Shagger

I do think that these early RE games needed a serious revamp to appeal to modern audiences. Back then the solution to make the games tense and desperate through the controls were born, at least in part, out of the limitations of the technology of the time. In other words, I do not fully agree with you @Knight Plug on Capcom's motivation for remastering these games. What additions and omissions that have happened to these remasters I feel are born out of a genuine motive to modernise them whilst still trying to maintain the atmosphere. Having said that, It's been 9 years (Correct me if I'm wrong) since RE1 was remastered. Whilst that wasn't exactly yesterday, a modern revamp of the original Resident Evil does seem kind of unnecessary. I would much rather see Code Veronica X get the treatment that have it happen to RE1 again because I feel that game was made by a capcom that wanted to modernise Resident Evil but didn't have a clear focus on how to do it. I go into to this in more detail on this thread, but here's the relevant part of that post again: I genuinely feel that with a Code Veronica X remaster Capcom could pull a Final Fantasy XII: The Zodiac Age and bring us the game it was always meant to be. Again correct me if I'm wrong, but that game IS Leon's origin in the RE universe, so with how popular RE4 is I suspect there would be a lot of interest in that. But hey, what to I know.

It's over, Sony has walked back this policy. Full story from Gamesradar. Like I said in my earlier post, I don't believe there was any ill intent intent behind this, Sony just completely failed to think this through. Well now, they had to learn the hard way. Glad to see they've listened.

So sorry for your loss.

A few that come to mind worth checking out; Carmageddon: An instrumental version of Fear Factory's Demanufacture album. Enough said. Primal. A soundtrack comprised of all original songs from the band 16Volt. There is a heat pounding violence to this sound along side a haunting, daunting atmosphere The game itself is an underrated PS2 classic as well that really needs to be played by more people. Playlist: The Burnout Games. I know, this is a little bit of cheating as these are playlists made up of licensed songs, but they are very compilations worth checking out. I'll even extend that to Burnout Paradise, even the game itself is a piece of shit. Even though it is all licenced music, some of the games did something clever with it by muffling the music while you were not boosting and that served as a genuine incentive to go hell for leather just to keep hearing the music like it was meant to be heard. Very smart audio design. I'll just post the intro to Burnout 3: Takedown as a taste of what to expect: Here is a Youtube Channel dedicated to the music in the games to check out https://www.youtube.com/@CrashFMBurnout The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim It may be a familiar score, in fact the main theme is the same one from previous Elder Scrolls games, but man it upgraded big time for Skyrim. If you actually stop and listen to it, it's a very dramatic, full sound that is easy on the ear and very pretty at times too. Goldeneye (N64) I know that this soundtrack is mostly comprised of remixes of the James Bond theme, but the are original mixes and sounded fantastic, and on N64 no less. They still sound fantastic a quarter of a century later. I would go so far to say that this video game has the best version of the James Bond theme I have heard in my entire life, full stop. That alone more than deserves a shout out. Final Fantasy XIII I don't care that this game sucks, the music is fantastic, one of the best soundtracks in any FF game. I have got to be honest, I do think FFX's soundtrack is better, but I decided to focus on FFXIII as I feel this great soundtrack gets overlooked because the game itself was a bit shit. It has that serene, yet chaotic feel to it that's very unique and pleasant to hear. Screamer A little known DOS racing game from 1995 that I played a lot as a kid. I love it back then, but having a better understand of what was out at the time, specially on consoles, I can see the game as being pretty mediocre. However, if your PC was able to run the soundtrack direct from the CD-ROM, you were treated to the original recorded versions of the game's digitized rock music soundtrack that sounded amazing.

I feel like the reason Sony has decided to do this is to stop players who were previously banned from the game for whatever reason on one platform from re-joining the game on the other. Given the game is cross platform, I can actually understand this at least to some extent. So whilst I think there was no ill intent, Sony have clearly not thought this through. The fact this might effectively bar people from playing the game because PSN is not available in all countries whare Steam is available a huge oversight. If this was always the plan, they should have shown people the big, flashing sign with the siren saying "You WILL eventually need to link a PSN account to your Steam account to keep playing" before people bought the game. That's the part that really bothers me.

