General Unpopular Opinions on Biohazard

[russident]

That's not exactly what I meant. It's not about the action at all, but how cutscenes become the main storytelling tool. I believe that developers can use different tools and balance them in such a way as to give a holistic gaming experience.

In my opinion, CODE: Veronica was the starting point of the path when cutscenes became more cinematic and narrative, and the game design offered less and less information. Look at the same Resident Evil 4: the infrastructure of many buildings in the game does not make any sense. These buildings are impersonal and serve exclusively for the background, when in the classic games of the series, locations were characters and carried information. And you also saw the development of this approach in the future: Resident Evil 6 doesn't even have any files left.

Speaking specifically about CODE: Veronica, it's still a classic game in the series. This means that the storytelling in this game is still relatively close to the classic form. I've never argued with that. However, I want to say that the developers have accepted some deviations from the series formula that I don't quite agree with. But I understand and respect that the game strongly influenced the mythology, both in terms of game design and in terms of lore. I never argued with that either.

I'm really not a fan of the game's plot. I only liked the storyline of Alfred, but, you know, it's almost completely copied from Norman Bates. Even the same directing techniques were used. But I really like the Gothic spirit of this game. I'm also a big fan of the t-Veronica virus and the opportunities it offers to infected people. This is a great potential for body horror. In any case, "Orlok" with parts of the mantis turned out to be much more terrifying than Argento's Dracula, who completely turned into a mantis. And Spider-Baker is still the scariest boss in the series for me.

 

[Mark5]

That's not exactly what I meant. It's not about the action at all, but how cutscenes become the main storytelling tool. I believe that developers can use different tools and balance them in such a way as to give a holistic gaming experience.

In my opinion, CODE: Veronica was the starting point of the path when cutscenes became more cinematic and narrative, and the game design offered less and less information. Look at the same Resident Evil 4: the infrastructure of many buildings in the game does not make any sense. These buildings are impersonal and serve exclusively for the background, when in the classic games of the series, locations were characters and carried information. And you also saw the development of this approach in the future: Resident Evil 6 doesn't even have any files left.

Most videogames end up relying on movies tropes and pop culture references anyway, while not a carbon copy such b-horror movies, you can see that the original RE borrowed ideas from zombie movies and design from many classic movies. George Romero as one, as well as other italian zombie movies and while sometimes these movie ideas adaptated to the gaming media can't do justice to inspiring gameplay, I still think it's almost impossible to develop a videogame and not include some recycled themes to its narrative, be it by using a movie or book reference. Some even argue that a game is bound to generate more buzz when it incorporates those ideas in a creative way.

Well cutscenes are designed for several purposes during the game, some might be a bit over the top but others serve to enhance the survival horror, sometimes more than just jump scares the fact we can replay some of the games and get different endings (with entirely distinct outcomes by the end) can also serve as an incentive for replaying games.

 

[mert20004]

.

 

[russident]

Most videogames end up relying on movies tropes and pop culture references anyway, while not a carbon copy such b-horror movies, you can see that the original RE borrowed ideas from zombie movies and design from many classic movies.

This is true, but there is a difference between homage and copy. The authors of the game took Hitchcock's idea, set themselves the same goal (to surprise the player with the fact that it is the same person) and went to it in the same ways (imitated the dialogue of two people, using two different voices). I understand that the series is not really original, but this time, I think the authors went a little too far. Although, perhaps, this barrier of permissiveness is subjective.

Moreover, we have something to compare it with. Before Alfred, the series did homage to Norman. I'm talking about Irons, of course. His psychosis and passion for taxidermy were also borrowed, but they were interpreted differently, so he feels more independent character.

Well cutscenes are designed for several purposes during the game, some might be a bit over the top but others serve to enhance the survival horror, sometimes more than just jump scares the fact we can replay some of the games and get different endings (with entirely distinct outcomes by the end) can also serve as an incentive for replaying games.

This is still a passive way of telling the story, because the player is not controlling the character at this point. I'm interested in the approach in which information is integrated into the gameplay. I'm not trying to cancel the cutscenes, though. I just don't think their impact on the narrative should be overstated.

I have often heard criticism, for example, about the remake of the first game, that the plot is poorly presented there. Many people don't really understand that storytelling can work outside of cutscenes.

 

[RipvanX]

This is why the classic games (mainly the first 3) will always be the best examples on how a Resident Evil game should be. The later games start to feel jumbled and bounce from one extreme to the other. This has been a constant issue with this franchise.

I also agree that integrating story progression through gameplay is the best way to immerse the player into the world. Cutscenes have their purpose, but they shouldn’t play every 5 minutes.

As much as I love RE2, REmake 2 did a much better job introducing new enemies through gameplay and not cutscenes. We need more game styles like that, rather than having the player sit there and have no control of the character.

Especially now that next gen is around the corner. Cutscenes were used to hide loading times, but now they won’t be a necessity.

 

[Mark5]

This is true, but there is a difference between homage and copy. The authors of the game took Hitchcock's idea, set themselves the same goal (to surprise the player with the fact that it is the same person) and went to it in the same ways (imitated the dialogue of two people, using two different voices). I understand that the series is not really original, but this time, I think the authors went a little too far. Although, perhaps, this barrier of permissiveness is subjective.

Moreover, we have something to compare it with. Before Alfred, the series did homage to Norman. I'm talking about Irons, of course. His psychosis and passion for taxidermy were also borrowed, but they were interpreted differently, so he feels more independent character.



This is still a passive way of telling the story, because the player is not controlling the character at this point. I'm interested in the approach in which information is integrated into the gameplay. I'm not trying to cancel the cutscenes, though. I just don't think their impact on the narrative should be overstated.

I have often heard criticism, for example, about the remake of the first game, that the plot is poorly presented there. Many people don't really understand that storytelling can work outside of cutscenes.

Maybe the gameplay approach is being taken into consideration by Capcom in order to develop Village, since I think the first person is more immersive and less cinematic than the Third Person games, at least that is what I could gather with most of what the developers said, stuff like the village itself being a character and "beautiful yet terrifying", while making players feel like they are characters thrust into a horror movie but this time more effectively playing it, experiencing it without so much restraint as to what you could do or where you can go, just do as you wish (of course this might be real tricky for them to accomplish but we'll see if that's really going to pay off for RE fans).

 

[russident]

1. I enjoyed the lack of boxes in Resident Evil Zero. You know, I noticed for myself that these boxes can make the gameplay more passive: we just collect things, and then go back to put them in the box. But without this mechanic, we need to look for pass-through rooms and high-traffic areas that we visit most often in order to lay out items there and thus optimize the gameplay as much as possible. We need to think strategically. There is a certain experience and a certain interest in this.

2. I also like that in Resident Evil 7, the game is not paused when the player opens the inventory. I think the point is that you manage resources in advance so that you can know exactly where to click and what to choose when the battle is going on.

 

[Goldsickle]

I liked the "realistic" gun handling of Resident Evil Outbreak.

Where if you don't have a spare magazine, you gotta reload that sole magazine by hand, instead of the "magazine swap" animation that you always get.
You only get that animation if you have a spare magazine.

Outbreak was also the first RE title where you have to fully reload a tubular magazine (shotguns) one round at a time, instead of "put two bullets and it's fully loaded" animation like in any other games.

Any time I talk about RE: Outbreak gun handling, it's always met with hatred and nobody likes it.

The director for RE6 just happen to be the director of both Outbreak titles, so you can see a bit of that "realistic gun handling" in RE6, which may or may not be a coincidence.

 

[Caffeine Addict]

This will probably be more faithful than any remake Capcom will come up with, AFTER the RE4 remake! ?

 

[russident]

I have often seen the opinion that a fixed camera is scarier than the first person. Well, that's fine. I'm not one of those people who thinks that a fixed camera is a purely technical limitation. The feeling of fear is subjective, so a fixed camera is an art form. I have a problem with people who tried to prove to me that this is the right approach to scare. I don't think these people even understand that players can have different experiences with games. They may not even be interested in this, because they believe that the whole world revolves around their empirical perception. So I will try to explain why the first person is more impactful for me.

So, many people say that a fixed camera is scarier because you don't see the threat. This is a good argument. I felt it partly when I heard the sounds of the hunter's footsteps. But then, as usual, these same people conclude that this approach allows developers not to frighten players with poor jump scares.

This is what I used to laugh at all the time. I've never considered jump scares to be necessarily bad. For me, this is a tool. But I always found it funny that such fans forget that, in fact, there were a lot of jump scares in classic games. Moreover, these jump scares are the scariest thing that was in my experience with these games.

I think this also applies to the first argument. When I heard the sounds of the hunter's footsteps, I was terrified that I did not know the enemy's location and could not control this situation. But then the hunter just jumps out abruptly and for a moment of fright, the fight just starts. For me, this is the same jump scare. This is how this tool works.

So, one of the reasons (and this is a subjective reason) why first person is so effective for me is that I don't see the character I'm controlling. When I see a character, it creates a certain barrier in my perception. I may still be scared, but I'm not likely to project situations on myself. When the game is made in the first person, I literally forget about the existence of the character and feel abandoned. What happens to the character is happening to me in the first place. The experience becomes more personal.

The second reason is that the first person is the active camera. When we talk about a fixed camera, it's important to understand that developers don't choose camera angles randomly. They build such compositions that the player constantly sees doors and objects that are very important to him for progress. This is also hard work, which requires knowledge of the artist, but it makes the game experience more passive, since you do not need to search for objects yourself and look behind your back.

This approach is made more passive by the primitivization of the combat system. Most often, you don't even need to aim at the enemy, because these games have automatic aiming.

Since the Resident Evil series is not only horror, but also action, you need to shoot often and kill a lot of enemies. I believe automatic aiming is necessary to make the player more comfortable to play, otherwise it will be more difficult for the player to shoot due to the difficulty in perceiving the camera's perspective.

This becomes a problem when we talk about horror. If you hear but don't see enemies, aiming will always tell you their location. In addition, the map in games will always help you mark the boundaries of the place where you are. In other words, games provide you with all the tools to control the situation.

So, when I hear a hunter, I may be scared because he suddenly jumped out from around the corner, but I know that I will hit this enemy, I will not miss and I can enter the door, which I can see perfectly.

When I played Resident Evil 7, I needed to not only control the camera myself, but also aim at the enemy. And I need to do this in certain parts of the body if I want to eliminate it faster and save ammo. When I was fighting monsters in the basement, it was a very stressful experience. I tried to hit the head of the enemy, but it dodged bullets, and the damage only made it angrier, so this monster came to me faster. It was scary, but it was also scary to step back, because in first-person games, you can't instantly run back, but to do this, you must first turn around. And I didn't always know what was behind me.

You see, this is what I like about scary first-person games. I like the immersiveness that these games offer. I often read opinions about how people were scared of Mr. X in the original Resident Evil 2, but I will never forget the moment when I got into a very narrow and very long street, the door closed behind me, and in front of me the tyrant walked slowly, confidently and menacingly. Despite my shots, he kept going at the same pace, getting closer and closer to me.

This game was Resident Evil: Survivor, and this moment is one of my scariest experiences in the series.

 

[Caffeine Addict]

The Evil Within games are in third person and they are very scary. You have to upgrade the hell out of your guns, but the Keeper, Laura and the soldier with the flamethrower are all intense villains. It was also like the Silent Hill game we never got, after Hideo Kojima left Konami. Yet sadly, the game remains underrated.

Days Gone is also incredible. They just patched that, and the download took around 7 hours to install. There was so much that went into that game, yet nobody really seems to be overly fond of it. Now, I know it had tons of issues when it originally came out, but most of that has been rectified. But that's a much better game than any of the recent RE Engine based entries in the whole Resident Evil franchise.

In The Last of Us, a single Clicker can be terrifying. But everybody online keeps calling that masterpiece an interactive movie. What a cheek!

I hope Capcom gets back on track, abandons the milk wagon, and decides to make the franchise to how it was. Resident Evil: Revelations 2 was a step in the right direction, before they started doing these remakes.

 

[RipvanX]

I think it would be cool if Resident Evil 9 or 10 adapts all 3 different play styles. Having 3 separate campaigns where one is fixed camera, third person, and first person. The game would take some pages from RE6 but more toned down and focused. It would also help keep the pacing fresh, and give the development team more room to play around with new mechanics in ways that engage and immerse the player.

 

[Caffeine Addict]

You're asking for a lot from Capcom there. Are you not? ?

Wishful thinking, my man! ?

 

[russident]

The last non-first-person game that scared me was Neverending Nightmares. I was very impressed by the unsettling atmosphere of the game. The story was also very interesting, although it is very surreal and abstract.

I also liked the first episode of The Last Door. There was a creepy moment with the crows that I remember very well.

But it doesn't compare to the experience I've had from Scratches, Amnesia: The Dark Descent, P. T., and many independent experimental scary games. Some of them I just wanted to turn off and not go back to them because I was scared, but I forced myself to play. It was great.

Resident Evil is not one of these games, of course. I think developers always set themselves strict limits on how scary their game should be. It should be scary, but fun. And Resident Evil is not intended to frighten players much. However, fear is an important attribute of my personal interest in this series and, since we don't have many big-budget games in this genre today, I wouldn't want to lose such a favorite.

And I also disagree a bit when people compare The last of Us and Days Gone to Resident Evil. I believe that these are completely different experiences and different games about different things. Of course, they have similarities, but that's all.

 

[Caffeine Addict]

This is one of the better RE type games from the PS2 days...

 

[Mark5]

Resident Evil is not one of these games, of course. I think developers always set themselves strict limits on how scary their game should be. It should be scary, but fun.

I always enjoy when a survival horror game is able to balance the intense scary moments like jump scares with other subtle elements, like careful enemy placement and a few backtracking segments here and there, as long as they provide valuable rewards if the player just take a risk by following that path...

and while some games shooting/battle mechanics can become a bit tedious, i enjoy when certain games can provide a somewhat adaptive difficulty that sets up a more intense gameplay right when players get familiarized with controls.

 

[Ouroboros]

7 sucked storywise, both of the newer remakes sucked in terms of continuity and writing, and 6 was actually good.

 

[Caffeine Addict]

Here we go. It's the end of the Game Awards.

 

[Ouroboros]

Here we go. It's the end of the Game Awards.

And Village lost. I was personally thinking Psychonauts 2 deserved it, but with the way the Resident Evil series is as of now, I think it deserved to lose. Congratulations to the creators of It Takes Two.

 

[Caffeine Addict]

I think Capcom took a step backwards. After people insisted RE4 type games weren't scary, they gave us RE7. Now, that game is definitely survival horror.

Then they got those dollar signs in their eyes again. So they made RE8 like RE4, seemingly because 7 was too scary.

I don't know which lie is worse. That one, or when they said RE3 being remade "depended" on whether RE2 was successful. But come on. RE2 is like, the one everybody likes the most, so of course they will rate a remake higher than other games.

Their lies just totally stink of insincerity.