Support NeoGAF

[rodrigolfp]

Because different games by different directors, and to appeal to whiny casuals who kneejerk hate on non cookie cutter game design.

Different directors could use the same controls. Who was forbidding them of that option? RE5 had different director too and basically same controls as RE4. And whiny casuals like slower enemies, not faster.

 

[Spaceman292]

This is absurd.

the "Legacy of RE4" almost ruined the franchise? Er No. The unsustainable high costs of Resident Evil 6 almost ruined the franchise and is the reason the series changed pace with RE7. You're trying to unfairly put the blame on Resident Evil 4 when in reality, it's actually due to Resident Evil 5 & 6 that the series required change. Not 4.

Talking about "The Legacy of" is absurd.

He's just mindlessly regurgitating something that some people on here say. As if 5 and 6 being bad also makes 4 bad. Makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Dutchy]

Imagine calling one of the best sold games of all time a failure?

I mean sure, RE4 had absolutely NOTHING of what made me fall in love with the original trilogy. You could consider it a "failed" resident evil in that sense. But I'm betting my ass that Capcom disagrees.

 

[Rykan]

Make enemies faster. Simple as that. RE2R, RE3R and RE4R are all like this. Do you think those games have diminished experiences?

Resident Evil 2 and 3 remakes aren't third person shooters like RE4 is. You're not supposed to shoot your way out of every situation.

Their mechanics are good for what they set out to do. The focus of these games are totally different.

If we were to talk strictly about combat and combat mechanics without taking their respective genres into account, RE4 is substantially better than both of those remakes.

RE2Rs combat would suck in RE4, and RE4s combat would break RE2R and take away all the suspense that the game tries to achieve.

You can't just make enemies faster because that would come at the expense of the games precision, which is what the entire combat system is build around.

If you change that, you basically get RE6. Now i don't actually dislike RE6. But it's a very different experience than RE4 goes for.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The aiming sucks ass in the remake.

Yeah it does.

 

[Drizzlehell]

Yeah it does.

Thankfully it should be just fine in VR. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[rodrigolfp]

You can't just make enemies faster because that would come at the expense of the games precision, which is what the entire combat system is build around.

What "game precision" would be affected by faster enemies? The enemies are already too slow even for stick aiming speeds.

 

[Madflavor]

To be honest, and I'm not trying to stir shit, but I've been playing some of OG RE4 here and there in prep for the Remake. It's one of my favorite games of all time, and I recognize it as the trailblazer that it was. But it hasn't aged completely well, and I ain't talking about Ashley's ballistics. That's not a knock on the game, it's 20 years old. Yes the controls are snappy and responsive, but I can't stand the movement anymore. I'll take a slower sluggish Leon who can move in 8 directions, over tank Leon any day of the week.

 

[Nickolaidas]

To be honest, and I'm not trying to stir shit, but I've been playing some of OG RE4 here and there in prep for the Remake. It's one of my favorite games of all time, and I recognize it as the trailblazer that it was. But it hasn't aged completely well, and I ain't talking about Ashley's ballistics. That's not a knock on the game, it's 20 years old. Yes the controls are snappy and responsive, but I can't stand the movement anymore. I'll take a slower sluggish Leon who can move in 8 directions, over tank Leon any day of the week.

Yup. I don't think that anyone's disputing what a huge impact the game had in the industry (I think RE4 and Demon's Souls belong right next to Doom and Street Fighter II), but it could use some improvements - which is what the remake is doing.

Okay, sure, not everyone's cup of tea. Some people grow warts just with the thought of remaking a classic. I'm not one of them, and I fully embrace RE4make's huge action horror cock.

 

[NeverYouMind]

OG Resident Evil 4's village is extremely fun (especially with Striker movement speed glitch), but the castle draggs and island sucks. Remake not disintegrading dead plagas hosts is neat (though PC cheats can also do that). I still prefer the single stick movement/camera of Gamecube version over rereleases and remake. It is awkward having to control camera in other versions when the original gives the optimum camera placement at all times. Movement does not feel tanky in that version at all as Leon moves forward or backward with angle perfectly controlled. Running in a perfect circle would be impossible with other versions. Some do prefer being able to slow walk while aiming in Remake, but moving between aiming is even better in terms of traversing a distance as aiming has no delay in the original release.

