|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:40 am
 |
|
|
 |
Biohazard EXTREME Thee Stranger RE4 was revolutionary. Sorry, Bio. Just the facts. RE4 didn't create the Third Person Action shooter genre. That is to say, it wasn't the first to feature a third person camera in an action game, but the Third Person Shooter genre as it is known today was created by RE4. They all copy RE4's conventions. EDIT: There's a difference between revolutionary and a trend setter. RE4 was a major trend setter... But hey, if that's your definition of revolutionary, then I was revolutionary myself, back in high school. Revolutionary would've been changing a genre entirely or creating a new scope to that genre, and while RE4 was a transgression that almost phased Survival Horror out of existence, methinks that Survival Horror may rise again yet. Like I said, there have been games with behind the back camera before RE4, so that's not new. Mario 64 was something entirely new. It was adding a completely new dimension to the platformer genre, which drastically changed the genre itself. But whatever, if you wanna call that revolutionary, then sure, RE4 was as revolutionary as the Nazi party. 6 million dollars worth of Survival Horror games were wasted.
- "Revolutionary would've been changing a genre entirely or creating a new scope to that genre". Umm... how did RE4 not do that? It's a fact that it changed the "Survival Horror" genre entirely, at least for a while. It also changed the action genre entirely. Before RE4, most "Third-Person Action Shooters" played similiar to Syphon Filter, and utilized a lock-on feature for aiming and shooting. In MGS, it always auto-aimed in third person, and would only give you a free range of aiming when you switched to first person mode. So yeah, there were plenty of games with behind-the-back camera before RE4. But they were nothing like RE4. Syphon Filter was nothing like RE4; GTA was nothing like RE4. The over-the-shoulder aiming, intuitive camera, etc. added a completely new dimension to third-person shooters, which changed the way that all those games play now. It redefined the genre. That's revolutionary. Whereas the original RE is the trend setter. It created nothing. It just took the AitD template, did it better and popularized it. That's the difference.
Biohazard EXTREME Thee Stranger Every Third Person Action Shooter game you see on the market nowadays uses the template that RE4 created. And that even goes for MGS4, one of the games on your Top Ten. Hell, that also goes for Uncharted AND Uncharted 2 in the case of the aiming mechanic. Did the camera ever pan in over Snake's shoulder all RE4-style in any of the past MGS games? Was there a Drebin Shop where you bought and upgraded weapons in any of the past MGS games? Nope. That was all just gameplay devices lifted directly from RE4. And how does that make much more sense than the Merchant in RE4? You don't even have to FIND Drebin. You just order the stuff straight from your MkII. Which, I guess... what? Reprasents the MkII hitting up Drebin's shop, getting the guns, and transporting them back to you? That might work for a handgun; not for a frkkin' Nikita rocket launcher. So don't slam Dead Space. MGS4 does the same damn thing. And I LIKED Dead Space. A lot. It's a good game. Here's the point: RE4 came out, and everything changed. Everything started emulating it, and is still emulating it. That's pretty much the definition of revolutionary right there. RE4 is just as revolutionary to the Third Person Shooter genre as Mario 64 was to the 3D Platforming genre. Just as revolutionary as GTA is to the "sand box" genre. But unlike the original Resident Evil, RE4 wasn't just a slick copycat of something else. RE4 created the standard template for the modern TPS. Just like Halo created the standard template for the modern FPS. There was nothing quite like RE4 when it came out. And now, everything is. That's the downside of any great game that gets popular. The market gets over-saturated with it. Just like we were once over-saturated with "Survival Horror" games and "Sandbox" games. It's the current trend. All a video game 'genre' is is ONE popular game and all of its imitators. I guess here's what I'm saying, RE4's importance is overrated as hell. Yeah, it did get a lot of immitators, but if RE4 never existed, and those immitators ended up doing something different, the video game industry probably would've been a better place. See, the problem isn't that the market is oversaturated with it. The problem is that it claimed to be Survival Horror. So then every Survival Horror developer said, "Well, if THAT'S survival horror, then let's make our game like that. People like that!" And despite what you say, Stranger, RE4 is no more horror than Gears of War. But here's the thing... When GTA came out, and all the immitators followed. Particularly the ones with cities and cars, not just sandbox in general. I mean, games like Gangs of London, True Crime, etc... None of them did it as well as GTA. GTA still had, and still HAS the most refined gameplay mechanics in that type of game. With RE4, quite a few "immitators" as you call them did it better. Gears of War, Uncharted, Metal Gear, all those games that you say took ideas from RE4, did them better. Which makes RE4 obsolete. Quite frankly, just the way I felt Mario 64 was obsolete after playing Banjo Kazooie. The only immitators that didn't live up to the RE4 formula are the ones that tried making a survival horror game. And chances are, most of them at least pulled a decent horror aspect of it, even if the sheer mechanics lacked in finesse.
