TWO NEW E3 Operation Raccoon City Demo videos! :D MUST SEE!

The PC isn't really taken into consideration in most console debates though. To me, if you have a good PC then having a 360 is redundant. Also, I care about the console war because I would rather not donate to a console manufacturer that has proven that they don't care at all about their consumers. The 360 has the worst hardware quality gaming has ever seen by a loooooong shot, they make you pay for online out of pure unadulterated greed, it is holding gaming back with its small disc space, it claims to be true 1080p when that is a blatant lie. It's just ridiculous and MS will never get my money for their hardware. Their software is amazing though.

Mcghie wrote:

Also, is the newer ps3's faster ? Im thinking of purchasing one when I next get paid.
I own the the rare 40GB version which is backwards compatable.

My PS3 (60gb) got faster after I changed the hard drive to a better (and bigger) one.

I'm not sure if they are faster. They are more energy efficient. If they put a cost on the online service, I would send letters. The updates aren't a big deal, they improve the Network and they don't come out that often. I've never had one last more than like 10 or 15 minutes. And I've never had an initial game download last more than a couple minutes. I've just never had a problem with them and I definitely see no need to pay to play online. That's absurd.

Yeah. I'm content with them having the OPTIONAL cost, if you want to have PS Plus that is.

The updates don't take too long either. Some game updates did but that was when I still had a slower connection.

I've never had any issues with lengthy updates or DLs either.

NiteKrawler wrote:

I'm not sure if they are faster. They are more energy efficient. If they put a cost on the online service, I would send letters. The updates aren't a big deal, they improve the Network and they don't come out that often. I've never had one last more than like 10 or 15 minutes. And I've never had an initial game download last more than a couple minutes. I've just never had a problem with them and I definitely see no need to pay to play online. That's absurd.

Hmm, maybe was just my old room that didnt get a good WIFI signal.
I will also use my ethernet cable for my connection maybe that will speed stuff up.
Infact come to think about it most of the time I was getting 2 bar connetions, so it must be my old room that
was a signal blocker lol.
If my ethernet speeds my ps3 up then I can see my xbox gathering dust for a while

[i]

I still think it should be called Operation Kill Leon

Finally, a Resident Evil game that looks accessible enough for my friends. RE5's learning curve is just too big for them.

RingoSparkle wrote:

I still think it should be called Operation Kill Leon

True, that will be my primary objective whene I play this game .

RaviorStygian wrote:

RE5's learning curve is just too big for them.

Then you shouldn't even think of giving them one of the old games lol.

ThomVD wrote:

RaviorStygian wrote:

RE5's learning curve is just too big for them.

Then you shouldn't even think of giving them one of the old games lol.

No way. They only like FPS' (with the exception of Uncharted) and driving games for the most part. Anything that has a simple control scheme.

Same with most of my friends. They only play CoD and Fifa.

ThomVD wrote:

RaviorStygian wrote:

RE5's learning curve is just too big for them.

Then you shouldn't even think of giving them one of the old games lol.

Lol. Reminds me of a rant I read on another RE site. This one guy, after playing RE4, decided to try CVX. After complaining about it not being exactly like RE4, he went on to complain about how it took him four hours just to get Claire out of the jail cell at the very beginning of the game. As the kind-hearted, compassionate, and helpful Saint that I am, I gave him a very simple to follow explanation of the controls (as in "Up is forward, down is backward" simple). Even then, he still couldn't figure it out. After that, I mentioned something about "severely overestimating" his "directional coordination". The convo somehow drifted toward Silent Hill and he asked about the controls to it. When I told him the truth (that the control scheme for Silent Hill was the same basic one as in RE), he then went on a hilarious rant about how I liked "shitty games with shitty control schemes". We then went back and forth, taking potshots at each other (me teasing him about not being able to figure out the RE controls and him saying that if he wanted advice on what games not to play he'd ask me) for several posts more before the admin deleted those posts and asked us to stop.

It was pretty fun to let my troll side out for once. I should do it more often.

Ghost Leader wrote:

ThomVD wrote:

RaviorStygian wrote:

RE5's learning curve is just too big for them.

Then you shouldn't even think of giving them one of the old games lol.

Lol. Reminds me of a rant I read on another RE site. This one guy, after playing RE4, decided to try CVX. After complaining about it not being exactly like RE4, he went on to complain about how it took him four hours just to get Claire out of the jail cell at the very beginning of the game. As the kind-hearted, compassionate, and helpful Saint that I am, I gave him a very simple to follow explanation of the controls (as in "Up is forward, down is backward" simple). Even then, he still couldn't figure it out. After that, I mentioned something about "severely overestimating" his "directional coordination". The convo somehow drifted toward Silent Hill and he asked about the controls to it. When I told him the truth (that the control scheme for Silent Hill was the same basic one as in RE), he then went on a hilarious rant about how I liked "shitty games with shitty control schemes". We then went back and forth, taking potshots at each other (me teasing him about not being able to figure out the RE controls and him saying that if he wanted advice on what games not to play he'd ask me) for several posts more before the admin deleted those posts and asked us to stop.

