Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City Review

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

subtlefuge:

Terramax:

Spot1990:
Surely the runningout of ammo is a good thing? As in the PS1 era Resi's where you had to be conservative with your ammo or you'll die.

I'm assuming the problem is, whilst in previous games you can avoid fighting zombies, in this the whole point is you can't pursue forward until you've killed everything?

That being said, the reviewer's failed to point out how this is that much worse than Left4Dead.

I played L4D2, and honestly I didn't find it to be any more innovative or interesting than what this appears to be. In fact, the only difference seems to be the switch from 1st to 3rd person. Is anyone able to elaborate how L4D is supposedly that much better?

One key point is that the mechanics make the game playable. The game shifts in difficulty based on the health of your teammates, speed of progression, whether you close doors behind you, etc. The level design is clever. The hit detection is spot on. There are built-in mechanics that reward you for being selfless and playing as a team. There is dialogue and banter to help lighten things up and make it enjoyable. The game creates natural crescendo moments through careful sound design and pacing.

Really, there's likely more than a hundred things that make L4D better than this game.

The mechanics of L4D are pretty simple, but they're done so well, that they work for L4D. The nuts and bolts of the engine, the incredible tightness of the engine, the well put together multiplayer services(PC,YMMV) and shifting game world make for a great experience. It's also older, which also means cheaper, but it's well worth the price now.

As for the review, the part about the monsters that started at 1:36 and ended in a rant about evaluating your life was gold.

Don Savik:

CD-R:

Don Savik:
So you try to start a game thats based around team based 4 player coop BY YOURSELF and get mad because nobody joins you.

And you get frustrated and give it a low score.

Sounds about right.

I would too. Left 4 Dead is also based around team based 4 player Coop but it's at least playable by yourself. So is Borderlands.

So whats the exact qualifier here? Do all games based around team coop have to be playable by yourself (defeating the point of the game)? What about Team Fortress 2? or Other team oriented games? And Borderlands is boring when played single player, so by your logic it should've gotten a bad score.

And since Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil 5, Mercenaries DS, Revelations, all the movies, WHY do we still think the games are supposed to be "hardcore survival horror" (whatever the hell people think that means anyways). Its a third person shooter with horror elements equivalent to dead space. They didn't market it as a scary horror game even, so its not false hype. From day 1 we could tell what the mood of the game was going to be. Just no pleasing the internet I guess.

Hey i found borderlands quite fun on my own (granted it's more fun with someone else)

OT: i think i'm going to go halfway on this game and rent it as i've heard good and bad things about it

Captcha: Three strikes

Don Savik:

CD-R:

Don Savik:
So you try to start a game thats based around team based 4 player coop BY YOURSELF and get mad because nobody joins you.

And you get frustrated and give it a low score.

Sounds about right.

I would too. Left 4 Dead is also based around team based 4 player Coop but it's at least playable by yourself. So is Borderlands.

So whats the exact qualifier here? Do all games based around team coop have to be playable by yourself (defeating the point of the game)? What about Team Fortress 2? or Other team oriented games? And Borderlands is boring when played single player, so by your logic it should've gotten a bad score.

And since Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil 5, Mercenaries DS, Revelations, all the movies, WHY do we still think the games are supposed to be "hardcore survival horror" (whatever the hell people think that means anyways). Its a third person shooter with horror elements equivalent to dead space. They didn't market it as a scary horror game even, so its not false hype. From day 1 we could tell what the mood of the game was going to be. Just no pleasing the internet I guess.

I agree. At no point did they say that they were trying to make a scary game. The very first gameplay video they showed had the USS running while shooting and stabbing people in the throat.

It's also worth mentioning that the ad campaign for Resident Evil 1 invented the term 'survival horror'.

Looks pretty mediocre.
Resident Evil 2 is one of my childhood games ( I got to play RE1 after the second, I don't remember why ), which pursued me into gaming altogether, but I wasn't expecting much more because this is the main direction games are going nowadays.
I know nostalgic comments like this one might be annoying but I feel this is the truth right now (graphics and accesibility more important than gameplay/story/atmosphere)

Spot1990:
Surely the runningout of ammo is a good thing? As in the PS1 era Resi's where you had to be conservative with your ammo or you'll die.

Not in a game designed this way, it isn't. In old Resident Evil games, you could survive small-scale encounters with just a magazine or two for a handgun. And, if all else fails, you can run the hell away.

This? Not so much. You're expected to spray bullets and hope for the best. You're not so much an elite special forces team as you are firefighters armed with low-caliber bullet hoses.

Xiado:
It's not supposed to be a survival horror game. You're not a lone agent trapped in the middle of an outbreak with sparse weapons and ammo, you're a fully trained special forces squad equipped for a specific mission. The game is supposed to be a shooter based in the RE universe; the brand doesn't instantly mean survival horror.

I understand the trained special forces part, but as to it not being horror...c'mon, mate. Most of us have seen Predator and Aliens. Trained soldiers are no excluding factor for a horror game.

And even then, I'd have loved if it actually played as if you were...well, a special forces team. You might have a fair bit of firepower, but resupplies aren't as common as you might like, so you need to rely on conservation of ammo and making your shots count. That's what actual special forces do: every shot has a purpose, and if that purpose isn't 'kill,' it's probably to set up a kill.

Terramax:

Spot1990:
Surely the runningout of ammo is a good thing? As in the PS1 era Resi's where you had to be conservative with your ammo or you'll die.

I'm assuming the problem is, whilst in previous games you can avoid fighting zombies, in this the whole point is you can't pursue forward until you've killed everything?

That being said, the reviewer's failed to point out how this is that much worse than Left4Dead.

I played L4D2, and honestly I didn't find it to be any more innovative or interesting than what this appears to be. In fact, the only difference seems to be the switch from 1st to 3rd person. Is anyone able to elaborate how L4D is supposedly that much better?

Not sure if trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Let's set aside countless things like production quality, graphics, characters, etc, and focus on one aspect: the guns. I can neatly illustrate everything that's wrong with this game and everything that's right with the L4D games just by looking at the guns.

In this, you have a fully automatic bullet-hose. Each bullet does about as much damage as a blown kiss to a zombie, and for a special forces operative, you can't aim for shit. So every single encounter is an exercise of the pray 'n spray school of shooting.

Now consider Left 4 Dead. The guns have varying degrees of accuracy, rates of fire, magazine sizes, and caliber, but the one thing they all have in common is the feeling that each bullet actually counts for something. High-caliber rounds can take down zombies with one shot, and weapons hit where you want them to. If you're frantically spraying bullets, it's because things have already gone tits-up. The rag-tag survivors of both L4D games had more fire discipline than this supposed special forces team. The OSS put the 'special' in 'special forces.'

I'm pretty sure Capcom just phoned it in when it came time to research firearms, because to them, there's only two types of guns in the word: ones that act like MAC-10s being fired with one hand, and sniper rifles. Maybe shotguns, if you're feeling particularly creative.

attackshark:
"ridiculous outfits"? have you even played a CAPCOM game before?

But in the past, they've at least shown some restraint when it comes to designing the uniforms of soldier-ish people. Maybe it's just because Umbrella's dress code is just as bad as their business plans.

Terramax:

I played L4D2, and honestly I didn't find it to be any more innovative or interesting than what this appears to be. In fact, the only difference seems to be the switch from 1st to 3rd person. Is anyone able to elaborate how L4D is supposedly that much better?

Better controls, better character interaction (really, the character's feelings for eachother are incredibly detailed, look it up on the wikia), better multiplayer (Versus is quite fun), better atmosphere, better replayability, developed by Valve etc.

"Instead of tense sequences of fighting off zombie hordes or classic monsters like the Licker, and making every bullet count "

"given how easy it is to run out of ammo"

Just thought I'd point that out.

Xiado:
It's not supposed to be a survival horror game. You're not a lone agent trapped in the middle of an outbreak with sparse weapons and ammo, you're a fully trained special forces squad equipped for a specific mission. The game is supposed to be a shooter based in the RE universe; the brand doesn't instantly mean survival horror.

CD-R:

Don Savik:
So you try to start a game thats based around team based 4 player coop BY YOURSELF and get mad because nobody joins you.

And you get frustrated and give it a low score.

Sounds about right.

I would too. Left 4 Dead is also based around team based 4 player Coop but it's at least playable by yourself. So is Borderlands.

