• Welcome to the Devil May Cry Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Devil May Cry series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Resident Evil (and survival horror in general), kind of disappoints me now...

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups!
Nov 1, 2018
987
478
860
Plus, Barry is kind of like Joel, if you think about it.
Barry is still better, because he's Barry f#cking Burton!

Revelations 2 was a The Last of Us wannabe.
Noticeable, but that was the least of its problems that bothered me. Evil Within 2 has a few TLOUS inspirations as well. Look at Sebastian, and then look at Joel. There is even an optional stealth section in a foggy forest that lasts about 15 minutes. I did not mind it, but some people (Gaming Brit), found it distracting. The moment led to some nice down times, walk and talk, and an introduction to a cool new, terrifying, enemy in the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Health Drink

Health Drink

Well-known Member
Sep 17, 2020
283
42
255
Some of the old RE forums I registered on were full of morons. TotallyRE. Resident Evil Horror. Capcom Central. Etc. They were all terrible.

In fact, one Australian guy from these dead forums has literally spent every week for the last 5 years constantly cyber stalking me, posting crappy YouTube videos about me, filling up unmoderated forums with vile comments, and denying that he knows what RE even is. Some guy called James...

He was leaving these dumbass, anonymous ("guest") replies on a legal advice forum not too long ago, where I happened to post a thread asking for advice on how to deal with this 36 year old (!) troll. He also used to harass me on Fandom before I gave up editing on there. He edited every page I did just to be tagged to each one. Then he kept coming back with proxies, spamming nonsense about how my homemade movies suck, and whatnot.

The guy seems too invested in my online habits and general business, but I don't care about him at all. He's not even a clever troll, because he leaked stuff about himself in the past, which most trolls would be wary of doing in the first place. And he knows I appeared in some feature films as an extra, so he squaks on and on about how I cannot act, implies I am racist for saying Wesker is not supposed to be played by a black actor, and you know what I mean. Just goes on and on and on about ridiculous subjects that nobody cares about, like some broken record. Change the needle, or something.

The idiot never shuts up. You can tell he's jealous of my modest success. But then he goes on about personal issues I had with ex support workers I had to somehow use that against me, and casts up other irrelevant things that has nothing to do with RE debates. Basically just to make me look bad.

Recently, he was spamming on anxietyforum.net with many accounts, and there happens to be two other Aussies on the same forum. All it would have taken was for one of them to make a quick call to the bogan police in Western Australia, with my proof provided, and he probably could have gotten arrested for harassment, if they took it seriously enough. However, I called them and I mentioned being in the UK, then they said they don't have the jurisdiction to deal with him. He even reads my posts on here, logs in on JoyFreak a lot, and probably does the same thing on other forums, but I don't really care if he wants to waste his time never developing. Because he's a nobody anyway.

He writes for a blog called Press Start to Play. Anyone heard of it? Nope.

James says this abuse isn't about RE. It's supposedly about me being a horrible person. But regardless, it's sad giving how old this person is. When I was talking to my mum about him recently while we were waiting on a bus and I told her he puts his accommodation in his own videos, she said to me that "Dumb" should be his middle name.
 

berto

I Saw the Devil
Moderator
Oct 15, 2011
9,087
8,311
16,325
Nowhere
Yep, and Capcom knew this and made a smart decision.
They made a financially sound decision, I don't know if I'd go as far as calling it the right decision. Like I said, they made a game for the masses and if you are looking at the situation as trying to sell a product this was the way to go yet I don't agree with the notion that this will be for the better in the long run. The very concept of these games, the REmakes, stems from the success of the RE1 remake's success into HD. It's this outdated game that brought us all of this. If there was no appeal to it this wouldn't be happening. I can attest to that since the first time I played RE1 was on the PS4 so there is no nostalgia to my opinion. There were a few modernizations, namely a forced 16:9 aspect ratio and DMC1 walking, which really helped to make the game more accessible, specially the later, but that doesn't negate the fact that the experience was so good that it led to all of this so I refute the idea that the only place for this is amongst the niche or the nostalgic.

