Ryudo said:I dont know, it sounds more like frustraion ala gaidens camera to me. I am yet to play RE4, but from the reviews and hype here i am expecting it to be the best thing since jiffy lube.
SolidSnakex said:I still don't get the argument that strafing somehow takes away from tension in survival horror games. Silent Hill is considered the scariest survival horror series and it not only allows you to strafe but it also allows you to walk and shoot at the sametime. It doesn't take away from the tension at all.
Duck of Death said:No, it's not. Really, the game is designed such that you won't need to strafe. I've been in about 1 or 2 situations where strafing would have been appropriate.
The REAL problem with the controls is the lack of analog control.
-SRV- said:Silent Hill is not scary. The ability to strafe does not help Silent Hill in any way, shape, or form.
Strafing is way over rated.
AssMan said:It's either you people complaing about the controls must REALLY suck at this game or it's just fanboy nonsense as usual.
Mama Smurf said:I quite like the run button. But then I spend a good amount of the game walking, so I'd prefer just to be able to hold a direction as I like rather than worry about how much pressure I'm putting on the stick.
If I ran all the time I'd probably want analogue control too.
I quite like the run button. But then I spend a good amount of the game walking, so I'd prefer just to be able to hold a direction as I like rather than worry about how much pressure I'm putting on the stick.I quite like the run button. But then I spend a good amount of the game walking, so I'd prefer just to be able to hold a direction as I like rather than worry about how much pressure I'm putting on the stick.
Well it definitely needs something better than what it has, becausejunkster said:It does not need FPS controls
and that's it.tedtropy said:I think Leon should be able to shoot and reload while walking. Hell, I could do that
RE4 is to the franchise what Aliens was to Alien.
I should be able to
The only humans on the face of the earth that
akascream said:Except Aliens fucking sucks? Those fucking annoying Marines, god damn. Alien is 100 times the movie aliens is.
Culex said:You missed the point, although I don't know how...
Alien was more about suspense. Aliens was pure unadulturated action.
Resident Evil was about suspense. Resident Evil 4 is pure unadulturated action.
Whether you think Aliens sucks is besides the point.
akascream said:No, I think it is the point really. He's basically saying that the old formula blows RE4 out of the water.
RE4 is to the franchise what Aliens was to Alien. It's bigger, better, and whole lot slicker
Culex said:No, you need to read:
junkster said:What's your point?
Yeah, that's basically it.junkster said:You like your conventions and you don't want to adapt.
Shogmaster said:Do you play the game with your hands or your feet?!? Most rediculous thing I read in a while.
X_X
Nevermind. THIS is the most rediculous thing I've read.
Mama Smurf said:Are you an idiot? What doesn't you understand?
Mama Smurf said:I did, and it makes sense, so in conclusion I figure you're either an idiot or didn't understand something.
Specifics here would help.
MarkRyan said:This is evidence of your belief that the main goal of video games is to allow you to do what you want.
But good video games are games. Is it intuitive that a horse in Chess moves in an L-shape? Does it make sense that a Bishop can only move diagonally? Great video games are challenges with specific rules--purposely built-in limitations--and the goal is to complete the challenge while playing within the confines of these rules. About 80% of video gamers (read: mainstream) want Chess with a bunch of pieces that can move around however the player pleases. The other bit of video gamers know that a game is defined by both what it allows, and what it does not allow.
Mama Smurf said:I did, and it makes sense, so in conclusion I figure you're either an idiot or didn't understand something.
Specifics here would help.
I quite like the run button. But then I spend a good amount of the game walking, so I'd prefer just to be able to hold a direction as I like rather than worry about how much pressure I'm putting on the stick.
If I ran all the time I'd probably want analogue control too.
Shogmaster said:Ignoring the fact that for games like this, the dev can simply assign two speeds to the analog stick (full pressure = run, and anything but the full pressure is walk), if you can't finess the stick to such a degree, maybe you should take up another genre. Perhaps some point and click advantures?
And alll this time I thought the point of analog stick was to provide varying degrees of control. Silly me! Apparently analog stick is perfect for one speed control according to you!
