Resident Evil 5

[Fucky McFuckerson]

I can't really sit here and compare GTA3 with a video game that nobody heard of and less people played. I'm not trying to argue the point that there weren't "open world" type of games out there, but did you play Urban Chaos or even hear of it before you read that article? I can see that game being an inspiration to GTA, but GTA simply took the definition of "Sandbox" or "open world" and changed it. Nobody was talking about "sandbox" games before GTA, pure and simple.

But you still do not understand what he was proving you wrong on. Read your first rebuttle to him:

That's a pretty bold statement considering GTA invented a whole new genre of video game that didn't exist, and nobody's done it better even though it's 10 or so years later.

He proved that Rockstar, in fact, did not INVENT an entire new genre, becuase someone had already invented it 2 years prior. Therefore, he is right and you are wrong.

Now, can we get back to the game in question here please?

 

[Zer0.MediA]

But you still do not understand what he was proving you wrong on. Read your first rebuttle to him:

::sigh::

And what I'm saying is that in both of those articles, all of the games mentioned weren't called "open world" or "sandbox" games untill GTA came out and inspired people to write about them.

Nobody wants to look at MY links where Microsoft itself says that GTA "virtually" invented the genre. According to his links, this:

...is an open world sandbox game comparable to GTA.

But I digress....

RE5 seemed like fun. I originally bought a PS1 to play RE back in the day, and wound up not liking it so much. I would up enjoying the Tomb Raiders better. I started playing RE again on the last one and prefer the newer style to the old style of playing. I thought they were very slow originally.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

I havent played an RE game since the Gamecube...and i didnt like it. I am going to give this one a whirl, however, merely becuase I havent had a game to play in a bit.

 

[mrtonguetwista]

Capcom received some backlash last week when they announced that they would be selling downloadable content for Resident Evil 5 which would add multiplayer modes to the game.

Most of the Internet angst seems to surround the timing of the release and questions why it wasn't just included on the disc. But Christian Svensson, vice president of Strategic Planning & Business Development for Capcom, isn't having any of it.

"This is the part where I get to say "BS"," he wrote on the Capcom forums. "RE5 is well worth every penny of $60. A huge game, with tons of replay value, loads of unlockables, new weapons, co-op, mercenaries mode, etc. If any game warrants its price point, it's RE5.

"Prior to the announcement of the Versus mode, no one complained they weren't getting their money's worth with the initial release because it packs TONS of value because it is an amazing game. So if people were already satisfied with what the package had, when we offer MORE, why is it people feel they've been somehow cheated? If you don't find value in our secondary offerings, the choice is simple, don't purchase it. If you do find it valueable (and we hope you do) please do buy it and enjoy it."

Svensson goes on to explain that any downloadable content that Capcom does has a budget separate from the main game.

"Secondly, whenever we do PDLC, that content exists with its own budgets, it's own profit and loss analaysis with its own forecasts. If it didn't, that extra content wouldn't have been put into production, because it did not fit within the production budget of the base product.

"The content that is shipping in the full game exists within its own budget. The content shipping afterward (regardless of how close to release it is... because the goal IS to have it release relatively closely to the base product's release) exists within its own budget. To try and have it release in a timeframe that is relatively close to the initial release, development starts well before the base product is on the shelves. There's no other way to keep it within 3 to 6 weeks of the initial release (which is the goal)."

It is an interesting phenomenon that people seem to get incensed about the timing of DLC alone. Would news of Resident Evil 5's DLC been less upsetting if it came six months after the game was out?

 

[Zer0.MediA]

"Prior to the announcement of the Versus mode, no one complained they weren't getting their money's worth with the initial release because it packs TONS of value because it is an amazing game. So if people were already satisfied with what the package had, when we offer MORE, why is it people feel they've been somehow cheated? If you don't find value in our secondary offerings, the choice is simple, don't purchase it. If you do find it valueable (and we hope you do) please do buy it and enjoy it."

Because if you're going to offer multiplayer at all, it should be available as DLC for free. This is like charging extra for "interactive menus" on a DVD.

Straight up, why should I have to pay extra for multiplayer DLC when I've already paid Microsoft the money to use their gold service to play people online in the first place? PS3 is a slightly different story. As far as Xbox goes, that's paying twice for the same thing, and that's AFTER you've dropped your 60 bucks for the one player game.

If he doesn't want people to complain about DLC, then he needs to talk to Microsoft and ask them why they're charging us for what should be free in the first place. Untill then, developers and the like need to work with the consumer.

 

[mrtonguetwista]

I like he he coming slick out the mouth saying if you dont want it dont buy it...

lol talking shit in a bad economy..hope he eats those words

 

[hella_numb]

i got to the part in 2-1 where the chainsaw dude chases after you. that fuckin cunt keeps getting chainsawed at the neck. i think ima have to take the shotgun and give her the pistol.

