Resident Evil 2 Remake

[Wunderbar]

Ok, let's pretend that RE5 and RE6 never had a laser sight option. So what now, are you happy? Again, what are you trying to prove here?

We don't need to pretend. They DON'T have a laser sight in the PC versions.

RE6 has a laser sight in PC version. It's in the options.

If you never meant RE2 remake, then why the fuck have you answered at all? I was talking about crosshair in RE2 remake.

Are you seriously this fucking dumb? You're the one who originally responded to one of my posts and started this shit, you ignorant fucking Kraut.

Again.
You said "laser sight?" here, and since I was talking about RE2, naturally i thought you meant "laser sight could be a better solution for RE2 remake than a crosshair".
Ok, then you said "later games", fine. Here i have clarified that the whole crosshair discussion is specifically about RE2 remake and not later games.

Get the fuck out of here.

 

[JDR13]

RE6 has a laser sight in PC version. It's in the options.

There was no option to use a laser sight when I played it, and what about RE 5?

Here i have clarified that the whole crosshair discussion is specifically about RE2 remake and not later games.

How the fuck does your earlier discussion with another poster have anything to do with what I said??

 

[JDR13]

 

[DJOGamer PT]

You want me to lie and say I don't believe something, which I'm not going to do. There is zero way you will ever convince me that, had you not played the early RE games in your past, you would play a game like REmake 2 and say "man this would be better with a static camera and tank controls." It's just impossible for you to convince me of that.

You can belive whatever you want. Doesn't mean your rigth though.
The first of the classic RE game's I played was REmake, just some 3 years ago. So no nostalgia of my part when I said the static camera is perfect for what they were trying to do with that game.

You just described the exact scenario where it's still of value. 2 shots to the head for the kill, one shot in the leg gets them down and crawling, shooting 1 in an arm disables zombie grab. You have [x] handgun bullets and you encounter [>=x-1] zombies. Do the math retard. I'm not arguing to be that stringent, but even at it's leanest, you can still get the desired results.

Can you comprehend the fact that their HP is this big, because they exist to drain your resources. If you proportionally decrease both, the end result is still the same. The only thing that changes is the sum amount of bullets they tank, aka the shitty bullet sponge.

That would open a whole new bag of problems - specially conserning level design - and no the end result wouldn't be the same.

If you to reduce the ammo, you would obviously reduce the number of locations that have the ammo boxes. And considering that in the game the amount of ammo is scarce and there's already few locations with them, now you would end up with a lot of, essentially, empty rooms. This lessen density of content also translates to less decision making and atention in the moment-to-moment gameplay. Plus the scaveging part of the game wouldn't flow has naturally from the exploration or be as fun as it would devolve into a chore of obsessively checking every damn nook and cranny.
But alrigth by proportianally decrease you mean we keep all the same ammo locations but just much less ammo.
Ya this also wouldn't be a great solution as it means players would be rewarded in such poor manner for exploring and taking risks. Not to mention just how ridiculous it would be that every damn cop in station has about 2 or 5 bullets stored away.

Then the health reduction has clear problems not only to the challenge, but more importantely to the athmosphere and tension.
I am going to make an admittedly stupid example, but one that does ilustrate the point.

Recall back to the first zombie encounter and imagine you're a new player. You have no chance to slip by unharmed that zombie unless you face him.
With your damage model you would have like 3 bullets in the gun. You would fire to the head and in 2 shots the dude is dead. After that you think: "Well shit I just wasted most my ammo, but it wasn't all that frightening or difficult. These meatbags go so down quickly that he didn't even get near me. Oh there's 2 more in the shop. No worries! If the gods of RNG are at my side I can kill one of them with the remaning bullet, and even if that doesn't happen I'll sure stun them or disable them. Which is enough to escape this place without a scratch"
With the remake model it would go more like this: "I just filled him with 4 bullets and this bastard still isn't dead! He is however in a stun animation. Should I run past him or finish the job despite how very close he is to me? Well the only good zombie is a dead one. Damn he bit me! But at least I managed to put him down. Although that took another 3 rounds. How many do I have left? Shit only 2! And there's 2 more of these guys in the shop! If I am lucky I might stun one of them. Because I won't survive another confrontation..."

I can understand that something that realistically exists within the game world is inherently less immersion-breaking than a crosshair just floating around in the air. At least that's what most rational people would agree with.

Depends on the object and the HUD element.
Crosshairs, ammo counts and life bar's are so ubiquitous in games that no one gets put off by them any more. Even in highly immersive games.
While if an in-game object doesn't match the tone and setting of the game it will immediately stand out.
Which was the point Wunderbar and bertram_tung were making.

 

[JDR13]

I can understand that something that realistically exists within the game world is inherently less immersion-breaking than a crosshair just floating around in the air. At least that's what most rational people would agree with.

