Maybe you just said that to butter up Visceral Games :p
What worries me is how he is saying powers can be used instead of guns in Dead Space 2. Part of the tension for me was the early stages of the first game, when you were basically helpless, with hardly any ammo, and had to slap/stomp your way out of a corner. If Isaac is some sort of Kinetic God, I think it could go the "RE4/5" route.
Fun video! I know Funktastic would like it.
As for Dead Space 2, Dead Space 1 was already too action heavy, so I can't say that I can relate R3y.
I can't understand why he is spelling his name with numbers, much less the great point you made.
Aside from that, I am really looking forward to Dead Space 2. The first surprised me by how much I found myself enjoying it. It's nice to not follow a game at all and then find it to be a completely solid experience that somehow pulls you in enough for you to play it every day until you reach completion.
(loved RE4, and its previous iterations, btw.)
Resident Evil is supposed to scare you. People didn't like RE5 because it wasn't scary. Capcom didn't evolve the series, they just changed what fans liked about it; alone and in the dark.
so it not being scary makes it a crap game? no, it makes it a bad resident evil game, but thats no reason not too complete it. its still a great game.
"I think I peed myself when Dead Space shocked me at a place where (normally) in other games you're safe; the save point."
I remember exactly where you're talking about, and I had the same reaction. Fantastic!
I never said it was a crap game and I did beat it, but you did sum up a lot of people's feelings: " it makes it a bad resident evil game".
To all thepeople bitching, let it be known that you could change out a few characters in the game and rename it and no one would be the wiser.
RE5 isn't a bad GAME by any stretch of the imaginationg. Its just a bad RESIDENT EVIL game. At the very most its lackluster.
Fun games are supposed to be fun
Scary games are supposed to be scary.
Hard games are supposed to be challanging.
Games in itself can be many things.
So a company delivers something different and people bitch about it and claim it's not a _______ game anymore.
Oh god, i remember that part of the game where you go to the deepest, darkest bowels of the ship and see those black necromorphs dragging bodies across the floor. I thought if you left the room they would'nt follow, but that's when I found out that even save stations are not safe, because after I left the save screen, 5 of them were right behind me, no music to warn me or anything. *shiver*
We are arguing about two different things. this man said he thought re5 was crap and didnt bother finshing it. thats completely different to saying it was a bad resident evil game. im defending re5 as a good game, not as a good resident evil title.
but re5 not being a good resident evil game doesn't make it a bad game. people even say re4 isnt a resident evil game, yet its still one of the best games ever made.
re5 is basically re4 with less scares, and that doesn't make it a bad game.
Dead Space 2 is on my list and I cant take it off!
I don't care if they CALL it a horror game, its not if its not scary.
also i dont think ppl hated Res5 cuz it was a action game...i think people hated it because it was a POOr action game. sluggish controls(lost planent anyone??) crap set pieces, terrible acting. im not even gonna mention the AI.
res peaked with res4 then shoulda went to bed.
1. People don't constantly bitch about games not evolving and changing. Where you read 90% of that argument is in gaming media articles, most often deployed in aiding a marketing/PR person spinning the fact that there's been core gameplay changes in a series. 'Evolved' is a nice, upbeat way of saying 'changed', and makes it seem as if a person isn't 'forward thinking' if they don't like it. The reality is the vast majority of 'evolved and changing', such as RE5, actually moves towards...
2. ...multi-player, co-op, and 'Arcade' style action design. Which isn't so much 'evolving' as 'making a game 100% casual gamer and young teen bait'.
RE4 'changed', but kept the same RE atmosphere backed by a lengthy, engaging single-player experience. It remains one of the more memorable games I've ever played. RE5 followed the formula detailed above in 2., and gave us a short, co-op aimed, competent action game (and would have been reviewed as a mediocre experience if not for Capcom's big adverting $$$) that's ultimately forgettable 5 minutes after playing.
dont hurt yourself thinking about what you say in future! ;)
RE5 was everything said idiots creamed there pants about in RE4, amped up and in HD with co-op. But these people are too stupid to even admit that, it's far easier to be sheep and continually follow the other sheep's bitching bleetings.
Hahahahaha no. The co-op was not a plus. It was a negative attribute to the game. Everything with designed around co-op and if you weren't playing co-op you were stuck with Shiva McRetard. Every time I looked at that bot I got angry knowing she was why my inventory was cut down to 8 slots. Sure Ashley was useless but I don't ever remember her getting in my way in like 10 play throughs of RE 4.
But outside of that. Resident Evil 4 went for a zany over the top approach to it's style. I mean the castle full of traps, etc. Completely ridiculous but fun to play through. RE 5 on the other hand tried to be really serious run and gun. It just didn't work and it wasn't that fun to play.
I don't know what to say other than RE 4 is so many things RE 5 isn't. You can take the HD graphics and co-op and shove them for all I care.
The story was actually related to the series unlike 4, the monster designs were better (majinis actually LOOKED like decaying, necrosis ridden inffected than just some old spanish dudes with pitch forks) and sheva's AI actually fought back.
RE4 fanatics who can't admit 5 improved it are idiots.

surf dtoid with 






Rising (10+)
People you follow
























follow