- I'm afraid not. And I could easily argue the same thing for GTA back when it was huge. I got really sick of all the GTA clones for a while, and for a time, definitely would have considered the video game industry a better place if GTA3 had never existed. I'm not gonna argue if RE4 was horror or not. That comes down to your opinion. I didn't find RE4 anymore scary than RE3. But I would probably consider it just as much of a horror game. My brother in law thought RE3 was scary as hell, and I know plenty of people who say RE4 scared the s**t out of them. Neither of those games ever scared me in the least. Silent Hill 2 never scared me in the least either.
And so what? First off, again, that's your opinion. My next door neighbor back in the day loved True Crime, probably even more than GTA. I know there's plenty of people who'd take Crackdown over GTA. That doesn't change the fact that GTA3 started it. That doesn't make GTA3 any less important. And compared to something like True Crime, I'd definitely say GTA3 was obsolete in comparison. Just because Banjo Kazooie was better doesn't make Mario 64 any less influential or important. Just because Resident Evil was better doesn't mean Alone in the Dark wasn't important. And how did Gears of War do it so much better? First off, have you played it Bio? How did Uncharted do it better? All the mechanics it takes from RE4, it does exactly the same as RE4, and the rest it lifts from Tomb Raider. How did MGS4 do it better? It doesn't do the over-the-shoulder aiming any differently than RE4 did. Its shopping mechanic pretty much works exactly the same as RE4, too.
Biohazard EXTREME Thee Stranger The RE4 topic has really been beaten to death. Yes, it ******** the storyline. If it hadn't ******** the storyline, I would have been fine with RE4's action gameplay. s**t, I'm still fine with it. Yeah, I still would have missed the old s**t, but tt was a great game. ********, look at RE3. Are you really going to sit here and tell me you had much trouble for ammo in that game? It was action-packed as hell. More action-packed than RE2, which was more action-packed than RE1. And you say you like Dino Crisis 2. s**t, that game is like the ******** precursor to RE4 with its non-stop action. It's even got run & gun! AND a ******** shopping mechanic to buy new guns with the "extinction points" you get for shooting dinosaurs and chaining combos. Yeah, points! Not even ******** money you pick up. How does that make any logical sense? Why haven't you bashed the s**t out of that game? How 'bout this explanation: It's a ******** video game. What makes Dino Crisis 2 so good and RE4 so s**t for gameplay? Fixed camera angles? Pffft. Get over it, man. Dino Crisis is a different franchise altogether. Comparing them is like saying, "You didn't like FF12!? But it lifted its battle system almost directly from Parasite Eve! So how can you like Parasite Eve!?" It's called standards, dude. When I want to play Resident Evil, I'm expecting Resident Evil, not.... THAT... Whatever the hell you'd call RE4. And the dinosaurs did make better enemies. Not only in the coolness factor, but in the way they functioned too. Like I said, RE4 has solid gameplay mechanics, that might be fun to play. The parts im knocking are the ones that made it stupid. Such as backflipping on Leon's behalf... Who's the precursor to that? Devil May Cry? And the enemies, of course. That game had some of the most idiotic ideas for enemies, save a couple. The way they looked, the way they functioned. And yes, the RE4 topic has been done to death. Look, it's not gonna keep me from throwing out the occasional, "******** RE4, it sucked." I'm as sick of having actual discussions about it as you. It was Canas who wanted to follow up on it.
