I seriously don't understand some Resident Evil fans...

[stroopwafel]

The 'classic' Resident Evil games for me are RE1, 2, 3, CV, REmake and RE4. Those were the games by the original developers(and primarily the guiding hand of Shinji Mikami) and you can see the evolution of the series. I have played all these games when they originally came out with RE4 being the absolute pinnacle of the series. The formula was getting pretty stale by that point and RE4 changed focus on more action oriented gameplay but it still maintained that vintage RE atmosphere. It's considered one of the best games of all time and for good reason.

After Shinji Mikami left Capcom the RE series sank like a brick. RE5 took RE4's template but had none of it's charm. The co-op design also took away any of the atmosphere. And RE6 was such a travesty..I don't even know where to begin. RE Revelation was alright though.

 

[ninja666]

That one deserves a bit of slack because the "zombies" in RE4 aren't really zombies at all, though I can't remember what they're called exactly. The game establishes early on that even though they're infected they can speak, cook, watch after farm animals and yes, use guns and other weapons.

Despite already saying it, I'll say it again - I meant enemies with guns and how people only started complaining with RE6's re-introduction of them, while they (probably purposefully) ignore the fact they're nothing new in the context of the series.

As a Biohazard fan. What I'd like Capcom to do is to stop bloating the lore. There's a reason why I only subscribe to the cannon of 1, 2, 3 and maybe the Veronicas. Going beyond the games set in and around Raccoon City starts to get messy.

Even as a non-fan, I have to agree. They need to stop. Everything beyond RE3 is so unnecessarily confusing - new organisations coming and going, tons of unnecessary new characters appearing in one game, only to never be seen again, a new virus being invented with each new game... It's almost like they're afraid to end a game with a cliffhanger and continue its plot in a sequel.

After Shinji Mikami left Capcom the RE series sank like a brick. RE5 took RE4's template but had none of it's charm.

It's a pretty subjective matter. I, for one, think RE5 is on par with RE4 and still has its charm of weird, over the top, campy atmosphere. Unless it's something else I'm not noticing...

 

[stroopwafel]

It's a pretty subjective matter. I, for one, think RE5 is on par with RE4 and still has its charm of weird, over the top, campy atmosphere. Unless it's something else I'm not noticing...

RE4's dialogue and cutscenes were campy but the game itself had a thick atmosphere of constant dread, something RE5 completely lacked. The camp in RE4's cutscenes had a quirky offbeat charm, something to lighten up the mood of the general game. The cutscenes in RE5 just made you cringe. They literally just cut&pasted RE4's template and made it worse by adding co-op, having far less imaginative level and creature design, turning Chris into a steroid monkey and removing any kind of atmosphere and self-referential subtlety RE4 had. The best I can say about RE5 is that it's like RE4 made by a 2-bit hack.

 

[ninja666]

RE4's dialogue and cutscenes were campy but the game itself had a thick atmosphere of constant dread, something RE5 completely lacked.

You're overselling RE4's sense of dread imo. Can't say it didn't have it cause it'd have been a lie, but to say it was constant is an exaggeration. It's noticeable right at the beginning when you first encounter the Ganados and have, like, 10 bullets total, and continues through one or two next levels. When you reach the mine area, though, and have more weapons, as well as reasonable amounts of ammo for them, it starts to fade away really quickly, making place for more and more action.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I've played all the main series (and even that O:RC garbage) and i can tell why some fans are upset.

The first game was a tense, avoid most combat and work out what you are doing quickly before some crazy shit kills you.

2 was much the same although quite a bit easier overall.

3 i can barely remember, must have been great

4 turned the series into a kill everything, no-brainer for the modern gamer (read that as shit-skills instant-reward-no-effort gamer)

5 is more of the same

6 i actually quite liked the jump around in different characters to get all the story approach but the combat just gets easier and easier until the ridiculous boss fights.

The first 3 games were more puzzle-based, inventory management games.
The second 3 games are pure action, no-brainer shooters.

I like them all for the record (well, not operation racoon city, that game is pure dogshit). The first 3 are challenges for when my brain and reactions need testing, the second 3 are there for when i want to switch my brain off and kill stuff without trying.

I find it sooooo hard to understand why fans can't agree...it's almost as if half way through the series they changed everything about the series to appeal to the mass audience whilst forsaking the very people who made the series popular and profitable in the first place

 

[Fox12]

Yes, that's true, but it really shows in a few specific fandoms. Resident Evil is one of them.

I think you need to keep in mind that the complaints really started when the original creator left. The first 3 games were campy, but they were still sold survival horror games with some action thrown is. RE4, on the other hand, was an action horror games that focused on combat. It still salvaged its gothic aesthetic, however, and that was enough to save it. After 4 a new team took over, and it was a very different series. Capcom declared that they wanted to chase that COD money, and sure enough, the next game is set in a dessert region African village, where you now play as a muscle bound charicature of Chris Redfield. The series had always been silly (Jill sandwich) but it really jumped the shark there. It's kind of like the switch between alien and aliens. Ones horror, the others action. The tarfet market had changed, and old fans felt betrayed. The problem is that RE4 helped pioneer the first person shooter genre. RE5 failed to develop the genre further, meaning that it was eclipsed by other shooters. As a result it failed as both a horror game and an action title. It was just... Mediocre.

 

[ninja666]

I find it sooooo hard to understand why fans can't agree...it's almost as if half way through the series they changed everything about the series to appeal to the mass audience whilst forsaking the very people who made the series popular and profitable in the first place

Then how do you explain RE4 being liked by so many people, including the old fans, if it was supposedly the first one to betray the fanbase and appeal to the masses?

