Acclaimed RE4, Survival Horror Failure

The highly acclaimed Resident Evil 4 (and Biohazard 4 to the Japanese) is quite an impressive title. The graphics are outright amazing, and the gameplay is fun and engaging. But for the game that is said to be the greatest survival horror to date, Resident Evil 4 fails miserably.

At a first glance, the re-innovated control scheme of RE4 may seem amazing. It puts you right behind Leon, allowing you to see what he does (and a little bit more). From this position you can aim and shoot anything that nears you. And as you play the game, many, many enemies will gang up on you, from in front and behind. And at first, this is quite tense. But as the game progresses, the enemies become more and more predictable. Enemies that were once great menaces, are commonplace and lose any sense of fear that they had created. As they pop in front of you as you frantically aim, shooting each one from your near unlimited supply of ammo ... it makes you realize.

What happened to the survival in survival horror?

Survival horror isn't meant to have you destroy each enemy, or even give you the ability to. Rather, you are not prepared for the horrifying situation that befalls you, as you save every last bit of ammo you have for the most horrible creatures yet to assail you. You are forced to avoid what you cannot afford to face, and a sense of building tension, and fear is created that continues through the entire span of the game.

In RE4, however, ammo is practically given to you and you are encouraged and even forced to fight every horrible enemy to progress. Eventually, the placement of the enemies becomes so systematic and predictable, removing any fear that had previoulsy been created with the said enemies. Where in previous games, the most horrible creatures were a shock and horrifying, in RE4 boss enemies are reused, sometimes placed twice in one room. You simply aren't encouraged to escape the enemies, and you can handle them all-and are given the resources as well. There's really no threat, so why be afraid?

Quickly it becomes obvious that the behind-the-character control scheme is meant to have the game be fully action oriented; there is no room for getting by with any means necessary here.

RE4 is simply one map of enemies thrown at you after another. The only actual survival horror moments are playing as Ashley, the location of the regenerators, and fighting "it" (the most frightening creature of the game).

It's fairly sad that the series that coined the term "Survival Horror" is abandoning it, and everything that it has accomplished.

Your thoughts? 

The game and series' creator, Shinji Mikami said long before the press got their first hands-on with the game that it was moving away from the series' survival horror staples and that it was going to be more of an action game.

I guess he felt that tank-controls just don't cut it these days as a gameplay feature.

But I can see your point, Resident Evil was one of the first pioneers of the survival horror genre and now it is becoming an action adventure. Hopefully Capcom will try to have more scares in RE5, but I doubt you'll be running past all of the zombies because you want to reserve your ammo, it's still going to be an action game. I can see those 'fast zombies' being used in certain places that would result in wet trousers, though.

That's exactly why RE4 is nothing but an action game with a **** story, RE characters, and the title Resident Evil.

They could have switched to outbreak style 3rd person controls.

I hope they won't, but I think that they will continue their action whoring. Let's hope they can implement things more effectively.

P.S. I have always been able to handle RE controls fine. ;)

The survival part of survival horror has been deemphasized by RE since the original (RE2 was much faster paced and more action oriented and the trend continued with RE3 though Veronica kind of walked things back a bit it still put an impressive arsenal in the player's hands and ended with a remarkably high body count). 

If one wants to play survival horror games which place a lot of emphasis on limit resources, one should play Silent Hill (admittedly, 2 was pretty generous with ammo and 4 flat out sucked).

Siren is the best game for limited resources. Entire levels are played without any weapon at all.

 Or Demento. o_o; err .. I meant Haunting Ground.

Siren is the best game for limited resources. Entire levels are played without any weapon at all.

 Or Demento. o_o; err .. I meant Haunting Ground.

ceruxx

I'll have to look up Siren 3 once it hits.

I own Siren 2 in Japanese lol.

 Siren 3 is why I want a PS3. x.x;

I think the gameplay of the older Resident Evil games are much better.

 Not clumsy if you know what you're doing. ;)

 They abandoned SH because they're whores for the money.

The highly acclaimed Resident Evil 4 (and Biohazard 4 to the Japanese) is quite an impressive title. The graphics are outright amazing, and the gameplay is fun and engaging. But for the game that is said to be the greatest survival horror to date, Resident Evil 4 fails miserably.