I've been face palming some people on youtube, saying stuff like "RE4 was useless, wasn't really Resident Evil," "They should have never made RE5," and "They should remake RE2 and 3 as an apology to RE4 and 5." Stupid stuff like that.

I agree with two things of those examples:

RaviorStygian wrote:

RE4 wasn't really Resident Evil

and

RaviorStygian wrote:

They should remake RE2 and 3

ThomVD wrote:

I agree with two things of those examples:

RaviorStygian wrote:

RE4 wasn't really Resident Evil

*facepalm*

Come on, you can't deny it. Even though it was a great game, it had very little to do with Resident Evil both gameplay and storywise.

ThomVD wrote:

Come on, you can't deny it. Even though it was a great game, it had very little to do with Resident Evil both gameplay and storywise.

It's still a Resident Evil game, and it's still 100% Resident Evil. Literally nothing can be said to change it.

It was when the series evolved and changed. I guarantee if there was zombies and more cameos, none of these comments of it "not actually being Resident Evil" would even exist. Purists always want things to stay the same, with very little changes being made. It really annoys the heck out of me when people bash games that deserve more for the silliest of reasons. It's almost as bad as complaining about Sonic's eyes being green: there's just no point to it.

RE4 is a Resident Evil game. It really is Resident Evil, and it's just as much of a Resident Evil game as any other, and it isn't completely useless to the story of Resident Evil either. It's just as valuable as any of the other games. I can't stress this enough.

I don't care if someone doesn't like it, but I like it when there's actually rational reasons involved. Like, if someone dismissed it because they somehow didn't like the controls (although I'm not sure how that's possible) or the gameplay, that's fair. But because Leon's hair is combed over more than in RE2? That just doesn't make any sense.

Please give some arguments why you think the gameplay or story is the same. For me the gameplay in Resident Evil was always about a few things:

-Exploration
-Solving puzzles
-Conserving ammo
-Strategic planning
-One objective: survive

Resident Evil has never been about action and shooting, so in terms of gameplay it has none of the things what made RE's gameplay so good in my opinion. It didn't only change the gameplay, but the whole genre (from survival-horror to third person shooter), which is a bit to much for me. I don't thing you would like it if they changed Zelda into an turn based RPG. Those changes are meant for spin-offs, not for main games.

Like I said a million times before: Change some of the character's names and remove the intro, and the story of RE4 had nothing to do with the RE storyline. I don't care about Leon's hair, I just want them to continue the main storyline, which they did in RE5. RE4's story felt like a irrelevant side story.

ThomVD wrote:

Please give some arguments why you think the gameplay or story is the same. For me the gameplay in Resident Evil was always about a few things:

-Exploration
-Solving puzzles
-Conserving ammo
-Strategic planning
-One objective: survive

Resident Evil has never been about action and shooting, so in terms of gameplay it has none of the things what made RE's gameplay so good in my opinion. It didn't only change the gameplay, but the whole genre (from survival-horror to third person shooter), which is a bit to much for me. I don't thing you would like it if they changed Zelda into an turn based RPG. Those changes are meant for spin-offs, not for main games.

Like I said a million times before: Change some of the character's names and remove the intro, and the story of RE4 had nothing to do with the RE storyline. I don't care about Leon's hair, I just want them to continue the main storyline, which they did in RE5. RE4's story felt like a irrelevant side story.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Maybe you can convince me if you start giving some arguments and examples. I think REmake is the best example what resident evil is all about.

ThomVD wrote:

Maybe you can convince me if you start giving some arguments and examples.

I'll try, but I am absolutely terrible with arguments, even with things I'm passionate about. I have no idea why. Keep that in mind.

-Exploration
There was still exploration, however the exploration usually rewarded you with more supplies and getting more pieces of certain treasures rather than puzzle items, although there were quite a few times where you had to explore to get certain items that allowed you to progress. The village and areas surrounding it have plenty of little ares to go to to get more supplies, not to mention the hedge maze. Nevertheless, there was still exploration. Getting treasure pieces was actually important, and did require going to certain places that weren't necessary for you to go. The reason why treasure was important was because it gave you the resources to upgrade your guns so that you would have a better chance of killing a boss before they kill you, as well as making it possible to use less ammo. The fact that exploration helps you save money and supplies is also evident that if you explore the castle more and back track to a certain area after rescuing Ashely, you can get a Broken Butterfly magnum for free rather than forking over a lot of money for it that could be spent on more upgrades or other weapons and items. Anyway, if you don't explore, you'll find yourself being weaker and less resourceful than you should be. This is especially important when playing on Professional mode. (Plus just looking around already explored areas for little sparklies got you more treasure.)

-Solving puzzles
While there was a lack of them, and some of them quite easy, there was still puzzles. I can think of at least four puzzles off the top of my head. While that may not be a lot compared to the other RE titles, they were still there, and the first time you play through the game they do cause you to stop and think.

