Indeed, can't we just agree to disagree? The walls of text won't help but make it difficult and boring to read.

Again I chalk it up to my inability to get on a computer in general for very long over the course of more than a month. So my writers drive was burning to be let loose, so as soon as I started typing.....wooooooooo.

Anyway, I still support my opinion but don't really care to drag it out any further. As stated, we should just agree to disagree if nothing else.

To the giant post by Ikari, right ok so there are spawn points. Where are they exactly, invisible lines that I am supposed to test out. I am supposed to know that after I step over this spot more enemies would trigger. In RE4's Mike section enemies triggers happen after you cross into a totally different area or you perform a major action like take out a turret, it is a very clear point. I have played RE4 many times, I feel that Mike section is paced better, it has better level design. Disagree with me, that is how I feel. I am not arguing about what they set out to do with Desperate Escape, I am not saying it is a horrible failure, I am not saying no effort was put into it, I am not saying that the different enemy load outs is a bad thing. I am simply saying comparing one set piece to another the one in RE4 was better, as is the case with almost every setpiece in RE5. I believe the smaller more focused level design, the better layout of the environment and pacing of the enemies and types that get thrown at you are all better in RE4 and that results in a more memorable and exciting segment.

Why in the world would you want to expect enemies? Having them come randomly is much better, adds a shock value and keeps you on your toes.

Precisely, as much as it can nearly kill me to take out a reaper in a confined space. It's quite the shock when it'll drop down on you.

No problem, if you want we can continue the discussion on private threads, but I feel I have made my point valid, and you as well, so no problems either way. I guess that is what really happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. jk.

Back on track, one thing I thought that both this scenario and the LIN did very well was the randomness of enemies and the sort of ..unexpected changes from each play through. Going back and playing LIN a second time did have me jump when i didn't expect it, and even DE had the variations of enemies and their placement which i thought was really cool.

It got me thinking..how cool would it have been if for different difficulty levels in the main game, if they had done this? Like take Assembly place, instead of an executioner ( or even in addition too) there is now a random reaper, or maybe a could of chainsaw majini....imagine the fun in subsequent replays when those things pop out out of nowhere?

I kind of felt that just increasing the enemies strength in veteran and professional in the main game was cool and all, but much more for completion sakes then anything else. I would have loved for their to just be more enemies, and variations of them. Anyone else agree?

I thought News Bot was the immovable object?

just kidding if you read this news btw, don't hurt me. :(

Exactly, this is the entire premise behind L4D.

I am talking about random respawns. When you enter an area obviously its nice for them to surprise you by coming out of different areas, but as you are playing I don't need to be blindsided by something that was not there before. It is all about pacing, about making sure the player is aware of the dangers around them at all times even if they can't see it. Having areas designed where you can focus on one gameplay scenario, before you enter another scenario and not have the two mixing up and messing the flow.

There was never a time in DE when I wasn't fully aware of everything around me though.

...Except those damn rockets, they were so weird too cause sometimes I'd take damage from them and sometimes I'd just fall down.