Dino Crisis 3 - how is it?

[glaurung]

so....what's the verdict? is dino crisis 3 worth a buy?

 

i've been eagerly awaiting this game, and although i normally adopt a who-cares-what-reviewers-say attitude, i must admit to being a little disappointed by the 6.0 it got over at IGN...

[heavy liquid]

To quote Bappo from the OXM Demo Disc thread:

 

Saying the camera in Dino Crisis is "that bad" is an understatement.

 

I shot at more critters off screen in the few minutes I played that demo than in the last 10 years. You have no, none, zippo control over where you are shooting or looking, and rarely are the 2 the same. Very disappointing as I was kinda looking forward to the game. The way it moves from cut scene to action was well done though.

 

Everything is 3D, so why the Resident Evil static camera angles? You can look around and shoot in first person view, yet you can't move while in that mode.

Disappointing.

[NickC]

From the IGN review "Worst Camera Angles Ever"

[dogbert]

Even worse than Dawn of Fate? Woohoo!!

 

I couldn't stand the Dino Crisis demo that I played yesterday. Incredibly horrible seemed to be the general reaction around here.

[glaurung]

well that seems to be the consistent complaint - bad camera angles.

 

i would be curious to know whether any of the people doing the complaining are fans of games in the survival/horror genre, which is pretty much characterized by static camera positioning.

 

personally, i love games in that genre, and love them partly because of the fixed camera.

 

so. if this is the only real problem with the game, it won't be a problem for me at all.

 

thanks, guys.

 

- jd

 

ps. see here for a positive review of the game by someone who also doesn't mind the camera.

[Andy Sheets]

Originally posted by glaurung@Sep 17 2003, 12:24 PM

i would be curious to know whether any of the people doing the complaining are fans of games in the survival/horror genre, which is pretty much characterized by static camera positioning.

While I'm not a fan of survival horror, the camera in many of those games is tolerable because the gameplay is more deliberately paced. In the Dino Crisis 3 demo, however, the gameplay can get pretty fast-paced - just like a regular shooter game, really - and that makes the camera angles more problematic because you're not quite sure from where a dinosaur is going to jump at you and that can lead to you getting punished in a way that wouldn't happen in most games with regular 3D cameras. The demo would probably have been fun if you just swing the camera around, since everything else about the game seemed okay, with especially nice graphics.

[dogbert]

I wouldn't trust a GameFAQs review of an import copy, sorry

 

The problem isn't just the camera. It's poor controls, poor gameplay, poor content. It's just not a good game. It got reamed by Extended Play a while back too when they looked at the import.

[Mark E]

Between this game, P.N. 03, and the rumoured game style of Killer 7, I just have to ask what the hell is going on at CapCom these days? You would think after all their experience with these titles somebody would have noticed that the camera angles were completely arse.

 

It's called "playtesting" people. :roll:

[glaurung]

I wouldn't trust a GameFAQs review of an import copy, sorry

fair enough, i guess - but why not? it's one gamer's opinion, after all....right?

 

i guess i'm not sure why i shouldn't trust his lengthy, thoughtful review of the game, and i should trust your one line dismissal (of what? the demo?). besides, IGN claims (complains) that the north american release is virtually identical to the japanese version, so any problems with the review can't originate in version-discrepancies....

 

i mean, i'm really not trying to be confrontational or anything, but i was hoping for more insightful responses from people who have actually played the game...

 

at any rate, i just got back from buying it, so i'll post my own impressions a little later when i've had a chance to log some game-time....(maybe i won't - after all, who'd trust an LCVG.com member-review? )

 

thanks,

 

- jd

[Robot Monkey]

Originally posted by glaurung@Sep 17 2003, 02:44 PM

at any rate, i just got back from buying it, so i'll post my own impressions a little later when i've had a chance to log some game-time....(maybe i won't - after all, who'd trust an LCVG.com member-review? )

Please share your thoughts!

 

As a matter of fact, your thoughts here are much more useful to me than a review posted on GameFAQs. If I don't know you, I can search your posts to determine your tastes or ask you questions directly. I'm not going to do that on GameFAQs.

