Support NeoGAF

[Bernkastel]

Quoting some of my previous post regarding Skyrim

Tell me one more open world game where NPCs actually live a life independent of the player like eating, sleeping, working etc. Heck even Witcher 3(which is often praised as one of the best ones in the genre) with way more NPCs then Skyrim, all NPCs are there just like GTA games where they exist to react to you in a scripted manner. No NPCs in Witcher 3 have their own schedule, they are like a scenery. I think this RPGwatch thread illustrates my point really well.

Witcher 3 - Witcher 3 vs Skyrim more realistic npcs?

I was reading a couple articles about how Witcher 3 npcs were more realistic and had a more varied cycle than Skyrims. My guess is that the writers never played either game. If you want a direct comparison, take the first armorer NPC from both games and follow their daily routine. If you ignore...

www.rpgwatch.com

This is another fantastic video on NPC behavior in Bethesda games. Even after they tonned down the dialogue in Skyrim, its still very rare to find many open world games where every random NPC you observe actually lives like a person in that world and has his own daily life.

NPCs Witcher 3 in are like characters in stories that are only there to play a script, while those in Skyrim have a lot more freedom. Most of the hate for Skyrim came years later in 8th gen due to being compared with Witcher 3, before that it was mostly limited to small fandoms like RPG Codex(who also hated Morrowind and Oblivion when they released) or "Witcher 2 is better than Skyrim"(I can sorta agree with this statement). People comparing Skyrim with Cyberpunk

Same?

Maybe try thinking how these games were received when they were released? Go visit the Cyberpunk and Skyrim reveal trailer videos and read the comments. People are still praising the Skyrim reveal trailer while dunking out on the Cyberpunk reveal for being misleading.

I feel like its 96 metacritic score is well deserved.

One of the most ambitious games ever made.

Skyrim was very well received because it was impressive what they achieved in the 360-PS3 gen in 2011. We didn't have an open world game of that scale yet. Unless you used PS3 people only found out bugs after playing it for weeks, at that point they were already immersed.

I found a bug in the thieves guild quest line in vanilla skyrim(2011). The game was too ambitious for its time and the platforms it was aiming. Reviewers praised it because they didn't encounter them and it was amazing for a 360 game. We found some bugs after pouring in 100s of hours. They were never game breaking for what we got at that time. Mods kept the games standards upto modern games even now.

Also people don't mod Skyrim only to "fix the game"(those mods are available for almost every games). OP I suggest you play Skyrim in PC, and turn it into a 4K next gen game with ENBs and texture mods. Bethesda games should be played on PC because of the incredible modding community due to tools provided by Bethesda.

 

[Mr.ODST]

I’ve played a grand total of 0 hours. Loved Oblivion, but 100+ hour games are too daunting to get into anymore for me.

Same with me, Oblivion on 360 was no joke, meltede absolute time in that but I think I just loved the world and setting more.

 

[Otre]

Skyrim is all right. Was amazing technologically at the time it came out. The metacritic is too high on it because a 2011 technological marvel that dosent play that well wont age like the all time classics. It will be a zoomer, nostagia ridden, classic though. Going from console to full 60 on PC was great. Exploration is superb. Mixing magics and swords is cool, if only it had a good melee system. Never liked the battles. NPCs have a nice day/night cycle behaviors but the illusion is shattered the 2nd or 3rd time you visit a place.

Its best played with graphic mods. Visiting nexusmods will give you all the lewd mods you might need. A warning. Do not get too much into modding. You might spend more time modding that playing it.

 

[sephiroth7x]

Have no issue with Skyrim. Think its a great game. It does feel like Elder Scrolls Lite for most of the time though. I just remember feeling like it was a streamlined version of what we had before. That was disappointing.

 

[nemiroff]

One of the most overrated games of all time to me, without a doubt. I just can't understand why it was so well reviewed. I played it on PC when it released, it was the worst TES I ever played.

The game has no depth at all, all gameplay systems break down extremely easily.

