Let's face it, RE4 was a massive mistake.
- Thread starter darkangel-212559
- Start date
- Drama
CyRuZ
Banned
Just quoting myself.
cyber_ninja
Member
This thread was a mistake.
darkangel-212559
Banned
Oh no! I can't handle a thread with a different opinion of mine on a video game forum. Wah! Wah!
Last edited:
cyber_ninja
Member
Re4 is fucking amazing, this thread is not.
Yes I did and its one of my favourites, its more actionized indeed, but the stuff brought in was damn great. The reskinned I mean by the fact that it relies on using most of Mr. X moveset with few new ones.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Hmmm, seeing some low-quality posts on both sides of the argument. Eh, it's an internet forum after all. As Barry says in the very original RE1: "Well.... it can't be helped."
There are 6 Resident Evil games (0, 1, 2, 3, Code Veronica, and the Remake of 1) in the original gameplay style. I love most of those games -- YES, including 0 which I platinum'd on PC just two weeks ago. I also play the very OG RE1 at least once a year because -- unpopular opinion here -- it is *NOT* made entirely obsolete by REmake, at least for me.
The main issue is that, as amazing as those games are, the combat is outdated, imprecise, and therefore for a lot of people, just not very much fun. Yes, I get it, you're not supposed to shoot everything, after all the games reward enemy avoidance. But, when you DO have to fight an enemy -- whether it's an enemy inconveniently placed in an extremely tight spot, or an obligatory boss fight, etc -- the combat is a relic of its time:
(1) There's a reason why auto-aim exists in most (all?) of these games. I can't do it justice in writing. Go and play any of those games, and either turn auto-aim off manually, or play Remake on Hard mode which forces auto-aim off. You'll see. Shit is just straight up not fun.
(2) Shooting is imprecise. You can shoot straight at the enemy, or down, or up. That's it. If you shoot up with a shotgun, the very classic OG games have a guaranteed "decap" on zombies, but they took this guarantee away in REmake and 0. In the later (action) games, you have precise control over which body part to shoot, which allows infinitely more finely tuned control over how you want to handle an enemy encounter. Shoot them in the hand? They drop their weapon. Shoot them in the face? Stumble backwards, go and melee -> amazing crowd control. Shoot them in the leg? Etc... For a lot of people, there's a certain amount of satisfaction in having this amount of control over the (arguably) main gameplay loop.
(3) I was going to write something about the feel/feedback of shooting, which I initially thought was poor in all of those original games. But thinking about it, it's only an issue in REmake and 0, which ironically is a step backwards in the feedback arena, since shooting enemies in OG 2 and 3 feels pretty good.
There's a reason video game developers work hard to ensure that combat mechanics and feedback feel as good as possible and allow the players to increase their skill. Even in games where you can opt out of a lot of combat. I mean, you can beat a lot of the original 2D Marios without much combat, but they put in a lot of work so that when you step on a Goomba or a Koopa Troopa, the feedback and the mechanics feel good, precise, and rewarding. When I played Wolfenstein The New Order, you could skip a lot of combat in a given encounter if you stealth killed the Nazi commander in the room, but shit, if you didn't, that was fine, because the combat felt good, precise, and rewarding. And so forth...
In the end, what is Resident Evil even about? To me, it's not about being fixed camera vs. over the shoulder, or action vs limited resource management, or backtrack vs linear. Going by the original name of "Biohazard," I guess it's about surviving any sort of biological abominations/monsters you may run into. They don't have to be limited to zombies: The OG RE1 had Hunters, giant spiders, Plant-42, etc. And it's surviving those things in an overall shared universe with a (now) established set of heroes and villains: Whether you're Chris Redfield, or Jill Valentine, or Leon S. Kennedy, or Ethan Winters, you are usually battling biological abominations created by the usual villains: Umbrella, Albert Wesker, and so forth. All wrapped in a somewhat B-level horror coating: one thing I love about the RE series is that, as far as the stories it tells, it doesn't take itself that seriously. Umbrella is a cartoonishly evil corporation. Los Illuminados are an amusingly incompetent cult, with one of its senior members being a child-sized dude wearing a colonial-era getup. And Wesker, well, he's Mr. "Complete Global Saturation".... I can't even type that out without laughing.
There are 6 Resident Evil games (0, 1, 2, 3, Code Veronica, and the Remake of 1) in the original gameplay style. I love most of those games -- YES, including 0 which I platinum'd on PC just two weeks ago. I also play the very OG RE1 at least once a year because -- unpopular opinion here -- it is *NOT* made entirely obsolete by REmake, at least for me.
The main issue is that, as amazing as those games are, the combat is outdated, imprecise, and therefore for a lot of people, just not very much fun. Yes, I get it, you're not supposed to shoot everything, after all the games reward enemy avoidance. But, when you DO have to fight an enemy -- whether it's an enemy inconveniently placed in an extremely tight spot, or an obligatory boss fight, etc -- the combat is a relic of its time:
(1) There's a reason why auto-aim exists in most (all?) of these games. I can't do it justice in writing. Go and play any of those games, and either turn auto-aim off manually, or play Remake on Hard mode which forces auto-aim off. You'll see. Shit is just straight up not fun.
