You guys got to stop these desperate comparisons.
Keep using those big emphasis words. Makes your argument stronger, see.
Fighting games have several characters with heavy variety and different ways to play against the other mass of characters. That's before getting into other mechanics.
The character-versus-character nature is a core difference, yes. The equivalent on the character action side being a variety of AI enemies with their own behaviours, tactics, strengths and weaknesses. Bosses too.
DMC is a generic repetitious action game with some characters with variety but for chunks of the game you do similar things until you get those variations. Doesn't mean the combat is bad, but one reason why this is a niche style is because it's repetitious.
DMC
can be repetitious if you don't make an attempt to learn the character-specific mechanics, or more than the basic mash combo and stinger for each weapon.
Claiming it
is repetitious is ignoring its depth based on some preconception that you have the game figured out.
Now, far be it from me to attempt to undermine your right to opine on DMC by accusing you of not having played the games, but it's beginning to sound like you're trying to speak authoritatively on a subject that you don't have a full grasp of.
Some people like that style, some gaffers clearly do. Some don't, but pretending the games are a lot deeper than it really is just pushes people away because your basically insulting peoplespeoples intelligence.
Sounds like someone has never seen donguri990 in action.
When you make bulletpoint lists with things like "input complexity" which means nothing out of context, there's clearly something wrong.
Would you have preferred I presented the points within that list as flowing prose in iambic pentameter?
Nice cherry-picking as well. To elaborate on input complexity: When the inputs required for proper play are complex, including but not limited to strings of combo inputs, mode-shift buttons that contextually change functionality (ex. lock on > stinger), buttons that change functionality based on your character's state (buster, style switching), the requirement of precise timing, and so forth.
You may also know the term as "execution-heavy" in the context of fighting games.
And I'd like to know what this ominous "something wrong" you're waving about is supposed to be outside of a weak attempt to cast my character into doubt with the intent of taking my argument down a peg.
It's always some weird list that I can use back at you with another genre listing the same stuff
Sorry, but I'm not writing out a lengthy analysis just for you. Bullet points are compact and get the point across just fine.
Unless you just dismiss them as a "weird list", that is. Classy.
or desperately claiming the users never played the game/series before without even knowing if that's true.
'desparate' again, you like that word don't you?
Go ahead and quote the post where I stooped to such tactics. As for the other people doing it, they could probably stand to bump their level of discourse up a notch or two.
This thread reads just like those Legend of Spyro threads back in the day. While DMC is clearly superior to TLoS mechanically and in gameplay they both have similar problems people don't want to admit.
Literally who
Add the fact DMC is not really innovating and playing safe, theres really no reason to be surprised at people calling the gameplay outdated when there's been no real revolution in this gameplay style for some time.
Vagueries, vagueries everywhere.
Do explain. You know, rather than continuing to throw out meaninglesss one-liners.
I can't wait for the Dynasty Warrrior threads next, all the beat am/hack em like franchises with cult followings all do the same thing:
Oh, oh, I can guess this one!
Is it "make sweeping generalizations under the misguided notion that it will make for a strong argument"?
Compare to fighting games
Character Action being the only hack-and-slash / beat 'em up sub/adjacent genre that can actually make that claim and argue it effectively.
Shoot down all mentions of flaws
If an argument is flawed then it will be shot down. Welcome to discourse on a public enthusiast forum.
Now if you want to make a criticism that is well-reasoned and backed by actual evidence, then this thing called a good discussion might happen. Those are rare and precious.
Overexaggerrate how deep the mechanics are.
Proof, if you would be so kind, that DMC is not as deep as people claim it is.
Blame non fans for not understanding the game.
Not understanding is perfectly acceptable. Not understanding, making no attempt to understand, and then bitching about it rather than simply moving on, less so.
Or say ganers are too dumb to play a game of repetition than go "lol probably COD players" when even core gamers aren't big fans of the genre.
Go on, let it all out. Tell us how you really feel.
Thaaaat's better.
Now, about that fact that you're
still dodging my question...
The issue with DMC and similar games is simply it's repetitious. For some reason some of you want to overly simplify repetition to only mean smashing the same buttonover and over, you can do that but that's just trying to shift reality aroind so you don't accept some people don't like this gameplay style.
Alright, we're getting somewhere. By negative inference, we now know that your definition of 'repetitious' in the context of DMC involves more than mashing a single button.
Now if you would only deign to share the rest of it with the thread