it up based on your logic.

Can you demonstrate the logical process you used to deduce this? By the way, i don't think DmC is a bad game as you conveniently ignored in my post. I think that DmC things don't belong in the DMC original series as a game, MAINLY the control scheme or gameplay concepts.

Which automatically makes Real Impact as redundant as RedundantStinger.
I could just dodge out of charging an Uppercut but can't do so with Real Impact.

"It's like Divine Dragon, except.... you can't move!"

Using this logical process i can say exactly the same about Uppercut and Hightime in DmC. "It's like Hightime, but you need to charge!"

As pointed out, it's possible to have a bigger move set if the triggers are used to access different modes and execution of a single weapon, a la Vergil.

Yeah, with the price of probably making a ****ing mess with the controls just to change weapons. Styles gives more room to improve on variety without relying directly on the weapons for this, and promote more diverse moves as you don't need to be restricted by offensive moves of a weapon.

Yeah, look at all the hurdles and flaming hoops you have to jump just to shoehorn this useless move.

And this was said where?

No one need to said for it to be more fitting with the idea of pleasing the casual audience. His gameplay is far more simple and easy than Dante's one.

If your nostalgia says so.

The same can be said about your casual preferences.

Couldn't you be more illiterate?
Read the sentence again.

Nope. You're just avoiding further exploration of your point for some reason.

No "feels" here, nope.
Objective points of it being outdated.

"Outdated" doesn't mean "bad" or "worse than X". This are just your feelings.

I know because it doesn't feel like a burden when you don't loose speed or dependent on lock on to perform moves in other games.

"Feel", here we go for the 20th time.

I repeat: I don't buy work-arounds.
Lemme run while locked-on, Capcom.

I don't too!

Let me have more variety, some challenge, lock-on that actually works, more balanced moves that sums better its risk/reward value (no Demon Dodges, DTs that render my enemies completely defenseless or Trinity Smashs, please) and command moves, Capcom.

Because the game is designed as an RE4 beta and has outdated "hallway crawler" controls as a base.
Improving upon that base will only cause problems later.

Again, WHY it will cause problems? Why it's flawled? Why it hurts the game?

DmC is basically the developers stop and realizing "hey, we don't really need to keep these controls up...".

Nope, they were very clear about why they removed the lock-on and command moves:

"We wanted to take that magic the pro-players could create and give more casual players a bit of that feeling. A bit extra hang-time, more aerial moves, the launch button is a single press without a lock-on."

DMC isn't the only action-adventure/hack and slash game in existence.
Playing a bunch of other games and pooling my experience with them together makes it apparent that DMC's controls are outdated.

Nope, at this point it's seems you're just desperately trying to do make some defense to DmC's control scheme for some reason.


It's like playing Dead Space, Silent Hill: Homecoming or Fatal Frame and realizing that Resident Evil 5's controls are dysfunctional and outdated.

It's easy to know objectively good or bad when there are a lot of examples floating around.

Here's the best part of your post: "It's easy to know objectively good or bad when there are a lot of examples floating around."

I agree with what you stated here. But what you're attempting is just pointing out something to justify your simplistic and vague statements by saying this kind of things, in a discussion you have to actually work with more precise definitions and clear words. If you're afraid to break all your concepts and words to minor, clearly, well defined and solid ones, then it's better to just don't start talking because nothing can be really argued from vague statements like "it's bad because it limits your speed!" knowing that the game design can work well with this kind of design choices, it's impossible to simply argue agains't this because of the many shapes this kind of thing can take in a videogame depending on how it is designed.

More like "too complex", period.

Too complex for the casual crowd. I can understand one HCF or DP being too complex for a casual player, but what is complex about moving the analog towards or away from one enemy locked-on in the screen to execute a different move? Obviously it's far more acessible and easy to use with only one button, but again: this design choice limits the variety, where you could map 3 moves now you can only map 1.

"Discarding traits of the franchise"? More like discarding dead weights.
"Hallway crawler" controls are irrelevant nowadays.

"Dead weights" that promoves variety and a more complete, explorable a complex game.
"Hallway crawler" controls that make the final product with much more potential in nearly all its aspects.

Other than the head-popping punch and leg sweeps, I don't see anything "out of place" with the controls.
The characters are trained soldiers, law enforcement and mercenaries (Resident Evil protagonists have always been experienced with combat or have some training and not "everyman" characters like in Silent Hill or Siren).
Is there a law that dictates you not allowed to dive roll when something big comes charging your way?

