• Welcome to the Devil May Cry Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Devil May Cry series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

General DMC 5 Discussion

Nero never needed redeeming. GB has some points, but I still feel Nero's attitude worked fine for gameplay and story in DMC4. The problem with DMC4 was that it felt like a side/gaiden/spin-off game than a full sequel. Capcom's production trouble did not help either. DMC5 fixes most of 4's problems, or enhances its strengths further.

Resident Evil (and survival horror in general), kind of disappoints me now...

They made a financially sound decision
Which is a smart decision in this case. They knew what they were doing.

It's this outdated game that brought us all of this. If there was no appeal to it this wouldn't be happening. I can attest to that since the first time I played RE1 was on the PS4 so there is no nostalgia to my opinion. There were a few modernizations, namely a forced 16:9 aspect ratio and DMC1 walking, which really helped to make the game more accessible, specially the later, but that doesn't negate the fact that the experience was so good that it led to all of this so I refute the idea that the only place for this is amongst the niche or the nostalgic.
I love the optimizations in REmake 1. I never said it negated by the way, but most of the these companies either don't care, want to move beyond the PS1/PS2 era camera angles, or laziness. At least you get options in the videos I provided. It's up to you if you want them or not. Otherwise, it's gonna be a long, forever, wait on the AAA side of things. You can't on a majority of them for jack-sh#t, so I would temper your expectations.

This mentality is the reason both DmC and DMC5 exist so it can be a double edge sword if you don't know how to read the room or misjudge what most people are going to want.
Don't even get me started again on DmC. Capcom and many other Japanese companies tried way too hard on the "Western appeal". Thankfully, Capcom was one of the few to remember their Japanese roots and embrace them.


Well, don't say that, either. We all have a stake on the status quo. Even if you have no interest in these old games yourself, surely you have opinions on how they are perceived and how they affect the genre.
While some of it is well and true, I am being honest here. I could not give a damn about the snotty elite and hardcore that go on about what is and isn't "true survival horror". They have a chose like anyone else. My choice is for them to screw off. I don't have the patience for their dumb ass opinions. I have no problem speaking my mind on older games, but there are plenty of old survival horror games I did not play on the PS1 and PS2. I have no regrets either way. There were many games I got to play on those consoles, and cherish the moments I remember. That is worth the patience.

I'm not exactly on the other boat on this but, at the same time, I don't fully share the sentiment. I didn't have money back when a lot of these games of the PS1 and 2 era were about so I'm experiencing them for the first time. As you said, it can be frustrating, and yet, for all their flaws, when I invested the time and work into playing these games as the people who made 'em intended to be played, not by the standards of a modern gamer, I found the experience to be so much more rewarding than most anything I've played from the last 10 years.
I am happy for you, but like I said, I am talking about me. I don't have the patience for a lot of these games. I respect what they accomplished for the medium, but I rather be playing something else. If they give you joy, then it's all that matters. Nothing more, nothing less. I do like looking at the past for certain games, or genres I enjoy, but I love to move forward as well.

One of those games was Rule of Rose. For all its frustrations and eye rolling moments I got something from the end that I don't think I've gotten from any book, film or game. Maybe not better but absolutely unique.
More power to you; I am never touching that game. Not worth the tedium and headache.
  • Like
Reactions: Health Drink

Resident Evil (and survival horror in general), kind of disappoints me now...

Yep, and Capcom knew this and made a smart decision.
They made a financially sound decision, I don't know if I'd go as far as calling it the right decision. Like I said, they made a game for the masses and if you are looking at the situation as trying to sell a product this was the way to go yet I don't agree with the notion that this will be for the better in the long run. The very concept of these games, the REmakes, stems from the success of the RE1 remake's success into HD. It's this outdated game that brought us all of this. If there was no appeal to it this wouldn't be happening. I can attest to that since the first time I played RE1 was on the PS4 so there is no nostalgia to my opinion. There were a few modernizations, namely a forced 16:9 aspect ratio and DMC1 walking, which really helped to make the game more accessible, specially the later, but that doesn't negate the fact that the experience was so good that it led to all of this so I refute the idea that the only place for this is amongst the niche or the nostalgic.

I don't blame them, nor hate them for it.
Nor do I. I can understand why they did it, they are a business, after all. They made a judgement call to appeal to the largest audience possible. This mentality is the reason both DmC and DMC5 exist so it can be a double edge sword if you don't know how to read the room or misjudge what most people are going to want.

