"beloved franchises farmed out to Western studios to mixed success, often producing at best faithful reproductions with a certain spiritual emptiness."

Not only does DmC fit into that group, that would be a kind way of describing it. I think it's fair to call it a failure. It clearly feels like it was made by people who hate the DMC franchise, and that cynicism and contempt can be felt in every part of the game.

Ninja Theory's attempts to make the DMC story "relatable" in order to help players "indentify with his world" have resulted in one of the worst, most heavy-handed and cringe inducing storylines of the series. Ninja Theory are *not* good writers. They try too hard to be "edgy," which results in scenes where Dante and a demon trades F-bombs. It's this cynicism which makes the new Dante such an unlikable character; there's none of the light-hearted charm of the earlier games. That charm was what made the character work.

The gameplay is suprisingly decent, but still inferior to the previous DMCs. Some of the changes to combat like the removal of a lock-on button are just inexplicable. It's really not all that different from the colossal failure of DMC2, which was hated because it dumbed down the combat and it turned DMC into a mindless action game; DmC does the same thing. Sure, you might say that DmC seems like a good action game for a western studio, and maybe that's why so many people are giving this game a pass. The bar was set so low that when Ninja Theory managed to squeak over it they were met with accolades.

Ninja Theory did an amazingly superb job with DmC. I bought the original Devila May Cry on launch day, so I was a pretty hardcore fan. I count DMC3 as one of the best games ever made as well. I had never actually played DMC4 (was turned off from the demo, and so it had been a long time since I had played around with Dante when this remake was announced. I wasn't a hater at any point since the reveal and I actually liked the new look on Dante. All I knew was that NT had to step up their game in terms of combat design if they were seriously going to undertake this project.
DmC feels like it has an Japanese developed combat system, one that is never seen by a Western/European developer. It doesn't even feel like the same team that worked on HS and Enslaved. I only see good things coming from future installments in the series and from NT at this point. They completely revitalized the genre for me and I hope more developers delve in to more intricate combat systems instead of trying to emulate the simplicity of the Arkham series combat system.

Game plays good..but is overall easier, Dante is more annoying especially in the beginning, and the writing is "forced"...However, production values are pretty high, and the level design and some of the boss fights are pretty ace.

However, IMO the pros simply do not outweigh the cons. The combat engine, is the star of DMC, and here, it is simply inferior to nearly every DMC title. 60fps also feels a lot better, and no-lock on is just a bad design choice IMO. I hear many comments about how it's easier and more approachable and they like it better than the past-titles. You know what usually follows, "I never played DMC3 or DMC4" or "I never got heavily invested with any other titles before NT's DMC"

That tells me a lot of fans of this new one simply didn't have the chops to compete with the older titles on harder difficulties, and instead of this title going into more explanation or a better learning curve, it just simplifies the combat engine. NT needs to come harder...but this is a decent starting point. These 9/10's from review sites though, nah...I respectfully disagree..

As an original DMC fan I have to say under no circumstances am I buying the new DMC. Sorry Capcom and Ninja Theory, you fail. I played the demo and I was severely disappointed. They ruined Dante as character, from joking sarcastic prankster to emo douche. LAME.

I also do not care if the game is "beautiful". I care more about the character and flair that the old DMC games have than looks. The new game is shallow as a puddle.

Having played each and every installment prior, I'm just happy that the game is not a total disaster; like, say, the various recent incarnations of Western-developed Silent Hill games.

Leigh, I would love to read your thoughts for after Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance comes out, because its such a curious case where the game got farmed out to a proven action game company that wasn't western but was Platinum. The Japanese reviews go out of their way to talk about just how "Metal Gear" it is, but I'd love to hear your thoughts as an MGS fan.

Personally, I considered myself a big Devil May Cry fan, having completed all of them except 3. See, I never really reveled in the combat or tried hard for SSS combos. I never mastered the stance system or spent hours in the colosseum.

I loved the world and the characters. DMC was a series where the game's cut scenes were the real reward for playing. Flashy, filled with "did he just do that" moments and dialouge that ranged from melodramatic to hilarious. I drank that stuff up. Yeah, the stories were absurd and throwaway, and it could be argued that the characters lacked depth, but the theatrical nature of it all made it worth sinking hours into, then afterwards watching the anime, reading the manga, anything to get more out of the characters and the world.

I can look at the new DmC game and recognize it as a very well made game with story and characters that will appeal to certain people. I'm not part of the brigade that want to metacritic bomb it into oblivion. If the game is good, it will sell. If people enjoy it like I enjoyed the original 4, more power to them. It's not for me though.

New dmc is a very poor game by dmc standards and mediocre game by any standards. And i think it's time for all who loved the originals to say goodbye for good to that franchise, unless a miracle happens.

