(Topic Creator)1 day ago#51
I feel like saying this, but when I played Fire Emblem on the GBA, I didn't feel alot for the game. IT was recently that I played a Fire Emblem spin-off on the Switch called Fire Emblem Warriors. That was where I finally found my groove with Fire Emblem. Just because a game is different from other games doesn't mean it's bad. Sometimes you connect with it, and sometimes you don't.
|
RE4 could have been 'different' as its own separate IP and not as part of Resident Evil.
Besides, we've already seen the correct way of how to add new ideas to Resident Evil without throwing the RE premise out the window. It's called Resident Evil: Outbreak.
RE4 and RE7 never tried to do anything new or different. All they did was chase trends. RE4 chasing the shooter trend and RE7 chasing the tryhard, gritty first person horror trend.
Besides, RE4 wasn't treated as a spin-off. It was treated as the next big numbered installment and replaced the RE premise with a shooter format. That's not the same as being a one time spin-off. That's outright gutting your franchise to turn it into something else in order to chase sales when you could have chased the sales from the shooter demographic by making a separate geared specifically towards shooter fans.
Just like how DMC was created since its gameplay was deemed unfit in Resident Evil and it appealed to fans of hack and slash style action games.
You don't take one franchise intended for a very specific demographic and try to make it a one size fits all, jack of all trades, master of none Frankenstein monster trying to appeal to as many demographics as possible
|
Suspiria posted...
Besides, we've already seen the correct way of how to add new ideas to Resident Evil without throwing the RE premise out the window.
That also includes stuff like charging melee, melee on command, evade on command, melee combo, guarding, walk-while-shooting, weapon-crafting and 4-player co-op. I don't have a problem with any of these but I keep hearing from other classic fanboys on how some of these "don't belong in an RE game".
|
Goldsickle posted...
Suspiria posted...
Besides, we've already seen the correct way of how to add new ideas to Resident Evil without throwing the RE premise out the window.
That also includes stuff like charging melee, melee on command, evade on command, melee combo, guarding, walk-while-shooting, weapon-crafting and 4-player co-op.
I don't have a problem with any of these but I keep hearing from other classic fanboys on how some of these "don't belong in an RE game".
Well, you have to look at how melee attacks work in that game. In the Outbreak games, melee attacks are used to get you out of a tight spot and make a quick escape. It's not really the same as the action games where melee attacks are capable of knocking down a group of enemies and even killing them if done enough times.
|
Discomancer posted...
Well, you have to look at how melee attacks work in that game. In the Outbreak games, melee attacks are used to get you out of a tight spot and make a quick escape. It's not really the same as the action games where melee attacks are capable of knocking down a group of enemies and even killing them if done enough times.
I am actually indifferent to the idea that kicks and punches can shatter a zombie's head. But you still have to consider certain melee actions that can deal real damage, such as neck snap or stabbing a knife through a heart (like the Lickers in RE5). Kicking/pushing a zombie off the ledge should be considered as well. In Outbreak, I can stomp a zombie to death and do it sometimes to save ammo.
|
Lord_Diablo13 posted...
I feel like saying this, but when I played Fire Emblem on the GBA, I didn't feel alot for the game. IT was recently that I played a Fire Emblem spin-off on the Switch called Fire Emblem Warriors. That was where I finally found my groove with Fire Emblem.
Just because a game is different from other games doesn't mean it's bad. Sometimes you connect with it, and sometimes you don't.
That just means you fell for the dipshit dumbing down that the gaming industry has been doing since the mid 2000s and kicked into overdrive during the PS3/360 era. If you don't like survival horror then you're not going to like Resident Evil, that should've always been the outlook. Changing the series to try and appeal to more people while thinking the dedicated fanbase you already built up and fell in love with the original idea is going to be fine with it is some major fucked up thinking. I know you guys love to Bars bait with these topics but every three days there's a new RE topic and it's time to set things straight: RE hasn't been good since the early 2000s because that was the last time it was properly Resident Evil. It went from being a series that always turned heads when a release was coming to forgettable dogshit that comes and goes. When a series comes and goes and is given little to no fanfare, that's when your experiment sucked. That's the confirmation. And then you have something like MHW becoming Capcom's golden goose and look at that: didn't change its formula drastically, remained what Monster Hunter is about, people took to it. Dark Souls is another example. You don't change what works unless your name is Castlevania. And brudda, RE4 is no Symphony of the Night.
As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you.
|
Goldsickle posted...
