Resident Evil 2 (1998) Does anyone else miss the old fashioned ways of re?

[T-Vaccinated Kid]

Of course the precision aiming changed the gameplay. It changed the way you have to kill common enemies and more importantly the way you fight bosses. By making enemies react to where you shoot them allowed them to add melee attacks. Precision aiming, melee, and easy knife access make RE4 and RE5 way more action oriented than the previous games.

 

[Spike991]

Of course the precision aiming changed the gameplay. It changed the way you have to kill common enemies and more importantly the way you fight bosses. By making enemies react to where you shoot them allowed them to add melee attacks. Precision aiming, melee, and easy knife access make RE4 and RE5 way more action oriented than the previous games.

That's stupid. Precision aiming and a quick-knife didn't contribute to anything even close to that. Previous games started using FPS view for snipers, and duel wielding, and explosive barrels, and dodging systems, and many other things.

That said, being able to aim, and not basing killing enemies on how many bullets you put into them doesn't mean a damn thing, nor does making something like the knife, actually useful. I have played every RE game except Survivor 2(which as far as I know doesn't even use a knife), and in each game, the knife was either dropped, or put in an item box, and it just collected dust, making it useful isn't making it an action game.

 

[codename: HUNK]

Well how elaborate. Obviously you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

You have absolutely nothing logical to support your opinion, which is completely false I might add.

@T-kid, your right, the OTS shoulder didn't change anything, and the precision aiming didn't either. While we get caught up on the "precision" part, who was really precise when playing? Who is precise when playing? I like to think I'm pretty good with a pistol, or any other weapon you can find, but certainly when you first play RE4, your aim sucks, horribly, mine did, everyone's did, so it didn't make the gameplay any easier at first. Of course, with how the lock-on aiming worked with the camera angles, people got used to it and could utilize it to handle whatever the situation was.

That said, having enemies drop ammo, that is one thing that I think should be taken out. I mean at first it could have been nice, as I know I wasted tons of ammo missing when I first played with the OTS view, but I would rather just pick up what's lying around, or in boxes and such, not what enemies drop.

How dare you make such accusations? I've been arguing my point since I've gotten this account, and since most refuse to take my points into consideration, the arguing is getting tiresome. You really want to see my points of logic? Then look into my many other posts about the subject. If you don't, then shut up and mind your own business.

 

[T-Vaccinated Kid]

That's stupid. Precision aiming and a quick-knife didn't contribute to anything even close to that. Previous games started using FPS view for snipers, and duel wielding, and explosive barrels, and dodging systems, and many other things.

That said, being able to aim, and not basing killing enemies on how many bullets you put into them doesn't mean a damn thing, nor does making something like the knife, actually useful. I have played every RE game except Survivor 2(which as far as I know doesn't even use a knife), and in each game, the knife was either dropped, or put in an item box, and it just collected dust, making it useful isn't making it an action game.

The explosive barrels and dodging system in RE3 didn't change the gameplay, it just added to it. You could get through the entire game without using the barrels or the dodging. They don't do anything to change the way you play the game as a whole.

In Code Veronica there are only 2 guns that use the FPS view and both are in boss fights. Again, they don't do anything to change the way you play the game. Nor does dual wielding.

If you don't think the gameplay in RE4 and RE5 is more action based then I'm not sure you have played them. You are clearly dealing with far more enemies than in any previous RE games and you are clearly far more capable of dealing with those enemies thanks to the aiming, the melee, and the knife. You are definately using precision aiming in different ways to kill all the different enemies. Also you are able to use the environment to get away from enemies or lure them into more strategic areas to engage them in. And making grenades a reliable weapon throughout the entire game adds to the action. RE5 was made even more action oriented by allowing you to quickly change weapons without bringing up your inventory.

There is FAR more action in RE4 and 5 than there was in any of the other main games in the series and if you don't think so maybe you should play them again.

 

[LordGolbez]

I Have To Agree With T-Kid Because 4 And 5 Are Much More Fast Paced As The Others Generally Went At A Slower Pace Take Your Time And Be Careful. I Am Not Saying That They Didn't Have Their Fast Moments But They Were Slower Paced And With 4 It Seemed To Add A Sense Of Get To The Next Level And Hurry As Quick As You Can. The Older Games Felt Like You Were Unraveling A Mystery And I Liked That. I Liked 4 And 5 As Well And Was Excited About The Change But After Awhile It Stopped Feeling Like Resident Evil And I Feel Like They Are Going In The Wrong Direction Because It Is Taking It So Far From It's Roots. I Also Understand That A Series Needs To Change And Evolve But The Game Has Changed Too Much For My Taste Not To Say I Won't Stop Playing Newer Games But They Won't See Nearly As Much Play As The Orginals Will.

