Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Pretty much everything in this game feels just right to me: the combat, the gameplay, enemies, weapons, the sounds, the visuals (with the HD mod), the bits of humor. It all feels just right.
Of this whole game the only parts I dislike are playing as Ashley and that I think Ada’s campaign needed a fully fleshed out merchant/upgrade system for the weapons. Heck, I wish her campaign was longer honestly.
RE:4 revolutionized the third person action genre and inspired many later games. Things like over the shoulder aiming are taken for granted now but it was a godsend back in '05. Games like Gears of War and Uncharted wouldn't play the same without RE:4.
Plus, people were also fed up with the fixed camera angles and tank controls of classic RE. 4 was a breath of fresh air that revitalized the series. Things were looking so bad at the time that Capcom considered canceling the series if 4 flopped.
I know that it seems a little dated now, but once you get used to the movement then shooting becomes a breeze and is still really intuitive. It also has some of the best story and action pacing of any video game.
However, there may be a reason why games like this get put on a pedestal and it pays to find out the history behind it.
When the first Resident Evil released back on the Saturn and PS1, it garnered a small following especially amongst those who liked the old Alone in the Dark games. When the follow-up came out, it REALLY hit it's heights and became a smash hit. It didn't do anything markedly different from the first, just bigger and better. But it was right place, right time.
Come the eagerly awaited 3rd instalment (and it's troubled development and the scrapped version) things were much the same still and while well received it was well noted that things needed to be freshened up or changed.
In the interim we had experienced Silent Hill 1, 2 and 3 and they had done much the same - well received similar style of games but they were in need of a shake up too. So when Capcom got the deal with Nintendo to turn out some exclusive games, RE4 was one of them and they went to town on the changes.
Obviously gone were the static pre-rendered backgrounds and the viewing angles accordingly. With that though, it meant that a more conventional viewing angle from behind the player was a thing, and it didn't exactly lend itself as well to the horror aspect. So they tweaked it to have that closed in letterbox thing so you REALLY feel as you need to see a bit more than you can and that ups the tension.
THat's the most noticeable change. But the story was a large departure, the location too, and many of the little game mechanics were tweaked or different too.
In short, I think the largest part of the greatness label comes from this history. It was REALLY well received, not just because it was a welcome needed shake up but also at the right time. Capcom were very much on a roll at this time with games like Viewtifiul Joe being released too.
So you had really high scores for the Gamecube version originally, putting right at the top of the best games charts along with Zelda. Then when ported to PS2 it did similarly well too. Again, right place, right time. Add to that the fact that it has been scaled up and re-released many times on different platforms since then and you can see why the sentiment is there. It just grows as you're getting more new fans as they go along.
So, is it actually the best? I'd say no. but it is ONE of the best.
And then kind of disappointed by the fifth and sixth, so that's why the 4th is praised.
A fair summary.
As I said, it was very much at a time Capcom were in the zone both for game quality and creativity. It was very much welcomed as it bunged loads of new ideas in there.
Unfortunately after that, they took the wrong conclusion in thinking that these changes meant people wanted less puzzling and more shooter, which is why the original fans disliked 5 and so on.
I find it odd that 5 was as disliked as much as it was since (to me anyway) it was the same as 4 but with a much better melee system and way better mercenaries mode (way more character choices, coop, etc.)
I mean, I get what you're saying about puzzles vs shooting and whatnot but if I'm being honest 4 didn't really have what I would consider puzzles either. "Oh hey, a door with a circle indentation in it, wonder if it fits that circle thing I found in this exact same room."
The two closest ones I can think of to actual puzzles are the chimera heads (first puzzle door in castle) since those were at least scattered far and wide and (for first timers) the green catseye puzzle behind the church. Honorable mention for the light puzzle in the church. I'm not counting Ashley's sliding puzzle since you can literally finish it in about 10 seconds since about the only pieces you have to move are the outer edges.
Admittedly, 4 was my first game in the series so I'm sure that colors my opinion a bit. I've tried to go back and play the original game (the one in the mansion) but I gave up after about 30 min cause I couldn't stand the fixed camera angle thing.
It was strictly because when it came out it was jarring as the puzzles had been cut WAY down. Capcom said they wanted to make more a shooter, and that's the direction they went in.
That's why it was disliked, and the critique was pretty widespread. Then of course, people pleaded with Capcom not to take this route, yet they doubled down and did the same with 6. Took until 7 for them to actually bite the bullet and shake things up again.
And the sheer fact that 7 is a shift the other way (puzzling stuff and adventure over shooting), well the way that was received is also the polar opposite of what 5 or 6 got.
So yeah, I can perfectly understand it. I get that when you're casually comparing them together nowadays that difference might seem small but you have to have the context of the time.
Because its genius and spirit of innovation are essentially without parallel in the history of gaming. Like three generations of action games literally exist because of RE4. It's got excellent pacing and every time I play it I still get drawn into the world and ambiance it crafts.
Erm no.
I get your point about it being a movement along, but it isn't responsible for being first in creating that genre (or rather those games existing because of RE4). They have long said they were inspired by games like the original Alone in the Dark who did it before them, and I'm not even sure they were the first.
Don't get me wrong here - it is a damned good game, butthis is simply not true.
RE4 is the creator of everything that generations of third-person shooters did after it. It didn't innovate much in terms of horror, but it is without peer in the realm of third-person action. It was the first to do everything.
No sorry RE4 is not.
The over the shoulder look was prevalent on a number of third person shooters on the PS2 whose names escape me at this moment.
By all means demonstrate which bits were totally unique and they were the first to do it, because I don't believe you.
Literally everything. The multifaceted level design, the weapon upgrades, the merchant, the escort system. the blend of shooting and melee, over the shoulder shooting in general. The only thing to which it might broadly be compared that came before is Tomb Raider, and RE4 is far beyond Tomb Raider. Ratchet and Clank, I guess. I have the first couple of those but I've not played them yet.
Maybe don't try to comment on an era of gaming you clearly didn't live through.
That's just more assertions, not evidence.
And stop assuming silly stuff. I'm in my fifties. I've been into gaming since my first computer in the 1970s, so don't strawman me.
Let's run through it then, your assertions without evidence.
multifaceted level design.I'm not sure what the hell you mean here as that had been done countless times before. Ever heard of Zelda or most 3D era adventures?
Weapon upgrades? Tagging the occasional thing to a gun? Done WAY before that. I know of a couple of games on the ZX Spectrum that did that, well over ten years before.
The merchant? Absolutely not. Countless times have vendors appeared in games LONG before any resident evil game. Again, I know of several from the old 8-bit days.
The escort system? Again, wrong. Plenty of games had escort systems before this - there's a number I can think of on the NES for a start.
And as I've already pointed out, over the shoulder shooting was NOT a new thing. It was neat they added the letterbox effect as that really help but over the shoulder shooting had already been done on a number of PS2 titles by then.
But, the evidence if you please, not more assertions./
Can you help me understand why this is your perspective? Even though I love RE5, I can understand how a lot of fans of the older RE games might prefer the older ones to RE5 and RE6, since they're so fundamentally different, and their existence robbed older fans of more of the old style of games - but you prefer the older ones to even the newer RE & RE2 remakes as well? The RE & RE2 remakes seem pretty faithful to what the originals were trying to do, but they just massively blow the roof off the place with how exceptionally they improve things to use modern technology and modern production values.