But YOU'RE in the minority? Ask anyone about DMC DmC? I hate to burst your bubble but it's not 2013 anymore and we don't get our opinions from YouTube anymore either, just go replay the game. I'm a DMC fan, the reboot plays exactly like most modern DMC games. Sure its significantly easier, and the style meter is a bit messed up, but to say it's gameplay is as bad as dmc2 is just outing yourself for either never having played it or played it for a bit when it came out, hated it, and then never played again. I did the same until a few years ago, I was a pure hater but I gave it a chance and found out hey this plays exactly like how most games in the genre play, if not better. You can only misinterpret meaning, as in story, which we all agree the reboot has an abysmal story and awful characters. The point is the enemy design, gameplay and bosses. A good chunk of the reboot has good design and good bosses and a fairly alright ost.
Sorry if I come across as aggressive, you're just the first person I've ever met that has this opinion, so I like to debate and see the other side of the argument, but so far you've given absolutely zero points other than "well I didn't like it so it's a 0/10 game so yeah!" I just think you're confused and you're misinterpreting my arguments.
Legit, take a look at the first boss in the reboot, the entire setpiece with the carnival and the giant demon is cool as fuck, DMC is NOT a serious series, I'm sorry to tell you this but even in the mainline games DMC is NOT serious, I don't know what you interpreted the series as but a guy eating pizza shirtless in the opening of DMC3 and then spouting some corny nonsense is not the guy you might think he is. DMC is unserious and fun and just stupid nonsense, I implore you to replay the entire series again and see for yourself. In fact a reason people hate DMC2 is because Dante is so serious for no reason, he's not a stoic badass type character, he's a goofy cornball just like the entire series is. It's campy and ridiculous and that's why we love it.
Okay, you know what we're done here. You're just a butthurt DmC fanboy who misses the point of the franchise, doesn't know what Devil May Cry actually is, and thinks that tryhard edgelord bullshit is the same as a campy, fun action adventure story.
Sorry, I'm done here. Thanks for further making me refuse to play DmC and further increase my hate of Apologists like you, buttmunch.
Okay, you know what we're done here. You're just a butthurt DmC fanboy who misses the point of the franchise, doesn't know what Devil May Cry actually is, and thinks that tryhard edgelord bullshit is the same as a campy, fun action adventure story.
Sorry, I'm done here. Thanks for further making me refuse to play DmC and further increase my hate of Apologists like you, buttmunch.
You're genuinely not reading what I'm saying and it shows, I'm AGREEING with you on the story what are you even talking about dude it's always some people with 0 reading comprehension who have something to say about misinterpreting.
I'm not even a DmC fanboy, I literally said it's worse than the other games, you are genuinely not built for debating or reading arguments and it sucks that you have to act so high and mighty when you have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes it's tryhard edgelord bullshit, yes the story in DmC is bad, we are talking about GAMEPLAY and enemy/boss/set piece design. I only mentioned the story of the original DMC franchise because you kept spouting "misinterpreting", I don't know if English is your first language or not but I don't think you know what that word means
Anyway, of course you're done, you have no idea what you're talking about or have any real arguments. Just another elitist rose tinted glasses fanboy, can't accept that MAYBE the game with the bad shit tier story has good gameplay (my only argument by the way, but I don't know how to dumb it down for you to understand)
Sorry if I come off as rude, I don't mean to be, I just get a little annoyed when people are talking about something entirely different when I'm trying to talk about something.
And another Die-Hard Apologist rears his ugly head. Despite the protagonists being specialised SWAT officers and the powerful weapons you get, Resident Evil was NEVER action and 4, 5 and especially 6 are not the same. Have you ever realised that although the gameplay between titles is similar, the context in which the gameplay is placed is either slightly worse or way worse?
See, Apologists like these are the worst because they don't accept that they're in the minority, they have to misrepresent the living daylights out of the games they're attracted to because they have to stick it to the popular consensus.
Thing is; there's nothing wrong with liking games like Resident Evil 5 and 6 or DmC. But when you're so attached to them that you have to stick it to others by misrepresenting stuff to justify your beliefs, that's when my patience runs dry. It reminds me of this, but unironically:
LMAO didn't expect anyone going this hysterical, calling me "ugly" and "it", just because I mentioned the fact that Resident Evil 4, 5 and 6 play the same. xD
Also I don't give a shit about DMC at all, Dante is a edgelord fujoshi bait in all designs, and am repeating for the third time that ALL Resident Evil games are about blowing up zombies with grenade launcher, with some jumpscares in-between.)))
It's not Mona Lisa or anything. You're taking shooter games too seriously. Also how TF RE was "never action" when they ask you to speedrun them and get infinite weapons as reward? Fighting Nemesis and getting high scores and kill combos in mercenaries was the most frantic action PS1 could get.
You fanboys need to chill, find Jesus or something if you can't control yourself and overreact LIKE THIS to normal people not telling apart some minute details of "context" between your holy cows of gaming that are just little distractions that look, play, and feel the same to us, sane people.
