Support NeoGAF

[ksdixon]

Ahh, to be fresh to neogaf. I believe there's a whole subset of genre fans that hate RE4 just because they feel it killed survival horror. Convienently forgetting it was on the way out well beforehand.

RE4, and it's subsequent success, just put the nail in the coffin.

CAPCOM buffoonery kind of ensured that before RE4. I think RE0 is generally disliked due to animal bosses, no item boxes, and how the Rebecca that walks out of that game is a different character to RE1 Rebecca who's scared of regular zombies. RECVX didn't have gameplay improvements from RE3, had too much backtracking, Steve was annoying, had a bad story, started the stupidness that is super villan Wesker... and any other bad points that are raised against it in teh recent CVX thread. RE Outbreak had no voice chat, no online in European version if I recall correctly, and was chopped-up inot 3 games, the third part never being released. I still can't believe that REmake was on GameCube of all places, and then that they never followed-up on the original intent to Remake 2,3,CVX on GC.

 

[Vibranium]

It's nothing like REmake or Zero (gameplay wise), which is what the next RE spin-off needs to be like. Camera angles, crimson heads and zombies. I hope RE2make is faithful in regards to environments and camera.

 

[Manu]

Old game is old. There's better stuff out now. In gameplay alone RE5 and 6 are superior.

RE4 is still a better game than either of those. Games aren't just about gameplay.

 

[Romars202129]

RE4, and it's subsequent success, just put the nail in the coffin.

CAPCOM buffoonery kind of ensured that before RE4. I think RE0 is generally disliked due to animal bosses, no item boxes, and how the Rebecca that walks out of that game is a different character to RE1 Rebecca who's scared of regular zombies. RECVX didn't have gameplay improvements from RE3, had too much backtracking, Steve was annoying, had a bad story, started the stupidness that is super villan Wesker... and any other bad points that are raised against it in teh recent CVX thread. RE Outbreak had no voice chat, no online in European version if I recall correctly, and was chopped-up inot 3 games, the third part never being released. I still can't believe that REmake was on GameCube of all places, and then that they never followed-up on the original intent to Remake 2,3,CVX on GC.

I missed a lot of that drama, as I was a pretty surface RE fan back then. But the thing I do remember most is that almost unanimously everyone was calling for capcom to 'evolve' RE. The formula was old, overused, and had too many weak elements to the design, ect.
So much weight and expectation was thrown on what RE4 was supposed to be. The fact that game turned out to be anything other than a steaming, overwrought dissappointment is a miracle.

 

[Vibranium]

RE4, and it's subsequent success, just put the nail in the coffin.

CAPCOM buffoonery kind of ensured that before RE4. I think RE0 is generally disliked due to animal bosses, no item boxes, and how the Rebecca that walks out of that game is a different character to RE1 Rebecca who's scared of regular zombies. RECVX didn't have gameplay improvements from RE3, had too much backtracking, Steve was annoying, had a bad story, started the stupidness that is super villan Wesker... and any other bad points that are raised against it in teh recent CVX thread. RE Outbreak had no voice chat, no online in European version if I recall correctly, and was chopped-up inot 3 games, the third part never being released. I still can't believe that REmake was on GameCube of all places, and then that they never followed-up on the original intent to Remake 2,3,CVX on GC.

Yeah, Code Veronica was at least faithful cheesy storywise to RE5 with superhuman Wesker and Chris' evolution from getting beat up a lot, to a mass of muscle punching boulders.

Zero really dropped the ball with all the Marcus stupid stuff, should have focused more on the backstory. I would have revealed him only at the very end as a final boss (old man only) and made it more about uncovering what happened. I much prefered Wesker when he was a guy just looking for power and manipulating biohazards, not taking over the world.

 

[ksdixon]

I missed a lot of that drama, as I was a pretty surface RE fan back then. But the thing I do remember most is that almost unanimously everyone was calling for capcom to 'evolve' RE. The formula was old, overused, and had too many weak elements to the design, ect.

That may have been the case, I don[t recall having the internet at that time. But I super disagree with that mindset, personally. I feel that putting REmake on GC was a mistake given the console's audience typical age, and the so-called 'disappointing Remake sales figures' that get pointed-at as to why RE needed to evolve seem to back this up; I tend to think REmake would have sold better if not on the GameCube.

I also think that CVX and RE0 were a pair of stinkers, each for their own separate reasons. I think looking back towards REmake, 2 and 3 there were plenty of improvements and evolutions already that could have kept the old style in-tact as the series moved forward. But CAPCOM threw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[SolVanderlyn]

Yeah, Code Veronica was at least faithful cheesy storywise to RE5 with superhuman Wesker and Chris' evolution from getting beat up a lot, to a mass of muscle punching boulders.

Zero really dropped the ball with all the Marcus stupid stuff, should have focused more on the backstory. I would have revealed him only at the very end as a final boss (old man only) and made it more about uncovering what happened. I much prefered Wesker when he was a guy just looking for power and manipulating biohazards, not taking over the world.

Capcom seems to have regretted young bishonen Marcus, because he's old again in Umbrella Chronicles.

Personally, I thought him de-aging was cool. Unpopular opinion, though.

 

[Roni]

Ahh, to be fresh to neogaf. I believe there's a whole subset of genre fans that hate RE4 just because they feel it killed survival horror. Convienently forgetting it was on the way out well beforehand.

I'm in that group and you're right in thinking the genre, as it was, wasn't in a good place. But instead of trying to reinvent the genre and update it, Mikami went with changing the franchise's genre because Resident Evil for the GameCube sold poorly. Who would've thought releasing a game in one of the worst selling consoles of a generation would lead to low sales...

RE4 is still a better game than either of those. Games aren't just about gameplay.

Games are mostly about gameplay as not only is that the media hook, in practice, few will suffer through terrible gameplay to see the payoff of a story. How could you even know the story's payoff will make up for it? There's no reason to believe the story will definitely have a good ending...

Game stories are important and should be given proper care and love and effort and all that, but gameplay is paramount. How many would've made it through to the end of The Last of Us if the gameplay was shit?

 

[Bergerac]

Capcom seems to have regretted young bishonen Marcus, because he's old again in Umbrella Chronicles.

