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

[Jen]

Your idea of "Survival Horror" is not the end all be all definition. Fact is, when you look up "Resident Evil 4" no matter the website, Google, Wikipedia, whatever, the genre is listed as "Survival Horror." You may not like this. You may not agree. But oh well...Your opinion of what survival horror is, is completely subjective in this case, and frankly, I do find it a survival horror game. As do many others. Your opinion on survival horror is not inherent fact to the genre. And you can't make an objective case as to why it's not survival horror, when by definition, as well as creators decision, it meets those requirements.

The thing is, Capcom actually branded this game as a non-survival horror game. At least, according to my region's cover:

The final blue bullet point reads:

'New survival action - forget "survival horror", this is Resident Evil redefined with more menacing enemies, intuitive controls and intense, action-packed gameplay.'

They literally branded the cover to state that the game isn't survival horror.

 

[Turo602]

It being "Awful" because it paved the way for 5 and 6 is completely subjective. Sorry. There's no getting around that.

It's awful because it deviated into a completely different genre that f*cked the series up so bad that they had to go back to being more like Resident Evil and less like Resident Evil 4. How is that a positive? The direction was terrible and that's evident in the existence of the current games because clearly, 4, 5, and 6 weren't Resident Evil enough. In what world is changing genre and changing the plot 4 entries deep not awful? I can't imagine Devil May Cry 6 being a third person shooter with hack and slash elements and people saying it's a good direction without any basis for it other than because they feel that way. This isn't my personal opinion, it's the the series' history.

Your idea of "Survival Horror" is not the end all be all definition. Fact is, when you look up "Resident Evil 4" no matter the website, Google, Wikipedia, whatever, the genre is listed as "Survival Horror." You may not like this. You may not agree. But oh well...Your opinion of what survival horror is, is completely subjective in this case, and frankly, I do find it a survival horror game. As do many others. Your opinion on survival horror is not inherent fact to the genre. And you can't make an objective case as to why it's not survival horror, when by definition, as well as creators decision, it meets those requirements.

It's not my idea of survival horror. It's legitimately not a survival horror game. You would know this if you didn't purposely ignore the fact that it's also listed as a third-person shooter, meaning it's no longer a survival horror game but an action adventure game with survival horror and third-person shooter elements.

Your quote, exactly was, "but there is no way in hell it's a great Resident Evil game when it fails to capture or meaningfully build on the ground work laid out by the original. "

Well...It is a Resident Evil game. In the most literal sense it is. And you said "Build on the Ground Work." The Groundwork is much more than just how the gameplay changes and differed. It builds on the groundwork by giving us a more developed returning character, as well as more information on the story of Wesker, Ada, and their goals. It builds on the groundwork by showing, this is no longer about a midwestern town, but can happen anywhere at any time. Builds on the groundwork MUCH like 28 Days Later by making the traditional "Zombie" enemy faster and more aggressive. All while retaining a "Horror" element, (Whether it was a good horror element or not, is debated, but the fact is it's there), at least minimal puzzle solving, sound design, and story that follows what the series has been built up to at that point.

So yes...Anything you have said, is not objective fact about Resident Evil 4, and is really just your own opinions on why it's a bad Resident Evil game, that have the appearance of being objective because they're well thought out, which is at least more than I can say for most people's opinions on here.

The ground work is literally everything in the first game. That's Resident Evil and that's what every game since has improved upon and experimented with. The design, the story, the visual elements, the atmosphere, the characters, etc. Resident Evil 4 in no way improves on this than it does reinvent it. Leon is a totally different character. The design is now linear. The setting and enemies are drastically different. The story is completely destroyed in an opening narration in favor of a throwaway fetch quest to find the president's daughter. I'm not saying things can't be different. But there's a degree of what can be changed before it starts to become a totally different game and that's exactly what RE4 is. A drastically different game to Resident Evil. Saying it's officially Resident Evil doesn't mean it captures what Resident Evil is when it is in fact trying to be very different, which was Shinji Mikami's goal when making this game. So again, I don't get how anyone can say otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

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.

