Resident Evil 4 Why RE4 Changed The Series (A Historical Perspective and Argument)

[Deleted member 21244]

Then you clearly don't know how to read. I'm over it, but there's clearly no helping you, so that's good to know for future reference.

I know how to read, but I simply had that impression on your post, and I'm currently having it now, since you are continuing to insulting me by restarting that conversation, That for me was left behind...
Now let's all go onward and forget about this...

 

[Turo602]

I know how to read, but I simply had that impression on your post, and I'm currently having it now, since you are continuing to insulting me by restarting that conversation, That for me was left behind...
Now let's all go onward and forget about this...

You clearly don't because you've demonstrated time and time again that you don't know what people are actually saying which is evident in these 3 pages where you've constantly slandered me over an "impression" you got, yet could never quote where I said such things. You're clearly incapable of talking like an adult if that's how you react to simple conversation. Literally, no one has been as upset or as dramatic as you. If you want to forget that and not take any responsibility for your behavior, then stop crying over being insulted like you're innocent. I have nothing more to say to you if you're gonna continue being unreasonable.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

I don't have to respect your opinion if I don't think it's a particularly strong argument. Especially when you use reviewers as a source rather than your own objective reasoning which shows a lack of confidence in your own opinion or knowledge of what you're talking about.

It's also ironic that you keep throwing the word fanboy around when you blindly refuse to see any flaw in the game.

Learn how to formulate better arguments and form stronger opinions before you have childish outbursts on the internet over someone stating their opinions. The problem isn't that I think my opinions are the absolute truth. I can back my opinions because I know what I'm talking about, you just haven't done a good job of justifying your point of view or counter arguing my points. If you honestly still think all opinions are valid just because everyone is entitled to one, then you have a lot of learning to do.

Clearly not. Resident Evil 4 did indeed pave the way for RE5 and RE6. Which led Capcom themselves to do another soft reboot and "take the series back" with RE7. Resident Evil is a survival horror franchise. Any other direction that deviates away from its very genre would in turn lose the very thing that made it what it was. Hence, Capcom wouldn't feel the need to go back to survival horror.

Also, Resident Evil 4 is not a survival horror game. While it may still retain some of the necessary tropes, they are completely altered to make for a easier and linear experience where you shoot a bunch of enemies with all sorts of weapons that you can upgrade. It may have some elements of survival horror, but it is most definitely an action game, as was RE5 and RE6. With RE5 being well regarded as an action game despite Capcom having stated that they were indeed trying to make a survival horror game, which we all know was just by copying RE4.

I'd also like to know in what way did RE4 build on the formula created by the original Resident Evil? I'll give you the over the shoulder perspective, sure. But in what way is it actually improving on the design when it's very clearly doing away with it by dumbing it down for a much more linear experience to be more accessible and friendly to newcomers?

I fail to see how any of this isn't true. But you're more than welcome to try to tell me otherwise.



I do apologize if I didn't elaborate enough on my side, though I was simply trying to give you the opportunity to interject and this is a pretty tired topic for me already. But I'm sure you can find more than enough posts about my thoughts on RE4 around this forum. But as much as I would like to regurgitate the same thing I've been saying for years about RE4 to you, I honestly don't think it's worth my time given your attitude. You're clearly not open to hearing my reasoning or willing to take the time to understand what I'm saying since you're just gonna write me off as a fanboy anyway because if reviewers loved it, then we should too.

The Evil Within is not a third-person shooter. It's a third-person survival horror game. Actually understand what you're reading before commenting.

Says the guy who hasn't been able to a grasp a single thing that's been discussed here, but piggybacks off of KennedyKiller's posts despite not being able to construct a single coherent argument, yet thinks his praise is worth a damn. Quote all of this while you're at it.

Let KennedyKiller do your talking.

Here the quotes you wanted, i can only read that you want to impose your opinion while mine was not even expressable... Or at least this was my impression

I know what was talking about in here but I simply didn't share what they say and so I counter argued but you didn't seems to appreciate it...

Also just look at the new post you made they were simply put there to continue the conversation while you could have just stopped but instead you didn t get over it and continue to insult...
If you had something to say go in private message but stop here since i didn't want to listen this things hear anymore...

 

[Turo602]

Here the quotes you wanted, i can only read that you want to impose your opinion while mine was not even expressable... Or at least this was my impression

I know what was talking about in here but I simply didn't share what they say and so I counter argued but you didn't seems to appreciate it...

Also just look at the new post you made they were simply put there to continue the conversation while you could have just stopped but instead you didn t get over it and continue to insult...
If you had something to say go in private message but stop here since i didn't want to listen this things hear anymore...

Nowhere does it state that no one is allowed to express their opinions or that mine is the truth and that is even stated and KennedyKiller even elaborated to you and you agreed, yet still kept attacking me for it. Do you not know how arguments work? That's a genuine question. Because you seem to take the most basic advice like a personal attack when any teacher would tell you that your opinion or argument is weak when backed by someone else's review. And don't act innocent either, each of those responses was that way for a reason. You slandered me, insinuated everyone who wasn't a reviewer is just a fanboy, you've called me a fanboy, and you've insulted me.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

Nowhere does it state that no one is allowed to express their opinions or that mine is the truth and that is even stated and KennedyKiller even elaborated to you and you agreed, yet still kept attacking me for it. Do you not know how arguments work? That's a genuine question. Because you seem to take the most basic advice like a personal attack when any teacher would tell you that your opinion or argument is weak when backed by someone else's review. And don't act innocent either, each of those responses was that way for a reason. You slandered me, insinuated everyone who wasn't a reviewer is just a fanboy, you've called me a fanboy, and you've insulted me.

I didn't called you fanboy
Probably you didn't understand what I was trying to say...
you say that reviewer can't say what is right or wrong because they review game they didn't care about, so I responde by saying that review are more specialized than fanboy on making reviewer, it wasn't an offense to you but it was a prise to the reviewer since they make review whitout being blinded by the fact of being eccesively attached to a series, and that s why I used the world fanboy, but it wasn't referred to you but referred to people in general who are excessive fan of some re game and looked every other resident evil game like **** only because it's not like they wanted it to be... But that wasn't an offense to you, or to all the people who love re in positive way but are not review...

Also I teked into account the review to let you understand the fact that the game was well received by the world opinion and that many of them regard Re 4 as a true resident evil game... I don't understand why you were bothered so much when I take the review in, and you insulted me by telling me that I need other source to back up my statement because I am uncapable of making them, when you yourself backed up your own opinion by saying that the world doesn't recognize re 4 as survival horror, and I don't understand why you say that they can't express right or wrong feedback on a series game since most of them had played resident evil since its first release on 1996, but the difference that I was saying is that they are specialized in reviewing the game and don't act like fanboy that just give **** on the game because it doesn't have the fixed camera for example, just an example

Also i don't see that things you write as advice but more like some insulte

 

[La Femme Fatale]

Time to take a chill pill, friends.

 

[KevinStriker]

Well, we almost had a real discussion on Page 3.

 

[Turo602]

I didn't called you fanboy
Probably you didn't understand what I was trying to say...
you say that reviewer can't say what is right or wrong because they review game they didn't care about, so I responde by saying that review are more specialized than fanboy on making reviewer, it wasn't an offense to you but it was a prise to the reviewer since they make review whitout being blinded by the fact of being eccesively attached to a series, and that s why I used the world fanboy, but it wasn't referred to you but referred to people in general who are excessive fan of some re game and looked every other resident evil game like **** only because it's not like they wanted it to be... But that wasn't an offense to you, or to all the people who love re in positive way but are not review...

Also I teked into account the review to let you understand the fact that the game was well received by the world opinion and that many of them regard Re 4 as a true resident evil game... I don't understand why you were bothered so much when I take the review in, and you insulted me by telling me that I need other source to back up my statement because I am uncapable of making them, when you yourself backed up your own opinion by saying that the world doesn't recognize re 4 as survival horror, and I don't understand why you say that they can't express right or wrong feedback on a series game since most of them had played resident evil since its first release on 1996, but the difference that I was saying is that they are specialized in reviewing the game and don't act like fanboy that just give **** on the game because it doesn't have the fixed camera for example, just an example

Also i don't see that things you write as advice but more like some insulte

It insinuates that no one other than reviewers are capable of judging games and you did call me a fanboy. But we're both adults, no need to harp on it. We both said things, and we can move on. The point I'm making is, whenever you back your opinion with someone else's opinion like a review or "general opinion," it is no longer a valid argument. You're not saying anything about the game by telling someone that lots of people like something. That is not how you persuade people or gain any credibility.

A reviewer isn't more knowledgeable than anybody else about anything. And while I understand your logic, it's still not a very sound argument. Though, I do agree that people who do write off RE4 as a terrible game simply because it's not survival horror are wrong, which is why I stated that Resident Evil 4 was a great game, just that it isn't a great Resident Evil game. There's a very clear distinction. So at least we can find some middle ground here.

However, a reviewer's job isn't to analyze the series and tell fans whether it's faithful or not to previous entries. They're reviewing it based on its own merits, which is why even Resident Evil 5 was reviewed well because it is indeed a quality game despite straying so far from its roots. So using review scores as a source doesn't help your argument, especially when we're talking about whether or not RE4 is a good Resident Evil game.

I wasn't saying you couldn't express your opinions or that mine were the truth, I was simply saying that my opinions were not based on subjective reasons like my own personal feelings about what a survival horror game is or what Resident Evil means to me because those are 2 things that are not open for interpretation. Resident Evil is Resident Evil, as in the first game that started it all and has been the foundation for this long running series. Resident Evil isn't any one thing like zombies, or characters, or just survival horror, it's every single element that made the first game.

Obviously, there's room for improvement, evolution, and new ideas, but at the core of each game should be the same fundamentals that shaped the original. This isn't just with Resident Evil either, this goes for any franchise in general and it's the reason why Super Mario has been so popular after however many games. It's consistent. At the core of every Mario game is jumping, platforming, and everything else that made Super Mario Bros. the icon it is now.

While anyone is free to opinionate and state that Resident Evil is Resident Evil as long as it has so and so element, that wouldn't make it correct, it would just mean that's all they care about in a Resident Evil game which is totally fine to say because everyone has preferences, but it would also be disingenuous to push that personal preference as a fact.

My opinions aren't facts, but they're completely justified as I've elaborated all throughout this thread, and I merely wanted you to do the same by challenging your views. Your opinions aren't incorrect, maybe a little misinformed, which I tried to help with, but the goal was to make you rationalize your stance. I wasn't knocking you when I said I didn't respect your opinion and I still stand by that. I don't respect any opinion that isn't justified or rationalized. For example, you gave your own criteria for what a Resident Evil game is, but even a game like Resident Evil 6 follows that exact criteria despite you saying it went too far from what Resident Evil was. You see the flaw in not properly stating your opinions?

I've been in your position and I'm sure all of us here have been too at some point. I've been eaten alive for stating things without properly backing them up on the internet and I've learned from it. I'm not saying this as an attack, it's honest criticism, so don't take it personally. This is me reaching out and being as clear as I can be. No jokes, no insults, I just want you to understand and hopefully learn from what I'm saying because there honestly was no ill will when we first started discussing this and since I have no intention to stop posting on these forums anytime soon which I'm sure you don't either, it's best there's no unnecessary bad blood to carry onto other parts of these forums.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

It insinuates that no one other than reviewers are capable of judging games and you did call me a fanboy. But we're both adults, no need to harp on it. We both said things, and we can move on. The point I'm making is, whenever you back your opinion with someone else's opinion like a review or "general opinion," it is no longer a valid argument. You're not saying anything about the game by telling someone that lots of people like something. That is not how you persuade people or gain any credibility.

A reviewer isn't more knowledgeable than anybody else about anything. And while I understand your logic, it's still not a very sound argument. Though, I do agree that people who do write off RE4 as a terrible game simply because it's not survival horror are wrong, which is why I stated that Resident Evil 4 was a great game, just that it isn't a great Resident Evil game. There's a very clear distinction. So at least we can find some middle ground here.

However, a reviewer's job isn't to analyze the series and tell fans whether it's faithful or not to previous entries. They're reviewing it based on its own merits, which is why even Resident Evil 5 was reviewed well because it is indeed a quality game despite straying so far from its roots. So using review scores as a source doesn't help your argument, especially when we're talking about whether or not RE4 is a good Resident Evil game.

I wasn't saying you couldn't express your opinions or that mine were the truth, I was simply saying that my opinions were not based on subjective reasons like my own personal feelings about what a survival horror game is or what Resident Evil means to me because those are 2 things that are not open for interpretation. Resident Evil is Resident Evil, as in the first game that started it all and has been the foundation for this long running series. Resident Evil isn't any one thing like zombies, or characters, or just survival horror, it's every single element that made the first game.

Obviously, there's room for improvement, evolution, and new ideas, but at the core of each game should be the same fundamentals that shaped the original. This isn't just with Resident Evil either, this goes for any franchise in general and it's the reason why Super Mario has been so popular after however many games. It's consistent. At the core of every Mario game is jumping, platforming, and everything else that made Super Mario Bros. the icon it is now.

While anyone is free to opinionate and state that Resident Evil is Resident Evil as long as it has so and so element, that wouldn't make it correct, it would just mean that's all they care about in a Resident Evil game which is totally fine to say because everyone has preferences, but it would also be disingenuous to push that personal preference as a fact.

My opinions aren't facts, but they're completely justified as I've elaborated all throughout this thread, and I merely wanted you to do the same by challenging your views. Your opinions aren't incorrect, maybe a little misinformed, which I tried to help with, but the goal was to make you rationalize your stance. I wasn't knocking you when I said I didn't respect your opinion and I still stand by that. I don't respect any opinion that isn't justified or rationalized. For example, you gave your own criteria for what a Resident Evil game is, but even a game like Resident Evil 6 follows that exact criteria despite you saying it went too far from what Resident Evil was. You see the flaw in not properly stating your opinions?

I've been in your position and I'm sure all of us here have been too at some point. I've been eaten alive for stating things without properly backing them up on the internet and I've learned from it. I'm not saying this as an attack, it's honest criticism, so don't take it personally. This is me reaching out and being as clear as I can be. No jokes, no insults, I just want you to understand and hopefully learn from what I'm saying because there honestly was no ill will when we first started discussing this and since I have no intention to stop posting on these forums anytime soon which I'm sure you don't either, it's best there's no unnecessary bad blood to carry onto other parts of these forums.

I appreciate your honesty and I understand what you are trying to say, I excuse myself if there was misunderstanding...

What I was trying to say in all that post is that to me resident evil 4 looked like a resident evil game because when I played it, it still feel like playing a Re game, the tension the atmosphere, the fact that you can still use the map, do your inventory, examine the scene, the tension when you are surrendered by zombies, the first time you face the ganado and the chainsaw was really cool and scary so were other time like when facing the invisible creature in the sewers or facing Verdugo Di ghiaccio, and you can still go back to previous point in the map...

While I think that resident evil 5 is a good game and did a good job in connecting the series, i think that missed some of this element, and became more action than ever but this wasn't the case during the initial concept and that the first concept was going to make The game even more horror than resident evil 4 and a true survival horror, whit survival elements, in some concept Chris should have also been able to become ill, and you should have stayed out of the sun because it will make chris mind and stamina less productive...
But all this later changed into a simple copy of Re 4 whit more action than ever, that why I say that for me it wasn't resident evil 4 who ruined the series even if it changed it but was re 5 who give the final stabb to this franchise...

Re 4 did change the re formula endeed and had less survival horror than previous game and more action, but resident evil 5 was going to take everything good from re 4 and evolved it into a true survival horror... That's why I think re 4 direction wasn't a mistake, because thank to that direction I was able to play beautiful game who took their gameplay from Re 4, like the evil whitin, uncharted, God of War, tomb raider, gears of War...
Even by having shooting element and a third persone perspective, the evil whitin is a true horror game , as well as resident evil 2 remake, and this was all possible thank to the resident evil 4 we have, that s why I cannot see it as a wrong direction for the series...

The direction was good but while game like the evil whitin manage to use that direction to make survival horror, Capcom wasn't unable to do that and decided to discharge everything and put more action in re 5...
Capcom had a choice whit re 5, making an horror game whit element from re 4, something like the evil whitin, or making an action game like gear of wars, they make the wrong decision and choose the second option probably because they were afraid that Re 5 original concepts were to much horror and the sales would have resented it


For me redident evil 6 is the only one that isn't a resident evil game, that is an action call of duty game, you cannot explore, you cannot examine the scene, there is no map, there is no inventory that can be prepared, there is only action element, there is only a linear path were the only things you can do is shooting enemy, there is no tension in this game, you can play the whole game by using meele, how can this be a resident evil game? Yeah we have the beloved protagonist, but the story is so poor that cannot be compared to resident evil anymore it look like it was trying to copy metal gear solid but failed miserably, we have Simmons a man that whit his family commanded America from the shadow, and than we have carla a clone of ada and Jake the son of wesker, I mean this is ridicolous, we also have the protagonist that survive unimaginable things like plan crashing, elicopter destruction, rpg explosions ecc
The entire motorcycle section or the part in the mountain whit sherry and Jake is simply ridicolus, they survived unimaginable things and they do unimaginable things...
While re 4 and 5 were action none of them had this kind of exageretion in action sequence and it still feel like the protagonist are vulnerable while in 6 they are super hero who can kill everything in their way and they cannot die even if they are shoot in the head...

In resident evil 6 the zombie and monster are the one ****ing their pant when facing leon Chris and the other while instead should have been the contrary XD

 

[UniqTeas]

Once again - I have mostly skipped Wesker and Turo's arguments... MOSTLY. It is entertaining for a few minutes and then suddenly, I have no patience at all. haha.

But in response to the arguments at hand - I agree that RE6 is the least effective RE title. I do still love it and I looked forward to playing it again, but I will probably always rank it as my lowest RE experience. RE4 and RE5 were definitely action influenced, but they didn't seem as SUPERHERO/Over the top as RE6. And I will never forgive the dumb transformations of Simmons at the end. He is literally like a House Of The Dead enemy - transforming in to what ever the hell creature he wants rather than being a unique character.

And I can forgive the sins of RE7 because they did try to bring to horror back. In my opinion, they succeeded. And I like the movie tropes in which they pull from. I think it comes off successfully. But we can all agree that Ethan IS the most boring protagonist... who just casually gets his hand stapled back on early in the game. haha

 

[Jen]

And I can forgive the sins of RE7 because they did try to bring to horror back. In my opinion, they succeeded. And I like the movie tropes in which they pull from. I think it comes off successfully. But we can all agree that Ethan IS the most boring protagonist... who just casually gets his hand stapled back on early in the game. haha

That is why I say RE7 wasn't totally worthless. To be fair to it, it did bring back a more tense horror tone that I enjoyed. That was a definite plus. Though I'm not a fan of the movie tropes that they put in there.

Also, I think Ethan can even get his leg chopped off if the player isn't careful, and can repair it with a strong first aid med... :lol: Beyond ridiculous.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

That is why I say RE7 wasn't totally worthless. To be fair to it, it did bring back a more tense horror tone that I enjoyed. That was a definite plus. Though I'm not a fan of the movie tropes that they put in there.

Also, I think Ethan can even get his leg chopped off if the player isn't careful, and can repair it with a strong first aid med... :lol: Beyond ridiculous.

Actually it wasn't the first aid med that healed his leg but it was the fact that he was infected whit the virus from eveline when he was kcnoked out by Jack before the dinner scene , that's why he was able to heal himself easy every time whit the help of medicine... It was revelaled at the end of the game...
I doesn't have the same regenerative capabilities as Jack backer because the infection was still at an initial states, but the infection give him some healing factor and the medicine help boost it...
This was stated into a file of the game That described the Infection and the fact that in its initial phase people have a bit of regenerative capabilities
Here you can find the file
https://residentevil.fandom.com/wiki/Infection_Report

Furtunately ethan was able to defeat evelin in time before he rechead the last phase

 

[Jen]

Actually it wasn't the first aid med that healed his leg but it was the fact that he was infected whit the virus from eveline when he was kcnoked out by Jack before the dinner scene , that's why he was able to heal himself easy every time whit the help of medicine... It was revelaled at the end of the game...
I doesn't have the same regenerative capabilities as Jack backer because the infection was still at an initial states, but the infection give him some healing factor and the medicine help boost it...
This was stated into a file of the game That described the Infection and the fact that in its initial phase people have a bit of regenerative capabilities
Here you can find the file
https://residentevil.fandom.com/wiki/Infection_Report

Furtunately ethan was able to defeat evelin in time before he rechead the last phase

Oh, I know Ethan was infected. I just think it's slightly ridiculous that your character can reattach limbs at all.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

Oh, I know Ethan was infected. I just think it's slightly ridiculous that your character can reattach limbs at all.

Yeah but they explained it whit the infection so it wasn't that ridicolous, since it's not the first time in the series that the virus give regenerative capabilities, and he reattached the limbs only one time during the game... If it was because of the first aid it would have been ridiculous

 

[Turo602]

I appreciate your honesty and I understand what you are trying to say, I excuse myself if there was misunderstanding...

What I was trying to say in all that post is that to me resident evil 4 looked like a resident evil game because when I played it, it still feel like playing a Re game, the tension the atmosphere, the fact that you can still use the map, do your inventory, examine the scene, the tension when you are surrendered by zombies, the first time you face the ganado and the chainsaw was really cool and scary so were other time like when facing the invisible creature in the sewers or facing Verdugo Di ghiaccio, and you can still go back to previous point in the map...

While I think that resident evil 5 is a good game and did a good job in connecting the series, i think that missed some of this element, and became more action than ever but this wasn't the case during the initial concept and that the first concept was going to make The game even more horror than resident evil 4 and a true survival horror, whit survival elements, in some concept Chris should have also been able to become ill, and you should have stayed out of the sun because it will make chris mind and stamina less productive...
But all this later changed into a simple copy of Re 4 whit more action than ever, that why I say that for me it wasn't resident evil 4 who ruined the series even if it changed it but was re 5 who give the final stabb to this franchise...

Re 4 did change the re formula endeed and had less survival horror than previous game and more action, but resident evil 5 was going to take everything good from re 4 and evolved it into a true survival horror... That's why I think re 4 direction wasn't a mistake, because thank to that direction I was able to play beautiful game who took their gameplay from Re 4, like the evil whitin, uncharted, God of War, tomb raider, gears of War...
Even by having shooting element and a third persone perspective, the evil whitin is a true horror game , as well as resident evil 2 remake, and this was all possible thank to the resident evil 4 we have, that s why I cannot see it as a wrong direction for the series...

The direction was good but while game like the evil whitin manage to use that direction to make survival horror, Capcom wasn't unable to do that and decided to discharge everything and put more action in re 5...
Capcom had a choice whit re 5, making an horror game whit element from re 4, something like the evil whitin, or making an action game like gear of wars, they make the wrong decision and choose the second option probably because they were afraid that Re 5 original concepts were to much horror and the sales would have resented it


For me redident evil 6 is the only one that isn't a resident evil game, that is an action call of duty game, you cannot explore, you cannot examine the scene, there is no map, there is no inventory that can be prepared, there is only action element, there is only a linear path were the only things you can do is shooting enemy, there is no tension in this game, you can play the whole game by using meele, how can this be a resident evil game? Yeah we have the beloved protagonist, but the story is so poor that cannot be compared to resident evil anymore it look like it was trying to copy metal gear solid but failed miserably, we have Simmons a man that whit his family commanded America from the shadow, and than we have carla a clone of ada and Jake the son of wesker, I mean this is ridicolous, we also have the protagonist that survive unimaginable things like plan crashing, elicopter destruction, rpg explosions ecc
The entire motorcycle section or the part in the mountain whit sherry and Jake is simply ridicolus, they survived unimaginable things and they do unimaginable things...
While re 4 and 5 were action none of them had this kind of exageretion in action sequence and it still feel like the protagonist are vulnerable while in 6 they are super hero who can kill everything in their way and they cannot die even if they are shoot in the head...

In resident evil 6 the zombie and monster are the one ****ing their pant when facing leon Chris and the other while instead should have been the contrary XD

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. RE6 definitely was the straw that broke the camel's back. It lacked the open combat environments that were present in RE4 and RE5 and was just a much more uninspired and linear game. The gameplay wasn't as tight and the overall quality of the game was just a step down from the quality and polish the series is known for. It's not a terrible game and can actually be very fun but also frustrating as well and the story itself was just kind of throwaway and quite honestly, stupid.

I'm also well aware of what RE5's original concepts were and do wish they would have followed through because it honestly did sound quite amazing. It was like a bigger version of RE4 in so many ways. I don't think action was necessarily going to be toned down, but it did seem like they were really ramping up the horror by swarm idea which I still believe has immense potential, I just don't think it was ever properly executed in either RE4 or RE5. But it is a shame we ended up with a much smaller scale game not too dissimilar to RE4. Even some of the early trailers for RE5 have some interesting enemy a.i. and mechanics that were never in the final game that would have made the game so much more intense.

However, as good as that all sounds as a continuation of Resident Evil 4's direction, the Resident Evil 3.5 beta is just as, if not, even more enigmatic to me because it just looks like such a great evolution of Resident Evil REmake's visuals, gameplay, and atmosphere and the story itself was a proper continuation to what the series has been leading to. And while I was never against the over the shoulder perspective, it was cool to see them getting there anyway as the cameras were a nice mix of fixed perspective and over the shoulder. So I don't think anything would have been lost by going in the 3.5 direction and the series would have never needed to go through the many iterations it has now.

It's just so amazing to me to think how influential this version of Resident Evil 4 was, with elements of it being spread across multiple projects like Devil May Cry, Haunting Ground, the Resident Evil 4 we have now, to even Resident Evil 5 and Lost in Nightmares, and The Evil Within. For a game that doesn't exist to have that much influence on so many works is just honestly fascinating and would have sure as hell been an amazing game. Shinji Mikami described it as so scary you'll p*ss yourself, and from everything we know about it, it's heartbreaking to think that the we may have potentially just lost what could have been considered the greatest survival horror game ever, while also keeping in tact the identity of Resident Evil. Just think, if we got this game instead of the Resident Evil 4 we got, Shinji Mikami would have probably still been working on Resident Evil and the series would look totally different today, and probably for the best. I personally wasn't big on the paranormal stuff either, but that's definitely something that could have been fixed with the game still being largely the same.

The Resident Evil 4 we have now has its moments sure, but those moments could have been stronger if they didn't repeat them so often. I've always been of the opinion that survival horror games should never overstay their welcome because then you start to lose the horror, and that's exactly how I felt about games like Resident Evil 4, Dead Space, and The Evil Within. All games I enjoy for their great gameplay, atmosphere, and horror focus, but overall weak survival horror games. There's a great survival horror game in each of these games somewhere, but it's lost in all of the padding of repeat encounters that drag the games out and don't give you any breathing room between the frights. If you change the structure, rework the difficulty, cut out a lot of the fat, and give it more survival horror sensibilities, I think Resident Evil 4 could have been an amazing survival horror game.

Imagine Resident Evil 4 without the unnecessary island, without the dumb action segments like running from a boulder and dodging lasers, where memorable moments and enemy encounters only occur once, and there's only 3 acts (the village, castle, and lab) each designed like a classic Resident Evil game.

The village would be designed like any other Resident Evil game where you explore, backtrack through, and solve puzzles to progress, but on a much larger scale, all while having those big memorable moments like being chased by a horde of villagers and Dr. Salvador, the locked in a cabin sequence, and El Gigante fight.

The castle would be toned down from the ridiculousness that it was and be more reminiscent of classic Resident Evil with it being visually similar and somewhat designed like the Spencer Mansion. It'll still have the whole cultist theme, but there would be less enemies to encounter at a time as opposed to the village and it'll still retain moments like being locked with the Garrador, being stalked by Verdugo, and the garden maze.

From there, the game should finish off with a lab area featuring the memorable regenerators as a final scare to the player, rather than continuing passed that and throwing even more regenerators at you until they're not scary anymore.

Each area would have its own distinct atmosphere, enemies, and memorable encounters, all while still retaining that classic sense of Resident Evil despite introducing so many new elements and breaking new ground.

That to me, sounds like a much more ideal and stronger experience than the Resident Evil 4 we got now which was just linear action with enemies constantly being thrown at you section after section. It has some classic elements thrown in out of obligation but they're done poorly. Puzzles for examples always have the easiest solutions that are oftentimes found in the same area the puzzle is in to not break the linear design. Even backtracking is just an illusion because you're still just following the obvious linear path, and that path just happens to lead you back to an area you've been to before.

Resident Evil 4 is still one of hell a game and deserves all the praise it gets because it is undoubtedly one of the most influential games of all time that broke new ground and changed the landscape of gaming, but its influence on not just the series, but also survival horror hasn't exactly been seen as completely positive and the Resident Evil and survival horror fan in me can't overlook that.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. RE6 definitely was the straw that broke the camel's back. It lacked the open combat environments that were present in RE4 and RE5 and was just a much more uninspired and linear game. The gameplay wasn't as tight and the overall quality of the game was just a step down from the quality and polish the series is known for. It's not a terrible game and can actually be very fun but also frustrating as well and the story itself was just kind of throwaway and quite honestly, stupid.

I'm also well aware of what RE5's original concepts were and do wish they would have followed through because it honestly did sound quite amazing. It was like a bigger version of RE4 in so many ways. I don't think action was necessarily going to be toned down, but it did seem like they were really ramping up the horror by swarm idea which I still believe has immense potential, I just don't think it was ever properly executed in either RE4 or RE5. But it is a shame we ended up with a much smaller scale game not too dissimilar to RE4. Even some of the early trailers for RE5 have some interesting enemy a.i. and mechanics that were never in the final game that would have made the game so much more intense.

However, as good as that all sounds as a continuation of Resident Evil 4's direction, the Resident Evil 3.5 beta is just as, if not, even more enigmatic to me because it just looks like such a great evolution of Resident Evil REmake's visuals, gameplay, and atmosphere and the story itself was a proper continuation to what the series has been leading to. And while I was never against the over the shoulder perspective, it was cool to see them getting there anyway as the cameras were a nice mix of fixed perspective and over the shoulder. So I don't think anything would have been lost by going in the 3.5 direction and the series would have never needed to go through the many iterations it has now.

It's just so amazing to me to think how influential this version of Resident Evil 4 was, with elements of it being spread across multiple projects like Devil May Cry, Haunting Ground, the Resident Evil 4 we have now, to even Resident Evil 5 and Lost in Nightmares, and The Evil Within. For a game that doesn't exist to have that much influence on so many works is just honestly fascinating and would have sure as hell been an amazing game. Shinji Mikami described it as so scary you'll p*ss yourself, and from everything we know about it, it's heartbreaking to think that the we may have potentially just lost what could have been considered the greatest survival horror game ever, while also keeping in tact the identity of Resident Evil. Just think, if we got this game instead of the Resident Evil 4 we got, Shinji Mikami would have probably still been working on Resident Evil and the series would look totally different today, and probably for the best. I personally wasn't big on the paranormal stuff either, but that's definitely something that could have been fixed with the game still being largely the same.

The Resident Evil 4 we have now has its moments sure, but those moments could have been stronger if they didn't repeat them so often. I've always been of the opinion that survival horror games should never overstay their welcome because then you start to lose the horror, and that's exactly how I felt about games like Resident Evil 4, Dead Space, and The Evil Within. All games I enjoy for their great gameplay, atmosphere, and horror focus, but overall weak survival horror games. There's a great survival horror game in each of these games somewhere, but it's lost in all of the padding of repeat encounters that drag the games out and don't give you any breathing room between the frights. If you change the structure, rework the difficulty, cut out a lot of the fat, and give it more survival horror sensibilities, I think Resident Evil 4 could have been an amazing survival horror game.

Imagine Resident Evil 4 without the unnecessary island, without the dumb action segments like running from a boulder and dodging lasers, where memorable moments and enemy encounters only occur once, and there's only 3 acts (the village, castle, and lab) each designed like a classic Resident Evil game.

The village would be designed like any other Resident Evil game where you explore, backtrack through, and solve puzzles to progress, but on a much larger scale, all while having those big memorable moments like being chased by a horde of villagers and Dr. Salvador, the locked in a cabin sequence, and El Gigante fight.

The castle would be toned down from the ridiculousness that it was and be more reminiscent of classic Resident Evil with it being visually similar and somewhat designed like the Spencer Mansion. It'll still have the whole cultist theme, but there would be less enemies to encounter at a time as opposed to the village and it'll still retain moments like being locked with the Garrador, being stalked by Verdugo, and the garden maze.

From there, the game should finish off with a lab area featuring the memorable regenerators as a final scare to the player, rather than continuing passed that and throwing even more regenerators at you until they're not scary anymore.

Each area would have its own distinct atmosphere, enemies, and memorable encounters, all while still retaining that classic sense of Resident Evil despite introducing so many new elements and breaking new ground.

That to me, sounds like a much more ideal and stronger experience than the Resident Evil 4 we got now which was just linear action with enemies constantly being thrown at you section after section. It has some classic elements thrown in out of obligation but they're done poorly. Puzzles for examples always have the easiest solutions that are oftentimes found in the same area the puzzle is in to not break the linear design. Even backtracking is just an illusion because you're still just following the obvious linear path, and that path just happens to lead you back to an area you've been to before.

Resident Evil 4 is still one of hell a game and deserves all the praise it gets because it is undoubtedly one of the most influential games of all time that broke new ground and changed the landscape of gaming, but its influence on not just the series, but also survival horror hasn't exactly been seen as completely positive and the Resident Evil and survival horror fan in me can't overlook that.

I was just replaying resident evil 0 just yesterday and obviously Re 4 doesn't have the same survival horror element that this game and previous game in the series had, but I still continue to love it...
Personally I would have preferedd all the concept you posted before in re 4, and I would have preferedd the story in Wich leon infiltrated himself into Spencer castle and having the hcf and wesker as enemy and leon investigating on the origin of the progenitor virus, it look more like a true continuation of resident evil code veronica and previous game, it was Infact written by numoru sugibura the man who write the story of resident evil 2 And code veronica, but unfurtunately they decide to scrap his story...

The poor Sogibura died in 2005...
when Capcom changed re 4 into the one we have now they could have at least keep sugibura story instead of changing it whit a story that besides separate ways (that was not even included in first release) it s not that important to the series...

Don't get me wrong I love re 4 story but let be honest sogibura story would have been amazing...

Capcom is so strange, they had an amazing story for Re 4 but decided to scrap...
For re 5 they have an amazing story and an amazing gameplay, a game that could have been one of the most beautiful resident evil ever but they decide to scrap it for just a decent game...

I don't know if someone else of you noticed but after the release of resident evil 5, Capcom tend to announce his game and release the first trailer only few month before its release, like resident evil 6, 7, 2 remake, dmc 5... Probably they realized That it was useless to announce game 5 years before they release it since the resoult was having fan overhyped whit trailer , like the first one from re 4 and 5, that show story and gameplay that would never actually happear into the final game

 

[Rain611]

Never a full moment, amirite?

Anyways, I tend to agree that RE4 was not a bad game, however it was a bad RE game.

When I think of Resident Evil, or perhaps 'thought' is a better word since the series is all over the place now, I would think of:

A) Claustrophobic environments (the mansion, the RPD sans the main hall, etc) that forced you to cleverly escape enemies and be killed. Resident Evil 7 did ok with this in the mansion and guest house but I feel like rehatching a mansion in the first place was kind of a cop out and a reason to link itself to RE by way of the Spencer mansion. Resident Evil 4 and those thereafter completely tossed this concept for wide open areas where you can easily flank or outrun enemies, making the game far less urgent, if you will.

B) Ammo conservation. I mean... I don't think this one really needs to be elaborated but: The first trilogy of games encouraged smart usage of ammo (herbs as well depending on how damage prone you tend to be so I'll give them a little nod as well) to also add to the tense and urgent atmosphere. The fear, perhaps, of being stuck in the Umbrella labs in RE2 with 2 bullets left and no healing items while just about to fight the final boss. That's fear. That's what I miss. Knowledge that hey, in hindsight I probably should've done this better because now I'm going to be eaten alive. In RE4 and after for the most part, ammo became an enemy drop which I absolutely despised because it totally killed this aspect for me. In earlier games if I ran out of ammo I'd have that feeling of dread. In RE4, the first time I played through professional, I got stuck in the crank room where you have to throw Ashley up so she can get all the cranks and I was right on ammo. I got through it of course but whenever I ran out of ammo or got bad drops it never turned into fear, it was always frustration. It wasn't the same.

C) Ink ribbons/save rooms: I very much enjoy this aspect of the game and can admit for the most part, the series as a whole has kept it around. I don't care for RE0s item drop system for RE5 (among others) using checkpoint systems or chapters. It once again takes the challenge and desparation out of the game and at this point it was already lacking.

D) Zombies: Not parasites. Not hiveminds. Zombies. Creatures with little to no intelligence (with exceptions for Nemesis and such here and there) whose only drive in... unlife I suppose (? lol) is to eat your face with no remorse. The more the better to build on the fear that those initial tight spaces and low ammo started building. And lickers are the coolest things ever imo.

E) The Umbrella Corporation: They're the silent enemy that's always around. I mean yea we get back story but Umbrella has largely remained something of a mystery in a way at least to me. There is a lot I'm interested in knowing but I'm okay with no knowing it because often times it's best to not see the monster and let your mind run.

I suppose those are the most important parts for me. An honorable mention goes to STARS for carrying us through what started as a solid coherent story which ultimately was completely ditched in RE4 aside from a (historical) mention here and there if that makes sense.

Another honorable mention goes to the original characters (they only got honorable mentions because they did change a lot in the early games from game to game) because they were more sympathetic and all were centered around a core of Umbrella, zombies and survival. They were well fleshed out, relationships were established that were worth out time and emotional investment. I cared for these people because I felt their fear in dark corners. I empathized their losses (RIP Steve). It was effective horror. I don't care about Leon because anymore he is a poster child of plot armor and nothing ever happens to him anymore. He is bulletproof and overused imo. I didn't care about Ethan or Mia, etc, because their particular stories were not sympathetic enough, their backstory not fleshed out enough for me to care.

RE4 tore the series away from what I felt it was - claustrophobic, conservationist, truly scary with fleshed out sympathetic characters and a core back story and a regular(ish) enemy and forced it into an age of wide open spaces with easy enemy evasion, technically limitless ammo, bland characters and no focused story.

This is why I can't like RE4 as an RE game. It was an ok game and I played it enough to fly through pro with just a bolt action and a side arm and win my handcannon. It was a time killer yea. But it also killed RE imo. Remake2 was good though imo as it brought a lot of these things back and is starting to restore my faith, majorly flawed 2nd scenarios aside.

 

[UniqTeas]

Rain, I agree with you for the most part. The atmosphere and game play of the older games was amazing and what brought most of us in to the series. RE4 is NOT the same as the other games.

But I think my point is that Capcom knew that HAD to change the elements of the series of the series would have died. People were angry and saying Capcom should just end the series after RE0 saying they had lost the magic and were attempting to capitalize on the older games without making significant changes to the series. Their options were produce RE4 as we know it or potentially let the series fall apart. No more Resident Evils. Of course, we don't know what would've happened in they created another Survival Horror entry and I suppose different changes could have been made ESPECIALLY about the story.

But I will never agree that RE4 is not a great game. In 2004, it was the best game on the market whether or not anyone agrees it has the elements to be a Resident Evil game.

 

[Rain611]

Well I will never agree with you, simply put lol.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

Never a full moment, amirite?

Anyways, I tend to agree that RE4 was not a bad game, however it was a bad RE game.

When I think of Resident Evil, or perhaps 'thought' is a better word since the series is all over the place now, I would think of:

A) Claustrophobic environments (the mansion, the RPD sans the main hall, etc) that forced you to cleverly escape enemies and be killed. Resident Evil 7 did ok with this in the mansion and guest house but I feel like rehatching a mansion in the first place was kind of a cop out and a reason to link itself to RE by way of the Spencer mansion. Resident Evil 4 and those thereafter completely tossed this concept for wide open areas where you can easily flank or outrun enemies, making the game far less urgent, if you will.

B) Ammo conservation. I mean... I don't think this one really needs to be elaborated but: The first trilogy of games encouraged smart usage of ammo (herbs as well depending on how damage prone you tend to be so I'll give them a little nod as well) to also add to the tense and urgent atmosphere. The fear, perhaps, of being stuck in the Umbrella labs in RE2 with 2 bullets left and no healing items while just about to fight the final boss. That's fear. That's what I miss. Knowledge that hey, in hindsight I probably should've done this better because now I'm going to be eaten alive. In RE4 and after for the most part, ammo became an enemy drop which I absolutely despised because it totally killed this aspect for me. In earlier games if I ran out of ammo I'd have that feeling of dread. In RE4, the first time I played through professional, I got stuck in the crank room where you have to throw Ashley up so she can get all the cranks and I was right on ammo. I got through it of course but whenever I ran out of ammo or got bad drops it never turned into fear, it was always frustration. It wasn't the same.

C) Ink ribbons/save rooms: I very much enjoy this aspect of the game and can admit for the most part, the series as a whole has kept it around. I don't care for RE0s item drop system for RE5 (among others) using checkpoint systems or chapters. It once again takes the challenge and desparation out of the game and at this point it was already lacking.

D) Zombies: Not parasites. Not hiveminds. Zombies. Creatures with little to no intelligence (with exceptions for Nemesis and such here and there) whose only drive in... unlife I suppose (? lol) is to eat your face with no remorse. The more the better to build on the fear that those initial tight spaces and low ammo started building. And lickers are the coolest things ever imo.

E) The Umbrella Corporation: They're the silent enemy that's always around. I mean yea we get back story but Umbrella has largely remained something of a mystery in a way at least to me. There is a lot I'm interested in knowing but I'm okay with no knowing it because often times it's best to not see the monster and let your mind run.

I suppose those are the most important parts for me. An honorable mention goes to STARS for carrying us through what started as a solid coherent story which ultimately was completely ditched in RE4 aside from a (historical) mention here and there if that makes sense.

Another honorable mention goes to the original characters (they only got honorable mentions because they did change a lot in the early games from game to game) because they were more sympathetic and all were centered around a core of Umbrella, zombies and survival. They were well fleshed out, relationships were established that were worth out time and emotional investment. I cared for these people because I felt their fear in dark corners. I empathized their losses (RIP Steve). It was effective horror. I don't care about Leon because anymore he is a poster child of plot armor and nothing ever happens to him anymore. He is bulletproof and overused imo. I didn't care about Ethan or Mia, etc, because their particular stories were not sympathetic enough, their backstory not fleshed out enough for me to care.

RE4 tore the series away from what I felt it was - claustrophobic, conservationist, truly scary with fleshed out sympathetic characters and a core back story and a regular(ish) enemy and forced it into an age of wide open spaces with easy enemy evasion, technically limitless ammo, bland characters and no focused story.

This is why I can't like RE4 as an RE game. It was an ok game and I played it enough to fly through pro with just a bolt action and a side arm and win my handcannon. It was a time killer yea. But it also killed RE imo. Remake2 was good though imo as it brought a lot of these things back and is starting to restore my faith, majorly flawed 2nd scenarios aside.

I'm going to respond to some of your point...

A) this is not true since resident evil 4 had claustrophic area, and sometimes deliver the same tansion as its predecessors like all the first half of the game when you had to hide from the chainsaw and you had to spare ammo against the ganado, the castle part is for much time claustrophobic, like the battle against Verdugo di ghiaccio, I feel cornered there... And there are many other part like this in the game...

B) the ammo conservation is different In re 4 than it was in the other re game but its obviously still there since you had to manage you inventory well to survive battle and use the right strategy against certain enemy... Also it never happens to me in re 2 to have zero ammo since the original re 2 had planty of ammo that I could probably kill all the creature I encountered...

C) save room are still there in resident evil 4 whit music and typer write... To be fair it's more present here than in Re 2 remake or re 7 since this two game had auto save and you don't need to save manually while in re 4 you had, because if you close it will not regai from last checkpoint... Saving whit ink ribbon was an obsolet feature, and I appreciate that they take it out, Infact neither re 7 o re 2 remake had this feature, only in the extreme mode... Also it was code veronica who first introduced checkpoint in a certain degree not Re 5...

D and E) the series need to evolve, it couldn't always revolve around zombies, umbrella and raccon city, I like the plaga since it's terrific and misteryus... Also just a little mention but umbrella it's present in re 4 since wesker goal is to revive umbrella whit him in charge...

Resident evil 2 remake didn't take the old mechanic back since it was re 7 who did that, and re 2 remake only taked the gameplay from re 7 whit third person camera instead of first person