surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
This is easily the best survival horror game ever made. The zombies that came back to life if you didn't burn their bodies were incredibly brilliant. The look, sound and feel of the game were essentially perfect, and the way the world was laid out rewarded careful planning, it was a thinking man's game. Plus it was scary as balls.
@orniletter
He didn't mention Rev because it completely negates his rant.
Capcom still uses classic elements, if he pointed out Rev he'd look like an entitled crybaby.
He didn't mention Rev because it completely negates his rant.
Capcom still uses classic elements, if he pointed out Rev he'd look like an entitled crybaby.
I always have a good chuckle over the people crying over the tank controls while praising RE4.
Its the same controls you morons, the only difference is that the camera is now behind you, your elite bad-ass commando shithead still moves like a paraplegic slug. And you know? IT MAKES SENSE.
You're not gonna go diving into a giant group of enemies, you're gonna time your shot properly and make each one count, that's one thing I loved about RE, shooting had weight to it, you had to brace yourself and then shoot something, any of you ever fire a gun? Go ahead and try to remain accurate while moving around or trying to run, its impossible. Even RE5 still had this, the RE6 demo is FRAG THAT ZOMBIE, CHECK OUT ALL THE GUNS I CAN CARRY AND HOW ACCURATE I AM OH YEA, I WEIGHT 90 POUNDS DRIPPING WEIGHT BUT WATCH ME SHOOT THIS LMG WITHOUT MISSING A SHOT WHILE MOVING.
REmake is timeless and the greatest Resident Evil of all time, it saddens me we'll never get another like it, RE4 started the downward spiral and 6 seems to be the final nail in the coffin.
Its the same controls you morons, the only difference is that the camera is now behind you, your elite bad-ass commando shithead still moves like a paraplegic slug. And you know? IT MAKES SENSE.
You're not gonna go diving into a giant group of enemies, you're gonna time your shot properly and make each one count, that's one thing I loved about RE, shooting had weight to it, you had to brace yourself and then shoot something, any of you ever fire a gun? Go ahead and try to remain accurate while moving around or trying to run, its impossible. Even RE5 still had this, the RE6 demo is FRAG THAT ZOMBIE, CHECK OUT ALL THE GUNS I CAN CARRY AND HOW ACCURATE I AM OH YEA, I WEIGHT 90 POUNDS DRIPPING WEIGHT BUT WATCH ME SHOOT THIS LMG WITHOUT MISSING A SHOT WHILE MOVING.
REmake is timeless and the greatest Resident Evil of all time, it saddens me we'll never get another like it, RE4 started the downward spiral and 6 seems to be the final nail in the coffin.
"The problem isn't with the game but with the critics who have gone soft and lost good judgment. And if I sound bitter, it's because of those critics that Capcom won't make another title in the style of this classic survival horror adventure."
Lol your angst is a bit misplaced. It's not the critics, it's the gamers. They've been exposed to newer, better developed games, and most have no desire to go back to a style of play that IS clunky and obsolete.
Because it is. You can take your rose tinted glasses off any time now. There's a reason I won't go back and play pre Subsistence Metal Gear games, either. I didn't play them when they first came out, and they haven't aged well. Neither has pre 4th installment Resident Evil games.
Hell, I'd even argue that RE4 is borderline unplayable in a world where modern dual stick third person action games have taught us how a camera and a player character are meant to be controlled, but I realize that not everyone has caught up to that line of thinking quite yet.
Lol your angst is a bit misplaced. It's not the critics, it's the gamers. They've been exposed to newer, better developed games, and most have no desire to go back to a style of play that IS clunky and obsolete.
Because it is. You can take your rose tinted glasses off any time now. There's a reason I won't go back and play pre Subsistence Metal Gear games, either. I didn't play them when they first came out, and they haven't aged well. Neither has pre 4th installment Resident Evil games.
Hell, I'd even argue that RE4 is borderline unplayable in a world where modern dual stick third person action games have taught us how a camera and a player character are meant to be controlled, but I realize that not everyone has caught up to that line of thinking quite yet.
Speak for yourself ctg, modern gaming is a joke.
But hey if you like stuff that's so dumbed down that a coma patient can beat them, more power to you.
But hey if you like stuff that's so dumbed down that a coma patient can beat them, more power to you.
The Wii version of this game is even better, with only one disc to worry about, three different control schemes and actual widescreen.
Reading the comments section here is hilarious. So many purists/elitists here, drowning in their own condescension, talking down to people who don't like to play with unintuitive controls that don't stand up to modern evolutions in game design.
@ ctg867 YES YES YES! I wish i had realized this when i was a teenager, but i was so caught up in the blockbuster titles like RE and MGS that i didn't take time to appreciate games like Tomba and R-Type Delta. Many gamers dont know this, but Shinji Mikami purposefully designed Resident Evil as a fixed camera perspective game so that he could get realistic looking textures, even though he knew that it would impact player control (i.e by having to orient yourself every time the camera decided to change angles). This and the excessive use of obtuse puzzles is why I traded my Wii version of the original RE. It looks fantastic and has great sound design, but at the end of the day im not willing to sacrifice good mechanics for a decent horror atmosphere anymore. Some people (cough* Allistair *cough) dont seem to care about game mechanics as much though and will write a feature article thats so well timed that one could swear it was aimed at derailing the success of said franchise in the wake of a new release. Not saying you're directly trying to make the franchise look like its turned to shit, but gauging your gameplay preferences you probably wont look too favourably on the new RE game when it comes out regardless of the new mechanics it introduces.