The L4D A.I. is awful and you know it. Healing players at yellow health and not avoiding spitter acid until the NPCs start getting damaged is just moronic.

Xiado:
It's not supposed to be a survival horror game. You're not a lone agent trapped in the middle of an outbreak with sparse weapons and ammo, you're a fully trained special forces squad equipped for a specific mission. The game is supposed to be a shooter based in the RE universe; the brand doesn't instantly mean survival horror.

Also, this. It's a (good) spin off, and I'm sick of the "OH GOD, I'M NOT SCARED OF RESIDENT EVIL ANYMORE EVEN THOUGH THE GAMES BEFORE RE4 HAD GOD AWFUL CONTROLS, BORING ENEMIES AND A RETARDED CAMERA ANGLES, SO EVERYTHING AFTER RE4 IS BAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDHURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR" mantality. RE5 wasn't scary in the least (except with the Reapers, although that's because they're cheap enemies), yet it's still a solid co-op game. And guess what? The RE5 A.I. is terrible as well.

I'm sorry, but Resident Evil wasn't good until RE4, and that's because it got a focus on combat with better controls/camera and survival horror mixed into it. ORC lost the horror element, but the first Resident Evil games weren't even that scary to begin with. Ooooo, one or two slow moving, health spongie zombies in a hallway. Better get my auto aim out.

...Side note, I'm wondering if the first RE games would have been better as RPG survival horror games since they did have the whole auto aim aspect.

0:17. One of these things is not like the others. One of these things forgot their combat gear this morning.

Terramax:

Spot1990:
Surely the runningout of ammo is a good thing? As in the PS1 era Resi's where you had to be conservative with your ammo or you'll die.

I'm assuming the problem is, whilst in previous games you can avoid fighting zombies, in this the whole point is you can't pursue forward until you've killed everything?

That being said, the reviewer's failed to point out how this is that much worse than Left4Dead.

I played L4D2, and honestly I didn't find it to be any more innovative or interesting than what this appears to be. In fact, the only difference seems to be the switch from 1st to 3rd person. Is anyone able to elaborate how L4D is supposedly that much better?

yea im throwin in with this guy here. This review seemed to be only focusing on the negative. Mentioning something the game tried to do and calling it boring isn't reviewing. "why did it not work you might ask?" then an explanation would have helped your case more.

I personaly thought the online was JUST as fun and frantic as L4D/L4D2. I actually had more genuine scare moments in this online than in L4D because your SO surrounded constantly. You CAN easily get through them without shooting and you should so you have ammo.

I'll give the story to you as being crap. But we all knew this wasn't supose to be a "typical" resident evil game. They made that clear by hyping up RE6 at the same time and making this a stand alone project. Which is a good thing! They need to try different things with the series or it will always be the same old same old.

So why such a negative review?

Lacking Survival and/or Horror? Resident Evil has been lacking Survival and/or Horror since 2004. So what's new? Resident Evil has been an "Action Shooter" since RE4, it's time people realized that.

Dr Jones:
snip

I must've played the wrong game.

Char-Nobyl:

Not sure if trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Why would I be trolling? Honestly, I saw L4D2 as a just another average shooter. You shoot things, move on to the next section, and shoot more things, in this case, zombies.

Not to say it was a bad game. But, well, you just shoot zombies. I was under the impression it was loved for its purity - no gimmicks, etc. But I didn't see anything revolutionary or poetic about it. So it's better balanced? But that doesn't mean to say Project Racoon is unplayable, does it? Just a little more average.

Capitano Segnaposto:
I actually liked this game. To me it was at least a 2.5 if not 3/5.

Same here. It's not brilliant, but it's good. The multiplayer mode where you have to get on the helicopter is stupid fun.

People just want every new Resident Evil game to be Resident Evil 2. They bitch and bitch and bitch about unoriginality, but when a franchise tries something new, they bitch that is isn't the same as the old games.

If you want RE2, go buy RE2.

This game has some great ideas, and I think that they should expand on those ideas and work on the weaker points to make what could be a great sequel.