Personally, I thought him de-aging was cool. Unpopular opinion, though.

I didn't mind him being young, but what in God's name was the outfit and singing about?

 

[Manu]

Games are mostly about gameplay as not only is that the media hook, in practice, few will suffer through terrible gameplay to see the payoff of a story. How could you even know the story's payoff will make up for it? There's no reason to believe the story will definitely have a good ending...

Game stories are important and should be given proper care and love and effort and all that, but gameplay is paramount. How many would've made it through to the end of The Last of Us if the gameplay was shit?

Let me rephrase then:

RE4 is the better game because it balances its gameplay with its other aspects (story, atmosphere, pacing, balance, length) much better than RE5 or 6 do. Especially 6.

 

[Romars202129]

I'm in that group and you're right in thinking the genre, as it was, wasn't in a good place. But instead of trying to reinvent the genre and update it, Mikami went with changing the franchise's genre because Resident Evil for the GameCube sold poorly. Who would've thought releasing a game in one of the worst selling consoles of a generation would lead to low sales...

Yeah, but he made something amazing anyways. In game design, you can't look a win in the mouth, imo.
Maybe he could have made that wonder kin survival horror update that brought that genre into the future, but then again maybe we would have just got a crappier RE4 and the genre died out anyways.
There's no telling.

 

[Astral Dog]

I didn't mind him being young, but what in God's name was the outfit and singing about?

The song was very cool.

 

[dlauv]

Let me rephrase then:

RE4 is the better game because it balances its gameplay with its other aspects (story, atmosphere, pacing, balance, length) much better than RE5 or 6 do. Especially 6.

IDK, I think RE4 has better shooting gameplay than either 5 or 6. The other two offer some neat counterbalances with expanded movesets, but I don't think any of the sequels feel as good in the core shooting departments of control, sound, animation, enemy feedback and enemy design.

"Gameplay" should probably umbrella both pacing and balance as well.

 

[Fancy Clown]

Old game is old. There's better stuff out now. In gameplay alone RE5 and 6 are superior.

Nah. Re4's mechanics are simple, but flawless, and even if 5 and 6 do have better mechanics--which I don't really think they do-- (although 6 is totally different and wouldn't fit in a game like 4) every other aspect of the gameplay in 4 is better: enemies, weapons, encounters, bosses, level design, pacing, upgrade system, etc. and then when you factor in the other stuff like art direction, pacing, music, story...it ain't even close. RE4 is the best game ever made. 5 is a great co-op game in spite of its many flaws, and 6 is a strung together corpse of a hodgepodge of ideas that don't work together as a whole.

 

[Evolved1]

IDK, I think RE4 has better shooting gameplay than either 5 or 6. The other two offer some neat counterbalances with expanded movesets, but I don't think any of the sequels feel as good in the core shooting departments of control, sound, animation, enemy feedback and enemy design.

"Gameplay" should probably umbrella both pacing and balance as well.

Yeah, just loooove aiming with the left stick.

 

[Fancy Clown]

Yeah, just loooove aiming with the left stick.

What's the issue with it? There's no point at all in putting it on the right stick since you don't move and shoot in the game, which is a key part of the game's combat philosophy and why it's tense crowd control action, risk and reward melee system, and prescision shooting system all work so well.

 

[Evolved1]

What's the issue with it? There's no point at all in putting it on the right stick since you don't move and shoot in the game, which is a key part of the game's combat philosophy and why it's tense crowd control action, risk and reward melee system, and prescision shooting system all work so well.

Idk dude maybe they could put it on the stick the rest of planet Earth has been using to aim for over two decades?

Hey maybe they should force you to use wii contols in your left hand for the same effect! But they don't force that, do they. Left stick aim is fucking weird and unnecessary, and it's telling you can't even acknowledge some might think that. But we can't criticise any aspect of 4, it's the greatest game ever made perfect in every way. Hallelujah amen.

 

[Neff]

I use the RE4 control method when playing Revelations 2 so hey.

 

[RSB]

What's the issue with it? There's no point at all in putting it on the right stick since you don't move and shoot in the game, which is a key part of the game's combat philosophy and why it's tense crowd control action, risk and reward melee system, and prescision shooting system all work so well.

Pretty much. I prefer the core gameplay in RE5 and 6, but the way RE4 balances the gameplay mechanics with the level design and enemy behavior is basically perfect (and definitely better than RE5 and 6)

 

[Seyavesh]

i think re5 and re6 are pretty natural and strong iterations on re4's combat system but lack literally everything else that 4 does so strongly so it ends up being hard to determine whether they're objectively better or not

like, just through the pacing and encounter design alone re4 squeezes every single last drop out of it's system- it's an incredible piece of work. re5/6 fail to capitalize in the same manner despite having greater potential in that pure system+enemy variation aspect and what they do with those is so simple that it's impossible to tell. re6 is especially guilty of this as campaign and regular mercs mode are such a mess that attempting to determine the actual design purpose and function of every option within it's combat system is almost pointless- you're never really presented scenarios often enough to where you can even make use of them in the way they were mean to be used.

edit:
as a side note: i think a really good example of a game that iterated on re4 in a manner that was more in line with why it was good over re5/6's expansion of it's raw action mechanics is dead space.
mechanically it's not as advanced as re5/6 but that's not the point- it added in new factors to consider (on demand melee, moving and shooting) created enemies to match that and then most importantly designed a campaign that used those new factors and enemies to their absolute full potential. i easily consider the first (and second, even!) dead space to be vastly better games than re5 and 6 because of this despite liking re6 much more on a strict mechanical level.

 

[Evolved1]

It's possible to retain tank controls while moving aim over to the stick most people are used to aiming with. I've never suggested move and shoot for RE4. Ever.

That's a strawman.