@ctg867
There's a huge difference in "bad controls" and "intentionally limited and balanced out controls". First thing needs fixing from the developers, second thing needs liking (or disliking) of it by the player.
Old pre-rendered background games work better with "tank" controls. In fact, I'd argue, that the original 2 Silent Hill games, which did not have pre-rendered backgrounds, played better with "tank" controls. Because all the locations, all the camera angles/camera behaviour was built around that. Now, granted, RE4 did lack strafing, something that was changed in RE5, and I'd even argue that RE4 and later games neede aim+walk mechanic (as done in the earliest Silent Hill games, so it's dependant on the weapon if you can shoot and walk at the same time and how it affects your aim). But if you just slap "better controls" on older Resident Evil games... Well, try it in RE2 on N64 - some people liked it, although i don't see how.
Controls in survival horror games were meant to be slightly slower, making the character more clumsy, slower and vulnurable. And best games were build around that. But there's a balance a lot of games that used similar scheme failed to keep. REmake, is one of them, by the way. It made it frustrating to control characters and shoot. And it shouldn't be frustrating. It should be tense, strategic and challanging, but, because of that - fun. And in REmake it wasn't.
However, if I'd create a "definitive" versions of RE0-4 (and all the main other ones like CVX), I'd probably go with not having tank controls at least as an option. I guess, that'd require a serious rethinking of locations of camera, of enemy AI and other stuff, and it probably wouldn't be worth it, but it may be possible. It's not like the controls are the only issue that needs rethinking (while keeping the spirit anc challenge of the originals).
There's a huge difference in "bad controls" and "intentionally limited and balanced out controls". First thing needs fixing from the developers, second thing needs liking (or disliking) of it by the player.
Old pre-rendered background games work better with "tank" controls. In fact, I'd argue, that the original 2 Silent Hill games, which did not have pre-rendered backgrounds, played better with "tank" controls. Because all the locations, all the camera angles/camera behaviour was built around that. Now, granted, RE4 did lack strafing, something that was changed in RE5, and I'd even argue that RE4 and later games neede aim+walk mechanic (as done in the earliest Silent Hill games, so it's dependant on the weapon if you can shoot and walk at the same time and how it affects your aim). But if you just slap "better controls" on older Resident Evil games... Well, try it in RE2 on N64 - some people liked it, although i don't see how.
Controls in survival horror games were meant to be slightly slower, making the character more clumsy, slower and vulnurable. And best games were build around that. But there's a balance a lot of games that used similar scheme failed to keep. REmake, is one of them, by the way. It made it frustrating to control characters and shoot. And it shouldn't be frustrating. It should be tense, strategic and challanging, but, because of that - fun. And in REmake it wasn't.
However, if I'd create a "definitive" versions of RE0-4 (and all the main other ones like CVX), I'd probably go with not having tank controls at least as an option. I guess, that'd require a serious rethinking of locations of camera, of enemy AI and other stuff, and it probably wouldn't be worth it, but it may be possible. It's not like the controls are the only issue that needs rethinking (while keeping the spirit anc challenge of the originals).
The split on Resident Evil's controls seem to be between people who think that videogames should be ALWAYS impose as few limitation on the player as possible (who hate the controls), and those who appreciate that game design is imposing limitations on the player (who appreciate the games for their unique style of play).
The split often breaks down to those who play games for purposes of escapism, and those who play them for purposes of getting to know the game designer through their creation. It's "ARGH THIS GAME SUCKS! I JUST WANT TO KICK ASS!" audience and the "Whoa! It's amazing how this game only needs two slow moving enemies and a tough but fair set of limitations can scare the living crap out of me!"
This split is fundamental to the current climate of gaming. It's the split that has caused Resident Evil 6 to be something of a mess. it's this split that has so many "AAA" games looking and playing identically, while smaller games get more and more differentiated.
It's the split that divides people who play videogames because they love videogames, and the people who will abandon gaming as soon as human beings devise a more effective form of escapism.
The split often breaks down to those who play games for purposes of escapism, and those who play them for purposes of getting to know the game designer through their creation. It's "ARGH THIS GAME SUCKS! I JUST WANT TO KICK ASS!" audience and the "Whoa! It's amazing how this game only needs two slow moving enemies and a tough but fair set of limitations can scare the living crap out of me!"
This split is fundamental to the current climate of gaming. It's the split that has caused Resident Evil 6 to be something of a mess. it's this split that has so many "AAA" games looking and playing identically, while smaller games get more and more differentiated.
It's the split that divides people who play videogames because they love videogames, and the people who will abandon gaming as soon as human beings devise a more effective form of escapism.
RE4 is still survival horror since it focuses in the survival aspect with a limited inventory, resources and is capable of scaring the shit out of people. RE5 is where the survival horror aspect was lost with the always accessible inventory bank, areas that aren't in the least bit unnerving and feeling as if the player had backup from the BSAA. The co-op detracted from that as well, but Killing Floor provides tense, shit pants moments when separated from a group and you're not a zerker, so the co-op wasn't the prime cause. Revelations was survival horror with an NPC partner who could actually fight as well.
@Jonathan Holmes
Ahhh, now i know why Jim is in love with you, heh.