- Dino Crisis was a complete RE clone with dinosaurs, so they are quite comparable. Yeah, agreed. I wanted RE, not RE4. But we're not talking about the storyline, are we? We're talking about RE4's non-survival horror action gameplay. What was the precursor to backflipping on Leon's behalf? I don't know, maybe it was the second live action RE movie when super b***h backflips off of a moving motorcycle. Yeah, the plagas suck. I never said they didn't.
Biohazard EXTREME Thee Stranger As far as storyline goes, as dumb as RE5 was in areas, it tops RE4's easily for me. Since its storyline dealing with the origins of the Progenitor is far more important and relevant to the series as a whole, and the s**t had Lickers in it too. Well, dude, here's the difference. RE4 created a big bag of s**t from scratch. It was all new s**t. With RE5, it's more like it took everything we know and love, and converted it into s**t. Digested it? Whatever. Point is, RE5's storyline is worse than RE4, in the same way that UC's storyline is worse than RE4. And I don't just mean the retconning, that 2003 Russia chapter sucked dingo balls too. RE4 might be bad, and taking into a new direction. But it's that much easier to ignore. Once you hear, "Main storyline has Wesker! And they're gonna show Spencer! And Jill is supposedly dead! And origins of Progenitor! And LICKERS are in it!!!" Yeah, clearly that's gonna draw attention and make the fans go, "I want I want!" And when all that does turn into s**t... Look, no offense to you, or Canas, or whoever... But actually liking and defending RE5's plot, despite it ruining yet another character (the way RE4 ruined Leon and REUC ruined Wesker)... That's some fanboy goggles right there. And hey, I used to be in the same boat. When RE4 came out, I loved it. Why? Because it had Resident Evil on the title, and all things Resident Evil were sacred and holy. The fact that I spent $300 on the Wii and Umbrella Chronicles... Even if I didn't get any of that money back, I still would've been greatful to UC for opening up my eyes to the fact that the series is s**t now. You can put all the awesomeness funzies gameplay you want in it, but great gameplay doesn't make a great franchise.
- That's your opinion. I like RE5's story better because it felt more like an RE storyline. Yeah, I have my fair share of problems with the storyline. A lot of it is, in fact, s**t. It has quite a bit of dumb s**t and s**t I don't like. But then again, so did just about all of the RE sequels, starting with RE3. And I didn't really give a s**t about what they did with Wesker's backstory. I actually thought it made his whole return from the dead in the first place make more sense. I'm definitely not a fan of zero suit Jill, though I wouldn't say it ruined her character. But I did like the fact that they made it all about bioweapons companies and s**t again. I did like exploring Umbrella again and discovering the origins of the Progenitor Virus. I did like the fact that we finally got the Chris VS Wesker showdown. I did love running around through an underground Umbrella lab and fighting lickers. That's the kind s**t I loved about RE, and made RE what it was, which RE4 did not have. That's why I like the storyline better. It had moments that felt like a true RE sequel, unlike RE4. Which is why I prefer RE5's storyline. I'd rather play an RE game with a bag of s**t storyline that had something to do with the RE series rather than a bag of s**t that had really nothing to do with it. But the gameplay -- RE4 had bigger and better environments, like the castle. Even though, in context to RE, the setting was complete s**t. Whatever, it's just my opinion. Call it "fanboy goggles" all you want. I've never been a blind fanboy of the RE series. I've always been critical of certain things, well before RE4 ever came around.
Biohazard EXTREME Thee Stranger Also, I hate musicals. Like, HATE. And I definitely have no interest in an Evil Dead one. I already know I hate it, just like you already knew you hated RE5 before you saw or knew anything about its storyline, or even played it for that matter. So don't try to argue its merits with me. Anything you say about it, I'm just gonna slam it. ******** that s**t. Well, even Chase is willing to give it a chance. So, I'm not gonna try to change your mind, dude, all I'm saying is... As you like to so adequtely put it, "more power to us." And if you wanna follow up on any of that, Stranger, please, let's just take it into the debate forum, make it useful.