Also, "my patience runs dry"... lmao go polish your katana on your fedora or something so I don't die of cringe.
I recent people talking shit about SH combat, saying that is bad for either reason. Sure SH1 is janky, maybe because of the PS1 limitations. But SH2 is good and SH3 is perfect. They fuck up with SH4 though. They removed the tank controls, the fix camera and worst, the camera instead of orbiting around the player axis like any other game, it orbits around its own axis.
I think the word is "resent", but you misunderstood me, I am a Silent Hill fan making fun of Resident Evil for not being as scary because your characters are too powerful, the first 4 Silent Hills didn't have bad combat, the CHARACTERS in-game were bad at fighting because they're not trained in it (Harry is just a father looking for his daughter, James is an ordinary dude grieving about his wife, and Heather is a teenage girl).
The only problem with SH 1-3 combat I have is that in 2 on higher difficulties you have to stomp on enemies to finish them off, as it takes too many bullets and they keep coming back. 3's combat is perfectly balanced, I agree.
Homecoming did one major change, and there you play as a vet who goes back home from the army (allegedly), so he IS trained in fighting, so his knife and axe combos, dodges and footwork make you feel less defenseless than previous protagonists.
So I understand that people say Homecoming isn't the same because it kind of tried to follow Resident Evil 4... But I liked the Dynasty Warriors-like combos, just had a few issues with QTEs (mostly because of framerate on old PC they didn't register right).
I think the complain at least from my part is that CZ in just 1.6 with prettier graphics and doesn't offer anything new beyond those annoying and repetitive missions. Source movements are just sluggish and I didn't play GO or 2.
I kind of feel the same about CZ but most fans dropped it and went back to 1.6, this is the thing I don't understand, are the shields that bad at ruining pace? What I also don't like in new ones is they removed the hostage maps, cs_assault and cs_militia were my fav ones. Yeah so I just generally don't understand the fandom running half the servers on de_dust and never using most of the weapons.
RE4 has adaptive difficulty, but you can run out of ammo anyway. That's way they made the knife unbreakable and easy to access.
I didn't play 5 and onwards, and just played a little of 2 and 3. However my impression is that RE1 is a horror puzzle game with some barebones combat mechanics. An adventure game if you will, Like Grim Fandango but with guns. 3, though I didn't play enough of it, already felt like an action game. 4 already solidify itself as one. And I don't think the camera has anything to do with it. because they keep the tank controls.
All Resident Evil games had adaptive difficulty, you can see people get bitten by zombies early on purpose so that later hits would give less damage, if you run far enough without getting any damage one hit makes your health orange. RE4 just put it to the max, so the more you shoot, the more ammo you get. So saving it became almost pointless (then just get no drops).
And RE2 is already very action-heavy, it starts on a chase through fire! Original has more boss fights and extra weapons compared to the remake, you get flamethrower, machinegun, shock rifle, you fight a buttefly in a cocoon or something, then there's so many forms of Birkin (different ones depending on A or B scenario). Even Sherry's part where you can't fight back has action in running from dogs.
So yeah, RE increased in action after the first game, and sales peaked in 4, and it was so popular they made two following games play almost exactly the same (I think 6 added cover system and shoot-while-walk, but other than that it wasn't a big jump from 5).
I think the main issue with people discussing RE genre shift is that they ignore their predecessors. Alone in the Dark from '92 and BioForge from '95. Understand that the pre-rendered backgrounds was a necessity to have more detailed backgrounds and character models. Not to make things more scary.
Yeah but that's my point, RE always stood out as more action oriented series compared to Alone in the Dark or Silent Hill or any other horror game... you can make an argument that either 3 or 4 went too far with it, but since those games were successful, some people now pretend that it became more action in 5 or 6, which is bull...
My fav is actually Revelations, it's in-between third person shooter like 4-5-6 and action-adventure of 1-2-3, also I wish I could dress with as much style as Jessica Sherawat! xD
But I am not a huge RE fan, as I said, so I have them lying in the backlog behind MGS5 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider, only recently got to finally going through RE6 and RE4make, haven't played Rev 2 or 3 Remake yet. Don't have any desire to play the modern first person ones (I played Gun Survivor as a kid).
Super Mario Bros. 2: Considering it is LITERALLY not a Mario game originally it's going to be very, very different... but it's just a really, really good game with a lot of charm. That said, it did add a lot to the Mario universe going forward and gave us some of the greatest enemies in the franchise (Shy Guys, anyone? Ninjies?) Also, it's just a LOT more varied in its gameplay than the first SMB. I love the first SMB, but I think between SMB3 giving us the same thing as the first but WAAAY more and perfected, and SMB2 offering something entirely different, there's a lot of reason to give this one a fair shot.
I knew the game for its GBA Remake, remember loving it even when it felt...odd out, after meeting the "Real" Super Mario Bros 2 (AKA Chinese torture The lost levels) i am grateful we got the reskin
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