My attitude started because of your attitude, you are the first one who sayd that you were not interested in hearing someone that say that resident evil 4 was a great resident evil game my posting that phrase... also I don't think I should search around this forum for your motivation on why resident evil 4 is not a resident evil game since we are talking in here now and you should have writed your motivation instead of simply writing: no it's not a great re game ..

And yeah for me and for many other people in the world resident evil 4 is still a resident evil game, sure it's an action game I did not deny that but despite the action its still an horror game and a resident evil game, it's still had the tension and mistery of the resident evil series despite being an action game...
But don't forget Tha resident evil 3 was also an action game, and if you put an over the shoulder camera on 3, you will have resident evil 4 like game, the only difference is that Re 4 had easy puzzle...
Also leon is a better character in 4 compered to resident evil 2, that's when i personally started to love him...

If 5 and 6 went on to became that kind of game is because of Capcom fault, since residente evil 5 was a completely different game for at least 2 years of development but than they decided to change it in favor of more action and Co op probably because gears of War came out and Co op became famous again...

The evil whitin 1 and 2 follow resident evil 4 formula in my opinion but they are two great horror game, so resident evil 5 could have been a better horror game but its not resident evil 4 fault if it wasn't , it was Capcom fault who decided to change the game at the last minuteand they just copied resident evil 4 by putting more action and co op but I still think that re 5 is a good re game... Resident evil 6 instead was awful and that wasn t a resident evil game

Take a look at this to see how resident evil 5 was originally Going to be before they changed it in mind development, it was way more horror and intense in my opinion, and there was t virus zombie originally instead of the same plaga from re 4
https://www.relyonhorror.com/in-depth/resident-evil-5-beta-4-5-information-lost-scrapped-concepts/
IMO Capcom was very stupid in changing this Re 5 whit the one we have, this looked like a completely innovative and new game, it could have been the best and ultimate resident evil ever...

 

[KennedyKiller]

It's awful because it deviated into a completely different genre that f*cked the series up so bad that they had to go back to being more like Resident Evil and less like Resident Evil 4. How is that a positive? The direction was terrible and that's evident in the existence of the current games because clearly, 4, 5, and 6 weren't Resident Evil enough. In what world is changing genre and changing the plot 4 entries deep not awful? I can't imagine Devil May Cry 6 being a third person shooter with hack and slash elements and people saying it's a good direction without any basis for it other than because they feel that way. This isn't my personal opinion, it's the the series' history.

The moment you use the term "Awful," or any term that cannot be stated as fact, it automatically becomes a subjective opinion.

It's not my idea of survival horror. It's legitimately not a survival horror game. You would know this if you didn't purposely ignore the fact that it's also listed as a third-person shooter, meaning it's no longer a survival horror game but an action adventure game with survival horror and third-person shooter elements.

Where is the rule that third person shooters can't be survival horror? This seems like an arbitrary rule, written up to make your point, with no backing. Show me where that is written.

The ground work is literally everything in the first game. That's Resident Evil and that's what every game since has improved upon and experimented with. The design, the story, the visual elements, the atmosphere, the characters, etc. Resident Evil 4 in no way improves on this than it does reinvent it. Leon is a totally different character. The design is now linear. The setting and enemies are drastically different. The story is completely destroyed in an opening narration in favor of a throwaway fetch quest to find the president's daughter. I'm not saying things can't be different. But there's a degree of what can be changed before it starts to become a totally different game and that's exactly what RE4 is. A drastically different game to Resident Evil. Saying it's officially Resident Evil doesn't mean it captures what Resident Evil is when it is in fact trying to be very different, which was Shinji Mikami's goal when making this game. So again, I don't get how anyone can say otherwise.

