Eyezonmii's forum posts

Avatar image for Eyezonmii
Eyezonmii

2145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 Eyezonmii
Member since 2008 • 2145 Posts
CONSOLE GRAPHICS KING..not overall. god these PC people are annoying..with there specs and GPU's. Brag when you get more good games.
Avatar image for Eyezonmii
Eyezonmii

2145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 Eyezonmii
Member since 2008 • 2145 Posts

Did anyone else play the PS2 version? The wrestlers move like snails around the ring, and they punch like they're lifeless unlike the ones in the videos. Is it like that for the PS2 version?

Guyper
wouldn't know..most likely a bad port, the 360 version runs fine. I kinda prefer the slow movement, over the fast unrealistic ones in smackdown games..but in general wrestling sucks as do the games.
Avatar image for Eyezonmii
Eyezonmii

2145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 Eyezonmii
Member since 2008 • 2145 Posts
[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"] how was the classic re's more survival horror? you could just walk and run around zombies for god sakes...after playing the RE5 demo, capcom seem to have gone back to the roots, ammo is kept to a more minimal, since the enemies are more aggressive and come in bigger packs...now expeically with a partner, the survival aspect is there...needing to worry about your partners supply/health aswell as your own....its much better. The game is packed with horror elements, so how its not horror anymore? i srsly don't understand how you retro fans think, the game is still the same at core, but with added gameplay moves, persepctive...its suddenly full action? would one in real life play out there terror like the classic re's or something like RE4/RE5..where anything and everything should be done to survive? foxhound_fox

Have you actually played a Resident Evil that isn't 4 or 5? You had severely limited resources and had to survive with what you had. Horror is about creating a tense atmosphere, one where you think something might be about to jump out at you and then nothing happens... and then a few seconds later a couple of zombie dogs come crashing through the windows when you least expect it. Not having hoards of enemies in every area vying to stab your body full of holes with their pitchforks. They were games designed around a definitive pacing... one that moved very slowly and steadily, creating a very unsettling and creepy vibe. RE4 and now RE5 is more "blow **** up; as much as you can as fast as you can."

I enjoyed RE4 and will probably very much enjoy RE5... but claiming that RE4 is "survival horror" in comparison to the original games is a joke. The series has now been turned into an action game series. Not that it makes the games bad... it just makes them bad "Resident Evil" games. Like many modern games that are reinterpreted and changed... they aren't "bad," just changed so substantially that they barely resemble the games that established them as quality titles... in which many of the original fans find disheartening.

wait wait, so your claiming RE4/5 has NO horror or surival to it? is that what your saying...cause if you're...i srsly suggest you look up the meaning for both words. IMO, RE4 has more horrific elements/enemies than the original ones....the classic re's are full of cheap scares and odd music..something a 12 year old would find TENSE. but to each there own....RE4/R are STILL SURVIVAL HORROR..no matter how you spin it. We have yet to even see the HORROR parts of RE5, capcom claim is much more darker this time.
Avatar image for Eyezonmii
Eyezonmii

2145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 Eyezonmii
Member since 2008 • 2145 Posts
[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]I think Gears of War 2 is the current graphics king so far. With its scope and its technical excellence, it trumps the other contenders. Uncharted's levels are a lot smaller in size to Gears 1, let alone Gears 2. Hell, Gears 2 almost reaches the size and scope of Halo 3's giant levels, though with several smoke and mirrors. But Uncharted has its own special charm to it. I think it is the animation king on consoles. The only reason people question Gears 2's graphics is the stiffer animation. Uncharted's animation is super sleek and sexy. Love it.FrozenLiquid
is that a joke? Uncharted is mostly outdoor, lush jungle environments...with Gears 1 being nothing but indoor and small outdoor/building environments. Gears 2 is different tho.

Um, no, it wasn't? Do you know how linear and closed-in the outdoor environments were in Uncharted? They were pathetically small. If my memory serves me right, I would just give the edge to the original Gears in terms of how big the levels were. They might be in-door and rather linear, but of course they had to fit giant monsters in their levels too.

lol, your confusing Uncharted with gears of war 1....just stop. Yes, uncharted is linear, but gears of war 1 is just as bad if not worse.
Avatar image for Eyezonmii
Eyezonmii

2145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 Eyezonmii
Member since 2008 • 2145 Posts
[QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"][QUOTE="kyacat"]Lost odyessy Kameo Gears of war 2 Perfect darkOhSnapitz
uncharterd 1, mgs4, r2, and soon kz2, uncharterd 2. But still the fact that the 360 is easier to develop for and has been out a year longer says ps3 games should look far worse

