I wonder why they didnt have a normal camera in dmc 1 and 2 (ive yet to play 3).

[BimboGooch]

It isnt because of performance, because they literally have really wide shots with the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ camera system. Like shots that are more wide than what it would be with a normal camera system. It just seems like an odd choice. I assume it is because of resident evil as I know DMC spawned due to RE 4. But at least RE games pre 4 had an excuse. I wish I didnt buy the HD collection and just got in general the 3rd game. Because I already quit after like 20 minutes for DMC 1 and 2, and just watched a story recap because of how bad they feel to play. Especially dmc 1.

Im not saying theyre bad games, the story seems fine for both games. But story cant always carry a game thats 85% gameplay lol. Literally the exact reasons why I refunded RE 1 and 0 are the reasons why im skipping DMC 1 and 2. I could have saved 4 bucks just getting the 3rd game :sobs:

[Goatseface Killah]

1 has that camera because (as you said) it's a retrofitted Resident Evil game. Not that an adjustable camera would help in most areas, that castle is real cramped. 2 has an unadjustable camera because it was cobbled together out of scraps into a functional game in about 6 months

[DarkJuda On Deck]

Your post seems to imply that you think DMC3 has a different camera system.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but even if it has improved over time and gives more freedom in certain areas, DMC3 and DMC4 still use fixed and panning camera angles.

[BimboGooch]

Originally posted by DarkJuda:

Your post seems to imply that you think DMC3 has a different camera system.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but even if it has improved over time and gives more freedom in certain areas, DMC3 and DMC4 still use fixed and panning camera angles.

Its different cuz even as bad as it is, its still like 5x better than the first two lol. In most fighting areas it seems, your camera at least pans a little. I've not struggled against the camera in the 3rd one.

I honestly dont know why actions games often did this camera system though, the only time a fixed camera was every actually good, was when it was pretty much TOP DOWN.

I can understand why the first game and maybe even the 2nd game had a camera like that, as it did spawn from RE4, but youd think 4 would at least have a normal camera system.

[Just Holding W]

The more you play a game, especially at higher play, the more you see just how janky some stuff is. DMC1 and 3 are GREAT. But, the camera has screwed me over or made me do some very awkward stuff plenty of times in 3.

[BimboGooch]

Originally posted by Bored 2 Tears:

The more you play a game, especially at higher play, the more you see just how janky some stuff is. DMC1 and 3 are GREAT. But, the camera has screwed me over or made me do some very awkward stuff plenty of times in 3.

Thats hwo I feel about literally every capcom game pre 2013 lmao. Well every DMC and RE game pre 2013. Heck RE didnt get a good system till the REmakes and RE 7+. Like I know the games are old, but that doesnt excuse bad cameras lul. The only game I will take the excuse for, was the old RE games, as they for the time had really good graphics.

DMC for the time has ♥♥♥♥ graphics, especially dmc 3. Some how it looks worse than an open world game with a lot of detail. Like oblivion literally game out the year after, and it looks worse than morrowind and halo texture wise. Heck model wise theyre equal to morrowind in dmc 3. Pretty sure MGS 2 had far better graphics as well. Honestly for DMC 2+ it was probably just content with the system. Capcom is pretty good at being lazy in one area while exceeding in the other area.

[DarkJuda On Deck]

Originally posted by BimboGooch:

DMC for the time has ♥♥♥♥ graphics, especially dmc 3. Some how it looks worse than an open world game with a lot of detail. Like oblivion literally game out the year after, and it looks worse than morrowind and halo texture wise. Heck model wise theyre equal to morrowind in dmc 3. Pretty sure MGS 2 had far better graphics as well. Honestly for DMC 2+ it was probably just content with the system. Capcom is pretty good at being lazy in one area while exceeding in the other area.

Comparing a AAA PC game which had a 4y dev time with a -more or less- AA made with the PS2 limitations in mind and half the dev time? Nice.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not about being lazy or not.
DMC has more or less always been a niche market and despite having a good fanbase/client base, Capcom has always been very good when it comes to make bad decisions (and some of those even lead them to financial issues more than once).
Even if some of their games seem to be very high budget games, most of them aren't. Capcom is not EA, nor Bethesda or Rockstar or even less Sony or Microsoft. Most of their games are actually pretty low budget.
If it doesn't seem like it, it's because of the dev teams that are highly skilled and passionnate.

Also, no one at Capcom was "content" with DMC 2. Not even the devs themselves (who just did what they have been told to do). That also came from Capcom's very bad decisions and it nearly killed the new born franchise if it wasn't for Itsuno.

Just to be clear, I'm not really saying that Capcom's games are "good" for their time, I'm saying that your comparisons don't really make sense.

[BimboGooch]

Originally posted by DarkJuda:

Originally posted by BimboGooch:

DMC for the time has ♥♥♥♥ graphics, especially dmc 3. Some how it looks worse than an open world game with a lot of detail. Like oblivion literally game out the year after, and it looks worse than morrowind and halo texture wise. Heck model wise theyre equal to morrowind in dmc 3. Pretty sure MGS 2 had far better graphics as well. Honestly for DMC 2+ it was probably just content with the system. Capcom is pretty good at being lazy in one area while exceeding in the other area.