From a lore point of view it makes a lot of sense. But not for the purpose of the game of giving players a survival-horror experience when you act like an elite soldier that fears nothing rather than a human being that will make a conection with the player by being more vulnerable and scared in that survival situation; this is often called "theming" in the game design area. If you want the players to feel scared and like fighting for their lives, you have to make the characters he's playing transmit this to him too, not just the ambient and things like this.

What they do shouldn't be out of place, unless you want to preach me on "correct controls for the correct genre" crap.

There's no written rule about that. But there are choices that makes sense and sums up with the experience you want to give and there are some that doesn't do it. Can you imagine yourself playing Shadow of the Colossus with DMC4 or DmC controls even if they are good in their own merits? Or playing Resident Evil with Super Mario 64 controls and functions? Obviously there's choices that fits with the designers intentions and there's choice that doesn't fit at all, it all depends on what kind of experience you want to give the players and that's why i think most of DmC design choices can't be used in a DMC game; the experiences they propose to players is fairly different: one being a fun, easy hack'n'slash with some focus on its narrative, and other being a fun, challenging, "cuhrayzee" one with somehow much less focus on narrative; all these games even within the same genre have fairly different purposes and meanings to exist, we could include in this comparison games like MGR or NG but i think i made this point clear.

 

[Stylish Nero]

Geez....you guys can go on forever.

 

[Goldsickle]

At this point, we're just going to write a novel's worth of replies if we keep responding to every sentence, so let me be the better dude by summarizing.
If I missed anything important, you can list that down for me to reply later.
In case you're suspecting it, I'm not summarizing so I can 'evade' from answering certain points.


First of all:

What the **** is your problem, really?
If we were to look back at how all this started, it was due to me writing two sentences and you responding with huge paragraphs of "not on my watch!".

Does it hurt you that much when I appropriately talked **** about outdated controls that you need to defend it's "honor"?
It's not like I talked **** about your parents or anything.

From my experience, one of the biggest cause of internet arguments is due to nostalgia-deluded fanboys who never put themselves in the shoes of the developers.
Assigning controls is never easy and you always have to look at the bigger picture.
You ever wondered if the developers themselves love the old controls of DMC?

As long as you're deluded by nostalgia, everything's okay, everything has a purpose, it has a reason to exist, it's not outdated, nothing needs to be changed, it's okay the way it is, etc.
You actually defending MGS's old mechanics explains more about yourself (and no, the mechanics of MGS2-3 is totally different than 4, did you actually play these games?).

You will never realize there's always room for improvement in game mechanics and continue defending old mechanics blindly to the death.
This kind of thinking is a cancer to game development.


Ultimately, I don't care what you want to believe, because developers have their own thinking and have their own pace.
What we say here won't influence them, whether you or me "win" this argument.
But know this: developers always try to make games with accessibility to a wider audience in mind (yeah, call it "casualization" if it amuses you).
Even the original DMC series was simplifying, such as how button mashing is reduced, for moves such as Prop/Shredder, Rainstorm and how you're not required to button mash for cancels.
Further simplification of moves and hit box increase is really the following step.

Sudden changes in control schemes isn't anything new.
For example, the shift from MGS3 to MGS4 and the shift from RE5 to RE6.
I'm not surprised that if they made DMC5, they would carry over changes from DmC.
Like I said, you also need to consider if the developers liked the old controls, like how Resident Evil changed because the original staff members are bored with the classic format.

So, you want me to continue addressing specific points?
Going through everything is time consuming, so I'll only address parts you want to hear.

 

[VineBigBoss]

At this point, we're just going to write a novel's worth of replies if we keep responding to every sentence, so let me be the better dude by summarizing.
If I missed anything important, you can list that down for me to reply later.
In case you're suspecting it, I'm not summarizing so I can 'evade' from answering certain points.


First of all:

What the **** is your problem, really?
If we were to look back at how all this started, it was due to me writing two sentences and you responding with huge paragraphs of "not on my watch!".

Does it hurt you that much when I appropriately talked **** about outdated controls that you need to defend it's "honor"?
It's not like I talked **** about your parents or anything.

From my experience, one of the biggest cause of internet arguments is due to nostalgia-deluded fanboys who never put themselves in the shoes of the developers.
Assigning controls is never easy and you always have to look at the bigger picture.
You ever wondered if the developers themselves love the old controls of DMC?

As long as you're deluded by nostalgia, everything's okay, everything has a purpose, it has a reason to exist, it's not outdated, nothing needs to be changed, it's okay the way it is, etc.
You actually defending MGS's old mechanics explains more about yourself (and no, the mechanics of MGS2-3 is totally different than 4, did you actually play these games?).

