-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Anybody here that dislikes Resident Evil 4?
- Thread starter Realeza
- Start date
- Status
It's a pretty good game but I'm not a fan as many. It has the worst RE story up until the moment it came out and it wasn't as entertaining for me. All this talk about perfect pacing doesn't work for me, I only played through it once and I always felft that I couldn't bare some parts again. Also I don't know if it's the culprit but it's the last RE I've played, I lost interest in the franchie after it although I do plan to play 7 sometime.
You definitely should take your own thoughts and values as the most important thing to yourself. No one is saying you're wrong.
However, I stick by my belief that I've never seen any analysis critical of RE4 that was actually a well-written, well-reasoned and convincing take on the game. I can disagree with something but see where someone is coming from. But with RE4's criticism, it gravitates towards "it's not RE" or "it's not horror" or "not my cup of tea."
The game isn't technically broken. It has a huge amount of variety. It gives players different choices. Its length gives players an unbelievable bang for their buck. There are three different mini-games that are well-implemented. When it came out 13 years ago, it was groundbreaking.
Maybe technical analysis doesn't interest you, but it's relevant whether you like it or not.
Resident Evil 4 was a good game but it very well could have been a new IP. This is not to say Resident Evil 4 isn't Resident Evil because of it's mechanics – those elements could have stayed; it's the overall design of the game that makes it not Resident Evil.
Capcom experimented with that type of game design with Dino Crisis 2.
I'm not sure what you're looking for. Ultimately, whether you think a game is good or bad is subjective, so you won't find an objective take on that. "It's not my cup of tea" is exactly the kind of reasons someone likes a game or not (barring completly broken games). I don't think the story is any good personally because of reasons, but by your standards this is not a valid critism because it's simply not my cup of tea.
Was on GAF at the time it launched originally on GC and minds were blown.
That said, there were plenty, PLENTY of detractors then. Most of which savagely missed the classic survival feel, threads created wishing that the canned concept trailer for RE4(with Leon attacking ghosts carrying fish-hooks in a game that looked like the classic ones) was still launched instead.
The support and adoration for RE4 was still just as overwhelming on day 1 as it remains today though regardless. I too dearly miss classic RE(RE7 was fine, but not quite the same), but I also loved RE4.
That said, there were plenty, PLENTY of detractors then. Most of which savagely missed the classic survival feel, threads created wishing that the canned concept trailer for RE4(with Leon attacking ghosts carrying fish-hooks in a game that looked like the classic ones) was still launched instead.
The support and adoration for RE4 was still just as overwhelming on day 1 as it remains today though regardless. I too dearly miss classic RE(RE7 was fine, but not quite the same), but I also loved RE4.
RE 4 isn't great, but it was the best RE once it was released. It's since been surpassed by RE 5, 6, and (surprisingly) 7.
During it's time it was a perfectly okay game, but it's aged poorly and I cannot go back to it. It retains too much of the original (read: Bad) RE games. I think of it as a necessary transition piece, from the bad era of Resident Evil to the amazing era of Resident Evil.
During it's time it was a perfectly okay game, but it's aged poorly and I cannot go back to it. It retains too much of the original (read: Bad) RE games. I think of it as a necessary transition piece, from the bad era of Resident Evil to the amazing era of Resident Evil.
Played it on the Game Cube and I don't remember much about it. It had slightly less awful controls You fought villagers, then villagers with worm heads, then guy in robes. That is all I remember. Was there a fish boss you fought from a boat, or was that a different one? I remember so much more about the first game, RE2, and Code Veronica.
100%.
I don't actively dislike it, but the games that came after are far superior.
I think everything up to the castle is amazing and the opening village section is one of my favorite parts of any game ever, but I don't really like the rest of it.
I personally judge a video game story by how well it complements the gameplay universe. Not every game can have a profound literary story like Silent Hill 2. With RE4, the story plays into the universe very well -- every character serves a specific purpose, it feeds into the massive variety of gameplay offered (Cabin Siege, Krauser fight, Ashley sniper rifle areas) and the screen time among all characters is mostly balanced.
If someone criticizes a game, I expect to read reasonable analysis that uses technical aspects or specific design decisions to support the argument. The most recent parallel I can draw is people criticizing Odyssey for having "uninteresting level design." Such comments are just masking the fact the person would have preferred another Galaxy or 3D Land/World-like game.
It's kinda the opposite. We have relatively few megaforums now, but in the early 2000s there were thousands of smaller boards for every conceivable topic or game. Communities were tight and forums were focused. No hiveminds or lynch mobs or drive-by shitposts... ah, I'm getting wistful of the olden days.
ANYWHO, there was the feeling of "It's a great game but not a good Resident Evil" at the time. Which I was more than happy with, because I did not like Resident Evil at all but completely fell in love with RE4.
