Resident Evil Complaints Thread

Shrike wrote:

Nobudy wrote:

Man you sound like RE1 was perfect. I'll admit, as much as I liked 1, it wasn't perfect. Same goes for the rest of the series. Backtracking should be an option, but it shouldn't be forced. After playing RE1 and 2 so many times, I've realized that you pickup all these items just to get 2-4 items that allow you to leave. It's pretty clever, but as I said before, I feel that it was cheap way to make the game longer just like RE6's "Kill all enemies" or "Hold out for X".

Backtracking isn't a cheap way to make the game longer, it's very clever way to make it longer. It actually requires a lot of thought to make it balanced and interesting when you go back the way you came because there were some doors left unopened and some items unused as opposed to just running strait and be like: "whatever, we'll just make a new random room which will do everything we need." which is a by far a worse approach. Even in RE4 you had backtracking and it was effective.

Nobudy wrote:

Ssplain wrote:

As for RE1 if you could just go straight through the mansion, well that would not have been a game at all.

Heh. There's a YouTube video for that. It's called "How to beat RE1 in six minutes" or something like that.

Just watched it. It just shows you how clever the game is made, and just makes the game more awesome.

I think I made it clear that it was a clever move. It was still annoying in some parts though. Then again, all RE games have their annoying parts from 0's no item boxes to 6's forced walking sections and "Kill all enemies" especially during No Hope. Opinions are opinions.

Being forced to be stuck in an area is lame. It was lame in ORC, which is part of the reason I didn't finish the game, thanks Spec Ops, and it was the reason I didn't really dig Devil May Cry. I don't want to walk into a room and spend 5+ mins. hack 'n' slashing enemies to proceed in the game. Same goes to stupid Spec Ops in ORC.

Co-op ruined Resident Evil.

How right you are! Coop has no place in the main games. Save that junk for extra modes such as mercenaries and raid. It is actually fun there and does not ruin gameplay. Still have the single player option even for these modes of course.

Exactly, the campaign should be a single player experience. When you add someone to the fold, it eleminates the horror element. You don't have to worry ablut dying because your partner can heal you. Your partner can share ammo. Your partner can provide extra firepower, and cover you while you reload. It's ridiculous.

Vandal wrote:

Co-op ruined Resident Evil.

So much this.

You get panicky moments, but that normally involves near death of a partner. I like it when people get separated like in RE4, but I prefer that there are no partners at all.

That's my kind of talk, Meth.

Vandal wrote:

Co-op ruined Resident Evil.

Damn straight, even though I will admit that I had fun playing co-op on RE5 with my friend when we played through the entire campaign last week.

I too had fun with my brother, it just didn't feel like a Resident Evil game at all.

Vandal wrote:

I too had fun with my brother, it just didn't feel like a Resident Evil game at all.

That's exactly how it felt to me as well, especially when it got to the boss fight on the boat where you had to use turrets.

Sargent D wrote:

Vandal wrote:

I too had fun with my brother, it just didn't feel like a Resident Evil game at all.

That's exactly how it felt to me as well, especially when it got to the boss fight on the boat where you had to use turrets.

That was basically Gears of War with bad controls.

To me that was just a bigger version of Leon on a creaky boat with nothing but harpoons. It seemed like Capcom really didn't know what to do or where to go with Resident Evil 5.

Vandal wrote:

Co-op ruined Resident Evil.

It would make sense for Chris' games to have coop since he's part of an "army" like organization dedicated to fighting B.O.W.S. And I don't think they would be stupid enough to go alone. As for Leon, Sherry, and Ada's organizations, it'd make more sense to not have coop unless things got too hot to handle alone. Plus, I'm sure the horror element was pretty much gone since RE4 ch5. In-universe, I'm sure 15 years of fighting would change these guys. Though, if this was the real world, they'd all be dead by now.

Nobudy wrote:

Vandal wrote:

Co-op ruined Resident Evil.