People can say otherwise, because it's an opinion. There is no fact as to "What Resident Evil Is" because everyone's going to have a completely different experience. For me, RE4 garnered almost an identical experience as when I originally Played RE1. In fact, I Played RE1 and RE2 (Some how skipped 2), before playing RE4. And for me, it all still felt exactly the same. The gameplay may have changed, but that was it. So for you to say "It's a not a Resident Evil game" is completely subjective when, at no point playing RE4, did I ever question the series identity. By your Logic, Sonic Adventure isn't a Sonic game, even though it has Sonic in the title. Sure the main character returns, but it changes the gameplay format drastically, even making over half the characters not have emphasis on speed, gives us an open hub adventure world instead of just stages. Gives us voice acted cutscenes with a full story. This was a COMPLETE Departure for Sonic, yet this is an entry in the main canon. All your arguments for Resident Evil 4 not being a Resident Evil game, can be made for Sonic Adventure not being a Sonic game. But no one would make that argument because it's ridiculous.

The thing is, Capcom actually branded this game as a non-survival horror game. At least, according to my region's cover:

The final blue bullet point reads:

'New survival action - forget "survival horror", this is Resident Evil redefined with more menacing enemies, intuitive controls and intense, action-packed gameplay.'

They literally branded the cover to state that the game isn't survival horror.

And there may be the region differences, because on this box art it says "Destined to be the greatest survival horror of all time. So now we have conflicting information from box art, so we'll need something more from Capcom if that's the case...He he. Case. Like...Game case.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

The moment you use the term "Awful," or any term that cannot be stated as fact, it automatically becomes a subjective opinion.



Where is the rule that third person shooters can't be survival horror? This seems like an arbitrary rule, written up to make your point, with no backing. Show me where that is written.





People can say otherwise, because it's an opinion. There is no fact as to "What Resident Evil Is" because everyone's going to have a completely different experience. For me, RE4 garnered almost an identical experience as when I originally Played RE1. In fact, I Played RE1 and RE2 (Some how skipped 2), before playing RE4. And for me, it all still felt exactly the same. The gameplay may have changed, but that was it. So for you to say "It's a not a Resident Evil game" is completely subjective when, at no point playing RE4, did I ever question the series identity. By your Logic, Sonic Adventure isn't a Sonic game, even though it has Sonic in the title. Sure the main character returns, but it changes the gameplay format drastically, even making over half the characters not have emphasis on speed, gives us an open hub adventure world instead of just stages. Gives us voice acted cutscenes with a full story. This was a COMPLETE Departure for Sonic, yet this is an entry in the main canon. All your arguments for Resident Evil 4 not being a Resident Evil game, can be made for Sonic Adventure not being a Sonic game. But no one would make that argument because it's ridiculous.


And there may be the region differences, because on this box art it says "Destined to be the greatest survival horror of all time. So now we have conflicting information from box art, so we'll need something more from Capcom if that's the case...He he. Case. Like...Game case.

You are right in everything, also horror game can be first persone, third persone ecc there is no law that say otherwise.... Infact the evil whitin an horror game is third person

 

[Turo602]

The moment you use the term "Awful," or any term that cannot be stated as fact, it automatically becomes a subjective opinion.

So you're telling me that if I build a house that collapses in on itself, that isn't awful craftsmanship? Also, I said my statements were based on objective reasoning which I elaborated on and you haven't been able to refute. So I don't really get why you keep harping on my word choice like if it somehow discredits the point at hand.

Where is the rule that third person shooters can't be survival horror? This seems like an arbitrary rule, written up to make your point, with no backing. Show me where that is written.

An arbitrary rule? You're essentially asking me why can't dogs be cats. Or why can't a cat/dog hybrid be considered a whole dog. Survival horror is a subgenre of action adventure. Third-person shooters are a sub genre of shooters. That's 2 completely different genres mixed. It's neither a full blown third-person shooter or survival horror game.