At a first glance, the re-innovated control scheme of RE4 may seem amazing. It puts you right behind Leon, allowing you to see what he does (and a little bit more). From this position you can aim and shoot anything that nears you. And as you play the game, many, many enemies will gang up on you, from in front and behind. And at first, this is quite tense. But as the game progresses, the enemies become more and more predictable. Enemies that were once great menaces, are commonplace and lose any sense of fear that they had created. As they pop in front of you as you frantically aim, shooting each one from your near unlimited supply of ammo ... it makes you realize.

What happened to the survival in survival horror?

Survival horror isn't meant to have you destroy each enemy, or even give you the ability to. Rather, you are not prepared for the horrifying situation that befalls you, as you save every last bit of ammo you have for the most horrible creatures yet to assail you. You are forced to avoid what you cannot afford to face, and a sense of building tension, and fear is created that continues through the entire span of the game.

In RE4, however, ammo is practically given to you and you are encouraged and even forced to fight every horrible enemy to progress. Eventually, the placement of the enemies becomes so systematic and predictable, removing any fear that had previoulsy been created with the said enemies. Where in previous games, the most horrible creatures were a shock and horrifying, in RE4 boss enemies are reused, sometimes placed twice in one room. You simply aren't encouraged to escape the enemies, and you can handle them all-and are given the resources as well. There's really no threat, so why be afraid?

Quickly it becomes obvious that the behind-the-character control scheme is meant to have the game be fully action oriented; there is no room for getting by with any means necessary here.

RE4 is simply one map of enemies thrown at you after another. The only actual survival horror moments are playing as Ashley, the location of the regenerators, and fighting "it" (the most frightening creature of the game).

It's fairly sad that the series that coined the term "Survival Horror" is abandoning it, and everything that it has accomplished.

Your thoughts? 

ceruxx

Have you played RE4 on professional?  Not only do you get less ammo, the enemies are a lot more aggressive.  If you stand and fight, you will lose.

  I think you have a point, but I don't agree.  Just because you are forced into confrontations with the enemies doesn't at all mean you aren't surviving while doing so.  Sure, it has taken a turn more so towards action but this is a welcome change.  I had a lot more frights with RE4 than with all of the others combined, in part from the behind the back perspective that didn't allow you to know what was running up right behind you in combination with the incredible sound design. 

  I think RE4 is an incredibly intense and atmospheric game, and is the highlight of the series.  It may have strayed, but in my opinion...only for the better.

To each his own I guess.

And still you get points for defeating them which you use at a store. Ridiculous.

 Even in a mario game, you are expected survive. 

It's not part of the same series imo. They just included characters and the name for money purposes. 

 I actually did enjoy the game though. It is fun, but yet a problem. They could have at least made an intriguing storyline.

Thinking about it now, the new RE5 monsters remind me vaguely of crimnson head like monsters, or at least seem like they would move like them. If capcom does things well, it'll have them hide in the shadows and pop out when you least expect them to. That way they can recreate the old tension and fear, while using new gameplay (when they pop out, you pick them off)

If they do this, there is hope for the series imo. If only they could create a new SOLID storyline instead of this terrorist/president's daugther BS.

Hmmmmmm, another mediocre survival horror game that stayed true to the roots of the series or a game that is simply excellent by almost everyone's standards.  Let me think which I'd rather have...

Regardless of how valid the point is, you're ultimately complaining about a game whose predecessors had suffered from being average at best. So the developers changed it's formula to make it the game of the year on nearly everyone's list in 2005.  It just seems really pointless to complain about something like that.

Hmmmmmm, another mediocre survival horror game that stayed true to the roots of the series or a game that is simply excellent by almost everyone's standards.  Let me think which I'd rather have...

Regardless of how valid the point is, you're ultimately complaining about a game whose predecessors had suffered from being average at best. So the developers changed it's formula to make it the game of the year on nearly everyone's list in 2005.  It just seems really pointless to complain about something like that.

Robio_basic

Is that why all the old mainline RE games recieved critical praise and rating's mostly around 8.5 to 9.5 everywhere? For being average at best?

The only game in the series that I can even see that comment making any sense at all against, would be RE Zero. Even then, its much better than average or mediocre. RE is probably my favorite series of the past 10 years overall, so I guess I prefer average games. :?

[QUOTE="Robio_basic"]

Hmmmmmm, another mediocre survival horror game that stayed true to the roots of the series or a game that is simply excellent by almost everyone's standards.  Let me think which I'd rather have...

Regardless of how valid the point is, you're ultimately complaining about a game whose predecessors had suffered from being average at best. So the developers changed it's formula to make it the game of the year on nearly everyone's list in 2005.  It just seems really pointless to complain about something like that.

