|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canas Renvall Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:45 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:50 pm
 |
|
|
|
Biohazard EXTREME You know, there are some things in this world that need change. But that doesn't mean that we have to abandon EVERYTHING that we knew and loved.
I have to agree with Bio on this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it (though hit up the Gamespot reviews of just about every RE, and they always b***h about the controls). Any true RE fan loved the classic gameplay style. And while the gameplay always remained largely the same, it was still awesome, it was still fun, and we all loved it. And they always added little tweaks and enhancements in each installment to keep it fresh. I would have been perfectly content with the series going on and on with endless sequels and the same gameplay. Just like Street Fighter and Mega Man. That was half the fun of getting a new Resident Evil. What new environment are we gonna be exploring in this one? What kind of new enemies? And most importantly, what's gonna happen? What's the overall progression of the plot going to be?
Let me try to use an example of my own here: Doom is arguably the quintessential First-Person shooter, and it has a hardcore fanbase. Say they took Doom and completely changed it's gameplay into, I don't know, a turn-based RPG and set it in Final Fantasy land with Chocobos running around and s**t. And say it's a perfectly good RPG, and the environments themselves are nice. Is that the right thing to do with the series? Is the established fanbase going to be pleased with this change? Probably not. They're gonna be going, "WTF?!? What the ******** is this? This isn't Doom; This isn't an FPS! Why the hell am I not on Mars, and why the hell aren't their monsters from Hell?!?" something along those lines.
Up until RE4, Resident Evil was an established series; a series established on it's unique style of gameplay and it's continuing storyline revolving around the struggle of the protagonists against the all-powerful, faceless Umbrella Corporation, and revealing a little bit more of the mystery with each installment. The fact that all the titles were leading to the subsequent destruction of Umbrella was fantastic until you booted up RE4 and heard that it takes place six years after Umbrella was taken out. Like, holy s**t. Really? You mean the biggest reason why there were previous installments has just been swept under the carpet?
As someone who has been faithful to the Resident Evil series since it was conceived, RE4 and soon to be 5 are taking an entirely different route to appeal to the masses. See, I could live with the change. RE4s gameplay (while repetitive) is not bad by any means. I would be much more forgiving of RE4 if it's storyline had anything to do with anything, and wasn't so crap. The only way they can really justify RE4's existence now is if they explain in RE5 that the same viral agent relates to both the origins of the Progenitor Virus and the Las Plagas. That's really the only thing they can do to make it relevant. Do I think that's kind of retarded? Yes. But unfortunately, RE4 happened. It's not going away, and they have to do something to tie it in with the rest of the storyline.
And dude, StP, Zelda is an RPG. It's always been an RPG. Is RE4 an RPG...? Well, I don't know. It certainly had RPG elements to it. But I didn't really feel as though I was playing an RPG while running through it. Technically though, I'd have to say Bio is right.
Stranger to Paradise But since the enemies in that game were parasites with human hosts wearing clothes, it is believable for those contents to be on them.
It's believable for a bunch of farmers to be carrying shotgun shells up their butt? Even though none of them use shotguns, just pitchforks and s**t?
Canas Renvall If they're (the movies) so crap, why did RE4 copy them?
lol, this makes me laugh. rofl Don't you hate RE4? Going by that logic, why is RE4 so crap then? After all, It has those super kewl laser corridors from those awesome movies. And what's Resident Evil without a laser corridor somewhere?
What's Resident Evil without an Umbrella A.I. named the Red Queen?
What's Resident Evil without a super-powered main protagonist that runs across walls and and roundhouse kicks zombie dogs all matrix-wannabe style?
You wanna b***h about too much mindless action and not enough horror in your Resident Evil? You wanna b***h about the playable characters being way too powerful, bordering on the point of super-human in your Resident Evil? You wanna b***h about matrix-style backflips in your Resident Evil? Blame those god-awful ********' movies, man.
EDIT: Capcom may be ultimately responsible for implementing that crap into the games, but if Anderson wasn't a ********, and actually had cool, original ideas, then Capcom might actually have something good to implement from the movies. I'm sorry. I just feel very strongly about this. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:00 pm
|
|
|
|
Thee Stranger, please don't tell me that you actually count Gamespot reviews for something?
