dscross said:
Errr, guys, this would completely alter the game and turn it into an action shooter. Would you be cool with that, because I'm not sure the majority of RE2 fans would be?
Uh, no. Doing what we suggested would not turn the game into an action shooter, unless by action shooter you mean simply having remotely decent controls, camera angles, and giving just enough ammo to actually kill everything as the player should be able to. In fact, the mistake Capcom has made since RE4 was to turn the series into an outright action shooter because they learned the exactly wrong message from Resident Evil 4 and completely ditched all the subtlety and atmosphere that is the core of horror. Easily some of the best horror games I've ever played let you easily have enough ammo to slaughter everything or even give you melee weapons so you can not even need ammo, (the first few Silent Hills and the Fatal Frame series for the curious) because they have the subtlety and atmosphere needed to give the give the game horror value, something that most of the Resident Evils after 4 didn't care to provide.
Saying that making those changes it would just turn the game into an action shooter is just an excuse to go back to the old way RE2 was for sheer nostalgia's sake, not because it would actually be better.
Kyrian007 said:
I don't completely agree, to me scarce ammo does add to the horror value. That is, as long as it's not an overused to the point it becomes frustrating, then I'm right with you. Its a factor that needs to be used sparingly. Maybe having a section where fights against several fast moving and hard to hit enemies is followed by a fight with something scary and big that can soak a lot of damage... followed by finding a nice replenishment of ammo after the sequence is won. Providing tension and concern about resources, but not making it a constant worry and allowing the player progress normally. Its a better horror factor when it "creeps up on you." When you realize your ammo is starting to dwindle... Making you think about it, but never or only rarely making you helpless. It makes those tense moments stand out a little more.
And I think that RE 4 is a good example. In an initial play through I think 4 hits that sweet spot of "barely enough" you mentioned. You have enough ammo to take care of everything, but it always "feels" like you need to make each shot count. And then in further plays you get the catharsis of having enough of whatever you want to mow through areas that troubled you the first time around without having to "save the big guns." That would be perfect for a RE 2 remake, still having tense action and also providing incentive for replayability.
There's a difference between "scarce," as in just have just enough to kill everything, but only just, and "near nonexistent" where there's so little available that you have to conserve what you've got for the moments when using it is completely unavoidable like with the first 3 Resident Evil games. How you described Resident Evil 4 is exactly what I'm talking about and hoping for.
That reminds me of another gripe, partners. Fear is difficult to give if you're not alone most of the time, which is one of the reasons Ashley's sections in RE4 are so irritating, and if you've got an AI partner they're so stupid they keep getting themselves killed (the OTHER reason Ashley's sections are so irritating.) Just drop it entirely, it's just there to put in co-op to extend the playtime of the game because they couldn't make the singleplayer worth enough on it's own and further contributes to the actionization of the franchise.
Nedoras said:
Umm....what? I'm not sure about the original Resident Evil because I haven't played it in awhile, but every single other Resident Evil game, including 2, gives you more than enough ammo to kill everything. Yes they're light on the ammo early on, but that changes over time. Hell I always chuckled at one friend of mine who always said he had to save his ammo for when he needed it in 2, and always ended up having literally hundreds of bullets/shells/whatever near the end of the game. Or how whenever I go back and play through 3, just before the halfway point I ditch the pistol and start using the shotgun as my primary weapon because of how many shells and how much gunpowder is thrown at you. In fact I think the most ammo tight game in the series may be the Remake, but even then they still give you enough.
Well sorry, but your friend is quite correct, the first 3 Resident Evils games give the player just enough ammo to be able to kill the enemies that are impossible to avoid and the bosses. This is due largely to two issues, inventory space and the horrible camera angles and controls. If you were able to carry around every single bit of ammo, healing items, and weapons you pick up of course you'd have more than enough, but that's not possible, you end up carrying a couple guns, some ammo for them, and the random other crap you can't currently use and have to run around looking for those storage crates to put them or switching out guns constantly so you can use the abundance you happen to have. Then there's the camera angles and controls which meant that you basically ended up pointing your gun in the general direction of your enemies and hoping you actually hit something a lot of the time, which meant you ended up using up more ammo than should have actually been needed.
Anyone who ever ends up with hundreds of bullets/shells/whatever by the end of the game is either insanely good at dodging enemies to avoid spending ammo or are so insanely stingy with ammo they let themselves frequently get hit by unavoidable enemies in order to get past them so they can to avoid using any of it.
Also note that I'm talking first playthrough as well. If you already know what's coming and where precisely to go instead of having to wander around to every room in the game and hoping you've picked up whatever is needed to progress you're going to end up using up a lot more ammo and other supplies than you technically need to.
