Evil Within vs Resident Evil

[Lord Nero]

Hmm..NO! its not 'intellectually dishonest" to dislike something that is clearly inferior.

RE 5 lacked the atmosphere,clever level design and the cheesy story&characters of RE4 and thus isn't as good and the forced co-op clearly ruins the single player for me.

Just because RE5 is aping RE4 blindly doesn't make it good its nothing but pale imitation of a masterpiece.
Well if its anything close to the ballpark of RE4 then its gold for me! i already knew this wasn't going to be traditional survival horror the day i watched the gameplay preview but the i still want to play the game anyway.Game reviewing websites are so full of sh!t i don't believe them! i will only believe in user reviews.

I always reserve my judgement until i play the game myself and you should too!

- You missed my point: I'm saying it's intellectually dishonest to act as though RE4 has greatly superior (or drastically different) gameplay. It doesn't. I find it very strange that you would venerate RE4, but at the same time despise RE5; they are very similar games, and neither of them tries to be scarier than the other.

- So because RE5 has a different atmosphere than RE4, and doesn't have a cheesy story and characters, that makes it objectively a worse game? That's not logical. Sure, RE5 has a different atmosphere than RE4 - you're entitled to disliking that, but I don't see how this is anything more than an opinion.

- ? I never implied RE5 ''blindly apes'' RE4... that's your view. So I think you just confirmed my point: RE5 is as much an action game as RE4. I don't understand why RE5 and RE6 are so often criticized for being action games, when RE4 was too. It invented RE5 and 6's gameplay.
All I said is that RE5 has the same basic gameplay as RE4. As does RE6, though it was expanded upon a little bit, since RE6 allows you to slide and stuff.

- The only difference between official reviewers and nonofficial ones is that the official ones get paid for their hobby. There is no real difference between them - they are not usually bought off (no proof and no good reason for that), and they are not objective either. If reviewers were objective, there wouldn't be so many of them. There'd only be one.

- Of course. I said that I don't trust reviewers unconditionally, but I've gotta say, these reviews I've read are disheartening. When sites like Power Unlimited give out grades like 6.7/10 (while they're usually enthusiastic), you do start to wonder what's up with the game. And it's not just their review either. From what I've read, it isn't scary, its gameplay is often unfair like RE6, the story is almost nonexistent until the last two chapters, and the AI and graphics are laughable. I'd like to try it first, but I'm not sure what renting's going to cost me. Libraries here in the Netherlands are pretty assholish.

 

[Maxman]

- You missed my point: I'm saying it's intellectually dishonest to act as though RE4 has greatly superior (or drastically different) gameplay. It doesn't. I find it very strange that you would venerate RE4, but at the same time despise RE5; they are very similar games, and neither of them tries to be scarier than the other.

- So because RE5 has a different atmosphere than RE4, and doesn't have a cheesy story and characters, that makes it objectively a worse game? That's not logical. Sure, RE5 has a different atmosphere than RE4 - you're entitled to disliking that, but I don't see how this is anything more than an opinion.

- ? I never implied RE5 ''blindly apes'' RE4... that's your view. So I think you just confirmed my point: RE5 is as much an action game as RE4. I don't understand why RE5 and RE6 are so often criticized for being action games, when RE4 was too. It invented RE5 and 6's gameplay.
All I said is that RE5 has the same basic gameplay as RE4. As does RE6, though it was expanded upon a little bit, since RE6 allows you to slide and stuff.

- The only difference between official reviewers and nonofficial ones is that the official ones get paid for their hobby. There is no real difference between them - they are not usually bought off (no proof and no good reason for that), and they are not objective either. If reviewers were objective, there wouldn't be so many of them. There'd only be one.

- Of course. I said that I don't trust reviewers unconditionally, but I've gotta say, these reviews I've read are disheartening. When sites like Power Unlimited give out grades like 6.7/10 (while they're usually enthusiastic), you do start to wonder what's up with the game. And it's not just their review either. From what I've read, it isn't scary, its gameplay is often unfair like RE6, the story is almost nonexistent until the last two chapters, and the AI and graphics are laughable. I'd like to try it first, but I'm not sure what renting's going to cost me. Libraries here in the Netherlands are pretty assholish.

Regarding the Gameplay being "unfair" , Yeeeeaahh, it relies on Trial and Error style, BUT, lemme tell you this, nothing can be as unfair as RE6 in a third-person shooter :/

 

[berto]

- You missed my point: I'm saying it's intellectually dishonest to act as though RE4 has greatly superior (or drastically different) gameplay. It doesn't. I find it very strange that you would venerate RE4, but at the same time despise RE5; they are very similar games, and neither of them tries to be scarier than the other.