- I'm just kidding. Not about the fact that I hate musicals, because I do. But the fact that I wouldn't watch it, or possibly enjoy it for what it is. That said, I wouldn't think it would be anything you could even compare to the films. Just like if they made a musical of Silent Hill 2 with funny songs and s**t. It wouldn't really be Silent Hill 2. It'd be something else that Silent Hill 2 was merely the source material for. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:27 pm
|
|
|
|
First of all, I move to rename this thread from "RE4 and s**t" to "RE4 is s**t"... But I don't seriously expect it to be renamed.
Thee Stranger - Meh.
- "Revolutionary would've been changing a genre entirely or creating a new scope to that genre". Umm... how did RE4 not do that? It's a fact that it changed the "Survival Horror" genre entirely, at least for a while. It also changed the action genre entirely. Before RE4, most "Third-Person Action Shooters" played similiar to Syphon Filter, and utilized a lock-on feature for aiming and shooting. In MGS, it always auto-aimed in third person, and would only give you a free range of aiming when you switched to first person mode. So yeah, there were plenty of games with behind-the-back camera before RE4. But they were nothing like RE4. Syphon Filter was nothing like RE4; GTA was nothing like RE4. The over-the-shoulder aiming, intuitive camera, etc. added a completely new dimension to third-person shooters, which changed the way that all those games play now. It redefined the genre. That's revolutionary. Whereas the original RE is the trend setter. It created nothing. It just took the AitD template and did it better, popularized it. That's the difference.
But even if you take games like Metal Gear Solid, or Uncharted... Hell, even Dead Space... The Camera is fully rotatable. That's GOOD. Glued to the character? That's bad. And yes, I do consider that particular aspect bad in the past 2 Silent Hill games as well.
Thee Stranger - I'm afraid not. And I could easily argue the same thing for GTA back when it was huge. I got really sick of all the GTA clones for a while, and for a time, definitely would have considered the video game industry a better place if GTA had never existed. I'm not gonna argue if RE4 was horror or not. That comes down to your opinion. I didn't find RE4 anymore scary than RE3. But I would probably consider it just as much of a horror game. My brother in law thought RE3 was scary as hell, and I know plenty of people who say RE4 scared the s**t out of them. Neither of those games ever scared me in the least. Silent Hill 2 never scared me in the least either.
Either way, then you have a castle... Which is more occult than horror. No offense to any Castlevania fans, I think it's a terriffic franchise, but I don't consider it Horror. (Maybe you don't either, but I've met some peole who do.)
And the island, which is more reminiscent of an action shooter than anything. Yeah, it had labs and stuff, but I didn't find it having any kind of a horror vibe.
Thee Stranger And so what? First off, again, that's your opinion. My next door neighbor back in the day loved True Crime, probably even more than GTA. I know there's plenty of people who'd take Crackdown over GTA. That doesn't change the fact that GTA started it. That doesn't make GTA3 any less important. And compared to something like True Crime, I'd definitely say GTA3 was obsolete in comparison.
Thee Stranger Just because Banjo Kazooie was better doesn't make Mario 64 any less influential or important. Just because Resident Evil was better doesn't mean Alone in the Dark wasn't important. And how did Gears of War do it so much better? First off, have you played it Bio? How did Uncharted do it better?
Thee Stranger All the mechanics it takes from RE4, it does exactly the same as RE4, and the rest it lifts from Tomb Raider. How did MGS4 do it better? It doesn't do the over-the-shoulder aiming any differently than RE4 did. It's shopping mechanic pretty much works exactly the same as RE4.
If you wanna look at it from a story point of view, at least Drebin was justified. At least there was a REASON he was there, and he actually took active part in the action. He wasn't just some dude that was there for you to shop from, but was completely ignored by the enemy.
Thee Stranger - Dino Crisis was a complete RE clone with dinosaurs, so comparing them is quite fair. Yeah, agreed. I wanted RE, not RE4. But we're not talking about the storyline, are we? We're talking about RE4's non-survival horror action gameplay.