Just thought i'd point out firstly i enjoyed this game (that's my opinion so hold your troll cannons) and secondly i'm fed up of hearing reviewers complain about ammo etc. and how hard it is to kill the military, unless you're playing on anything above normal difficulty at which point it gets exceptionally difficult then there is no issue, if you fire single shots and take your time its 1-3 headshots on military enemies dependent on range and caliber of weapon. watching the gameplay video all i see is spraying and lack of aim. logic is lost a lot of the time i suppose =/. also anyone on 360 who fancies some games gimme a shout (i played it through twice on singleplayer and loved every minute.) gamertag: cpl sharp

Didn't even know this game was in production until I saw it on shelves.

"ooh!" I thought. "A new resident evil game?"

I kind of figured it would be a mediocre game just from "gamer sense"

That being said, I'm the guy who actually enjoyed RE5 (on pc co-op). I would probably enjoy this too, but hearing about the weak guns and non-tight controls bugs me.

I'll wait for it to drop in price, and perhaps give it a go.

wait there are ppl who still expect "survival" in their RE titles? shoot if it wasn't for the various grotesqueries that shamble around the game, i would even hardly call it horror. haven't felt a sense of dread in the game since RE3 (well if im honest RE1 was the only time it felt scary, RE2 had a lot shock and awe, and RE3 had unlimited ammo.)

But man is this game generic XD the controls are shabby at best and the goons you shoot are all bullet sponges.

Silent Biohazard Solid:
Lacking Survival and/or Horror? Resident Evil has been lacking Survival and/or Horror since 2004. So what's new? Resident Evil has been an "Action Shooter" since RE4, it's time people realized that.

/highfive

I agree with the review, Operation Raccoon City is mediocre to say the least. Because i'm a big RE fan eventually I will finish the game. I'm not sure though if it counts as a RE game...

-Samurai-:

If you want RE2, go buy RE2.

And what if I love RE 2, I have already bought it and played it ten times, bought every RE game and supported Capcom all those years, and I want from this company to release at least one more survival horror game after Code Veronica X? I don't have a right to express my disappointment?

Terramax:

Why would I be trolling? Honestly, I saw L4D2 as a just another average shooter. You shoot things, move on to the next section, and shoot more things, in this case, zombies.

Not to say it was a bad game. But, well, you just shoot zombies. I was under the impression it was loved for its purity - no gimmicks, etc. But I didn't see anything revolutionary or poetic about it. So it's better balanced? But that doesn't mean to say Project Racoon is unplayable, does it? Just a little more average.

Imo L4D is just so well made. Honestly. The whole director thing (which i admit never really impressed me) is to the characters of the game, like Herman Bang is to his characters, incredibly fair. One moment you are breezing through, but that is just because the harder parts is for later, or vice versa.

I guess it's just the feel of L4D (though we could also compare the fact that Raccoon City is a 2012 game and L4D2 is from 2009).

Rheinmetall:

-Samurai-:

If you want RE2, go buy RE2.

And what if I love RE 2, I have already bought it and played it ten times, bought every RE game and supported Capcom all those years, and I want from this company to release at least one more survival horror game after Code Veronica X? I don't have a right to express my disappointment?

Then you don't buy a game that was never marketed as a survival horror game, and expect it to be a survival horror game. Capcom doesn't owe you another RE 2.

Be disappointed all you want. They don't care. They never said this would be more survival horror.

Char-Nobyl:

Let's set aside countless things like production quality, graphics, characters, etc, and focus on one aspect: the guns. I can neatly illustrate everything that's wrong with this game and everything that's right with the L4D games just by looking at the guns.

In this, you have a fully automatic bullet-hose. Each bullet does about as much damage as a blown kiss to a zombie, and for a special forces operative, you can't aim for shit. So every single encounter is an exercise of the pray 'n spray school of shooting.

That was pretty funny, but inaccurate. The game rewards you if you DON'T pray n' spray. Pistol head shots to zombies generally pop the heads right open for me (professional Difficulty). When fighting SPEC-OPS, if you hit them in the body-armour, then yes you are in for a long fight. Start shooting them (and hitting them) in the face and watch how quickly they will drop. When I first started playing the game I said the same things as you, but I took my time and got better.

What WILL piss you off is how scripted encounters with certain individuals in the story, and how hard their pistol hits you.

Terramax:

Spot1990:
Surely the runningout of ammo is a good thing? As in the PS1 era Resi's where you had to be conservative with your ammo or you'll die.

I'm assuming the problem is, whilst in previous games you can avoid fighting zombies, in this the whole point is you can't pursue forward until you've killed everything?

That being said...

No, with the exception of the very first stage, you don't have to kill everything, you can pretty much avoid anything until boss fights, or sub boss check points. Which is advisable on Professional difficulty.

Running out of ammo is a ...delicate thing. Do it too much, and whats the point in carrying guns, do it too little and where's the challenge? The strategy? Whats the point in counting bullets? I personally find that even on harder difficulties there is no need to worry about a lack of munitions, but maybe they did that on purpose? I dunno, I would have preferred alot less bullets everywhere.

SupahGamuh:
So... it's pretty much a Left 4 Dead clone gone wrong.

It's nothing of the sort. There is no AI director, and it is not survival horror. It is kind of like playing Contra/Socom in Resident Evil's world.

Sampler:
horrendous collision detection or very shoddy controls? (though I'll admit the latter could be my fumbling)

Not trying to kick a dead horse here, but, most likely a pebkac error, the controls and hit detection are just fine. I haven't missed a shot that wasn't due to my own impatience.

There are alot of comparisons to L4D, but this game isn't anything like L4D. It's not even trying to be like L4D, just because it has 4p co-op and zombies. IT IS NOT SURVIVAL HORROR. It is infact an action game. RE:ORC has no scares, repeat NO SCARES because it isnt survival horror. It has lots of weapons, and lots of bullets. The customizable abilities of the characters are interesting, giving everyone an RPG-like "role" to play as you cruise through the different locals mowing down (or blowing up) everything in sight.

Trying to compare L4D to this is like comparing Splinter Cell to Call of Duty. It isn't a sound argument. The two games aren't even close.

The reviewer was a little harsh, it hardly takes me Ten seconds to join a co-op game. Of course I could wait around all night for someone to join MINE, but I'd rather not do that.

This game is fun(, unless you are tired of shooting stuff) the online community is active, and even on the PS3 people have mics.
My biggest problem with the game is this: I would have preferred if it were developed in-house by the same guys who did Lost Planet 2, if only for the emotes!!!

Spookimitsu:
snip

Thanks for your words. It was nice to read, what sounds to be, rather grounded advice and information.

Indeed, I get the feeling this reviewer didn't know what he was talking about. That being said, I've yet to come across an Escapist review that did.

Terramax:

Spookimitsu:
snip

Ha thanks, but make sure to take mine with a grain of salt, I skipped out on most shooters of last year, and the HD re-releases on the PSN of RE4 so I was a little overdue for some mindless Raccoon City fun.

But therein may lie some of the problems, it is kind of mindless. It is hard to put into words the depth of the AI stupidity, and I know it's a point that many people harp upon. I personally just ignore them, and if they get in my line of fire I'll shoot them too. I don't mind playing solo. Secondly, the single player campaign is admittedly short. I just finished my first mostly solo playthrough (professional difficulty) last night, but I haven't been grinding away at it at all. Play co-op and you can beat the game in a few evenings. Playing co-op on pro mode? May take a few more evenings.

Co-op is the way to go though, I only chose to play offline so that I could go through all of the stages in order on the hardest difficulty. Co-op is by far more enjoyable.

In regards to my previous statement about Lost Planet 2, the two games are worlds apart in terms of gameplay depth, but they are from two very different development teams.

Maybe they will continue this side story action genre, as I found playing for Umbrella rather pleasant. I'd like to see the MT Framework 2.0 and some classic lost planet Capcom monster huntin' ingenious gameplay tied altogether. Fingers crossed for a vetted well thought out & executed sequel.

Terramax:

Spot1990:
Surely the runningout of ammo is a good thing? As in the PS1 era Resi's where you had to be conservative with your ammo or you'll die.

I'm assuming the problem is, whilst in previous games you can avoid fighting zombies, in this the whole point is you can't pursue forward until you've killed everything?

That being said, the reviewer's failed to point out how this is that much worse than Left4Dead.

I played L4D2, and honestly I didn't find it to be any more innovative or interesting than what this appears to be. In fact, the only difference seems to be the switch from 1st to 3rd person. Is anyone able to elaborate how L4D is supposedly that much better?