(2) Shooting is imprecise. You can shoot straight at the enemy, or down, or up. That's it. If you shoot up with a shotgun, the very classic OG games have a guaranteed "decap" on zombies, but they took this guarantee away in REmake and 0. In the later (action) games, you have precise control over which body part to shoot, which allows infinitely more finely tuned control over how you want to handle an enemy encounter. Shoot them in the hand? They drop their weapon. Shoot them in the face? Stumble backwards, go and melee -> amazing crowd control. Shoot them in the leg? Etc... For a lot of people, there's a certain amount of satisfaction in having this amount of control over the (arguably) main gameplay loop.
(3) I was going to write something about the feel/feedback of shooting, which I initially thought was poor in all of those original games. But thinking about it, it's only an issue in REmake and 0, which ironically is a step backwards in the feedback arena, since shooting enemies in OG 2 and 3 feels pretty good.
There's a reason video game developers work hard to ensure that combat mechanics and feedback feel as good as possible and allow the players to increase their skill. Even in games where you can opt out of a lot of combat. I mean, you can beat a lot of the original 2D Marios without much combat, but they put in a lot of work so that when you step on a Goomba or a Koopa Troopa, the feedback and the mechanics feel good, precise, and rewarding. When I played Wolfenstein The New Order, you could skip a lot of combat in a given encounter if you stealth killed the Nazi commander in the room, but shit, if you didn't, that was fine, because the combat felt good, precise, and rewarding. And so forth...
In the end, what is Resident Evil even about? To me, it's not about being fixed camera vs. over the shoulder, or action vs limited resource management, or backtrack vs linear. Going by the original name of "Biohazard," I guess it's about surviving any sort of biological abominations/monsters you may run into. They don't have to be limited to zombies: The OG RE1 had Hunters, giant spiders, Plant-42, etc. And it's surviving those things in an overall shared universe with a (now) established set of heroes and villains: Whether you're Chris Redfield, or Jill Valentine, or Leon S. Kennedy, or Ethan Winters, you are usually battling biological abominations created by the usual villains: Umbrella, Albert Wesker, and so forth. All wrapped in a somewhat B-level horror coating: one thing I love about the RE series is that, as far as the stories it tells, it doesn't take itself that seriously. Umbrella is a cartoonishly evil corporation. Los Illuminados are an amusingly incompetent cult, with one of its senior members being a child-sized dude wearing a colonial-era getup. And Wesker, well, he's Mr. "Complete Global Saturation".... I can't even type that out without laughing.
Nickolaidas
Banned
I somewhat agree. While RE4 did began the formula fuck-up that the RE games experienced for the next decade, it was a needed change because the ORIGINAL formula was becoming tedious and boring - at least, based on the sales numbers. RE fans were getting bored with the same old same old (also while RE games were being released so fast like they were AssCreed games) and needed something different. It's plain obvious once you notice that the latest RE games that were released before RE4 are considered some of the worst ones (of the old school). Veronica, Zero ... though RE1make was for many still the best game of the IP. Frankly, while I loved it in the past, I feel that today it is dated and tedious to play (I can't believe I'm talking like that about the old-school games, yet here we are). Telling me to play old RE games today is like telling me to play MK1 on my Amiga (one button for every attack) after playing MK11. I just can't do it anymore without getting frustrated.
As for RE4, I just think it overdid it in many areas.
RE2make is the perfect blend of the tension/isolation/interface of the old-school and the new school. Though it is doomed to create SH fatique if Capcom keeps releasing a new main entry (remake) every year.
That said, a RE4 game with the RE2make philosophy in PS5-era hardware could be godlike, only rivaled by Callisto Protocol's potential.
Nickolaidas
Banned
Bio-monstrocities is the narrative theme of the game, but how it was executed is of equal importance. That is, the gameplay. And Resident Evil was about Survival Horror.
What is Survival Horror? Based on some discussions I've had on the now-extinct-like-Dino-Crisis forums at Capcom with hardcore RE fans, Survival Horror is about resource management and player choice of route in a tense, scary and usually claustrophobic environment. It's about choosing to make routes safer by eliminating enemies in case you need to regularly backtrack, or to evade them altogether and save ammunition but risk health damage. It's about letting you choose to FIGHT or FLEE.
"You see one of those things, uniform or not ... you do not hesitate. You take it out ... or you run."
The line that Marvin tells Leon in the beginning of RE2make is basically the devs telling you how the game is played. THAT's Survival Horror. The exception is most bosses.
In the old school RE games, combat is a way to clear a route, but it also punishes you by draining you of your resources and ammunition. Do you fight and clear a path but lose resources? Or do you flee and risk more health damage when you come back?
RE4 ignores all that and makes new rules: Combat is forced upon you on many encounters which you simply cannot avoid, and combat REWARDS you with resources instead of punishing you by draining them. The game actively urges you to fight, instead of flee. For the hardcore SH fans, this is where RE games lost what they were all about. So yeah, RE was always about killing monsters, but that was the story, the narration. How the story is executed in gameplay was the most crucial part that Capcom simply forgot between RE4,5,6,Rev 1 & 2.
It wasn't until RE7 that Capcom decided to go back to its roots and play RE the way it was meant to be played: Fight. Or Flee.
Rean no Kiseki
Banned
"Hmm let's face it honey i should've pulled out that night"
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
Can’t argue with this. But let’s face it, the thing had become stagnant very quickly. Even Alone in the Dark, while being more of a point-and-click style of game with very awkward action and combat, managed to mix up its basic formula between episodes more than classic RE did.
The mansion worked in RE1 because the game was going for a Sweet Home/AITD vibe but with a sci-fi story rather than Lovecraftian horror. RE2 rightly dropped that and while the RPD precinct still had some mansion vibes, it was a very different setting. Code Veronica turned that up to 11 and it’s just ridiculous.