-Conserving ammo
There's still some sense of conservation here. If you aren't careful and are careless, you will run out of ammo. It happened to me the first time I played through it, and then never really happened again once I was more careful. That, actually, is how it is with every RE game. If you are a bit careful and aren't careless, you will never run out of ammo. The only RE game I have come close to running out of ammo in was the original RE game for the PS1. Even then, I always had enough ammo to kill off enemies that were in my way. No matter what, in every RE game, I always manage to have more than enough ammo, so the whole "lack of ammo" thing kind of baffles me since I've never seen it as a problem.

-Strategic planning
There's no strategic planning in RE4? Huh? I can think of several areas of where strategy was either important or beneficial in RE4. Of course, I won't list all of them (too many) but I will list some. First off, choosing which weapons to upgrade or buy is a big part of the strategy. Do you upgrade your Hand Gun so it will be a little stronger until you get the Black Tail or Red9? Or, do you save your money so can upgrade either of those two pistols or some other weapon. You could also make the decision to keep the Hand Gun so that you could upgrade it to have a higher chance of delivering fatal head shots. Second, choosing where to stay when a horde of enemies are coming, and what to do. The very beginning of the game has this. Do you A) choose to not enter the house that spawns Dr. Salvador so that you can conserve ammo, or B) choose to go into the house so that you can get extra treasure from defeating him that would allow further upgrades or purchasable weapons and items despite having less ammo (not to mention add some fun to the game). This is especially true in Mercs, as choosing the right path and areas to hold up are important for your survival and score. Third, choosing the path to take during the escape from the village. Do you choose the path with tons of weaker enemies, or do you take on one very powerful enemy. Skilled players can take both routes, but the fact remains that you are indeed given a choice in where to go and each route has consequences. Fourth, taking a certain vantage point while fighting a boss. The first major boss of the game, Mendez, can be fought by either staying downstairs or by going upstairs. If you go upstairs, you will have a better chance of avoiding his attacks (in the first form at least) and have the opportunity of getting more supplies and means to kill him, rather than fighting him on the first floor where you're more susceptible to taking damage from his attacks. The boss fight with the two El Gigante's is a great example of using strategy. Waiting for one to step in the right spot so that you can eliminate it by dropping it into lava. Doing this successfully instantly makes the battle a lot easier. When fighting the two Garradors you had the option of using one of your rocket launchers on one of them to make the battle easier. Of course, maybe it would be more wise to save it for Salazar. Fifth, using grenades on that group of crows that you encounter to get more money rather than just shooting them is another little area where using some strategy benefits you. Sixth, having Ashely hide in certain areas to keep her safe can be counted as strategy. Seventh, using the knife on fallen enemies that were still alive to conserve ammo. Eighth, the item system itself played huge chunk into the games strategy. Making space and putting items into better locations requires quite a bit of strategy. Also, shooting ten of the medallions so you can get a free Punisher just so you can sell it to get extra money is another little tidbit of strategy. There's plenty of other areas where strategy is involved, and if I can think of anymore, I'll probably put them into this post.

-One objective: survive
That's the objective of the game, actually. Rescue the president's daughter, escape, and survive. Not really much else to say on that one.

I have a feeling that won't change you mind, but even if it doesn't, it's not really a big deal. These are video games we're talking about.

-Exploration
I disagree with this one. I don't call a few extra rooms you can visit exploration. It was linear and it will always be. That's a fact. There was almost no backtracking too.

-Solving puzzles
Puzzles is not only a slider puzzle or a riddle, it is also finding keys, combining items etc. And the few puzzles in RE4 only lasted around 2 minutes. and almost didn't require much thinking. If they removed them it wouldn't change the game, but if they removed them in the old games, there was almost nothing left of the game.

-Conserving ammo
I finished the game with 300 handgun bullets, 50 shotgun shells (excluding the 100 shells in the striker), 50 sniper bullets, 500 TMP ammo and 6 R-Y-G herbs and I killed almost every single enemy in the game. Enough said. Even on pro they give you a shitload of ammo and healing items, not to mention the almost infinite inventory space, which sucks.

-Strategic planning
I meant something different. In the old games I always planned what to do next if I was in a save room with an item box. Which rooms shall I explore, shall I take a shotgun or an extra herb in the last slot of my inventory, do I have enough health to get past those hunters in that hallway, shall I save or conserve my ink ribbon and save if I make any progress, etc. That isn't in RE4. Removing the ink ribbon save system was one of the worst changes.

- One objective: survive
ONE objective. You did everything just to survive. Leon is searching for the presidents daugher, so I don't think the only objective was survival.

You didn't say anything about the story, so I guess you agree with me?

ThomVD wrote:

You didn't say anything about the story, so I guess you agree with me?

I don't really have much to say other than I don't think it was useless and that I loved the plot. Simply that.

But really, when someone doesn't like something, it's nearly impossible to changed their minds, so I don't think typing up anymore paragraphs explaining why I disagree will really amount to anything.

I didn't say I don't like RE4, I said it wasn't really a RE game, and that is discussable.

It is pretty hard to discuss for me by the way, because English isn't my main language and I'm not that good at it, so sorry for any grammar mistakes.