I don't blame them, nor hate them for it.
Nor do I. I can understand why they did it, they are a business, after all. They made a judgement call to appeal to the largest audience possible. This mentality is the reason both DmC and DMC5 exist so it can be a double edge sword if you don't know how to read the room or misjudge what most people are going to want.

Ditching the fixed camera does not make RE2Remake and RE3Remake any less survival horror.
No, of course not, but it does turn them into very different experiences. It's not just the camera angles or the mechanics. It's the tone, the structure, the pace. How the gameplay interacts with the level design, the enemies. People are often dismissive of everything but the gameplay but all the elements that compose a game play a significant part in the experience. Because of this the remakes of 2 and 3 are not compatible experiences with their originals the same way 1 is with its remake. That they are both survival horror can only connect them to an extent. Just like how Airplane, Ghostbusters and The Hot Fuzz are not interchangeable experiences simply on the basis that they are all comedies, these games are not as similar to their originals as I'd hope they'd be and it's more complicated than just being over the shoulder.

Either play the old games again and again, or start looking at the indie and some of the AA market.
That's a rather finite absolute. I don't agree that a game like the old ones cannot be made within the AAA sphere or even within RE. If the idea seems too risky they can always make a smaller spin off that aligns much closer to the original PS1 and 2 REs. In this case, though, Capcom won't. They are no longer the risk takers they once were, they don't create or define genres, they follow the money. It is because of this that if there ever was a AAA survival horror game like RE1 or its remake it would not come from them, but if said game succeeded you can bet your sweet petunias that they'd follow in with one. So, while I don't think these types of games are necessarily gone or relegated to the smaller spectrum of the media, I do, however, think that it won't be something that Capcom themselves will revive.

I could not give a damn either way.
Well, don't say that, either. We all have a stake on the status quo. Even if you have no interest in these old games yourself, surely you have opinions on how they are perceived and how they affect the genre.

As much as I love gaming from the 90s and early 2000s, they were not perfect paradises either. There is plenty I rather not go back towards.
That's fair. I've played a few old games not long ago and it wasn't all smooth sailing, going back.


Exactly why I don't have the patience for it. I am all for games are art and all, but I have my own limits and standards. If the gameplay is complete crap and not good, or is too frustrating, I am not going to waste time.
I'm not exactly on the other boat on this but, at the same time, I don't fully share the sentiment. I didn't have money back when a lot of these games of the PS1 and 2 era were about so I'm experiencing them for the first time. As you said, it can be frustrating, and yet, for all their flaws, when I invested the time and work into playing these games as the people who made 'em intended to be played, not by the standards of a modern gamer, I found the experience to be so much more rewarding than most anything I've played from the last 10 years. Yeah, there are frustrations that were inherent within those experiences, but in trying to make things better, more accessible, we've also lost an intangible quality. One of those games was Rule of Rose. For all its frustrations and eye rolling moments I got something from the end that I don't think I've gotten from any book, film or game. Maybe not better but absolutely unique.

I'd hate to find out Capcom removed Krauser from the RE4 remake
I don't think that will be the issue with RE4's remake. If i had to make a prediction on what possible issues might be it would be an attempt not to be insulting or offensive to anyone leading to censorship or other modern shenanigans that plague modern gaming, just look at what they did with the VR version, an unmatching tone, maybe from taking itself too seriously, losing mechanics or concepts do to the realism of the graphics. We are more likely to lose parts of the game or puzzles than characters.


glorify RE4 and act like 5 is terrible.
Oh, I uphold to this but that's for a later discussion. One can of worms at a time.

Some of the old RE forums I registered on were full of morons. TotallyRE. Resident Evil Horror. Capcom Central. Etc. They were all terrible.
Yeah, the core RE fanbase are pretty toxic. I hate using that word but they are almost the definition. I tried talking to them and, yeah, there are some people who are nice enough but, for the most part, the people I encountered were rude, condescending, arrogant, entitled or a combination of there in. If you want to find a good example of gatekeeping you don't have to go far.
 
Last edited:

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups!
Nov 1, 2018
987
478
860
They made a financially sound decision
Which is a smart decision in this case. They knew what they were doing.

