Capcom is slow

[Member_of_STARS]

A general rule of thumb in pretty much the designing and creation of pretty much anything is; Don't fix something if it's not broken.

A general rule of thumb in economics is- if youre not ahead of the times, youre behind the competition.

Before RE4, there have been reports of CAPCOM doing poorly. If a drastic change in gameplay was all it took, imagine how well they could have been doing if they were constantly improving their games and not just focusing on fancy graphics which only improved when the generation of consoles changed.

Exactly. You find the defining element of something, you keep it. Which is why RE4-5 has kept the "tank controls" of the original titles. As it plays a huge part in the whole presentation.

Tank controls didnt make it. And RE4 does NOT have tank controls. Last time I had this argument, I had to go and FRAPS some 3rd perspective BF2 footage to end the argument. "Tank controls" refers to fixed perspective control where the character is controlled like a remote controlled tank. Mirrored controls and the whole shabang. This wasnt a feature, this was a rudiment left from the days of hardware restriction. In RE4, by switching perspective, tank controls disappeared by default.

RE defining element is ammunition conservation, resource management and enemies that take significant effort to kill and are often better just to evade (not counting in the 100th replay some "pros" do), which by definition *is* survival horror.

Dunno which franchise(s) you're referring to, but I can at least think of one that has a "hack and slash" fighting system that I find much more engaging, polished and flawlessly executed than several big names beat 'em ups. And I like it when not every single RPG plays the same. ('cause that's what they have a bad habit of doing now that stories are about as original as new brands of cereal and about as interesting as an episode of Teletubbies (and probably targeted towards the same age group) and all that is left is to either replay the same old or to find something with a bit of variety.

Resident Evil 4-5 and Outbreak 1-2?

Are you trying to tell me that RE4 and Outbreaks utilized the technological advancements of the 21st century graphics, AI, physics, interface and network connections?

The only game that broke loose of 9 years of standstill was RE4, following the Gun Survivors.

The reason Im not really considering any RE game a significant improvement and advancement is that whenever CAPCOM tried something different, they did it in a way too drastic manner and while doing so, departed from what they established and with a finishing touch, did it in a half-a5ed manner dropping the ball.

In retrospect, such things like defense items and dodging should have been in the second game. Outbreak-esque weapon creation should have already been in by the third game. As soon as PS2 hit, they should have started focusing on introducing new gameplay elements without sacrificing graphics (which they did though- Dead Aim). Considering what the main games were like (1,2,3,cvx) and the half-as5ed experiments made in sidegames, its as if CAPCOM never actually made any research, nor did it have any clear idea where the industry had advanced so they didnt know what they were doing. The sheer ammount of different techniques used in remakes, retcons and sidequests were like punches in the dark.

And then Gears came out. And the rest is history.

Fixed Camera angles is part of a cinematic presentation tool and Resident Evil 3.5 most of all seems to've been a mess, judging from the available content.

I find it funny that none of the RE games have ever been praised and hailed as being "cinematic", whereas the latest example of "über cinematic experience" came from Call of Duty 4, which surprisingly, didnt have fixed camera angles. Fixed camera is not a presentation tool, its a tool to create claustrophobic atmosphere, fit for survival horror experience.

While RE3.5 was a mess, Im talking about stricktly its gameplay. Fixed cam roaming and over the shoulder shooting. This would have been the best way to develop the series while maintaining what RE was about and introducing a more fun way of tackling the foes.

They were both.
(A feature and a way of overcoming the technical limitations of the system)

Amusing, especially when Survivor can also be considered survival horror. The feature came from technical limitations. You can bet your rear end that CAPCOM folks first faced the problem, then tackled it with a solution.

You don't get to tell people what to do, what to say and how to think around here. Just a general heads up. Besides the answer you got was a very insightful and correct answer

So if you spam the topic by answering with pretty much nothing, thats cool? Can I post porn then?

Your answer was useless, based on ignorance, not insightful nor correct...

Anyway, what about "First Day Patches"?

... or else you wouldnt have asked me what the FDPs were.

When I said EA-style, I specifically meant their business model of churning out as much half-as5ed garbage as possible. A huge number of their games on PCs for example, require patches and updates to even start running properly. They suffer from bugs, problems, whathaveyou, out of the box. Its an increasing businessmodel and Ubisoft has been picking up on it during the past 4 years.

Hence the term "first day patches", when a game is released and is still riddled with so many bugs that an update (or patch) follows pretty much immediately after its release.