People can say otherwise, because it's an opinion. There is no fact as to "What Resident Evil Is" because everyone's going to have a completely different experience. For me, RE4 garnered almost an identical experience as when I originally Played RE1. In fact, I Played RE1 and RE2 (Some how skipped 2), before playing RE4. And for me, it all still felt exactly the same. The gameplay may have changed, but that was it. So for you to say "It's a not a Resident Evil game" is completely subjective when, at no point playing RE4, did I ever question the series identity. By your Logic, Sonic Adventure isn't a Sonic game, even though it has Sonic in the title. Sure the main character returns, but it changes the gameplay format drastically, even making over half the characters not have emphasis on speed, gives us an open hub adventure world instead of just stages. Gives us voice acted cutscenes with a full story. This was a COMPLETE Departure for Sonic, yet this is an entry in the main canon. All your arguments for Resident Evil 4 not being a Resident Evil game, can be made for Sonic Adventure not being a Sonic game. But no one would make that argument because it's ridiculous.

Your experience doesn't change facts. Just because you failed to question something and were blindly excited to be playing a new game doesn't change the reality of the situation. Resident Evil 4 is not like Resident Evil. Just because someone could disagree with that doesn't mean their claim is valid. They're 2 drastically different games that were developed with completely different goals in mind, they just happen to be part of the same series.

I've made my case and I'm inclined to believe it's the truth because you haven't been able to tell me anything other than people have differing opinions so somehow that makes what I'm saying as invalid as an opinion backed by subjective reasoning like "in my experience."

And there may be the region differences, because on this box art it says "Destined to be the greatest survival horror of all time. So now we have conflicting information from box art, so we'll need something more from Capcom if that's the case...He he. Case. Like...Game case.

It's also a quote from Game Informer, and the highlighted text is "GREATEST GAME of ALL TIME." The portion written by Capcom in bullet points on the NTSC cover is "Fast-paced, edge-of-your-seat action."

 

[Deleted member 21244]

So you're telling me that if I build a house that collapses in on itself, that isn't awful craftsmanship? Also, I said my statements were based on objective reasoning which I elaborated on and you haven't been able to refute. So I don't really get why you keep harping on my word choice like if it somehow discredits the point at hand.



An arbitrary rule? You're essentially asking me why can't dogs be cats. Or why can't a cat/dog hybrid be considered a whole dog. Survival horror is a subgenre of action adventure. Third-person shooters are a sub genre of shooters. That's 2 completely different genres mixed. It's neither a full blown third-person shooter or survival horror game.



Your experience doesn't change facts. Just because you failed to question something and were blindly excited to be playing a new game doesn't change the reality of the situation. Resident Evil 4 is not like Resident Evil. Just because someone could disagree with that doesn't mean their claim is valid. They're 2 drastically different games that were developed with completely different goals in mind, they just happen to be part of the same series.

I've made my case and I'm inclined to believe it's the truth because you haven't been able to tell me anything other than people have differing opinions so somehow that makes what I'm saying as invalid as an opinion backed by subjective reasoning like "in my experience."



It's also a quote from Game Informer, and the highlighted text is "GREATEST GAME of ALL TIME." The portion written by Capcom in bullet points on the NTSC cover is "Fast-paced, edge-of-your-seat action."

What kind of example are that? Cat and dog?

The evil whitin is a third person shooter but still a survival horror...
So why did you say that survival horror can't be thir person?

Also you should just admit that your opinion is not an absolute fact like you are pretending it to be, it's just what you think...

 

[Turo602]

What kind of example are that? Cat and dog?

The evil whitin is a third person shooter but still a survival horror...
So why did you say that survival horror can't be thir person?

Also you should just admit that your opinion is not an absolute fact like you are pretending it to be, it's just what you think...

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.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

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.

I don't know if you are ignorant or what but the evil whitin is a third person shooter and a survival horror probably you did not understand what thir person shooter is so I ll take the definition from Wikipedia for you

Here it is:
A third-person shooter is a game structured around shooting, and in which the player can see the avatar on-screen in a third-person view. Third-person shooter is a game where instead of seeing the games through the main character's eyes, you see the main character moving and shooting in the game and the game is specifically focused on shooting.

