Originally posted by Draco69
The entire bulk of this nonsense arguement is thus: So and so RE WOULD have been been released on Nintendo but nasty old Sony stole it. Or RE WOULD have been released on N64. Or RE SHOULD have been released on Nintendo.Coulda. Woulda. Didna.
Not sure what you're referring to. The best titles were conceived and creator on systems other than Sony and had to be downgraded to port. End of story.
Originally posted by Draco69
Please. Resident Evil is solely Sony material through and through. What did get released on Gamecube or N64? Cheap-ass knockoffs of the originals previously released on Playstation selling for 20 bucks.
Yeah. Also Resident Evil 4, Zero and the superior remake of the original. What did Sony get? Gun Survivor and Outbreak.
Originally posted by Draco69
Capcom ventured into Nintendo for Resident Evil..can came running back to Sony for Resident Evil 5 and hell even signed a contract to Sony and Microsoft as exclusives.
Because more money was offered, and offered first. What's your point?
My point was that you claim Resident Evil is solely Sony's property, it's clearly not. Factually, and I've proven so. Not sure where you're going with the rest.
Zero was remotely original? Or totally? Totally.
Code Veronica wasn't an atrocity just because Sony didn't make it.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not sure what you're referring to. The best titles were conceived and creator on systems other than Sony and had to be downgraded to port. End of story.
Including RE3? Or RE2? Nintendo sure as hell had nothing to with it. Your point is null and ignorant. You're refusing to recognize the fact that Playstation launched the Resident Evil series. Not Nintendo.
That's my point. Your point is: Nintendo had only like three Resident Evil games but they were better than entire series and they are responsible for Resident Evil's popularity."
Which is completely false.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah. Also Resident Evil 4, Zero and the superior remake of the original. What did Sony get? Gun Survivor and Outbreak.
Yet again ignoring that the majority of the RE games came out on Sony. Sony started the franchise. Nintendo didn't.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because more money was offered, and offered first. What's your point?
My point is Capcom and Nintendo's run was like a drunken one-night stand. Great sex (games) and a nasty STD (low sales).
Which you refuse to recognize.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
My point was that you claim Resident Evil is solely Sony's property, it's clearly not. Factually, and I've proven so. Not sure where you're going with the rest.
No. You haven't. THREE games make Resident Evil a franchise inclusive to Nintendo? Hardly. Sony started the franchise. Sony still owns the franchise. Property or ownership have nothing to do with it.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Zero was remotely original? Or totally? Totally.
One game. Woo-hoo. Poor sales. Became a 20 dollar game in three months. Whereas Sony had some very good and very bad RE games that did far better.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Code Veronica wasn't an atrocity just because Sony didn't make it.
Code: Veronica was horrible on any system. But I guess it was PERFECT on Nintendo because it didn't have the taint of Nintendo, right? Riiiight. Snob.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nintendo took Sony's original and added an hour or more of extended in game action critical to the story. As well as making it look unimaginably better than a lot of games, graphically.
And yet Resident Evil 4 on PS2 is doing EXACTLY the same thing. Why is Nintendo withheld from your copius scrutiny. Oh. That's right. Anything Alpha likes is either a messiah from above or the Holy Grail itself.
Hypocritical. 🙄
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Sony took Nintendo's RE4, downgraded the graphics and added some new guns. Just sayin', just sayin'.
New guns. New characters. New armour. New areas. New enemies. New endings. And two different optional characters to play as.
Get your facts right.
Originally posted by Draco69
Including RE3? Or RE2? Nintendo sure as hell had nothing to with it. Your point is null and ignorant. You're refusing to recognize the fact that Playstation launched the Resident Evil series. Not Nintendo.
Hahaha, you call Code Veronica atrocious yet you cite RE 3 as an accolade to be proud of. That game was nothing more than a stop gap, a mediocre one at that. 2? Sure. I'll agree to that.
Also, I'm ignorant? When did I refuse to acknowledge that Playstation launched the series? I've been saying that all along. Read my posts. They got to 3 and bailed out because the best they could do after that was Gun Survivor. Sega did Code Veronica, Nintendo did Zero and 4 and more or less made the original their own, because it is better than the PS1 version. Don't be so hypocritical as to call me ignorant when you literally skipped over my post.
Originally posted by Draco69
That's my point. Your point is: Nintendo had only like three Resident Evil games but they were better than entire series and they are responsible for Resident Evil's popularity."Which is completely false.
My point is this. Nintendo have RE 4, RE Zero and the superior RE 1. They are all better than the original RE on PS1, RE 3, Gun Survivor and in some cases, RE 2 (although that game is one of my favs, remade or not). So yeah, you got half my point right.
I never stated they were responsible for the popularity, I said they were responsible for where the series is now, and will go. Resident Evil 4 is the best of the series, more or less widely regarded as that. New system, new everything. Resident Evil 5 owes it's existance and it's hype to that game. If 4 were not as groundbreaking (the Nintendo RE 4, the only RE 4) then 5 wouldn't be nearly as anticipated. Resident Evil's were popular before Nintendo, never doubted that.
Originally posted by Draco69
Yet again ignoring that the majority of the RE games came out on Sony. Sony started the franchise. Nintendo didn't.
Yet again ignoring...well everything I've said. I know who started the franchise, I've said this in a number of posts. It doesn't change the fact that other companies have done better things with it by far than the company that spawned it. Unless you are ready to claim that RE's 3, 2 and 1 are better than RE 1 remake, Zero, Code Veronica and 4.
