Can we let the visuals go already? The gameplay is the same in both, minus the new weapon in the Ps2. Considering games SHOULD be about gameplay and not so much the most realistic looking graphics, andthe Ps2 doesn't look TERRIBLE, it's just NOT as well lit as the GC version, and the loading times are a BIT longer. I own both, and anyone who owns both is well aware.
I propose a radical idea to all who wish to adopt it.
Can we stop listing ways in which the PS2 version is inferior, only to say it's not inferior?
The graphics do not make the game, but they are undeniably worse. Worse doesn't mean terrible, it means worse. While we're on topic of what does and doesn't affect the game, neither does an additional gun that you don't even get until you've completed it, so can we stop bringing that up as well?
People prefer the PS2 version for one of two reasons: A) The gun. B) The add on.
Neither make the MAIN game any better. So maybe switch the claim to "I prefer..." rather than "It's better.".
-AC
Technically, it's all irrelevant. This thread is for Capcom apparently trying to resurrect the Gun Survivor style of play, not for Capcom releasing a third version of RE4 and the subjective pros and cons of the previous versions.
Now personally, I'll at least rent this. I have a fondness for on-rail shooters, and this one won't eat my quarters.
Originally posted by JToTheP
Can we let the visuals go already?
I dunno.. its the age of HD gaming... I dont think people want to downgrade on visuals (I personally wouldnt)
besides the video isnt going "omg dont buy it on ps2"... its there for whoever needs help making an informed decision
innerrise happens to be in the market for a version of RE4 so I just tossed it out there.. I have no personal disdain for any incarnation of the game
I dont own a Wii.. but I'm sure my friend will be renting umbrella chronicles for a whirl... sounds like a good way to pass the time at the very least
Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
I dunno.. its the age of HD gaming... I dont think people want to downgrade on visuals (I personally wouldnt)besides the video isnt going "omg dont buy it on ps2"... its there for whoever needs help making an informed decision
innerrise happens to be in the market for a version of RE4 so I just tossed it out there.. I have no personal disdain for any incarnation of the game
I dont own a Wii.. but I'm sure my friend will be renting umbrella chronicles for a whirl... sounds like a good way to pass the time at the very least
It is, you're right, silly me for being the only one not playing on an HDTV yet. 😛
I know, you're right to show him the link, but the Wii version will get an upgrade anyway just for being ported.
Yeah, pass the time for five minutes before you realize it's Gun Survivor 5.
In my opinion, JToTheP, it's a bit stupid to be saying the game will suck when you haven't played it yet, or seen anything about it other than a couple short trailers. You don't even know how it will control. Maybe Capcom (who happen to do what they do very well most of the time) learned from the Gun Survivor series' poor reception, and are using this as a chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of the fans. Any style of game can be good or bad, it's all about how the individual game is handled.
Don't put down a game without first-hand experience. That's a good way to miss out on a lot of games you might otherwise have enjoyed.
General, did you PLAY any of the Survivor games, or just Time Crisis, House of the dead, etc?
No, I've not played any of the Survivor games, but at least I'm keeping an open mind. Did you play Survivor with a light gun, as it was intended? I think not, unless you imported the Japanese version. In fact, have you played more than one?
Did you know that the Survivor series received increasingly better reviews with each installment? How about the fact that RE4 has more in common with Dead Aim than it does with the main series?
Other than the over-the-shoulder viewpoint and the ability to control your movement, RE4 has a much more arcade feel to it than the previous games in the main series. Far more enemies, especially at once, more precise aim than simply "point at zombie: head/chest/on floor" No true exploration, have you noticed? You're carefully funneled through scripted events, kind of like, oh I dunno, an arcade game? Take away movement control, and RE4 would be essentially a Survivor installment.
From the Umbrella Chronicles gameplay clips I've seen, that's what I'm expecting the game to be like: RE4 on rails. I don't arbitrarily hate on rails play, in fact I've enjoyed other on rails games like Star Fox 64 and Killer7. I already know that the Wii can be excellent with FPS gameplay. The game is based on events throughout the main series, and theoretically later parts detailing the fall of Umbrella. I fully expect UC to be an entertaining action game with a Resident Evil feel, purely based on the facts I know.
Dead Aim still received various 6 out of 7's. I'd of rather of spent $20 on that, than $40. I own Dead Aim, and Survivor 1. RE4 wasn't on rails though, you had full freedom of Leon's surroundings, even with the behind-the-view camera. I'm not fond of having no control of where my character is going, I think it's unnecessary and stupid, especially for a series like RE. How can you define it as SURVIVAL HORROR? If the only control you have over the character, is the cross hairs, and the clip in the gun?
Killer 7 still gave you back and forth movement, you could return to the beginning of the level if you chose, so it wasn't COMPLETELY out of your hands.
As far as Star Fox 64 goes, I've only played that, and the SNES one. The SNES confused the hell out of me, most likely because I was 8, and was better off with Donkey Kong, Zelda, Metroid, and Mario games. I never played Star Fox on the DS, and from what I hear since the Stylus is the primary control combined with the d-pad, that doesn't seem very comfortable to me.
I just don't see any arcade shooter worth over $20, because they all reflect the same game play style, and are very short. Now if out of some sudden chance UC contains long levels, if the Typewriter saving isn't there, Capcom is setting up the, NEW.PLAYERS. for disaster. Since after all this is what it's for, yes? The NEW PLAYERS, when Resident Evil 4 brought LOTS of NEW players, AND old back into the series.
I'm not trying to cause anarchy over this, but I think Capcom is butchering the series. I mean, by using the formula that has been sub-par for years, and arcade games being how they are, it's just setting up the downfall of the series. You can do as you choose because you don't loath on-rail shooters, but don't be surprised if it contains the same ideas as other on-rail shooters.
Um, just to point out - a game being "on rails" means that the plot is completely scripted out and you have to go from point A to point B to point C to get further in the game. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have no control at all over what you're doing.
It's a term that refers to plot, not gameplay, and every game that exists with a specific story is on rails to an extent, some more than others. It's also why generally the only real roleplaying element RPG video games have is the ability to level up your characters and such.
Originally posted by Lana
Um, just to point out - a game being "on rails" means that the plot is completely scripted out and you have to go from point A to point B to point C to get further in the game. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have no control at all over what you're doing.It's a term that refers to plot, not gameplay, and every game that exists with a specific story is on rails to an extent, some more than others. It's also why generally the only real roleplaying element RPG video games have is the ability to level up your characters and such.
If that is true about being on rails though, that just technically means events are 'triggered' and I never ever heard the term on rails used for RPG games, considering most are non-linear to an extent. These days companies strive on filling the game discs with side quests along the side of 'triggering' each cut-scene.
That also brings up sequence breaking for linear games, Metroid Prime, Fusion, and Prime 2 are recent examples of the past few years. People spent years on those games, and gamefaqs had STICKIES regarding every possible, and impossible sequence break. I do know after seeing videos as well they managed to bypass cut-scenes as a result. It wouldn't surprise me if linear RPGs were broken as well.
So really if you can avoid a cut-scene, location you must go to, in some shape or form, whether it be a glitch, or whatever it is, I don't see how that can be considered on rails. And if on rails is from going from point A to B to C, why would an open-ended game where you can delay advancing the story be directly considered on rails? It's just me, but that's why I only define arcade first person shooters as on rails.
On rails is very much an RPG quality. You may be able to roam all over a continent, but you don't progress in the game itself unless you go to that one town and talk to that one old man.
I honestly don't mind you disliking the gameplay style. What I dislike is you insisting that your opinion that it is bad is a fact. There's a difference.
Originally posted by JToTheP
If that is true about being on rails though, that just technically means events are 'triggered' and I never ever heard the term on rails used for RPG games, considering most are non-linear to an extent. These days companies strive on filling the game discs with side quests along the side of 'triggering' each cut-scene.That also brings up sequence breaking for linear games, Metroid Prime, Fusion, and Prime 2 are recent examples of the past few years. People spent years on those games, and gamefaqs had STICKIES regarding every possible, and impossible sequence break. I do know after seeing videos as well they managed to bypass cut-scenes as a result. It wouldn't surprise me if linear RPGs were broken as well.
So really if you can avoid a cut-scene, location you must go to, in some shape or form, whether it be a glitch, or whatever it is, I don't see how that can be considered on rails. And if on rails is from going from point A to B to C, why would an open-ended game where you can delay advancing the story be directly considered on rails? It's just me, but that's why I only define arcade first person shooters as on rails.
See, the term on rails is more a roleplaying one that refers to a game where the plot will push you in a certain direction, and you can't really go any further in the plot until you go along with it. You can screw around with side stuff all you want, but eventually you'll have to do certain stuff or go a certain way in order to really move on.
So that's precisely correct - events are triggered. In a lot of games, events won't occur unless you do something in particular to trigger it. And if you HAVE to go through that event in order to further the plot and move on in the game, then you can't get anywhere without triggering that event.
Thus, sidequests don't really count as they don't generally actually add anything or are essential to the main plot. Neither does breaking sequences because eventually you're going to need to do something to get back to the main plot in order to really do anything.
And RP video games are for the most part the most on rails video games that exist. In a Final Fantasy game, if you don't go from this place to the next, or interact with a certain character, you can't further the plot and thus get on with the game. In Zelda, yeah, sure, there's TONS of side quests you can do without actually going through a single temple...but then you're not actually doing anything in the game, because the plot pushes you to go through these temples. And so on.
Every single game that has some sort of story and at some point requires you to do something in order to continue on with the story can be considered on rails. It's just that not every game is to the same extent.