Al traits that the evil whitin had since the main purpose of the gaim is shooting, also tew is listed as third person shooter survival horror

 

[Turo602]

I don't know if you are ignorant or what but the evil whitin is a third person shooter and a survival horror probably you did not understand what thir person shooter is so I ll take the definition from Wikipedia for you

Here it is:
A third-person shooter is a game structured around shooting, and in which the player can see the avatar on-screen in a third-person view. Third-person shooter is a game where instead of seeing the games through the main character's eyes, you see the main character moving and shooting in the game and the game is specifically focused on shooting.

Al traits that the evil whitin had since the main purpose of the gaim is shooting, also tew is listed as third person shooter survival horror

You claim to have gotten that from Wikipedia yet Wikipedia states that it's a third-person survival horror game and the word third-person doesn't link you to third-person shooter. If you're gonna call someone ignorant, don't be ignorant yourself.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

You claim to have gotten that from Wikipedia yet Wikipedia states that it's a third-person survival horror game and the word third-person doesn't link you to third-person shooter. If you're gonna call someone ignorant, don't be ignorant yourself.

Infact I take the definition on Wikipedia, If you click the link on the evil whitin it takes you also on thir persond, which also report the definition I already say...

Also no nedd to look on Wikipedia since we can confirm this ourself, in the evil within you primary objective is to shoot in a third person perspective, so how can you say it's not a third person shooter, the primary things to do in that game is upgrade your weapon and kill enemyes, what kind of game is this for you? For me it look like third person shooter whit survival horror element

The evil whitin 1 and 2 are listed as third person shooter on most review also, and on list of best generation third person shooter

 

[Turo602]

Infact I take the definition on Wikipedia, If you click the link on the evil whitin it takes you also on thir persond, which also report the definition I already say...

Also no nedd to look on Wikipedia since we can confirm this ourself, in the evil within you primary objective is to shoot in a third person perspective, so how can you say it's not a third person shooter, the primary things to do in that game is upgrade your weapon and kill enemyes, what kind of game is this for you? For me it look like third person shooter whit survival horror element

The evil whitin 1 and 2 are listed as third person shooter on most review also, and on list of best generation third person shooter

No it doesn't. It takes you to an article talking about camera perspectives. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and you don't know how genres work. By your logic, every game with a gun in a third-person perspective is a third-person shooter.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

No it doesn't. It takes you to an article talking about camera perspectives. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and you don't know how genres work. By your logic, every game with a gun is a third-person shooter.

I didn't say that every game whit a gun is a third person shooterbut that the evil whitin is a third person shooter since you uprgrade gun and frequently shoot in third person, 99% of that game is shooting.....

Also is strange to note that game lake Alan wake on Wikipedia are sometimes listed as action rpg survival horror and sometimes third person shooter
Revelations 2 is also listed as survival horrid but strangely is listed as third person shooter in other Wikipedia page...
So I don't really know if we must take Wikipedia listing into account anymore

Also since it's look like that you know what you are talking about while I didn't from your point of view, can you please explain me the the difference between the evil whitin and a third person shooter?

 

[Turo602]

I didn't say that every game whit a gun is a third person shooterbut that the evil whitin is a third person shooter since you uprgrade gun and frequently shoot in third person, 99% of that game is shooting.....

Also is strange to note that game lake Alan wake on Wikipedia are sometimes listed as action rpg survival horror and sometimes third person shooter
Revelations 2 is also listed as survival horrid but strangely is listed as third person shooter in other Wikipedia page...
So I don't really know if we must take Wikipedia listing into account anymore

Also since it's look like that you know what you are talking about while I didn't from your point of view, can you please explain me the the difference between the evil whitin and a third person shooter?

