Support NeoGAF

[Rran]

I love this game. LOVE IT. And I don't usually do third-person action or gory games. But man, RE4 is such a tightly-designed, impeccably-paced experience that it never gets old for me. Even the cheesy story and one-liners add tremendously to the fun.

It's also spooky enough when appropriate. It replaces the out-of-ammo scares with more tons-of-enemy scares, but the intensity level is still very high. And setpieces like the dog maze and Regenerator sequences still make me uneasy.

Lots of great series have a major shake-up game or two that bends the rules but adds so much more in the process. Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time (and later Breath of the Wild), and Metroid Prime all lost some of the elements that made their predecessors great, but the new things they brought to the table more than made up for it. RE4 fits right in with those classics.

RE5 was too much of a good thing and co-op was a misstep. RE6 just missed the point entirely. But RE4 was and still is a masterpiece.

 

[SuperGooey]

Sorry bro, I'll reply now.

So yes, the genre was maybe starting to get stale back then. However to play devils advocate the Fatal Frame series came out at around the same time as RE4. It was successful, successful enough to spawn 3 sequels all the way to the Wii U and I think that if a new sequel came out today there would be enough people interested to make it a success.

I don't see the connection between Fatal Frame and Resident Evil. They have as much in common with each other as hockey and basketball.

I don't think that a game series always has to necessarily keep to a stale formula as you put it, but I do think that it's important that a series such as RE needs to keep to its survival horror roots to retain its identity. Survival horror has always been, and still is today designed around the concept of limited ammo and limited inventory space, there's a tension and atmosphere when you are forced to make every shot count, or when you have to decide when that last health item counts.

I think you're overselling the classic RE games. There is absolutely NO shortage of herbs in any of the games, and as far as item/ammo management goes--this isn't an issue at all in RE2, RE3 nor CV. Every shot counts? Not even close. You have more than enough ammo to kill every enemy in the game.

RE4 has inventory management, just in a remixed way with the briefcase. Constantly arranging and rearranging things to make room for ammo or health items is a big part of the gameplay. There are plenty of times you'll have to discard or make room for a new gun or a herb.

In addition to this, you'll be conserving ammo with melee attacks. Getting that headshot means a whole lot more now that it opens your up to a kick attack that can clear you some space to run or find new cover.

RE4 threw away all of that in the service of tons of action and little to no inventory management. I'm glad Capcom have themselves realised this was a mistake, if RE2 remake and RE7 is anything to go by.

What about RE3 Remake? "Limited" item slots were just a formality in that game, while it was treated as a puzzle in itself in RE4. You say that RE3R is a "better RE game", but it probably has more action than RE4 does. It definitely has less puzzles and exploration. I just feel this undefined idea of what RE is and what RE isn't doesn't really hold up well.

I do think it's fair to blame RE4s success on RE5 and 6. Capcom took all the wrong lessons from its success and RE5 and 6 nearly destroyed their reputation. But that's just me.

I agree with you here. Though, I do enjoy RE5 as a co-op game. RE6 is, to me, irredeemable trash.

**For context, REmake and RE4 are my favorite games in the franchise, and I'm very optimistic for RE8.

 

[laynelane]

Having played every Resident Evil game, and having been constantly told that RE4 abandoned the "survival horror" aspect of the series, I find it odd that nothing from any other RE has scared me more than the chainsaw villager that inevitably catches up to you when you're trapped in the corner of a cabin. And no other game in the franchise sets the brooding tone more perfectly than the ominous change in the soundtrack before your first encounter the Regenerator in the cryo-lab.

It remains one of my favorite games of all time, so I must respectfully disagree with your position that RE4 was a massive mistake.

I'm the same. Played all the games (except 7 - it's on the to-do list) and the only one that scared me was RE4. Along with your excellent examples, I'll add the night-time section of the village and the Verdugo boss fight. No matter how many times I've completed these, I still get that sense of dread and find myself gripping my controller a lot more tightly than I need to.