This is without doubt the best song title I have ever heard.

Quality over quantity. I understand the idea of feeling ripped off by a game because it lacks content, especially for a single player, but judging the quality of a game by it's length is a ludicrous trend. I would rather have a few hours of engaging, interesting content that has an impact over 60 hours of grind and pointless padding.

You should. And I can't help but feel you have both missed the point. The best villains not only have a lot to admire about them, I'd got so far to say they kind of have to actually work. Who wouldn't want to be as tenacious as the Terminator, as intelligent as Hannibal Lector or have the power of Darth Vader. It's the fact they use (or perhaps miss use) thier talents to do evil things when they could have done a lot of good with those said talents is what makes them villains. Without that choice, a villain is little more than a force of nature. Nobody get's mad at the iceberg that sank the Titanic, so the movie needed a bad guy, and they got one. A man who is clearly industrious and successful, but also controlling, selfish and ruthless. One obviously doesn't have to agree with or condone what a villain does and says, but it is important to understand thier motivations. Without that, a story has no drive, no conflict and just isn't interesting. So it's OK to find a villain compelling and even admirable to some extend. All that means is that they are a well written character, not that you are flawed and amoral as a person. Anyway, favourite video game villains. Sylens from Horizon Zero Dawn/Forbidden west in certainly up thier. A wonderfully written and deeply complex character performed with charisma and dignity by the late Lance Reddick. The man is so begrudgingly useful yet about as selfish as a person can get. It goes back to those admirable qualities I spoke of earlier. The man is so intelligent, creative and brutally honest to a fault, but not at all trustworthy and in the end he only serves his own purpose and if that means being on your side one minute then against you the next, then so be it. His very existence is an absolute frustration, I love to hate him.

I've played a handful of thier games over the years, usually the more obscure ones as it turns out. It's just another developer/publisher to me in the end. And to be honest, I'm not sure that they have really earned more good will and success because they have been known for dodgy DLC practices, poor ports (Especially on PC) and a general decline in the quality of thier games in recent years. I do find the comment you made about same-sex shipping in fan fictions written about thier games, well, let's say "interesting". First, Koei Tecmo has no control over that and why would that a be problem anyway? Koei Tecmo has actually been behind a number of games themed around same-sex romace such as Nights of Azure and Blue Reflection (The Atelier series may have dealt with similar themes before as well, but I'm not 100% sure), so I don't see Koei Tecmo taking issue with that anyway. I just thought that was a really weird detail to bring up and focus on.

I've always been sceptical of game that try and take a single mechanic and expand it into being the whole game. In this case, it's the crafting/gathering mechanics that are in lots of MMO's. However, I do find myself more optimistic with this one. It may not be the most complicated game in the world, but I like it's style and that roots in-game success in cooperation, unlike other survival MMO's that are beacon calling all ass-holes. This is one worth keeping an eye on.

A quick heads up. It is strongly advised that if you mod Fallout 4 on PC to NOT install the "Next Gen" update. The will break modded saves and some mods might not work after the update. If you have bought the game through a DRM free platform like GOG, not updating the game shouldn't be a problem, but on Steam updates are forced with no way to turn them off. Thankfully, there is a way explained in this video:

It comes down to a choice. If one had to do one or the other knowing it was going to go wrong, how would you rather die? Outside of a sudden accident that will kill you quick, one of these two fates await you. A Pulmonary Edema or Decompression Sickness. Neither of them are at all pleasant, but I'd prefer the Pulmonary Edema. I've had Pneumonia, so at least I would be somewhat prepared for what it's like. So Mt Everest, please. OK, with Mt Everest your body would never be removed, but given what happens to the body is sever cases of Decompression Sickness, I'd rather mv loved ones not have a body to bury that have what's left after a deep sea mishap.

