I've always heard people talking about the Devil May Cry series but I never looked into it until recently due to the new release and realized its a hack and slash. Now i'm wondering if I should start with the first one as it appears to have characters from the previous games. But I also see the DMC version which is a reboot or something?
tl;dr should i play other devil may cry games first or just go straight for the latest one
3
You can get away without playing 1 or 2 but 3 and 4 are required imo
Should I play the DMC reboot before or after? if at all.
definitely play some of the others before 5, 5's story can only be appreciated (its kind of lacklustre on its own desu) in the context of the other games. Just pick up the HD collection and start from there.
>Just pick up the HD collection
That's not on pc is it
1, then jump to 3 and pretend nothing else exists.
What is wrong with 2 if i might ask? i hear it widely shitted on
3, 5 and DmC are literally the only good games
not 4?
it is
Just play in order except 2
The first game is great but feels very archaic. Nevertheless I still love the weapon Ifrit and I think it's great fun. The bosses are some of the most memorable in the frachise's history and it's my favorite iteration of Dante. You won't understand a few things in 5 if you don't play 1 first.
Extremely poorly made. More like unfinished.
The enemy AI is very basic and dumb. Some bosses are literally unfinished and stay stuck in one place while you shoot from afar.
The music's cool though.
3 -> 1 -> 4 -> 5
Only play 2 if you *really* want more DMC after playing those
>3 -> 1
I wouldn't advise that. 3 is a much better game gameplay wise than 1. Going from 3 to 1 will turn anyone off.
fucking lul
why 3 first? is it a prequel?
4 gets hyped to death here but I honestly found myself bored by it. It's one of the few games that was just so god damn boring I had to push myself just to finish it. The story is eye rollingly cliche, the levels are drab, recycled bosses. I'd rather play 3 a hundred times than sit through that game ever again.
3, 4, 5 in that order. Everything else is extra curricular.
>why 3 first? is it a prequel?
Yea. The chronology goes like this
3, 1, 2, 4, 5
We previously thought 2 came after 4 but apparently that's not true. 2 isn't very important anyway. The novels give it some interesting lore but that's about it. You can safely skip it
ok thank you friends
The gameplay is just more polished with more options at your disposal
On the fly style switching and weapon switching make the gameplay insane. Nero was a brand dew addition as well that can be incredibly fun to play, esp in the credo boss fight.
1 is pretty dated but if you can handle that go for it. Otherwise 3, then 4 and then 5.
The reboot has a sniper rifle abortion, so if you think that's cool go for that I guess.
play 1 3 4 5 release order is always best because playing games that came later then going back to old ones never feels good
3/4/5
Then watch a YouTube video to fill you in on 1 for Trish/Sparda
Don't listen to the un-Cuhrazee retard here who's shitting on 4. It has some really solid mechanics and DMC 5 builds on it tremendously.
It is actually.
what is the best way to save this thread for later? I cant afford the games rn and i would like to have this for future reference. (i dont come on here often lol)
4 is good. Play 1, 3 and 4. In release order.
I’d recommend playing 1,3,4 then 5
Quality wise it’s
3>5>4>1>>>>>>>>>>>>>reboot>2
Just take a screen shot of Don't play dmc1 or dmc2 or the reboot (DmC)
I think 5 beats 3. The future DLC will only make it better.
It’s a hack and slash,supposedly, but the most effective strategy(and in fact the only way to damage some bosses) is to spam guns.
There’s more than that but that really encapsulates how shit 2 is
1 -> 3 -> 5
Release order
2 is a pre-alpha mess, 4 is a dull slog made entirely obsolete by 5, don't be fooled by kuh-razy combo autists on Yea Forums, the game is ass cheeks
>Don't play dmc1
Shit suggestion
Dude. Just get the HD Collection and DMC4 SE. Should be on sale pretty soon I'd imagine
Then you play 3, 4 and 5 in that order
Not super hard to remember
It’s still early so I was hesitant to even put it in the list. It’s fucking fantastic but I basically only put it below 3 because playing as V is kind of shit
1 - 3 - 4 - 5, in this exact order, ignore 2 since it sucks.
Sure, but only after you unlock sons of sparda and if you knew the story of 3 before going into 5. Nero's playstyle opens up a lot once you have what is basically a 2nd exceed, I found him even less fun than V up until that point.
if you want to jump to 5 immediately then just play the first one.
otherwise just play in release order.
How
DMC1 is completely irrelevant, DMC3 fills the player in on most of the lore that is used in 5. There is no reason to play 1 anymore.
does HD not have the special edition? what does SE get you?
> all the people skipping 1 ITT
You guys are stupid. The first game is great
You can find enjoyment in games that aren't the best in their respective series and the pinnacle of their respective genre. There's nothing bad about 1.
Chronological order for the best experience.
>1
More of an action-adventure than pure action. The combat was advanced for its time, dated by current genre standards, but still above average by the standards of any game with any melee combat. Engaging enemies and good variety, absolutely brilliant atmosphere and set design. Meh story and solid music.