WHERE THE FUCK IS MY ROLLEYES SMILIES?!?!
If I ran all the time I'd probably want analogue control too.
When have games ever been about what humans realistically do? Im sure many of you have played paintball. When you a running across a field, do you jump up and down like youre running the 110 m hurdles? No, you just run across it then why does everybody jump up and down in Quake and Halo? Because its a game, not because this is what people normally do!dog$ said:The only humans on the face of the earth that cannot shoot and walk simultaneously are people who have both legs amputated and must walk on their hands. That's the only exception I can think of.
And a King is a KING. He should be the BEST. But a King in Chess only moves one square, while the Queen can rock the board. How does it make sense that a Queen is more capable in combat than her King!?!?Mrbob said:Leon is a highly trained super agent. Surely his training taught him how to walk and shoot at the same time? Or how to roll away from oncoming enemies. The 'limitation' of Leons move set seems out of place for the type of character he portrays in the game. Especially when you consider all the cool shit he can do with action moves.
sammy said:Entertainment has been limiting audiences for the sake of emersion since the dawn of 'fun' ...
A story without a 'conflict' to relate with is nothing ... And we're starting to see this implemented abstractly into interactivity...
People might say they want 100% control of everything at every given moment, the same way they yell at some stupid bitch character in a horror movie to 'not go into the closet!'....
It all boils down to feeling the limits of the character, or atmosphere that the game is trying to portray...
And lets face it, 100% limitless control is just a arrow selecting options to progress..
I made a point of not mentioning strafing.Porthos said:Strafe is just a FPS game mechanism, and has nothing to do with making a game realistic.
CrimsonSkies said:The controls still suck arse imho.
In Metal Gear Solid 3, there are some parts of the game where Snake can't look 10 feet in front of him without going into first-person mode. And when in that mode, Snake can't move, just turn his head. Surely a highly trained super agent should be able to look in front of him while moving?Mrbob said:Leon is a highly trained super agent. Surely his training taught him how to walk and shoot at the same time? Or how to roll away from oncoming enemies. The 'limitation' of Leons move set seems out of place for the type of character he portrays in the game. Especially when you consider all the cool shit he can do with action moves.
MarkRyan said:And a King is a KING. He should be the BEST. But a King in Chess only moves one square, while the Queen can rock the board. How does it make sense that a Queen is more capable in combat than her King!?!?
Using logic and realism as reasons for design choices in games is pretty retarded, unless the game is a sim or there's no other way to design it.
dog$ said:If the point of RE is that it's a non-action horror game, then make all environments such that the instinctive impulse to move and shoot simultaneously would be severely restricted/impossible AND reduce enemy encounters enough so that you can deal with them in a rational manner so that you wouldn't need to dance around everything AND make the weapons effective enough so that the enemies wouldn't need to be plugged "20" times. If I only had to shoot everything once, I probably wouldn't notice about the lack of being able to move and shoot simultaneously, since I'd be able to kill any visible threats in an instant and get on with my life.
If the point of RE is that it's an action game with horror elements, then it fails horribly since it controls worse than practically all other action games made to date.
If the IGN editors can't move and shoot simultaneously, that's their own damned fault.explodet said:Anyway, shouldn't we be complaining about the IGN editors some more by now?
dog$ said:I made a point of not mentioning strafing.
Fuck strafing.
Like I said, if I'm taking care of a threat with a gun... a threat which I'm supposed to be scared of no less, I see no rationalization as to why I cannot:
a) Shoot the target
and
b) Run away from the target
simultanenously.
If the point of RE is that it's a non-action horror game, then make all environments such that the instinctive impulse to move and shoot simultaneously would be severely restricted/impossible AND reduce enemy encounters enough so that you can deal with them in a rational manner so that you wouldn't need to dance around everything AND make the weapons effective enough so that the enemies wouldn't need to be plugged "20" times. If I only had to shoot everything once, I probably wouldn't notice about the lack of being able to move and shoot simultaneously, since I'd be able to kill any visible threats in an instant and get on with my life.