It would make sense for Chris' games to have coop since he's part of an "army" like organization dedicated to fighting B.O.W.S. And I don't think they would be stupid enough to go alone. As for Leon, Sherry, and Ada's organizations, it'd make more sense to not have coop unless things got too hot to handle alone. Plus, I'm sure the horror element was pretty much gone since RE4 ch5. In-universe, I'm sure 15 years of fighting would change these guys. Though, if this was the real world, they'd all be dead by now.

Sure Chris has a team, but he isn't on duty 24/7 and he can also lose his friends before the game even starts. So yeah, BSAA members can find themselves surrounded by horror easily if only Capcom didn't make them fearless soldiers of doom who shit on every BOW they come across. But I totally agree that 15 years of fighting had to make them so (not realistic but in game standards) so I dunno how will Capcom proceed with the franchise.

Shrike wrote:

Nobudy wrote:

Vandal wrote:

Co-op ruined Resident Evil.

It would make sense for Chris' games to have coop since he's part of an "army" like organization dedicated to fighting B.O.W.S. And I don't think they would be stupid enough to go alone. As for Leon, Sherry, and Ada's organizations, it'd make more sense to not have coop unless things got too hot to handle alone. Plus, I'm sure the horror element was pretty much gone since RE4 ch5. In-universe, I'm sure 15 years of fighting would change these guys. Though, if this was the real world, they'd all be dead by now.

Sure Chris has a team, but he isn't on duty 24/7 and he can also lose his friends before the game even starts. So yeah, BSAA members can find themselves surrounded by horror easily if only Capcom didn't make them fearless soldiers of doom who shit on every BOW they come across. But I totally agree that 15 years of fighting had to make them so (not realistic but in game standards) so I dunno how will Capcom proceed with the franchise.

Maybe the reason the "horror's gone" is because you've all grown up. Back then, you might have been freaked out while playing the originals, but that's because you were kids. I started the series when I was 13 so that explains why the supposed "horror" moments were rather intense rather than "scary.

Regardless of age, I still am terrified to walk past the windows in RE2 where the arms come out!
I even know it is coming . And that stupid magic mirror!

Sure, multiplayer isn't the sole reason why the horror is gone, but it sure does relieve a lot of pressure. When your health constantly regenerates and when you have more rounds to tripple a zombie's weight in smolten hot lead, yeah: you become unstoppable.

It's that single moment in the back of your mind that says "you might not make it" that defines the horror genre to me. In Re5 and Re6, I could have beaten those games in a coma.

Nobudy wrote:

Maybe the reason the "horror's gone" is because you've all grown up. Back then, you might have been freaked out while playing the originals, but that's because you were kids. I started the series when I was 13 so that explains why the supposed "horror" moments were rather intense rather than "scary.

Nope. I was hardly ever "afraid" of a RE game, but the tension was there and it could easily happen now if the game is good enough. You are very wrong to assume that the horror aspect lies in being scared. It's the atmosphere generally. The music, the creepy sounds, the puzzles, the environment, the monsters hiding behind the corner and a stalking Nemesis. Those are much more of a factor than fear. The overall atmosphere which is given by reading files and seeing the despair of those people who wrote it (oh god I love the files or RE 1 2 3 and CV). It's sad to say, but those 2D graphics showed the tragedy of an outbreak much, much better than any of the newer titles ever came close to doing so. The horror is also the feeling on unease and not wanting to open the door because you know *he* is just in front of it. When I mention Nemesis, even today, when I can almost play the game blindfolded, I have a feeling of unease knowing he can one shot me if I drop on Caution (I always play the Hard mode). If he catches me somewhere where I don't have the time to get up before he picks me up again, it's gg (rooms with small space and he throws me into the wall and just picks me up again). There isn't any of that in 4, and especially not in 5 and 6. It's just annoying as fuck when you get killed by a random Majini with a crossbow from wherever and it isn't "scary" at all. No feeling of "oh fuck, I hope he doesn't catch me here", just "fuck the fuck off your moronic braindead mustache wearing bastard" or whatever. When playing, for example, CV and you encounter those Hunters (and you haven's saved for quite some time) you are like "fuck fuck fuck pleeeease let me survive this shit". And there isn't any of that in the new games.

However, Resident Evil 4 HAS the horror atmosphere that 5 and 6 completely lack. The village and the castle were great. They had that eerie creepy feeling of something old and forgotten, if nothing else. Those rural woods and the monster in the lake... yeah, RE4 definitely had the horror to an extent.

Shrike wrote:

Nobudy wrote:

Maybe the reason the "horror's gone" is because you've all grown up. Back then, you might have been freaked out while playing the originals, but that's because you were kids. I started the series when I was 13 so that explains why the supposed "horror" moments were rather intense rather than "scary.

Nope. I was hardly ever "afraid" of a RE game, but the tension was there and it could easily happen now if the game is good enough. You are very wrong to assume that the horror aspect lies in being scared. It's the atmosphere generally. The music, the creepy sounds, the puzzles, the environment, the monsters hiding behind the corner and a stalking Nemesis. Those are much more of a factor than fear. The overall atmosphere which is given by reading files and seeing the despair of those people who wrote it (oh god I love the files or RE 1 2 3 and CV). It's sad to say, but those 2D graphics showed the tragedy of an outbreak much, much better than any of the newer titles ever came close to doing so. The horror is also the feeling on unease and not wanting to open the door because you know *he* is just in front of it. When I mention Nemesis, even today, when I can almost play the game blindfolded, I have a feeling of unease knowing he can one shot me if I drop on Caution (I always play the Hard mode). If he catches me somewhere where I don't have the time to get up before he picks me up again, it's gg (rooms with small space and he throws me into the wall and just picks me up again). There isn't any of that in 4, and especially not in 5 and 6. It's just annoying as fuck when you get killed by a random Majini with a crossbow from wherever and it isn't "scary" at all. No feeling of "oh fuck, I hope he doesn't catch me here", just "fuck the fuck off your moronic braindead mustache wearing bastard" or whatever. When playing, for example, CV and you encounter those Hunters (and you haven's saved for quite some time) you are like "fuck fuck fuck pleeeease let me survive this shit". And there isn't any of that in the new games.

However, Resident Evil 4 HAS the horror atmosphere that 5 and 6 completely lack. The village and the castle were great. They had that eerie creepy feeling of something old and forgotten, if nothing else. Those rural woods and the monster in the lake... yeah, RE4 definitely had the horror to an extent.

A horror moment for me during 4 was the fact that you were injected with a parasite that'll strip you of your freewill. And it would have had it not been for a scientist betraying his boss. I guess an in-universe explanation is because the characters throw themselves in an outbreak, therefore, are smart enough to prepare. An out-universe explanation is because Capcom continues to reuse veterans. As I mentioned in another thread, In order to maintain the horror aspect(s), they need to use new characters that aren't trained to fight B.O.Ws (Claire doesn't count because she still possibly gets some training from Chris). However, as long as Leon, Chris, Ada, and maybe Jake are cash-cows, I doubt Capcom would go the survival-horror route. But who knows? They tried something new with RE6, maybe they'll do so with 7.

I am sure many will disagree with me on this, but in re6 I did not like the unpromted melee attacks. You could make it through most of the game just kicking and punching away. I understand that it makes perfect sense that all of these characters possess these capabilities. Yea the stamina bar did a little bit, but really I could just run around throwing fist and feet while lol'ing at most enemies.

It makes sense it just did not do anything for the game in my opinion. It only made me want to run at my enemies instead of away.

I doubt anyone will disagree with that bro. It made the game absolutely ridiculous. All you needed was a sword and game could very well be named Devil May Evil.

