• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

These people clearly don't play games...

Orange Chocolate Crunch

Well-Known Member
Ask for a pair of jeans, and you'll get new undies.

Do I not explain myself properly, despite providing a detailed analysis with CLEAR proof?

Are my posts too long winded, boring, or something? I give up. :D
 

Judge

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
That's an issue that I don't see much of any 40-year old Japanese publicly-traded corporate entity choosing to address, strictly for legal reasons which also involves a basic need for confidentiality.

A public discussion of such a thing in a globally litigious environment would be a very foolish and unnecessary decision on their part. Not to mention that a corporation like this has plenty of legal resources consisting of an army of lawyers to perform proper due diligence when it comes to a question of intellectual property rights. A matter for legal professionals- not their gaming customers. And usually behind closed doors.

In essence, in this particular matter they aren't listening and they don't want to hear. Unless perhaps you are a well-known practicing attorney who specializes in contracts and intellectual property law on an international scale.

On a sidenote, I once worked for a major entertainment software corporation. Behind closed doors they spoke of their most basic customer as if they were garbage. Where all the pandering occurred to shareholders who were always focused on quarterly results. They didn't care what their actual customers thought about anything.
 
Last edited:

Orange Chocolate Crunch

Well-Known Member
Yeah. To be honest, I get vibes like this a lot, quite frankly. I only use forums because I don't fit in with people face to face, because of my condition. Plus, I have awful anxiety. But as you probably know, I often said in the past that I felt as if gaming websites were unhealthy because of debates like this where you either get ridiculed for speaking out, or they're not clued up or remotely interested in what I have to say.

I know people are entitled to their own opinions, but I feel like pursuing the matter would be a waste of time. At the end of the day, my mum even felt that forums have ran their course, and people just misuse them. I have to see a supervisor because of a court issue, and even he agreed that it's time to find other activities to enjoy.

And that Australian bafoon certainly doesn't help my situation either. He keeps trying to subscribe to me on YouTube. Looks me up on Google everyday. He needs to take the hint, as this is getting sad.
 

Orange Chocolate Crunch

Well-Known Member
Ah, forget it. It doesn't matter. If I keep trying to justify all of my damn posts, I'll just give myself a blooming migraine.

I'm waving the white flag effective immediately. Just tell me to shoosh about Resident Evil tangents already.

I was really good at it, I suppose. But fudge it. I'm bored of trying to educate knobs online, so I'm pretty much retired now! :D
 

Gerald Wilgus

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
That's an issue that I don't see much of any 40-year old Japanese publicly-traded corporate entity choosing to address, strictly for legal reasons which also involves a basic need for confidentiality.

A public discussion of such a thing in a globally litigious environment would be a very foolish and unnecessary decision on their part. Not to mention that a corporation like this has plenty of legal resources consisting of an army of lawyers to perform proper due diligence when it comes to a question of intellectual property rights. A matter for legal professionals- not their gaming customers. And usually behind closed doors.

In essence, in this particular matter they aren't listening and they don't want to hear. Unless perhaps you are a well-known practicing attorney who specializes in contracts and intellectual property law on an international scale.

On a sidenote, I once worked for a major entertainment software corporation. Behind closed doors they spoke of their most basic customer as if they were garbage. Where all the pandering occurred to shareholders who were always focused on quarterly results. They didn't care what their actual customers thought about anything.
Exactly. Since the 1970s the MBA mindset that has infested corporations and their political lackeys is that corporations' only goal is to maximize sharehold value, the actual customers be damned. And people wonder how we spend the most for healthcare that is virtually the crappiest in the world.
 

Princess Viola

Well-Known Member
I mean no offense, but that whole thread you linked to just reads to me like you somehow don't understand the concept of homages/shout-outs in media.
 

Orange Chocolate Crunch

Well-Known Member
I'm not offended, because everyone has a right to an opinion. But trust me. Capcom were copying all of these games I mentioned on that other forum. Even ask @Misery about it, because he has played these games in the past.