 

[icydeath7]

very well... RE1,2,3, and CV are good games. RE4 sucks. How's that for a change?

look theyre not bad they do kinda dissapoint fans i thought silent hill ****tered memories would suck...alot. until i tryed it sadly i dont think theyll bring the old camera back new gamers today are to sucked into action i doubt that new gamers will like the old gamestyle:dry:

 

[Spike991]

How dare you make such accusations? I've been arguing my point since I've gotten this account, and since most refuse to take my points into consideration, the arguing is getting tiresome. You really want to see my points of logic? Then look into my many other posts about the subject. If you don't, then shut up and mind your own business.

I'm sure I have better things to do, than search around to find some obscure, and simple-minded posts you may have made at some point. And fortunately for me, I don't have to shut up, or mind my own business, especially since this is my business, and shutting up isn't something one does on a forum, honestly, what a dumb thing you're urging me to do.

Most refuse to take your points into consideration, because they make no sense. The arguing is tiresome, especially when you are either too lazy to prove an actual point, or simply have no clue what you are talking about, how dare you.

I believe I even left it open for you to say what you didn't like about RE4, to elaborate, and you didn't so I assumed the latter.

@T-kid, you caught me, I definately haven't played RE4/RE5, I have no idea what the hell I've been talking about for around a thousand posts, and the at least a year I've been on this site, excellent deduction.

Realistically though, in regard to the little features, a quick-knife and and manual reload, new aiming, those are just new features added into the game, just like getting the 90 degree turn, dodging(which in addition to the explosive barrels, coudn't be avoided, you would have to go out of your way to not shoot one of those red drums, and as far as the primitive dodge system was concerned, I randomly dodged many things throughout the game, in fact, I don't believe I ever once intentionally dodged anything in RE3, so yes, definately unavoidable), duel wielding, self-defense items, etc.

FPS view in CVX does change it, or at least by your logic, the same way RE4's view allows you to aim, you can't honestly expect me to believe that hypocritical nonsense.

I'm sure I never spoke about RE5, unless you can prove otherwise. I've been defending RE4, from distorted, and at times, moronic views, but RE5, that's a different story. While RE5 added new control schemes, to cater to 3rd Person Shooter fans, it still had the RE control scheme. RE5's story had many parts that were obviously made for an action game, i.e. the parts where tons of guys are shooting at you with AK's(definately not my favorite part of the game, or gun turret battles with the Ndesu), but while those parts of the game were made for a 3rd Person Shooter, we were unable to handle and play it like that, because it still played like RE, which resulted in total fail. RE5 wasn't total fail, but I don't want to them make future games follow entirely in RE5's footsteps, RE4 though, as I said, that one is not on the same boat as RE5, it was as it should be, and is.

Now keep in mind, my arguement isn't that RE4(and maybe RE5)are exactly the same as RE1 or RE2, my argument is that they aren't that different, no different than a sequel to it's predecessor. Of course, little changes made by RE4, were taken to another level with RE5...

 

[T-Vaccinated Kid]

The barrels and dodging in RE3 aren't that hard to avoid. Like you I never dodge anything intentionally because its too hard to time that when playing on hard. And there are what, 3 or 4 explosive barrels in the whole game?

The two instances they allow you to aim in CVX doesn't change the way you play the game as a whole, but the precision aiming you are required to use throughout the game in RE4 does. In CVX you had to aim at Alexander's heart. Thats it! When you use the linear launcher Alexia is zooming around so fast its unproductive to aim at her. You just need to shoot and hope she intersects your shot.

You may not have been talking about RE5 but RE 4 and 5 are very similar in the way they play. Except for the forced co-op they are almost exactly the same. You say the Majini shooting at you in RE5 make it more of 3rd person shooter. Well what about the gun wielding Ganados?

I don't see how you can possibly think that precision aiming didn't change the way you play compared to earlier RE games. It changed the combat, the enemies, the bosses, the environments, the puzzles. It shifted towards action so much that pretty much all the slow paced investigating that I loved about the earlier games was almost non-existent. Notice that ALL the enemies in RE4 and RE5 are immediately threatening to you. There are no easy to avoid or dispatch enemies like zombies.

I understand that your point is that RE4 is not that different from the previous games. And while its not as different from the previous games as RE5 is, its also not as similar as you are trying to say it is. RE4 is far more similar to RE5 than to CVX or RE3.

