My issues with Rise of the Tomb Raider

Surprising that the person who flame baits Xbox users would think the ps4 exclusive is better.

Translation: scrub talk.

From the same people by the way, they feel overrated n overhyped a "piece of shit" they think is unworthy of that praise, but no no no no, goty awards are objective.

My issue with Rottr is the price isn't going down as fast as I had hoped. I'm shooting for $5. I can wait!

I didn't rush it. I could probably show you the amount of time I spent in the game assuming that is tracked. Is that what you want to see because I would be happy to post it. I think it is in the stats. I will look it up and post a screenshot.

You didn't say I had to post valid arguments for my points. I would be happy to though. But you just flew off the handle. I am a fanboy, a fanboy of games. Why don't you take a look at my Nier trophies, and how many campaigns I completed in that? It's not about the PLASTIC for me, it's about the games.

Take a look at my Gears of War 4 achievements. I finished it on normal and didn't bother with any achievements outside of the ones that the game awarded me for progressing. Then look at ROTTR and my trophy list. It shows me how much I enjoyed the game because I went back and 100%'d <sic> it and worked on side trophies. Look at my trophies in The Last Guardian too while you are at it.

If the facts flame bait xbox users, maybe their console is just shit.

RotTR was a massive disappointment.

If the facts flame bait PS users, maybe their console is just shit.

Cool, your opinion is indeed noted. Did you 100% it?

Needs turn based combat to be hardcore

No and I won't ever 100% it, the side content is a chore and would only reduce how I feel about the game.

Well since you and I both completed both games, it seems we both have opinions that should be respected about the game. Those that never played the games should STFU, don't you agree?

Nah its not fair. You comparing a game that is based soloely to its shooting elements and its a true TPS . Vanquish is all about shooting , UC4 is not all about shooting. Vanquish excels in that area but lacks everything else UC4 offers from story to cinematic appeal to puzzles to platform elements etc.

In that sense , since Resident evil 7 is an FPS at its core gameplay like UC4 is a TPS , lets compare it to Battlefield ... Ehmm , to me it doesnt work that way since UC4 is not your typical action shooter nor RE7 is your typical FPS.

Also i was clear that Vanquish excels in shooting but that alone doesnt make it better game overall to me since , as i said , im fan of other things UC4 offers and Vanquish is not. So if i want to play something flashy with fun shooting elements ill go Vanquish. If i want a blend of things that exceling in their own way with decent shooting , UC4 all the way.

Uncharted 4 has the better story, characters and world. Whereas rotr has better gameplay with more variety. Both look great graphically. I really can't decide between the two. I feel like I'll remember uncharted 4 for a long time because of it being Drakes farewell but I kind of kept going just to progress the story and ultimately had more fun playing through tomb raider.

Talks the guy that calling one of the WORSE and overated TPS of all time when it comes to its core gameplay with myriad of CORE gameplay shooting flaws , Resident Evil 4 that is , a masterpiece.

UC4 is a great game for people that love this cinematic appeal , blend of decent story with decent shooting and elements like puzzles and some platforming etc and all that with skyrocketed , flashy production values.

If you dont like it fine , but calling RE4 a masterpiece when it has fundamental flaws in its pace , core gameplay , shooting , QTEs that supposed are bad , cheesiest story ever , epicly bad voice acting , laughable AI etc and then UC4 is the most overhyped shit that does everything bad ... oh come on now.

Yeah, see like exhibit A over here.

Every-time you bring up your RE4 complaint, it routinely fails to miss what's actual great about RE4's mechanics. The fact the whole game is built around the fact that you can not move n shoot, it is in no way clunky nor broken. It works exactly as intended and has genuine depth to its systems. That are highlighted through a variety of exceptional combat encounters and oh yeah a damn good mercenaries mode. As a shooter Uncharted 4 on its best moments doesn't offer the same level of mechanical interplay, pacing, or combat variety.

Basically you keep trying to pretend you're presenting "objective flaw", but you're not, you're showing your own inability to actually analyze anything with any real thought to it. Try again sport. Beyond that, slick, I never give credit to RE4 even having a good story, I recognize that it's cheesy as ****. It just doesn't take itself seriously for starters, and above all else a story being good or not, has no bearing my enjoyment of a video game, because I like games. Not really bad movies for people who don't watch good movies (IE cinematic games in a nut shell).

The platforming in Uncharted? mindless, utterly effortless n pointless excuse so the dev can go "look at how pretty our game is". I'm not asking for it to be Prince of Persia, but it can be much more interesting than just a superfluous waste of the player's time. And the story I'm not surprised is up your alley, but those of us who are well read and/or actively enjoy film, Uncharted's story is a joke. The puzzles? They solve themselves.

You like giving that game a free pass on the mantra of "look at all these things it attempts". I like judging a game on what it actually does well, and the only thing UC4 is actually good that isn't "it looks pretty and the script is okay" is what, the shooting mechanics? Because anything else is the game getting some tallest midget credit.

I'm sorry I'm capable of a more complex thought than "herpa derp they ruined mah franchise".

Ofc everytime im bringing RE4 since is what you called Masterpiece over and over. What was RE4s strong points back then that made people praise the game and score insane scores all over the net ?

Was its story ? Was its gameplay ? Was its QTEs and the infamous back and forth in the areas and repeat ? The cheesy puzzles ? Voice acting ? AI ? Shooting ?! What was it to be a masterpiece is beyond me when for the same reasons you slaughtering UC4 which is far better in almost all aspects and yes a game that tries to blend things is way more interesting that being a plain shooter , but thats my taste anyways.

So what was it with RE4 ? It was its design and graphics , anticipation and hype. Nothing else. And when it comes to the very same elements UC4 does exactly that in impressive fashion plus way more. Youre all about gameplay and how puzzles are stupid and shooting is bad and story cheesy and how is possible for scores to be that high and why people praising UC4 and this is shit and that is bad ... Come on.