 

[VAVA Mk2]

 

[BlackTron]

Your problem with the controls is you didn't play the Wii version. Getting a light gun game out of it both feeds into the silly camp of the game in the best arcadey way, corrects any lack of precision from aiming with the stick and meshes perfectly with the tank controls.

 

[Signal Rockets]

Well, I always felt that RE4 was totally overrated anyway. A fine game distinct from the other games, but barely even connected to the lore. I think Capcom basically invented it for people not really overly fond of survival horror titles.

Every RE game has gotten increasingly more tardy. I liked the earliest run of the franchise when we got several games in the space of only 4 to 6 years - all of which were sensational in their own style.

Now we wait longer because of how much technology has progressed, and they always feel half baked, or have a rather stupid plot regardless.

 

[MrA]

Resident Evil 2 and 3 remakes aren't third person shooters like RE4 is. You're not supposed to shoot your way out of every situation.

Their mechanics are good for what they set out to do. The focus of these games are totally different.

If we were to talk strictly about combat and combat mechanics without taking their respective genres into account, RE4 is substantially better than both of those remakes.

RE2Rs combat would suck in RE4, and RE4s combat would break RE2R and take away all the suspense that the game tries to achieve.

You can't just make enemies faster because that would come at the expense of the games precision, which is what the entire combat system is build around.

If you change that, you basically get RE6. Now i don't actually dislike RE6. But it's a very different experience than RE4 goes for.

I don't know why this is so hard for some people to get, different rule sets make different games work, you don't play chess with 16 queens for a reason, remake 2s gameplay is brilliant for remake 2, for re4 it's way to sloppy and the resilient enemy work great as zombies, but huge active crowds they aren't fun.

 

[lame gag1990]

lol Fuckin' spacker made this thread.

 

[rodrigolfp]

different rule sets make different games work,

Both rules and controls suck. And I bet the rules suck because the controls suck.

 

[MrA]

Both rules and controls suck. And I bet the rules suck because the controls suck.

for re4 remake they sure do,

 

[Gojiira]

No OP the only objectively bad aspect to RE4 was the godawful BOW designs and the lack of any real horror atmosphere that was present in earlier games. Taking away the helplessness and horror was the biggest mistake Capcom ever made with the franchise.

 

[tkscz]

I hate the phrase "did not age well" and will die on that hill. Either it was never good and you just got use to it or it's perfectly fine for what was made for. Comparing something older to a newer way of doing it makes little sense to me. Like no shit dual analog works better for TPS now a days, but RE4 was made to work with it's single stick controls.

Literally every enemy, item and event mold themselves around RE4's control scheme. Enemies are always slow enough for you to take aim and fire. Their projectiles can literally be side stepped by holding the control diagonally backwards or shot out of the air.

Need to turn around? Just hit back and (whatever action button) and bam you turned 180 degrees. You rarely need to look in other directions that the camera isn't already pointing, and it's zoomed out just enough that you can see if enemies are coming (slowly) from the sides or back.

When I see someone saying they didn't like the length of the Castle or that the design of the island was bad or didn't fit, I'm fine with that. It indicates they've always had an issue with it. But when someone enjoyed it before but now feels "it aged poorly" because of the controls and compare it to dual analog, I just can't understand that. Especially since dual analog controls were already a thing by the time RE4 was released.

 

[Arachnid]

Well, I always felt that RE4 was totally overrated anyway. A fine game distinct from the other games, but barely even connected to the lore. I think Capcom basically invented it for people not really overly fond of survival horror titles.

Every RE game has gotten increasingly more tardy. I liked the earliest run of the franchise when we got several games in the space of only 4 to 6 years - all of which were sensational in their own style.

Now we wait longer because of how much technology has progressed, and they always feel half baked, or have a rather stupid plot regardless.

???

We got Resident Evil 7, 8, 2make, 3make, and 4make (not to mention multiple tv shows and movies) in 6 years. Those first 3 are some of the best titles in the series, 3make is just OK, and 4make will likely be the best title in the series thus far. Also, OG RE4 is GOAT and the highest rated game in the series for a reason.

