Support NeoGAF

[Zaptruder]

Seriously, it seems like the core of the games aren't too different.

That is to say, both games involve action combat, stat advancement, unlocking extra capabilities and journeying through dungeons beating up on monsters, bosses and solving puzzles.

It's true that the feel of the two games are very different... but to me it seems as if it wouldn't require a huge stretch to make DMC into an uber action RPG game like Zelda... but the question then is would there be a market for it? Have there been games in such a vein? Or even games that have taken a fighting game engine and made them into a RPG as well? (Like Tobal 2).

What else would it take to move a game like DMC, if it already features the kind of stat advancement that is core to CRPGs nowadays? I guess character interaction would be the key thing...

 

[Beezy]

-_-

 

[Chipopo]

blip

 

[sly]

:lol

 

[TTP]

I love GAF

 

[Mihail]

There is a huge stretch, though. The level structure of Zelda games plays huge importance, whereas the focus in DMC/3 is on effectively implementing battle techniques.

All 3D 3rd person games are similar to some degree -- it's just the nature of the perspective, in my opinion -- but they can vary greatly in the way they are played and in the skills that they develop.

 

[civilstrife]

Night and day.

But seriously, I think I have SOME idea of what you're trying to say. For example, while playing Prince of Persia: SOT, I had a sort of secret hope that the sequel would evolve into a zelda-like adventure with towns and whatnot. I figured the actual levels of PoP could serve as the dungeons.

 

[Cragstar]

How different is DMC(3) from Legend of Zelda?

Hello.

Your Taxi awaits you sir.
I'd advise a quick exit before you are mauled

 

[Nerevar]

Dante uses guns, Link doesnt.


comparison over.

 

[ChronoMagnus]

Wow. This must be the most idiotic question ever asked on GAF.


I'm sorry to tell you this but you are gonna get so flamed.

Ackbar says :lol

 

[drohne]

see, i don't think nonlinearity, exploration, and puzzles would really improve a game like dmc3: the fighting is more fun, and that other stuff would be an unwelcome intrusion. the slight adventure elements in dmc or ninja gaiden lend the action some structure, which is fine. but i don't think it should go far beyond that.

on the other hand, intense action would make a game like zelda less broadly accessible. better, imo, but less accessible.

if the combat was better, god of war would almost be the zelda/dmc hybrid you're looking for. it cuts a lot of the fat from the zelda formula, and that pandora's temple sequence decisively beats zelda at its own game.

 

[Cragstar]

 

[sprsk]

ill give you 10 more posts before i send you back to ebaums world.

 

[Cragstar]

ill give you 10 more posts before i send you back to ebaums world.

ebaums what?

its from Google images?

 

[norinrad21]

Hahaha wtf?

 

[Zaptruder]

Aw cmon guys. The thread title is just to pull people in; the real question is, would there be a market place for a DMC turned into an RPG?

Like I said; it doesn't seem like such a huge stretch to put a more advanced fighting engine like DMC into a game like Zelda... but would that make it a better game?

Taking from Drohne's comments, it would seem the solution would be to implement 2 types of combat system... one with an easier and less twitchy feel, allowing you to access key abilities like you would abilities in Zelda (kinda like the easy auto+some magic system), while mapping controls and abilities to a twitchier style... I'd think that a lot of the enemy challenges would also have to be rebalanced, but is it so far from the difficulty changes that is seen in more quality games (like the changes in not only hitpoints, enemy numbers/encounters but as well as movesets)?

 

[Gattsu25]

Devil May Cry 3 would be better suited if it more closely followed the castlevania style than the Zelda style. The game is already the closest thing to a 3D Castlevania and it would need far fewer adjustments to fully take on that role as opposed to drastically changing almost every gameplay system to become a zelda-alike. The only aspect of DMC that could translate into a zelda-like game is the combat system. The ability aquisition, level progress, fuck...the entire world/level design will need some very drastic changes.