EdgecrusherAza

Is that why all the old mainline RE games recieved critical praise and rating's mostly around 8.5 to 9.5 everywhere? For being average at best?

The only game in the series that I can even see that comment making any sense at all against, would be RE Zero. Even then, its much better than average or mediocre. RE is probably my favorite series of the past 10 years overall, so I guess I prefer average games. :?

Prior to RE4, I considered RE2 the highpoint in the series (RE3 felt more like a sidestory than anything else and CV and REmake were disappointing for reason I will go into later).  Its true that critics kept on ladling the praise even as the series declined, but that was due more to the brand loyalty of critics than it does the continuing quality of the franchise.  Many of RE's design decisions made sense at the time they were made (back in the PS1/N64 days) but made less sense once the then next generation of hardware (DC, PS2, GC) hit.  I knew there was trouble when I found myself deal with the same fixed, cinematic (i.e. dramatic but less than useful) camera angles on the RE: CV on the DC despite the fact that the game was fully polygonal.  But Capcom chose to listen to people who got games for free as opposed to people who paid money for them (who voted with their wallets), so the series declined for a long time before RE4 finally gave it the kick in the pants it needed.  Sadly, by the time RE returned to quality, many people had written the series off (the same critics who gushed over RE CV praising RE4 didn't impress anyone much).

ok play the game as the game is.  Everybody tries to compare games to there predocesors, but y.  a game is a game is a game, RE4 is the best game i have played to date, but wait its not a survival horror game dang i guess i shouldnt like it as much... no.  The game is great, the controls are great, the graphics r great, and that makes for a great game.  So play the game as that game not looking and comparing everything else that its "suppose to be". 

Like for example ok lets say i love COD 2, witch i do, but then COD 3 comes out.  But wait its different theres vehicles and rockets and bigger weapons, and more wide open levels, does that make it bad.  No it makes it a fun game, unless u compare it to COD 2 then u gonna say well the battle is more wide open and nothing like the tight hand to hand combat of COD 2.  That wasnt the best comparision but the point is sure RE 4 is not like old ones and is not survival horror, but does that make it bad in anyway, no it makes it a great game for what it is.  Acutally the best game ever made in my opinion. 

Resident Evil 4 isn't much of a horror game, but it's a great action game leaps and bounds better than any of the previous installments in the series. The tank controls were still a bit of a problem for me, but Resident Evil 4 was still a step in the right direction.

If you want a great and unique horror game that emphasizes survival over action, but with modern, first-person gameplay, check out Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth.

Resident Evil 4 isn't much of a horror game, but it's a great action game leaps and bounds better than any of the previous installments in the series. The tank controls were still a bit of a problem for me, but Resident Evil 4 was still a step in the right direction.

If you want a great and unique horror game that emphasizes survival over action, but with modern, first-person gameplay, check out Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth.

 

UpInFlames

I have to disagree with yo leaps and bounds statement. The first RE was a much more impactfull game than 4. For its stime is was a better game.

 

RE4 is an easy game with more action than survival? Holy crap, welcome to about two years ago.

Anybody, and I mean ANYBODY who's played any of the previous games in the main series KNOW that RE4, in terms of survival, is completely different from the past games, because really, there isn't much of a strained survival element in RE4. Ammo abounds and you can see most enemies coming from a mile away. The only time the game got close to that "overwhelmed; on-the-run" was during the village at the beginning your first time through. Clearly though, when moving the series in a new direction, the Capcom KNEW that that element was going to have to be lost in translation, and that's their decision. I'd be upset about it if RE4 didn't make up for it n other parts that the past RE games didn't do.

I'm not saying that RE4 isn't a decent game. It's a fine game. I enjoyed it. But it's a horrible surivival horror, and an even worse Resident Evil. By name you should expect to ...

1. Have a decent, interesting storyline.

2. Not be given all the weapons and ammo in the world, forcing you to fight to survive.

3. Have to use your head, not just your brains, to get out of whatever disaster befalls you.

 RE4 did none of these.

UpInFlames:

It was a good game, but not a great game. Enemies and locations are heavily overused, the game includes no attempt to include

Resident Evil isn't an action game however. Or at least, all of the other titles weren't. It's like Final Fantasy turning into an action game. It's just not the same. It's turning something into what the series simply isn't. Perhaps the people who played RE before were playing it for something that it wasn't.

Not really true. If RE was an action adventure game with horror elements it wouldn't

1. Attempt to scare the player at any chance it got.

2. Reduce ammo so tha the player had to use any means necessary to survive

3. Encourage the player to survive by other means than just shooting everything.

There is a difference between action and surivival horror.

homegirl:

So, in the next Final Fantasy they should add action elements because it's something that hte game has never done before right? It's just not hte same game. There's a difference between fixing a game's problems + reinnovating the game mechanics and changing it into a completely different game.

Why is everyone saying RE4 is easy? I died 20 or more times my first playthrough, and even after my fourth playthrough I still die here and there.... maybe I suck. Stupid chainsaw maniacs.... Is RE4 less survival horror more rambo? Yep. And its pure awesome on a disc. A perfect evolution of a franchise.GodModeEnabled

:lol: Me too man, some people are just to good at games...Hell, i struggled on GoW at times, and everyone was calling it a piece of cake 

 [QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]Why is everyone saying RE4 is easy? I died 20 or more times my first playthrough, and even after my fourth playthrough I still die here and there.... maybe I suck. Stupid chainsaw maniacs.... Is RE4 less survival horror more rambo? Yep. And its pure awesome on a disc. A perfect evolution of a franchise.F1Lengend

:lol: Me too man, some people are just to good at games...Hell, i struggled on GoW at times, and everyone was calling it a piece of cake 

I'm not saying that RE4 isn't a decent game. It's a fine game. I enjoyed it. But it's a horrible surivival horror, and an even worse Resident Evil. ceruxx

It wasn't even meant to be a survival horror game. And is there anything wrong with redefining a series? Why don't you just say "I wanted another game like the previous main REs, and RE4 disappointed me."? That's all it would take. What if we took "Resident Evil" to refer to RE4? Then we'd say that everything before it was "an even worse Resident Evil". You can't always define a series so neatly; a series CAN be comprised of games of more than one genre. Then we must define the series as being comprised of said games of different genres. Resident Evil =/= a survival horror series (s.h. isn't even a genre, BTW). NOW, Resident Evil = a survival horror, first-person light gun, and action series (did you complain about the light gun ones, too?). What you're saying reminds me of something another poster said in his review of Super Mario 64. He said that it wasn't really a Mario game. Well, what's a Mario game? He was defining it by the gameplay in previous entries instead of defining it as a game with Mario in it. Similarly, dvader doesn't call the CD-i Zelda games... Zelda games! This is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: denying something because you've defined some term narrowly, and often having an emotional attachment.

Here is what should be said instead: "RE4 is unlike previous main-line RE games, and because new main-line REs seem to be going the way of RE4, these new installments--for me--don't live up to the name of Resident Evil, which HAD BEEN about survival horror. And however begrudgingly I must say this, a game with the Resident name, with the authority of Capcom, is a Resident Evil game."

That was rather long, but I think you get my point. It's OK to want another RE game like the previous ones, and be disappointed with RE4 IN COMPARISON. But many of us love RE4, whether or not we played the previous ones. So to your statement I quoted above, I say this: so what?

By name you should expect to ...

1. Have a decent, interesting storyline.

2. Not be given all the weapons and ammo in the world, forcing you to fight to survive.

3. Have to use your head, not just your brains, to get out of whatever disaster befalls you.

 RE4 did none of these.

1. For an action game, I don't think the story was so bad, just like with Ninja Gaiden (Xbox). To get the most out of it, however, one would need to have played the previous REs.

2. The village chief and the first el Gigante were stretching me thin on ammo to the point where I wondered if I'd have enough for whateverr else might come. But regarding the point, I prefer the new style over the old one.

3. What do you mean by this?

Evil isn't an action game however. Or at least, all of the other titles weren't. It's like Final Fantasy turning into an action game. It's just not the same. It's turning something into what the series simply isn't. Perhaps the people who played RE before were playing it for something that it wasn't.

Well, now it IS something different. It IS. Because RE4 is an RE game, the series is now different than it was. Than it WAS.

Final Fantasy they should add action elements because it's something that hte game has never done before right? (1) It's just not hte same game. (2) There's a difference between fixing a game's problems + reinnovating the game mechanics and changing it into a completely different game.

(1) No, it's of the same series.

(2) And the difference is sometimes only a difference of degree.

It devolved, in the sense that the story & gameplay are dumbed down.ceruxx

The gameplay is not dumbed down. It's just different.

