• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Let's face it, RE4 was a massive mistake.

GAMETA

Banned
You don't have to explain to me what an opinion is.

Read my initial response to you. I was pointing out that your arguments were completely inconsistent and some were objectively incorrect. You think RE4 should have stuck to traditional zombies, yet you praised RE3.5 for having hallucinations instead of zombies. You loved RE7 for its puzzles, but RE4 objectively has more. You say RE4 has no item management, but I'm telling you that is objectively not true, and that item management plays a bigger part in RE4 than RE3 or CV. You say RE4 shifted the series in a way that was bad for the series, and I'm giving you context for the change the series had to make in order to survive, etc.

Again, you can have an opinion, but you aren't presenting it well. At all. Instead of backing up your claims or responding directly to any of my counter-points, you are now brushing them off as "Hey, it's just my opinion. Who cares?" and that's just lazy. I may have come off as aggressive right off the bat, and I apologize for that, but a lot of what your saying is being parroted in this thread by other members and it's frustrating when none of the arguments, in my opinion, seem to have much thought put into them. I was hoping to have an actual discussion where people would expand on their negative opinions on RE4.

I understand what you mean, my point, though, is how different both directions play and feel, and that's what I meant by the hallucinations or RE7 still working. They still feel like traditional Resident Evil.

RE4, 5 and 6 just don't. And it's not an objective thing like which mechanics they have and which they don't, but rather, it's how the games feel, and in that regard they're completely different.

I think it boils down to 4/5/6 being action oriented. I just can't enjoy it the same, lots of the original fans can't as well, and I'd say it's pretty easy to understand why.

It's like the traditional God of War games when compared to the most recent one. The games share the same character and share similar themes, but it's not the same... is one better than the other? That depends on personal taste.
 

SuperGooey

Member
[Sorry for the long response. I wanted to condense it more, but I gotta get some sleep.]
1) Item management:

Here's the biggest difference between item management in RE4 versus the more classic REs and its a big one. The storage box. While RE4 asked its players to essentially play a mini game of tetris there was never a moment where I felt pressured to make any difficult choices on do I take THIS and then that means I might not have it for later, or do I take THIS and hope that my choice as I progress doesn't come back to royally screw me.
I often found myself discarding items to make room in my inventory, as well as running out of ammo during my first couple playthroughs of RE4. This is especially apparent early in the game when you have the smallest briefcase. However, unlike classic RE games were you have a MASSIVE surplus to stash away in item boxes after the first half of the game, RE4 requires you to only hold as much as your briefcase can hold. This leads to difficult choices like selling the TMP to make room for a rifle.

Case in point? Making chemical mixes to create the different types of grenade ammo. That was vitally important in the more classic RE games, there was a real survival tension to it, because you knew that whatever choice you ended up picking was A) limited and B) Meant you no longer had the option to create the other type of ammo. Not to mention that this meant sacrificing an important inventory slot. The same applied to other types of ammo too.
Grenade ammo crafting is only in RE3. The other classic games don't have it.

So I objectively say your completly wrong when you say RE4 has more item inventory management then RE CV and I'm assuming you'd also throw RE0 into that too. That's simply not true.
Code Veronica is, imo, the most superficial RE game. It has backtracking, but doesn't have a map designed for it. It has "item management", but you are immediately given 10 slots so it's never a problem. It has puzzles, but they, in my opinion, aren't very creative. There certainly isn't a sense of horror or dread in that game, unless you get that feeling because the game is such a boring slog to get through. Haha ;) The game's tone has more in common with a soap opera than a horror, honestly.

RE Zero has a big focus on item management; probably the biggest in the series, but is it done well? In an attempt to freshen things up, Capcom removed the item boxes. RE4 also did this, but did it better. With Zero, it just makes the game more tedious. The game gains nothing from you having to lug the hookshot from the train to the laster segments of the game. I think it's obvious that Capcom was really struggling to keep the old style of RE fresh at this point.

**More on that later**

Puzzles. RE4 hardly had proper puzzles and you know it, what puzzle beats REmakes sunlight puzzle with the glass windows and the crows? What puzzle in RE4 made you have to really think? RECV had that type of puzzle in the first ten minutes of the game.
REmake is the best game in the series, and its puzzles are mostly great. The entire mansion is basically one big puzzle, and that is obviously the biggest focus of that game.

RE2 Classic hardly has any puzzles in comparison (to REmake or RE1), and the ones that are there don't require much thought at all. RE4 has more puzzles, and I would say they are more fun to solve. I particularly enjoy the 4 paintings puzzle, the church light puzzle, and the optional graveyard puzzle. Does this mean RE2 isn't a real RE game?

Yes Fatal Frame was different, but the design choice, the survival horror elements all share a commonality with the more classic REs, a sense of dread and fighting to survive. THAT design choice will never get old and it worked incredibly well for many years and still does.
Well, I'd say that easily describes RE4 many, many memorable set pieces--opening village segmemt, the cabin shootout, being chased by Verdugo, anything with the Regenerators, the Bella Sisters, being trapped in the prison with Garrador, etc.

I mean, RE4 probably captures that better than any other RE game to date--it's all about survival. You really think Code Veronica gives a sense of dread and makes you feel like your fighting to survive?

RE4 was a mistake, it's design choices absolutely crippled Capcom and it's choices to make it more action and more cheese was not the right direction. It let go of the classic elements of RE, puzzles, survival, tension and horror. Capcom themselves see this, as is evidenced in RE7, RE2 remake and RE8. RE3 remake tried going back to more action and got blasted for it however its far more in line with the earlier REs then RE4 ever could hope to be.
RE4 plays a lot different that the games before it, but it didn't throw away puzzles, and it certainly didn't ignore survival, tension or horror. It upped the action, of course, which is the direction the series had been going since the opening of RE2. Specific design choices, like now allowing Leon to move and shoot were made a focal point for the combat to create tension. Like the original RE games, positioning, shooting, and running to a new position before getting attacks is still the foundation of the combat.

Now for the **more on that later** part:

Around the time of REZero and CV, the series was in a bad state. Not just finically, but Capcom employees were requesting being moved out of RE projects because they were bored working on the same formula. I think this lack of passion or fresh ideas is very apparent in CV and Zero. On top of that, Capcom was going to shitcan the series if RE4 wasn't successful. RE4 objectively saved the series from going the way of Silent Hill.

You say that RE7 and RE2R are evidence that Capcom knows RE4 was a mistake, but that's like saying that RE4 is evidence that Capcom thinks RE1 was a mistake. Like how classic RE got stale and needed to change with RE4, the action RE games got stale (and quite terrible with RE6), and RE7 was an opportunity to freshen up the series again. That's just was series have to do to stay alive when they are going on this long, and I'm quite grateful that there is pretty much an RE game for any type of game. RE8 seems to be another big shift for the series, but I'm ready for it!
 
Last edited:

Paracelsus

Member
RE4 had no formula to it, it was a great looking fun third person on-rails shooter where it was fun to kill things in many ways. it was half a gen ahead of its time.
The draw of the game was killing things, setpieces, it was a precursor of OTS cinematic experiences.

This argument reminds me of people defending REvelations, "it's like the old ones because you go back and forth and there's puzzles", like that's the deal.
Checkpoints broke RE, not the camera angles, that was adding insult to injury.

It reminds me of people coming from modern RE straight into RE2r
"Wait...you're supposed to avoid those things? You can't just kill them?"
 

Pimpbaa

Member
I'm glad fixed camera angles are dead. Made sense when they were using pre-rendered backgrounds, but it adds nothing to a fully 3D game. In fact it ruined the last entry to the Legacy of Kain games.
 

Paracelsus

Member
I'm glad fixed camera angles are dead. Made sense when they were using pre-rendered backgrounds, but it adds nothing to a fully 3D game. In fact it ruined the last entry to the Legacy of Kain games.

Fixed camera and tank controls allowed them to design the game and combat in a way that was perfectly challenging and balanced. They gave the player options, but they still dictated the restrictions.
Ever since they broke out that system that was born out of limitations, they could never get it right again. RE became way too easy and later attempts to get it right did not work.

RE2r itself needs to rely on RNG/Adaptive shooting like it's 1996, because a game where you can just aim and headshot would be beyond broken.
When you want to "take a series into the future" but have to limit the realism, you know that something is not right.

It reminds me of when you shot ganados in the middle of the forehead and they'd just flinch like they got hit by a small pebble.
 

ACESHIGH

Banned
It's a great game but it would be great if we could go back in time and delete it. Maybe we would still have proper survival horror games to this day

RE 3.5 looked way better
 

Pimpbaa

Member
Fixed camera and tank controls allowed them to design the game and combat in a way that was perfectly challenging and balanced.

No it hobbled players ability to play the game and it artificially increased difficulty. Ever think that RE became easy because it became easier to play? Never once in the old REs when I died due to a poor camera angle and couldn't line up a shot because of that and the slow tank controls did I think "boy that was perfectly challenging and balanced", no I thought it was bullshit but tolerated it because real time backgrounds would have looked like shit. Playing RE2 Remake was the first time I actually enjoyed that game.
 

Paracelsus

Member
No it hobbled players ability to play the game and it artificially increased difficulty. Ever think that RE became easy because it became easier to play? Never once in the old REs when I died due to a poor camera angle and couldn't line up a shot because of that and the slow tank controls did I think "boy that was perfectly challenging and balanced", no I thought it was bullshit but tolerated it because real time backgrounds would have looked like shit. Playing RE2 Remake was the first time I actually enjoyed that game.

For one thing

RE2r itself needs to rely on RNG/Adaptive shooting like it's 1996, because a game where you can just aim and headshot would be beyond broken.
When you want to "take a series into the future" but have to limit the realism, you know that something is not right.

RE2 had no choice because that was the technology they had, RE2r was made when everything was possible.
Thus, RE2r artificially increased difficulty more than RE2 1998 because it has both RNG aim and adaptive difficulty, and it's a modern game with QOL improvements so it's inexcusable, they had the choice to do otherwise but didn't. Rather, they couldn't.
On top of that, Mr. X is the walking embodiment of artificial difficulty. He cannot be killed, he shouldn't be stopped, he literally serves the sole purpose to be a nuisance as you are trying to play the game. He isn't scary, he's a goofy-looking giant that means "oh, great, now I have to stop doing whatever I was doing to go back into hiding again".
Nemesis at least allowed you to unload the tons of ammo the game threw at you, and if you fought well you got rewards, he also served a branching storyline purpose. Mr.X has no purpose other than be in the way. Whoever claims Mr.X is Nemesis done right is either dumb or drunk.

RE2 had fixed camera angles and tank controls, RE2 is a dark looking game with narrow fov, you didn't get bitten by zombies because of the camera in RE2 any more than you did in RE2r.

Old RE was limited by technology: aiming was restricted and RNG, movements were restricted, camera was fixed. It was all they had, and it worked. Nobody says Capcom were geniuses, but they made the best of what they had.

It worked so well the remake of RE2 had to go back and take some of those old rules to get it right. Realistic game, realistic controls, still needs tricks to up the challenge.

Resident Evil has always been a series of design crutches, whether intentional or accidental. If they don't use them it goes back to being a generic shooter.
 
Last edited:

Blade2.0

Member
Going to third person was trash. RE4 turned the franchise into an action game for the next number of installments and they got progressively worse. Leading upto the cluster fuck that was RE6. Those design choices were all rooted in from the success of RE4.

Even RE3 remake while flawed was still better than RE4 as an RE installment.

Want proof? Compare how critically acclaimed RE2 remake and RE7 were. Even Remake went back to it's roots which every RE4 fan were suddenly making it out as the second coming and RE7 was a new step into exploring the psychological horror of the genre. Which what RE is meant to be by the way.... HORROR.

So yeah screw RE4. Good riddance to that history of Resident Evil.

Edit: Was RE4 a fun action game? Sure. Was it a good RE game? No way in hell.

THIS is what RE4 was meant to be before the design change. Biohazard 3.5:


You were a massive mistake. HMPH!
 

Pimpbaa

Member
For one thing



RE2 had no choice because that was the technology they had, RE2r was made when everything was possible.
Thus, RE2r artificially increased difficulty more than RE2 1998 because it has both RNG aim and adaptive difficulty, and it's a modern game with QOL improvements so it's inexcusable, they had the choice to do otherwise but didn't. Rather, they couldn't.
On top of that, Mr. X is the walking embodiment of artificial difficulty. He cannot be killed, he shouldn't be stopped, he literally serves the sole purpose to be a nuisance as you are trying to play the game. He isn't scary, he's a goofy-looking giant that means "oh, great, now I have to stop doing whatever I was doing to go back into hiding again".
Nemesis at least allowed you to unload the tons of ammo the game threw at you, and if you fought well you got rewards, he also served a branching storyline purpose. Mr.X has no purpose other than be in the way. Whoever claims Mr.X is Nemesis done right is either dumb or drunk.

RE2 had fixed camera angles and tank controls, RE2 is a dark looking game with narrow fov, you didn't get bitten by zombies because of the camera in RE2 any more than you did in RE2r.

Old RE was limited by technology: aiming was restricted and RNG, movements were restricted, camera was fixed. It was all they had, and it worked. Nobody says Capcom were geniuses, but they made the best of what they had.

It worked so well the remake of RE2 had to go back and take some of those old rules to get it right. Realistic game, realistic controls, still needs tricks to up the challenge.

Resident Evil has always been a series of design crutches, whether intentional or accidental. If they don't use them it goes back to being a generic shooter.

The only way RE2 would be easier for someone, is if they are very used to fixed camera angles. Anyone who never played a RE game before would have a much easier time getting into RE2 Remake. I mean yeah, they had no choice back then to go with fixed camera angles back then because a fully real time 3d environment would have looked like shit in comparison to the pre-rendered backgrounds. But if they were to go back to fixed or semi fixed camera angles again, people would abandoned the series in droves. And the number one complaint would be not being able to line up shots correctly and not being able to navigate through the game as easily (the first Yakuza game is a good example of the latter for me). It's a broken dated design that held back the series until RE4 came out.
 

Paracelsus

Member
The only way RE2 would be easier for someone, is if they are very used to fixed camera angles. Anyone who never played a RE game before would have a much easier time getting into RE2 Remake. I mean yeah, they had no choice back then to go with fixed camera angles back then because a fully real time 3d environment would have looked like shit in comparison to the pre-rendered backgrounds. But if they were to go back to fixed or semi fixed camera angles again, people would abandoned the series in droves. And the number one complaint would be not being able to line up shots correctly and not being able to navigate through the game as easily (the first Yakuza game is a good example of the latter for me). It's a broken dated design that held back the series until RE4 came out.

It didn't quite hold back anything, it was quite literally the only way for RE to be true legit survival horror. The moment they gave up the limitations, or rather "fixed" them, it became Gears of Evil, or UncharEvil. A lame ass generic ots shooter focused on combat.
RE2r looks like a 2019 game but it has 1996 gameplay limitations, that should've been a red flag but it wasn't.
it's not a knock on RE, it's quite simply why some series died when they ditched "archaic systems", see FF and ATB.
Tomb Raider reboot is another one.
 
Last edited:

Ryllix_

Member
RE4 is a great game and a terrible Resident Evil game at the same time. I'm biased though. I've purchased and attempted to play through it on Gamecube, PS2, PS4 and PC. I want to like it, but I want a good Resident Evil survival horror game and it has never been that.
 

Nester99

Member
I have not played a RE game.
Not much of a horror or FPS fan, but have heard great things and am getting interested.

For a person with limited time, can anyone recommend a good roadmap to start with?

Is 4RM the best place to start?
 

SuperGooey

Member
RE8 was a mistake
RE8 looks to be the most interesting thing the series has done since RE4 in terms of setting, tone, and art direction. Can't wait!

RE4 had no formula to it, it was a great looking fun third person on-rails shooter where it was fun to kill things in many ways. it was half a gen ahead of its time.
It's about as on-rails as RE2 and RE3 are, especially in the post RPD/City segments. People tend to forget how linear those games really were, especially RE2 (which is still a fantastic game). I think what confuses people is the item boxes and the layout of the map being set up like the Mansion in RE1. There is a flow to those games in the early main hub segments that RE4 doesn't really follow.

Anyway, RE4 doesn't follow the formula because... that was the entire point! The RE formula was getting dull even before Zero, and that style of gameplay was perfected with REmake. RE4 had to do something different, and for better or for worse, it expanded what an RE could be because of the chances it too.

No it hobbled players ability to play the game and it artificially increased difficulty. Ever think that RE became easy because it became easier to play? Never once in the old REs when I died due to a poor camera angle and couldn't line up a shot because of that and the slow tank controls did I think "boy that was perfectly challenging and balanced", no I thought it was bullshit but tolerated it because real time backgrounds would have looked like shit. Playing RE2 Remake was the first time I actually enjoyed that game.
Saying tank-controlled fixed camera games are inherently outdated and bad is like saying 2D Side-scrollers are inherently bad because 3D platformers exist. As for not being able to line up a shot... uh, you know there is auto-aim, right?

RE1 and RE2 are specifically build around this style of game, and still hold up today as a result. It's not artificial difficulty, though I'd argue that Nemesis and a lot of the enemies in Code Veronica didn't really belong in fixed-camera angle games. As much as I love RE4, I'd love to see Capcom tackle fixed-cameras again. Enough time has passed where its novel again, and I'm curious to see what can be done in that style with the streamlining the recent games have accomplishes as well as no longer needed to pre-render backgrounds.
 
Last edited:

laynelane

Member
I have not played a RE game.
Not much of a horror or FPS fan, but have heard great things and am getting interested.

For a person with limited time, can anyone recommend a good roadmap to start with?

Is 4RM the best place to start?

Resident Evil 2 Remake might be a good place to start. It's been out for a while so you won't be paying full price and will introduce you to some of the mainstays of the series - zombies, inventory management, characters, etc. As well, the events that occur in that game form the basis (along with Resident Evil 1) for everything that comes after.
 

Cutty Flam

Banned
Moving away from zombies made me lose interest.
Los Immuminados / Las Plagas = creepier , more frightening in an eerie sense - RE4 is a decent bit gloomier than the other Resident Evil games imo
Zombies = incite more panic-stricken movement from player / thought process while navigating through games imo is more complex and fear oriented. The zombies have caused significantly more issues in-game that force the player to react quickly and this is an aspect that makes these games so interesting
I have not played a RE game.
Not much of a horror or FPS fan, but have heard great things and am getting interested.

For a person with limited time, can anyone recommend a good roadmap to start with?

Is 4RM the best place to start?
Can't really go wrong with Resident Evil Remake or Resident Evil 4, either one
Resident Evil Remake = more intense, legendary, Spencer Mansion is unbelievably well designed--the entire game is
Resident Evil 4 = expansive, godly atmosphere, probably the 'spookiest' game in the series, feels completely entirely unique to every single entry before and after it--one of a kind experience

I would probably recommend RE4 first. It's an excellent starting point; you can play 20-40 minutes each time and that's enough to complete a subchapter
 

Kokoloko85

Member
Agreed.
It was a Great gameBut ruined the RE series for awhile.

Resident Evil Turned from a slow paced horror game to an action game because of RE4. Anyone who disagrees probably didnt like the the originals like fans who loved the formula.

Things RE4 done that were not REsident evil:

No metroidvania backtracking and level design
No mansion / police station etc
No zombies
Hordes or enemies
Projectile throwing enemies you can deflect away by bullets...
Melee attackings. Spinning kicks and suplex city... lol
Machine gun enemies... lol

No puzzles
No keys and locks
Button bashing
QTE’s
No scary creepy music
No save room

Did I mention hordes of enemies you can suplex??... this is not what Resident Evil is about lol. Go play your action game
 
Last edited:
Where is the clickbait tag on this thread?

All the true greats have haters.
Classic game. And, you can’t blame RE6 on RE4. They started moving toward the GearsofWar/DeadSpace3/ArmyofTwo/ action co-op train that many, many companies were chasing during that time period. It worked out ok with RE5, but they went crazy with it in RE6, which is still a little fun if you pretend it’s a different game.

RE4 is a great game that gets dissected and unfairly shit on nowadays. It was a masterpiece in its time and holds up well even today, so long as you don’t use exploits.

RE7 was scary, but turned into crap about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way through. It went from great scary game to “out of ideas” garbage around the last 1/3. I still love it, but 4 kept things changing up and fresh to the end. RE4 also has much more replayability. NG+ with outfits and guns, etc.

If you don’t use exploits, RE4 is quite difficult.
 
Last edited:

Troglodyte

Banned
Game was great when it came out. I played the shit out of it. I recently played through it again earlier this year before RE3 came out and it was still great. The only thing I didn't like was the bad controls. If they remake it and add RE2r controls it will be even better.
 

Haggard

Banned
It was a great game...unfortunately it also set the following games on the action path and away from what RE actually was.
 

NeoIkaruGAF

Gold Member
It was a great game...unfortunately it also set the following games on the action path and away from what RE actually was.
Taking RE away from the stagnant formula that needed offensively ridiculous over-the-top “stories” to keep it vaguely interesting was one of the best things ever done to a gaming IP. Code Veronica is a disgrace of a game. I actually actively avoided RE4 for a long time because I was convinced it’d be another Code Veronica, and couldn’t for the life of me understand all the hype. When I finally got the game, it was all clear to me.

Classic RE was perfect for the limitations of the PS hardware, but let’s face it, it was 6 games with the exact same formula and progressively worse implementation of that formula. Beyond RE2, anything added to classic RE was redundant and annoying. REmake just made original RE more annoying and frustrating, while not making it exactly better (yeah, yeah, it was beautiful. Big deal). RE Zero is... eh.

RE4 was a revolution also because it made Resident Evil actually fun again. Mikami understood what made the original RE idea good, and built upon that to make a game that’s still a monument to pacing and game design today. Games that came much later didn’t even equal RE4’s outstanding design, let alone top it.
 

Kev Kev

Member
Just because 5 and 6 were trash doesn’t mean they didn’t do a good job on 4. They just couldn’t figure out what made 4 so good, and just doused it with action in hopes that that would be what everyone wanted (I guess? I dunno, but they lost a lot of fans in those years). In the end, unfortunately, they just couldn’t repeat the success of 4 with a third person perspective. 7 was a massive step back in the right direction (not just because of perspective but also bc of tone and gameplay) and I hope 8 delivers as well.
 

Mega_Deth

Member
I personally thought Resident Evil 4 was extremely overrated. It was very innovative and is a good game but I feel it would have been even better if it was more survival horror rather than survival action. But it sold loads so I am sure to Capcom, it was the right choice. I do remember their reasoning behind moving away from survival horror was the lukewarm sales of Resident Evil Remake on the Gamecube but they failed to factor in the fact that the Gamecube had a much smaller market. Funnily enough people got turned off the action-heavy sequels(RE5 was absolutely terrible) and now Resident Evil is back where it belongs.
 

ACESHIGH

Banned
You are right op. You will be quoted to death though since ADHD kids need their shooty bang OTS action that started with Gears of Evil 4.

Great game on its own but maybe the most destructive of all time as it basically killed a genre
.
Classic survival horror fans are the worst catered to fans in gaming, we now need the indie scene to pick up and produce proper fixed camera horror vs OTS or FP hide and seek crap.
 
Last edited:

Tschumi

Member
Nope. If it weren't for re4 the series wouldn't be what it is today. It'd be something a lot less successful, and in need of a 3rd person update, i deem.
 

Heartkiller

Member
One of the best games of all time was not a mistake just because the next couple of games in the series were terrible. I wish RE5 and RE6 were half as good as RE4.

RE4 has plenty of tense moments and the inventory/supply management alone keeps it from being a straight up action game. The Resident Evil series might have learned all of the wrong lessons from RE4 but the survival horror genre has been doing just fine. Some of the best survival horror games, such as Dead Space, would not exist without RE4. So you're just plain wrong. Genres fade and come back all the time. Horror games are better than ever these days, including the Resident Evil series. RE4 did far more good than harm for the gaming world. Expecting shit to stay the same forever leads to nothing but creative bankruptcy. Just be thankful that we ended up in a world with RE7 and RE2 Remake. Who knows what would have happened if the series failed to evolve and explore new ideas.
 

perkelson

Member
RE4 was good game on its own.

Problem is that RE5 and 6 went bonkers with actions and usually crap RE story was even more crap than usually with people punching Boulders lol.
 

regawdless

Banned
Disagree. I enjoyed RE4 and also RE5 in coop. Didn't like RE6 at all. But I don't care about all those games.

This path lead to the RE2 Remake. That's all that matters.
 

Nezzeroth

Member
RE4 is more Resident Evil than RE7. What people remember the most is RE2, not RE1, and that's when they started to make it more like a shooter.

RE7 is great if you're a fan of the horror genre but no game in the series has ever been that scary tbh. It's more its own thing rather than "going back to its roots".
 
Last edited:

TMLT

Member
Resi needed a shot in the arm at that time tbh. As great as REmake was the series as a whole kind of felt stale and irrelevant in the early/mid 00s. 4 being so drastically different revitalized things, much like how 7 did later.
 

kiphalfton

Member
You are right op. You will be quoted to death though since ADHD kids need their shooty bang OTS action that started with Gears of Evil 4.

Great game on its own but maybe the most destructive of all time as it basically killed a genre
.
Classic survival horror fans are the worst catered to fans in gaming, we now need the indie scene to pick up and produce proper fixed camera horror vs OTS or FP hide and seek crap.

What a stupid comment. Gears of War was directly influenced by RE4.

How is RE4 not scary/uspenseful? Pretty sure the first time people came across any of the mini bosses or bosses, they probably got their ass handed to them. The only reason the older games were "scarier" was because the controls sucked and you were afraid of dying as a result. Nothing separates RE4 from RE0 to RE3 besides the camera angle, which for whatever reason (just like RE7) people act like it makes or breaks the game. RE2 remake is no different, besides it taking 5 headshots to kill a zombie, which artificially adds to "ammo scarcity". Probably the same for RE3 remake (haven't played it yet).

Now RE5 and RE6, I understand the complaints, but I hardly hear people complaint about those two as much as RE4.
 

PooBone

Member
Going to third person was trash. RE4 turned the franchise into an action game for the next number of installments and they got progressively worse. Leading upto the cluster fuck that was RE6. Those design choices were all rooted in from the success of RE4.

Even RE3 remake while flawed was still better than RE4 as an RE installment.

Want proof? Compare how critically acclaimed RE2 remake and RE7 were. Even Remake went back to it's roots which every RE4 fan were suddenly making it out as the second coming and RE7 was a new step into exploring the psychological horror of the genre. Which what RE is meant to be by the way.... HORROR.

So yeah screw RE4. Good riddance to that history of Resident Evil.

Edit: Was RE4 a fun action game? Sure. Was it a good RE game? No way in hell.

THIS is what RE4 was meant to be before the design change. Biohazard 3.5:


Not a popular opinion, but I agree 100%.
 
Top Bottom