You will never realize there's always room for improvement in game mechanics and continue defending old mechanics blindly to the death.
This kind of thinking is a cancer to game development.


Ultimately, I don't care what you want to believe, because developers have their own thinking and have their own pace.
What we say here won't influence them, whether you or me "win" this argument.
But know this: developers always try to make games with accessibility to a wider audience in mind (yeah, call it "casualization" if it amuses you).
Even the original DMC series was simplifying, such as how button mashing is reduced, for moves such as Prop/Shredder, Rainstorm and how you're not required to button mash for cancels.
Further simplification of moves and hit box increase is really the following step.

Sudden changes in control schemes isn't anything new.
For example, the shift from MGS3 to MGS4 and the shift from RE5 to RE6.
I'm not surprised that if they made DMC5, they would carry over changes from DmC.
Like I said, you also need to consider if the developers liked the old controls, like how Resident Evil changed because the original staff members are bored with the classic format.

So, you want me to continue addressing specific points?
Going through everything is time consuming, so I'll only address parts you want to hear.

It's okay this way, don't mind, i will not accuse you of anything. I think this discussion is getting a little exhausting too and after this post i'm done with it.

Let me summarize some things here too:

First of all, my personal and subjective impression and preferences about all this:

What i ever liked and dragged me to the DMC franchise, as a game itself, not judging by it "skin" (a cool-looking and joker demon hunter destroying every demon around) was the challenge, otherwise i wouldn't like the first DMC that compared his more modern entries in the series (even DmC, that i don't like too much) has a much more deep combo system, moves and options in general. That game has a ****ing hard solid design, mainly the enemy and bosses one's even if they get a little "telegraphed" when you play it a lot over time because you can control very well the pace of the combat even using one or two exploits for some bosses or enemies. That said, i'll move to other points:

First, i answered you because i really doesn't agree with this, i don't think it's a good move to take DmC controls and put in a DMC game for all the reasons i've said and discussed here with you.

It's not really about "defending its honor", but saying why they are well-designed even with their very own flaws and limitations. DMC games offers a lot to players, man, and offer in a different fashion than DmC does, that's why i don't think it's a good idea to "make a DmC game inside a DMC game". Otherwise it will only be DmC game improved with DMC "skin", not a DMC game in its core.

I'm not one of that "nostalgia dudes" and i can guarantee it to you. One of my favourite franchises of all time be born in this generation (Souls series, DeS and DkS), this two were ****ing great experiences and i don't think they would be that good if they had born in earlier generations. And about the developers, i don't really know what are their feelings towards DMC's "classic" mechanics, but there's people out there that would love to work with it like Kamiya himself, i don't see Kamiya making any other DMC games but that would be cool seeing that he still has some love to the franchise he created.

I've played MGS4 and even played MGO for a while last year (when i bought my PS3), you don't need to believe, i can post a pic of my PS3 stored data and show it too you, it must be still be there. And nope, it's not "totally different", it's much more of what DMC3 is to DMC1, MGS4 is to MGS3, MGS4 made a lot of improvements (adding the option to "craw" instead of lying directly to the ground) and additions (more precise aiming mechanic for third person mode, movements that make you fall to the ground to shoot from covers and etc) to the core mechanics than any substantial change at all. It's not like what DmC is to DMC4.

I never said that there's no room for improvement, change doesn't implies improvement just because it's change. DMC4 was a great improvement for DMC3 (talking about the mechanics available for the players, in some aspects it sucked compared to DMC1 and 3) the same way DMC3 was for 1, if i could choose, i would want to see things developing in the way DMC3 settled and DMC4 improved.

I think that making things simple and more accesible is possible without changing too much the core mechanics. Nero is like a proof of this to me, nearly every casual can play him even on hard and a bit in DMD.

MGS4 changed the control scheme a bit just to afford the mechanical additions. I don't see that much of a change from RE5 and RE6, but i got your point, RE:CV to RE4 remarked a lot of changes to the mechanics of the franchise and i think it's a better example of what you're saying (and RE4 is actually a pretty good and solid action game).

I'm not here to "win" an argument, i'm here to discuss the mechanics and their implications to the final product, mainly. That's why i keep talking about keeping the conversation objectively and not try too much to inject our personal views on them. And i think that there's a major difference between "change" here, there's change that are made for the sake of improving the earlier core gameplay (like MGS4 do to MGS3) and change that's made with another ultimate purpose on head, like making things acessible to the casual crowd (casualizing).

Nope, i'm done discussing here to be honest.