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

[BrawlMan]

Evil Within 2 has the right aspects of survival horror I enjoy, and is a better RE than 4-8. EW2 had elements of RE2, RE3, and RE4, but still did its own unique spin, gameplay, characters, and themes. Recent survival horror has not "disappointed" me, but I've always only played what interests me. Nothing more, nothing less. With that said, I can agree that RE4 has gotten way over praised to the detriment of other RE games and survival horror games in general. I blame people like Yahtzee, Moviebob, Sterling, and even Former Two Best Friends for going over board. Matt and Pat weren't too bad, about this, and Sterling was usually okay about this, but Yahtzee and Movie Bob especially went hard on these bad hot takes. To the point of either bashing the previous games, or making them sound worse than what they are. Or just making up bullcrap about how everything in RE4 is intentionally campy and goofy. We all know that is full of ****. Especially when you look the production trouble and all the versions beforehand. Yahtzee can screw off even more in this regard.

I do look forward to RE4Remake, only because of the more serious direction, and hopefully the game will have very little QTEs.

@Health Drink, try these games out if you're interested. I have not played any of them myself, but it is your call.

For the hell of it.

 

[Goldsickle]

Rather late but this was very condescending and rude.

I'm just relaying the facts.

I was right the first time when I pointed out the chronology, where RE2R's pitch was only submitted after RE7 began development.
Instead of standing corrected, you unnecessarily extend the discussion, by insisting on or suggesting other possibilities, without evidence for them.
For a moderator to not admit they were wrong and actually prolong an argument, that is disappointing.

 

[Ryuuou]

@BrawlMan I can second those two games. Daymare and Tormented Souls. They are not so bad. Only issue I'm having with those is how cynical it is at times. The backstory in Tormented Souls is way too dark. About Daymare 1998 some civilians being killed in a messed up way. Other than that the games have some nice atmosphere and gameplay. Music is nice and background soundtrack. Graphics isnt so bad either. I have Tormented Souls on steam. Music there is great. Had no time to play it yet but I will sometime.

 

[Axel Stone]

Goldsickle was like that on Biohaze and GameFAQs sometimes as well.

There are actually a lot of great horror games that get ignored today. Days Gone for example, was never all that appreciated. There's even lovely indie games like Song of Horror and another recent one named Tormented Souls, that received a PS4 physical release.

I am currently playing The Sinking City. It's enjoyable.

 

[berto]

I'm just relaying the facts.

I was right the first time when I pointed out the chronology, where RE2R's pitch was only submitted after RE7 began development.
Instead of standing corrected, you unnecessarily extend the discussion, by insisting on or suggesting other possibilities, without evidence for them.
For a moderator to not admit they were wrong and actually prolong an argument, that is disappointing.

Yeah, you are either not getting it or you're being purposefully obtuse. Relaying the facts? Sure, on that first post, but then you got personal.

Putting aside the whole chronology thing, did you really think the way you responded was the amicable way to go about it? First off, I never demanded that all agree with my point of view. I simply stated a theory I had and that you never know what goes on in a studio and simply because things are announced or started officially at certain junctions does not equate to it being the way it happened. Not once did I, as you so condescendingly insinuated, try to force this theory of mine to anyone. I stated what I thought, you rebutted, I claimed I was not convinced and you responded with a less than polite:

no one has any obligation to listen to your version of how things went.

So, somehow, my opinion, of which I have every right to express here, to you, equates to me 'obligating' others to see it all as I do. Yeah, no. Nice try.

Still, that is very true. That is the basis for freedom of speech people seem to misunderstand. You have the right to speak, not to be heard. Thusly, no one has the obligation to listen to me, but, just as much, no one has the right to shut me up, either.

I'm going to state this very clearly so there is no misunderstanding. Be it me or anyone else, you need to treat people with respect. This was uncalled for and rude. I expect better.

Lastly:

For a moderator to not admit they were wrong and actually prolong an argument, that is disappointing.

Do you really want to go there?

First of all, my title as mod is not there for your approval. Second, I am still a member of this board, even without the title, and if someone else told me that they didn't appreciate being spoken to like this, as I am telling you I don't appreciate the attitude, I'd still react as such on their behest. You don't get to tell people that their, thoughts, ideas or, in this case, theories are wrong in this manner. You can disagree or agree to disagree, but you don't get to tell people what they are allowed to think and much less pass if off as them demanding that others think as they do, which I most certainly did not do. This is not how you change people's minds.