I was one of the first people in line bitching about DmC when I saw the emo look. I had thought that was yet another poor attempt at reinventing a character in order to appeal to an ambiguous image of a Western audience. Then, I played the demo at Comic-Con, and while I found the combat system interesting in great part because of the grapples, the level did not draw me in. Then, I finally had the chance to play it properly on release, and the first level was all it took to hook me.

While not as adept as the first Devil May Cry at creating an interesting, changing world, each DmC level is brimming with style from an audiovisual perspective. It is a cohesive setting that is interesting to traverse and fight through, which is something I can't remember experiencing in the series since DMC1. The excellent voice acting and simple, easily digestible and proper story don't hurt the experience, either. Yes, DmC may not have the deep combat system of previous iterations, but it's still a highly satisfying system that allows for lots of creativity (And, to even allude to the combat system being bad, let alone as bad as DMC2's, is preposterous). Unfortunately, the high focus towards the ridiculous amount of player mechanics available without interruption for the sake of performing unique combos may have resulted in an unintended casualty.

While the omission of a targeting system is missed, especially in one-on-one confrontations, the main problem with DmC is its enemy design. While the game provides a solid variety of enemies, it does so in a way that fails to capture the value of uniqueness DMC introduced (and which Capcom promptly ignored later) back in 2001. Essentially, what made DMC's combat so fucking fun was the behavioral changes encouraged by the varied enemies on the player. For example, with the Shadow you're constantly running, constantly having to readjust your movement to his different attacks, while trying to expose his vulnerable core. In DmC however, it feels the variety in enemy design encourages less reflexive skills and more on just switching to the right weapon to do any damage, or make a very simple move (a grapple) to free the enemy from being shielded. While it can be challenging to face a combination of enemies where each respond to a different attack type, fighting most enemies feels largely the same (except for the Dreamrunner, and to a lesser extent the Witch), which are designed to encourage cool combos, but not to encourage intense, pay-fucking-attention-or-you'll-get-killed fights. Bosses fair even worse, where (despite the last one) fights boil down to jumping and hitting the gargantuan enemy, and then running away until the highly telegraphed attack is completed and easily evaded. The grapples add a cinematic feel to the battles, but it's all shallow and boring. In Son of Sparda difficulty, much like in DMC3, boss fights drag for too long; the game asking for more patience than skill. In a way, I'd put DmC in the same pantheon as the God of War series. Despite having different settings and level structures, both games offer high spectacles in a cohesive package, along with satisfying yet relatively shallow combat systems.

If anyone in Ninja Theory is reading this, you're doing fine, but for the inevitable sequel, it is imperative that you improve enemy behavior. Enemies need to be more complex and force the player to fight differently in a significant way. The player shouldn't have to dodge one attack and then rest, all of the time. Sometimes encouraging the player to perform a sequence of moves to survive is necessary. Sometimes you want to encourage the player to pay attention for longer periods of times by reacting to aggressive enemies that don't let up after the first strike. Also, you might want to give the option to turn on a combo timer, requiring players to keep a combo going to prevent a rank-deflating penalty, like previous DMCs. This allows for more aggressive playstyles, and force players to keep combos going while avoiding damage.

Yet, what still amazes me is the pseudo-cult following of Devil May Cry 3.

Capcom has yet to surpass the original Devil May Cry. Devil May Cry 2 made terrible mistakes in absolutely every single aspect of the game, and while DMC3 and 4 are solid games thanks to their solid combat systems, their level designs are nowhere as interesting as DMC's, nor are their enemies as highly entertaining to fight (the enemy design of the Shadow and the Phantom are unsurpassed brilliance in the franchise). In Devil May Cry, there was careful attention spent on making every single enemy play a significantly unique role, one that made each encounter feel unique; and it married these encounters with visually interesting, space-conscious environments (something DMC2 ignored most of all by making huge areas where the bland use of overpowered Ebony & Ivory were encouraged). Despite the crappy voice acting and boring story, the cohesion between setting, enemies and player mechanics made the world of the original DMC immersible, which made fighting in it a great pleasure. DMC3 and 4 took DMC's original style and made it ridiculous, losing its sense of cohesion and boiling down the game into a pace-sacrificial arena fighter. Sometimes I feel DMC3 apologists would be fine with level after level of graybox (or a horde mode, or whatever) as long as they could fight enemies over and over (which those games kind of do). DMC3 particularly reminds me of the harder difficulties of Ninja Gaiden 3, where the game barely survived on the shell of its storied combat system, yet it was marred by nearly broken difficulty and unappealing locations. The fact that so many people hold DMC3 in such high regard, even after Ninja Gaiden had come out in '04 and basically set the bar even higher, is beyond me.

If anyone wants to enjoy the best games of the genre, the three games I can completely recommend without hesitation are, in growing quality, Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden and Bayonetta (the proper, "spiritual" sequel to DMC). For people that are so obsessed with ranking and ridiculous challenge in action games regardless of the shitty settings they take place in (I actually highly respect this desire, as well), I'd recommend they try 1ccing Cave shooters through completion. Succeeding in these games is far more satisfying than getting S rankings in DMCs.

