Resident Evil PS1

[Estil | 1,261]

14 minutes ago, 3rdStrongestMole said:

Holy shit I never put any time into those Legends games, but I like decisions being meaningful in video games. There are so many great games that miss out on opportunities to punish players for poor decision making.

Oh that's a shame; I did transcripts and guides for the entire trilogy waaaay back in 2004 if you want to go check 'em out at GameFAQs.  If only Tron Bonne and Legends 2 hadn't gotten so expensive though...THANK GOD I still have my copies from my college days! 

[Tanooki | 4,929]

On 9/21/2021 at 12:09 AM, 3rdStrongestMole said:

I've never played a Resident Evil game before,  and haven't played the PS1 since I was like, 9... but the controls seem abysmal. Am I just gonna have to live with this? Or am I missing something.  The first zombie chews out my throat every time

Nah it's the fault of the crappy game entirely, well not the game is crappy, just the dumbassed design choice of stiff slow tank controls with weird camera angles that leave you suffering giving limited ammo, health, and worse, ribbons to save.

Thankfully they dumped the problematic setup but took years to do so in the 2000s.

[cj_robot | 540]

9 hours ago, Tanooki said:

 ...giving limited ammo, health, and worse, ribbons to save.

That's just what a survival horror game is. You may not like it, which is totally fine, but that doesn't make it bad game design.

[scaryice | 579]

18 hours ago, 3rdStrongestMole said:

I just wish the damned analog stick would work on it, but I guess I need the dual shock version of the game for that to work? Showing my lack of playstation knowledge here. 

It's way easier to play with tank controls using the d-pad, trust me.

[Tanooki | 4,929]

2 hours ago, cj_robot said:

That's just what a survival horror game is. You may not like it, which is totally fine, but that doesn't make it bad game design.

No it's bad design with the low ammo and health, and yeah I'm not a big fan.  On their own I don't have that much of a beef with it either to be clear.  My issue is combining limited saves (not convenient for most people to be honest) and largely alone the utterly shitty control that gets you slaughtered.  I could deal with the low ammo and health far better if it didn't have you moving around like a sherman tank in a confined space...so DUMB.

Resident Evil 4 got the point, and beyond that and far far better and more psychologically well done the original Dead Space nailed what survival horror is about.

[cj_robot | 540]

9 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

No it's bad design with the low ammo and health, and yeah I'm not a big fan.  On their own I don't have that much of a beef with it either to be clear.  My issue is combining limited saves (not convenient for most people to be honest) and largely alone the utterly shitty control that gets you slaughtered.  I could deal with the low ammo and health far better if it didn't have you moving around like a sherman tank in a confined space...so DUMB.

Resident Evil 4 got the point, and beyond that and far far better and more psychologically well done the original Dead Space nailed what survival horror is about.

Well, you would expect RE4 and Dead Space to be better, considering they were released a decade later. Of course they would improve upon RE1's formula. I don't think anyone would argue that RE1 perfected the genre. By the way, keep in mind that those later games still have tank controls, limited ammo and health, limited save opportunities, etc. So they clearly weren't bad design choices.

We all agree that Super Mario 64 had an awful camera, but was that a bad design choice? Or was it actually that they were really on to something and they just needed more time and experience to perfect it?

By the way, I'm not trying to convince you that RE1 is a masterpiece or even than it's still worth playing. It just irks me when yesterday's game designers get criticized for doing original stuff and not nailing it on the first try.

[scaryice | 579]

6 minutes ago, cj_robot said:

We all agree that Super Mario 64 had an awful camera, but was that a bad design choice? Or was it actually that they were really on to something and they just needed more time and experience to perfect it?

SM64's camera is great compared to other 1996 games.

[fox | 1,665]

I never had an issue with ammo or health.  I was able to clear the entire mansion of zombies with just the pistol and knife.  Avoiding combat is a valid option too.  Long as you save some shotgun shells for the tougher enemies/bosses, you will be fine.

There are like 30-40 ink ribbons, do you need more saves than that in like a 6 hour game?  So no you can’t just savescumm your way through, saving before and after every fight to minimize health and ammo lose.  Lot of games before this didn’t even have a save option, you die lose everything and start the whole level or game again.

I mean if you don’t like the limited resources, then go play a walking simulator.  

Edited September 22, 2021 by fox

[cj_robot | 540]

2 hours ago, scaryice said:

SM64's camera is great compared to other 1996 games.

Well, awful is probably an exaggeration, but it definitely caused it's share of frustrating moments. People realized this even back when the game was new.

But really, what other 1996 games are you comparing SM64 to, anyway? What other games of the time had the camera following behind your character in a free-roaming 3D environment? The only other I can think of is Tomb Raider, and both games' cameras were far from perfect, in my opinion.

[TDIRunner | 2,721]

2 hours ago, scaryice said:

SM64's camera is great compared to other 1996 games.

 

14 minutes ago, cj_robot said:

But really, what other 1996 games are you comparing SM64 to, anyway? What other games of the time had the camera following behind your character in a free-roaming 3D environment? The only other I can think of is Tomb Raider, and both games' cameras were far from perfect, in my opinion.

Saying SM64's camera is "awful" might be an exaggeration, but saying "it's great compared to other 1996 games" is also an exaggeration considering Tomb Raider's camera is arguable superior.  

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,011]

3 hours ago, scaryice said:

SM64's camera is great compared to other 1996 games.

Unfortunately it's the exception not the rule. And actually going back through and playing SM64 on the Switch, I ended up dying more bc of the camera than any enemies. 