 

[Spike991]

I beg to differ, the dodging is impossible to avoid, just by simply playing the game. Whether you like it or not, it's going to happen. Barrrels, if you really go out of your way, you can avoid them, again, a little hard to do, but maybe not impossible like the dodging. Why you are trying so hard to prove that they can be avoided is beyond me, as those changes, like a lot of the ones you are talking about in RE4, aren't that different.

RE4 & RE5 aren't that similar. Not to the point where endless bithing(for no better word) should be directed towards RE4 & RE5. I can understand RE5, but RE4 doesn't deserve that kind of stuff. What gun wielding ganados are you talking about? I mean other than the JJ, no other "ganado" used any firearms.

Obviously you didn't understand my point, like your paragraph below says, as I didn't say it didn't change anything, I even made my last paragraph to say how it wasn't that RE4 is the same as RE2, but simply not that different.

The changes with enemies and bosses, that is nothing. Boss battles are mostly more fun(of course fighting the Ndesu in RE5 was not), and I don't know what you are talking about with no enemies that are easy to dispatch. Did you find the ganados or majini hard? If so, perhaps your complaints about being more prepared and capable of fighting enemies holds no water.

Furthermore, with a good 10 years under his belt, wouldn't Chris be able to dispatch little enemies such as a zombie(or it's equivilant, i.e. ganado, majini), without too much effort. Honestly, if we were still fighting enemies in the exact same way, verbatim, then I would start to question the intelligence of the characters a little.

It is definatly not as different as you are pointing out, yet I'm not trying to say how similar it is, I'm trying to point out how different it isn't, by pointing out similarities, I haven't even gotten around to pointing out each individual element in the game that is similar, mainly because I haven't gotten too many specific complaints to explain.

In regard to the 2 times in CVX that you enter FPS view, why should it matter? I mean you are losing your mind over a few changes in RE4, why not make a big deal about changes in any games prior?

Might I also add that CVX's Battle Game had an FPS view, for the entire run. This may have even been what inspired them to make the Survivor series, which could have led to the precision aiming in RE4.

 

[T-Vaccinated Kid]

I beg to differ, the dodging is impossible to avoid, just by simply playing the game. Whether you like it or not, it's going to happen. Barrrels, if you really go out of your way, you can avoid them, again, a little hard to do, but maybe not impossible like the dodging. Why you are trying so hard to prove that they can be avoided is beyond me, as those changes, like a lot of the ones you are talking about in RE4, aren't that different.

RE4 & RE5 aren't that similar. Not to the point where endless bithing(for no better word) should be directed towards RE4 & RE5. I can understand RE5, but RE4 doesn't deserve that kind of stuff. What gun wielding ganados are you talking about? I mean other than the JJ, no other "ganado" used any firearms.

Obviously you didn't understand my point, like your paragraph below says, as I didn't say it didn't change anything, I even made my last paragraph to say how it wasn't that RE4 is the same as RE2, but simply not that different.

The changes with enemies and bosses, that is nothing. Boss battles are mostly more fun(of course fighting the Ndesu in RE5 was not), and I don't know what you are talking about with no enemies that are easy to dispatch. Did you find the ganados or majini hard? If so, perhaps your complaints about being more prepared and capable of fighting enemies holds no water.

Furthermore, with a good 10 years under his belt, wouldn't Chris be able to dispatch little enemies such as a zombie(or it's equivilant, i.e. ganado, majini), without too much effort. Honestly, if we were still fighting enemies in the exact same way, verbatim, then I would start to question the intelligence of the characters a little.

It is definatly not as different as you are pointing out, yet I'm not trying to say how similar it is, I'm trying to point out how different it isn't, by pointing out similarities, I haven't even gotten around to pointing out each individual element in the game that is similar, mainly because I haven't gotten too many specific complaints to explain.

In regard to the 2 times in CVX that you enter FPS view, why should it matter? I mean you are losing your mind over a few changes in RE4, why not make a big deal about changes in any games prior?
Might I also add that CVX's Battle Game had an FPS view, for the entire run. This may have even been what inspired them to make the Survivor series, which could have led to the precision aiming in RE4.

That was my point in the first place. The barrels don't change the way you play they just add another level of strategy to some points of the game. The changes in RE3 aren't changes they are additions. Just like the quick knife, melee, and reload action are additions in RE4, additions which make the game more action accessable.

RE 4 and 5 are similar in gameplay. They are different in the way they are presented but similar in the way you play them.