[EDIT]

Hahaha! I never knew "first day patches" were those, too. Now the term actually makes sense. Awesome.

[EDIT2]

On FDPs

[Carnivol]

Tank controls didnt make it. And RE4 does NOT have tank controls. Last time I had this argument, I had to go and FRAPS some 3rd perspective BF2 footage to end the argument. "Tank controls" refers to fixed perspective control where the character is controlled like a remote controlled tank. Mirrored controls and the whole shabang. This wasnt a feature, this was a rudiment left from the days of hardware restriction. In RE4, by switching perspective, tank controls disappeared by default.

Tank Controls is indeed a term referring to something that controls like a tank (or any other common belt logger), a vehicle that usually goes "Straight forward", "stops", "turns", "continues forward in new direction".
This because it is not capable of moving smoothly and fast in ways such as... for instance how a car can do smooth S turns. If you're showing me that Leon's ability to move more fluidly around while running has improved since Resident Evil 2... You'd still be wrong. As he, if anything, turns more slowly than in Resident Evil 2. The only real "addition" to the old control set is the QTE (but those were "almost" there in Resident Evil 3) and the fact that you now don't have fixed high/mid/low aiming, but a fluid aim instead.

Dunno which franchise(s) you're referring to, but I can at least think of one that has a "hack and slash" fighting system that I find much more engaging, polished and flawlessly executed than several big names beat 'em ups. And I like it when not every single RPG plays the same. ('cause that's what they have a bad habit of doing now that stories are about as original as new brands of cereal and about as interesting as an episode of Teletubbies (and probably targeted towards the same age group) and all that is left is to either replay the same old or to find something with a bit of variety.

You didn't write that. Don't steal my posts.

Are you trying to tell me that RE4 and Outbreaks utilized the technological advancements of the 21st century graphics, AI, physics, interface and network connections?

Seeing as both pushed their respective consoles pretty far, utilizing pretty much everything that was available on said platforms and Outbreak was an online game... Yes?

I find it funny that none of the RE games have ever been praised and hailed as being "cinematic", whereas the latest example of "über cinematic experience" came from Call of Duty 4, which surprisingly, didnt have fixed camera angles. Fixed camera is not a presentation tool, its a tool to create claustrophobic atmosphere, fit for survival horror experience.

Call of Duty 4 was called cinematic 'cause it slaps you with cutscenes in the face left and right. Including a whole introduction sequence of an execution seen "first person".

And how can you say it's not a presentation tool when it creates a claustrophobic atmosphere? That's like a contradiction right there. Unless they weren't intentionally aiming for the claustrophobic touch.

While RE3.5 was a mess, Im talking about stricktly its gameplay. Fixed cam roaming and over the shoulder shooting. This would have been the best way to develop the series while maintaining what RE was about and introducing a more fun way of tackling the foes.

And this boys and girls, is why Resident Evil 4 has sold millions. 'cause it did everything wrong.

Amusing, especially when Survivor can also be considered survival horror. The feature came from technical limitations. You can bet your rear end that CAPCOM folks first faced the problem, then tackled it with a solution.

Quite a lot of games can be considered Survival Horror. I don't see what you're getting at here.

Can I post porn then?

Glad you ask, but the answer is still;
No.

Your answer was useless, based on ignorance, not insightful nor correct...

Rather the contrary. Or maybe it wasn't too insightful, as I didn't see any need to elaborate on such a flawless reply.

... or else you wouldnt have asked me what the FDPs were.

I was asking "what about them" not "what are they".

When I said EA-style, I specifically meant their business model of churning out as much half-as5ed garbage as possible. A huge number of their games on PCs for example, require patches and updates to even start running properly. They suffer from bugs, problems, whathaveyou, out of the box. Its an increasing businessmodel and Ubisoft has been picking up on it during the past 4 years.

Pretty much anything suffers from bugs out of the box these days. It's not an EA exclusive. It's the result of games being more complex and being a composition of what is basically best explained as several layers of software communicating with each other.

EA's half-assed garbage has recently consisted of FIFA 09, Madden 09, NHL 09, Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Army of Two, Burnout Paradise, MySims Kingdoms and Spore... and oh, Need for Speed: Undercover, Littlest Pet Shop and Monopoly (oh, wait, that was 3/4 being good )

Hence the term "first day patches", when a game is released and is still riddled with so many bugs that an update (or patch) follows pretty much immediately after its release.

