Cheesy, yes. Tryharding to the point where even Shadow the Hedgehog is like "turn it down a bit, dude"? Not even close.

True, except one was satire the other was trying to be Oscar-bait.

The difference is that the original story didn't take itself serious. That's what makes it so good.

Wow, you really think people hate it just because he has black hair?

Can start with looks though. Dante looks like a young version of the games director. It ran at 30fps on consoles. Then you have bad writing, where you go from talking about rape to dick jokes in a matter of minutes. Combo systems that have no depth, which is the core of Devil May Cry. Color coded enemies. Boring and brainless bosses. A devil trigger no one even uses until the final boss. Succubus. It goes on and on.

@Dhampir

Your exaggerating the bad points far too much. The combo system has as much, if not more, than the previous games. If you feel this wrong please back up your claim of -no depth-. The regular game ran 30FPS, locked, on consoles and up to 120+FPS on PC apparently, but the definitive edition is 60FPS. Color coded enemies are removed and DT is halfway into the game not "until the final boss".

I don't mind if people, yourself included if you want, dislike DmC. But, I do have a problem if their being treated exactly the same or when people make claims like "combo systems that have no depth".

The gameplay mechanics were improved in DmC, arguably moreso than in DMC4. How? simple, The ability to on the fly switch weapons and styles while having all your weapons at your disposal is priceless.

Where DMC4 made style switching on the fly, DmC broke it down to triggers and added dodge buttons. One of the smaller additions that was added was the ability to continue combos with different weapons. How it works is:

Rebellion regular combo: triangle, triangle, pause triangle.... (6hits)
Arbiter regular: triangle, triangle, pause triangle (3hits).

During the pause with rebellion if you switch to arbiter you'd "cancel" into arbiters third hit. In prior games you'd go back to the first hit of the weapon you switched to. So in gameplay this change was for the better and it's probably the best and most overlooked mechanic ever added to the franchise.

Also, you don't honesty believe Kamiya would ever touch a DMC game again do you? He's moved on and has his own identity with a completely original idea.

@Kyosuke_Sanada
Both were added to the definitive edition.

Devil may cry had:

1) puzzle elements
2) less linear level design
3) had several more attacks and combos
4) had several styles such as royal guard, doppelganger, quick silver, trickster and gunslinger.
5) had more fluid gameplay mechanics and animation

One added bit of switching more weapons doesn't mean much considering every other aspect was made inferior.

Additionally:

1) cliché story
2) rubbish dialogue
3) repetitive game design (boring platforming, linear combat levels, boss. Rinse and repeat)
4) most spoke about bosses and levels were ripped right out from Lollipop Chainsaw which was filled with much better boss battles.

I'm all for reboots and alternative universe versions etc, but if you are going to do it, do it as well or better or don't bother.

Fei-hung I think your confusing DMC4 and DMC3 or at least combining them. So let me help you there.

DMC3 had:
1)less linear level design
2)ALOT of weapons and combos
3)the standard, at the time new, four styles + quicksilver, doppelganger, and (you forgot this one) Darkslayer (vergils)
4)great fludity animation
5)great bosses, some headscratchers though, and a proper boss rush.

DMC4 had:
1) Nero (boo!)
2) the most linear levels with backt tracking. Seriously we went from DMC2 (very open world), to DMC3 (still pretty open), to DMC4 (very linear with backtracking. DMC1 did backtracking correctly.
3) Improved gameplay over DMC3, but it had less weapons and styles (4 + darkslayer)
4)fun bosses
5) A TERRIBLE boss rush and overall dumb dice minigame.

Edit: all this actually reminds me how much of a downgrade in gameplay DMC4 sometimes felt vs DMC3.

That’s what happens when you start shutting down your own studios and forget what actually made you matter in the industry in the first place. Sony used to set the standard — now it feels like they’ve lost that identity. And if they decide to walk away from the PC market too, that’s going to be another huge mistake — that platform is only growing, and ignoring it now would just put them even further behind.

1. Microsoft didn't get worse.
2. Sony got way worse.
3. Because Sony needs the criticism the most considering their publishing output this generation has been propped up by last gen ports and third-party developers for the most part.

1Victor,

I don't wanna speak for Christopher, but like most of us we recognize that Sony's output this Gen has been way below their own standards.

Also Sony did buy a fair amount of Devs, I know you will say they were not publishers, and don't compare in size, but they had their fair share of Aquisitions, including the very well established Bungie.

The overall point is with their stellar first party track record of the past, they should not be going down, they are singled out because they are some of the best videogame devs/publisher on the planet...no matter what reasons we attribute to the situation, they are moving in the wrong direction... period.

Keep in mind that these "proclamations" are usually third-hand bad translations from somedude who was at the investor conference, posted on Twitter, and picked up by press and youtubers like they were gold, and then when the official translation comes out, they're much softer statements, but at that point, the damage is done.