Gamespot and IGN are the two websites with least credible reviews on earth. They have great features, previews, screenshots, articles, etc. But Reviews? Hell no.
I mean, if people are gonna b***h about tank controls, why not b***h about turn based strategy games like Advance Wars? Or Harvest Moon? Or any other game/genre that has its own particular niche that might not necessarily appeal to everyone, but at the same time, has a deathly loyal cult following.
And that's how it was with RE. That's why I'm so bitter toward what Capcom turned it into. I was one of those die hard followers of what RE was about, and once they changed what it was about... Well, I don't want to be a part of THAT RE universe.
Oh, and Beta, if you don't like the movies, that's fine. But using the movies as a scapegoat to why the GAMES suck. That's really pushing it. Like I said, if they decided to use conventions like laser hallways and Red Queen, then it's Capcom's own fault for running out of ideas.
Frankly, I think the idea of Red Queen the AI is not bad, but Capcom executed it so badly, just because they actually retconned it into the Spencer Estate.
No! You don't ******** with what's already been established!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:52 pm
|
|
|
 |
No, Bio. I don't really hold much weight to Gamestop's reviews, and I think they are biased on a lot of things, but that's a discussion for another day. What I was basically trying to illustate is, a lot reviews complained about the 'awkward', 'clunky' controls. I'm sure Capcom read a few of them, and that was another reason why they decided to change gameplay. I think we're on the same page as to whether that was the correct decision to make.
And I get what you're saying, and I empathize. I know exactly what you mean, believe me. I consider myself a pretty hardcore fan too. And I hold a lot of contempt for RE4 fanboys, as immature as I know that is. Thing is, in my humble opinion, Resident Evil could still work on some level with this new gameplay. It doesn't look as if we're gonna be seeing a true "Surivial Horror" RE any time in the near future, if ever again. As sad as that is, it looks as though RE5 is at least going to deliver a Resident Evil-esque kind of storyline this time around (as Resident Evil as it can get in the aftermath of RE4). I'm curious as to what they're going to do with it. Curiosity may kill the cat, but I've played all the classics through so many times, I need something fresh. I just want to play through a new RE that will actually progress the established plotlines introduced in the past games, and it looks as though RE5 is going to bring a lot of those old plot threads to a climax. Capcom is taking Resident Evil into a new direction for a new fanbase, and for us longtime fans, RE5 is looking as though it's going to be the last hurrah. There's a fairly realistic chance that RE5 will be the final game for the series' two most prominent villains (Wesker & Spencer), and possibly the last for one for Chris as well. The origin of the Progenitor Virus is really one of the last remaining mysteries from the RE of old, along with Spencer's true motives, and 5 is looking as though it's going to wrap up the plot started in the first game. I'm sure Wesker will mutate into some grotesque monster at the end, and Chris will finally kill him. And I'm fine with that. After that, I can be done with RE. And, perhaps, accept it for what it was, as turbulent of a ride as it's been, with all of it's ups and downs; all of it's glory as well as all of it's flaws. All my favorite game franchises seem to have one big bump in the road *cough*MGS2*cough* We all know RE will continue on and on and on, but it looks like 5 is going to be a de facto finale before things change even further. And then after that, ******** Resident Evil, the RE4 n00bs can have it back; with the further adventures of Leon and Ada, or whatever the hell it is that the RE4 fanboys and girls are into. Whatever it is, I'm not going to be a part of it.
And I don't know if you were referring to Beta so much as you were referring to me, but I'm with Beta on the fact that the movies were a big factor in the new direction Capcom decided to steer the series in. True, Capcom shouldn't have implemented that crap in the first place (because it's all crap), but if those movies never existed in the first place, neither would a lot of the crap you're seeing in the games now. We're just not gonna see eye-to-eye on this one. Because frankly, I hate those movies. I really can't express that enough; I can't stand those movies. They're a disgrace to the Resident Evil name if you ask me. And the first tarnish on it's reputation, paving the way for the rest of the list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:27 pm
|
|
|
|
Well, that's the problem with RE4. It wasn't JUST the gameplay. It wasn't JUST the storyline. It wasn't JUST the crappy, overhollywoodized dialogue. It was the combination of everything that ruined it.
