|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:51 pm
 |
|
|
 |
We're having this argument because you're saying that just because the character looks similar and has the same name, it's the same character.
But when looking at it purely from a writer's perspective, the Wesker of RE1 and the Wesker of UC are two completely different characters. They act differently, talk differently... Frankly, when playing REmake, I never once got the sense that it was in Wesker's character to say something like, "You will regret this, my lady."
Sure, D.C. Douglas did a horrible job trying to immitate an English accent in UC, but maybe if his lines weren't written for a jolly good Englishman, he would've done something different, and perhaps decent.
The point is, whether you like it or not, the character portrayed in UC is VERY different from the character portrayed in RE1. So how am I supposed to play it and say, "Yeah, that's Wesker, alright. That's just like something he'd say."
Heck, as much as I hate RE4, even in THAT game, Wesker was more natural, and better acted out. Despite his desk job, I still felt like, "Yeah, that's how Wesker would say it." At the very least, the Code Veronica Wesker. But in UC, he crossed a new line of badly written.
I mean, sure, Wesker in RE1 is different from Wesker in Code Veronica, I'll be the first to admit that, and yes, it's very inconsistent, but I could chalk it up to the time that's passed and his whole ordeal changed him significantly.
But in UC, Wesker was a jolly old English villain cliche' right from RE0 scenario, and through til the end. So no, that 'Wesker' is not the same character I know and love. That's my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:11 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:25 pm
|
|
|
|
Wow, dude. Just wow.
Stranger to Paradise I took auto class as an elective in high school. If you did too, then you might understand this.You can always replace a car's engine dude, even if it's nowhere near breaking down. It's called altering, improvement for better handling for a car that was handling like an old beater (stale) since it ran it's miles. Now it runs like new, but look at that, same car.
DURRR. Is that the analogy you used? No. But it's basically the same thing anyway. Read your analogy:
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.
So when the batteries run out, or when the engine wears down, you'll eventually have to replace it. That's replacing a part, or fixing it so it can continue to work. And again (and again, and again) this analogy does not work for RE4. It works for stuff like REmake, and RE3, and RE0; because they added new features to the same gameplay. They installed a new engine to make the car run like new. But look at that, same car. Is RE4 the same car? No, it's not.
Stranger to Paradise My friend, first of all, you should know that "re-" is a precedent and can be placed before any word to indicate that what you want do with it is to refurbish it, hence, re-gear meaning to gear (assemble) it again. That being said, I realize I should have taken out the - to make it less confusing (I know even then it still wouldn't be an official word), but the fact that you couldn't conceive what I was trying to assert is incredulous.
Umm, I could conceive it. I did conceive it. And as I've already pointed out, my interpretation of it is exactly the same as yours.
Stranger to Paradise Let's look at "tweaks" now. Of course, a tweak is a minor change made to something. Looking at the instance I used the word, I wasn't just talking about the game play, but the game as a whole. And in the eyes of many, the type of game change from Survival-Horror to Action-Horror is considered to be a tweak, especially if the mass majority (Or RE4 noobs such as the actual game designers) still believe it to be survival horror, friend. Can you interpret that now? God, I hope so. I don't think I could simplify it anymore then that.
Do me a favor. Look up the definition of the word 'tweak'. To tweak something is to make adjustments, or fine-tuning to something old. It's the exact same thing as your whole analogy. Again, that's not what RE4 did. RE4 replaced the whole entire car. Do you get it now? God, I hope so. I don't think I could simplify it anymore than that.
Stranger to Paradise Explain I shall. Would anybody in their right effing mind call an electronic device that isn't functioning because it ran out of batteries BROKEN? (If you want, I'll ask that question in the Grill, and if dry batteries is considered to be broken, I'll shut my mouth on the subject.) That is just being ignorant. It did not bust, it got stale, friend, which is why the change occurred in the first place.
Exactly. Again, you're taking it literally. The point is, according to your analogy, a part needed to be replaced (because it ran out of batteries). Therefore, the old gameplay ran out of batteries, or was stale, or was broken, and needed to be fixed. Therefore, you've contradicted yourself:
"Resident Evil was never broke, as I believe you will concur. There was nothing that needed to be fixed"
But you're saying the gameplay was getting stale and did need to be fixed. So which is it? How have you not contradicted yourself? Getting it yet? Jesus Christ Krispie Treats, I hope so.