The changes with enemies is very important because that affects how you play the game. My point wasn't how easy or hard it is to kill the enemies. Its how you approach the enemies that is different (or how the enemeies approach you) In earlier games there were enemies that posed very little threat if approached them correctly and you could avoid them or easily kill them. In RE 4 and 5 enemies are always chasing you down and forcing you to engage them and in different ways. This is by no means a bad thing, its just one of the ways the series has evolved. I just don't think the entire game should be full of these enemies as it puts too much emphasis on the action, although it is nice to see improvements in the B.O.W.s.

I completely agree with you there. I always figured Leon got so much better at combat because of his experiences fighting B.O.W.s for the U.S. government. And the same goes for Chris (and his muscles) I don't have a problem with what Leon and Chris are capable of doing in the game. I just think that the game shouldn't be designed around the action as RE4 and RE5 were. That said I think what RE4 and RE5 do they do very well. Besides, those situations were missions that Leon and Chris went into, trained, knowing that they would face some kind of resistance. Compare that to earlier games where the player was simply dropped into a disastrous biohazard.

My whole point is that while the gameplay mechanics in RE4 are similar to to earlier games, the addition of precison aiming changed to way the game was designed and changed the way you play the game. The two guns in Code Veronica, along with the few additions in RE3 don't affect the base gameplay as much as the gameplay in RE4 was affected by emphasizing action.

 

[Spike991]

That was my point in the first place. The barrels don't change the way you play they just add another level of strategy to some points of the game. The changes in RE3 aren't changes they are additions. Just like the quick knife, melee, and reload action are additions in RE4, additions which make the game more action accessable.

RE 4 and 5 are similar in gameplay. They are different in the way they are presented but similar in the way you play them.

The changes with enemies is very important because that affects how you play the game. My point wasn't how easy or hard it is to kill the enemies. Its how you approach the enemies that is different (or how the enemeies approach you) In earlier games there were enemies that posed very little threat if approached them correctly and you could avoid them or easily kill them. In RE 4 and 5 enemies are always chasing you down and forcing you to engage them and in different ways. This is by no means a bad thing, its just one of the ways the series has evolved. I just don't think the entire game should be full of these enemies as it puts too much emphasis on the action, although it is nice to see improvements in the B.O.W.s.

I completely agree with you there. I always figured Leon got so much better at combat because of his experiences fighting B.O.W.s for the U.S. government. And the same goes for Chris (and his muscles) I don't have a problem with what Leon and Chris are capable of doing in the game. I just think that the game shouldn't be designed around the action as RE4 and RE5 were. That said I think what RE4 and RE5 do they do very well. Besides, those situations were missions that Leon and Chris went into, trained, knowing that they would face some kind of resistance. Compare that to earlier games where the player was simply dropped into a disastrous biohazard.

My whole point is that while the gameplay mechanics in RE4 are similar to to earlier games, the addition of precison aiming changed to way the game was designed and changed the way you play the game. The two guns in Code Veronica, along with the few additions in RE3 don't affect the base gameplay as much as the gameplay in RE4 was affected by emphasizing action.

Well first off, kudos for the clever colors. I had been trying to individually quote different paragraphs and respond to them individually, but it didn't work, so I just left a large paragraph, nice though.

The barrels in RE3, the dodging in RE3, the duel wielding in CVX, the use of blunt weapons in the Outbreaks(not to mention being able to move and shoot in File#2), the manual reload in RE4(which was also in the Outbreaks), the quick-knife, and precision aiming, and melee abilities(RE4 & RE5), self-defense items(from the REmake), are all the same, just little additions to the game.

RE4 & RE5 are similar in that they have the same contols(assuming you are playing with type A in RE5), but they aren't taht similar after. They basically improved on the melee attacks, stuff like that, but otherwise, the co-op, which you pointed out made it's differences, and just the way you tackle certain situations, the situations you are put in, those are different. Later parts in RE5 reallly take it to a new level, not in a good way. The Lickers were great, the fight with Wesker & Jill was great(though it would have been nice to go one-on-one), but parts where enemies are shooting at you with AK's, very un-RE like. Of course they do resemble enemies from Caliban Cove, the novel, zombies armed with firearms, so it maybe wasn't that new, but of course the novles & games aren't connected, but it makes it a little more acceptable, not that I liked it any more than I did.

When playing RE4/RE5, just like when you play any RE game or any game in general, you feel obligated to kill each, and every enemy you encounter, the one difference, only one, is that in RE1 you find out pretty quick that you can't do that, otherwise you'll end up in a pretty bad situation, of your own doing, in RE5 you feel the same obligation, but you aren't penalized for doing so, in fact, you are rewarded, by ammo, health, etc. If they made it so that the enemies didn't drop anything, that would change things considerably, while there is a Survival aspect in RE5, it would add so much more emphasis on that.

