Capcom Unveils "Classic Dante" DLC for DMC: Devil May Cry

[Easton Dark]

Capcom is the DLC scumlord of all the publishers, even Activision.

Fuck you, Capcom.

How's the edgy joke with the mop on his head going to work now, huh?

I don't see the issue. You don't have to buy it, you can play with the new Dante (and honestly, I don't see him being that bad of a character design).

People complain way to much about his damn look. Hell, the original games weren't even all that good outside the core gameplay.

That's not even the issue.

How's the edgy joke with the mop on his head going to work now, huh?

easily, as it stands the costumes dont actually show up during cutscenes, whether that changes at launch I couldn't say.

So he says he'll never look like that, then he looks like that. For four dollars no less.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I would have found it a benevolent action if it wasn't for the price.

It's a $4 player skin! Regardless of what people think of Dante's new look this is outrageous. A single fuckin' skin and they can't even make that free. And knowing Capcom I wouldn't be surprised if it's already on the fuckin' disk.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

The fact that they are selling this as DLC sickens me. I'd hardly call it "classic" Dante. It's new Dante with classic Dante's haircut, and it looks ridiculous. And what the fuck is up with that horrendous costume in the 2nd picture?

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Spoiler

To be honest it seems to me that everyone has hated Dante's look once they changed it from the original. I'm kind of amazed Capcom hasn't just done the rational thing and just put the series the way people want it. I personally can't get behind it being "all a scam to sell DLC" since it seems to have been going on far too long.

I'll also say that this article in an offhanded way could be taken as a slam on reviewers. To be honest I think there is a problem when a reviewer evaluates whether a product is good or not purely on it's own merits as a game when there are other issues involved. To be honest when your dealing with franchises and ongoing intellectual properties the characters and how they are treated is part of the overall property. A game that might play well, but is disrespectful to the established continuity and characters, deserves to be slammed on those elements. Beyond a certain point you have to make the distinction between whether something is a good game, and whether something is a good game of X label. If a game decides to slap a franchise or series name on something but changes so much that it no longer resemebles or continues to build on previous parts of the series, that should be viewed as an epic failure, and scores should reflect that.

I point this out because as time goes on I'm becoming increasingly irritated to hearing how something "reviewed well" despite outrage from the fans. Perhaps the most epic example of this being "Mass Effect 3". If a reviewer doesn't get what the big deal is, and his reviews and criticisms reflect this, and he might outright say "I don't understand the big deal" I increasingly feel that's a sign that someone doesn't belong reviewing. A reviewer is supposed to be telling the fans, the users, if they are going to like a product or not. As a professional your allegedly supposed to be tied into the pulse of gaming enough to make an informed desician. If there is a massive group of people complaining, and someone even overreacts to the point of a presidential petition, and your reviewing the game highly... well obviously your out of touch and not doing your job well since your score is hardly reflecting the reality. This is also part of why you see people becoming so hostile towards reviewers, and increasingly focusing on how their livelyhood, or perhaps more accuratly that of their hosts, is tied to the industry, and the technique of padding review scores in hopes that high reviews and good hype can turn that into reality virally since it's worked before, but is becoming harder to do as reality increases.

I think a good reviewer today is not just someone who can say whether a game works well on a technical level, and how good it is on it's own merits, but understands things like how what color the jacket of the protaganist of an ongoing series is can actually make all the differance and why that is. If you don't understand this, and it seems like I'm talking alien to you or way out in left field, your kind of demonstrating why you shouldn't be a reviewer.

A bit lengthy and in an odd direction given the article, but it's largely what I thought of in reading this. Truthfully I've never been a big DMC fan, but I'm aware of the issues, and honestly I don't like people messing with my favorite franchises and characters that way either (as I've gone off about in other cases). This article mentions the uproar over the game, as well as the review scores, so I think it serves as a good example of the overall problem, which I think actually came to a head during the entire "Mass Effect 3" fiasco (which is still ongoing) with critics, reviewers, and inudtry watchdogs somehow not really getting how an ending can decimate not only an otherwise solid product, but an entire franchise retroactively.

