Forums - Gaming Discussion - Am I the only one that thinks RE 4 was a huge breakthrough for the franchise?

RE4 was absolutely a breakthrough for the series, and a much needed shot in the arm for a franchise that in all honesty had gotten a bit stale by that point. The 2002 REmake on the GC was excellent, but RE0 released later that year was underwhelming in comparison, and the Dead Aim / Outbreak games on PS2 were just meh IMHO.

What makes RE4 so great was not only the innovations it brought and the huge risk it took by making such a drastic change to the core gameplay from the previous games, but also the fact that it still holds up well today, especially the Wii port with its enhanced motion controls for aiming.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Around the Network
RPGFan1 said:
Player2 said:
RPGFan1 said:

Playing first person shooters like Quake and Unreal Tournament on PC and being a fan of the Armored Core series on consoles, when  Iplayed Resident Evil 4, I didn't like the gameplay and still don't.  Resident Evil 4 has too many issues that set it apart from the others though.  The game is no longer a horror game, and as a shooter, you have the inventory system, which is big enough for each location you're at, as you progress you purchase larger case sizes so you can hold more of your equipment, but when changing weapons you're constantly having to open the inventory system than just quick swapping with another gun you have in your inventory.  The difficulty is only what it is because you're forced to remain stationary.  Even the very first Doom and Wolfenstein allowed you to strafe and shoot or move and shoot at the same time.

And chess is difficult (and a bad game) because the King can move only one square.

Have you considered that being able to run and gun would cause serious balance issues in Resident Evil 4 because unlike the enemies from the games you list which carry guns, in RE 4 most enemies are restricted to melee attacks and have weak points that can be hit to stun them which allows the player to execute melee attacks if Lion is close enough?

If you don't like the rules that's your problem as long as the game is balanced.

You could make the comparison towards any game.  Just because the developers included it makes it a good idea?  And I didn't say it was a bad game, I even said it was a good game, just worse than other "shooters," because that is what RE4 is.  Why then was it included in Outbreak 2 and Resident Evil 6 that you could now move?  It was later featured in games like the Dead Space series that were inspired by Resident Evil 4 and did a better job, as well as Shadow of the Damned, the Evil Within, all with the inclusion of movement while aiming.  The developers didn't have to allow you to dash while shooting.  If you look at every other example, as well as the other games I listed that came out around the time of Resident Evil 4, when you're holding your gun out you barely moved.  The only thing not being able to move in Resident Evil 4 accomplished was to constantly make the player stop aiming and then move to a different location when in close range combat with a pistol and you had too many enemies around you. 

It's not like Resident Evil 4 wasn't easy as it was.  The enemies sure dropped enough ammo, so even then, the "balancing" of the game definitely wasn't there.  The only reason you could die was the high amount of damage enemies took off or the ohkos if they happened to land a hit.  And archers in the game while they shot slow, did take a third of your health off.  Let's not forget the games many QTEs which were added in there as a cheap death mechanic during cutscenes.

You can make all the comparisons you want but at the end of the day you have to judge a game for what it does, not for what other games do and it doesn't. Or suddently Ikaruga is a bad game for lacking shoot'em up "genre standards" like bombs or upgradeable weapons?

Why then was it included in Outbreak 2 and Resident Evil 6 that you could now move?

I haven't played them, but why different games must play exactly the same? Besides, given RE 6's reception I wouldn't use it as an example.

The only thing not being able to move in Resident Evil 4 accomplished was to constantly make the player stop aiming and then move to a different location when in close range combat with a pistol and you had too many enemies around you.

If you don't want to move then switch to a Shotgun. Or a Flash Grenade. Encouraging use of different weapons by making each one good at a different situation sounds like a good thing in my book.

It's not like Resident Evil 4 wasn't easy as it was.  The enemies sure dropped enough ammo, so even then, the "balancing" of the game definitely wasn't there.  The only reason you could die was the high amount of damage enemies took off or the ohkos if they happened to land a hit.  And archers in the game while they shot slow, did take a third of your health off.  Let's not forget the games many QTEs which were added in there as a cheap death mechanic during cutscenes.

So it's easy or it isn't? Because I'm getting confused. First you say that it's too easy and then complain that enemies dealt too much damage. QTEs sucked, though.



Maybe the Wii-mote version... it actually had decent gameplay.



Player2 said:

It's not like Resident Evil 4 wasn't easy as it was.  The enemies sure dropped enough ammo, so even then, the "balancing" of the game definitely wasn't there.  The only reason you could die was the high amount of damage enemies took off or the ohkos if they happened to land a hit.  And archers in the game while they shot slow, did take a third of your health off.  Let's not forget the games many QTEs which were added in there as a cheap death mechanic during cutscenes.

So it's easy or it isn't? Because I'm getting confused. First you say that it's too easy and then complain that enemies dealt too much damage. QTEs sucked, though.

The only reason you could die is because the high damage or ohkos that happened to hit you.  It's easy, but there are times you might be hit, that's all.  This is in comparison to the other third person shooters or FPS that you pointed out enemies having guns, but the damage they deal in comparison is insignificant.  

Doesn't change the fact that it's a good game as I said, but other games in the genre were better.  I feel that the graphics and brand along with being a fairly good game is what scored 10/10 all over the place.  That's nothing to say about the games bias from some people who are still saying it's the best shooter out there when comparing it to games that have came out since.  It's their opinion though, and you can't argue with an opinion, no matter how bias it seems.