You see , double standards wont work here. You are the one called RE4 masterpiece , i never called UC4 a masterpiece even if i like it alot but i can tell why people are harsh towards it . I m just trying to understand though how is possible to praise RE4 when it was an overhyped mess then you dont give UC4 a chance at all. Its beyond logic imo. I cant understand how is possible , i never did , i never will whatever the case.

The gameplay, the combat slick, the white knuckle action (which would include the shooting). Literally every reviewer that has ever been positive on that game highlights how strong the action is. Duh.

Yeah its gameplay, it's combat, it's shooting slick, Try again. Except UC4 doesn't, and no on the contrary I enjoy UC4's gunplay n combat spaces, I said it's not the king of shit, because it isn't. It's paced terribly as a game. The puzzles n platforming are dull n mindless, and they make up a significant chunk of the play time. In fact majority of the play time. RE4 has bad puzzles. You know how many puzzles it has? 3, total. When added up they make up maybe 10 minutes in a 15 hour game. Ergo, the complaint isn't created equal when discussing those two games

Meanwhile the walking around n "climbing" mechanic of UC4 makes up 2/3rds of my play time. Ergo, it should be more interesting to play. I know that's a crazy nuanced radical idea, that a mechanic I spend a ton of time with in a game should be good, but pretty sure that's always been a thing.

There is no double standard sport, you lack comprehension skills, you lack any sort of analytical skills. It's like arguing with Ghost4ever and his stupid notion that Doom is inferior to any FPS that has vertical aiming, ignoring that fundamentally everything about the way the game plays is built around the players limitations. No different than the deliberate animations of a Souls game, is how the stop n shoot gameplay of RE4 works.

Because your AI complaint, for starters, and I would never put RE4's AI with something like FEAR, but that's because RE4's AI doesn't need to be, because that would be missing the point or completely at odds with how the mechanics work. RE4 is about being stationary and shooting so you are constantly in danger, when forced to shoot. How they balance the enemies is by giving them basic projectiles, melee weapons, and making them lumber to you slowly, because that's game design 101. It goes back to, ironically even someone like John fucking Romero n Doom.

The logic is perfectly sound, you don't see it because your own understanding of games is stuck to shitty forum speak. Where as mine usually comes from actually reading up on things like game theory n design.

Roooooofl !! I have nothing more to say ! You clearly having double standards based on what you like here. Calling SLICK Resident Evils 4 gameplay is all i need to hear here , nothing more to talk about. One of the worse shooting mechanics in any TPS ever existed and you keep praising it this very moment. Nuff said

As for comprehension skills and lack of analytical skills , are proven thru time , no need for your approval on that. Keep praising one of the worse TPS ever which did everything wrong , including shooting , aside few things it did excel big time and keep telling yourself you have comprehension and analytical skills. lol

As for AI and all , go google please , go google laugh your ass off then come tell me about RE4s AI that made the game from supposedly HORROR action TPS to LOL action TPS.

Now , keep calling Resident evil 4s gameplay and all its shits GREAT , just because thats your opinion while bashing UC4 and other games for the same reasons RE4 was an overhyped shit and let me laught about it .

You reading up things like game theory and design so what you say is right and noone can deny what you saying and your opinion right ?.. Omfg this ego bro !! Keep praising RE4 all i care , ill be around to remind your double standards again and again.

RE4 is the SHIT , live with that . Calling it slick , masterpiece with numerous kind of flaws including fundamentally wrong gameplay is STUPID. Wtf is going on with you i dont get it. You got double standards ,stop sound like you think youre some guru and everyone else around is a shitty , SW prick that his opinion is way below yours because of your extraordinary analytical skills and this and that and face facts.

Because in fact , this very moment all you do is defending RE4 and your opinion about it ( masterpiece lol ) as many do for UC4 when you talking shit about it. Game theory and design ... my ass ! What kind of design says in an action Shooter game you CANT MOVE at all when aiming and thats masterpiece ? Daaamn , damn and damn.

Keep those kind of ... analytical skills !

Im speechless with you seriously.

Yeah and over time you've proven you lack both. Slick.

Resident Evil 4 .. a masterpiece . Its gameplay slick. ZERO flaws ! Masterpiece because i say so. Analytical skills in action. Slick

Yup.

Undeniable facts :

Fundamentally broken gameplay mechanic , back and forth all over , BAD story , epicly BAD voice acting , very bad AI , broken pace with random vendor spawn in the middle of nowhere selling stuff etc , QTEs ( which i have zero problems with but you people are so negative about when UC have them ) and more ..

But nooo , your comprehensive and analytical skills tells you otherwise because youre reading game theory and design...

Sigh , ok whatever ... UC4 is shit , RE4 a masterpiece. UC4 has flaws left and right including story and this and that , RE4 has none , is a masterpiece.. Game theory...right

@jg4xchamp: @AzatiS: I mean you can't say the AI in RE4 is terrible without saying the AI in all Resident Evil games are terrible.

But they aren't terrible. It's just that the actions required represented in a finite state machine is all that is needed for a game with other layers to their challenge. Like Champ said, the AI facilitates the challenge. It's not a fast paced action game where you have fluid movement so you can't have AI banging out complex GOAP algorithms or decision tree design. It doesn't facilitate the mechanics nor the purpose of the game. Limited space, limited movement and limited ammunition are mechanically sound for survival games and having AI that is designed around the player's mechanics was a good decision.

While Resident Evil 4 seemed to press down on the action of the series a little more, it still retained many of its survival elements BY DESIGN. That is by design of the mechanics, limited movement and careful AI. I am agreeing with Champ here. A misunderstanding of the game's design and intent is not to be translated to 'objective flaws'. You just didn't like the game they designed, Az. There was still a whole lot of logic in it. :P

Except for the part where it's not fundamentally broken. Unless you're talking about the stun lock with the knife, which we both know you aren't. Again you failed miserably, at trying to present a mechanic you don't like as something objectively broken, when the opposite is true. It's mechanics are actually fantastic, and have depth to them in a way that none of its contemporaries nor do any of the games influenced by RE4 (that would be Gears of War, Uncharted, and basically ever TPS since that's decided to use shoulder shooting) come close to having.