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,011]

1 hour ago, TDIRunner said:

 

Saying SM64's camera is "awful" might be an exaggeration, but saying "it's great compared to other 1996 games" is also an exaggeration considering Tomb Raider's camera is arguable superior.  

I know I'm in the minority but Tomb Raider is a dreadfully under rated tank simulator. I played it last summer in 2 or 3 sessions and I loved it. It deserves the criticism but what a marvel of a Sega Saturn game. 

[TDIRunner | 2,721]

31 minutes ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

I know I'm in the minority but Tomb Raider is a dreadfully under rated tank simulator. I played it last summer in 2 or 3 sessions and I loved it. It deserves the criticism but what a marvel of a Sega Saturn game. 

The original Tomb Raider is one of my favorite games of all time.  I've played it so many times (including another play through this year) that everything in the game feels super natural to me. It would be great to give it a modern 3rd person camera, but considering analogue sticks weren't available when it came out, such a thing would have been impossible, even if the idea existed at the time.  The camera as it is still functions fine and allows you to see whatever you need to see.  The tank controls don't negatively impact the game in any way.  In fact, anyone who has played both the original and modern Tomb Raider games can tell you that the tank controls are WAY more precise.  

[Tanooki | 4,929]

8 hours ago, scaryice said:

SM64's camera is great compared to other 1996 games.

Yeah I don't know what he's on about as that camera still stands up today as one of the better ones put into a 3D exploration platformer like that.  It handles well, responsive, and unlike a lot, doesn't get you killed by it moving and throwing you off stuff.

I also said to be clear, the bad design is the god awful control, the rest is an annoyance made bad because of the wretched control choice they made it took until #4 to realized needed to be tossed out.

[DoctorEncore | 3,690]

4 hours ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

Unfortunately it's the exception not the rule. And actually going back through and playing SM64 on the Switch, I ended up dying more bc of the camera than any enemies. 

I'm playing SM64 right now on Switch for my first playthrough ever and the camera is pretty painful. Combine that with the slippery controls and it's a minor miracle that 3D platformers survived at all.

[CMR | 518]

12 hours ago, Tanooki said:

No it's bad design with the low ammo and health, and yeah I'm not a big fan.  On their own I don't have that much of a beef with it either to be clear.  My issue is combining limited saves (not convenient for most people to be honest) and largely alone the utterly shitty control that gets you slaughtered.  I could deal with the low ammo and health far better if it didn't have you moving around like a sherman tank in a confined space...so DUMB.

Resident Evil 4 got the point, and beyond that and far far better and more psychologically well done the original Dead Space nailed what survival horror is about.

I know everybody has their own opinions, but those are completely different games.

[cj_robot | 540]

On 9/22/2021 at 9:02 PM, Tanooki said:

I also said to be clear, the bad design is the god awful control, the rest is an annoyance made bad because of the wretched control choice they made it took until #4 to realized needed to be tossed out.

But RE4 still has tank controls. The only difference is they put the camera behind the player.

[Tanooki | 4,929]

If you say so, seems to handle more like various other 3rd person shooters.  I can navigate fine in that game, can barely deal with the earlier games as it just gets you killed.

And no, both titles are survival horror, just one goes about it differently is all not relying on dated poor control and bad camera angles to so called inspire fear.   Dead Space is one slowly growing make you nervous or worse mind screw.

[Gloves | 11,759]

2 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

If you say so, seems to handle more like various other 3rd person shooters.  I can navigate fine in that game, can barely deal with the earlier games as it just gets you killed.

And no, both titles are survival horror, just one goes about it differently is all not relying on dated poor control and bad camera angles to so called inspire fear.   Dead Space is one slowly growing make you nervous or worse mind screw.

Resident Evil nailed it for survival horror with what was possible at the time, while leading the way for others like Silent Hill which had similar (though improved - 3 years later) controls.

They couldn't have done Resident Evil 4 style controls on PS1 while retaining the same atmosphere due to technical limitations. 

There's really nothing wrong with tank controls, I quite like them. It's that Resident Evil was out there blazing trails. RE2 fuckin NAILED it. 

[Gentlegamer | 171]

RE Director's Cut is on my Halloween game list this year, first time playing.

[Tanooki | 4,929]

6 hours ago, Gloves said:

Resident Evil nailed it for survival horror with what was possible at the time, while leading the way for others like Silent Hill which had similar (though improved - 3 years later) controls.

They couldn't have done Resident Evil 4 style controls on PS1 while retaining the same atmosphere due to technical limitations. 

There's really nothing wrong with tank controls, I quite like them. It's that Resident Evil was out there blazing trails. RE2 fuckin NAILED it. 

At the year no, not all the PS1 REs could, some maybe, but it took Ape Escape in 99 to add dual shock which only Nemesis could have benefited from.  Games after could have though given the controllers at the time.  I appreciate those modern RE remasters on Steam with the same messed up atmosphere with the lame control problem fixed.

Despite that, do agree largely, RE2 nailed it, as far as the story, environment, and the rest goes.  It's why I tolerate it enough still to keep that game on N64 which was such a shockingly good release.

[erac | 78]

N64 RE2 has proper controls too, I played through it with them. Not limited to tank like the PS1 ver.

[Tanooki | 4,929]

28 minutes ago, erac said:

N64 RE2 has proper controls too, I played through it with them. Not limited to tank like the PS1 ver.

Come to think of it you’re right.  I have never played RE2 on a PS1, just the N64 version.  That uses the stick for normal aiming, moving, goes where you want, where you point turns and all like a 3D adventure platformer.  Aiming gets more RE rigid if I remember it, hold like R or Z whatever it was to stop, aim, then another to fire.