I mean, Survivor was a crappy FPS. Code Veronica had the Melodramatic Dialogue down to a science. And let's face it, James Marcus and the whole RE0 storyline didn't do the overall plot any favors. But those things separately, can still be forgiven, because that's ALL that was wrong with those games.
But if you change EVERYTHING... And let's face it, RE4 changed EVERYTHING... That's when you end up with something that's not Resident Evil at all.
Oh, and the fact that you mentioned Wesker transforming into a monster, which no doubt will probably happen, is one of the many reasons why I don't want the new storyline. It was bad enough they way they portrayed Wesker in UC, which is worse than RE4 in many aspects. But now they'll be turning Wesker into another Sergei, and that's just a crime against Resident Evil. Half a Sergei would be one too many. That, along with many other things that took the plot into a fantasy rather than Sci-Fi direction, is the reason why I don't want anything to do with the new RE anymore. It's sad and funny at the same time how little I actually care about what's gonna happen in RE5.
People ask me, "Aren't you curious?"
No, I'm honestly not. Not even one tiny bit. The series is dead to me, period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:30 am
|
|
|
|
Biohazard EXTREME People ask me, "Aren't you curious?" No, I'm honestly not. Not even one tiny bit. The series is dead to me, period.
I know, dude. xd And that's cool. That's why I didn't ask. I already know the answer, and that you feel very strongly about it. Like I said, I understand it completely. And I certainly don't agree with everything you say, but it's good to have Mavericks like you amongst us. It only makes for entertaining discussion and debate. Your contempt for the direction of the series probably equals my contempt for the films. Maybe exceeds it.
I actually didn't mind Survivor. It certainly wasn't great, but the story intrigued me, and it was quite short too, so it provided a worthy distraction. And I remember that it didn't have a very high price tag upon release, so you get what you pay for. However, I haven't played it in years, and am sure it's probably only gotten worse with age. Code Veronica was definitely cheesy. To be honest, I think it was retarded that they ever brought Wesker back in the first place. I always liked Wesker, but before CVX, I always just viewed him as the sneaky little shithead that ultimately got owned by Tyrant in RE1 due to his own stupidity. Yeah, it was cool to see him back in CVX, and they made him more badass. But it was still a pretty retarded plot device. And to be honest, I always saw a transformation as Wesker's ultimate fate. After all, he injected a virus that Birkin developed. Look what happened when Birkin did that to himself.
And I agree wholeheartedly about RE0. I mean, that's pretty much when it started to get really dumb. And then you got Dr. Douche in sorcerer garb singing opera on the mountain top and s**t. xd You wanna talk about some Final Fantasy s**t... and then you got UC and Sergei. Yeah, basically the same problems that you got with RE0: Retconning. Retconning always ******** with the flow of the story, especially when they're changing s**t around, and Capcom just went overboard with it. But I don't really consider UC canon anyway. Know why? Barry. Where's Barry? What the ********, how could you not include Barry in the Mansion scenario? Barry was there, but he was not there in UC, therefore, not canon in my book.