The mechanics are top notch, yes, but the campaign is no slouch. Each of the three main campaigns have their own "flavor", so to say, which makes revisiting them a lot of fun. The coop aspect is also very well implemented, especially in parts where there's asymmetric action (such as Leon swimming while Helena covers for him) or when two teams of agents take on a level or boss. I also like Ada's campaign as it ties every story and scenario together, though I don't see why they felt they had to tack on coop for her, too (with the generic agent that is, the coop is cool when she meets the other characters). The vehicle sequences are very short and they don't ever really get in the way of enjoying the campaign, and the setpieces are always driven by the gameplay (and even manage to incorporate multiplayer invasions, which are very fun once you get the hang of the enemies).
I really don't get the hate RE6 gets. I know that when it launched it had some camera issues, but that aside it's pretty much the best action game the series has saw.
Of course there are people that dislike Resident Evil 4. Just like there are people who dislike: Zelda: OOT, Mario 64, Final Fantasy VII, Chrono Trigger, Metal Gear Solid, etc.
I know this thread was made with good faith in mind, but, this will most likely lead to a negative passive aggressive vent zone.
With statements like: "RE4 was never good", and no meaningful critiquing.
I know this thread was made with good faith in mind, but, this will most likely lead to a negative passive aggressive vent zone.
With statements like: "RE4 was never good", and no meaningful critiquing.
I'm just going to agree to disagree here. I personally disliked it, and among my friends (who loved shooters and had no attachment to the earlier games) the consensus was "Chris's campaign is okay and everything else sucks."
I promise that it's not my intent to discount your opinion, but this is an extreme minority analysis. Like, next to nobody actually thinks this. RE6 was so hated that it may well have killed off any chances that we'll see its combat mechanics again in any game at all, forget Resident Evil.
The fact that there are literally no qualifiers in this post is what's wrong with the internet, and wrong with the current world.
To answer the OP, Resident Evil 4 was a revolutionary title that created new genres and perfected old ones, even if it didn't represent a true Resident Evil game. I didn't feel the same again until after Breath of the Wild.
Why do I need qualifiers? If you want me to give more details, just ask.
I understand your viewpoint, but I can't agree to it. I could misunderstand, but you seems to place functionnality above anything else, and I can't just appreciate something for how it just works and nothing else. The story of RE4 does follow the traditional dramatic structure (five stages and all that) so you can say it is functional, but so does any Uwe Boll movies stories, and they are as functional as the RE4 story, yet I wouldn't call any of them good. You think every character serves a purpose in RE4's story, I disagree, especially if you put the game in the context of the larger RE universe, but it's fine for you, because, in your mind, the story is functional enough. So are you judging the story "good", or is it "good enough" ?
Suddenly i remembered the reaction of Gaf when they announced the PS2 version
LOL
That was so much fun!
IGN and GFAQS boards were very active as well.
Almost everyone thought the game was a masterpiece, but there was a group of people who really cared about the story and they hated it.
LOL
That was so much fun!
IGN and GFAQS boards were very active as well.
Almost everyone thought the game was a masterpiece, but there was a group of people who really cared about the story and they hated it.
Oh I don't know. The simple fact that Resi 4 basically invented the QTE / how it is used in modernity might be a relevant detail underlying your statements disregarding how the software was developed within a historical context. At the time, the QTEs were incredible and 10 years ahead of their time. That would be a good starter. Let's return to the fact that the way the controls were developed was intentional, as cited in multiple interviews I believe.
You could have also mentioned the historical context of the game...the fact that Resi 4 is an absolute classic that hasn't aged as well as you would like (I personally still think its an A+ game), or anything detailing how basically everything you are talking about in your post is only an issue 12 years in hindsight. Instead, you tried to tear down a game that pushed limits and disregarded its contribution to the medium.
I guess I'll leave it there.
I thinking you take it without any preconceived notions and play it, there is no way you can come out the other side saying it's a bad game. I played it in 2016 for the first time ever, never having played a Resident Evil game before, and loved it.
That said, as much as it is a great action game, it's pretty lousy as a horror game. So I could see how horror afficianados could find it disappointing in that regard.
That said, as much as it is a great action game, it's pretty lousy as a horror game. So I could see how horror afficianados could find it disappointing in that regard.
I was a RE fan since the very first game's release and was actually happy that RE4 was so different, new and fresh back then. The original formula had been pretty much trampled to death at the time of its release and I thought it was a graceful and fantastic shake-up of the original formula.
I still think it's a 10/10 game to this day with amazing variety, pacing and atmosphere. I revisit it every few years and it always remains a joy to play for my money. Now RE5 was a major let down and I haven't played RE6 yet.
I still think it's a 10/10 game to this day with amazing variety, pacing and atmosphere. I revisit it every few years and it always remains a joy to play for my money. Now RE5 was a major let down and I haven't played RE6 yet.
It's funny you should say that, because God of War came out two months after RE4 and uses QTE's in better and more varied ways than RE4.
Yet they are absolutely clunky. Goldeneye 64 was designed to be a slow FPS with equally slow enemies, just as much as RE4 is. No one would describe Goldeneye's controls as not being clunky, though, especially nowadays.
I feel RE5 improved on many areas over RE4. The inventory system can be a little intimidating at first, but the game becomes a joy to play once you're used to it, not to mention the excellent coop mode. You should also definitely try RE6.
Last edited:
I don't care about its contributions to the medium. Its not relevant to my opinion of the game.
- You often get a little in-game cutscene showing you a door/lever/whatever, while enemies can still move and gang up on you, and hit you right as the cutscene ends. This is especially bad in Leon's campaign with those grabbing and jumping zombies.
- The game has several scripted events where the game is telling you "Go shoot the big bad dude." like in Chris's campaign, chapter 2, where you're on the bridge with the giant approaching, or in Leon chapter 5, when he's holding Ada in his arms and Simmons is approaching, but it does nothing but waste ammo.
- This is specifically for Leon's campaign, but only some specific zombies have invincibility frames for no reason, while they're standing up, which is just dumb.
- Enemies can gang up on you you during cutscenes, this bears repeating.
- Some of the scripted action scenes are really bad, especially when they include random tripping. Like holy shit, that bit in Leon chapter 3, where the narrow pathway is crumbling apart and you're running past enemies, one of them a big fat guy, and ever so often you just stumble and fall onto your knees without any control. This is a section that either goes incredibly well or incredibly bad and it's all down to random chance.
- Some of the level design is bad because it really doesn't give you any room to use your combat abilities. Again, I'm going to choose Leon's campaign as an example, the gunshop shootout starts out fine, but it gets worse and worse as it goes on. At the end you're in a tiny bus with possibly several bloodshots and two cutscene interruptions in which they can still move.
- Playing online co-op, both players get their own item drops, but in split-screen co-op, you gotta share items. One of these is not as intended and the game isn't balanced around it.
- To get back to the level design, some of it is bad, because it clearly wasn't designed for the game. I mentioned this in the RE discord recently, but the entire underground cave system below a small US town, with zombies using maces, axes and wearing knights armor, and giant statues of ancient gods, has to have been designed for another game with a completly different setting. Maybe an unused Dragon's Dogma map. And Chris's car chase map was obviously designed for a racing game originally. Hell, Simmon's T-Rex form uses Monster Hunter animations.
- This isn't even getting into how bad of a job the game does in teaching it's mechanics.
- During several parts in both Leon's and Jake's campaign's showdowns, the second player takes on a mere spectator roll. This is especially thrilling if you're playing the second character solo. During one part of Jake's bike section Sherry literally has just one possible action. Press button to hold onto Jake. Which does nothing by the way.
I actually enjoy RE6, and prefer it to RE5, which is okay, but tries to copy RE4 too much, but calling RE6 a polished, well rounded experience is something else.
Last edited:
The only thing I liked about RE4 back in the time was the combat/aiming.
I hated the item vendor (the mechanic, the character was cool), hated the plagas, hated the plot, hated how the game was divided in chapters. It was when the series started to go downhill for me.
I hated the item vendor (the mechanic, the character was cool), hated the plagas, hated the plot, hated how the game was divided in chapters. It was when the series started to go downhill for me.
Very surprised that my Evil Dead 2 comment is what people fixated on the most.
But you're kind of right? The thing is... Army of Darkness is a straight up comedy with skeletons in it. While on some level I despise it for not being a horror movie, that's completely overshadowed by how much fun and how charming the whole enterprise is. It's a blast and it doesn't try to be scary.
Evil Dead 2 on the other hand tries to both be scary and funny, which leads to a tonal mess that just leaves me frustrated and bored. Just like Shaun of the Dead and, of course, Resident Evil 4.
Also while Army of Darkness may not be a horror movie, in franchises I tend to place more criticism on a work that 'started' a shift I don't like than those that complete it (like how Batman Forever infuriates me more than Batman and Robin). Army of Darkness is just another step in the path that Evil Dead 2 started.
Also I find the reboot to be by far the funniest of them all. It works the best, since it takes itself ULTRA seriously and the undercurrent of silliness makes it a ton of fun. Just like Dead Rising 3!
As a shooter, I love it. It's still the second best TPS for me.(only MGSV is better)
As a RE game, I hate it. It's success destroyed one of my favorite franchises.
As a RE game, I hate it. It's success destroyed one of my favorite franchises.
I think lots of people acknowledge that while it is a great game, that it's not a great Resident Evil game, in the sense that it throws away a lot of the gameplay concepts of the first run of games.
Of course that's bullshit, and RE4 captures the tone of the series perfectly, but that argument does exist. I think even detractors recognize its merits as a classic action game.
Of course that's bullshit, and RE4 captures the tone of the series perfectly, but that argument does exist. I think even detractors recognize its merits as a classic action game.
OP
OP
Even in cramped spaces, the gameplay still shines. Quick shots and melee, with some evading rolls when needed, can make short work of enemies in close encounters. I've never been overwhelmed by enemies during a cutscene (and if you played Agent Hunt, you'd see that you respawn during these cutscenes), so I think this doesn't happen in a way that's detrimental to the game. Zombies don't have i-frames except when transforming into bloodshots (again, you can observe this on Agent Hunt). Sometimes they die mid-animation and manage to complete a swinging attack, but that's no different from what could happen in RE4 or 5. There's nothing wrong with zombies in a catacomb having armor, they are reanimated corpses afterall. I agree that the game could have a more fully-featured tutorial and that problem with split-screen seems like a pain, but all these points are so minor and nitpicky.
The problem with the "it's just individual mechanics" argument is that Conker's Bad Fur Day was a multi-genre monster, but its Spooky chapter was a survival horror game about shooting zombies with laser sight weapons (shotgun and crossbow) using an over the shoulder camera system. In 2001. 2 years before Resident Evil 4 footage showed similar mechanics. This isn't some completely different game with a similar mechanic. This is a Resident Evil parody that mysteriously invented Resident Evil 4's core camera/shooting years earlier.
This isn't individual nuts and bolts. This is basically the only thing Resident Evil 4 could claim was generally innovative -- its camera system, and it appeared in a more modern form in a game 4 years earlier. Resident Evil 4's camera is archaic. You can't move while aiming. You can't control the camera and character separately. Compared that to Splinter Cell and Conker, where you had full 3D movement when not aiming, and you could move while aiming your weapons over the shoulder.
RE4 has extremely clunky shooting and character movement and camera. It's a good game overall, but it is archaic compared to third person shooters from 2001 and 2002. It being an influence on other games doesn't change the fact it gets way too much credit for design elements it didn't actually pioneer in any conceivable way. This is way more overt than the fact Resident Evil 1 is an awful lot like Alone in the Dark. I'd love to know exactly how Resident Evil 4 wound up with a camera and targeting system that is basically identical to a 2001 N64 title. A camera and targeting system people would inexplicably credit RE4 with inventing.
This is like that Apple iPhone argument. Did they do it first? No, but they were one of the pioneers and and it's easy to go back and discredit them, but the reality is that they are the ones that made it matter. Regardless of whether it was the first, it was RE4 that brought it to the attention of me and a whole gen of people who had not experienced anything like it before.
Clunky or not, the entire game was designed around the tension and claustrophobia of the camera and limited movement, and it was brilliant. Conker and Splinter Cell might be ahead of their time, but they didn't cause a ripple effect in the industry nor where their entire experiences designed around a locked in OTS cam. Just like Kill Switch didn't bring cover shooting to the masses, Gears did.
I really couldn't stand the setting, the whole vibe but first of all I absolutely loathed the forced partner thing back in the day. Trust me, I was super excited and bought it Day 1 but it just didn't work for me. Maybe at this point if I revisited it, I'd have fun, but it just rubbed me all kinds of wrong ways back then.
Ashley I didn't mind so much because I'd tell her to hide in some far-off container and she'd usually just kind of stay there until I was finished disposing of everyone, but they really doubled-down on that, which was the only thing I actively dislike about RE4 in the first place. I massively hate this type of "take care of your partner" shit in general, and RE5 was the epitome as far as I recall.
Nah, you get slapped right after a cutscene fairly often, unless you do a blind dodge right after the cutscene, but it's still badly designed that way. I do not mean actual movie cutscenes btw, but those cutscenes where you can still see your characters standing in their in-game pose, those little scenes that want to show you something. Think of the lab where you lower those four cages, with zombies crawling out of every hole.
There are several zombies during Leon's Chapter 1 city section that are scripted to only stand up once they see you, and they don't take any damage or show any raction until several moments after they stood up, you can elbow punch them and everything. The zombie that throws Leon down after the cemetary is another one. It's not a gameplay issue, it's just unpolished jank. Maybe my most minor nitpick out of a whole selection of valid ones.
You misunderstand me, my point isn't about internal logic, but it illustrates how the stages weren't designed with any regard to the gameplay.
The controls in RE4 are restrictive, but every section and enemy encounter feels like it was carefully designed around this specific moveset and your equipment. Even RE5 doesn't get this right and introduces crossbow enemies way too early.
Obviously you can make your way through any situation in RE6, with your quickshots, and sliding into enemies and whatnots, but the levels surrounding those mechanics were just carelessly slapped together.
- Status