 

[darkangel-212559]

I don't see the connection between Fatal Frame and Resident Evil. They have as much in common with each other as hockey and basketball.


I think you're overselling the classic RE games. There is absolutely NO shortage of herbs in any of the games, and as far as item/ammo management goes--this isn't an issue at all in RE2, RE3 nor CV. Every shot counts? Not even close. You have more than enough ammo to kill every enemy in the game.

RE4 has inventory management, just in a remixed way with the briefcase. Constantly arranging and rearranging things to make room for ammo or health items is a big part of the gameplay. There are plenty of times you'll have to discard or make room for a new gun or a herb.

In addition to this, you'll be conserving ammo with melee attacks. Getting that headshot means a whole lot more now that it opens your up to a kick attack that can clear you some space to run or find new cover.


What about RE3 Remake? "Limited" item slots were just a formality in that game, while it was treated as a puzzle in itself in RE4. You say that RE3R is a "better RE game", but it probably has more action than RE4 does. It definitely has less puzzles and exploration. I just feel this undefined idea of what RE is and what RE isn't doesn't really hold up well.


I agree with you here. Though, I do enjoy RE5 as a co-op game. RE6 is, to me, irredeemable trash.

**For context, REmake and RE4 are my favorite games in the franchise, and I'm very optimistic for RE8.

I'm heading to bed, but I'll think about a response and reply tomorrow. Good debate!

 

[Trumpeter]

RE4 is probably my favourite third person shooter.

The core shooting and inventory management are perfect. It's endlessly replayable (and that is proven by the included Mercenaries mode). Impossible to dismiss it as a reason the series went downhill. REmake was by far the best of the traditional Resident Evils. That game failed comercially upon release and that is the reason the series went in a different direction.

 

[Werewolf Jones]

Game single handedly saved and also killed Resident Evil at the same time.

 

[Vtecomega]

Resi 4 with updated visuals, control scheme and some fat cut from certain levels would be the greatest game in existence.

 

[Umbral]

My least favorite Resident Evil by a long shot.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

RE to me will always be the pre-rendered backgrounds, tank controls, and shitty voice acting.

That being said, this is one of the most insane takes I've ever seen on this website. RE4 made enough metric shit-tons of money that it single-handedly greenlit the funding for 2 horrible sequels. I mean, I get it, I'm not fond of SoulsBorne games myself, but I've be a fool to call them bad games.

 

[Omnipunctual Godot]

IDK, Dr. Salvador scared the shit out of me. Bitores, too.

It's easy to forget just how stale the original RE formula had become before RE 4 came out. In addition to the many sequels, spin-offs, and re-releases of Resident Evil, there were also plenty of clones that did the tank controls/fixed camera shtick. RE 4 was a breath of fresh air for the series, kind of like Street Fighter IV was for that series.

 

[Kiya's Guard]

“Going to third person". Dunno, like every RE has been since the first installment? (Excluding survivor and 7)

 

[bender]

Sorry bro, I'll reply now.

So yes, the genre was maybe starting to get stale back then. However to play devils advocate the Fatal Frame series came out at around the same time as RE4. It was successful, successful enough to spawn 3 sequels all the way to the Wii U and I think that if a new sequel came out today there would be enough people interested to make it a success.

I don't think that a game series always has to necessarily keep to a stale formula as you put it, but I do think that it's important that a series such as RE needs to keep to its survival horror roots to retain its identity. Survival horror has always been, and still is today designed around the concept of limited ammo and limited inventory space, there's a tension and atmosphere when you are forced to make every shot count, or when you have to decide when that last health item counts.

RE4 threw away all of that in the service of tons of action and little to no inventory management. I'm glad Capcom have themselves realised this was a mistake, if RE2 remake and RE7 is anything to go by.

I was never scared during RE4 because the stakes never felt high enough. But your right, horror is subjective.

I do think it's fair to blame RE4s success on RE5 and 6. Capcom took all the wrong lessons from its success and RE5 and 6 nearly destroyed their reputation. But that's just me.