It's this outdated game that brought us all of this. If there was no appeal to it this wouldn't be happening. I can attest to that since the first time I played RE1 was on the PS4 so there is no nostalgia to my opinion. There were a few modernizations, namely a forced 16:9 aspect ratio and DMC1 walking, which really helped to make the game more accessible, specially the later, but that doesn't negate the fact that the experience was so good that it led to all of this so I refute the idea that the only place for this is amongst the niche or the nostalgic.
I love the optimizations in REmake 1. I never said it negated by the way, but most of the these companies either don't care, want to move beyond the PS1/PS2 era camera angles, or laziness. At least you get options in the videos I provided. It's up to you if you want them or not. Otherwise, it's gonna be a long, forever, wait on the AAA side of things. You can't on a majority of them for jack-sh#t, so I would temper your expectations.

This mentality is the reason both DmC and DMC5 exist so it can be a double edge sword if you don't know how to read the room or misjudge what most people are going to want.
Don't even get me started again on DmC. Capcom and many other Japanese companies tried way too hard on the "Western appeal". Thankfully, Capcom was one of the few to remember their Japanese roots and embrace them.

Well, don't say that, either. We all have a stake on the status quo. Even if you have no interest in these old games yourself, surely you have opinions on how they are perceived and how they affect the genre.
While some of it is well and true, I am being honest here. I could not give a damn about the snotty elite and hardcore that go on about what is and isn't "true survival horror". They have chosen like anyone else. My choice is for them to screw off. I don't have the patience for their dumb ass opinions. I have no problem speaking my mind on older games, but there are plenty of old survival horror games I did not play on the PS1 and PS2. I have no regrets either way. There were many games I got to play on those consoles, and cherish the moments I remember. That is worth the patience.

I'm not exactly on the other boat on this but, at the same time, I don't fully share the sentiment. I didn't have money back when a lot of these games of the PS1 and 2 era were about so I'm experiencing them for the first time. As you said, it can be frustrating, and yet, for all their flaws, when I invested the time and work into playing these games as the people who made 'em intended to be played, not by the standards of a modern gamer, I found the experience to be so much more rewarding than most anything I've played from the last 10 years.
I am happy for you, but like I said, I am talking about me. I don't have the patience for a lot of these games. I respect what they accomplished for the medium, but I rather be playing something else. If they give you joy, then it's all that matters. Nothing more, nothing less. I do like looking at the past for certain games, or genres I enjoy, but I love to move forward as well.

One of those games was Rule of Rose. For all its frustrations and eye rolling moments I got something from the end that I don't think I've gotten from any book, film or game. Maybe not better but absolutely unique.
More power to you; I am never touching that game. Not worth the tedium and headache.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Health Drink

Goldsickle

Well-known Member
Jun 19, 2009
1,772
1,617
6,215
Malaysia
Like I said, they made a game for the masses and if you are looking at the situation as trying to sell a product this was the way to go yet I don't agree with the notion that this will be for the better in the long run.
Every time this discussion takes place in a forum, there's always the post about how Capcom chooses over-the-shoulder with the implication that they did it because it "sells better".

It's funny because people would justify fixed camera or prerendered backgrounds as a "deliberate design decision".
But when the developers choose over-the-shoulder, fanboys will say it's only implemented because "it sells better".
Smells like double standard.

Like it or not, the decision to use over-the-shoulder is also a "deliberate design decision" by the developers, as explained in multiple interviews.
Over-the-shoulder has more flexibility and more options over fixed camera.

The very concept of these games, the REmakes, stems from the success of the RE1 remake's success into HD.
That's what certain people want to believe.

The HD edition of REmake hardly has anything to do with the RE2 remake getting a green light.
If anything, Invader Games' fan remake got the ball rolling harder than REmake HD ever did.

REmake HD can "break digital sales record" all they want but as I said, the RE2 remake would never get started if Hirabayashi didn't submit his pitch, since he's the only one who is the most vocal and enthusiastic about remaking RE2.

There has never been any evidence where the developers said "the RE2 remake project was approved as a result of the reaction to REmake HD".
The reason people want to believe this is because it gives self-assurance that the remake will have fixed camera or prerendered backgrounds.

but it does turn them into very different experiences.
And what was the original experience?

