Why saying "RE5 copied RE4" is a terrible argument

I want to get a good discussion going for this. I don't give a damn if you liked the newer series or not, that's not the point of this thread at all. I want to know how many people actually think RE5 copied RE4 in everything it did and how many people would call bullshit on that. As it is the 20th anniversary of the series there's been a lot of buzz online around the series and more and more I keep seeing people reminiscing how great and unique each and every single release in the franchise was before RE4. Which is also bullshit. Now that I have everyone riled up let me get to my case.

First of all, I love every entry in the series and everyone here most likely already knows that. I'm not trying to defend one over the other or badmouthing something because it would be my opinion. All of this is as objective as I can make it. Now, the hard proof why everyone saying the earlier entries in the series did things so much better than any of the newer ones are wrong. And again I feel the need to emphasize that this is in no way about opinions. The proof? Numbers. RE5 and RE6 are the best selling entries in the entire franchise, though one could argue that RE4 has sold better with its two trillion ports. They'd probably be right, too. RE6 might have gone below sales expectations but it still sold very well (same goes for ORC). What does this mean to Capcom, a company that is not run with smiles and rainbows but with cold, hard cash? It means that games like this sell. A lot. REmake may have sold well, which is why we got RE0 (later the same would happen with their HD ports) but they didn't sell enough, not even close to what RE4 and onwards achieved. For a company that is trying to keep its employees happy and so that no one needs to be fired, cash is the only way to move forwards. Only bankruptcy awaits those who don't listen to the market. And yes, "classic" RE is a niche on today's market. Like it or not, RE4 onwards are games people love. Someone who hated them wouldn't buy three re-releases of a game.

Now to my actual argument on why saying "RE5/6 copied RE4" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. The reason? RE2 and RE3 already did the same with RE1. "But Mass, those games were way better than the newer ones, are you dense?" Maybe so but no, I'm not. I do prefer RE3 over the newer ones as well. But you know what that is? An opinion, thus not relevant. At all. I'm sure none here would be stupid enough to use that as an argument but I'm just reflecting on the dozen arguments I've already had on the subject. RE5 used many of the same enemies and the same gameplay as RE4, that is definitely true. It also added co-op, which was a big step in its time (a step many loved), and it gave us a grand finale to a very big story arc. Could they have done it better? Maybe, but that's not the point. RE6 on the other hand completely redid the gameplay and, well, felt like an entirely different game to its predecessors. Guess why it was so different and exactly the way you hate it right now? Because people bitched how "similar" RE5 was to RE4. Well done.

Thus far I've only managed to admit that RE5 did indeed copy things from RE4. How is this helping me in any way? I'm getting to it. Ahem... Now, look at RE1-3. What is the gameplay like? The inventory? The camera? Exactly the same in each? My, what a surprise! But don't tell me... They reused the enemy types? Like, zombies and hunters and tyrants and weird ugly bug things? Oh... Hell, RE3 even used the same locales and assets as RE2.

So, the next time you feel like complaining how these newer games are carbon copies of each other, please, pull your head out of your ass and actually look at things like they are.

"Now why do I still feel that the older games were way better?" Because that's your opinion.

RE5 was more arcade-like than RE4 in that it moves forward based on segments or "chapters", RE4 was similar, but the naming of sections as "chapters" was almost irrelevant (backtracking was still possible, unlike a majority of 5). 5 also started to simplify the bigger aspects of RE such as inventory and combat. 5 also had turret segments.

As for the classic RE, they remained largely the same, but while improving what was done previously: V/O's, CGI, Inventory (In RE3, you can INCREASE your inventory to 10 slots), Depth of Story (or even alternate Storylines), weapons, controls, enemy variety, etc...

Mass Distraction wrote:

Hell, RE3 even used the same locales and assets as RE2.

To be fair, RE3 had only one location in common with RE2.

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Hell, RE3 even used the same locales and assets as RE2.

To be fair, RE3 had only one location in common with RE2.

I'm with Ghost in this one, besides remember the little time between the releases of RE2 and RE3, it was even in the same hardware. RE4 and RE5 had +4 years in between and the first time I played 5 I remember thinking that it had the same "gimmicks" (despise the term but can't think of a better atm) you know like:

-enemies dropping ammo and items
-same basic enemies movements
-a chainsaw enemy,
-gigantes (and they even ruined that for me, since they are turrets sections )

That's what I find in common between this two games that kinda bothered me at the time, RE5 is still good on its own. I'm glad you brought this topic now and not some years back when everyone just put RE5 above 4 just because they were Chris fanboys and Leon haters. To me they are both in the same level in good and bad things.