See, I do something similar to what you do in the respects that you don't count RE4 and onward as canon. What I do is just pick and choose things from RE3, UC and RE0 that I need. Basically, all that I count as canon in RE0 is the origins of the T-virus. That being that it was created by a guy named Marcus who injected the Progenitor Virus into leech DNA. But all that s**t with Rebecca and Billy in the train, training facilty, etc.? Nah, never happened. There is no Billy. ******** Billy. That quarantine placed on the city in RE3? Nah, never happened until shortly before they blew it up. Basically all I take from UC is that the remaining S.T.A.R.S. members (including Barry) eventually took out Umbrella's main headquarters with a little help from Wesker behind the scenes, who then acquired all of Umbrella's data. Sergei? Nah, never existed. Well, maybe he existed, but he wasn't at the mansion. He got that T-A.L.O.S. prototype from somewhere else. Actually, it makes more sense to take him out. Because with Segei being there in UC, why does Wesker hate Chris so much? Wesker blew the mansion as he had planned, he let the Tyrant kill him as planned, and according to UC, Chris & Jill didn't really do s**t. Besides defeat the Tyrant. So what? It was Sergei who prevented him from getting the data he needed. So why the big rivalry with Chris? So I just pick and choose s**t, because Capcom hasn't been able to weave a coherent storyline since RE2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:55 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:24 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:14 am
|
|
|
|
I still have to disagree with you both (Thee Stranger and Bio). It hasn't always been an RPG. It is an Action-Adventure series ('Cept for one), for that's what I've always heard it as referred to (And what I like to consider it to be). Now, if you say just because that's what you've always heard it to be doesn't make it so, Bio is doing the same thing were all he's ever heard it to be considered is an Action-RPG. So, for personal preferences, you can consider it an Action-RPG title, while I shall consider it an Action-Adventure title. Read the first sentence of The Legend of Zelda Series Wiki description for further backings. Or any website for that matter. I think they'll agree with my take on the series. But, out of curiosity, if you don't consider the LoZ series to be Action-Adventure titles, what do you?
I read both your agreements (Ha ha hardcore mavericks) with each other and I must agree with a lot of your points, though I find a couple rather unfair.
I. Resident Evil was never broke, as I believe you will concur. There was nothing that needed to be fixed: the game play was fun and fulfilling. The plot was intriguing as well (Though I must disagree with Bio when you say the games were just Science Fiction. It was Fantasy as much as it was Science Fiction). Now, just because a game is not broke doesn't mean you cannot re-gear it. I personally think the tweaks made is beyond your statement of it being like Doom transitioning from Shooter to Turn Based RPG. Some people still consider it survival horror. I personally do, as for the fact that it did indeed scare me and had me low on supplies quite frequently, hence me having a hard time trying to survive. Now, I know it wasn't a realistic survival horror, but it was still as such none the less. Also, you still went around and did the basic elements that all Resident Evil games had by shooting monsters and solving puzzles, albeit in a different manner. Now, a series established on a unique style of game play and continuing storyline does not always have to stay as so, which is why the developers chose to go in the direction they did. As with that, why is change so bad? And to be perfectly honest, the dialogue was always bad. Jill Sandwich. Come on! Maybe not always RE4 bad, but...Jill Sandwich! That is, of course, a joke.
II. I find it acceptable for you to ignore a certain game set within a series because you don't consider it canon, but to allow such a game to exist set within the parameters of your own personal canon AND not recognize every single plot point within that game? That is pretty hypocritical. The series is not how you personally recognize it...Hmm. Or can it be? I guess so...Still...I never ignored a single plot point (Unless I haven't played it), no matter how silly or impossible it to be. Well, that's for you to decide then. Funny how now you don't consider UC to be canon Thee Stranger, when you gave me a hard time with our previous debate which I lost about how I didn't know all the facts. Funny. Baah, I'm just joking. I wouldn't consider myself a hardcore maverick of the series, but of games in general, which is where I draw my arguments from, just to let you know. Are my points coming across any of you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:27 pm
|
|
|
|
AngelaAshford But Gaiden happened and they ended up not making that cannon (same goes for Dead Aim)... And why does Wesker hate Chris so much? It's simple, he gets the girl. Wesker's only choice was a batshit heiress who rejected him and then she died, and now a slutty Jennifer Lopez look-alike. If you were him, you'd be jealous too. Anyone who played 2 found out about his secret pining for the "new recruit" thanks to Film D, but that was a tad creepy.
True. But firstly, those games weren't hits like RE4. Secondly, the title of the game is RE4. They couldn't just go ahead and say that #4 is not canon.
rofl okay. I remember that photo. You have to search his desk an awful lot of times... but yeah, that is kinda creepy. Wekser's a *****! eek Personally I'd take the slutty J-Lo look-alike over Rebecca any day. Sorry, 'Becca. I usually make bad choices when it comes to women. But that's another story.