Weird, it was just a few days ago I was talking about N. Night Shyamalan about M. Night Shamalan. More specifically, how he is one of if the worst director ever. Still, I'm not going to miss a chance to dump on that cinematic cancer, so let's watch the trailer and bring out the Shyamalan checklist: Actors staring blankly into the camera? Check Hokey acting? Check The adult acting like a child? Check The child acting like an adult? Check An open ended, innocuous plot set up that tricks idiots into thinking it's inevitable, hard-to-guess twist is smart when it's actually just plain cheap? Check (Well, almost certainly. The father will NOT be "The Butcher", I'm calling it now.) Pointless tracking shots? Check The crazy, superstitious weirdo that for some reason is the one that's actually right? Probably, yes Plastering Shyamalan's name all over like that's a selling point and he was not the man behind Devil, After Earth, The Happening and that god awful The Last Airbender live action movie? Check Yep, this is a Shyamalan movie. It will be shit.

Couldn't agree more. What a director is supposed to is immerse the audience in the story being told in a movie or TV show. Work in service to that story, but Shyamalan has no interest in that. In the process of making a movie or TV show, nothing is accidental. Directors employ actors wearing specific costumes to play specific characters with specific actions, reactions and traits with specific dialogue spoken with a specific delivery in a specific setting with specific lighting while filming with specific shots at a specific range with a specific perspective and a specific focus and with specific editing and filters with specific sound, music and ambiance. Everything, and I do mean everything, is deliberate. They do this direct (Yes, they call them directors for a reason) the attention of the audience to whare it needs to be to create the right emotional investment from said audience. It sounds ridiculous, but when a director does thier job well, you forget that there is a director. You forget are you are even watching a movie or TV show at all. This might not inflate many people ego's, but when you enjoy a movie, it has tricked you, but that's OK. It's a good thing. I've always despised M. Night Shamalan's movies because he does the opposite. With those same tools of casting, costuming, editing, shot options, lighting, set designs, actor direction and script writing he is constantly trying to remind the audience that they are not only watching a movie, but more importantly, watching his movie. That's what's important to him. It doesn't matter if a scene was awkward, slow, didn't convince anyone of the emotional state of a character, was unrealistic or made any kind of logical sense. If he believes it will remind the audience who directed the movie, that will be fine. Why else would he so often write in small roles for himself in his films? Because the fucker can't help himself, that's why! He has to be the centre of attention. He like a pompous, arrogant artist who won't let anyone admire his work unless they ask why he used that one brush stroke somewhere of the canvas. If you need to explain what kind of a reaction a scene is meant to provoke, that mean the scene didn't work. If you asked him him why he had a guy with one muscular arm stare blankly right into the cameras for several minutes and talk about why he only works out that one arm, he's probably spend all night giving a synopsis about it (I'm not kidding, that actually happens in Lady in the Water).

And I'm done eating for the next couple of days.