 

[The End]

Frankly, a more adventure-heavy game like God of War is closer to Zelda, but yeah, we're talking about the same genre here. Zelda is not a genre unto itself.

 

[SantaC]

the closest game to zelda ever is actually startropics.

 

[Zaptruder]

Devil May Cry 3 would be better suited if it more closely followed the castlevania style than the Zelda style. The game is already the closest thing to a 3D Castlevania and it would need far fewer adjustments to fully take on that role as opposed to drastically changing almost every gameplay system to become a zelda-alike. The only aspect of DMC that could translate into a zelda-like game is the combat system. The ability aquisition, level progress, fuck...the entire world/level design will need some very drastic changes.

But if they make the next game, is it really that big of a change?

It's not like the level design is an integral part of the game series; each level is sculpted for a purpose; and they're all assembled together to make a cohesive setting, not unlike an ARPG like Zelda. A good amount of planning that should ensue with any good game (that is to say, an amount of planning that isn't exceptionally different to what it would take to make a good game like DMC3) would take care of most of the details needed to make the transition from a game like DMC to Castlevania or even Zelda.

Note to self: find a copy of God of War...

 

[Docpan]

What the FUCK is wrong with you

 

[6.8]

But more importantly, how different is DMC(3) from Nintendogs?

 

[evil ways]

DMC is too fast for Zelda, especially DMC3. Zelda's focus is on adventure and exploration, DMC on the other hand is about showing off and killing as many enemies as possible as quickly as you can while looking good doing it.

 

[Wired]

What about them Apples and Oranges?

&

Seriously, it seems like the core of the fruits aren't too different.

That is to say, both fruits are round, have skin, grow on trees and can be eaten.

It's true that the feel of the two fruits are very different... but to me it seems as if it wouldn't require a huge stretch to make an apple into an uber sweet fruit like them there oranges... but the question then is would there be a market for it? Have there been fruits in such a vein? Or even fruits that have taken apple seeds and made them into orange seeds as well?.

What else would it take to move a fruit like an apple, if it already features the kind of shape & pesticide infusion that is the core to oranges nowadays?

 

[Zaptruder]

What about them Apples and Oranges?

&

Seriously, it seems like the core of the fruits aren't too different.

That is to say, both fruits are round, have skin, grow on trees and can be eaten.

It's true that the feel of the two fruits are very different... but to me it seems as if it wouldn't require a huge stretch to make an apple into an uber sweet fruit like them there oranges... but the question then is would there be a market for it? Have there been fruits in such a vein? Or even fruits that have taken apple seeds and made them into orange seeds as well?.

What else would it take to move a fruit like an apple, if it already features the kind of shape & pesticide infusion that is the core to oranges nowadays?

Dude... the fruit in between apples and oranges are peaches. Or nectarines.

They're sweet and round, have a relatively firm feel to them and are juicy. A different flavour maybe, but that's the nature of changing fruits. The skin on peaches/nectarines are also moderately edible; not quite as easy to ignore as apple skin, but easy enough that the taste can be ignored and the texture is relatively negligible.

On the other hand...

the only thing that's wrong with me is a curiosity about how well a game like the one I describe would play, and that if enough people and imagine of a concept where it would actually do quite well. I mean... I'm really just taking the strengths of the games and putting them together... it suprises me then that people would easily deride such an idea as an abomination.

On the otherhand, it could end up like Battlezone or Command and Conquer Renegade; both well meaning hybrid games combining 2 extremely popular PC genres, but not doing so well, even tho 1 did pretty well in a critical sense.

 

[ge-man]

I barely consider Zelda to be an action game, even though the fighting system is fairly competent. At it's heart it's a puzzle game--fights are mostly obstacles between puzzles. DMC is really a next gen beat'em up. It's fast and the challenge is centered around technique. So in the end I think both are very different.

That doesn't mean that you couldn't combine elements of the two types of games, but the execution would have to be on point. Pacing would be a constant problem. You also have to think about what things that make a good fighter/action game and a adventure/puzzle game need to be left out in order to get at a happy medium between the genres.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

ill give you 10 more posts before i send you back to ebaums world.

Why wait?

 

[Ghost]

Well, at least its an original idea..ill give you that.

 

[aperfectt00l]

My head hurts

 

[FortNinety]

Wow... just wow.

 

[Shompola]

man somebody should slap you with a baby seal or something.

 

[Brandon F]

Zelda's largest fault with combat isn't in the amount of technique or abilities Link has to offer, Nintendo has a pretty spiffy dueling structure in place. The enemies that harass Link are the real issue, braindead punching bags make up the bulk of Ganon's entourage.

More aggressive foes with some sort of inclination to defend themselves would help reinvest that lost intensity the Zelda games once offered. There is no doubt this would segregate a bit of the audience that appreciates Zelda for rewarding successful discovery of the sword button, but screw 'em I say. Make those extra heart containers worth a damn once again.

 

[Zaptruder]

Wow... just wow.

Care to elaborate? I mean you teach game design... is it wow that's a good idea why didn't I think of that, or wow, I can't believe anyone would think of something so stupid?

man somebody should slap you with a baby seal or something.

Haha.

Zelda's largest fault with combat isn't in the amount of technique or abilities Link has to offer, Nintendo has a pretty spiffy dueling structure in place. The enemies that harass Link are the real issue, braindead punching bags make up the bulk of Ganon's entourage.

More aggressive foes with some sort of inclination to defend themselves would help reinvest that lost intensity the Zelda games once offered. There is no doubt this would segregate a bit of the audience that appreciates Zelda for rewarding successful discovery of the sword button, but screw 'em I say. Make those extra heart containers worth a damn once again.

Damn straight... but even that said, it's not like you can't arrive at a suitable compromise by giving players a difficulty select; instead of labelling them easy or hard, label them: Adventure or Action mode to denote the change in combat focus.

 

[John Harker]

I don't think it would work.

Look at Virtua Quest. Look at Square's Ehgizer (sp?). Look at X-2 (ok it sold well, but stilll....) look at Resident Evil Outbreak series. Look at all those crappy, CRAPPY Mortal Kombat action spin off games, look at Megan Man Command Missions!

My point is, (unless your Mario), most well established franchies don't make a big impact when they do a cross-genre move. It causes dissonance in the fanbase of the game. Besides, its just a cheap way to milk a franchise instead of being original. At least, they rarely ever even equal the original franchise they came from. And I think it dilutes the brand.

 

[Zaptruder]

I don't think it would work.

Look at Virtua Quest. Look at Square's Ehgizer (sp?). Look at X-2 (ok it sold well, but stilll....) look at Resident Evil Outbreak series. Look at all those crappy, CRAPPY Mortal Kombat action spin off games, look at Megan Man Command Missions!

My point is, (unless your Mario), most well established franchies don't make a big impact when they do a cross-genre move. It causes dissonance in the fanbase of the game. Besides, its just a cheap way to milk a franchise instead of being original. At least, they rarely ever even equal the original franchise they came from. And I think it dilutes the brand.

The idea isn't to move any established franchise across, but rather how well would a game concept work with the frenetic feeling of the DMC combat system a long with the puzzle/exploration aspects of something like Zelda; they're two games that share a good amount of similarities, so it wouldn't be such a long stretch to have a game that could do well that combined the strengths of both games.
That said, I could still definetly see the upgrade to the combat system been a boon for Zelda games, so long as they still gave players the simplified less twitchy combat option (and balanced for it too).

 

[ourumov]

Putting aside that they belong to different genres and appeal to different public, IMHO the differences reside in 3 points:

1. Pacing. DMC is fast and you keep doing easy stuff like going from A to B in a pretty understandable way. Zelda is the caos, you always feel lost and don't know a fuck about what to do which sometimes is pretty frustrating (see Wind Waker sailing).

2. Fighting System. DMC is all about doing things in a cool way, Zelda doesn't focuss on fighting so this is managed in a pretty generic way.

3. Ambience. Then again Zelda focuses on the words epic/fantasy while DMC on style/gothic. DMC is just an excuse to show a man that is cooler than nobody, Zelda is the story of a kid who is involved into something that at first glance is to big for him.

 

[mrkgoo]

It doesn't matter about your intentions naymore Zaptruder, forever will this dominate your destiny. Actually it reminds me of my brother, who was likening Finanlfantasy X to streetfighter2. Probably more to annoy me, but he says in the battle there is confrontation, and based on the fighting screen, the 'presentation' looked like a fighting game, and thus in many ways the game is the same.

But he's insane anyway, and tries to make obscure links to unrelated things so as to enforce his claim to be able to think like noone else can.

 

[Drinky Crow]

But more importantly, how different is DMC(3) from Nintendogs?

DMC3 is a game. Nintendogs isn't.

What, you weren't serious? Fuck, *I* am.

 

[FortNinety]

Care to elaborate? I mean you teach game design... is it wow that's a good idea why didn't I think of that, or wow, I can't believe anyone would think of something so stupid?

Well....

My attitude with game concepts, is the same as they are with movies or books, is that there are only six or so original ideas out there, and everything is simply tweaks on familiar standards or by products of ideas when they are combined. So in that sense, what you are saying is correct.... to a certain extent.

But if you are going to have such attitude (like I do), than how the hell does one differentiate anything? You have to look beyond the pure facts and look for something else, a component that is harder to define, yet easy to identify: the game's feeling.

You listed all the hard data, such as its classification and some of the nuts and bolts, but both games offer totally different emotional experiences. And to ignore such a simple, basic component of the game experience to simply set up a comparison is... that's why I said wow.

 

[Ranger X]

Drugs does not fit you Zap.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

DMC3 is a game. Nintendogs isn't.

What, you weren't serious? Fuck, *I* am.

Cmon Crow. Throw me a bone. I know you can come up with better, more interesting posts than this.

Articulate my brotha!

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

What's the difference?

There have been good Zelda games.

*ZING!* :lol

 

[disabledHeliocentric]

In Zelda there are fun things to do aside from fighting.

 

[Dragmire]

Zelda's gameplay is about three things: exploration, puzzles, and fighting. I'd say the core of the two games are rather different, but a DMC game with all those elements nonetheless, could be enticing. It's surprising how few games actually emulate Zelda's structure, but the scope is far larger than most, if you think about it. I can't think of any games that have emulated the structure well. It takes a lot of effort to balance multiple concepts throughout a game.

Beyond Good and Evil, for example, has the same concepts as Zelda and I found it to be extremely unbalanced (I enjoyed it, but it's no Zelda). Other than that, all I can think of recently is the GTA series, which has two of the concepts: fighting and exploration. I'd say those kind of games are also rather large endeavors and few are capable of pulling them off. Games like this are probably more effort than their worth to most developers.

 

[Red Scarlet]

Pretty different, moreso depending on which Zelda game you are referring to.

 

[Attack You]

While there's a significant difference between DMC and Zelda, I think they share some strong similarities. Just a matter of balance and focus. I'd kill for a Zelda game with DMC (or even NG) combat, though. I think it would be out of character for Dante to have the patience for Zelda-style progression. Link also finds a need for all of his new toys, whereas I generally stick to my Rebellion/E&I combo and wouldn't be sure how much I'd appreciate "mastering" the other weapons of DMC out of necessity.

 

[SantaC]

lol even RE4 has more similarities with Zelda than DMC3

 

[C- Warrior]

Devil May Cry 3 is PURE action.

Ninja Gaiden is PURE action.

Zelda, is pretty MUCH PURE ADVENTURE. Unless you consider the combat system in Zelda games...a combat system. Even God of War has deeper combat than Zelda. :lol :lol


God of War is just an overrated peice of shit.

So RE4 wins.

 

[Crankenstein]

DMC is to Zelda is like cold Lunchables are to chef cooked Filet Mignon.

 

[Sriram]

How does Zelda have stat advancement?