Resident Evil's brand of horror has always been B-Movie schlock. That's not an insult as those can be widely entertaining but those are never going to make you piss your pants. It's not really comparable to Fatal Frame, Siren, Amnesia, etc.

 

[Vaelka]

RE4 is an iconic game in the franchise and many consider it to be the best.
I think that people overestimate how serious the RE series was ever supposed to be too, RE2R is actually surprisingly serious tho but still has silly elements.
I dunno why people keep saying that RE7 was RE '' returning to its roots '' either, it wasn't.
It played very differently and the tone was also very different, the reason why I didn't like RE7 as an RE game was precisely because it didn't feel like an RE game. People act like it was a '' return to its roots '' because it took place in a mansion and was somewhat scary. But it really has very little in common with the old games.
People also overestimate just how scary the old games were or were intended to be, partly because we were much younger when we played them and gaming was still newer.

If you actually go back and play the old games they're quite silly, some of it is unintentional but some is intentional too. I remember when the remake was coming out and the game director just flat out said that RE games are games that is both scary and funny, the funny moments are there to act as a break for the horror.
RE4 really has way more in common with the original games than RE7, if anything RE4 was a natural evolution of the RE series. RE7 just adopted modern game horror tropes and called it RE7, if it had released as a new IP people wouldn't even have questioned it.
I also think that this is one of the reasons why it sold well, because those tropey horror games are popular and make for good streaming content especially with the VR.
RE7 really has more in common with games like Amnesia and Slenderman than the old RE games.

Also these action-based RE games sold A LOT, the whole notion that they were unpopular that many have is wrong.
RE6 has sold almost 8 mil copies.
If RE4 came out today I imagine that it'd sell more, it's a very old game that came out when gaming wasn't as popular.

 

[GAMETA]

I think RE4 derailed the franchise. They should've stayed with zombies and bio weapon gore.

Stuff like 3.5 could've worked too as those were hallucinations caused by a virus. It kind of works well in 7 too, but not that much (still a great game though)...

Las Plagas was a pretty shitty concept, and then there was the ogre and the giant chasing statue, and blind wolverine, and guerilla machine gun dude, and QTEs... ehh whatever...

RE2 and RE1 Remake are still the best, and I think it's because they are the most "grounded" and gamey ones. Amazing games.

 

[checkcola]

I actually kind of like RE5, can't comment on RE6 as I've never played it and don't like first person games in general... soooo.

 

[bender]

I think RE4 derailed the franchise. They should've stayed with zombies and bio weapon gore.

Stuff like 3.5 could've worked too as those were hallucinations caused by a virus. It kind of works well in 7 too, but not that much (still a great game though)...

Las Plagas was a pretty shitty concept, and then there was the ogre and the giant chasing statue, and blind wolverine, and guerilla machine gun dude, and QTEs... ehh whatever...

RE2 and RE1 Remake are still the best, and I think it's because they are the most "grounded" and gamey ones. Amazing games.

After CVX, I'd argue the derailment was needed.

Without RE4, there would be no Dead Space and the original probably had the best blend of horror, action, puzzles and story for a game of its' type.

 

[Captain Hero]

I have so many memories with this game I was playing it with my father everyday and we finished the game more than 10 times, every time with a different goal lol . It’s a great game but it’s not a great RE game

 

[carlosrox]

It's known that it's "a bad RE game" but an amazing game in its own right.

My real beef with it was the tone of it. Hated all the quips, jokes, and all the inane shit in it.

However the game itself and all the over the top shit makes for one impressive action game.

Still one of the best games ever made.

 

[Duckhuntdog]

Resident Evil 4 is so good, Shinji Mikami remade it twice!

 

[BaneIsPain]

No, RE5 was the mistake.

 

[Self]

RE7 really has more in common with games like Amnesia and Slenderman than the old RE games.

I agree. RE7 is more like Slender man or Outlast. It has no RE genes at all.
Also it's more like torture porn than horror.