 

[damng]

as soon as i get the red elite, im selling re5. fuck that game. demo was boosey, too.

 

[mrtonguetwista]

Came out Friday and I already see 3 stores in the area carrying used one on gamestop.com

 

[damng]

damn like that... why the quick take backs? the game or the system, too?

 

[HERESY]

damn like that... why the quick take backs? the game or the system, too?

Because the game is easy as hell.

 

[Zer0.MediA]

Because the game is easy as hell.

But it's got TONS of replay value... LoL. Why wouldn't you want to play the game all over again in a different costume?

 

[HERESY]

But it's got TONS of replay value... LoL. Why wouldn't you want to play the game all over again in a different costume?

Actually, it does have a lot of replay value. Once again you fail:

http://cheats.ign.com/ob2/068/760/760880.html

 

[HERESY]

::sigh::

And what I'm saying is that in both of those articles, all of the games mentioned weren't called "open world" or "sandbox" games untill GTA came out and inspired people to write about them.

Nobody wants to look at MY links where Microsoft itself says that GTA "virtually" invented the genre. According to his links, this:

...is an open world sandbox game comparable to GTA.

But I digress....

RE5 seemed like fun. I originally bought a PS1 to play RE back in the day, and wound up not liking it so much. I would up enjoying the Tomb Raiders better. I started playing RE again on the last one and prefer the newer style to the old style of playing. I thought they were very slow originally.

No, the link you provided doesn't give much info. In addition, any person with reasonable comprehension skills would read the article you posted and know in what context the word "virtually" means. Moreover, the link you provided only has one one paragraph. However, I gave you two links that offer multiple pages of info pertaining to the subject, and they don't come across like sales pitches designed to market and sell the game...like your link does.

Again, what genre did GTA 3 INVENT? You've been asked this several times now, and even another member is showing you why you don't make any sense. It does not matter if GTA 3 was the first to be called "sand box" or "open world" (and you don't even provide proof that it was.) What matters is that it was not the first game to use non-linear environments nor was it the first to allow you to ignore objectives. In addition, you're being misleading when you say the pic you posted is "comparable" to GTA 3. Read the link again and quote what they say about the game.

So again, what genre did GTA 3 INVENT? LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[hella_numb]

Came out Friday and I already see 3 stores in the area carrying used one on gamestop.com

ok so 3 people out of 2+ million didnt like the game that much or already beat it and traded it in.

 

[mrtonguetwista]

lol..you cant really be that slow.

 

[Zer0.MediA]

Actually, it does have a lot of replay value. Once again you fail:

Dude, it was a fuckin' joke. Take your big internet balls somewhere else, Tony Toughnuts, because I've clearly moved on.

So again, what genre did GTA 3 INVENT? LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Argue all you want homie, you never heard of, nor played that game that was A VERY LITTLE BIT of what GTA was before you looked up that article. Since you choose to be a nitpicky little bitch about it, let me change my words for you...

I bet you never heard of, or played a "sand-box" game before GTA. I bet you've never even heard the term "sand-box" before GTA. Open any magazine or website and see how many times you see a game labeled a "GTA clone", as opposed to how many are called "Ultra Eagle clones" (whatever the hell the name of that game was). You can search the interwebs for any damn obscure game you want, but GTA is the basis of that entire genre.

Doom was the basis of the 1st person shooter genre... Not the first, but a genre hardly even has a name before a game that more than 4 internet nerds play comes out. Street Fighter 2, didn't invent 2D fighting, but it stands out as the originator of the genre. I don't believe that Super Mario brothers was the first side scrolling platformer, but... There it is, at the forefront of the minds of the American public because it was the first game of that type that reached a broad audience.

I know you're sitting there knowing exactly what I'm talking about and choosing to pick out one word or another to harp on. If you honestly believe that GTA3 wasn't absolutely revolutionary to the entire video game industry and didn't deserve a 10 rating, then I don't know why I'm bothering to sit here and type to you.

 

[KODOGG]

wtf is an ultra eagle? lol

 

[KODOGG]

Capcom received some backlash last week when they announced that they would be selling downloadable content for Resident Evil 5 which would add multiplayer modes to the game.

Most of the Internet angst seems to surround the timing of the release and questions why it wasn't just included on the disc. But Christian Svensson, vice president of Strategic Planning & Business Development for Capcom, isn't having any of it.

"This is the part where I get to say "BS"," he wrote on the Capcom forums. "RE5 is well worth every penny of $60. A huge game, with tons of replay value, loads of unlockables, new weapons, co-op, mercenaries mode, etc. If any game warrants its price point, it's RE5.

