/v/ - Video Games

I said this the moment REmake 2 got announced - Code Veronica is never happening. It's too obscure to be handed off to an important team, meaning at best it'd be a B team project again, and they would have to completely censor half the game, considering Claire refers to the antagonist as a "Crossdressing freak". Hell, even if you take that out entirely, even having a schizo crossdresser as a villain is offensive. Best case, they'd make him a real tranny. Either way, it's too "sensitive" an issue for them to be worth it.

>>16912502

2 was alright save for Claire's disgusting muttface, 3's straight trash.

>>16912488

>Code Veronica is never happening.

Because it sucked

It's too obscure to be handed off to an important team

Outbreak remake more likely. Outbreak was made canon.

>>16912423

>pretend 6 never happened.

Better option than pretending everything is canon like the DCEU zack synder shit.

>>16912381

That's a grave mistake.

Remaking 1 on gamecube was enough, and 2 and 3 were a good idea, but 4 was where it became so good that it actually deserved these remakes.

Remaking that is like hacking away at the pillar you're currently axing on.

Noone needs a remake of 4. It's a universally acclaimed game that holds its own to this day.

It wasn't even that long ago they asked customers if they wanted more RE remakes. Can we expect another rush job that it might as well be DLC like they did for RE3 remake?

>>16912524

Probably not according to the article.

>>16912502

Hey, at least Ace Attorney's still solid. 5 wasn't amazing but 6 was pretty good.

>>16912504

It's arguable whether 2 was good, but it was exactly what everyone expected it to be the moment they saw it. It wasn't offensively bad, it wasn't mindblowingly good, it was just another unnecessary remake. But even for people who actually liked 2, 3 was just shit.

>>16912509

>Because it sucked

And Outbreak didn't?

>>16912510

>God awful looking game

The character models were shit, kinda like most games in general but the environments were damn good.

>Shit RE4 gameplay instead of glorious classic one

The old gameplay was far from glorious. It works and does its job but that's about it.

>>16912509

A game sucking is the perfect reason for a remake, because it can be made to not suck.

>>16912555

Yea, but the problem with that is who's going to buy a remake of the one that sucked? More people are willing to buy remakes of shit they liked purely because it looks prettier.

>>16912531

>at least Ace Attorney's still solid. 5 wasn't amazing but 6 was pretty good

They did manage to get up from Apollo Justice and 5, but underrated games in the serie like the Miles Edgeworth games aren't even mentioned.

>but the environments were damn good

My biggest problem is that it could have looked even better with pre-rendered background, the best REmake looks gorgous even today, so imagine if they could pre-render background with the highest resolution possible, and in that sense it could have been a lot better optimized by only having 3D characters and shadows/lighting in real time. But who gives a shit about good video game development nowadays if you have shitty looking 3D enviroment.

>>16912555

I agree, but the problem is modern crapcom remaking it would end up in:

>Alfred not being evil but some sort of LGTB rights activist mary sue who only fights you for a misunderstanding or something

>No glorious gameplay anymore nor the much needed adjustment it needs

>All women will look like trannies now like all modern crapcom games, which is specially bad in a Claire centric game

It's not worth it. I'd like a remaster, not a remake. FUCK remakes.

Cool Wesker can be alive and Leon can continue the Redfield lineage.

Screenshot this post.

>>16912583

>It's not worth it. I'd like a remaster, not a remake. FUCK remakes.

I agree.

Capcom's RE1 remake was a fluke. Nowadays they can only do harm.

>>16912381

That is what happens every single time that retards give money to companies: the companies grow and start to ruin everything that they own.

>>16912504

>muh remake was alright

That is were the problem begins. Whenever you fall for the remake meme, the company will make money, and thus, turn to shit sooner or later.

>>16912714

>that undersold

Their own fault. Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to release it in gamecube? Sure, it looks very good on gamecube, but the problem is not the game itself but the market it was trying to cater to. I'm willing to bet it would have been A LOT more successful on fucking PS2, considering RE was far more popular on PS1.

>>16912743

Also, there are today's youth that can't complete the first level of Mario without dying, let alone understand that Samus lacking a crawling mechanic at first is part of gameplay mechanics, let alone understanding why tank controls are not only good but add perfectly great to survival horror.

you will never get an original game again

and if you do it will be about faggot communists fucking kids

Dude, Ashley is like 16. She shouldn't have breasts at all until she turns 18

>>16912796

No more looking up her skirt and getting called a pervert. In fact, no more skirt at all.