Originally posted by Draco69
My point is Capcom and Nintendo's run was like a drunken one-night stand. Great sex (games) and a nasty STD (low sales).Which you refuse to recognize.
Now who's the fanboy? Resident Evil's on Cube didn't sell as well. So? As Victor stated, Tool don't sell as well as Britney Spears. Doesn't mean Britney is better.
Seems like you are the bitter one here, Draco. To use your sex analogy: Nintendo obviously had what it takes to get the job done in one go rather than three and be anti climatic.
Originally posted by Draco69
No. You haven't. THREE games make Resident Evil a franchise inclusive to Nintendo? Hardly. Sony started the franchise. Sony still owns the franchise. Property or ownership have nothing to do with it.
Let's stop here. Show me where I said Sony have nothing to do with the series or any of the games. Because you're getting so confused.
Originally posted by Draco69
One game. Woo-hoo. Poor sales. Became a 20 dollar game in three months. Whereas Sony had some very good and very bad RE games that did far better.
Far better in what? Being a better game? Didn't did they? Sales? Yes. So? Sales don't make the game good.
Originally posted by Draco69
Code: Veronica was horrible on any system. But I guess it was PERFECT on Nintendo because it didn't have the taint of Nintendo, right? Riiiight. Snob.
I don't even own Code Veronica on Cube, so think before you talk. Assumptions aren't good, Draco. They're not good at all. Funny, funny, funny.
Code: Veronica was, in my opinion, a great game. I played it first on Dreamcast. You know, where it was designed for. Because no other system at the time could hack it (Sony, hence why they sold the franchise licences to make the games better. They couldn't do it).
Originally posted by Draco69
And yet Resident Evil 4 on PS2 is doing EXACTLY the same thing. Why is Nintendo withheld from your copius scrutiny. Oh. That's right. Anything Alpha likes is either a messiah from above or the Holy Grail itself.Hypocritical.
Thanks for thinking so highly of my opinion (and don't reply with "I don't, you do." because I don't either).
Second, PS2 are graphically altering the game. It's being downgraded. You should know this if you had bothered reading up on it as I have.
Third and most important, Sony aren't doing the EXACT same thing for RE 4 as Nintendo did for RE 1. Sony took a game with deplorable graphics, engines and for the most part, handling. Practically made it a new game, visually. Added lenghty new in game playing parts AND loads of secrets. Sony are taking Resident Evil 4 and adding new guns, lowering the graphics....hmm. Makes ya wonder. To say Sony are doing the equivelent of what Nintendo did to RE 1 is ridiculous.
Originally posted by Draco69
New guns.
Hehe, go on...
Originally posted by Draco69
New characters.
Gun Survivor had "new characters"...but go on...
Originally posted by Draco69
New armour.
Reminds me of The Simpsons. "Malibu Stacy! AND SHE'S GOT A NEW HAT!!!!". Hahaha, I'm sure I'll be convinced soon.
Originally posted by Draco69
New areas.
"New"? As in, were discarded from the original RE 4 game plans, new? Or.....new as in.....thrown together with no actual game enhancement or relevance to the progression of the series?
Originally posted by Draco69
New enemies. New endings. And two different optional characters to play as.
More Malibu Stacy syndrome.
New things to shoot at, wow. Revolutionising the game there.
New endings, woooo. Now after I complete the exact same game with the exact same conclusions to the story, I can watch it a different way!
Two optional characters? Why do new shells hold any appeal to you? They have no impact on the series a la Chris, Leon, Wesker. They're just another Jill Valentine.
I would say the same if any company did it. The fact that you're trying to claim everything about RE is Sony, is just ignorance.
-AC
I have to agree that the PS controller came out from the SNES system, SNES came out in 93 i think and PS came out 2 years later in 95, all PS did was add 2 trigger buttons and 2 analog sticks, then PS set the standard for gamepads by having analog sticks which revolutioniazed the industry aswell as having rumble capabilities.
Where did SEGA's controller come from?
I personally don't like the look of it. I can't see how it's going to work in most games. In FPS it should be cool, point to aim and pull the B button to fire, but with other games it is going to be ****. I think Nintendo's been going down hill the past few years. I've less games for both their consoles (DS and gamecube) combined than I have for either PS2 or Xbox, and there seems very few coming out that'll attract me (apart from Twilight Princess)
Originally posted by Onikirimaru
Just wanna throw out, its a bit ironic, but Gun Survivor had the "Point at screen and pull trigger" in a FPS-esque format, and it didnt revolutionize anything.Just throwin it out there.
Yeah but the peripherals it was designed around were crap. Until now I haven't seen a point and shoot device that looks halfway competant in its design and consideration of games, until the Revolution controller.
And it was a shit game.
The Revolution is more than just a shitty lightgun, and Gun Survivor was a really shitty lightgun game.
I see your point, but I don't think its a very fair comparison.
You could be right, but I'm unwilling to make up up my mind until I lay my hands on the thing, with a game. Thats the only time anyone should really think "this is shit/this is great".
Originally posted by Red Superfly
Yeah but the peripherals it was designed around were crap. Until now I haven't seen a point and shoot device that looks halfway competant in its design and consideration of games, until the Revolution controller.And it was a shit game.
The Revolution is more than just a shitty lightgun, and Gun Survivor was a really shitty lightgun game.
I see your point, but I don't think its a very fair comparison.
You could be right, but I'm unwilling to make up up my mind until I lay my hands on the thing, with a game. Thats the only time anyone should really think "this is shit/this is great".
Exactly. 'Nuff said.