To be fair maybe they meant the old ways you play the new RE game, which sadly I agree.
I REALLY want an old fashion RE: still camera angles and tank controls.
For the record, RE4 (classic) is my favorite in the whole series.
Franchise has been around much much longer with it than without it.
As someone who’s been on board since the initial release, folk gotta let that old axe grind go- RE4 is great, left a mark on the industry even more than its remake did and the franchise thrives even now. It has Immortality.
Resident Evil 4, for me, was a HUGE evolution for the series and elevated a series that was (and still is) already peak.
I want also want to credit Capcom for improving upon perfection with the Resident Evil 4 remake.
Pardon my language but I’m still like HOLY SHIT!
In my Top 10 faves of all-time.
Don’t get me wrong I preferred survival horror over the action route this game took. But that’s just my preference.
But saying it killed the series? Is just BS. It hit a bigger audience, helped revolutionise 3rd person shooters moving forward as well. It’s important & certainly cemented its place.
I don't think it killed the franchise, but it changed it into something different that I liked less, overall. And I say that as someone who really enjoyed Resident Evil 4. The series peaked with Resident Evil 2. Tank controls not withstanding, I think that's a near perfect game. :)
Here's the thing. I can understand that sentiment. RE2 was my entry point and I love it. RE3, CV, RE1 remake are all some of my favs. But I look at the series as a whole and like BOTH different styles. The problem is when purists just blindly think the first few games are all that should be played.
Totally fair! I think the franchise has done a good job pivoting back toward full-on horror after RE5 and RE6. RE4 just seemed to make Capcom think people wanted "horror-tinged action" as opposed to actual horror. I think they've realized their error.
Survival horror purists didn't like how it was an action game. Which, if you just don't like shooters period and prefer horror games, that's fine. But it's hard to deny that this did action better than RE was doing horror after REmake in 2002.
Even then, it's pretty revisionist history. I remember 20(!) years ago everyone was gushing over this game. Can't remember a single negative take until survival horror games started disappearing going into the 7th gen and this was viewed as the catalyst that caused it.
My first RE was actually the port on the DS. Was a game I appreciated, but didn't think was that fun. When I got a Wii for Christmas later that year, the first thing I bought after was RE4 with a GC controller and memory card. That game is the reason why I'm a fan.
It's a statement that's true, but also worth interrogating;
Yes, RE4 killed the previous version of the series.
Said old version was also outdated and on the way out anyway.
*Something* would have eventually came up with the play style RE4 pioneered as it's just a pretty lateral move towards 1/2
effectentice and that game was lucky enough to be holding the ball at the time to forever be awarded with the accolades it has.
I mean I personally kinda hate the game and think it doesn't really capture anything RE but I'd never try and argue it isn't well made or didn't save the franchise.
I played Re2 to death on the N64 and played one on Bleam (yeah I didn’t own a PlayStation at the time) and playing RE4 felt like a giant evolution to me in the series. It’s one of the few games that I’ve beaten and started anew game right away
It really was that good. When I first arrived in the village area with the chainsaw, I had never felt that level of intensity in a video game before. It was UNREAL.
It completely revolutionised the gaming industry. Didn't Dead Space completely tear their game down so they could model it in the footsteps of RE4? It paved the way.
I think narratively it's a bit murky and horror felt like it started to take a backseat, but in terms of gameplay it was remarkable.
Even as someone who prefers the gameplay of the originals, I did love RE4 and 5 immensely. I do wish companies didn't abandon older styles of gameplay completely though (fixed camera angles/pure horror focus); I got into the originals only in the last few years, and I fell in love with them.
It'd be nice if developers looked at older styles of gameplay as a tool in a larger toolkit of evolving games; something they can use from time to time, while still making the next big thing... if that makes any sense.
I love to hear it. I love pretty much all the RE games, I've probably played 5 the most because it smoother out the gameplay from 4, but I also love the "crossed paths" storyline in 6 bringing characters together.
The answer is both: It saved the franchise, but it also yanked it away from its survival horror roots. I love it, don't get me wrong. And I loved 5 even though it's basically an action game. But 5 happened because of 4.
I mean it did shift the series direction to more survival action than horror. It also abolished the whole direction the story was building up to- a final confrontation with Umbrella. It also feels catered to people who weren’t into RE to begin with. Finally, I feel it should have been a spin-off.
I think what happened is because 5 and 6 tried to follow what 4 did with similar gameplay styles, and were disappointments for alot of people, perhaps people looked back at 4 as a mistake in direction for the series. I get why people like 4, but I felt it strayed too far away from its roots.
I understand the sentiment. For them, RE4 killed the series and has been an undead mutant ever since.
I like RE4 a lot but I kinda wish it was the beginning of a sub-series of Resi that focused on action so Capcom wouldn’t have abandoned the survival horror feel for so many years.
I still remember reading through EGM's nonstop gushing over this game how every time they mentioned how stale the old formula was getting. It may have shaken things up too much for longtime fans, but definitely gave the franchise the shot in the arm it needed.