With that being said, consider the matter dropped. Seeing how concern you were with how this has lengthened the thread, already, I'm sure you wouldn't mind. If you really want to push, though, I can always get a third party involved to solve this.

 

[Axel Stone]

Well, I sincerely hope the next Silent Hill game isn't a remake. But I suspect it will be, because of Capcom's success with their RE reimaginings. Konami will have been paying attention, obviously.

I don't know, really. But I would rather have developers coming up with new ideas, as opposed to rehashing classic games, because it's less "risky" to do that than working on a new game, with a new storyline, or whatever. It begins showing people that they cannot do anything new. Plus, Pyramid Head. Yeah. OK. He is famous!

I was relieved when I found out that the so-called remake of The Last of Us was really a fancy remaster. Like, could you imagine if they actually remade it? How the heck could you replace Troy Baker, or Ashley Johnson, or even any of the other popular voice actors that Naughty Dog has hired? You just wouldn't take to them.

 

[Ryuuou]

I saw RE4 remake. *Shudders* I hope this is not just to ruin one good game.

No wait on second thought they already did. Sigh...
Count me out of this one.

 

[Axel Stone]

You know it's sad when a rail shooter is more like the original RE2, than the actual RE2 remake that we received in 2019.

I mean, just look at how faithful the story is when you're traversing the same places. Of course, it has incorporated co-op elements, so a lot of things aren't quite the same.

Yeah. So they tweaked things. So what? It's largely accurate otherwise.

 

[BrawlMan]

You know it's sad when a rail shooter is more like the original RE2, than the actual RE2 remake that we received in 2019.

I don't see that as bad thing. RE2Remake is an awesome game and awesome remake. The worst you can say is that the zapping system is gone. True, and while sad, it's not a big mark against the game for me. There is nothing wrong with being different as long as it is done right. If everything was one to one, people would have complained. The designers changed things, because they did not want to make the same thing over and over again. It's why we got RE4 original in the first place.

I mean, just look at how faithful the story is when you're traversing the same places. Of course, it has incorporated co-op elements, so a lot of things aren't quite the same.

Yeah, but Darkside Chronicles is a piece of ****. Way too much shaky cam and fake difficulty. For all its faults, at least Umbrella Chronicles bothered to keep the camera still 95% of the time.

I saw RE4 remake. *Shudders* I hope this is not just to ruin one good game.

No wait on second thought they already did. Sigh...
Count me out of this one.

I'm interested. I say this as someone who does not have deep worship of RE4 original.

 

[Ryuuou]

@BrawlMan Neither have I but the new Leon look ruins everything. Closed the book already. Maybe the game might work in other aspects but the books closed. End of discussion for me at least. At least all the different Chris versions til now have not been so bad but this Leon look is not selling. It's ruining the whole game no offense. In general I have been against changing the look too much over the games but it has been possible to look past it...til now. All Chris and Leon looks until now have been tolerable. This new RE2 version look. Thats not Leon. At least not for me. I might sound strange and excessively picky but I'm serious. It just feels off.

 

[Goldsickle]

but then you got personal.

Oh look who's talking.

You were drawing conclusions based on lack of information and all I did was help clarify by filling in the blanks for you.

You're welcome.

But then being corrected somehow rubs you off the wrong way or something and you started responding about "unquestionable proof".
Who was talking about "proof"?
All I did was just clarify some things, not to humiliate you in public or anything like that.

So you turned it into an "argument" the second you talk about "unquestionable proof" (Post #11).
If anyone made it "personal", it would be you.

You don't get to tell people that their, thoughts, ideas or, in this case, theories are wrong in this manner. You can disagree or agree to disagree, but you don't get to tell people what they are allowed to think and much less pass if off as them demanding that others think as they do, which I most certainly did not do. This is not how you change people's minds.

You're just upset at being corrected.
And now you're just putting words in my mouth.
Nowhere did I go around telling people what they are allowed to think.

Also, there's no "agree to disagree" when it comes to downright facts.