RE4/RE5 weren't desiged around the action. Like any other RE game, I play for the story mostly, gameplay is of course secondary, but if it sucked, I guess it wouldn't really balance out. Having an awesome story & mediocre gameplay is acceptable. Like any RE game, at least newer ones, which includes the likes of RE3 & CVX, have more action elements, sure, but having a quick-knife & precision aiming don't contribute to any action feeling, that is other stuff, like the forementioned rewards for killing enemies.

Having precision aiming doesn't really change much. If you were playing with camera angles and had the lock-on aiming, and the zombies dropped ammo in RE1, wouldn't you be in a different situation?

I feel like we are having the exact same arguement we always have, you start off hot & heavy, then you start to realize my points, then we start to agree a little, which I suppose is nice, but I think you are being a little hypocritical, you are praising and totally on board with changes in earlier games, yet you are trying to make some kind of lynch mob when little changes are made in RE4/RE5.

I think we have covered a lot of what made RE4, and RE5 different, and it's not little changes like the ability to aim properly, or a quick-knife(in fact the quick-knife was so not a problem at all, I probably won't even mention it anymore), it's the way enemies drop stuff, thus making killing enemies, not only okay, but even encouraged. That's not to say that when I play I always kill everything, I found myself occasionallly running through, because I didn't feel like messing with a bunch of enemies.

 

[codename: HUNK]

I'm sure I have better things to do, than search around to find some obscure, and simple-minded posts you may have made at some point. And fortunately for me, I don't have to shut up, or mind my own business, especially since this is my business, and shutting up isn't something one does on a forum, honestly, what a dumb thing you're urging me to do.

Most refuse to take your points into consideration, because they make no sense. The arguing is tiresome, especially when you are either too lazy to prove an actual point, or simply have no clue what you are talking about, how dare you.

I believe I even left it open for you to say what you didn't like about RE4, to elaborate, and you didn't so I assumed the latter.

@T-kid, you caught me, I definately haven't played RE4/RE5, I have no idea what the hell I've been talking about for around a thousand posts, and the at least a year I've been on this site, excellent deduction.

Realistically though, in regard to the little features, a quick-knife and and manual reload, new aiming, those are just new features added into the game, just like getting the 90 degree turn, dodging(which in addition to the explosive barrels, coudn't be avoided, you would have to go out of your way to not shoot one of those red drums, and as far as the primitive dodge system was concerned, I randomly dodged many things throughout the game, in fact, I don't believe I ever once intentionally dodged anything in RE3, so yes, definately unavoidable), duel wielding, self-defense items, etc.

FPS view in CVX does change it, or at least by your logic, the same way RE4's view allows you to aim, you can't honestly expect me to believe that hypocritical nonsense.

I'm sure I never spoke about RE5, unless you can prove otherwise. I've been defending RE4, from distorted, and at times, moronic views, but RE5, that's a different story. While RE5 added new control schemes, to cater to 3rd Person Shooter fans, it still had the RE control scheme. RE5's story had many parts that were obviously made for an action game, i.e. the parts where tons of guys are shooting at you with AK's(definately not my favorite part of the game, or gun turret battles with the Ndesu), but while those parts of the game were made for a 3rd Person Shooter, we were unable to handle and play it like that, because it still played like RE, which resulted in total fail. RE5 wasn't total fail, but I don't want to them make future games follow entirely in RE5's footsteps, RE4 though, as I said, that one is not on the same boat as RE5, it was as it should be, and is.

Now keep in mind, my arguement isn't that RE4(and maybe RE5)are exactly the same as RE1 or RE2, my argument is that they aren't that different, no different than a sequel to it's predecessor. Of course, little changes made by RE4, were taken to another level with RE5...

wow, excuse me, sir. I didn't realize you know EVERYTHING. You don't have the time to find my posts before you run your mouth, but you have time to degrade me and shoot my posts down? skrew you, dick head.

 

[Spike991]

wow, excuse me, sir. I didn't realize you know EVERYTHING. You don't have the time to find my posts before you run your mouth, but you have time to degrade me and shoot my posts down? skrew you, dick head.

Your excused, and yes I do know everything as well as not having the time to look up whatever poor excuse you make for a post/reply.

And no thank you, I'd rather not, and as far as the final comment, the fact that you have to resort to such insults just proves how unitelligent you must be. You don't have anything logical or pertinent to say, so resort to insults.

 

[codename: HUNK]

:blush: ooookay then

 

[Spike991]

:blush: ooookay then

Well as long as it's okay with you, then the topic can proceed with some legitimate arguements.