Because L4D doesn't have a history of survival horror, which according to the review this game isn't at all. It doesn't fit in with the theme of the rest of the series while L4D set out to do what it does on day one, give you a bunch of guns and hordes of undead to mow down.

Spookimitsu:

Sampler:
horrendous collision detection or very shoddy controls? (though I'll admit the latter could be my fumbling)

Not trying to kick a dead horse here, but, most likely a pebkac error, the controls and hit detection are just fine. I haven't missed a shot that wasn't due to my own impatience.

Judging by your comment on PS3 users having mic's I'll presume that's version you're using, I on the other hand played it on the 360 - which to be fair I didn't mention but thank you for comparing your apple to my orange.

I played it through with a friend (the new form of local co-op of end of the level/die play and pass seeing how actual local co-op must've shagged all game developers mums or something) and he can attest to how I sat shooting at an enemy, cross-hairs firmly between his squinty eyes and unloaded a clip - not only seemingly missing with every shot but also not alerting the blithering idiot to my presence allowing me to rinse and repeat to still no avail. This being just one of many examples (before someone jumps on me for being down on a game because one thing went wrong).

I've been a long time Resi fan, I even have both outbreak games on the PS2, and was rather looking forward to this from the fairly awesome looking trailer but the story is stilted and the controls rushed and horrid which brings me back to my biggest bugbear in gaming - they're thousands of game engines that do this well, I find it highly incredible that it was cheaper to knock together the half-assed attempt than it was to buy an existing engine off the shelf that actually works and then spend the time and effort making the game fun instead. So far there's no element I've come across that screams the need for a bespoke engine either.

All-in I think when I see 'Slant-Six' on the side of a game from now on I'll give it a wide berth.

Spookimitsu:
RE:ORC has no scares, repeat NO SCARES

You mean besides the scripted elements where a boss burst through a wall with no previous warning or similar "jump" tactics - however I do agree it's no survival horror, a run and gun game, but to say they didn't attempt to put scares in (however badly) is a little inaccurate.

Sampler:

Spookimitsu:
RE:ORC has no scares, repeat NO SCARES

You mean besides the scripted elements where a boss burst through a wall with no previous warning or similar "jump" tactics - however I do agree it's no survival horror, a run and gun game, but to say they didn't attempt to put scares in (however badly) is a little inaccurate.

Meh, its a game about a zombie outbreak. I think that a few zeds unexpectedly crashing through a door is obligatory to say the least, but at no point is it scary. Thrilling, is kinda pushing it, but scary is farfetched.

-Samurai-:

Then you don't buy a game that was never marketed as a survival horror game, and expect it to be a survival horror game. Capcom doesn't owe you another RE 2.

Be disappointed all you want. They don't care. They never said this would be more survival horror.

I didn't expect really a survival horror game- but I didn't expect Killzone and I didn't expect this trainwreck either to be honest. And how did it even cross their mind to put the Resident Evil name in this title? It is so misleading for the customers! It's not about survival horror and another RE 2, this simply isn't Resident Evil. Do we even have to discuss about it that it isn't Resident Evil?

Also you are very wrong that Capcom owes me nothing. On the contrary, they owe me a lot. As a gamer yourself you should have understood me. This could have been the cynical comment of a manager, not of a gamer.

Rheinmetall:

-Samurai-:

Then you don't buy a game that was never marketed as a survival horror game, and expect it to be a survival horror game. Capcom doesn't owe you another RE 2.

Be disappointed all you want. They don't care. They never said this would be more survival horror.

I didn't expect really a survival horror game- but I didn't expect Killzone and I didn't expect this trainwreck either to be honest. And how did it even cross their mind to put the Resident Evil name in this title? It is so misleading for the customers! It's not about survival horror and another RE 2, this simply isn't Resident Evil. Do we even have to discuss about it that it isn't Resident Evil?

No, we don't need to have that discussion, because you should already know that a game that has a Resident Evil plot, a Resident Evil location, and Resident Evil characters is a Resident Evil game.

Oh, and there's also the fact that the company that made it called it Resident Evil. Wether or not you feel that it's spiritually a RE game doesn't matter in the slightest.

