Resident Evil - Virgin Vampire Wine Mom vs Chad Magnetic Lebowski

[Dom Cruise]

We saw like two blocks in RE3 Remake.

Still more city streets than RE2 Remake.

The Outbreak games are like, almost twenty years ago now (man I feel old).

Yeah, it's insane, I remember playing those when they were new so well.

You are also forgetting RE0 and every game that's featured a return to the Spencer mansion since then. And RE7, while not set in that particular mansion or a copy of it, was set entirely inside a single residential property, just like games featuring the mansion.

The training facility in RE0 kind of feels like a cross between the police station in RE2 and the Spencer mansion, there's certainly mansion esque elements but it also feels pretty different with things like a mess hall, bathroom with multiple stalls, huge conference room, it feels more like a college (which is what it's supposed to be) than a residence.

The Baker house in RE7 is definitely a type of mansion but in a very modern style, there's not been a RE game where the main setting is a full on extravagant locale since the original game and first remake.

But at any rate, I just want the series to stick with it's classic aesthetic which are gothic locales, the original vibe of RE was Dario Argento meets George Romero, it should have an Argento esque vibe no matter the monster, this is one reason why RE5 sucked was because none of the locales were gothic.

RE7's "southern gothic" was an acceptable alternative, but that's also the kind of thing you can really only do for one game.

 

[TVB]

Also controversial opinion. As someone who saw all the RE movies, I dont think the new netflix movie looks that bad or cheap. Looks fun in all honesty.

You poor, POOR thing.

 

[Michael Wade]

You poor, POOR thing.

My enjoyment of it will probably ride on his performance and their ability to resist blaming white people for zombies.

 

[Mega Black]

Still more city streets than RE2 Remake.

I could almost forgive RE3make if Capcom gives us a decent Outbreak game in its stead.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Still more city streets than RE2 Remake.

That is an ABSURDLY low bar to clear.

The training facility in RE0 kind of feels like a cross between the police station in RE2 and the Spencer mansion, there's certainly mansion esque elements but it also feels pretty different with things like a mess hall, bathroom with multiple stalls, huge conference room, it feels more like a college (which is what it's supposed to be) than a residence.

The training facility isn't a carbon copy of the mansion (on purpose), but it close enough. And, hey, the mansion itself has a cameo appearance at the end of the game.

The Baker house in RE7 is definitely a type of mansion but in a very modern style, there's not been a RE game where the main setting is a full on extravagant locale since the original game and first remake.

I'd actually consider the castle in RE8 as meeting that particular itch.

But at any rate, I just want the series to stick with it's classic aesthetic which are gothic locales, the original vibe of RE was Dario Argento meets George Romero, it should have an Argento esque vibe no matter the monster, this is one reason why RE5 sucked was because none of the locales were gothic.

The series hasn't really had that feel since the first game though. It pretty much moved away from it from the second game onwards; ironically, RE4 and RE8 (all good things come in fours?) were a return to that gothic sensibility, from a more European POV, even if only partially. And, funny you should mention RE5, because it also features a version of the Spencer Mansion (the original in fact) in one of its DLCs. You could even activate fixed camera angles.

RE7's "southern gothic" was an acceptable alternative, but that's also the kind of thing you can really only do for one game.

Which is why they moved away from it with the sequel. I feel the same about the gothic, European style seen in four and eight. There is really no setting you can do consistently without getting stale. The African setting of RE5 was at least different and interesting, since very few video games are set in modern Africa. Which is why I wanted the games to go back to a modern city setting; its something they haven't really done since the games set in Racoon City. The only thing I distinctly don't want them to do is set the next game on a boat; more than enough of those games already. There have been more RE games set on boats than on actual residences.

 

[Cactuar King]

Which is why I wanted the games to go back to a modern city setting; its something they haven't really done since the games set in Racoon City.