Actually your logic is backwards.. Given the fact that the 360 came out first, the PS3 should have been wiping the floor with the 360 on day one, but it didn't. That's like saying an older PC should be out performing a newer model... :| Anyway, as far as the games themselves... that's subjective. And while I think we'll ALL agree that KZ2 will set the standard for console FPS's graphically it's not light years ahead of more recent shooters..

that makes NO sense..considering both the PS3 and 360 have similar somewhat specs in terms of what can be pulled off in general, its the fact that the GPU in the 360 was claimed to better and the console in general to be eaiser to work with, knowing this and knowing the system was out longer devs should have gotten the hang of it and pretty much pushed it beyond what the PS3 could do. People forget that the PS3 hardware was already done and built by early 06 and thought out even before that, the time frame was basically the same...the PS3 was suppose to be out early 06, remember..but it was delayed due to bluray. during that delay, did people think the PS3 adopted more advanced hardware or something, lol? again, knowing the PS3's complex hardware and supposable weaker GPU...why isn't the 360 mopping the floor with the PS3, visually? its because the CELL (which can render graphics) is beyond what the 360 CPU can do, it just takes more time and money to get more out of it, its why killzone 2 looks so good, the ammount of money and dev time that went into it was massive. better inform your self.
Avatar image for Eyezonmii
Eyezonmii

2145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 Eyezonmii
Member since 2008 • 2145 Posts
[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"]It's called evolution, If RE had taken this step and had it used the same camera angle in RE4 it would be such a poor game. I mean RE is fine people who have been playing it for 10 years like me dont give a hoot, only because they progressed the series for the best.

Ha they use

foxhound_fox

The least they could have done was kept it as a "survival horror" game and not turned it into an action game. Plus, when done right, fixed camera angles are fine (that and they allow for much better graphics). The Resident Evil Remake was fantastic.

It is arguable if the series has "improved." It depends on whether or not you enjoy it not being a survival horror anymore.

how was the classic re's more survival horror? you could just walk and run around zombies for god sakes...after playing the RE5 demo, capcom seem to have gone back to the roots, ammo is kept to a more minimal, since the enemies are more aggressive and come in bigger packs...now expeically with a partner, the survival aspect is there...needing to worry about your partners supply/health aswell as your own....its much better. The game is packed with horror elements, so how its not horror anymore? i srsly don't understand how you retro fans think, the game is still the same at core, but with added gameplay moves, persepctive...its suddenly full action? would one in real life play out there terror like the classic re's or something like RE4/RE5..where anything and everything should be done to survive?
Avatar image for Eyezonmii
Eyezonmii

2145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 Eyezonmii
Member since 2008 • 2145 Posts
Animal-Mother said it best. The new gameplay perspective was needed, its why capcom changed it. After the sales of RE remake, the formula was getting old...everyone saw this, hell even the developers were getting bored with the old ideas (watch the RE4 making). The new change is so much better, who doesn't want to be able to aim and shoot where they please? Melee the enemies, do what you can to survive, i see it as a much more realistic approach, to the classic surcruity cam-view..where you just run around and shoot, most of the time walking around zombies...just doesn't cut it, after so many sequels. After what capcom did with RE4, seeing the copy cats..it go's to show you capcom did it right and after all the awards won..its what people wanted. Your not forced to buy and upgrade ammo, play it like you would classic re games....hows that?
Avatar image for Eyezonmii
Eyezonmii

2145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 Eyezonmii
Member since 2008 • 2145 Posts
[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"][QUOTE="The_Game21x"] And to be fair, you're speculating just as much as he is.The_Game21x
I was comparing the new Uncharted 2in-engine cutscene to that of gears 2..and from what i can see, uncharted 2 looks more impressive, IMO. He was claiming games are already out that look better than uncharted 2, yet he's seen barley anything of it to even judge.If he was using that new uncharted 2 cutscene video, in no way would he have concluded games already look better than that. unless his biased...which from what i can tell....he is.

And he wasn't? :?

Considering there isn't anything out there you've seen that he couldn't have at this point, how is it that you can make a judgment on whether or not it looks better than anything else out (in this case, Gears 2) and he can't? All I see in that situation is a ridiculous double standard.

Well, if he can't make a qualified judgment on this at this point then how can you?Besides,he was expressing his personal opinion, which is exactly what you're doing now.

If he was..then he is clearly biased towards the 360..because anyone could see the better detail Uncharted 2 shows in chracter models. I was thinking he was going by Uncharted 2 scans....calm down, you act like your his b/f...gsus. Obviously its his opinion...but he was basing what looked to be a full opinion on uncharted's graphics...knowing full well he hasn't played the game nor seen the final version. lol, let his fight his debates....will ya?