Quote from Wikipedia :

"A PC port of Resident Evil 4 will be published by Ubisoft. This port is scheduled to be released on December 27, 2006 in the United States and December 8 in Europe. [4] However, there is no planned release in Japan. The port will contain the bonus features from PlayStation 2 version, such as "Separate Ways", the new weapon P.R.L. 412 laser cannon, and unlockable costumes for Leon and Ashley. Currently, Ubisoft has not released any screenshots or videos, but it is said that the port will have graphics potentially superior to those of the GameCube.The new release dates are debatable. The most common of them are December 8th 2006, January 1st 2007 and January 31st 2007."

Cool Thanks Solid Snake :)

As per gamespot it is delayed for PC for indefinate period :(

Not holding my breath for this game.

If you did, you would have died for sure before this game comes out. Because it wouldn't suprise me if they will have another delay when we get past christmas, and that it will first be published around summer next year. Wouldn't suprise me at all. Anyway, I've heard very mixed reviews of this game, even though those reviews were for the gamecube version, so I don't expect this game to go into the history books like RE1, 2 and 3 did.

Where the hell did you hear these so-called "mixed reviews"? It's been touted as one of the best games this generation, and probably the best Resident Evil ever! Gamecube version has an average of 96% over 105 media outlets and the PS2 version have an average of 95,7% based on 56 media outlets. This according to Gamerankings.com. Doesn't exactly scream "mixed reviews", does it?

You really should see somebody about that temper of yours. It's going to give you a heart attack before you are 50.

I'm not talking about those reviews. I'm talking about what people I know who got it for Gamecube though of it. I've also read this game is not as scary as the earlier Resident Evil games, and that it's more action oriented. More focused on that something must happen all the time and that it's not as scary as it used to be. I've heard from people I know that this game feels dead until you are in some action scene again, and that it just gets repetive and boring.

Beside, just because you apparently loved this game dosen't mean everybody else have to love it too. Heck, I didn't even say I thought that way, I just said that's my impression from the reviews I have got of the game.

What are you on about? I never yelled or anything, did I? If you refer to the swearing, well, that's just how we speak here, and there's nothing aggressive about it.

About your friends, well, they're sort of right. It's a pretty different game, but it's still one hell of a game and maybe one of the best in its genre. But what I reacted against was your "mixed reviews" comment. Your friends appearently told you the game was different from the others, not that the game wasn't any good. Just because it's different from the others doesn't mean it's not an extremely good game. Because it is. So I don't see how you can say it's not going to go into the history books like RE1-3, seeing as this is probably already in it. And if I remember correctly, RE3 was very much an action game in the same vein as RE4, only different controls and camera angle.

actually, what they said was that the game was not good because of those reasons. Anyway, maybe you misunderstood. What I meant with mixed reviews was that some places say it's the greatest game ever made, but other people have said it's really not that much to brag about.

About if it will go in the history books or not, depends on if it's something new and exciting. From what I've heard it sounded like just another action game. But I'm going to try it, so I will play it when it gets released for PC. But I sure doubts it's going to be released in a while, since they keep setting new release dates. Anyway, glad you liked it. Great that it sells good after they spent such a long time on making a Resident Evil 4.

Then their reviews are invalid, because a game can't be bad just because it's different. A good game is a good game. They may not have liked it, but disliking it because it wasn't exactly the same as other games in the series is just dumb.

And Resident Evil 1 was new and exciting, 2 and 3 was not. Resident Evil 4 is new and exciting again. Guess they didn't really want "new and exciting" but "old and predictable". To me, they sound like the kind of people who only wants to play the same games over and over again, and never wants a series to evolve or change. The Resi series was getting old, long before Resi 4 came out.

Again, as I said, Resident Evil 4 has ALREADY gone into the history books, so you don't have to say IF anymore. It's like saying Metal Gear Solid will be forgotten, or Curse of Monkey Island.

What your mates tell you are not reviews.

That's an undeniably valid fact.

So then, oh wise one, please tell me when something becomes a review. Last time I checked, a review was some guy/girl who played a game and said what she/he thought of it. Is a review really more valid just because somebody who writes on behalf of a magazine writes it? That's like saying pizza ordered in is better, just because it's done by professionals. I've never heard of an official school for becoming a reviewer, so it's not like a review becomes more or less valid because of who writes it or says it.

Even what people write her are their own reviews of the games.

Last time I checked the dictionary on this word, it said the following:

Review \Re*view"\, n. [F. revue, fr. revu, p. p. of revoir to
see again, L. revidere; pref. re- re- + videre to see. See
View, and cf. Revise.]
1. A second or repeated view; a reexamination; a
retrospective survey; a looking over again; as, a review
of one's studies; a review of life.
[1913 Webster]

2. An examination with a view to amendment or improvement;
revision; as, an author's review of his works.
[1913 Webster]

3. A critical examination of a publication, with remarks; a
criticism; a critique.
[1913 Webster]

4. A periodical containing critical essays upon matters of
interest, as new productions in literature, art, etc.
[1913 Webster]

5. An inspection, as of troops under arms or of a naval
force, by a high officer, for the purpose of ascertaining
the state of discipline, equipments, etc.
[1913 Webster]

6. (Law) The judicial examination of the proceedings of a
lower court by a higher.
[1913 Webster]

7. A lesson studied or recited for a second time.
[1913 Webster]

It doesn't say anything there about who has to write it to make it into a review.

That depends on who writes the history book. The conquerer always write the history books, so if it will be forgotten can only be decided by who comes after and writes the history books.

Ask a kid today about Mortal Kombat. Mortal Kombat 1-3 are great history, but you'll find no young kids today who remember these games.

Marsan, all of the definitions that apply here describe some kind of unified work, not comments made in passing.

Unless they own a 360 as Mortal Kombat in a Live Arcade game now (Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3)

You can ask a kid who Humphrey Bogart was too, and not knowing the answer, but that doesn't make him less historical/legendary.

The is because your Celeron processor is not made for graphics rendering. It's notoriously terrible for rendering any kind of graphics and has always been touted as a low-end processor not much good for anything but surfing the internet, playing music, and watching movies.

True, they do, but the Xbox, for instance, uses 3 of those x86 3.06ghz processors. Not just one.

True, it's not a review, but an opinion (which is what a review is, an expanded opinion.)