RE was never, and I mean, never ever a series about mannequins, supernatural stuff, or dream like states, prior to a certain entry. There is one game people may have forgotten about which did that a bit, and that was Revelations 2. A girl called Natalia was hooked up to a machine, was asleep, and imagined her teddy bear Lottie was talking to her. However, this was most certainly different with RE8. It was obvious they copied the house with the ghost from Konami's renowned teaser game, and then added in Silent Hill like enemies.

They wanted to copy Konami, because Konami was supposed to complete work for a Silent Hill sequel with Norman Reedus as the main character, but it got axed by Konami, so the demo that was on the online store then became a relic. This game was gonna have a first person perspective, and RE8 has both third and first person gameplay. The game Konami was developing got a demo as I said. It's called P.T. (meaning, "playable teaser") and that was to hype up Silent Hills. However, something went south behind the scenes, and the guy in charge quit, so the game was scrapped. You can see on eBay that a PS4 drive with this demo on it is worth a mint today.

Now, maybe a lot of people here don't play horror games or maybe do but just don't care about my waffle ways, but I just think it's shoddy of Capcom to do that. But I gave other examples of stuff they copied as well to drive home the point that this is all too common with the industry.

The point being, they rip off things all of the time. Hollywood does it too, but it's honestly time people stopped supporting this trash, as it's basically taken someone else's ideas and passing them off as your own.
 

Misery

Amalga Heart
V.I.P Member
I mean no offense, but that whole thread you linked to just reads to me like you somehow don't understand the concept of homages/shout-outs in media.

No, @Orange Creme is absolutely right about this one.

I guarantee you, Capcom (and companies like them) isnt interested in homages or shoutouts, they arent trying to honor old movies or games or anything like that.

When they do something like, for instance, the whole "creepy twitchy girl with long black hair covering her face", they arent doing it because "oh The Ring was so good, let's give it a shoutout". They're doing it because it's a safe design that markets well to their target audience, and because they can get away with making super direct copies, that's what they'll do, since it's the low effort option. Chances are, none of the execs have actually seen the movie, and even fewer have played a single videogame in their life. They dont care. At all. And they absolutely will mimic or even outright rip off other properties, just so long as they're sure they can get away with it.

They will also do utterly ridiculous things like try to get patents and copyrights specifically for individual game mechanics, which is a very special level of stupid that outdoes even the idiocy of microtransactions. They wont hesitate to rip someone else off or copy them outright, but they will have a spastic screaming fit if someone does it to them. Fortunately, this usually doesnt actually work as it's very hard to get that set up for a freaking game mechanic, and the community has a tendency to flip the heck out if anyone tries that. And too much backlash presents a potential threat to their bottom line... aka, the only thing they care about.

Something I've always said: These companies arent about you, the consumer. They sell games, but that's not the product/service they're REALLY making. Their true customers are the shareholders, not the players. And the service is pleasing them with profits. Nothing more.

And in their quest to do that, they will do ANYTHING. And they'll do it in the worst way possible, right down to abusing their employees so badly that one of them actually offed herself (yes, really). They get away with all of it, too.

That they'll directly rip stuff off isnt a question of "if". It's a question of "how badly" and "how often".

Dont get me wrong: It's common for devs to take after already existing concepts. And that includes things like character designs and whatnot. Even indies do it. But there's a big difference between "inspired by" and "direct 1-for-1 copy". Unfortunately, it's a fuzzy, static-filled difference as far as legality is concerned.

Do I not explain myself properly, despite providing a detailed analysis with CLEAR proof?

Are my posts too long winded, boring, or something? I give up. :D

You're dealing with the gaming community.

You know how companies like Activision thrive despite their HORRIBLY predatory tactics? That community, those sorts of players, are the ENTIRE reason for why that works.

