Pepsiman

"Vaxadrin said:

"I still don't get that mentality.  It's "dead" because there's a new, optional control scheme?

Cry moar."

Way to miss the whole point, it's not only about the controls, it's the whole thing, atmosphere, story, gameplay, the game is just not the same. I loved RE4 as it was, but despised it as a Resident Evil game, but what can I expect from a bunch of people who will give me a bad feedback just to feel better with themselves.

- feedback in 3, 2, 1, GO!

"

Perhaps some of us are speaking this way from experience? I know I have my particular viewpoint because some of my favorite series stayed on the consistency train and, as a result, the same thing given to me over and over made them lose their luster in my eyes. It's one thing to fall in love with a game because it feels fresh, new, exciting, and unlike anything else you've ever really experienced before. It's quite another when those same things are regurgitated five games later for the sake of supposed nostalgia. And to be blunt, I don't think Capcom is going to particularly mourn the loss of you as a potential customer if you choose to completely opt out of buying Resident Evil 5. Money talks and if they're able to make a good chunk of change by doing things the way they are right now, they won't be particularly inclined to revert to the ways of old. It's just good business.

You know what's interesting is that you wouldn't see this same sort of passion in other equally respectable entetainment forms. You don't see people in literary circles, for example, clamoring for today's authors to abide by the Shakespearean standards. Why? Because it's generally recognized that Shakespeare's works and language were revolutionary for their time. Subsequent writers have built upon the foundation he created and have ultimately made works which are better fleshed out since they've had centuries worth of refinement. Shakespeare is still appreciated, but in a historical context.

Yeah, the average is 30 to 35-ish. You have to remember that, historically speaking, gaming was quite a pop cultural phenomenon in those people's youths. It may be somewhat mainstream now, but I guarantee you that we'll never have something along the lines of Pac-Man Fever or Space Invaders mania ever again. That was part of a separate gaming boom than what we're seeing now.

The whole thing is essentially supposed to be a metaphor for the graphical processing power of a CPU vs. GPU. The point itself may be moot since software rendering (which relies on CPUs) is used only in specific situations today, but it's supposed to show that a GPU, with its dedicated purpose, can process graphical data much faster and with more complexity to boot, too. At least, that's true within certain situational bounds.

Essentially, it's as if they took two versions of Doom 3: one rendered through CPU and one through GPU. The GPU wins hands down because the CPU would be bogged down by additional computations in addition to its graphics rendering, therefore hindering graphical quality and frame rate.

"Should I be conveying others' thoughts through quotation marks or italics?"

Well, since you asked....

This is a feature which is meant to be added in the future, but as of now, it's just a fruitless attempt if you try.

What if I was a jerk and said that Snake's Revenge was my choice? What would happen to me?

I'm 18, but still appreciate what the Amigas were able to do for their time. I've also always found their subculture to be an interesting one, although I haven't delved that deeply into it.

Suffice it to say that I'm a young'n who won't diss on the Amiga just because it's the cool thing for my generation to do.