Before I get started: This review will be spoiler free, but I will open the discussion below to spoilers, you have been warned. @The Blackangel I can't say for sure, but I think is is possible that some of the images in this show, trailer and contained in this review might be triggering for you. I'd have somebody take a look at the media in this post before you read just to be sure. A television series published by Amazon based of the Fallout series on video games released April 11nth viewable on Amazon Prime Video. Me and my better half binged the series yesterday and I decided to share my thoughts. See the trailer below. I've been a fan of the games since Fallout 3 and whilst games vary in strength from a storytelling perspective, it was always going to be a challenge to tell a story in this universe from the more uninvolved perspective one has merely watching said story as apposed to role playing it. A very different challenge as, say, the Last of US TV series on HBO because even though one controlled Joel in the The Last of Us video game, the story was was still told from an observers perspective. Adapting a video game whare the player has full control over what a character says, whare they go and what they do right down to the base morals was never going to be easy. Maybe impossible to do in a way that pleases everyone. However, I've got to give Amazon, MGM Studios and Kitler films thier props because I think they absolutely nailed it! First, the story. Shades of Fallout 3 with the naïve, but courageous Lucy Maclain (Ella Purnell) as she leaves the sanctuary of a nuclear survivor's shelter called Vault 33 to search for her father, the Vault's overseer, kidnapped by a mysterious raider named Moldaver (Sarita Cloudhury). Meanwhile, a defected Enclave Scientist is pursued by a pre-war actor named Cooper Howard turned bounty hunter now known as "The Ghoul" (Walton Goggins) and an opportunistic Brotherhood of Steel Squire named Maximus (Aaron Moten). This is a complex, yet deeply compelling story with a great drive, great energy, great pacing with lots of unexpected twists and turns. As the viewer, you are always kept guessing as the full story behind not just the motivations of our characters, but the origins of the great war itself unravel. The show pulled no punches with the violence and with a surprising amount of superb comedy thrown in for free along with all the drama. I absolutely loved it. The aesthetics are absolutely nailed. This looks exactly as fans of the show would hope with authentic looking costumes and sets. The pre-war and Vault settings in particular I liked, especially the pre-war cars, many of which actually appeared to be fully functional, a nice touch. What creative liberties were taken, they were smart about. Nothing felt out of place. The effects, both practical and CGI were also really good. However, one thing I wasn't so sure about was Walton Goggins make up as "The Ghoul". Compared to the other ghouls in the series and, indeed, the games, he skin looked a little to "complete" in the sense that it didn't really look like it was hanging off like it should with a very monotone look to the colour. He looked less like a ghoul and more like a burn victim with a spray-on tan. Here's a side-by-side of Walton Goggins as "The Ghoul" and a Ghoul from Fallout 3 and I just think that the Ghoul from Fallout 3 looks better with a varied colour pallet and more varied textures going on. The characters themselves are well fleshed out and very well performed by all the cast, no complaints here. Whether you agree with thier motivations and goals or not, you are always given a chance to relate to them and understand them. The show never gets bogged down with exposition, we learn about these characters through the story in a vey easy to digest yet exiting way. This doesn't mean I like all the characters though, more specifically Maximus. The guy was traitorous, selfish, stupid and incompetent. That would have bene fine if it weren't for two serious issues: I didn't feel like this character really learned or grew much at all through the story. He was pretty much the same self-centred glory hound at the end that was at the start. The show tried a little too hard to make one empathise with him, even when he was at his worst, and that was annoying. Still, Maximus aside, these characters really grew on me. I loved Lucy for her sincere compassion as well as her courage and admire the way she refused to let this harsh, merciless world re-shape her principles. A clever contrast to The Ghoul/Cooper who left me wanting more of the heart that has clearly been buried and hardened by decades of life in this world and the tragedies' in his life. And even without that, he would still be ruthlessly fucking cool. And I must say, I want The Ghoul's Gun modded into Fallout 4 immediately. The only other thing I didn't like was Amazon and thier stupid video player. Not only did it glitch out frequently blackening the screen in whole or in part several times while watched, we still had to put up with ads even though we pay for Amazon Prime. Sorry, but that's not good enough. I'd actually feel inclined to download this show if I wanted to rewatch it to avoid this nonsense. But that's nothing against the show itself. It was entertaining, compelling, respected the source material and was well produced. I am even temped to say this was better than HBO's The Last of Us as an adaptation, and that is saying something. A much watch for both fans and newcomers alike. 9/10

There's nothing righteous about keeping up a religious schedule. It's, well, just that, keeping up schedule. It's a routine. Just because somebody surrenders a hour or so of one day a week to listen to some deluded zealot read from a story book doesn't make them better than other people. It means they can set an alarm and get up before 9am on a Sunday and that's about it. I've said if before in this topic and I'll say it again, religion is for people who want to relinquish responsibility for how they behave, what they say and even how they think and feel to something else. It's for the weak minded who can't be bothered to establish a moral compass of thier own. I'm not saying the practicing religion makes one evil. On the contrary, most religious scripture promotes a positive way to live and treat other people with love and respect, all I'm saying is that it doesn't automatically make people good either. Having said that, religion is not innocuous. It's archaic and open to twisted interpretations that people use to justify heinous acts, attitudes and behaviour that anyone with a moral compass that they themselves developed through reason, logic, experience even thier own mistakes would find completely deplorable. But like I said, religion is for people who want to relinquish responsibility for how they behave, what they say and even how they think and feel to something else, even if that includes rape and murder.