I'm glad that overtime people are pointing out how bad it is, because when it released only a handful of people pointed out all the glaring flaws.

That sounds like congenial selective exposure bias to me.

 

[Spaceman292]

1. The NPC's are more alive than any other action RPG

pffftttthahahahaha

 

[Roberts]

The only open world game I completed more than once. I could find a thing or two that isn't great about it, but it is unmatched when it comes to immersion.

 

[Roger Rabbit]

I love Skyrim. Ended up buying it five times - ps3 base game, game with all dlc, Xbone version, PSVR, and Switch.

I always have fun playing it. My main gripe is that once I finish Alduin off, nobody in Skyrim seems remotely bothered that this constant threat to their existence is gone.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

I guess it's just a game people appreciated more for nostalgic purposes.

I thought Skyrim destroyed it.

 

[Despiralman69]

Hvee to disagree, i played the game on release for 360, one of the lucky onew that never got any gane breaking glitches at the time and about 50 hours in i was incredibly bored, every cave and dungeon felt the same, i think i wouldnt of minded to much if there was a greater variety of enemys (at 45 hour mark i ran into some dwarf robots or something) at that point i felt like i had seen what the game had to offer, i honestly hope that with elder scrolls 6 not only do we get a massive variety of enemys but also more shit to explore and not the same layout for 5 arenas, skyrim could of been great just let down by repetitiveness, i also thing the huge amount of quests was also a bad thing because it meant most quests had little to no story at all, huge step down from fallout 3 imo, buggest reason why im not really that fussed about starfield is because bethesda dont seme to have any decent writers anymore

 

[DevilMayFlyForAWhiteGuy]

Back in the day I played the 360 version through 3 times DLC included. I’ve done a playthrough modded on Xbone and another playthrough modded in 4K/60 on Series X.

I like it.

 

[DukeNukem00]

Quoting some of my previous post regarding Skyrim: "Tell me one more open world game where NPCs actually live a life independent of the player like eating, sleeping, working etc."

NPCs Witcher 3 in are like characters in stories that are only there to play a script, while those in Skyrim have a lot more freedom. Most of the hate for Skyrim came years later in 8th gen due to being compared with Witcher 3, before that it was mostly limited to small fandoms like RPG Codex(who also hated Morrowind and Oblivion when they released) or "Witcher 2 is better than Skyrim"(I can sorta agree with this statement). People comparing Skyrim with Cyberpunk

Gothic for example. The worlds they built have people going to the river in the morning to wash. Going to work. Going to the tavern in the evening to have some drinks. Going to bed. They respond to every action you take. If you go and draw your weapon as a weakling in front of a though guy, he's gonna threaten you to sheath your blade before he knocks some sense into you. If you go later when you're stronger, he's gonna be frightened if you pull your sword. And so on.

Skyrim was blasted by hardcore rpg comunitites since the very first day it came out. Im talking places like RPG Codex, who played rpg's on computers since the 80s, not console gamers who were only then exposed to a game like this and thought its amazing. Even back when Fallout 3 came out, there were two local magazines still running here in my corner of europe. Both gave the game 7 and were highly critical, coming from Fallout 1 and 2.

Its a matter of perspective. Consoles usually had more simplistic games that were more adventure games than rpgs. Computers created the RPG genre and had these vast and complex games since the first day. Open worlds, choice and consequences were created in RPG's in Ultima 4, in 1985. Bethesda, for these players, starting with Oblivion was just a company that was neutering and dumbing their games with each title for broad apeal and commercial success. It's not a recent thing what you see with Skyrim

 

[nominedomine]

That sounds like congenial selective exposure bias to me.

Everyone has to like the game? I paid good money for it, close to release, wanting to like it based on all the positive reviews.

I also hated Fallout 3, so there's a clear pattern of me just not liking their games. If you like them good for you.

What is funny is that people that like the game can't never point to what it does well, other than being big and having good mod support (something that no decent game should depend upon).

