Hmm.... http://forums.gametrailers.com/showpost.php?p=1644149&postcount=110

I think it looks very promising. I can't wait to see a clip that closer to a finalized version.

So by your own definition, the first BioHazard and every one of them after that except the GC one, weren't scary ?

While this doesn't look like my type of game, if they're putting more money into gameplay than graphics I think that's an excellent idea. I'd rather have a game that played well and didn't look that great than vice versa. I've seen far too many games that look amazing, but fall apart when you try to actually play them. Most of the games that I have been able to get into for extended periods of time haven't been terribly graphically intense titles. Typically strategy and RPG games, although I do enjoy a good racer every now and then. I've found that I also really enjoy games which promote activity of some sort outside of cramping your thumbs on the controller's buttons and joysticks. Games such as DDR, the Guitar Hero series, several Wii titles (particularly Wii Sports and Wario Ware: Smooth Moves) and the like have really made gaming more enjoyable, for both my wife and myself. Action games get beaten and then set aside with few exceptions, and FPS games are a big yawner for me unless there's a good amount of puzzle action involved. The original Doom was great IMO, it had very fast action and level design that challenged you to find all the secrets. The series degenerated over time into what we now know as Doom 3, basically a lot of monsters thrown into what might as well be a side scroller for all the ways you have to play through the game. I probably won't get the next title if they don't do something dramatically different with the game play. The point of all this is that not everyone is a hard-core gamer. A number of people are going to enjoy games that you would consider "crap", and these people would probably never play half of the games you enjoy the most. Most women for example, and probably most people outside of the early teen to 20s range. I'd also be willing to bet that there are more of these people than hard-core gamers. The Sims and Bejeweled sold extremely well, and I'm guessing it's not hard-core gamers that are buying them.

May the force be with you on this one, Obi-wan. Reminds me of when a buddy got his first PC, about 4-5 years ago. He wanted games, so I ftp'd him some (back then) state-of-the-art games (HL, Undying, etc). He thought the graphics were the shiznit. Then I told him to download one more game I uploaded, a 6mb file. He said, "You're joking, right? Can a 6mb game be any good?" Six months later, he was STILL raving about the game - discussing strategies and tactics with me almost daily. Graphics sucked elephant 'nads - try VGA 320x200. No voice-overs. Even the MIDI sounds were craptastic, even back then. However, the gameplay rocked him so hard he didn't even play any "graphics-whore" games until he passed this 6mb game three times. This game is being revamped by indie developers/fans even today, to try to bring the graphics to today's standards while keeping the gameplay intact. I believe you can download it for free. The game? It's called X-Com. Man, some of the best games ever (for me at least) are turn-based strategy games. I don't care how you dress one of these games up, but if you've ever played X-Com, or Civilization for that matter, you can see while graphics do make the game look nice, the gameplay is what makes these games seriously rock. You want fancy-schmancy immersive graphics that cross the uncanny valley and look hot-shit? Rent a movie. LOTR is highly recommended. Otherwise, gameplay will, at least for me, ALWAYS come first.

The texture and lava are alright, but the pillar, platform and the guy sucks ass. I heard these were really early shots?