Stranger to Paradise I just presented the logic which made this whole effing paragraph a waste of time. Next.
rofl You're absolutely right. It's the same logic you originally presented. And it's the same logic that still doesn't work. So, I agree. Everything you've posted up until now has been a complete waste of time.
Next.
Stranger to Paradise Hahahahaha, your laughing made me laugh.
Hahahahaha, "your" is possessive. "You're" is a contraction of you are. This concludes our 2nd grade English lesson.
Stranger to Paradise Don't claim facts you've heard that you're not even sure about. I got in trouble for that with you, so don't be a hypocrite.
Fair enough.
Stranger to Paradise Once again, go to more horror conventions to witness the fact that it is a triple decision on the take. And ESPECIALLY since it is the only true horror movie out of the bunch makes it as worshiped as much as the two "stronger linked" sequels. I'm not going to rag your opinions on Evil Dead. I will respect it, as much as I hope you respect mine.
I don't go to horror conventions. And as I already said, I'm sure that among hardcore horror fans, the original might place higher on the list, but as for everybody else, it's a different story.
Stranger to Paradise A very hysterical, rant fest like analogy. But of course. Is there something wrong with me only seeing one of the movies and not liking what I saw enough to continue watching the rest? Living under a rock? For this certain case, sure, but I'm probably more informed about movies then you'll ever be. Whoopdedoo, one god damn exception to the fact. So what. Sure it will work, even though you did reveal some info of the saga I did not know about. But just for that, I'm going to go watch the damn movies now, to make better sense of it all...Not really. Please, explain it to me one more time, for I shall do the same.
Whatever. Think what you like.
No, there's nothing wrong with you. I just thought that would be a good analogy, because most people have seen the entire Star Wars trilogy. Just because you know some more information surrounding the Evil Dead series than I do doesn't mean s**t outside of that, and doesn't mean you have more knowledge on movies in general. The only reason I used Evil Dead in the first place was because it was obvious you were a fan. I was trying to take something that you were a fan of, and hypothetically turn it upside down, so you could possibly empathize with my point of view.
Stranger to Paradise No doubt. The ending does sound very appetizing. Oh yeah, it was a sure deal that the main characters were to go to the H.Q. and take on the evil corporation that is Umbrella. Oh yeah, it was a sure deal that we were supposed to witness the end, since we knew exactly what it was supposed to be building up to. Oh yeah, it was a sure deal that the characters still wanted to get involved with the whole affair because we knew they were good guys and wanted to take down that mother effing faceless sunuvabitch who ran the whole operation. Oh yeah, it was a sure deal since it was RE that somehow our heroes would bust into H.Q. and have to fight zombies and B.O.W.s, prevailing to take down the old fogeys who ran the entire course. Oh yeah, it was a sure deal...
How many Resident Evil games have you played? *sigh* Well, let's look at it: We got this whole set up established in Chris's Diary in RE2 where all the S.T.A.R.S. members are planning on heading to Europe to find Umbrella's main HQ and take them down. So yeah, buddy. That was a sure deal that's been established since the first sequel. You got Claire searching for Chris, and then Leon becomes involved. You got all these character epilogues in RE3, explaining that all the characters are setting out to take down Umbrella:
Gee. Sounds like it was a "sure deal that the characters still wanted to get involved with the whole affair because we knew they were good guys and wanted to take down that mother effing faceless sunuvabitch who ran the whole operation." There's also the tiny little fact that Capcom said so themselves around the time of the development of RE3 that the final game (RE4) was going to feature all the survivors of the previous games at Umbrella's main headquarters. So yeah, dude. It was a sure deal. According to Capcom themselves. Now let's look at Leon's ending in RE2:
Claire: "So... it's finally over."
Leon: "C'mon, time to leave."
Claire: "Now? What's wrong? Is something following us?"
Leon: "We have to go. We don't have any time to waste."
Claire: "Go? Where?"
Leon: "Hey... it's up to us to take out Umbrella!"
And then the credits roll. Let's look at the ending of Code Veronica:
Chris: "I'm sorry, Claire. But it's not over yet. There's still something we've got to do."
Claire: "You don't mean..."
Chris: "Yeah. It's payback time. We've gotta destroy Umbrella! Now... let's finish this once and for all!