 

[SolVanderlyn]

i think re5 and re6 are pretty natural and strong iterations on re4's combat system but lack literally everything else that 4 does so strongly so it ends up being hard to determine whether they're objectively better or not

like, just through the pacing and encounter design alone re4 squeezes every single last drop out of it's system- it's an incredible piece of work. re5/6 fail to capitalize in the same manner despite having greater potential in that pure system+enemy variation aspect and what they do with those is so simple that it's impossible to tell. re6 is especially guilty of this as campaign and regular mercs mode are such a mess that attempting to determine the actual design purpose and function of every option within it's combat system is almost pointless- you're never really presented scenarios often enough to where you can even make use of them in the way they were mean to be used.

edit:
as a side note: i think a really good example of a game that iterated on re4 in a manner that was more in line with why it was good over re5/6's expansion of it's raw action mechanics is dead space.
mechanically it's not as advanced as re5/6 but that's not the point- it added in new factors to consider (on demand melee, moving and shooting) created enemies to match that and then most importantly designed a campaign that used those new factors and enemies to their absolute full potential. i easily consider the first (and second, even!) dead space to be vastly better games than re5 and 6 because of this despite liking re6 much more on a strict mechanical level.

I think the big thing 5/6 lacked that 4 had was its atmosphere, and a lot of this has to do with the way the levels are designed and how the story is paced. 5/6 always have this "gotta get to the next area" feel, Chris/whoever else you're playing as always feels rushed and everything is so frenetic compared to 4. It becomes a third person corridor game, which, yes, RE4 technically was too, but the village, castle and island felt so much more organic. You move back and forth between areas, you revisit them at different times of the day, they aren't designed with a clear point A -> point B philosophy in mind.

 

[Magicpaint]

Yes, RE4 has a strong sense of place. Each of the three major locations have some degree of exploration and path finding that at least resembles the old school RE style of progression. 5/6 do away with that completely and each area feels like a bunch of maps strung together.

 

[Ninjimbo]

I would still play RE6 over RE4 to be honest. Leon can't sprint and shoulder bash anybody in RE4.

 

[dlauv]

It's possible to retain tank controls while moving aim over to the stick most people are used to aiming with. I've never suggested move and shoot for RE4. Ever.

That's a strawman.

I prefer RE4-style aiming in RE5 (at the highest aiming speed), as do most of the people who top in Mercs. I think the right stick is a little awkward to aim with if you aren't moving while shooting.

Just saying that it isn't any kind of universal ordeal as to which stick is better just in case you thought it was. You probably (hopefully) don't.

Besides, I wasn't talking about the literal control placement. They have never been an issue in any of the games for me. I was talking more how the weapons and aiming controlled itself. RE4 is great in that each weapon had a distinct and signature control to them, and the acceleration was nearly perfectly balanced. RE5 is very close, and it does have an edge in that you can up the universal aiming speed, but the default speed feels way too sluggish. RE6 is fine, but you don't get that intimate shooting experience you get with the guns in the other games, but the game isn't about that really either.

Of course, if you're playing these with M&K or Wii/Move (I know you're not, just stating generally), you're not really going to get some of this.

 

[Roni]

Nah. Re4's mechanics are simple, but flawless, and even if 5 and 6 do have better mechanics--which I don't really think they do-- (although 6 is totally different and wouldn't fit in a game like 4) every other aspect of the gameplay in 4 is better: enemies, weapons, encounters, bosses, level design, pacing, upgrade system, etc. and then when you factor in the other stuff like art direction, pacing, music, story...it ain't even close. RE4 is the best game ever made. 5 is a great co-op game in spite of its many flaws, and 6 is a strung together corpse of a hodgepodge of ideas that don't work together as a whole.

If you'd take off the rose-tinted glasses for a moment and wrote a generic description of RE4's gameplay, you'd fit that perfectly into RE5 and that game adds more enemies, more locations, just as crappy bosses and just as horrendous upgrade system.

The art style is colonial Spain on a bleak color filter in RE4, the Castle is the biggest pacing misstep in the franchise's history, the music in RE4 and 5 area equally unremarkable and the story is crap in both titles for different reasons.

And that's talking about RE5 alone. A game where you can at least strafe.

 

[grandwizard]

It's possible to retain tank controls while moving aim over to the stick most people are used to aiming with. I've never suggested move and shoot for RE4. Ever.

That's a strawman.

I'm pretty sure you can do this in the PC version, I believe one of the control types puts aiming on the right stick.

 

[Fancy Clown]

Idk dude maybe they could put it on the stick the rest of planet Earth has been using to aim for over two decades?

Hey maybe they should force you to use wii contols in your left hand for the same effect! But they don't force that, do they. Left stick aim is fucking weird and unnecessary, and it's telling you can't even acknowledge some might think that. But we can't criticise any aspect of 4, it's the greatest game ever made perfect in every way. Hallelujah amen.

Ummm 4 was made before everyone had been using right stick to aim, tho. There's literally no need to have aim on the right stick for the game because again, you can't move and shoot at the same time. The wii did it that way so people could use motion aiming, which you cant move around with (and that also makes the game easier beyond the designer's intentions). Control complaints are usually such an arbitrary criticism thats based on standardized trends rather than looking at what they actually accomplish. Does aiming with the left stick inhibit the other controls or functions of the game in a negative way, or reuqire dexterity out of your hands to press and unnecessary amount of inputs? No, it works perfectly. It would be like someone in 20 years saying CoD4 had shit FPS controls because control trends have changed yet again, but we both know those controls work great for the game.

But sure, I wouldn't care if they had a control scheme where you could move on the left and aim on the right I guess, but it wouldn't make much sense, and it would mean you couldn't press the face buttons while aiming to do stuff like quick turn or reload. It's weird that you think it's a big deal though lol.

If you'd take off the rose-tinted glasses for a moment and wrote a generic description of RE4's gameplay, you'd fit that perfectly into RE5 and that game adds more enemies, more locations, just as crappy bosses and just as horrendous upgrade system.

The art style is colonial Spain on a bleak color filter in RE4, the Castle is the biggest pacing misstep in the franchise's history, the music in RE4 and 5 area equally unremarkable and the story is crap in both titles for different reasons.

And that's talking about RE5 alone. A game where you can at least strafe.

No rose tinted glasses. I replayed both very recently.

5 has almost the exact same core game play, true (it makes the nice addition of quick weapon select, but the too empowering expansion of melee moves). But just saying it's more is nonesense. Yeah it has more enemies, but none of the actual fun ones. Instead of unique enemies like garadors we get mostly a shit ton of guys with guns that turns the game into a super awkward stop-and pop game 2/3rds of the way through. And lets not forget that 5 is design fully around co-op which makes playing single-player an awkward unsatisfying affair. And why would you even need to strafe in RE4? That makes no sense, so you can more easily juke the enemies that are already easy to do so? It takes the tension out of having to shoot down their projectiles too. Here's a comparison I did after playing the two of them so close together:

Because of this thread I replayed the first 3 hours of RE5 and then (after a fortuitous moment I found my presumed to be long lost PS2) the first 3 hours of RE4 to compare them.

Wow. Playing them back to back is quite a stark difference.

The first thing I you notice is the pacing. 5 just keeps pushing you forward, and forward and forward, and you never have any room to breath. 4 on the other hand gives you a lot more sections of quiet, and the connected village hub is a much more believable--and sinister--world than the 'tour of Africa as a series of corridors'. I did like the very start of 5 though as you are walking around the town before shit has hit the fan and you see a bunch of creepy ass things like a group of guys beating the shit out of someone, or something, tied up in a sack.

However, while 5 moves at a much faster clip, and introduces enemies much faster (in the first 3 hours of RE5 I've fought: various majini, fat majini, the executioner, dogs, two brands of parasites that pop out of majini, a tentacle monster, and the chainsaw guy. In 4 you fight various ganados, one parasite, chainsaw guy, and Del Lago.) However, despite that, RE4 makes much better use of it's scenarios (not to mention it's a much longer game and can take its time introducing things). Overall though, 5 is still pretty impressive for how many different scenarios it has in such a short span of time (even if it doesn't best 4).

For example, there are decent stretches in 5 that don't really provide any twist on the combat or level design whatsoever, or there are repetitious scenarios. In one area in the first chapter (the shipping crates by the water) the game introduces trip bombs, a maze like level design, verticality with crossbow snipers up top, and the dog enemies all in one go. It's a well designed area, and quite fun. But then, shortly after at the beginning of chapter 2, the game essentially repeats this with the train yard. It has the exact same elements except for the small tweak that the dogs can surprise you from under the trains. Again, it's a well designed area but having two of the same (very specific) thing is not necessary, especially when the game is so short. 4 rarely, if ever, repeats its set-ups in the same way twice.

Also, directly comparing scenarios that 5 lifts from 4 does it no favors either, because it doesn't improve on them, let alone even match the ones from 4. Take the opening village/executioner onslaughts: 4 is much, much harder and more tense. 5 provides a much safer feeling from the get go: you are in a defensible position, with ample barricades and supplies. Sure, it doesn't last, but compare that to RE4: in 4, when you go to the defensible house and barricade the door, the game actually escalates the tension by introducing the chainsaw guy, who is a one hit kill enemy (and much faster than the executioner).

The level desing in 4's village is much better as well, as every defensible seeming position has some vital flaw (house brings Salvador, if you go in the tower they will smoke you out, the house across the way has a locked door that simply leads to a dead end, etc), so you are constantly scrambling and engaging in the wide open center in between mad dashes to buildings. In 5, the level design goes much easier on you by providing two things: tons of explosive barrels, and no dead ends. It goes even further than simply taking away dead ends, by actually having 3 structures in the center of the map that you can simply hop between in an almost endless loop, quickly outpacing your pursuers.

And of course, 5 has Sheva, who will provide fire, heal you, and revive you, stripping away even more vestiges of tension. I still really like the execution onslaught level of 5, but it just pales in comparison to the village.

Another good comparison of the two stages, are how they handle the introduction of the sniper rifles. In 4, you are in a giant canyon area where you can pick off some enemies in high places, or blast them off the rope bridge sending them plummeting to their deaths, all while juggling a stream of ganados that come ever nearer. It's really rewarding, and well designed. In 5, it introduces the sniper by having you take cover behind a wall as you try and take out a guy on a turret. It's incredibly obnoxious, generic, and works actively against everything that is so brilliant about RE4/5's combat system.

More locations, sure, but they don't feel like a real connected place because it just bops you around to various themed places rather than building up the location. Like in RE4 you spend a ton of time in the village and back track and come to know the place and you can even see the castle off in the distance. And of course, those locations are much better designed in 4.

Just as crappy bosses? lol. 5 has a bunch of crap bosses, 4 has good bosses. There's a reason people remember stuff like U3, Verdugo, Krauser, and El Gigante. What does 5 have? An El Gigante re-skin that is a horrible turret fight?

Upgrade system is amazing 4. The currency is doled out well, the treasures are satisfying to get and that you can combine the pieces and save them up adds another layer to it. 5 is pretty similar but without the need to hunt for special treasures and combine pieces so the economy flow isnt as engaging. Weapons don't have as much character or cool special powers when fully upgraded in 5 either so its not as satisfying to upgrade. Nor does 5 have a merchant.

Art direction in 4 is far superior. The locations are memorable and distinct. 5 isnt that bad, but it lacks the grittiness and flair of 4. Every room feels unique in 4, and you have the eeire lonely village, the gothic castle, and urban decay island. 5 has some nice looking places but a lot of non-descript stuff as well, and a bland, sterile lab. And enemy/character design 4 wins no contest.

4 has highly memorable music what are you smoking. From the eeire calm of serenity, the bone chilling echo in the night, the calming save theme, and the spooky but action tempo'd infiltration. Great soundtrack. I can't really pull up any of 5 because I honestly don't remember a single track outside of the mission clear music, which is super chill.

And lastly the castle is the best part of RE4. The challenge steps up a lot as you manage enemies in much tighter spaces, the pacing becomes even taughter with an incredibly diverse range of encounters and levels thrown at you (hedge maze, flame cultists, chasing the gunner, novistador hives, Verdugo, garrador, water room, sniping to protect ashley, trapped in a cage with a garrador, fighting two garradors...I could go on and on. The game pushes itself to the absolute limits of mixing and remixing fights to deliver insane fun and challenge in the castle. And its all wrapped in the stunning gothic art direction that makes traversing the place a joy to look at:

Seriously, it still looks amazing. And you also have fun story beats there because Salazaar and Leon's interactions are amazing (Your right hand comes off?).

Which brings me to the story. 4's is incredibly campy and entertaining with tons of great lines, humor, and action...while 5's is a self serious mess that consists mostly of characters pointing there guns at the screen and gratuitous close-ups of Sheva's ass.