I think if you really want to get into it, the reason Wesker probably hates Chris so much is probably simply because Chris survived. So it's probably an ego thing, being that Chris defeated the Tyrant (which Wesker helped develop). The surviving S.T.A.R.S. members then tried to make the incident public, and were snooping around Umbrella activities. It's a safe bet that Wesker is a perfectionist, and doesn't like failure in any form. Why he doesn't hate Jill just as much is beyond me, though.
Stranger to Paradise I still have to disagree with you both (Thee Stranger and Bio). It hasn't always been an RPG. It is an Action-Adventure series ('Cept for one), for that's what I've always heard it as referred to (And what I like to consider it to be). Now, if you say just because that's what you've always heard it to be doesn't make it so, Bio is doing the same thing were all he's ever heard it to be considered is an Action-RPG. So, for personal preferences, you can consider it an Action-RPG title, while I shall consider it an Action-Adventure title. Read the first sentence of The Legend of Zelda Series Wiki description for further backings. Or any website for that matter. I think they'll agree with my take on the series. But, out of curiosity, if you don't consider the LoZ series to be Action-Adventure titles, what do you?
Alright, well... I'm just going to give this one to you. Because it's so grounded in personal preference and opinion that arguing about it would be just as effective as trying to argue whether or not tomatoes taste good. And Wikipedia isn't the be all and end all of knowledge. The way I look at it is, other than the combat itself, everything revolving around the gameplay of the Zelda games are all the common principles attributed to RPGs . That's why I consider it an RPG. That, and the epic storyline, vast environments, dungeons, etc. Also, I thought that it has always been officially classified as an RPG, but you have proved me wrong.
Stranger to Paradise Now, just because a game is not broke doesn't mean you cannot re-gear it. I personally think the tweaks made is beyond your statement of it being like Doom transitioning from Shooter to Turn Based RPG.
There's a big difference between "re-gearing" something, and completely changing it. "Re-gearing" or "tweaking" is making slight or significant modifications or enhancements to something old. Streamlining, enhancing the controls, or adding new features would be considered tweaks. The auto-aim, defensive weapons, dodge, etc. are tweaks that would be considered re-gearing it. That's not what RE4 did. RE4 did not "tweak" the gameplay; it completely changed the gameplay entirely. There is absolutely no similarity between the gameplay of RE4 and it's predecessors (or the story for that matter). So how does the example I gave with Doom not illustrate the exact same thing that happened with RE4?
Stranger to Paradise Some people still consider it survival horror. I personally do, as for the fact that it did indeed scare me and had me low on supplies quite frequently, hence me having a hard time trying to survive. Now, I know it wasn't a realistic survival horror, but it was still as such none the less.
Well, the good majority of those people are RE4 n00bs. Sorry. They can consider it Survival Horror all they want, but the fact remains that it is not. RE4 is not Survival Horror. It was not what Survival Horror was founded on. It contains no elements of what Survival Horror is, or what it is supposed to be. Low on supplies, are you kidding? Yeah, maybe for about the first 15 minutes of the game. After that, you can walk right through it, blasting everything in sight. Survival Horror is about atmosphere. Survival Horror is about exploration, and not knowing what's going to be behind that door. Survival Horror places an emphasis on limited ammo and weaponry. You have to avoid fights; not kill everything you come across. And if you can say the same thing for RE4, that only makes you a liar. For instance, in the original Alone in the Dark, there were certain enemies that you could not kill at all. You had no choice but to run away. Stuff like that makes you very weary of the enemies you're up against, and very conscious of your limited ammo count, and how exactly you're going to go about your strategy in circumventing the enemy. Let's take REmake into consideration for a second here. Remember those Crimson Heads? You sure as s**t wanted to burn all those bodies before they came back as one of those nasties. They were vicious little bastards, and they were tough to put down. You would walk up to a door, and be like, "You know, I killed three zombies in there a while back, I think I'm gonna take a different route..." and then you'd be going along an alternate path to your destination, and you'd see a dead zombie that you killed shortly before, and you'd be cautiously walking past it, thinking, "Oh god, I hope to s**t he's not a Crimson Head yet..." and you would find yourself breathing a sigh of relief when you walked past the corpse without incident. Then you'd get to the door, it slowly opens and shuts, and you feel safe. You're casually walking though a hallway and suddenly, "GRAAHH!" A Crimson Head that you completely forgot about pops up out of nowhere, and you immediately tense up, and are like, "OH s**t! RUN! GET TO THE DOOR! QUICK!"
