Is the Resident Evil series dead?

We'll see after six.

Its been around since the early 90s. You tell me.Kevlar101

It basically is to me. After 5, I will not be purchasing or playing RE again, unless they return more towards the series' roots.

I wouldn't say that but the series has been going backwards the only real good game in the series since 4 was Revelations on the 3DS.

I hope Dead Space doesn't go down the same path because it's the only true survival horror franchise in the market.

[QUOTE="Kevlar101"]Its been around since the early 90s. You tell me.ScorpionTroll

[QUOTE="ScorpionTroll"]

[QUOTE="Kevlar101"]Its been around since the early 90s. You tell me.Kevlar101

[QUOTE="Kevlar101"][QUOTE="ScorpionTroll"] Zelda and Final Fantasy have both been around since 1987. How long the game franchise has been around doesn't determine its relevancy. The quality of the games do.

ScorpionTroll

Yes, Resident Evil 5 killed it, I don't know how that game managed to suck in almost every way possible.

I guess I'm an outlier, but I didn't think Resident Evil 5 was bad at all. I loved co-op, even though it had its own warts to contend with. I think the problem is that they're trying to turn the series into a third-person shooter with RE6 and that wasn't what the series was about.

RE is already dead to the idiotic fanboys who want the series to go back to the roots. As much as I love the original RE games and RE 1 remake was probably the best in the series, if the series ever went back to the cheesy scares it was known for then there's no hope for gamers who want franchises to stay the same and never evolve.

Call of Duty gets crap for never changing and releasing games on a yearly matter, Resident Evil gets crap for trying to change things up so it won't get dull for the series. Gamers now and days just give double middle fingers to devs, it's sickening cause people expect every game to be a 9-10 quality style game and if it ain't it apparently just sucks.

RE is already dead to the idiotic fanboys who want the series to go back to the roots. As much as I love the original RE games and RE 1 remake was probably the best in the series, if the series ever went back to the cheesy scares it was known for then there's no hope for gamers who want franchises to stay the same and never evolve.

Call of Duty gets crap for never changing and releasing games on a yearly matter, Resident Evil gets crap for trying to change things up so it won't get dull for the series. Gamers now and days just give double middle fingers to devs, it's sickening cause people expect every game to be a 9-10 quality style game and if it ain't it apparently just sucks.

Ballroompirate

I'd say that for what RE has traditionally offered in the past, the series is pretty much dead and is only RE in name alone. If the games do not maintain some element of what made them what they are in the first place, how is it still alive? I believe there's leeway for a game's evolution and improvement, but it has to have boundaries lest it breaks free and becomes something completely different than its original creation.

By the looks of it, RE has done this with 6. If Mario turned into a FPS, would it be considered dead? If Metroid turned into Samus's fashion designer, would it be dead? I'd say so. That's not Mario nor Metroid. I've not played the RE6 demo so I can't fairly speak on it, but I've seen some videos and have read many impressions and it seems like a radical departure from the series roots. It does in fact look very GeoW-ish. Contrast that with the slow plodding/resource management of the originals and I can't see how it's anything other than dead.

And I just want to make clear here (as I suspect I'll be accused of this): I'm not advocating that games should not evolve. They most certainly should, but only within the realm of their genre. When a platformer becomes a sports game, it's dead. When a RTS becomes a puzzle game, it's dead. And when survival horror becomes action shooter.......it's dead.

It died for me after Code Veronica. And I didnt like that much.

Meh, i always thought the newer Resident Evil were better than the classics. I still don't understand how anyone would prefer the god awful controls the classics had.

The old Resident Evils just had so much charm. They were so stylized and interesting and scary. Even if they kind of played like sh*t. The new resident evils play okay I guess, but they just are not that interesting. Not scary, not charming, not funny... just action game.

Meh, i always thought the newer Resident Evil were better than the classics. I still don't understand how anyone would prefer the god awful controls the classics had.

el3m2tigre

Yeah, the Resident Evil series is dead...

*Puts on Sunglasses*

...as a Zombie

Nah but seriously, the last true RE Game in my opinion was RE3 for me, afterwards it became too much of a not the slightest creepy or disturbing action shooter hybrid.

I loved RE5, but RE6 is just horrid. Visually poor, gameplay feels weak, and overall not anywhere near the quality of it's predecessor

I think Resident Evil needs to kick co - op out of it because it's a survival horror series and someone being there told hold your hand sucks. RE1,2,3,4 and Code Veronica had this. I haven't played Zero yet but making a series that is about survival co - op is just wrong.

It's dead to me. Just another shooter set in the world of what used to be a good horror game franchise. Same thing with Dead Space.

Is the Resident Evil series dead? No, Resident Evil 6 will be releasing on October 2nd.

[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

Meh, i always thought the newer Resident Evil were better than the classics. I still don't understand how anyone would prefer the god awful controls the classics had.

famicommander

Honestly, none of that even matters when you're struggling to turn around, or even aim. Also, every game in the series doesn't allow you to move while shooting, don't know what your point is with this.

Of course the new ones are horror... did you miss the uroburous in RE5? The regenerator and Verdugo in RE4? If you ask me, the regenerator is the scariest enemy in the entire series.

We'll see after six.

ScorpionTroll

It's still around. It's just that the gameplay and genre has drastically changed to the point where one can no longer recognize it.

i thought so.but with the demo of RE6 i liked everything about it.

the gameplay the different huds and if you want the classic freaky feel you got leon if you want action you got chris.

it has alittle something for everyone.and there isn't as much qte's as people want to think

RE changed in 2004 with RE4 and it's just been progression of that. Shocks me that people still talk about it changing when it hasn't been the same for quite some time now.

People complained, regardless of RE4 and 5 being financial and critical successes, and Capcom actually listened to an extent. Revelations was the best in the series in a long time as it offered a good mix of slow burn horror and all out action (and Raid > Mercenaries), and RE6 just feels like more of that. They even went as far to bring back zombies.

RE changed in 2004 with RE4 and it's just been progression of that. Shocks me that people still talk about it changing when it hasn't been the same for quite some time now.

People complained, regardless of RE4 and 5 being financial and critical successes, and Capcom actually listened to an extent. Revelations was the best in the series in a long time as it offered a good mix of slow burn horror and all out action (and Raid > Mercenaries), and RE6 just feels like more of that. They even went as far to bring back zombies.

IndianaPwns39

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

RE changed in 2004 with RE4 and it's just been progression of that. Shocks me that people still talk about it changing when it hasn't been the same for quite some time now.

People complained, regardless of RE4 and 5 being financial and critical successes, and Capcom actually listened to an extent. Revelations was the best in the series in a long time as it offered a good mix of slow burn horror and all out action (and Raid > Mercenaries), and RE6 just feels like more of that. They even went as far to bring back zombies.

UnBreakableSoL

You don't have to tell me. I've been an RE fan since the beginning and I fondly remember when RE0 was consistently criticized for being more of the same. Then when the series changed it received just as much criticism and no one remembered that the series was becoming stagnant anymore.

[QUOTE="UnBreakableSoL"][QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

RE changed in 2004 with RE4 and it's just been progression of that. Shocks me that people still talk about it changing when it hasn't been the same for quite some time now.

People complained, regardless of RE4 and 5 being financial and critical successes, and Capcom actually listened to an extent. Revelations was the best in the series in a long time as it offered a good mix of slow burn horror and all out action (and Raid > Mercenaries), and RE6 just feels like more of that. They even went as far to bring back zombies.

IndianaPwns39

You don't have to tell me. I've been an RE fan since the beginning and I fondly remember when RE0 was consistently criticized for being more of the same. Then when the series changed it received just as much criticism and no one remembered that the series was becoming stagnant anymore.

Meh, i always thought the newer Resident Evil were better than the classics. I still don't understand how anyone would prefer the god awful controls the classics had.el3m2tigre

[QUOTE="UnBreakableSoL"][QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

RE changed in 2004 with RE4 and it's just been progression of that. Shocks me that people still talk about it changing when it hasn't been the same for quite some time now.

People complained, regardless of RE4 and 5 being financial and critical successes, and Capcom actually listened to an extent. Revelations was the best in the series in a long time as it offered a good mix of slow burn horror and all out action (and Raid > Mercenaries), and RE6 just feels like more of that. They even went as far to bring back zombies.

IndianaPwns39

You don't have to tell me. I've been an RE fan since the beginning and I fondly remember when RE0 was consistently criticized for being more of the same. Then when the series changed it received just as much criticism and no one remembered that the series was becoming stagnant anymore.

What are you guys talking about??

There's a huge difference between modernizing within its genre, and abandoning its original genre altogether. That is what RE6 has done. It did not have to cease being survival horror to evolve and avoid stagnation, and if it did I'd love to hear why. Games progress all the time yet maintain what makes them what they are. Look at Mario. Speaking of which, answer me this, because no one did from my first post:

--If Nintendo took Mario and changed his traditional games into, say, a sports game (not a spin-off, I'm talking the CORE franchise), would you then say to those that were upset that they forgot it was stagnating and were just complaining and were against progression?

Please. I'm tired of those who are unable to make this distinction and then label gamers who yearn for what core defined the game in the past whiners. RE as it was once known cannot stagnate, because it's not RE anymore.

Meh, i always thought the newer Resident Evil were better than the classics. I still don't understand how anyone would prefer the god awful controls the classics had.el3m2tigre

Back when the first games were released the technology was barely up to snuff to handle what the devs wanted, hence the prerendered backgrounds and awkward camera angles that consequently necessitated terrible controls. The newer REs ARE better than the old ones.....in the sense of mechanics and visual/audio presentation. But they are NOT better games conceptually. If the original RE was remade using the RE4 engine (with a few adjustments) it would be incredible.

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[QUOTE="UnBreakableSoL"] People will never be satisfied, you give then what they want and they still complainMirkoS77

You don't have to tell me. I've been an RE fan since the beginning and I fondly remember when RE0 was consistently criticized for being more of the same. Then when the series changed it received just as much criticism and no one remembered that the series was becoming stagnant anymore.

What are you guys talking about??

There's a huge difference between modernizing within its genre, and abandoning its original genre altogether. That is what RE6 has done. It did not have to cease being survival horror to evolve and avoid stagnation, and if it did I'd love to hear why. Games progress all the time yet maintain what makes them what they are. Look at Mario. Speaking of which, answer me this, because no one did from my first post:

--If Nintendo took Mario and changed his traditional games into, say, a sports game (not a spin-off, I'm talking the CORE franchise), would you then say to those that were upset that they forgot it was stagnating and were just complaining and were against progression?

Please. I'm tired of those who are unable to make this distinction and then label gamers who yearn for what core defined the game in the past whiners. RE as it was once known cannot stagnate, because it's not RE anymore.

RE6 hasn't abandoned the original genre altogether. You could argue that RE4 did, but that's my point: nothing here is new. It isn't like this just happened, its been 8 years since the RE formula has changed and people are acting as if its new. If anything, the slow, creepy vibe of Leon's campaign in RE6 is closer to what it used to be than anything... with the exception of RE: Revelations.

But personally speaking, while I understand RE4 played drastically different than its predecessors, I never really felt that RE4 was really all that different. There were always signs of RE being an action game at heart. Each one of them ending with a countdown to wherever you were blowing up, each one of them featuring sections of just blast the baddies. I mean, RE3 began with Jill jumping out of an exploding building, holding an assault rifle, surrounded by easy-to-kill zombies. On normal mode, you started with pretty much all the weapons, and with the ammo building it became virtually impossible to run dry. Code Veronica had a few segments where you used twin submachine guns to put down some enemies, and another segment where you simply ran from a boss that would now be made into a quick time. They all feature B-movie plot lines, cheesy dialog, and similar patterns of design. They function different, but aside from a creepy atmosphere ruined by the kill everything on screen, the new REs still felt very much like RE to me.

--If Nintendo took Mario and changed his traditional games into, say, a sports game (not a spin-off, I'm talking the CORE franchise), would you then say to those that were upset that they forgot it was stagnating and were just complaining and were against progression?

Please. I'm tired of those who are unable to make this distinction and then label gamers who yearn for what core defined the game in the past whiners. RE as it was once known cannot stagnate, because it's not RE anymore.

MirkoS77

And to address your Mario question:

Mario changing from a platformer to a sports game is an unfair comparison to what happened to RE for a couple reasons. First off, in the old REs you shot zombies in an incrimidating atmosphere and solved stupid puzzles with a crappy camera angle. In the news ones, you shoot not-zombies in an incrimidating atmosphere and solved stupider puzzles with a less crappy camera angle... with co op. They've changed, but they're not these wildly different genres that have nothing to do with each other.

Secondly, Mario's core franchise is virtually unidentifiable to the common gamer. Sure, I can tell you how Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Super Mario World 3 are part of the same core franchise, but most see it as just one giant mess of games. Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, Super Mario Galaxy, whatever, most pin them as Mario games. When Resident Karting comes out and you can play as a bobblehead Nemesis, then maybe it'll be a better comparison. But quite frankly, Mario making the jump from 2D to 3D was a bigger jump than RE ever made. There are still plenty of people that argue he should remain 2D, even.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

--If Nintendo took Mario and changed his traditional games into, say, a sports game (not a spin-off, I'm talking the CORE franchise), would you then say to those that were upset that they forgot it was stagnating and were just complaining and were against progression?

Please. I'm tired of those who are unable to make this distinction and then label gamers who yearn for what core defined the game in the past whiners. RE as it was once known cannot stagnate, because it's not RE anymore.

IndianaPwns39

And to address your Mario question:

Mario changing from a platformer to a sports game is an unfair comparison to what happened to RE for a couple reasons. First off, in the old REs you shot zombies in an incrimidating atmosphere and solved stupid puzzles with a crappy camera angle. In the news ones, you shoot not-zombies in an incrimidating atmosphere and solved stupider puzzles with a less crappy camera angle... with co op. They've changed, but they're not these wildly different genres that have nothing to do with each other.

Secondly, Mario's core franchise is virtually unidentifiable to the common gamer. Sure, I can tell you how Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Super Mario World 3 are part of the same core franchise, but most see it as just one giant mess of games. Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, Super Mario Galaxy, whatever, most pin them as Mario games. When Resident Karting comes out and you can play as a bobblehead Nemesis, then maybe it'll be a better comparison. But quite frankly, Mario making the jump from 2D to 3D was a bigger jump than RE ever made. There are still plenty of people that argue he should remain 2D, even.

I have been a fan since the first. I loved the first through the fourth and even Code Veronica. I even liked part five for the most part. The demo for part six left me feeling a bit dissappointed. My main problem being that it felt like just another action game. I never felt a moment of dread or tension while playing. In my opinion the main problem I have with it is the atmosphere. It needs to be creepy. I don't know maybe the retail release will offer more in that department but I don't know.

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

--If Nintendo took Mario and changed his traditional games into, say, a sports game (not a spin-off, I'm talking the CORE franchise), would you then say to those that were upset that they forgot it was stagnating and were just complaining and were against progression?

Please. I'm tired of those who are unable to make this distinction and then label gamers who yearn for what core defined the game in the past whiners. RE as it was once known cannot stagnate, because it's not RE anymore.

Justforvisit

And to address your Mario question:

Mario changing from a platformer to a sports game is an unfair comparison to what happened to RE for a couple reasons. First off, in the old REs you shot zombies in an incrimidating atmosphere and solved stupid puzzles with a crappy camera angle. In the news ones, you shoot not-zombies in an incrimidating atmosphere and solved stupider puzzles with a less crappy camera angle... with co op. They've changed, but they're not these wildly different genres that have nothing to do with each other.

Secondly, Mario's core franchise is virtually unidentifiable to the common gamer. Sure, I can tell you how Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Super Mario World 3 are part of the same core franchise, but most see it as just one giant mess of games. Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, Super Mario Galaxy, whatever, most pin them as Mario games. When Resident Karting comes out and you can play as a bobblehead Nemesis, then maybe it'll be a better comparison. But quite frankly, Mario making the jump from 2D to 3D was a bigger jump than RE ever made. There are still plenty of people that argue he should remain 2D, even.

Ridiculous claim is ridiculous. RE4 featured a lot of the same elements as previous titles with a more focus on action. In fact, new RE, even though they're not, are still labelled under "Survival horror".

But you missed the point. There are people that complain about Mario from 2D to 3D.

[QUOTE="UnBreakableSoL"][QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

RE changed in 2004 with RE4 and it's just been progression of that. Shocks me that people still talk about it changing when it hasn't been the same for quite some time now.

People complained, regardless of RE4 and 5 being financial and critical successes, and Capcom actually listened to an extent. Revelations was the best in the series in a long time as it offered a good mix of slow burn horror and all out action (and Raid > Mercenaries), and RE6 just feels like more of that. They even went as far to bring back zombies.

IndianaPwns39

You don't have to tell me. I've been an RE fan since the beginning and I fondly remember when RE0 was consistently criticized for being more of the same. Then when the series changed it received just as much criticism and no one remembered that the series was becoming stagnant anymore.

Some people don't even know what the want, specially when it comes down to video games. I've been a long time RE fan and RE1 was what got me into gaming. Indeed it sucks that the series has lost some of it's survival horror but I've still enjoyed the games since RE CV (the last time the series actually went full survival horror to me), the only games that I didn't like were ORC,Gaiden and Gun Survivor, I've pretty much loved every other game except those three.

People complain about action in RE games.....well action has been in RE games since the very first one, do I need to remind people about the countdown tell the manor explodes in RE1?, the infinite ammo machine gun in RE2, the helicopter explosion in RE2, Leon/Claire trying to get away from the truck driver in RE2. Those are just a few examples of action in the original RE games, which of course back then that was all they can do for "action" in games during the 90's. Now and days they have current day action in the last two gen RE games which people act like RE was only about survival horror, which in all honestly wasn't that scary if you go back to those games, most of us were pretty young back then and of course we were easily scared as kids, I mean I can beat RE2 now and days in under an hour.

There has been explosions, there has been machine guns in older RE games. There's been even QTE in last gen RE games and I'm not just talking about RE4, the RE Outbreak games had a few QTE to help out partners in need of help.

When I say Resident Evil 5 was dissapointing I aren't saying it was a bad game just that it didn't have the dark tense atmosphere most of the areas were light. The cover system was awful and I just didn't think co - op was the right idea. I feel it needs to be a single player experience. The controls have improved for the better, the saving is better.

Resident Evil 6 i am sure will be a very good title I mean 40 hours of gameplay it's just that we only played a demo and maybe these parts were planned to feature in the demo things might have changed by then.

resident evil 6 demo is horrible, will be passing on it or when they release a gold edition or something

To the whiny sacks of s**t that pretend the first three games are some sort of masterpieces, sure. To everyone else that doesn't mind seeing a once awful franchise into something worthwhile, no.

Capcom should rename the brand and instead of Resident Evil it should be Call of Evil.