| brendude13 said: I was put off by the supernatural stuff and how it seems nothing like a Resident Evil game. As soon as I saw there was a spooky little girl on the front cover, that was enough cliches for me. I'm tempted to give it a try now though. |
Maybe it's not supernatural at all....
| BraLoD said: I just want to know if there are too many of those "chases" with the house residents, where fighting is pointless. I know people are comparing it to RE3 with Nemesis, but that doesn't seem to be nearly the case, Nemesis was beatable at every single encounter, and successfully escaping would actually mean that and not keep on dragging it. That's literally the only point of concern I have, and it's a big one (well, missing zombies is also a horrible thing, but there are some enemies to fight at least), and if we have to keep running until we reach a point where we can effectively deal with them down the road, as boss fights, that would take a major tool on my experience with the game, as I don't want to have to run and play hide and seek, if there is an enemy I want to either be able to deal with him or successfully escape him so I can securely explore the places I passed while running. |
As far as I can remember I think there is only 1 (maybe 2 moments.) in the game where you must run/escape from some kind of enemy. Contrary to what some might think I found that you could deal a significant amount of damage to your "Nemesis-like" pursuers in the other instances and not have to deal with them until a specified time later in the future.
If your a fan of the old games, particularly Re1 through 3 and Code Veronica, I think you might enjoy your time with it.
-VIDEOGAME NINJA APPROVED-
I played the original in 1996 when it came out and became a die hard fan so I think I'm as "old school" as it can get but I'm not playing it. It's as far away from it's "roots" as it can get. Even more so than RE4. I don't need to say anymore than that.
| pray4mojo said: I played the original in 1996 when it came out and became a die hard fan so I think I'm as "old school" as it can get but I'm not playing it. It's as far away from it's "roots" as it can get. Even more so than RE4. I don't need to say anymore than that. |
Your loss.
Since you're not going to play it, watch an online playthrough. Let me know if it strays as far from the originals as you think. I'd love your opinion as a fellow "Played the original in '96" guy!
| Ka-pi96 said: RE6 was closer to RE's roots to me. In my view RE is first and foremost a zombie game so from my perspective, no zombies = not a proper RE. |
Add to that, the Tryrants that were manufactured weapons, that either ran amok or were designed to kill specific people. The removal of cerberus and other undead creatures, just makes the game feel less like undead horror and more on pure goop/parasite style horror.
Resi 7 still looks to me like Hillbilly meets Outlast, with a pinch of Blair Witch Project. I'd argue that Remake 1 is as close as you can get to the original roots, and it's what I'm hoping REmake 2 will do as well.
Mankind, in its arrogance and self-delusion, must believe they are the mirrors to God in both their image and their power. If something shatters that mirror, then it must be totally destroyed.
| CGI-Quality said: I wouldn't say the series has returned to its roots, but at least, this time, the focus is back on being horrific and scary |
By being Horrific and scary are the reason many of us believe Resident Evil has returned .
CGI-Quality said:
Returned to form isn't the same as returning to what it was. The horror and scares are back, that's good. But it's not back to what it was during the RE 1-3 days. I agree with the writer who says RE conforms to what's happening at the time. |
Actually it would be imposible to recreate the same type of gamplay that will scare young and new generation gamer. As long as it keeps it's foundation , i dont mind actually. But we will see what will happen to the remake.
CGI-Quality said:
Returned to form isn't the same as returning to what it was. The horror and scares are back, that's good. But it's not back to what it was during the RE 1-3 days. I agree with the writer who says RE conforms to what's happeing at the time. |
Creepy mansion? Check.
Limited ammo? Check.
Creepy, tense atmosphere? Check.
Jump scares? Oh hell yes. Check.
Scientific explanation? Check.
Puzzles? Check.
Backtracking? Check.
Playable female character? Check.
Magical storage trunk/item management? Check.
Feeling of helplessness in the beginning? Check.
Feeling of confidence in the end? Check.
Zombie dogs? No.
Zombie insects? Check.
Locked doors with themed keys? Check.
I'd say it's a great addition to the series, a throwback, and a return to form. I didn't like the idea of it being first person but the demo convinced me. Aside from that, what was RE1-RE3 doing that RE7 forgot? Bad voice acting?
CGI-Quality said:
Yes, there are things that are RE-ish (little throwbacks and references), but it doesn't feel like any previous installment. Combat is nothing like before. The mood is nothing like before. No focus on zombies, etc, etc... It plays much more like Condemned: Criminal Origins mixed with Outlast and P.T. (and some reviewers agree, here) than any game in the RE Series. In fact, Dualshockers nails it for me: "If it didn’t have “Resident Evil“ in the title, it would be easy at first to mistake RE7 for one of the many horror games that have come to reinvent the genre since Resident Evil first arrived: games like Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Outlast, Alien: Isolation, and others have clearly had an influence in shaping what RE7: Biohazard turned out to be. Though RE7 definitely shares a lot in common with those games, what’s more remarkable isn’t necessarily how RE7 has set itself apart from the previous titles in gameplay, tone, and setting, but how it manages to evoke the feel of the original Resident Evil titles while still implementing so many new and refreshing ideas for the series – ones that it has desperately needed for some time." Now what has returned is the root of one thing - horror. It no longer feels like I'm a badass and ready to take on the world (as I did with REs 4-6). So, in a sense, I guess I can see where people are coming from when they say "return to form". But to me, it's still a different game than before. I welcome the new direction, either way. |
I think we're saying that RE4-RE6 was such a drastic change.
Like your quote, when you first played RE4, would you think it was a Resident Evil game if you stumbled in and saw someone playing it? It was nothing like previous games in the series. It as still great, though.
I actually argued in favor of RE5, saying in this day and age, a Resident Evil in the vein of RE1-RE3 would kill the series. People didn't have the patience for puzzles, backtracking, etc. They want online, co-op, and fast paced action.
RE7 found a way to take RE1, put it in first person (which I initially despised and almost avoided the game because of), and make it work for the masses.
-I had a post listing all of the RE games I own across various systems (basically all of them, sometimes multiple times) but I decided it was pointless and deleted the post until I saw your edit. I wasn't even going to reply. I don't have my own website so what I say won't carry as much weight. I will add that I also have Alien Isolation and Outlast (twice!) and I disagree.
Your opinion is yours and mine is no better. It's cool that you found a site that said what you wanted to convey (though I think the bolded kinda backs me up...). Based on extensive experience with the series, RE7 IS Resident Evil. It's the Resident Evil I didn't think was possible nor did I know I wanted but it's unmistakable what its lineage is.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