You talked about how RE7 was made as a "testing ground" for the RE2 remake and I revealed that the pitch for the RE2 remake was submitted the following year after RE7 began development.
What you claimed couldn't have happened.

I'm all ears to listen more but all you have are rants instead of offering any evidence to your claims.
No developer interview or game development data on your end, just ramblings about "freedom of speech" or "treating others with respect".

Funny hearing you talk about "treating others with respect" when instead of showing appreciation for clarifying something, you react by telling me what I said isn't an "unquestionable proof" and starting an argument out of it.

 

[BrawlMan]

Neither have I but the new Leon look ruins everything. Closed the book already. Maybe the game might work in other aspects but the books closed. End of discussion for me at least. At least all the different Chris versions til now have not been so bad but this Leon look is not selling. It's ruining the whole game no offense. In general I have been against changing the look too much over the games but it has been possible to look past it...til now. All Chris and Leon looks until now have been tolerable. This new RE2 version look. Thats not Leon. At least not for me. I might sound strange and excessively picky but I'm serious. It just feels off.

Remake versions of Leon RE 2 and RE4 look fine to me. Chris has always looked so different in each game, other than CV, that I don't give a damn. I am not gonna pull a "not my Leon" as for a reason not to be invested. You can do as you wish, but I am still interested.

 

[Meg]

Oh look who's talking.

You were drawing conclusions based on lack of information and all I did was help clarify by filling in the blanks for you.

You're welcome.

But then being corrected somehow rubs you off the wrong way or something and you started responding about "unquestionable proof".
Who was talking about "proof"?
All I did was just clarify some things, not to humiliate you in public or anything like that.

So you turned it into an "argument" the second you talk about "unquestionable proof" (Post #11).
If anyone made it "personal", it would be you.


You're just upset at being corrected.
And now you're just putting words in my mouth.
Nowhere did I go around telling people what they are allowed to think.

Also, there's no "agree to disagree" when it comes to downright facts.

You talked about how RE7 was made as a "testing ground" for the RE2 remake and I revealed that the pitch for the RE2 remake was submitted the following year after RE7 began development.
What you claimed couldn't have happened.

I'm all ears to listen more but all you have are rants instead of offering any evidence to your claims.
No developer interview or game development data on your end, just ramblings about "freedom of speech" or "treating others with respect".

Funny hearing you talk about "treating others with respect" when instead of showing appreciation for clarifying something, you react by telling me what I said isn't an "unquestionable proof" and starting an argument out of it.

All right that’s enough. You’ve made your point, now kindly move on. Any concerns, please reach out to me personally. This is a good thread, no need for it to get bogged down like this.

 

[BrawlMan]

There's the Dead Space Remake, but I don't blame anyone for refusing to buy the game, because of EA. Just thought to be fair. Though I am more looking forward to the spiritual successors more than anything.

 

[Axel Stone]

I think people don't notice all the fantastic indie games available, because they invest their time in the oversaturated, mainstream franchises. But really. There's still horror games being made with fixed camera angles, and so on. They just get less publicity.

I don't think that will ever come back to gaming, as a full-time thing. That's the past. But there are people who haven't forgotten the roots.

 

[berto]

Oh look who's talking.

You were drawing conclusions based on lack of information and all I did was help clarify by filling in the blanks for you.

You're welcome.

But then being corrected somehow rubs you off the wrong way or something and you started responding about "unquestionable proof".
Who was talking about "proof"?
All I did was just clarify some things, not to humiliate you in public or anything like that.

So you turned it into an "argument" the second you talk about "unquestionable proof" (Post #11).
If anyone made it "personal", it would be you.


You're just upset at being corrected.
And now you're just putting words in my mouth.
Nowhere did I go around telling people what they are allowed to think.

Also, there's no "agree to disagree" when it comes to downright facts.

You talked about how RE7 was made as a "testing ground" for the RE2 remake and I revealed that the pitch for the RE2 remake was submitted the following year after RE7 began development.
What you claimed couldn't have happened.

I'm all ears to listen more but all you have are rants instead of offering any evidence to your claims.
No developer interview or game development data on your end, just ramblings about "freedom of speech" or "treating others with respect".

Funny hearing you talk about "treating others with respect" when instead of showing appreciation for clarifying something, you react by telling me what I said isn't an "unquestionable proof" and starting an argument out of it.