Your usual round of the point going over your head isn't going to fly sport, just because you love eating shit, doesn't mean I do.

I passed on Rise because the reboot turned into Gears of War halfway through. Ranks right up there with Strangers Wrath for incredibly dissapointing shifts in gameplay. The shift from Lara barely surviving to mowing down hundreds at a time while screaming for blood happened so fast that I got whiplash. >.>

@jg4xchamp:"Translation: scrub talk."

More like you can't defend it.

3PSs are way more versatile than FPSs.

This isnt black or white. This is my opinion vs his and im trying to state facts here. He saying i lack comprehensive and analyzing skills yet he calling masterpiece a game with fundamental flaws all around yet hell bypass everything to say its a masterpiece. And thats where the problem occurs.

I beg to differ so i pointed out all those atrocities in RE4 from story to AI to gameplay mechanics, to silly puzzles that SUCKS and all that , in the same way he does to games like UC4 or Witcher 3 or whatever the case.

Double standards wont work where we see fit , thats all im trying to say here. I know , i know , my english sucks and i cant express my points in the guru way champ does so i can sound also some expert or something but i think my point is well received and proven if you want because im stating facts not just BS making out of my mind.

If youve played RE4 yourself back in the days you get what i mean. Story , AI , back and forth in same areas , gameplay broken mechanics like you CANT MOVE while aiming in a action shooting game WTF ( we are not playing TIME CRISIS or HOUSE of THE DEAD here lol ). Silly puzzles , merchants in the middle of nowhere fucking up the atmosphere , atrocious voice acting and the list goes on and on.

Why should we call that a masterpiece or slick or epic by any means and keep slaping UC4 for having flaws like mediocre shooting or not strong story etc ? I dont get it

In my opinion , you cant call a high acclaimed game with fundamental ( period ) flaws in many aspects of it a masterpiece then at the same time pointing out and questioning another high acclaimed game for having flaws and dissing it hard all over the place. Its ridiculous.

If that means i lack comprehensive and analystic skills or that is because he is reading game theory and design , so be it. I stand with my opinion whatever the case.

If UC4 has flaws and is the SHIT , story wise , gameplay wise , whatever the case is , so RE4 has its own flaws and is the SHIT for the reasons i mentioned. But no , someone says is a masterpiece and because reads game theory means is a masterpiece end of story ... Baaaah ! Whatev

10/10

@AzatiS: No, Az nobody is going at you for your English. You do the best you can and we all understand you perfectly fine. :)

No I think the problem is that some of the flaws, like AI for example, aren't flaws in Champ's mind and I understand where he is coming from. Like I said, I think the AI in Resident Evil (including 4) is designed very specifically for the mechanics, which in turn are very specifically designed for the survival element of the game. The player has limited movement and limited resources to work with.

Movement slows down the pacing > This emphasizes the low resources > This puts emphasis on use of spacial awareness and level design (Plays back to the movement controls) > Which compliments the simplistic AI design. Having less control of the situation is paramount to survival horror; Not from a thematic standpoint but purely from a mechanical standpoint.

AI designed with some kind of GOAP approach would mean the player would need more ammo and a wider range of movement options which in turn would make it less of a survival action game about resource management and more... well an action game. The AI isn't the challenge exclusively, it's in addition to the resources, the understanding of your limited control of a situation and being savvy with using the level design to your advantage.

If Resident Evil 4 was intended to be a pure action game, then why is there even an inventory management system? Why not just put in regenerating health to amplify pacing and risk taking, an abundance of ammunition to accommodate that smarter AI you'd employ and, actually, the AI would then need ranged weapons too (not the projectile axes) to counter-balance the player's strengths. So you'd have to also put in hit-scan and plenty of cover for the hit-scan and suddenly it's not a survival game at all. It's just an TPS action game. Is that what you'd like?

Because despite Resident Evil 4 pressing some more action buttons than the previous RE games before it, RE4 is still very much designed around being about survival by means of resource management and excellent encounter design.

I think what Champ is getting at, and I agree with him, is that you're misunderstanding the flaws in its design for you simply not getting its design. :P Sit back and think about the precautions that will come with adding smarter AI to any Resident Evil game. RE1 and 2 included. Think about how you'd have to completely redesign the movement and mechanics to accommodate that. Don't think about the angle the action takes place in. Just think about the mechanics.

Well we can all have our opinions i guess .

One thing is for sure , my English vocabulary and grammar skills suck !! lol!

Anyways , Resident Evil 4 has undeniable flaws that everyone can tell , AI included. You dont need to have a master degree in game theory or design to tell those flaws. And if its AI that bothers you , for the sake of argument lets say was fine. What about everything else ?

So we gonna excuse every flaw by saying :

1) AI was designed like this in purpose for X reason so we let it go

2) Story was never a strong point in the series before so it doesnt matter

3) Voice acting was terrible like older RE games so doesnt count

4) Back and Forth in same places over and over was a case in older RE games so its part of series design so it doesnt matter

5) Not be able to move ( the JOKE of any TPS i ever played ) while aiming was in purpose to make you feel more uneasy so we dont take it as a flaw

6) Having enemies dropping ammo/items ala arcade style was great that was adding to horror ... NOT

7) Having a merchant spawn randomly selling weapons ... epic design if you ask me ( the most disruptive , anticlimatic shit in any RE game)

8) QTEs all over ( personally i like em but since QTEs are bad for some people when it comes to UC , ill add them here as well)

9) Numerous glitches , yes there were plenty ! Not that were major and had huge impact in game but ...