It honestly should have been code veronica, 4 doesnt need a remake.

>>16912510

>Shit RE4 gameplay instead of glorious classic one

You still have no idea what youre talking about, DmC2 autist.

Obviously they see the dollar signs, but RE4 is already fine as is. You can arguably spruce up the graphics, but RE4 and onward don't need anything else.

>>16912381

Good. Hope they butcher the fucking thing too. All the recent remake niggers deserve this.

>>16912923

I could write a lengthy post about why tank controls are great, but seeing how you actually liked DmC2, it'd just be a waste.

>>16913034

You could write a lengthy post about how the sun is black. Tank controls are shit.

>>16912381

Wew, this was the game that needed to be remade the least. Especially with the Wii version existing.

>>16912381

Will they get actual Spaniards to voice the ganados, or just get mexicans to do a shitty castillian impression again? Either way, what the fuck are they thinking?

>>16913064

Classic RE controls were worse

>>16913034

Tank controls are fine given the job, which was fixed camera perspective. Tank controls were the only viable option and they basically built the game around that. Again, it worked, but I don't understand why you would think they are objectively great.

>>16913158

Because of the context of the game. It goes great to survival horror because it's an extra layer or survivability, that on top of the fixed camera that made it harder to know what was exactly ahead of you, and even without the fixed camera it worked great like in Silent Hill. It makes feel your character more helpless and less responsive, despite the controls themselves being fairly responsive, making a mistake here out of nervousness could be punished hard, which is what you are looking for to make an atmosphere in these games. Plus tons of games added QoL elements like quick turns in RE3 which were retroactively added to REmake, for example.

The only reason I'd see someone not liking it is because they either lack brain cells to understand a movement scheme as simple as that, or they don't understand the little restriction of movement from tank controls improve an experience that is supposed to be tense.

>>16913182

Adding an extra layer of bullshit between the player and the character is not what I would call a good design choice even if the character is supposed to "feel helpless." You say at the same time that only stupid people have trouble with the controls, but then say that the controls are deliberately hamstrung so that mistakes with them are more strongly punished–which implies that the developers expected people to make mistakes because of the control scheme, and so the devs were expecting the players to be stupid. Also, real human beings don't rotate their bodies slowly around to move when they're terrified and panicky. I suppose you might be trying to say that the devs were trying to somehow portray the human response time or the character's body kinematics within the limitations of the interface–like, they were trying to convey that a person would have to take the time to actually turn their body away from something if they wanted to turn and run from it, which direct controls sometimes elide in favor of controls that feel responsive–but an unnatural control scheme was not a good way to accomplish that. Your argument essentially is that the player should be rewarded for staying calm enough to maneuver the controls correctly and avoiding panicky responses. I don't disagree with that, but crippling the control scheme is not the way to accomplish that.

>>16913182

That's a fallacy, though, because the only reason tank controls seem difficult or unresponsive is because you're bad at the game. The game is designed around the tank controls, therefore the "unresponsiveness" is merely a figment of your perspective. What I mean to say is, the game isn't designed around you Dark Souls rolling around every attack because there is no Dark Souls roll move and enough healing items. Also, if you were to carry that idea to its logical conclusion, then you would have to consider that many people who play RE2 or any other sequel will have played the previous games, and therefore tank controls are not strange or difficult for them anymore. In fact the controls got easier as the games went on anyway (dodge was added in RE3). They would have to assign a different control scheme for every single game in the franchise which is retarded. The real reason that the game feels oppressive is because you move and turn slowly and enemies are resilient.

>>16913266

>Adding an extra layer of bullshit between the player and the character is not what I would call a good design choice even if the character is supposed to "feel helpless

It's not bullshit. The character respond well, the controls respond well, but since your movement is more limited, then there's an actual limitation, meaning you need better planing and that you can fuck up easier, that's the helpless part.

>but then say that the controls are deliberately hamstrung so that mistakes with them are more strongly punished–which implies that the developers expected people to make mistakes because of the control scheme

I never said that, faggot. If you make a mistake, it's on you, not the controls, what the controls do is that if you make a mistake, you are going to be punished harder, and you should be able to avoid mistakes, after all, you could avoid zombies while running around even with tank controls on resident evil on very stretch corridors, so they were obviously responsive, and great at that.