Whereas, if you take Metal Gear Ac!d. While I did enjoy it... And even think it had a pretty good storyline. You and I both know, it does not capture the true Metal Gear spirit, because it's a completely different genre of a game.
So just the same, there is a certain spirit of a true experience to capture. And even if you take one or two things away, or add some features... I mean, no two Metal Gear games are exactly alike, aside from Twin Snakes and MGS2. My point is, it's about changing just enough to keep fresh, while still retaining what the franchise is about. In gameplay AND in story.
But RE4 completely turned EVERYTHING on its back. If there was one or two deviations from the classics, I might be okay with it. But it just said, "Let's take everything we've done so far... And toss it out the window, and start completely from scratch. But still attempt to continue the storyline."
RE4 is not a Resident Evil game. Not in story, not in gameplay, not in atmosphere, not in setting. Not in anything. It's not Resident Evil.
Thee Stranger What was the precursor to backflipping on Leon's behalf? I don't know, maybe it was the second live action RE movie when super b***h backflips off of a moving motorcycle. Yeah, the plagas suck. I never said they didn't.
And quite frankly, speaking purely of storyline... If RE4 was a completely new franchise, with a Special Agent Nixon, or something. You know, new characters, new all that, but it still had Salazar, and Saddler, and all those idiotic aspects about it... I might still hate the storyline. It's just bad.
Thee Stranger - That's your opinion. I like RE5's story better because it felt more like an RE storyline. Yeah, I have my fair share of problems with the storyline. A lot of it is, in fact, s**t. It has quite a bit of dumb s**t in it. But then again, so did just about all of the RE sequels, starting with RE3. And I didn't really give a s**t about what they did with Wesker's backstory. I actually thought it made his whole return from the dead in the first place make more sense. I'm definitely not a fan of zero suit Jill, but I wouldn't say it ruined her character. But I did like the fact that they made it all about bioweapons companies and s**t again. I did like exploring Umbrella again and discovering the origins of the Progenitor Virus. I did like the fact that we finally got the Chris VS Wesker showdown. I loved running around through an underground Umbrella lab and fighting lickers. That's the kind s**t I loved about RE, and made RE what it was, which RE4 did not have. That's why I like the storyline better. It had moments that felt like a true RE sequel, unlike RE4. Which is why I prefer RE5's storyline. I'd rather play an RE game with a bag of s**t storyline that had something to do with the RE series rather than a bag of s**t that had really nothing to do with it. But the gameplay, RE4 had bigger and better environments, like the castle. Even though, in context to RE, the setting was complete s**t. Whatever, it's just my opinion. Call it what you will.
And yeah, I believe that there might've been some throwback bits that are more reminiscent of RE, but that's only sugarcoating the crap that's underneath.
Thee Stranger - I'm just kidding. Not about the fact that I hate musicals, because I do. But the fact that I wouldn't watch it, or possibly enjoy it for what it is. That said, I wouldn't think it would be anything you could even compare to the films. Just like if they made a musical of Silent Hill 2 with funny songs and s**t. It wouldn't really be Silent Hill 2. It'd be something else.
Like, I would imagine, a Silent Hill musical would capture the spirit of the UFO endings from the Silent Hill games. Those are funny.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:34 pm
|
|
|
|
Meh. Just a couple things,
- Changed the title just for you.
- Ever since the beginning of 3D cameras with behind-the-back perspectives, camera has always been an issue. Be it an action game, platformer, what have you. Because you would often have to fight with and juggle the camera. It would get stuck on something, or glitch out, or go behind a wall where you either couldn't see your character beyond the wall or the wall would just disappear, or whatever. By "gluing" the camera to the character, it deletes a lot of those common issues. You no longer have to worry about the camera much, only sometimes needing to pan it around a bit to get a look at something. It's not fully-rotatable, but that's not really an issue unless you want to stare at your character model's face for an hour. If you want to see behind you, just turn around. Dead Space has a fully-rotatable camera, yes, but it still glues the camera to the character. Just like RE4. Just like Gears of War. Just like just about everything nowadays.
- Duck and cover mechanics have been going on since Winback, long before RE4.