10) Puzzles doesnt matter if they were weak , were designed to be like that.

And i bet i can come up with more issues/flaws.

You think this is a MASTERPIECE and AI has a great design behind it ?

Masterpiece

Check a small example then and i can link you many more if you like...

So , lets be real here please. Calling out design and all when there are glitches and AI probs all over the game among everything else. We cant excuse every flaw and call it a masterpiece in the name of design , graphics or compared to past entries while we slapping UC4 like its the biggest crap ever created. Thats a double standard im telling you.

Thats my opinion.

@jumpaction: Hahaha , a fine example of what im talking about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49QGOmMAQ_4

Come on now , thats hilarious The guy from 0:38 chasing LEON up to 5:00 then just staring at him when he is next to him.... Damn !

I can defend it fine, you keep pointing out how painfully ignorant you are of mp fps games.

How are they way more versatile? The FP space has had an

action/adventure - Metroid Prime
RPGs- Fallout, Prey, Deus Ex
Stealth games - Dishonored, Thief
Sandbox games - Crysis, Far Cry
Platformers - Mirror's Edge

And everything in between. Where pure depth is concerned, Gears of War and Splatoon's mp are the best tps have to offer, maybe Last of Us, and I think that is pushing it.

On the flip side you have Quake n Unreal which play at blistering speeds, with advanced movement options like learning how to properly rocket jump, bunny hop and the like.

You have vehicles as a big part of the mp experience be it Tribes, Halo, Battlefield, Unreal again.

Tactical games like Rainbow Six, and nowadays Siege, with far more advanced desctruction models in things like Battlefield n Siege. Elaborate class based mp games like TF2 n Overwatch.

So versatility wise the tps genre is flat out losing in multiplayer, pure fluidity of mechanics FPS control better, especially the PC ones. For starters your core action (ie aiming n shooting) doesn't work independently of the camera (the way it does in a tps, which is why tps games don't play as fast as FPS games). Thanks to a mouse a lot of those PC shooters also don't need to have enlarged hit boxes to play at the speed at they do, where as every tps, because by their nature they are built for analog sticks, have larger hit boxes to compensate for the inaccurate nature of analog sticks.

I mean I'd also mention how many more FPS games handle things like bullet drop over larger distances, how many more competitive fps games are built around proper projectile weapons and not hitscan weapons, but again you're ignorant if you honestly think tps hold a candle to multiplayer fps games. The best tps mp games are genuinely good, I'm not quite birdy tier of shitting on them, but they are far away from competing with something like Titanfall n fluidity, much less Quake n Unreal in depth.

There is a reason that genre's mp games have endured the test of time in a way that tps mp games really don't.

cool story, bro

Because for starters majority of the stuff you keep presenting against RE4, actually aren't short comings of that game by any measure. Story n acting I never argue, I'm pretty universal with my stance that video game stories are bad, all around. More to it again I don't judge my game on how many things are wrong with it, it's more about what they do excellent. And RE4's combat, it's controls included, is genuinely excellent. Because again "you can't move n shoot" isn't a flaw nor a broken mechanic, it's working as intended. It's a deliberate limitation the player must work around and is tested on the further they play. No different than not being able to jump in Vanquish or how characters in Souls games can't grab ledges/clamber.

That's not a flaw, that is the rule of the game.

I'm not questioning UC4's rules. I'm questioning why it's shallow. It's fine that the platforming isn't Mario, or as involved as say climbing in Grow Home. It would certainly bog down combat, but here's the thing, as good as the combat is in Uncharted 4, it does not make up half that game's run time. It is a proven fact, that less than half of your time playing UC4 (unless you are counting all your reattempts on crushing) will be spent on the combat, yet that's the best part of the gameplay.

Majority of it just climbing. And it's nothing. You as player barely do anything, and it didn't need to be that way. Very late in that game you have a scenario where you use a pick, a grappling hook, your basic jump move, and all that stuff in succession. It's not complicated, but it's way more involved of a scenario than "climb this very specific texture becasue we your lord and saviors at Naughty Dog said so", and it's something the game should have done more often. Instead of for the sake of a story, I have to participate with the shallowest mechanic the game has to offer, and that bogs the game down.

Now RE4 spent a good chunk of its time like say the older games making me do its puzzles (RE4's specific puzzles, RE1's are at least interesting because of the nature of that mansion), yeah I would bitch up a storm. But since it's 3 shit puzzles in a 15 hour game, I'm gonna get the **** over it. It's not the same flaw as say 3d Zelda games have bad puzzles to me, because those games have no excuse not to have good puzzles.

If UC4 was judged more as a game, and not just given credit for "it looks pretty" it absolutely does not hold under scrutiny, where as RE4's mechanics definitely do. For instance your video, not as much of an issue on professional. Similar context, UC4's AI is dumb as **** if you deal with them on anything other than Crushing, you can swing around like Spiderman and not initiate an alert state during stealth mode.

@jg4xchamp:

You ignorant of 3rd person. What MP matches MGS4 online.

Well at least you're on to somthing about uc4 for really being a non game.

As someone who played that game for a few thousand hours, had high ranks across all modes, played in the two best clans, and maintained a balance between Fox and Foxhound rank all I can say is -

MGS online is actually secretly kind of neat, but it's also got the balance of a fucking relic mp rts. IE, non fucking existent.

Either way that would be what we call an exception sport, not a rule of thumb. Even if MGS4online was the beesiest of the bees knees, it wouldn't overrule that on balance the FPS space has a wider range and larger quantity of deeper and more interesting mp games than the tps space, also no MGS4 doesn't control more fluidly than a PC FPS, that's ridiculous.

@jg4xchamp:

MGS4 online (MGO2) had like two redeeming qualities about it. The level design was mostly good. It had all those endearing MGS quirks that you don't see in another mp shooters. That's about it.