>2
Not good; combat adds a few things but is looser. Enemies aren’t as good, some boss fights are atrocious. Set design isn’t so great but there’s some decent variety, story is a whole lotta nothing. It’s kind of amusing as a game that is so PS2 that it hurts though. Play it in order to see what it added but only until you just don’t want to play it anymore, then feel no shame in dropping it and moving on.
>3
Really refined combat, terrific mechanics and gamefeel. Surprisingly good story, mileage may vary as far as music. Visuals, level design, and enemy design take a nosedive though (if it isn’t a punching bag then it’s kind of a chore to fight). Some good and some lame bosses.
>4
Best to look at as a short game starting Nero, then you unlock Dante mode at the end. Mechanics are added onto, set design is a bit more dynamic, generally better enemies, it’s just really clearly unfinished (recycled stages and bosses). Still fun for what it is.
Never played the reboot. It’s not necessary if you want to play 5, so get to it at your leisure.
>the story isn't important, therefore he shouldn't play it
The story will have much less of an impact without 4.
HD is 1-3.
In order of release, obviously. Maybe skip 2 but if you get the HD collection you might as well play at least a bit to see how shit it is. Anyone who says to play 3 first because of the chronology is a fucking retard.
>great
That's a funny way to spell boring
In his defense i was trying to learn the lore by playing
god no
>Don’t play dmc1
ew
Probably start at one, I just started playing at it and it's archaic and limited as fuck, and it doesn't give you enough info, just don't start at DMC5 since it's camera is good and it's combat is smoother with far more options.
I have DMC3SE on PC, but haven't played it
should I just get the HD collection instead?
That's right tho
It's the very same reason people say skip 2, it's irrelevant.
It may compromise combat mechanics, but in order to make enemies and level design worth a damn. There absolutely is reason to play it, it’s the one good 3D Castlevania.
People say to skip 2 because 2 is garbage, 1 is actually a good game.
>just don't start at DMC5 since it's camera is good
The camera controlls are terrible. I have no idea what's going on by moving the camera vertically or diagonally is a fucking mess. I think it has something to do with the deadzones.
Yeah get the HD collection, the original port of 3 is notoriously bad.
DMC is not a correct adaptation of Castlevania's gameplay in 3d.
based. Don't listen to the nostalgia fags, dmc1 and 2 are completely skipable
>I have DMC3SE on PC, but haven't played it
Do you mean the original port? That's one of the worst ports in history. Get the HD collection.
I think you should try DmC even though it's severely criticized. I'll get flak for suggesting it, you'll get flak for not following along with the hivemind even though you don't know anything about the series whatsoever.
Not saying I would consider it good, but I dislike it for reasons that I can't force you to agree with.
You should play in this order.
3>1>4>5.
3 is the first chronologically and once you've finished it you'll be really motivated to play 1 and 4. You shouldn only play 5 after you've beaten every game that isn't 2 or DmC. It's not even about the story, there are so many throw-backs and references to everything, it's a love letter to the entire series.
Compared to 1 it's amazing.
>if you want to jump to 5 immediately then just play the first one
*3rd one
Playing games chronologically is a terrible idea. Going from 3 to 1 will make you want to turn the game off in the first 5 minutes just because of how archaic it all feels.
yeah, go for it
>3 to 1
>how come Dante is so boring to play now
This is literally how you get someone to not finish the first game
It's not about playing them chronologically. 3 is so good that once you've beaten it you'll be invested enough in the series to play through 1 even if you don't think it plays well. Where as when some people start with 1 they give up because they don't like the gameplay.
thanks m8s
How much better is 3? so far playing one the bosses except Nero Angelo are full of shit. those black panthers are fuck off tier, everything else is actually pretty easy, I hate that I can't decline to use the yellow orbs and just reload, the game has underwater sections which can fuck off. It's a mess to say the least, and I'm not even half way.
3 blows the fuck out of 1 in pretty much every category. Dante is literally given quadruple the gameplay depth.
Is the camera fixed?
It's better, not as static as 1
Oh well, at least it fixes other problems.
3 is the actual game people like. People disagree on 1 because it's different and an older style of game. For some it's as good as 3, but you might not be impressed.
2 was like a weird shallow spinoff everybody hated. The reboot was a less shallow spinoff that shot itself in the foot with its marketing and general disrespect for the main series. Fans seem to like 4 from what I can tell, although I never played it. I just know 4 is an incomplete game, so it's guaranteed to disappoint a little bit.
I don't think you should start with 5, but 3 is the core of the series while also being a distant prequel that's a good jumping off point if you want to skip any of the others.
Yeah, DmC reboot is casual filter and the best game in the series. Don't let the incels on here convince you not to play it
S N I P E R
N
I
P
E
R
This. Not only does it have the best gameplay but it has relevant social commentary that is way ahead of its time
>game literally designed for casuals and yet, filters them
No wonder everyone hates it