RE4 is, and always will be, king.

 

[TheRazielim]

The whole rose-tinted glasses argument is getting really annoying.

Anyway, Fancy Clown nails everything that makes RE4 superior to 5, with the exception of the story. I find the seriousness in RE5 a lot more endearing than the deliberate cheesefest of Resident Evil 4.

 

[Kuraudo]

It's nothing like REmake or Zero (gameplay wise), which is what the next RE spin-off needs to be like. Camera angles, crimson heads and zombies. I hope RE2make is faithful in regards to environments and camera.

Yes! My hope is that if REmake 2 is successful, Capcom gives the team a chance to make a new classic-style game. They could probably put together something pretty polished even on a Revelations-like budget.

 

[ksdixon]

Idk dude maybe they could put it on the stick the rest of planet Earth has been using to aim for over two decades?

Hey maybe they should force you to use wii contols in your left hand for the same effect! But they don't force that, do they. Left stick aim is fucking weird and unnecessary, and it's telling you can't even acknowledge some might think that. But we can't criticise any aspect of 4, it's the greatest game ever made perfect in every way. Hallelujah amen.

Yes! I'm not crazy or imagining things!

I tried to describe this problem earlier in the thread as why I've never been able to get to grips with RE4... no matter if it was when it was new, or over the years. When new I bet I just thought left stick aiming was goofy, and when trying to power-through it later-on, muscle memory kept making me try to aim with right stick.

I also didn't like how you could only do a 90' turn to your side with the camera. RE4 is far from the perfect action game... and nowhere near the perfect RE game.

 

[ksdixon]

It's possible to retain tank controls while moving aim over to the stick most people are used to aiming with. I've never suggested move and shoot for RE4. Ever.

That's a strawman.

It still wouldn't make me love RE4 or anything, but I think this simple change would at least allow me to play it competently enough to give the game a fair shot on it's own merit.

 

[Fancy Clown]

Yes! I'm not crazy or imagining things!

I tried to describe this problem earlier in the thread as why I've never been able to get to grips with RE4... no matter if it was when it was new, or over the years. When new I bet I just thought left stick aiming was goofy, and when trying to power-through it later-on, muscle memory kept making me try to aim with right stick.

I also didn't like how you could only do a 90' turn to your side with the camera. RE4 is far from the perfect action game... and nowhere near the perfect RE game.

Again there's the issue of "but other games let you do this...or other games let you do MORE" more and different mechanics or controls don't mean anything if they don't fit the design of the game. The camera and quick turn are the way they are becuase claustrophobic crowd management and strategic, but limiting, stop and shoot, special awareness heavy gameplay is the design philosophy behind the game.

If you can't adapt to controls and functions that suit the context of the game's design based on what other games with entirely different designs are doing, then that's on you not the game. It's like all the people who complain about tank controls in REmake and then lo and behold REmake HD's alternate control scheme pretty much breaks the balance of the game becuase it is ill suited for it.

 

[Roni]

4's is incredibly campy and entertaining with tons of great lines, humor, and action...

I could address all of that systematically and objectively, but why bother when you undermine your own understanding of the franchise you're talking about with a statement like the above.

You do realize that Resident Evil was a survival horror franchise, right? You're not supposed to laugh at the story, but wonder whether or not you'll survive. Tell me, at what point did you ever consider that Resident Evil 4 would end badly amidst Leon's snarky remarks, Ada's flirts, Salazar's comedic relief and Sera's goofy nature?

Resident Evil 4 was the beginning of the end; 5 and 6 are equally terrible when compared to what Resident Evil was. Except the gameplay is actually good in 6 as the series finally overcame its identity crisis (that started with 4) and stopped mixing and matching mechanics from both genres in an attempt to sell the game to two different audiences.

The bottomline is that Resident Evil 4 isn't scary, tension is built artificially by deliberately limiting the player's movement and Resident Evil 4 also isn't competent action when placed against titles that came later, not even when placed against its immediate successor.

It sits in a strange limbo where it tries to be good at two different things and fails at both.

 

[Evolved1]

Again there's the issue of "but other games let you do this...or other games let you do MORE" more and different mechanics or controls don't mean anything if they don't fit the design of the game. The camera and quick turn are the way they are becuase claustrophobic crowd management and strategic, but limiting, stop and shoot, special awareness heavy gameplay is the design philosophy behind the game.

If you can't adapt to controls and functions that suit the context of the game's design based on what other games with entirely different designs are doing, then that's on you not the game. It's like all the people who complain about tank controls in REmake and then lo and behold REmake HD's alternate control scheme pretty much breaks the balance of the game becuase it is ill suited for it.

Except swapping the stick doesn't break anything. I'm referring to RE4HD on PS3 btw. Gamecube had that weird-ass controller, they had to use the left analog, because it was their only option. But I was annoyed that they didn't even give the option in RE4HD. It's a configuration in RE5, (i'm not referring to strafe-enabled configuration btw) and just feels so much more natural to me.

Every time I replay 4 I feel like I'm going back to a game that forces inverted controls or something. It's just annoying. But rational people can look at a remake/remaster of a legacy game and say, "yeah you can probably let people toggle inverted camera without breaking anything in the game" and in this specific instance of just swapping the stick used to aim, it's practically the same thing. It changes nothing fundamental about the game. But maybe for some the mere suggestion implies there is something wrong with the default, which folks are taking a bit too personally?

 

[ksdixon]

Again there's the issue of "but other games let you do this...or other games let you do MORE" more and different mechanics or controls don't mean anything if they don't fit the design of the game. The camera and quick turn are the way they are becuase claustrophobic crowd management and strategic, but limiting, stop and shoot, special awareness heavy gameplay is the design philosophy behind the game.

If you can't adapt to controls and functions that suit the context of the game's design based on what other games with entirely different designs are doing, then that's on you not the game. It's like all the people who complain about tank controls in REmake and then lo and behold REmake HD's alternate control scheme pretty much breaks the balance of the game becuase it is ill suited for it.

Oh yeah, I know RE4's controls are on me. To an extent, I guess. I still think at least aim on right stick would make the game easier to play for me. I think someone said the PC version has this? I'll pick up the PC version one day then.

