Quantcast
MCV: "Devil May Cry fans to blame for DmC sales disappointment"

Forums - Gaming Discussion - MCV: "Devil May Cry fans to blame for DmC sales disappointment"

RenCutypoison said:

Yeah, outfit is always about personnality.

Do you think males are represented small, fat and with a moustache ?

More of all, why is that only males have a problem with it ?

She's pretty, that's all.

What's wrong with it ?

Being able to dress how they want to, and put on sexy clothing so they feel prettier without risking being raped has always been part of women's emancipation

Exactly, if its not sexual objectification, then explain to me why Hope dosen't have 80 skin revealing clothes in sexually provactive positions?

Why dosen't FF10-2 feature 3 male characters wearing next to nothing?

I'm not saying that I care if thats what Square Enix are doing. But these outfits have nothing to do with 'personality'. This is sexual objectification nothing more. If thats what you want then thats nothing to do with me. But don't tell me this is all about deep character building. Its Playboy fanservice, nothing more.



Around the Network
A203D said:
RenCutypoison said:

Yeah, outfit is always about personnality.

Do you think males are represented small, fat and with a moustache ?

More of all, why is that only males have a problem with it ?

She's pretty, that's all.

What's wrong with it ?

Being able to dress how they want to, and put on sexy clothing so they feel prettier without risking being raped has always been part of women's emancipation

Exactly, if its not sexual objectification, then explain to me why Hope dosen't have 80 skin revealing clothes in sexually provactive positions?

Why dosen't FF10-2 feature 3 male characters wearing next to nothing?

I'm not saying that I care if thats what Square Enix are doing. But these outfits have nothing to do with 'personality'. This is sexual objectification nothing more. If thats what you want then thats nothing to do with me. But don't tell me this is all about deep character building. Its Playboy fanservice, nothing more.

It's about making pretty characters.

Are you saying a girl that wear a miniskirt is an object ?

Cause peach is weel dressed and everything, but is there only to be princessnapped and so mario can save her.

It's not about the outfit, it's about their place in the story.



RenCutypoison said:
A203D said:

Exactly, if its not sexual objectification, then explain to me why Hope dosen't have 80 skin revealing clothes in sexually provactive positions?

Why dosen't FF10-2 feature 3 male characters wearing next to nothing?

I'm not saying that I care if thats what Square Enix are doing. But these outfits have nothing to do with 'personality'. This is sexual objectification nothing more. If thats what you want then thats nothing to do with me. But don't tell me this is all about deep character building. Its Playboy fanservice, nothing more.

It's about making pretty characters.

Are you saying a girl that wear a miniskirt is an object ?

Cause peach is weel dressed and everything, but is there only to be princessnapped and so mario can save her.

It's not about the outfit, it's about their place in the story.

Then explain something to me:

How does increasing Lightning's cup size and giving her over 80 sexually provactive costumes 'improve the story'??

I'm not saying a girl that wears a miniskirt is an object... I'm saying that Kitase and Toriyama increasing Lightning's cup size and giving her sexually revealing cosutmes are sexually objectification, nothing more.

I'm not saying theres anything wrong or right with it. I am saying this is nothing to do with the story, or developing Lightning's personality. This is Playboy fanservice for the purpose of selling more copies.



A203D said:
RenCutypoison said:
A203D said:

Exactly, if its not sexual objectification, then explain to me why Hope dosen't have 80 skin revealing clothes in sexually provactive positions?

Why dosen't FF10-2 feature 3 male characters wearing next to nothing?

I'm not saying that I care if thats what Square Enix are doing. But these outfits have nothing to do with 'personality'. This is sexual objectification nothing more. If thats what you want then thats nothing to do with me. But don't tell me this is all about deep character building. Its Playboy fanservice, nothing more.

It's about making pretty characters.

Are you saying a girl that wear a miniskirt is an object ?

Cause peach is weel dressed and everything, but is there only to be princessnapped and so mario can save her.

It's not about the outfit, it's about their place in the story.

Then explain something to me:

How does increasing Lightning's cup size and giving her over 80 sexually provactive costumes 'improve the story'??