Comparing a AAA PC game which had a 4y dev time with a -more or less- AA made with the PS2 limitations in mind and half the dev time? Nice.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not about being lazy or not.
DMC has more or less always been a niche market and despite having a good fanbase/client base, Capcom has always been very good when it comes to make bad decisions (and some of those even lead them to financial issues more than once).
Even if some of their games seem to be very high budget games, most of them aren't. Capcom is not EA, nor Bethesda or Rockstar or even less Sony or Microsoft. Most of their games are actually pretty low budget.
If it doesn't seem like it, it's because of the dev teams that are highly skilled and passionnate.

Also, no one at Capcom was "content" with DMC 2. Not even the devs themselves (who just did what they have been told to do). That also came from Capcom's very bad decisions and it nearly killed the new born franchise if it wasn't for Itsuno.

Just to be clear, I'm not really saying that Capcom's games are "good" for their time, I'm saying that your comparisons don't really make sense.

Time slime, low budget low smudget. excuses excuses any game can be compared if its with in the same couple of years. Indi games with a small team can have a better games than most AAA publishers can put out and vise versa. If a game is being sold at the years price standard for games, you can compare it to any game of that price.

[Edgy]

I have played all titles in the series and I've seen it's ups and downs. I still have DMC1 and DMC3 for PS2 and I have all the games on Steam.

I wouldn't wanna go back to DMC1 either. I did just play through it on a whim but that was my first clear since 2004. The game literally came out in 2001. It's almost 22 years old and the camera system was in fact immersive for Horror games at the time (Silent Hill series, Resident Evil 1-3) but it did not work well for this game except for a few missions.

DMC wasn't ground-breaking at the time either but more like a fan-favorite which was, at the time, super fast paced. It can very well stand on it's own but it can't be compared to anything that followed (except DMC2 ofc, yuck..)

Btw I have bought several copies of both DMC3:SE and HD Collection (on console when it came out). Trust me, you are better of with HD Collection. The default PC port for 3 is a mess.

[DarkJuda On Deck]

Originally posted by BimboGooch:

Time slime, low budget low smudget. excuses excuses any game can be compared if its with in the same couple of years. Indi games with a small team can have a better games than most AAA publishers can put out and vise versa. If a game is being sold at the years price standard for games, you can compare it to any game of that price.

You make zero sense.

And there is no correlation between comparing games by their price range and indie games being better or not than AAA (which is not even the point of this discussion).
You are comparing apples and carrots and say "booh ooh, apples have a better taste than carrots so carrots are bad". Needless to say you are not making a point, just giving your point of view which you don't even consider as is, you consider it being the truth/facts.

But go on then, compare RDR2 and, let's say, Dragon Ball FighterZ for example. Or GTA 5 and GT6. Same year, same price. We can also do it with the movies since the tickets are the same price. Why doesn't Millenium doesn't have the same level of quality than Avatar? Or why doesn't it last the same amount of time?
Do you realise how little sense it makes?

I'm not "defending" or "finding excuses" for DMCs as I don't really care if you like them or not, I just say that not only you don't really now what you are talking about concerning Capcom but your comparisons don't make sense.

At first I thought you were of good faith, starting a discussion/debate and seeking possible answers (I'm reffering to your original post here). But seing how narrow minded and entitled you are, considering that you are right and those disagreeing with you are wrong, it's pretty clear your are not. You don't really care "why they didnt have a normal camera in dmc 1 and 2", and you don't want to learn why, you just want to trash on those game to have fun.
You just bought some old school niche games and think you are clever to come crying/shitting on them for a bit? Coming to complain how outdated their designs are?
You are not the first, neither the last.

Originally posted by BimboGooch:

ALSO FYI: if a game is being sold for that years industry game pricing standards, then you can compare any game of that same price range.

You just found this insightful revelation in the bottom of your cereal box or you made it up in front of your mirror in your underwear?
Because that's dumb. It just shows how entitled your are.

Well, trolls gonna troll, Haters Gonna Hate I guess....
You waste all your time faking your smiles

[Kaimerah]

as someone who is younger and didnt play these growing up.... i genuinely dont get how someone finds it this bad. i thought it was fine and imo it gives it a unique feel and charm. sure its annoying sometimes but eh. could just be that im more open minded for this type of stuff

[Beyond]

Every time I look in here someone's complaining about SOMETHING, no matter what game it is lmao.

[TheZProject115]

DMC 1 was a failed resident evil game (no joke...it was supposed to be a new res game for the ps2 (and it was in development in 98)

Dmc2 practically had 4 months of proper development time (Hideo Kamiya joining in on the project)

And DMC3 had no problems

Graphics wise? who cares as long as the story and gameplay is good. Which these games have a fantastic story with thrilling gameplay.