 

[T-Vaccinated Kid]

Hang on a sec. I never said anything negative about RE4. All I said was that RE4 was different than the previous games. Which is not an opinion its a fact. Precision aiming wasn't a little change. It was a huge change that caused Capcom to design RE4 differently. Just like you said in RE4 you are encouraged to kill the enemies and sometimes you have to, while in earlier games you just had to survive. I'm not saying its an action game or 3rd person shooter, but its still pretty close. There are a ton of new elements in RE4 that make it clear that the action is the first gameplay priority. Like how the enemies spawn. In earlier games you entered a room and all the enemies were already there, unless they had a staged entrance. But in RE4 and RE5 enemies spawn and can enter the scene from many different places. There are a ton of quick and dangerous enemies attacking you from all sides, which leads to more combat, which, naturally, increases the level of action. Its also pretty obvious that RE4 was built differently because of how much other main elements of RE gameplay were ignored. Like the investigating, the ammo management, and the puzzles. There were a couple decent puzzles in RE4 but not any memorable ones. And there were no puzzles in RE5. Though you have to pay more attention to your ammo in RE5 because you have 2 inventories to manage and they have more limited space. RE4 was deffinately designed differently than the other games but the way it is presented allows it to keep its horror themes.

 

[Capcomplicated]

lol this is the strangest debate i've read in a while...minus the kid who went ballistic on Wesker_123 for making guides and posting them here lmao. But i will say this, i kinda agree with T-Vac here on almost everything. RE4 obviously took the game series to the next level whether you want to admit it or not...while graphical changes from pre-rendered to 3d polygonal backgrounds could be considered minor, drastically changed the feel of the game imo because of the lost stationary and creepily still factor. But these changes that have been mentioned (as said) arent necessarily bad changes but they undeniably characteristic in its own right as the dawn of a new Resident Evil direction.

Not to demean or patronize your views spike you seem very intelligent on all spectrums but it seems to me your fighting an uphill battle with a ball and chain attached to your leg.

 

[Spike991]

Hang on a sec. I never said anything negative about RE4. All I said was that RE4 was different than the previous games. Which is not an opinion its a fact. Precision aiming wasn't a little change. It was a huge change that caused Capcom to design RE4 differently. Just like you said in RE4 you are encouraged to kill the enemies and sometimes you have to, while in earlier games you just had to survive. I'm not saying its an action game or 3rd person shooter, but its still pretty close. There are a ton of new elements in RE4 that make it clear that the action is the first gameplay priority. Like how the enemies spawn. In earlier games you entered a room and all the enemies were already there, unless they had a staged entrance. But in RE4 and RE5 enemies spawn and can enter the scene from many different places. There are a ton of quick and dangerous enemies attacking you from all sides, which leads to more combat, which, naturally, increases the level of action. Its also pretty obvious that RE4 was built differently because of how much other main elements of RE gameplay were ignored. Like the investigating, the ammo management, and the puzzles. There were a couple decent puzzles in RE4 but not any memorable ones. And there were no puzzles in RE5. Though you have to pay more attention to your ammo in RE5 because you have 2 inventories to manage and they have more limited space. RE4 was deffinately designed differently than the other games but the way it is presented allows it to keep its horror themes.

You seem to think all the stuff about RE4 is negative, at least that's what I deduced from your earlier posts, and if deemed necessary, I could point out some more incriminating things you might have said, but basically, calling it out as something different, isn't a positive thing, and you certainly haven't been referring to anything different in RE4 in a positive way, not a single thing.

You're not encouraged to kill in RE4, at least not anymore than in RE2, or RE3, or CVX, I just said you are rewarded by killing the enemies, making it, not encouraged, but more comfortably allowed.

RE4 had some great puzzles, and they were(at least most) better than a lot of RE3's(not all, but most). That of course is my opinion, but RE4 had great puzzles.

RE5 also did have puzzles, not the best, not compared to any RE game, but they exist.

RE4 had investigating, and ammo conservation.

Again, we have covered the differences, is it necessary for me to tirelessly point out(in a really long reply) all of the similarities, or will RE4 is not extremely different(to warrant all the bull****, claiming of a different genre, etc) than it's predecessor suffice?

@Capcomplicated, your damn right I'm fighting an uphill battle, and reading stupid comments on how RE4 is a different genre or how it's entirely different, are my ball and chain. Obviously I'm in the enlightened & non-ignorant minority, but I like to think I'm bringing in my brothers & sisters into the light, of enlightened, intelligent, RE fans.

Anyway, as long as there are retarded replies arguing about nothing but little changes or things post RE4, I will be arguing on the other side.