Press R1+X at one corner of the room and let wide-hitscan/auto-aiming do the job landing shots at the enemy.

I thought "Survival Horror" was supposed to be challenging and difficult or it won't be scary.
And yet the same people who talk about this supports magic-bullet shooting.

I also remember certain people were yapping about how "puzzles are an important aspect of the series" but sometimes fixed camera either hinders this or renders some of the puzzles impotent.
Like when you enter the library in RE2 and there are two glorious-cinematography camera angles that shows the puzzle solution.
If you entered the library in over-the-shoulder view or first person, you'd actually have to observe your surroundings carefully.
There are other examples throughout the series where having a free camera expands the kind of puzzle or obstacle the developers can create, like the window puzzle in Village.

All fixed camera has is nothing more than novelty.
And novelty has nothing over gameplay potential.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

berto

I Saw the Devil
Moderator
Oct 15, 2011
9,087
8,311
16,325
Nowhere
they did it because it "sells better".
Because they do.

fixed camera or prerendered backgrounds as a "deliberate design decision".
They are.

it's only implemented because "it sells better".
It is. Not sure why that's somehow trivial. It wasn't 'only' because or 'just' because, it's the whole ordeal. Making money is what they do. Trivializing the importance of selling by adding 'just because' at the start doesn't change the fact that it's important. Like a child nagging that his dad doesn't pay enough attention to him 'just because' he wants to pay bills. Nobody is trying to imply that money isn't important. It's why I keep saying I don't blame them nor hate them for it.

Smells like double standard.
Why?

the decision to use over-the-shoulder is also a "deliberate design decision"
Who said it wasn't? How is anything not a deliberate decision? I can't think of any instance where a design decision was accidental.

That's what certain people want to believe.

The HD edition of REmake hardly has anything to do with the RE2 remake getting a green light.
Yes, the fact that RE1's HD port blew financial expectations out of the water had nothing to do with 2's getting greenlit. Not like it was from the same franchise, the same prospect, to remake a PS1 RE game to look and play better. Totally unrelated. Just like how DMC4's Special Edition's success had no bearing on DMC5's existence. Or at least that's what some people what to believe.

Press R1+X at one corner of the room and let wide-hitscan/auto-aiming do the job landing shots at the enemy.
yapping about
There's that condescendence again. You know, people used to argue that Dante was just a red coat and white hair. Same diminishing tone and similar choice of words. There was always that hint of 'what you like is old, get over it and quit whining.'

Simplicity or complexity are not the factors that determine how well something works, it's how well things are constructed within the game, the implementation.

Take the zombies and the ganado, as an example. Let's say, for argument's sake, that someone was making the argument that the zombies don't move like the ganado and therefore the games that feature these slow enemies are garbage. Again, oversimplification. The enemies in each game are design to go hand in hand with the mechanics that that game is build upon. Intentional design choices, as you so eloquently put it. Zombies are slow because tank controls are rigid and the restrictions on movement make the approach of one a tense affair. Since the controls in RE4 are more manumerable, specially the aiming, even if they are still tank, the ganado still have to give the player that sense of tension. This, by the way, is a real argument I've encountered a few times in my day.

Another, more direct example of implementation would be those who argue that RE4 is a terrible game because it's mechanics are so simple. You aim, you shoot, you run away and do it again. It's not the simplicity or complexity that makes RE4 great, it's what the game presents you within those confines or, in this case, how the game challenges you within those those parameters.

Like when you enter the library in RE2 and there are two glorious-cinematography camera angles that shows the puzzle solution.
How is this a bad thing?

If you entered the library in over-the-shoulder view or first person, you'd actually have to observe your surroundings carefully.
Ok. I don't see how either is bad. It's a different experience, not a better one. Taking advantage of cinematic angles or the limited view is what good game designers do.

There are other examples throughout the series where having a free camera expands the kind of puzzle or obstacle the developers can create, like the window puzzle in Village.
Yes, and there are examples of how fixed cameras can be used to great effect, too. Take the RE1 sequence where you walk around the corner but the angle doesn't change leading the player to think that the game froze only to have the character walk back at the hidden zombie. The puzzle with the two dog statues would change nothing if you turn it into a free camera, just removes the cinematic effect.

All fixed camera has is nothing more than novelty.
No, it is a design choice.

And novelty has nothing over gameplay potential.
Anything and everything has the potential to be great if those involved are capable enough. The fact that RE exists is proof that these mechanics have something to offer. Being dismissive about it doesn't change that. Onimusha is still a great game, RE1 and its remake are still great games and DMC1 is still my favorite game. Pointing out their short won't make me stop liking them or praising them or, better yet, stop playing them.
 
Last edited:

Goldsickle

Well-known Member
Jun 19, 2009
1,772
1,617
6,215
Malaysia
Making money is what they do.
"Making money" has been a concerned even during the fixed camera phase.
You talk as though it wasn't at the time.

So there was never any difference whether it's the old or new format.
"Making money" is a concern and the things they do are a "deliberate design decision".
From the beginning, Capcom is simply doing what they feel is right.

Who said it wasn't?
When you lean towards the idea that they do it because it "sells better", you're implying that they didn't pick it because they feel that it's a better format for what they have in mind.
Like I said, it's all over the interviews.
The developers explained their decisions regarding the new camera options and you sound ignorant by overlooking all that and say "they pick it because it helps make more money".

That's always how it's been.
Developer decisions that are liked are seen as "deliberate design decision".
But anything that isn't liked is said to be "done because it sells better".
Both formats are "deliberate design decision".

Yes, the fact that RE1's HD port blew financial expectations out of the water had nothing to do with 2's getting greenlit.
My point stands because you can't find any evidence of this.
Nobody in Capcom ever said that it was only greenlit purely because of the reaction to the HD edition of REmake.

You will love ignoring this part (as you have previously) because you don't have a valid response but:
Remember that the RE2 remake only started because Hirabayashi submitted his pitch.
And what are the factors that lead to Hirabayashi submitting the pitch?
If you have been following behind-the-scenes stories closely, it had something to do with Invader Games fan remake and Capcom's posts on their Facebook.

Ultimately, you can't prove that it's solely got to do with the "financial expectations" of REmake HD (which was pretty low).

Simplicity or complexity are not the factors that determine how well something works,
Except that there were recurring arguments from "old school" fans about how "too easy" is bad for Resident Evil or "Survival Horror".
They would repeatedly bring up how features like ammo drops or melee attacks with invincibility frames "make the game too easy" or "cheapen the challenge" and "diminish the scare factor".
But as soon as I bring up about the wide-hitscan/auto-aim shooting for the older games, everyone shuts the f**k up.
Doesn't that also diminish the challenge of landing shots on the enemy and making your bullets count?
How about stopping time to reload?

My point is simply a response to the idea that the newer titles have traits that are seen as "bad" for "Survival Horror", when the older titles also have traits that oversimplifies gun handling.

How is this a bad thing?
I think we can both agree that it ruins the puzzle when the solution is displayed so easily like that.
It's like providing the answer to a riddle seconds after you give the riddle.
In case you missed my point (again), I'm talking about how fixed camera limits the kind of puzzles you can create.

Take the RE1 sequence where you walk around the corner but the angle doesn't change leading the player to think that the game froze only to have the character walk back at the hidden zombie.
Thanks for proving my point that all fixed camera could provide is nothing more than novelty.
I wouldn't sacrifice pinpoint aiming, expanded explorations and puzzles for gimmicky situations like this.
And I'm sure the developers are thinking the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Health Drink

Well-known Member
Sep 17, 2020
283
42
255
Those newer RE games are Rank Hovis, flour factory level awful. Rank, as in terrible.

They make you feel like an invalid. Also, every new area you go into looks way too dark. The original RE2 was well lit up, but still immensely engaging as a whole. And the zombies didn't take dozens of bullets to go down either.

Capcom were really just trying too hard. Also, that Justin Bieber looking Leon just looks terrible.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups!
Nov 1, 2018
987
478
860
@berto, I feel you and understand where you coming from, yet I can't help but feel your pining for "lost days" of old-school survival horror. How can they be lost days when you still have those games in the palm of your hands, or are available through Steam, eShop, PSN, XBLA, and the Indie scene? You still have options, even if the AAA scene does not care anymore.