Given the fan reaction the first question when dealing with a game series or franchise is whether it's a true continuation of that franchise, above and beyond anything. If someone trots out "Devil May Cry" but with rebooting, a main character that doesn't even look the same way anymore, etc... that should automatically be a "fail" before it even enters consideration because it's not truely the product it's claiming to be. Sort of like the differance between an action figure of "Spider Man" and one of "Spider Warrior"... the Japanese Knockoff. Sure it looks vaguely similar, and might be a perfectly servicable toy that functions just as well as an actual "Spider Man" one, and might even have a few extra points of articulation that could make it better, but at the end of the day it's not "Spider Man" and your kid who is a Spidey fan is not going to accept it as the same thing even if you paint the name "Spider Man" accross the chest. You failed to please your child, the toy sucks, as he is the final arbitor of whether it's good or not. As a parent if you thought it was "good" or "the same thing" you failed in your analysis if you thought so genuinely (as opposed to trying to save a few bucks) just as a reviewer fails when he say tries to pass off a counterfeit Dante with the franchise name emblazoned on it as the real thing.

Thank you Therumancer for saying what I could not express in my own words.
What he said is pretty much what we should be paying attention to and not simply pile on the "haters gonna hate/get over it" logic.

Spoiler

I'm getting real sick of this "You don't have to play it" or "The originals weren't that good" or "Just get over it" attitude.
It's an IP, one with fans. People enjoyed it for what it was and it made money for the people who made it. There was no reason for this mess of a reboot. Because the term "reboot" is a complete cop out. It's just a scam to slap a name on an IP no one thought had the legs to run on its own. It's a money-making scheme.
There was no reason this DMC shite, couldn't have been a sequel. Think about it, the last game in the franchise was on this generation of consoles, and a HD re-release of the first 3 was still on shelves. And you know what that would have changed for the people with the opinions expressed in quotations above?
FUCKING NOTHING!

The fans would still have had the story they wanted, the characters they love, they'd have been happy. And everyone else would have had exactly the same game, they could have enjoyed it too. But no. No, instead what we have is a product which splits the community neatly in two. Not only does this benefit Capcom who make money from those who will buy Ninja Theory's DMC out of spite to the rest of the community (these assholes do exist). But it also directly detriments the community as a whole since we're left to squabble among ourselves in prolonged pissing matches and cat fights.

This is insanity people! What ever happened to people just getting well made games that we can enjoy, and playing them? When did this become a battle of epically retarded proportions? There is so much bile and so many toxic attitudes in our community that it's killing us. We need to clean house people, we need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask ourselves what the fuck we're doing. Because the "community" as is it, it's just not acceptable.

Rant fin.

ScruffyMcBalls understands what's going on here and I have for a while so like he said why can't we act like a community rather than spending our time literally trying to divide ourselves and letting the Capcom do the same.

Really no one shout be spouting "get over it already" or any other phrases common to that because it shows you don't care what the originals think and just wish to stamp all over them which again ends up causing these pointless little piss fights and it really, really needs to stop.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

The fact that they are selling this as DLC sickens me. I'd hardly call it "classic" Dante. It's new Dante with classic Dante's haircut, and it looks ridiculous. And what the fuck is up with that horrendous costume in the 2nd picture?

And yet they said Dante would get laughed out of a bar with the way he dressed

 

[ShirowShirow]

I'll buy the game and the DLC if the skin also make Nu-Dante less of an amoral douchebag who thinks gratuitous swearing constitutes witty banter.

 

[Steve Waltz]

I would have found it a benevolent action if it wasn't for the price.

It's a $4 player skin! Regardless of what people think of Dante's new look this is outrageous. A single fuckin' skin and they can't even make that free. And knowing Capcom I wouldn't be surprised if it's already on the fuckin' disk.