OF COURSE they arent going to listen or at all think about what you're saying. They dont wanna hear it. They just see "game with shiny trailer" and will absolutely take a beating for PRECIOUS SHINIES even if that shiny stuff whips them for 24 hours straight, and then it's "thank you sir may I have another".

So... it aint you. It's just the nature of the mainstream gaming community. Particularly on consoles. PC gaming is a bit different... thanks to Steam, gamers on there have been exposed to wild variety enough that they're way more likely to see problems like those, when they are able to compare them with games that arent made by hyper-greed companies like Capcom.


On a sidenote, I once worked for a major entertainment software corporation. Behind closed doors they spoke of their most basic customer as if they were garbage. Where all the pandering occurred to shareholders who were always focused on quarterly results. They didn't care what their actual customers thought about anything.

Oh yeah. And that is spectacularly bad in the gaming industry.

Two words: Diablo Immortal.

If you arent familiar with what THAT is all about, well... go look it up. Be prepared for one VERY dark rabbit hole, the darkest of all of them.

And Activision delivers that with a smile. They dont care about how many wallets they hurt with it. Wouldnt be surprised if "wallets" is their actual word for "consumers".
 

Orange Chocolate Crunch

Well-Known Member
That's a winner of a post, Misery. LOL. You've earned a box of Quality Street on me. :D

Unless you're a diabetic, then stay off the sugar. ;)

Yeah. I know what they're like. That's why I sometimes think to myself, 'Should I even post here?' Although granted, not everyone on GameFAQs is a shill. Some users are intelligent there. The same with NeoGAF. But some YouTubers are dishonest, because they're partnered with these companies. They get promo copies early. So they don't want to hurt their promotion by saying how they really feel. So call it false, but you know this is how the online world operates already.

I do support the RE4 remake somewhat, though. It looks like a really great remake. But I'd rather have a new game, because remakes don't replace the originals. And to be honest, I know they're playing it safe because RE4 is the pinnacle of the franchise. I just think 2 and 3 deserved the same tender, loving care.

Some people say even RE1 doesn't replace RE 1996, but I disagree. The plot of the 2002 remake was referenced in future games, with Lisa Trevor, and Lisa wasn't mentioned in the 1996 game. Besides a few tweaks, they are more or less the same game otherwise. But RE2 and 3's remakes changed practically everything, with only the general premise being similar.
 

Orange Chocolate Crunch

Well-Known Member
Well, a moderator locked the thread on the other forum. Someone made out I was "brigading" or whatever, just because I wanted to prove to people they were apparently oblivious to the actual proof that was presented.

Anyway, I really should retire from rambling about video games. Permanently. Misery knows not to do it either. We get the jist of the user base on such websites. I get it. They don't care.

Maybe they had a point, though. You cannot teach logic to the illogical, so hanging around on gaming forums to rabbit on and on about the same nonsense is pointless. Nobody is paying me to spew brimstones either, so it's not like I'm achieving much if I were to continue.

Who cares in general? There's no point in getting my knickers in a twist. So back in that closet I go. Oh, so soft. :p
 

Slime_Punk

 Please erase
V.I.P Member
This, unfortunately for some, is just how human creativity works. When the team is designing a scene and comes to a conclusion that's reminiscent of a horror movie, I'm sure there are parties who are entirely aware of the situation, but others only notice the vague familiarity and thus might claim that something simply 'clicks' for them.

Creatives, contrary to popular belief, are literally mimicking all the time in various different ways. You can almost compare this to Midjourney or something, although we've been doing it organically since our race has been around. As I mentioned, a good portion of this is taking place on a subconscious level, so it's not always easy to see things as clearly as you currently are when you're working with a bunch of people on a giant project on the inside. Add in a lack of sleep, deadlines, stress, and people having to camp out at the workplace overnight into the picture and something is bound to go straight from imagination (as in, 'I've seen this somewhere') straight into the game.

The only thing that would really be alarming is if they didn't ever rip anybody off, because the odds of that actually happening would be nearly impossible.

See? Educating people isn't hard. Please be nice to them, though. You'll get friendlier replies in return rather than disliking the response you get from others.
 

Misery

Amalga Heart
V.I.P Member
This, unfortunately for some, is just how human creativity works. When the team is designing a scene and comes to a conclusion that's reminiscent of a horror movie, I'm sure there are parties who are entirely aware of the situation, but others only notice the vague familiarity and thus might claim that something simply 'clicks' for them.

Creatives, contrary to popular belief, are literally mimicking all the time in various different ways. You can almost compare this to Midjourney or something, although we've been doing it organically since our race has been around. As I mentioned, a good portion of this is taking place on a subconscious level, so it's not always easy to see things as clearly as you currently are when you're working with a bunch of people on a giant project on the inside. Add in a lack of sleep, deadlines, stress, and people having to camp out at the workplace overnight into the picture and something is bound to go straight from imagination (as in, 'I've seen this somewhere') straight into the game.

The only thing that would really be alarming is if they didn't ever rip anybody off, because the odds of that actually happening would be nearly impossible.

See? Educating people isn't hard. Please be nice to them, though. You'll get friendlier replies in return rather than disliking the response you get from others.

Aye, this is all good points.

Heck, when I really think about it, this is part of what was frustrating me so much when it comes to my art stuff: Because I originally just couldn't really manage to do anything that wasn't in some way just mimicking others. Like, it happened automatically. It took ages before I was finally inspired to actually try to find my own style. But even that style will still be at least somewhat connected to the one who inspired me.

And it's the same with games, even the more super niche one. Like, there's one game out there I'm fond of called Warsim. It's one of the strangest, most unexpected things you could find on Steam. Absolutely baffled me when I first spotted it. It's made entirely in ASCII, but it's not JUST that. It's made entirely via the terminal. You can even see the flicker when it prints a new screen. It's entirely controlled by inputting numbers, and of course hitting enter, to select from the current options based on the situation. I've never once seen another game on Steam or even Itch do this.

Yet even that isn't a totally new idea. It's inspired by old DOS games that did that, and there were a LOT of those back in the day.

However, what REALLY takes skill in my mind, and what really shows sheer effort, is when someone takes an already existing concept and totally runs with it in a wildly new direction. Demoncrawl is my favorite example of that. Minesweeper as a roguelike with sawblades flying around and characters roaming the board and monsters and stuff exploding? What a bonkers idea. But it's soooooooooooo good.

I will stand by the idea though that there's a huge difference between genuine inspiration, and lazy corporate cash grab. It's sort of a fuzzy line, but... it's absolutely there.

That being said, I don't think it makes something like RE7 inherently *bad*, per se. Just perhaps a bit stale, is how I'd put that one.
 

Orange Chocolate Crunch

Well-Known Member
Yeah. I just noticed they're being narky on GameFAQs as well on the RE4 remake boards. Posting something unimaginatively stupid like, "Oh Capcom trademarked mannequins now?" because I said they most certainly took that from Konami's Silent Hill games.

If you are gonna reply to silly geese like that, reply a total of only ONCE. Keep it short and to the point.

Or better yet, maybe don't waste your time replying at all. They're probably not going to want to listen anyway.

Orange Creme for the win!
 

N2k12

Well-Known Member
Ask for a pair of jeans, and you'll get new undies.

Do I not explain myself properly, despite providing a detailed analysis with CLEAR proof?

Are my posts too long winded, boring, or something? I give up. :D
and here the same thing is happening. attacking people, over different preferences.
 

Orange Chocolate Crunch

Well-Known Member
Define "attacking" for me, please. ;)

Anyway, as I predicted long ago, the remake of RE4 got splendid feedback in the recent reviews. I mean, I'm not really surprised to know that it done so well. Every gamer who ever enjoyed RE4 the original, is completely biased towards RE4, but they hate RE5, which is virtually identical. And Capcom in my view, barely changed anything from the original version from 2005, just because RE4 is so iconic. In other words, I feel like they played it safe.

