Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Capcom Tries Space Dinosaurs, Online Zombies 26

Posted by simoniker from the mini-me-biting-crotch-of-t-rex dept.
Thanks to GameSpy for their review of Capcom's Dino Crisis 3, in which their Xbox-exclusive "second-tier survival-horror franchise" barely survives a bizarre transition into space, thanks to "stunningly inane combat sequences" and "a camera that constantly switches between useless views of the action." A brief interview with the producer reveals even he thinks the franchise "...maybe not as [viable] as Resident Evil." On that note, TotalVideoGames.com has an interview with the producer of Resident Evil: Outbreak, the forthcoming PS2-exclusive online title, and he suggests: "Whereas other games have and will make use of voice chat, we decided not to. The main reason for this is to preserve the essence of Resident Evil games, namely the fear." Do these Capcom franchises still grip gamers like they used to?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Capcom Tries Space Dinosaurs, Online Zombies More

Capcom Tries Space Dinosaurs, Online Zombies

Comments Filter:

  • Not likely, but it can be done (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wynterwynd ( 265580 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @06:34AM (#7016797)
    Repetitive suspense scenes, godawful voice acting, and plots with holes Nemesis could hopscotch through without ducking have leeched much of the suspense away I fear. As with many horror movies and games, the first will always be the best. The most potent fear is that of the unknown.

    Not to say that it can't be done, but it's gonna take a restructuring of Craven-esque [rottentomatoes.com] proportions to bring back the chills and screams to the series.

    And don't get me started on Resident Dino [capcom.com], I don't have the strength. Something has survived.... and it wasn't gameplay, plot, or thrills.

  • Camera problems (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Decaffeinated Jedi ( 648571 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @07:15AM (#7016875) Homepage Journal
    ...barely survives a bizarre transition into space, thanks to..."a camera that constantly switches between useless views of the action."
    Is it just me, or are camera problems becoming pretty much a continual problem in third-person games? It seems like we're almost due for a revolutionary new system that will make this issue a thing of the past.

    Something tells me, however, that it probably won't come in the form of Tomb Raider 6: Keep Raidin' Them Tombs.

    • Is it just me, or are camera problems becoming pretty much a continual problem in third-person games? It seems like we're almost due for a revolutionary new system that will make this issue a thing of the past.

      The revolution already happened, [hereticii.com] but nobody paid attention (much less bought the damn thing).
    • SIDE-SCROLLING GAMES!

      Seriously, camera issues plague every 3D-movement game, outside of a few certain genres like first-person shooters (in which you basically are a camera), rail shooters (again, half the gameplay is controlling the camera for most of them), and driving games (movement type doesn't require fancy camera work - you can't suddenly change direction like you can on foot).

      This is a huge problem, and I think it is far and away the main reason old fogeys like to complain that games aren't as fun
      • Attention-span camera logic is one of those things that are hard to get right, but great if/when you pull it off. Figure out what the player 'wants' to see, find the longest ground-parallel line between any two 'interesting' entities, and smoothly interpolate your camera alignment until the line is centered and full-width.

        The problem with this algo is that you need to decide how far is 'far enough', and/or define a maximum number of enemies to track, perhaps skewing that analysis depending on the speed an
        • I agree that what you are saying works great in theory, but I just can't think of any games that pull it off 100% of the time. Hell, not even 95% of the time, which might be enough. If you have some examples of games that have, I would love to hear them.

          Also, I think you would need to add to your process a means to make the AI respond to the camera as well - so enemies don't attack if they aren't visible, for example. And I don't think the problem is so much that it is processing-intensive (though I could
  • For some reason, that thought saddens me very much.
    • Yes, but it's badness was so immense that the sheer forces unleashed by its sucking created an incredibly dense area of anti-fun that no entertainment can exist in, more commonly known as a "Crap Hole". One game player probe was sent in but was never recovered; presumably he's still trying to find a point at which the camera can see what he's fighting.

      Next week... the theory of Parallel Sequels and proving the existence of "dark levels".
      • I think the Highlander films, in concert with the TV series', have pretty much proven the Parallel Sequels theory to just about everyon's satisfaction.

        The existance of dark levels is assumed, but no hard evidence has emerged as yet.

  • Ive said it before, its unfortunate... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by quantax ( 12175 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @10:03AM (#7017473) Homepage
    I no longer play any capcom games due to the fact that capcom has honestly not really made a new game since their first releases of their various concepts: street fighter, resident evil, dino crisis, etc. Street fighter original was great and so were its immediate relatives like Street Fighter 2, but then came "Street Fighter: Electric Boogaloo" and all its brothers, which was crap. Same exact games as Street Fighter, just with updated graphics. Resident Evil has taken on the same update formula; I enjoy a good story like anyone else and while RE has a good story, unfortunately, I hardly think its good enough to justify "Directors Cut" that was made of one version and then to make many sequels that ultimately did not innovate that much. Capcom has not made a new game for a long time since they've had the blessing of having very bright developers from the start that they can keep reusing their concepts over and over again, even now years after and never have to worry about actually taking a risk on a game. What was once good is no longer, so do everyone a favor and do not buy Capcom games, for by doing so you support the creation of endless clone titles. Witness Dino Crisis 3...
    • I am not sure what you are saying. Is it that Capcom hasn't made new games other than the first game in a new series? Because that is kind of a duh statement. If it is that they haven't made new series since the Playstation 1 days, that is simply wrong. Powerstone, Auto Modellista, Viewtiful Joe, Tech Romancer (technically a sequel, but plays radically different from its prequel, with only a secret character being from the original), Devil May Cry, Steel Batallion, etc.