What about Leon's segments in RE6?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I'm replaying Resident Evil 3 (PS1). I don't think I have it in me to play on hard mode anymore, so I'm gonna give easy a shot. Hopefully it's not too easy.

 

[Coldgrip]

I'm replaying Resident Evil 3 (PS1). I don't think I have it in me to play on hard mode anymore, so I'm gonna give easy a shot. Hopefully it's not too easy.

It gives you I think an infinite machine gun, and enemies take less bullets to kill. Nemesis also doesn't drop the custom weapons, IIRC. I want to say it also locks you out of getting an A rank, but I think I'm wrong on that.

 

[Vault Boy]

Don't know the odds of it happening, but getting the original RE trilogy on the new PS Plus service would be cool.

 

[Wormy]

I'm replaying Resident Evil 3 (PS1). I don't think I have it in me to play on hard mode anymore, so I'm gonna give easy a shot. Hopefully it's not too easy.

It honestly is pretty easy, especially since that assault rifle is gonna last you a good chunk of the game.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

What about Leon's segments in RE6?

We don't talk about RE6. In fact, there was never a game called RE6. What are you talking about?

 

[Stasi]

Just got done with RE7 and actually did get RE1 vibes. The setting is different but at the same time feels very similar to the mansion in 1, hell there is even a weighted shotgun puzzle.

Overall liked the game, the first person perspective was weird at first and the shooting, especially with a handgun, was very clunky but you get used to it. I think it also probably adds a bit to the suspense, they can't do fixed camera angles but with a first person perspective and limited FOV you get a more creepy atmosphere, never knowing what might be just outside your field of vision.

I still prefer RE2make but 7 was a good experience. On to RE8 next. My memory is hazy but vaguely recall some mixed reactions when it came out, I'll reserve judgement until I play it. If it's at least as good as 7 I won't have any complaints.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

hey can't do fixed camera angles but with a first person perspective and limited FOV you get a more creepy atmosphere

That's one thing that people seem to overlook in the camera angle debate. People always talk about how fixed camera angles obscure your vision, and allow game developers to tailor optimal scares, but sometimes the best scares are the ones you make for yourself. Like when you allow an enemy to come up behind you and only turn around at the last possible second before your attacked. And, if you are a smart developer, you can still figure out how to tailor those scares, even in a first person perspective.

What people don't realize is that first person actually limits your vision far more than fixed camera angles, and in a far more organic and realistic way. With a fixed camera, you can usually see most, if not an entire room. You see all around your character. If the angles are fixed specifically in way where you can't see an enemy your character can logically see, it feels cheap. Otherwise, you have a mostly full field of view around your entire character. In first person, you can only see what's directly in front you. You can't see what's to your sides, what's behind you, or whats above or below you. You have no peripheral vision in a video game (unless you are using VR, and even then its limited). You have no situational awareness, no "danger sense"; you can't sense someone watching you or coming up behind you (it would actually be cool if a game could simulate that, like have some kind of indicator when your character sense something watching them or behind them). Its actually much easier to be taken by surprise in a video game in first person because your field of view is so limited. Third person gives you a wider field of view, whether the camera is pulled back or directly behind the shoulder, lessening this. And with the way third person is handled now, it simply makes more sense to use first person; why bother having a body just fill up a third of the screen when you can just put the camera in the body and have a mostly unchanged view, just a tighter field of view. Outside of camera placement, everything else is atmosphere, which can be achieved with any camera angle.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

That's one thing that people seem to overlook in the camera angle debate. People always talk about how fixed camera angles obscure your vision, and allow game developers to tailor optimal scares, but sometimes the best scares are the ones you make for yourself. Like when you allow an enemy to come up behind you and only turn around at the last possible second before your attacked. And, if you are a smart developer, you can still figure out how to tailor those scares, even in a first person perspective.

The fixed camera angles still let you better assess your surroundings and they provide a sort of cinematic element. Something just getting me from behind is cheap, too.

What people don't realize is that first person actually limits your vision far more than fixed camera angles, and in a far more organic and realistic way.

