Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Yeah, that's what makes it cool.
Originally posted by BackFire
I'd say rent it first, it's a fun game but gets repetitive very fast. And, as others have pointed out, the game has some huge flaws that really hinder the experience.Try the demo if you have Live, if not, rent it and decide.
I wouldnt even bother with the demo because it really doesnt showcase any problems at all because its very limited.
I would go rent because even with problems, its still a good game to play based on its originality.
Originally posted by Silverstein
is this worth buying? (or just renting? or even buying a preowned?)is there a sequel? cuz that be sick if they got rid of the bugs + put it on xbox live, a team of survivors n sh*t
It is worth buying.
There will be more games as well.
The 'save game problem' wasn't actually a problem. It was just how they decided to do it. Capcom know how to put a save mode in, if they wanted a different one.
Also, if you fight the Vietnam vet (whose name I can't remember) with a sledgehammer, you deserve to get juggled to death. It's the most clumsy weapon on the game.
Originally posted by Smasandian
The save issue is still a problem, even if they decided to put it in there.
Why is it?
I and many others had no problem with it, therefore it isn't inherently problematic.
It's the way they decided to design the save system. I thought it was good.
Same as people moan about certain elements of the old RE games, which for me made those games appealing.
You thought it was good, I thought it was bad.
The problem is that your only allowed to save one file at a time and if you save, and you dont do give yourself enough time to get to another case file, your screwed and you have to replay the whole game again. That's a problem. If they gave your the ability to save numerous files then it wouldnt be a problem.
It's especially annoying that you spend all your time on scoop missions (which are essential), then because of the crappy AI, you finally get them back to the office, save because you dont want to lose all your progress you made, then realize that you saved the game and you dont have enough time to get to the other side of the mall, so you have to restart the game again, and redo everything you already done. That's a problem and a bad design choice.
To fix it, you let people save numerous files on the harddrive.
Just because the designers conciously made a decision, doesn't mean that decision can't be seen as a flaw.
The save system is often frustrating rather than challenging, there's a fine line between the two, and I can appreciate what they were trying to do with the save system in theory - enhancing the tension by making you actually have to be careful since the next save point may not be available for some time - in practice though, I don't think it worked out too well.
Also, as Smas says, it is way way too easy to trap yourself in an unfixable situation because of the strange decision to only allow one save file, that IS a fundamental flaw, damn near gamebreaking for many players, as has been pointed out in just about every single professional review of the game.
Originally posted by Smasandian
You thought it was good, I thought it was bad.
Yes. Therefore it is not objectively bad- you think it is bad, for you.
Originally posted by Smasandian
The problem is that your only allowed to save one file at a time and if you save, and you dont do give yourself enough time to get to another case file, your screwed and you have to replay the whole game again. That's a problem.
I never did that, being fully conscious of the saving system. Sounds to me like you just ****ed it up. That's your problem.
Originally posted by SmasandianIf they gave your the ability to save numerous files then it wouldnt be a problem.
If they gave you infinite life, nothing would be a problem.
Originally posted by SmasandianIt's especially annoying that you spend all your time on scoop missions (which are essential), then because of the crappy AI, you finally get them back to the office, save because you dont want to lose all your progress you made, then realize that you saved the game and you dont have enough time to get to the other side of the mall, so you have to restart the game again, and redo everything you already done. That's a problem and a bad design choice.
See where you said 'when YOU realize'? I didn't do that. You did it, it's a problem with your playing strategies. Don't blame the fact that you messed it up on the saving system, because I didn't have that problem, therefore it is not an inherent problem with the saving system. It is, again, your problem.
Originally posted by BackFire
Just because the designers conciously made a decision, doesn't mean that decision can't be seen as a flaw.
That is obvious. Though, a flaw and a problem are different things. You could call it a bad game design aspect if you so wish (though that is of course, opinion), but it isn't inherently flawed. It can be used perfectly easily.
Originally posted by BackFire
The save system is often frustrating rather than challenging, there's a fine line between the two, and I can appreciate what they were trying to do with the save system in theory - enhancing the tension by making you actually have to be careful since the next save point may not be available for some time - in practice though, I don't think it worked out too well.
I liked it.
Originally posted by BackFire
Also, as Smas says, it is way way too easy to trap yourself in an unfixable situation because of the strange decision to only allow one save file, that IS a fundamental flaw, damn near gamebreaking for many players, as has been pointed out in just about every single professional review of the game.
Yeah, though paying someone for their review doesn't make their opinion better.
I don't think it is a flaw. I don't actually think it is that easy to trap yourself. I didn't do it, and I know at least five other people with the game, none of whom did so.
As you say, many players found it 'gamebreaking'. Again, that is still a preference point.
The fact that many people didn't get along with the system doesn't make it flawed.
I actually thought it was pretty clear when not to save, as all the missions are clearly marked out temporally, and you are told well in advance when to do the essential ones. It's not as if you can be caught by surprise and accidentally spaz a save that ****s up the whole game.
Although maybe it is in some cases.
The save system was flawed. You disagree, ok, but I still think the system is flawed.
So your going to tell me that I shouldnt save at all just in case I might be stuck in a corner and have to restart the whole game over again (for the umpteenth time), or that I shouldnt do any scoop missions because well, I might not have enough time?
VVD, of course it's a preference point, I don't think anyone is trying to claim that any of the complaints are based on anything other than opinion or preference. I certainly wasn't.
Regardless, You may not have had problems with it, but enough people did as to make calling it a flaw completely reasonable. I also didn't have any major problems with it, I never saved myself into a wall either, but the fact that you COULD do it quite easily, and that it could have been so easily avoided by simply adding multiple save files, something that games have been doing since the original Legend of Zelda adds some credibility to the claim. It just reaks of laziness, like they were playing through the game and thought it was too easy, so instead of making the game more challenging through improving the gameplay, they just made saving a more "strategic" (annoying) aspect to add some artificial difficulty.
In the inevitable sequel, I'd bet money, and a lot of money, that they will clean up the save system and make it a bit more friendly, because it was one of the constant complaints people had with the game, doing so would more or less cement the idea that it was indeed a game flaw, hence why they'd "fix it", if you will.
And yeah, just because they get paid to review games doesn't make their opinion any better, I was merely pointing out that it was a complaint in almost every single review I read, and when it wasn't a complaint it was a "Well, it wasn't THAT bad" kinda thing. I hear no praises of "well, denying me the ability to have multiple saved games enhanced my experience".
Something else that was very strange, is that it was possible to have multiple saved games, but you had to have them on separate saving devices. Pretty much had to spend money to make the save system competent. Pretty ridiculous, really.
Originally posted by Smasandian
The save system was flawed. You disagree, ok, but I still think the system is flawed.
Yes, you think it is. Doesn't make it factual.
Originally posted by Smasandian
So your going to tell me that I shouldnt save at all just in case I might be stuck in a corner and have to restart the whole game over again (for the umpteenth time), or that I shouldnt do any scoop missions because well, I might not have enough time?
Well, yes. It's always obvious when you don't have time left. That's when you don't save. It's not complex.
Originally posted by BackFire
VVD, of course it's a preference point, I don't think anyone is trying to claim that any of the complaints are based on anything other than opinion or preference. I certainly wasn't.
OK. The I will deal with the below in that light.
Originally posted by BackFire
Regardless, You may not have had problems with it, but enough people did as to make calling it a flaw completely reasonable. I also didn't have any major problems with it, I never saved myself into a wall either, but the fact that you COULD do it quite easily, and that it could have been so easily avoided by simply adding multiple save files, something that games have been doing since the original Legend of Zelda adds some credibility to the claim.
It adds credibility to the claim that it would have allowed people that have made dumb saves a failsafe, yes.
The double saving system just allows you to return to a prior save point if the second one has come out wrong. Therefore any game where it is useful allows you to play yourself into a disadvantage. It merely stops idiotic saves.
This game makes saving a part of the strategy. I don't really see the problem with that, and if everyone acknowledges that it is that way, to still be saving and having to start again is just ridiculous.
Originally posted by BackFire
It just reaks of laziness, like they were playing through the game and thought it was too easy, so instead of making the game more challenging through improving the gameplay, they just made saving a more "strategic" (annoying) aspect to add some artificial difficulty.
Possibly true. I liked it.
Originally posted by BackFire
In the inevitable sequel, I'd bet money, and a lot of money, that they will clean up the save system and make it a bit more friendly, because it was one of the constant complaints people had with the game, doing so would more or less cement the idea that it was indeed a game flaw, hence why they'd "fix it", if you will.
Oh come on. You knew that wouldn't work, didn't you. Didn't you? Admit it you scum.
Just because many people weren't happy doesn't make it a flaw to be fixed; it's an element to change to make them happy. Multiple save slots are only there to stop people saving when they shouldn't, and they weren't even created for that reason. In fact, they still aren't primarily there for that purpose. It's just something some people do.
Originally posted by BackFire
And yeah, just because they get paid to review games doesn't make their opinion any better, I was merely pointing out that it was a complaint in almost every single review I read, and when it wasn't a complaint it was a "Well, it wasn't THAT bad" kinda thing. I hear no praises of "well, denying me the ability to have multiple saved games enhanced my experience".
I read some that didn't mention it, but I'd imagine most do. They also almost universally moaned about the elements of the old RE games that I liked most.
Originally posted by BackFire
Something else that was very strange, is that it was possible to have multiple saved games, but you had to have them on separate saving devices. Pretty much had to spend money to make the save system competent. Pretty ridiculous, really.
That's not really true though. Capcom could have made it possible, but they didn't. That's not an incompetent save system; it's merely one that some people were unhappy with, and went out of their way to get around. Just to have the safety blanket of not being able to idio-save.
But why should simply saving your progress be a "strategic element"? Shouldn't the strategy be, you know, in the gameplay?
Also it made it a huge pain if something came up while you were playing and had to save on the fly. You had to weigh your options of saving your game and hoping that you wouldn't end up screwing yourself when you came back into the game or forcing yourself to continue playing and finish up what you were doint to ensure that your game wouldn't break. Simply adding a quicksave option would have helped tremendously in these situations, which is where most of my annoyance came from.
You called me scum....you're making me hard.
Originally posted by BackFire
But why should simply saving your progress be a "strategic element"? Shouldn't the strategy be, you know, in the gameplay?
Quite possibly. I just contend that such matters do not make it flawed.
Originally posted by BackFire
Also it made it a huge pain if something came up while you were playing and had to save on the fly. You had to weigh your options of saving your game and hoping that you wouldn't end up screwing yourself when you came back into the game or forcing yourself to continue playing and finish up what you were doint to ensure that your game wouldn't break. Simply adding a quicksave option would have helped tremendously in these situations, which is where most of my annoyance came from.
I swear it's not as drastic as people are making out. The missions are clearly marked as to how long is left. Oh well.
Originally posted by BackFire
You called me scum....you're making me hard.
I...see.