Ditching the fixed camera does not make RE2Remake and RE3Remake any less survival horror.
No, of course not, but it does turn them into very different experiences. It's not just the camera angles or the mechanics. It's the tone, the structure, the pace. How the gameplay interacts with the level design, the enemies. People are often dismissive of everything but the gameplay but all the elements that compose a game play a significant part in the experience. Because of this the remakes of 2 and 3 are not compatible experiences with their originals the same way 1 is with its remake. That they are both survival horror can only connect them to an extent. Just like how Airplane, Ghostbusters and The Hot Fuzz are not interchangeable experiences simply on the basis that they are all comedies, these games are not as similar to their originals as I'd hope they'd be and it's more complicated than just being over the shoulder.

Either play the old games again and again, or start looking at the indie and some of the AA market.
That's a rather finite absolute. I don't agree that a game like the old ones cannot be made within the AAA sphere or even within RE. If the idea seems too risky they can always make a smaller spin off that aligns much closer to the original PS1 and 2 REs. In this case, though, Capcom won't. They are no longer the risk takers they once were, they don't create or define genres, they follow the money. It is because of this that if there ever was a AAA survival horror game like RE1 or its remake it would not come from them, but if said game succeeded you can bet your sweet petunias that they'd follow in with one. So, while I don't think these types of games are necessarily gone or relegated to the smaller spectrum of the media, I do, however, think that it won't be something that Capcom themselves will revive.

I could not give a damn either way.
Well, don't say that, either. We all have a stake on the status quo. Even if you have no interest in these old games yourself, surely you have opinions on how they are perceived and how they affect the genre.

As much as I love gaming from the 90s and early 2000s, they were not perfect paradises either. There is plenty I rather not go back towards.
That's fair. I've played a few old games not long ago and it wasn't all smooth sailing, going back.


Exactly why I don't have the patience for it. I am all for games are art and all, but I have my own limits and standards. If the gameplay is complete crap and not good, or is too frustrating, I am not going to waste time.
I'm not exactly on the other boat on this but, at the same time, I don't fully share the sentiment. I didn't have money back when a lot of these games of the PS1 and 2 era were about so I'm experiencing them for the first time. As you said, it can be frustrating, and yet, for all their flaws, when I invested the time and work into playing these games as the people who made 'em intended to be played, not by the standards of a modern gamer, I found the experience to be so much more rewarding than most anything I've played from the last 10 years. Yeah, there are frustrations that were inherent within those experiences, but in trying to make things better, more accessible, we've also lost an intangible quality. One of those games was Rule of Rose. For all its frustrations and eye rolling moments I got something from the end that I don't think I've gotten from any book, film or game. Maybe not better but absolutely unique.

I'd hate to find out Capcom removed Krauser from the RE4 remake
I don't think that will be the issue with RE4's remake. If i had to make a prediction on what possible issues might be it would be an attempt not to be insulting or offensive to anyone leading to censorship or other modern shenanigans that plague modern gaming, just look at what they did with the VR version, an unmatching tone, maybe from taking itself too seriously, losing mechanics or concepts do to the realism of the graphics. We are more likely to lose parts of the game or puzzles than characters.


glorify RE4 and act like 5 is terrible.
Oh, I uphold to this but that's for a later discussion. One can of worms at a time.

Some of the old RE forums I registered on were full of morons. TotallyRE. Resident Evil Horror. Capcom Central. Etc. They were all terrible.
Yeah, the core RE fanbase are pretty toxic. I hate using that word but they are almost the definition. I tried talking to them and, yeah, there are some people who are nice enough but, for the most part, the people I encountered were rude, condescending, arrogant, entitled or a combination of there in. If you want to find a good example of gatekeeping you don't have to go far.

The ranting thinking thread

A Master's thesis in my university was suggested to be graded as F because of "lack of objectivity". It was only passed and awarded the lowest possible grade after the student got three external researcher statements of that the thesis was definitely worth a pass, one of them suggesting "at least grade 3 or higher" (scale 1-5).

So, what was the part in that thesis that almost led to fail due to allegations of objectivity problems?
The part that was criticizing some research methods of intersectional feminism. The student was told to remove that 45 page passage about it or else it'll probably fail. Their instructor opted out from that position after the student refused to do that.

So we're pretty much censorizing anti-woke research now...

Also, Metallica targeted by the cancel culture for stuff that happened 20 years ago. Oh my.
  • Angry
Reactions: Foxtrot94

What are you reading?

Star Wars: A New Dawn by John Jackson Miller. A prequel for Star Wars Rebels where Kanan and Hera meet 5 years before the start of that show.