Third-person shooters rely almost entirely on shooting enemies. That's why they're called shooters. The Evil Within uses shooting as a mechanic, but that is not the sole purpose of the game. That's why ammo is limited, stamina is limited, you are encouraged to use melee items and kill enemies in stealth so you can save your ammo. There are other means of surviving than just shooting because it's a survival horror game. The emphasis is on survival, not combat.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

Third-person shooters rely almost entirely on shooting enemies. That's why they're called shooters. The Evil Within uses shooting as a mechanic, but that is not the sole purpose of the game. That's why ammo is limited, stamina is limited, you are encouraged to use melee items and kill enemies in stealth so you can save your ammo. There are other means of surviving than just shooting because it's a survival horror game. The emphasis is on survival, not combat.

So as you can see the evil whitin is third person shooter because you shoot enemy from a third persone perspective, combined whit survival horror element

 

[Turo602]

So as you can see the evil whitin is third person shooter because you shoot enemy from a third persone perspective, combined whit survival horror element

Wow... Stop talking. You have no goddamn clue what you're talking about.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

Wow... Stop talking. You have no goddamn clue what you're talking about.

Wow that's all you can say? Probably you should stop talking, don't ever again say that I should stop taking because you are no one...

What are you? God? That can tell me to stop talking? I have more clue than you on what I m saying...
You are ridicolous and pathetic whit your stupid attitude, since you can only silence people when they didn't share you opinion... Pathetic, did you read all your post? I think we should just call this thread, Turo602 is right while all other opinion are wrong so don't post anything here because he will tell you to shut up... I mean you are so ridicolous

Also you listed the evil whitin as survival horror but the post that you write above still apply to resident evil 4, since you shoot but you are also encouraged to use Meele to spare ammo and you have to use your inventory well to survive against the ganados and boss, but still you list it as 100% action, so there is a bit of a conflict in what you say, so probably you don't know what you are talking about

 

[KennedyKiller]

So you're telling me that if I build a house that collapses in on itself, that isn't awful craftsmanship? Also, I said my statements were based on objective reasoning which I elaborated on and you haven't been able to refute. So I don't really get why you keep harping on my word choice like if it somehow discredits the point at hand.

I mean, not inherently. There very well may be another cause that wasn't the craftsmanship at all. That said, I get your point, awful *can* be objective. However, the way you're using it, to describe a video games direction, isn't. That's purely an opinion, and you can't say whether the way a video game took itself gameplay wise was objectively awful or not, because that's not something that can be proven.

An arbitrary rule? You're essentially asking me why can't dogs be cats. Or why can't a cat/dog hybrid be considered a whole dog. Survival horror is a subgenre of action adventure. Third-person shooters are a sub genre of shooters. That's 2 completely different genres mixed. It's neither a full blown third-person shooter or survival horror game.

Per Google, which take with a grain of salt, - Survival horror is a subgenre of video games inspired by horror fiction that focuses on survival of the character as the game tries to frighten players with either horror graphics or scary ambience.

My point is, it says NOTHING about it *Needing* to be Action/Adventure. And, even if it did, games mix genres all the time. Just like pop music. Survival Horror can have other elements. Rather than your insipid Dog and Cat example, how about use music. Pop and Punk to make Pop Punk. Or Electronic and Swing to make Electroswing. Regardlesss of whatever else it is, it's still Punk. It's still swing. It just also has other flavors. Survival Horror can have other flavors too, and still be survival horror. The Evil Within and is a VASTLY different game than Slender Man, is a vastly different game than Silent Hill: Homecoming. All of them are survival horror.

Your experience doesn't change facts. Just because you failed to question something and were blindly excited to be playing a new game doesn't change the reality of the situation. Resident Evil 4 is not like Resident Evil. Just because someone could disagree with that doesn't mean their claim is valid. They're 2 drastically different games that were developed with completely different goals in mind, they just happen to be part of the same series.