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Hell, RE3 even used the same locales and assets as RE2.

To be fair, RE3 had only one location in common with RE2.

True, but it's still more than any other game in the series, if you don't count Mercenaries and Raid maps.

PAULSAMSON wrote:

I'm with Ghost in this one, besides remember the little time between the releases of RE2 and RE3, it was even in the same hardware.

I'll give you that one, though one has to remember that while there may have been little time between the games RE2 was in development way before 3 was but got almost completely redone, which postponed the release. Anyway, since the RE3 we have now was in development at the same time and was originally a spinoff, thus we never got the "real" RE3 which got cancelled, we can overlook the similarities in that one.

PAULSAMSON wrote:

RE4 and RE5 had +4 years in between and the first time I played 5 I remember thinking that it had the same "gimmicks" (despise the term but can't think of a better atm) you know like:

-enemies dropping ammo and items
-same basic enemies movements
-a chainsaw enemy,
-gigantes (and they even ruined that for me, since they are turrets sections )

There was 4 years in between RE1 and Code:Veronica, yet CV still used hunters, zombies and a tyrant as enemies. There even was that gigantic earth worm, very similar to RE3's Gravedigger. Furthermore, the enemies still moved the same. Hunters dodge and leap, zombies shuffle, grab and lunge, tyrant is still left handed and uses giant swipes. The gameplay was pretty much the same too, with item puzzles, backtracking, fixed cameras, inventory system, item boxes etc. Pretty much the only things that changed were new enemy types (which RE5 had too) and 3D backgrounds instead of pre rendered. You have to also remember that even though the Majini moved and attacked in pretty much the same ways as Ganados in RE4 they still had many new twists to them. It took 6 years for a basic zombie to evolve into a Crimson Head, if you don't count the small changes of vomiting, being fat and sometimes being faster (and in Gaiden's case holding a crowbar and being poisonous (though that's not canon)).

Btw. I'm pretty sure RE5 would get just as much, if not even more hate had it been released closer to RE4. Then again, maybe we'd have a completely different game altogether.

Mass Distraction wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Hell, RE3 even used the same locales and assets as RE2.

To be fair, RE3 had only one location in common with RE2.

True, but it's still more than any other game in the series, if you don't count Mercenaries and Raid maps.

RE0 actually retreads more ground than RE3, since you explored a fairly large swath of the underground laboratory as opposed to RE3's linear trip through a few halls and rooms. And then there was Outbreak, the Chronicles games, and ORC.

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Hell, RE3 even used the same locales and assets as RE2.

To be fair, RE3 had only one location in common with RE2.

True, but it's still more than any other game in the series, if you don't count Mercenaries and Raid maps.

RE0 actually retreads more ground than RE3, since you explored a fairly large swath of the underground laboratory as opposed to RE3's linear trip through a few halls and rooms. And then there was Outbreak, the Chronicles games, and ORC.

That is true, yes, but I left them intentionally out because they all had remade visuals, as opposed to RE3s RPD part. The other reason was that I tried to keep this just between main titles, as the spinoffs featuring these locations are mostly throwbacks to these exact events. Otherwise I could just have said "REmake had the same location as RE1", though that's maybe a bit too extreme of an example since that is the point of a remake.

One of the reasons that the enemies and such are consistently used throughout the first few games is that they are all set in raccoon city or are products of umbrella, although the el gigante in re5 is expected since plagas were used, i found the chainsaw and mini gun guys to be pretty lazy in design. Truth be told though the only thing that really bothered me about 5 was sheva.

JamTyrantH wrote:

i found the chainsaw and mini gun guys to be pretty lazy in design.

The minigun isn't that far fetched. It may have been used in RE4 but in RE5 you were in a military compound filled with heavy weaponry. A minigun in such a place isn't that out of place. As for the chainsaw enemies... Yeah, I've got nothing. After having a "saw" enemy in 4 consecutive titles (RE4/5/6/R) it's gone way beyond just a coincidence. It's not like these creatures are intentionally made to have a chainsaw in their arms. The one hit kills are rather annoying, too. From sheer game mechanism perspective though, they aren't any different from hunters (in that they are a tough enemy variation that appears in multiple titles, not in how they actually work).

