Why do people love the classic REs so much?

#211vahn65Posted 11/23/2012 1:11:24 AM
BlueSkies7776 posted...
They are two different types of games. The classic RE games made you think more... they were more strategy based and story driven. The new games (4, 5, and 6) are way, WAY more focused on weapons and blowing **** up, plain and simple. The classic RE games were survival horror/puzzle/strategy games while the new ones are flat out shooters with a horror setting.

I love RE4 as much as the next guy but one thing that bugged me about it was how it veered into this kind of arcade like formula. With Leon being able to leap down ladders 10 feet high and land like nothing as if he is superman, and so on. It is something I have never openly said, but something that bothered me none the less. Aside from a few Matrix like cutscenes, I have always felt that the classic RE's were more grounded to reality (other than the fictional story of course).


this kinda thing started in re2 ans especially reCVX the superhuman thing anyway
#212edward18Posted 11/23/2012 1:16:19 AM
Wesker was no longer human. That's fine.
---
Before you die you see the Tails Doll---Backdrop Observer of the Metroid: Other M board
Apparently Edward: Wise Old Sage of Korodai
#213Diablo56789Posted 11/23/2012 1:17:36 AM
I love them cause they're awesome and the terrilbly delivered, cheesy lines keep me laughing through all my playthroughs
---
I've got a gun to your head!
S.T.A.R.S. Member: Nemesis STAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRSSSS PSN: FoS H I Zandgiggles (No spaces or caps)
#214so_realPosted 11/23/2012 2:37:04 AM
Goldsickle posted...
Like I said, I can back up the things I post.

And was there any rule that I'm not allowed to discuss out of hardware capability?


No, but those are h only things that you post that are objective. Or I'm sure the business aspect that you rely on so much.

Your 'paraphrasing' tends to be very inaccurate.
I'd rather see actual examples and direct quotes, rather than exaggerations.


Goldsickle posted...
Hewie3 posted...
The older games were brilliant.

The older games weren't "brilliant". All they did was just ripped-off Alone In The Dark.

Doesn't seem to be all that inaccurate to me. If you're going to fault me for not having it word for word you'll have to do better than that. The gist of it is all there.

You're just taking it out of context.

I'm merely posting my opinion that "survival horror doesn't exist".
I don't see how it's "provocative" unless you people are just easily offended if someone were to as much as lift a finger.


The subtext is there. Just because your bait isn't obvious as it has been before doesn't mean that's not what you were going for.

Here: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/605603-/63684788

And here: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/605603-/63651138

Just because you don't say "Take that, Luddites!" in your posts doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to read between the lines to see why you posted the topic. Furthermore, the poll isn't indicative of whether or not people prefer traditional to modern, just that many people had at least one thing they disliked (still making it possible to like classic more) and that many people didn't take issue with it them at all. There's one more recent post of yours I wish I could find, but at this point it's not really worth it.
#215so_realPosted 11/23/2012 2:46:58 AM
"Financial cop out"?

Sorry, kid. No matter how much you try to block out the reality, you won't be able to deny that business is heavily ingrained into the game industry.


Ooops! I must still be in unicorn land! You seem to think really highly of yourself with the condescending attitude. Hey, let me take a page from your book. How do you know I'm a kid?!!?!?! Where's the proof?!?!?1oneoneone You're not allowed to use deductive reasoning, it's either quotes or nothing.

But yes, cop out. It's impossible for you to explain why the changes Capcom made to RE are good for the series and instead offer why it's good for the developers. You only do it every time I ask you. You can't seem to separate the two. If people can offer you why the changes were bad you should be able to offer why they're good. Instead you just keep relying on "I don't have to explain why they were necessary when I can put the responsibility on the business aspect".

I did not make up these explanation but that's just how it is.
Sales, profit and marketing dictates the direction of the game industry.

You can't explain the reason and motives behind many directions or decisions without touching upon the business side.
And anyone who tries to avoid that usually fills the gaps with assumptions and made-up fairy tales.


Of course, if I was trying to discuss business with you. If you think it's impossible to judge the games on their own, the change in direction, and why it's good or bad without saying anything about business, then that's the same as hiding your head under a pillow and rambling loudly until it hopefully goes away.

Also, since you've been following my posts, I wonder why you're acting as though I only talk about the business angle when I covered more aspects, such as technology, trends and developer notes?

For example, I explained in detail how prerendered backgrounds would cause more problems, plus why features like tank controls and 'door opening animation' are unnecessary today.


I made mention of your hardware discussions, design choices, etc. but those don't mean much to me anyway. The controls are opinion due to the fact that what's best for one person isn't best for the other (hence why many games offer control customization)...and well, yeah. The only time you argue that controls and animations are objective truths is when you're battling it out with Luddites. Hahahahahaha.

You blatantly told him that he's wrong for calling them brilliant then went on to devalue their qualities in later posts

You're just exaggerating on my corrections.


I already commented on that earlier.

Then it's entirely your fault for assuming that I have "made up" my mind.