Ex Machina is written by Brian K. Vaughn and the art is drawn by Tony Harris. It's about a former superhero who becomes mayor of New York in 2002.

Heat 2 is written by Michael Mann and Meg Gardner. A sequel to the 1995 crime classic "Heat".

Positivity Of The Day

So I was visiting some online friends during the weekend. Travelled to the north, takes around 10 hrs one way. I booked a bed on a night train back south. Knowing I've got work on Monday, I had to choose between two night-trains to the south; either a train to the capital to work at the office or a train back home for remote work. Both arriving around 6-7 am.

Well. Last night someone had cut a freakin' ELECTRICITY CABLE on the tracks and all train traffic south from the middle of this country had to stop. The night train going to the capital was at least 5,5hrs late. I don't know if it was even more at the end, because I chose the one that goes back home instead of the capital and it arrived only 1,5hrs late.

Enough positivity for today. At least I avoided a major un-positivity o_O

And yeah I woke up around 5am, checked Google Maps and was like "why the f.... are we still in Tampere, am I in a wrong train or is the GPS messing up with me"

Sea of Thieves

Season 7 Finally brings greater customisation options for ships

Captaincy had to be put on the backburner after Sea of Thieves moved from the Unity engine to Unreal during early development. Other features had to take priority unfortunately and it has only been in the last couple of years that Rare has started to implement features that were present in the game’s original Unity build back when it was abandoned.

Login to view embedded media
  • Customise and decorate your captain's cabin
  • Name your vessel and present it on the ship's crest
  • Set sail on special Captain's Voyages
  • Save your customisations for future adventures
  • Play as Captain or Crew and earn rewards
  • Easily sell your loot to the Sovereigns
  • Chronicle your journey on the Captain's Log
  • Choose your path with different play styles

How to buy a ship in Sea of Thieves and add a custom name​


The Season 7 Captaincy update is here and finally players can purchase and customise their own ship (including the ships name). Here are the requirements for purchasing a ship of each type...

There is now a new option available called – ‘My Ships’ – . ‘Purchase Ship’ is now once of the selectable options and prices are:

Sloop = 250,000 Gold – Made for up to two players

Brigantine = 375,000 Gold – Mid-sized ship for up to three players

Galleon = 500,000 Gold – The largest ship type currently in Sea of Thieves, built for up to four players (rumours of a larger ship incoming are circulating)

Purchasing a ship will make you the Captain, granting you access to special customization options at Shipwrights and Captain voyages from the newly added Sovereigns faction. You are not required to have achieved 'Pirate Legend' and simply need the gold to make the purchase.

However, if you would like to buy a second ship of the same type, you must first unlock a Legendary Title for your existing ship, which is done by completing certain challenges while sailing the ship that you own.

After purchasing a ship you will be asked to give the ship a name. Here are the main restrictions of ship names that can be applied:

- No longer than 20 characters
- Can’t contain numbers
- Can’t start or end with a space
- Can’t use certain special characters and symbols
- No profanity


Cosmetic damage on owned ships persists between sessions, so you can pay to 'repair the ships look' to clean it up or you can leave it looking battle-scarred. The cosmetic damage which persists does not allow leaks or game altering damage between sessions and is merely cosmetic. Should you decide you want to change your ship’s name, you will need to buy a Renaming Deed from the Pirate Emporium for 499 Ancient Coins so choose wisely.

The Snyder Cut

Ah, I see you missed the "WarnerBros made the decision to greenlight Batgirl before Discovery entered the picture, and Discovery isn't obligated to hold on to bad decisions from the previous regime" statement. The movie business is actually a movie charity, I suppose.
Regardless, they still had an obligation. They can try and justify it however they want. They can still get [email protected]

Anyway, the Old WB didn't feel obligated to continue with New Gods and The Trench and cancelled those at the first opportunity under the guise of cleaning house. Discovery is in a similar position and reportedly trying to clear WarnerMedia's debt, since WB lost money falling out with their more bankable directors (Villeneuve, Nolan, etc.) with day-and-date release streaming and not notifying them. They neither focused on streaming-only with considerations for COVID-19, nor focused on theater exclusives which they apparently valued more, so that's on them, and WBDiscovery has to make the decisions that the previous regime should've done, including cancelling projects that should've never been greenlit because they had a poor foundation for existence.
Didn't know about those, but my feelings would be the same for those that cared, like I did for Batgirl.