L take all around

 

[Kronos9x]

This is absurd.

the "Legacy of RE4" almost ruined the franchise? Er No. The unsustainable high costs of Resident Evil 6 almost ruined the franchise and is the reason the series changed pace with RE7. You're trying to unfairly put the blame on Resident Evil 4 when in reality, it's actually due to Resident Evil 5 & 6 that the series required change. Not 4.

Talking about "The Legacy of" is absurd.

RE4 not only made a parody out of the series but it also got rid of Umbrella in the most generic way possible. This is why they didn't even have a main villian anymore. Both RE5 and 6 had trouble replacing Umbrella. Does anybody even remembers tricell? RE7 had to bring Umbrella back. That's another thing they had to correct.

 

[rodrigolfp]

for re4 remake they sure do,

For any game. Gladly the only 2 in this existence with that shit combo is RE4 and 5 and not even Capcom will return to that.

 

[01011001]

I hate the phrase "did not age well" and will die on that hill. Either it was never good and you just got use to it or it's perfectly fine for what was made for. Comparing something older to a newer way of doing it makes little sense to me. Like no shit dual analog works better for TPS now a days, but RE4 was made to work with it's single stick controls.

Literally every enemy, item and event mold themselves around RE4's control scheme. Enemies are always slow enough for you to take aim and fire. Their projectiles can literally be side stepped by holding the control diagonally backwards or shot out of the air.

Need to turn around? Just hit back and (whatever action button) and bam you turned 180 degrees. You rarely need to look in other directions that the camera isn't already pointing, and it's zoomed out just enough that you can see if enemies are coming (slowly) from the sides or back.

When I see someone saying they didn't like the length of the Castle or that the design of the island was bad or didn't fit, I'm fine with that. It indicates they've always had an issue with it. But when someone enjoyed it before but now feels "it aged poorly" because of the controls and compare it to dual analog, I just can't understand that. Especially since dual analog controls were already a thing by the time RE4 was released.

 

[RafterXL]

I hate the phrase "did not age well" and will die on that hill. Either it was never good and you just got use to it or it's perfectly fine for what was made for. Comparing something older to a newer way of doing it makes little sense to me. Like no shit dual analog works better for TPS now a days, but RE4 was made to work with it's single stick controls.

Literally every enemy, item and event mold themselves around RE4's control scheme. Enemies are always slow enough for you to take aim and fire. Their projectiles can literally be side stepped by holding the control diagonally backwards or shot out of the air.

Need to turn around? Just hit back and (whatever action button) and bam you turned 180 degrees. You rarely need to look in other directions that the camera isn't already pointing, and it's zoomed out just enough that you can see if enemies are coming (slowly) from the sides or back.

When I see someone saying they didn't like the length of the Castle or that the design of the island was bad or didn't fit, I'm fine with that. It indicates they've always had an issue with it. But when someone enjoyed it before but now feels "it aged poorly" because of the controls and compare it to dual analog, I just can't understand that. Especially since dual analog controls were already a thing by the time RE4 was released.

Things improve and evolve over time. Something could have felt great to play 20-30 years ago but feels terrible to play today. Not aging well is just a way to describe this fact, it's not rocket science.

And a lot of games (most in fact) don't age well. It doesn't mean they weren't great for the time period they were released, it just means advancements in gaming have made even average games of today feel better to play than many of the best games back then.

The original RE4 was fine for it's time but if you released it exactly as is, for the first time today, it would be absolutely panned by both critics and gamers for its story, it's pacing and most certainly for it's controls.

 

[01011001]

Things improve and evolve over time. Something could have felt great to play 20-30 years ago but feels terrible to play today. Not aging well is just a way to describe this fact, it's not rocket science.

And a lot of games (most in fact) don't age well. It doesn't mean they weren't great for the time period they were released, it just means advancements in gaming have made even average games of today feel better to play than many of the best games back then.

The original RE4 was fine for it's time but if you released it exactly as is, for the first time today, it would be absolutely panned by both critics and gamers for its story, it's pacing and most certainly for it's controls.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement.

for a game to be good, the controls need to feel responsive, the Leveldesign needs to be good, the challenge needs to be fun, and the presentation needs to be pleasing.

any if a game is good, was good, is going to be good, they ALL fall within these "requirements" of being a good game.

