|
|
Post by neomerge on Mar 19, 2009 1:56:42 GMT -5
Resident Evil Series > Metal Gear Series
Close Thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by loempiavreter on Mar 19, 2009 3:41:03 GMT -5
I always have called all the games similar to Diablo, Diablo-clone. It is an action rpg without doubt, is not as flashy as japanese ones but have the two main requirements: action and experience points (is ironic how role playing is totally non-existent in almost every role playing game). I don't find it an RPG, Diablo is what someone earlier in this thread said almost a waterd down roguelike. Random dungeons, random items etc. But there are differences like it's not turn based and it graphical instead of the ASCII graphics. Diablo-clone might fit the best then. |
|
|
|
Post by megatronbison on Mar 19, 2009 15:33:42 GMT -5
Resident Evil Series > Metal Gear Series Close Thread. Resident Evil Series = completely different to Metal Gear Series  |
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 19, 2009 16:27:00 GMT -5
Haha, totally.
I do however often think of them together, just because of their proximity to when I was revealed to them. They changed the way I thought of games. Same as ZOE.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ganelon on Mar 19, 2009 17:34:52 GMT -5
Nowadays, you may think that but at the time, Resident Evil really had Tomb Raider as the major games of the time. They were the games that really helped serious 3D action/adventure expand (although RE did it but creating its own sub-genre) even though both control systems were horrible. Metal Gear Solid was the contemporary of Zelda, 2 very high-quality games that took a whole different approach in presentation.
|
|
|
|
Post by caoslayer on Mar 22, 2009 14:42:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Garamoth on Mar 22, 2009 15:17:06 GMT -5
Wait, has the ship sailed on trying to define what Diablo is?
How about an isometric dungeon-crawling RPG?
|
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Mar 22, 2009 15:39:45 GMT -5
Nowadays, you may think that but at the time, Resident Evil really had Tomb Raider as the major games of the time. They were the games that really helped serious 3D action/adventure expand (although RE did it but creating its own sub-genre) even though both control systems were horrible. Why does everybody always rag on the "tank" controls for RE/Silent Hill? I actually like them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 15:50:01 GMT -5
Why does everybody always rag on the "tank" controls for RE/Silent Hill? Probably because they're slow and ungainley, two qualities that often lead to unnecessary deaths in an action game. |
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Mar 22, 2009 17:32:47 GMT -5
But the old-style RE games aren't really action games. They're adventure games with an action element. It's not like you need to strafe around and go crazy with combat, all you ever have to do is stand still and pop off a couple shots.
The nice thing about the "tank" controls is that you always know which way you're going, even when you change screens. If you leave one pre-rendered screen running forward, you'll still be running forward. One of the annoying things about absolute direction control schemes is when you try to go one way, only for the perspective to suddenly change just as you start to perform a manuever, sending you careening off towards god knows where. It's especially annoying when you end up engaged in combat right on the border of a perspecitve shift.
Absolute controls work fine when you have a lot of room to run around, and for action games where you need to dash all over the place and beat the tar out of things (DMC, for example), but for the tight corridors, frequent camera shifts, and slow pace of the old RE games, I think the tank controls are a better alternative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 19:01:48 GMT -5
Absolute controls work fine when you have a lot of room to run around, and for action games where you need to dash all over the place and beat the tar out of things (DMC, for example), but for the tight corridors, frequent camera shifts, and slow pace of the old RE games, I think the tank controls are a better alternative. That's a fair argument. They still feel cumbersome, but I guess that's just the nature of the beast. I'm not really the type to whine about tank controls in a RE game, or random battles in an RPG. They aren't fun, but they seem to be inexorably entwined. |
|
|
|
Post by Ganelon on Mar 23, 2009 12:47:26 GMT -5
Tank controls are fine but they didn't have to be so clumsy and slow. If I'm turning, I definitely want to turn. On that note, the game TRAG/Hard Edge actually offers both control styles, the slow-as-molasses tank style and the "running the wrong way each time the camera changes" absolute style.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2009 14:35:33 GMT -5
If I'm turning, I definitely want to turn. On that note, the game TRAG/Hard Edge actually offers both control styles, the slow-as-molasses tank style and the "running the wrong way each time the camera changes" absolute style. It's also one of the absolute worst games ever made. |
|
|
|
Post by derboo on Mar 23, 2009 16:11:12 GMT -5
RE controls went good when they introduced the 180 turn with RE3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catalyst on Mar 26, 2009 0:18:51 GMT -5
Just adding to this thread, because I saw that no one seemed to have the same idea about DLC as me. Does anyone else feel that if some of these companies are whipping up games as good as GTAIV, SFIV, or RE5, that we should maybe be a bit more charitable with our cash and pony up some dough for extra content if its worth it? I'd gladly pay for Extra Costumes in SFIV or Versus Multiplayer in RE5 if it meant that it would mean Capcom would put a bit of consideration in costumes for Darkstalkers or a versus mode in the next Dino Crisis game. The way I see, if some of these companies are willing to spend to time designing extra features that couldn't make it into a video game at the time of release, and the content is good, I'd happily pay for it. I have no qualms about it, and in fact it relieves my guilt of buying used games.
|
|
.jpg)
