@RustyNailFromHell I read an article a month or two ago about a guy who tested all of the cars in the game to find the hands down fastest car. The guy ultimately found that the fastest sports car is the Elegy RH8, the free car you get from the social network thing.
RustyNailFromHellIs between your girlfriend legs, while her parents watch with approval.
@_Blakelock_ I do have a Pariah in which I do alright in the sports division, but I went back to the T-20 for the super division.
I heard people talking that Rockstar removed double clutching on the new cars. Double clutching only works best for me on curves & turns, in my own opinion you gain nothing by doing it on straightaway.
* I do love racing, and death matches especially during double cash/RP. *
Lol @Blakelock praising RE4 and then bashing the old controls.
RE4 uses tank controls you fuckin fool.
Join the Official "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 is Superior to the Original" Fan Club today! For the low price of: Stop lying to yourselves and admit it you cowards!
It uses the standard 3rd person controls, the only downside is you can’t move and shoot at the same time. There’s never a question about movement or aim with RE4. With the earlier games, shooting is tricky at best and movement is a gamble when you’re about to be attacked. If the controls were the same you’d not hear the fanboys hating on RE4 as much.
I suck at everything not Cod/hockey and rarely finished games as a kid. RE4 controls are fine.
Hopefully RE2 follows the RE6 path in that regard but I really wouldn't be bothered with them again. It's all about how it plays in the game, and obviously the mechanics worked. Freedom of movement would have changed so much about that game.
No Blake movement control is literally the same tank controls in RE4 as in all previous REs. Always has been. UP is forward. BACK is backward. LEFT and RIGHT pivot you on a dime, and Aiming plants you in a turreted position. And there's no strafe to boot. That's the literal definition of tank controls. Same thing.
the real change is that camera is behind the back and allows for manual aiming, which simply replaces the extreme auto-aim (Yeah it sure was tricky how they did half the work for you if you even aimed in the general direction eh?) from the camera-angle oriented games. But yes. RE4 controls the same. If we used RE4 controls today fans would fucking riot and call it dated. So don't act like they wouldn't because you have the same nostalgia goggles on as anyone else does for REmake or RE2. People already were by the time RE5 released and you couldn't move and shoot at the same time. Need I pull a review stating exactly that?
Which brings me to my point, camera angles as a stylistic choice don't mean "tank controls" or vice versa. That's all complete bollocks. People want an actual modern survival horror experience, and camera angles don't mean shit to prevent that and only add to an artistic perspective. So don't use a game that has the exact same movement method as proof of its dated design when in fact, it moves the same. You just like being able to aim a shitty laser dot and do a karate kick is all. You like action games, not survival horror. And on that note, while I prefer tank controls as a complimentary method of control to camera angles, REmake remastered proves they can exist with an updated scheme too.
Join the Official "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 is Superior to the Original" Fan Club today! For the low price of: Stop lying to yourselves and admit it you cowards!
Are you missing the point where I brought up that literally droves proved that's a fucking myth, because of sales charts and reception in 2015 bitch? Games like Until Dawn and Detroit still use camera angles. They lack shooting action, but that's because shooting isn't the point of those games. But hey-ho, guess what, shooting wasn't the point of RE1-Remake either. It only became that with 4, AKA the action game of the bunch. Shooting was merely a means to an end, and a faint hope to subvert the enemies that were there to rip you to shreds.
You don't want survival horror, you want a shooter. You want an action game with guns that control well. And that's why Capcom feels the need to cater to two different bases now. It's the Sonic shit all over again.
Fortunately, satisfying shooting controls and survival horror AREN'T mutually exclusive, so RE2 is shaping up to be excellent despite not going with the original design it had. Plus it looks like shooting enemies barely works despite feeling smooth, and is generally a bad idea. So thank god for that. I just can't wait for the action junkies to call it shit because there's no skillshotting your way through the game. I still say it's huge missed opportunity to make a game that doesn't fuel the shooter mentality for once, and gives us a cinematic and atmospheric survival game once again, but I won't die on that hill too hard.
Join the Official "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 is Superior to the Original" Fan Club today! For the low price of: Stop lying to yourselves and admit it you cowards!
Do you think I fucking skill shotted my way through RE4 and 5, or even Dead Space? Am I doing that now with RE7? These games aren't Dead Space 3.
Games like Until Dawn are successful in part because they're meant to be a play on that style of game. My issue isn't that these games are bad, it just doesn't look like a modern game and whatever you want to say about it being more immersive and more difficult isn't enough for me.
Unless you're going for that super hardcore crowd as a throwback, there should be no reason for it when you look at the great first/third person games of today. No reason.
Lol. You're literally playing a card on how the graphics and overall "oldness" of the presentation doesn't hold up, which is retarded. Of course those elements don't hold up anymore. They're fucking old. Nevermind the fact that they presented themselves expertly at the time that they were contemporary. What I'm telling you is that the gameplay focus has SHIFTED since then, however much of a breath of fresh air those shifts were. Not to mention I literally told you exactly what you parrotted back to me. Until Dawn's camera works because it isn't that type of game that Resident Evil 4 or 7 is. It's not a shooting game. Now it's not a survival horror game either, but it's camera lends itself wholesale to the horror and the atmosphere, and yes the cinematic-ness as well.
RE7 is cinematic yeah. But it's not "one of the most cinematic games of all time" or whatever hyperbolic bullshit you're spewing to skew an argument. Cinematic relates to cinema. And while RE7 does fine in that field, it mostly has to do with it's characters, atmosphere, and pacing. The camera is almost assuredly the most video gamey aspect of it's presentation, however. And a part of the reason that is, is because they want the shooting to feel good. Where as before, shooting feeling good wasn't a priority. It was, as I said, a means to an end. A way to deal with the opposition. But guns were merely a component to the formula. NOT the entire gameplay. Back to my point, to make that camera fixed and set in a position that lends itself more to the horror, and more to the atmosphere, is to add more cinematic flair, and more tension.
FACT: If you take the behind-the-back camera or the first-person camera away, you only take away one thing. Optimal shooting controls. And to reciprocate, you add literally no atmosphere and no tension by putting that camera behind the back. First person is a better middle ground, as it eliminates peripheral vision and such, but it's still less "cinematic" and "atmospheric" than fixed angles. But that's why I didn't mind RE7's shift much at all when it was announced to introduce the new camera that it did. It did more for the horror and tension than the over the shoulder games, even if lacking the cinematic element of the fixed angles.
So yeah. Shout all you want about fixed angles being bad. But they're not. The only thing they get in the way of is perfect pin-point accuracy. You know...skill shotting. You can't exactly knee-cap a ganado, then shoot-him in the face only to run up and suplex him. Because as we know that's REAL horror right there.
Join the Official "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 is Superior to the Original" Fan Club today! For the low price of: Stop lying to yourselves and admit it you cowards!
I wouldn't even call 5 or 6 remotely horror games. They are certainly action shooters more than anything.
I don't think I've ever played RE 2. I had Nemesis when I was little. Never played 4 either. 5 I finished and 6 I gave up on due to it being pretty much just shit.
I was looking forward to 7 but then some of its criticisms put me off, short, very limited enemy variants.
Comments
Meet The GTA Online Player Who Puts Every Car To The Test
And I've beaten 4/5.
I heard people talking that Rockstar removed double clutching on the new cars. Double clutching only works best for me on curves & turns, in my own opinion you gain nothing by doing it on straightaway.
* I do love racing, and death matches especially during double cash/RP.
RE4 uses tank controls you fuckin fool.
Hopefully RE2 follows the RE6 path in that regard but I really wouldn't be bothered with them again. It's all about how it plays in the game, and obviously the mechanics worked. Freedom of movement would have changed so much about that game.
the real change is that camera is behind the back and allows for manual aiming, which simply replaces the extreme auto-aim (Yeah it sure was tricky how they did half the work for you if you even aimed in the general direction eh?) from the camera-angle oriented games. But yes. RE4 controls the same. If we used RE4 controls today fans would fucking riot and call it dated. So don't act like they wouldn't because you have the same nostalgia goggles on as anyone else does for REmake or RE2. People already were by the time RE5 released and you couldn't move and shoot at the same time. Need I pull a review stating exactly that?
Which brings me to my point, camera angles as a stylistic choice don't mean "tank controls" or vice versa. That's all complete bollocks. People want an actual modern survival horror experience, and camera angles don't mean shit to prevent that and only add to an artistic perspective. So don't use a game that has the exact same movement method as proof of its dated design when in fact, it moves the same. You just like being able to aim a shitty laser dot and do a karate kick is all. You like action games, not survival horror. And on that note, while I prefer tank controls as a complimentary method of control to camera angles, REmake remastered proves they can exist with an updated scheme too.
You don't want survival horror, you want a shooter. You want an action game with guns that control well. And that's why Capcom feels the need to cater to two different bases now. It's the Sonic shit all over again.
Fortunately, satisfying shooting controls and survival horror AREN'T mutually exclusive, so RE2 is shaping up to be excellent despite not going with the original design it had. Plus it looks like shooting enemies barely works despite feeling smooth, and is generally a bad idea. So thank god for that. I just can't wait for the action junkies to call it shit because there's no skillshotting your way through the game. I still say it's huge missed opportunity to make a game that doesn't fuel the shooter mentality for once, and gives us a cinematic and atmospheric survival game once again, but I won't die on that hill too hard.
Games like Until Dawn are successful in part because they're meant to be a play on that style of game. My issue isn't that these games are bad, it just doesn't look like a modern game and whatever you want to say about it being more immersive and more difficult isn't enough for me.
Unless you're going for that super hardcore crowd as a throwback, there should be no reason for it when you look at the great first/third person games of today. No reason.
Edit
Ps1 and PS2 were my beginning years so no shade intended but come on
RE7 is cinematic yeah. But it's not "one of the most cinematic games of all time" or whatever hyperbolic bullshit you're spewing to skew an argument. Cinematic relates to cinema. And while RE7 does fine in that field, it mostly has to do with it's characters, atmosphere, and pacing. The camera is almost assuredly the most video gamey aspect of it's presentation, however. And a part of the reason that is, is because they want the shooting to feel good. Where as before, shooting feeling good wasn't a priority. It was, as I said, a means to an end. A way to deal with the opposition. But guns were merely a component to the formula. NOT the entire gameplay. Back to my point, to make that camera fixed and set in a position that lends itself more to the horror, and more to the atmosphere, is to add more cinematic flair, and more tension.
FACT: If you take the behind-the-back camera or the first-person camera away, you only take away one thing. Optimal shooting controls. And to reciprocate, you add literally no atmosphere and no tension by putting that camera behind the back. First person is a better middle ground, as it eliminates peripheral vision and such, but it's still less "cinematic" and "atmospheric" than fixed angles. But that's why I didn't mind RE7's shift much at all when it was announced to introduce the new camera that it did. It did more for the horror and tension than the over the shoulder games, even if lacking the cinematic element of the fixed angles.
So yeah. Shout all you want about fixed angles being bad. But they're not. The only thing they get in the way of is perfect pin-point accuracy. You know...skill shotting. You can't exactly knee-cap a ganado, then shoot-him in the face only to run up and suplex him. Because as we know that's REAL horror right there.
I don't think I've ever played RE 2. I had Nemesis when I was little. Never played 4 either. 5 I finished and 6 I gave up on due to it being pretty much just shit.
I was looking forward to 7 but then some of its criticisms put me off, short, very limited enemy variants.
Just spend the $10 when it's in the summer sale. Pls.