Also you are very wrong that Capcom owes me nothing. On the contrary, they owe me a lot. As a gamer yourself you should have understood me. This could have been the cynical comment of a manager, not of a gamer.

When people say "Gamers are entitled little brats.", they're referring to this situation. So you bought their previous games? That's super great. They still don't owe you shit. They made a product that they wanted to make, and you chose to buy it. They didn't ask you to buy it. You did them no favors at all, so they owe you nothing.

I'd ask you what makes you feel that they owe you, but you're just going to say "I gave them my money.", which is no way a reasonable answer.

Terramax:

Dr Jones:
snip

I must've played the wrong game.

Yeah. I've no idea how that's even possible, but it's one of the few reasonable explanations I've left.

Terramax:
Why would I be trolling? Honestly, I saw L4D2 as a just another average shooter. You shoot things, move on to the next section, and shoot more things, in this case, zombies.

Ever heard of the Monomyth? Basically, if described vaguely enough, you can make almost every story ever told sound like it's grossly derivative of a past work.

Case in point: yes, the most basic idea of Left 4 Dead is 'Shoot zombies, move to next section, shoot more zombies.' And simultaneously, you could say that 'Citizen Kane' is a ripoff of 'Macbeth' because they're both "basically" about the protagonists starting as ambitious and well-intentioned men before turning into massive assholes and dying.

Terramax:
Not to say it was a bad game. But, well, you just shoot zombies. I was under the impression it was loved for its purity - no gimmicks, etc.

If you discount the well-defined characters, varied environments, the much-touted AI director, and the unique 'elite' zombies...then yes, I suppose it didn't have any 'gimmicks.'

Terramax:
But I didn't see anything revolutionary or poetic about it. So it's better balanced? But that doesn't mean to say Project Racoon is unplayable, does it? Just a little more average.

I was condensing the things that made L4D infinitely better than Raccoon City into that single example, but no, there are significantly more reasons why L4D is an excellent game and Raccoon City is nothing of the sort.

Ever fired a gun before? Because even something as small as a pistol has this feeling behind each shot that makes it seem like so much more than a chemical reaction propelling a piece of metal through a tube. L4D is a game that actually made gunfire feel close to gunfire. Raccoon City, inversely, had an arsenal of toys that sounded like particularly loud bubble wrap and handled like fire hoses.

Plot? L4D was never really big on plot, but it did an amazing job of showing and not telling. You can read graffiti on the walls of the safehouses, see the overrun outposts of the FEMA-analogue, and even the models of the zombies that compose the horde tell you about the people who they used to be. Raccoon City...well, it's a Resident Evil game. The villains are cartoonishly stupid, and the whole plot rides on the stupid premise that adding a non-canon optional ending makes the whole thing better than the other games that dealt with this period of RE history.

Gameplay? L4D is a Valve game. That means they tested it to hell and back, and it shows. It's smooth, responsive, and generally fun. Raccoon City? Rife with bugs and glitches, and a general lack of polish.

AI? Don't make me laugh. The OSS and US Special Forces act as if they were deployed from the shortbus. Comparing them to the AI Director of L4D is a waste of time.

Proverbial Jon:
Ah Capcom, when will you stop injecting this franchise with the T-Virus and let the Racoon City incident just die? How many games do we need about this same event?

If you wanted to keep going back to Umbrella so much you shouldn't have killed them off with a text crawl in the first 5 minutes of Resi 4.

The times I actually WANT a reboot/reimagining don't come along too often but I think in this case Capcom need to step back and take a serious look at what's happened to their franchise.

Would You consider Resident Evil 1 remake for the Cube a Reboot? I litterally is the same game with just a few tweaks. Same horrible VA, same mansion, same story that we loved and feared but with a major graphic overhaul. If you never picked it up I highly recoment :3

Spookimitsu:
That was pretty funny, but inaccurate. The game rewards you if you DON'T pray n' spray. Pistol head shots to zombies generally pop the heads right open for me (professional Difficulty). When fighting SPEC-OPS, if you hit them in the body-armour, then yes you are in for a long fight. Start shooting them (and hitting them) in the face and watch how quickly they will drop. When I first started playing the game I said the same things as you, but I took my time and got better.