Yes, you summed it up pretty great. I might also say, (something that you implied and coverd in a more general way) that there are people who play "video games", and there are people who have preferences in video games. Like - i know, that no matter how big and critically acclaimed some... strategy game is, i will probably not play it. I get why people may love it and it may be the greatest thing ever, but i can't play it - it's not something i can and want to learn. And it would be silly for me to go "oh, it sucks, they need to change it so I like it!" No, it's a thing, it's... a genre. People love it, i envy them, but i don't like playing that.
Survival horror, at it's heart, is, let's face it - a niche genre. It's a mix of adventure game (with emphasis on puzzles, item finding, knowledge of the locations) and action/survival game (with some action, but which is intentionally limited and challanging, with traps or trap-like situations, with inventory-management or such). It's a mix of things, which not all people like. RE became popular by being one of the first, by being something unique and new. And it was in an era were games were mostly played by gamers, who could and wanted to invest themselves into gaming, because they loved it, not because it was a cool thing to do (although, it was a cool thing to do). If not for that, it would've remained a cult classic, an underground hit, like most good niche games are.
Ahhh, now i know why Jim is in love with you, heh.
Yes, you summed it up pretty great. I might also say, (something that you implied and coverd in a more general way) that there are people who play "video games", and there are people who have preferences in video games. Like - i know, that no matter how big and critically acclaimed some... strategy game is, i will probably not play it. I get why people may love it and it may be the greatest thing ever, but i can't play it - it's not something i can and want to learn. And it would be silly for me to go "oh, it sucks, they need to change it so I like it!" No, it's a thing, it's... a genre. People love it, i envy them, but i don't like playing that.
Survival horror, at it's heart, is, let's face it - a niche genre. It's a mix of adventure game (with emphasis on puzzles, item finding, knowledge of the locations) and action/survival game (with some action, but which is intentionally limited and challanging, with traps or trap-like situations, with inventory-management or such). It's a mix of things, which not all people like. RE became popular by being one of the first, by being something unique and new. And it was in an era were games were mostly played by gamers, who could and wanted to invest themselves into gaming, because they loved it, not because it was a cool thing to do (although, it was a cool thing to do). If not for that, it would've remained a cult classic, an underground hit, like most good niche games are.
@ The Enchanting Wizard Of Rhythm - read my comment above. @ sonintega, play through the second half of MGS again and you wont feel so happy about snakes movements (I finished it last week the combat was terribly implemented and the boss fights which i used to love were actually pretty poorly designed). @ Jonathan - I take offence to your comment, you're basically saying that im the kind of person who doesnt know how to appreciate games because i love games that are focused on mechanics, when its actually people who dont care about mechanics that abandon the roots of our medium, who wont pick up pac-man because it doesn't have current gen flavour, or neglect to see the striking similarities between the original LOZelda and Dark Souls. Man i know you've been at Dtoid a long time, but just ask yourself one question... WWAD (what would Apikary do).
Having never fully played a Resident Evil title (other than the wii rail shooter), the only game in the series that appeal to me is RE2, mostly for the urban setting. Should probably give this one a try.
@Holmes:
Yeah, at the end of the day, a game is defined as much by what you can't do as what you can do. Features shouldn't be things to be ticked off on the back of a box. They should be selected to complement the basic ideas of the game. Vulnerability can be as central to a game's mechanics as anything else.
However, to be fair, I still think you can capture the heart of the old SH experience while using a better/more modern control scheme. There are better ways to create a sense of vulnerability than by purposely being obtuse.
Yeah, at the end of the day, a game is defined as much by what you can't do as what you can do. Features shouldn't be things to be ticked off on the back of a box. They should be selected to complement the basic ideas of the game. Vulnerability can be as central to a game's mechanics as anything else.
However, to be fair, I still think you can capture the heart of the old SH experience while using a better/more modern control scheme. There are better ways to create a sense of vulnerability than by purposely being obtuse.
Great article! I especially love this point -
"The crux of the criticism came down to convenience. Tank controls, slow combat, and limited saves were no longer common practice. But great games have never been about convenience"
While convenience is nice, I don't want it in every game and especially a game about survival.
(it's been a while since i've played a classic resi game but bear with me) As the above paragraph touches upon, this isn't just about the save system, the tank controls add to the survival horror as it makes killing enemies harder, while with a std modern action control scheme a skilled player could twitch shoot his way though the game, which is detrimental to the survival horror and death aspect.
I've seen ppl dismiss other controls as "bad game design" too, when infact they might just want the game to be easy. PPL who demand every sidescroller to have instant attacks is a good example and ranting on attacks like the NES Castlevania whip, yes modern instant controls are tight but it's kinda missing the point depending on the game.
Currently more indies are bringing out games like FTL with a good penalty of death in them, but we need more AAAs to embrace this oldschool concept.
"The crux of the criticism came down to convenience. Tank controls, slow combat, and limited saves were no longer common practice. But great games have never been about convenience"
While convenience is nice, I don't want it in every game and especially a game about survival.
(it's been a while since i've played a classic resi game but bear with me) As the above paragraph touches upon, this isn't just about the save system, the tank controls add to the survival horror as it makes killing enemies harder, while with a std modern action control scheme a skilled player could twitch shoot his way though the game, which is detrimental to the survival horror and death aspect.