 

[playXray]

Morrowind released in 2002 what does Skyrim does that is much better? I don't mind the bugs at all, I don't think they matter, my problem with the game is how shallow it is and how poorly thought out the game world is and how it is completely disconnected from the gameplay. Level scaling, the greatest cop out in game design.

What's your preferred system over level scaling? Full level scaling pretty much trashes a game's sense of progression for me, but a blended approach can work well and prevents a game from feeling too linear. Heck, even Morrowind had a light form of level scaling.

 

[nominedomine]

Did people react like this when Steam announced their 2 hours played refund policy?

I think Sony is being shrewd here, they turned something they would probably be forced to do at some point (have some sort of return policy like Steam) into a perk of their subscription service and just like paid online and cloud saves they'll get away with it. They added considerable value to their subscription at close to no cost whatsoever.

What's your preferred system over level scaling? Full level scaling pretty much trashes a game's sense of progression for me, but a blended approach can work well and prevents a game from feeling too linear. Heck, even Morrowind had a light form of level scaling.

A consistent world that doesn't revolve around me and my level? That alone is a massive immersion break for me and just lazy design.

 

[GymWolf]

Underrated in forums? In what universe?

The opposite maybe, in here people who remember and speak about the terrible combat, animations, writing, optimization etc. are getting called sony fanboys because of course if you don't like a bethesda game it HAS TO BE because of the recent acquisition from M...

Underrated, lmao.

 

[playXray]

A consistent world that doesn't revolve around me and my level? That alone is a massive immersion break for me and just lazy design.

So you prefer RPGs with absolutely no level scaling? Can you give me some examples?

 

[nominedomine]

So you prefer RPGs with absolutely no level scaling? Can you give me some examples?

Baldur's Gate? Dark Souls?

What's the point of a level system if enemies are going to scale with you for no reason? It just suggests that the system itself was poorly thought out. Not even an attempt to explain why that would be happening in the game world, complete disconnect from gameplay and what the player does and the narrative (a problem that plagues Bethesda games).

It also doesn't help that Bethesda games seem to get worse with time, more and more shallow. This trend goes back decades already. My bet is their next step is procedurally generated content (I didn't play Fallout 4 and Fallout 76, so I'm not sure if they already started going), it's the only things that would rival level scaling in it's awfulness.

 

[playXray]

Baldur's Gate? Dark Souls?

What's the point of a level system if enemies are going to scale with you for no reason? It just suggests that the system itself was poorly thought out.

Those aren’t fully open worlds though, so don’t have such a need for scaling. How do you build a fully open world game that gives you a sense of progression while not just having a linear pathway through the game?

 

[nominedomine]

Those aren’t fully open worlds though, so don’t have such a need for scaling. How do you build a fully open world game that gives you a sense of progression while not just having a linear pathway through the game?

You could just make leveling itself matter less, remove leveling, give an in world explanation of why enemies would be getting stronger as you level, make a leveling system that has some sort of trade off, make leveling harder, make leveling less related to stats and more related to skills, etc. There are countess ways to tackle it, level scaling is just the lazy way to do it.

 

[JimmyRustler]

One of the greatest games ever made. End of last year when the PS5 port was released I thought I just check it out for a bit and ended up putting 120 hours in it.

It has a lot of gameplay issues and the RPG mechanics are medicre at best but the feeling of being part of the world is unequaled, and that's what makes it so special despite all it's other shortcomings.

 

[SteadyEvo]

I was having fun till an NPC glitched and wouldn’t respond after completing a main story quest. Left me unable to progress so I said fuck it and uninstalled. Speaking of the Gamepass version.

 

[Elysion]

What sets Skyrim (and every TES game since Morrowind) apart is not only its npcs, but also the fact that nearly everything that isn’t nailed down in the world is a physical object that you can pick up or interact with. Knives, plates, cups, lanterns, food, bottles, clothes, books, decorations etc. Even better, you can drop these things off wherever you want, and they retain their physicality. Furthermore, pretty much every container you see can be opened, and you can take out what‘s inside, or put something in. Objects also aren’t only found in conspicuous chests, but also in more conventional containers like barrels, boxes, caskets, cupboards, cabinets, drawers, vases, urns and whatever else you can put things in.