      And though the series simply isn't ve

  • Biohazard, cameras, and such... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by analog_line ( 465182 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @10:34AM (#7017654)
    I admit it, I own and enjoy all (except Biohazard: Zero) or the Resident Evil games. I don't enjoy them because they're scary, because frankly they aren't particularly so. They're suspenseful to a certain extent, but in the end it's more of a sci-fi zombie anime kind of thing. A bit campy, and intended to be.

    I think changing the name from Biohazard to Resident Evil did the series a disservice in people's expectations. Resident Evil sets you up to be some kind of dark mystical haunted mansion your characters are walking into. It's OK for the first one, as it ended up, for me, working like a plot twist (Ahhh, evil corporation testing a virus, interesting). Biohazard implies mad biologists, or some kind of 28 Days Later type plague happening, which sets you up better.

    In the end though, I like these games (and most "survival horror" type games, be they scary or not) because I believe they're the direct descendents of the venerable text adventure. Encounter various puzzles walking your path, find the key item or whatever to get through. Backtracking to rooms you couldn't open before to find different key items. Set piece monster battles (for the most part). The parallels in the game structure between Resident Evil/Silent Hill and the various Infocom text adventure games are pretty stark. I remember way back when, all the dead trees me and my family printed "verbose" logs of Zork 1 on, trying to work out the best way through the game. It's no different from people methodically working their way through Resident Evil or Silent Hill, trying to get the shortest complete times, etc.

    And about "camera problems." Every game I've ever played and liked, SOMEONE lambasts it for having horrible camera problems, and 99% of the time, I don't have a clue what they're talking about. Spiderman was accused by zillions of having horrible camera issues, to which I say, how the hell would you implement a camera that perfectly tracks a guy who can CLIMB ON WALLS for goodness sake. No one has given me an answer that's any better than what Neversoft did. And with most survival horror games, people complaining about the camera just don't get it, and aren't worth arguing with. I'm not saying that Dino Crisis' camera isn't horrible, because I don't know, and not having an Xbox, I'll probably never know unless I seek out someone with DC3 to check it out. However, I'm suspicious of all reviews that blame the camera for a bad rating.
    • The biggest problems that lead to camera complaints:
      1. Attacking something offscreen. See Biohazard, Dino Crisis, etc.
      2. Missing a jump, etc. because of a bad camera angle (or oftentimes unexpected camera movement). See all 3D Platformers.

      The Spidey camera was decent, but it was still really bad indoors, for example. A lot of game reviewers, as well as gamers in general, are starting to get very sick of having to deal with camera issues. Devs have been attempting since at least Mario64 to make a perfect ca
      • A lot of game reviewers, as well as gamers in general, are starting to get very sick of having to deal with camera issues.

        Every 3rd person 3D game I've played, save some survival horror games, let the player move the camera if the automated movement wasn't working right. I don't personally see the problem with having to move it around. In FPSes if you want to look around, you have to look around, I don't see why it should be all that different in third person. How is that screwing anyone over? It just
        • What it comes down to is this: I, and many many other gamers (especially the coveted 'casual' market), don't play games because it is fun to control a camera. Certainly in some genres (like FPS, which I forgot to mention), the whole gameplay is essentially camera control, and that is okay, because they make it fun. Racers and rail shooters are other genres in which the camera isn't a problem. But having to worry about camera control in a fast-paced action platforming game sucks. I don't want to have to thin
  • "Do these Capcom franchises still grip gamers like they used to?"

    Yes! Evertime I hear they're making *another* Resident Evil game I nearly wet myself!

  • Capcom seems to have bouts of creativity and crapulence. It seems like they come out with a creative idea, and then milk it way past its dead (EIDOS's Tomb Raider anyone?). I enjoyed RE2 and RE3 despite their obvious and innane short comings (I joke alot with my friends about the architects who construct buildings that require orbs, chess pieces or whatever to open a simple lock, while at the sametime the building is rigged to explode with a 1000 megaton nuke). Anyway, IMHO RE2 and RE3 should have been rema
    • Your points are valid except for one minor quibble.

      It's generally agreed that Final Fantasy, Mario, Castlevania, Mega Man, Zelda, Metroid, Metal Gear, and Sonic the Hedgehog games are good, even when they're not great.

      Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Army Men, and other series have slid consistently down the toilet since their supposedly brilliant debuts.

      There's a difference between maintaining a good series and milking a semi-decent idea.
      • well, I partially agree with you on that one. However, the resident evil remake was vastly superior to the original, much like MGS was vastly superior to the NES metal gear games.

        IMO Resident evil has not slid down the toilet. I however agree with you on Tomb Raider and Army Men (if you can't guess, I really hate EIDOS).

        But again, the main point being that Milking occurs, I just wish they'd do it in a "soil my pants" sorta way. Kinda like how I felt when I played MGS, or Castlevania: SOTN, RE: Remake, e

    • As far as that goes, I agree. Sometimes the milking can seem far out of hand. But that said, I will probably keep buying any and every Mega Man game Capcom ever releases, because gods help me, I just can't get enough of Mega Man. No matter how many crazy bosses he has to fight, or wierd ass weapons I'm forced to collect, I love it. If I'm alive I'll be virtually jumping around and blasting crap in Mega Man 43, you can bank on it. And Capcom is apparently banking on it too.
  • I think many people wrongly criticize capcom for continuing to use old fanchises in their games. Honestly, if something works why change it? The resident evil games continue to amaze me with the amount of enjoyment I get out of them. Some of the games may not be great but that's true of any development studio. Also they are trying to make new unique games (ie PN. 03, Maximo) that bring new gameplay features to the table... Give capcom a break, they are doing a good job.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close