Also, the classic RE1 and RE2 type of game quickly proved inadequate as soon as the series tried to go more towards action. Fixed camera angles are a pain in the ass when you’re against rocket launcher Nemesis, running enemies, or creatures like the Bandersnatch that can hit you from off-screen. Coupled with tank controls, that puts your character at a disadvantage that makes the game just not very fun. There’s a reason the dogs were the worst in RE1. That’s also why the hunters are introduced to the game later, when you already know the layout of the mansion and can run away from them rather than engaging. It’s also why the final Tyrant fight in RE1 was a timed thing and you weren’t supposed to kill it with conventional weapons. RE1 knew that quick enemies didn’t gel with the game’s design very well.
And the puzzles, well, they were all the same in the end. Examine and rotate object to find something else hidden inside. Find 2, 3, 4 items to open door. Combine two items to get another. All of this was always in-you-face, requiring no creativity whatsoever. Even the first Alone in the Dark did better there. RE3 tried to shake that up, but it was too little too late, and more annoying than interesting. Capcom built on that in the first Dino Crisis, and there it was just obnoxious for the type of game that was.
RE4 did a lot of right things. Go full action. Use a perspective that makes that action fun rather than frustrating. Makes puzzles brain-dead simple to the point you don’t even have to think ”this is brain-dead simple, duh”. Make the weird stuff so over-the-top, it looks and sounds funny rather than stupid. Make the game’s story and dialogue all about cheese, so that it’s actually good rather than “so bad, it’s good”.
kiphalfton
Member
I like how you can't seem to defend any of your original points whenever somebody proves you wrong, and instead go off on some other tirade about RE4.
But keep going, since I'm getting a kick out of you making a fool of yourself. I mean you can't even argue, without repeating points, and your remark about RE4 being "more like RE5 and RE6" is a true gem.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
You think RE4 isn't survival horror?
Try telling that to the villagers
1..2.. Leon's coming for you..
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
RE4 was a necessary change to a series that was stuck in a rut. Code Veronica has its moments, but on the whole its showed the franchise at a creative dead-end.
The problem was the way that with RE5 and RE6 Capcom neglected the survival horror in favor of pushing hard on action and spectacle in order to stay "relevant" to the western audience. This was their mistake, as the comparatively lower budget and profile Revelations titles did a much better job at integrating action with traditional RE-style gameplay.
RE7 was a great comeback though, so lets hope Village continues the trend.
The problem was the way that with RE5 and RE6 Capcom neglected the survival horror in favor of pushing hard on action and spectacle in order to stay "relevant" to the western audience. This was their mistake, as the comparatively lower budget and profile Revelations titles did a much better job at integrating action with traditional RE-style gameplay.
RE7 was a great comeback though, so lets hope Village continues the trend.
Kokoloko85
Member
Lol what are you on about?
My original points are RE4 is not like the classics, combat or gamedesign wise. Not really much to argue about. Only an idiot thinks they play the same.
You guys are saying it was the changes that needed to be made for RE4 to be a hit then try and convince people its true to the originals?? Make your minds up.
You say only a mini boss has machine gun in RE4= wrong.go play the game like I am right now.
Then you make excuses for hordes of enemies when I say RE classic gameplay is about reserving ammo and being careful just like how RE 2 Remake does it and the classic RE.
Like I said earlier but you seem to have reading issues. Theres more enemies and save points in the firsr hour of RE 4 than there is in the entire RE1 game = very different gameplay styles
Ha Im getting a kick out you guys saying RE 4 isnt like 5 and 6 when Capcom has said it is...
Can you explain how RE4 is more like the classics and not like 5 and 6?
Theres less changes between 4-6 and more changes from Re1/ CodeVeronica to RE4. Its pretty simple lol
Last edited:
Nickolaidas
Banned
BlitzLord2369
Member
Kind of, but not really.
Mediocre Arachno-Lad
Banned
And?
Does it make RE4 "a mistake"? Does it make it "bad"?
Do you have a point?
Because if all you're saying is RE4 is different from RE1, then no shit Sherlock.
RE3 was also very different from RE1. Structurally it was pretty similar to what we've got in RE4: Action-focused, minimal backtracking, new locations every 10 minutes, easy puzzles, no ammo shortage, boss fights out the ass. I guess the only reason you're not chastising it is the damned fixed camera, huh?
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Very reasonable and well thought out post.
My response:
I think the bolded might be part of the problem I see with your perspective. No offense but a lot of "hardcore RE fans" have a very narrow view of what RE is supposed to be.
I don't know about you, but when fighting hordes of Ganados in the village, or the Chapter 3-1 "water room," or fighting Verdugo, I felt plenty of tension when playing Resident Evil 4 for the first time.
Resident Evil has always given me at least a small amount of tension; but for me, almost no part of Resident Evil has ever been outright scary, so I will debate that second point and say that it doesn't really apply to the series in general.
"Usually claustrophobic environment" -- I have a hard time debating with traditional RE fans for this very reason. Take Resident Evil 3, for example: It's a game that negates both the claustrophobic part (several open areas of Raccoon City available to navigate) and the "player choice of route" (RE3 is, with the exception of a couple of backtrack paths early on, relatively linear otherwise).
