Acclaimed RE4, Survival Horror Failure

ceruxx,

As a simpler example--one which will make my point clear and its denial ridiculous--listen to this:

My name is Mark. There are other people named Mark. Even if all other Marks are more similar to eachother than they are to me, and all are older than me, I am still a Mark. If, then, you wish to say that I am not a Mark, you must deal with the fact that I am called such, which would be a clear challenge to the authority of my parents in naming me Mark.

That is ridiculous. RE4 is as much a Resident Evil game as anything that came before it bearing that title. Since your issue seems to be with names, how do you deal with the light gun REs, a subject we glossed over before? They are Resident Evils by legal name, and yet, according to you, they are not Resident Evil games. This is not an issue that saying they are "side games" will dismiss.

ceruxx,

As a simpler example--one which will make my point clear and its denial ridiculous--listen to this:

My name is Mark. There are other people named Mark. Even if all other Marks are more similar to eachother than they are to me, and all are older than me, I am still a Mark. If, then, you wish to say that I am not a Mark, you must deal with the fact that I am called such, which would be a clear challenge to the authority of my parents in naming me Mark.

That is ridiculous. RE4 is as much a Resident Evil game as anything that came before it bearing that title. Since your issue seems to be with names, how do you deal with the light gun REs, a subject we glossed over before? They are Resident Evils by legal name, and yet, according to you, they are not Resident Evil games. This is not an issue that saying they are "side games" will dismiss.

Angry_Beaver

A game series is different than a group of unrelated people.

Actually it is. Gun Survivor games are side games. That is why they are allowed to differ in gameplay. But they still have connections to the whole of RE. RE4 is not intended to be a side game. For example, if they were to take a gun survivor game and call it "RE4" then it would be considered ridiculous. But at least the gun survivor games include resemeblence to their previous titles. 

[QUOTE="ceruxx"][QUOTE="dvader654"][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.

Well of course it did its always been a quality series but did you ever see RE games win GOTY awards left and right, be one of the highest rated games ever and have the type of reaction you saw on message boards or just from those playing the game, nope I never saw that until RE4.

The thing is all opinions are basically based on preference so in that way I guess you are right. You clearly perfer the old version more so you will like those games more, many others like the new way. You can try to look at it objectively but they are rather different so making a direct comparison is hard to do. I would say that RE2 was as good in being the type of game it was as RE4 was being the type of game it is, I just think the RE4 stylle makes for a better game, get what I am trying to say.

In the end of all this what I am trying to tell you is that the time of that old kind of RE game, the "survival horror" as many put it, is over. I'm sorry, you can want it back all you want but I don't see it happening. I think you may see games like that live on handhelds, much how 2D gaming kind of survives on the DS. This is the new way and I think its going to stay. Eventually there will be games that incorporate many of the old conventions of the old games, like more focus on conservation, but I think thats the best you can hope for.

Thats right. Because they're action whores. The videogame industry is incredibly biased.

RE2 is a better game than RE4 because it

1. Includes intelligent gameplay

2. Includes a good storyline

3. Is fun, albeit a difficult control scheme for some.

4. Oh and it has good graphics too. Look at them. They age very well. 

Read my post on how they can REvive the horror.

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".

Angry_Beaver

Wait a minute.  I don't think he suggested that he was trying to separate "Resident Evil" from Capcom.  He stated that RE as a formula is what we accepted it as all those years ago, and that is what it is in the hearts of many gamers.  Capcom owns the legal rights to the name, but they don't own our impressions, and they don't own the right to force us to accept any game in the series as a Resident Evil game.  That is up to us all individually as gamers.  There's always a natural separation in our minds for what is and what isn't RE based on the formula we were given, and that separation isn't going to go away because of a legal degree or an IP copyright or trademark.

In the same vein, I don't accept Silent Hill 4 as a true Silent Hill game, nor Silent Hill Play Novel or Silent Hill Arcade for that matter.  Yet Konami, the owner, calls all three Silent Hill in the legal sense.  Games that depart from the formula that defined the series in the hearts and minds of the gamers take a risk in many ways that breaking with traditions will weaken the brand recognition in the minds of many gamers.  Sometimes it works for them, such as in the case of RE4 and Zelda: Majora's Mask.  Sometimes it doesn't, such as in the case of newer Sonic games, Silent Hill 4, or Zelda 2.  Either way, it's still up to the gamers to decide what they accept and what they don't, and no legal copyright holder is really going to change that as if by some marketing decree.