I've seen ppl dismiss other controls as "bad game design" too, when infact they might just want the game to be easy. PPL who demand every sidescroller to have instant attacks is a good example and ranting on attacks like the NES Castlevania whip, yes modern instant controls are tight but it's kinda missing the point depending on the game.
Currently more indies are bringing out games like FTL with a good penalty of death in them, but we need more AAAs to embrace this oldschool concept.
Great article! The RE remake is one of my all time favorite games. Re4 is amazing, but the remake has a special place in my heart. I will forever wait for the Re2 remake done in this style, or a playable version of the early Re4 build...if only.
I will give credit to the REmake as a proper example of how good remakes should be made (including a significant amount of new content alongside the usual upgrades) and I can respect the fanbase the old RE games had.
HOWEVER
I protest the idea that RE4 is not survival horror, and even if it isn't, it's a far scarier game than my experience with the REmake ever was. Aside from the auto-aim, zombies and monsters were regular enough that I wasn't ever surprised (and while we're on the subject, if that dog-window scene is supposed to be a surprise, why do they telegraph it with the window cracking? It's now got my attention, I'm gonna watch it next time.). I could just be not particularly fazed by jump scares, but I enjoyed the game more as a weird adventure game than a horror one. So I can't appreciate it the same way you do, Allistair. I respect your opinion, but I disagree heavily.
HOWEVER
I protest the idea that RE4 is not survival horror, and even if it isn't, it's a far scarier game than my experience with the REmake ever was. Aside from the auto-aim, zombies and monsters were regular enough that I wasn't ever surprised (and while we're on the subject, if that dog-window scene is supposed to be a surprise, why do they telegraph it with the window cracking? It's now got my attention, I'm gonna watch it next time.). I could just be not particularly fazed by jump scares, but I enjoyed the game more as a weird adventure game than a horror one. So I can't appreciate it the same way you do, Allistair. I respect your opinion, but I disagree heavily.
Another thing this article complete ignores is that the market was completely saturated with Tank Controlled TPS's like RE.
@Holmes
I don't believe that at all. I think there are gamers that have irrational hate towards what they don't understand(Madden, CoD, RE tank controls), and those who don't understand certain games, but can admit there is a certain something they simply don't get.
I can respect the ones who can admit there's something special about a game they just don't get. I can't respect those who dismiss a game because it's not exactly what they want.
I don't believe that at all. I think there are gamers that have irrational hate towards what they don't understand(Madden, CoD, RE tank controls), and those who don't understand certain games, but can admit there is a certain something they simply don't get.
I can respect the ones who can admit there's something special about a game they just don't get. I can't respect those who dismiss a game because it's not exactly what they want.
@Daro Silva: I wasn't attempting to say that the movement in MGS was perfect. It was good for the time and better in direct comparison to RE1's movement system which released a couple years earlier. The MGS series has been good about adding modern conventions with each entry to improve the gameplay of the series while maintaining the tone, progression, and play style to maintain its identity, and that's the point.
No one style of gameplay defines a genre, Resident Evil, or a survival-horror (a title people put way too much stock in) title like it, can exist without the conventions for the pre-RE4 entries. Freeing up character movement and allowing the player to aim at the enemy can be offset by clever enemies that move erratically and increasingly sparse ammo pickups. Progression can be impeded by better means than obtuse key and artifact combination locks, explained in a way that makes sense with the tone and setting of the game. Terror and exploration of human limitation in an interactive setting doesn't need to mean retrieving the serpent key to open the chimera fountain. But instead of improving the core mechanics or changing the method of progression from entry to entry (up until RE4) they released the same game, with similar characters in similar settings, and now people assume that survival horror has to mean those things with all of those artificial barriers and inconveniences. Loving something means accepting its faults, sure, but not dismissing them, excusing them as the continue to get repeated, not wanting the thing to improve with time. It's short-sighted and selfish to think once a style has been made it cannot be significantly altered, even for the better.
@Jonathan Holmes: I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to insult people that have a different metric for quality than you, but it comes off that way. Any argument that boils the whole of humanity to two separate, competing classes is unnecessarily contentious. There aren't ever two kinds of people. Never. Them and us is not the right way to have a conversation. I appreciate video games, and all the artsy fartsy-ness that implies, but I do have expectations that have to be met before I can appreciate the expression of the effort of each individual game. A game can make statements and have ideas and such. That's great. But if the game isn't enjoyable, engaging, then all that effort put into having a message becomes inaccessible to the player with obtuse mechanics. Games should never just be one thing, forever. Improvement should be made generation to generation.
Continuing to fawn over the past cus it was so amazing and you just had to be there will only serve to stifle efforts to excel and improve the form of expression into something truly appreciable. Or we can just have more Mario games cus that's worked for a while. Distinguishing yourself from people who don't see it as a way of life is isolationist. You aren't better than people who are hobbyists. You're different. Everybody's a little different, and the market should suit that diversity by offering the widest range of experiences. The most common demands get the most money and the biggest marketing push but there are plenty of diverse experiences to be had if you're not busy naval-gazing through rose-tinted glasses at nostalgia.
(also, you'd totally jump on a holo-deck whenever they get those working. C'mon.)