Well, I backed up a point why it shouldn't be free. It takes effort to make a new model, code it into the game, and spend hours testing to make sure it works properly. If it's simply a recoloring than it probably should be free, but there's some effort involved so selling the DLC is justified... But just not at that price.

Also, it's not on the disk because Capcom doesn't charge for disk content anymore. If this DLC costs money, then that means it's DownLoaded Content and not Disk Locked Content.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I'll buy the game and the DLC if the skin also make Nu-Dante less of an amoral douchebag who thinks gratuitous swearing constitutes witty banter.

Dear Buddha, not since Shion in Xenosaga have I seen a protagonist I just wanted to smash upside the head with a brick until there was only a puddle left. This guy is just COMPLETELY unlikable. I was secretly hoping someone would just kill Nu-Dante.

 

[LordLundar]

I wouldn't be surprised if this DLC was on the disc all along.

Keep on trolling Capcom.

That's a sucker bet and you know it.

 

[jollybarracuda]

Angry Joe joked about Capcom probably making this DLC. I honestly did not expect them to actually do it, though. Seriously, Capcom? I like your games (mostly), why you gotta be like that? Why you gotta be like that, Cap?!

 

[EHKOS]

A spineless move by Capcom hoping that it will patch up some problems with this game...

Well... Not in a million years...

They say time goes faster the older you get, but apparently a million years has passed me by without notice. Seriously though, first whoever wrote he script shoved their middle finger to original Dante fans, only to turn around and give it out as DLC. At this point I the only games I would touch coming out of Capcom is another Dragon's Dogma sequel, or a return to Breath of Fire. Though I'm hesitant if they are loaded with on disc DLC like so many recent Capcom titles.

I can see it now, a brand new Megaman, with each boss's weapon unlocked as DLC.

 

[bug_of_war]

To be honest it seems to me that everyone has hated Dante's look once they changed it from the original. I'm kind of amazed Capcom hasn't just done the rational thing and just put the series the way people want it. I personally can't get behind it being "all a scam to sell DLC" since it seems to have been going on far too long.

Well, Capcom didn't actually make the new Devil May Cry, it was made by Ninja Theory and published by Capcom. When Dante's new look was first revealed, a lot of people drew comparisons between the new Dante and the head of the company (not Capcom) and were really pissed at what his company was doing with the series. So, you can't exactly slander Capcom for this game just being a DLC cow, as while I'm certain without a doubt that there was going to be DLC for the game, this fault lies mainly with Ninja Theory not listening to the fans.

I'll also say that this article in an offhanded way could be taken as a slam on reviewers. To be honest I think there is a problem when a reviewer evaluates whether a product is good or not purely on it's own merits as a game when there are other issues involved. To be honest when your dealing with franchises and ongoing intellectual properties the characters and how they are treated is part of the overall property. A game that might play well, but is disrespectful to the established continuity and characters, deserves to be slammed on those elements. Beyond a certain point you have to make the distinction between whether something is a good game, and whether something is a good game of X label. If a game decides to slap a franchise or series name on something but changes so much that it no longer resemebles or continues to build on previous parts of the series, that should be viewed as an epic failure, and scores should reflect that.

I agree with you that a video game that is based in a well established series should definately be scrutinized to a degree for changing characters to a point where in which they are more just people with similar names and that's it. I HATE, the new Dante, Virgil is a dishonourable fuck, and changing it so that they are brothers AND Angel/Demon hybrids kinda just makes the title, "Devil May Cry" and the original series very redundant. However, this is still a game, and there would have been people (Mostly 10 to 15) whom would have never played the original series and would have none of these biased opinions. Also, seeing as how "DMC Devil May Cry" is essentially a reboot/different universe's version, it is easy to see how a reviewer can put their opinions and the original franchise behind them and focus on the new game just as if it were an entirely new title. While most people will agree the game is crap compared to the originals, the new game is alright, if you can get past the main character being an angst ridden emo.