Oh, right. This was a thing. I'm here so infrequently these days I forget sometimes. Just couldn't let it go, eh? Well, as much as I want to retort, and, hot damn, do I want to, it's best to just move things along.

There's the Dead Space Remake, but I don't blame anyone for refusing to buy them, because of EA. Just thought to be fair. Though I am more looking forward to the spiritual successors more than anything.

There is a solid argument to be made for the notion that we live in the age of the past. Remakes, reboots and reimaginings are hardly a new thing but, these days, it's rampant. Look at all the revived or reignited franchises that are out and about in both films and games. In some respects it's glorious. How else would we get another Mavrik movie. Star Trek might've been a dead franchise were it not for this trend. In others, though, it's ruined good things. Jurassic Park, for example, has never had a good sequel. Successful, sure, but none were any good, specially when contrasted to the original. Sometimes the best we can hope for are spiritual successors. Star Wars is such a roller-coaster of quality that some say it should've never been reopened.

Personally I was really looking forward to Fatal Frame 4 on the PS5 but, then, they decided to only release physical copies on the PS4 and... I just wasn't willing to pay that much for it.

Anyway, horror is especially hard to pull off right. When you get it right it can be one of the most influential things around but, in video games, unfortunately, if you do something good it gets the popularity treatment, meaning that it becomes a franchise, it gets converted to whatever the publisher thinks will sell the most or it becomes something different, altogether, to address some silly or trifle thing the internet nags about. It becomes unrecognizable in every way, except in appearance.

Dead Space is a good example. It's was an RE4 inspired game that did its own thing and hit big. Because of that popularity there was no mistake that there'd be a sequel, thus, a franchise. With that a lot of what made the original work got tossed out for mass market appeal. Issac now spoke, which was an interesting artistic take, the narrative focus altered and then it became coop. Like with RE, people undermine the things that might be construed as drawbacks not realizing that it's because of those that something works as well as it does. You might complain about them but you still play the game over and over again. You start removing or 'improving' them and, yeah, you'll play the game and probably say to yourself 'that was better' but you'll find yourself playing much less of the improved edition than that flawed masterpiece.

I think people don't notice all the fantastic indie games available, because they invest their time in the oversaturated, mainstream franchises. But really. There's still horror games being made with fixed camera angles, and so on. They just get less publicity.

I don't think that will ever come back to gaming, as a full-time thing. That's the past. But there are people who haven't forgotten the roots.

Well, the indie scene is also overwhelmingly oversaturated. Where do you start? Browsing through Steam is like going through a jungle without a map. You can always go to trusted sources for suggestions, (for me, I check Residence of Evil for games of the like) but it is hard to get through so much on either end and quality really does vary drastically.

I saw RE4 remake. *Shudders* I hope this is not just to ruin one good game.

No wait on second thought they already did. Sigh...
Count me out of this one.

I'm pretty imbibement about this one, myself. I wasn't as enamored with RE2make as the rest of the world is. I beat it a few times but by the time I was working on a scenario for Leon I tapped out. The moment I called it quits was when I decided to off a downed zombie. I unloaded 7 rounds on it's head before it finally died. I get the concept behind this mechanic but I wasn't happy with it. This made me realize that I just wasn't enjoying a lot of what the game was doing and how it worked. For example, the way you collect parts for a gun is to learn where the keys and the parts are hidden but you have to do it in every playthrough. You don't get to carry your collectibles over a new playthrough which means that you have to play the game the exact same way every single time. I don't like when games do this. It makes the game a singular experience with rigid to no variety in every playthrough.

In terms of narrative I realized that RE was not a good fit with this more grounded and serious tone when Ada kissed Leon. In the original it was fine. It was a 80's/90's cheese festival with corn as the side ingredient. Oh, my god, it was silly. So, Ada and Leon falling in love after 4 hours was tangible. Here, though, the serious tone really highlights just how dumb it is.

With that in mind, RE4 is also a goof-fest. You're really not going to get a lot of 'your right hand comes off' 's or 'no, thanks, bro' 's or 'where's everybody going, bingo?' s' and if you do they are just not going to fit with this uber broody, rigid tone they decided on. I'd also talk about the gameplay possibilities but I rather wait for a bit and see what they have in mind.