They did change the story a bit and altered certain enemies, but in general, much of what you do is pretty much the same. Only, some parts are super cheesy.

Hm. And I thought RE2 and 3 were supposed to be iconic games as well. So why didn't they get the same sort of paint job that RE4 received? What's funny is, fanboys always come online and incessantly complain about RE3 having omitted content, yet for some reason, I seldomly ever notice RE2 being criticized on gaming communities for having a lot of missing stuff in it as well. It's essentially a case of hypocrisy.

Maybe Capcom should remember that the series began as 'survival horror' and not action. They even coined that term, even though in general, the genre itself truly began years beforehand, with Alone in the Dark, Clock Tower, Sweet Home and whatnot being the genre's primary forerunners. But a few of those games didn't really match what RE represents. You still had to find things, but you sometimes had no ability to fight back, so you were constantly having to stay on the move. Particularly when that creepy music played, and you knew Scissorman was looking for you. But you had no guns, unless it was when you acquired one for a special scene. Otherwise, it wasn't like RE where you pick up a shotgun and other firearms.

In my opinion, RE4 may have been a fantastic action game with interesting set pieces back in the day, but it was ultimately the game that moved the franchise into the lame shoot 'em up territory it became known for in later years. Basically until RE7 temporarily revived it. But hell, even that was more or less an action game again by the time the End of Zoe and Not a Hero content dropped. Then RE8 (Village) was full on action again, apparently because RE7 was considered to be 'too scary' or something.

A horror series!? Too scary!? Jesus. That's like saying a football game is too sporty and needs to have less players on the pitch. :D

One and one is, what number?
 

N2k12

Well-Known Member
Define "attacking" for me, please. ;)

Anyway, as I predicted long ago, the remake of RE4 got splendid feedback in the recent reviews. I mean, I'm not really surprised to know that it done so well. Every gamer who ever enjoyed RE4 the original, is completely biased towards RE4, but they hate RE5, which is virtually identical. And Capcom in my view, barely changed anything from the original version from 2005, just because RE4 is so iconic. In other words, I feel like they played it safe.

They did change the story a bit and altered certain enemies, but in general, much of what you do is pretty much the same. Only, some parts are super cheesy.

Hm. And I thought RE2 and 3 were supposed to be iconic games as well. So why didn't they get the same sort of paint job that RE4 received? What's funny is, fanboys always come online and incessantly complain about RE3 having omitted content, yet for some reason, I seldomly ever notice RE2 being criticized on gaming communities for having a lot of missing stuff in it as well. It's essentially a case of hypocrisy.

Maybe Capcom should remember that the series began as 'survival horror' and not action. They even coined that term, even though in general, the genre itself truly began years beforehand, with Alone in the Dark, Clock Tower, Sweet Home and whatnot being the genre's primary forerunners. But a few of those games didn't really match what RE represents. You still had to find things, but you sometimes had no ability to fight back, so you were constantly having to stay on the move. Particularly when that creepy music played, and you knew Scissorman was looking for you. But you had no guns, unless it was when you acquired one for a special scene. Otherwise, it wasn't like RE where you pick up a shotgun and other firearms.

In my opinion, RE4 may have been a fantastic action game with interesting set pieces back in the day, but it was ultimately the game that moved the franchise into the lame shoot 'em up territory it became known for in later years. Basically until RE7 temporarily revived it. But hell, even that was more or less an action game again by the time the End of Zoe and Not a Hero content dropped. Then RE8 (Village) was full on action again, apparently because RE7 was considered to be 'too scary' or something.

A horror series!? Too scary!? Jesus. That's like saying a football game is too sporty and needs to have less players on the pitch. :D

One and one is, what number?
ooh. i am wrong. sorry about that
 

New Threads

Top Bottom