Now, if genuine Batgirl fans started their own thing to get WBD to release the film, I'd respect it, but those fans don't exist. The ones claiming to be don't actually give a damn about finishing what's started and respecting creative vision. They were too busy concern-trolling about COVID-19 and virtue signaling about what "real/true fans" they were for not "bullying" a multibillion-dollar corporation and "setting a dangerous precedent" with a hashtag. Now they've about-faced like the cowards they are, making death threats about David Zaslav. They're just going to forget about the movie itself in a few months because there's no real passion, just some culture war nonsense to win internet arguments. The same people whining about the cancellation would've been the ones to slag the movie when it actually released and complained that it should never have been made, exactly because of how cheap it looks.
Those dumb asses mean nothing to me. I don't give a sh#t about them. There are actual fans that care about Batgirl/Barba Gordon would have more than wanted a proper or decent adaption.

Check out the other list of projects WarnerMedia went and announced just to look busy, aside from The Trench and New Gods: Harley Quinn vs. The Joker, Ben Affleck's Batman, Deathstroke, Deadshot, Gotham City Sirens, Green Lantern Corps, Wonder Twins, Lobo, The Amazons, Black Canary, Booster Gold, Nightwing, Plastic Man, Hourman, Static Shock, The Metal Men, and Zatanna. They were announced on the heels of other movies or mentioned as "entering production" at some point and turned into whatever the film equivalent of vaporware is. The Old WB should've gotten those out the door if they cared or put in a stipulation to protect the projects instead of passing the buck to a new company, but it sounds like they didn't. How weird.
I did not know about them, nor did I go out of my way to look, let alone bother to keep up. Like I said before, I don't go constantly looking for announcement, nor am I expected to remember every single one. I see your point and all though.

WB has been in a "Post-Snyder era of the DCEU" for the past 5 years. He was already out before 2017 and every movie from Josstice League onward was getting reviews of "The Best DC movie since the Dark Knight" and "A step in the right direction for DC".
I never bothered with mainstream sites for a reason. I watched and came to my own conclusion on whether these films were good or not. A majority of them I either consider good or great. I don't even hate SS1 despite its production troubles. The movie is basically a C. C+ with the extended cut. I sure as hell don't need their dumb asses and gossiping opinions to figure out for myself.

The Snyder Cut

Actually they are. The moment they announced it, did all that filming, and wasted that money, they were obligated to do it.
Ah, I see you missed the "WarnerBros made the decision to greenlight Batgirl before Discovery entered the picture, and Discovery isn't obligated to hold on to bad decisions from the previous regime" statement. The movie business is actually a movie charity, I suppose.

Anyway, the Old WB didn't feel obligated to continue with New Gods and The Trench and cancelled those at the first opportunity under the guise of cleaning house. Discovery is in a similar position and reportedly trying to clear WarnerMedia's debt, since WB lost money falling out with their more bankable directors (Villeneuve, Nolan, etc.) with day-and-date release streaming and not notifying them. They neither focused on streaming-only with considerations for COVID-19, nor focused on theater exclusives which they apparently valued more, so that's on them, and WBDiscovery has to make the decisions that the previous regime should've done, including cancelling projects that should've never been greenlit because they had a poor foundation for existence.

Now, if genuine Batgirl fans started their own thing to get WBD to release the film, I'd respect it, but those fans don't exist. The ones claiming to be don't actually give a damn about finishing what's started and respecting creative vision. They were too busy concern-trolling about COVID-19 and virtue signaling about what "real/true fans" they were for not "bullying" a multibillion-dollar corporation and "setting a dangerous precedent" with a hashtag. Now they've about-faced like the cowards they are, making death threats about David Zaslav. They're just going to forget about the movie itself in a few months because there's no real passion, just some culture war nonsense to win internet arguments. The same people whining about the cancellation would've been the ones to slag the movie when it actually released and complained that it should never have been made, exactly because of how cheap it looks.

Check out the other list of projects WarnerMedia went and announced just to look busy, aside from The Trench and New Gods: Harley Quinn vs. The Joker, Ben Affleck's Batman, Deathstroke, Deadshot, Gotham City Sirens, Green Lantern Corps, Wonder Twins, Lobo, The Amazons, Black Canary, Booster Gold, Nightwing, Plastic Man, Hourman, Static Shock, The Metal Men, and Zatanna. They were announced on the heels of other movies or mentioned as "entering production" at some point and turned into whatever the film equivalent of vaporware is. The Old WB should've gotten those out the door if they cared or put in a stipulation to protect the projects instead of passing the buck to a new company, but it sounds like they didn't. How weird.

WB has been making bad decisions for the past five/six years and the old heads are still using "journalist" stooges to retroactively devalue the one good decision they happened to make, so... glad they're no longer running things at Discovery and there's going to be a dedicated DC Films head.