That is true, that RE4 doesn't have vastly superior gameplay from RE5. In fact RE5 is, on a technical level, the superior game. It's more responsive, there are more animations, prompt for melee are more common, and there are more weapons. Yet RE4 is the better game.

- So because RE5 has a different atmosphere than RE4, and doesn't have a cheesy story and characters, that makes it objectively a worse game? That's not logical. Sure, RE5 has a different atmosphere than RE4 - you're entitled to disliking that, but I don't see how this is anything more than an opinion.

It's hardly illogical. Also there are some things you can't chuck up to personal tastes.

Yes, RE4 is the better game because of those things that RE5 doesn't have and the things it forces on you (like the co-op). It's also the game design and the things each offers. For one, the gameplay is not the only thing that makes a game good. There is game design, music and use thereof, appeal, use of environments, esthetics and all this and all that. To simply say 'they play the same so they are the same' is a very shallow statement. By virtue of that statement any game that mimics Arkham games is just as good as any of the Batman games.

The best example I can give to underline this is this. Take any boss fight of your choice on RE4 and compare it to the giant Spider boss in RE5. This spider, while at first very impressive and frightening, soon loses all that when you realize just how long it's taking you to kill it. You now spend a small eternity running around looking for ammo, not really in much danger since you've figured out how to avoid damage from this thing and you are now just repeating the same actions over and over again until you've killed this thing. The fight has now become monotonous, undangerous and unimpressive. That is the underlying fault in RE5, it's not as dangerous as RE4. Sure you die in RE5 but nowhere near as much as RE4. That Danger and willingness to kill the player is a big part of what makes RE4 the superior game. Add to that all the things ROCKMAN X listed and it's no longer a matter of opinion.

And before you ask, the reason those things make a difference is the reason why game have different characters in every game instead of just Mii characters or XBox characters for everything. Video games are an experience and gameplay is only a part of it. RE4 delivers the better experience and it's all those things that make it the better one over RE5 and 6.

If none of the last 3 RE games are for you I get that, but it baffles me that you'd think that things like atmosphere, quality level design, or appeal are all trivial things and the only thing a game should bother with is gameplay. It's not like it's unheard of for a game to play well but fail everywhere else and thus making it a bad game.

In all honesty, though, I still do play a fair bit of RE6 on many occasion.

 

[Maxman]

Am I the only one who likes RE5 more than RE4 ?

 

[berto]

Am I the only one who likes RE5 more than RE4 ?

I'm sure you not. 8.5 mil copies there are probably more than a few that like it more.

 

[Maxman]

I'm sure you not. 8.5 mil copies there are probably more than a few that like it more.

Thats good to hear ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Woohoo ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

 

[Lord Nero]

Regarding the Gameplay being "unfair" , Yeeeeaahh, it relies on Trial and Error style, BUT, lemme tell you this, nothing can be as unfair as RE6 in a third-person shooter :/

No, that's not what I mean. The Evil Within has been called unfair because of several things, such as bad checkpoint placement, unnecessary difficulty spikes, certain areas becoming forever inaccessible just because you opened a door, etc etc. And some of the criticism is even similar to the criticism RE6 got... so yeah, I really wonder whether this game is any better than the newest REs.

Am I the only one who likes RE5 more than RE4 ?

I think I like RE5 more than RE4... a little bit. Didn't care for RE6 at all, though.

That is true, that RE4 doesn't have vastly superior gameplay from RE5. Yet RE4 is the better game.

Yes, RE4 is the better game because of those things that RE5 doesn't have and the things it forces on you (like the co-op). There is game design, music and use thereof, appeal, use of environments, esthetics and all this and all that. To simply say 'they play the same so they are the same' is a very shallow statement. By virtue of that statement any game that mimics Arkham games is just as good as any of the Batman games.

The best example I can give to underline this is this. Take any boss fight of your choice on RE4 and compare it to the giant Spider boss in RE5. This spider, while at first very impressive and frightening, soon loses all that when you realize just how long it's taking you to kill it. You now spend a small eternity running around looking for ammo, not really in much danger since you've figured out how to avoid damage from this thing and you are now just repeating the same actions over and over again until you've killed this thing. The fight has now become monotonous, undangerous and unimpressive. That is the underlying fault in RE5, it's not as dangerous as RE4. Sure you die in RE5 but nowhere near as much as RE4. That Danger and willingness to kill the player is a big part of what makes RE4 the superior game. Add to that all the things ROCKMAN X listed and it's no longer a matter of opinion.

If none of the last 3 RE games are for you I get that, but it baffles me that you'd think that things like atmosphere, quality level design, or appeal are all trivial things and the only thing a game should bother with is gameplay. It's not like it's unheard of for a game to play well but fail everywhere else and thus making it a bad game.