I can be convinced but the problem is that people who argue with me uses crass assumptions and don't know anything.


Yeah right. I've seen enough of your topics and posts enough to read between the lines. I don't need a quote of you saying "I hate the old games and I'll never change my mind on them" to know you won't change your mind. Your behavior heavily indicates that.

Hundreds of people (both customer and journalist) who have explained why the older games are brilliant, good, whatever positive adjective you can put there...and not a single one of them know what they're talking about? Yeah, you're unbiased. Hahaha.
#216GoldsicklePosted 11/23/2012 4:26:58 AM(edited)
so_real posted...
No, but those are h only things that you post that are objective. Or I'm sure the business aspect that you rely on so much.

Subjective or objective, I can back up anything I say.

If you want to enlighten me about something, I'm all ears.

I don't "rely" on the business aspect of games.
It's ingrained into the direction of the industry.
It's almost impossible to explain or go into detail about some decisions without bringing up the business and marketing aspect.

Doesn't seem to be all that inaccurate to me.

Taking things out of context is easy when you don't show what was said in it's entirety.

After Hewie3 says "the games were brilliant", he went on to talk about how "all games are the same now".
Put these two sentences together and you get the implication that old RE is supposed to be special and unique, while newer games aren't.

I didn't quote every single thing he said due to my habit of rationing my posts' character limit.
But he should understand where I'm coming from and what point I'm addressing.

The bottom line: I didn't call out on someone for praising a game.
You've misread my message.

The subtext is there.

The problem is that you yourself are seeing this as some sort of "attack" due to some bizarre paranoia.
I'm merely posting my thoughts and gathering data out of curiosity.

It's perfectly normal and not a violation of the TOS.
If you have a problem with posts like these, all I can say is just deal with it.
I'm not gonna cater to your selfish demands.

How do you know I'm a kid?!!?!?! Where's the proof?!?!?1

If you feel so sore about being called a "kid", then stop acting like one?

It's impossible for you to explain why the changes Capcom made to RE are good for the series

Because in the end, survival is the highest priority.

If the sales are too poor, then the series gets dropped, which almost happened with RE after Zero.
I don't know about your priorities but I'd rather a series continue, rather than ending.

Are you gonna be one of those selfish Luddites who's gonna tell me selfish crap like "I'd rather see a series end than change with the times"?
---
There is no such thing as a "Quick Time Event done right".
A game that has Quick Time Events is a "video game done wrong".
#217GoldsicklePosted 11/23/2012 3:50:12 AM
so_real posted...
Instead you just keep relying on "I don't have to explain why they were necessary when I can put the responsibility on the business aspect".

You really are f***ing illiterate, you know that?

I didn't just explain the business aspect but other things, like technical aspect, as well as developer notes.

I think I have mentioned a lot of other things, like my own personal preferences, things from the old-school format that I'd like to see return and for someone who monitors my activities closely, you're doing a good job of censoring and filtering to make it sound like I only talk about the business aspect.

but those don't mean much to me anyway.

Because you can't argue back and can only attack from one angle?

The father of Resident Evil himself can't stand zombies and old-school format anymore.
What do you have to say about that?

If you guys are still going on about how the old-school format making a return, who's going to do it?.
Not Hiroyuki Kobayashi. Not Jun Takeuchi. Not Masachika Kawata.

You're still going to tell me that I "only bring up about the business aspect" to explain why the old-school format isn't going to make a return?

I haven't even touched on the technical aspect, like tank controls, prerendered backgrounds and 'door opening animation'.
I have a lot to talk about these.

But you can't argue with me on these aspect, so you continue calling out on my supposed "leaning towards business".

Hundreds of people (both customer and journalist) who have explained why the older games are brilliant,

Hundreds who don't represent the general consensus?

So what?


Honestly, what are you expecting from Capcom?

Do you want them to go back to making a game with prerendered backgrounds, tank controls and door-opening animation, just to appease a few people?
---
There is no such thing as a "Quick Time Event done right".
A game that has Quick Time Events is a "video game done wrong".
#218Aya_BPosted 11/23/2012 4:30:44 AM
This thread really needs a fire extinguisher by now. X_X;

Well, the old games were said to be brilliant and I won't say otherwise because I liked them a lot. But they were brilliant in their prime, are still gems for what they are, and yet it does not mean that they would get the same critics these days just because someone decided to give the games a graphic overhaul. Just because they were brilliant however does not mean that they were Original. It's true that Alone in the Dark came first, but sometimes it is better to take parts of other games and make good use of them instead of creating something entirely new.

In terms of popularity Resident Evil won against Alone in the Dark. I'm now also probably going to far in speaking about changes being a good thing, but Alone in the Dark 4 did not exactly manage to impress the critics anymore.

The closest game to the 'old Style' I can think of, which is at least to some degree still coming out, is the Silent Hill Series, and even Silent Hill 4 is quite old by now. (At least I don't know that they made an attempt to change anything great.)

The series, Resident Evil/Biohazard was never the ultimate Horror Game, Silent Hill actually doing a bit better there, but still had a good atmosphere, while retaining some action settings.

Many people love Chris' Campaign, but it is by far too action oriented for me, and yes that is my personal opinion, but who here can really say which is better? For that one would need an actual statistic and some kind of feedback from the gamer to Capcom. I prefer a bit of atmosphere in a game that fits a bit to the Horror Genre, like Dead Space, for instance.

That does not mean that Resident Evil 6 does not have anything of that at all, but they feel a bit too short for my taste.

If people wish for changes it can be done by collecting votes, and send them in. I honestly doubt that this many would really wish for a return to the old style though. (I have mixed feelings myself, because I like it.)

It is not rare for game series or book series, movies, etc. to actually outlast the interest of the developer/creator. A fresh spark and new orientation is required to change that, and I personally prefer this over a game in old style which was made by totally unmotivated people, and end up like the last Alone in the Dark.

Fortunately, and at times, unfortunately the developers also have to respect the opinion of the consumer~ Otherwise we probably would not have had any Zombies in Resident Evil 6 anymore, and I honestly like them much more than those J'avos. Yes, it is a personal opinion only, but most things in this thread are more subjective.

This does not mean that there are not also facts included in this argument, and the points Goldsickle brought up are valid ones.

I'd like to see some changes but they don't involve the reuse of outdated graphic routines, or troublesome Controls.

I'm obviously not a mod, but this thread gets a bit too heated, and quite personal....

Maybe you guys even like the same things about the game....

As a final comment: I have seen many statements about the desire to see the old style return, but no actual post about what is meant by that. You can look at it from multiple angles and one would be prerendered backgrounds and Tank Controls... -.-; (I almost can't hear/read that anymore), but from the looks of it that is not even the desired aspect that should see a return.

What exactly is it, that should come back?
#219so_realPosted 11/23/2012 4:38:30 AM
Goldsickle posted...
I don't "rely" on the business aspect of games.
It's ingrained into the direction of the industry.
It's almost impossible to explain or go into detail about some decisions without bringing up the business and marketing aspect.


I didn't ask you about business decisions. I asked you to explain why the changes made to the series are improvements to the series, not their income. It's not impossible at all, and plenty of others have done it. You (indirectly speaking) weigh the pros and cons and determine if the overall result is good or bad.

Taking things out of context is easy when you don't show what was said in it's entirety.

After Hewie3 says "the games were brilliant", he went on to talk about how "all games are the same now".


You're the one that singled out his comment of calling them brilliant, not me.

The problem is that you yourself are seeing this as some sort of "attack" due to some bizarre paranoia.
I'm merely posting my thoughts and gathering data out of curiosity.

It's perfectly normal and not a violation of the TOS.
If you have a problem with posts like these, all I can say is just deal with it.
I'm not gonna cater to your selfish demands.


Except it was completely out of place to what the TC was asking about. And I gave you the other examples.

In journalism it's what's referred to as a "loaded question/discussion".

If you feel so sore about being called a "kid", then stop acting like one?


I'm not, just pointing out that you're doing the same thing that you complain about me doing.

Because in the end, survival is the highest priority.

If the sales are too poor, then the series gets dropped, which almost happened with RE after Zero.
I don't know about your priorities but I'd rather a series continue, rather than ending.

Are you gonna be one of those selfish Luddites who's gonna tell me selfish crap like "I'd rather see a series end than change with the times"?


I made no such claim. I simply asked you to explain why those changes would be improvements, business aside. It's great that you can explain why it was a good decision for business, but you failed to explain why they were good for the games, and judging them on those merits alone.
#220so_realPosted 11/23/2012 5:07:37 AM
Goldsickle posted...
You really are f***ing illiterate, you know that?


Hahahaha. Coming from someone who can't answer (or understand) a simple question. Calm down, kid.

I didn't just explain the business aspect but other things, like technical aspect, as well as developer notes.

I think I have mentioned a lot of other things, like my own personal preferences, things from the old-school format that I'd like to see return and for someone who monitors my activities closely, you're doing a good job of censoring and filtering to make it sound like I only talk about the business aspect.


I see far more of your effort go into discrediting the older games to the point where I can't recall any praise you give them. Maybe it' there, don't know. If it is you've dwarfed them.

Because you can't argue back and can only attack from one angle?


Pot, meet kettle.

The father of Resident Evil himself can't stand zombies and old-school format anymore.
What do you have to say about that?


That he doesn't like the format apparently? I'm not sure how that's supposed to shape others' opinions. At least he's not talking about why ditching the old school format was a good move financially.

If you guys are still going on about how the old-school format making a return, who's going to do it?.
Not Hiroyuki Kobayashi. Not Jun Takeuchi. Not Masachika Kawata.

You're still going to tell me that I "only bring up about the business aspect" to explain why the old-school format isn't going to make a return?


I never asked why it would/would not return, only if the changes made were good ones outside of financial reasons.