 

I think the people here might be alluding to the perception that the quality and level of analysis is often found lacking on GameFAQs.

 

As to the review in question, I'm afraid it doesn't really help me (I'm new to the franchise). Everything is awesome, 9's and 10's across the board -- a situation that usually makes me suspicious of a review's analysis. It seems like the author's only criticism -- the camera system -- is actually a treatise on why the camera system is great and why there is no possible alternative.

 

This doesn't mean that the game is horrible or that the author is an idiot -- it just means that the the analytical value of the review is lacking.

 

That said, we aren't all great writers and we aren't expected to be the videogame answer to Roger Ebert. So, yeah, I prefer places like this to reviews posted on GameFAQs. Like I said, I can ask questions or do a search to put your comments in context. And since I know Brian (dogbert) and Mark (pharmboy) a little, there opinions are very valuable to me.

 

Does that sound reasonable?

 

-j

[dogbert]

fair enough, i guess - but why not? it's one gamer's opinion, after all....right?

 

i guess i'm not sure why i shouldn't trust his lengthy, thoughtful review of the game, and i should trust your one line dismissal (of what? the demo?).

 

Well, import reviews on GameFAQs are quite frequently utterly biased - they've already spent $60 on the game and will not find fault with it because of that. I've seen reviews of games that are utterly horrible that will not find fault in any way. It's okay to like games that other people don't - just don't claim they're perfect With GameFAQ reviews, frequently there's little middle ground - everything is either superb (9+) or utterly terrible (2-).

 

Yes, it's one gamer's opinion... That doesn't mean his opinion should influence you. In particular, he completely glosses over the camera problems.

 

I do find it interesting that you glossed over the 6/10 review on GameFAQs... Surely that's as valid an opinion, and he completely slags off the camera.

 

As for my opinions? I'll extend my "quickie" criticism: poor camera angles for combat, poor camera angles that change midjumping from platform to platform, poor camera angles that don't show you what you're shooting at, rooms that look identical, monotonous gameplay (and that's just the demo). It was the worst XBox demo I've played in a long time. Is that good enough?

[glaurung]

I think the people here might be alluding to the perception that the quality and level of analysis is often found lacking on GameFAQs.

well, that's fair. but though that may be a reason to suspect that a particular review on a particular web-site may be guilty of fanboy-ish excess, the only real test of whether or not it's actually a useful review or not is simply to read it. right? in other words, if a web-site only rarely has useful reviews, that might be a reason not to bother reading the reviews that are posted there, but once you're actually reading a review, all that matters is the review, NOT where it's posted.

 

As to the review in question, I'm afraid it doesn't really help me (I'm new to the franchise). Everything is awesome, 9's and 10's across the board -- a situation that usually makes me suspicious of a review's analysis.

while i certainly understand this point of view, i would again suggest that what matters most is the text of the review - if there was only a numerical score, then one might be expected to withhold their confidence in the review. but in this case, there is considerable justification offered by the reviewer for his scoring.

 

in fact, try this - read the review without the numbers, and see what you make of it. personally, what sells me on it is what he actually says about the game, you know? the review would have been just as convincing to me had there been no rating system offered at all....

 

It seems like the author's only criticism -- the camera system -- is actually a treatise on why the camera system is great and why there is no possible alternative.

i didn't get that at all - as far as i can tell, the reviewer (A) states that some people dislike the static camera, ( states that he himself rather likes it, and then ? goes on to offer what strikes me as a well-reasoned (analytical) defense of his preference.

 

you may of course disagree with his argument and not share his preference, but that doesn't make his reasoning any less analytical or compelling.

 

again personally, i find the case he makes for his point of view to be rather persuasive (which i am no doubt inclined to do by my own stated preference for the fixed-camera of survival/horror games).

 

This doesn't mean that the game is horrible or that the author is an idiot -- it just means that the the analytical value of the review is lacking.

well, we must mean different things by "analytical", since i found the review to be the very picture of cool, dispassionate analysis....

 

at least the reviewer at gamefaqs.com offered an actual, honest-to-goodness argument concerning the camera angles, for instance - i mean, how exactly is "The problem isn't just the camera. It's poor controls, poor gameplay, poor content. It's just not a good game." in any way analytical? for that matter, it's not even really a review, is it?