Now this is a stark contrast to RE4's, "<******** yeah, I have every gun in the entire known world in my attache case with s**t-tons of ammunition; kick the ********' door open and Rambo this s**t!" Now, is that fun? Sure. Is it Survival Horror? No. It's an action game. Plain and simple.
Stranger to Paradise Also, you still went around and did the basic elements that all Resident Evil games had by shooting monsters and solving puzzles, albeit in a different manner.
True enough... but you call that mindless fodder they throw at you in RE4 puzzles?!? rofl And there was like, what? Three puzzles in that whole game?
Stranger to Paradise Now, a series established on a unique style of game play and continuing storyline does not always have to stay as so, which is why the developers chose to go in the direction they did.
You're right. For that matter, why should any game franchise have to stay the same? They should start changing everything! And while we're at it, I'm getting kind of bored of what Zelda is. Let's completely change Zelda into a linear 2D side-scrolling platform game like Contra or something and have it not be set in Hyrule, and have Zelda and Ganon die right in the beginning, and have Link fight space aliens. Or perhaps we should make it a turn-based RPG. At least then we could eliminate that little debate. And since storylines don't always have to be consistent, let's take the Empire (Umbrella), and the Jedis and lightsabers (Zombies) out of the next Star Wars movie, and have it be set on the planet Earth. Who needs a galaxy far, far away for it to be Star Wars? After all, established plots don't matter, and they don't have to stay the same. We can just sweep everything that makes Star Wars what it is under the carpet and start fresh before we even finish the story arc of original trilogy! Brilliance! Now we can just leave you to scratch your head and speculate how Luke and friends took Vader and the Empire down. Better yet, let's make another Evil Dead movie, and have another actor playing as Ash, and have the Necronomicon get destroyed right in the very beginning, and have the setting be on a ship in outer space, and have Ash fighting bioengineered alien zombies instead. Well, why not? They're evil, and they're dead, and they're still monsters! Same concept! Well, no. Its really not. Not one bit. And then we can sit back and wonder why Evil Dead's original cult fanbase is unhappy with the change. So are you getting this? Do you see what I'm saying here? They basically took ALL of the core elements that made Resident Evil what it was and chucked it out the window. And I know you guys desperately want RE4 to be considered a true Resident Evil Survival Horror game. But it's not. It never will be. Accept it.
Stranger to Paradise As with that, why is change so bad? And to be perfectly honest, the dialogue was always bad. Jill Sandwich. Come on! Maybe not always RE4 bad, but...Jill Sandwich! That is, of course, a joke.
Change itself isn't always bad. But RE4 was not a change for the better. It changed way too much. It changed things that shouldn't have been changed. It was an unwelcome change. Take that gameplay, take that setting, and make an entirely new game franchise out of it. Leave RE alone. That way, everyone would have been happy. And as far as the dialogue, can't argue with you there. I agree with you for once. It's always been bad. But RE1's dialogue was so bad it was good.
Stranger to Paradise II. I find it acceptable for you to ignore a certain game set within a series because you don't consider it canon, but to allow such a game to exist set within the parameters of your own personal canon AND not recognize every single plot point within that game? That is pretty hypocritical. The series is not how you personally recognize it...Hmm. Or can it be? I guess so...Still...I never ignored a single plot point (Unless I haven't played it), no matter how silly or impossible it to be. Well, that's for you to decide then. Funny how now you don't consider UC to be canon Thee Stranger, when you gave me a hard time with our previous debate which I lost about how I didn't know all the facts. Funny. Baah, I'm just joking. I wouldn't consider myself a hardcore maverick of the series, but of games in general, which is where I draw my arguments from, just to let you know. Are my points coming across any of you?
