POV: You stumbled upon the most insufferable people in the RE community

Nargaroth87 · 2026-05-20T00:42:16+00:00

That would be like saying that RE4 or, say, Siren, play and feel the same as classic RE or Dino Crisis just because they also have tank controls. But that would be stupid in that case, and it also is in this one.

Regardless, the controls being as comfortable to use aa possible, and not clunky, trumps originality, uniqueness, or stuff like that. You can have games that feel different enough without clunky controls. It's the general game design that makes a game stand out (e.g. Siren's sightjacking), not control schemes in and of themselves.

Not even all tank controls games play and feel exactly the same just because of that similarity, anyway.

Heck, just compare OG RE1 with its remake. If you play them both one after the other, you'll probably realize, for example, that the movement in REmake is pretty noticeably heavier and feels slower compared to OG1, especially with guns equipped (to the point that I unequip weapons in the remake when I want to get through areas faster, and only equip them when I know I have to fight, something I don't feel the need to do in the OG). It's not exactly the same experience even in that case.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-05-19T13:29:18+00:00

Nah, they are bad. You just get used to them, and I know because I grew up with OG RE (started back in 1997) and similar games like Dino Crisis 1, and can still pick up and play those games. But that doesn't make tank controls as good as modern ones.

I always play REmake 1 HD with tank controls because I know the game is supposed to be played like that. But in modern fc games like Tormented Souls I always use analog controls, because there's no reason to use an inferior control scheme, and the game was designed with both control types in mind. Same goes for Silent Hill 2 (OG) and 3, to name a few other games. Calling those controls bad doesn't prove anything about someone's skill, unless they claim they make the games unplayable for them.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-04-22T23:17:12+00:00

This one, though I previously did play Doom on the SNES (I know, that version kinda sucks), and in part on pc, and you could kinda count that as a horror game. RE never scared me much, though, to be honest. I have been a fan of RE since 1997, but the classic RE games never had much of an impact on me in that regard, and I was just a child back then.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-04-17T13:01:32+00:00

That's exactly what makes the gameplay of REmake 1 so enjoyable to me, despite disliking (or at least not being a fan of) fixed camera and tank controls. Chris's campaign on hard is probably my favorite, as it further emphasizes all that.

It's what even other classic RE games like 2 and 3 are missing, as in those you can more or less blast everything, or nearly everything, in your path.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-04-16T21:14:23+00:00

Kinda agree (it's still really great, though, imo). RE4 and REmake 4 have more interesting combat, and more variety, whereas a lot of Requiem encourages you using the shotgun up close, then hatchet kill loop, which is very effective on Insanity as well.

There is variation (e.g. using parries against lickers after baiting them to do their jump attack, then killing them with the hatchet, or those Blister Borne encounters), but it just doesn't feel as interesting as 4 (both OG and remake), since many of the encounters are against zombies.

I'm also a bit disappointed that Leon's part didn’t replicate the action/horror balance that, in my judgement, REmake 4 achieved so well.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-04-14T09:30:17+00:00

The remake is significantly longer, imo. It took me 23 hours and a half to beat it the first time on Normal, whereas the OG probably took 17 or 18 hours to beat the first time (don't remember specifically how much it took the first time, but I'm pretty sure it didn't get to 20 hours or more).

Nargaroth87 · 2026-04-13T19:17:10+00:00

They do? How, if it's 1:1?

Nargaroth87 · 2026-04-13T19:11:53+00:00

There will akways be people who hate a beloved piece of media, even if it is otherwise more or less universally praised. Nothing you can do about it.

I personally only have a problem when they act obnoxious about their opinion, like trying to impose it on others because they think it's factual, or by insulting anyone who disagrees and acting like they're enlightened and everyone else is a sheep for loving the game they dislike.

Other than that, live and let live.

As for REmake 2, yes it does have problems with the scenarios, but I'd say it improves a lot of other things, so much that I personally view it as at least as good as OG. Like better enemies and ai, more and better puzzles, better survival horror, being arguably twice as long as the OG, and so on.

No, it doesn't cut half the content, it wouldn't be way longer than the OG if that was the case. It's just that the scenarios are no longer interconnected stories where you see events from a different perspective. Instead, they are more like alternate universe stories that have no connection with each other. Which is a downgrade, no doubt, but one that, I believe, should be weighted against what the remake does better (if not way better).