All this makes the world of these games feel much more realistic and interactive than other games. In fact, I can‘t think of another rpg franchise with this level of interactivity (other than Fallout of course). As others have mentioned, the world and npcs in Witcher 3 for example are pretty much just background decoration. Most items are just images on a menu screen, and not an actually modeled 3d object. This is what sets TES apart from pretty much all other rpgs out there.

And yes, I played Skyrim on PS3 when it came out. No regrets!

 

[winjer]

I have to agree with some users here, that Skyrim is probably the most overrated game of all time.
It does several things very well, but then it also makes several things rather poorly.

Music is very good, with some of the best music ever made for a game.
Exploration is very immersive and fun. The world lore is engaging and complex.
Some of the side quests are really good.

But combat is just serviceable. It's not bad in anyway. But it's also not something great.
Graphics were just ok, even for the time. Although I played it with mods, which makes the game look much better.
Then there is the vast amount of bugs. Playing this with the community patch is a must.
The UI is complete trash. SkyUI is essential to be able to play this game.
The main mission is not very good. It's decent enough, but there are several side quests that provide much more fun.
Writing is also a mix bag of good and just ok.
There is some decent voice acting, but there is also a lot of bad. Several important NPCs using the same voice actor.
Sometimes an NPC changes voice actor half way a conversation. It's a mess.

Without mods, it's just an average game, with come good and bad aspects to it.
With the right mods, several things are greatly improved, and it becomes a good game overall.

 

[assurdum]

Game is not aged well. I liked a lot at launch but now I can't have fun because it feel too dated in every aspect.

 

[kraspkibble]

the game blew my mind when i played it. it was probably the first open world RPG i played. closest thing to it i had played was GTA or Pokemon. they are both technically open world and/or RPGs but they are watered down in comparison.

i was hooked on the game and it was like discovering a whole new world. not just in terms of the in game world but a whole new genre of games. i was more of a gta/pokemon/cod/fifa type of player until i tried skyrim. checking my amazon account right now i ordered it on 22nd December 2011 and i got the PS3 version. i played the shit out that game over christmas and new year.

when the DLC came out i didn't buy it i think i had moved onto some other games and i told myself i'd come back and replay the game and do the DLC but 11 years on i still haven't done it. i've tried to replay it but never stick with it. i went on to play other games and they just do things better so it feels dated now.

i'm still excited for the next game though. there have been so many great open world games since Skyrim released so Bethesda really need to do something special.

 

[nominedomine]

What sets Skyrim (and every TES game since Morrowind) apart is not only its npcs, but also the fact that nearly everything that isn’t nailed down in the world is a physical object that you can pick up or interact with. Knives, plates, cups, lanterns, food, bottles, clothes, books, decorations etc. Even better, you can drop these things off wherever you want, and they retain their physicality. Furthermore, pretty much every container you see can be opened, and you can take out what‘s inside, or put something in. Objects also aren’t only found in conspicuous chests, but also in more conventional containers like barrels, boxes, caskets, cupboards, cabinets, drawers, vases, urns and whatever else you can put things in.

How exactly does that enhances the game? It let's you hoard a bunch of useless stuff.

Things retain their physicality... cool, again how does that enhances the game? It's not like the game has great physics or interesting ways to manipulate those objects. It's like they build their engine that way and just left that there without questioning it's usefulness.

 

[dotnotbot]

PS3 performance was adequate to quality and creativity of the game.

 

[DukeNukem00]

Those aren’t fully open worlds though, so don’t have such a need for scaling. How do you build a fully open world game that gives you a sense of progression while not just having a linear pathway through the game?

Baldurs Gate 2 is of course open world. Gothic doesnt have scaling. Fallout 1/2. Basically not a single computer rpg until the modern times has it. Thats the idea behind it being an rpg. You grow in order to overcame things and situations that were unthinkable earlier. Whats the point of "better" weapons or higher level or tools or whatever when the entire game acts the same way during its entire run ?

 

[Rest]

Skyrim and Resident Evil 4, I just can't hold back on them.

If you don't like it now, whatever, it hasn't aged that well in the last four or five years.
If you didn't like it back then, you're objectively wrong and you should stop playing video games because you don't know what fun is.

 

[Fredrik]

Now try it in VR, install HIGGS and VRIK mod. It’s awesome.

But beware! Afterwards you’ll be forever sad that MS bought Bethesda and don’t care about VR.
Will Starfield get a VR version? I’d say, not likely. Maybe a janky thirdparty mod.

 

[nominedomine]

If you don't like it now, whatever, it hasn't aged that well in the last four or five years.
If you didn't like it back then, you're objectively wrong and you should stop playing video games because you don't know what fun is.

I didn't like it back then, one of my biggest disappointments in gaming was not liking this game, RE was one of my favorite franchises. I played when it first released on PC in 2007.

It's funny that people criticize the original RE games for their tank controls, when RE4 manages to be almost the same but in third-person one of the worst gameplays I can think of for of an action game.

The story and gameplay in RE4 didn't age poorly it was always garbage, please don't use that excuse anymore.

It's also funny that people are ok if you bash RE5 and RE6 but those games are just newer versions of RE4 and take all their inspiration from it.

 

[Kev Kev]

How exactly does that enhances the game? It let's you hoard a bunch of useless stuff.

Things retain their physicality... cool, again how does that enhances the game? It's not like the game has great physics or interesting ways to manipulate those objects. It's like they build their engine that way and just left that there without questioning it's usefulness.

i use it to place/move objects and customize my home. when exploring caves, you can also pick up a kettle or bucket an flip it over to find hidden stuff. or you can just use the feature to check out the object (but thats better done in the menu).

tbf, placing objects in skyrim can be a bit tricky. sometimes they simply dont stick, or when you re-enter the home they fall over or dont spawn correctly. its a pain. however, fallout 4 does that much better and since you can actually build bases in that game, it makes for a really fun building and customizing system.

this guy is annoying, but in his settlements, nearly all of the items you see were hand placed by him, allowing for lots of customization. you can do similar things with skyrim, but its not nearly as effective or useful. but its still possible if oyu have a lot of patience...

 

[nominedomine]

i use it to place/move objects and customize my home. when exploring caves, you can also pick up a kettle or bucket an flip it over to find hidden stuff. or you can just use the feature to check out the object (but thats better done in the menu).

tbf, placing objects in skyrim can be a bit tricky. sometimes they simply dont stick, or when you re-enter the home they fall over or dont spawn correctly. its a pain. however, fallout 4 does that much better and since you can actually build bases in that game, it makes for a really fun building and customizing system.

this guy is annoying, but in his settlements, nearly all of the items you see were hand placed by him, allowing for lots of customization. you can do similar things with skyrim, but its not nearly as effective or useful. but its still possible if oyu have a lot of patience...

Yea, I'm just not into that sort of thing at all. I don't see the appeal and it's extra funny that apparently it doesn't even work properly.

I got nothing against people that like the game, I just don't like it myself (as in I really hate it ).

RE4, Skyrim, WoW expansions and now Cyberpunk, there's something about these games and how people talk about them that really are like nails on a chalkboard to me. The lack quality is so evident, I can help but to perceive it as some sort of collective delusion.

 

[Punished Miku]

I also recently tried Morrowind since it was so recommended but it's just way too old.

I guess it's just a game people appreciated more for nostalgic purposes.

I thought Skyrim destroyed it.

They've basically just been remaking Morrowind since it came out. It is old, but that's what basically started open world RPGs as we know them today. Morrowind also has a timeless, masterpiece OST and a weird and original world that's not just more Tolkien / Viking stuff we've seen before. I'm glad I got to play it at launch and appreciate its impact.

 

[AV]

This game is insanely underrated on forums

This is an insane take. We just voted it the 8th best game of the decade.