- What happened to weapons and equipment OSP (on-site procurement)? MGS4 killed that. By ripping off RE4. Haven't heard any complaints there. Whoopie-doo. Drebin is still just a gameplay device shoehorned into the plot.
- Yeah, RE4 isn't Resident Evil. Here you go on and on about how RE4 turned EVERYTHING on its back, changed EVERYTHING to the point that it didn't even resemble RE in the slightest, but call fanboy goggles on me because I like the RE5 storyline more because it DID have something to do with the rest of the series. It did continue the original storyline after RE4 nuked it in its very opening cutsequence, and not everything it did with it was terrible. I don't give a s**t about Wesker turning into a monster. I always saw that one coming eventually, ever since he popped back up in CV with cat eyes and super powers. Yeah, zero suit Jill is lame. It isn't the first stupid or lame thing that's happened in the RE series, even before RE4.
- Fine. Sugarcoating the s**t underneath. Well, I'll take what I can get. I'd rather have s**t with sugarcoating than just s**t. And the new Lost in Nightmares DLC for RE5 was also some really nice sugarcoating that I enjoyed. I even found a cookie that allowed me to play through the mansion with fixed camera angles, and chose to play it that way, even though shooting monsters was nearly impossible without the auto-aim; instead having to use the RE4-style full range of motion with the laser sight, which made the whole aiming ordeal a lot more awkward with the fixed camera perspective. Then I got to bust out Barry Burton in the merc mode. I'm an oldschool fan. I like that kind of s**t. Least they're giving me something. I'll take the good with the bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:18 pm
|
|
|
|
Thee Stranger Meh. Just a couple things. - Changed the title just for you.
Thee Stranger - Duck and cover mechanics have been going on since Winback, long before RE4.
Thee Stranger - What happened to weapons and equipment OSP (on-site procurement)? MGS4 killed that. By ripping off RE4. Haven't heard any complaints there. Whoopie-doo. Drebin is still just a gameplay device shoehorned into the plot.
And second, again, I didn't think it was a good idea. And yeah, it occured to me right away that Kojima got that idea from RE4. And you know, that's just one more reason for me to hate RE4. And its rabid popularity.
Thee Stranger - Yeah, RE4 isn't Resident Evil. Here you go on and on about how RE4 turned EVERYTHING on its back, changed EVERYTHING to the point that it didn't even resemble RE in the slightest, but call fanboy goggles on me because I like the RE5 storyline more because it DID have something to do with the rest of the series. It did continue the original storyline after RE4 nuked it in its very opening cutsequence, and not everything it did with it was terrible. I don't give a s**t about Wesker turning into a monster. I always saw that one coming eventually, ever since he popped back up in CV with cat eyes and super powers. Yeah, zero suit Jill is lame. It isn't the first stupid or lame thing that's happened in the RE series, even before RE4.
And the fact that the blonde in the capsule WAS the bird lady, who was under Wesker's control, who wasJILL??? ********... That was a total killer for me. I can't believe people just accepted it just like that.
Thee Stranger - Fine. Sugarcoating the s**t underneath. Well, I'll take what I can get. I'd rather have s**t with sugarcoating than just s**t. And the new Lost in Nightmares DLC for RE5 was also some really nice sugarcoating that I enjoyed. I even found a cookie that allowed me to play through the mansion with fixed camera angles, and chose to play it that way, even though shooting monsters was nearly impossible without auto-aim, replaced with the RE4-style full range of motion with the laser sight.
Thee Stranger I got to bust out Barry Burton in the merc mode. I'm an oldschool fan. I like that kind of s**t. Least they're giving me something. I'll take the good with the bad. What, they just suddenly wanna listen to the old school fans? 6 years too late for me. Let me know when they reboot the whole series, and it's actually good. Then it might be worth my attention again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:38 pm
|
|
|
|
Thee Stranger Umm... I don't recall ever saying that the main game sucks, but that Mercs is awesome. I don't recall ever saying that was the reason to buy the game. I don't think the main game sucks. It pleased me in certain areas and disappointed in others, in about equal measure. The overall feeling I'm left with is "meh, it's alright". Not terrible; not great. But kind of a lackluster conclusion. I think that maybe in their attempt to appeal to both sides of the fanbase, they ended up neither completely satisfying either. I don't know.