No one style of gameplay defines a genre, Resident Evil, or a survival-horror (a title people put way too much stock in) title like it, can exist without the conventions for the pre-RE4 entries. Freeing up character movement and allowing the player to aim at the enemy can be offset by clever enemies that move erratically and increasingly sparse ammo pickups. Progression can be impeded by better means than obtuse key and artifact combination locks, explained in a way that makes sense with the tone and setting of the game. Terror and exploration of human limitation in an interactive setting doesn't need to mean retrieving the serpent key to open the chimera fountain. But instead of improving the core mechanics or changing the method of progression from entry to entry (up until RE4) they released the same game, with similar characters in similar settings, and now people assume that survival horror has to mean those things with all of those artificial barriers and inconveniences. Loving something means accepting its faults, sure, but not dismissing them, excusing them as the continue to get repeated, not wanting the thing to improve with time. It's short-sighted and selfish to think once a style has been made it cannot be significantly altered, even for the better.
@Jonathan Holmes: I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to insult people that have a different metric for quality than you, but it comes off that way. Any argument that boils the whole of humanity to two separate, competing classes is unnecessarily contentious. There aren't ever two kinds of people. Never. Them and us is not the right way to have a conversation. I appreciate video games, and all the artsy fartsy-ness that implies, but I do have expectations that have to be met before I can appreciate the expression of the effort of each individual game. A game can make statements and have ideas and such. That's great. But if the game isn't enjoyable, engaging, then all that effort put into having a message becomes inaccessible to the player with obtuse mechanics. Games should never just be one thing, forever. Improvement should be made generation to generation.
Continuing to fawn over the past cus it was so amazing and you just had to be there will only serve to stifle efforts to excel and improve the form of expression into something truly appreciable. Or we can just have more Mario games cus that's worked for a while. Distinguishing yourself from people who don't see it as a way of life is isolationist. You aren't better than people who are hobbyists. You're different. Everybody's a little different, and the market should suit that diversity by offering the widest range of experiences. The most common demands get the most money and the biggest marketing push but there are plenty of diverse experiences to be had if you're not busy naval-gazing through rose-tinted glasses at nostalgia.
(also, you'd totally jump on a holo-deck whenever they get those working. C'mon.)
using shitty controls as a crutch to make it easier for the player to be killed is not good horror and it's not good game design. Fuck Resident Evil, fuck all Japanese people, fuck all nerds.
Good night.
Good night.
"Reading the comments section here is hilarious. So many purists/elitists here, drowning in their own condescension, talking down to people who don't like to play with unintuitive controls that don't stand up to modern evolutions in game design."
That's rich coming from the guy that's implying the existence of such modern evolutions renders the old ones obsolete, and those who don't see it need "take off their nostalgia goggles."
That's rich coming from the guy that's implying the existence of such modern evolutions renders the old ones obsolete, and those who don't see it need "take off their nostalgia goggles."
Also I'd to point one big thing, I have 0 issues with gaming evolving, none at all, I'm not so foolish as to think that things will remain the same for years and years, I am against the trend of the modern conveniences usually end up stripping away the heart and soul of what made those franchises great in the first place.
Take Mario, that's a franchise that evolved via new modern gaming conveniences but remained true to itself, at its core Mario is still a platformer.
Dead Space proved you could have a mobile protagonist with an arsenal on him and still be scary.
Resident Evil has gone from an atmospheric horror game to FRAG THAT CHARLIE fuckfest with enemies with guns, what tension is there in a game where I freeze time and whip out my giant magical suitcase full of guns, what tension is there when I can hit return to checkpoint and load up on ammo or the weapons I need, what tension is there when my character is carrying 5 different guns and loads of ammo for each.
You can evolve and embrace new things without making your game soulless. That's what to many developers don't seem to understand.
Take Mario, that's a franchise that evolved via new modern gaming conveniences but remained true to itself, at its core Mario is still a platformer.
Dead Space proved you could have a mobile protagonist with an arsenal on him and still be scary.
Resident Evil has gone from an atmospheric horror game to FRAG THAT CHARLIE fuckfest with enemies with guns, what tension is there in a game where I freeze time and whip out my giant magical suitcase full of guns, what tension is there when I can hit return to checkpoint and load up on ammo or the weapons I need, what tension is there when my character is carrying 5 different guns and loads of ammo for each.
You can evolve and embrace new things without making your game soulless. That's what to many developers don't seem to understand.
Awesome article. This is probably the best remake I've ever played, and if Resident Evil 2 didn't exist, this would be the best RE game ever. I especially love how the zombies you "kill" come back later on as Crimson Heads, which make what are usually weak enemies an incredible threat.
I think the thing about Resident Evil is that I've never really enjoyed the stories that much. They're not gripping, and they've only gotten worse with each game released. The characters are memorable, of course, but I don't care about them. There's no character development.
I agree with the "tank" controls adding to the survival horror genre. People can call it clunky, but it works. It's kind of like King's Field; The developers intentionally designed the monsters to be incredibly dangerous, while limiting your ability to do anything effective. It was deliberately designed to feel limiting.
Also, I'm going to have to disagree about RE being the crown jewel of the genre. That will always belong to Silent Hill 2 in my eyes.
I think the thing about Resident Evil is that I've never really enjoyed the stories that much. They're not gripping, and they've only gotten worse with each game released. The characters are memorable, of course, but I don't care about them. There's no character development.
I agree with the "tank" controls adding to the survival horror genre. People can call it clunky, but it works. It's kind of like King's Field; The developers intentionally designed the monsters to be incredibly dangerous, while limiting your ability to do anything effective. It was deliberately designed to feel limiting.
