Fans of the Devil May Cry series in the States have taken belligerent whining to the next level, petitioning the White House to have DmC pulled from the shelves. Why would they do this? Because they don’t like the direction that Dante’s latest adventure has taken.

“We, as consumers did not want nor need this reboot and we believe it violates our rights to have a choice between the original’s or the reboot. This game is violating our rights as a consumer and we believe it should be pulled off shelves from game stores due to it’s insulting nature and the fact that it violates our rights.”

I don’t know what makes me sadder, the fact that someone was so incandescent with rage over the fact that DmC differs from the original Devil May Cry titles that they had to raise a petition, or the fact that 41 sad sacks signed the damn thing.

Reboots happen, series’ move off in new directions and sequels, prequels and other quels do things which we, as gamers, are ultimately disappointed by. By all means, use the power of Social Media and this golden age of inter-connectivity between gamers and developers to share your dismay in a constructive manner. It is constructive criticism and cogent, well reasoned argument that shapes the future of gaming. Asking the President to recall a game because it didn’t tickle your nostalgia gland, on the other hand, is most definitely NOT the way to go. The sad thing is, we’re seeing it more and more.

Take the Mass Effect 3 ending fiasco, for example. I’ve not yet dived into the world of Mass Effect so the entire thing kind of passed me by, but I still found myself pulled into the Twitter fallout. So disappointed were the fans with the ending to the third entry in their beloved series, that refunds were offered to dissatisfied customers and ultimately, DLC was released to alter the ending.

One disgruntled fan, Spike Murphy, decided to take official action and filed a complaint with Federal Trade Commission, an American agency which protects consumer rights. In his complaint, Murphy argued that “after reading through the list of promises about the ending of the game they made in their advertising campaign and PR interviews, it was clear that the product we got did not live up to any of those claims.”

Of course it’s not all bad. Look at the response to the recent Dead Island: Riptide controversy. Fans were disgusted by the inclusion of a statuette in the Zombie Bait special edition, which took the form of a torn, bloodied and very large breasted torso. Clearly Deep Silver intended this as a tongue-in-cheek novelty item, but the general reception was poor and gamers were outraged by what was seen as, at best, an item of questionable taste and at worst, yet another example of the over-sexualisation of the female form in gaming.

Deep Silver responded to the social media storm which followed the special edition announcement with a rapid apology, stating “We sincerely regret this choice. We are collecting feedback continuously from the Dead Island community, as well as the international gaming community at large, for ongoing internal meetings with Deep Silver’s entire international team today.”.

Despite some claims that the entire thing was a publicity stunt, given the speed at which Deep Silver apologised and backed down, this does show a positive use of social media to register a complaint over something which genuinely upset fans and for good reason, as well as a good response from developer. Unfortunately, we are seeing far too many cases of the opposite holding true.

Where does it end? I’m not a fan of Too Human. Is that down to the developers or is that down to my personal preference? Personally, I didn’t feel that the title had enough about it to grab me, it felt formulaic and outright boring.

In response to this blatant attack on my consumer rights, my civil liberties and my basic human needs, I did…nothing. Well, I decided not to play Too Human any more, but that was that. I didn’t sue Silicon Knights, I didn’t raise a petition against them and I didn’t call out a hit on the company president.

I made no secret of my dislike for the game, had I have been reviewing it, it wouldn’t have scored well and if Silicon Knights happen to be reading this, you didn’t put nearly enough thought into that one but good luck for the future. That’s how you deal with disappointment, fellow gamers.

Do you think some gamers take things to far when it comes to being disappointed with games? How do you think we could react better? Let us know in the comments below or hit us up on Twitter.

Categories: Features

Sir, I don't actually think I begin to articulate just how much I disagree with you. I thought the complaints about the Mass Effect 3 ending and the Devil May Cry reboot were completely justified while the outcry concerning Dead Island was utterly ridiculous. I would just like to point out the rampant contradiction of your article. You claim that backing down from the dismembered torso statue is a positive change, yet asking for an ending change is not? I not understand, how are you quantifying positive and negative changes? You claim that this change was enacted for good reason, but who are you to make the judgement that revoking a dismember torso is "good" and disliking the way a finished product is looking or has been released (Mass Effect 3, DmC: Devil May Cry) is bad?


I seriously do not understand why, nearly every journalist gaming site has decided to brand anyone who dislikes something that a developer or publisher decides to push, either entitled or childish. At any rate, back to the subject at hand the new Devil May Cry title. While, the new look of Dante is purely aesthetic, it lies at the heart of a much larger problem. I believe at the core, the nuances, that the original fan base came to know and love from the pre-reboot series, have changed been enough, so that one could arguably no longer even call it a Devil May Cry game. Sure subtleties like the new hair color, re-design of the character, varied music choices, and new voice actors were annoying at first, but the fans could get over them if the rest of the game was well grounded in the series. The much larger problem lies in core changes; to the combat system, to the difficulty of the game, to the dropping frame rate etc. . . These changes, while certainly interesting ideas, really did not mesh well in the game series. It is because of this that I believe that many of the fans of the original series dislike the reboot. I would have been much more keen on seeing Ninja Theory create their own series (IP) with new characters, rather then attempt, yet fail miserably, at recreating pre-existing ones. Personally, after playing the demo, I decided that the game created no longer appeals to me, but of course, I am just one person.

Find Us On

Ads & Affiliates