Depends on the object and the HUD element.
Crosshairs, ammo counts and life bar's are so ubiquitous in games that no one gets put off by them any more. Even in highly immersive games.
While if an in-game object doesn't match the tone and setting of the game it will immediately stand out.
Which was the point Wunderbar and bertram_tung were making.

When you say "no one" you're trying to speak for others. I know lots of people who are put off by crosshairs and disable them whenever they can.

As far as something standing out if it doeasn't match the tone and setting of the game, I agree, but that's not really the case here.

 

[Bigg Boss]

Stop doing quote pyramids. I think they are giving me cancer.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

When you say "no one" you're trying to speak for others. I know lots of people who are put off by crosshairs and disable them whenever they can.

They are in the minority though.
While a game has some element in it's world that is out of place nearly everyone complains about it.

As far as something standing out if it doeasn't match the tone and setting of the game, I agree, but that's not really the case here.

In RE4 it's very much the case.
The game's is set on a spanish village in bumfuck nowhere that is stuck in the 1930's - and latter on a medivel castle.
How the fuck do their old-timey firearms have modern military equipment such as laser sights? It doesn't match the setting.
It does however match the tone, as RE4 is an unapologetically silly game that has no interest in immersion.

 

[JDR13]

When you say "no one" you're trying to speak for others. I know lots of people who are put off by crosshairs and disable them whenever they can.

They are in the minority though.
While a game has some element in it's world that is out of place nearly everyone complains about it.

I'm quite sure they are indeed a minority, but that doesn't make the point any less valid.

In RE4 it's very much the case.
The game's is set on a spanish village in bumfuck nowhere that is stuck in the 1930's - and latter on a medivel castle.
How the fuck do their old-timey firearms have modern military equipment such as laser sights? It doesn't match the setting.
It does however match the tone, as RE4 is an unapologetically silly game that has no interest in immersion.

You're kidding, right? We're talking about Resident Evil. The entire series has been intentionally campy since the very first game, and every title has weird stuff that's unrealistic. (i.e. A police station full of puzzles and hidden passages.) It's part of the series charm.

To claim something doesn't belong in a Resident Evil game because it seems "out of place" makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Zombra]

Good taste is apparently a democracy now.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

"buh I didn't use exact word"

No Jimmy, "perfectly fine" and "great and essential" doesn't mean the same. Keep trying hard with those strawman fallacies dud.

You just described the exact scenario where it's still of value. 2 shots to the head for the kill, one shot in the leg gets them down and crawling, shooting 1 in an arm disables zombie grab. You have [x] handgun bullets and you encounter [>=x-1] zombies. Do the math retard. I'm not arguing to be that stringent, but even at it's leanest, you can still get the desired results.

Can you comprehend the fact that their HP is this big, because they exist to drain your resources. If you proportionally decrease both, the end result is still the same. The only thing that changes is the sum amount of bullets they tank, aka the shitty bullet sponge.

mfw, you literally argued the exact way I described in my initial post, "the bullet spunge makes it scurry"

No, I described a scenario where there's no value to the enemies at all.

Can you comprehend the fact that the zombies aren't spongy just for draining your resources but also to be a threat? Let me prove why you shouldn't be able to kill or incapacitate zombies in 1-2 shots, by using one of the current secret weapons of the game:




This is on Hardcore difficulty. Do you appreciate the huge change on the game experience? Of course you do. There's no threat when you can kill a zombie in one or two shots. There's no resource scarceness to defend this, unless you give no weapons at all to the player. If you proportionally decrease both, the end result is not the same. But you will probably continue being stubborn about it.

 

[CyberModuled]

The reason I liked it at the time is because zombies were getting overdone. Then they overdid the Plagas virus bringing us back to where we are now. Resident Evil 4 is better than 5 and 6 so there is that.

That's fair enough. I've always liked the Las Plagas since I always got a John Carpenter The Thing vibe and there always was a surprise for me even when decapitating a Spaniards head only to be greeted by a fucking tentacle or organic spider thing about to spray acid at me like it's the modern UK (even if it was more of an adrenaline rush than outright terror). That being said, I'm completely with you in regards to how much worse 5/6 handles all the action stuff in general. 4 was also my first RE game before deciding to play the older ones so there's definitely some nostalgia for me in regards to designs and stuff (I feel all the action and combat mechanics holds up nicely though).

Spoiler

Also fucking goddamn it why did you have to remind me of Steve. I threw him in the recesses of my mind after CV for a reason damn it!

 

[DayofBlow]

No Jimmy, "perfectly fine" and "great and essential" doesn't mean the same. Keep trying hard with those strawman fallacies dud.

You are legitimately retarded. The point you made was that it was good and it was important in tandem with other shit, hence parahrased as "great and essential". I preserved the meaning of what you said, and you got hung up on the the casual use of the word 'great' you malcontent dumb fuck.