Btw, I love the "didn't scare me", "game is shit" argument.

 

[SweetShark]

Love for both styles if they are done right.
I know, boring answer, but this is the ultimate truth.

 

[Vaelka]

I agree. RE7 is more like Slender man or Outlast. It has no RE genes at all.
Also it's more like torture porn than horror.

Btw, I love the "didn't scare me", "game is shit" argument.

When someone tells me that a game is '' scary '' it doesn't necessarily say much tbh.
The horror in Silent Hill is very different than the horror in a jump scare game for example.

I personally don't find jump scares to be actually scary I just find them to be annoying and being startled isn't what I consider being scared.
The Silent Hill games on the other hand are scary without jump scares because of the atmosphere etc, RE7 to me really felt like it was just trying to be '' scary '' in a more generic way.
Like in RE2R for example there are jump scares, but overall the horror isn't because of that the horror is being hunted by Mr X in a room full of Zombies or Lickers.
Heck the female Zombies shriek still makes me shiver when I hear it around a corner.

That's not to say that jump scares can't work in a scary way tho, when Mr X crashed through the wall in the Police Station it scared me because I had played the game multiple times and had never ran into that before.
So the game had built up this sense of security in that area I felt like I knew what to expect especially with the Licker coming through the window and it took me completely by surprise because of that and genuinely scared me when Mr X punched through the wall.

 

[_Spr_Drnk]

RE4 got me into the franchise, so it's a no from me.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Game single handedly saved and also killed Resident Evil at the same time.

That is probably the best way to describe RE4. Well done.

 

[BlackTron]

Sure, and Mario 64 ruined the direction of 3D platform games when everyone tried to copy its collectathon design.

Mario 64 was a massive mistake, CONFIRMED.

 

[Party McHardy]

It’s the only resident evil and “horror” game I’ve played in it’s entirety. I was amazed playing it on GameCube back in the day and I totally agree with the continued praise it gets. So, no Sir, I does not agree with you.

 

[kiphalfton]

I think RE4 derailed the franchise. They should've stayed with zombies and bio weapon gore.

Stuff like 3.5 could've worked too as those were hallucinations caused by a virus. It kind of works well in 7 too, but not that much (still a great game though)...

Las Plagas was a pretty shitty concept, and then there was the ogre and the giant chasing statue, and blind wolverine, and guerilla machine gun dude, and QTEs... ehh whatever...

RE2 and RE1 Remake are still the best, and I think it's because they are the most "grounded" and gamey ones. Amazing games.

You say hallucinations work, likely due to RE8... but it still doesn't really make sense. Las Plagas IS a bioweapon. Not "zombies" but all the same a bioweapon. Same for the Ogre, blind wolverine, machine gun gorilla, etc. Yeah the giant statue was question able addition, and quick time events sucked, but QTE's were popular at the time.

 

[jadefire66]

Want proof? Compare how critically acclaimed RE2 remake and RE7 were.

No thanks. Critics are worthless. According to them, TLoU2 is the best game ever sooo yeah.

 

[mr.dilya]

Nah I enjoyed it.

 

[GAMETA]

You say hallucinations work, likely due to RE8... but it still doesn't really make sense. Las Plagas IS a bioweapon. Not "zombies" but all the same a bioweapon. Same for the Ogre, blind wolverine, machine gun gorilla, etc. Yeah the giant statue was question able addition, and quick time events sucked, but QTE's were popular at the time.

I guess it works in terms of survival horror, it reminds me of Eternal Darkness, and that game was awesome.

RE7 pushes the envelope, but at least it still gives you the claustrophobic and puzzle sense of previous games, on that regard, it FEELS like Resident Evil.

RE4 never felt like Resident Evil, same for RE5 and 6, I guess it's more problematic on that front.

 

[The Last Ninja]

RE4 is the only one I keep going back to.

 

[SuperGooey]

I think RE4 derailed the franchise. They should've stayed with zombies and bio weapon gore.