Experience is everything and it ISN'T a fact. What Resident Evil is, has two parts. The objective and the subjective. Objectively, it's a video game. Made to be a horror game. Where you play through a story with the end goal being to survive a sort of infectious, life or death situation. Nothing is patently false in this statement. Now...The SUBJECTIVE is a whole lot bigger. To Some, RE is about zombies. RE to them will ONLY ever be about zombies, so 4 and 5 are out. To some RE is about the characters and their growth as BOW's become more common place in the world. To them it's about the story of how science can change the world for the negative. Their opinion of what RE is, doesn't invalidate the original persons opinion. Fact is, people play it for different reasons. I'm absolutely sure I play RE for a different reason than you. Therefore, what Resident Evil is, to me, is going to be different on the subjective level. So no, for me Resident Evil 4 didn't change what Resident Evil was about at all. The gameplay can change over and over, as long as they keep the central theme *I* play for, then to me, it won't be different. That's why I hold Umbrella Chronicles in such high regard. To me, it's a true blue RE game, and one of my all time favorites. But by your logic, that game ALSO isn't a real RE game, because of how much it abandons from the original game.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

I mean, not inherently. There very well may be another cause that wasn't the craftsmanship at all. That said, I get your point, awful *can* be objective. However, the way you're using it, to describe a video games direction, isn't. That's purely an opinion, and you can't say whether the way a video game took itself gameplay wise was objectively awful or not, because that's not something that can be proven.



Per Google, which take with a grain of salt, - Survival horror is a subgenre of video games inspired by horror fiction that focuses on survival of the character as the game tries to frighten players with either horror graphics or scary ambience.

My point is, it says NOTHING about it *Needing* to be Action/Adventure. And, even if it did, games mix genres all the time. Just like pop music. Survival Horror can have other elements. Rather than your insipid Dog and Cat example, how about use music. Pop and Punk to make Pop Punk. Or Electronic and Swing to make Electroswing. Regardlesss of whatever else it is, it's still Punk. It's still swing. It just also has other flavors. Survival Horror can have other flavors too, and still be survival horror. The Evil Within and is a VASTLY different game than Slender Man, is a vastly different game than Silent Hill: Homecoming. All of them are survival horror.





Experience is everything and it ISN'T a fact. What Resident Evil is, has two parts. The objective and the subjective. Objectively, it's a video game. Made to be a horror game. Where you play through a story with the end goal being to survive a sort of infectious, life or death situation. Nothing is patently false in this statement. Now...The SUBJECTIVE is a whole lot bigger. To Some, RE is about zombies. RE to them will ONLY ever be about zombies, so 4 and 5 are out. To some RE is about the characters and their growth as BOW's become more common place in the world. To them it's about the story of how science can change the world for the negative. Their opinion of what RE is, doesn't invalidate the original persons opinion. Fact is, people play it for different reasons. I'm absolutely sure I play RE for a different reason than you. Therefore, what Resident Evil is, to me, is going to be different on the subjective level. So no, for me Resident Evil 4 didn't change what Resident Evil was about at all. The gameplay can change over and over, as long as they keep the central theme *I* play for, then to me, it won't be different. That's why I hold Umbrella Chronicles in such high regard. To me, it's a true blue RE game, and one of my all time favorites. But by your logic, that game ALSO isn't a real RE game, because of how much it abandons from the original game.

Quoted all you say...
Also i really like the umbrella chronicles and darkside chronicles, every time I play them I still feel like the first time I played the game they summarized... This two game had the atmosphere and the tension of resident evil and the story are one of my favorite in the series...

 

[Turo602]

I mean, not inherently. There very well may be another cause that wasn't the craftsmanship at all. That said, I get your point, awful *can* be objective. However, the way you're using it, to describe a video games direction, isn't. That's purely an opinion, and you can't say whether the way a video game took itself gameplay wise was objectively awful or not, because that's not something that can be proven.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. I never stated that my opinions were objectively correct. I stated that my reasoning for my statements were objective, as you tried to write off said opinion as backed by subjective reasoning. I've given you my reasons and they were based on the fact that it failed to keep players and critics happy, which in turn led to a soft reboot that attempted to go back to the series' roots, which was clearly not Resident Evil 4.