Gunplay and movement were both ass. Stuff that works well in a single player stealth game space, but is clunky as shit in an online game that naturally devolves into run n gun. Some of the modes were poorly balanced for many of the maps. Weapons were unbalanced as fvck, something I took great advantage of lol. Then you had this weapon switching exploit with the shotty that basically makes each player encounter an instant win if you land the first shot. And then throw in the "perks" or whatever the fvck they were called in MGO2 and it's straight up laughable in its balance issues.

That's just the immediate game issues, of course the lag was some of the worst ever seen, glitching was common even in the "official" tourneys and weekly survival runs, people boosted rank like crazy, that game was the wild west of bullshit.

It doesn't even begin to stack up to a proper competitive shooter.

The only reasons why I played it so much were:

1. I had a ton of friends on there, not just online peeps, but buddies I grew up with.

2. Being one of the better players at the game and being surrounded by the best players can be pretty fun. We owned that piece of shit lol.

@AzatiS: Well let me try address some points here and see if I can shed light on Champ and I's perspective.

1) AI was designed like this in purpose for X reason so we let it go - The AI needs to be simplistic due to the limited resources and movement of the player. The example you show of the player exploiting the simplicity of the AI using the level design kind of makes sense in this context. The problem is the video is showing a fully stocked and powerful Leon but imagine this same scenario with a less prepared player, you could just consider it the player playing the game well.

2) Story was never a strong point in the series before so it doesnt matter - I think Champ's point here is that he couldn't care less about the story. For a game to be a masterpiece in his eyes, I don't think story holds much weight.

3) Voice acting was terrible like older RE games so doesnt count - See the point above.

4) Back and Forth in same places over and over was a case in older RE games so its part of series design so it doesn't matter - There's nothing wrong with back-tracking. Exploring a level, particularly in RE games to hunt out materials, stretch out simplistic puzzles or treat the environment like a puzzle itself isn't a bad thing. I don't understand your point here. Is back tracking bad in all games? Exceptional games like Super Metroid, Metroid Prime and Deus Ex all use backtracking to great effect. Would you consider them marred because of it too?

5) Not be able to move ( the JOKE of any TPS i ever played ) while aiming was in purpose to make you feel more uneasy so we dont take it as a flaw - Again, this is because you're viewing RE as a straight action game, not a survival horror action game. This video is primarily on Dead Space but the opening draws parallels to RE4 which might help you understand some of its design decisions Video Here

6) Having enemies dropping ammo/items ala arcade style was great that was adding to horror ... NOT - This was done simply because there are more enemies in RE4 than past RE games. It's a balancing thing. The game does many things to dynamically alter the difficulty depending on the player's skill level.

7) Having a merchant spawn randomly selling weapons ... epic design if you ask me ( the most disruptive , anticlimatic shit in any RE game) - Other than it being contextually jarring, how is this a bad design decision?

8) QTEs all over ( personally i like em but since QTEs are bad for some people when it comes to UC , ill add them here as well) - QTEs do suck but by nature they are like split second moments. Easy to look past when the rest of the game is excellent. See Bayonetta.

9) Numerous glitches , yes there were plenty ! Not that were major and had huge impact in game but ... - Not major or impacting in the game so, yeah probably doesn't matter. :P

10) Puzzles doesnt matter if they were weak , were designed to be like that. - Didn't Champ mention there were only 3? It's a simple difference in kind to break up the pacing. If it took up the bulk of the play-time

Epic defend here but it wont work. Dont know if hes your friend or youre fan of RE4 or whatever . but lets see.

1) Yeah lol , nice excuse. Hahaha , wtf you talking about ! We talking about glitches here. Seriously now , we gonna jump every BS we see in the name of ... design or something ?

2) I dont give a big F if he doesnt care about story . The fact is , STORY was damn epicly tragic , cheesy , predictable. Masterpiece ? A masterpiece does everything right , not exceling in a single area or two then everything else is a BS. RE games had a background behind them , a story to tell since very first game.

3) See the point above too. This is not if you doesnt care about it , this is what game was offering at the time.

4) Of course there is a problem with back and forth. Are you crazy now bro or you didnt gaming back then ? Was one of REs weakest points since original game that people were negative about , RE4 wasnt any better on that front . This is not about taste or if you care.

5) Omfg ! You really trying to excuse one of the biggest , moronic , gameplay FLAWS ever existed in any action shooter that was number 1 talk among RE fans and not only .for ages. Nuff said , theres no excuse here. Period. Dont link to me videos from other games , Dead Space was one of my best games last generation when RE4 was one of my biggest upsets ever.

What is the logic to link me a video for Dead space to defend RE4s biggest gameplay flaw that even Capcom admitted wasnt right and changed it afterwards ? What the hell ... Also you trying to excuse the number 1 complain from fans themselfs thru the years again and again in the name of great design ?! Instead of linking me videos from other games , try to google about what im talking instead and voila.

Now , enemies speed , stupidness etc build up in a way to make sense with LEONs controls. No strafe , no movement while shooting. Great design ? Great indeed like Guru of design theory said. Theres no denial here about that BUT heres the problem

Why the big F to have no strafe and not be able to move while shooting as your core gameplay mechanics in the first place and build everything around that epic , ridiculous gameplay flaw ? Now do you get what im talking about instead or not ?

6) Oh , simply that ? Masterpiece design right ? What kind of excuse is this now ? Cant you find ammo in boxes in bigger amounts instead ? Why not be able to craft ammo ? Cant you just having more treasure boxes or wood barrels along the way ? You couldnt even be able to buy ammunition from merchant ffs ! Great design , yeah. Epic. Lets have zombies drop money and ammo arcade style ! Horror design at its finnest

7) How is it a bad design decision ? HAHAHAHAHA ! Sorry but i laughed in real life . You tell me how this guy makes sense instead if you can. You cant do that .. lol !! Thats why you never saw something like that ever again . A merchant in a horror game spawning out of nowhere offering weapons. He doesnt fit anywhere story wise also , doesnt make sense how he is surviving in that village , doesnt make sense as of why to sell you weapons etc !

