|
*Sound Of Rain said: The N64 is so old now that it has become increasingly rare to find one in great condition. Same with the games, which I don't really trust to be used... it'd be like $100+ for some games. |
*blink*
Wow! That's impressive. I mean, that's Australian-prices impressive! Games down here are often $100 or more, but they're new games! I can't believe an N64 game could cost that much today. Maybe you would be best to see if it's available online for the Wii. And if not, emulate... if you have something you can do it on. Is the iPad all you've got? Do you have a laptop or something?
Mr_No said:
Unfortunately yes. And allegedly, the next Resident Evil is going to be the last, so I can't say I've enjoyed the series properly. |
You can always go back and play the originals. They are still great games (IMHO), as long as you understand that they aren't shooters. If you prefer more action-oriented games then yeah, you'll be disappointed. The focus of the classic series is on the survival, not the shooting.
Actually, this discussion between fans of the old and fans of the new has been quite illuminating for me. In listening to both sides give the reasons they think their preferred games (new or old) are better, something has occurred to me. One side says they took the horror out and the other says it was the perfect balance of horror and action. Now, as a fan of the classic games, when I hear that, I think to myself, "But the perfect balance is no action!"... Or at least, minimal action.
Now, wait, I'm not ragging on action-oriented games - even action-oriented horror games. What I'm saying is that I think I'm beginning to understand the divide between fans of the series. It's not just that the classic games were less action-based; it's that the survival-based nature of the games actively discouraged it. The mood, atmosphere, and rationing of ammo made you really apprehensive about facing enemies head-on.
Like, take the hunters, for example. Those things were scary, man! They could take your head off in one lob! Whenever possible, you went out of your way to avoid them. Now, of course, it wasn't always possible to avoid combat, but it was always preferable. That's the nature of survival horror.
I think this is where a lot of the disagreement between fans comes from. I can absolutely understand some people not finding the survival style of the older games very interesting. And I can also understand some people (myself included) feeling that sneaking around trying to avoid combat at all costs is precisely what made those games great, and that when you have plenty of ammo and are encouraged to shoot everything that moves, you lose the whole point of the genre.
So, who is right and who is wrong? Well, I swear I'm not just trying to be diplomatic here, but I think it's purely a matter of taste. It entirely depends on what you like. Resident Evil has evolved from survival horror to action horror, and while they have similar roots, I think they're two distinct genres. That doesn't make one better than the other; it just makes them different.
Say you were to take Call of Duty and turn it into an RPG. You can bet your stars that tons of fans would say you'd ruined the franchise. But there would be those who never liked FPS's in the first place, who would love the COD RPG. And I'm sure there would be some who liked both genres, who enjoyed the old COD but also liked the RPG, maybe even more than the older games.
So, does the new COD RPG suck? Well, it depends on who you ask. I'm sure a lot of the classic fans would think so. But it may be a perfectly solid RPG. And fans would defend it, saying the new COD is better than it ever was before. While fans of the old would lament the elements the series had lost, fans of the new would say, "Good riddance!" To them, these things were detriments that COD is better off without. To the old-school fans, they were the whole point.
I guess what I'm getting at is that this is like comparing genres. No one is really right or wrong; it's a question of what you're playing it for. You don't play an RPG to have fast-paced firefights requiring keen accuracy and quick reflexes, and you don't play an FPS to deeply plan and strategize every attack. These are different experiences, and both have their place. I think that, in the end, everyone can agree on what the differences are between the old RE and the new RE. But whether those differences are a good thing or not entirely comes down to what kind of experience you're looking for.
Ooooh... kaaay! That was longer than intended. Sorry about that. I don't know how clear I was with all this but it was just an interesting thought that occurred to me while I was reading the discussion on here.
And upon re-reading it, I guess I am kind of stating the obvious. Still, I'd never really thought about it in quite that way before.
|
Mr_No said: To each their own. I guess I'm pretty biased because this was my first Resident Evil and it left a great impression on me. |
I think that's true of a lot of things. My first Resident Evil was RE2, and even though I think it may have been just edged out by Nemesis, it remains one of my favourite games of all time.
The original itself is seriously worth playing for the acting alone. It's hilarious! If you haven't seen it, here's the intro...
ColdFire - The man with no name.