Since we're still on the topic; this often happens in cases where a game for financial reasons has to reach a specific deadline. A game often has to stop focusing on fixing certain elements at a specific date and from then on just focus on getting the most important issues brushed off. When the design is locked and things are sent off to mastering, they can start focusing on patching things up. As long as a game isn't released as a "broken mess" (and still is a broken/incomplete mess after launch patch) I honestly don't see the problem with this.

[Member_of_STARS]

Tank Controls is indeed a term referring to something that controls like a tank (or any other common belt logger), a vehicle that usually goes "Straight forward", "stops", "turns", "continues forward in new direction".

Its video time. Waiting for Youtube to accept the vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-GQRB5bm1c

This because it is not capable of moving smoothly and fast in ways such as... for instance how a car can do smooth S turns.

Youre wrong, but youll see it soon. An Abrams can make smooth turns.

If you're showing me that Leon's ability to move more fluidly around while running has improved since Resident Evil 2... You'd still be wrong. As he, if anything, turns more slowly than in Resident Evil 2. The only real "addition" to the old control set is the QTE (but those were "almost" there in Resident Evil 3) and the fact that you now don't have fixed high/mid/low aiming, but a fluid aim instead.

It has, because one of the key reasons why the "tank controls" were named in the first place, is now gone. And thats mirrored controls if the character is facing you. Why do you think the games control scheme is compared to a remote controlled tank in the first place?

You didn't write that. Don't steal my posts.

A) Accident. Theres a lot of text. You should have assumed that.
B) You stole my post just a few lines below.

Seeing as both pushed their respective consoles pretty far, utilizing pretty much everything that was available on said platforms and Outbreak was an online game... Yes?

Youre wrong, because youre talking only about graphic representation. I purposefully kept the "AI" in. Unless the events are scripted, the enemy AI has never progressed or even worse, has been purposefully mutilated. Interaction with the environment has been kept to a minimum, thus not being able to utilize physics, even those available on the platforms at the time. But Im talking about features which were either introduced way too late considering the time they were available, or scrapped completely.

Call of Duty 4 was called cinematic 'cause it slaps you with cutscenes in the face left and right. Including a whole introduction sequence of an execution seen "first person".

Hahaha! Comeon! Call of Duty had a small number of videos, and those were perfectly in line with the industries standards. COD4 players will tell you that the cinematic feel came from engaging firefights and NOT the cutscenes. Or have you forgotten the escape from the ship in the very first level? THAT is a cinematic gameplay experience.

And how can you say it's not a presentation tool when it creates a claustrophobic atmosphere? That's like a contradiction right there. Unless they weren't intentionally aiming for the claustrophobic touch.

Thats the point, they werent "intentionally" chosen to create claustrophobia. They were there because you couldnt have good graphics without prerendered backgrounds. Remember, CAPCOM isnt exactly known for originality so its not surprising that they werent the first game to go for that approach. Im not saying the technique doesnt work, but saying that it was developed for cinematic purposes is just wrong. Its a solution.

And this boys and girls, is why Resident Evil 4 has sold millions. 'cause it did everything wrong.

Commercial point of view? It could have done better, but did great anyway. Artsy point of view? Its a mix of unoriginal ideas for the common denominator.

But you missed the point. They should have come up with the RE3.5 gameplay the second they could, just as MGS2 immediately went for FPS engagement the second the tech allowed them to.

Quite a lot of games can be considered Survival Horror. I don't see what you're getting at here.

Heh, you just proved it. And now youre asking...
Survival horror isnt defined by tank controls nor fixed camera aspect.

Glad you ask, but the answer is still;
No.

Then I advise you to take your own advice on "constructive posting" which you gave not long ago.

Rather the contrary. Or maybe it wasn't too insightful, as I didn't see any need to elaborate on such a flawless reply.

Your "flawless" reply was full of holes as you show absolutely no experience in where you were getting yourself into. But I digress. Ill just enlighten you from what I know.

Pretty much anything suffers from bugs out of the box these days. It's not an EA exclusive. It's the result of games being more complex and being a composition of what is basically best explained as several layers of software communicating with each other.

"I find your lack of knowledge disturbing, Obi Wan."

Comparing recent titles like "Call of Duty 4" and "Frontlines: Fuel of War" we immediately see which dev group/ publisher has polished its product to a mirror shine and which one released a faulty product which needs updates to run. COD4 was almost bugless. Its multiplayers only bugs werent even bugs but gameplay balance issues which needed a simple fix and didnt break the gameplay anyway.