Yeah , a masterpiece !!!

8) QTEs are good or bad. Theres nothing in between. You cant talk craps about UC4s QTEs all day long of being gameplay disruptive when RE4 introduced them big time . You just cant , thats hypocrisy. And no , i dont want to see Bayonetta , this is RE4 vs UC4 in short. RE4 a masterpiece with its QTEs , UC4 a big joke with its QTEs. Go figure. And the excuse of , but but RE4 had different QTEs is silly as hell ...

9) But there are many of them left and right. A masterpiece game with glitches left and right ? Numerous videos on youtube go check. How is it a masterpiece then if its not 99% polished ? Did you even watch the videos i uploaded ? Yeah , they are minor ( or not ) but if you add that to everything else i mentioned then how is this a masterpiece and UC4 is a crap ? Isnt polishing CHAMPs number 1 reason he is praising games over and over for ? Now , it doesnt matter right ? Double standards im talking in effect that is.

Glitch free or do a google search yourself about games glitches and have fun with your findings... Youll find some major glitches also i didnt know myself lol.

10) I dont care if they are 3 or 1003 ... WEAK ! Design wise or whatever wise. Weak is weak.

So to end this , we agree to disagree i guess. Defend the guy , i didnt expect from you to defend me but you trying hard to bypass RE4s mistakes and flaws too, its like im talking to Champ himself here. So i dont think this leads anywhere really.

Also i dont understand why we should agree with Champs opinions when he has something bad to say about games some people think are great and when someone else does exactly the same thing to his opinion , theres a big fuss about it. That Ego of " whatever i say is right " or even worse " you talk forum bs , im talking game theory etc " is QQ !! Whatever , this leads nowhere but it is what it is.

So keep your opinion that RE4 is a flawless design masterpiece all i care but whenever this guy calling out others for liking games like UC4 or other similar high acclaimed games , ill keep remind him about his opinion about RE4 and his double standards because like UC4 . it is far from a flawless masterpiece either and i think i proved it big time. If you dont want to admit those flaws , its up to you like its up to UC4 fans to accept the flaws he sees. Being a fanboy of something is a funny thing , isnt ?

@AzatiS: You are doing that thing again where you generalise people and their opinions, Az. :P

I Googled 'backtracking Resident Evil' and the very first article was titled 'Resident Evil: a case where backtracking actually works.'. Now I don't want to generalise here either but the point here is that this isn't as one sided as you are framing it. The backtracking I have experienced in RE was a complete necessity and part of what made my experience with RE so good.

Man, I just don't think you get it and I don't hold your opinion as any level of authority higher than Champ or Mark Brown.

You not getting a game isn't the same as a game being objectively flawed. I'd suggest sitting back and thinking more about the design decisions made would do you a world of good in analysing the intricacies of a game's design. Ask yourself "why did they choose this?" and the response to the merchant is what I expected you to say. If you're worried about logic breaking context in a video game as your main complaint for something then maybe video games aren't for you. ;)

And stop generalising groups of people and their opinions. ;)

How comes you googled and found only what fits your argument , its funny right ? a line below says backtracking hell , isnt ? lol

You are the one you dont get it , RE4 wasnt a flawless masterpiece, period. I provided links , videos , undeniable facts. It is what it is. I never generalized shit , i was as precise as i could be , you are defending the game not I. What the hell you talking about generalize , where exactly did i generalize?

Plus you ask yourself , why people dont like X gameplay mechanic thru the years , why some find it atrocious , game breaking etc, why so many glitches in the masterpiece game , why story/voice acting is atrocious , why back and forth something that people accused RE games since Day 1 is present in RE4 , why AI is atrocious which i linked you a video what i mean not just talking out of my ass like you do .

It cant be all those things ( and more i mentioned before ) being GREAT DESIGN and that alone hahaha. It cant be when it comes to people that you run out of excuse to say " who cares " or " it doesnt matter " lol. Those defending lines wont work.

And im the one generalizing here ? Youre a funny dude man. Im the one generalize yet every flaw in RE4 = great design , like that point of view isnt the pinnacle of generalization.

@ConanTheStoner said:

@PSP107 said:

What MP matches MGS4 online.

As someone who played that game for a few thousand hours, had high ranks across all modes, played in the two best clans, and maintained a balance between Fox and Foxhound rank all I can say is -

A few thousand hours into MGS4 MP? Holy shit lol. I thought I had too much time into Overwatch and GTAO but damn.

@Vatusus

FWIW, here is my stats for the game. Sure, I didn't dump 100 hours in UC4 (because I thought it was boring), but 20 hours isn't "rushing".

@AzatiS: I never said the game was flawless or a masterpiece, I am just sharing that I understand where the very clever Mark Brown and Champ are coming from in calling it a masterpiece and why your missing of the point doesn't make the design decisions any less clever, it just means you aren't separating your own opinion from nuanced design decisions. :P

The backtracking rebuttal wasn't to highlight that people only agree with me, it was to make a point that not everyone agrees the backtracking was awful (as you suggest by means of generalization), where if anything, it's just divisive. But really backtracking isn't a flaw, in my opinion. Would you say Metroid Prime was flawed for having backtracking too?

Understand though that flawlessness is not a synonym for a masterpiece either. Bugs and glitches can occur in a masterpiece but it doesn't have to mar the exceptional nuance or intricacies of a piece of art. The design decisions that Resident Evil 4, though unconventional, helped the game straddle a line between contextual horror and literal, mechanical horror. Something that titles like Dead Space 2 & 3 completely misunderstood and something many games that reach for survival or horror elements misunderstand. It's not that these controls are universally applicable but the same can be said vice-versa. Controls, mechanics and gameplay needs to be designed with intent in mind. Application of TPS shooter tropes into a survival horror game simply don't make sense by law of the fact that giving the player full control of a situation means the player never feels that harrowing sensation or anxiety that comes with limited control of a situation/

-

But let's explore your idea. So we add strafing and give the player full movement. Now, most of the combat in RE4 is designed around trying to keep away enemies at close range. Giving the player strafing control means the player has a huge advantage in the current design of RE4. So let's add more projectile weapons to the enemy to balance the game. Alright but now we're cutting out all CQC options as using the knife simply isn't a viable strategy. So we have to give the player even more ammo to counter this. So let's look back, what have we made? Well we've just made a standard action game, haven't we? :P

lol I hear ya man.