I point this out because as time goes on I'm becoming increasingly irritated to hearing how something "reviewed well" despite outrage from the fans. Perhaps the most epic example of this being "Mass Effect 3". If a reviewer doesn't get what the big deal is, and his reviews and criticisms reflect this, and he might outright say "I don't understand the big deal" I increasingly feel that's a sign that someone doesn't belong reviewing. A reviewer is supposed to be telling the fans, the users, if they are going to like a product or not. As a professional your allegedly supposed to be tied into the pulse of gaming enough to make an informed desician. If there is a massive group of people complaining, and someone even overreacts to the point of a presidential petition, and your reviewing the game highly... well obviously your out of touch and not doing your job well since your score is hardly reflecting the reality. This is also part of why you see people becoming so hostile towards reviewers, and increasingly focusing on how their livelyhood, or perhaps more accuratly that of their hosts, is tied to the industry, and the technique of padding review scores in hopes that high reviews and good hype can turn that into reality virally since it's worked before, but is becoming harder to do as reality increases.


I think a good reviewer today is not just someone who can say whether a game works well on a technical level, and how good it is on it's own merits, but understands things like how what color the jacket of the protaganist of an ongoing series is can actually make all the differance and why that is. If you don't understand this, and it seems like I'm talking alien to you or way out in left field, your kind of demonstrating why you shouldn't be a reviewer.

This is the problem with being a reviewer for art. Art is subjective, and while generally the majority of peoples opinions tend to mean that something is good/bad, it does not mean that others cannot find the good/bad. For example, with the Mass Effect 3 debaucle, I thoroughly enjoyed Mass Effect 3 and even would put it in my top 10 games of my life. Most reviewers saw no problem with the ending and based the game off of how it performed as a game. It had tight mechanics, it was easy to pick up and play, the story was compelling, and the game lasted for about 20-30 hours if not more. While most people will jump up and down over the games ending and start talking about how it didn't add a certain character, or potentially slipped up on it's feet etc etc, a reviewer comes into the game and says, "did I have fun, was the game broken in anyway, was the story compelling, did I feel as though I wanted to go back to this game, was it better/ worse than *insert game here*". Using a formula similar to this, a reviewer then makes their decision, and bases the score of the game off of other games that they have played. This of course is then their opinion, a personal opinion on a piece of art that is entirely subjective.

Because of this, there will never be a game that is widely accepted as a good/bad game. I know I really, REALLy don't like Dishonoured and Half-Life, but I accept that many other people do. Yes, a good reviewer should take into account a games franchise, but because we are all different and have different emotions and investment towards certain games. Add to that that a reviewer has to play many games as quickly as possible so as that their review comes out on the day/a few days after the release of the game it is quite easy to realise that they can miss things that others would have picked up on. Again, good example with the Mass Effect 3 shindiggery, lots of fans were angry that the 'Dark Energy' sub-plot was dropped completely instead of becoming the main thing in ME3, but how can a game reviewer, whom has to play lots of games every year, making it hard for them to go back and replay and re immerse themselves, remember details such as the 'Dark Energy' sub-plot 3 years later. Sure, a good reviewer should try and remember the events of the previous entries in a franchise, but then where are they going to find time to review other games, be they the first of their series or the 6th. It's too much to expect from a person.

A bit lengthy and in an odd direction given the article, but it's largely what I thought of in reading this. Truthfully I've never been a big DMC fan, but I'm aware of the issues, and honestly I don't like people messing with my favorite franchises and characters that way either (as I've gone off about in other cases). This article mentions the uproar over the game, as well as the review scores, so I think it serves as a good example of the overall problem, which I think actually came to a head during the entire "Mass Effect 3" fiasco (which is still ongoing) with critics, reviewers, and inudtry watchdogs somehow not really getting how an ending can decimate not only an otherwise solid product, but an entire franchise retroactively.