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.

Angry_Beaver

No, in his case, whatever he enjoys as Resident Evil is Resident Evil.  Whatever he doesn't like with that title he can safely ignore.  Resident Evil, like any other game of substance over the years, isn't defined by its name.  The name is just a conceptual marker.  What defined the game is what made the game great to him individually.  And departures from that won't necessarily redefine it for him.

Personally, in the case of RE, I would like to see the new perspective and control scheme mixed in with the exploration and environmental puzzling of the original RE games.  I think that would be the perfect mix, and at least to me, it would still represent an RE game by the aspects of the series I enjoyed and hold dear.

I realize that there are trademarks and copyrights and other forms of IP, and you won't find someone who respects the legal aspects of these laws more than I do.  But hose ownership issues only affect one thing -- who has the right to use the title and who has the right to the original gameplay elements.  The game and the title are still differentiated from the substance of a series as the individual gamer sees it.  Gamers aren't always fooled when titles are slapped on and series make drastic departures.  We all have to deal with this as gamers.  Personally, I am worried about the Zelda series as it is promising to take a dramatic turn.  But I have enough faith in Nintendo and Miyamoto to trust that they will keep the aspects that made Zelda what it is to so many gamers, myself included.  And if they don't, I don't care one bit to meaningfully exclude these games from my own conceptual view of the Zelda series as a whole.

There will be times when the official title matters, but it isn't the end of the argument on what essentials make up a game in the series.  I own all of the Zelda games, including the CD-i titles, and all the Resident Evil and Silent Hill titles too.  I do this because, as a collector, the label matters to me in those cases.  But by the same token, the CD-i games aren't counted in my mind and heart as Zelda games, and only a few of the RE and SH games really qualify as games belong to their respective series from my perspective. 

One point on the RE4 storyline, when I played the game I saw two storylines going on at once. The focus of the game was the story of Las Plagas and Leon rescuing Ashley, thats was very simple and straight foward. Then there is the story of how it relates to the rest of the series, what I conisder to be the important stuff, in that regard I think RE4 did a fine job, it just wasn't on the forefront like others were.

When its all said and done RE4 is actually about Wesker trying to get Las Plagas, Leon just gets caught up in the middle. Wesker is trying to create is his own empire using the Umbrella name (which I did find dumb, first he helps destroy the company now he wants to build it again...) and meanwhile there is another organization trying to do the same, Ada backstabs Wesker and joins the other side. So now we got Wesker and his army of T-virus monsters, and this organization in control of Las Plagas possibly going against each other, I guess our heroes will be caught in the middle. I though it added a lot to the mytholgy of the series and gives it a clear direction of where to go next.

dvader654

 Thats actually true. I will give RE4 that. I would have just liked a bit more surface story depth. :( And when playing I got the impression that they were just marketing to Americans that were supposed to be paranoid about terroism now with 9/11 and Iraq.

Oh alright. Maybe I was wrong. 

The only thing I would have liked to see is: 

1. No one liners.  Make characters what they were like before, instead of this "Lol I'm Leon and I'm funny." "Ooh I'm Ada and I'm mysterious."

2. A little more depth in the surface story. 

One point on the RE4 storyline, when I played the game I saw two storylines going on at once.  The focus of the game was the story of Las Plagas and Leon rescuing Ashley, thats was very simple and straight foward.  Then there is the story of how it relates to the rest of the series, what I conisder to be the important stuff, in that regard I think RE4 did a fine job, it just wasn't on the forefront like others were. 

When its all said and done RE4 is actually about Wesker trying to get Las Plagas, Leon just gets caught up in the middle. Wesker is trying to create is his own empire using the Umbrella name (which I did find dumb, first he helps destroy the company now he wants to build it again...) and meanwhile there is another organization trying to do the same, Ada backstabs Wesker and joins the other side. So now we got Wesker and his army of T-virus monsters, and this organization in control of Las Plagas possibly going against each other, I guess our heroes will be caught in the middle.  I though it added a lot to the mytholgy of the series and gives it a clear direction of where to go next.

dvader654

This whole time I thought it was about Leon losing his best friend Mike, the helicopter pilot!. MIIIIIIIKKKKKEEEEE!!!!! :shock:GodModeEnabled

My friends and I quote that line a LOT. It works best when some red-shirtesque character dies in a show like Star Trek, Lost, or 24.

Your thoughts?

ceruxx

The controls have not changed. Only the camera and manual aiming has. I had REmake for a while now and I dreaded playing it. One day however, I got pretty far into it and I... kept going. I explored every nook and cranny. Zombie room? quickly exit it. Spider above your head? 180 and exit. I beat it and like other capcom games... hard work leads to accomplishment.

Then I played RE4. Oooh, scary guy in house. Scary village. Then... dogs, cultists, monster things coming from heads... yawn. So predictable. Enter room, bad guys lumber at you, aim, fire, rinse repeat. Again, it's not making it harder that the original players are talking about, it's about the atmosphere.

I guess RE is "selling out" to the common gamer.

If you want a game where you enter doors, blast everyone in sight, we've got tons of them. But for games that are about surviving, rather than being macho commando... that's a gem. 

I still disagree, while RE4 may have gernered more critical acclaim and indeed offered the best control in the series the game itself lacks much of what made the original games so great.

1) When RE2 came out the story in the game still mattered and had not fallen apart into the mess it is today. RE2 did a great job of filling in a few holes left from the first and actually seemed to progress the main narrative. RE4's story was probably the most dissapointing aspect of the game and if it could have delieevered something that even made a little bit of sense I would have a more difficult time making this argument.

2) There was still a palapble sense of fear left in RE2 which has since left the series. Some of it is me graowing up but a lot of it has to do with the degredation of the source material and shift into an action game.

To mee RE4 is a big time summer blockbuster that's a lot of fun when you watch but ultimately lacking a little depth.

[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.

I really don't understand when people say RE4 wasn't 'survival-horror'.   Different than previous RE games?  Yeah, sure.  More action-oriented gameplay?  Of course  . . . . . But it still managed to scare me silly. Heathcliff

[QUOTE="Heathcliff"]I really don't understand when people say RE4 wasn't 'survival-horror'. Different than previous RE games? Yeah, sure. More action-oriented gameplay? Of course . . . . . But it still managed to scare me silly. GodModeEnabled

Indeed.  The monks and their creepy chants really got me spooked the first couple of times I played the game.   The first time I saw a Plaga emerging out of a Ganado's exploding head.  That too was a memorable scare.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"][QUOTE="Heathcliff"]I really don't understand when people say RE4 wasn't 'survival-horror'. Different than previous RE games? Yeah, sure. More action-oriented gameplay? Of course . . . . . But it still managed to scare me silly. Heathcliff

Indeed.  The monks and their creepy chants really got me spooked the first couple of times I played the game.   The first time I saw a Plaga emerging out of a Ganado's exploding head.  That too was a memorable scare.

The Regenerators scared me. Just reimagine that first one cornering you in the card key room. You shoot its legs off and it falls to the floor. You sigh and begin to exit. BUT WAIT! HERE IT COMES! It flops toward you faster than you can aim and CHOMPS ON YOUR NECK WITH ITS LONG, SHARP, SCARY TEETH!!!!!! After that, on my first playthrough, I froze whenever I heard their creepy rasp. Just around the corner.... Do you have enough ammo? Are you... READY...?!

Well, Resident Evil 4 wasn't about "survival horror" any more. It was an action game, pure and simple. Could do with a decent storyline, though. I applaud Capcom's decision, the old-school RE games felt almost archaic because of the control scheme. I'll just look for horror elsewhere, no problem. Silent Hill already did that bit better, IMO. Call of Cthulhu is another good example of REAL survival horror.nopalversion

Yeah the survival horror aspect has fallen by the wayside with Resident Evil 4 although I still loved it. Fantastic game. It did have it's moments though. I also found it a bit on the easy side on Normal and though Professional difficulty should have been what Normal was.

I also agree that Call of Cthulhu did an excellent job with the horror genre.

I still disagree, while RE4 may have gernered more critical acclaim and indeed offered the best control in the series the game itself lacks much of what made the original games so great.

1) When RE2 came out the story in the game still mattered and had not fallen apart into the mess it is today. RE2 did a great job of filling in a few holes left from the first and actually seemed to progress the main narrative. RE4's story was probably the most dissapointing aspect of the game and if it could have delieevered something that even made a little bit of sense I would have a more difficult time making this argument.

2) There was still a palapble sense of fear left in RE2 which has since left the series. Some of it is me graowing up but a lot of it has to do with the degredation of the source material and shift into an action game.

To mee RE4 is a big time summer blockbuster that's a lot of fun when you watch but ultimately lacking a little depth.

yomi_basic

I think the problem with the story is that, for this type of a series, what more could they do with it, WITHOUT making it ridiculous?

I mean, when RE and RE2 came out, the story was kind of set up to be really great for 2 or 3 games. Small town Elite police squad gets caught up in an unexpected nightmare scenario with a corrupt mega-corporation--It was almost believeable.

But where to go after that? All the sudden they're superheroes fighting evil all over the world? I don't think the story had any choice BUT to get worse. Although, they still could have come up with something better than a midget sailor with a voice of a 10 year old. :P

[QUOTE="yomi_basic"]

I still disagree, while RE4 may have gernered more critical acclaim and indeed offered the best control in the series the game itself lacks much of what made the original games so great.

1) When RE2 came out the story in the game still mattered and had not fallen apart into the mess it is today. RE2 did a great job of filling in a few holes left from the first and actually seemed to progress the main narrative. RE4's story was probably the most dissapointing aspect of the game and if it could have delieevered something that even made a little bit of sense I would have a more difficult time making this argument.

2) There was still a palapble sense of fear left in RE2 which has since left the series. Some of it is me graowing up but a lot of it has to do with the degredation of the source material and shift into an action game.

To mee RE4 is a big time summer blockbuster that's a lot of fun when you watch but ultimately lacking a little depth.

EdgecrusherAza

I think the problem with the story is that, for this type of a series, what more could they do with it, WITHOUT making it ridiculous?

I mean, when RE and RE2 came out, the story was kind of set up to be really great for 2 or 3 games. Small town Elite police squad gets caught up in an unexpected nightmare scenario with a corrupt mega-corporation--It was almost believeable.

But where to go after that? All the sudden they're superheroes fighting evil all over the world? I don't think the story had any choice BUT to get worse. Although, they still could have come up with something better than a midget sailor with a voice of a 10 year old. :P

Well that's why I think they should have just closed the loop on the Resident Evil series and moved on to a different story. Starting the beginning of RE4 with a two second bit on Umbrellas falling was just inexcusable.

What would you think if they started Star Wars: Return of the Jedi by saying while you were away Luke and the Rebellion defeated the Empire.......now they have a new enemy the ghost of Jar Jar Binks.

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

OK, in the beggining I would like to point out that this is completely out of place and just wrong. I have always enjoyed Resident Evil and I am one of those guys that just buy this game and plays without sleeping until he beats it. I even bought the Game Cube just for the 3 titles that came out exclusively for it. I have played all the resi games and beat them countless times. And after playing RE4 I just said right away, that is the best RE of all times, storywise but most of all the new playing system. And if RE4 doesnt scare you, with its darkness and the whole atmosphere than you are playing it on the wrong system. You should try and play it on GC it was awsome and that controller its like designed especially for this game, its just perfect. I just dont understand how fighting tha Right Hand didnt scare you, or the flying things in the sewer. Great story, great gameplay, great extra content. Like I said before THE BEST RE. Just because we got more control to where you aim doesnt mean its not scary.Yes the AI can improve and probably will, and I think that a strafe option should be available. If you still otherwise  beat RE4 and then try and play a previous title. Its a lost cause, once you try the better option you cant go back, it just isnt the same.

I hope RE5 is just as good as RE4 and they stick to this aiming method 

I've been playing RE since its inception and I've got to state that it's disgusting to read so much disrespect being hurled at the original and its sequels. The impact the first RE game had on the industry was the equivalent of an atomic weapon being detonated, evidenced by all the mediocre imitators.  (Silent Hill notwithstanding)

RE1, RE2, RE3 and RE:CV were all amazing game experiences both visually and in terms of game play. To downplay the quality of these titles for the purpose of venerating RE4 is ridiculous and makes some of you look flatly uninformed.

As for the narratives of the original games, they were actually pretty decent and had a fair amount of twists and surprises. I think RE4 had a serviceable plot but it certainly could have been a more pertinent and relevant part of the RE mythos instead of feeling like a slightly tacked-on side story.

Overall I think RE4 is a great game but the developers did abandon certain staples of the franchise that in turn simplified the game play and took it out of the genre Capcom helped to forge. While the control scheme in the RE games was most definitely due for an overhaul, that change doesn't explain why other key RE components were completely abandoned. As good as RE4 is, it's an ultimately repetitive and linear game that completely lacks the atmospheric panache and foreboding mood of the original games.

Perhaps RE5 will remedy this. 

 The series should not be tied down by that set gameplay created back in the AitD days, its about time they moved on.  It became a crutch, all games played exactly the same way just put in new situations.  For fans like us it was fine cause we loved the game play and the world it created.  But for me by the time it got to Zero it was enough, I was not scared of anything anymore cause I knew every single trick in the book.  All that strategy of saving ammo and stuff became too easy, i always had boat loads of ammo and health by the end of the game.  Everything that used to work for RE was so over-used that it became stale, it was a time to break free from that mold and make something new. RE4 did that, and thank god they did that, finally RE was intense again, it was fresh and the gameplay was taken to new heights.

dvader654

I agree with you about the need to innovate and change things to keep a series fresh which is why I wonder why you and so many others don't cast that same critical eye at the now stagnant Zelda franchise. If the RE franchise is required to re-boot after so many years then why is the same gameplay in the last four Zelda titles perfectly acceptable?  

My question isn't meant to derail this thread but I do find it odd that certain people in here who demand change seem content with stagnancy in other popular franchises.

You're not going to catch me complaining.  I think Resident Evil 4 was a fantastic game regardless of it not being particularly scary or like the other games in the series.

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

 The series should not be tied down by that set gameplay created back in the AitD days, its about time they moved on.  It became a crutch, all games played exactly the same way just put in new situations.  For fans like us it was fine cause we loved the game play and the world it created.  But for me by the time it got to Zero it was enough, I was not scared of anything anymore cause I knew every single trick in the book.  All that strategy of saving ammo and stuff became too easy, i always had boat loads of ammo and health by the end of the game.  Everything that used to work for RE was so over-used that it became stale, it was a time to break free from that mold and make something new. RE4 did that, and thank god they did that, finally RE was intense again, it was fresh and the gameplay was taken to new heights.

Grammaton-Cleric

I agree with you about the need to innovate and change things to keep a series fresh which is why I wonder why you and so many others don't cast that same critical eye at the now stagnant Zelda franchise. If the RE franchise is required to re-boot after so many years then why is the same gameplay in the last four Zelda titles perfectly acceptable?  

My question isn't meant to derail this thread but I do find it odd that certain people in here who demand change seem content with stagnancy in other popular franchises.

Zelda has changed moreso than the Resident Evil series from game to game.  It doesn't completely reinvent itself, but it introduces more than just the same old gameplay in new situations.

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

 The series should not be tied down by that set gameplay created back in the AitD days, its about time they moved on.  It became a crutch, all games played exactly the same way just put in new situations.  For fans like us it was fine cause we loved the game play and the world it created.  But for me by the time it got to Zero it was enough, I was not scared of anything anymore cause I knew every single trick in the book.  All that strategy of saving ammo and stuff became too easy, i always had boat loads of ammo and health by the end of the game.  Everything that used to work for RE was so over-used that it became stale, it was a time to break free from that mold and make something new. RE4 did that, and thank god they did that, finally RE was intense again, it was fresh and the gameplay was taken to new heights.

Grammaton-Cleric

I agree with you about the need to innovate and change things to keep a series fresh which is why I wonder why you and so many others don't cast that same critical eye at the now stagnant Zelda franchise. If the RE franchise is required to re-boot after so many years then why is the same gameplay in the last four Zelda titles perfectly acceptable?  

My question isn't meant to derail this thread but I do find it odd that certain people in here who demand change seem content with stagnancy in other popular franchises.

Sometimes change can do wonders. Take for example, I think FFXII's new battle-system was so awesome for the series no matter what purists and FF fanboys say. Also, I'm playing Tomb Raider Anniversary and the Legend's control scheme gives the game a fresh new feeling.

But a game like Zelda poses a huge risk in revamping the series. Sometimes Nintendo takes these risks as in the case of Metroid Prime. But to compare in chaging Zelda is like the recent controversy with Dragon Quest IX's battle-system changing to real-time. A lot of the long time fans complained about this and Square-Enix changed it back to its traditional, turn-based battle system because of it. Other notable games that suffered from change is Devil May Cry 2, the 3D Castlevanias, and Tekken 4. Sometimes change is not good.

I guess what I'm saying is that Zelda is such a revered franchise that it might work against the franchise to change the core gameplay. Would Zelda work if it was turn-based? What if it was in first-person point of view or was like Oblivion? What if there was a jump button for Link? Would it really make the series better? Doubtful. It won't be Zelda that's for sure. Also there are so many Zelda rip-offs out there it just shows that the foundation laid by Zelda has become the standard for action/adventure games. Ocarina of Time is arguably gameplay perfection and how can you make a perfectly designed game better other than building upon the foundation? I think the Zelda series is just fine the way it is. It only needs more evolution rather than a revolution.

With that said I think a game like Resident Evil 4 would've been perfectly fine as a original IP. It didn't have to be Resident Evil. But putting the Resident Evil name to it really did take the franchise to the next level. So it's not really a matter of Capcom innovating and keeping things fresh, I think it was more of Capcom creating a fantastic new game with just adding the Resident Evil name to it. FFXII could also have been an original RPG rather than having the Final Fantasy name to it and it might've spawned a new franchise.

Anyway, this is all just me ranting on. But to coincide with your views on Zelda, Eunoma and Miyamoto did say that Twilight Princess will be the last Zelda of its kind. So with that in mind, it'll be very interesting to see what Nintendo does with the next Zelda game...and I'm not just talking about adding Wii-mote controls. :P

[QUOTE="nopalversion"]Well, Resident Evil 4 wasn't about "survival horror" any more. It was an action game, pure and simple. Could do with a decent storyline, though. I applaud Capcom's decision, the old-school RE games felt almost archaic because of the control scheme. I'll just look for horror elsewhere, no problem. Silent Hill already did that bit better, IMO. Call of Cthulhu is another good example of REAL survival horror.Archangel3371

Yeah the survival horror aspect has fallen by the wayside with Resident Evil 4 although I still loved it. Fantastic game. It did have it's moments though. I also found it a bit on the easy side on Normal and though Professional difficulty should have been what Normal was.

I also agree that Call of Cthulhu did an excellent job with the horror genre.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

 The series should not be tied down by that set gameplay created back in the AitD days, its about time they moved on.  It became a crutch, all games played exactly the same way just put in new situations.  For fans like us it was fine cause we loved the game play and the world it created.  But for me by the time it got to Zero it was enough, I was not scared of anything anymore cause I knew every single trick in the book.  All that strategy of saving ammo and stuff became too easy, i always had boat loads of ammo and health by the end of the game.  Everything that used to work for RE was so over-used that it became stale, it was a time to break free from that mold and make something new. RE4 did that, and thank god they did that, finally RE was intense again, it was fresh and the gameplay was taken to new heights.

dvader654

I agree with you about the need to innovate and change things to keep a series fresh which is why I wonder why you and so many others don't cast that same critical eye at the now stagnant Zelda franchise. If the RE franchise is required to re-boot after so many years then why is the same gameplay in the last four Zelda titles perfectly acceptable?  

My question isn't meant to derail this thread but I do find it odd that certain people in here who demand change seem content with stagnancy in other popular franchises.

Cause the RE games stopped being extremely fun, Zelda has yet to do that.  Zelda has not had anything remotly close to a RE:0, which was basically a game that just recycled every idea in the book along with some new ones that made the game worse (still a decent game though, all RE games are).  Every Zelda game has been a masterpiece in their own way, yes even WW.  But I agree TP seemed to be the grand finale of the the OoT style, I think it took the formula as far as it go, now for the next time I would like to see a bit of a change. 

In the end all I really want is an excellent game, forumla or not, I just happen to think RE4 is a lot more fun than previous RE games. If they can find a way to keep it that amazing and make it like previous RE games I am all for that, I am just afraid their attempts would end in a game thats not as good as RE4.

So ultimately your argument is that one stagnant franchise should be changed while another should be left alone based on an incredibly subjective fun quotient? That argument seems tenuous at best, especially if one doesn't subscribe to the notion that the last two Zelda games were masterpieces.

Truth be told, a masterpiece is what I hoped for and expected with Zelda: TP and what I got was a decent game that was incredibly derivative of the last three Zelda titles and nothing more. The game play mechanics for this franchise have not changed in any meaningful way since OOT and honestly, the combat engine and the jumping mechanics are extremely dated. Much about TP looks and feels archaic on many levels, which parallels the early build of RE4 that played like past iterations.  The difference is that Miyamoto didn't experience the same nagging need for change that the developer of RE4 felt which is why Zelda: TP is just another Zelda while RE4 broke some new ground and injected some much-needed freshness into the franchise.

Honestly, I don't think citing Zelda as more fun or hyperbolically labeling each game a masterpiece lets the franchise off the hook. Either we can agree to be equitable with our criticisms or those criticisms become null and void.  

Zelda has changed moreso than the Resident Evil series from game to game.  It doesn't completely reinvent itself, but it introduces more than just the same old gameplay in new situations.

-The-G-Man-

Actually, the change from RE: Zero to RE4 is larger than any jump the Zelda franchise has made in more than a decade.

RE4, love it or hate it, is a divergent and evolved title whereas Zelda is essentially the same core game play recycled.

But a game like Zelda poses a huge risk in revamping the series. Sometimes Nintendo takes these risks as in the case of Metroid Prime. But to compare in chaging Zelda is like the recent controversy with Dragon Quest IX's battle-system changing to real-time. A lot of the long time fans complained about this and Square-Enix changed it back to its traditional, turn-based battle system because of it. Other notable games that suffered from change is Devil May Cry 2, the 3D Castlevanias, and Tekken 4. Sometimes change is not good.

I guess what I'm saying is that Zelda is such a revered franchise that it might work against the franchise to change the core gameplay. Would Zelda work if it was turn-based? What if it was in first-person point of view or was like Oblivion? What if there was a jump button for Link? Would it really make the series better? Doubtful. It won't be Zelda that's for sure. Also there are so many Zelda rip-offs out there it just shows that the foundation laid by Zelda has become the standard for action/adventure games. Ocarina of Time is arguably gameplay perfection and how can you make a perfectly designed game better other than building upon the foundation? I think the Zelda series is just fine the way it is. It only needs more evolution rather than a revolution.

ASK_Story

You make some solid points but at the same time I think the argument you present is a bit flimsy. If every developer adopted the philosophy of not changing what works, games would never evolve past a certain point. It seems to me that certain franchises, be it Madden or Zelda, are sometimes given a free pass because of their inherent popularity but that really isn't equitable or fair.

As for radically changing a game and destroying its original luster, that really wasn't my point, although some have argued that is precisely what Capcom did with RE4. A franchise doesn't need to be radically altered but rather intelligently evolved and tweaked, a process the Zelda franchise really hasn't undergone since OOT. Making Link's combat deeper, giving him a wider range of movements and freedom, or improving the animation to make the game play more fluid would not compromise the integrity of the franchise in any way.

In my opinion, Zelda, like many franchises, has reached a state of atrophy that requires a divergent new direction. I think much of the critical praise heaped onto the last two Zelda games was almost perfunctory on the part of critics and such acclaim only leads to more laziness on the part of developers. 

Know what scared the S%&* out of me when I first went through RE4.

 It was that bit just after you defeat Krouser (I think), where it's just a dark alley with 3 jail cells on either side and all you could hear was one of them 7ft tall blue naked zombie things moun..

Took me about 10 mins to travel that 20Ft, scariest thing ever.

Also, if you want to play it where your ammo is cut and you have to use any means possible to kill them, play Mercinaries mode.;)

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

I'm playing a computergame, on my computer.