Playing through the whole series. (SPOILERS)

#1Xtreme65Posted 2/2/2013 2:50:29 AM
Other topic got taken down cause I didn't put a spoiler warning (my bad)

Did what others have said and played through both Hard and DMD on DMC1. All I got to say is HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!

I HAD to resort to grenade spamming sometimes because the difficulty was a little much. (Mostly on DMD but there were a few times on Hard). Also I learned that Vortex does alot of damage so I spammed that whenever I DT'ed as Air Raid didn't seem to do much in the harder difficulties. Killing bosses was bitter sweet. I died on Nelo3 so many times because he kills you in 2-3 hits. I almost quit the game because I didn't think I would be able to do it. But a vital star and 2 untouchables, and 4 holy waters later I did it. Was I satisfied? Sure but not because I proved I could do it but because I didn't have to do it again. I actually had an easier time on Mundus than Nelo3 even though I still died twice. (lost count how many times I died on Nelo). Overall the difficulty was good but I did feel it was cheap sometimes as such I had to resort in grenade spamming.

One thing I have noticed though is you can actually spam moves in DMC1 and still get away with being stylish. I mean at least in DmC I didn't get SSSensational by spamming Aquila's basic combo over and over again (at least DD wasn't in effect.) In DMC1 spamming E and I in DT will get you pretty far in stylish ranks. But another thing is though there isn't much incentive to reach stylish. It doesn't affect the mission rank and enemies don't drop more orbs. This is probably why I resorted to grenade spamming in the first place cause I didn't feel the need to be stylish and with the lack of combo's compared to DMC3, DMC4, and DmC it just wasn't as fun nor satisfying to do a Stylish combo.

Did I have fun with DMC1? Yes its a great game but flawed but mostly because its the first of its genre and it hadn't been perfected yet and to be fair it did come out 10+ years ago and in that regard it is actually quite impressive. Same can't be said of DmC. Even though it is good it didn't blow our minds in the way DMC1 did back then and this is probably why most people still say its the best in the series. But I can honesty say I probably won't go back to it unless another DMC comes out and I decide to play through the whole series again.

Overall:

Back Then: 9/10 (would give it 10/10 but camera was an issue, keeping the game from being perfect in its time which it was damn close. Other than the camera angle there was NOTHING wrong with this game back then and it set the standard for which all action games strive for.)

Now: 7/10 (Good as its difficulty keeps you on your toes more than most action games nowadays but lacks the combos and weapon variety of later installments and today's action games therefore it isn't as fun.)

Though I dread it. I'm going to do the same for DMC2 which unfortunately requires playing both characters as you can't unlock harder modes until you beat the game with both characters. So far I only did Normal with Dante and the game is the very essence of crap.
---
When coincidence is so convenient, I prefer to call it fate.
#2KyryloPosted 2/2/2013 4:17:40 AM
seems fair:D I killed Nelo3 faster than Mundus though:D
#3Xtreme65(Topic Creator)Posted 2/4/2013 7:26:18 PM
DMC2: Holy Crap this game is bad. It's just poorly designed.

Ranged weapons can get you through the entire game but just doing that won't raise your style ranking which does effect your mission ranking so if you are trying to S rank missions you shouldn't spam ranged weapons. The problem is that it is so hard to get a Showtime rank its ridiculous. It takes a bit just to get to Come on and the rank drops in a second, the enemies are so spread out that you use ranged weapons to keep the rank but the ranged weapons are so overpowered enemies die before you get there and Stinger is next to useless in closing distance between enemies you may as well not even bother. If style and S ranks are important to you NEVER use DT as enemies die WAY to quickly.

Speaking of enemies the AI is terrible. I tested it out, the enemy stood there for 8 seconds before attacking me. That is just inexcusable. I mean DmC enemies may have telegraphed attacks but at least they TRY to attack you. Some bosses are designed in a way where ranged weapons are the only option. Bolverk was cheap as most of his attacks happen off screen and the wolves move so fast and Dante swings his sword so slow you are practically forced to use guns. The underwater boss for Lucia on LMD is the hardest fight in the game because YOU CANT LOCK ON!!!!!!

Speaking of difficulty there was next to no difference in each one. Enemy attacks do not do enough damage to make you feel threatened so if you need to use a vital star there is something wrong with you and you'll only ever use Dante's DT if you actually try to be that close to death.

DT had an interesting mechanic. You could somewhat customize it but ultimately the game was so easy this wasn't as important as it could have been.

And finally and probably my biggest issue with the game. Lack of weaponry and upgrades. Dante and Lucia only ever have one type of melee weapon each and each sword is either longer but weaker or shorter but stronger. On top of this you don't aquire any new moves for combos throughout the ENTIRE GAME!!!

Then: 7/10 I actually didn't think the game was to terribly bad as an action game but I think that was because there weren't many games of this genre around at the time. Coming from DMC1 though it was a huge disappointment.

Now 3/10 Pretty freakin bad when compared to todays standards. Lack of challenge, lack of combos, lack of story, poorly designed rank system and enemies. The game is just bad all over. At least Dante's outfit looks pretty cool. (My favorite in the series actually.)
---
When coincidence is so convenient, I prefer to call it fate.
#4HerugrimPosted 2/4/2013 7:49:16 PM
Too hard to challenge yourself eh?

Funny how that works though, isn't it? People insist on challenging gameplay, as long as they don't have to challenge themselves.

The 8-bit era would've eaten you alive.
---
check out my collection! "Ham! I love ham!"
#5Xtreme65(Topic Creator)Posted 2/4/2013 8:05:36 PM
Any game should have a decent challenge but the main goal is to have fun with it. If its to easy then there really is no satisfactory feeling for when you complete it, if its to hard it runs the risk of being to frustrating and therefore not fun. There has to be a good balance between fun and challenge in a game.

DMC1 accomplished this with Normal and Hard mode I feel. But DMD felt too frustrating for my tastes. Especially on Nelo 3.

DMC2 the whole game was just to easy, not to mention just a bad game.

Nothing wrong with seeking a challenge though, I know there are more competitive gamers out there who want a true hardcore experience to test themselves and further improve their skill . I on the other hand just look at the fun factor of a game. I guess you can call me more of a casual gamer but I see the benefits having the challenge increase the experience with a game.
---
When coincidence is so convenient, I prefer to call it fate.
#6-BrokenSpiral-Posted 2/4/2013 8:09:37 PM
Ninja Gaiden NES was hard as hell, yet I had fun despite dying over a hundred times. Still don't know why I never raged.
#7A7thStevePosted 2/4/2013 8:23:19 PM
-BrokenSpiral- posted...
Ninja Gaiden NES was hard as hell, yet I had fun despite dying over a hundred times. Still don't know why I never raged.


If a game is good, you'll still play through it regardless of having to restart over and over. There is a vast difference between a glitched-out 8-bit game and one that was tough but fair.