Given the fan reaction the first question when dealing with a game series or franchise is whether it's a true continuation of that franchise, above and beyond anything. If someone trots out "Devil May Cry" but with rebooting, a main character that doesn't even look the same way anymore, etc... that should automatically be a "fail" before it even enters consideration because it's not truely the product it's claiming to be. Sort of like the differance between an action figure of "Spider Man" and one of "Spider Warrior"... the Japanese Knockoff. Sure it looks vaguely similar, and might be a perfectly servicable toy that functions just as well as an actual "Spider Man" one, and might even have a few extra points of articulation that could make it better, but at the end of the day it's not "Spider Man" and your kid who is a Spidey fan is not going to accept it as the same thing even if you paint the name "Spider Man" accross the chest. You failed to please your child, the toy sucks, as he is the final arbitor of whether it's good or not. As a parent if you thought it was "good" or "the same thing" you failed in your analysis if you thought so genuinely (as opposed to trying to save a few bucks) just as a reviewer fails when he say tries to pass off a counterfeit Dante with the franchise name emblazoned on it as the real thing.

I respect your opinions, but it looks as though you are saying that reviewers are not consumers. you have brought up many valid points that perfectly suffice your argument, but it hardly seems fair saying that a reviewer cannot have their own opinion on a video game. It's unjust to say that a different persons perception/thoughts on a certain piece of work, be it novels, paintings, songs, films or video games is wrong or right, especially how so much of it is very subjective. This includes if the product is part of a series. Example, I listen to Metallica and enjoy most their music, but that doesn't mean there aren't songs/albums that I just don't like of theirs. I don't like Saint Anger, but I like Death Magnetic, and while most people would agree with me about Saint Anger, there are those whom disagree with my opinion of Death Magnetic. As you can see, while I don't like 1 album of a certain band, that hasn't ruined any of their original/newer work for me. So in the end, to say that someones opinion is wrong and that they need to re-evaluate their entire situation is quite rude and makes you look like an entitled dick (I'm not calling you an entitled dick). Just because I don't like Orwell's, "1984" doesn't make those who think it's a good book wrong. Just because I don't like Justin Beiber or One Direction, doesn't make those who do wrong. Just because I like the "American History X" doesn't mean those who don't are wrong. So, while you have every right to love/hate any novels, films or video games such as Mass Effect 3 for example, it is ignorant of you to then say that other people are failing at their position when their entire job is about giving the best possible review to other consumers on a product that is entirely subjective. Thus, they could say it's bad, you could say it's good, and vice versa.

 

[J Tyran]

I couldn't care less about DmC or the upset of the character changes, not my sort of game but that scene with the wig? That was epic trolling.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Capcom... for a second I thought you seriously supported the new Dante and you were willing to embrace it against all funboy rage (I spell it wi U because its funny to see them cry over this) and now you do this? I don't cara even if its free, it shows you have no backbone at all... truly disappointing.

 

[Gunner_Guardian]

Alright raise your hands, who saw this coming?

I wonder if it will turn out the DLC is on the disc too

 

[major_chaos]

Is there a DLC to make new Dante less of an insufferable, disgusting, angsty twat designed to appeal directly to the very worst of the Hot Topic dwellers? no? then I'm still not buying this game.

 

[TehCookie]

Some people still believe it's about the hair? I thought we were past this. What's wrong with the reboot: http://pastebin.com/y3PKiumh because I'm lazy.

Since Capcom won't listen to the complaints of the fans seriously, let's try to give them something they do listen to: Money.

[http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n95/blackkittycat15/Forum%20Posts/1358896518203.jpg]
Remember, we will never surrender.

 

[Xdeser2]

Wow Capcom....wow

Piss off Half your DMC fanbase to sell more DLC skins. I didnt think you'd sink THAT low....

(BTW, Angry Joe Called it)