I think the game is focused on being consistent, accessible, creative and enjoyable throughout it's whole gameplay, keeping you engaged and not feeling cumbersome at any time. It delivers that, and feels like a great action game for my taste.

Personally, I feel NT is trying to organize what was a big mess to begin with. DMC always had great elements, but wasn't really elegant in it's design. Maybe that was it's charm though, along with the "hardcoreness" it lacks now.

PS: One thing I learned is stuff like character and style is meant to "grow on you". Playing a demo (or not even that) is not enough to analyze these kind of design decisions. New Dante is a cool fellow, btw.

I come in reading expecting to read about the "Grace" of Ninja Theory's Devil May Cry. Usually, the grace would refer to anything from the "fluidity" of the combat mechanics, the "beauty" of the art, or even the story, who knows unless you read on, right? Well I read on...

Alright, I didn't really come in expecting grace, I expected a trend to continue and I was right. This article is in defense of the DmC game. Many articles across the internet are defending this game but the fact of the matter is why should they have to? Practically 83% of all the articles that have relations to "this game" are literally pointless. The only thing those articles EVER accomplish is extending the continued heated conversation after the game has released. They offer a useless podium for any person that wants to be chastised for defending or attacking the game in general, the article and it's contents is only ever discussed rarely then it's off to the rage wars.

I know some of you users of the internet mean well with making these articles, you see this blind rage for this "thing" that you believe "they" fail to comprehend and you want them to see. It can't be helped that perspectives/opinions of others are VASTLY different than yours but this horse has been beaten to death. Why is it still brought up? Is the goal to keep it relevant?

Y'know, I actually wanted the entire article to bloom with grace. No mention to it's predecessors, no mention to it's ultimate fate or it's alternative destiny, no fan slamming, no mention to Bayonetta even... I would have loved just one article on the internet that genuinely held no grudges (of any form) or an agenda to push. (generally speaking, of course. if your article does not contain something or other, disregard it)

For what it's worth, as a former university literature instructor, I actually found the dialogue and characterization of Dante very well done on the part of Ninja Theory. I found myself actually caring about the new Dante and enjoying his lines. I've read so many posts that berate the game for having childish writing, but I'm not seeing it in DMC.

What many consider as the series darling in DMC3 had terrible one liners and dialogue. It was one of those games that made me embarrassed to be a gamer whenever I heard Dante speak. Far too many eye-rollers for my personal taste.

In addition to the writing, the voice acting, pacing, and level design in the new DMC are quite fun. I played a few missions every night and found each session very enjoyable. I want more of this Dante and this universe. It's my favorite entry in the Devil May Cry series and if there ever is a sequel, I hope Ninja Theory will be at the helm. Under-appreciated as they are.

I honestly don't understand the hate for DmC. While arguing about it may seem "pointless" to some people, I think it's interesting and instructive in how to make a reboot and understanding what to do and not do to alienate fans. Now, I was a huge fan of DMC 3, and I personally think this game is as good, if not in some ways better, than that game was.

For the story, I feel DMC 3's biggest strength was how the aesthetic of the entire game went really well together, from the story, to the soundtrack, and even the art style. It made me as a player feel badass, and it was an enjoyable if shallow demon slaying story. The new DmC comes at the franchise with a new theme, one of rebellion against the oligarchy of big corporations, and I think it nails that feeling very well. Yeah, Dante isn't quite as carefree and cavalier as he was before, but for me DMC was much more about the world and overall theme than Dante himself.

As for mechanics, I don't really think saying the game is dumbed down is a legitimate criticism. In DMC 3, you could only have two weapons and one style equipped at any given time, and the main depth came in the combos you could pull off. This restriction, and the fact that you could only change equipment at altars made me just stick with the two weapons I liked best and never really bothered with the others. By comparison, in DmC you have access to your entire arsenal of 7 weapons and can swap them out on the fly, and all of them have their own niche uses. The entire combat system is designed around swapping weapons constantly, even in mid-combo, to the point where manual targeting was removed (which I didn't really mind, personally). So while any one weapon may not seem very deep, the fact that you have all of them available at any time I think is at least equivalent to a so called "deeper" combo system previous games have. Plus, the added mechanics of pulling enemies to you or you toward your enemies is a great addition in my book.

I think if this game was not called DmC or used that IP, people would not be nearly as pissed off about it. This really isn't a bad game, and it doesn't deserve the bashing its getting. I think it's just a matter of it being just too different from the old DMC game to please some die hard fans, while simultaneously leaning too heavily on the crutch of an establish franchise in its marketing to be able to stand on its own in the eyes of consumers.

Just my two cents.