Back in the day if I really liked an online game I'd sink some crazy hours into it. I basically had no responsibilities, just selling green out of the apartment. So my life was nothing but partying and video games haha. Pretty easy to rack up some game time that way. MGS4 came at the very tip end of that life style for me, never played an online game that much since.

But yeah, these days, no fucking way man. I probably have about 450 to 500 hours on Street Fighter V and it took over a year to get that. I'll probably hit 1,000 hrs with SFV, but not before the end of the gen lol.

Still, I've got nothing on NyaDC, I think that dude has like 7,000 hours on Counterstike lol.

1) Of course not everyone agrees that backtracking was awful , wtf does that even mean. The same way that not everyone agrees with what you have to say about UC4 , period. Or because you understand design people should agree with everything you say ? Dont think so right ?

What does that even mean or wtf you trying to say ? It WAS something that RE games were infamous for and thats undeniable , yet RE4 didnt solve this issue for many out there so we cant shoot older RE for having backtracking and defend RE4 for that afterwards. It doesnt work like this.

Nor because not everyone disliked RE4s backtracking means i wont mention it as a flaw because that can work both ways. Not everyone disliking X thing Champ dislikes UC4 for ... so he shouldnt mention that ? Then we shouldnt talk about anything in here ? Sometimes i dont even know if you get what are you saying / asking for. Generalize something can work both ways , you know that right ?

2) Dont play with words , wont work here. Champs is all over polished this , polished that. When it comes to RE4 .. who cares about story , voice acting , glitches , AI , broken gameplay mechanic that whole game based on etc . Thats the issue here , and i said 95% polished for a reason. Theres no game glitch free 100% most of the time.

Also , what you trying to say here is not negate the fact that building a great design on a FREAKING BROKEN GAMEPLAY MECHANIC , that of not be able to shoot while moving , in the end it wont give you a sensation or anxiety .. it will give you frustration ! Like it did and keeps doing for many RE4 gamers ,Period. There are countless of posts for this thru the years , countless for a good reason.

Does that mean that games design was bad ? No , they build everything around that mechanic great enough but , it was ideal in the end of the day ? No , freaking not. And thats why they let it go afterwards . If it was such an ingenius and masterpiece mechanic , why many people were so against it and why capcom said theyll do something about it in the future in various forums or why they even dropped it entirely later on ? Or is that another generalization of mine ?

3) Now its too late man ! You need to rebuild game from scratch , you dont even read what im saying in my posts right ?

Keep defending and keep lecturing me about design ( Rofl ) , SW gurus. This is beyond funny. Anything else to add that i dont understand and you do when it comes to RE4 ? Please say more

When someone says UC4 is great = omg , this is shit , wtf you talking blabla. When someone has something bad to say about RE4 because = learn about design , X doesnt matter , Z who cares , you generalize , you dont get it , you dont know about design noob ! haha

System wars , funny place.

@AzatiS: I don't remember Champ shooting down the backtracking of past Resident Evil games. From my perspective, I like it. It reminds me of the strengths of the best Zelda dungeons. Backtracking in Resident Evil games have taken good advantage of many things that I like about the games I have played in the series. Backtracking means the designer can set up neat surprises when you revisit areas that were previously cleared only to find a new enemy or event occur, it means you can challenge cognitive skills and memorization but asking the player to remember the locations of locked doors or walls and then giving them an item and asking them to return to the area to progress (A fundamental of the structure set and often imitated in games like Super Metroid) and it can elevate the cognitive capacity of simple puzzles by layering an additional task of remembrance on top of it. What do you feel are the qualms of using backtracking?

But it's not about having to agree with design decisions or having to abide by any rules. Everyone is entitled to having a different opinion and it should be implored. This isn't the same as misunderstanding design decisions and believing something is bad because it doesn't adhere to you. The key there is that having an understanding of the design employed in a game is quite paramount to criticizing said design. You can criticize something without getting it but that doesn't hold the same validity of criticizing, offering rebuttals or alternatives to something you do understand.

I mean I don't know Champ's background. I do know that he watches much of the work of respected critics like Mark Brown and Joseph Anderson, reads essays and watches developer commentary videos. Me personally, I studied computer science and as part of that course, I did a suite of classes on game development and design. I studied game design both from the perspective of video games and board games (any core lesson in game design and theory starts with board games - this medium is where mechanics are most exposed).

"Also , what you trying to say here is not negate the fact that building a great design on a FREAKING BROKEN GAMEPLAY MECHANIC , that of not be able to shoot while moving , in the end it wont give you a sensation or anxiety .. it will give you frustration ! Like it did and keeps doing for many RE4 gamers ,Period. There are countless of posts for this thru the years , countless for a good reason."

This kind of exemplifies the problem in this discussion. You assume that the designers of RE4 really sat down and forgot to put moving in when shooting? Of course not. They designed their game around this limitation. The lack of control in a space pushes the game away from an action game and into the realm of survival horror - much to the same paradigms its predecessors shared. This would not work in an action game, of course but then Resident Evil games aren't meant to be action games. Your refusal to budge on this point and adhere to the fact that this was an intentional design decision to invoke something out of the player (something subjective by all means, because game design is part psychology and we all react to things differently) only makes it appear as though you can't view outside of your own perspective. :/

I can see your response in saying we exemplify the same traits but before you make that response, I do understand where you are coming. The tank-like controls are very jarring and the limited movement could be viewed as frustrating, particularly when coming from an action-perspective. If the game was about preserving ammo and aiming, why can't I have the freedom to work with this space? But I'd suggest personally that much of the experience would be lost if you had the ability to strafe because this is core to the level design, AI behavior, resource management and balance of the game. Much would have to change to accommodate that control scheme. It's partially why people are so divided on the Wii version. The Wii motion control aiming makes the game easier to play but also breaks the balance of the game, making the whole experience far easier.