I don't have a problem with any of these but I keep hearing from other classic fanboys on how some of these "don't belong in an RE game".
Well, yeah. Melee should always be the absolute last resort and the most sub-optimal way to combat an enemy. The fucking enemies are either complete monsters that can rip your head off or zombies that you definitely don't want touching you period because they are diseased. I don't think you guys realize this but the whole idea of the original RE is that you're a normal person that's against things that are easily capable of ruining your shit. You're not Blade or some shit. It's where part of the 'survival' comes from in the genre. You're up against intimidating odds. Keep some amount of melee in RE, but using it may as well be prolonging the inevitable. No german suplexes or roundhouse/flip kicks, please.
As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you.
|
Suspiria posted...
Splatterhouse5 posted...
The OP is right in that Resident Evil 2's team admittedly and blatantly increased the action focus of the series. Only the world's most incompetent players had any difficulty finding a prodigious stockpile of ammo on a first playthrough.
And Savoots is right in that even the original Resident Evil had a larger action bent than the game it most closely copied, Alone in the Dark. Keeping with its Lovecraft theme, AitD has a number of enemies that can never die. In RE, on the other hand, you don't face anything that can't be gunned down. It punctuates every section with that favorite of Japanese game design, the boss fight.
Shinji Mikami posted...
show hidden quote(s)
Dude, even if that was their intention, they failed at it miserably. Because RE2, 3, & CV don't feel like action games or third person shooter games. That wasn't until RE4 that became true.
And if they wanted action THAT badly, that's why you make a separate IP specifically for that. Worked just fine for Devil May Cry after all.
Dude, if RE4 was sooooooooooooooooo bad then why did it get so many GOTY awards, so criticality acclaimed to this day, people with your views are in the very much minority?
3DS Friend Code: 4914-3099-5529
|
Synbios459 posted...
Suspiria posted...
Splatterhouse5 posted...
show hidden quote(s)
Dude, even if that was their intention, they failed at it miserably. Because RE2, 3, & CV don't feel like action games or third person shooter games. That wasn't until RE4 that became true.
And if they wanted action THAT badly, that's why you make a separate IP specifically for that. Worked just fine for Devil May Cry after all.
Dude, if RE4 was sooooooooooooooooo bad then why did it get so many GOTY awards, so criticality acclaimed to this day, people with your views are in the very much minority?
Ha Game of the Year awards mean nothing. MGS4 got some of those too despite being a glorified interactive movie. GTAIV got those as well despite removing a lot of things that were fun about the earlier GTA games, having shitty driving physics, and a narrative taking itself waaaaay too seriously. Hell, Overwatch won those despite basically just being Team Fortress 2 - Waifu Edition. And I say that as someone who plays the game. Praise and/or Game of the Year awards only carry as much weight as the merits they're built on. If they're very weak, poorly justified merits that demonstrate a lack of understanding about a particular franchise, genre, etc.,\ and involve downplaying or flat out ignoring a game's flaws, then no, they mean nothing. Kind of like how Skyrim got a bunch of GOTY awards primarily from people who got into Elder Scrolls through Skyrim or Oblivion. People who were ignorant to how much Skyrim stripped down and dumbed down the Elder Scrolls format.
|
TC's right. RE2 was reworked to be more cinematic.
|
EverDownward posted...
TC's right. RE2 was reworked to be more cinematic.
It expanded the storytelling, sure. But it didn't go over the top Hollywood action like some buffoons are trying to falsely proclaim.
|
Suspiria posted...
EverDownward posted...
TC's right. RE2 was reworked to be more cinematic.
It expanded the storytelling, sure. But it didn't go over the top Hollywood action like some buffoons are trying to falsely proclaim.
No, it didn't. But it's still considerably more action oriented than the first game.
|
EverDownward posted...
Suspiria posted...
EverDownward posted...
show hidden quote(s)
It expanded the storytelling, sure. But it didn't go over the top Hollywood action like some buffoons are trying to falsely proclaim.
No, it didn't. But it's still considerably more action oriented than the first game.
Yes, it did expand the storytelling. And no, it is not 'considerably more action oriented' than the first game. Don't be ridiculous.
|
So many misinformed opinions. Pretty funny.
"Just remember ALL CAPS when you spell the man name!" - MF DOOM
|
The extent of the lies of the anti-RE4 zealotry is uncanny. Random nobodies online try to deny Shinji Mikami, only the series creator, displaying their mental institution worthy state of delusion. Now Resident Evil 2, one of the easiest games ever made, was somehow more challenging than RE4. Please. Surviving for five minutes in that first area with the ganado mob was more challenging than the entirety of 2. As for puzzles, yes, RE4's are very easy. RE2's are somehow easier, to the point where they barely exist beyond that library shelf moving moment. Everything else is 'insert object here'. That's not a puzzle. If you want to talk puzzles vs 4, at least talk puzzles concerning a title that has them. Any other RE would've been a credible argument vs 4 on the puzzling aspect. 3, in particular, features several great ones. Nope. They bring up the one RE title almost without them. Vegeta1000 posted...
Because I'm not someone that's stuck in 1996. That shit you want back is never coming back. Fixed camera angles, slow ass zombies, limited saves, and fetch quests is not what the series is about. Outdated gameplay mechanics are gonna get tossed aside eventually.
Give someone today Guardian Heroes, a game from 1996, and they'll probably be surprised that a game that fluid, that controls so perfectly and is such a blast to play, is so old. It feels as fresh in 2018 as it did in 1996. It's a game where gameplay is king. In this sense, even I can be considered someone who would wish to have 1996 back. It's very possible to go play a game from 1996 today and be amazed. Resident Evil is clearly not one such case. It used cinematic camera angles to the detriment of gameplay. It felt clunky then, let alone now. In that sense, I feel like you hit the nail on the head via the bolded portion. To desire for archaic conventions to remain the same forever shows how little one understands of game design.
#1 gaming dream? Online-enabled rerelease of Power Stone/Power Stone 2! Standing for all I cherish about video games.
|
Can you get out of this little 'creator knows all and is infallible!' mindset of yours? Yes, it is in fact possible not only for a creator of a property to lose sight with what made it great in the first place, but it's also possible for the fans themselves to have a better grasp on it than the creator.
Case in point: Sonic Mania
Sonic Team and Sega had churned out shitty game after shitty game. And it finally took people quite literally known for doing fan hacks of Sonic games to finally put out a respectable Sonic game after years of mediocrity.
Besides, Mikami has his share of stupid mistakes. He was the guy who pushed for NIntendo exclusivity for Resident Evil in the first place which ended up hurting the series' sales.
I mean why would you take a franchise that gained the majority of its popularity and fanbase on PlayStation and put its exclusively on a Nintendo system at a time when Nintendo systems, aside from the odd exception, didn't fare well in terms of third party games selling well.
Hell, Fatal Frame is stuck in that same rut right now.
I give Mikami all the credit he deserves for the good he did with the series. However, he also deserves all the criticism he gets for the glaring mistakes he made with the series.
Just because you created a franchise doesn't mean you've earned a Get Out of Jail free pass for making bad decisions with said franchise.
It's also hilarious seeing the 'waah outdated' brigade bashing the old games yet at the same time turning around and making all sorts of excuses to defend RE4's clunky design as a TPS game when you compare it to the far superior The Suffering.
And stop trying to doll up the 'puzzles' in RE4. You're just embarrassing yourself. RE4 has quality in its puzzles the same way that Madden has quality in its car racing mechanics.
And you still have fuck all grasp on the game design of Resident Evil and continue bashing it for things it's not supposed to even be focusing on.
|
Suspiria posted...
Can you get out of this little 'creator knows all and is infallible!' mindset of yours?
It's not that the "creators are infallible". It's "don't act like you are better than the creators". Especially when you know nothing of game development. And again, you are bringing up Sonic Mania, because it was developed by a fan, in a desperate attempt to indirectly validate your own words. The big difference between you and Christian Whitehead is that he's a full-fledged game developer who has created his own game engine. You're just a s***poster who has never been in game development. Companies like Sega and Capcom would be willing to entrust their IP to people like him but not to ignorant Luddites like yourself. So keep bringing up Sonic Mania all you want, in the end, you're still just a forum troll.
|
I mean seriously...here's how it goes here:
RE4 fanboys: Uuuuugh OMG fucking nostalgia blinded fanboys! The old games are SO dated and clunky and bad! Why do you keep latching onto 1996 and being stuck in the past!
Other person: Uh, dude RE4 is a pretty clunky third person shooter. Let's not pretend like its gameplay design isn't dated compared to TPS games from back in that time period.
RE4 fanboys: B-b-b-b-but that's different! The camera and controls in RE4 are intentionally designed that way!
Other person: And the same can't be said for the games before RE4!
RE4 fanboys: That's different! The old games are stale and dated! RE4 is one of the best shooters ever made!
Seriously, that's all it ever comes down to. These same people hypocritically cry about the old games being clunky and dated yet turn around and make all sorts of excuses to justify RE4's clunkiness as a TPS game when compared to the TPS games we saw back then.
The Suffering doesn't use tank controls. It doesn't take away the player's ability to move and shoot simultaneously. It allows full camera control. It has aiming mapped to the right stick like it should be. And it easily bests RE4 in terms of delivering an immersive horror atmosphere.
So the 'b-b-b-but it's intentionally made that way!' defense for RE4's clunky game design carries no merit.
In fact, the 'clunkiness' is worse in RE4 than it is in the old games because the older games are, as has been repeatedly explained to the hard headed people on this board, an evolution on point and click games of that time period. It made perfect sense for those games to have the type of controls, combat, and camera that they did.
RE4 is a TPS game. A game concept based on frenetic gameplay. It has no excuse to have such slow and clunky controls and camera designs.
Again, The Suffering adheres to the standard of how TPS games are supposed to be made, and it doesn't forget to bring the horror atmosphere with its music, its creature design, its lore, locales, etc.
So what's RE4's excuse when you have another example of a horror shooter that does the job better without any of the so called 'intentionally designed' handicaps that RE4 presents?
|
Suspiria posted...
a merchant in the police station selling items.
Wait- there was a SHOP in this game? Who ever heard of a Resident Evil game with a shop in it? Oh that's right, this wasn't really a Resident Evil game except in name (and even that was wrong)....
|
Suspiria posted...
Let's not pretend like its gameplay design isn't dated compared to TPS games from back in that time period.
It wasn't deemed "dated" yet at the time it was released (2005). You could find other games that have more functional 3rd person control scheme during that time period but the general public hasn't put up specific standards yet. That's why it "got away" with such a control scheme. I have made this clear to you many, many times but you don't have a response for this. Bringing up RE4's control scheme is really plain desperation.
|
http://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/179835-resident-evil-2-remake/75900636And the entirety of that topic is why you do not respond to Goldsickle's inane corporate shill shitposting. He's basically the dollar store version of Savott.
|
Suspiria posted...
And the entirety of that topic is why you do not respond to Goldsickle's
And you said it yourself:  If someone fails to respond, it means they have no counterargument. By your logic, I am good at arguing. So infuriating that I was able to tear apart your favorite gimmick response, Luddite?
|
Suspiria posted...
EverDownward posted...
Suspiria posted...
show hidden quote(s)
No, it didn't. But it's still considerably more action oriented than the first game.
Yes, it did expand the storytelling. And no, it is not 'considerably more action oriented' than the first game. Don't be ridiculous.
I meant "no, it didn't" as an agreeing to your comment on the game not being 'over the top Hollywood action.' That didn't happen until...well, the intro of Code Veronica is pretty goddamn action packed, but game wise it'd be RE4. But yes, yes it is more action oriented. Tone, atmosphere, the amount of ammo you have, the sort of weapons you can find, the story. It plays out more like a sci fi action tale than the suspenseful, mystery laden opus of the original game. There's no mysterious mansion out in the middle of the woods to tip toe through this time, now it's a city in chaos and peril. Action fits right in this time. That's not to say that it's not a horror game, because it is. It's way more of a horror game than RE3, or any later entry (save for REmake). But I digress.
|
shiva posted...
Now Resident Evil 2, one of the easiest games ever made, was somehow more challenging than RE4. Please. Surviving for five minutes in that first area with the ganado mob was more challenging than the entirety of 2.
There is zero part in RE4 where the game seems remotely difficult. It's so fucking on-rails it's ridiculous. I have no idea how anyone could ever die more than three times in that game.
As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you.
|
(Topic Creator)21 hours ago#75
TheCurseX2 posted...
Lord_Diablo13 posted...
I feel like saying this, but when I played Fire Emblem on the GBA, I didn't feel alot for the game. IT was recently that I played a Fire Emblem spin-off on the Switch called Fire Emblem Warriors. That was where I finally found my groove with Fire Emblem.
Just because a game is different from other games doesn't mean it's bad. Sometimes you connect with it, and sometimes you don't.
That just means you fell for the dipshit dumbing down that the gaming industry has been doing since the mid 2000s and kicked into overdrive during the PS3/360 era.
If you don't like survival horror then you're not going to like Resident Evil, that should've always been the outlook. Changing the series to try and appeal to more people while thinking the dedicated fanbase you already built up and fell in love with the original idea is going to be fine with it is some major fucked up thinking.
I know you guys love to Bars bait with these topics but every three days there's a new RE topic and it's time to set things straight: RE hasn't been good since the early 2000s because that was the last time it was properly Resident Evil. It went from being a series that always turned heads when a release was coming to forgettable dogshit that comes and goes. When a series comes and goes and is given little to no fanfare, that's when your experiment sucked. That's the confirmation.
And then you have something like MHW becoming Capcom's golden goose and look at that: didn't change its formula drastically, remained what Monster Hunter is about, people took to it. Dark Souls is another example.
You don't change what works unless your name is Castlevania.
And brudda, RE4 is no Symphony of the Night.
And this is why I think gamers need to follow William Shatner's advice and GET A LIFE! I mean, for crying out loud, it's just Video Games. I mean, the way some people act over a simple hobby, it's as if someone kicked their favorite puppy down the street, turning a favorite past time into a colossal waste of time. There's a whole world out there just waiting to be filled, even if it has gone to hell. Hell, the reason why I'm still optimistic because I'm proud of the people protesting the wrongs of the world. So for goodness sake, don't let Video Games take control of you, because judging by the amount of obsession by some fans, it's starting to.
|
TheCurseX2 posted...
That just means you fell for the dipshit dumbing down that the gaming industry has been doing since the mid 2000s and kicked into overdrive during the PS3/360 era.
If you don't like survival horror then you're not going to like Resident Evil, that should've always been the outlook. Changing the series to try and appeal to more people while thinking the dedicated fanbase you already built up and fell in love with the original idea is going to be fine with it is some major fucked up thinking.
I know you guys love to Bars bait with these topics but every three days there's a new RE topic and it's time to set things straight: RE hasn't been good since the early 2000s because that was the last time it was properly Resident Evil. It went from being a series that always turned heads when a release was coming to forgettable dogshit that comes and goes. When a series comes and goes and is given little to no fanfare, that's when your experiment sucked. That's the confirmation.
And then you have something like MHW becoming Capcom's golden goose and look at that: didn't change its formula drastically, remained what Monster Hunter is about, people took to it. Dark Souls is another example.
You don't change what works unless your name is Castlevania.
And brudda, RE4 is no Symphony of the Night.
Agreed 100% TheCurseX2 posted...
shiva posted...
Now Resident Evil 2, one of the easiest games ever made, was somehow more challenging than RE4. Please. Surviving for five minutes in that first area with the ganado mob was more challenging than the entirety of 2.
There is zero part in RE4 where the game seems remotely difficult. It's so fucking on-rails it's ridiculous. I have no idea how anyone could ever die more than three times in that game.
"Press/mash button to not die" QTEs. Such compelling gameplay design...
|
"Hold R1, press X, everything is automated."
Canon: the juvenile's way of looking at fiction.
|
TheCurseX2 posted...
There is zero part in RE4 where the game seems remotely difficult
You can stop trying to act cool. You probably died when you got to the village.
It's so fucking on-rails it's ridiculous. I have no idea how anyone could ever die more than three times in that game.
How in the hell is RE4 on-rails? You don't know what that statement means. RE4 has plenty of exploration and even has some optional areas. Do you trolls even try?
"Just remember ALL CAPS when you spell the man name!" - MF DOOM
|
Lord_Diablo13 posted...
There's a whole world out there just waiting to be filled, even if it has gone to hell. Hell, the reason why I'm still optimistic because I'm proud of the people protesting the wrongs of the world. So for goodness sake, don't let Video Games take control of you, because judging by the amount of obsession by some fans, it's starting to.
Lmao, what the fuck is this midlife crisis tier rant about? We're on a video game forum on a video game centric site, of course we're going to talk about it and criticize things within it. Sorry if telling you that Resident Evil hasn't been Resident Evil for awhile but here's the facts: the RE games that worked under the old school, classic, by-the-book RE formula are hailed as classics and are fondly remembered. The RE games that have since taken their inspiration from RE4 are pigfeed by comparison. Oh yeah, who could forget such classics like RE6 and Operation Raccoon City. LOL You can like it all you want but there's no denying that RE4 is where the decline began. Vegeta1000 posted...
You probably died when you got to the village.
The only feasible way you can die in that section is if Dr. Salvador gets you which you'd have to be genuinely stupid to let happen. It's pretty great how you mention "the village" and acting like they didn't repeat that same fucking sequence over and over again. Oh wow, an area with a lot of enemies! That's some compelling gameplay! Thank God we slaughtered the series' identity so it can be a mediocre game with good graphics. Vegeta1000 posted...
RE4 has plenty of exploration and even has some optional areas
LOL That's all I will say. If RE4 has exploration, House of the Dead 2 could be Skyrim.
As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you.
|
TheCurseX2 posted...
Lord_Diablo13 posted...
There's a whole world out there just waiting to be filled, even if it has gone to hell. Hell, the reason why I'm still optimistic because I'm proud of the people protesting the wrongs of the world. So for goodness sake, don't let Video Games take control of you, because judging by the amount of obsession by some fans, it's starting to.
Lmao, what the fuck is this midlife crisis tier rant about? We're on a video game forum on a video game centric site, of course we're going to talk about it and criticize things within it. Sorry if telling you that Resident Evil hasn't been Resident Evil for awhile but here's the facts: the RE games that worked under the old school, classic, by-the-book RE formula are hailed as classics and are fondly remembered. The RE games that have since taken their inspiration from RE4 are pigfeed by comparison. Oh yeah, who could forget such classics like RE6 and Operation Raccoon City. LOL
You can like it all you want but there's no denying that RE4 is where the decline began
You can deny that RE4 was " the start of the decline" by the fact that it's regarded as one of the best of the series, up there with REMAKE and RE2 by the majority of RE fans. If anything, RE5 is when the decline started. At best people felt mixed about it.
|
RE4 has focus on exploration the same way Forza has focus on platforming.
|
linkin80 posted...
TheCurseX2 posted...
Lord_Diablo13 posted...
show hidden quote(s)
Lmao, what the fuck is this midlife crisis tier rant about? We're on a video game forum on a video game centric site, of course we're going to talk about it and criticize things within it. Sorry if telling you that Resident Evil hasn't been Resident Evil for awhile but here's the facts: the RE games that worked under the old school, classic, by-the-book RE formula are hailed as classics and are fondly remembered. The RE games that have since taken their inspiration from RE4 are pigfeed by comparison. Oh yeah, who could forget such classics like RE6 and Operation Raccoon City. LOL
You can like it all you want but there's no denying that RE4 is where the decline began
You can deny that RE4 was " the start of the decline" by the fact that it's regarded as one of the best of the series, up there with REMAKE and RE2 by the majority of RE fans. If anything, RE5 is when the decline started. At best people felt mixed about it.
Except it's not the best in the series because it doesn't even try to be a part of the series. It just wears the name and opts to be a shooter. And you can't sit there blaming RE5 for being actiony while giving RE4 a free pass when they have the same fucking core game design. No, RE4 not having co-op doesn't change the fact the emphasis of the gameplay is still on roundhouse kicking, shooting, suplexing, and QTEing the hell out of everything.
|
Legends Kuja posted...
Honestly, he kinda deserves it if he's going to keep spouting his opinion like it's the only correct one.
And who said I'm the only one who has this opinion? There are others who recognize the newer games for failing to live up to the RE name. Of course NGG likes to pretend those people don't exist and brush them off as 'just a minority of nostalgia blinded haters' because of the board's fanaticism towards RE4, but they still exist all the same.
|
Suspiria posted...
And who said I'm the only one who has this opinion?
There are others who recognize the newer games for failing to live up to the RE name.
A bunch of people believing that the earth is flat doesn't validate that point of view.
|
(Topic Creator)10 hours ago#85
Suspiria posted...
Legends Kuja posted...
Honestly, he kinda deserves it if he's going to keep spouting his opinion like it's the only correct one.
And who said I'm the only one who has this opinion?
There are others who recognize the newer games for failing to live up to the RE name.
Of course NGG likes to pretend those people don't exist and brush them off as 'just a minority of nostalgia blinded haters' because of the board's fanaticism towards RE4, but they still exist all the same.
Careful. You may jinx it with RE2Remake being like RE4/RE:R
|
Lmao, remember that time in RE2 when you walked into what you thought was another room in a police station only to be met by a fucking zombie cop using a gigantic turret gattling gun maniacally? Oh, that didn't happen because that'd be stupid as shit. But guess which game does have that happen, only replace 'zombie cop' with 'chanting robed cultist.'
As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you.
|
(Topic Creator)10 hours ago#87
TheCurseX2 posted...
Lmao, remember that time in RE2 when you walked into what you thought was another room in a police station only to be met by a fucking zombie cop using a gigantic turret gattling gun maniacally?
Oh, that didn't happen because that'd be stupid as shit. But guess which game does have that happen, only replace 'zombie cop' with 'chanting robed cultist.'
Careful. Capcom may add that in the RE2Remake.
|
@LaManoNeraIILaManoNeraII posted...
And none of them are "survival horror" either because that's just a buzzword Capcom created to market the original RE. Same BS Konami used for MGS being a "tactical espionage action"
Other genres made up by Capcom: Gothic Horror Zombie Paradise Action Free Running RPG Stylish High Action Panic Horror Survival Gun Shooting Warring States Survival Action Without using Google, can you guess which games uses these genre description?
|
I've zero hope for the RE2 Remake, I'm keeping the most low of expectations because it'll probably suck due to reasons that RE4 was the genesis of. Bars may have the occasional fucked opinion like Vigilante 8 > Twisted Metal, but when it comes to RE4 being the downfall of RE he's completely correct.
As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you.
|
Gothic Horror/Fiction is a "made up genre" now. When you reach so far that your shoulder dislocates. Horace Walpole would, and should, come haunt your house for saying such a stupid thing.
As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you.
|
Suspiria posted...
linkin80 posted...
TheCurseX2 posted...
show hidden quote(s)
You can deny that RE4 was " the start of the decline" by the fact that it's regarded as one of the best of the series, up there with REMAKE and RE2 by the majority of RE fans. If anything, RE5 is when the decline started. At best people felt mixed about it.
Except it's not the best in the series because it doesn't even try to be a part of the series. It just wears the name and opts to be a shooter.
And you can't sit there blaming RE5 for being actiony while giving RE4 a free pass when they have the same fucking core game design. No, RE4 not having co-op doesn't change the fact the emphasis of the gameplay is still on roundhouse kicking, shooting, suplexing, and QTEing the hell out of everything.
I said it's one of the better games in the series, along with REMAKE and RE2, not the best. I also don't agree with the thinking that because RE4 was different and more action focused that we blame the crappier entries that came after all on RE4, just because RE4 is what changed the formula. RE4 could have been what it was and they could have easily decided to take the best of the originals and RE4 to make RE5 and 6. But they decided to double down on the action part instead.
|
TheCurseX2 posted...
Gothic Horror/Fiction is a "made up genre" now.
Would make sense if it was a movie or something. As a video game genre, it feels made up. What makes "Gothic Horror" different than "Survival Horror" or "Panic Horror"? Even if you cherry-picked Gothic Horror, it won't change that all the other random "genres" are made up.
|
I wonder how many alts Bars has. TheCurseX2 posted...
The only feasible way you can die in that section is if Dr. Salvador gets you which you'd have to be genuinely stupid to let happen. It's pretty great how you mention "the village" and acting like they didn't repeat that same fucking sequence over and over again. Oh wow, an area with a lot of enemies! That's some compelling gameplay! Thank God we slaughtered the series' identity so it can be a mediocre game with good graphics.
Because mowing down slow ass zombies with auto aim was sooooooooooooooo much harder (*sarcasm*)! If you really think every area of the village is like that then you either didn't play the game or is just a terrible troll. Classic RE purist are flat out pathetic. TheCurseX2 posted...
LOL
That's all I will say.
If RE4 has exploration, House of the Dead 2 could be Skyrim.
So in otherwords, you have no counterargument? Thought as much.
"Just remember ALL CAPS when you spell the man name!" - MF DOOM
|
Vegeta1000 posted...
Because mowing down slow ass zombies with auto aim was sooooooooooooooo much harder
This really. None of the Luddites are ever able to give any logical reasons on how the auto-aim mechanic is "better" for horror, challenge or tension, when compared to actually needing to manually land shots and make your ammo count. As seen in Operation Raccoon City or the Chronicles games, Capcom has warmed up to ideas like hitting Birkin in the giant eyeball to stun him, Mr. X's trench coat being bulletproof so you can only damage him with head shots or how shooting a Tyrant in the exposed heart can increase damage. It's very likely for Capcom to implement pinpoint aiming for the RE2 remake.
|
Goldsickle posted...
Vegeta1000 posted...
Because mowing down slow ass zombies with auto aim was sooooooooooooooo much harder
This really.
None of the Luddites are ever able to give any logical reasons on how the auto-aim mechanic is "better" for horror, challenge or tension, when compared to actually needing to manually land shots and make your ammo count.
As seen in Operation Raccoon City or the Chronicles games, Capcom has warmed up to ideas like hitting Birkin in the giant eyeball to stun him, Mr. X's trench coat being bulletproof so you can only damage him with head shots or how shooting a Tyrant in the exposed heart can increase damage.
It's very likely for Capcom to implement pinpoint aiming for the RE2 remake.
Yeah, these clowns don't realize that in RE4 you can't just blindly shoot at enemies like you can in the Pre-RE4 games. You got enemies coming in all directions and you gotta decide where to hit them at. Some enemies are easier to deal with shooting them in the head while others might be easier shooting them in the arm or leg. Then some enemies are shielded so you have to find a weak spot on their body. RE4 enemies are very aggressive so you gotta think fast especially when you have to deal with a bunch of enemies at one time. In old-school RE, there wasn't any real strategy in taking zombies down since as long as you had some distant they couldn't get near you. Then if you had a shotgun, you just had to aim up and boom they're dead.
"Just remember ALL CAPS when you spell the man name!" - MF DOOM
|
Vegeta1000 posted...
Yeah, these clowns don't realize that in RE4 you can't just blindly shoot at enemies like you can in the Pre-RE4 games.
It's not just about shooting, it's about how you can't stop time to reload, you can't just press X at every single door to reset enemy position or how performing actions like turning cranks occurs in real-time, leaving you vulnerable. And as the series progress, the game takes away more invincibility from you, like prompting you to heal in real time (which can be interrupted as of Revelations 2 and 7) or how you are vulnerable while climbing ladders. In classic RE, I can just run past enemies, press X at a the nearest door or ladder to completely bypass combat and just interact with puzzles that plays out in a cutscene, so enemies can't interrupt you when you're unlocking padlocks, turning cranks or inserting medals.
|
linkin80 posted...
Suspiria posted...
linkin80 posted...
show hidden quote(s)
Except it's not the best in the series because it doesn't even try to be a part of the series. It just wears the name and opts to be a shooter.
And you can't sit there blaming RE5 for being actiony while giving RE4 a free pass when they have the same fucking core game design. No, RE4 not having co-op doesn't change the fact the emphasis of the gameplay is still on roundhouse kicking, shooting, suplexing, and QTEing the hell out of everything.
I said it's one of the better games in the series, along with REMAKE and RE2, not the best. I also don't agree with the thinking that because RE4 was different and more action focused that we blame the crappier entries that came after all on RE4, just because RE4 is what changed the formula. RE4 could have been what it was and they could have easily decided to take the best of the originals and RE4 to make RE5 and 6. But they decided to double down on the action part instead.
You can't be the best in the series if you don't even try to be a part of the series. RE4 is not a Resident Evil game. And you don't blame RE5 or 6 for something RE4 started. It's nonsense to do so.
|
Vegeta1000 posted...
Because mowing down slow ass zombies with auto aim was sooooooooooooooo much harder
Ah, there's the problem. You're making the mistake of focusing on the combat in a franchise where combat isn't supposed to be the focal point of the gameplay. Again. That's a really bad habit with this board. Combat is all you guys ever focus on when it comes to Resident Evil. And it's not about mere difficulty either. It's about being a Resident Evil game. And being a TPS game is not being Resident Evil regardless of what mental gymnastics you employ to proclaim they're not TPS games when they very clearly are. And stop criticizing the old games for not focusing on something that isn't supposed to be the focal point of the gameplay. Complaining about lack of tactical combat in Resident Evil is like complaining about the lack of realistic driving in Mario Kart. If you want more combat mechanics THAT much, why not go play a different franchise geared toward that sort of thing?
|
And regardless of whether or not Capcom made up the term 'survival horror' as a marketing gimmick or whatever, it's an official genre name now whether you like it or not. So people are going to continue to use it. People will just have to get used to it.
|
(Topic Creator)7 hours ago#100
Suspiria posted...
And regardless of whether or not Capcom made up the term 'survival horror' as a marketing gimmick or whatever, it's an official genre name now whether you like it or not. So people are going to continue to use it. People will just have to get used to it.
Survival Horror existed long before Resident Evil. One early example is Alone in the Dark.
|
Goldsickle is actually kind of annoying. When I talk about RE on GameFAQs, he keeps replying with utter nonsense. The series is basically dead now, and we just have to accept it.
ReplyDelete