This is the common belief. But in all 3 of the OG games (can't speak to Code Veronica), in the standard/normal mode, there's just about enough ammo to kill everything. (In the Resident Evil game community, "Kill Everything" is a category of run for a reason). I mean, to give an example, by the end Dead Factory portion of RE3, Jill has:
- A regular handgun, with ammo
- An Eagle handgun, sharing ammo with the regular handgun
- A shotgun, with ammo
- A "Custom Western" shotgun
- A Magnum
- A Grenade Launcher with 4 types of rounds to choose from (several of which Carlos just gives you): Grenade rounds, Flame rounds, Acid rounds, Freeze rounds
- A Mine Thrower
- A Rocket Launcher with 4 rockets
On top of regular ammo, Jill gets powders to make even more ammo. Not to mention the abundant amount of health restoration items (green herbs, red herbs, First Aid sprays, etc). And that's just in RE3. I can do the same for RE1 and RE2.
The choice you presented, about clearing the path vs maintaining resources, is an illusion given to the player; in actuality, that is rarely the case. RE4 just dispensed with pretenses and said, "here, there's enough ammo in case you want to fight everything." But, contrary to popular belief, you don't *have to* fight everything in RE4. Speed runs done by professionals clock in around the 1.5 hour mark or so, barely 1/2 hour longer than the classic RE's, even though RE4 seems much, much longer.
Now, the concept of limited resources can work; this is something that REmake and RE0 do spectacularly well, specially in those games' Hard modes.
But part of the reason I bring that up is, even though RE3 has a lot more action than people think, for some reason RE4 is "the breaking point." Doesn't seem consistent, at least to me. As someone already mentioned above (I think
Mediocre Arachno-Lad
) I think it's the fixed camera thing that does some people in.Fair point, but: Many encounters in RE4 can be avoided altogether (again, watch a speed run and see, in some cases over 3/4 of the encounters can be avoided altogether.) But the reason a lot of people choose to engage in the encounters is that in RE4, for the first time in the Resident Evil series up to that point, combat was actually fun and had a higher degree of satisfaction and skill maneuvering than in previous entries.
One final note on resource management: As much as I absolutely love RE1 (and its Remake; its one of my top 10 games of all time), there's just no reason why Chris Redfield needs to have only 6 inventory slots. It's dumb. Additionally dumb is that his outfit shows his knife sheath RIGHT THERE on his left upper chest/shoulder area, and... where's my knife!? Oh, you mean I have to put it away in one of these magic boxes that will teleport all of my items across the mansion, then the courtyard, then the lab? OK... (Again, a giant amount of credit to Remake for creating the "Real Survival" game mode in which the magic boxes are... well, no longer magic. Also a huge amount of credit to RE0 for getting rid of the magic boxes altogether, although to first-time players it may seem frustrating).
So RE4 dispensed with this pretense and said, "instead of putting away items in a magic box, look here! You can carry the magic box with you at all times!" Except this (now traveling/mobile) magic box is of a more limited size than the magic boxes in the OG games. And not only that, but inventory/resource management in RE4 became incredibly fun; anecdotally, I've seen people referring to that aspect of RE4 as "its own mini game." I have certainly spent my fair share of time organizing items in an almost Tetris-like way in Leon's attache case (or, in the case of other game modes, Ada's/Wesker's/Krauser's attache cases...)
Last edited:
Kokoloko85
Member
African villagers are just as scary as Spanish ones lol. So both are survival horrors according to that point lol.
And....
Taken you that long to realise what I was saying lol.
Where did I chastise RE4? I just gave a bunch of reasons why its so different to the original formula. Combat and gameplay wise. I personally prefer 5 to 4 and 6. And the originals to 4,5 and 6 etc.
My point is RE4 is closer to RE5 than the RE5 haters say it is compared to original series, zero and code veronica.
I never said its a mistake, I said it led to why RE5 and 6 were made the way they were. And RE6 is a mistake. And personally the gameplay style I love was gone. I just dont like 4 that much, I loved it at the time, but I missed the classics in the long run.
RE4 is closer to 5 and 6 than it is to the others, simple as.
Whoever ( not saying you ) loves RE4 and than hate on RE5 and pretend RE4 is true to the series is a dumb ass
ps Im out of this thread. Yall enjoy defending why RE4 isnt the reason RE5 and 6 were the way they were lol
Last edited:
David B
An Idiot
RE4 is the best game in the entire series to me. RE original hard as hell. RE2 original also hard as hell. RE3 original can beat but still hard. RE4 I have played it probably 200 times now, beat the story that many times. I also liked RE5. RE6 is way too much action and not enough story though. RE7 sucks, I hate it.
Saber
Newd Member
They all started because of RE4.
No matter how people glorifies or say its great(and I got nothing against it), it started there. Lot of deviations from the original formula, ideas, more action oriented, etc. That was the start.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Sure, but it's not like RE4 forced their hand. RE4 was a pretty good balance between action, puzzle solving, and horror atmosphere with some of that patented RE ridiculousness. They just kept ramping up the action and ridiculousness in the next two games while ignoring the rest of what makes a good RE game. To me, the original RE and RE2 (and REMake), RE4, RE2 Remake, and RE7 are all totally valid interpretations of what makes Resident Evil good. RE3, 5, 6, Revelations, etc. eh, not so much.
Mediocre Arachno-Lad
Banned
Yes, silly me assuming you have an argument.
As if everybody doesn't know that as it is.
Ah, yes, RE4 is closer to RE4-Coop-DLC than other games in the series. What amazing insight.