>B-but humans don't move like tanks

Jesus, kill yourself, anon. No, people don't rotate in place, but you barely rotate in place in tank control schemes, the point is that while moving forward you have it harder to steer, and also have it harder to avoid danger. There's doesn't need to be a logical explanation as to why, why would they be one, it's there because it's good game design, and it should strive to be a better game on top of being logical.

>I don't disagree with that, but crippling the control scheme is not the way to accomplish that.

I don't see how they are crippled, they work and respond perfectly.

>>16913295

>therefore the "unresponsiveness" is merely a figment of your perspective

That's my point, anon. For example, in RE there weren't a lot of enemies you couldn't dodge even with tank controls. Tank controls worked well, so there was no reason to remove them or call them back, in fact, tank controls were used in survival horror games because it complimented the genre.

It was such a flaw in the REmake2 that the only way they could add some fucking artificial tension in RE2 was by making Mr. X constantly chase you. Having a bigger level of control on your character movement/action takes away a lot of the tension the original games had. I think you meant to quote the other anon? Because you are mostly agreeing with what I'm saying.

>>16913323

>It was such a flaw in the REmake2 that the only way they could add some fucking artificial tension in RE2 was by making Mr. X constantly chase you. Having a bigger level of control on your character movement/action takes away a lot of the tension the original games had. I think you meant to quote the other anon? Because you are mostly agreeing with what I'm saying.

I honestly get the impression that everyone who makes this complaint didn't play Hardcore mode. I started that game on Hardcore and died in the first room because the zombie didn't go down after somewhere around 9 shots and I was too preoccupied with trying to kill it that I didn't notice the gap in the shelves on the right. Sure it got easier later as I figured the game out, but there's no dodge and they still make you turn slowly. Also, I'm about 95% sure that killing zombies via headshot is RNG even if you have perfect shot placement, which adds tension because you can't be certain that shooting zombies will always end in success. Again, you move and turn slowly and the enemies are resilient. These are not factors which are unique to tank controls. Mr. X was not my biggest fear in that game, it was the lickers and the sewer gauntlet room filled with slime and gore along with the mutant creatures to get the last weapon. Primarily because I had no idea how to kill those things reliably and there was almost no room to maneuver. The best way to add tension and fear is to take certainty and consistency away from the player, it adds inherent risk to everything. But not too much so that it feels like everything you do is a crap shoot.

Your argument seems to be that tank controls are an inherent boon to survival horror as a genre and not simply a product of necessity – the fixed camera perspective – which I disagree with. Again, I have no issues with it and I enjoy classic RE games greatly, but the idea that the game cannot be translated to a conventional third or first person perspective because "tank controls and fixed camera is what made it scary" is ridiculous and just shows a lack of imagination and design acumen.

>>16913323

So what you're really saying is that the characters should move and turn slowly to punish mistakes and encourage careful movement. Okay. That's a deliberate design decision, and it doesn't in any way require tank controls. Besides, Capcom didn't implement tank controls for immersion. There are other Capcom games from that period that weren't survival horror that used them as well, and they were bad choices there as well. A person could argue that was an engine limitation, I guess. I maintain that tank controls are a layer of bullshit between the player and the game. You might just as well make a first person horror game without mouselook and try to say that the slow turning of the character contributes to the atmosphere of oppression and suspense. Objectively better control schemes exist and could be crippled to emulate outdated ones by restricting the turn speed, if it's that important to the atmosphere that the character control poorly in order for the player to feel helpless. But we know it's ineffective to try to use bad controls to convey that the player should feel helpless and weak–and I don't allow your argument that "the game can be beaten with these controls" is supposed to be some kind of evidence that the control system isn't problematic.

>>16912423

>>16912381

Well if they're going to do this shit they could at least give us an alternate universe RE4 where Leon fights the shadow monsters.

>>16913346

>You have to play the game on the hardest difficulty for it to be like the originals

Gee, I wonder why it's shit, then.

>Again, you move and turn slowly and the enemies are resilient. These are not factors which are unique to tank controls

Which is irrelevant when you have all the enemies in front of you instead of properly scattered. And you said so yourself, the enemies are just bullet sponges, they are not a challenge at all, and they don't compliment at all the gameplay aspects. It isn't only about turning slow or enemies being resilient, is about not knowing what was in the next corner despite facing that direction without turning into cheap jump scares, it all added to the atmosphere and tension of it instead of always looking directly at the enemies in front on you, and giving you tension only by not knowing what was behind, unlike the originals giving you sight of what you NEEDED to see. That's good game design, unlike REshit2.

>>16913360

>and it doesn't in any way require tank controls

Except they very clearly used a tank control scheme in a third person perspective, so tank controls are evidently needed, they only added an ability to aim, which gives you greater control and, thus, less tension.

>Muh inmersion

<T-tank controls are bad and outdated

You need to be 18+ to post here. Kill yourself, faggot.

And no, the control scheme isn't the problem, anon, you are. You are basically arguing that by having stamina in dark souls the game is bad. The other anon gets something as simple as this. Old games were designed around tank controls, which is why they work, and they work better than this shitty REshit2 scheme. That and lacking beautiful pre-rendered backgrounds, REshit2 is total shit.

>>16913360

It was entirely a technical limitation because the main redeeming virtue of tank controls is that they are character-relative. Which means that it doesn't matter what the camera is doing, you can always move your character without getting disoriented. This is necessary in any game that has sudden camera perspective changes like fixed camera prerendered background PS1 games.

>>16913374

>You have to play the game on the hardest difficulty for it to be like the originals

>Gee, I wonder why it's shit, then.

Sorry anon but you're really showing your ignorance here. The original RE games actually had harder difficulties designed specifically for the Western release, which is what you most likely played (because the other option is baby easy). If you are not Japanese, chances are your impression of classic RE is always the hardest possible difficulty across all versions of the game. That is the way RE was always properly enjoyed. For example, with RE3, "Hard mode" only exists in the Western release. The hardest mode in the Japanese edition is called "Heavy mode" and is mostly like Hard mode, except the enemies are just as easy to kill as in the Western "Easy mode." When RE2 was released, it later had the Dual Shock Version release, which included "U.S.A. Version" as a bonus for the Japanese players because once again they don't have access to harder difficulties. So you actually chose the baby easy mode by not picking Hardcore.

>>16913374

I forgot to address the second part before clicking post.

>Which is irrelevant when you have all the enemies in front of you instead of properly scattered.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you were to hypothetically create some kind of mod or hack for classic RE games that put your camera over Claire/Jill/Leon/Chris's shoulder, then all of the enemies would always be in front of you in that game as well. This is simply because enemies almost never come in through the door behind you when you enter a room. Sometimes they do spawn behind you but it's usually after an event is triggered and you've moved away from the entrance, so you might have a suspicion that it's going to happen. This also happens in RE2make. First example that comes to mind are the lickers that pop out of the ceiling when you turn on the power in the lab underneath the garden in the Umbrella facility.

>And you said so yourself, the enemies are just bullet sponges

I mentioned that because it has that in common with the original games. You can't really use that as a point against the remake. The bullet sponginess is actually important to the tension of the game because it creates uncertainty, which is in the original as well but not quite as pronounced because the hitboxes are simpler. I have killed zombies in as few as 3 shots and as many as over 10. Sometimes it's due to a few poorly placed shots, but it seems to help if your headshots land in the cranial area as opposed to the jaw. The hitboxes are surprisingly small.

My experience with it was not really that of cheap jump scares. It was more of a sense of increasing dread and anxiety because I expect a zombie to die at a certain time; he doesn't, then suddenly I'm being overwhelmed by two or more zombies because my timing is all off for when I expected to kill them, and the situation spirals from there. This is mostly the same as how I felt in the originals.

>>16913384

>This is necessary in any game that has sudden camera perspective changes like fixed camera prerendered background PS1 games.

Worked well in Silent Hill and Dino Crisis, when their cameras were dynamic.

>>16913384

>That is the way RE was always properly enjoyed

Yes, I'm judging this based on the western release, but that's because in everything except ceonsorship, JP was the lesser version, REmake being the ultimate form of it by giving you all the previous options plus 2 new ones, very hard and very easy.