 

basically, when i look at a review of a game (or movie, or book, or...), i look for two distinct things - the objective features of the game and the reviewer's reaction to those features. but principally i am concerned with determining the former - how the game actually is, in and of itself: e.g. are the graphics sharp? how is the frame-rate? how difficult are the puzzles? what are the cutscenes like? is the surround-sound well-implemented? are the animations smooth? how does the camera track? is it fixed? how much control does the player have? etc.

 

while i understand that some of the answers to these questions have an ineliminable subjective component (a difficult puzzle for me may be the very definition of simplistic for you), they are for the most part answers that can be given independently of my personal appreciation of the game ("the graphics are sharp and full of detail" is not the same as "i don't like looking at space-ship interiors as much as i do landscapes").

 

then, once i have that information, i can usually tell with a fair degree of reliability whether or not the game is one that i am likely to enjoy, since my enjoyment of games is dependent entirely upon the nature of the game rather than of anyone else's appreciation (or not) of it.

 

plus, this method has the added benefit of making personal knowledge of the reviewer's gaming preferences irrelevant when it comes to judging the usefulness of a review; knowing what the guy likes or doesn't like is really only critical if the review you're reading boils down to "it sucks", or "i hated it"; unless you know what kind of game that person dislikes, you'll have no idea what the game is like, but only that whatever it's like, this guy hated it....which is, without more, meaningless.

 

which is obviously what makes the ability to contextualize someone's comments concerning a game a useful thing to be able to do - if what someone is doing is mainly saying "i hate the game", or "i love the game", then the longer the list of games you can assemble that are liked and hated by that person, the more likely it is that you're going to be able to come to a reasonable understanding about what the game is actually like, and thus if you'll like it yourself...

 

anyway. that's what i think.

[glaurung]

In particular, he completely glosses over the camera problems.

are you serious? how is this in anyway, shape or form, a gloss:

 

Additionally, I predict many gamers will take issue with the camera system which is in the Biohazard/DMC vein: fixed angles that sometimes obscure enemies and items from view. There are many reasons why this system doesn't bother me. First of all, games in this genre are rarely played from a behind-the-character perspective. This is deliberate as it makes for a much more dramatic and cinematic experience. Likewise, offering the player camera control - with the right analog stick, let's say - is impossible as without a ''center'' (the player) to focus on, a controllable camera would have no practical axis on which to rotate. Secondly, the character automatically aims at the nearest enemy in battle scenes whether the player sees it or not. These battle scenes are so fast paced and reliant on rapid dashing, jumping, shooting, and special weapon maneuvers, that manipulating the camera would be much more of a hindrance than an asset. Thirdly, the backgrounds are often quite intricate and generally contain numerous elements (stacks of crates, coolant pipes, light fixtures) that a would more than likely result in even more obscure angles and perhaps even some bugs if a controllable camera were implemented. Finally, the game features a first person mode which allows the player to explore the environment unhindered by any default angles they may find inconvenient. In this mode, movement is not allowed, but the standard gun and charge shots can be fired with ease.

 

i'd be interested to see what you would take as a useful analysis of an issue....

 

I do find it interesting that you glossed over the 6/10 review on GameFAQs... Surely that's as valid an opinion, and he completely slags off the camera.

it should be clear by now that i didn't gloss over the 6/10 review - it's just that his review of the camera angles amounts to "i hate the camera". and i just don't care if he likes it or not, since that doesn't help me understand if i'll like it or not, you know? the only way i can determine that is by knowing what the camera actually does....

 

as for basing an opinion of a game one has never played on the demo of that game, well....can you spell panzer dragoon orta?

[dogbert]

it's not even really a review, is it?

 

Where did I state it was?

[dogbert]

are you serious? how is this in anyway, shape or form, a gloss:

 

Because of what he doesn't mention. He doesn't mention how the camera angle often changes mid-jump in a platform jumping section. He doesn't mention how the camera changes mid-action, confusing you with what you're interacting etc.