May as well just throw us in pitch darkness, playing as a blind guy, sort of like The Quiet Man but blind instead of deaf. Maximum limited vision.

...That gimmick might actually work in a way if used cleverly, so I'm not sure it's technically a good point lol.

With a fixed camera, you can usually see most, if not an entire room. You see all around your character. If the angles are fixed specifically in way where you can't see an enemy your character can logically see, it feels cheap. Otherwise, you have a mostly full field of view around your entire character. In first person, you can only see what's directly in front you. You can't see what's to your sides, what's behind you, or whats above or below you. You have no peripheral vision in a video game (unless you are using VR, and even then its limited). You have no situational awareness, no "danger sense"; you can't sense someone watching you or coming up behind you (it would actually be cool if a game could simulate that, like have some kind of indicator when your character sense something watching them or behind them).

That is a good idea, I think that'd improve first-person horror games tremendously.

Its actually much easier to be taken by surprise in a video game in first person because your field of view is so limited. Third person gives you a wider field of view, whether the camera is pulled back or directly behind the shoulder, lessening this. And with the way third person is handled now, it simply makes more sense to use first person; why bother having a body just fill up a third of the screen when you can just put the camera in the body and have a mostly unchanged view, just a tighter field of view.

That again feels cheap to me, essentially free scares and free cheap shots. Horror should come from much more than just being jumped by shit you can't see.

Outside of camera placement, everything else is atmosphere, which can be achieved with any camera angle.

I'm repeating myself, but the fixed camera lends itself a more cinematic flair on top of being conducive to a better gameplay experience than being attacked offscreen. There's less strategy involved in first-person, and naturally that means more action and immediacy.

 

[Dom Cruise]

We don't talk about RE6. In fact, there was never a game called RE6. What are you talking about?

We don't talk about RE6, no, no, no...

That's one thing that people seem to overlook in the camera angle debate. People always talk about how fixed camera angles obscure your vision, and allow game developers to tailor optimal scares, but sometimes the best scares are the ones you make for yourself. Like when you allow an enemy to come up behind you and only turn around at the last possible second before your attacked. And, if you are a smart developer, you can still figure out how to tailor those scares, even in a first person perspective.

What people don't realize is that first person actually limits your vision far more than fixed camera angles, and in a far more organic and realistic way. With a fixed camera, you can usually see most, if not an entire room. You see all around your character. If the angles are fixed specifically in way where you can't see an enemy your character can logically see, it feels cheap. Otherwise, you have a mostly full field of view around your entire character. In first person, you can only see what's directly in front you. You can't see what's to your sides, what's behind you, or whats above or below you. You have no peripheral vision in a video game (unless you are using VR, and even then its limited). You have no situational awareness, no "danger sense"; you can't sense someone watching you or coming up behind you (it would actually be cool if a game could simulate that, like have some kind of indicator when your character sense something watching them or behind them). Its actually much easier to be taken by surprise in a video game in first person because your field of view is so limited. Third person gives you a wider field of view, whether the camera is pulled back or directly behind the shoulder, lessening this. And with the way third person is handled now, it simply makes more sense to use first person; why bother having a body just fill up a third of the screen when you can just put the camera in the body and have a mostly unchanged view, just a tighter field of view. Outside of camera placement, everything else is atmosphere, which can be achieved with any camera angle.
Click to expand...

The point of the fixed camera angles wasn't so much about jump scares, it was more about simply giving the games a cinematic, more unique atmosphere than other games, third person or first person changes the feel a LOT when compared to the classic games.

But obviously there's something to be said for peering at a zombie down a long, dark hallway or having something sneak up behind you.

Fatal Frame did it really cleverly by having fixed angles, but switching to first person when using the ghost bustin' camera.

But really comes down to the cinematic atmosphere, it's bullshit that that style has been abandoned completely, though it's interesting to think about how the granddaddy of first person horror games, Condemned: Criminal Origins, influence is still being felt and that game came out all the way back in 2005 and yeah, the first person approach made it stand out in a special scary way at the time compared to other games.