Nobudy wrote:

A horror moment for me during 4 was the fact that you were injected with a parasite that'll strip you of your freewill. And it would have had it not been for a scientist betraying his boss. I guess an in-universe explanation is because the characters throw themselves in an outbreak, therefore, are smart enough to prepare. An out-universe explanation is because Capcom continues to reuse veterans. As I mentioned in another thread, In order to maintain the horror aspect(s), they need to use new characters that aren't trained to fight B.O.Ws (Claire doesn't count because she still possibly gets some training from Chris). However, as long as Leon, Chris, Ada, and maybe Jake are cash-cows, I doubt Capcom would go the survival-horror route. But who knows? They tried something new with RE6, maybe they'll do so with 7.

Yeah, except that I felt nothing when I was injected with that shit. Leon and Ashley just stepped into the machine, pulled it out in a few seconds and walked away. This is RE, there should be more dire consequences.

I'd still like Claire in the next RE. We will see, maybe we get a new character. Even though I dislike it, maybe it's time to move on. I wouldn't want anyone from RE6 returning bar maybe Jake (as an NPC).

I'm not expecting the next RE game to come out until 2015 or 2016 possibly to celebrate the series' 20th anniversary. So, it would be plausible to bring someone new. I could imagine Claire being the protagonist with Leon being her partner. They finally meet up during a normal circumstance when an outbreak pops out of nowhere (RE3 feel for me). The second campaign (solo) if any should involve a new character. If RE7 does include multiple scenarios, I hope they intersect. I liked it in 2 (Even though they were reduced to cutscenes), 4 (again cutscenes), and 6. I don't know why, but I just like crossovers that much.

Nobudy wrote:

I'm not expecting the next RE game to come out until 2015 or 2016 possibly to celebrate the series' 20th anniversary. So, it would be plausible to bring someone new. I could imagine Claire being the protagonist with Leon being her partner. They finally meet up during a normal circumstance when an outbreak pops out of nowhere (RE3 feel for me). The second campaign (solo) if any should involve a new character. If RE7 does include multiple scenarios, I hope they intersect. I liked it in 2 (Even though they were reduced to cutscenes), 4 (again cutscenes), and 6. I don't know why, but I just like crossovers that much.

I thought I liked the fact that there were four campaigns in RE6, but it made me realize I'd rather have one good campaign than four games that make you want to reach under the couch for the nearest 12 gauge to paint the ceiling with your brains.

Quality over quantity.

Vandal wrote:

Nobudy wrote:

I'm not expecting the next RE game to come out until 2015 or 2016 possibly to celebrate the series' 20th anniversary. So, it would be plausible to bring someone new. I could imagine Claire being the protagonist with Leon being her partner. They finally meet up during a normal circumstance when an outbreak pops out of nowhere (RE3 feel for me). The second campaign (solo) if any should involve a new character. If RE7 does include multiple scenarios, I hope they intersect. I liked it in 2 (Even though they were reduced to cutscenes), 4 (again cutscenes), and 6. I don't know why, but I just like crossovers that much.

I thought I liked the fact that there were four campaigns in RE6, but it made me realize I'd rather have one good campaign than four games that make you want to reach under the couch for the nearest 12 gauge to paint the ceiling with your brains.

Quality over quantity.

I never had too much of a problem with the story, but it was the fact that it had more idiot ball moments than the rest of the series such as Chris or anyone on his team shooting Carla Ada despite given the chance multiple times. However, one of those times involved Leon's stupid "love" for Ada.

People want backtracking back? Jesus Christ no! It's the most artificial way to elongate a game if I've ever seen any. I'm okay with it if it's optional but it sucks balls when it's forced. If optional, it makes the game feel more free. If forced, it's just a lazy way to make the game longer when that time running around being lost could have been filled with actual plot development and whatnot. It's excusable in the old games because they are, well, old. In today's standards being forced to backtrack would break the game's flow, even if some random enemies had spawned there.