Meanwhile, FFOW suffered from anything to anything. Starting with random CTDs and finishing with server crashes.

Since we're still on the topic; this often happens in cases where a game for financial reasons has to reach a specific deadline. A game often has to stop focusing on fixing certain elements at a specific date and from then on just focus on getting the most important issues brushed off. When the design is locked and things are sent off to mastering, they can start focusing on patching things up. As long as a game isn't released as a "broken mess" (and still is a broken/incomplete mess after launch patch) I honestly don't see the problem with this.

Hence me talking about EA (EA-style) which enforced deadlines and after release froze the funds for support. I was talking about this exact same issue, developers being leeched by the publishers and being pushed into releasing faulty games. Games that ARE broken, literally.

[Carnivol]

Its video time. Waiting for Youtube to accept the vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-GQRB5bm1c

Youre wrong, but youll see it soon. An Abrams can make smooth turns.

It has, because one of the key reasons why the "tank controls" were named in the first place, is now gone. And thats mirrored controls if the character is facing you. Why do you think the games control scheme is compared to a remote controlled tank in the first place?

Congrats, you've proven nothing!
(Except from that a tank can make turns. Which is kinda irrelevant.)

To further add to the description of Tank Controls, it involves:
UP/DOWN = FORWARD/BACKWARD (Accelerate/Reverse)
LEFT/RIGHT = ROTATION (A car does not rotate while turning, but a tank can.)

In general, one could almost say it applies to pretty much anything that does not:
A: Use a Dual Analog or Keyboard/Mouse styled input for movement (FPS being the prime sample here)
B: Use the actual direction of your input as the direction you're moving in (See games such as Super Mario 64)

A) Accident. Theres a lot of text. You should have assumed that.
B) You stole my post just a few lines below.

That problem was fixed. Time to refresh your browser.

Youre wrong, because youre talking only about graphic representation. I purposefully kept the "AI" in. Unless the events are scripted, the enemy AI has never progressed or even worse, has been purposefully mutilated. Interaction with the environment has been kept to a minimum, thus not being able to utilize physics, even those available on the platforms at the time. But Im talking about features which were either introduced way too late considering the time they were available, or scrapped completely.

Their respective platforms have limited resources available. Also, "Zombie AI" isn't exactly something that can be very much improved upon. But the enemies do have improved behavior when compared to previous games.
What did you expect from zombies? For them to act like the enemy soldiers in F.E.A.R.?

Now, if you want to see a step backwards, you should play the campaign in Call of Duty 4. The AI (and general enemy behavior and also event scripting) is pretty horrible in that game.

Hahaha! Comeon! Call of Duty had a small number of videos, and those were perfectly in line with the industries standards. COD4 players will tell you that the cinematic feel came from engaging firefights and NOT the cutscenes. Or have you forgotten the escape from the ship in the very first level? THAT is a cinematic gameplay experience.

Hardly cinematic in a mention worthy way. All you hardly do is hold the run button pressed while the camera shakes a little. If that was enough to make me praise something for being cinematic, I'd run back and forth in Gears of War all day long.

Thats the point, they werent "intentionally" chosen to create claustrophobia. They were there because you couldnt have good graphics without prerendered backgrounds. Remember, CAPCOM isnt exactly known for originality so its not surprising that they werent the first game to go for that approach. Im not saying the technique doesnt work, but saying that it was developed for cinematic purposes is just wrong. Its a solution.

The setting of the mansion would still have been claustrophobic if it wasn't pre-rendered. And if they wanted more "space", they could've just worked with smaller character assets and renders for larger areas.
It's a purely artistic design choice.

Commercial point of view? It could have done better, but did great anyway. Artsy point of view? Its a mix of unoriginal ideas for the common denominator.

But you missed the point. They should have come up with the RE3.5 gameplay the second they could, just as MGS2 immediately went for FPS engagement the second the tech allowed them to.

Done better? The console versions of Resident Evil 4 have sold a total of over 6 million copies. That's more than most AAA titles can ever even dream of achieving.

Comparing recent titles like "Call of Duty 4" and "Frontlines: Fuel of War" we immediately see which dev group/ publisher has polished its product to a mirror shine and which one released a faulty product which needs updates to run. COD4 was almost bugless. Its multiplayers only bugs werent even bugs but gameplay balance issues which needed a simple fix and didnt break the gameplay anyway.