Per Google, which take with a grain of salt, - Survival horror is a subgenre of video games inspired by horror fiction that focuses on survival of the character as the game tries to frighten players with either horror graphics or scary ambience.

My point is, it says NOTHING about it *Needing* to be Action/Adventure. And, even if it did, games mix genres all the time. Just like pop music. Survival Horror can have other elements. Rather than your insipid Dog and Cat example, how about use music. Pop and Punk to make Pop Punk. Or Electronic and Swing to make Electroswing. Regardlesss of whatever else it is, it's still Punk. It's still swing. It just also has other flavors. Survival Horror can have other flavors too, and still be survival horror. The Evil Within and is a VASTLY different game than Slender Man, is a vastly different game than Silent Hill: Homecoming. All of them are survival horror.

Yet, it clearly states that survival horror is a subgenre... Action adventure is a broad genre that covers many types of video games including survival horror games. And BTW, when was that ever your point?

Survival horror games can have RPG elements in them like upgrading weapons, yet still not be considered an RPG. They can have all sorts of differences like the games you just stated, and still be survival horror games because they're still just survival horror games. Resident Evil 4 on the other hand is a third-person shooter survival horror game, which is very much different from just a survival horror game and is essentially a whole new subgenre of game, like Metroidvanias, which are a mix of Platforming and Adventure. When you mix genres, you get a whole new subgenre, it isn't just more of the same. That completely discredits the style and innovation of the work. So whether you want to admit it or not, no, Resident Evil 4 is not the same kind of game as Resident Evil 1-CVX/REmake/0. It's a complete reinvention that is no longer a survival horror game, as it was printed on the box of the game which you thought you could just ignore.

Experience is everything and it ISN'T a fact. What Resident Evil is, has two parts. The objective and the subjective. Objectively, it's a video game. Made to be a horror game. Where you play through a story with the end goal being to survive a sort of infectious, life or death situation. Nothing is patently false in this statement. Now...The SUBJECTIVE is a whole lot bigger. To Some, RE is about zombies. RE to them will ONLY ever be about zombies, so 4 and 5 are out. To some RE is about the characters and their growth as BOW's become more common place in the world. To them it's about the story of how science can change the world for the negative. Their opinion of what RE is, doesn't invalidate the original persons opinion. Fact is, people play it for different reasons. I'm absolutely sure I play RE for a different reason than you. Therefore, what Resident Evil is, to me, is going to be different on the subjective level. So no, for me Resident Evil 4 didn't change what Resident Evil was about at all. The gameplay can change over and over, as long as they keep the central theme *I* play for, then to me, it won't be different. That's why I hold Umbrella Chronicles in such high regard. To me, it's a true blue RE game, and one of my all time favorites. But by your logic, that game ALSO isn't a real RE game, because of how much it abandons from the original game.

Sure, on your résumé. The subjective has no role in determining what Resident Evil is. That was answered for us in 1996 and cemented with its sequels before they shifted direction. Just because someone may like the games or play them for entirely different reasons doesn't mean they've somehow changed the fact of the matter. Your logic is honestly ridiculous at this point. To say Umbrella Chronicles is a "true blue" Resident Evil game is like saying Mario Kart is just another Super Mario game, which completely disregards their differences.

Wow that's all you can say? Probably you should stop talking, don't ever again say that I should stop taking because you are no one...

What are you? God? That can tell me to stop talking? I have more clue than you on what I m saying...
You are ridicolous and pathetic whit your stupid attitude, since you can only silence people when they didn't share you opinion... Pathetic, did you read all your post? I think we should just call this thread, Turo602 is right while all other opinion are wrong so don't post anything here because he will tell you to shut up... I mean you are so ridicolous

Also you listed the evil whitin as survival horror but the post that you write above still apply to resident evil 4, since you shoot but you are also encouraged to use Meele to spare ammo and you have to use your inventory well to survive against the ganados and boss, but still you list it as 100% action, so there is a bit of a conflict in what you say, so probably you don't know what you are talking about