The jet shoots off into the sunset, the credits roll. Now, the next sequel in the series after Code Veronica was RE4, where the very opening sequence is "Umbrella was destroyed, here's something else."
Well, gee. That was pretty... anti-climatic. There seems to be a huge gap here. And this game doesn't seem to go with the overall flow of the storyline that's been established up until this point. In fact, it doesn't fit in with the rest of the games at all. I mean, do you really think that they had the events of RE4 in mind when they were writing the storyline of all games that came before it? I sure don't.
Stranger to Paradise Oh, wait. I guess it didn't go in that direction. I guess we didn't know how it was supposed to be played out, and now that the new game is here to derive from what we know was supposed to happen it wont become reality. Since the new game is here, we now KNOW FOR AN EFFING FACT where they're going to take this, and that we won't get our final desired battle happy ending after all. Because we know the most logical course to take it, because it's our game, and we want it that way. Oh yeah, it's a sure deal.
No, I guess it didn't. I guess it took a complete 180 degree turn. And I was trying to illustrate my point from the perspective of an RE veteran who had pre-ordered RE4 and played it the day it came out. That is before there was any talk of RE5, and before there was any Umbrella Chronicles. And interestingly enough, what was the ending of Umbrella Chronicles? Oh, gee! It ends with a final battle at Umbrella's main headquarters, which ultimately leads to Umbrella's destruction! Wow! I guess it was a sure deal after all! Even though said final confrontation was executed poorly, in a half-assed, sloppy manner, and wasn't nearly as epic as I had always imagined it. Nonetheless, it was a sure deal, dude. Get your head out of your a**.
UC is basically the half-assed answer we got to the gaping hole between CVX and RE4, which contained at least some remnants of the original ending that they had originally promised us, while tying it into Wesker's role in RE4, and soon to be RE5.
Stranger to Paradise Have you ever ONCE considered that RE4 and RE5 still might be the middle, and the end is still a ways from being nigh? Have you ever ONCE considered that they might bring zombies back, even if the Plagas are involved? Or even Umbrella for that matter? The characters you know and love are still involved, so who's to know what will happen in the end? Oh, but of course: Because everything is a sure deal, oh yeah.
Well, the end is obviously a while away now. As I said before, I was explaining it in the perspective of a longtime fan when they first played RE4 when it released, before Capcom had worked to quickly recover the storyline that RE4 had basically flushed down the toilet. I'm sure me and Bio weren't the only people in the world who were upset about this, and Capcom makes the games to appeal to their audience, or fanbase, so they can make money. So yes, in a way, they are our games. They listen to our feedback. And I'm sure they heard the voices of contempt for RE4 very loud. If everyone was happy, I'm sure they wouldn't even bother. And have I ONCE considered yadda, yadda, yadda? Well, I doubt we'll be seeing zombies again. The enemies in RE5 are reportedly a hybrid of the T-Virus and the Plagas. And it's already been confirmed that Umbrella is not coming back: Click. Whatever remnants of it are left are most likely going to be destroyed in RE5 (i.e. Wesker & Spencer). That's what it's looking like. And as I've already said, RE5 is looking to be the last hurrah for the RE veterans; the game that's going to wrap up those old plot threads and the Umbrella story arc as properly as it can in the aftermath of RE4.
Stranger to Paradise I completely understand. Because the end for sure did happen. Umbrella and the goons behind it are gone forever, for we know. We know. Sure deal.
Umbrella is gone. That's for sure. The goons behind it may still be selling B.O.W.'s on the black market, but the company is gone. There's nothing to be disputed here. It's a sure deal.
Stranger to Paradise But seriously, I do understand. Would it make you happy though if they do go in the direction (plot-wise) you wanted it to go but with the new/updated game play? Because you never know. I don't like anyone to make presumptions, cause we can never tell how it will pan out.
I have already said time and time again that I would be perfectly happy if they changed the gameplay, but stuck to their original story. I would still miss the old gameplay, but that's what the old games are there for. RE5 seems as though it's the closest we're going to get to that. I'll bet you a million bucks that Wesker and Spencer die in RE5. Meaning that all that's left of the old story will have been brought to a close, and then they're going to take the series wherever the hell they want to from there. And these aren't just presumptions I'm making here. I've been researching the s**t out of the game. It's a fact that you fight Wesker in it on more than one occasion. And since it's already been confirmed that Umbrella is no longer going to be the focus of the story, I don't see why they'd bother keeping Spencer around either.