That's about all I got here. I empathize with you and understand your perspective. It's one that I read before but the conversation is lost when one party cannot see the perspective of the other, or simply doesn't want to see it. Then it just becomes a one sided conversation.

So take care, Az <3.

@jumpaction said:

@AzatiS: I don't remember Champ shooting down the backtracking of past Resident Evil games. From my perspective, I like it. It reminds me of the strengths of the best Zelda dungeons. Backtracking in Resident Evil games have taken good advantage of many things that I like about the games I have played in the series. Backtracking means the designer can set up neat surprises when you revisit areas that were previously cleared only to find a new enemy or event occur, it means you can challenge cognitive skills and memorization but asking the player to remember the locations of locked doors or walls and then giving them an item and asking them to return to the area to progress (A fundamental of the structure set and often imitated in games like Super Metroid) and it can elevate the cognitive capacity of simple puzzles by layering an additional task of remembrance on top of it. What do you feel are the qualms of using backtracking?

But it's not about having to agree with design decisions or having to abide by any rules. Everyone is entitled to having a different opinion and it should be implored. This isn't the same as misunderstanding design decisions and believing something is bad because it doesn't adhere to you. The key there is that having an understanding of the design employed in a game is quite paramount to criticizing said design. You can criticize something without getting it but that doesn't hold the same validity of criticizing, offering rebuttals or alternatives to something you do understand.

I mean I don't know Champ's background. I do know that he watches much of the work of respected critics like Mark Brown and Joseph Anderson, reads essays and watches developer commentary videos. Me personally, I studied computer science and as part of that course, I did a suite of classes on game development and design. I studied game design both from the perspective of video games and board games (any core lesson in game design and theory starts with board games - this medium is where mechanics are most exposed).

"Also , what you trying to say here is not negate the fact that building a great design on a FREAKING BROKEN GAMEPLAY MECHANIC , that of not be able to shoot while moving , in the end it wont give you a sensation or anxiety .. it will give you frustration ! Like it did and keeps doing for many RE4 gamers ,Period. There are countless of posts for this thru the years , countless for a good reason."

This kind of exemplifies the problem in this discussion. You assume that the designers of RE4 really sat down and forgot to put moving in when shooting? Of course not. They designed their game around this limitation. The lack of control in a space pushes the game away from an action game and into the realm of survival horror - much to the same paradigms its predecessors shared. This would not work in an action game, of course but then Resident Evil games aren't meant to be action games. Your refusal to budge on this point and adhere to the fact that this was an intentional design decision to invoke something out of the player (something subjective by all means, because game design is part psychology and we all react to things differently) only makes it appear as though you can't view outside of your own perspective. :/

I can see your response in saying we exemplify the same traits but before you make that response, I do understand where you are coming. The tank-like controls are very jarring and the limited movement could be viewed as frustrating, particularly when coming from an action-perspective. If the game was about preserving ammo and aiming, why can't I have the freedom to work with this space? But I'd suggest personally that much of the experience would be lost if you had the ability to strafe because this is core to the level design, AI behavior, resource management and balance of the game. Much would have to change to accommodate that control scheme. It's partially why people are so divided on the Wii version. The Wii motion control aiming makes the game easier to play but also breaks the balance of the game, making the whole experience far easier.

That's about all I got here. I empathize with you and understand your perspective. It's one that I read before but the conversation is lost when one party cannot see the perspective of the other, or simply doesn't want to see it. Then it just becomes a one sided conversation.

So take care, Az <3.

Oh man , really with all the respect , i wont engage by reading all this and be in need to answer another wall of text and all that because i had a debate with Champ over RE4.

Keep your opinion and think you know more about design or of you being gurus or if i know nothing about design so we declare RE4 a masterpiece. Then when someone calls UC4 great for whatever reason , lets find 100 flaws per second to call it a crap. Whatever .. It doesnt work that way but whatever.

The bottom line is , double standards wont work where some people see fit , not with me anyways . And if this triggers some people , so be it. System wars is a fascinating forum for this reason.

Now keep debating further when theres no mutual understanding , is getting tiring , specially when youre not the one i had the original debate with. So , lets agree we disagree and move on.

@AzatiS: I thought it was well paragraphed. :'(

I also didn't seen any double standards from Champ, but that's another story. Maybe I should have went with the Big Data Management suite in college instead of Game Development and Design.

Im sorry man , i cant debate further for things i think RE4 is bad. It has nothing to do with design understanding or is something personal.

You didnt see any , i see it years now. RE4 a masterpiece since who cares about myriad of its problems or lets hide behind "design" for some of RE4s weak points like stupid AI or broken gameplay mechanics that millions of RE4 had something bad to say ( obviously not all ) ... then when someone calls a game like UC4 great = wtf you talking about , this and that and this and that ... blablabla ! Thats double standard to me. Period.

Maybe you should have , if you see nothing wrong with RE4 but you do with everything else , you should have though i dont think you see nothing wrong more than you dont want to see. ITs different. Because someone can easily hide behind "design" of UC4 for UC4s weak points , EASILY , in the very same fashion you do that for RE4.

Im telling you , lets not start this again . Whatever you saying about design and this and that , can backfire or someone else use it against you.

And before you talk about generalize and all that , i remind you this can work both ways also, in this case , for the things people saying UC4 is bad for and taken it as a fact when others beg to differ.