I could *almost* understand that sentiment back 13 years ago when RE6 landed. RE4 is one of my all time favorites but Capcom had a lot of trouble keeping that momentum going. RE5 was OK but really just a reskinned 4 with coop, and 6 was...what it was. They really didn't get their groove back until 7
I used to be on an RE fan page years ago, and I could log in any day to a new post crying about how RE4 ruined everything. It was always from purists who only like the originals. I love those too, but I appreciate the series as a whole. I think that's what being a fan is too.
💯 If I was just going by the original series (no remakes), RE2 and RE4 are my favorites with the former obviously being the more “traditional” experiences.
Its great,but it did lead to changes that nearly cratered the series again by the 6th game.Though i don’t think RE4 “saved”the series i think it injected enough new to keep it going. Problem was that peeps at capcom misread what made the game popular and went down the wrong road with the follow ups.
Code Veronica, RE1 Remake, and RE0 had very low sales (a lot of that is due to the latter two being only on GameCube) and CAPCOM was close to abandoning the series altogether until RE4 came out and blew everyone away in 2005.
You don't have to like the game, but it DID save the franchise.
I'm unsure how people can look at RE4 killed the series. It's a game always used in examples of how it evolved gameplay for that genre of game. As you mentioned, GCN was the reason that the other games didn't do too well. It's not that they were bad games, but GCN just didn't have the numbers.
It's usually those who play 1-3, CV, REmake, and 0 over and over and claim that's where the series ended because it's not RE to them without static cam, tank controls, etc.
It's just a very narrow minded view, and that's coming from me who loves those originals the most.
Agreed. RE2 was always my favorite in the beginning. You can only make a zombie formula work so many times before it's too repetitive. That is why I love how RE4 evolved the game series and honestly, even though it's more action packed, it makes it scarier from a game sense as well.
I like RE4 and the remake, but it rarely had the same kind of tension with the larger freedom of movement and combat options. (Tension was there, but it felt different.) I think the first two Dead Space games had more of the "modern RE feel" that I was hoping for from 4.
I'm suprised that the RE Remake didn't do better, although I could've done without that water tank pressure puzzle, and some of the wackier stuff, like keeping the Crimson Head in a suspended coffin/that whole crypt part.
There are some, but no the majority of the ones I've seen over the years come from those who grew up with the OGs and dislike anything after CV/REmake/0. They think without static angles and tank controls it's not real RE.
Weird people wanting tank controls over something that actually works? But then we all know purists will generally gimp themselves just to prove a point.
I absolutely hated the tank controls and it put me off every time I played the games until 4 came around and made it much more palatable.
tank controls are fine if the fixed cameras are executed well - re4 was a tank controls game itself, but nobody cared because the camera was constantly in place
but even in the fixed camera games, i think it's fine if executed with good cuts (which it generally was with re games)
I remember when people were so burnt out on this franchise after Code Veronica that they didn't give the RE1 remake a shot and just being bored with Zero. When RE4 came everyone was talking about how " we are so back baby!"
Played this for the first time last year and absolutely loved it, it made me interested in RE and I got RE2 Remake not long after and now I plan on playing the others
I loved RE4, and I understand how the original format was getting dull, but I miss the more survival horror of the first games. I loved that, but I just like the action horror onwards.
It's been a popular talking point in the fan base for years depending on where you go, but it's usually purists. I think 6 was fine, but it needed another reboot after that point. 5 was awesome, I thought it expanded nicely on 4, just leaned more into action and co-op was so fun.
I mean, I grew up playing and replaying RE2 and 3 over and over. I was apprehensive, but 4 became my all time fav (after 2). I loved 5, but not like I did 4 or 2. Couldn't stand 6, and gave up after that. Been loving the REmakes tho!
but then we got 5, a game that neglected the series survival horror roots, and instead pursued the action trends that capcom believed had made the Re4 so great. Then they doubled down with 6, which basically tanked the series for years until Re7 brought it back from the grave.
and i think that after everything, people are still appehencious that capcom could be making the same mistake again. To throw away what made a series what it was to pursue a recent trend that will ultimately bring it down into mediocrity...
I think they have learned...but it still feel precarious..
If I were to compare the resident evil franchise to Metallica, RE4 is the black album. An instant classic that some people feel marked the coming decline of the band.
I've beat this game probably 20ish times. It is one of the greatest games ever created and definitely revitalized the resident evil franchise with its fresh feel. It's not as much horror and more action but as a kid the first playthrough was terrifying. What's your thoughts on Biohazard?
A weird example of revisionist history is that I remember people already starting to complain that the formula was getting stale with RE3, which is crazy to think about today with the stellar reputation it has.
I've heard that before... It's wild because I had someone argue to me that "Capcom admitted to chasing Call of Duty MW formula bro, they were chasing FPS popularity."