Ah, yes, RE4 led to how RE5 and RE6 were made. Thank you for gracing us with this phenomenal knowledge. You wager RE7 affected how RE8 was made, genius?
Will you be willing to admit that RE3 led to how RE4 was made, or? Guess you're not up to that, seeing how you ignored that part of my post. You're only really comfortable rambling off obvious shit nobody argues against as if it's some hot take, pretending to be stickin' it to tha hataz.
You don't say.
You talking with your straw men often, or it's just this one time?
Last edited:
Kokoloko85
Member
Its a discussion about RE4 causing the gameplay and downfalls that led to RE5 and RE6. If you dont like the discussion, maybe dont come into a thread about this topic lol. Its not that serious, relax.
“Ah, yes, RE4 is closer to RE4-Coop-DLC than other games in the series. What amazing insight.”
Thanks I know my insight is amazing. Gameplay wise RE5 is closer to RE4. Coop or not. I dont know what RE4 coop DLC is, I never played it.. but the action style of gameplay from RE5 followed on from RE4. So people who complain about RE5 but adore RE4 are a bit strange to me.
“Ah, yes, RE4 led to how RE5 and RE6 were made. Thank you for gracing us with this phenomenal knowledge. You wager RE7 affected how RE8 was made, genius?”
Again, thanks for the compliment. You seem to have grasped what the topic of this thread is. RE4 had good reviews and was loved by fans. Thats why Capcom went hard on action for RE5 and RE6, as it was the main focus of RE4.
RE7 sold well, and fans had mixed reactions. For me it brought back some classic elements which were missing in RE4,5 and 6. Even though it had alot of new stuff I didnt like. Overall I was happy with it and it felt more classic resident evil than the last few Main installments. Im looking forward to RE8, especially now that we got something like RE2 Remake to satisfy the classic formula Mostly.
“Will you be willing to admit that RE3 led to how RE4 was made, or? Guess you're not up to that, seeing how you ignored that part of my post. You're only really comfortable rambling off obvious shit nobody argues against as if it's some hot take, pretending to be stickin' it to tha hataz.”
Yeah Ill admit RE3 is closer to RE4. Still combat Wise and combat direction is completely different.
And RE Zero and Code Veronica came between them and was more like RE1 and RE2.
sainraja
Member
Well, given how they set up the sequel it didn't take anything away from that (the reskinning).
From my perspective, what they changed with the new games is, they reversed the roles of Mr. X and Nemesis. They made Mr. X more like the old Nemesis and the new Nemesis into how Mr. X kinda was (not exactly, I know) – what I mean is, in RE2 original you could actually take care of Mr. X in the RPD and then he didn't bother you as much. The new nemesis isn't as in your way as the old one was. He would almost pop up anywhere after us and we had to deal with it, it didn't seem as controlled but I know it was still controlled or maybe the new RE3 handles Nemesis encounters in a more seamless way where it feels like it is more controlled than it really is? I guess the city area was also shorter in the new game so that could be why it feels different (but he was chasing us around in the city so but it wasn't as aggressive.)
Last edited:
Mediocre Arachno-Lad
Banned
It's a discussion about RE4 allegedly being a massive mistake. And you're not making any arguments for it being one.
B-but RE6.
I'd play RE6 over OG RE3 any day of the week. Hands down the most underrated game in the whole series.
"Different" as in "miles better".
They both took a swing at an action-focused Resident Evil, RE4 is just by far better at it. So give it a rest and stop laying some arbitrary downfalls at RE4's feet. The writing was on the wall long before it came out.
...and were both garbage.
So how about "RE Zero and CV were a mistake"? No?
We'll keep casting stones at one game that saved the whole series from getting sacked, and made the eventual comeback of a more classic RE possible?
Surely you've got enough wits about you to understand how completely idiotic this stance is?
SuperGooey
Member
A smaller focus on puzzles* and a higher emphasis on action started with RE2 in 1998, so I guess you have to blame that game and call it a "massive mistake" as well, right?
*Yes, RE2 has the least amount of puzzles of the classic RE games, and objectively has less puzzle-solving than RE4. Obviously, overall, RE4 has a higher focus on action with level design that revolved around that, but as I mentioned in multiple posts in this thread (months ago), the series had been heading down a more linear route--it was just RE4 decided to design the maps around this.
Aside from that, another thing I mentioned earlier that I feel is important to reiterate is RE4's item management. RE4 still has a strong emphasis on item management, regardless of what people say. The thing is, the item management in RE2 and especially RE3 and Code Veronica became very superficial. The games wanted to give you way more ammo and have more "moment to moment" style gameplay, but they still needed to give you limited item slots because RE1 did, so Capcom compensated by immediately giving you more item slots and item boxes to the point where there wasn't much reason to route you path with the items you'll need in mind, especially when compared to RE1.
RE4 re-invented how item management worked with its new emphasis of the action in mind (something I feel RE3 struggled with). Gone are the item boxes, and not in a tedious way that was done in RE Zero--the actual game that nearly killed the series. Without places to store weapons, ammo and health, hard choices would have to be made. Quite often, especially when RE4 was still new to me, I found myself having to selling important weapons like the TMP that I invested lots of money into for ugrading just to make room for a rifle or a rocket launcher for trickier parts of the game. It's a lot harder to say "goodbye" to a TMP when you are selling it for good rather than just storing it in a box where you can pick it up any time. I often found myself even selling healing items so I could afford a bigger briefcase or upgrades as well. These kinds of choices were never in the classic RE games, but it fits really well for RE4. You can tell the developers were thinking "how do we make item management work in RE4" rather than "let's just give you more item slots so item management is superfluous" ala, RE3 and CV.
Game series need to evolve to stay relevant. The franchises that have been around the longest weren't afraid to change, and without RE4 the series would be dead. It objectively salvaged the series whether you like the changes it made or not. Whatever happened with RE5 and RE6 is irrelevant because, like I started this post, you can just as easily state that RE2 and RE3 were the beginning of excessive action in the series. Stop being so close-minded. This rigid thinking of "RE has to be exactly THIS and THIS and exactly in THIS WAY" is what nearly killed the series in the early 00s, and was the reason Capcom almost pulled the plug on RE until RE4 reimagined everything.
Last edited:
Aion002
Member
Unpopular opinion: Nope. VII is.
Turning the game an fps with a weak ass uncharismatic main character, villains and mold enemies are the biggest mistake Capcom has made in my opinion.
4, 5 and 6 are riddled with issues, but at least they maintain the RE spirit of B movies with a silly plot that is not afraid of being stupid. That's what Resident Evil was all about and 4 takes that to a maximum in a way, while 6 takes to the other way, but both have the same idea. While VII is a boring first person jump scare game that relies on other series ideas, 90% of the game is closer to Outlast than RE and only near the ending of the game that it starts resembling RE, but the mold enemies are so generic that it never stops making things different.
REVII villains are pathetic and sad, Chris cameo makes things even more bad and the ending choices are silly.... The puzzles are fine and the house is interesting, but other than that the game for me was meh to bad, add the unskippable scenes that the games has (making speed runs annoying as hell) and the lab and caves final parts of the game being the most lazy stages I have saw in a RE so far.... For me 7 is not a Resident EVil at all.
The best thing that RE7 has is the Joe Baker dlc, he and Zoe are the best characters in the game and the DLC is closest thing to the RE cheesy style that I love.
I hope Ethan dies in the first hour of VIII and Joe becomes the main character.
Turning the game an fps with a weak ass uncharismatic main character, villains and mold enemies are the biggest mistake Capcom has made in my opinion.
4, 5 and 6 are riddled with issues, but at least they maintain the RE spirit of B movies with a silly plot that is not afraid of being stupid. That's what Resident Evil was all about and 4 takes that to a maximum in a way, while 6 takes to the other way, but both have the same idea. While VII is a boring first person jump scare game that relies on other series ideas, 90% of the game is closer to Outlast than RE and only near the ending of the game that it starts resembling RE, but the mold enemies are so generic that it never stops making things different.
REVII villains are pathetic and sad, Chris cameo makes things even more bad and the ending choices are silly.... The puzzles are fine and the house is interesting, but other than that the game for me was meh to bad, add the unskippable scenes that the games has (making speed runs annoying as hell) and the lab and caves final parts of the game being the most lazy stages I have saw in a RE so far.... For me 7 is not a Resident EVil at all.
The best thing that RE7 has is the Joe Baker dlc, he and Zoe are the best characters in the game and the DLC is closest thing to the RE cheesy style that I love.
I hope Ethan dies in the first hour of VIII and Joe becomes the main character.
Azurro
Banned
Why do you get so worked up over a game from 15 years ago? Most people love it, you hate it for some reason, we get it. The IP keeps going forward, amazing games are still being made. That should be it, no? What is there to discuss? Or is your resentment over this that big?
GenericUser
Member
It's hard to dislike a game I had so much fun with. If RE4 wouldn't carry the Resident Evil brand name, nobody would dispute its sheer brilliance in game design. But I have to agree with OP to *some* extend. I was and still am a huge fan of the classic RE horror style (remake 2 was a dream that became reality, still thankful for that) and RE4 threw almost all of that overboard. So it's kind of a love hate relationship for me, but I tend to love it much more then I hate it. 5 and 6 are trash, so I at least blame RE4 for being so successful that it spawned TWO shitty main entries in the RE series.
I can't shake off the feeling that the molded were put in because of a deadline or some other business related restriction. They feel so out of place in an otherwise (imo) fantastic looking game that oozes atmosphere. I like 7 quite a lot. I don't mind first person horror, if you have a gun and are able to actually shoot the monsters.
Last edited:
Afro Republican
Banned
I think the issue is that RE fans are morons and for some reason think the 3 Alone in the dark clones on the PSX were horro games.
What I find stranger is the 3rd game already showed you what direction they were going to go in with RE4 when it was basically all actions while being chased by the same bad guy with barely any actual plot or elements of horror the two previous games had, it didn't even have that. RE4 was a horror themedTPS game it got all this attention and they came out with RE5 and RE6 and people got upset despite those being follow ups to RE4.
There's virtually no real difference between playing Leons campaign in RE6 and what you play in RE4 outside there being a better gun bang bang system which is what RE4 was trying to do in the first place.
It's very hard to understand what RE fans want.
What I find stranger is the 3rd game already showed you what direction they were going to go in with RE4 when it was basically all actions while being chased by the same bad guy with barely any actual plot or elements of horror the two previous games had, it didn't even have that. RE4 was a horror themedTPS game it got all this attention and they came out with RE5 and RE6 and people got upset despite those being follow ups to RE4.
There's virtually no real difference between playing Leons campaign in RE6 and what you play in RE4 outside there being a better gun bang bang system which is what RE4 was trying to do in the first place.