 

To quote the review:

 

These battle scenes are so fast paced and reliant on rapid dashing, jumping, shooting, and special weapon maneuvers, that manipulating the camera would be much more of a hindrance than an asset.

 

The game relies on rapid running around, jumping, shooting etc, with the camera frequently changing angles on you - read between the lines of his review, he *knows* the camera angles are a problem in action scenes (which is mentioned in other reviews) but is glossing over it. I have no problem with the fixed camera system - the problem is the angles the designers have chosen frequently don't work in the playable demo. The reviewer also effectively says "nothing else would have worked", when quite clearly it would have - there are plenty of games with effective 3rd person cameras.

 

well, that's fair. but though that may be a reason to suspect that a particular review on a particular web-site may be guilty of fanboy-ish excess, the only real test of whether or not it's actually a useful review or not is simply to read it. right?

 

It's all about context. A glowing review of a game, a review which claims "the camera system that I predict noone will like really isn't that bad" has to be taken into context of every other review that state the camera really is that bad. The reviewer obviously loved the game. I'm just saying that in the context of having played it, I disagree with him.

[Robot Monkey]

jd, I think the distinction I'm trying to communicate here is that the comments made in this topic are not based on snobbery, uninformed opinions or a desire to see Dino Crisis 3 fail.

 

When people like dogbert say they are concerned about the camera system, his opinion is informed by people he trusts and his knowledge of the industry and video games in general. Further, the problems with the positive review still stand.

 

Look, if that author wants to say that he loved the game despite any faults, that's one thing. Heck we even have an entire thread about that.

 

Instead, however, the author states that everything is great. And rather than addressing the camera system head on, he states that it works well and alternatives don't exist. That isn't analytical, and it certainly isn't "cool and dispassionate." It isn't analytical to state that some people might not like the camera system and then proceed with a long alibi for it.

 

Besides, I don't necessarily equate "analysis" with "cool and dispassionate." I've read many reviews -- film and book -- in which the author clearly hated the product. That doesn't mean that the author lacked critical analysis; in many cases I found myself better informed about the product and the review's author.

 

-j

[dogbert]

When people like dogbert say they are concerned about the camera system, his opinion is informed by people he trusts and his knowledge of the industry and video games in general. Further, the problems with the positive review still stand.

 

You're slightly offbase. I'm concerned about the camera system because when I played it, I didn't like it!

[glaurung]

It's all about context. A glowing review of a game, a review which claims "the camera system that I predict noone will like really isn't that bad" has to be taken into context of every other review that state the camera really is that bad. The reviewer obviously loved the game. I'm just saying that in the context of having played it, I disagree with him.

well, i think this is really the crux of the matter: i don't think there's a useful concept of an in-game camera's being "bad" that isn't synonymous with a person's disliking that camera. that is, when you say "the camera in dino crisis 3 is bad", what you mean is "i don't like the camera in dino crisis 3". and there really is no disputing taste.

 

what i want is a description of how the camera actually behaves in the game; i'll make up my own mind after that about whether or not it's likely that i'll find the camera problematic.

 

see what i mean? you disagree with him to the extent that he likes the camera and you don't. that's a disagreement that's gone as far as it can go the moment it's stated. and a disagreement that's totally unhelpful to me...

 

Because of what he doesn't mention. He doesn't mention how the camera angle often changes mid-jump in a platform jumping section. He doesn't mention how the camera changes mid-action, confusing you with what you're interacting etc.

i suppose i find this omission unobjectionable because it's a straightforward consequence of the camera's being static, you know? i've played enough (survival/horror) games with fixed-cameras to know that the perspective in games of that type changes mid-action, whether it's mid-jump, mid-climb, or mid-anything-else.

 

i would imagine that he didn't say that the camera was confusing simply because he wasn't confused by it.

 

you might, of course, criticize the review for failing to mention that the game-engine might be potentially confusing to some gamers, but then, what game isn't? when i first played halo, it took me quite a while to acclimate myself to the camera and motion-controls, and to stop walking into walls and shooting at the ceiling every time one of the covenant jumped out from behind a corner. then, once i finished halo and started silent hill 2, it took me a while to get used to that set of controls, and to stop running in circles and not try to rotate the camera to see behind me; and don't even get me started on familiarizing myself with the controls for panzer dragoon orta...but at the end of each of these games, i found the controls to be totally intuitive.

