This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
PSN & XBL Tag: OmegaBlades
3DS Friend Code: 1032-1408-2462
One word: Milky Way.
Read the mania: http://www.fanfiction.net/~nonexistinghero
In SA2, it's Super Sonic and Hyper Shadow.
Nice! I was starting to think every god damned shooter that came out now was going to have a 3rd person cover system. This is good news.
DOH I was thinking this was about RAINBOW SIX. Guess I should've read more of the topic... nevermind.
Could be fake, i will believe it when i see it.
GT : Zom6iesRPeople2
Playing : Dead Island
When the original RE games came out, I liked them. After the first 3 though, I got tired with the series until RE 4 came out. That game renewed my interest in the series and was a fun game. I don't think that today I could go back and play the first 3 with the fixed camera angles. I can definitely see how the original games' camera angles bring a sense of dread and tension to the atmosphere, but I think it interferes too much with the gameplay (which is probably the most important part of any game). In the early games there were many times where you couldn't see ahead of you and then when you walked forward and the camera angle changed, you walked right into an enemy and either died or had health taken off. This is completely unfair (it's sorta cheating). The enemy can see you but you can't see them when they are right in front of you because of the camera angle. I can see not seeing an enemy such as a sniper in a shooter game but this is ridiculous because if you were in the character's shoes, you would see the enemy no problem.
As for the controls they are pretty much the same in the old games as well as 4 and 5 they just seem different because of the camera angles. The only difference for the controls is that in the new games when you go into aim mode, you can aim anywhere you like where as in the old games you can only aim high, medium, or low.
I can definitely see points in both arguments. Personally I enjoyed 4 more so then the older games even though it wasn't as scary as them. I liked the more action oriented gameplay and felt it injected new life into the series.
And since it's "leaked" information, I don't believe it. Since they are already saying the trailer is a fake and all. Let's see when we get closer.
But Leon and Jill would be bad character choices. Leon is overused and JIll was just in. And if Jill is going to have that ugly face like in the handheld RE's, I don't want to see her.
Criticise the RE cameras all you want, but they certainly added to the tension of the game. Having a view that's specifically designed to show an area in a certain way is a pretty clear way to create a sense of uneasiness with the player.
For a certain type of gamer perhaps, I find Doom 3 and even Dead Island far more scary than RE1 because the incredible stiffness from the combination of bad controls and bad camera, simply make it feel like a joke, the controls are creating a layer between me and the game, and I get annoyed when my clumsy as hell protagonist spins in circles rather than moving. Doom 3 has no such layers between you and the game preventing a break in immersion.
A good example of this effect is Project Zero II, with crappy camera angles mode the game is only remotely scary, while the exact same game in first person is the most scary game I have ever played.
I just start laughing in Silent Hill 2 when James is using his super slow weapons animation instead of it being tense (even someone like me would have given the monster 3 whacks in the time he gives one).
>For example, many rooms didn't have any enemies in them at all, but the cameras were positioned in such a way that made the area feel creepy and ominous that would have been completely lost from a user-controlled camera. The fixed camera also brings attention to specific elements of the environment, whether for gameplay or ambiance purposes.
Small wall sections and other clutter can cause the saem effect in first person.
>And would anyone have been nearly as scared in the long hallway with the windows in it if you were in a first person view the whole time (anyone that's played RE should know what I'm talking about)?
Said highlighting makes it predictable, not scary.
Halo, you're my new best friend. My girlfriend had some nostalgia for Fatal Frame 2 and I hadn't given it a chance, so we decided to try it. Camera has damn neared ruined it for me. Important items and door ways were obscured for no real reason. This isn't tense, it's infuriating. Yet Fatal Frame is a fantastic series despite this, it's not scary because of it. SH2... I'll just leave my opinion of that one out, always been an SH1 guy.
ITT: You can Easily tell who grew up with Resident evil as a teenager\young adult and who didn't.
I'm 100% all for old school re2 style angles.
If it's anything like Resident evil code veronica in terms of angles......oh, my, god!
Started with RE2 then went back to RE1. But again, if it makes you feel better, you can throw around baseless nonsense to justify your opinion.
And seriously, what's with people acting like RE1 is scarier than Dead Space? It's not like DS is horrifying or anything, but you're comparing the beautifully lit, brightly colored rooms, awful voice acting, generally non threatening enemies (Outside of Hunters and Chimera, maybe dogs when they come in packs, what enemies were really dangerous?), and crappy control of RE1 to Dead Space. It's a clear case of "it's new, so it's not as good," except in this case it just reeks of delusion. Nothing wrong with preferring RE1, of course, but holy crap, claiming it's actually scary today? Damn.
Add user to Ignore List after reporting