It did. RE4 just happened to expand that idea that Umbrella isn't the only organization responsible for them. I'm glad the series moved to new, non T-Virus monsters since the enemies in both Code Veronica and Zero were getting stale, and pretty fucking lame (giant bug, giant frog, monkey, giant scorpion, etc.).

Stuff like 3.5 could've worked too as those were hallucinations caused by a virus. It kind of works well in 7 too, but not that much (still a great game though)...

You're contradicting yourself here. You say RE4 "should have stuck with zombies" but you also say you wanted the version of RE4 with hallucinations instead of zombies? Meanwhile, RE7's only enemy type is Molded, which are clearly inspired by RE4's Regenerators in both looks and movement, and there are no zombies in the traditional sense in the case of the Bakers, yet you praise that.

The mental gymnastics people do to state what counts as Resident Evil and what doesn't is wildly inconsistant.

RE7 pushes the envelope, but at least it still gives you the claustrophobic and puzzle sense of previous games, on that regard, it FEELS like Resident Evil.

What puzzles are you talking about? RE7 barely had any puzzles, much like classic RE2. RE4 objectively speaking has as many if not more puzzles than both. Oh, but RE4 doesn't feel like Resident Evil? Well, that just seems super convenient since you clearly can't define what makes a RE game without completely contradicting yourself.

 

[Iced Arcade]

That's a high level meth mixed with crack statement.

RE4 is in my top 10 and the last installment that wasn't an action game. Slow turning, no run button, restricted ammo etc added a lot of tension.

 

[GAMETA]

It did. RE4 just happened to expand that idea that Umbrella isn't the only organization responsible for them. I'm glad the series moved to new, non T-Virus monsters since the enemies in both Code Veronica and Zero were getting stale, and pretty fucking lame (giant bug, giant frog, monkey, giant scorpion, etc.).


You're contradicting yourself here. You say RE4 "should have stuck with zombies" but you also say you wanted the version of RE4 with hallucinations instead of zombies? Meanwhile, RE7's only enemy type is Molded, which are clearly inspired by RE4's Regenerators in both looks and movement, and there are no zombies in the traditional sense in the case of the Bakers, yet you praise that.

The mental gymnastics people do to state what counts as Resident Evil and what doesn't is wildly inconsistant.


What puzzles are you talking about? RE7 barely had any puzzles, much like classic RE2. RE4 objectively speaking has as many if not more puzzles than both. Oh, but RE4 doesn't feel like Resident Evil? Well, that just seems super convenient since you clearly can't define what makes a RE game without completely contradicting yourself.

Well, let's simplify it: They're very different in how they play, and I prefer the traditional ones, and would've liked the franchise to stay that way.

It's as simple as that.


RE2 Remake is a great example of reinventing the traditional formula. I love the game.

 

[Montauk]

Holy fuck OP you couldn't be more wrong. RE4 is a masterpiece and I don't say that lightly. It's one of the best games of all time.

The games that came after it being bad don't change that.

 

[The Infectious Paradox]

Nah, because playing it through all the way on the Wii was amazing

 

[Montauk]

Arrest OP.

 

[SuperGooey]

Well, let's simplify it: They're very different in how they play, and I prefer the traditional ones, and would've liked the franchise to stay that way.

It's as simple as that.


RE2 Remake is a great example of reinventing the traditional formula. I love the game.

You would have never gotten RE2make if it were't for RE4 setting the ground work of that gameplay style. More importantly, consider the year is 2005--a change in tone, new setting, monsters/villains and fresh gameplay was essential to the survival of the series. RE was already having an identity crisis with RE3 and CV not knowing if they wanted to be arcade action games or slow-paced horror. RE4 cut out the superficial prerequisites that plagued the design of CV, RE3 and Zero--elements that worked incredibly well for RE1 and RE2, but were now being shoehorned into sequels that weren't build around these mechanics (ala, needless backtracking, "limited" inventory space and ammo, etc.).