Meanwhile, FFOW suffered from anything to anything. Starting with random CTDs and finishing with server crashes.

Well, never gave Frontlines a run for the money. But I've certainly had a good hands on with Call of Duty 4's single player component, which is far from perfect. (And pretty much what I would call a total joke and an insult to modern gameplay design and AI programming).

Hence me talking about EA (EA-style) which enforced deadlines and after release froze the funds for support. I was talking about this exact same issue, developers being leeched by the publishers and being pushed into releasing faulty games. Games that ARE broken, literally.

I think Burnout Paradise, the EA Sports and the Maxis Communities would like to have a chat with you. Seems like you must've lost their phone number or something when you've needed them. And it's not just the publisher that is breathing down the neck of a developer that has made a commitment to finish something on time.

[Member_of_STARS]

Congrats, you've proven nothing!
(Except from that a tank can make turns. Which is kinda irrelevant.)

Irrelevant? You were claiming that a tank cant do smooth S turns, and you were proven wrong. Thats "kinda" relevant when it comes to someone spinning bullsh!t for arguments sake. The point was to demonstrate that theres fundamental differences

To further add to the description of Tank Controls, it involves:
UP/DOWN = FORWARD/BACKWARD (Accelerate/Reverse)
LEFT/RIGHT = ROTATION (A car does not rotate while turning, but a tank can.)

It doesnt matter the least. Take every cargame on the street. They follow the same layout. Amusingly, the game I just showed you, Abrams doesnt turn unless you actually apply throttle.

Im telling you that you cant just say that the game uses tank controls merely because you need to turn on your axis to change direction. This is how pretty much EVERY game there is, works, with an exception of a number of 3rd person games where the directional button automatical changes the characters direction.

Its not an accident that RE games are/were often compared to exactly those- RC tanks. You change direction on axis from a fixed perspective which occasionally became difficult and complicated when the character was facing you and you were forced to mirror those controls (left became right and vice versa).

This video was supposed to show that. But hell...

In general, one could almost say it applies to pretty much anything that does not:
A: Use a Dual Analog or Keyboard/Mouse styled input for movement (FPS being the prime sample here)

Except that an FPS actually follows the same principle. You have to change your direction on Z axis in order to advance in the new course.

That problem was fixed. Time to refresh your browser.

It was fixed after it was pointed out, but unlike you, I recognised it as a mistake and didnt go all sensitive about it. Do you honestly believe I would have "stole" your post directed to someone else?

Jesus H. Christ...

Their respective platforms have limited resources available. Also, "Zombie AI" isn't exactly something that can be very much improved upon. But the enemies do have improved behavior when compared to previous games.
What did you expect from zombies? For them to act like the enemy soldiers in F.E.A.R.?

Who was talking about zombies? BlueFor AI for one, engineered BOWs, Tyrants, theres plenty to go around. The most apalling example would be the Hunters from Outbreak. It takes them seconds to realize they are constantly walking and bumping into you.

Now, if you want to see a step backwards, you should play the campaign in Call of Duty 4. The AI (and general enemy behavior and also event scripting) is pretty horrible in that game.

COD has never shined for its AI. Its a heavily scripted game and COD4 was just embarassingly obvious for those AI scripts. But its a double edged sword, its cinematic experience came directly from those scripted events.

Hardly cinematic in a mention worthy way. All you hardly do is hold the run button pressed while the camera shakes a little. If that was enough to make me praise something for being cinematic, I'd run back and forth in Gears of War all day long.

Erm, bullsh!t? Now youre just clutching at straws.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Call+of+Duty+4+cinematic&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

I didnt want to start quoting peoples opinions so I just gave you this Google search page. Almost every part of the game was modeled after a movie scene, it was deliberately scripted to keep the pace flowing. Everything from fast paced insertions, chases to Chernobyl could be traced back to a movie. Rightfully so. Whether it was great, or not (I dislike obvious scripting) is not of importance. The style is under question and either youre blind and oblivious to it, or youre just clutching for arguments ;)

The setting of the mansion would still have been claustrophobic if it wasn't pre-rendered. And if they wanted more "space", they could've just worked with smaller character assets and renders for larger areas.
It's a purely artistic design choice.

RE2 and RE3 aswell? The second you had more room in the game, it was terribad. Look at Survivor, it was an obvious proof that the prerendered graphics were an obviously better choice than playing Doom on PSX. So no, you couldnt render "larger areas".