Resident Evil 4 is a good example for that.

let's look at the basic gameplay:
it has super responsive controls, a good camera that is never in the way, great audio-visual feedback, and easy to understand controls.

Leveldesign:
it's on the linear side with small pockets of exploration. it is varied enough to not become stale, and it's never convoluted.

Challenge:
the dynamic difficulty and the perfectly tuned enemy behaviours, as well as the placement, are fun and compliment the abilities of your character well.
it has enough moments of "terror" where it makes you feel panic when playing for the first time, and it's never unfair at any moment.

Presentation:
the graphics look nice, the character design is good, the atmosphere is great, and the graphics look decent even today.


conclusion:
a game that was good, is good, and will always stay good, because everything about it is well made.

aging badly would mean that something about it wasn't good... and how can you say that something was good in the past but since became bad?
how does that make any sense in the context of a game?
good controls will always stay good controls... good game-feel will always stay good game-feel.
this stuff can not age.
it's either good, or bad, and it will remain that for eternity.

"aging badly" simply means people had lower standards at the time because they didn't know any better, it doesn't mean that the games were good and then became bad.
it means these games WERE BAD from the beginning, and over time people realised they were bad, once they got used to actually good games.


Isn't it weird how games made by really good developers and game designers somehow didn't "age poorly"?
it's almost like they were always just good games, while the others weren't.
almost all of Capcom's 8bit and 16bit library "aged well", well of course it didn't age well, it was simply always good.
Nintendo is in the same boat... Konami to a degree as well.

meanwhile games made by Virgin... a lot of crap among those... and they always were crap, they didn't get worse over time.
LJN? mostly dogshit games then and now...

 

[Signal Rockets]

Yeah. RE4 rendered my investment in the series pointless.

Why build up to something if you're just gonna get lazy and axe it all in one opening scene? LOL.

That game on the Wii kind of helped to resolve the issue somewhat. But it should have been a bigger game, with fixed camera angles. Not on rails.

RE4 may have proven itself to be a great game, but it shifted the series away from everything Capcom worked hard at in prior years.

 

[Rykan]

What "game precision" would be affected by faster enemies? The enemies are already too slow even for stick aiming speeds.

No it isn't. The speed is perfect for what the game tries to accomplish.

RE4 not only made a parody out of the series but it also got rid of Umbrella in the most generic way possible. This is why they didn't even have a main villian anymore. Both RE5 and 6 had trouble replacing Umbrella. Does anybody even remembers tricell? RE7 had to bring Umbrella back. That's another thing they had to correct.

I don't think anyone remembers what happened in that generic game called RE7, mate. A generic board meeting designed game that was designed to appeal to livestreamers.

It's funny that you're upset with RE4 removing Umbrella, but you're okay with RE7 removing zombies and replacing them with black blobs as enemies. You want to talk about parody? Look at RE7.

It's so boring that all remakes continue to play in third person and even the DLC for RE8 is third person only.

 

[Signal Rockets]

On YouTube and the Internet in general, people like to take pot shots at others for some reason.

I like both of these YouTubers. But I think calling somebody a hypocrite in an attack video is wrong unless it's completely merited. Because I have supported both Dillon in the Details and Michael Does Life for 3 years, and their videos may be over the top, but that's all part of the fun. But I also agree with GaMeStuH, for the most part. There's a lot of tossers in the RE community who defend a certain game, even when it has notable faults. Then they bash on another game that's done the same shit as their favourite game, or at least the one they seem to prefer. Hence why you see through their hypocrisy.

I mean, look at the YouTuber called NemesisBiohazard. Everything he said about Capcom apparently, "still stands." Yet the mofo got all of his rant videos deleted once voice actors granted his channel special interviews.

Yeah. Not suspicious at all, right?

 

[RaduN]

Their projectiles can literally be side stepped by holding the control diagonally backwards

Wait, what!?

Are you saying original RE4 has a side step mechanic i never knew about for 20 years? Is this a context sensitive thing? Please detail.

 

[Kronos9x]

No it isn't. The speed is perfect for what the game tries to accomplish.

I don't think anyone remembers what happened in that generic game called RE7, mate. A generic board meeting designed game that was designed to appeal to livestreamers.

It's funny that you're upset with RE4 removing Umbrella, but you're okay with RE7 removing zombies and replacing them with black blobs as enemies. You want to talk about parody? Look at RE7.

It's so boring that all remakes continue to play in third person and even the DLC for RE8 is third person only.

After RE 4, 5 and 6 removing zombies , it's pointless to complain about RE7 having molded. If anything, they are the closest in design to the zombies.

 

[Doom85]

After RE 4, 5 and 6 removing zombies , it's pointless to complain about RE7 having molded. If anything, they are the closest in design to the zombies.

RE 7 is great, but it does some have problems and that is that the Molded are very limited in variety. Enemy variety was not an issue in 4 or 5. Don’t know if it was an issue in 6, I removed like 70% of that game from my memory.

 

[01011001]

After RE 4, 5 and 6 removing zombies , it's pointless to complain about RE7 having molded. If anything, they are the closest in design to the zombies.

6 had zombies tho...

 

[TheInfamousKira]

6 had zombies tho...

Spot the guy who didn't play the game he's trashing!

You won!

 

[Kronos9x]

6 had zombies tho...

So not even zombies could save that game. But yes, the only good part were the Tall Oaks chapters.

 

[TerribleAtThisGame]

My first day on NeoGaf and this is how I'm greeted.

 

[fart town usa]

Camera is a bit wonky compared to modern cameras but it's fine once you get used to it.

RE4 has issues but none are in the gameplay department.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

Camera is a bit wonky compared to modern cameras but it's fine once you get used to it.

RE4 has issues but none are in the gameplay department.

The best trick to get people to gel with the camera in OG RE4 is probably doing what I did: realizing that at no point -will that shitty camera, feeling like a bat tied by the ankle with a string to the player, and everytime you do anything with it it immediately snaps back behind you - EVER serve a purpose, and you know what? Call it lazy dev work or time constraints or what have you, but that team fucking KNEW it's camera was complete and total ass and made sure the game could be completed if you just pretended the right stick wasn't there. It's magic. Try it. All of you.

 

[JimmyRustler]

The best trick to get people to gel with the camera in OG RE4 is probably doing what I did: realizing that at no point -will that shitty camera, feeling like a bat tied by the ankle with a string to the player, and everytime you do anything with it it immediately snaps back behind you - EVER serve a purpose, and you know what? Call it lazy dev work or time constraints or what have you, but that team fucking KNEW it's camera was complete and total ass and made sure the game could be completed if you just pretended the right stick wasn't there. It's magic. Try it. All of you.

The camera was just fine back when it released. I can't remember anyone complaining about this...
And yes, of course we moved a bit forward from that since. I was 20 years ago after all...

 

[Kokoloko85]

I played it a few months ago and it was fine. Not my favourite RE at all, I put it in front of RE5-6 but thats it. But it played well.

I still blame RE4 for the action direction it went, anyone who says otherwise, there was more enemies in the first hour of RE4 then probably the trilogy put together. 900+ enemies by the end of the game…..yeah this is not classic RE

 

[TheInfamousKira]

The camera was just fine back when it released. I can't remember anyone complaining about this...
And yes, of course we moved a bit forward from that since. I was 20 years ago after all...

I can't either, really. But it doesn't change the fact that the camera is awful, and thankfully you can ignore it, because everything relevant tends to happen directly in front of you, unless you specifically put yourself in spots with multiple flanking points. What I'm saying is it's kind of like criticizing the mini map in OoT. Like, sure. It's big, ugly, and doesn't even give you enough information, but you press one button and forget it's an element in the game. Like, out of all of the subjective qualities one can air grievances with this game over, camera control just baffles me. I know camera is a BIG thing to get wrong, but it's only awful if you decide the view the game is giving you isn't good enough. Which, 9 times out of 10, it's manageable at least. Somebody mentioned in one of these RE4 threads that people just fucking DEALT with minor gripe issues back in the day and in some cases the imperfections even became a part of the culture for that game's fans, and essentially were just hype to play a good game. Some of the complaints I've seen around the interwebs just scream "What goes above first world problems?" and I don't know. Different topic I guess. I'm a fiddler on the green right now, as it so happens, apologies for the rambling.

 

[JC 1080P CRT]

Over the past week, I've been playing RE4: Wii edition and OG RE4 on GC. The only thing that threw me off at first was the game letterboxing itself to a 16:9 ratio when playing on a 4:3 monitor.
I'm used to watching non-anamorphic LaserDiscs and DVDs on my CRT though, so I was able to adapt fairly quickly. Plus, on the Wii edition, there is a widescreen option for players who are using a 16:9 monitor (albeit executed via a squished 4:3 frame anamorphed to 16:9).

I don't view it as a flaw, however.
First, back in early 2005 16:9 TVs/HDTVs were just starting to become popular among most of the market, and most gamers were probably still on a 4:3 TV.
Second, Capcom probably wanted to design the gameplay around a single aspect ratio, instead of having to account for both 4:3 and 16:9 players during development. Letterboxed 16:9 in a 4:3 frame was the way to go at the time.
Third, if you're playing the GC version on an actual GC or Wii instead of an emulator, you're probably already aware of the dearth of widescreen-capable games on GC. If you're wanting to play RE4 in widescreen, you'll probably want to play a different port or on an emulator with enhancements.

In the same vein of acknowledging limitations, I've also been able to re-adapt myself to the original's 30fps (instead of 60fps like I got used to with RE4 HD Project on PC).

Finally, I used to play the PS2 port of RE4 back in the mid-2000s, so I was used to playing it with the PS2 controller. Embarrassingly, I never played the GC original back in the day, but even playing it now the controls feels fantastic. And in the Wii edition, I'm even used to the Wiimote + Nunchuck combo now, with all of its additional gimmicks.
Each controller and control scheme has its tradeoffs, and that makes it fun for me to play each port and compare them. The game even plays well with mouse + keyboard on PC, and with the Steam Deck's onboard controls.

As far as the game and gameplay themselves, I think they are both still fun to this day, no matter whether you play the OG, the contemporary console ports, the later HD ports, or RE4 HD Project. Just remember that the original came out in 2005, and the design choices will reflect that.

 

[ahtlas7]

Aged milk makes good cheese if done correctly.
Trash can be recycled into something useful…

 

[SeraphJan]

I don't know about RE4, but this post definitely aged like milk

 

[John Bilbo]

I'm currently on the final stretch of the campaign playing on PC with control scheme C. With that scheme you can move the camera with the right stick.

Maybe the schemes were not in the original version?

 

[hemo memo]

Aged milk makes good cheese if done correctly.
Trash can be recycled into something useful…

Also UHT milk can last 6 months unopened.

 

[GymWolf]

After RE 4, 5 and 6 removing zombies , it's pointless to complain about RE7 having molded. If anything, they are the closest in design to the zombies.

The molded were absolute shit enemies to fight, the lowest point in the saga.

 

[Signal Rockets]

I've got a Friday feeling.

And no. It's not because of a Crunchie.

 

[shiru]

The best trick to get people to gel with the camera in OG RE4 is probably doing what I did: realizing that at no point -will that shitty camera, feeling like a bat tied by the ankle with a string to the player, and everytime you do anything with it it immediately snaps back behind you - EVER serve a purpose, and you know what? Call it lazy dev work or time constraints or what have you, but that team fucking KNEW it's camera was complete and total ass and made sure the game could be completed if you just pretended the right stick wasn't there. It's magic. Try it. All of you.

What the fuck? The camera's purpose is pretty simple: environment awareness and to quickly look for immediate enemies/danger. It worked as intended and never got in the way. What the heck did you think it was for? I find it comical how lost some so called gamers get when dealing with anything even slightly different than what they're used to.

 

[Justin9mm]

A little off topic but I played the RE 4 Remake demo last night, I thought it was a little underwhelming if I'm honest, was expecting something a bit better after seeing the critic reviews.

 

[JC 1080P CRT]

What the fuck? The camera's purpose is pretty simple: enviroment awareness and to quickly look for immediate enemies/danger. It worked as designed and never got in the way. What the shit did you think it was for? I find it comical how lost some so called gamers get when dealing with anything even slightly different than what they're used to.

Also the camera can be used for advanced movement techniques. Tilt the camera to the left or right and hold it, then press the aim button. Your character will immediately face and aim in that direction (you can stop tilting and release the aim button whenever).
If you're quick enough, you can make your character do very quick turns/aims, which is very useful on Professional difficulty and especially in The Mercenaries.