Stranger to Paradise Whateva. I do what I want.
I do what I want. I eat my Taco Bell at McDonald's, I do what I want.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:29 am
|
|
|
|
Stranger to Paradise Thee Stranger, please don't type a retaliation (Or go ahead, I don't care), for I won't read it. Because I concede...again. This time though, not by lack of knowledge, but because it is totally pointless to argue over the subject anyways. So discount anything I previously wrote (I also don't want to type that much again...Took me an hour). EXCEPT for one: Does anyone here consider that an electronic device that doesn't function properly because it has no batteries in it be broken? If it's a majority for yes, then I'll concede to that as well.
Okay, I just read this.
Firstly, too late. I already typed it up before I read this post. If you didn't want me to post in reply, you should have taken your last post down. Secondly, you should read it. Because if you do, you'll see that you would have to concede anyway, based once again on your lack of knowledge of the series. Because my main argument is grounded in fact, not personal preference or opinion:
Capcom said they were going to do one thing, crescendoed the series towards that thing, and then abruptly turned around and did something else. That is fact. Whether one likes it or not is personal preference.
Going back to your batteries one final time, once again, you're taking it too literally. Is a device broken if it's run out of it's power source or it's fuel source? No, it's not. It just needs to be replenished (but is a car broken if it's engine is breaking down? I'd say so. It's a pretty vital component). But again, what I said was if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Meaning it isn't wearing down, it isn't going stale; it doesn't need to be fixed. You're basically saying that the gameplay did need to be fixed, because it was wearing down, or running out of fuel, or going stale. What's the inevitable end for an engine that's breaking down? What's the end result when an electronic device completely runs out of battery power? It stops working. What do you call something that no longer works? Exactly.
Stranger to Paradise And at least the parasites were more original then the alien/demon crap being spewed out repeatedly today
Oh yes. Those Ganados were so original. They totally weren't a throwback to the enemies in House of the Dead, who also wielded sickles and chainsaws. And I've never seen parasites that sprout from enemies heads in games like Carrier for the Dreamcast. Yes, parasite monsters are the epitome of originality.
Stranger to Paradise Capcom said so, so I'm just gonna accept it and love it
Spoken like a true blue RE4 fanboy. This what it always comes down to in the end. This is like déjà vu all over again. It's like being a lemming. Capcom can do no wrong. Capcom knows best, it's their franchise, and you should just eat their s**t and like it. It's like blind patriotism. My country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it. I think you should start playing the MGS series. You might learn an important lesson.
Of course, it's not like all this really even applies to RE4 fanboys, because they don't give a s**t about the story. They didn't hop on the bandwagon until RE4, and they could give a s**t less about what was going on before they came into the picture. And right now, with RE5, s**t's going pretty much just the way they want it to. What's not to love? So until RE4 fanboys actually have something to b***h about, they can tell that s**t to the ********' tourists. And with that, I leave you with this:
The Logic of Love It or Leave It |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:32 pm
|
|
|
|
I apologize. I'm just not as good at debating as I thought I was, and have learned that I am severely misinformed about the series. As such, I will go into extensive research to learn everything I can about it, as you have done. I guess even after playing the games I have forgotten many of the facts I have absorbed from them. I believe you and I will always have a different interpretation of the replacement of the batteries (Or car engine), and after trying to explain our take to each other on the matter, we still have can not see eye to eye on the subject. I can't convince you, you can't convince me. Stubbornness with no giving in of pride. To believe one's theory is above another is not only being obnoxious and egotistical, but obstinately self-righteous as well. However, theories founded on fact cannot be argued by, and only a fool would dare try. I am that fool. However foolish, I can see when one is unknowingly wrong as well. In minor instances:
I. I actually did make sure I knew the definition of tweaks before I explained it, and as such, was using it only to illustrate the genre change the series made. If I used tweaks before to associate with something else (Such as game play and plot), I was indeed totally off-course, and once again, I apologize, but if not, using tweaks to explain the genre change was right on track.
