Not trying to troll, just wondering why people say the older games are better

#11William406Posted 1/31/2013 6:17:54 PM
I'm guessing rose tinted glasses. Played the HD collection before starting DmC. 3 is the best of the old, but games have evolved since last gen. I remember loving jetmoto, but I bought the ps1 classic & can barely make out what's happening on screen. I'm tempted to skip over the Windwaker remaster when it comes out because besides the late game pacing issue, it was a great Zelda game. I'd hate to ruin my memory of the game. Games are never as good as you remember, if you replayed the first game, you'd probably get bored about the 3rd time you re-entered a room & had to dispose of the marionettes that respawn.
#12DingKingPosted 1/31/2013 6:27:11 PM
DMC 2 is better than this travesty.
---
Currently Playing:New Super Mario Bros. 2, Dragon's Dogma, NBA 2K13, Pokemon Black 2
NEON NIGHT RIDERS PSN:DingKingDS
#13Damien94Posted 1/31/2013 6:43:54 PM
qlaxmicmizzel38 posted...
There's just so much more variety in combat,


Not a chance. More and better variety in DMC3 and 4 at least.

and there's the whole jump flying boost thing that allows for more puzzles and platforming like there was in the demo.


You can jump and boost in the previous games too. There was also platforming, but only for those who wanted to do it for extra red orbs and the like. It was optional instead of forced on you badly.
---
Contrary to popular belief, opinions can be, and often are, wrong.
#14NostalgiaRulesPosted 1/31/2013 6:48:11 PM
I like original Dante's sense of humor better, I like the fighting better, I like the way he looks and it's just what I like.
---
Newer isn't always better.
And I shall keep Dante's Force Edge polished and sharp till he comes back.
#15marsh90Posted 1/31/2013 6:49:11 PM
no taunting
no lock on
no styles
easier (hold down button to switch weapons hurr durr and SSS is a cakewalk)

There's more, but you get the idea. Personally not having the first three on that list was bad enough to begin with.
#16habbox77Posted 1/31/2013 7:02:07 PM
I think its because the original DMC games were just so good that people fell they didn't have to reboot the series and after playing 1 3 and 4 for less than 4 hours each (I haven't even beaten any yet) I can really see how much of a downgrade they made to the combat and the combo system is brainless now.

Like the saying goes, If it ain't broke don't fix it.
---
IGN: Tenabrus
PSN: Jet_Cobra
#17KeimaonlySleepsPosted 1/31/2013 7:03:59 PM
There's just so much more variety in combat
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/088/trollestia.png
---
Koi No Shirushi From the World God Only Knows. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF3re01c2Ks
#18paranormalistPosted 1/31/2013 7:09:19 PM
DarkAdonis123 posted...
The combat in DmC was pretty good, but it was not superior to 3 and 4's. Wait till you start getting to waves of enemies that can only be damaged with specific weapon types. Variety flies right out the window. I did really like the addition of platforming, but alone wasn't enough to make DmC better than the previous games.


Seriously, this was one of the most annoying decisions in this game. You end up cheesing the enemy instead of stylin' on them, especially on DMD when enemies what can only be beaten with very specific strategies show up together, like fat guys and ninjas. Not hard, just tedious and really annoying to try to maintain a style meter.
---
Because I care.
#19ZeroArcheryPosted 1/31/2013 7:20:51 PM
devak108 posted...
Original series was more challenging, combat and controls were WAY better/tighter, the main character wasn't a douche, the story didn't take itself too seriously. Overall the original series (especially 3 & 4 imo, especially 3) were just more fun.


You honestly post like you've never even started DmC.

marsh90 posted...
no taunting
no lock on
no styles
easier (hold down button to switch weapons hurr durr and SSS is a cakewalk)

There's more, but you get the idea. Personally not having the first three on that list was bad enough to begin with.


I don't see how having all your weapons available to you makes the game worse.

In fact, I hated that in Devil May Cry you have to stop what you're doing, search for a stone, and then change your stuff. Having my weapons allows me to make more combos, be more stylish, and doesn't interrupt gameplay.

Taunting? How does that make DmC suddenly worse? Really? We're being that nit-picking? Good grief. If that's the worst thing about the game, it's doing something fantastic.

Styles are irrelevent because of having all your abilities at your command, they're not arbitrailiy locked out because you chose "Trickster" over "gunslinger". You have both available at command.

Why are we wanting less freedom, and less options for a DEVIL MAY CRY GAME? A game BUILT around VARIETY? I think people forget what they're playing.
---
Official President of the NST
'But Neku, I thought you couldn't afford to lose? Give up on yourself, and you give up on the world.' - Joshua
#20wwinterj25Posted 1/31/2013 7:39:08 PM(edited)
qlaxmicmizzel38 posted...
I've only played the demo of this game, and I'm just wondering why people say the older games are way better. There's just so much more variety in combat, and there's the whole jump flying boost thing that allows for more puzzles and platforming like there was in the demo. What is better about those games? Is there something in the new game not in the demo, or are all of these new features only in the demo and not the rest of the game?


I take you are asking why the old series is better than this?
If so here you go:

- Better characters
- Better boss fights
- Better story
- Better gameplay
- Better voice acting.
- Built on a better engine.
- Older games have lock on.
- Better ranking system
- More challenging gameplay.

As for the game and demo question there is more in the full game. Enemies that are more of a challenge like dreamrunners and better weapons for you to do better combos with.
---
One who knows nothing can understand nothing - GamerTag: wwinterj/PSN wwinterj