Done better? The console versions of Resident Evil 4 have sold a total of over 6 million copies. That's more than most AAA titles can ever even dream of achieving.

So youre claiming that RE4 was a brilliant game?

Well, never gave Frontlines a run for the money. But I've certainly had a good hands on with Call of Duty 4's single player component, which is far from perfect. (And pretty much what I would call a total joke and an insult to modern gameplay design and AI programming).

Apart from scripting, which was done so with cinematic experience in mind, and poorly hidden scripted events, which were a product of lazyness, please, enlighten me, what was wrong with the game?

Since you never gave Frontlines a run for the money, how can you even fathom the comparison I was trying to make? Wouldnt it be easier just to ask me to spoonfeed you in simplified terms because you have no idea what Im trying to say? The game was flawless in technical terms, some of its concept flaws are a result of short sight perhaps. But technically and aesthetically, the game is flawless. The multiplayer segment is perhaps the most reliable and technically advanced, aswell as balanced, Ive ever come across. And thats a tribute to it because it has to fill shoes left behind by Counter Strike.

I think Burnout Paradise, the EA Sports and the Maxis Communities would like to have a chat with you. Seems like you must've lost their phone number or something when you've needed them. And it's not just the publisher that is breathing down the neck of a developer that has made a commitment to finish something on time.

Hahahahahaha! Give me an effin break!

Burnout Paradise is great, Burnout being one of the few franchises I have problems with, although I completely disagree with the direction they took with Burnout 3.

But lets go with EA Sports. How can you justify the fact that NBA98 is a better game than NBA2008? Its the exact same garbage, and occasionally, on a yearly basis, with reduced features! EA Sports is one of EAs largest income sources and yet theres little to nothing GOOD or new in them. If you take the game from the 90s and pit them against modern games, they are identical, except for graphics. Probably the biggest new feature is association mode. Thats it. If you bump into any EA bashing thread, EA Sports is the first thing people have a go at.

Maxxis, exactly the same thing. People are expected to pay full price for content which barely make up an expansion pack.

And finally! Customer support, which is LEGENDARY.

Just one of the examples, enjoy-

http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/6800.page

"Customer support" is an oxymoron when it comes to EA.

On a brighter note, people have become hopeful that with new lead man at the helm, EA will go back to what it once used to be, a company to help developers to realise their dreams.

[Alexia_Ashford]

First day patches appear to be something to help reduce PMS.

Are they? I'm a woman and I've never heard of "First day patches" other than in the context Vass meant (game patches) in my life. I don't think he has either, or many other people on the site. I don't see how it was intended as an insult. O.O

No matter what anyone says though, I enjoyed how RE4 played out, in terms of gameplay at least and especially on the Wii. If I ignore the terrible script and story, I can semi-enjoy shooting Ganados while aiming my WiiMote, and I must say it can be quite a fun game.

[RetroRain]

can't wait til PS4, when it takes an average of 6 years to make a single game because the graphics arejust so unbeleivably detailed yet the gameplay is far inferior to something on the PS1.

I hear ya. I feel the same way. The whole marketing of the game industry is that every next-gen system has to be better than the last, in terms of power and graphics. Funny how all of the old games, NES, Super NES, PlayStation, N64 all managed to deliver fun games, but they can make some games that have super-graphics, and just plain suck. The whole thing is stupid. I wish they'd start making PS1 games again. Honestly, who here wouldn't mind having an original classic PS1 Resident Evil game?

And what I meant by Capcom being slow, I know that games take longer and require more work, it's obvious since these new systems are more powerful, but what I meant is I seem to see a lot of games from other companies in the stores, but not enough from Capcom. Nintendo, EA, Microsoft, Square, Konami, they seem to have a decent amount of games, but the only games Capcom has is Devil May Cry 4, Lost Planet, Dead Rising, those Megaman DS games, not much new from Capcom. And these games have been out for a while now.

[Dot50Cal]

[Mr_Zombie]

but the only games Capcom has is Devil May Cry 4, Lost Planet, Dead Rising, those Megaman DS games, not much new from Capcom. And these games have been out for a while now.

There are more, like Zack & Wiki, Umbrella Chronicles, Wii ports (RE4, REmake, Zero, Okami), Bionic Commando Rearmed, SF 2 HD Remix and a few games I forgot. Also, there's few games in production that will be released within few months.

And Dot, could you please resize that image a little bit because it's a "little" too big.

[Zombie Fred]

Oh noes, the Vass train has gone down!