Also, I'm going to have to disagree about RE being the crown jewel of the genre. That will always belong to Silent Hill 2 in my eyes.
REmake is the greatest RE and the greatest survival horror game.
FACT
RE6 can burn in hell, by the way. Not sure I've said that enough
FACT
RE6 can burn in hell, by the way. Not sure I've said that enough
The ink ribbons are about my only problem with the game. I can deal with the tank controls and I certainly have no problem with the aiming. Still, not being able to save after a few hours and having life creep up on me just isn't fun.
Still, that is the charm of the game and I can't deny people that pleasure. I just wish Capcom would release an Easy mode version or something...actually, fuck that.
Still, that is the charm of the game and I can't deny people that pleasure. I just wish Capcom would release an Easy mode version or something...actually, fuck that.
@KingSigy
I don't get the point of Ink Ribbons either, actually. It never posed any challenge for those, who played the game at least once, most RE games tended to place an Ink Ribbon x3 right next to the typewriter and only thing it did was creating some possible tension for the first time players (in a game series which heavuly relies on replays) and making it harder to just save the game and quit, if you needed to stop playing. I love that later installments often used how many times you saved for end Rank system - for me it was a much more interesting way of challenging players to not save game every five minutes, without taking away the ability to do so for those, who might want/need that. Which also allowed for a better first time experience for most players. Like (which may sound like a strange comparison, but it is not) Bayonetta did - you can replay as many times as you want, you may change the difficulty level for lower AND higher for each level BUT it affects your ranking and score. So if you want to learn how to play, you are challenged as much as you feel like you need/want to be challenged. And when you feel confident enough, you can get better. I mean, isn't this is why we have online leaderboards and achievements now? As a good stimuli for those, who want more challenge without making the life hard for everyone else? Obviously, Bayonetta went much farther with the easy mode and convinience, than needed for survival horror, but still a good example.
I don't get the point of Ink Ribbons either, actually. It never posed any challenge for those, who played the game at least once, most RE games tended to place an Ink Ribbon x3 right next to the typewriter and only thing it did was creating some possible tension for the first time players (in a game series which heavuly relies on replays) and making it harder to just save the game and quit, if you needed to stop playing. I love that later installments often used how many times you saved for end Rank system - for me it was a much more interesting way of challenging players to not save game every five minutes, without taking away the ability to do so for those, who might want/need that. Which also allowed for a better first time experience for most players. Like (which may sound like a strange comparison, but it is not) Bayonetta did - you can replay as many times as you want, you may change the difficulty level for lower AND higher for each level BUT it affects your ranking and score. So if you want to learn how to play, you are challenged as much as you feel like you need/want to be challenged. And when you feel confident enough, you can get better. I mean, isn't this is why we have online leaderboards and achievements now? As a good stimuli for those, who want more challenge without making the life hard for everyone else? Obviously, Bayonetta went much farther with the easy mode and convinience, than needed for survival horror, but still a good example.
I agree with the article. And BS to the person that says people act like strategy JRPG's are loved by critics. The gaming media is so down on Japan that it's absurd and half the stuff they complain about are the same problems in western games. Gamers and the gaming media need to grow the hell up.
Great article. I totally agree. Though i loved Code Veronica too. And yes, as much as i like RE4 it is NOT a Survival Horror... Let's hope sometime RE will come back.
Wow, I can't believe how many people think RE4 was survival horror...
Allistair, great article. Totally agree.
Allistair, great article. Totally agree.
I will never understand why people think shitty controls are a game feature. They're a hindrance. I've never liked RE because the controls are antiquated and broken. I appreciate that the atmosphere is great and that the game has many great points, but the controls render the game unplayable for me. Nostalgia doesn't make a game great, and trying to say that broken and outdated controls are a feature of the game is just silly.
Being the nintendo kid for most of my young life, Resident evil 4 was the first RE game I actually spend more then few minutes with, then I started playing the series from the beginning and I really dug it. After a few minutes of getting used to the controls, the games felt intuitive enough.
Anyway great article, the REmake is by far my favorite resident evil game of the entire series.
Anyway great article, the REmake is by far my favorite resident evil game of the entire series.
There was plenty of tension in RE4. If you don't like pausing or having so many weapons in it, then simply don't pause and don't pick up so many of the weapons.
This isn't rocket science, it's video games. There isn't just one way you have to play a game, you can do whatever makes it fun and engaging for you!
Some of those setpieces in RE4 were very hectic for me at least, and I often found myself feeling so tense from that game that I needed to take breaks. Which is why I still consider it to be survival horror.
This isn't rocket science, it's video games. There isn't just one way you have to play a game, you can do whatever makes it fun and engaging for you!
Some of those setpieces in RE4 were very hectic for me at least, and I often found myself feeling so tense from that game that I needed to take breaks. Which is why I still consider it to be survival horror.
RE for the Gamecube is hands down the scariest game I've ever played. The game perfectly blended real terror and high tension. RE4 got the tension part down (the beginning of the game is insane) but just wasn't very scary. Though I will admit I jumped the first time I saw a parasite burst out of a villagers head as well as at the easter egg when you continuously shoot the lake.
The Resident Evil remake is one of the best horror games I have ever played, and to this day no survival horror has come close.
RE4 is an action game, not a survival horror.