Instead of scrapping these elements entirely, RE4 re-invented them. For example; regardless of what fans tell you, inventory management is still a huge part of RE4, but it's just done in a completely different way with how you adjust and make room in your briefcase. I think this is a better solution than removing item boxes in Zero or just immediately giving freebie inventory space upgrades in RE3/CV early on making item management superfluous.

 

[deriks]

OP, RE4 wasn't a mistake. Maybe a misdirection that led to some weird stuff, but not by any chance a mistake

 

[GAMETA]

You would have never gotten RE2make if it were't for RE4 setting the ground work of that gameplay style. More importantly, consider the year is 2005--a change in tone, new setting, monsters/villains and fresh gameplay was essential to the survival of the series. RE was already having an identity crisis with RE3 and CV not knowing if they wanted to be arcade action games or slow-paced horror. RE4 cut out the superficial prerequisites that plagued the design of CV, RE3 and Zero--elements that worked incredibly well for RE1 and RE2, but were now being shoehorned into sequels that weren't build around these mechanics (ala, needless backtracking, "limited" inventory space and ammo, etc.).

Instead of scrapping these elements entirely, RE4 re-invented them. For example; regardless of what fans tell you, inventory management is still a huge part of RE4, but it's just done in a completely different way with how you adjust and make room in your briefcase. I think this is a better solution than removing item boxes in Zero or just immediately giving freebie inventory space upgrades in RE3/CV early on making item management superfluous.

Oh God... it's called personal taste, I don't have to like what you like, you don't have to like what I like. It's fine.

I dislike RE4, 5 and 6, I think they're trash. Period. Who cares?

 

[SuperGooey]

Oh God... it's called personal taste, I don't have to like what you like, you don't have to like what I like. It's fine.

I dislike RE4, 5 and 6, I think they're trash. Period. Who cares?

This is a discussion forum. You're more than welcome to have any opinions you want, but when you make statements that are hot takes or just poorly constructed, expect some responses disagreeing. If you don't care to defend your point of view, or you are going to write responses off with a "who cares?" then why even post in the first place?

I'm not even attacking you. I'm giving context for why RE4 changed things, and pointing out that the "RE Standard" is wildly inconsistant. That's all. Relax.

 

[mcjmetroid]

I actually kind of like RE5, can't comment on RE6 as I've never played it and don't like first person games in general... soooo.

It isn't first person but it is very shit.

 

[GAMETA]

This is a discussion forum. You're more than welcome to have any opinions you want, but when you make statements that are hot takes or just poorly constructed, expect some responses disagreeing. If you don't care to defend your point of view, or you are going to write responses off with a "who cares?" then why even post in the first place?

I'm not even attacking you. I'm giving context for why RE4 changed things, and pointing out that the "RE Standard" is wildly inconsistant. That's all. Relax.

I understand that. I didn't say RE4 is universally crap. I said I personally think it is crap. I don't like where it took the franchise for 2 generations (and Capcom, for that matter).

There's nothing wrong with my opinion, it's an opinion and I didn't state it as a fact. The only fact I stated is that RE4 shifted the franchise into a completely different direction, and it's true...

What's the problem here?

 

[checkcola]

It isn't first person but it is very shit.

I was referring to RE7 being a first person spooker.

 

[SuperGooey]

I understand that. I didn't say RE4 is universally crap. I said I personally think it is crap. I don't like where it took the franchise for 2 generations (and Capcom, for that matter).

There's nothing wrong with my opinion, it's an opinion and I didn't state it as a fact. The only fact I stated is that RE4 shifted the franchise into a completely different direction, and it's true...

What's the problem here?

You don't have to explain to me what an opinion is.

Read my initial response to you. I was pointing out that your arguments were completely inconsistent and some were objectively incorrect. You think RE4 should have stuck to traditional zombies, yet you praised RE3.5 for having hallucinations instead of zombies. You loved RE7 for its puzzles, but RE4 objectively has more. You say RE4 has no item management, but I'm telling you that is objectively not true, and that item management plays a bigger part in RE4 than RE3 or CV. You say RE4 shifted the series in a way that was bad for the series, and I'm giving you context for the change the series had to make in order to survive, etc.