That said, you have at least come off to a good start. Let's not forget that CVX was the first to introduce 3D environments from the previous pre-rendered. I'm sure Survivor was 3D too(I think).

Here is not only what I want to admit, but what I have admitted, that RE4 has changes. In addition to acknowledging this, I have also said that the changes were not so major that RE4 should be shifted aside, like a lepper, and thrown into a different category, or genre, or hated or discriminated against, that's what I'm arguing, hopefully this will be learned, as this same stupid ass debate has gotten tiresome over the years.

And I hope this debate is entertaining, it's just for your viewing pleasure.

 

[Capcomplicated]

Again, we have covered the differences, is it necessary for me to tirelessly point out(in a really long reply) all of the similarities, or will RE4 is not extremely different(to warrant all the bull****, claiming of a different genre, etc) than it's predecessor suffice?

@Capcomplicated, your damn right I'm fighting an uphill battle, and reading stupid comments on how RE4 is a different genre or how it's entirely different, are my ball and chain. Obviously I'm in the enlightened & non-ignorant minority, but I like to think I'm bringing in my brothers & sisters into the light, of enlightened, intelligent, RE fans.

Anyway, as long as there are retarded replies arguing about nothing but little changes or things post RE4, I will be arguing on the other side.

That said, you have at least come off to a good start. Let's not forget that CVX was the first to introduce 3D environments from the previous pre-rendered. I'm sure Survivor was 3D too(I think).

Here is not only what I want to admit, but what I have admitted, that RE4 has changes. In addition to acknowledging this, I have also said that the changes were not so major that RE4 should be shifted aside, like a lepper, and thrown into a different category, or genre, or hated or discriminated against, that's what I'm arguing, hopefully this will be learned, as this same stupid ass debate has gotten tiresome over the years.

And I hope this debate is entertaining, it's just for your viewing pleasure.

First off i'd like to say if you're going to repeatedly belittle and abase the views of the other side of the arguement then i have no business being here because then it becomes much less a debate and more of a personal battle of wits and useless banter. However if you can handle it while being respectful to the other members and their views then we can continue this interesting dialogue. And that goes to anyone, dont go down that road it only makes you look bad

Ok so if you dont mind (i know your tired of repeating yourself, but if you'd humor me) I would like to know what your core argument is, Are you upset because people write off Resident Evil 4 because of the issues talked about. or because people say that its different. One can say that it is in fact different...and still love the game. But I think youre trying to say that the game itself hasnt changed the way resident evil is viewed as a survival horror genre. If that is the case then i'll say this. Survival horror is just that surviving horror, whether it be action oriented or not. But to say that RE4 didnt change the way you looked at survival horror (i'll give examples if needed) then i beleive that is denial.

I'd also like to point out that i like to consider the resident evil series in chronological order.

 

[Spike991]

First off i'd like to say if you're going to repeatedly belittle and abase the views of the other side of the arguement then i have no business being here because then it becomes much less a debate and more of a personal battle of wits and useless banter. However if you can handle it while being respectful to the other members and their views then we can continue this interesting dialogue. And that goes to anyone, dont go down that road it only makes you look bad

Ok so if you dont mind (i know your tired of repeating yourself, but if you'd humor me) I would like to know what your core argument is, Are you upset because people write off Resident Evil 4 because of the issues talked about. or because people say that its different. One can say that it is in fact different...and still love the game. But I think youre trying to say that the game itself hasnt changed the way resident evil is viewed as a survival horror genre. If that is the case then i'll say this. Survival horror is just that surviving horror, whether it be action oriented or not. But to say that RE4 didnt change the way you looked at survival horror (i'll give examples if needed) then i beleive that is denial.

I'd also like to point out that i like to consider the resident evil series in chronological order.

Fair enough, but allow me to explain that when someone comes off to me in a negative, derogatory, offensive or antagonistic manner, I then alter my replies a little to accomodate those, as seen earlier in the thread.

I felt as if you came off in a pretty respectful manner, and as such I made sure mine was too, if it came off in any other way, then that was not my intention, but if you would like to continue the debate, I would like a fresh person, who can at least properly give some good reasoning, and also take in a few good points.

So the "stupid" comments were not directed at you, or really anybody specific, but were just very general.

If you'd like to see what fuels my rants about RE4, just check out threads with titles like this one, missing the "old ways", "why did they ruin RE", and other nonsense like that.

I of course never said anything remotely close to RE4 is exactly the same as RE2 or any pre-RE4 game in the series, and I have always been arguing to point out the little things that people seem to be overlooking(or are too stupid to notice) that make RE4 just as much a part of the series as CVX or whatever. RE4 is part of the series, it's not a different genre, and if there were any major, hugely horrific changes made in the series, it wasn't with RE4, maybe RE5, but certainly not RE4.