 

[Mutant1988]

I find it sooooo hard to understand why fans can't agree...it's almost as if half way through the series they changed everything about the series to appeal to the mass audience whilst forsaking the very people who made the series popular and profitable in the first place

Then how do you explain RE4 being liked by so many people, including the old fans, if it was supposedly the first one to betray the fanbase and appeal to the masses?

Because it retained the same mix of camp and horror that the old games did. With better action too! I don't think any fan of Resident Evil could say that the shooting in RE4 is worse than the old games.

The problem is that the games that followed missed the mark on horror and camp. And honestly, as action games they don't seem terribly competent either. But that's an outside perspective, so don't take my views as representative of anyone else's views.

I feel like Capcom should have done what they did with Devil May Cry. It started as a prototype of a Resident Evil game, they realized it no longer was a resident evil game, so they started a new series.

But that would lose all the sales from the brand name alone. In the end though, the series will be whatever the hell the makers want it to be. Players should wise up to when it's time to jump ship and buy different games that actually do things you like.

 

[stroopwafel]

Then how do you explain RE4 being liked by so many people, including the old fans, if it was supposedly the first one to betray the fanbase and appeal to the masses?

RE4 didn't 'betray' anyone as Resident Evil was already a hugely popular franchise with impressive sales figures. What RE4 did was not to simply regurgitate the same experience over and over(which lesser developers would have done), but to provide an entirely new experience. The game transitioned the general 'feel' of the franchise into an entirely new format, which it did so exceptionally. People tend to look at the past through the eyes of the present. Today maybe RE4 inspired shooters dominate the market(as they have done so for the last 10 years) but back then the RE1 inspired oldschool survival horror games with pre-rendered backgrounds, fixed camera angles and 'tank controls' were a dime a dozen. At the time RE4 was nothing but a breath of fresh air. Or rather, another trendsetter which other games have desperately tried to emulate ever since.

 

[ninja666]

In the end though, the series will be whatever the hell the makers want it to be. Players should wise up to when it's time to jump ship and buy different games that actually do things you like.

I was thinking the same. They're gullible. It's not like Capcom will suddenly stop making what brings them tons of money and make a pure survival horror game. Yet, many people prefer to complain over and over how Capcom is bad for not making anything remotely similar to RE1 instead of giving games like The Evil Within a chance.

 

[Doom972]

The same can be said about the fans of any franchise. The usual case if that some want more of the same with only cosmetic improvements while others want something different, but similar only at the very core. Both are valid expectations, but you can't appease everyone.

I played RE4, RE:Rev and RE5. I liked all of them and plan to get REmake for the PC when it goes on sale. I do get why RE4 is considered much better than the RE games that came after it - it has a much better atmosphere (You feel like you're alone and trapped) and you get very limited supplies of ammo and healing items, while the others all have co-op partners.

So far I'm enjoying the series and that's all that matters I guess.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

RE4 comes out - it's presented with a super good receptions, fans want more of it and to this day it's considered to be godlike. Then RE5 comes out and is instantly criticized for being "too action oriented" and "not scary", even despite basically being a carbon copy of RE4 with improved controls.

C'mon now? A carbon copy? The differences are pretty noticeable:

-RE4 went for a relatively campy feel: the incredibly cheesy stereotypical "Spanish Casanova" character, the wise-cracking hero, the angry midget baddy, etc. Despite this, it still managed to be a little creepy thanks to its dark and oppressive atmosphere, the regenerators, etc.
RE5 tried to be super-duper serious, but also placed it in a not particularly dark setting that didn't help things. Likewise, it replaced wise-cracking hero with an "eats steroids for breakfast" Chris Redfield, and the cheesy villain with "trying way too hard to be villainous" super-ultra powered Wesker.

-The inventory system of RE5 was an absolute ass-pain compared to the incredibly simple (though admittedly slow) attaché case system of RE4.

-The "having a partner the whole game" concept of RE5 killed the whole "alone and scared" idea of RE4, which contributed heavily to the oppressive atmosphere. This is before you even get into the fact that your AI controlled partner is an absolute idiot (I remember towards the latter end of the game when Sheeva had a pistol and a Sniper Rifle, and was still trying to shoot guys from about 300m away with her pistol).

-Yes, both games were 'action-oriented', but degree matters. When you're calling in satellite laser strikes on giant monsters, it's a little bit more excessive than your character is getting into knife fights or getting helicopter support.

-A lot more (very poorly executed) fighting of gun-toting baddies in RE5 than RE4

-This was my personal one, but I hated how your health bar never increased in RE5, but it did in RE4. Gave your character a greater sense of progress, to me.

I still thought RE5 was ok, but RE4 had a lot of differences (some small, some big) that made it a way superior game, to me.

 

[ninja666]

-The "having a partner the whole game" concept of RE5 killed the whole "alone and scared" idea of RE4, which contributed heavily to the oppressive atmosphere. This is before you even get into the fact that your AI controlled partner is an absolute idiot (I remember towards the latter end of the game when Sheeva had a pistol and a Sniper Rifle, and was still trying to shoot guys from about 300m away with her pistol).

While I disagree with the rest of your post (maybe except the part about attache cases; I miss them too), with this one point it's hard not to agree. Sheva, while sometimes helpful, is mostly a burden even bigger than Ashley in RE4. When I hear her scream "I need ammo!" when a minute earlier she had 80 SMG and 20 pistol rounds on her, I wish they let you just shoot her in the head and proceed through the rest of the game alone.

 

[Mutant1988]

I watched a friend of mine play the Resident Evil 5 and after seeing how braindead the AI was I resolved never ever to buy it.

To top that off, we tried playing some co-op and got stuck on a turret section (Please... Go away. You don't need to be in every game) where we had to perform synchronised QTEs to avoid some big ugly recycled monster from RE4. In other words, anyone of us mess up, we both died.

So playing two players, in a co-op game, made it even harder.

That game can just *static" right off.