Again, you can have an opinion, but you aren't presenting it well. At all. Instead of backing up your claims or responding directly to any of my counter-points, you are now brushing them off as "Hey, it's just my opinion. Who cares?" and that's just lazy. I may have come off as aggressive right off the bat, and I apologize for that, but a lot of what your saying is being parroted in this thread by other members and it's frustrating when none of the arguments, in my opinion, seem to have much thought put into them. I was hoping to have an actual discussion where people would expand on their negative opinions on RE4.

 

[dezzy8]

I think going first person was a worse move than going over the shoulder. RE6 was ass though.

 

[Arachnid]

You don't have to explain to me what an opinion is.

Read my initial response to you. I was pointing out that your arguments were completely inconsistent and some were objectively incorrect. You think RE4 should have stuck to traditional zombies, yet you praised RE3.5 for having hallucinations instead of zombies. You loved RE7 for its puzzles, but RE4 objectively has more. You say RE4 has no item management, but I'm telling you that is objectively not true, and that item management plays a bigger part in RE4 than RE3 or CV. You say RE4 shifted the series in a way that was bad for the series, and I'm giving you context for the change the series had to make in order to survive, etc.

Again, you can have an opinion, but you aren't presenting it well. At all. Instead of backing up your claims or responding directly to any of my counter-points, you are now brushing them off as "Hey, it's just my opinion. Who cares?" and that's just lazy. I may have come off as aggressive right off the bat, and I apologize for that, but a lot of what your saying is being parroted in this thread by other members and it's frustrating when none of the arguments, in my opinion, seem to have much thought put into them. I was hoping to have an actual discussion where people would expand on their negative opinions on RE4.

I had this thread bookmarked to later write a near literal thesis deconstructing all of OPs points, but you seem to have laid it all out in 1/4th the words I would have used.

My fkn guy.

 

[darkangel-212559]

1) Item management:

Here's the biggest difference between item management in RE4 versus the more classic REs and its a big one. The storage box. While RE4 asked its players to essentially play a mini game of tetris there was never a moment where I felt pressured to make any difficult choices on do I take THIS and then that means I might not have it for later, or do I take THIS and hope that my choice as I progress doesn't come back to royally screw me.

Case in point? Making chemical mixes to create the different types of grenade ammo. That was vitally important in the more classic RE games, there was a real survival tension to it, because you knew that whatever choice you ended up picking was A) limited and B) Meant you no longer had the option to create the other type of ammo. Not to mention that this meant sacrificing an important inventory slot. The same applied to other types of ammo too.

RE4 I never felt that pressure outside of removing my inventory around. Besides who cares when you literally have a gunsmith vendor in the game. So I objectively say your completly wrong when you say RE4 has more item inventory management then RE CV and I'm assuming you'd also throw RE0 into that too. That's simply not true.

Puzzles. RE4 hardly had proper puzzles and you know it, what puzzle beats REmakes sunlight puzzle with the glass windows and the crows? What puzzle in RE4 made you have to really think? RECV had that type of puzzle in the first ten minutes of the game.

Yes Fatal Frame was different, but the design choice, the survival horror elements all share a commonality with the more classic REs, a sense of dread and fighting to survive. THAT design choice will never get old and it worked incredibly well for many years and still does.

RE4 was a mistake, it's design choices absolutely crippled Capcom and it's choices to make it more action and more cheese was not the right direction. It let go of the classic elements of RE, puzzles, survival, tension and horror. Capcom themselves see this, as is evidenced in RE7, RE2 remake and RE8. RE3 remake tried going back to more action and got blasted for it however its far more in line with the earlier REs then RE4 ever could hope to be.

 

[darkangel-212559]

SuperGooey

I responded to you above.