Michael-5 said:
I dunno about that. Resident Evil 4 did force you to play carefully, walk into buildings slowly, check your surroundings, make sure you have ammo, but it didn't kill you blindly. Yea there were instant death moments, especially with mutated alagators, or boss area, but when you died you returned to just before you were killed. I know there were sudden quick time events, challenging ones too, and instances when you're just overcome with enemies, but that's why this is a survival horror game, and not an action game. If Resident Evil 4 didn't force you to watch for bear traps, creep through buildings, and always have an escape route, it would have failed as an action horror game. Also as for it scoring so well because standards were so lower 9 years ago, I think an HD Resident Evil 4 would still be a highly rated game even today. It might loose points for not being able to run and shoot at the same time, but so many aspects of that game were just so well done. Sales might not be as strong if it released today, but I mean RE5 is still regarded as a good game today, and most RE fans will agree it doesn't hold a candle to RE4. |
In my view, the ability to respawn is no excuse for arbitrary deaths. It's simply bad design; it's effective, but it's also cheap and lazy. And there were indeed arbitrary deaths that the player could not reasonably expect to avoid.
The same is true with quick-time events. There is a reason why people disparage "Press-X-to-not-die" quick-time events. They are a fundamentally lazy design element.
There's no denying the game is good, but it's also riddled with bad design choices. Back in the early 2000's, many of these elements were relatively new, and the "science" of game reviewing was still being developed. Today, while I think the game would definitely score highly, I think much of that design would be more easily recognized for what it is.
I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.