Itís easy to feel betrayed when a game series you like changes direction, or appears to reboot itself to a new crowed by reassessing its personality and getting a new hairstyle. Itís also very easy to accept this new persona if you werenít aware of it before, or perhaps even fond of, and canít quite grasp why those that knew it before are so critical of the new personality and how it just isnít
who it appears to be.
Iíve recently found myself on both sides of the argument and itís confusing; very confusing.
Hang on. No.
This situation is the same as that at all. You canít look at these two Devil May Cry games and see them as different as the exaggerated as the Mario scenario. Taking a step back and looking at things in the bigger context shows they arenít as different as that. But what would be similar is say if Naughty Dog were drafted in to make a Mario game, and they go in a Pixar style direction, perhaps not making a platformer as tight as traditional Mario games (maybe plays like Jak & Daxter) but flesh out the universe in their own way with charming cinematics and what not. I wouldnít be against that at all, and thatís what DmC is like to me.
There is a fear of change which I believe we need to get over. I need to get over it too with Tomb Raider (though Tomb Raider is still CD developed). When a new studio makes a game for an existing series itís like a cover version. Whatís the point of a cover of a song that just sounds like the original? What if Soft Cell didnít change a thing when they covered Gloria Jonesí Tainted Love? What if Scissor Sisters didnít turn Pink Floydís classic rock anthem Comfortably Numb into a melancholic, 4am disco track? Itís just not as interesting. Itís just not as creative.
What Iím trying to say is we shouldnít be setting the rules of what a series is in stone. DmC could have been a new IP, but like a cover version drawing new experiences or meaning out of an established work is, or can be, an interesting thing in itself.
LOOK WHO CAME: