You know what really killed the Resident Evil franchise?

KevinStriker

"Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?"
2,268
1,756
13,771
#21
I grew up on the original games, and while they were amazing for their time it got to a point where Capcom was rehashing everything on the Game Cube before RE4 came along. I just remember being disappointed and bored while playing through RE0 and at the time it was one of their newest RE games! The gameplay (which was fixed camera angles like the originals) wasn't fun and the story dragged and I was losing interest in the series all together. As much as some fans hate to admit it, RE4 was everything that the series needed. Fun, new over the shoulder gameplay that is more challenging than the fixed camera angles, and a story that actually continued the series on with past characters in a very entertaining and innovative way.
This.

I am so sick of hardcore fans of the classic titles sh!tting all over RE4 because it 'ruined everything'. The series would have stagnated and withered away far earlier if Capcom continued with tank controls and fixed angles into the 7th Gen.
 

Turo602

The King of Kings
1,847
1,598
13,771
#22
With that all being said, I don't agree with the notion that fans of the "original games" never wanted nor like the action direction the series has taken. I grew up on the original games, and while they were amazing for their time it got to a point where Capcom was rehashing everything on the Game Cube before RE4 came along. I just remember being disappointed and bored while playing through RE0 and at the time it was one of their newest RE games! The gameplay (which was fixed camera angles like the originals) wasn't fun and the story dragged and I was losing interest in the series all together. As much as some fans hate to admit it, RE4 was everything that the series needed. Fun, new over the shoulder gameplay that is more challenging than the fixed camera angles, and a story that actually continued the series on with past characters in a very entertaining and innovative way. Where RE5 and RE6 fail miserably is the poor writing and character development. The heavy focus on co-op really hindered certain aspects to the story-mode of the newer games as well.
I've gotta heavily disagree here. Resident Evil 4 was definitely not what the series needed, hence why fans have been and continue to be so divisive over the series. Resident Evil 4 is an entertaining game, it's a great game, it's iconic, and it was revolutionary, but that doesn't automatically make it what Resident Evil as a series needed. It's what the gaming industry needed and it was what Capcom needed. Over the shoulder gameplay isn't the issue (though I gotta say, I don't see where you get that it's more challenging), it was what they did with it, along with the enemy a.i., game design, and story that makes lots of fans hate Resident Evil 4 or people like me, that love it as a video game, but despise what it did to the series.

Resident Evil 4 used to be a hybrid fixed camera/over the shoulder game about Leon Kennedy infiltrating Umbrella that was both a giant shift in direction and a faithful evolution for the series. I don't remember fans hating that version of the game. It looked like everything the series needed at that point in time and it was actually scary and taking the plot somewhere fans have been waiting for. What we got was a product of a company desperate to attract players after making the horrible business decision of making the series exclusive to the worse selling console of the generation. The series was dying due to poor sales and the safe nature of Resident Evil 0 didn't help matters either. Resident Evil 4 could have been both a true survival horror Resident Evil experience and the re-invigoration the series desperately needed at the time, and would have definitely sold better than REmake and 0 given that the game would have eventually been ported to the PS2 anyway.
 

bSTAR_182

Sexually Active Member
Supporter Gold
1,603
1,674
28,378
#23
I've gotta heavily disagree here. Resident Evil 4 was definitely not what the series needed, hence why fans have been and continue to be so divisive over the series. Resident Evil 4 is an entertaining game, it's a great game, it's iconic, and it was revolutionary, but that doesn't automatically make it what Resident Evil as a series needed. It's what the gaming industry needed and it was what Capcom needed. Over the shoulder gameplay isn't the issue (though I gotta say, I don't see where you get that it's more challenging), it was what they did with it, along with the enemy a.i., game design, and story that makes lots of fans hate Resident Evil 4 or people like me, that love it as a video game, but despise what it did to the series.

Resident Evil 4 used to be a hybrid fixed camera/over the shoulder game about Leon Kennedy infiltrating Umbrella that was both a giant shift in direction and a faithful evolution for the series. I don't remember fans hating that version of the game. It looked like everything the series needed at that point in time and it was actually scary and taking the plot somewhere fans have been waiting for. What we got was a product of a company desperate to attract players after making the horrible business decision of making the series exclusive to the worse selling console of the generation. The series was dying due to poor sales and the safe nature of Resident Evil 0 didn't help matters either. Resident Evil 4 could have been both a true survival horror Resident Evil experience and the re-invigoration the series desperately needed at the time, and would have definitely sold better than REmake and 0 given that the game would have eventually been ported to the PS2 anyway.
We can argue all day about gameplay and camera angles but what it ultimately comes down to is personal opinion. Growing up, I never played the original RE games because of the fixed camera angles and it definitely isn't what makes me go back to replay them now. When I replay through a game it is either A) Fun to play, or B) I want to revisit the story and characters, or 3) Both A and B. Which ultimately RE4/5/6 are pretty successful with both to some extent... IMO. But again I'm not saying that the originals aren't fun to play, they are, but they are not as fun. With that said, if I had to choose, I would rather Capcom go back to fixed camera angles instead of first person and that's because I personally like third person games where you can see the characters. In regards to over-the-should being more challenging- I don't find it all that difficult when you character automatically pivots in the direction of a monster when you take aim. It is not as rewarding or as fun as actually calculating your next move/kill like you can with over-the-shoulder.

The original concept for RE4 didn't look bad and did have that scary atmosphere from the originals, but I can't confidently say that I would have preferred that version over the final product. Looks can be deceiving and frankly the little possessed dolls threw me off- though the idea of Leon infiltrating Umbrella definitely sounds like it could have been a really good story for the series and maybe even better than what we ended up with. But as a fan who was getting bored with the seemingly stagnant series, RE4 was that breath of fresh air that I felt the series needed and it also turned out to be the best thing for the company and the game industry... who can blame them, at that rate, for making that final call.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Shinigami7724

KManX89

Rocket Trash Panda
641
428
7,188
#24
Where RE5 and RE6 fail miserably is the poor writing and character development.
Agree on 6, but I beg to differ with 5. The whole Jill-Uroboros arch was one of, if not the biggest storyline ever to come from the series. It added hype to the next installment and transcended the series like no other before it, with a former BSAA agent becoming the thing she fought her whole life to destroy. It actually got people talking and left fans anxious to see who the test tube/bird lady was (I knew it was going to be Jill all along, but some fans had "other" theories, like Sherry). And of course, the whole Chris-Wesker feud finally reaching its bitter end (supposedly), which opened the door for the ongoing Wesker children storyline (Alex, Jake, etc.).
 
Last edited:

BioLence

Well-Known Member
361
159
2,588
#25
I've gotta heavily disagree here. Resident Evil 4 was definitely not what the series needed, hence why fans have been and continue to be so divisive over the series. Resident Evil 4 is an entertaining game, it's a great game, it's iconic, and it was revolutionary, but that doesn't automatically make it what Resident Evil as a series needed. It's what the gaming industry needed and it was what Capcom needed. Over the shoulder gameplay isn't the issue (though I gotta say, I don't see where you get that it's more challenging), it was what they did with it, along with the enemy a.i., game design, and story that makes lots of fans hate Resident Evil 4 or people like me, that love it as a video game, but despise what it did to the series.

Resident Evil 4 used to be a hybrid fixed camera/over the shoulder game about Leon Kennedy infiltrating Umbrella that was both a giant shift in direction and a faithful evolution for the series. I don't remember fans hating that version of the game. It looked like everything the series needed at that point in time and it was actually scary and taking the plot somewhere fans have been waiting for. What we got was a product of a company desperate to attract players after making the horrible business decision of making the series exclusive to the worse selling console of the generation. The series was dying due to poor sales and the safe nature of Resident Evil 0 didn't help matters either. Resident Evil 4 could have been both a true survival horror Resident Evil experience and the re-invigoration the series desperately needed at the time, and would have definitely sold better than REmake and 0 given that the game would have eventually been ported to the PS2 anyway.
You don´t like RE4???, how dare you!!!
Bro the ganados are Mad at you watch! :lol:

 

bSTAR_182

Sexually Active Member
Supporter Gold
1,603
1,674
28,378
#26
Agree on 6, but I beg to differ with 5. The whole Jill-Uroboros arch was one of, if not the biggest storyline ever to come from the series. It added hype to the next installment and transcended the series like no other before it, with a former BSAA agent becoming the thing she fought her whole life to destroy. It actually got people talking and left fans anxious to see who the test tube/bird lady was (I knew it was going to be Jill all along, but some fans had "other" theories, like Sherry). And of course, the whole Chris-Wesker feud finally reaching its bitter end (supposedly), which opened the door for the ongoing Wesker children storyline (Alex, Jake, etc.).

Definitely agree that RE5 progressed the series along with new and inventive subplots but there is no question that there was room for improvements with the portrayal of the characters in the game. I love RE5 to bits despite my personal feelings on that though.

It's the same deal with RE6 only it felt even more chaotic and all over the place because Capcom tried to focus on twice the amount of characters in one single game. RE6 offered quite a few interesting subplots and had they taken a step back to narrow the story out and not let co-op dictate the main campaigns it could have received more praise from fans and critics. I love Leon but his entire campaign was useless as his story arch flat lines. Helena's struggle takes the spotlight while Leon is basically tagging along for the ride, half way through his campaign I was wondering why the hell I even cared about her at this point in the series. They should have partnered Leon up with Sherry and also focused more on Leon and Chris together for more that a single cutscene (that wasn't even 5 minutes long). Meanwhile Chris and the Piers/BSAA are left to escort Jake.
 

Rain611

You can't kill me.
749
558
17,882
#27
I'm split on the original topic. I agree and don't agree.

Back when Saw/Saw II were fresh on the scene, they had an official message board called House of Jigsaw, on which I was a member. Various key filmmakers were also members on the site, including James Wan (director) and Leigh Whannel (writer). It was obvious that the creators of later films took suggestions from the fans, and to be honest, that was probably a bad idea. As it has been stated, you can never please everyone and generally there are two polar opposite sides that will be irate when another side is pleased. So I get the 'fan boy' argument.

On the other hand, at the end of the day, what a creator does in spite of input from fans is the final say. They didn't NEED to listen to fans just because something was being said. Someone, somewhere decided to listen to a group of people (maybe) at some point to sway their decision. And honestly, I get that and I don't. I've written short stories and screenplays for years, stories that I have completely planned out from the get go that I would share with friends chapter by chapter. Inevitably they would tell me that I should do this or that with this character or that location. All ideas make an imprint, but very, very rarely did I incorporate those ideas. Mostly because a) I already knew what I was doing, and the fact that I had my audience fooled meant I was executing the plot the way I was wanting to and b) not using peoples ideas lowers the chance of being hit with a plagiarism accusation.

So yea, I agree that taking advice from a fan base, especially one so diverse in people and theory as Resident Evil or Saw is a bad idea. It will never end well. At the same time though, the fans do not have the final say, so blame the person that ultimately okay'd the project.