This topic is locked from further discussion.
RE 4 felt like it borrowed heavily from the movie Dagon. Which isn't a bad thing. Just saying. Very similar feel to it.
It may be arguable whether RE4 is action/survival horror but the first time I got my head chainsawed off I just about crapped myself. Truly awesome.
[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"][QUOTE="EmilioDigsIt"]I would say RE4 is the worst only because I don't consider it a real RE game. Just another spin off. Still a great game, but not a great RE.
My favorite would probably have to be RE1, but best could possibly be RE 2.
dvader654
Just because it has a different gameplay mechanic doesn't make it a spin-off. Its still very much part of the main series, hence the number.
When most people decry RE4 as more of a spinoff than a true numbered game it's because RE4 had little in common with the rest of the series. No zombies, no viruses, no evil corporation, no puzzles (unless you count "here's a metal object. now go stick it into the door three feet behind you" as a puzzle), no survival gameplay (you're a one man army for crying out loud), and the plot was completely insulated from the rest of the series. With it's one man army gameplay, "save the president's daughter!" plot, and Leon being some grizzled badass military/agent guy instead of a young, weak, and inexperienced cop, RE4 was an action shooter, not a survival horror game like the rest of the series. Typically when a game switches genres from the rest of the series its labeled as a spinoff.
Thats wrong, series' evolve with time. The series' that don't evolve become stale and slowly die. RE evolved, RE is now this RE4 ****of game, that is the future of the series. Its not like they are going back, the old ****RE games will now be spin offs, I hope they make some portable games or something using tha ****c gameplay. But the future is this now, this is Resident Evil now like it or not.
(BTW not much has changed besides the action being ramped up tremendously and the loss of the maze like environment. RE never had great puzzles there were just more of them, in all RE games you were a one man army, all games had a ridiculous plot, and all RE games had plenty of action.)
There's a difference between evolving and changing the entire game. Would you honestly be able to tell that RE4 was an RE game if they made Leon and Ada into different characters (or just gave them different names really), made the herbs and typewriters something else, got rid of the short intro at the start of the game that explains what's happened since RE3, and changed the title to something without RE in the name? I don't think so. You'd be like "wow, this is a pretty cool new game from Capcom, I hope they make this into a series".
And while all the RE games had a fair amount of action, they weren't action games (something you even admit somewhat in your last sentence when you try to simultaneously argue that all the RE games had tons of action yet the action was "ramped up tremendously" in RE4). RE was widely considered to be a survival-horror game. It made the genre popular and while it was probably more action oriented than most other games in the genre it was still the series that other games in the genre were commonly compared to. And you were hardly a one man army in the c.lassic RE games. The game was designed so that there wasn't enough ammo to kill every enemy. And ammo for everything except the handgun was scarce which meant that unlike in RE4 you had to use your pistol (which, btw, remained crappy for the entire game since you couldn't upgrade it to hand cannon status) for much of the game. This also had the consequence of forcing you dodge enemies instead of killing them since you couldn't go around spraying every room with bullets. You also couldn't carry around the game's entire arsenal of weapons on you. You could lug around a handgun, one special weapon, ammo for each, and if you knew you were going to be fighting a boss you might throw in one extra weapon and ammo. And as far as health items went the most you could probably afford to carry on you was one or two items. Contrast this to RE4 where you're running around the entire game carrying a handcannon, uzi, shotgun (which may or may not be automatic), sniper rifle, maybe a magnum, plentiful amounts of ammo for each, several grenades (most likely a mix of incendiary, flashbang, and frag), and enough health items to start up a drug store.
The love/hate fest over RE4 has been beaten to death so much in GGD that its become the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The pureists will never let go of the past, and those of us who grew tired of the same ol' same ol' embraced the changes. Just as someone who played RE4 was turned off by what they felt was a soulless action game, there is someone who played RE4 and then tried to go back and play RE: Code Veronica and realized why the series needed to change.
In fact, I credit RE0 for doing the best job at exposing just how archaic the old formula had become. Prettier graphics, new lead characters, elimination of storage boxes, and partner swap weren't enough to cover up gameplay that had aged poorly.
As Dvader has been screaming here and in many other threads, the new formula is here to stay with RE4 providing the new foundation upon which to build bolder gameplay than this franchise has ever experienced. My only regret is that I likely won't have my game consoles back so that I can play RE5 on launch day.
[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"][QUOTE="EmilioDigsIt"]I would say RE4 is the worst only because I don't consider it a real RE game. Just another spin off. Still a great game, but not a great RE.
My favorite would probably have to be RE1, but best could possibly be RE 2.
gameguy6700
Just because it has a different gameplay mechanic doesn't make it a spin-off. Its still very much part of the main series, hence the number.
When most people decry RE4 as more of a spinoff than a true numbered game it's because RE4 had little in common with the rest of the series. No zombies, no viruses, no evil corporation, no puzzles (unless you count "here's a metal object. now go stick it into the door three feet behind you" as a puzzle), no survival gameplay (you're a one man army for crying out loud), and the plot was completely insulated from the rest of the series. With it's one man army gameplay, "save the president's daughter!" plot, and Leon being some grizzled badass military/agent guy instead of a young, weak, and inexperienced cop, RE4 was an action shooter, not a survival horror game like the rest of the series. Typically when a game switches genres from the rest of the series its labeled as a spinoff.
Thats wrong, series' evolve with time. The series' that don't evolve become stale and slowly die. RE evolved, RE is now this RE4 ****of game, that is the future of the series. Its not like they are going back, the old ****RE games will now be spin offs, I hope they make some portable games or something using tha ****c gameplay. But the future is this now, this is Resident Evil now like it or not.
(BTW not much has changed besides the action being ramped up tremendously and the loss of the maze like environment. RE never had great puzzles there were just more of them, in all RE games you were a one man army, all games had a ridiculous plot, and all RE games had plenty of action.)
There's a difference between evolving and changing the entire game. Would you honestly be able to tell that RE4 was an RE game if they made Leon and Ada into different characters (or just gave them different names really), made the herbs and typewriters something else, got rid of the short intro at the start of the game that explains what's happened since RE3, and changed the title to something without RE in the name? I don't think so. You'd be like "wow, this is a pretty cool new game from Capcom, I hope they make this into a series".
And while all the RE games had a fair amount of action, they weren't action games (something you even admit somewhat in your last sentence when you try to simultaneously argue that all the RE games had tons of action yet the action was "ramped up tremendously" in RE4). RE was widely considered to be a survival-horror game. It made the genre popular and while it was probably more action oriented than most other games in the genre it was still the series that other games in the genre were commonly compared to. And you were hardly a one man army in the c.lassic RE games. The game was designed so that there wasn't enough ammo to kill every enemy. And ammo for everything except the handgun was scarce which meant that unlike in RE4 you had to use your pistol (which, btw, remained crappy for the entire game since you couldn't upgrade it to hand cannon status) for much of the game. This also had the consequence of forcing you dodge enemies instead of killing them since you couldn't go around spraying every room with bullets. You also couldn't carry around the game's entire arsenal of weapons on you. You could lug around a handgun, one special weapon, ammo for each, and if you knew you were going to be fighting a boss you might throw in one extra weapon and ammo. And as far as health items went the most you could probably afford to carry on you was one or two items. Contrast this to RE4 where you're running around the entire game carrying a handcannon, uzi, shotgun (which may or may not be automatic), sniper rifle, maybe a magnum, plentiful amounts of ammo for each, several grenades (most likely a mix of incendiary, flashbang, and frag), and enough health items to start up a drug store.
Well yeah sure there was a complete overhaul of the formula but that doesn't mean its a spinoff, since the storyline is still a direct continuation of where RE2 left off. This is unlike games like Dead Aim and Outbreak, which are side stories (in other words spin offs) of the RE franchise. It still follows the events of the previous titles, which that alone is enough to constitute as part of the main series.
The love/hate fest over RE4 has been beaten to death so much in GGD that its become the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The pureists will never let go of the past, and those of us who grew tired of the same ol' same ol' embraced the changes. Just as someone who played RE4 was turned off by what they felt was a soulless action game, there is someone who played RE4 and then tried to go back and play RE: Code Veronica and realized why the series needed to change.
In fact, I credit RE0 for doing the best job at exposing just how archaic the old formula had become. Prettier graphics, new lead characters, elimination of storage boxes, and partner swap weren't enough to cover up gameplay that had aged poorly.
As Dvader has been screaming here and in many other threads, the new formula is here to stay with RE4 providing the new foundation upon which to build bolder gameplay that this franchise has ever experienced. My only regret is that I likely won't have my game consoles back so that I can play RE5 on launch day.
MarcusAntonius
Most people don't deny that the gameplay was getting stale. The fixed camera angles and archaic combat mechanics were starting to show their age. The thing that most people decry about the change though is that they didn't just change the gameplay mechanics, they changed everything. I honestly don't understand why people think that RE can't have the same action and mechanics as RE4 but still have the same atmosphere, enemies, and plot as the previous games. Just look at Doom 3, Fear, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and Condemned: All are still scary despite the heavy action. And because I know someone will bring this up, yes, RE4 could have still used zombies as the main enemy. Maybe not normal zombies but the crimson heads from REmake were more than fast enough to pose a threat, and if communication between enemies was necessary it's not like they couldn't have thrown in more sentient zombie and explained it away with an improved virus (since that was what Umbrella was trying to do in RE's 1 through CV, find a way to preserve infected people's cognitive abilities while turning them into a killing machine).
Anyway, my big complaint with RE4 was that it just wasn't a RE game. It had nothing to do with the rest of the series. The game was fun but it didn't feel like I was playing a RE game. The enemies didn't really seem like they were infected anything but more like a bunch of crazy, pissed off rednecks. There was barely any plot or backstory to the game or characters which left the game feeling very shallow. I can live without the survival gameplay, but what I loved about RE was the atmosphere. The games always created very interesting and immersive settings. Everything was relatively freshly abandoned and you could see the damage left behind as the zombie outbreak worsened. Documents were left behind that gave you a glimpse of the events leading up to and during the disaster. RE4 had none of that. Instead all you get is a setting out of some torture flick like The Hills Have Eyes, and all the game is about is going on a not-zombie killing spree. RE4 may have been a fun game but it had no depth as far as anything outside of gameplay was concerned. Hopefully RE5 will fix that, but the more I see of that game the more I have my doubts.
I've been playing the RE series since day one and those people claiming RE4 isn't a "true RE game" are really exaggerating the changes made to the franchise, most of which were long overdue. RE has always placed a heavy emphasis on combat and that focus increased as the series progressed, which is why the combat also began to feel archaic by the time the GC remake and Zero hit.
I do agree that some of the more subtle nuances of the horror thematic have been lost in RE4 but at the same time the combat was so vastly improved that I felt the trade-off was acceptable. Personally, I appreciate the kinetic energy of RE4 as it evokes tension by throwing large numbers of unrelenting enemies at you and forcing the gamer to think both quickly and strategically. Personally, I find the pace and intensity of RE4 more fulfilling than spending hours pushing suits of armor onto tiles. That isn't to say there isn't room in the survival horror genre for a more methodically paced game but it doesn't look like RE is pursuing that route any longer, which is fine by me.
When most people decry RE4 as more of a spinoff than a true numbered game it's because RE4 had little in common with the rest of the series. No zombies, no viruses, no evil corporation, no puzzles (unless you count "here's a metal object. now go stick it into the door three feet behind you" as a puzzle), no survival gameplay (you're a one man army for crying out loud), and the plot was completely insulated from the rest of the series. With it's one man army gameplay, "save the president's daughter!" plot, and Leon being some grizzled badass military/agent guy instead of a young, weak, and inexperienced cop, RE4 was an action shooter, not a survival horror game like the rest of the series. Typically when a game switches genres from the rest of the series its labeled as a spinoff.
gameguy6700
Well, I don't know who "most" of these people you speak of are, but the decision to denote RE4 as a true sequel or spin-off is up to Capcom and the developers, not some disgruntled fans.
And Capcom coined the term survival horror so ultimately, they can evolve the terminology as they see fit. Also, the whole point in RE4 is to survive in a horror setting, so applying the term to RE4 isn't exactly brain surgery.
Also, Leon was a rookie in RE2 but his character evolved into somebody much tougher, battle-hardened and effective, which makes sense when you consider it.
Lastly, RE4 didn't switch genres; it merely tweaked some existing conventions and placed a greater emphasis on combat, which is where the series was headed regardless.
You seem to want more of the same over and over and over again and that's fine but you can't honestly expect any worthwhile franchise to remain stagnant.
Also, Leon was a rookie in RE2 but his character evolved into somebody much tougher, battle-hardened and effective, which makes sense when you consider it.
Grammaton-Cleric
This is the part where I disagree. I've never cared much for his character at all and I think his sudden rise to being some super secret government operative requires far too much suspension of disbelief. His character is outright absurd. Granted, the terrible writing doesn't help either (ex: LUUUUUUUUIIIIIIIIIS!!!!!!, yeah I get emotionally attached to people I've known for only a couple hours too). I would have preferred that his story arc ended with RE2. Personally, I thought Billy from RE0 was a more interesting character.
Thank goodness Chris Redfield is being brought back.
[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"][QUOTE="EmilioDigsIt"]I would say RE4 is the worst only because I don't consider it a real RE game. Just another spin off. Still a great game, but not a great RE.
My favorite would probably have to be RE1, but best could possibly be RE 2.
dvader654
Just because it has a different gameplay mechanic doesn't make it a spin-off. Its still very much part of the main series, hence the number.
When most people decry RE4 as more of a spinoff than a true numbered game it's because RE4 had little in common with the rest of the series. No zombies, no viruses, no evil corporation, no puzzles (unless you count "here's a metal object. now go stick it into the door three feet behind you" as a puzzle), no survival gameplay (you're a one man army for crying out loud), and the plot was completely insulated from the rest of the series. With it's one man army gameplay, "save the president's daughter!" plot, and Leon being some grizzled badass military/agent guy instead of a young, weak, and inexperienced cop, RE4 was an action shooter, not a survival horror game like the rest of the series. Typically when a game switches genres from the rest of the series its labeled as a spinoff.
Thats wrong, series' evolve with time. The series' that don't evolve become stale and slowly die. RE evolved, RE is now this RE4 ****of game, that is the future of the series. Its not like they are going back, the old ****RE games will now be spin offs, I hope they make some portable games or something using tha ****c gameplay. But the future is this now, this is Resident Evil now like it or not.
(BTW not much has changed besides the action being ramped up tremendously and the loss of the maze like environment. RE never had great puzzles there were just more of them, in all RE games you were a one man army, all games had a ridiculous plot, and all RE games had plenty of action.)
I disagree. RE games were 5050 puzzles to action. Old RE games are mostly remembered as find the key to this door and unlock it to kill a monster. I could list you all the puzzles in the first three RE games if you want. My point is, the ratio of puzzles to action in older games is 50/50. Other than that, RE4's main focus is shooting while RE1,2 and 3's main objective is surviving. You enter chambers in R4 to shoot. There's no point of exploring in RE4 as all you have to do is enter rooms to shoot a ridiculous number of ganados. Another observation is, the level design was meant for shooting alone wihtout exploring because there's no backtracking in RE4 unlike previous RE games, where you needed to go back manytimes in order to get a key, weapon, document or whatever and continue.
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]The love/hate fest over RE4 has been beaten to death so much in GGD that its become the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The pureists will never let go of the past, and those of us who grew tired of the same ol' same ol' embraced the changes. Just as someone who played RE4 was turned off by what they felt was a soulless action game, there is someone who played RE4 and then tried to go back and play RE: Code Veronica and realized why the series needed to change.
In fact, I credit RE0 for doing the best job at exposing just how archaic the old formula had become. Prettier graphics, new lead characters, elimination of storage boxes, and partner swap weren't enough to cover up gameplay that had aged poorly.
As Dvader has been screaming here and in many other threads, the new formula is here to stay with RE4 providing the new foundation upon which to build bolder gameplay that this franchise has ever experienced. My only regret is that I likely won't have my game consoles back so that I can play RE5 on launch day.
gameguy6700
Most people don't deny that the gameplay was getting stale. The fixed camera angles and archaic combat mechanics were starting to show their age. The thing that most people decry about the change though is that they didn't just change the gameplay mechanics, they changed everything. I honestly don't understand why people think that RE can't have the same action and mechanics as RE4 but still have the same atmosphere, enemies, and plot as the previous games. Just look at Doom 3, Fear, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and Condemned: All are still scary despite the heavy action. And because I know someone will bring this up, yes, RE4 could have still used zombies as the main enemy. Maybe not normal zombies but the crimson heads from REmake were more than fast enough to pose a threat, and if communication between enemies was necessary it's not like they couldn't have thrown in more sentient zombie and explained it away with an improved virus (since that was what Umbrella was trying to do in RE's 1 through CV, find a way to preserve infected people's cognitive abilities while turning them into a killing machine).
Anyway, my big complaint with RE4 was that it just wasn't a RE game. It had nothing to do with the rest of the series. The game was fun but it didn't feel like I was playing a RE game. The enemies didn't really seem like they were infected anything but more like a bunch of crazy, pissed off rednecks. There was barely any plot or backstory to the game or characters which left the game feeling very shallow. I can live without the survival gameplay, but what I loved about RE was the atmosphere. The games always created very interesting and immersive settings. Everything was relatively freshly abandoned and you could see the damage left behind as the zombie outbreak worsened. Documents were left behind that gave you a glimpse of the events leading up to and during the disaster. RE4 had none of that. Instead all you get is a setting out of some torture flick like The Hills Have Eyes, and all the game is about is going on a not-zombie killing spree. RE4 may have been a fun game but it had no depth as far as anything outside of gameplay was concerned. Hopefully RE5 will fix that, but the more I see of that game the more I have my doubts.
I agree but to me minor details made older RE games better other than the setting and atmosphere. As I said, the background music left a big impression on gamers because it helped making the atmosphere scary. I remember hearing Nemsis' music before he arrives and trying to escape until I don't hear the music anymore. The same goes on every character who follows you around which is something RE games are well known for but the only one who made sound in RE4 was dr. salvador! And he wasn't challenging at all compared to the guys who don't die in older RE games like the one in the 2nd scenario in RE2, Nemsis and the bumch in RE outbreak 1 and 2. I wish there was a guy whom we couldn't kill that would've made the game scarier but again, RE4 level design does not include backtracking. The guy who sells weapons and the point system has to go. I hope we don't see those in the new RE game. The setting was bland. A police station in old RE games had many rooms and chambers while an entire village only had one hut repeated in every single corner?
[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"][QUOTE="EmilioDigsIt"]I would say RE4 is the worst only because I don't consider it a real RE game. Just another spin off. Still a great game, but not a great RE.
My favorite would probably have to be RE1, but best could possibly be RE 2.
gamingqueen
Just because it has a different gameplay mechanic doesn't make it a spin-off. Its still very much part of the main series, hence the number.
When most people decry RE4 as more of a spinoff than a true numbered game it's because RE4 had little in common with the rest of the series. No zombies, no viruses, no evil corporation, no puzzles (unless you count "here's a metal object. now go stick it into the door three feet behind you" as a puzzle), no survival gameplay (you're a one man army for crying out loud), and the plot was completely insulated from the rest of the series. With it's one man army gameplay, "save the president's daughter!" plot, and Leon being some grizzled badass military/agent guy instead of a young, weak, and inexperienced cop, RE4 was an action shooter, not a survival horror game like the rest of the series. Typically when a game switches genres from the rest of the series its labeled as a spinoff.
Thats wrong, series' evolve with time. The series' that don't evolve become stale and slowly die. RE evolved, RE is now this RE4 ****of game, that is the future of the series. Its not like they are going back, the old ****RE games will now be spin offs, I hope they make some portable games or something using tha ****c gameplay. But the future is this now, this is Resident Evil now like it or not.
(BTW not much has changed besides the action being ramped up tremendously and the loss of the maze like environment. RE never had great puzzles there were just more of them, in all RE games you were a one man army, all games had a ridiculous plot, and all RE games had plenty of action.)
I disagree. RE games were 5050 puzzles to action. Old RE games are mostly remembered as find the key to this door and unlock it to kill a monster. I could list you all the puzzles in the first three RE games if you want. My point is, the ratio of puzzles to action in older games is 50/50. Other than that, RE4's main focus is shooting while RE1,2 and 3's main objective is surviving. You enter chambers in R4 to shoot. There's no point of exploring in RE4 as all you have to do is enter rooms to shoot a ridiculous number of ganados. Another observation is, the level design was meant for shooting alone wihtout exploring because there's no backtracking in RE4 unlike previous RE games, where you needed to go back manytimes in order to get a key, weapon, document or whatever and continue.
RE's puzzles were rarely worthy of the name. A developer who requires that a player push a statue so that it faces another statue or inserts a round peg into a round hole or finds a key isn't a developer who is constructing a puzzle which they hope will engage and entertain the player, its a developer seeking to extend the length of a game without going through the effort of crafting real puzzles (I know you're an Ico fan, so you know what a real puzzle looks like).
Wait wait, can I say loz oot sucked? Can I say the puzzles weren't worthy and all the things you mentioned above? No! You saying this doesn't actually mean it's right. The red gem puzzle which was in the beginning and as you go further in the game, the puzzles' difficulty increases. That puzzle which was in a game from ten years ago was more challenging than the insignia puzzle in RE4. Edit: it's you who's bashing the older games now.
fav-RE 3 and RE4
worst-CVX
and whats with the game boy one?doesnt leon die or get possesed and it takes place before RE4 so...wtf?
johnnystarr
no way, Code Veronica X was one of the best! Better than RE3 for sure.
best - RE4, followed closely by CVX and REmake
worst - RE0
i dont think anyone is going to criticize RE as a game, but it seems split between fans on if it was a good RE game or not. i happen to feel it was not. way too many weapons and ammo, not enough focus on building tension subtly. throwing a billion enemies at me is for gears of war, not a survival horror game.
i see no reason they could not incorporate the technical advancements of now with the atmosphere of old. they can bring back the slow moving but deadly zombie. just make them able to take more damage. i would much prefer two, impending tanks of death over 100 rabid hispanics getting one shotted down like it was hogan's alley. there is a very big shift in the kind of tension you get between those two scenarios.
in the end it is up to capcom what they do with it. i dont think its pointless to complain however, after all that is how things get changed. if enough people speak up that they want a more frightening, methodical game as opposed to a fast paced action game, a happy medium might just be reached. if the series continues the way its going, it might not be for me anymore. thats sad, but its ok.
Best: Resident Evil 2
Worst: Probablly Resident Evil Dead Aim.
On the subject of Resident Evil 4's place in the Resident Evil franchise, it was an entirely necessary move. Resident Evil 0, a credible and competent survival horror title in its own right, sold abyssmally (although you could make an argument that this was due to its GameCube exclusivity). You do not repeat games with horrible sales figures for the sake of an irked minority.DuckyhunterSays the person who just admitted to only having played RE4 and RE: UC. ;)
[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]Also, Leon was a rookie in RE2 but his character evolved into somebody much tougher, battle-hardened and effective, which makes sense when you consider it.
MarcusAntonius
This is the part where I disagree. I've never cared much for his character at all and I think his sudden rise to being some super secret government operative requires far too much suspension of disbelief. His character is outright absurd. Granted, the terrible writing doesn't help either (ex: LUUUUUUUUIIIIIIIIIS!!!!!!, yeah I get emotionally attached to people I've known for only a couple hours too). I would have preferred that his story arc ended with RE2. Personally, I thought Billy from RE0 was a more interesting character.
Thank goodness Chris Redfield is being brought back.
Well, there was a sizeable gulf of time between RE2 and RE4 and Leon supposedly went back into training, becoming something far more lethal than he was before. I think they did a better job of explaining his skill set than they did at explaining the combat skills of Claire.
Chris is a cool character though and I'm looking forward to his return in RE5.
Wait wait, can I say loz oot sucked? Can I say the puzzles weren't worthy and all the things you mentioned above? No! You saying this doesn't actually mean it's right. The red gem puzzle which was in the beginning and as you go further in the game, the puzzles' difficulty increases. That puzzle which was in a game from ten years ago was more challenging than the insignia puzzle in RE4. Edit: it's you who's bashing the older games now.
gamingqueen
You must be confusing me with dvader. Go right ahead.
Your rejoinder to my specific examples of RE non-puzzles is notable for its lack of specifics.
[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]Wait wait, can I say loz oot sucked? Can I say the puzzles weren't worthy and all the things you mentioned above? No! You saying this doesn't actually mean it's right. The red gem puzzle which was in the beginning and as you go further in the game, the puzzles' difficulty increases. That puzzle which was in a game from ten years ago was more challenging than the insignia puzzle in RE4. Edit: it's you who's bashing the older games now.
CarnageHeart
You must be confusing me with dvader. Go right ahead.
Your rejoinder to my specific examples of RE non-puzzles is notable for its lack of specifics.
I get this as a request for posting all puzzles in older RE games and RE4? Do you want me to do that?
Best- RE4: Offers a much needed change in gameplay, with an amazing storyline, incredible visuals, and just a flat out awesome gaming experience overall. People will knock it for being too action oriented, but if anything it's this feature which potentially saved the series from being yet another ridiculously repetitive Capcom series in terms of gameplay (megaman anyone?)
Runner Up: Resident Evil 3
Worst- Code Veronica/CVX: I'm not saying that CV was a "bad" game by any means. In fact, I enjoyed playing the game very much and found it to be a solid RE title overall. It is my selection for the "worst" of the series though because as the first RE game on a 128 bit consol, it simply didn't offer anything new or groundbreaking in comparisons to the 32/64 bit RE titles. The gameplay was EXACTLY the same as previous RE games, and the only things improved over the 32 bit RE titles were the visuals and audio. Otherwise it feels like you're playing yet another old school RE game, which isn't necessarily bad of course, but it isn't something really great either.
[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"][QUOTE="EmilioDigsIt"]I would say RE4 is the worst only because I don't consider it a real RE game. Just another spin off. Still a great game, but not a great RE.
My favorite would probably have to be RE1, but best could possibly be RE 2.
gameguy6700
Just because it has a different gameplay mechanic doesn't make it a spin-off. Its still very much part of the main series, hence the number.
When most people decry RE4 as more of a spinoff than a true numbered game it's because RE4 had little in common with the rest of the series. No zombies, no viruses, no evil corporation, no puzzles (unless you count "here's a metal object. now go stick it into the door three feet behind you" as a puzzle), no survival gameplay (you're a one man army for crying out loud), and the plot was completely insulated from the rest of the series. With it's one man army gameplay, "save the president's daughter!" plot, and Leon being some grizzled badass military/agent guy instead of a young, weak, and inexperienced cop, RE4 was an action shooter, not a survival horror game like the rest of the series. Typically when a game switches genres from the rest of the series its labeled as a spinoff.
One of my biggest problems with the previous RE games were the obscure puzzles that were located in the most random and inexplicable places. The location of the puzzles in the first 3 RE games for example were just so random and out of place that they did not make any sense whatsoever and actually left me chuckling plenty of times, wondering "what in the HELL is this doing in the middle of a city???"
What the developers tried to do with RE4 is make the puzzles (as few as there were) seem less out of place and ridiculous. Instead of loading the game with puzzles that just seemed to slow down the overall pace of an already relatively slow game, they replaced them with obstacles such as freeing a chained Ashley with a sniper rifle from the balcony and then protecting her from the same balcony while she's trying to find a way out. They simply replaced puzzles with more fast paced, suspensful, and exciting obstacles.
[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]@dvader: RE Outbreak's gameplay in outbreak 1 is the same as outbreak 2. Users saying they didn't like RE4 called an opinion.dvader654
I stated what that opinion was, all you people that say RE4 is the worst ONLY state that cause its not like other RE games. Look at all the posts in the thread, its the only excuse you guys give. Thats how you want to look at it thats fine but its still not a valid argument as to the quality of a game.
Yes the gameplay in Outbreak 1 and Outbreak 2 is the same, the difficulty balance is not. In Outbreak 2 the levels were made where you had to use teamwork or odds are you would die, the AI does not help at all so you are left with practically unfinishable levels. Outbreak 1 was a lot more lenient with the single player and was very playable alone, Outbreak 2 was not.
People just have a hard time accepting change, plain and simple. Although RE4 is my fav of the RE series, I'll admit that I too wasn't overly joyed with the dramatic change in gameplay at first. But after playing for about a half hour, I immediately fell in love with the game. The quicker pace, the freedom of the gameplay, creative new weapons, the ability to buy and sell items, the ability to modify weapons, and the stunning visuals made it too hard for me not to fall in lov with this game, regardless of how different it was from the previous titles!
And on a side note, upon the completion of RE4 (for the FIRST time that is :P), I attempted to play RE:CVX again and I just couldn't look at it the same. The improvements in gameplay of RE4 over the previous RE titles is just so dramatic that you'll have a hard time adjusting to the slow pace and various limitations of the previous RE games. I'll always love the classic RE titles, but unfortunately none of them can compare to what RE4 has to offer in terms of an overall gaming experience. RE4 also offers greater replay value over the classic titles in my opinion. The only one of the previous titles that I was at all interested in completing more than once was RE3:Nemesis.
I will admit though, I still do prefer the classic zombies over the grenados. But hey, you can't have it all now can you ;)
Says the person who just admitted to only having played RE4 and RE: UC. ;)[QUOTE="Duckyhunter"]On the subject of Resident Evil 4's place in the Resident Evil franchise, it was an entirely necessary move. Resident Evil 0, a credible and competent survival horror title in its own right, sold abyssmally (although you could make an argument that this was due to its GameCube exclusivity). You do not repeat games with horrible sales figures for the sake of an irked minority.Skylock00
I am very familiar with the games, and I have talked to individuals who have played all the (major) titles relatively extensively with regard to the franchise's shift to action-horror. As I understand it, the game has little to offer differently than the more famous of the series' games, yet it still did poorly.
I have no other argument to offer, but if you continue to wish to push me on whether or not the series had long reached its expiration date, I will gladly oblige.
I'm hardly doing as such. I was merely making a light/playful jab at the fact that in one post you state to only playing two entries to the franchise, then in the next make a statement like the one I bolded as if you have a strong personalbasis of understanding of the franchise. It merely came off to me as an odd pairing of statements.I have no other argument to offer, but if you continue to wish to push me on whether or not the series had long reached its expiration date, I will gladly oblige.
Duckyhunter
The worst RE was by far Code: Veronica. The game had the worst monsters in the series, it didn't use pre-rendered backgrounds (making the graphics look crappy), impossible love story between Claire and the most annoying emo side-kick ever. I guess Capcom figured it was a wrong move to let a third-party develop a RE game.AuthenticM
I disagree, it had some of the most memorable fights in the RE series, looked MUCH better than RE2 or RE3 (those 2 look hideous today), and had the series 2 best villians, Albert Wesker and Alfred Ashford. The opening cut-scene (I played Code Veronica X) is one of the best in gaming ever, and nice cutscenes at the end of the game also. Best story in an RE game as well, revealing much about Umbrella in the process. Underappreciated, particularly Veronica X. It was better than the first 3 games, even slightly better than REmake.
But RE4, which is actually a 3rd person shooter, not Survival Horror, is the best of all, though I'm not sure I like the direction away from Survival Horror.
But RE4, which is actually a 3rd person shooter, not Survival Horror, is the best of all, though I'm not sure I like the direction away from Survival Horror.
AFBrat77
Not survival horror? I disagree. I just...I don't know how you came up with that.
[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]But RE4, which is actually a 3rd person shooter, not Survival Horror, is the best of all, though I'm not sure I like the direction away from Survival Horror.
Conjuration
Not survival horror? I disagree. I just...I don't know how you came up with that.
simply by playing it, I don't care what GS classifies it, geez they classified Metroid Prime as a FPS, when Greg K. said its absolutely not a FPS in his review.
RE4 is definitely a 3rd-person shooter, 2nd best I've ever played, behind only Max Payne.
RE4 is by far the best game in the series. Anyone who says otherwise is crazy.
The worst game imo would be RE3. It just didn't do it for me on any level.
Conjuration
How could you consider RE3 as the "worst"? I think of it as by far the best of the 32-bit RE games! The reloading tool was a cool little feature, meanwhile having a badass like Nemesis pop out at any given moment constantly left you in suspense throughout the game! RE3 was also my favorite final boss fight of the series.
[QUOTE="AuthenticM"]The worst RE was by far Code: Veronica. The game had the worst monsters in the series, it didn't use pre-rendered backgrounds (making the graphics look crappy), impossible love story between Claire and the most annoying emo side-kick ever. I guess Capcom figured it was a wrong move to let a third-party develop a RE game.AFBrat77
I disagree, it had some of the most memorable fights in the RE series, looked MUCH better than RE2 or RE3 (those 2 look hideous today), and had the series 2 best villians, Albert Wesker and Alfred Ashford. The opening cut-scene (I played Code Veronica X) is one of the best in gaming ever, and nice cutscenes at the end of the game also. Best story in an RE game as well, revealing much about Umbrella in the process. Underappreciated, particularly Veronica X. It was better than the first 3 games, even slightly better than REmake.
But RE4, which is actually a 3rd person shooter, not Survival Horror, is the best of all, though I'm not sure I like the direction away from Survival Horror.
Well lets hope so eh? It was released on the 128-bit DC and PS2 consoles afterall, whereas RE2 and RE3 were both initially released on 32 bit consoles. But I do have to agree with AuthenticM to an extent. Code Veronica was a solid RE title, but didn't provide anything new or spectacular in terms of overall gameplay. The whole developing love story between Claire and Steve was also incredibly cheesey and only took away from the survival-horror aspect of the game (Steve eventually mutating was kinda cool though). Also, the ridiculous camera angles and controls were as frustrating and annoying as ever. They also didn't do much in terms of introducing some fresh new artillary, at least not as much as RE4 did.
The best aspects of this game though were definitely the return of both Wesker and Chris to the series. Chris not having a role in either RE2 or RE3 was practically a sin in my mind, and having him back definitely made RE:CV even more worthwhile. The ending in RE:CVX was also really cool to watch.
[QUOTE="Conjuration"]RE4 is by far the best game in the series. Anyone who says otherwise is crazy.
The worst game imo would be RE3. It just didn't do it for me on any level.
ForzaAbruzzo
How could you consider RE3 as the "worst"? I think of it as by far the best of the 32-bit RE games! The reloading tool was a cool little feature, meanwhile having a badass like Nemesis pop out at any given moment constantly left you in suspense throughout the game! RE3 was also my favorite final boss fight of the series.
I agree. Everytime the Nemesis theme would play, my blood would suddenly curdle. Its like you had no way of figuring out when he would strike, and that's what creeped me out the most.
I didn't read all the posts but I have to say that I see a lot of people say RE Dead Aim was pretty bad but I thought the opposite, the game was quite good IMO. The game was pretty much true to the old school RE formula except with first person view for shooting and the only really bad thing you can really say about it if you loved the previous RE games is that it was short. Yeah, I beat the game in 2 hours on my first playthrough.
Best RE: Resident Evil (PS1)
Worst RE: Resident Evil 4 (GC, PS2, PC)
Resident Evil use to be one of my favorite game series out there but that is slowly going away with the new direction they are taking. I do hope they end the RE series with RE5 tho.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment