Ack wrote:Honestly, I wouldn't call Resident Evil that difficult. At least, not overly moreso than 2 or 3. I'd say it and 2 are on par, with 3 only a little behind,
Your on crack dude. I can BLAZE though RE2 .. RE1 the puzzles are WAY harder, way more of them, the monsters are way fucking harder.. did you buy like.. GC resident evil and put it on mega ultra easy?
Heh, the original Resident Evil? Jesus, it's been a while. I don't think I saved Barry but I did save Chris the first time through as Jill, but I do remember saving both Jill and Rebecca my first time through as Chris. I played as Jill first, if I remember correctly...but that was...a decade ago? And having played through it several times since, I've gotten the best endings.
I know I played the hell out of RE1 on Saturn, and saw all the endings. I used to know everything there was to know about that game. Good times. But uh, I'd have to say 1 and 2 are about even, difficulty wise. 3 was slightly easier if only for the new rolling move.
I don't understand why people don't think Resident Evil 4 is Survival Horror. You have a weak character who can get easily killed. Try and see just how many hits Leon can take. Not much different from older games. The game is still suspenseful as there are still ambushes that can take you out quickly. Exactly like previous games where something would just jump out of nowhere and attack you. Plus, out of the blue QTE sequences that can kill you right off if you fail. Interactive cut scenes may be trendy and cliche now, but not when RE 4 came out. It was a brilliant way to make players realize that the fear of death permeated the whole game. You couldn't even relax during a cutscene, and QTEs could happen at any time resulting in death if you failed. You see this is the RIGHT way to use QTEs because it fit the game's theme, unlike most games today who just use QTEs to keep up with the Jonses. And speaking of suspense, I thought being in a little shack with hordes of zombies coming in through the windows was pretty damn suspenseful. Sure, you may have lots of ammo, but it's still tough dealing with that many numbers, especially when you have to reload. Pretty nice way of paying homage to the many zombie flicks that clearly inspired the RE franchise in the first place
You still have a somewhat tank like control scheme even though it is vastly easier to work with than previous games. You certainly can't strafe and run around like your typical shooter. The camera angle still limits what you are able to see as you're usually looking at whatever is directly in front of Leon.
The lack of save ribbons? Thank god they got rid of that stupid crap. That's just more of that "hardcore" nonsense that gaming needs to move away from. No one has time to replay a big chunk of game when they die just because they didn't find some stupid ribbon
RE 4 doesn't have a cinematic quality to it? That's the kind of comment someone who didn't play the game at all would say. I'll mention the zombie horde shack sequence again, or the fight against the lake monster which is about as cinematic as it gets. How about dodging a tree swing from a massive size monster that happens to take out two buildings behind you. That's not cinematic? Or fighting off hordes of enemies while a chopper is flying around destroying enemy outposts for you? Screw the changed camera angle, the game is still pretty damn cinematic if you ask me.
RE 4 DOES have innovative gameplay, when compared to the rest of the series. And that's what many fans asked for. The game completely addresses every complaint people had about the franchise. And while QTE sequences are not new, NOBODY was doing them at the time that RE 4 came out. Since the releases of RE 4 and God of War, it's all the rage now. Also, the context sensitive stuff like hitting the A button to perform special moves in special situations wasn't being done by any console game I can think of at the time. Also, the very fact that RE 4 did incorporate some more action oriented stuff than other survival horror titles IS innovative. The only other survival horror game I could think of at the time with some action elements to it was Eternal Darkness. Are we going to say that game wasn't innovative either?
As for the game being dumbed down for jocks and GTA fans. That just sounds like childish fanboy ranting.
We're complaining about the weapon ugrades? Oh no, god forbid they give the game some depth. That was a big part of the game's replayability. Unrealistic? You can explain anything with regards to weapons and technology in a video game. Sure, RE 2 had upgrades, but I don't remember it being as deep as RE 4's system.
A slasher flick? Where's the guy in the hockey mask? Aside from Ashly, I didn't see that many pretty blondes running around screaming throughout the whole thing and dropping like flies.
I need to hear better reasons before I'll believe that RE 4 sucks. Just my two cents.
Gamerforlife wrote:RE 4 doesn't have a cinematic quality to it? That's the kind of comment someone who didn't play the game at all would say.
Once again, I beat the game thrice. What the hell constitutes "playing" to you? The whole game takes place behind the shoulders and head of Leon. That's not cinematic, because that's not what cinema looks like! This isn't complicated, all right? The old games had "movie-like" presentation (since the term "cinematic" flies right over your head, I guess I have to speak in layman's terms now), because they used "movie-like" camera angles. You didn't feel like you were so much in the game, as you were directing it.
Ugh, I'm not even going over the rest of your points. I can dig up factual evidence of how wrong everyone of them are, but it's so easy that anyone else reading your post will be able to do the same, so it's not even worth the effort on my part. Tell me, have you even played any other 3D action titles in the last 10 years? Notice how I did not say you have not, but merely asked if you have.
For the record, those cutscenes pissed me off more than frightened me. The first time, I thought it was cool. But by the third and fourth times through the game, I actually wanted to watch that Krauser knife fight, now press buttons.
Also, I liked ink ribbons, for two reasons: they took an inventory slot, meaning if I wanted to hold one, I was gimping myself in terms of weapons, ammo, healing items, and whatever plot objects I had to grab, making it just that tiny bit harder to survive because I didn't have the room for potentially necessary resources. Second, the limited supply contributed as another factor I had to keep in mind while playing. Not just health, healing items, or ammunition, I had to watch how often I could save. Nothing was sacred. And it kept me on edge just one more step, knowing that every supply was limited.
As far as horror goes in that game, it didn't frighten me. It didn't scare me at all. I just didn't feel anything. Now there were certainly horror elements, what with chainsaws and cultists and a Napoleon midget, but instead of this subdued tone of running pell-mell through infested streets, even avoiding windows in case something comes through. Instead I got island and castle assaults and a helicopter mowing everybody down. The village was the scariest part of the game, and I'll admit, I had high hopes for it in the first few minutes, but even before it's over, I just wasn't playing a horror game anymore.
I'm not trying to pick a fight or piss you off, gamerforlife, and I'm taking your opinion into consideration, but I just don't agree based on my experiences and interpretation of the game.
There was no horror or frights involved in RE4 is what we all agree upon! they completely went out of the essence of the games but they made one hell of a great game though, it is one of the best gaming experience I've had but they could have changed the name of the game. Of course we want change and that they improve the formula but it didn't feel RE to me and from what I see RE5 will be the same.