It doesn't lol. *maybe* the military influences of CoD made it's way into the setting of RE6 and to a lesser extent RE5, but the gameplay never comes close to feeling like a military FPS. Whereas without RE4 the modern over-the-shoulder 3rd person game wouldn't exist.
Open world makes sense for a transition in Zelda;
It feels natural.
RE has always been a balancing act between more actiony gameplay/set pieces and horror pacing/atmosphere which RE4 isn't interested in preserving.
At the end of the day it just feels like a different beast.
Maybe the open world bit but botw changed things like the weapon durability and enemy camps that I would argue makes the game very different to other zeldas
With RE you have to bear in mind that it was always more action horror. You fought giant snakes and spiders with shotguns.
Not disputing that RE ever had action elements-
What I said is there was a balance between that and it's horror tone that 4 ditches and the series ultimately abandoned until 7, a game where you fight an immortal hillbilly with a chainsaw but it still remembered to have horror atmosphere
Yes, the older games were bad at making that horror tone *on purpose*.
It's a sci-fi B movie where magic drugs make whatever kind of monster the plot demands.
What I think made it work has more to do with environmental storytelling, ammo scarcity so fighting or running was an actual dilemma, etc
I can saying coming from RE 1,2,3, and CV it was a shift. It was off putting at first but once everything goes sideways. I was locked in. I can say I’ve beaten this almost of many times as RE2.
Comments
I REALLY want an old fashion RE: still camera angles and tank controls.
For the record, RE4 (classic) is my favorite in the whole series.
As someone who’s been on board since the initial release, folk gotta let that old axe grind go- RE4 is great, left a mark on the industry even more than its remake did and the franchise thrives even now. It has Immortality.
I want also want to credit Capcom for improving upon perfection with the Resident Evil 4 remake.
Pardon my language but I’m still like HOLY SHIT!
In my Top 10 faves of all-time.
But saying it killed the series? Is just BS. It hit a bigger audience, helped revolutionise 3rd person shooters moving forward as well. It’s important & certainly cemented its place.
Yes, RE4 killed the previous version of the series.
Said old version was also outdated and on the way out anyway.
*Something* would have eventually came up with the play style RE4 pioneered as it's just a pretty lateral move towards 1/2
I mean I personally kinda hate the game and think it doesn't really capture anything RE but I'd never try and argue it isn't well made or didn't save the franchise.
Mental people!
RE4 modernized the series. Whoever says it killed it is straight up wrong.
I think narratively it's a bit murky and horror felt like it started to take a backseat, but in terms of gameplay it was remarkable.
I like RE4 a lot but I kinda wish it was the beginning of a sub-series of Resi that focused on action so Capcom wouldn’t have abandoned the survival horror feel for so many years.
I understand it's a departure from classic RE, but it's super fun and still have moments that can scare the player.
And I think the remake does a great job trying to modernize this classic as well! 😄😄
Maybe I’m just that big of a Leon Kennedy fan. 😂
But I still love it nonetheless. I just think, after what they did with 2 and especially 3, 4 gave me a bit of whiplash.
You don't have to like the game, but it DID save the franchise.
It's just a very narrow minded view, and that's coming from me who loves those originals the most.
Literally anyone who played the game back in the day will always say they loved it then and now!
I absolutely hated the tank controls and it put me off every time I played the games until 4 came around and made it much more palatable.
but even in the fixed camera games, i think it's fine if executed with good cuts (which it generally was with re games)
By itself, it was incredible, a game that managed to strike a perfect balance between survival, horror, camp, and action.
I think they have learned...but it still feel precarious..
and thats kind of the problem...You cant model a whole series after a game that is so....itself....
hats why they had to go back to the drawing board with 7. To find out what resident evil is at its core...and what it can be in the future.
RE4: 2005
Call of Duty MW: 2007
Make it make sense.
It became an amazing action game instead.
Which I understand can be sad, like when parasite eve 2 went full action or 3rd birthday.
Doesn't make them bad though 🤷
Kinda like BOTW being open world didn't make it auto bad
It feels natural.
RE has always been a balancing act between more actiony gameplay/set pieces and horror pacing/atmosphere which RE4 isn't interested in preserving.
At the end of the day it just feels like a different beast.
With RE you have to bear in mind that it was always more action horror. You fought giant snakes and spiders with shotguns.
What I said is there was a balance between that and it's horror tone that 4 ditches and the series ultimately abandoned until 7, a game where you fight an immortal hillbilly with a chainsaw but it still remembered to have horror atmosphere
But I get what you mean, RE4 went more action with horror, instead of horror with action.
Alien vs Aliens or Terminator vs T2
It's a sci-fi B movie where magic drugs make whatever kind of monster the plot demands.
What I think made it work has more to do with environmental storytelling, ammo scarcity so fighting or running was an actual dilemma, etc
Now 6 on the other hand....I remember fans absolutely despising that game.
Resident Evil was able to secure an exclusive deal with Nintendo at the time because the franchise was diminished.
While REmake and Zero were great, they weren't necessarily system sellers for the GameCube.