First person is a legit approach, but so are fixed, cinematic angles, it sucks that it's an either/or thing and we can't have it both ways.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Something just getting me from behind is cheap, too.

The point is that its a natural cheapness. People sneak up behind us in real life all the time. Hell, we get surprised by people behind us by just not paying attention. Having me get shocked by something, or simply being unable to accurately shoot something my character can clearly see simply because the camera went out of its way to hide it is "video game" cheap, and clearly the developers trying to engineer a scare.

May as well just throw us in pitch darkness, playing as a blind guy, sort of like The Quiet Man but blind instead of deaf. Maximum limited vision.

...That gimmick might actually work in a way if used cleverly, so I'm not sure it's technically a good point lol.

There actually is an indie game where you play a character who literally can't see anything. Its not because they are blind, but because their entire town is covered in unnatural darkness, to the point that light itself can't pierce it, so you literally can't see anything on screen but text boxes describing what your character is hearing, feeling, sensing, tasting, and smelling. Its a text based game, but an interesting concept as you feel your way through the town.

That again feels cheap to me, essentially free scares and free cheap shots. Horror should come from much more than just being jumped by shit you can't see.

Oh I agree. But lets be honest; jump scares are a well trodden tool in RE's tool set at this point. One of the very first scares in the original Resident Evil, and one of the most memorable in the game, is a jump scare. Horror is primarily a product of atmosphere. Which isn't really dependent on camera angles.

I'm repeating myself, but the fixed camera lends itself a more cinematic flair on top of being conducive to a better gameplay experience than being attacked offscreen.

A good chunk of classic RE is literally being attacked by things offscreen. They do it all the time. As for the cinematic aspect, I'm tired of games trying to look "cinematic". I just want a fun game. And there are plenty of non-fixed camera games that are "cinematic". There are ways to achieve that even in first person. But I would rather the game actually inspire in me a sense of dread, not make things feel "cinematic".

The point of the fixed camera angles wasn't so much about jump scares, it was more about simply giving the games a cinematic, more unique atmosphere than other games, third person or first person changes the feel a LOT when compared to the classic games.

Actually, the fixed camera angles were a result of Capcom:
1. Having to work around the PlayStation's obvious hardware limitations
2. Not knowing how to create a first person horror game. The original RE was actually supposed to be in first person, but first person horror games hadn't established themselves as a genre yet, and the only examples of first person games that the RE team had were games like Doom and Quake; not exactly horror games. So, they went with a model that had already been shown to work in Alone in the Dark.

First person is a legit approach, but so are fixed, cinematic angles, it sucks that it's an either/or thing and we can't have it both ways.

An issue with current development standards. Companies like Capcom need to chase what sells. They just don't have the time or money to turn back the clock. So its up to indies to do that. Just like indies are keeping the torch of sidescrolling platformers alive, so Mario doesn't have to do it.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

The point is that its a natural cheapness. People sneak up behind us in real life all the time. Hell, we get surprised by people behind us by just not paying attention. Having me get shocked by something, or simply being unable to accurately shoot something my character can clearly see simply because the camera went out of its way to hide it is "video game" cheap, and clearly the developers trying to engineer a scare.

Eh, realism isn't necessarily fun but I understand your point.

There actually is an indie game where you play a character who literally can't see anything. Its not because they are blind, but because their entire town is covered in unnatural darkness, to the point that light itself can't pierce it, so you literally can't see anything on screen but text boxes describing what your character is hearing, feeling, sensing, tasting, and smelling. Its a text based game, but an interesting concept as you feel your way through the town.

That's a cool excuse for a text based game to omit graphics, do you remember the name of it?

Oh I agree. But lets be honest; jump scares are a well trodden tool in RE's tool set at this point. One of the very first scares in the original Resident Evil, and one of the most memorable in the game, is a jump scare. Horror is primarily a product of atmosphere. Which isn't really dependent on camera angles.