JamTyrantH wrote:

Truth be told though the only thing that really bothered me about 5 was sheva.

You do mean the AI, right? Unless you actually didn't like the character itself.

I think I remember someone saying that RE5 is a copy of RE4, and it was pretty dumb. I can't remember exactly what they said, but it was along the lines of ‘Wah wah, the older is better than the new ones just because! RE5 sucks just because.’ It was just...ugh...

Mass Distraction wrote:

The minigun isn't that far fetched. It may have been used in RE4 but in RE5 you were in a military compound filled with heavy weaponry. A minigun in such a place isn't that out of place.

Yeah, it actually is far fetched, at least outside the instances where it's mounted. The idea of a minigun as a man-portable weapon was born from the film Predator and is as absurd as the movie is OTT. The gun itself is relatively light (for a machine gun with six barrels, that is), but there are many other factors.

First is the fact that its externally-powered, requiring batteries to power it. Its not self-operating like an auto-loading firearm. A couple of batteries with sufficient amperage to run it would need to be carried at all times and will weigh close to 200 pounds.

Second is ammunition requirements. Miniguns are usually set at around 3,000 rounds per minute, with the typical ammo reserve being a 4,000 round belt. That 4,000 rounds of 7.62 NATO will weigh in excess of 300 pounds and will last all of about 90 seconds.

Then there's the recoil, the force of which would knock even a big guy on his ass.

So no, a minigun being toted around and fired on foot isn't just far fetched, it's absurd.

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

The minigun isn't that far fetched. It may have been used in RE4 but in RE5 you were in a military compound filled with heavy weaponry. A minigun in such a place isn't that out of place.

Yeah, it actually is far fetched, at least outside the instances where it's mounted. The idea of a minigun as a man-portable weapon was born from the film Predator and is as absurd as the movie is OTT. The gun itself is relatively light (for a machine gun with six barrels, that is), but there are many other factors.

First is the fact that its externally-powered, requiring batteries to power it. Its not self-operating like an auto-loading firearm. A couple of batteries with sufficient amperage to run it would need to be carried at all times and will weigh close to 200 pounds.

Second is ammunition requirements. Miniguns are usually set at around 3,000 rounds per minute, with the typical ammo reserve being a 4,000 round belt. That 4,000 rounds of 7.62 NATO will weigh in excess of 300 pounds and will last all of about 90 seconds.

Then there's the recoil, the force of which would knock even a big guy on his ass.

So no, a minigun being toted around and fired on foot isn't just far fetched, it's absurd.

Have you seen Chris's arms? They could launch someone to the moon with no issue, why can't he use one of these?

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

The minigun isn't that far fetched. It may have been used in RE4 but in RE5 you were in a military compound filled with heavy weaponry. A minigun in such a place isn't that out of place.

Yeah, it actually is far fetched, at least outside the instances where it's mounted. The idea of a minigun as a man-portable weapon was born from the film Predator and is as absurd as the movie is OTT. The gun itself is relatively light (for a machine gun with six barrels, that is), but there are many other factors.

[Many factors]

Many of the things in the series are far fetched. I meant considering where they are located. It would be just as absurd in RE4 realistically looking (and this thread was about "copied" elements), just like Birkin's ability to grow mass infinitely from basically nothing and a rocket launcher taking as much space as a green twig, albeit the latter is just a game mechanic.

I just generally hate the character, there is nothing i like about her.

An honest opinion, I like that. Much better than just hating on a character because you'd hate the AI (which is a dumb excuse since the AI also applies to Chris).

Honestly I was never bothered by the Resident Evil games reusing assets. It's not like Silent Hill where I just face-palm every time I see Pyramid Head outside of SH2 in any shape or form. So even though I hated RE5 and 6, it does seem rather silly when I hear people talk about how they're retreads of RE4.

Of course I wont ignore laziness (which this series is no stranger to).

Every video game is basically the same thing except with new features or removed features. Every RE game from 2 to CV were basically the same as 1 but with some things shifted just as 4-present is.

Just like how every GTA from 3 onward still play similarly with just some changes here and there.

Some stuff is similar, but then again, you could say Zero copied the remake, and so on. Of course there's gonna be loads of comparisons. But RE4 is heaps cooler than RE5. I still prefer the old RE games, but RE4 was a nice diversion at the time. Now I rarely bother with it.