I will never understand the ''fans'' that think that Devil May Cry is just Bloody Palace: The Game and dismiss any critism to the series's elements that aren't combat.
If so why did they even make Devil May Cry 5 in the first place? Why not just play DMC4 for another 10 years since that game also had the ''best'' combat and shit everything else. Why not just release DMC: BP as a standalone product if the rest don't matter?
There's more to games then a certain element no matter the series or genre. Even if the game is combat focused and down to it's core is pretty much it's bread and butter there still needs to be an actual game surrounding that. That was the problem with DMC4 which I'm sure everyone is aware by now.
DMC5's strongest point is again it's combat with Nero and Dante ( V is terrible). Everything else is just super average and it's even a major stepback from previous games. It's normal that people give it flak and deservedly so.
Dismissing critism because ''The game is all about combat!'' is silly.
I mean, I loved DmC (and the original series), but I gotta agree with the notion that DMC V is about combat and anything else is kinda a stupid distraction.
DMC V truly feels like Itsuno trying to actually prove
that
But besides Itsuno's actual intentions...
I am not gonna lie, I loved the pace breaking in DmC (the platforming, the flashy environments, etc...) , but that honestly has no place in DMC.
Like some poster said in this very thread, when you are trying to perfect your playthrough for the 10th time, you really don't want some unnecessary platforming sections or anything like that, because you wanna get into the meat of that game - the combat. And DMC is the kind of game that is all meat. Sure, you could have a brief discussion about the story or if you liked the direction they went with this or that, but honestly (and like the OP said) this is just a first-time thing. People are going to come back to improve their combos and skills, and that's the entire replaybility value of that game. I assure you no one's coming back to experience the timeless story moments and the delicately-built plot structure.
And to that, DMC V was a game made for the original fanbase.
What works about DMC too, for the sake of an argument about its story, is it can be carried by the strength of its characters, which is a reason why I think people didn't exactly like DMC 4, because Nero was just not as iconic or memorable as Dante is. Dante and Vergil are an interesting dynamic both in their relations to each other and in their own right, Nero just doesn't have that. Of course he is not plainly terrible as well.
So, no, you don't need a great, or even a coherent story, in a DMC game. You don't need to have an abundant variety of levels and environments, and that's in my opinion a valid argument to have.
In their core, the DMC games and DmC are fundamentally different in their emphasis and focus.
I can't completely disagree with you, though. I concur you need some context to all that combat. Some sort of change of scenery or enemy placement or pacing, or maybe inject some minimal meaning to all the fighting just to keep things fresh to an extent. I would imagine a game, DMC or otherwise, would be less engaging without that even it has the objectively best combat in history.
Yet, when people kinda dismiss DmC fans flaunting the "variety" DmC has over DMC, I can't say fans of the original series are coming from an unfounded place.
