What are you currently playing?

[Kenny]

I have to like you for that effort, Mittz.

Before doing some serious work today, I'm thinking of either more Tomb Raider II or starting Dino Crisis. That is after i'm done with my daily TR routine.

[OL]

^I believe they are called Action RPGs

Exactly. And there lies my problem with the genre. Not mutually exclusive concepts. If my character in a rpg is a master at combat, my button mashing skill as a player should be irrelevant to his survival rate.

Eh, not the most compelling of arguments. Even applying it to a turn-based system, if your character is a master at combat, should your strategic thinking skills be relevant to his survival?
It's the same thing, just switch out the mechanical aspects. You aren't guaranteed success in either case unless you excel in what the game itself calls for.

[Axm]

I have to like you for that effort, Mittz.

Before doing some serious work today, I'm thinking of either more Tomb Raider II or starting Dino Crisis. That is after i'm done with my daily TR routine.

Dino Crisis.

[Raithos]

^I believe they are called Action RPGs

Exactly. And there lies my problem with the genre. Not mutually exclusive concepts. If my character in a rpg is a master at combat, my button mashing skill as a player should be irrelevant to his survival rate.

So I take it you are dying a lot then and its not the game that is at fault lol.

[Kenny]

I have to like you for that effort, Mittz.

Before doing some serious work today, I'm thinking of either more Tomb Raider II or starting Dino Crisis. That is after i'm done with my daily TR routine.

Dino Crisis.

OF COURSE

[MiTT3NZ]

...I was hoping more for a suggestion or a recommendation, not an "A for Effort" sticker, you nob!

[Kenny]

Candy Crush.

[sand4fish]

^I believe they are called Action RPGs

Exactly. And there lies my problem with the genre. Not mutually exclusive concepts. If my character in a rpg is a master at combat, my button mashing skill as a player should be irrelevant to his survival rate.

Eh, not the most compelling of arguments. Even applying it to a turn-based system, if your character is a master at combat, should your strategic thinking skills be relevant to his survival?
It's the same thing, just switch out the mechanical aspects. You aren't guaranteed success in either case unless you excel in what the game itself calls for.

Sorry, let me correct myself here and try to explain it better. On an action game, the character has basically the same capability of performing tasks as the player himself. In a game like COD, you'd never be able to kill anyone if you can't aim the crosshairs correctly even though your character is a battle tested veteran. But in a RPG you could have major coordination issues in real life, and still be the most skillful and powerful character in the game. So what I wanted to say in my post was that decision-making is the only required ability needed from the player in a RPG, opposite to an action game. Hope you can see the bit of mismatch when you put these two genres together. They usually ended up with lackluster game mechanics, but please feel free to prove me wrong.

[sand4fish]

^I believe they are called Action RPGs

Exactly. And there lies my problem with the genre. Not mutually exclusive concepts. If my character in a rpg is a master at combat, my button mashing skill as a player should be irrelevant to his survival rate.

So I take it you are dying a lot then and its not the game that is at fault lol.

Played enough Fom Software games to learn to blame only myself

[Thief]

My brother and I are playing through all the Resident Evil game chronologically. I mentioned it once to him and he got super excited so we've been playing a game every week or so.

So far we've beaten Zero and Jills playthrough in the Remake. We are currently on Chris's playthrough of the remake.

Anyway, it had been a while since i'd played it, but Resident Evil Zero is really bad. It's completely bogged down by constant backtracking (to find items you've left on the ground all over the place) and managing two characters. The ideas were interesting, but none of it really works very well.

The game ultimately becomes one of micro-management and just gets tedious. Not to mention the retcon (and the story in general) is just crap. Of course, the story has been off-the-walls ever since Code: Veronica, but at least it was interesting. Zero is just boring, both in gameplay and story.

I don't think I'll ever play Resident Evil Zero again. Remake on the other hand is brilliant. We beat Jill's playthrough in one sitting (only stopped to eat dinner). Great way to spend a saturday.

[sand4fish]

I love the Resident Evil series!! Though I really miss the adventure/ horror atmosphere from Code Veronica and past games in these last entries.

[Kenny]

Zero is alright, I liked the leech hunt minigame.

But I would've loved to play the N64 version:

phpBB [video]

Though to be honest, I would've loved to have played the N64 versions of ANY game in that era.

[south carmain]

Mass effect. The game is a mess to be honest especially the combat mechanics.

[Brian SII DC vs Xbox]

For some reason MX vs ATV Untamed, never got round to it back when it first came out.

[OL]

Anyway, it had been a while since i'd played it, but Resident Evil Zero is really bad. It's completely bogged down by constant backtracking (to find items you've left on the ground all over the place) and managing two characters. The ideas were interesting, but none of it really works very well.

The game ultimately becomes one of micro-management and just gets tedious. Not to mention the retcon (and the story in general) is just crap. Of course, the story has been off-the-walls ever since Code: Veronica, but at least it was interesting. Zero is just boring, both in gameplay and story.

It's funny how different people's outlooks can be on the same things.
Personally, I hold RE0 as one of my favorites in the series, after RE2, RE4, and RE5. Been wishing they'd do the "HD" treatment for it like they did with REmake.