However, the problem here is that Hardcore in REshit2 is more like Easy on RE1 or 2. Which is laughable. Also, again, only thing difficulty changes here is turning zombies into bullet sponges.

>>16913408

>If you were to hypothetically create some kind of mod or hack for classic RE games that put your camera over Claire/Jill/Leon/Chris's shoulder, then all of the enemies would always be in front of you in that game as well

But that's not the case, because you as a played only see what it's on screen, which pressures you more than just seeing what is right in front of you. The camera changes enemy position, so instead of being scattered in a way you should be able to avoid them by running around if needed, even in a cramped room, you are just given bullet sponges in big numbers to make up for fucking terrible bad design.

>I mentioned that because it has that in common with the original games

The difference being that in the original games the point was to avoid the zombies, and everything was laid for you to do so unless you didn't know about it, in which case it was punishing, and it was because of you. The problem, as I said, is that these enemies are presented to you in bulk to give you a false sense of dread only because you are overwhelmed, while the originals only gave you a handful of zombies and managed to feel genuinely pressured and trapped.

So here the enemies being bullet sponges is a problem because you are forced to waste bullets, that's a terrible design. And more than pressuring, it's frustrating, specially when you know you could have avoided that circumstance in the original. The game basically cut your options, making the new control scheme crippling.

>>16913182

> character more helpless and less responsive

awkward slow ass controls don't make me feel more helpless or the gameplay scarier, it makes me thinks the game either uses it for lazy ass artificial difficulty or it was just programed like ass.

>>16912976

Jeans? too sexual. She'll be wearing that plate armour she got as an alternate costume in the original.

>>16913374

I haven't played REmake 2 but I never felt tense playing the original, and much less because the tank controls. I do believe they work on Silent Hill 2 for example because it complements the much better oppressive atmosphere, the isolation and the fact that you're being hunt by fucked up creatures. In RE2 you're a cop being gang raped by zombies with corny dialog. Which makes avoiding zombies mixed with tank controls rather tedious. I always seen RE as an action or puzzle series rather than a survival horror one (Which is why i believe RE4 is the better game imo).

>>16913374

Having nothing but a pool noodle to kill zombies would make the game "tenser", as well. The only tense thing here is your butthole, though.

>>16912381

Good. I want a remake with a better gameplay. I tried RE4 the other day and the controls were so awful.

>>16912381

Pretty redundant move since RE4 was already ported to current and last gen consoles as well as PC years ago, this also means more people are going to be critical of this remake since unlike RE2 and 3 it's easier to play the original game for comparison.

But this is obviously just Capcom looking for some easy money and they don't care about any of that, they'll probably sell Ada's story missions as DLC too.

>>16912502

REmake 2 was good and saying otherwise wouldn't have change what's happening now.

Take your fucking "everyone is too stupid to see the truth but me" shtick back to the Rick and Morty subreddit where it belongs.

>>16912381

Is that surprising in any way? i didn't expect anything less.

>>16912748

>tank controls

>good

>>16912502

It's not like it fucking matters, Capcom was just making shit games anyway, now they're making shit remakes instead. Best thing coming out of Capcom is unironically their engines which they refuse to license.

>>16913415

I just get the impression you're making things up at this point. You can easily avoid zombies in REmake2 as well. They have unpredictable and erratic movement patterns, once again just like the original, which is both anxiety-inducing and allows you opportunities to pass by. There were things I didn't like about it, but they did try very hard to replicate the original core gameplay experience with an over-the-shoulder camera and mostly succeeded.

>you are just given bullet sponges in big numbers

If that were true, then they would give you plenty of ammo as well, but they don't because you can and should avoid zombies. Again your words do not reflect my experience playing hardcore both A and B. My decision making process for killing zombies was the same as the originals, which was "Am I going to pass through this area many times in the future?" There are enough routes to avoid regular zombies unless they specifically designed an encounter where you can't avoid it. Tell me the truth anon: Are you bad at controlling 3rd person over the shoulder games? Were the hitboxes too difficult to hit? I know I had a hard time when I started out. It sounds like you didn't even play Hardcore so I'm not sure how you think your bullet sponge perspective is even valid, considering you never played it.