II. Another subject we'll never see eye to eye on, but please, look up the definition of stale, friend. It never once mentions something ever becoming broken, but rather, becoming old. I used the subject of batteries to illustrate that matter. If something is broken, that means it won't or would have never have worked in the first place. If it's stale, that means it worked, but the concept was getting old. Sure, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but if it's getting old, renew it. The difference is how you see the series, broken or old. I never saw it busted or non-functioning, just exhausted. Notice I'm not bringing up the car engine example here, because to my fault, that comparison was a misjudged choice of expression, but the batteries analogy works fine here, I suppose. But if you can't see it now, or if I am still wrong, I apologize to Lord Jesus Christ Krispie Treats. That was funny, and random.
III. I'm a little confused here. What was wrong with my statement "Hahahaha, your laughing made me laugh."? Of course I know it's possessive, that's why I used it. I was indicating your laughing was the possessive thing of yours that made me laugh. In the context I used the word laughing in this sentence, it becomes a noun rather then a verb, which means the statement is no different then I saying "Hahahahaha, your laugh made me laugh." I have beaten are you smarter then a fifth grader many times. And I think I know my grammar, friend. Sure, you can probably point out many more flaws and mistakes that I have undoubtedly made, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't any in this instance. This concludes StP's grammar lecture, I guess. And man was that just mean-spirited. It's like adding insult after injury. May I ask why was that necessary? Did I say anything that seemed mean-spirited? Cause if so, I'm sorry, but I usually retaliate rudeness with rudeness anyways, friend. Like Rambo, I never draw first blood in those regards. I think.
IV. I'm not just a strict horror fan. In fact, you have to be a lover of most genres if you wish to truly appreciate the Evil Dead trilogy. But in that aspect, there's always more personal reasons as to why one of the three might be held more dearly, and not just because Bruce was a bad a** in the sequels. For instance, as a fan of the all the movies, the reason I am a hardcore original Evil Dead fan is because it's the movie that made me want to pursue a career in film. Sure, I love Bruce more as a bad a** in the sequels, but so does everyone else, yet there's always a reason to cherish one more then the others. But, in just being a strict fan of a certain genre, Evil Dead 2 and 3 would be more loved by the fans of the zany rather then horror, but I have not met a person to be not for either as a fan of this specific series. It's all good for loyal deadites. You should know, bro. Cause, as we say, JOIN US.
V. Other then Star Wars, I don't know of many films I haven't seen, other then Foreign flicks and Andy Warhol. I dedicate my life to the study of films, and have such so as to watch nearly everything from the silent era period to the current remake period. I'm sorry if it seemed rude for me to accuse you of not being as well informed on movies as I am, but I still think it's true. Unless, do you watch and study up on movies as much as I do? I'm pretty dedicated to it: I spend hours a day on movie forums just searching and searching for any info regarding to any film. But if you are the same, and hold a genuine interest for film, I would love to discuss the topic with you sometime.
VI. "Of course, Kramer did not mention if Umbrella would make a re-emergence within Resident Evil or if the company had died completely, but we expect it to be the former." So the guy said it would switch the focus on to Tricell but didn't confirm the question I quoted? And you think that whatever remnants left will be destroyed in 5? I may have been sorely mistaken on many of my unfounded accusations, but this sounds like a huge presumption since it wasn't 100% confirmed here. But, I know how it goes, and it's more then likely true, so I'm sorry to always presume even with slightest hope.
VII. I said more original then the alien/demon crap. Find more instances of parasites being the villains in current games then aliens and demons, and I'll shut up about it. Did I say they were the epitome of originality? Don't put words in my mouth, please.
VIII. "Capcom said so, so I'm just gonna accept it and love it". I was quoting something that Bio original posted friend, so please read what I said afterwords: "Because our tastes are ultimately different". Yes, I liked the changes and you didn't. I wouldn't support Capcom if I don't like what they do, but since I do like were they went with the series, I will show support. Don't call me a true blue RE4 fan boy. I've always loved 3 more, even if I haven't played it as many time as 4. And if I didn't care about the story, I wouldn't have joined the craze that is Resident Evil in the first place.
I've said what I've wanted to, and once again I apologize for my unsound dispute. Take up arms against any of my current ones if you wish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:10 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:21 pm
|
|
|
|
Well, quite frankly, I think anyone who was a FAN of the series, would've stayed perfectly happy, if they continued with the old static cameras, tank controls, T-Virus, zombies, Umbrella formula.