 

[GigaBowser]

Yea, I'm just not into that sort of thing at all. I don't see the appeal and it's extra funny that apparently it doesn't even work properly.

I got nothing against people that like the game, I just don't like it myself (as in I really hate it ).

RE4, Skyrim, WoW expansions and now Cyberpunk, there's something about these games and how people talk about them that really are like nails on a chalkboard to me. The lack quality is so evident, I can help but to perceive it as some sort of collective delusion.

I'm with you on WoW and Cyberpunk, but Skyrim and RE4 are two of the best games ever.

 

[nominedomine]

I'm with you on WoW and Cyberpunk, but Skyrim and RE4 are two of the best games ever.

You are halfway there, erudition is within your grasp.

Take a leap of faith and let go of any preconceived notions about how important, acclaimed or successful these games are, look at them purely for what they are and answer me, if you will, where is the quality? Where is the excellence? Where is the juice?

 

[playXray]

Baldurs Gate 2 is of course open world. Gothic doesnt have scaling. Fallout 1/2. Basically not a single computer rpg until the modern times has it. Thats the idea behind it being an rpg. You grow in order to overcame things and situations that were unthinkable earlier. Whats the point of "better" weapons or higher level or tools or whatever when the entire game acts the same way during its entire run ?

I’m not taking about full level scaling - I agree on that completely, it ruins any sense of progression. However, there is still an issue if you completely omit level scaling of any kind, as it introduces a linear pathway through the game that even in a fully open world makes the players feel channeled along in a certain direction. As a result, some mild level scaling can help in games like Morrowind (perfect) and Skyrim (better than Oblivion but still not great).

It always feels like a simple thing to say that level scaling is bad - it’s much harder to come up with an alternative that gives players a sense of progression while avoiding the ‘linear channeling’ issue.

 

[playXray]

This is an insane take. We just voted it the 8th best game of the decade.

I think it’s a case of a vocal minority. Most people think it’s a great game but don’t bother to say so as it’s the expected norm. Generally it’s only the haters shout about it.

 

[Guilty_AI]

It always feels like a simple thing to say that level scaling is bad - it’s much harder to come up with an alternative that gives players a sense of progression while avoiding the ‘linear channeling’ issue.

I'd say leveling in general is the issue. I think a perk/skill-based progression like in the Deus Ex games is much better.

 

[Filben]

I have no strong feelings about it whether good or bad. It's just utterly mediocre in every regard: combat, balancing, exploration, quests, story, presentation and visuals, sound design. It is content-rich and has great mod support. It has very static NPC interaction and static dialogues that was revolutionised many years before its release by a different game and yet Bethesda didn't care.

 

[Markio128]

Elden Ring

Nah, it’s far from perfect as far as I’m concerned. I Played up to around the 4th/5th main boss, and whilst I wasn’t really struggling as such, I just wasn’t having fun. Whenever I killed a boss, I felt it was purely because I had grinded enough to beat it, rather than beat it with any element of skill. Not my idea of a good time unfortunately.

 

[dotnotbot]

I think it’s a case of a vocal minority. Most people think it’s a great game but don’t bother to say so as it’s the expected norm. Generally it’s only the haters shout about it.

Between vocal minority and major majority there's also silent whateverity that stays shut whenever Skyrim is brought up because if you try to criticize it you're labeled as a hater/troll or even insulted, it's not worth it.

 

[Rest]

The story and gameplay in RE4 didn't age poorly it was always garbage, please don't use that excuse anymore.

It's also funny that people are ok if you bash RE5 and RE6 but those games are just newer versions of RE4 and take all their inspiration from it.

RE4's story is fine, it's gameplay is fine. The parts that have aged badly are the parts the developers tried to maintain from the older games, like tank controls. And the issue with the older games isn't tank controls per se, it's that the controls were shitty on purpose. RE4 had tank controls that mostly worked, which is about five steps better than the previous entries.

As for five and six, I hated five. It was boring, it wasn't scary, the world design, art, and level design were terrible, Wesker was a boring, stupid villain, and boulder punching.
Six was fucking great, the haters can eat shit.

 

[nominedomine]

RE4's story is fine, it's gameplay is fine. The parts that have aged badly are the parts the developers tried to maintain from the older games, like tank controls. And the issue with the older games isn't tank controls per se, it's that the controls were shitty on purpose. RE4 had tank controls that mostly worked, which is about five steps better than the previous entries.

As for five and six, I hated five. It was boring, it wasn't scary, the world design, art, and level design were terrible, Wesker was a boring, stupid villain, and boulder punching.
Six was fucking great, the haters can eat shit.

You are getting it all wrong. Tank control made sense in the old game because of the fixed cameras and the fact they weren't really just action games.

RE4 is an action game, with over the shoulder cameras and tank controls... Wat? Now that's just crazy.

Story was never the strength of the RE games but people do pretend RE4 had a good story when in fact it was laughably bad, somehow even worse than usual.

The greatest sin of RE4 isn't the fact that is was a bad game, it's the fact that it was a successful terrible game that took the series in an awful direction.

 

[Roger Rabbit]

"The UI is complete trash. SkyUI is essential to be able to play this game."

Quite the opposite for me. I've given up on plenty of other RPGs because of their UIs. One of the things I like about Skyrim is its accessibility.

 

[playXray]

Between vocal minority and major majority there's also silent whateverity that stays shut whenever Skyrim is brought up because if you try to criticize it you're labeled as a hater/troll or even insulted, it's not worth it.

I only ever see this when people go on hate rants about it, where they make outrageous claims about it being a really awful game. Never seen any reasonable criticism answered with “you’re a hater/troll”.

 

[adamsapple]

I can't sanction any RE4 bashing related buffoonery in this thread.

Y'all be crazy.

 

[Rest]

You are getting it all wrong. Tank control made sense in the old game because of the fixed cameras and the fact they weren't really just action games.

No.

All those shitty PSX/N64 era games that had tank controls were doing it specifically to fuck with players, that's why the controls were so bad in them. Devs hadn't gotten completely out of the quarter-munching arcade development mindset. RE4 proved that you could do tank controls without them being completely shitty. But it was to placate whiney fanboys that they even kept them around, so it's a shame it didn't do them any good in the end, because RE4 haters still bitch about the controls either being too good or too bad to this day. Fanboys are never happy, are you?

Fixed camera angles have nothing to do with style or how controls work. Devil May Cry was an action game with fixed cameras that didn't use shitty tank controls. Onimusha was an action game that used fixed camera angles and shitty controls and still managed to be fun in spite of it. Those were both development spin offs of Resident Evil, and they both shed Resident Evil's deadweight style conventions as time went on. No one complained about it because the fans of those games aren't obsessed with everything about those games being as shitty as possible. Getting rid of bad controls was the right thing to do and Capcom knew it. The only people who don't know it are RE fanboys.

You've been brainwashed by old games; the devs who made them don't even give a fuck about the bad controls you're defending. If a player asked them to put shitty controls into a modern game they'd say "no, we want to do better controls now. That's not how we're making games any more." They have no nostalgia about it.

And Resident Evil 4 had a worse story than older ones? You're out of your goddamn mind.


Don't pretend that isn't a garbage bag full of boiling vomit.

The greatest sin of RE4 isn't the fact that is was a bad game, it's the fact that it was a successful bad game that took the series in an awful direction.

Literally the only people who say this are old RE fanboys. RE4 is a game that people were calling perfect for over a decade. It's a game that started to show its age almost 15 years after it first came out. It's a game that was release and rereleased and rereleased again with little more than a texture upscale and sold millions of units every time.
RE4 is objectively a great game and was objectively the right thing for Capcom to do with the franchise, just like VII switching to first person when the RE4 style got stale was the right thing to do.

No one is taking old RE away from you. You can still play those games and bask in the outdated, annoying game design. Stop being mad that the community and the industry moved on. It was 17 years ago.