Michael-5 said:
I fu**ing loved these two games. Resident Evil 4 is by far the best Resident Evil, and I don't think any survival horror will ever match it. Gears of War 1 was pretty awesome too, so melancholy. That Mad World commercial was just amazing. Maybe highly rated score are good, just haters gonna hate? |
You asked people to post games that they think are overrated and don't deserve the scores.
Resident Evil 4 isn't a survival horror. It's a shooter, so saying no survival horror will match it really depends on what you're saying. If you're saying no survival horror will match it as a shooter, then you're probably right, but if a survival horror game won't match it as a survival horror, then you're wrong.
The thing is, Resident Evil 4 is only as highly praised as it is because it's a console shooter when the majority of console shooters were lackluster compared to PC shooters. Last gen you weren't going to find a good shooter on consoles other than a few. But I doubt the massive praise for Resident Evil 4 came from it being a poor mans shooter. It came from being a good console shooter with some of the best graphics of last gen. Graphics played a large role in this game being overhyped as much as it was.
Forget about graphics and think about just Resident Evil 4's shooting system. Resident Evil 4 when aiming you were stuck to the ground. No moving while you were aiming. There was no straffing in the game regardless if you were aiming or not, the game was a shooter that used Resident Evil tank controls. In order to switch weapons you had to open your menu. All things that your average shooter would be slammed for if it had those problems. The enemies in Resident Evil 4 also posed very little threat as they were slow brain dead morons. You've got all this firepower and the enemies pretty much didn't even try.
Let's compare it to another shooting game that got slammed. Dirge of Cerberus had good graphics, but not quite as good as Resident Evil, included useless features, like the ability to jump, and being a Final Fantasy game, it wasn't an RPG. All those played part in the game receiving low scores, while the actual gameplay was actually quite good. In Dirge of Cerberus, it was an RPG shooter, but it still had all the makings of a good shooter. Vincent could move, aim, and shoot all at the same time, he could switch weapons to one of three different custom set ups without opening a menu to make that change. He wasn't limited on his movement by tank controls. Additionally, the enemies fought back, shooting you, running up to you and attacking you, etc. The game actually posed a challenge.
Now Resident Evil 4 was a decent shooter, and I'd probably rate it the same as I would Dirge of Cerberus, but not because Resident Evil 4 is the better game. Dirge of Cerberus has better gameplay mechanics while Resident Evil 4 has better story and graphics. Overall they'd probably come out the same when averaged together. Not saying Dirge of Cerberus is on the level of a game like Unreal Tournament or Uncharted when it comes to shooters, but it's better than Resident Evil 4, and again, gameplay only.
All the perfect 10s Resident Evil 4 got, it's like people that praise it just looked over the fact that it had massive flaws in its game design.
Resident Evil 5 is a better game because you can play it with friends. Same gameplay, a story that's just as crappy, and graphically it's better, but it's better with a friend. Apparently it's not as good as Resident Evil 4, despite the fact that Resident Evil 5 fixes some of the problems that Resident Evil 4 has. Not all the problems of course, but some. Quick swapping weapons and ammo being more scarce were some welcome additions. So yeah. Very weird how Resident Evil 5 gets an 85 rating while Resident Evil 4 is over 10 points higher. Although scores that neither deserve honestly.