Okay, well, you were left with a "Meh" impression. Now, imagine if I played it... And in addition to YOUR reaction, I also HATE two major plot points, the main enemies, and the fact that RE4 is mentioned in it. There's that much more resentment from my point of view... I guarantee you, it won't just be a "Meh."
Thee Stranger I'm sure you probably played the s**t out of RE3's merc mode back in the day. I know that I did. I always played Resident Evil for the gameplay just as much as the storyline. I also played the s**t out of RE4's merc mode. I haven't done a whole lot with RE5's, but it doesn't change the fact that throwing Barry Burton as a playable character in there is still pretty ********' cool. And I had fun running through it a couple times with him. I'm not trying to sell you the ******** game. Jesus.
Don't get me wrong, I love RE1, 2 3's gameplay. But I can assure you that if the game was not about zombies, a powerful internation company that is Umbrella, and a Virus... If the game WAS Mikami's original idea, about some ghost or something... Chances are, I probably wouldn't have become a fan of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:49 am
|
|
|
|
- And you know what? I always played Chris in RE2 Extreme Battle. Because he was the most badass looking, and he was Chris from 1. It adds a little game flavor. And whenever I feel like playing RE5's merc mode again, I'm busting out Barry for the same reasons. And Barry does have dialogue, by the way. Classic lines from RE1 dialogue. I think you know I'm a big fan of Barry, so yeah, his inclusion does a little something for me. And I don't recall ever trying to argue that you would like RE5 at all, Bio.
- Well, that's not the case with me. It's the characters and their weapon layouts, and trying to master each one. I played RE3 Mercs a lot at my friends house, even after I unlocked everything. We would pass paddle and try to up each other's score and number of hostages rescued. Yes, Mikhail got the most use and Nicholai got the least, for obvious reasons, but we still tried with everybody. And if you can beat Merc with Nicholai, that means you're damn good. Just like the Code Veronica battle game where Wesker only has a knife. I actually beat that with him a few times. Even though there's a 50% chance that it's impossible provided that they don't provide the magnum in that jukebox to fight Alexia with. Because if you get close enough to attack with the knife, you're auto-killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:54 am
|
|
|
|
Thee Stranger - And you know what? I always played Chris in RE2 Extreme Battle. Because he was the most badass looking, and he was Chris from 1. It adds a little game flavor. And whenever I feel like playing RE5's merc mode again, I'm busting out Barry for the same reasons. And Barry does have dialogue, by the way. Classic lines from RE1 dialogue. I think you know I'm a big fan of Barry, so yeah, his inclusion does a little something for me. And I don't recall ever trying to argue that you would like RE5 at all, Bio.
Well to be fair, Chris in Extreme Battle mode had one of the bests sets of weapons. If all he had was a knife and a handgun... Would you still ALWAYS play as him?
Either way, yeah, those little minigames might be cute and fun, but they don't save the game. All I'm saying is, I've just heard it way too many times from people... Saying, "Well, the storyline in it was s**t, but at least the Merc mode was good!"
Yeah, that makes everything better.
Thee Stranger - Well, that's not the case with me. It's the characters and their weapon layouts, and trying to master each one. I played RE3 Mercs a lot at my friends house, even after I unlocked everything. We would pass paddle and try to up each other's score and number of hostages rescued. Yes, Mikhail got the most use and Nicholai got the least, for obvious reasons, but we still tried with everybody. And if you can beat Merc with Nicholai, that means you're damn good. Just like the Code Veronica battle game where Wesker only has a knife. I actually beat that with him a few times. Even though there's a 50% chance that it's impossible provided that they don't provide the magnum in that jukebox to fight Alexia with. Because if get close enough to attack with the knife, you're auto-killed.
Like I said, dude, I play RE for the storyline. And I don't bother playing RE unless I wanna play through the storyline, reading the files and watching the cutscenes like I didn't know them word for word. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