How is that hypocritical...? Why can't the series be how I personally recognize it? It's not like I'm imposing my personal canon onto anybody else. It's something I do for myself in order to keep the main plot coherent and free of contradictions. I know the series isn't truly how I personally choose to accept it, and I don't use my own personal canon for debate. I use Capcom's official canon, even though it's full of holes. My official canon is better, though. It makes more sense, and it's much less convoluted. And Wesker obtaining all of Umbrella's data at the end of UC is in my official canon too, and that was the only part of the game that I used in our debate. And yes, your points are coming across.... but I strongly disagree with most of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:30 pm
|
|
|
|
I. I'm sorry, but you and I have different meanings for the term re-gearing. To showcase my interpretation, let me use the simple example of replacing batteries (The same can work with a car's engine, which is what I was originally going to display). An electronic device will work fine as long as it has battery power, but when those batteries run out, you'll have to eventually replace them. When you do, the device runs anew in the same manner of fashion it always has, 'cept with new batteries. That's exactly what the Resident Evil franchise has done. The batteries were running out on it, and they had to replace them by changing the game's format, but not essentially what it was altogether. Call me a RE4 noob all you like, I still view it as a survival horror game. Yeah, so what, I was not good at maintaining supplies on my first run-through, which is why I might have still considered it survival horror. And the Parasites were just as a pain in the a** as the Crimson Heads in my opinion. Also, in RE4, I have had to run from enemies and flee the room on many instances. Since it is all opinionated, I'll be the noob on this one and you can be all pro about it. I can concede that runs after the first time were more action-horror based then survival, but for the first time, totally survival. I egress this particular argument.
II. Funny enough, all that you mentioned would be fine as me. A futuristic space alien fighting Link? Count me in. And as long as there was another Evil Dead. Being a member of the cult audience for Evil Dead since age 4, I'd be happy to see another iteration even going as so goofy as that. Of course I'm only joking, but I love how you acted overly hysterical, insisting that Resident Evil did take that big plunge as such Link fighting space aliens. Jesus effing Christ. Is the leap from Survival Horror to Action Horror (As I have now concede to the fact in the last argument) that big of a deal? Even for a hardcore fan of the originals? Being a loyal deadite, that's not nearly as intolerable as a Horror/Evil Dead fanatic witnessing the Army of Darkness for the first time, yet here I am, loving the s**t out the changes made. And to think what type of a change it did go through. Pure unadulterated horror to comedic splatstick? Now that is a huge ******** change. But all Resident Evil did was give you more guns while still delivering all the god damn scares and exhilarating moments and challenging game play and must I say intriguing storyline that the original games did. If you see it as the changes made were not to your liking then all of our arguments, everything we have been fist shaking about is all based on our own personal preferences and strongly held beliefs in which neither of us will be able to provoke a change of opinion from the other, which is why I see fit to ask what more could we argue about that is worth a click of our keyboards?
This I guess:
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
DO YOU DISAGREE?
At least my points are coming across. But still, what games or series do you consider action adventure, if for personal preference you wish to believe LoZ is a RPG?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:04 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:07 pm
|
|
|
|
Biohazard EXTREME Oh, and Beta, if you don't like the movies, that's fine. But using the movies as a scapegoat to why the GAMES suck. That's really pushing it. Like I said, if they decided to use conventions like laser hallways and Red Queen, then it's Capcom's own fault for running out of ideas.
Chill, chill, chill Bio, I was just giving MY take on why the games took a different turn, if I honestly thought RE4 sucked complete a**, then I wouldn't spent my $60 on the game in the first place. Sure it wasn't my cup of tea, but I just played it for the story. I'm not going all anti-Resident Evil. Plus I agree with you 100%, RE 1, 2, especially 3 are held very sacred in the Resident Evil world. Very crucial to the story line.
God I love a good debate. razz |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