In all honesty, though, I still do play a fair bit of RE6 on many occasion.

- And yet, I haven't heard any arguments for why that is, other than 'because I prefer RE4's atmosphere/music etc'. That's an argument from preference -- from opinion, not facts.

- You misinterpreted my words - I never said RE4 and RE5 are the same. I said they have almost the same gameplay, and they are almost equally good at that (RE5 coming out on top due to more fluid animations, less tanky controls etc). Oh, and didn't RE4 force co-op on you just like RE5 did? I remember being forced to run around with Ashley for a huge part of the game. And I don't get this idea of 'RE5 mimics/rips off RE4'. Well, duh... it's the next installment. That's usually how games work: they take existing gameplay from prior games, and make slight alterations/improvements to it.

- A boss becomes less impressive and frightening, just because you spend a lot of time trying to kill it? ...Okaaay. So should boss fights take like three seconds? By the way, repeating the same actions over and over again is also how RE4 worked with its bosses. Avoiding their attacks was usually easy as well. I don't know, I thought RE4 and RE5 were equally 'dangerous', as you put it. Maybe you're just not so good at RE5's boss fights, and better at RE4's.
I think I died like twice in RE4... it really isn't dangerous if you know what you're doing.

- I see I need to explain more clearly.
I didn't say atmosphere, level design, or appeal are 'trivial things'! Where do you get this stuff? Yes, I only mentioned gameplay... you know why? Atmosphere is mostly subjective. Story is mostly subjective. The art style is incredibly subjective. So you see, there's a reason why I took the gameplay as an example: it's the *least* subjective game element.
What I am saying is that objectively speaking, I don't think RE4 is better than RE5. Many people online are acting like RE4 had amazing survival horror gameplay - it's pretty much the first thing they cite, NOT the atmosphere, level design or anything else. I find that odd, because the gameplay is almost the same as RE5, but RE5 gets hated for its gameplay.
Sure, RE4 had a different atmophere than RE5, but that's a nonsensical reason to find RE4 an objectively better game. It's just a preference, it has no relation to quality. You can't even compare them, because they're completely different kinds of atmosphere.

So I'm still not convinced. Maybe RE4 is the better game *in your opinion*, but you can't pass it off as a fact.

 

[Lord Nero]

But you know, that said, if people who didn't like RE6 really liked this one, maybe I should give it a try. I mean, even if it isn't scary, at least it's got good survival gameplay. It's better than nothing, I guess.

 

[ROCKMAN X]

- And yet, I haven't heard any arguments for why that is, other than 'because I prefer RE4's atmosphere/music etc'. That's an argument from preference -- from opinion, not facts.

Not really.. atmosphere is crucial for any horror themed game to be enjoyable. RE5's sunny africa isn't really the best setting for a horror themed game IMO i much prefer the grimy isolated Spanish village.

-Oh, and didn't RE4 force co-op on you just like RE5 did? I remember being forced to run around with Ashley for a huge part of the game.

Escort missions are not co-op..

A boss becomes less impressive and frightening, just because you spend a lot of time trying to kill it? ...Okaaay. So should boss fights take like three seconds?

No what he meant to say was that the boss isn't challenging but just tedious.. you just run around collect ammo and the shoot and the repeat this until the boss is dead its bad gameplay design overall.

Bad level design is what makes RE5 ultimately an inferior product... its just not as good as RE4's levels.

Many people online are acting like RE4 had amazing survival horror gameplay

No.. i think you get the wrong idea.. no one thinks RE4 is a "Great survival horror game" its far from it! but its a damn awesome 3rd person shooter adventure game.

because the gameplay is almost the same as RE5

Err.. no its not! the level design,co-op,inventory system and a lack of geniune creepy atmosphere makes RE5 very much inferior.

I don't get your argument of "They both have the same gameplay" argument seriously WTF? are you telling me that any game that copies a successful game is just as good? by that logic castlevania lords of shadow is as good as God of war 3?

 

[Lord Nero]

- Not really.. atmosphere is crucial for any horror themed game to be enjoyable. RE5's sunny africa isn't really the best setting for a horror themed game IMO i much prefer the grimy isolated Spanish village.

- Escort missions are not co-op..

- No what he meant to say was that the boss isn't challenging but just tedious.. you just run around collect ammo and the shoot and the repeat this until the boss is dead its bad gameplay design overall.

- Bad level design is what makes RE5 ultimately an inferior product... its just not as good as RE4's levels.

- Err.. no its not! the level design,co-op,inventory system and a lack of geniune creepy atmosphere makes RE5 very much inferior.

I don't get your argument of "They both have the same gameplay" argument seriously WTF? are you telling me that any game that copies a successful game is just as good? by that logic castlevania lords of shadow is as good as God of war 3?

