Resident Evil - Where Do You Stand?

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Neon Princess, Dec 11, 2014.


Which series do you prefer?

  1. Original PS1 Trilogy

    10 vote(s)
  2. Newer Games

    2 vote(s)
  3. Other (Just one or two games in particular)

    1 vote(s)
  1. The more and more I talk to fans of this series, the more and more I feel outcasted. Why? Well, let me tell you.

    In general, most fans regard the original PS1 trilogy as the best Resident Evil has been, with the exception of 4 being just as, if not more beloved to the fanbase. Disregarding the non-numbered games (Code Veronica, Revelations, etc), Resident Evil 5 and 6 especially are generally regarded as utter trash compared to the first 4 games, and just utter trash in general. Here's where I disagree, and ask my question; Where do you stand?

    Me personally, I am not a fan of any Resident Evil game before 4. I have played all of the games released so far, and I genuinely prefer 4 and up as opposed to the original trilogy. Why? Let me explain.

    Why I dont like the original games
    I. I never grew up with the original PS1 games. My first console was the PS2, and I only got around to buying a PS1 from a friend about 2 years ago for $30. So, there is no nostalgia for me regarding the original games.
    II. Gameplay wise, I cant stand the original tank controls. They're cumbersome, needlessly difficult and wonky, and im not a fan of fixed camera angles generally. Aiming is also a pain in the ass because I have no real idea where my shots are gonna land, and no real way of accurately aiming. Also, I hate not knowing where to go. The older games give you no clear idea of where to go or what to do next. I needed a guide for all 3 original games just to beat them because I had no idea what the fuck to do. That irritated the shit out of me.
    III. Story wise, the sheer amount of cheese in these older games makes me laugh my ass off instead of be scared. The dialogue is hilariously bad and the voice acting is on the same level. As for the actual storylines, I dont really mind them either way. They're pretty boring and are really only set ups for future events, but they're not inherently bad or good. They're just 'meh' to me. The games are also ridiculously short once you know what to do.
    IV. Atmosphere wise, Resident Evil has never once been scary to me, and the older games are even less so than the newer ones for me. The Spencer mansion is pretty eerie, but not really scary. Racoon City is iconic sure, but again, it's little more than eerie to me. The music can get some good atmosphere going, but its not enough to get me truly uncomfortable. The enemies are extremely slow and predictable, so that only makes the games even less scary as not even the living dead and mutated fucks like William Birkin can frighten me.

    Why I like the newer games
    I. My first Resident Evil was 4, and I loved every second of it as a kid. Going back and playing it now, I still find myself really enjoying it. As for 5, im not too fond of it, but i'd play it over any of the original 3 all day. It just felt like Resident Evil 4 2.0 to me. As for 6, I had an absolute blast playing through it. It was worth every penny for my pre-order price.
    II. Gameplay wise, while 4 and 5 are still restricted in terms of movement, I had far less difficulty navigating myself around and aiming. The camera wasnt fixed anymore so I could see anywhere and everywhere I needed. I had a clear indication where I had to go and what I had to do, so I was able to progress the story at a reasonable pace and not feel like im just running in circles accomplishing nothing. Once 6 came out with its fluid movement, better sprint mechanic, dodge rolling and useful melee, I couldnt play a 3rd person game the same. I needed that level of fluid, useful and downright awesome level of movement and maneuverability. I can still play 4 and 5 just fine, but 6 is really the pinnacle for combat in Resident Evil for my tastes. To be fair though, a lot of the bosses in 6 needed to die way sooner than they did. (Im looking at you, Simmons. You too, Ustanak.) Also, quick time events dont bother me at all. I kinda like them, to be honest.
    III. Story wise, 4 was interesting enough to get me to the end, but its still nothing i'd write home about. Better than the originals, but not anything spectacular. 5's story was only cool for the amount of Wesker that was in it. Like I said, it felt like Resident Evil 4 2.0. Still better than the originals for me, but worse than 4. 6 on the other hand, has my favorite story to date in the Resident Evil universe. All my favorite characters and even some new ones come together to stop a biological apocalypse? Sign me the fuck up. Each campaign intertwined with each other, and had their own endings, which were all satisfying to me. While I found Jake to be really hit-or-miss, I fell in love with Helena Harper, and Piers Nivans' sacrifice at the end of Chris's campaign brought real tears to my eyes. 4 and 5 have decent lengths on their own, but 6 for sure has the ideal length for a game in my book. Each campaign is about 4-5 hours long, and once you beat all 4 to get a full understanding of the events, you've got a strong length of 16-20 hours, depending. Not overly long, and not woefully short.
    IV. Atmosphere wise, again nothing in Resident Evil has ever been scary to me, but I gotta say. In 4, the Regenerators and some of the Plagas mutations were pretty damn unnerving. Salazar's castle was creepily quiet at points, and the beginning village certainly had its moments of uneasiness. 5 wasnt frightening or even eerie, but some of the Majini mutations were kinda cool. 6 was extremely similar to 4 to me in terms of atmosphere. In Leon/Helena's campaign specifically, Tall Oaks Cathedral and the College campus were both unnerving and unsettling for me. In Sherry/Jake's campaign, the caves where Ustanak would hunt you via sound got me on edge many times. As for Chris/Piers' campaign, the final boss's transformation (and Piers') are my favorite transformations and bosses to date. It was fucking awesome to me. Regarding Ada's campaign, I liked the whole 'stealth' thing they were going for, and Tall Oaks Cathedral was creepy to me as it was in Leon/Helena's campaign. The enemies got quicker and quicker as the games went on, and their mutations got more and more creative and challenging to combat.

    So, there you have it. Are the old games bad games? not at all. They're just not my preferred games. When I think 'Resident Evil', I think Resident Evil 4 and 6 specifically before I even begin to think of the original trilogy. With that said, where do you guys and gals stand? Do you prefer the original games, or are you more in to the newer games? Am I still the only person I know who genuinely likes the new over the old by a landslide? Let me know~

    Also, please no flame wars. If you flame, I will delete your posts. Let's all be civil here and voice our opinions in a dignified, well reasoned manor. No need for 'this game sucks' or 'fuck that character'. Happy posting~

    One last thing I thought I should mention. Yes, I do like the movies. Yes, I do like them more than the original trilogy.
    #1 Neon Princess, Dec 11, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Eh. Newer games have lost the horror. My heart still belongs in the original trilogy. The last actual game I enjoyed was Resident Evil 4.
  3. Fair enough, but what about the older games do you enjoy more? What about the newer games do you not enjoy? What do you define as 'horror'?
  4. Personally, I like both the newer ones and the older ones. I never really found the older games scary, like at all (Neither do I find the new games scary - but, that's not the point). I don't get why everyone says "they were so scary!" when they were atmospheric, but otherwise cheesy. Though in my opinion the older games had better monsters than the newer games that's for sure.
  5. The only one I cared about was 4.

    The movies, however, are the most abysmal things I have ever seen.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. The less we say about the movies the better.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Interesting. I find the monsters in the newer games to be more creative, but I cant deny the classic zombie style the originals had. Guess im just one for more inventive designs.
  8. You didnt read all of my initial post, did you? I specifically stated to give your opinions in a well written, civil manor. Your statements of the movies are not civil, and only serve to flame them. I personally enjoy the movies, and while its fine that you dont, insulting them and flaming them only makes you look bad as a person. Also, 'abysmal'? Really? Ive seen FAR worse things than those movies by a freaking mile. The movies, to me, are far from being truly abysmal.
  9. Wow, I really must be the only person in the world who enjoys those movies. Anyway, your post was at least more civil than Dervish's.
  10. Mmhmm.
  11. If disagreeing with an opinion isn't civil, then I'm a right anarchist. I wasn't attacking anyone, so you're kind of getting worked up over a bunch of movies that only resemble the games by shoehorning in character cameos and monsters from time to time. If you must know, I didn't like them because they were flimsy excuses to go from one action set piece to the next with a lot of weak narrative threads and paper thin characterizations. When Umbrella has apparently killed off almost all life on Earth, turning most of it into a desert wasteland (something, I might add, that never ever happened in the games), you need to question exactly what they were planning on doing. At least the games tried to keep the fact they're a greedy corporation in mind, but when you literally murder any potential consumers you have an render your entire planet an inhospitable wasteland where somehow zombies are a bigger cause of deaths than exposure and dehydration, and then you go on to make at least two more movies... it's kind of like nobody knew how to say no to the producers.

    Also, try not to lash out at people who make simple disagreements with you. "Smiting" my post because it didn't align with your tastes and didn't contribute to whatever discussion you wanted to have is kind of amusing and silly, especially if you expect people to want to engage in civil discourse.

  12. I think the monsters have gotten too Dead Space-y.
  13. I wasnt getting worked up. I simply wanted a proper explanation, and now you've given one. Im satisfied, even if I disagree with your views on the movies. Me personally, im a sucker for action flicks and I dont really mind that the movies differ from the games. While I dont enjoy the movie portrayals of Chris, Leon, Jill, Wesker and so on, I can look past them with the mindset of 'I still have my video game variants that I can latch on to and picture in these roles.' As for Umbrellas plan and its illogical nature, I didnt mind that either, primarily because I didnt really care about Umbrella's logic. I dont watch action movies or play video games for logic. I do those things to be entertained, and the movies were certainly entertaining to me. They even gave me my favorite Resident Evil character in Alice Abernathy. Is she stereotypical? Yeah, but I agree a lot with her mindset and I was genuinely intrigued by her being cloned and such. That and she wrecks so much ass I cant help but find her bad ass. Im also a sucker for Milla Jovovich in general, though. The woman is gorgeous.

    As for the smite thing, I didnt read what the 'thumbs down' button was, so I assumed it was a simple dislike. I will change it, now that I know to read all of those little symbols before clicking. My apologies.
  14. Fair point. They do resemble Necromorphs, but I would prefer these more inventive 'Dead Space-y' designs to the old, in my opinion generic monster types of the older games. Im also a fan of the Dead Space series, so there may be a bit of bias there. Not quite sure.
  15. I liked the Trilogy and 4

    Hated 5 and 6 for a reason I can only say as this. To me, they didn't feel like the Resident Evil franchise and like they were breaking off drastically to something new that had nothing to do with Resident Evil besides Characters. I mean, I played both 5 and 6 and beat them and for just an action game of shooting things, they were fun. I just don't think they fit the Resident Evil franchise name.

    The movies, I'm just neutral on.
  16. Oh, don't get me wrong, I like cheesy action movies a lot (I love Underworld, for instance... save for that 4th movie where all the budget must have went to the director's cocaine stash), and I think the RE movies would have been a lot better off if they weren't tied into the franchise because either they try to do too much fan service or they completely ignore the basic lore of the game series, which is a baffling thing to try in the adaptations. I've watched those animated movies, and they do a great job keeping consistent with the universe and introducing established characters.

    But yeah, it's totally fine to like the movies! I just objectively couldn't enjoy them, even for the action sequences, which mostly has to do that Alice is effectively untouchable by most things which robs it of any suspense and it's basically the big bads that are a threat to her, but even then I found a lot of her powers to be really friggin' odd, considering that basically everyone with supernatural powers is infected by some kind of virus and it ends up turning them into monsters, and then we basically have Alice in the movies who gets to do a bunch of X-Men stuff with no consequences to herself. I think it was actually the moment in the third movie where she discovered the giant-ass room of cloning vats that I basically gave up hope for the series redeeming itself. I could see it getting into even more ridiculous scenarios of dozens of super powered women destroying the zombie apocalypse.

    I DID mostly like the first movie, and I thought the angle where they kept basically running a simulation with clones (who mostly all died) was kind of neat. For the most part, Alice's powers were a lot more subdued (if I remember right, it was mainly super reflexes and enhanced strength and agility, which would kind of put her in line with early-Wesker... which they apparently decided to kill off in the 5th game after turning him into a goofy monster instead of what Umbrella wanted to achieve with the T virus), so it still played out like a horror film where every encounter was a lot more intimate and close, although I had to laugh at the laser hallway of death that killed off like 90% of the cast in the span of 5 minutes or less.

    And Mila Jovovich is usually fantastic, I do adore her, so even if I didn't like the movies, she was a constant factor that can get me through just about anything. :P

    And don't apologize! If you smite, you smite. Not really a big deal. It's kind of the closest thing to a dislike button, but I think I've done much worse before without getting my good named besmirched, I do say.

    But totally agreed about
  17. I liked almost all of them, #1 was just too short. The chronicles were too contradictory. #5 was too "why so many dang explosives and wtf enenies with guns?" Operation raccoon was too flawed. #6 had the most fluid movement so far and you weren't so reliant on your guns! Though after playing it you realize that the whole world would've quite been hell just because a guy was unhappy about getting rejected. Oh and wtf, Zombies can aim guns now? And don't get me started on the Javo.
    Still fun though.

    And at the least, they briefly brought zombies back.
    But why the Sherry fanservice?
  18. I can see how Resident Evil 5 and 6 wouldnt feel like Resident Evil to a fan of the originals and 4, but my mindset is a bit different. I'll try to explain as best I can.

    In terms of the games not being 'survival horror' anymore, I can understand why. From the characters point of view, they've been at this whole bioterrorism fight for years now. They're obviously not gonna be scared of their enemies anymore, and especially in Chris's case, he joined the BSAA. In the military, especially special forces like the BSAA, you cant afford to be afraid. You have to fight until you die, or they die. From a personal point of view, I never found the series to be 'survival horror' in the first place, so them becoming more action oriented made sense to me, especially given the reasons ive listed above. Now, if the characters went in to hiding or didnt fight back against bioterrorism and tried to avoid it all their lives, I could understand them being scared. As I said though, characters like Leon and Chris especially arent gonna be afraid of anything they come across, so it just makes more sense to me for the games themselves to be less and less scary. Bit of an odd point of view, but I explained it the best I could.

    As for the games not feeling like the Resident Evil franchise, im afraid I dont understand that at all. How do they not? Because they arent survival horror anymore? The games still center around the main cast characters like Leon and Chris, its still made by its creation company Capcom, and they still feature biological outbreaks and zombie-like creatures as storylines. How do they not feel like Resident Evil? I honestly dont understand.
  19. Yeah, I agree on 5 being more like a Michael Bay movie, but I still enjoyed it for what it was. As for 6 and zombies aiming guns, they dont really 'aim'. They just sort of hold the guns and fire without purpose, in random directions. As for the J'Avo, I view them just like I view the Ganados and Majini. They're infected people, not zombies. Just because you're infected, doesnt necessarily mean your basic motor functions and basic human intelligence goes away, so im not shocked at all that they still know how to work firearms.

    As for the Sherry fan service, I didnt mind it. In a hospital gown, that's what you look like. I dont really view it as fan service, more of circumstance.
  20. The fact that Alice had those Wesker-like traits and abilities was also fascinating to me. Usually in a zombie apocalypse scenario, the main character and/or cast are just normal people doing extraordinary things, giving the audience a sort of moral saying 'nothing is impossible' and 'dont give up' and such. Alice having those powers however, made her feats a lot more enjoyable for one, and a lot more believable to me. Some of the things typical zombie movie protagonists do and survive baffle me, seeing as how im a medical student and I know the limits of the human body. Alice having advanced powers via a virus allows me to go 'Yeah, she'd survive that. Might be a bit more damaged or tired in real life, but she'd survive.' Also, Sherry is infected with the virus from Resident Evil 2 and can heal really quickly as seen in Resident Evil 6, another thing I thought was really cool.

    As a medical student, I have actually studied all the info I can find on the G-Virus, T-Virus and C-Virus to see what they'd actually do to people and yeah, if someone had the right dna, antibodies or genetic makeup, they'd end up with all the positives and little to none of the negatives. Bad ass on one hand, but scary as hell in the other.