 

i would imagine that a game's camera/control would be interestingly "confusing" only if it were reasonable to suppose that the average gamer would contiunue to find the controls and camera frustratingly awkward even after some time spent using them (gunvalkyrie, anyone?).....

 

and i can tell you that isn't the case here: i am nothing more than an average gamer, and i was almost immediately comfortable with them; as i said, i have played so many survival/horror games with cameras like the one in DC3, that this feels just like coming home.

 

jd, I think the distinction I'm trying to communicate here is that the comments made in this topic are not based on snobbery, uninformed opinions or a desire to see Dino Crisis 3 fail.

while i'm sure that's true, mr. monkey, all i was pointing out was that the gamefaqs.com review was (1) descriptive of the features of the game, (2) (analytically) descriptive of the reviewers preferences for those features, and, perhaps most importantly, (3) far more helpful to me than one line ostensibly stating "dino crisis 3 is a bad game".

 

Further, the problems with the positive review still stand.

maybe. but if so, then it's exactly the same problem suffered by every other game review i've ever read that describes the game and then says what the reviewer either likes or dislikes about that game....

 

i'll give my own mini-review tomorrow...

 

- jd

[Mark E]

the game-engine might be potentially confusing to some gamers, but then, what game isn't?

 

Super Mario Bros comes to mind.

 

And Balloon Fight.

 

Sonic The Hedgehog.

 

Golden Axe.

 

Final Fight.

 

Etc.

[Romier S]

you might, of course, criticize the review for failing to mention that the game-engine might be potentially confusing to some gamers, but then, what game isn't? when i first played halo, it took me quite a while to acclimate myself to the camera and motion-controls, and to stop walking into walls and shooting at the ceiling every time one of the covenant jumped out from behind a corner. then, once i finished halo and started silent hill 2, it took me a while to get used to that set of controls, and to stop running in circles and not try to rotate the camera to see behind me; and don't even get me started on familiarizing myself with the controls for panzer dragoon orta...but at the end of each of these games, i found the controls to be totally intuitive.

 

The point here however is that to the majority of gamers that have played Dino Crisis 3 the camera has been the one thing that has stuck out like sore thumb as being *THE* killer of fun in the game. I completely respect the reviewer's thoughts and if he liked the game, well thats whats its all about. However realize that the issues being brought forth are that to a great majority the game is in fact mediocre. You may play it and love it Glaurung. Hell I played and really enjoed ToeJam and Earl 3 and that was universally panned. The only way to find out is going to be to play it and let us know what you think. In the end arguing the semantics of one reviewers thoughts gets us no closer to how you feel about the game or others submitting their opinions which is what was asked for when the thread was started.

 

On that note I played Dino Crisis 3 for about an hour at a local EB. Some buddies of mine had moved in a little further into the game (bunch of lazy asses) and they let me helm things for a while. Mind you this is in no way a review or an

"analytical" thesis on the pros and cons of Dino but in the limited sections I played the camera is indeed really problematic. Even for an action game with a static camera option mind you. (imo of course). Enemies all over the place where you can't see them, the platform jumping made me want to give the controller back at times . This camera was done far better in Devil May Cry, Otogi, Gunvalkyrie, Crimson Sea and even Devil May Cry 2. Some, if not all of which dealt with the same kind of action and platforming that Dino Crisis 3 is shooting for.

 

To be fair I may give the game a rental and play a little further but so far I came away unimpressed with what I experienced (granted it was only an hour and not enough to make final judgement on the game). Visually what I saw was pretty though

[iainl]

I fully admit that (a) I've only tried this very briefly, and ( I'm no fan of "survival horror" games as they get called.

 

But I really didn't like it because this isn't survival horror by any normal definition. It is (or is at least trying to be) an action-packed Devil May Cry style run and gun game. Except the camera is sufficiently obtuse that running is difficult. Effective gunning requires you to go to first person mode, where you can't move at all.

 

So, my real complaint is that the game has fallen between two stools. The camera would be perfectly acceptable for most if the gameplay was taken from Resident Evil, and the gameplay would be just fine if the camera was taken from Gunvalkyrie. As it stands, however, I can't see what I'm doing in the game clearly enough to play it. Before you get to artistic considerations of if a camera is framing the action well, its got to be at least good enough to not get in your way of the game.

[glaurung]

The only way to find out is going to be to play it and let us know what you think. In the end arguing the semantics of one reviewers thoughts gets us no closer to how you feel about the game or others submitting their opinions which is what was asked for when the thread was started.

ok....before i go on here, let's clear the air.

 

you're right - i started this thread looking for other members' opinions of dino crisis 3. what i got were 3 responses, two of which parroted other reviews of the game, and one of which was about the demo. be that as it may, the primary complaint levelled against the game was that the camera was implemented in an enormously frustrating way.

 

so then i responded that personally i enjoy static camera-angles, so that it probably wouldn't be a problem for me in DC3, and i linked to a positive review of the game.

 

and that's where things got derailed: when it was suggested that the review was questionable...why? because it was on a site known for posting biased reviews? because the guy liked the game, "the majority of gamers" to the contrary notwithstanding?

 

the rest of this thread has been me trying to understand just what people think is wrong with what is an objectively good review by any reasonable reviewing standards, whether or not anyone else feels about the game as the reviewer obvisously did.

 

but whatever..enough of that....on to the game.

[glaurung]

here are my intial thoughts on the game.

 

the cutscenes are beautifully done, bar some blockiness in the background shadows during some of the sequences.

 

the character animations are smooth, and (flying with) the jet-pack is also well-implemented and smooth - the slight blurring effect as you take-off is a nice touch.

 

the dinosaurs are well-done, though they might benefit from slightly smoother animation when they jump up at you when you're hovering above them.

 

the environments are crisp and detailed, and really convey a sense of the sheer size of the ship; the many environmental animations are fluid and smooth. the art-direction is superb.

 

what i have heard of the sound (my son was sleeping while i was playing...) is good - mostly the ambient sounds i have come to expect from games like this, with orchestral music kicking in when dinosaurs are around, or upon the occurrence of major events.

 

the controls, as i have stated, i have found to be intuitive, along with the user-interface; map and inventory screens are both easily accessible and easily navigable.

 

the map is 3D and can be magnified and rotated at will; toggling between area-, section-, and room-maps is possible.

 

and now the camera......

 

as i expected, it is pretty much exactly the same one that i have come to expect from (this-generation) survival/horror games, meaning that the perspective and tracking is fixed, and is subject to sudden changes based on the player's position in the environment.

 

what this means, obviously, is that you can see only what is actually visibly present in the camera's field of regard - if there are dinosaurs off-screen, then you can't see them; if you're engaging one or twenty of them in a heated melee, then the camera is liable to sudden shifts mid-shot, mid-jump, mid-flight; depending on your position within the particular room, sometimes more than one shift in rapid succession.

 

there are basically two ways to implement this sort of camera/control system:

 

1) character-movement is relative to the character; or

 

2) character-movement is relative to the environment.

 

if it's (1), then pushing forward or back on the stick will make the character move in or away from the direction he's facing; left and right simply make the character pivot to the left or right, at which point he can be moved in/away from the direction you've made him face. which means that pushing ahead on the stick will make the character run forward, no matter what the camera-angle.

 

if it's (2), pushing forward will make the character go forward on the screen; left, and he'll go left on the screen, etc., which means that which way you travel will be dependent upon the camera-angle; what is on the left of one screen won't always be on the left on another.

 

DC3 uses a kind of hybrid of the two systems: even though on-screen action is relative to the environment, if you exit one screen holding the joystick in one direction (e.g. to the left towards a door in one corner of the hall), the game arranges it so that you will continue to progress in that direction (e.g. toward the door) even once the camera changes its angle and the door is no longer, say, on the left. stopping and then starting again will cancel the effect, and movement on the new screen will be screen-relative again (e.g. if the door is now in front of you, you will have to resume movement toward the door by pushing forward on the stick).

 

this feature makes it much easier to move and fight through the sometimes many changes in perspective during combat, since you don't have to worry about leaving one screen and then having the way you were going suddenly change on the new screen.

 

a first-person option is also available which allows you to manipulate the camera as well as fire, but not move, which can be helpful when looking for ledges you may need to access, or other items of interest you need/want to acquire.

 

so. do i like the game? absolutely. do i find the camera distracting and frustrating? no, not in the least.

 

as far as i am concerned, this is a survival/horror game more similar to every other survival/horror game i have ever played than it is different; you can walk into a room with zombies-or-demon-nurses-or-dinosaurs-or-frog-creatures-or-genetic-experiments-run-amok-or-whatever and not be able to see them until they either walk into the camera's field, or you cross the "camera-line" and get a new perspective that includes them. what's new about that? i can't count the times i've come through a door in some game or another, heard that something is in the room with me just off-screen, and.....what? my heart-rate increases, i get nervous, i wonder what it is and if it's going to get me, and what to do next best to ensure my survival. and isn't that the point of survival/horror games?

 

as for fighting creatures that are off-screen, during my fight with the crazy-upside-down-demon-bitch at the end of silent hill 2, i think i actually saw her twice. if you were to add-up all the things i've killed in survival/horror games over the years, i bet it'd be close to an even split as between things i killed while they were on-screen, and those that were off-screen. 'tis the nature of the beast, take it or leave it.

 

i also can't count the number of times i've been running for my life from a bunch of demonic whatever's and have run into more of the same and have begun to fight them amidst 4 or 5 rapid changes in camera-angle; it's just not a big deal to me.

 

so i see absolutely nothing different about DC3 than i do all those other games in terms of the way it effects combat. sure, your character is capable of hovering in the air and zipping here-and-there much more quickly than in other games of the genre, but so what? as a simple matter of fact, i find neither the controls nor the in-game camera to be distracting or confusing or frustrating at all, even with the additional speed (it's easier for me to put enough distance between me and the dinosaur to allow me to take my time...). i mean, what it does is demand the development of a new gaming strategy, which i actually find enormously refreshing.

 

but then, i love survival/horror games; if you prefer first-person shooters, then all the more power to you - this probably isn't your game.

 

which was really the point of my initial observations about the whole the-worst-camera-ever thing: it's a survival/horror game with a survival/horror camera, so complaining that it's a bad game because it's not a first-person shooter is just absurd. in the alternative, you might claim that the pacing requires a different camera in order for the game to be playable (note: playable - NOT pleasing), except that i, an average gamer, am able to play the game...

 

throw in the fact that the game is three-dimensional, requiring you to think along another axis (up and down), and the interesting twist that the ship can alter its shape, making inaccessible sections acessible and vice versa, and the game's a winner for me.

 

as always, your mileage may vary.

 

- jd

[glaurung]

But I really didn't like it because this isn't survival horror by any normal definition. It is (or is at least trying to be) an action-packed Devil May Cry style run and gun game.

i have no idea what the game is trying to be - all i know is what i find it to be, and, personally, it's certainly not a "run-and-gun" game.

 

Except the camera is sufficiently obtuse that running is difficult.

for you, perhaps. not for me.

 

Effective gunning requires you to go to first person mode, where you can't move at all.

that's interesting, 'cos i find it far more ineffective to shoot in 1st person mode.

 

As it stands, however, I can't see what I'm doing in the game clearly enough to play it.

fair enough. i certainly can.

 

Before you get to artistic considerations of if a camera is framing the action well, its got to be at least good enough to not get in your way of the game.

and it doesn't get in the way of the game. at least not in the way of my game.

 

i make this response only because the implication of your post seems to me to be that unplayability is a feature of the game itself rather than just of your own attempt at playing the game. which it isn't.

[adamsappel]

I've found this exchange quite refreshing and informative. I liked the review, glaurung, I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts on other games. Personally, I hate/can't handle the control/camera scheme of most survival horror titles (I cannot overcome the spatial changes between screens or wrap my head around the "up is forward etc."), so I won't be playing this one.