One last attempt to bring reasonable discussion to the DmC debate

Ever since the release, I've been trying to sort out as much bias as I can from judgment of the game. As you might imagine, it's incredibly difficult. I'm a fan of the previous games (DMC4 not included), and I despise the new reboot. But I'm trying to figure out what I despise because of my fanship and what I despise from actual game design.

This has proven to be a monumental challenge. Anything I think might actually be a fair judgment of the game, someone else completely disagrees with. I don't like the new Dante because I liked the new Dante, but I do believe the dialogue and voice acting for the new Dante is bad - not in comparison to the old Dante, but on its own. Shouting "F- you" back and forth is surely not trying to be a deep narrative, right? But then people disagree and I have to reevaluate.

So I'm taking a new approach. I see a lot of people saying the player reception - i.e. Metacritic user scores - would be a lot higher if this was a new IP. I do agree with that. And from there, I'd like to make a few statements - to both the fans and the haters.

• The user scores would be higher if the new DmC had been a new IP. However, the critic reviews would also have been significantly lower. There are far more flaws in the game than they would like to admit. For example, unskippable cutscenes? This game has released in 2013. The year 2013. How the heck can you forgive unskippable cutscenes and give the game a perfect score, as several critics already have? I don't necessarily believe they're trying to bandwagon or they're intentionally being lenient - perhaps some of them tried so hard to be unbiased that they ended up judging with a bias towards the game? Whatever the reason, I think it's fair for even fans of the new game to agree that maybe the critic scores and reviews are somewhat misleading. If this game had released as a new IP, reviewers would have been concerned by many more aspects of the game than they actually were.

• Being a reboot does not grant a game diplomatic immunity to any comparison to previous games. Yes, you're free to adjust much of the game's content. That's why it's a reboot and not a sequel. The point of a reboot is to introduce new players to the series, correct? But at the same time, you don't want to alienate fans of the previous games. If that's the risk, you may as well make a new IP. The difference between a reboot and a new IP is that a reboot is actually expected to be similar to the previous games in some significant manner - whether it be in story, in gameplay, in spirit, etc. If the story is only similar in the names of the characters, you should call the game a spinoff, which does grant you far more leeway. A reboot, by definition, has to meet certain standards set by the previous games, in order to give it a reason not to be a new IP. Dark Souls can be considered a reboot of Demon's Souls, and it receives a lot of praise because it stayed true to the gameplay and dark aesthetic of the original (you can squabble over the execution, but the effort was still there). If you completely alienate any sense of correlation to the original games, you have no excuse to have not made a new IP in the first place, and even a fan should not ignore this. You're free to love the game all you want, just don't pretend other people weren't screwed over in the process.

• On the flipside, being a reboot does mean things will change. I know a lot of fans of the original games would have preferred a true sequel, even after the reception DMC4 had. However, you got a reboot, and you should accept that things are going to change. Instead of judging the game as "it's different so it's worse," try to be more objective. As I had before, instead of saying, "The new Dante isn't as good as the old Dante," say, "The new Dante has a silly hairdo." I've seen a lot of people not taking this into account, and it really bothers me that this is the best argument those people can come up with. Of course you can compare the two Dantes, but if you don't try to explain why one is better or worse, you're just wasting everyone's time.

Can we please stop taking sides and arguing over whose opinion matters more? I've noticed this happening more and more within gaming communities, where people will stand up for their game or stand against it, and one or both sides will spread misinformation because it supports their cause. A recent example of this is the whole War Z trainwreck; I'm sure most of us remember those people who actually defended the game and simply shrugged aside any implication that the developers were being misleading. This is the kind of behavior I expect to see in politics - everybody fighting for their own political party, often regardless of what the actual facts are. And that's not a positive comparison to make. When gaming turns into politics, shit's gone and hit the fan pretty bad.

I personally don't care what games people enjoy playing. If you say Bad Rats is your favorite game, I may be confused, but I won't judge you or look down upon you for it. But if you say Bad Rats is the best game ever made, then you're going to get a lot of criticism, because you have to find a way to excuse all of the flaws people see in that game. I'll freely admit that Star Wars Episode 1 is my favorite Star Wars movie. Nobody can tell me I'm wrong, no matter the reasons why I feel that way. However, I'll never pretend Episode 1 is the best Star Wars movie - I'll also freely admit that the original trilogy is far superior. Why is this not the attitude of the majority of people? Why can't people say, "I like DmC, even though it has flaws," instead of saying, "I love DmC and anyone who tells you it's flawed is a douchebag fanboy who's lying to you because they're butthurt"? I can look at any of my favorite games and tell you what flaws they have. You can take whatever side you want, but please, please, actually admit when your game falls short of expectations.

With my huge vent over, feel free to tell me how unreasonable my ideas are. kthxbai

EDIT: I was trying to avoid talking about gameplay/story in too much depth because then people on one side or the other will pick a fight. The point of this thread was to find what is essentially a foundation, and say, "Can we at least agree to these things?" I don't like the story at all, and I find the gameplay pretty fun, but these opinions are irrelevant to the thread.