The story was only dumbed down because a better one wasn't needed for that kind of a game.

RE did not devolve. It just changed. And many of us--look at dvader, a rabid RE fan--like it better now.

[QUOTE="ceruxx"]

I'm not saying that RE4 isn't a decent game. It's a fine game. I enjoyed it. But it's a horrible surivival horror, and an even worse Resident Evil. Angry_Beaver

It wasn't even meant to be a survival horror game.

Meanwhile, on the back cover it quotes a review referring to it as survival horror.

And is there anything wrong with redefining a series? Why don't you just say "I wanted another game like the previous main REs, and RE4 disappointed me."? That's all it would take. What if we took "Resident Evil" to refer to RE4? Then we'd say that everything before it was "an even worse Resident Evil". You can't always define a series so neatly; a series CAN be comprised of games of more than one genre.

Resident Evil =/= a survival horror series (s.h. isn't even a genre, BTW). NOW, Resident Evil = a survival horror, first-person light gun, and action series (did you complain about the light gun ones, too?).Angry_Beaver

Games that are not of the same genre are released as side games, or at least should be. Thats why the light gun games work fine. Because we understand that they are of different genres. That is why many RE fans view RE4 as a side game. In fact, RE4 is probably more of a side game than the light games; it bears little to no connection to the whole of the series.

What you're saying reminds me of something another poster said in his review of Super Mario 64. He said that it wasn't really a Mario game. Well, what's a Mario game? He was defining it by the gameplay in previous entries instead of defining it as a game with Mario in it. Similarly, dvader doesn't call the CD-i Zelda games... Zelda games! This is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: denying something because you've defined some term narrowly, and often having an emotional attachment.Angry_Beaver

Mario's objective is still to jump on the heads of his enemies, stop bowser, and make is way through colorful levels. Even after the 3D transition it included many aspects of the previous titles. What did RE4 do ... Well ... there are still guns you can use ... and still typerwriters. ... Little to no connection to the whole of the series.

Here is what should be said instead: "RE4 is unlike previous main-line RE games, and because new main-line REs seem to be going the way of RE4, these new installments--for me--don't live up to the name of Resident Evil, which HAD BEEN about survival horror. And however begrudgingly I must say this, a game with the Resident name, with the authority of Capcom, is a Resident Evil game."Angry_Beaver

Capcom can call it anything they want. They can even make an katamari damacy game, slap a "RE" on the name. But guess what. It's still not RE.

so what?

1. For an action game, I don't think the story was so bad, just like with Ninja Gaiden (Xbox). To get the most out of it, however, one would need to have played the previous REs.

2. The village chief and the first el Gigante were stretching me thin on ammo to the point where I wondered if I'd have enough for whateverr else might come. But regarding the point, I prefer the new style over the old one.

3. What do you mean by this?

So if it is nothing like the rest of the series, then is it of the same series? It has a number 4 slapped on the title. It is not intended to be a side game.

1. It was pretty bad imo. The amount of depth in the storyline was ... 0. I'm not saying the previous RE's had a particularily deep storyline, because they didn't. But the difference between the quality fo the new storyline and the old is insane. And you don't have to play the previous RE's to understand anything in RE4. I'm pretty sure you don't have to think either.

2. I didn't face this problem. That's because you don't like Survival Horror. You like action games.

3. I mean that there are no puzzles, and if there are, they are ridiculously dumbed down. At least in previous RE games you had to use your head a little bit.

Well, now it IS something different. It IS. Because RE4 is an RE game, the series is now different than it was. Than it WAS.

You can twist a series into anything you want and release it, but that doesn't that it bears any true connection to the rest of the series. It's just for money purposes.

[QUOTE="ceruxx"]It devolved, in the sense that the story & gameplay are dumbed down.Angry_Beaver

The gameplay is not dumbed down. It's just different.

The story was only dumbed down because a better one wasn't needed for that kind of a game.

RE did not devolve. It just changed. And many of us--look at dvader, a rabid RE fan--like it better now.

Different as in

1. You no longer have to solve any puzzles that use your brain.

2. Are encouraged to shoot anything and everything.

3. Includes a story that can be compared with a mario game? Literally. It can. Just switch mario with leon, peach with ashley, and sadler with bowser.

That sounds dumbed down to me.

Well, if it still an RE game, then why not include a decent storyline?