Shitting out 'strawman' and 'fallacy' like a pigeon is hardly a winning argument, especially when it doesn't apply at all.

No, I described a scenario where there's no value to the enemies at all.

Can you comprehend the fact that the zombies aren't spongy just for draining your resources but also to be a threat? Let me prove why you shouldn't be able to kill or incapacitate zombies in 1-2 shots, by using one of the current secret weapons of the game:

This is on Hardcore difficulty. Do you appreciate the huge change on the game experience? Of course you do. There's no threat when you can kill a zombie in one or two shots. There's no resource scarceness to defend this, unless you give no weapons at all to the player. If you proportionally decrease both, the end result is not the same. But you will probably continue being stubborn about it.

Thanks for linking your channel you degenerate. Unfortunately, you're a disingenuous idiot, that when I talked about single digit ammo management, and stripped down damage model, went and try to prove me wrong by using an infinite one hit kill weapon. Hey, cumbrain, imagine you had a handgun with 2 bullets, instead of your meme weapon, and then you waste it on the first zombie you see. What happens when you run into the next one, let alone the half dozen you kill? Whoops. Comprehension level:

The threat in this game, and the old ones, wasn't the zombie you fucking kill. The threat was you running out of ammo, and not being able to kill anything. You literally don't understand the 'survival' part of 'survival horror'.

You're high on your own fumes projecting me being stubborn, while arguing like an emotional mental midget.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

Hi guys how's it going

 

[Wunderbar]

There was no option to use a laser sight when I played it, and what about RE 5?

RE5 had a laser sight in xbox and ps3 versions, and there was an unofficial patch for pc.
Gold edition automatically turns on laser sight if your controller is plugged in.

How the fuck does your earlier discussion with another poster have anything to do with what I said??

because you've quoted my post?

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

like a pigeon

Thanks for linking your channel you degenerate. Unfortunately, you're a disingenuous idiot, that when I talked about single digit ammo management, and stripped down damage model, went and try to prove me wrong by using an infinite one hit kill weapon. Hey, cumbrain, imagine you had a handgun with 2 bullets, instead of your meme weapon, and then you waste it on the first zombie you see. What happens when you run into the next one, let alone the half dozen you kill? Whoops. Comprehension level:

You are forgetting about all the ammo that I left behind on the video.

But let's continue with your example: You have a pistol with two bullets (Let's leave aside how stupid is leaving ammo clips with a couple of bullets through all the scenarios). You encounter a zombie, you shoot him in one leg and leave him behind. You find a clip with another 3 bullets, now you have 4 in total. In the next room you face against two zombies, you shot them both in their legs and ran way. In the next room you find another clip with three bullets, now you have 5 bullets in total. And it goes on and on.

This is exactly how it works already in the game but with smaller numbers, and with a huge diference: In your idealization the zombies are a fucking joke (The video I posted is an example of this).

Two things:

The first one I'll post it again from a previous message:

If you proportionally decrease both (Enemy health and ammo), the end result is not the same

The point of the video I posted isn't the ammo spent or the bullets needed to kill the enemies. The point is how every single enemy encounter is reduced to absolute nothing, to complete dust, by making the enemies fall so easily. With things like this:

The threat in this game, and the old ones, wasn't the zombie you fucking kill. The threat was you running out of ammo, and not being able to kill anything.

You are clearly exposing to me that, in reality and behind all that cubbish writing, you have no idea about what you talking about. You don't know how valuables are the enemies in a horror game, specially when they are the main threat of the game. They are so valuable that, without them, there's no reason to the resources management at all.

The second thing: Resource management ≠ Resource scarceness. When you encounter a Licker or you face against a Hunter in the older games, the thing isn't just about resources. The thing is about these enemies being scary. And they are scary because they are fast, resilient and deadly. These are the true reasons that gets you to resource management, to save your best weapons and items against the most dangerous foes. "Survival horror" is not about lurking through the maps in search of 1 or 2 bullets to defend yourself. Is about exploring maps while finding limited (limited does not equals scarce, limited means they are finite and you should avoid wasting them) resources and deciding how and when you gonna spent them.

Finally, let's don't forget that the current zombies in REmake 2 die after 6 bullets or so (They cost less if you know what you are doing). You are talking like they need an incredibly amount to ammo to kill each and it isn't the case. All this discussion comes from that.

 

[JDR13]

There was no option to use a laser sight when I played it, and what about RE 5?

RE5 had a laser sight in xbox and ps3 versions, and there was an unofficial patch for pc.
Gold edition automatically turns on laser sight if your controller is plugged in.

The fact that there had to be an unofficial patch only proves my complaint was valid. I've stated from the beginning that I'm talking about the PC version.

because you've quoted my post?

So me quoting your post somehow negates that I specifically said "the later games".