That and I can't get used to nuLeon's butt chin.

 

[BrawlMan]

There is a solid argument to be made for the notion that we live in the age of the past. Remakes, reboots and reimaginings are hardly a new thing but, these days, it's rampant.

The Remake looks good, but the original still looks great today. My comment is more so the fact EA is ****, and they screwed over Visceral Games hard. I know these new developers are cool people, and I can tell they're passionate and care for the end products. Just sucks they're under dickwads, because I would have to give EA cash. I have the original, so if I need to play it, I can pop it in right now.

Dead Space is a good example. It's was an RE4 inspired game that did its own thing and hit big. Because of that popularity there was no mistake that there'd be a sequel, thus, a franchise. With that a lot of what made the original work got tossed out for mass market appeal. Issac now spoke, which was an interesting artistic take, the narrative focus altered and then it became coop. Like with RE, people undermine the things that might be construed as drawbacks not realizing that it's because of those that something works as well as it does. You might complain about them but you still play the game over and over again. You start removing or 'improving' them and, yeah, you'll play the game and probably say to yourself 'that was better' but you'll find yourself playing much less of the improved edition than that flawed masterpiece.

Issac talking was the least of my problems in DS2. I actually enjoyed him talking, and added some interesting character moments, levity, and was just nice seeing him interact vocally with the world around him. The silent protag worked okay for the first game, but I was already sick and tired of that schtick way before 2008. DS2 is actually most RE4 inspired of the series; even compared to DS1. More actionized, but still intense and can be scary at times. Witty protag with a side of sarcasm (Issac became Leon with PTSD, but still his own character). A section where your female companion drives a construction vehicle, and monsters attack you. My favorite in the franchise, but it does go overboard in cases with the horror and the jump scares. Though that is the problem the series has a whole.

DS3 I refuse to buy, because they ****ed up everything. EA was not the only one at fault, but they still share a majority of the blame. EA wanted a multimedia franchise for a genre that is already niche to begin with. They wanted the Earth, Moon, and Sun. Asking for the impossible. "Sold below expectations!". F#ck you f@cking f^ckkity f#cked expectations! Derailed the characters and story. Ellie becomes a biatch! The story gets convoluted, so stupid, and has such a screw you of an ending, I don't blame people for pretending Dead Space 3 does not exists, or consider DS2 the true ending of the series.

 

[Axel Stone]

The thing is with the recent RE remakes, is that they are designing each area so dark and making enemies into bullet sponges. They are trying hard to do horror, when the originals were fine as they were, and did it better than a game from this time period. Plus, they downgrade everything too. No more zombies being shot in half for example. Gore missing in one remake, that was in the prior one just a year earlier. And all the general half-assing too.

 

[berto]

@Health Drink
Adding to that, rather than going for the 'true path' they went for the numerical one ignoring Code Veronica, the true RE3, for the RE3 that was originally a spinoff that got numbered because reasons.

As someone who's been around long enough I sympathize with Capcom. The 8th Gen (PS4/XB1) era became their big comeback from the 7th, so trying to maintain their momentum and presenting a remake like no other or simply do what Mikami did with RE1's. Personally, I prefer the former but over the shoulder games are so common and accepted that a fix camera or even a classic survival horror style game would be far riskier than a more commonly accepted style. Well, the safer thing to do would be to do nothing, just leave it be, but if there is enough demand for something there is a risk worth taking.

As a fan, though, I am pretty disappointed with that decision. There is enough first person and over the shoulder horror games in the AAA market that I was really clamoring for a classic experience. This is why I often say that the PS2 was the golden era of survival horror. Even if the franchises still exist I think they made their best games on the 6th generation. RE4, Fatal Frame 2, Rule of Rose, Kuon, RE1's remake, CV, Clock Tower 3, SH2, Siren, Eternal Darkness, even DMC1, and so on and so. They are just never going to make games like that again.

 

[Axel Stone]

People on Biohaze keep calling CV a spin off. It's not a spin off.

On Wikipedia, it's referred to as being the fourth mainline entry, even though it doesn't have a number besides the PS2 onwards versions having the X. Whatever that means. But ignoring CV and heading right for their big money maker, is a travesty.

It's obvious Capcom only goes where there is coin to be made. A little Duke reference there.