And that's why Wikipedia is almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannia, I assume? What I posted accurately sums up how I see the series. I do not see how the paradigm shift from avoiding enemies in cramped environments to shooting as many as possible in much more open environments is anything other than a major change.Originally Posted by Ishin Ookami
Ah, I see. If someone disagrees with you, they've been bought out. :rolleyes2So don't believe everything you read. Heck, even professional critics can have their opinions bought out at times. I personally concider Advent Children to be a complete and utter piece of crap, yet in December we were having critics review the film, stating they were reviewing the PSP version which wasn't even distributed until April. If sony and/or square hadn't paid for them to say this, they could have sued them for false advertising and generating hype as I'm sure they received many complaints when the release was pushed back, and even more when it was actually released. Then there is the whole "Halo was the greatest FPS of it's time" racket. To which I give the raspberry as It would have been a mediocre playing FPS even five years prior to it's release. Trust me, opinions get bought all the time in this industry.
I don't even consider RE4 survival horror, it's an action game with vague survival horror elements. Fatal Frame and Silent Hill are far, far superior if you're after scares. And... wouldn't a super fan of the franchise be rather MORE qualified to make a comment on how much of an advancement it has been?I think it's a fun game overall, just not the end all and be all some make it out to be. You'd have to be a super fan of the franchise (which I'm not, I long defected to Fatal Frame for my survival horror kicks) to think RE4 was a quantum leap in terms of gameplay. It was an improvement, a evolution for the franchise, but not a drastic one.
Reply With Quote