Yeah, jump scares aren't a problem as long as I can see them occur and I'm given a chance to react. In RE1 or RE2 there's that early dogs-through-a-window jump scare, but you see it happen and can kill them. Being attacked from the side and constantly doing 360s to make sure you're safe isn't fun imo.

Camera angles help the director establish control over scenarios better, and you're given the necessary visual information instead of looking all over the place for something. P.T proved that's possible in first-person too, but it was just one demo of a small area, I don't know how well it would have pulled off a full game.

A good chunk of classic RE is literally being attacked by things offscreen. They do it all the time. As for the cinematic aspect, I'm tired of games trying to look "cinematic". I just want a fun game. And there are plenty of non-fixed camera games that are "cinematic". There are ways to achieve that even in first person. But I would rather the game actually inspire in me a sense of dread, not make things feel "cinematic".

I don't remember being attacked off-screen in 0-3. It was possible for it to occur if you didn't control situations, but it wasn't baked into the design from what I recall. I never finished CV, so maybe that one.

"Cinematic" is a dirty word in gaming now, it wasn't before. Classic RE and Silent Hill got it right imo.

Actually, the fixed camera angles were a result of Capcom:
1. Having to work around the PlayStation's obvious hardware limitations
2. Not knowing how to create a first person horror game. The original RE was actually supposed to be in first person, but first person horror games hadn't established themselves as a genre yet, and the only examples of first person games that the RE team had were games like Doom and Quake; not exactly horror games. So, they went with a model that had already been shown to work in Alone in the Dark.

Resident Evil started out as a remake of Sweet Home, didn't it? I don't think first-person was their original intention. Maybe Alone in the Dark was an influence but I'm pretty sure the original concept would still have been third-person thanks to its roots, regardless of AitD.

An issue with current development standards. Companies like Capcom need to chase what sells. They just don't have the time or money to turn back the clock. So its up to indies to do that. Just like indies are keeping the torch of sidescrolling platformers alive, so Mario doesn't have to do it.

But I remember the HD remaster of RE1 sold very well, that style is profitable still despite being old. I don't see why they couldn't just do some spin-offs in that style at least.

 

[Coldgrip]

We don't talk about RE6, no, no, no...

Yes we do! We totally do!

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

That's a cool excuse for a text based game to omit graphics, do you remember the name of it?

Unfortunately not off the top of my head. I honestly cannot remember the title, and a Google search is a shot in the dark (no pun intended)

P.T proved that's possible in first-person too, but it was just one demo of a small area, I don't know how well it would have pulled off a full game.

But it is possible. Its really more about the ability of the developers, not the camera angles themselves.

Resident Evil started out as a remake of Sweet Home, didn't it? I don't think first-person was their original intention. Maybe Alone in the Dark was an influence but I'm pretty sure the original concept would still have been third-person thanks to its roots, regardless of AitD.

Sweet Home was a direct influence yes, and the game was a semi-remake, but so was Alone in the Dark. And yeah, the original plan was to make it first person. This is actually pretty well known at this point, and was a topic of discussion when RE7 was first announced. Also a topic of discussion was that early plans called for the unnatural happening in the mansion to be supernatural in nature, more in line with Sweet Home. This came up because some of the early trailers for RE7 led people to believe that something supernatural was happening in that game (turned out, no, it was another bioweapon). Also brought up was the famous "Hookman Demo" for RE4.

But I remember the HD remaster of RE1 sold very well, that style is profitable still despite being old.

It sold, but not as much as the non-fixed camera angle games. Sadly, the success of the RE2remake probably iced the idea of spinoff with fixed cameras. If they ever do anymore spinoffs that aren't in first person, it will probably be in the RE4 style over the shoulder view.

 

[White Devil]

No More Room in Hell with an RE Skin pack is the co op RE game I wish Capcom would give us.