- I never said atmosphere wasn't crucial to horror games. You still don't get my point, I think. RE5 looked pretty disturbing, and I thought it fit the survival horror theme really well. But you have a different opinion than me - see my point now? It's just your opinion, and you can't seriously call RE4 a much better game *objectively* just because you prefer RE4's atmosphere or style, or find it more creepy. It's subjective.

- Berto's point was that RE5 forces you to play in teams of two characters. So does RE4, with Ashley. You can hardly call them escort missions - the game is filled with them. At what point does the escorting end, and the actual single-player begin? A huge part of the game consists of running around with Ashley, needing to protect her.

- And my point was that RE4's bosses aren't challenging either. Both games are tedious as hell. What you just described applies to RE4 as well.

- I don't remember RE4 being some shining beacon of level design either. RE5's level design was fine, as far as I can recall. If you think RE4's level design was better, you still need to present your arguments for that opinion.

- You haven't given any arguments for how the level design is worse or crappy. And co-op was in RE4 too, though not *multiplayer* co-op. I thought the atmosphere was creepy, you don't. Stop throwing around your opinion as a fact.

- This is like the third time I've explained... or is it the fourth time now? I'm saying RE4 is not a better game than RE5 objectively. Gameplay is the most important and least subjective aspect of a game, and it's about as good in RE5 as it is in RE4. The story of RE5, though different from RE4's, doesn't seem objectively worse than RE4's. You often bring up the atmosphere, as though it's somehow (objectively speaking) better than RE5's atmosphere. Opinion. There's no rule that goes 'horror games MUST be dark and gritty and filled with chanting priests and sh*t'... it's just a style of horror. Some people bring up how RE4 is scarier than RE5 -- again, opinions. I'm sure someone's going to bring up the soundtrack, like it's better than RE5's soundtrack. That's arguably an opinion too. Even if the majority of the gaming community agrees with you and prefers RE4, that still doesn't make it a better game than RE5. It just means you agree with the majority opinion. I haven't seen any arguments so far that couldn't be classified as subjective.
As for how it 'copies' RE4... I've already responded to that too. It's like you're saying RE5 rips off RE4's gameplay. Well, guess what? As much as you want to deny it, RE5 is the successor to RE4. It takes the previous gameplay, and alters it slightly, just like RE3 did with RE2, and RE2 did with RE1. Just because it wasn't supervised by Mikami (who's the director, btw, not the designer) doesn't mean it's not a Resident Evil game.

 

[ROCKMAN X]

I think. RE5 looked pretty disturbing, and I thought it fit the survival horror theme really well.

Its just a matter of opinion i guess.. but bright sunny African setting isn't disturbing or creepy in the slightest.

It's just your opinion

Now that's a copout! i can say the same for almost every sh!tty game ever made.

At what point does the escorting end, and the actual single-player begin?

Simple.. the only thing ashley did was follow you around and maybe hide sheva on the hand forced you to share your supplies with her and her A.I is some of the worst i've seen in a co-op game she stocks up items and uses ammo and first aid without my permission and sharing items with her is just as annoying.. i just wanted to play an action-horror game making it co-op just ruins the experience for me i want to be the only character playing the game.

Both games are tedious as hell. What you just described applies to RE4 as well.

How? krauser boss fight was fun,that blind wolverine guy was fun and that big cheese guy boss was fun and the creepy as hell "right hand" monster was fun!

Whereas i don't remember ANY boss fight except for wesker from RE5 that's how underwhelming and uncreative they are and you still insist RE5 is as good as RE4?? pfft..

If you think RE4's level design was better, you still need to present your arguments for that opinion.

Well first off RE4 is much longer than RE 5 and it has much more diverse environments,better boss fights,better inventory,better enemy designs,atmosphere and it had a story which wasn't too serious like RE5's.

Stop throwing around your opinion as a fact.

I could say the same to you stop pushing your opinion on everyone's faces as "objective" facts tch.

Gameplay is the most important and least subjective aspect of a game and it's about as good in RE5 as it is in RE4.

SO WHAT? by your logic any awful game with the same gameplay as another successful game is just as good because it has the same gameplay.

The story of RE5, though different from RE4's, doesn't seem objectively worse than RE4's.

Will you stop using the word "objective"? that doesn't make your arguments any less subjective or opinionated.

RE 4's story isn't great but its cheesy and doesn't take itself seriously which makes it palatable RE5's story is serious and tries to connect itself with the original RE 1-3 canon which makes it overly convoluted and not so good.

There's no rule that goes 'horror games MUST be dark and gritty and filled with chanting priests and sh*t'.

Err there is! humans are most afraid of the "unknown" and the darkness,hostile gritty environments invokes the feeling of dread&helplessness not something sunny and bright.

Some people bring up how RE4 is scarier than RE5

How many times do i have to repeat myself? No one implied that RE4 is a "Scary".. its not even a proper survival horror game its just a really good action game with horror elements just like Devil may cry 1.

But for the sake of argument RE4 does have scary moments like the iron maiden and the village level RE5 doesn't have any scary moments.

 

[Lord Nero]

- Its just a matter of opinion i guess.. but bright sunny African setting isn't disturbing or creepy in the slightest.

- Now that's a copout! i can say the same for almost every sh!tty game ever made.

- Simple.. the only thing ashley did was follow you around and maybe hide sheva on the hand forced you to share your supplies with her and her A.I is some of the worst i've seen in a co-op game she stocks up items and uses ammo and first aid without my permission and sharing items with her is just as annoying. I just wanted to play an action-horror game making it co-op just ruins the experience for me i want to be the only character playing the game.How? krauser boss fight was fun,that blind wolverine guy was fun and that big cheese guy boss was fun and the creepy as hell "right hand" monster was fun! Whereas i don't remember ANY boss fight except for wesker from RE5 that's how underwhelming and uncreative they are and you still insist RE5 is as good as RE4?? pfft..

- Well first off RE4 is much longer than RE 5 and it has much more diverse environments,better boss fights,better inventory,better enemy designs,atmosphere and it had a story which wasn't too serious like RE5's.

- I could say the same to you stop pushing your opinion on everyone's faces as "objective" facts tch.SO WHAT? by your logic any awful game with the same gameplay as another successful game is just as good because it has the same gameplay.Will you stop using the word "objective"? that doesn't make your arguments any less subjective or opinionated.

- RE 4's story isn't great but its cheesy and doesn't take itself seriously which makes it palatable RE5's story is serious and tries to connect itself with the original RE 1-3 canon which makes it overly convoluted and not so good.

- Err there is! humans are most afraid of the "unknown" and the darkness,hostile gritty environments invokes the feeling of dread&helplessness not something sunny and bright.How many times do i have to repeat myself? No one implied that RE4 is a "Scary".. its not even a proper survival horror game its just a really good action game with a horror elements just like Devil may cry 1.

But for the sake of argument RE4 does have scary moments like the iron maiden and the village level RE5 doesn't have any scary moments.

- Uuuh... you admitted it's a matter of opinion, but then say that RE5's setting isn't creepy in the slightest? Man, make up your mind... is that an opinion or is it a fact? I personally thought RE5 had plenty of dark, creepy locales. If you think it takes place in 'bright, sunny Africa', then you haven't paid attention while playing. You go from dark labyrinth to a creepy factory, to all kinds of stuff. Nothing 'sunny and bright' about it. Besides, I've never heard of the idea that ''horror games can't be creepy if they don't take place in dark environments''.

- Are you going to give arguments for why RE4 is objectively better than RE5, or are you just going to insult me? And even if it is better, why is that suddenly the subject of this thread? This is about The Evil Within.

- That doesn't matter. The idea behind it is that being alone (as in, one character) intensifies the horror experience. Whether you're being followed by Ashley or by Sheva doesn't make a difference. The only important aspect of it is that you have company, which gives you a measure of solace.

- What you said is that bosses in RE5 aren't challenging. Same goes for RE4 bosses. ''You just run around collect ammo and then shoot and repeat this until the boss is dead''. RE4 is also just a whole lot of repeated shooting and regurgitation.

- ''much more diverse environments,better boss fights,better inventory,better enemy designs,atmosphere and it had a story which wasn't too serious like RE5's''. You just said 'better' three times. Better in what way? You do realize that the word 'better' can be interpreted as either objective or subjective, right? I agree that RE4's inventory is better than RE5's, but that's a pretty insignificant gripe... calling RE4 a great game and RE5 sh*t is not justified just because the inventory system isn't as good. Design is subjective too: I may like a blue striped bike, you might not.
Much more diverse environments? How do you mean? RE5 had a lot of environments too, all pretty damn varied. A swamp, a factory, a small village, a mine, a tanker, ancient ruins, I could go on for a while. I'm sure RE4 was varied, but I don't remember it being more varied than RE5.
I don't know what you mean by ''a story that wasn't too serious''. RE5's story was convoluted? It was basic as sh*t.

- SO WHAT? by your logic any awful game with the same gameplay as another successful game is just as good because it has the same gameplay.
I. never. said. that. I've already explained it too many times. All I said is that RE4 doesn't seem objectively better than RE5 to me. I'm trying to make the point that YOU keep saying that RE4 is of MUCH higher quality than RE5, when you have almost no objective arguments to support that. All berto supplied as arguments was stuff like ''I prefer the atmosphere'' or ''I find it to be creepier''. Well, good for you... but it's also just an opinion. I thought RE5 was just as good as RE4 in most respects: sometimes better, sometimes worse. You should just admit that you like RE4 better because that's your opinion - not because RE4 is factually a much better game than RE5. Because it isn't. Besides, when did this become 'RE4 vs RE5'? My first comment was that RE4 is not horror-like enough for me, and therefore TEW isn't either.

- No there isn't. Horror can also be very vivid or vibrant rather than dark. Sometimes it's even really gray and bleak. What people are 'the most' afraid of is not the subject. Horror can work on many levels, not just one. And you don't have to repeat yourself, because I wasn't talking about you. I said some people bring up how RE4 is scarier than RE5... as in, NOT YOU. RE5 has some scary moments - see my point? I just showed you that RE5 can be scary, because I thought it was. It's all just opinions - it's subjective.

You know what, you don't even have to respond if you don't want to. Geez, it wasn't even about 'RE4 vs RE5', so why did you turn it into that? I said I probably won't play The Evil Within, because it makes some of the same mistakes RE6 did, and because it's very similar to RE4 (and therefore RE5 and 6 too). It's mainly action. When I play a horror game, I expect it to be scary, but most of the reviews of TEW say it's not scary at all. So what's left? Survival gameplay, I guess... and I don't think only survival is enough for me.

 

[Lord Nero]

And just to *again* explain why I mentioned RE4 and RE5's gameplay being very similar... it was to show that RE4 is not objectively speaking a *much* better game. Gameplay is the most important aspect of games, and RE4 and RE5 are almost identical in that respect. The atmosphere being better, the style being better, the enemy design being better, the story being better... ''darkness of the game equals quality horror''...all of that is mostly opinions. What the hell is 'better'? Better to you? Am I supposed to take it as a fact that RE5 is of far worse quality than RE4, when I've already proved that you simply *prefer* RE4? Come on.
I never said I don't value a good story or good enemy design or atmosphere... but you have to understand that what is 'good' is pretty subjective. I found RE5's enemy design, story and atmosphere to be pretty good. Why should I care that you don't?

 

[berto]

- And yet, I haven't heard any arguments for why that is, other than 'because I prefer RE4's atmosphere/music etc'. That's an argument from preference -- from opinion, not facts.

Yeah, it's opinions. The awards it got, the ratings it's received, the longevity it's shown, the praise it's gotten from the fans and critics, all opinion. You gotta be kidding me, it's the 'I'm the last sane man on earth' argument. By virtue of that every argument for any game been better than another is a matter of opinion.
"The gameplay's better"
"That's your opinion"
"The music's better"
"That's your opinion"
"It's a more got better weapons"
"That's your opinion"

It's an argument that says that nothing is solid and all is subjective and nothing is better than anything, just people thinking so. That's all great in a philosophical argument but here it's just an evasive argument to dismiss all disagreements to your position as subjective and therefore inconsequential.

Well, I'll do my best to stick to the facts then.

Oh, and didn't RE4 force co-op on you just like RE5 did? I remember being forced to run around with Ashley for a huge part of the game. And I don't get this idea of 'RE5 mimics/rips off RE4'. Well, duh... it's the next installment. That's usually how games work: they take existing gameplay from prior games, and make slight alterations/improvements to it.

No, it doesn't. It's not co-op. You know it's not co-op, right? That there is a difference between escorting and co-op? That been that at no point can another player take control of the other character and assist you with the game, that you have to take care of them.

- A boss becomes less impressive and frightening, just because you spend a lot of time trying to kill it? ...Okaaay. So should boss fights take like three seconds?

I know you know what I meant and that wasn't it. It wasn't the length of the fight and you know that. It's how the fight was unbalanced and poorly executed. All you had to do was run around and wait for ammo to spawn to both avoid danger and get what you need to kill it. There was an infinite amount of ammunition, you just had to wait for it to spawn. Top it off with the boss having way too much health and it became a matter of doing the same thing for a really long time. It becomes the definition of monotonous.

By the way, repeating the same actions over and over again is also how RE4 worked with its bosses. Avoiding their attacks was usually easy as well. I don't know, I thought RE4 and RE5 were equally 'dangerous', as you put it. Maybe you're just not so good at RE5's boss fights, and better at RE4's.
I think I died like twice in RE4... it really isn't dangerous if you know what you're doing.

Ok, how about a different example, see if I get my point across better since I can only assume I explained my self poorly.

You know how at the end of the Jill fight you have to remove the machine in her chest? You know how you have to do a quick time that makes you press X like 200 times and how you have to start over if she get's free? That's what I'm talking about. The game is littered with plenty of poor design choices that made plenty of parts more chore like than fun.

One boss with too much health, one that actually chased you around in a circle, another that had you button mash a quick time for an eternity, there is an unrefined AI for your forced partner that only uses the handgun and squanders ammo and health, and introduction of a cover system that is only there like 3 times (so what's the point of even been there), and a bunch of other ones I can't remember because it's been so long since I've played.

It's the big and little things all over the place. Yeah, RE4 has aged a bit but it still has the better experience on the virtue that it's bosses aren't monotonous, the quicktimes aren't eternal, there is no forced co-op, and it's got the better level design and structure.

- I see I need to explain more clearly.
I didn't say atmosphere, level design, or appeal are 'trivial things'! Where do you get this stuff? Yes, I only mentioned gameplay... you know why? Atmosphere is mostly subjective. Story is mostly subjective. The art style is incredibly subjective.

I beg to differ. No one is ever going to say Happy Madison has a better story than Citizen Kane and all who disagree just have a difference of opinion. No one is ever going to say that hand turkey those 3rd graders made are better works of art than a Rembrandt and all who disagree just have a difference of opinion. No one is ever going to say Leprechaun in the Hood has a better atmosphere than Alien and all who disagree just have a difference of opinion.

There is a definitive presence of these concepts and there is a definitive difference between the two and if I were a more eloquent man I might be able to show you the whys with more finesse but I do know they are present, that I cannot let go unsaid.

So you see, there's a reason why I took the gameplay as an example: it's the *least* subjective game element.
What I am saying is that objectively speaking, I don't think RE4 is better than RE5. Many people online are acting like RE4 had amazing survival horror gameplay - it's pretty much the first thing they cite, NOT the atmosphere, level design or anything else. I find that odd, because the gameplay is almost the same as RE5, but RE5 gets hated for its gameplay.

That is odd, especially since some of the most prominent Horror Survival games in history are not known for their sophisticated gameplay, quite the opposite, it's despite their gameplay.

In the case of RE4/5 it's gameplay because for Re5 it's its most prominent element. RE4 walked a fine line between action and horror but RE5 went well over the other side and by it's release other games with similar gameplay played better and evolved passed what it had to offer.

Sure, RE4 had a different atmophere than RE5, but that's a nonsensical reason to find RE4 an objectively better game. It's just a preference, it has no relation to quality. You can't even compare them, because they're completely different kinds of atmosphere.

So I'm still not convinced. Maybe RE4 is the better game *in your opinion*, but you can't pass it off as a fact.

Well, I think this discussion has ran it's course. I can only see this discussion going circular.

Rather than going on about why you won't play the Evil Within I say just stick to Alien Isolation.

 

[ToCool74]

Oh, and didn't RE4 force co-op on you just like RE5 did? I remember being forced to run around with Ashley for a huge part of the game. And I don't get this idea of 'RE5 mimics/rips off RE4'. Well, duh... it's the next installment. That's usually how games work: they take existing gameplay from prior games, and make slight alterations/improvements to it.

Wow, you obviously have no idea of what constitutes cooperative gameplay or "co-op" for short.

For a guy who loves facts you certainly ignore them when it comes to actual co-op.

Berto explains it best above, have a look at his post to see the clear difference between escorting and co-op gameplay.

Or have a look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_gameplay

But RE4's Ashley moments are obviously escort missions.

Its so blatantly obvious its not even funny.

 

[Lord Nero]

Wow, you obviously have no idea of what constitutes cooperative gameplay or "co-op" for short.

For a guy who loves facts you certainly ignore them when it comes to actual co-op.

Berto explains it best above, have a look at his post to see the clear difference between escorting and co-op gameplay.

Or have a look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_gameplay

But RE4's Ashley moments are obviously escort missions.

Its so blatantly obvious its not even funny.

*Sigh*... I know what co-op is... and don't pretend you know me.
Anyway, that wasn't even berto's original point, as far as I know. The point was that there is a character following you in RE4, as well as in RE5. That lessens the impact of the horror aspects - when there is a character you are escorting, or a character that's helping you, or whatever, it provides a sense of security. Or at least a companionship that makes whatever lies in the dark less creepy. The only thing RE5 forces on you is Sheva's constant companionship, which is similar to Ashley in RE4.

And berto and ROCKMAN X's views are still not supported by objective arguments. Take for example: ''it's bosses aren't monotonous, the quicktimes aren't eternal, there is no forced co-op, and it's got the better level design and structure. ''

RE4 had incredibly monotonous bosses, imo. Just as much as RE5. It's his opinion that they weren't monotonous. Fine. But as you can plainly see by my disagreeing with him, it's not a fact that the bosses are/are not monotonous. It's just an opinion. The 'quicktimes' are eternal? Don't even know what that means. RE5 had long quicktime events, sure, but RE4 did too. RE4 had an entire boss fight based around a QTE -- I mean, come on. Get real.
Better level design... still haven't heard objective arguments for why that is. Only that ''they're more varied than RE5's'', for which no evidence was given.
Co-op? Sheva is just a character running along with you, which is the same as Ashley from RE4, really. The only difference is that Ashley doesn't carry guns.

It's fine if you like RE4 better than RE5, but to say that it's far better than RE5 seems a bit weird. So please stop replying, if only for the sake of keeping the thread on topic. Last I checked, my original comment was about how RE4 gave rise to RE5 and RE6 (action-oriented gameplay), and that I'd rather not have action gameplay in The Evil Within. I'd rather have mostly horror.

 

[ToCool74]

The only thing RE5 forces on you is Sheva's constant companionship, which is similar to Ashley in RE4.

.

See, the fact that you just said that supportive Sheva from RE5 is actually similar to Ashley in RE4 shows that you have absolutely no clue on what your talking about.

Sorry for being harsh but seriously?

The difference is clear, 1 game has Ashley who is pretty much useless and has to be protected from getting slaughtered by the enemy since she does nothing and has nothing.

The other game has Sheva who is able to carry guns and weapons and actually supports you in the killing of enemies.

Having to escort Ashley around does not make players feel secure from companionship at all, in fact in RE4 it made for even tenser moments since you had to worry about protecting this useless girl while hordes of monsters attacks you.

The situation is much more different in RE5 where we can depend on Sheva for aid against enemies as well as feel secure in the fact that we know she can take care of herself (although she may need assistance at some point).

 

[berto]

 

[ItWasAnEggTimer]

Until Evil Within has it's own Nemesis, there's no argument.

 

[ROCKMAN X]

- Uuuh... you admitted it's a matter of opinion, but then say that RE5's setting isn't creepy in the slightest?

No i was just being generous.. i could've outright said that human psyche doesn't find brightly lit environments eerie or hostile and the fact that RE5 has excessive lighting further illustrates my point it just simply doesn't convey a dreaded atmosphere in anyway whatsoever.

or are you just going to insult me?

Please point the exact quote where i "insulted" you.. the only thing i did was point out the fallacy in your argumentation and your "objectivity" scale which is as vague as it gets

Whether you're being followed by Ashley or by Sheva doesn't make a difference.

no it makes a HUGE difference mainly because you have to protect... her nagging presence only makes you feel even more vulnerable and helpless as opposed to feeling like a covert-op agent like chris&sheva.

>What you said is that bosses in RE5 aren't challenging.
Its not about being "challenging" they were decent alright but they were badly designed you can pull that non-existent "Objectivity meter" of yours but i'm going to stick with my statement.. the bosses in RE5 are inferior and less fun.

>You do realize that the word 'better' can be interpreted as either objective or subjective, right?
Everytime you bring up objectivity while discussing a puppy dies!
>Design is subjective too:
That's a fancy new way to say "I disagree"? eitherway i'd be impressed if you could show me one level in RE5 which is as fun as the cabin fight or the village fight.
>Much more diverse environments? How do you mean?
RE 4 had village,castles,garden maze,lots of traps,strategic varied enemy placement,molten lava,laboratories,underground mines,open arenas,mountainous regions,lakes,sewers a separate Island etc and it also had a much more noticeable day/night cycle than RE5 all of this culminates into the gradual feeling of progression.. RE5 felt like just random patchwork of levels designed as a DLC for RE4 not a full-fledged sequel.
The "ancient ruins" part of RE5 is so short it might as well not exist not to mention RE 4 was much longer than RE5.
>RE5's story was convoluted? It was basic as sh*t.
No it wasn't! the bullshit with uroboros,african plants,spencer,wesker,chris,jill is all convoluted as hell and any new comer to the series would be confused on the surface it seems like its simple story but it isn't.

when you have almost no objective arguments to support that.

WTF!? are you trolling me or what? I say level design,atmosphere,story is a million times better and you're calling its all "subjective" WTF? what am i supposed to say is better in RE4 when you deem everything important about a game as "subjective"?

>You should just admit that you like RE4 better because that's your opinion not because RE4 is factually a much better game than RE5.
How do you "Factually" prove any game is better ANYWAY? i would be interested to know that because as far i know everything is just someone's personal opinion!

Gameplay is the most important aspect of games, and RE4 and RE5 are almost identical in that respect.

NO THEY AREN'T!

LEVEL DESIGN IS DIFFERENT! how can you say that they're "identical" when the level designs are so different?