"Prior to the announcement of the Versus mode, no one complained they weren't getting their money's worth with the initial release because it packs TONS of value because it is an amazing game. So if people were already satisfied with what the package had, when we offer MORE, why is it people feel they've been somehow cheated? If you don't find value in our secondary offerings, the choice is simple, don't purchase it. If you do find it valueable (and we hope you do) please do buy it and enjoy it."

Svensson goes on to explain that any downloadable content that Capcom does has a budget separate from the main game.

"Secondly, whenever we do PDLC, that content exists with its own budgets, it's own profit and loss analaysis with its own forecasts. If it didn't, that extra content wouldn't have been put into production, because it did not fit within the production budget of the base product.

"The content that is shipping in the full game exists within its own budget. The content shipping afterward (regardless of how close to release it is... because the goal IS to have it release relatively closely to the base product's release) exists within its own budget. To try and have it release in a timeframe that is relatively close to the initial release, development starts well before the base product is on the shelves. There's no other way to keep it within 3 to 6 weeks of the initial release (which is the goal)."

It is an interesting phenomenon that people seem to get incensed about the timing of DLC alone. Would news of Resident Evil 5's DLC been less upsetting if it came six months after the game was out?

This is actually one of the only blockbuster games that's came out recently that i'd have to say is not worth $60.. It's only 10-15 hours long.. Ofcourse you can replay thru in a different costume, whoohoo.. Maybe if the multiplayer was included it'd be worth it.. I hope we dont start seein hella games comein out and chargeing later on for multiplayer.. that'd fuckin suck.

 

[HERESY]

Dude, it was a fuckin' joke. Take your big internet balls somewhere else, Tony Toughnuts, because I've clearly moved on.

I like the name. Was it an original thought or did you get it from some place else? In any event, your jokes aren't funny, and next time quote someone else if you want to be "Ha Ha funny" guy.

Argue all you want homie, you never heard of, nor played that game that was A VERY LITTLE BIT of what GTA was before you looked up that article. Since you choose to be a nitpicky little bitch about it, let me change my words for you...

Playing a game that beat GTA 3 to the shelves by two years is not a prerequisite to anything. You're relying on a fallacy here, do I need to tell you which one? I'm not nitpicking and you seem to forget YOU quoted ME. Logic my friend, pure logic.

I bet you never heard of, or played a "sand-box" game before GTA. I bet you've never even heard the term "sand-box" before GTA. Open any magazine or website and see how many times you see a game labeled a "GTA clone", as opposed to how many are called "Ultra Eagle clones" (whatever the hell the name of that game was). You can search the interwebs for any damn obscure game you want, but GTA is the basis of that entire genre.

Again, I already said GTA/ROCKSTAR took it and ran with it. You can see me saying that several pages back. They did the same thing EPIC did with Gears which was build on an existing formula or concept and throw their own twist on it. However, just like EPIC, GTA/ROCKSTAR did NOT reinvent the wheel, and they did NOT create a "new genre" as the genre already existed. What it was called before hand is of no concerned because the gameplay is still there--open worlds, non-linear gameplay, etc. I am not saying GTA is not the basis for the genre or use as a reference point. What I am saying is GTA /ROCKSTAR did not INVENT a new genre. This is YOUR claim, and so far you've yet to prove it! LMAO! It's sad because another user had to point this out to you, but you still don't get it.

Doom was the basis of the 1st person shooter genre... Not the first, but a genre hardly even has a name before a game that more than 4 internet nerds play comes out. Street Fighter 2, didn't invent 2D fighting, but it stands out as the originator of the genre. I don't believe that Super Mario brothers was the first side scrolling platformer, but... There it is, at the forefront of the minds of the American public because it was the first game of that type that reached a broad audience.

Wolfesntein. Karate Champ. DK. And I don't know of anyone in their right mind who would say SF II was the orignator of 2-D fighting when you obviously have SF. LOL! Again, while the games you listed may have helped push the genre, they were not the originators of said genre which leads me to the next question. What genre did GTA3 invent?

I know you're sitting there knowing exactly what I'm talking about and choosing to pick out one word or another to harp on.

You yourself don't know what you're talking about, so why do you think I know what you're talking about. Cuzzo, you quoted me and told me GTA3 invented a genre, and when I asked you to tell me what genre you went to bottle spinning.

If you honestly believe that GTA3 wasn't absolutely revolutionary to the entire video game industry and didn't deserve a 10 rating, then I don't know why I'm bothering to sit here and type to you.

Why do you think I don't believe it wasn't revolutionary when I said this on page 5:

GTA & Rockstar may have refined or revolutionized the sandbox genre

Please stop. This is going nowhere and you aren't making any sense. Yes I made a bold statement and can back my opinions up. Yes, millions of people and magazine editors may disagree with me, but at the same time there are magazine editors and millions of people who agree. However, not too many people will agree that GTA3 invented a new genre. That, my friend, is the boldest statement of them all.

Good day...