Now on to game reviews and their actual weight with the gaming community, gamers who know what they want/like in games dont really give a shit about game reviews, if they see something they might like they will buy it and play it and in many cases liking it no matter what reviews say. I just see site reviews as a sort of marketing tool these days e.g. Destructoid gave MW3 9.5 out of 10 for its ground breaking gameplay, in comes shit storm flooding to read and laugh at the score given.
As soon as someone gives an outrageous review for a game that will be forgotten in a year, I lose respect for what they are saying.
RE4 is an action game, not a survival horror.
Now on to game reviews and their actual weight with the gaming community, gamers who know what they want/like in games dont really give a shit about game reviews, if they see something they might like they will buy it and play it and in many cases liking it no matter what reviews say. I just see site reviews as a sort of marketing tool these days e.g. Destructoid gave MW3 9.5 out of 10 for its ground breaking gameplay, in comes shit storm flooding to read and laugh at the score given.
As soon as someone gives an outrageous review for a game that will be forgotten in a year, I lose respect for what they are saying.
To anyone that doesn't think REmake was one of the best in the series; you are wrong, and I feel very, very sorry for you.
I hope people who complain that tank controls aren't "realistic" don't play platformer games where you can control the direction of your character's descent or do things like double-jump. Totally unrealistic. And how about those RPGs where the main character carries around enough inventory to fill a small car in an invisible backpack? Unrealisitic!
The funniest thing about the people complaining about RE's "tank controls"? The RE4 controls they love so much are the exact same.
@Laharl Krichevskoy
Rev doesn't negate a damn thing.
Oh boy, it's a "compromise". People didn't want compromise, the modern RE library is already saturated with shooting galleries, what the hell is the point of shoehorning that in there?
Rev doesn't negate a damn thing.
Oh boy, it's a "compromise". People didn't want compromise, the modern RE library is already saturated with shooting galleries, what the hell is the point of shoehorning that in there?
@tekbunny
I suppose I could, but considering that the only mainline RE games I've played are the REmake, RE0, RE4 and half of RE5, simply saying that it's the second best RE game I've played next to RE4 doesn't mean much.
I suppose I could, but considering that the only mainline RE games I've played are the REmake, RE0, RE4 and half of RE5, simply saying that it's the second best RE game I've played next to RE4 doesn't mean much.
Never had a GameCube, so I missed this one. Sounds really good, for a remake. Are the giant spiders still in it? That was the only part I hated about the original.
I understand what people are saying about realism, but its a GAME its not meant to be real, you are fighting Zombies for fuck sake.
For me liking the remake and hating RE4 is simple, I grew up playing Resident Evil and Evil Dead Hail to the King so I am use to and love those sorts of controls (after a few hours you were pro).
I dont like RE4 as it isnt what my mental scheme of Resident Evil series was e.g. what a Survival Horror is. RE4 plays like an action game like Uncharted series or Dead Space, all 3 of the games are missing the single factor that makes a game a Survival Horror.... The Static Camera.
I remember reading countless gamer mags from those days that spoke of this "new camera style" that is defining a new genre (which it did). So please dont say that just having an inventory in RE4 or anything else that countless other games have makes it a survival horror.
For me liking the remake and hating RE4 is simple, I grew up playing Resident Evil and Evil Dead Hail to the King so I am use to and love those sorts of controls (after a few hours you were pro).
I dont like RE4 as it isnt what my mental scheme of Resident Evil series was e.g. what a Survival Horror is. RE4 plays like an action game like Uncharted series or Dead Space, all 3 of the games are missing the single factor that makes a game a Survival Horror.... The Static Camera.
I remember reading countless gamer mags from those days that spoke of this "new camera style" that is defining a new genre (which it did). So please dont say that just having an inventory in RE4 or anything else that countless other games have makes it a survival horror.
@Klarden
The people who make the "bad controls vs. limited controls" argument always do so without any consideration for the context they're basing it in. RE1 wasn't intentionally made limited for gameplay reasons. You people NEED to stop stating that as if it was a fact. You. Are. Wrong.
The first Resident Evil game came out before dual analog controllers existed. Before console hardware got to a point where it could render the types of things Capcom was trying to create. They wanted a "cinematic" game with cinematic camera angles, so they used a fixed camera with tank controls. They focused on emulating film instead of making a competent control scheme. So the game suffered for it.
Now. That painfully overlooked FACT aside, EVEN if the game was intentionally made with limited controls for gameplay reasons, WHICH IS WAS NOT, that doesn't mean it works well TODAY. When Wolfenstein came out in 1992, you were limited to purely horizontal aiming. Much like RE1, the game was built around this UNINTENTIONALLY limited mechanic.
When Quake came out in 1996, id Soft moved to full 3D environments and two dimensional aiming. Why? Because the genre was moving forward and that was a necessary step in its evolution. The controls changed. Look at the jump between Goldeneye and Halo: CE. Look at the jump between Syphon Filter 1 and Gears of War. Look at the jump between MGS1 and MGS4.
Games grow. Genres evolve. For people who didn't play games like the first Resident Evil when they were new, you've been tainted by better gameplay design that makes it almost impossible to unlearn how to play interactive entertainment. It's not about simply inserting modern controls into old game design. That's a mistake. NO ONE IS PROPOSING THAT. The entirety of Resident Evil needs to be modernized, and it wasn't. THAT is the real problem here.