While Goldsickle could have been a little less harsh (not that I exactly blame him), but he has major points. Let's say if camera angles came back in the AAA scene. Sure, you and several other super hardcore enthusiasts would be happy, but the same thing would just happen all over again. You would have some in the AAA that would "get it right", while most others would screw it up, miss the point, or copy verbatim without much difference. Leading back to where we started all over again. Sturgeon's Law still apply, whether you want it to or not. I am glad Capcom decided to move forward and not be stuck in the rut. I prefer it that way, and at least they bother to still be experimental and try new things.

They make you feel like an invalid. Also, every new area you go into looks way too dark
I know everyone's eyes, PC Monitors, and TVs are different, but the darkness was rarely ever a problem for me. It helps that I have the TV set to game mode (which already has the screen at a good brightness), and only had to adjust the in-game brightness a little bit.

Capcom were really just trying too hard.
I'll take trying, over not trying at all, or trying to "appeal to everyone/Westernize everything" in the worst possible way (RE6, Lost Planet 3, Bionic Commando Reboot).

Also, that Justin Bieber looking Leon just looks terrible.
Oh please, you're not even being clever. Everyone made the Bieber joke at the first trailer, and everyone put a halt to it when they saw more of the actual game or got a chance to play it. Also, when I last checked, the boy band haircut did not belong to a douchebag celebrity. Besides, Leon's been rocking that good sh#t for years, and looks better than Bieber ever could!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Goldsickle

Goldsickle

Well-known Member
Jun 19, 2009
1,772
1,617
6,215
Malaysia
Prerendered backgrounds was a life-saving technical solution to the team's lack of experience with 3D graphics and the PlayStation's hardware limitations.
The team originally wanted a first person perspective game for RE1 (Mikami calls it a "Doom Clone" in old 90's gaming magazines).

Even Mikami admitted in various interviews that the prerendered backgrounds was only there because of the team's limitations.
But without those limitations anymore, it makes sense for them to try out a more flexible camera and even revisit the initial plan to go with first person (as seen in RE7).

So this information should give more perspective on the team's decision to eventually abandon fixed camera/prerendered backgrounds:
It wasn't even their initial choice and more like something they're forced with to begin.
Sure, they stuck with it during the Dreamcast and GameCube days but that's really because it's easier to do what you're used to.
The "inspiration" for over-the-shoulder only appeared before Mikami when he played Onimusha 3.

Leading back to where we started all over again.
Supposedly, Hirabayashi did mention trying out different perspectives for the RE2 remake, including fixed camera but dumped the idea.

If I were to make an educated guess, it's just that they made the same conclusion:
It limits what you can do.

For example, Mr. X is supposed to have a bulletproof trench coat and if you're using light firearms, shooting the head is the only way to go.
How the heck are you supposed to properly implement this with the wide-hitscan/auto-aim scheme?
Remember how you're just landing shots on Mr. X by aiming at its general direction in the original?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Health Drink

Well-known Member
Sep 17, 2020
283
42
255
Somebody on NeoGAF said to me yesterday that the remakes of RE2 and 3 are better than the originals.

Now, people can have differing opinions, so that's okay. But 97% fans will likely disagree with that user's post. ;)
 

Lain

Earthbound Immortal
Premium
May 4, 2015
3,462
6,350
8,215
Dumnonia
Somebody on NeoGAF said to me yesterday that the remakes of RE2 and 3 are better than the originals.

Now, people can have differing opinions, so that's okay. But 97% fans will likely disagree with that user's post. ;)
You say that it is “okay”, but there exists no purpose to your post other than to mock someone for having a dissenting opinion from you... :unsure:
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups!
Nov 1, 2018
987
478
860
Somebody on NeoGAF said to me yesterday that the remakes of RE2 and 3 are better than the originals.
Dude, get over yourself. Someone has an opinion different from you. Welcome to the real f#cking world. And guess what? I agree with whoever that person is on NeoGAF. Seriously, you bring it upon yourself on being this miserable. How about you get off your ass, and do something that makes you happy without insulting others, or being constantly upset for not validating your subjective opinions? You will live better and longer.