I'm not saying a girl that wears a miniskirt is an object... I'm saying that Kitase and Toriyama increasing Lightning's cup size and giving her sexually revealing cosutmes are sexually objectification, nothing more.

I'm not saying theres anything wrong or right with it. I am saying this is nothing to do with the story, or developing Lightning's personality. This is Playboy fanservice for the purpose of selling more copies.

So it's fanservice. How is it bad for fans ?



RenCutypoison said:
A203D said:

Then explain something to me:

How does increasing Lightning's cup size and giving her over 80 sexually provactive costumes 'improve the story'??

I'm not saying a girl that wears a miniskirt is an object... I'm saying that Kitase and Toriyama increasing Lightning's cup size and giving her sexually revealing cosutmes are sexually objectification, nothing more.

I'm not saying theres anything wrong or right with it. I am saying this is nothing to do with the story, or developing Lightning's personality. This is Playboy fanservice for the purpose of selling more copies.

So it's fanservice. How is it bad for fans ?

I haven't said its bad for the fans. If you enjoy Playboy fan service, thats good for you, it dosen't have anything to do with me.

It was you who said "I don't think it's sexist or whatever".

The point is that this is sexual objectification of women. My personal views on the matter are irrelevant; if you like the game then its up to you how you spend your time and your money, its nothing to do with me if you buy the game.

However Shrouded Darkness did try to insult Ninja Theory for developing belieavble female characters without taking off their clothes.

The point being, Square Enix is now resorting to sexual objectification to sell their games, this individual has nothing to say on the matter. Neither does Digital Devil Summoner.

Its just amazing to me that developers who focus on creating relatable characters are insulted while developers who sexually objectify women are exhaulted.

Its good for some fans yes. But for fans such as myself who are looking for deeper characters and more mature storytelling, well its not good for us. I'll go back to playing Bioshock Infinite, DmC and The Last of Us; games where women don't have to take off their clothes to be taken seriously.



Around the Network

Omarct.

I have reopened this thread so you can voice your views without flooding the comments section of a sales page.

"I first played DMC 1 on my ps2, never played 2, never played 3, then I played 4 on my PS3. It wasnt a great game, it was short and the levels were the same for both characters. But the game was still fun, the combat was nice, the boss battles were really cool, and the game oozed style and a light mood."

How does your opinion of DMC4 being a 'good' game make DMC4 a sequel to the original Devil May Cry game?

"When I heard of DmC reboot I was a little excited for it. Then I watched the trailer and the main charcater looked like a faggot( They fixed(kinda) him a bit after that). The real reason why I didnt buy the game was the Ninja Theory interviews were they treated the fans like shit for little things like the white hair or other minor stuff that they wanted. When all they had to do was be humble and say that they had plans to implement that and whatnot, but no they started insulting and being assholes, so fuck them and they deserve the shitty sales and hopefully no one ever hires them again."


Whatever the case, just because Ninja Theory have 'hurt your feelings'. What gives you the right to tell us they have insulted the original DMC fans?

Its obvious that your simply another DMC4 fan looking for a reason to excuse your disgusting behaviour. You can't attack DmC, hence why you have to resort to attacking an innocent developer. You want to lie about NInja Theory, fine; however just because you like DMC4, it dosen't mean the rest of us have to believe anything you decide to dictate.

The fact that you need to lie about Ninja Theory proves in itself that you know DMC4 was not a good game, if it was you would never need to lie about Ninja Theory. Think about it, if DMC4 was good enough, that would justify in itself that DmC didn't need to exist. Yet you know that DMC4 alone can't do that, hence why you need to attack Ninja Theory.

You don't like Ninja Theory, no on cares, but attacking them for the sake of a red cowboy boot wearing camp Dante is laughable. Whatever the case pretending Ninja Theory have 'insulted' DMC fans to excuse DMC4 is laughable.

Take it or leave it, its not Ninja Theory's fault Capcom wanted to reboot DMC. Filling your life with hate for an innocent developer dosen't make you a DMC fan, it never will DMC4 fan.