mees wrote:I only played the first game for about ten minutes, although I finished 3. What makes it so much better than 3?
Stage design, enemy designs, boss fights and boss fight designs, pacing, atmosphere, backgrounds, graphics, story -- even puzzles -- pretty much everything, basically.
Mischief Maker wrote:Story? Who said anything about story? Who plays videogames for the story?
I was talking about the kickass action scenes, deconstructing the silliest excesses of kung fu movies and anime.
I didn't notice the "deconstruction". Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me either by starting a DMC3 thread and going into it in detail, or by writing a DMC3 review...
And note that when I talk about story in an action movie -- I mean also the action scenes themselves. A string of explosions and stunts is just a string of explosions and stunts -- it's nothing to get excited about --
it's how you put them together, and in what context, that differentiates films like Blade Runner, The Terminator, Highlander, etc. from the third rate stuff. You can't divorce the plot from the "action" -- even in pure action movies. The plot is as important in those movies as in straight drama -- the only difference is that the flavor of the plot is different. Not less or more important: just different.
Mischief Maker wrote:Did you turn your nose up at Army of Darkness because ITS plot was pants?
I haven't watched it, but there is no doubt that if Army of Darkness is a great action movie, its plot (which includes scene development -- the "action" in other words) will not be pants.
Eh, the next-to-final level replay of all the bosses is a brawler staple going way back in the arcades.
And? I didn't like it then, and I sure as hell don't like it now.
Anyway, it's extra fighting scenes, and that's the whole point of the series.
Nonsense. "Extra fighting scenes?" WTF is that supposed to mean? Here, have the same boss fight 3,000 times -- it's just "extra fighting scenes, and that's the whole point of the series".
Nonsense.
DMC4 is a retread of THE ENTIRE LEVELS
Yes, I realized this, which is why I am saying the series is going from bad to worse. It was bad enough that several boss fights were repeated in 1, then it was worse that a shitload of boss fights were repeated in 3 -- AND BACK TO BACK AS WELL -- and now it's even worse that entire levels have been repeated in 4. Let's just wait and see how much more inanity 5 will introduce.
Or hey, maybe we should just say fuck it and wait for Bayonetta instead.
Okay, granted the fire gauntlets were next-to-useless in DMC1 until you powered them up, but that was a design flaw.
Not from where I am standing. I have nothing against working a little harder to power up my brand-new fire gauntlets.
If all you're doing is Stinger-ing enemies to death, you're playing the game wrong. It's all about the style meter/score and if you spam a super effective move, you lose your style rating.
In which case you lose gems, in which case you don't have enough cash to buy more moves, in which case the game ends up at least a tad bit harder, and not to mention at least a tad bit less interesting. So it was a very well thought out system.
You're Mr. Arcade, why are you ignoring the scoring system?
First off, there's no scoring system in the first three DMC games, because there is no score -- at least not in the way there is a score in arcade games. The ranking system is a mechanism by which you get more cash to buy more moves, healing items, and the like. If you consider the amount of crystals you have as score, then you might as well consider GTA's cash to be your score -- which you could, if you wanted to, but that's another story.
Second off, you seem to have somehow connected arcade games with score. Why is that? The relationship is almost tenuous. If you are referring to my arcade article, you will note that I hardly ever mentioned score at all in it. In fact, I usually couldn't give two shits about score. What I like about arcade games is their difficulty, and their tightness (lack of fat, etc.) These two characteristics have nothing to do with score. In fact in arcade games, the scoring system -- when it exists, which it often does not -- is usually of secondary importance, especially in games with stage progression. What is most important in arcade games is the SYSTEM, the general system, part of which is
sometimes comprised of a scoring system. So what I love about games like Shikigami no Shiro, Psyvariar, Giga Wing, Espgaluda, etc. is their system, their FIGHTING SYSTEM, in other words. And the greatness in those games is that, generally speaking, survival and scoring go mostly hand in hand. The goal then is to beat the game, and if you do so you will usually also have a very decent score. If then, at that point, you decide that you have not had enough of the game yet, and want to play some more, then you can concentrate in getting a higher score. That is where convoluted scoring systems came from in the arcades, and that is the purpose they serve. "Replaybility" in other words.
However, given how much time and effort it takes to beat such a game, and how many other such awesome games exist, I almost never feel the desire to keep playing one of these games after I've beat it (Cave is an exception).
Now, when it comes to modern sprawling 8- or 12-hour "save state" action titles, like the DMC games, I laugh at the very idea of playing them for score. I mean I would never dream of playing these games more than once -- even the best-of-the-best 3D action games, stuff like Max Payne, Far Cry, Halo, GTA III, Ninja Gaiden, DMC etc., I've only played once, and would refuse to play twice
even if someone paid me to. That's how much I detest all the fat these self-indulgent games are loaded with. So there's no question of me ever playing any game like that "for score" -- even if they did have scoring systems, which they don't. I simply play them to get to the end, and then grab the next title out of a little mountain of sealed games in my closet.
This was actually one of my biggest complaints about part 1, the rigid unflexible style system. You WILL do one of the pre-approved "stylish" combos if you want a high score, and you better not get creative with throwing an unapproved move or you lose it all! DMC3 had a totally superior style system that allowed for showing off.
Yeah, that sounds interesting. I guess that would be the only area in which DMC3 is superior to 1, but since I played these games the way I explained to you that I play them, I never quite noticed it. This is also a fault of the games, since they are not hard enough to FORCE you to play stylishly in order to get more crystals, in order to get more moves, in order to progress. If they were harder, I would have noticed this. They are all extremely easy though.
Still, the above is a little detail compared to the litany of problems with 3, I am afraid. I understand why you enjoyed it -- I am just telling you why I did not.
And lest we forget that DMC3 featured an oversized electric guitar that you used to kill demons by ROCKING THEM TO DEATH!
Can't argue with this. One of two, three details in the game that had any merit.