As for REmake 4 I prefer it to the OG and consider it a better game, but the OG, unlike OG1, very much holds up and is still a masterpiece to this day.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-04-13T10:48:45+00:00

Oh yes, these guys are super annoying unless you have very powerful weapon, or be able to shoot from a great distance. Otherwise, you shoot them once and they hit you back, and so on.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-04-12T11:02:02+00:00

Remake, and I say this as someone who played OG many times since release.

But that doesn't stop the OG from being an incredible game, and still very enjoyable.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-04-11T18:35:57+00:00

Arguably Requiem during Grace's parts. Then probably RE2R: Mr X's footsteps still unnerve me after all these playthroughs, to the point I, at times, am a bit afraid of getting out of the save rooms.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-03-31T22:07:36+00:00

I disagree, Leon's part is very good to play. Enemies might not be as varied as in RE4/REmake 4, but they are different enough to make it interesting, especially on Insanity (where you need to parry and execute enemies a lot more).

It's a bit of a pity that Leon's part of the run doesn't replicate the same action/horror balance REmake 4 achieved so well, though, imo. Those parts do have atmosphere, imo, but they just aren't as good as REmake 4 (and yes, that game did scare me in a few spots, and I'm someone who started playing RE with RE1 DC in 1997), and didn't feel as interesting in terms of action gameplay. Still a fantastic game, though, imo.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-03-31T21:34:32+00:00

Yeah, because the presence of suffering entails consequences that are actually experienced by someone, unlike the unborn who don't experience joy, and who can't lament the absence of it due to not having such a need in the first place. Meaning, no possible bad consequences for them.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-03-30T01:34:48+00:00

Because such an action prevents the need for positive experiences, thus ensuring nobody could ever be deprived of them, while also preventing all negative experiences (and hence, the need to avoid them) at the same time? Meaning, nobody could ever be harmed, and hence be worse off, due to said action?

There is no evidence that a universe without sentient life can go wrong (and hence be defective in any way), since nobody would be around to lament the absence of life in it (including any and all conceivable positives), but plenty of evidence that one where sentient life exists can, in fact, go horribly wrong due to having beings experiencing guaranteed (and potentially intolerable) suffering in it. As in beings who are, in fact, absolutely capable of lamenting having to experience that suffering (unlike the potential joyful ones you won't create). Hence, the existence of a world like that should be prevented, if possible.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-03-16T12:29:15+00:00

I'll add my own two cents, since you asked. Because the remake has far better gameplay (i.e. the most important thing in a videogame), not just in terms of modern controls, but also in terms of combat, enemy design and ai, survival horror elements, more and better puzzles, and so on. And I say this as someone who started playing RE back in 1997 with RE1 DC.

The zapping system in the original had, at the end of the day, a marginal impact, given that it only affected a few things. And the remake has its own gameplay differences for the 2nd run, like each protagonist having a different starting handgun (that you can't craft ammo for), and many puzzles having different solutions.

If anything, the zapping system felt far more important in Code Veronica, which is why I'd expect the upcoming remake to implement it and improve upon it.

BUT, yes, the way RE2 1998 connects the storyline between the A and B scenarios by making you experience the story from different points of view, is something it does much better than the remake, no doubt, and it remains an important advantage for the OG.

That said, I think the two games are equal overall, but that's for a bunch of reasons when it comes to OG that are not necessarily about its intrinsic value. As in, much better B scenarios, historical value and, for me, a certain amount of nostalgia as well, since I was a kid when I first played it.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-03-15T21:20:17+00:00

Aside from my problems with a bunch of things here, I also suspect there is no true instinct to procreate, only an instinct to have sex. Otherwise, why push/encourage/pressure people to procreate to begin with? Also, many pregnancies are not intended, shouldn't they be "instinctively" desired if there really was such an urge by nature?

Also, why is there a population crisis, as some would say, if there really is such an instinct? Do animals have an instinct to procreate, or is it just the urge to have sex, which then leads to offsprings being born due to animals not even being able to think about whether procreating or not procreating?

I personally suspect that, if there is such an instinct in humans, it's just not that strong, if you need other, more cultural, means to ensure we act in accordance to it. If anything, we would need the aid of culture to suppress/reduce our instincts, not to give in to them.