There are two aspects to consider: first, the product name; and second, a definition, which need not be consistent with the product name. Which takes precedence here? "Resident Evil" is, first and foremost, a product name. It can be retroactively defined by what falls under that name, but being a product name first, the developer has control over what is and is not a Resident Evil game. The CD-i Zelda games are Zelda games no matter what dvader says (due to Nintendo granting Phillips permission to make them), and SM64 is a Mario game no matter what the aforementioned poster says. RE4 is a Resident Evil game no matter what you say. It just doesn't fit in with the definition that you--someone who has no control over game production--have crafted for it. Capcom has the final say unless they sell the franchise, at which point whoever buys it has control over what is and is not a Resident Evil game.

As of the release of RE4 (legally, even before that), the main Resident Evil product line diversified. It was survival horror. Now, however, it is not. This can't be argued with unless you prove that RE4 was somehow a "side" game--which, I believe, can't be done, for two reasons: first, it is officially in the main line of the Resident Evil series, the best way to tell being the number "4"; second, RE5--another numbered, main-line RE--looks to be in the same vein as RE4, as I predict RE6 will be if it is created. If the big, numbered installments under the name "Resident Evil" play like RE4, and no more Resident Evils are made that are like RE0, RE, RE2, RE3, and REC:VX, you tell me--what, THEN, is a Resident Evil game?

dvader has also made the point that "survival horror" isn't even a type of game in the largest sense. Capcom created it for promotion of their first Resident Evil.

[QUOTE="yomi_basic"] 

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Resident Evil 4 isn't much of a horror game, but it's a great action game leaps and bounds better than any of the previous installments in the series. The tank controls were still a bit of a problem for me, but Resident Evil 4 was still a step in the right direction.

If you want a great and unique horror game that emphasizes survival over action, but with modern, first-person gameplay, check out Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth.

 

dvader654

I have to disagree with yo leaps and bounds statement. The first RE was a much more impactfull game than 4. For its stime is was a better game.

 

Yes it was a much more impactful game but was it better game for its time, I don't think so.  No RE game has been as highly praised as RE4.  Even RE1 when it was released had some detrators, those that could never get the control scheme, RE4 is almost universally loved.

 Beaver:

 I disagree. A title is just words. The game itself is what makes it, well, what it is.

 Basically what is going on is, RE is becoming a different series altogether. Instead of creating a new title and series for the game, they just kept it RE because they couldn't come up with a new RE and they didn't want to lose money from the title either.

 Eventually it will probably be considered two seperate series involved in the same world. 

dvader, your point about the story is correct. As with other game comparisons, I'm going to assume that the story's presentation impacted ceruxx more than the actual story.

The story of RE4 was cliche, but that doesn't make it bad. I've played the original version of Resident Evil on the DS, and here's the story: STARS goes in to rescue their comrades; they find a mansion infested with vile creatures; they learn that a viral outbreak created them and that Wesker is heavily involved; one STARS member kills the Tyrant, then escapes. That's the story, every bit as "bad" and unrealistic as RE4's.

I think that a few things are deceiving you, ceruxx:

1. Presentation of the story.

2. The fact that the story is cliche.

3. That it's easier to describe than that of the original RE.

4. The fact that any story can sound bad when reduced to short, cliched or bizarre snipits.

What think you?

[QUOTE="yomi_basic"] [QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="yomi_basic"] [QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Resident Evil 4 isn't much of a horror game, but it's a great action game leaps and bounds better than any of the previous installments in the series. The tank controls were still a bit of a problem for me, but Resident Evil 4 was still a step in the right direction.

If you want a great and unique horror game that emphasizes survival over action, but with modern, first-person gameplay, check out Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth.

 

dvader654

I have to disagree with yo leaps and bounds statement. The first RE was a much more impactfull game than 4. For its stime is was a better game.

Yes it was a much more impactful game but was it better game for its time, I don't think so. No RE game has been as highly praised as RE4. Even RE1 when it was released had some detrators, those that could never get the control scheme, RE4 is almost universally loved.

It was the pinnacle of the old stylle of RE but RE4 is a better game all around. RE4 is a game everyone could play. Even though RE was extremely popular there were still many people that would not play the series. RE4 broke through all that. RE was never the big time award winning series, now it is.

 Actually, RE got great reviews before. ;) Now that it's an action game, however, it just gets more. It's all industry preference.

dvader, your point about the story is correct. As with other game comparisons, I'm going to assume that the story's presentation impacted ceruxx more than the actual story.