>>16913753

I think it would be fine if they just chose real-life models that actually looked like the characters from the original design and put slightly more effort into the facial animations. Instead they went full Kojima and said "No, we need to include the likeness of this real person in the game." Leon looked quite good in RE2make, specifically because he looked exactly like I would have expected a young Leon to look, but everyone else looked like shit in that game and RE3make as well. Claire's face is like a tragedy: I can kinda see what they were going for, and she might have been cute with a little extra effort, but she just looks like an uncanny valley doll with a 10 year old's face instead.

>>16913034

>still missing the point

The only thing remake 2 and RE4 share its the camera, but you would not know that because you have played neither, you autist.

>>16913838

Well, to normal people it probably wouldn't be, but to us explorers of the further regions of experience, it would serve our fetish greatly.

>>16913958

>they make perfect scenes when holding a gamecube controller. but when your using any other control scheme they are a bit retarded.

Its literally just tank controls from the first three games but with a different camera angle and QTEs.

>>16913940

Then why not make it like the original RE2 and the original REmake? Right, to cash RE4 autists, and it already went full circle. In either way, kill yourself.

>>16913974

>forever avoiding maning up to his bullshit

>Then why not make it like the original RE2 and the original REmake?

Because they knew it would seel better, as simple as that, the worse part is that there were builds with the original control schemes and camera angles, also they tried to make it an FPS.

>and it already went full circle

No it really didnt.

> In either way, kill yourself.

Thats ballsy coming from an autist the lives off neetbux from the state.

>>16912381

TOP HEH

The game is way too Rambo-ey and goofy for the mood of the remasters. It won't work.

Not to mention it's got a shit load of content. It'll be super expensive without scaling the game down and pissing everybody off.

>>16913958

I don't know, I played RE4 on PC with M+KB and I didn't find anything wrong with it. It's like the Gothic 1 menus, it takes some getting used to but it's very precise and reliable.

>>16913974

Because REmake2 was a fan project picked up by Capcom that originally intended that,you dumb faggot.

>>16912381

No way it's not gonna be shit.

You cannot turn RE4 into a semi serious horror game like RE2/3 and their remakes were, the whole game is literally you killing a ton of shit, and it's actually more fun and interesting to go out of your way to kill everything than running through places like the Remakes tend to expect from you.

And how in the fuck are you even gonna attempt to make the shit from RE4 into anything remotely serious looking to begin with.

That's not even considering that RE4 really doesn't need a remake to begin with, even just an actually good remaster would be plenty

>>16912510

>Shit RE4 gameplay instead of glorious classic one

It's not RE4 gameplay, RE4 gameplay let's you handle hordes of zombies like they're fucking nothing and doesn't try to make killing shit as unattractive as possible.

>>16912509

CV didn't suck, but really there's only a few things to fix for it to be really good, nerf the god knife and remove Steve.

People who complain about CV usually just got their shit handled by plane tyrant or got shafted from the character swap

>>16913958

You can entirely remap to your liking on the newest PC version, I even had a completely custom control scheme for DS style controller for it at some point

>>16914006

I replayed CV not long ago, and the game is really full of flaws, the story is all over the place and its cutscenes are like shitty jap soap operas (save for chris's parts), CV really needs a rework.

The game was not properly balanced nor well paced like the previus entries were, also, the antartica part was completely wasted.

>>16914015

>I replayed CV not long ago, and the game is really full of flaws, the story is all over the place and its cutscenes are like shitty jap soap operas

I mean maybe but I don't really give much of a shit about story except Steve, but just to be sure was it CV or CVX?

>The game was not properly balanced nor well paced like the previous entries were

>also, the antartica part was completely wasted.

If by balanced you mean gameplay then it actually is if you remove the knife, it's even surprising, you have just barely enough ammo to go around for most of the game and it actually forces some choices on you about whether you should kill stuff or not, but then if you give the player a knife that literally shits all over everything that isn't a bandersnatch / boss with very little effort or skill it kinda ruins the thing.

But yeah now that I really think about it there's quite a bit of filler feeling parts once you get around to the last 3rd of the game especially Antartica revisit and the fake manor

>>16914030

>you have just barely enough ammo to go around for most of the game and it actually forces some choices on you about whether you should kill stuff or not

I didn't use the knife once but I managed to end the game with hundreds of rounds of almost every gun. Half the bosses have a gimmick weapon associated to them and even if they didn't you could just unload your 100s of rounds of grenade launcher into them and kill them.