I mean, you have to be a really picky a*****e to say that every RE sequel didn't offer anything new. There were new features, like defense items, in REmake, dodging in RE3, the partner system in RE0. There were new enemies, like Lisa Trevor, Nemesis, etc. There was the progression of the storyline in the fight against Umbrella. If you throw in the graphics, level design, puzzles, etc...
Honestly, I don't feel like any RE game is like the other. Playing RE2, I didn't say, "This feels just like I'm playing RE1." Heck, even RE3 felt different from RE2, even though they were so close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:27 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:41 pm
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but that's what I'm saying. Yes, people were unhappy. But those people weren't real fans of the series. Before RE4 came along, there were two RE games. And although RE0 isn't the best in the series, REmake was a work of art, and the best RE game to date, so there's no way in hell people could've said, "It's been a while sine I played a good RE game." And if they did, then they have no comprehension of what a good RE game is in the first place, in which case, Capcom shouldn't worry so much about what those people have to say.
But that's exactly the point. Capcom did care, and they found a new audience: The Mainstream.
And I'm talking about the same gamers whose favorite games are the ones with the biggest advertisements. Halo, Gears of War, Madden NFL 09, Grand Theft Auto 4, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock etc. etc. etc. The meme the media instills in people, "If you play this, then you are cool."
And Resident Evil has joined their ranks.
That's not to say that those games are bad, but they're obviously catered to the mass audience who probably couldn't care less about the storyline, or the character personalities, or the artificial universe consistency. And that's the kind of audience that Capcom is targeting right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:49 pm
|
|
|
|
I. It's really not something I've done a whole lot of research on. If you play through all the games and read through everything, you can pretty much gather what it's leading to. I read about what Capcom said they were planning to do with RE4 in an issue of EGM waaayyy back, around the time when they were working on RE3. So I wouldn't expect you to know that. I can't even prove it, unless I were to go dig up the old article and scan it.
III. Hmm... I must have misread that sentence that I incorrectly corrected. Boy, do I feel like a jackass. Sorry about that. No, it wasn't necessary, but I think you were throwing little jabs of your own in there too.
VII. Have you ever seen an alien zombie? I don't think I ever have. So while the concept itself may be retarded, I wouldn't call it unoriginal or cliche or anything. It's just something I put together in two seconds in order to try to convey a point. I think I have gone on to explain it a little better from there.
VIII. I know you said that it was because your taste is ultimately different. I just didn't choose to include that part, because your taste can't entail automatically liking everything Capcom does before they do it, which is pretty much what I gathered from it. I wasn't trying to flat out call you an RE4 fanboy, but the thing is, I've had many debates with the fans of RE4, and at some point or another, towards the end of the debate, I'm usually told that this is where Capcom has taken the series, they can do what they want to with it, and if I don't like it, then I should stop playing the RE series, and that I'm not a true fan. I have always been a fan of the series, and I have always been critical of certain things. And just because I am a fan doesn't mean I can't criticize Capcom when they screw things up. The fact of the matter is, RE4 botched the plot pretty badly. And really, if you're a fan of RE4, you're just not a fan of the same thing. It's too different. Outside of the title and few of the characters, the games share absolutely nothing in common. If RE5's plot didn't involve anything that I cared about from the classic games, then I wouldn't be buying it. Simple as that. I realize that our opinion on the subject differs; that you don't mind the new direction that the series has taken, and are perfectly satisfied with the overall storyline.
But honestly, sir, how much weight would you hold to the opinion of a fan who doesn't even know the story of the original games?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:20 pm
|
|
|
|
I. I actually have an old issue of Gamepro dating way back with articles of Resident Evil 2 coming out for the N64, a review of 3, and a sneak peak of Code Veronica. So, at the time, I was keeping up with it, but not enough to know everything that they were planning. So my bad of being uninformed.
III. That's alright, jabs are to be expected in arguments, especially heated ones where one party is getting angry while being unacceptably unaware of most of the facts. And mistakes can be made. No biggy. smalls.
VII. I get it. But I personally think an alien zombie sounds like a cool concept.
VIII. I guess I wouldn't hold any weight to them at all, to be quite frank. But, I will consider myself a general fan of all RE, new and old, but not a hardcore one. And I will make sure never to start arguments again without knowing all the facts. Which won't be anytime soon. Hell, I'm just truly learning for the first time about all of Umbrella's origins now. So much I didn't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