But RE4 isn't a perfect game like some say, not from a gameplay perspective as discussed in the thread already. And not from a story perspective either. I mean, after all those games of Racoon City survivors gunning for Umbrella, Umbrella is taken down by... the stock market crashing... and was it in the space of one year? And now we have 50 billion viruses in play and 50 billion groups running around between Wesker's S/Tricel group, Whomever Ada is currently working for, BSAA, Leon Secret Service Squad, Neo-Umbrella, Terra-Save and whatever ones I'm forgetting etc. It's just... ridiculous. If RECVX put a dent into the story with anime super villan wesker, for example, then RE4 blew the doors off the story narrative by removing what should have been one constant 'big bad' in Umbrella.

RE4 should have been it's own new IP, similar to how Haunting Ground took assets from the cancelled Hookman RE3.5 version.

 

[Fancy Clown]

I could address all of that systematically and objectively, but why bother when you undermine your own understanding of the franchise you're talking about with a statement like the above.

You do realize that Resident Evil was a survival horror franchise, right? You're not supposed to laugh at the story, but wonder whether or not you'll survive. Tell me, at what point did you ever consider that Resident Evil 4 would end badly amidst Leon's snarky remarks, Ada's flirts, Salazar's comedic relief and Sera's goofy nature?

Resident Evil 4 was the beginning of the end; 5 and 6 are equally terrible when compared to what Resident Evil was. Except the gameplay is actually good in 6 as the series finally overcame its identity crisis (that started with 4) and stopped mixing and matching mechanics from both genres in an attempt to sell the game to two different audiences.

The bottomline is that Resident Evil 4 isn't scary, tension is built artificially by deliberately limiting the player's movement and Resident Evil 4 also isn't competent action when placed against titles that came later, not even when placed against its immediate successor.

It sits in a strange limbo where it tries to be good at two different things and fails at both.

I think it's you who's actually misunderstanding the series. Yes, RE4 changed the genre to action, but again that's not really what we're discussing here at all because we are talking about the game's merits not what you wanted a hypothetical RE4 to be. So judge it as an action game with horror aesthetics, which is what it is and succeeds at. Survival horror is such a loose term anyway that doesn't mean anything. The old resident evil games are puzzle/adventure games with a horror aesthetic, RE4 is an action game with a horror aesthetic.

But I'll indulge your comparison anyway. First of all, Resident Evil has never really been scary. They all have absurd, and humorous (whether intentionally or unintentionally) stories about 2D stock heroes and heroines who you never feel like are in danger. And then the gameplay starts and you feel tension because that has been where the tension has always been. The old RE games are "spooky" with frequent jump scares but no lingering dread (until REmake at least) but they're not Silent Hill SCARY scary. I think RE4 is no less scary than the classic games if I'm being honest, and in many cases I find it to be more scary.

The crowd management gameplay is incrediblely tense as you manage deranged enemies with a limited FOV, and their threat feels very real because they deal high damage, have gruesome kill sequences, and the game itself has pretty horrifying aesthetics. The grimy, decaying village and chainsaw ganados are straight out of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and the eerie cultists that sneak up on you are just as scary. And then that's not even mentioning all the incredibly tense encohnters like the hedge maze, U3, regenerators, village at night (complete with horrifying soundtrack that is scarier than any of the haunted house music of the old games).

Resident Evil has ALWAYS been cheesy B horror where the "scariness" came from shock value jump scares and resource management stress. RE4 just swapped out the jump scares and resource management for overwhelming crowds, claustrophobic action, and nail biting scenarios.

 

[Astral Dog]

Ummm 4 was made before everyone had been using right stick to aim, tho. There's literally no need to have aim on the right stick for the game because again, you can't move and shoot at the same time. The wii did it that way so people could use motion aiming, which you cant move around with (and that also makes the game easier beyond the designer's intentions). Control complaints are usually such an arbitrary criticism thats based on standardized trends rather than looking at what they actually accomplish. Does aiming with the left stick inhibit the other controls or functions of the game in a negative way, or reuqire dexterity out of your hands to press and unnecessary amount of inputs? No, it works perfectly. It would be like someone in 20 years saying CoD4 had shit FPS controls because control trends have changed yet again, but we both know those controls work great for the game.

But sure, I wouldn't care if they had a control scheme where you could move on the left and aim on the right I guess, but it wouldn't make much sense, and it would mean you couldn't press the face buttons while aiming to do stuff like quick turn or reload. It's weird that you think it's a big deal though lol.



No rose tinted glasses. I replayed both very recently.

5 has almost the exact same core game play, true (it makes the nice addition of quick weapon select, but the too empowering expansion of melee moves). But just saying it's more is nonesense. Yeah it has more enemies, but none of the actual fun ones. Instead of unique enemies like garadors we get mostly a shit ton of guys with guns that turns the game into a super awkward stop-and pop game 2/3rds of the way through. And lets not forget that 5 is design fully around co-op which makes playing single-player an awkward unsatisfying affair. And why would you even need to strafe in RE4? That makes no sense, so you can more easily juke the enemies that are already easy to do so? It takes the tension out of having to shoot down their projectiles too. Here's a comparison I did after playing the two of them so close together:




More locations, sure, but they don't feel like a real connected place because it just bops you around to various themed places rather than building up the location. Like in RE4 you spend a ton of time in the village and back track and come to know the place and you can even see the castle off in the distance. And of course, those locations are much better designed in 4.

Just as crappy bosses? lol. 5 has a bunch of crap bosses, 4 has good bosses. There's a reason people remember stuff like U3, Verdugo, Krauser, and El Gigante. What does 5 have? An El Gigante re-skin that is a horrible turret fight?

Upgrade system is amazing 4. The currency is doled out well, the treasures are satisfying to get and that you can combine the pieces and save them up adds another layer to it. 5 is pretty similar but without the need to hunt for special treasures and combine pieces so the economy flow isnt as engaging. Weapons don't have as much character or cool special powers when fully upgraded in 5 either so its not as satisfying to upgrade. Nor does 5 have a merchant.

Art direction in 4 is far superior. The locations are memorable and distinct. 5 isnt that bad, but it lacks the grittiness and flair of 4. Every room feels unique in 4, and you have the eeire lonely village, the gothic castle, and urban decay island. 5 has some nice looking places but a lot of non-descript stuff as well, and a bland, sterile lab. And enemy/character design 4 wins no contest.

4 has highly memorable music what are you smoking. From the eeire calm of serenity, the bone chilling echo in the night, the calming save theme, and the spooky but action tempo'd infiltration. Great soundtrack. I can't really pull up any of 5 because I honestly don't remember a single track outside of the mission clear music, which is super chill.

And lastly the castle is the best part of RE4. The challenge steps up a lot as you manage enemies in much tighter spaces, the pacing becomes even taughter with an incredibly diverse range of encounters and levels thrown at you (hedge maze, flame cultists, chasing the gunner, novistador hives, Verdugo, garrador, water room, sniping to protect ashley, trapped in a cage with a garrador, fighting two garradors...I could go on and on. The game pushes itself to the absolute limits of mixing and remixing fights to deliver insane fun and challenge in the castle. And its all wrapped in the stunning gothic art direction that makes traversing the place a joy to look at:



Seriously, it still looks amazing. And you also have fun story beats there because Salazaar and Leon's interactions are amazing (Your right hand comes off?).

Which brings me to the story. 4's is incredibly campy and entertaining with tons of great lines, humor, and action...while 5's is a self serious mess that consists mostly of characters pointing there guns at the screen and gratuitous close-ups of Sheva's ass.


RE4 is, and always will be, king.

Great post, especially on the bosses , music and atmosphere, RE 4 will always be a superbly designed game, the same cant be said of 5 or 6.

 

[Roni]

So judge it as an action game with horror aesthetics...

The only reason you describe it like that is because of the very identity crisis I mentioned earlier. 4, 5 and 6 are all action games. As an action game, 4 succeeds - if that's what you want to hear coming out of my mouth; but RE5 succeeds even more and RE6 is miles ahead of 5 when you treat them as action games.

I think RE4 is no less scary than the classic games if I'm being honest, and in many cases I find it to be more scary.

Are you serious or are you just trying to win this argument? Nemesis trumps anything 4 has, precisely because the gameplay is looser thanks to the dodge mechanic and that allows Nemesis to be faster and fiercer than any other enemy in 4.

 

[Fancy Clown]

The only reason you describe it like that is because of the very identity crisis I mentioned earlier. 4, 5 and 6 are all action games. As an action game, 4 succeeds - if that's what you want to hear coming out of my mouth; but RE5 succeeds even more and RE6 is miles ahead of 5 when you treat them as action games.



Are you serious or are you just trying to win this argument? Nemesis trumps anything 4 has, precisely because the gameplay is looser thanks to the dodge mechanic and that allows Nemesis to be faster and fiercer than any other enemy in 4.

I'm really not sure what you're even trying to argue, because now you are back to what the discussion was actually about (RE4 vs 5) and I already wrote a lengthy post about why 4 was better.

I'm not saying 3 is less scary than 4, but I don't think 4 is less scary than 3. Nemesis shows up so often that you know how to deal with him. What's scary is such a subjective thing though and it's not a very useful measure of what makes a good game rather than things you can make clearer points on like level design, mechanics, etc. In any case, I don't think any of the resident evil games are very scary because they're all B movie shlock with jump scares, and the crowd control and aesthetics of 4 have more of an impact of stressing me out than the classic games. It's not like RE is full of psychological dread and disturbing themes like Silent Hill anyway.

 

[Roni]

I'm really not sure what you're even trying to argue

Resident Evil 4 is a game that has been topped by many others since it came out, therefore it isn't perfect.

And the arguments you mentioned are just your nostalgic opinion being stated as fact...

5 has almost the exact same core game play, true (it makes the nice addition of quick weapon select, but the too empowering expansion of melee moves). But just saying it's more is nonesense. Yeah it has more enemies, but none of the actual fun ones.

And which were that? RE5 has incarnations of Ganados, Salvador, Regenerator, Verdugo, Plaga Ganados, Gatling Man, U-3, Del Lago and Novistador. Not much left from that list...

And why would you even need to strafe in RE4? That makes no sense, so you can more easily juke the enemies that are already easy to do so?

The faster and more fluid your mobility is, the faster and fiercer your enemies can be. RE4 and RE5 have such bad control schemes that designers had to compensate by making enemies yell when they were about to strike you from behind and enemies in both games literally stop and give you a second to shoot them when they're in front of you. They just stop and stand there for no reason...

RE6 allows the player to be faster, therefore enemies themselves can be more erratic and unpredictable.

More locations, sure, but they don't feel like a real connected place because it just bops you around to various themed places rather than building up the location.

Why don't they? This is you stating your opinion as fact. Their progression is pretty clear and backtracking was already down in RE4 from RE3. RE5 just keeps the trend alive.

Like in RE4 you spend a ton of time in the village and back track and come to know the place and you can even see the castle off in the distance. And of course, those locations are much better designed in 4.

Why are they? You're stating your opinion as fact again.

Just as crappy bosses? lol. 5 has a bunch of crap bosses, 4 has good bosses. There's a reason people remember stuff like U3, Verdugo, Krauser, and El Gigante. What does 5 have? An El Gigante re-skin that is a horrible turret fight?

Why aren't they good? Once again, you're using your opinion as fact and deliberately overlooking things that are in the game. Resident Evil 5 had multiple Uroboros incarnations, Irving, U-8, Wesker, Chainsaw Majini, the Executioner, Ndesu and others.

Art direction in 4 is far superior. The locations are memorable and distinct. 5 isnt that bad, but it lacks the grittiness and flair of 4. Every room feels unique in 4, and you have the eeire lonely village, the gothic castle, and urban decay island. 5 has some nice looking places but a lot of non-descript stuff as well, and a bland, sterile lab.

And enemy/character design 4 wins no contest.

Your opinion yet again emerges as a fact in your rhetoric.

Upgrade system is amazing 4. The currency is doled out well, the treasures are satisfying to get and that you can combine the pieces and save them up adds another layer to it. 5 is pretty similar but without the need to hunt for special treasures and combine pieces so the economy flow isnt as engaging. Weapons don't have as much character or cool special powers when fully upgraded in 5 either so its not as satisfying to upgrade. Nor does 5 have a merchant.

You can build the same ridiculous weapons in both games and there are optional treasures to be collected in both games.

And lastly the castle is the best part of RE4.

The story comes to a halt and you're presented with shooting gallery after shooting gallery, mindless complication after mindless complication. When the pace at which the story moves forward slows down, we say the pace takes a hit. The castle hurts the game's pace...

Seriously, it still looks amazing.

No it doesn't, specially when compared to most of what came later.

And you also have fun story beats there because Salazaar and Leon's interactions are amazing (Your right hand comes off?).

Which brings me to the story. 4's is incredibly campy and entertaining with tons of great lines, humor, and action...while 5's is a self serious mess that consists mostly of characters pointing there guns at the screen and gratuitous close-ups of Sheva's ass.

Yeah, because the President's daughter falling in love with her savior isn't cliche and a sexist representation of women at all. Not to mention how useless she is... The story has even more blatant exposition than previous games.

In previous games, most of the time when an antagonist exposed the plot you still thought they were good guys or they at least had the sensibility to hold you at gunpoint. Now the dwarf spaniard will talk and Leon will gladly stop and listen. No better than things in 5 and/or 6.

 

[Evolved1]

Hjunklay, you're doing the lord's work.

 

[News Bot]

Yeah, Code Veronica was at least faithful cheesy storywise to RE5 with superhuman Wesker and Chris' evolution from getting beat up a lot, to a mass of muscle punching boulders.

Zero really dropped the ball with all the Marcus stupid stuff, should have focused more on the backstory. I would have revealed him only at the very end as a final boss (old man only) and made it more about uncovering what happened. I much prefered Wesker when he was a guy just looking for power and manipulating biohazards, not taking over the world.

Marcus isn't in BIO0. He's been dead for a decade by that point. What you see is the Queen Leech. It's able to take on Marcus' appearance perfectly due to bonding with his corpse.

Wesker was literally always trying to take over the world. It's less apparent in the English version of BIO1, but Wesker rants and raves about how the t-Virus is capable of "creating life surpassing Homo sapiens." His intention was to steal the virus and the Tyrant, the perfect vector, and bring them to the rival company to buy himself a high position that he could use to fund research into developing a virus tailored to his personal fantasy of evolution. His goal was always the mass extinction and forced evolution of humanity. He was always going to survive the events of BIO1, too. There was no retcon to bring him back. BIO1's story is a patchwork because only half of it made it into the game and time was running out for the development team, so they stitched together what they could with what they had. Kenichi Iwao, the scenario writer of BIO1, said that he would've had Wesker take over a small country in the next game if he hadn't left CAPCOM. With the stories that we got, he was incorporated into the Progenitor Virus plotline that got bungled because of development issues with subsequent games. He basically still took over a small country in terms of resources due to his affiliations with Umbrella's rival company and TRICELL.

It's why he scoffed at t-Veronica once he saw what it really was. He wanted a superhuman species of equals, not himself as a superhuman lording over a mass of randomly mutated, inferior creatures.

I didn't mind him being young, but what in God's name was the outfit and singing about?

The outfit is just there to look gothic and mysterious. The singing is there because that's part of how he controls leeches. B.O.W.'s are also controlled via sounds, not just vocal commands.

 

[dlauv]

The faster and more fluid your mobility is, the faster and fiercer your enemies can be. RE4 and RE5 have such bad control schemes that designers had to compensate by making enemies yell when they were about to strike you from behind and enemies in both games literally stop and give you a second to shoot them when they're in front of you. They just stop and stand there for no reason...

This is actually called good game design, and is featured in games such as the Devil May Cry series to compensate for the camera and sound processing's limited amount of spatial awareness.

The rest of this I think you make a good argument for, even though I disagree. There is something to be discussed about whether more mobility is flat-out better in comparison to conservative design choices, but I don't think either is a definitive choice. More mobility in a game will be outclassed by something that has even more mobility, but what if the game that has more mobility is worse? Does the newer game make your prior game obsolete? It's kind of like the argument between realistic vs stylistic gfx.

Like, between Binary Domain and RE6, I think it's clear that Binary Domain is the better shooter altho it lacks as many mobility and combat options.

 

[Ralemont]

You know, whenever I see posts about RE6's controls and combat mechanics I get really excited and go fire it up again, then remember the Campaigns are largely underwhelming. Mercenaries doesn't quite do it for me either since it has no story context and amounts to grinding.

 

[Seyavesh]

You know, whenever I see posts about RE6's controls and combat mechanics I get really excited and go fire it up again, then remember the Campaigns are largely underwhelming. Mercenaries doesn't quite do it for me either since it has no story context and amounts to grinding.

yeah it's a huge shame
if you don't enjoy no mercy mercs you're basically shit out of luck or you really gotta like the game

that you can beat the campaigns by just bullheadedly moving along without really using any of the mechanics unique to re6 is like, extra fucked but i guess that just shows to communicate how godawful the campaigns are at exploring the mechanics

also it's kinda hilarious how rev2 has phased entirely out of the conversation, haha

 

[StrongBelwas]

I'm a die hard old school RE fan, I did however really enjoy RE4 but I quit on RE5 very early, just didn't "feel" right at all. I've never played RE6 and I think about it sometimes maybe I should, I remember reading Leon's campaign was meant to be a bit horroresque, but every time I hear about suplexing zombies I want to cry.

What are the chances I might enjoy this?

 

[dlauv]

deleted, misread

 

[Seyavesh]

I'm a die hard old school RE fan, I did however really enjoy RE4 but I quit on RE5 very early, just didn't "feel" right at all. I've never played RE6 and I think about it sometimes maybe I should, I remember reading Leon's campaign was meant to be a bit horroresque, but every time I hear about suplexing zombies I want to cry.

What are the chances I might enjoy this?

0% - it's really not horror-esque at all. re6 is a straight action game through and through.
like, the designs of monsters and environments evoke that horror tone, but it's to serve the purpose of action- not for evoking that sense of fear and tension that you're probably looking for.

 

[Manu]

Wait, a game that's perfect at launch having its mechanics refined by sequels means the game is no longer perfect?

Should be downgrade scores? Do we do the same for movies and TV series as well? What a weird argument.