What WILL piss you off is how scripted encounters with certain individuals in the story, and how hard their pistol hits you.

That might be true, but that raises two other issues, one directly related to gameplay and one a bit more meta.

First off, while pistol headshots might be handy, it's a bit moot when you've got a screaming horde of zombies rushing you. The game might reward headshots, but it doesn't give you nearly enough scenarios where it'd be useful, nor the sort of zombies it'd be useful against. Dead Rising's zombies seemed closer to the sort that it might pay off against, but these zombies (discounting the special ones) seem almost universally able to jog, if not flat-out run towards you from any distance.

As for the latter (the meta one), why do they equip you with weapons like SAWs and fully-automatic assault rifles if they want to encourage fire discipline? I know Umbrella is supposed to be stupid, but that's like wearing a tuxedo for your trip to the beach.

Well, damn that's too bad. I was looking forward to the concept of being an evil Umbrella Wet-work team. But the sceenes being shown look pretty boring as the reviewer suggest. What a shame, just like Outbreak. I guess there's never going to be a good, fully fledged multiplayer Resident Evil game. The Mercenaries mini games look better than this.

Nice Escapist, you got my favorite cheep pizza joint as a captcha.

Sorry for the late reply, I've been on a BF3 binge. Loving the private servers.

But Crimson Head zombies (were they the special ones you were referring to?) will run at you, and headshots are hard to get on them. Full auto MG fire is good for a rushing horde, automatic shotguns work well too.

Spookimitsu:
But Crimson Head zombies (were they the special ones you were referring to?) will run at you, and headshots are hard to get on them.

I meant more like the Lickers and such, but Crimson Heads qualify, too. Though their ability to run is a bit diminished by the fact that most zombies in the game are capable of at least a light jog once they know you're there.

Spookimitsu:
Full auto MG fire is good for a rushing horde, automatic shotguns work well too.

But it shouldn't be. Whatever happened to "You gotta shoot 'em in the head"? Why weigh your soldier down with a SAW (which I can say first-hand is heavy as hell, even unloaded) and hundreds of rounds of ammo when you could give them a carbine or rifle with a handful of extra magazines? Real militaries rarely use automatic fire for anything other than suppressing an enemy position, and even then, automatic fire burns through most magazines in three or four seconds.

For me, the primary advantage of an automatic shotgun isn't that I can squeeze the trigger and fire until it clicks empty. I like knowing that I can fire a shot and another shot is ready without my intervention. Unless the magazine is empty, each squeeze of the trigger fires a new round/shell/whatever.

If I was getting dropped into Raccoon City, I'd want an AK-74 with an underslung GP-30. The former is an updated version of one of the most reliable assault rifles in history, and I don't want to worry about weapon maintenance in the middle of a zombie-infested city. The latter is a grenade launcher because...well, if I'm working for Umbrella, I know that there's more than just normal zombies in Raccoon City, and I want to be able to blast a man into bite-sized chunks the moment he injects himself with some sort of supermonster virus.

Probably a sidearm with that, but nothing terribly heavy. You don't need a very big caliber to reliably punch through a skull, and it's a sidearm. I have to pull it out, it's because I'm in deep shit and don't have time to reload the AK. And keeping with the trend of using Russian weapons, the Saiga-12 is the shotgun of choice. Semi-auto and reliable like no other, which is can be a huge problem for shotguns.

Don't get me wrong: I like the guns that are presented in the game (or at least their real-world equivalents). But I don't like them enough to lug them along when they're clearly the wrong tools for the job at hand. I like using nailguns, but I don't adamantly cling to them when a situation arises when a simple hammer would be better.

-Samurai-:
They made a product that they wanted to make, and you chose to buy it. They didn't ask you to buy it.

So what the fuck do you think the point of marketing is if its not about trying to convince people to buy your shit?

smokeyninjas:

-Samurai-:
They made a product that they wanted to make, and you chose to buy it. They didn't ask you to buy it.

So what the fuck do you think the point of marketing is if its not about trying to convince people to buy your shit?

You quoted a month old post to ask a stupid question(that you then answered yourself) with a hostile attitude. Brilliant.

Apparently you don't know the difference between asking someone to do something for you, and attempting to sell them a luxury item.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here