The story of RE4 was cliche, but that doesn't make it bad. I've played the original version of Resident Evil on the DS, and here's the story: STARS goes in to rescue their comrades; they find a mansion infested with vile creatures; they learn that a viral outbreak created them and that Wesker is heavily involved; one STARS member kills the Tyrant, then escapes. That's the story, every bit as "bad" and unrealistic as RE4's.

I think that a few things are deceiving you, ceruxx:

1. Presentation of the story.

2. The fact that the story is cliche.

3. That it's easier to describe than that of the original RE.

4. The fact that any story can sound bad when reduced to short, cliched or bizarre snipits.

What think you?

Angry_Beaver

 And yet still more complicated than RE4. And a hell of a lot more interesting. Then RE becomes a conspiracy story in RE2. The police station is involved with umbrella, secretly, and the police chief is actually a dangerous criminal. The corporation turned on one of its own workers to obtain the G-Virus, in which William Birkin injected himself with. Claire and Leon must save sherry, while at the same time escaping the city, and destroying the hideous G-Mutant that stalks them throughout the game. Also, umbrella sends in a Tyrant to make sure that word does not get out of what they had done. Character relationships also have depth. It's just better overall.

Sounds a lot better storyline to me.

It's easier to describe, because there's not much to it. Look how I was able to give more than a sentance to describe the storyline of RE2? 

But with RE4, you don't have to reduce much. ;)

 Beaver:

 I disagree. A title is just words. The game itself is what makes it, well, what it is.

 Basically what is going on is, RE is becoming a different series altogether. Instead of creating a new title and series for the game, they just kept it RE because they couldn't come up with a new RE and they didn't want to lose money from the title either.

 Eventually it will probably be considered two seperate series involved in the same world. 

ceruxx

If you wish to take the words "Resident Evil" and displace them from Capcom, which has legal rights to that name, then so be it. But you're wrong. "Resident Evil" is more than just a couple words. It is a name that a company has rights to as the creator. By separating the name from Capcom, you're doing the same thing I do when I call any box of nasal tissue "Kleenex". There is nothing hypocritical in what I am saying, though, because I don't get into discussions with people about brands of nasal tissue, and if I did I would readily concede that my aforementioned practice is due to familiarity and convenience, and that if I had to call a product what it is, I would either define it by its attributes or call it by its legal name--in my case, Puffs are Puffs and Kleenex are Kleenex; in your case, anything Capcom calls "Resident Evil" is Resident Evil.

I hope they give us back the the old re style NaiKoN9293

They won't but this is what they can do:

1. Turn the game back into a survival horror game by reducing the ammo that you are given, and not encouraging you to fight all enemies. Make it possible to get through the game by avoiding many enemies. It'd be interesting to see how they could accomplish this with the next point: 

2. Make the new zombies fast, crimson head-like zombies, that could be lurking around any corner. You just don't know when. It would be best if they switched back to cinematic camera angles to do this, but if not they could have them hiding in the darkness behind you and around you. You could hear their footsteps behind you. What an amazing way to incorporate the new RE style into old RE horror!

3. Including a twisting and engaging plot that makes you actually want to find out whats going to happen next. And maybe, some good old RE "There's something more horrible than anything else out there!" in the mix.

A mix of the old and the new would be great. That's real innovation.

[QUOTE="ceruxx"]

Beaver:

I disagree. A title is just words. The game itself is what makes it, well, what it is.

Basically what is going on is, RE is becoming a different series altogether. Instead of creating a new title and series for the game, they just kept it RE because they couldn't come up with a new RE and they didn't want to lose money from the title either.

Eventually it will probably be considered two seperate series involved in the same world.

Angry_Beaver

If you wish to take the words "Resident Evil" and displace them from Capcom, which has legal rights to that name, then so be it. But you're wrong. "Resident Evil" is more than just a couple words. It is a name that a company has rights to as the creator. By separating the name from Capcom, you're doing the same thing I do when I call any box of nasal tissue "Kleenex". There is nothing hypocritical in what I am saying, though, because I don't get into discussions with people about brands of nasal tissue, and if I did I would readily concede that my aforementioned practice is due to familiarity and convenience, and that if I had to call a product what it is, I would either define it by its attributes or call it by its legal name--in my case, Puffs are Puffs and Kleenex are Kleenex; in your case, anything Capcom calls "Resident Evil" is Resident Evil.

 This isn't going anywhere so I'm going to drop it.