The only thing I deny, is that RE4 is something other than just another game in the series. I have acknowledged the changes, and I weighed what I saw, the things that are similar, and the things that are different, and I think it is totally unfair, the negative comments that RE4 gets, the undeserving comments. RE4 had it's overpopularity run, it ushered in a new bunch of fans, as it was possibly easier to play, the Camera Angles were difficult at first(of course when you get used to them, there is no problem, aiming was my only issue), while playing OTS didn't have so much of a learning curve, perhaps that being why it was such a hit with people that weren't RE fans.

Now I'm not naively defending RE4 like a fanboy, I have not only acknowledged certain changes, but I also dislike many things about RE4, as I also dislike many things about RE3, or UC, or whatever. Should I also mention, that I never really had any major complaints about the series, until Umbrella Chronicles came out, that is when the series really went downhill, certain voices being changed, and many other things that I could go into, but as this reply is pretty long, and if you want me to tediously point out tons of similarities, then there's no room for UC talk, in this reply.

Now as I said before, I have had this same stupid debate, perhaps stupid in how many times I have had it, and stupid in how I argue against the same limp responses each time. Here before, I will make it in italics, is just a copy/paste of a few points I made on another forum, same discussion though.

I loved the RE games before it switched to over-the-shoulder, and I loved the games post OTS. Changing the camera, wasn't, and isn't a big deal, at all, in the least.

It still has the same controls, does that not count for anything at all? People sit and complain about this and that, let us not only highlight the negative stuff(which doesn't include an OTS camera), but the positive too.

In the world of RE, the way a parasite works is that it allows for more controlled and intelligent hosts. i.e. Nemesis in RE3. According to you RE3 was a flawless game, although I would definately disagree with that. The gameplay added in some features that were unnecessary, kind of lame really, and were probably just there to make sure people knew it wasn't the same game from the year prior. Of course my evidence of these features that were unnecessary is that they didn't return in their sequel, Code Veronica, which I noticed you neglected to mention, is that because you also don't think fondly of CVX?

Back to the point I was making, Nemesis was a Tyrant, with a parasite used with it, thus making it more intelligent, "more human like", which is exactly what Umbrella was trying to create, mostly. The ultimate BOW was definately close with the Tyrant, and making them pass as human was a nice feature that Spencer and those guys didn't overlook. Mr. X, Ivan, etc, wore trenchcoats, and could even pass for human, especially Ivan, as the glasses covered it's stone face.

The ganados in RE4 are humans that are infected with a parasite, kind of like the humans infected with the T-virus in RE1, or the Tyrant with a parasite in RE3. We have parasite infectees rather than T-virus ones, and Capcom didn't just pull that out of their ass, obviously with parasites showing up earlier in the series, it was only a matter of time before they showed up again.

Not that having parasites is a problem. T-virus, G-virus, T-Veronica, T/G, Las Plagas, Type 2, Uroboros, NE-Alpha, it's all the same thing. Now let us realize that the original zombies in film weren't the flesh eating variety, they were actually almost exactly like what you see of the ganados & majini, so that also puts us in a state of normality, when playing against Las Plagas infectees.

Now this discussion versus the other one I had are going over slightly different things, gameplay, and story, yet there are some similarities that are usually overlooked.

My goal, is not for somebody to say, "You're right Spike", but to at least acknowledge how RE4 isn't so different, that they shouldn't make stupid topics about how RE4 ruined the entire series, and other such stuff. I've had this discussion many times before(feel like I've said that a lot), and I've had totally devoted to anything prior to RE4 fans, who have gone back and replayed RE4, being able to see the good stuff they may have missed out on because they were filled with anger based on a few minor changes here & there. I also find it necessary to smoke out the lame, nobodies who don't have an opinion, and are simply basing their RE4 hate, on some thread they read on a forum, or on a Youtube comment they saw, rather than actually playing and coming up with their own opinions. If you go into a game only looking for the bad(which a lot of people do, they come to a hate-rally for RE4(like a thread such as this one, or it's equivilant)), and then go play RE4 and see all the negative, completely oblivious to all the greatness that does exist, all the stuff that makes it an RE game, not some 3rd Person Shooter.

RE has allowed action to become a bigger part of the series and not starting with RE4, as action became a bigger part in RE3, CVX, perhaps the Survivor series, defiantely Dead Aim, and of course RE4.

Anyway, this is long enough, and I guess I'll just check back later, to hopefully make a less lenghty reply.