WB has been in a "Post-Snyder era of the DCEU" for the past 5 years. He was already out before 2017 and every movie from Josstice League onward was getting reviews of "The Best DC movie since the Dark Knight" and "A step in the right direction for DC".

FZUP2rSXoAEHPx-

FZUQHJMWYAAb8jX


Truly magical how multiple movies get the same exact line and don't have anything to show for it. It's like the company itself and access media were spending all that precious time spinning their wheels because a bunch of disgruntled weirdoes in executive positions held a grudge against one dude for doing the job that they hired him for and were too busy listening to some brain-broken wannabe pundits on Twitter and YouTube assign political motivations for why they didn't like one guy's movies.

What about those "steps in the right direction" though?

Shazam earned $363.6M worldwide
Birds of Prey earned $201.9M worldwide
Wonder Woman 1984 earned $166.3M worldwide
The Suicide Squad earned $167M worldwide
The Batman earned $767.9M worldwide. Probably could've broken 1B in the box office if they shaved off a half hour to fit in more showings.

I'd have put Joker in here since it broke a billion, but "journalists" were too busy going off about how Joker was made for incels and would inspire more mass shootings, practically salivating at the idea that it could happen just so they would be right about having called it. No one said it was a "step in the right direction" for DC, and WB not showing any faith in the production is why they didn't see the full billion-plus in profit and had to split it between other production companies. Haha. Oops.

David Zaslav is at least smart enough for right now not to namedrop Zack Snyder as the boogeyman of the company at fault for any future projects and cancellations. The focus is on DC's trinity plus Aquaman, with event films to motivate the theater goers.

Quote: "We have some great DC films coming up — Black Adam, Shazam, and Flash, and we're working on all of those, We're very excited about them. We've seen them, we think they're terrific, and we think we can make them even better. Our ambition is to bring Warners back and to produce great high-quality films, and as we look at the opportunities that we have broadly, DC is top of the list for us. You look at Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman — these are brands that are known everywhere in the world. The ability to drive those all over the world with great story is a big opportunity for us. [...] There will be a team with a 10-year plan focusing just on DC. It's very similar to the structure that Alan Horn and Bob Iger put together, very effectively, with Kevin Feige at Disney. We think that we could build a long-term much stronger, sustainable growth business out of DC. And as part of that, we're going to focus on quality. We're not going to release any film before it's ready. We're not going to release a film to make a quarter. We're not going to release a film unless the focus is going to be, 'How do we make each of these films in general as good as possible?'"

Whether Discovery can pull it off is a wait-and-see thing. If Snyder comes back eventually as part of the plan, cool. If not, he's working with Netflix right now. He still has work on Rebel Moon and the Armyverse, so I'm not fussed.
  • Like
Reactions: Lain

Relatively unpopular opinions about any and everything

I'm reading good reviews about Prey, but among those who still haven't watched it I keep seeing the same trite argument that a skinny woman shouldn't be able to stand up to a Predator.

I find that argument nonsensical honestly. These people who apparently are so invested in the original seem to conveniently forget that it wasn't Dutch's chad ass physique nor his military equipment that allowed him to kill the Predator, but his cunning and resourcefulness. The whole point of that confrontation was to show that no matter how buff you are, you're still gonna get your ass badly handed to you in a hand to hand fight against a Predator anyway. So to me no, it's not unbelievable that a "skinny woman" gets to be the protagonist in this, and unless they show her beat the Predator to death or something, I don't have a problem with it.
It's more than likely the same douchebags that can't get laid or find a woman. The same butt-f#cks that said this can't happen because "realism" and sh#t:


Yet will happily accept all the dumb **** that happens in the Jason Bourne sequels.

Relatively unpopular opinions about any and everything

I'm reading good reviews about Prey, but among those who still haven't watched it I keep seeing the same trite argument that a skinny woman shouldn't be able to stand up to a Predator.

I find that argument nonsensical honestly. These people who apparently are so invested in the original seem to conveniently forget that it wasn't Dutch's chad ass physique nor his military equipment that allowed him to kill the Predator, but his cunning and resourcefulness. The whole point of that confrontation was to show that no matter how buff you are, you're still gonna get your ass badly handed to you in a hand to hand fight against a Predator anyway. So to me no, it's not unbelievable that a "skinny woman" gets to be the protagonist in this, and unless they show her beat the Predator to death or something, I don't have a problem with it.
  • Love
Reactions: BrawlMan

Filter