@ Jonathan Holmes
There's really no "nice" way to say this, so I'm just gonna say it. I really don't understand how you get paid to write about video games for a living. It's not that you have opinions that are unpopular, it's that you flat out make statements that are false, yet try and pass them off as fact. You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding for subjects you speak about.
Because I can't go back and play a game with a control scheme that existed in a time when 3D technology, controller technology, and developer understanding were so primitive that they couldn't implement competent, believable, logical, intuitive, immersive controls, that means I don't actually love video games?
Where the fuck do you get off? Honestly? Do you actually read the shit that you write before you post it? Do everybody a favor and keep your ignorant, arrogant bullshit out of the comments section. Just do your fucking job, guy.
The people who make the "bad controls vs. limited controls" argument always do so without any consideration for the context they're basing it in. RE1 wasn't intentionally made limited for gameplay reasons. You people NEED to stop stating that as if it was a fact. You. Are. Wrong.
The first Resident Evil game came out before dual analog controllers existed. Before console hardware got to a point where it could render the types of things Capcom was trying to create. They wanted a "cinematic" game with cinematic camera angles, so they used a fixed camera with tank controls. They focused on emulating film instead of making a competent control scheme. So the game suffered for it.
Now. That painfully overlooked FACT aside, EVEN if the game was intentionally made with limited controls for gameplay reasons, WHICH IS WAS NOT, that doesn't mean it works well TODAY. When Wolfenstein came out in 1992, you were limited to purely horizontal aiming. Much like RE1, the game was built around this UNINTENTIONALLY limited mechanic.
When Quake came out in 1996, id Soft moved to full 3D environments and two dimensional aiming. Why? Because the genre was moving forward and that was a necessary step in its evolution. The controls changed. Look at the jump between Goldeneye and Halo: CE. Look at the jump between Syphon Filter 1 and Gears of War. Look at the jump between MGS1 and MGS4.
Games grow. Genres evolve. For people who didn't play games like the first Resident Evil when they were new, you've been tainted by better gameplay design that makes it almost impossible to unlearn how to play interactive entertainment. It's not about simply inserting modern controls into old game design. That's a mistake. NO ONE IS PROPOSING THAT. The entirety of Resident Evil needs to be modernized, and it wasn't. THAT is the real problem here.
@ Jonathan Holmes
There's really no "nice" way to say this, so I'm just gonna say it. I really don't understand how you get paid to write about video games for a living. It's not that you have opinions that are unpopular, it's that you flat out make statements that are false, yet try and pass them off as fact. You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding for subjects you speak about.
Because I can't go back and play a game with a control scheme that existed in a time when 3D technology, controller technology, and developer understanding were so primitive that they couldn't implement competent, believable, logical, intuitive, immersive controls, that means I don't actually love video games?
Where the fuck do you get off? Honestly? Do you actually read the shit that you write before you post it? Do everybody a favor and keep your ignorant, arrogant bullshit out of the comments section. Just do your fucking job, guy.
Thank you for the great article, not many people realize the intention of the game play and it makes me die a little inside each time I hear someone calling it archaic. Gamers now in days have no idea how it feels to accomplish something really challenging anymore, the minute they read about the lack of respawns or no regenerating health they blast it. The new Resident Evil looks like a disgrace, not even trying to capture the excellence of RE4. This all makes me sad for the future of gaming.
wow, never knew of the RE hate. Guess a lot of you guys became dog food early on. I personally think gamers are growing too soft, one thing RE doesn't do is hold your hand and in terms of puzzles, don't like'em then don't play'em. the locked camera is for added scare effect, lack of saves forces a player to rethink all his stratagy, unlike skyrim where you could be fighting a boss with 1hp and save in the middle of it just in case you die so that you can run and heal. I'm not saying that it is perfect but for what it was it was the shit. sure we had some control issues but it is by far playable, i've been through the game time and time again. do i get mad at times, yes but there is nothing more gratifying than a victory run of RE. If you want to talk about game breaking bugs and random shit then lets pick up one of my other favorite games called skyrim. awsome game but deffinitly has tons of issues.
Sorry if I missed it, but did anyone who dislikes the controls in the real RE games ever explain why the series would be MORE scary if it had walk-and-shoot, run-around-fun-time, power-fantasy-cool-guy controls?
They've tried that in RE6, and it's easily the least scary zombie game I've ever played.
They've tried that in RE6, and it's easily the least scary zombie game I've ever played.
A brilliant, brilliant article. This hits right at the heart of the larger issue of unfairly reassessing older games by modern standards and, even worse, the practice of almost "shunning" certain genres or niches entirely for their lack of convenience or mainstream appeal. Old-school survival horror is one of the prime examples, alongside turn-based RPGs, I'd say. Two sub-genres that have been unfairly shunned and marked "outdated," when really it seems to just be their slower pace and less "mainstream" appeal that has earned them such unfair bias and disregard as somehow inferior. They are not outdated or overdone; no more than FPS titles are being overdone now (not that I have anything against FPS titles, either, just making my point). They are entire sub-genres of video gaming, and just because they aren't "popular" or "trendy" does not make them outdated or inferior; if anything, it would be refreshing to see more of them amongst some of the more over-played, action-heavy game mechanics seen everywhere nowadays.
Annnnnyways, great article, thanks for an excellent piece. Totally in agreement with the whole thing.
Annnnnyways, great article, thanks for an excellent piece. Totally in agreement with the whole thing.
follow