 

[Wunderbar]

The fact that there had to be an unofficial patch only proves my complaint was valid. I've stated from the beginning that I'm talking about the PC version.

RE games were developed for consoles, PC version is a port. PC port not having a laser sight option is weird, but it's not an original developer's fault, therefore it's silly to blame them.
I also noticed you keep ignoring the fact that RE6 had an option to turn on laser sight since 2013. "There was no option to use a laser sight when I played it" - your problem.

because you've quoted my post?

So me quoting your post somehow negates that I specifically said "the later games".

so you saying "the later games" somehow negates that originally i was talking about RE2 remake, and kept talking about RE2 remake?
It is irrelevant whether subsequent RE games had laser sight or not, the whole conversation was about non-immersive hud in RE2 remake.

You seem upset.

 

[JDR13]

The fact that there had to be an unofficial patch only proves my complaint was valid. I've stated from the beginning that I'm talking about the PC version.

RE games were developed for consoles, PC version is a port. PC port not having a laser sight option is weird, but it's not an original developer's fault, therefore it's silly to blame them.
I also noticed you keep ignoring the fact that RE6 had an option to turn on laser sight since 2013. "There was no option to use a laser sight when I played it" - your problem.

You really are quite butthurt over this laser sight thing aren't you? I wonder how much longer you're going to drag this out.

because you've quoted my post?

So me quoting your post somehow negates that I specifically said "the later games".

so you saying "the later games" somehow negates that originally i was talking about RE2 remake, and kept talking about RE2 remake?
It is irrelevant whether subsequent RE games had laser sight or not, the whole conversation was about non-immersive hud in RE2 remake.

You seem upset.

Now you're definitely just being obtuse. Why would you keep talking about the RE2 remake if you're acknowledging that I was being specific about the later games?

How old were you when you were diagnosed as being Verzögert?

 

[Wunderbar]

I wonder how much longer you're going to drag this out.

as long as you keep quoting me.

Now you're definitely just being obtuse. Why would you keep talking about the RE2 remake if you're acknowledging that I was being specific about the later games?

why would i talk about later games if i've already said that some of them feature laser sight AND it's not even relevant?
I have no problem with RE2 remake. Some people don't like crosshair and prefer laser sight over it, i've explained my point of view.

You really are quite butthurt over this laser sight thing aren't you?

How old were you when you were diagnosed as being Verzögert?

"you fucking ignorant kraut, lol butthurt retard" - great argument here, mate.

 

[JDR13]

I wonder how much longer you're going to drag this out.

as long as you keep quoting me.

Yeah, you do seem that autistic.

Now you're definitely just being obtuse. Why would you keep talking about the RE2 remake if you're acknowledging that I was being specific about the later games?

why would i talk about later games if i've already said that some of them feature laser sight AND it's not even relevant?
I have no problem with RE2 remake. Some people don't like crosshair and prefer laser sight over it, i've explained my point of view.

Funny, you keep continuing this conversation though despite that I made it obvious a long time ago that I was talking about RE 5 & 6. So obviously it *is* relevant to you.

If you're going to keep acting like a retard then I'll keep calling you one.

 

[Drakortha]

 

[Dedicated_Dark]

Now enough children! Take it your private chats and give each other blow jobs or cock-smash like grown men and make it all better.

 

[bertram_tung]

I can understand that something that realistically exists within the game world is inherently less immersion-breaking than a crosshair just floating around in the air. At least that's what most rational people would agree with.

The only thing you've exposed is that you're obviously a fucking idiot.

lol the "aktually" vibes are strong

wow, quite a salty little internet arguer i've stumbled across..and your response, predictably, is intentionally obtuse and dishonest for the sake of appearing "correct". clown
it is funny that after i popped in, made my comment and left, i return a day later and see you've continued to be bitterly arguing with others in the thread for many hours. enough that multiple people in the thread are now mocking you for it. lol

 

[JDR13]

I can understand that something that realistically exists within the game world is inherently less immersion-breaking than a crosshair just floating around in the air. At least that's what most rational people would agree with.

The only thing you've exposed is that you're obviously a fucking idiot.

lol the "aktually" vibes are strong

wow, quite a salty little internet arguer i've stumbled across..and your response, predictably, is intentionally obtuse and dishonest for the sake of appearing "correct". clown
it is funny that after i popped in, made my comment and left, i return a day later and see you've continued to be bitterly arguing with others in the thread for many hours. enough that multiple people in the thread are now mocking you for it. lol

Oh look, it's the classic "Other people don't like you either" spiel. How original. Nevermind that I was only engaged with 1 person.

If you're done puffing your chest and trying to prop yourself up now, why don't you explain how I've been dishonest?

It's a rhetorical question of course, since you're just blowing smoke.

 

[Bigg Boss]

I'm actually confused who is the dumbass at this point. The rhetoric is strong and I don't feel like scrolling back. Typical politics.