I killed every single enemy except the giant spider in Alaska and I didn't even have to shoot the magnum once.

>>16914030

> but just to be sure was it CV or CVX?

CVX, the light levels are improved and i already had an emulator for ps2.

>>16914083

Code Veronica X emulates on a craptop in pcsx2, better than nulldc.

>>16914079

>I didn't use the knife once but I managed to end the game with hundreds of rounds of almost every gun

Doubt it, even if you're exaggerating, I mean the only things you can even have hundreds of are bolts and handgun bullets

>Half the bosses have a gimmick weapon associated to them

1 and a haff boss have a gimmick weapon, there's 6 bosses not counting refights

>your 100s of rounds of grenade launcher into them and kill them.

You don't even have 100 grenades in the game.

>>16914137

>1 and a haff boss have a gimmick weapon

The sniper rifle with the helipad boss in alaska

The airplane fight

Steve in the castle area

The final boss

Thats 4 out of what? 10 bosses?

>You don't even have 100 grenades in the game.

There are around 80 of them and you don't need half of them.

There are grenades which literally halve the health of any enemy, even bosses.

>>16914170

>The airplane fight

No gimmick weapon, you have to damage the boss normally before the crate works, about 30 explosives bolts and a couple grenades worth of damage to get it wounded and susceptible to the crate.

>Steve in the castle area

Running away isn't a gimmick weapon, it's not really a fight.

>The final boss

Only the last phase, you don't get the Ion cannon for the first one, and to be honest the magnum is simpler than dealing with the shit FPV aiming.

>There are around 80 of them and you don't need half of them.

If you avoid a lot of things, sure, if you kill everything you can kill, pretty sure that's wrong, the two optiional bosses already take around 20-25 grenades alone

Maybe if you go hyper autistic and minmax your ammo and never get caught by the hunter spawning bots.

>There are grenades which literally halve the health of any enemy, even bosses.

Maybe Alexia in the manor hall, and even then she takes 4-5 Magnum shots so I doubt 2 grenades are enough and that's the weakest boss.

A point blank regular grenade kills most regular enemies and those that survive it don't have enough health left to justify another grenade.

>>16914225

>Maybe Alexia in the manor hall

BOW Gas rounds don't work on Alexia but you don't need them for her anyway.

Don't tell me you didn't know about them halving enemy HP.

>>16914268

>Don't tell me you didn't know about them halving enemy HP.

Well I actually didn't I have to admit, I always kept them for the steve escape because they stun him instantly so if you use one, go behind him use another and you juke him right you can escape without getting hit easily.

Still, you get 3 of them, and I don't supposed it's a flat 50% and I don't suppose they affect anything but what's in the immediate areaso no killing the tyrant with 2 , and most boss take like 5-15 grenades except Alexia in the manor which should take less.

>>16912917

I wonder if this means that CV is going to removed from canon?

Claire could end up raising Sherry instead.

>>16913958

>The gameplay is great it's just takes some getting used to.

Well I only started to get used to the RE Revelations 2 controls recently so it's a pain in the ass to learn the RE4 controls.

Calling it.

Ashley will be Black because Obongo- or Trump's daddy's girl.

And the piece of shit mexican-beaner half-breed that made RE3 shit by being a secondary will design it.

>>16915204

>can't wait for this pile of shit to cut the entire castle and mines section, streamline the island

To be fair the castle section of the game overstays its welcome and takes up the majority of the game for no good reason.

Instead of padding the run time with Ashley getting captured, then rescued only to then be recaptured again they should have just had her be captured once and then sent her to the island.

The island itself feels like it goes on way longer than it should too, especially after the castle section wasted so much time, it's also full of action set pieces and makes you fight large swarms of enemies which is really not fun.

>>16914167

cute

<Re:4 remake

god help us

>>16915580

>the piece of shit mexican-beaner half-breed that made RE3 shit by being a secondary will design it.

Haven't heard about this.

>>16913658

Yes.

This remake will make so many enemies. All of the people who love RE4 that I've heard are dreading this considering they changed so much of the good stuff in remake3.

There's really no need, unless they double the content of the game. Give me a full Jack Krauser capaign, and I'll think about it.

T&A reduction and face made ugly to suit the current year.