Yeah, it's looking more and more like the controller. Best of luck with the inspection and be sure to let me know.

It should still be possible to download PS3 firmware onto a USB drive using a PC then install it onto the console.

I think this is some sort of issue with the game. I've come across stories of similar control issues on both PS3 and PS4. If you haven't done so, try reinstalling the game and, if possible (I don't know if the PS3 is still supported like this) make sure the game and system software is up[ to date.

Could you please tell me what platform you playing this on and what controller this is? I just want to do a little troubleshooting as I've had a lot of experience with 3rd party controllers and know that there can be solutions to these issues that don't involve having to buy a new controller. On the contrary, I find that that doesn't really work on most occasions.

I tend to place blame for bad performances on directors and those in charge of casting before the actors themselves. Obviously whitewashing, casting cisgender actors in trans roles and casting actors for roles whare the characters have certain disabilities when the actors don't (Looking at you Music (2021) ) can cause huge problems, but even that isn't the fault of the actor. Ultimately, it all comes back to the director. It's thier responsibility to cast the right actors for the right roles. If the director isn't up to snuff, replacing the actor will do little to help. Take M. Night Shyamalan, he can take a great actor like Mark Wahlberg and make him look like a complete plank.

I bought FFX multiple times because, for reason, the disk for that particular PS2 game kept going wrong. Other PS2 disks got damaged from time to time and needed replacing, but nothing like as often as FFX did. I also bought the remaster for both PC and console, so count those and I must have bought the game on 5 or 6 separate occasions. Then there some of the usual suspects that launched again and again on new hardware with new updates like Skyrim, but I think my buy count for that sits at 4, which isn't bad.

+1 on that. I thought Code Veronica X was really underrated. True, there wasn't much of a leap in terms of gameplay improvements from the PS1 that probably should have been there. Capcom did try to evolve Resident Evil but then just decided to turn those projects into thier own games not once, but twice (Onimusha: Warlords and Devil May Cry, both of which came just one year after Cove Veronica X). It seems to me Capcom wanted to move Resident Evil forward but didn't really know how they wanted to do it. So I suppose it's little surprise that they ended up making what was basically RE2 again with updated graphics, but that ruined this game's reputation. The world was seeing what this new generation of console (The PS2 especially) as well as what Capcom themselves were capable of at the time, so I can understand why some people felt let down by Code Veronica X. However, give this game the remake treatment that the other RE games have been given and I'm all for it. According to my research, Sony Computer Entertainment still owns the IP. They're obviously just sitting on it, which is disappointing. Again according to my research, the game actually sold quite well, close to 1M copies, which isn't bad for a PS1 JRPG released near the same time of FFVII, but the sequel sold like veal chops at a vegan market and the IP hasn't been touched since. The game has pretty much fallen out of memory and I don't think a remake would sell enough to justify the cost of making it. There just isn't enough interest. Sorry, but the question of today's version of Konami messing up the MGS3 remake does not start with a " Will they", it starts with a "How badly will they".

Personally, I'm a long way from convinced this would work. A player approaches an open world with ambition and a keenness to explore, not with the kind of apprehension and dread that one would associate with horror. Horror is told very much through the environment and that environment is meant to make you feel trapped and desperate. An open world is all about empowerment and opportunity. It's meant to make the player feel important and powerful, not what one want's to feel in horror game. To me, this more likely to work if Capcom focused less on the horror in this open world Resident Evil game and for the game to be like the more action orientated games in the series, like 4. The obvious problem with that is that at least a significant portion of the fanbase would be put off by that after seen some great horror games and remasters from the series in recent years. A Resident Evil open world has another more indigenous problem. Unlike other companies like Ubisoft or Bethesda, Capcom isn't exactly known for it's open worlds. When they have given it a go, it's been to mixed success. Sorry, but I do see Capcom making a mess of it, especially if they do try to squeeze the square block that is survival-horror into the round hole of an open world.