Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City

[Sen]

So it seems Slant Six Games, the developers behind the mostly average SOCOM series, will be taking a stab at Capcom's beloved Resident Evil franchise, with Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City. Currently set for a release this winter, the game will be a squad-based third-person shooter taking place during everybody's favorite zombie outbreak, the fall of Raccoon City. A new spin on the timeline of Resident Evils 2 and 3, players will supposedly be able to steer the story away from canon, making alternate decisions that could, for example, result in the death of popular hero Leon S. Kennedy. Sounds interesting, to say the least. Check out the teaser trailer here (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/debut-teaser-resident-evil/712332).

What says the AllRPG community on this announcement? Is this cause for excitement, or just another attempt by Capcom to briefly quiet the desire for a true remake of RE2?

[Karsh]

Being a rampant player of Resident Evil: Outbreak 1 and 2, I am obviously pretty excited about this. If it takes cues from those games, I will be a very happy camper.

[Phakiel]

Since its an online squad based game, I am the opposite of excited. Fucking forced online gaming, stupid trend is making developers focus less on single player, and I guess sadly is no longer a trend anymore.

[CoolOtaku]

Since its an online squad based game, I am the opposite of excited. Fucking forced online gaming, stupid trend is making developers focus less on single player, and I guess sadly is no longer a trend anymore.

Yeah, my thoughts go something like this. I love having split-screen co-op in just about any game, but this just does not sound good. I can't stop thinking Left 4 Dead when I see it, and the last thing you want people to think of when they see your game is a game that's already been made. And has a sequel.

[Sen]

Ah dammit. Just noticed this game was addressed in the series that needs to get back to their roots (http://www.allrpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3169) thread. Oh well, now it's got its own.

Since its an online squad based game, I am the opposite of excited. Fucking forced online gaming, stupid trend is making developers focus less on single player, and I guess sadly is no longer a trend anymore.
This trend annoys me as well, but mostly in games that feature a single- and multiplayer component. It bothers me to think that money that could have gone into making a game's single-player campaign even better is so often put towards development of a multiplayer mode that is then largely ignored, even if its not half-bad. At least Operation: Raccoon City is being built from the ground up as a multiplayer experience.

[CoolOtaku]

I swear to god, if they ignore split-screen co-op, I'm gonna flip my shit. It's quite possibly my absolute least favorite trend in games these days.

If it does have it, even if I would prefer it to be a somewhat different type of game, I could probably still enjoy it with a friend.

[Sen]

I swear to god, if they ignore split-screen co-op, I'm gonna flip my shit. It's quite possibly my absolute least favorite trend in games these days.
Yeah, I agree with you there, CoolO. No matter what the game, co-op online is just not the same as when your partner is in the same room. Still fun, but not the same.

[Phakiel]

Yeah, it adds a whole lot to the experience to have an actual person next to you when playing a co op game.

About the multiplayer online crap, this apparently happened to Homefront a game which had a lot of hype before it was released and since then it has gotten shitty reviews regarding the single player campaign and mostly saying that the only thing done well is multiplayer.

Now I ask you, Homefront is basically Red Dawn in videogame form, the red dawn remake is getting made on the same premise, the main premise of the game is korea is invading and for the first time the US has a big international war in its lands and as as a citizen you are to experience this, then why would you focus on refining multiplayer, which at this point how much shit can you really put into multiplayer that makes it different from the countless other fps. You should focus on story, on making the core of the game great and then multiplayer being a nice addition. But no they apprently did not care.

I still might get the game, it has apparently some serious issues but it still seems like fun and reminds me of Freedom Fighters, but not at full price, maybe when its down to 20 bucks or less.

[Nickoten]

Sounds shitty, but who knows. I personally am resentful that this is what we get instead of a new Outbreak.

[Sen]

Being a rampant player of Resident Evil: Outbreak 1 and 2, I am obviously pretty excited about this. If it takes cues from those games, I will be a very happy camper.

I personally am resentful that this is what we get instead of a new Outbreak.

I never got the chance to played Outbreak as a multiplayer experience, having only made an attempt at it after the servers were shutdown. I'm surprised by the love for it that I see here and imagine it must have been THAT much better with other people. I found it a truly awful game on my own, hehe.

[Poofy]

Gimme back my tank controls, bitch.



On the plus side at least we're no longer punching boulders as Chris...

[Sen]

how much shit can you really put into multiplayer that makes it different from the countless other fps. You should focus on story, on making the core of the game great and then multiplayer being a nice addition.
This is how I generally feel about shooters, since the multiplayer component is usually not much of a factor in my desire to play the game. I'm more often drawn to games like BioShock or Resistance, shooters with a bit more personality or unique flare.

Gimme back my tank controls, bitch.
I'd gladly play a new Resident Evil using the old style, provided it looked as good as the GameCube's titles.

[Phakiel]

On the plus side at least we're no longer punching boulders as Chris...

I found that extremely stupid. I was like ok he is gonna push it I get it, must be heavy so he...he is punching it, he is actually punching it to move it, why? Clearly it didnt change much, the thing did not move at all when he punch it, and in reality why would anyone punch a rock.

This is how I generally feel about shooters, since the multiplayer component is usually not much of a factor in my desire to play the game. I'm more often drawn to games like BioShock or Resistance, shooters with a bit more personality or unique flare.


Same here. I really get pissy from all the fps there are out there. Like everytime I go into joystiq or kotaku and there is something new about a game I havent heard of for ps3, at least 7 times out of 10 is a first person shooter, there are way too many of them and honestly its the same shit. Like I was playing Killzone and it was the same feeling I got from say Modern Warfare, only setting is different. At least back in the day with all the doom clones they tried to change it a bit with Hexen, Heretic, Rise of the Triads, they were all FPS but they had different shit going on, like RotT was about blowing up enemies in little pieces, Hexen had different classes to choose from, Heretic had that hand that threw balls, and Blood was about something evil.

Anyway, sure back then the genre was growing up and not all games were programmed with everything that they all had, like they put small things like looking up and down, jumping, whatever and it was revolutionary, now all of them are supposed to have everything othersiw its pointless, so they focus on other shit like 2 weapons instead of unlimited inventory, being set in other time periods, sci fi shit, and stuff. But it just too many, I think that Pachter guy from gametrailers once said that FPS were like MMORPGs for consoles, easy to code, fund and sell so they keep pulling them out like a fervient catholic wife pulls out kids.

As a side note, of all the fps currently being released, Bulletstorm seems like the most fun. Its stupid mindless gore and its pretty awesome.

[Nickoten]

I never got the chance to played Outbreak as a multiplayer experience, having only made an attempt at it after the servers were shutdown. I'm surprised by the love for it that I see here and imagine it must have been THAT much better with other people. I found it a truly awful game on my own, hehe.



Oh it honestly was. It's just that below it's horrible, horrible execution it had so many cool and exciting ideas that you couldn't help but take its abuse to get to the fun. Honestly even just porting Outbreak to a current gen system with fast loading and voice chat would fix the majority of the problems. It was just ahead of its time, at least on console.