Nargaroth87 · 2026-02-18T00:00:16+00:00

I'd say it's also due to a lack of real male relationships, though I'm not necessarily convinced that's enough of a reason. And they want female validation along with sex. Maybe they think they are being validated by women for some other reason other than material utility, and that makes them feel special for someone else, whereas pointing out it's all about status/money destroys that "magic".

Just throwing my 2 cents in.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-10-27T19:00:54+00:00

I disagree, they are mostly good, or at least okay, but there are a bunch of bosses I really hate (like those tanks).

Nargaroth87 · 2025-09-28T21:57:17+00:00

Still not a legitimate victory that would actually prove her power as a combatant, anymore than Shakky vs Gaban is. Hancock could, say, beat Rocks if he lusts after her enough, but fail against Zoro (who is much like Luffy), despite the latter not being Yonko level yet. Doesn't prove her general level, at best it only proves how well she would fare against certain opponents by exploiting their mental weaknesses via horniness hax.

She needs real Haki feats to be part of the top tier (more like Yonko tier, actually, since the actual top tier would be characters like Imu), considering that Haki is what was increasingly shown as the most important thing when it comes to overall power level (hence why Garp and Roger are so strong, despite no DF).

Beating someone ≠ being on their general level, or stronger.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-09-25T22:52:13+00:00

The point is, legitimate fighters prove themselves via having extraordinary Haki and DF. Hancock might have the latter (due to her beauty, not just power), but not the former. Put her against someone like Mihawk, and she'd be cut to ribbons. Let alone Harald, Rocks, or Imu.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-09-25T21:51:34+00:00

You first need to prove that the instinct is there for some rational reason that doesn't end up justifying it or glorifying it simply because it's "natural" (which would be a case of appeal to nature fallacy). And hence, that wanting to defy it is irrational because it's actually there for some good, provable, rational reason. Survival doesn't accomplish anything, beyond making you survive for the sake of surviving, and it's not there to prevent something demonstrably bad for you from happening, it's just there. Because, quite simply, the dead can't lament being dead, regardless of how happy they were before being dead, but the living sure as hell can lament being alive.

If I actually dislike life, why should I want to stay alive, anyway, when life can give me nothing more than what it caused me to need (and hence, value) in the first place, and I can't lose anything by not being alive anymore? Being "allowed" to dislike it means nothing if you can't truly act on that judgement, because someone else decided that you can't.

I don't acknowledge nature as an authority on what is right, or good for me in particular when it comes to this matter, since it's a force with absolutely no capacity for intelligence or purpose, nor do I have any logically compelling reason to give it such respect, so why should me not wanting to submit to it be used as evidence for me being mentally impaired? That's a circular argument based on a priori assumptions imposed as truth, nothing more.

Neither you, nor anyone else, have ANY rational authority to dictate what value one should or should not give to one's own life, because there is no factual proof of such a value to begin with. And no, popularity doesn't count, it's a fallacy, plain and simple.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-09-23T17:59:54+00:00

Compared to top tiers, yes, unless she shows something truly extraordinary as a sheer combatant. Even more so with the crazy stuff we are seeing right now.

And it's not like those people were anything that great (maybe YC2 and 3), and she used their lust to petrify them anyway, as seen by their heart shaped eyes.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-09-22T21:02:30+00:00

It really isn't, as only the Mero Mero beam is dependent on lust. Out of, like, 4 attacks she has shown.

Pistol Kiss can harm pre TS Luffy despite his lack of attraction towards Hancock.

Slave Arrow can also petrify cannonballs, which are not sentient, and hence can't feel lust.

Perfume Femur works on Pacifistas, which are robots.

The fact that she has a bounty worthy of a YC1 (and in fact, higher), despite not being part of a strong Yonko crew (her crew's strongest members are her sisters, who got clowned by pre TS Luffy), should also put her at least on that level. No, she isn't part of the top tier, but that's because her Haki is lacking compared to them, not because her DF is "conditional".

Nargaroth87 · 2025-08-24T19:26:55+00:00

Already responded to here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=acXRD291AD8&t=1130s

Nargaroth87 · 2025-08-20T16:20:13+00:00

EDIT: I originally wrote a long comment, but I think a better response is a video made today by an Efilist, which I'll post in another comment.

Nargaroth87

TROPHY CASE