It's very hard to understand what RE fans want.
laynelane
Member
To me, it looked like the Molded were fashioned after Regenerators - which have been lauded as a terrifying enemy from RE4. It's their looks, their movement, and even their grabs that seem reminiscent of Regenerators (not all variants of Molded, but the base model for sure).
SuperGooey
Member
This post is incredibly dishonest. So because RE4 is more action-oriented, fans of that game need accept anything action-y, regardless of quality or even drastic game design differences? Nonesense.
RE6 lacks the pacing, atmosphere, level design, and boss/enemy design of RE4. On top of that, the controls and game mechanics are completely different in both games. RE6 (and RE5) are designed around co-op, and that alone is a huge difference from RE4's design.
The original RE trilogy goes beyond being just clones of AitD--major streamlining and innovations were made so the RE games held up on their own, leading the survival-horror genre. And regardless of what you think on that, the PS1 Resident Evil games are objectively horror games. Not sure how accepting this makes anyone a moron.
This I'll agree with. The RE series has so many different kinds of fans spanning across several generations and different genres of gameplay (fixed camera fans, first person fans, action fans, etc.) so there is no way any one RE game will please everybody, but I think RE4 probably came the closest.
Last edited:
Afro Republican
Banned
No what's dishonest is your reading comprehension, as RE3 was also pretty combat based just with tank controls over bad jpegs. RE4 was the natural progression of that, and RE5 is the natural progression of RE4.
Again there's virtually barely little difference at the core from playing Leon in RE4 and his campaign in RE6, they gave you more of what fans of RE4 wanted, more RE4 and evolution of RE4. This is something the fanbase doesn't seem to be capable of understanding or accepting as they pretend that going in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION from RE4 is what RE4 was, which isn't true. Notice the best selling RE games were RE4 5 and 6 for the longest time for a reason, and really the only reason why the recent remakes did well was because of nostalgia for those who enjoyed the originals including non-fans. That's why RE2make was so successful even if you look at individual releases, and other rereleases were not as successful.
The core of RE's expansion and biggest part of the core fanbase for an insanely long time were those three games, if you liked RE4 and want to see more like it and see elements in it, the core of the gameplay, evolve, you got that with 5 and 6, you may not like the execution, but saying RE4 is a "real" or "peak RE" gameplay, and then saying 5 and 6 are "not" and then saying RE2 and 3 "are" requires you to be on something more powerful than the common street drug to believe that makes sense.
Afro Republican
Banned
BTW RE1 "innovations" over ALITD like storage boxes aren't "innovations" the PSX was too weak to copy the place anywhere mechanic which is why they had the item boxes. Same reason for lack of 360 shooting with a gun and less interactive elements in the world. Some 90's internet fanboys helping coin a fake term for a fake genre doesn't make RE innovative when everyone is copying instead "compromises" it had from ALTD which only ended up working in RE's favor because other developers of ALTD games sucked and made RE look great by comparison, so with no one showing how any of this could be done (and copying parts of RE's compromises with new nightmare) we had a whole slew of RE clones that were all compromised games that copied RE's compromised formula there was no "innovation" until maybe code veronica or RE4.
SuperGooey
Member
Yes, the series had been becoming more and more action-based starting as early as RE2, but RE3 and RE4 play quite differently from one another. It would be easy to see how someone could enjoy one and not the other, or at least get completely different experiences out of each, even if they are both action-horror titles within the RE series.
And that's the case with RE4 and RE6: they play nothing alike. You can classify them both as action-horror where you play as Leon, but beyond a superficial level, most will argue (and rightfully so, in my opinion) that very few of the strengths of RE4 were carried over to RE6. And with RE6 came big problems RE4 never had, like terrible pacing, or it amplified RE4's problems like adding excessive QTEs.
Even at the most basic level, anyone who plays either game for 10 minutes can tell you that RE4 and RE6 play completely differently.
"If you like A and B, which play nothing like C and D, then you are required to also like C and D."
Can't someone think RE2/RE3 are the peaks of classic RE, while thinking RE4 is the peak of action RE? Your logic ignores too many obvious factors to be considered reasonable.
Last edited:
Afro Republican
Banned
You aren't making an argument, you are moving the goal posts.
RE5 and 6 were evolutions of the formulas in RE4, This you can't say RE5 and 6 are not "Resident Evil" but 3 and 2 "are" despite being in a completely different gameplay format, yet put 4 at the peak. Again, RE fans continue to confuse themselves, it's not that RE4 "plays" like RE6, it's that RE5 and RE6 are EVOLUTIONS of RE4 which is true, and as I said before you can dislike the EXECUTION of that evolution but trying to pretend that "real RE" is 2 and 3 with 4 as the "peak" doesn't make any sense no matter what angle you look at it from or how you slice the cake.
Not to mention despite some of the core fans believing that, RE5 and 6 were the most expansive and most popular RE games for a long time. And one of the two was the best selling Capcom game of all time for a length of time. You can dislike something freely, no problem with that, but at least make sense.
Lemonade by Beyonce
Banned
It’s my favorite RE. It’s just fun.
SuperGooey
Member
No. I genuinely don't know what your point is. I'm just pointing out some inconsistencies in your logic.
Ah, so maybe you're saying that regardless of quality, RE5 and RE6 are just as much "real RE" as RE4 or the other games? I kind of understand what you're saying, but I think you're wrong. More on the execution in a bit**. Adding the co-op and removing the horror atmosphere makes it easy to see why fan can say RE5/RE6 aren't RE games while RE4 is.
Honestly, the whole what's considered a "real RE game" is hard to define, and I don't think the people claiming RE4 isn't good as an RE game are doing a good job of it in this thread. My argument is, and you can find it above on this page, that RE4 evolved and reinvented what an RE game can be, saving the series in the process. RE4 was new, fresh, and objectively saved the franchise from being cancelled by Capcom.
**Anyway, the EXECUTION is important. I don't understand how you can say it doesn't matter when it comes to judging the evolution of the series. I don't think I actually stated my opinion of RE5, but I do enjoy it a lot. What I disagree with "blaming" RE4 for it since it completely goes against RE4's main philosophy: to re-invent survival horror. RE5 pretty much just took RE4, removed the atmosphere, added more enemies with automatic guns, and added co-op. If RE5 was truly in the spirit of RE4, it would have found another new and exciting way to push the survival-horror genre. I think it's fair to say RE5 was a breaking point where all pretenses of "horror" was dropped for 100% action.
And RE6 is RE6.
Last edited:
Afro Republican
Banned
No it doesn't, and it shows you don't even understand what YOU are arguing about. Or what other RE fans argue about.
Execution has nothing to do with evolution. RE5 and 6 are evolutions of RE4, RE4 is in the same realm as those games and those games were designed from RE4. You can't say RE4 is closer to RE2 which is in a completely different realm of gameplay from RE4, and then say RE4 was "real" and RE5 or 6 "are not" that doesn't make sense.
Just like how RE4 fans will praise RE4, and then attack RE5 and 6, not for the "execution" of the gameplay, that would be fine, but they attack the genera; direction and the focus of the games that OVERLAP with what the praise in RE4. At that point the fan complaining is a hypocrite or is just plan nuts. Than somehow say that RE4 was somehow closer to RE2 yet the aspects priased in RE4 by the fan don't even EXIST in RE2.
Again, almost every argument for years against RE5 and RE6 have been flawed and involve fans pretending that they aren't branched off RE4, while pretending unrelated titles with different development methods entirely are somehow closer to RE4. That doesn't make sense, none of it makes sense.
Yes if a fan where to say that they didn't like the execution, which is usually NOT the argument, and said something like "I don't like how RE6 did this that and this, because when RE4 did it they did it this way and that way and I think that worked better." that's not what most arguments of RE5 and 6 are.
Instead most arguments are "RE5 and RE6 is aren't like RE4, they are like TPS games with a horror theme, and they play like Gears of war, and it's overly cinematic, and it doesn't have the controls of things like REmake or the originals, and they are too linear, but RE4 didn't have that (lol??) it's much closer to RE2 and the classic games"
One argument makes sense, the other is nonsense.
SuperGooey
Member
RE4 plays closer to RE5 than it does RE2, but this is exactly where execution is important, my friend.
RE4 tailored its gameplay around re-inventing elements of classic RE and survival-horror. RE5 took RE4's gameplay, removed the horror, atmosphere, and made it co-op action game. Like I said, that's a breaking point for a lot of people. It's like Icarus flying too close to the sun.
RE6 took the action and co-op so far that it doesn't even resemble RE4, let alone anything RE in general. I think it took all the wrong lessons from RE5, which took all the wrong lessons from RE4.
That's why execution is important. Eventually you strip away enough RE elements where it just doesn't resemble RE anymore. You can disagree where that breaking point was, but it's fair to say it was either RE5 or RE6. I do not believe RE4 is that breaking point, nor should it be blamed for "ruining the series." RE was in a position where it needed to change in 2005, and it been RE5 instead of RE4 that released that year, I don't think fans would have been as willing to accept it as a Resident Evil. RE4, however, was fine-tuned to evolve and reimagine the classic elements enough to feel fresh, but not so far where horror was existence and remnants of RE were nowhere to be found.
Afro Republican
Banned
No it's not, because that's not what most of the fans are arguing, and you keep ignoring that part which is why you can't understand why their arguments don't make anysense. Sure some do, but most of the arguments for years against RE5 and 6 have not been rational, you can even look at boards from years ago, even on here, and see the same thing for older threads.
RE4 is a directly evolution of RE4's core mechanics that overlap with RE6, yet fans are arguing that those overlapping mechanics aren't Resident Evil when they play RE6, but say they are when they play RE4, and then say that those elements are closer to RE2, which doesn't even have them at all.
This isn't a comparison like you're making it, which would be a style similar to Rayman vs. Rayman 2, or Jak vs. Jak II where there's minimal overlap and it's a completely different game.
Using a Capcom example, it's like Mega Man X4 vs. Mega Man X.
These are similar games with some changes, X4 takes it's core mechanics from X1 and evolved them. Whether people like this evolution is not relevant since that's not what's being argued.
Taking the common RE arguments and applying them to Mega Man X would go like this: Basically they are saying that Mega Man X4 is not a real Mega Man game, because of common elements it shares for Mega Man X1, yet those same fans are praising Mega Man X for those same mechanics, yet saying that Mega Man X is closer to Mega Man Battlenetwork (completely different format) than Mega Man X4.
This is the same argument RE fans use applied to another Capcom series, Mega Man, and it makes as much sense with MM as it did with RE. NONE.
SuperGooey
Member
I don't care what "most fans" are arguing according to you. If you don't think the execution of how certain ideas are pulled off is important, then we have nothing left to discuss here. I fundamentally disagree with you. Agree to disagree, I suppose.
Last edited: