Support NeoGAF

[TheInfamousKira]

*****Spoilers for Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 4: REmake. ****




So, before I start, second disclaimer: I love Resident Evil 4. It was the first RE game I played, it got me interested enough to try and fall in love with all the other main entries. I also love RE4R. Actually just finished my first playthrough last week because I was taking so much time exploring and experimenting and enjoying scenery. This isn't a bait topic, nor is it one discussing which iteration of RE4 is t3h goatest of awl times bahhhhhhh.

Now, the point of the thread: Pre-release, every preview, review, back door Demo invite, postcard, whatever released for the remake of RE4 was absolutely gushing. Things that stuck out to me as selling points were the claims that it's the most "skill intensive," or "moment to moment engaging," entry in the series. But alongside all of the praise, came what felt to me like an agreed upon behind the scenes journo decision to elevate the game to the originals detriment. As an attempted observant consumer, this is the first time I've ever seen this particular marketing tack in regards to a remake of a beloved title.

It's subtle, but there's lots of slamming the originals' graphics, enemy AI, ignoring the fact that the original was designed on GameCube hardware, erroneously referring to it as a PS2 title (when the PS2 port was INFAMOUS for looking like someone smeared Vaseline on a camera and then recorded a TV set of someone playing the game on the GCN. Just weird disingenuous (or worse yet, poorly researched) stuff.

For a direct comparison, look at how the marketing ran for the remake of Resident Evil 2, less than a decade ago. The original game (by contemporary standards) looks, controls, plays, and has performances that were molded from gorilla feces. The PS1 to PS4 felt like a bigger leap than the GCN to the PS5 (PS4, let's be honest, cross gen bros) but the original game, even the laughable and campy bits are revered in the reviews of it's remake that mention it's Origins as a PS1 title. Again, not slamming or praising any game mentioned, it's just a weird shift to observe.

But then it gets stranger: Reviews and hands on reports, etc mention just absolutely REDUNDANT nonsense. Here's a few of my favorite bits I've heard about why RE4R trounces RE4:

- You get an item box. Nevermind the fact that the case was made to replace the item box initially, but fuck it, why feel pressure in your choices on the field?

- The game is A LOT MORE tense because it gets dark way earlier and most of the game is in Spooky night time! ....despite the transition to nightfall being in the exact same place as the original.

- There's now a loot system! ...just Like in 2005.

- Ashley is WAYYY less annoying now! - Except her gameplay segments are basically 1:1 with the original and everyone I've seen on earth has murdered her accidentally at least once.

- The island segment is shortened and flows SO MUCH BETTER. ....they took out U3. That's literally all the fuck they changed. That and nerfing J.J. Oh, they got rid of the vehicle segment and the crane, too. It's like exactly the same shit with all of the gameplay variation removed. Fight > hallway > fight > hallway probably does flow better, but like, the point of this mountain of text is...

They're praising this game for doing shit that the original did. Wholesale. And At the same time, they're like....BOY, I'M GLAD THE REMAKE DID ALL THE THINGS THE ORIGINAL DID BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL SUCKED, BUT IT WAS ALSO A CLASSIC just...gives me this 17 year old dreadlocked white teenager wearing a Zeppelin shirt vibe. Have we reached the point where people who never played games are writing legacy pieces about them? Is this just the agreed upon strategy in 2023 decided upon in Nathan Grayson's Discord Coalition of Evil? Am I overreacting? Imagining things? Purple?

 

[Neff]

A lot of critics definitely mis-remembered their experiences with the game for the purposes of jumping on the hype bandwagon. Cautiously fawning over their recollections because the fact that it changed third person shooters is impossible to ignore, while also exaggerating its faults to make the new game look good, particularly praising the ability to move and shoot (which I personally don't think adds a whole lot anyway, standing your ground and aiming accurately is still the best strategy).

The original does some things better than the remake. The remake does some things better than the original. They're both incredible games.

 

[MALpractice311]

You can't keep getting (1) early access to preview and review copies and (2) invites to exclusive events, unless you jump on board the hyperbole hype train.

 

[cireza]

It is obviously not that big of a leap compared to the original than RE2/3. They also removed a ton of subtle things, death animations etc...

 

[Cashon]

I am not a journalist. I also played and enjoyed Resident Evil 4 when it first released on GameCube.

It is basically unplayable for me now. I last tried it in September of 2021, on my Series X. The game has not aged well. Maybe you still love it or have nostalgic feelings for it, but if it came out today, for the first time, alongside the remake, most people would not consider the original to be better than the remake.

And they shouldn't.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

I am not a journalist. I also played and enjoyed Resident Evil 4 when it first released on GameCube.

It is basically unplayable for me now. I last tried it in September of 2021, on my Series X. The game has not aged well. Maybe you still love it or have nostalgic feelings for it, but if it came out today, for the first time, alongside the remake, most people would not consider the original to be better than the remake.

And they shouldn't.

Nostalgia definitely plays a role in perception, for sure. Personal taste, too. Things you wouldn't think of, like reflexes. There's a million things that go into someone's tolerance or aversion to things above a certain age. Media ages. But that's kind of my point. Half of it, anyway.

Obviously if the original title released today, with the exact same climate otherwise (devs, big IPs, post COVID, whatever you will) it would be a disaster. But it's not. It's not even competing. So why be like RESIDENT EVIL 4 IS THE RESIDENT EVIL 4 KILLER!!! ? Like, telling me your 2023 game is better than a 2005 game shouldn't be applause worthy, it should be so standard that it would actually take EFFORT to go backwards.

And to go on and say it's this incredible game that trounces OG while stating things that HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN CHANGED from the original just gives me a headache. It's a great game, but the whole rollout made me feel like I'm aging out of the demographic faster than I agreed to.

 

[March Climber]

The game improved upon annoying moments from the original, Capcom let the lore writers connect the entire map in a more coherent way, and they cut the filler. Fans of the original will argue that the filler wasn't filler, but there's very clear padding in the second half of that game that makes the pacing feel slowed and off, compared to the first half that felt greatly paced up until the castle section.

I remember a ton of people complaining about the island in the original. Part of the complaints were because the castle section was way too long and the game felt just about complete after slogging through it. The other complaints were because near the end, the original game turned into a half-assed third person cover shooter with way worse controls than one.

They cut that random village section midway through the castle, and instead put part of it(with the dual chainsaw team) as the introduction to the mine cart section, leading to the bug hive underground. To me this was a better decision and thematically made more sense than the original bug hive location, and it also made more sense to not have a random villager section just for padding purposes. Spending more time with Luis as a result helped you get to know him a little better than just hearing his few one liners in the original.

They cut the lava room. The room is a fun 5 minute experience but thematically dumb and serves no purpose. I'm indifferent towards it being cut.

They cut the one boss that barely anyone remembers. In an alternate scenario, they could have tried to find a way to fit it into the main game, and if I had the choice I would have made this an underground boss near the hive section for you and Luis to fight together as one last hurrah before

Spoiler

he's stabbed in the back by Krauser

They improved the playable Ashley section to be way, way less annoying and more engaging, with added rewards. They also made sure to remove the awful sliding puzzle that made 90% of players grind to a complete halt just to try and figure it out.

Ada's voice acting was worse in the Remake, but hopefully they're working on that because hopefully they're working on the Separate Ways/Assignment Ada Remake DLC(which would be huge considering how much they could improve and add with her remade campaign).

They improved the rewards for the shooting ranges which incentivized players to actually get better with weapons more than the original.

The knife parry is one of the best additions of the game and is considered a game changer.

Because of the knife parry being added, the Krauser fights and some of the other boss fights are way more engaging and memorable.

Regardless of how you take the good and bad, I do think this is one of the best remakes I've played as of late and a fine addition to the RE library.

Obviously if the original title released today, with the exact same climate otherwise (devs, big IPs, post COVID, whatever you will) it would be a disaster. But it's not. It's not even competing. So why be like RESIDENT EVIL 4 IS THE RESIDENT EVIL 4 KILLER!!! ? Like, telling me your 2023 game is better than a 2005 game shouldn't be applause worthy, it should be so standard that it would actually take EFFORT to go backwards.

This is understandable but it also isn't a guarantee. We've seen enough proof lately that people can get remakes wrong, even Capcom with RE 3. Also this forum constantly compares games from the 2000s to today's games either because of nostalgia or to compare features. Sometimes some of the older stuff is so feature-rich that it's for good reason to make these comparisons, because the devs of today sometimes can't even guarantee a split-screen feature right. However at the same time fans will hold games to such a high regard that they think any little thing that was removed or changed for a remake is an overall net negative(Crowbcat) because they see the numbers more than the art. It's a delicate balancing act but I don't blame critiics or fans for making these comparisons. It's for themselves as much as it is for the audience.

 

[Cashon]

Nostalgia definitely plays a role in perception, for sure. Personal taste, too. Things you wouldn't think of, like reflexes. There's a million things that go into someone's tolerance or aversion to things above a certain age. Media ages. But that's kind of my point. Half of it, anyway.

Obviously if the original title released today, with the exact same climate otherwise (devs, big IPs, post COVID, whatever you will) it would be a disaster. But it's not. It's not even competing. So why be like RESIDENT EVIL 4 IS THE RESIDENT EVIL 4 KILLER!!! ? Like, telling me your 2023 game is better than a 2005 game shouldn't be applause worthy, it should be so standard that it would actually take EFFORT to go backwards.

And to go on and say it's this incredible game that trounces OG while stating things that HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN CHANGED from the original just gives me a headache. It's a great game, but the whole rollout made me feel like I'm aging out of the demographic faster than I agreed to.

I agree with you, in general. Modern games, especially remakes, should just naturally be assumed to be better. The comparison should only really be made if the remake is actually worse than the original.

For Resident Evil 4, however, I'm not sure I mind the comparisons. A lot of people, on forums, YouTube, news sites and blogs, would still say that Resident Evil 4 was still one of the best games of all time, as recently as earlier this year. It's clearly not. I think the remake, and the corresponding comparisons, might help put that claim to bed once and for all.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

The game improved upon annoying moments from the original, Capcom let the lore writers connect the entire map in a more coherent way, and they cut the filler. Fans of the original will argue that the filler wasn't filler, but there's very clear padding in the second half of that game that makes the pacing feel slowed and off, compared to the first half that felt greatly paced up until the castle section.

I remember a ton of people complaining about the island in the original. Part of the complaints were because the castle section was way too long and the game felt just about complete after slogging through it. The other complaints were because near the end, the original game turned into a half-assed third person cover shooter with way worse controls than one.

They cut that random village section midway through the castle, and instead put part of it(with the dual chainsaw team) as the introduction to the mine cart section, leading to the bug hive underground. To me this was a better decision and thematically made more sense than the original bug hive location, and it also made more sense to not have a random villager section just for padding purposes. Spending more time with Luis as a result helped you get to know him a little better than just hearing his few one liners in the original.

They cut the lava room. The room is a fun 5 minute experience but thematically dumb and serves no purpose. I'm indifferent towards it being cut.

They cut the one boss that barely anyone remembers. In an alternate scenario, they could have tried to find a way to fit it into the main game, and if I had the choice I would have made this an underground boss near the hive section for you and Luis to fight together as one last hurrah before

Spoiler

he's stabbed in the back by Krauser

They improved the playable Ashley section to be way, way less annoying and more engaging, with added rewards. They also made sure to remove the awful sliding puzzle that made 90% of players grind to a complete halt just to try and figure it out.

Ada's voice acting was worse in the Remake, but hopefully they're working on that because hopefully they're working on the Separate Ways/Assignment Ada Remake DLC(which would be huge considering how much they could improve and add with her remade campaign).

They improved the rewards for the shooting ranges which incentivized players to actually get better with weapons more than the original.

The knife parry is one of the best additions of the game and is considered a game changer.

Because of the knife parry being added, the Krauser fights and some of the other boss fights are way more engaging and memorable.

Regardless of how you take the good and bad, I do think this is one of the best remakes I've played as of late and a fine addition to the RE library.

Yeah, for sure. It's my goty barring FFXVI cleaning house. And like you said, they haven't really REMOVED much of anything, pound for pound, anyway. That is to say, Anything that was taken out was replaced by a new sequence of some sort, though I feel there were some...tonal choices in level design that were weird. Like, if you're going to take out the lava room and the crane room because it's too arcadey then why am I manipulating sun and moon gates in the Castle like some kind of app store puzzle shooter? I mean, the gameplay of the game is great, so they could have the player do almost anything and it would be fun, but I'd like to see the internal company rubric for what was considered too superfluous to include.

But yeah, remake took me about as long as to complete on a first run as the original, so the content was there.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

I agree with you, in general. Modern games, especially remakes, should just naturally be assumed to be better. The comparison should only really be made if the remake is actually worse than the original.

For Resident Evil 4, however, I'm not sure I mind the comparisons. A lot of people, on forums, YouTube, news sites and blogs, would still say that Resident Evil 4 was still one of the best games of all time, as recently as earlier this year. It's clearly not. I think the remake, and the corresponding comparisons, might help put that claim to bed once and for all.

And I guess that's the thing, too. People like me don't really adhere to a QA checklist to determine mathematically which games I played are actually my top ten (though mentioning it I kind of want to now) Like...in my case, original RE4 still feels tight, responsive, well paced. But that could be the decade + that I've had to deeply understand it's mechanics and Enemy AI and all that jazz. Which brings up the whole other school of opinions related to "old school gamers are hardcore because there wasn't a standardized control scheme by genre yet, so we actually had to LEARN our games,"

Whole thing is fascinating.

 

[Cashon]

People like me don't really adhere to a QA checklist to determine mathematically which games I played are actually my top ten (though mentioning it I kind of want to now).

Do it. Then report back. I like hearing/reading people's thoughts when they go back and replay older favorites with the intention of comparing them to modern favorites.

It's also why I hate online lists with the title of "Top/Best Games of All Time." Often, the better title would be, "Top/Best Games of Their Respective Times."

 

[NeverYouMind]

I think Professional New Game+ on the GameCube's Resident Evil 4 still mops the floor with the remake. The Striker glitch, hedgemaze TMP skip, island intro Striker jump skip, minecart Striker jump skip, wreckingball room unarmed skip, more entertaining character banter, lack of breakable weapons, lack of crafting system, and stronger unlockable weapons make it a smoother experience.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

I think Professional New Game+ on the GameCube's Resident Evil 4 still mops the floor with the remake. The Striker glitch, hedgemaze TMP skip, island intro Striker jump skip, minecart Striker jump skip, unarmed Wreckingball skip, more entertaining character banter, lack of breakable weapons, lack of crafting system, and stronger unlockable weapons make it a smoother experience.

Definitely felt like an action horror comedy Summer film, and I think that's a compliment. I love the OG. Easy top ten spot.

 

[NeverYouMind]

They also made sure to remove the awful sliding puzzle that made 90% of players grind to a complete halt just to try and figure it out.

That is a simple children's puzzle. The remake's Freezer Room power puzzle is genuinely too convoluted and often devolves to being brute forced or skipped via walkthrough.

The only real improvement is the instantaneous knife draw. Though I think Wii and Oculus Quest 2 versions have that too.

 

[Cashon]

That is a simple children's puzzle. The remake's Freezer Room power puzzle is genuinely too convoluted and often devolves to being brute forced or skipped via walkthrough.

The only real improvement is the instantaneous knife draw. Though I think Wii and Oculus Quest 2 versions have that too.

I feel the exact opposite of what you said happened to me. The slide puzzle took me forever. I almost quit.

I had no problems at all figuring out the any of the puzzles in the remake.

 

[NeverYouMind]

You had no problem solving this without any outside sources?



I also forgot the Remake's rotating hexagon puzzle by the lake, which I just got lucky on and is also infinitely harder.



For me the children's puzzle takes 20 seconds now and first time through took me about a minute.

 

[Slicker than your average]

It is obviously not that big of a leap compared to the original than RE2/3. They also removed a ton of subtle things, death animations etc...

They removed shit load of Leon's melee attacks. Where's my mother fucking superplex?

The game is worse for that alone.

 

[Cashon]

You had no problem solving this without any outside sources?

Correct. What was complicated about this?

 

[NeverYouMind]

The children's puzzle has a singular level of complexity, the Freezer Room puzzle has four, and the Hexagon puzzle is incomprehensible to me.

 

[Cashon]

The children's puzzle has a singular level of complexity, the Freezer Room puzzle has four, and the Hexagon puzzle is incomprehensible to me.

Slider puzzles have always messed me up, with the exception being four-square ones like in Immortals. Those were easy enough.

 

[March Climber]

That is a simple children's puzzle.

This is an irrelevant flex. I'm not the only person who has had that opinion about the original's sliding puzzle. Go to any podcast years ago discussing RE 4 original. Go to any youtube comment about the sliding puzzle area, or forum, etc. and look at what they thought of it. It was notorious for being awful. Whether or not you yourself solved it on your first try, have a super high I.Q. and are the god of puzzles himself, it doesn't mean that it wasn't a bad puzzle that halted the gameplay flow. It was removed and the remake is way better off for this.

The remake's Freezer Room power puzzle is genuinely too convoluted and often devolves to being brute forced or skipped via walkthrough.

This depends on the difficulty. Not sure if you know but nearly every puzzle changes depending on the difficulty selected. If you first played on hardcore, you'd come away with the impression that the puzzle was ridiculously hard to figure out.

The only real improvement is the instantaneous knife draw. Though I think Wii and Oculus Quest 2 versions have that too.

Agreed. I'm hoping the knife parry somehow makes it's way into 5 remake.

 

[Sleepwalker]

They removed shit load of Leon's melee attacks. Where's my mother fucking superplex?

The game is worse for that alone.

 

[NeverYouMind]

This is an irrelevant flex. I'm not the only person who has had that opinion about the original's sliding puzzle. Go to any podcast years ago discussing RE 4 original. Go to any youtube comment about the sliding puzzle area, or forum, etc. and look at what they thought of it. It was notorious for being awful. Whether or not you yourself solved it on your first try, have a super high I.Q. and are the god of puzzles himself, it doesn't mean that it wasn't a bad puzzle that halted the gameplay flow. It was removed and the remake is way better off for this.


This depends on the difficulty. Not sure if you know but nearly every puzzle changes depending on the difficulty selected. If you first played on hardcore, you'd come away with the impression that the puzzle was ridiculously hard to figure out.


Agreed. I'm hoping the knife parry somehow makes it's way into 5 remake.

I am not flexing. These were sold at grocery stores and open markets:

P.S. I did those puzzles for the first time in the Remake on my Professional run, so that might explain it. However, I still do not know of any real life anologue to the Hexagon puzzle. Just aligning the pieces would have been easy, but rotating them without knowing how they fit together is difficult.

 

[Slicker than your average]

Wtf so you can suplex in remake, no idea. Haven't done it once lol.

 

[March Climber]

I am not flexing. These were sold at grocery stores and open markets:

Yes, but a very clear design on those sliding puzzles does not equate to seeing this for the first time:

Please tell me you see the difference here.

 

[Sleepwalker]

Wtf so you can suplex in remake, no idea. Haven't done it once lol.

Gotta stagger the enemy and get behind them

 

[NeverYouMind]

Yes, but a very clear design on those sliding puzzles does not equate to seeing this for the first time:

Please tell me you see the difference here.

No. The banner always goes on the bottom, the wings have a distinct direction and the crown is centered and topmost. They even marked the corners.

 

[OCASM]

The game improved upon annoying moments from the original, Capcom let the lore writers connect the entire map in a more coherent way, and they cut the filler. Fans of the original will argue that the filler wasn't filler, but there's very clear padding in the second half of that game that makes the pacing feel slowed and off, compared to the first half that felt greatly paced up until the castle section.

I remember a ton of people complaining about the island in the original. Part of the complaints were because the castle section was way too long and the game felt just about complete after slogging through it. The other complaints were because near the end, the original game turned into a half-assed third person cover shooter with way worse controls than one.

They cut that random village section midway through the castle, and instead put part of it(with the dual chainsaw team) as the introduction to the mine cart section, leading to the bug hive underground. To me this was a better decision and thematically made more sense than the original bug hive location, and it also made more sense to not have a random villager section just for padding purposes. Spending more time with Luis as a result helped you get to know him a little better than just hearing his few one liners in the original.

They cut the lava room. The room is a fun 5 minute experience but thematically dumb and serves no purpose. I'm indifferent towards it being cut.

They cut the one boss that barely anyone remembers. In an alternate scenario, they could have tried to find a way to fit it into the main game, and if I had the choice I would have made this an underground boss near the hive section for you and Luis to fight together as one last hurrah before

Spoiler

he's stabbed in the back by Krauser

They improved the playable Ashley section to be way, way less annoying and more engaging, with added rewards. They also made sure to remove the awful sliding puzzle that made 90% of players grind to a complete halt just to try and figure it out.

Ada's voice acting was worse in the Remake, but hopefully they're working on that because hopefully they're working on the Separate Ways/Assignment Ada Remake DLC(which would be huge considering how much they could improve and add with her remade campaign).

They improved the rewards for the shooting ranges which incentivized players to actually get better with weapons more than the original.

The knife parry is one of the best additions of the game and is considered a game changer.

Because of the knife parry being added, the Krauser fights and some of the other boss fights are way more engaging and memorable.

Regardless of how you take the good and bad, I do think this is one of the best remakes I've played as of late and a fine addition to the RE library.



This is understandable but it also isn't a guarantee. We've seen enough proof lately that people can get remakes wrong, even Capcom with RE 3. Also this forum constantly compares games from the 2000s to today's games either because of nostalgia or to compare features. Sometimes some of the older stuff is so feature-rich that it's for good reason to make these comparisons, because the devs of today sometimes can't even guarantee a split-screen feature right. However at the same time fans will hold games to such a high regard that they think any little thing that was removed or changed for a remake is an overall net negative(Crowbcat) because they see the numbers more than the art. It's a delicate balancing act but I don't blame critiics or fans for making these comparisons. It's for themselves as much as it is for the audience.

They also replaced the controls for those of a TLoU ripoff. They even made the movement and aiming laggy to match modern times.

 

[March Climber]

They even made the movement and aiming laggy to match modern times.

True. It was definitely a harsh adjustment from Remake 2 and 3. They did patch the controller dead zone issue on PC/Xbox but from what I've heard it still had a weighted feeling to it. I'm not sure if that patch ever hit Playstation.

I think that weighted feeling will carry on into 5 remake too.

 

[MacReady13]

*****Spoilers for Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 4: REmake. ****




So, before I start, second disclaimer: I love Resident Evil 4. It was the first RE game I played, it got me interested enough to try and fall in love with all the other main entries. I also love RE4R. Actually just finished my first playthrough last week because I was taking so much time exploring and experimenting and enjoying scenery. This isn't a bait topic, nor is it one discussing which iteration of RE4 is t3h goatest of awl times bahhhhhhh.

Now, the point of the thread: Pre-release, every preview, review, back door Demo invite, postcard, whatever released for the remake of RE4 was absolutely gushing. Things that stuck out to me as selling points were the claims that it's the most "skill intensive," or "moment to moment engaging," entry in the series. But alongside all of the praise, came what felt to me like an agreed upon behind the scenes journo decision to elevate the game to the originals detriment. As an attempted observant consumer, this is the first time I've ever seen this particular marketing tack in regards to a remake of a beloved title.

It's subtle, but there's lots of slamming the originals' graphics, enemy AI, ignoring the fact that the original was designed on GameCube hardware, erroneously referring to it as a PS2 title (when the PS2 port was INFAMOUS for looking like someone smeared Vaseline on a camera and then recorded a TV set of someone playing the game on the GCN. Just weird disingenuous (or worse yet, poorly researched) stuff.

For a direct comparison, look at how the marketing ran for the remake of Resident Evil 2, less than a decade ago. The original game (by contemporary standards) looks, controls, plays, and has performances that were molded from gorilla feces. The PS1 to PS4 felt like a bigger leap than the GCN to the PS5 (PS4, let's be honest, cross gen bros) but the original game, even the laughable and campy bits are revered in the reviews of it's remake that mention it's Origins as a PS1 title. Again, not slamming or praising any game mentioned, it's just a weird shift to observe.

But then it gets stranger: Reviews and hands on reports, etc mention just absolutely REDUNDANT nonsense. Here's a few of my favorite bits I've heard about why RE4R trounces RE4:

- You get an item box. Nevermind the fact that the case was made to replace the item box initially, but fuck it, why feel pressure in your choices on the field?

- The game is A LOT MORE tense because it gets dark way earlier and most of the game is in Spooky night time! ....despite the transition to nightfall being in the exact same place as the original.

- There's now a loot system! ...just Like in 2005.

- Ashley is WAYYY less annoying now! - Except her gameplay segments are basically 1:1 with the original and everyone I've seen on earth has murdered her accidentally at least once.

- The island segment is shortened and flows SO MUCH BETTER. ....they took out U3. That's literally all the fuck they changed. That and nerfing J.J. Oh, they got rid of the vehicle segment and the crane, too. It's like exactly the same shit with all of the gameplay variation removed. Fight > hallway > fight > hallway probably does flow better, but like, the point of this mountain of text is...

They're praising this game for doing shit that the original did. Wholesale. And At the same time, they're like....BOY, I'M GLAD THE REMAKE DID ALL THE THINGS THE ORIGINAL DID BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL SUCKED, BUT IT WAS ALSO A CLASSIC just...gives me this 17 year old dreadlocked white teenager wearing a Zeppelin shirt vibe. Have we reached the point where people who never played games are writing legacy pieces about them? Is this just the agreed upon strategy in 2023 decided upon in Nathan Grayson's Discord Coalition of Evil? Am I overreacting? Imagining things? Purple?

Perfectly said my friend. As much as I enjoyed the remake, it still doesn't touch the original. And any reviewer saying different wasn't there when the original on Gamecube came out. It was a game changer and it's effects are still felt to this day.

 

[Cattlyst]

I definitely think it’s more acceptable in gaming journalism for younger journalists to have no/very little experience with older games. Like in other types of journalism you expect writers to be well versed in say music or movies but the number of times I’ve heard journalists on podcasts say they never played X console or have never heard of X game series…it just seems the norm in gaming journalism circles to have no/little actual experience with older games/systems and just regurgitate common misconceptions/repeated tropes, or information gleaned from previous articles or Wikipedia entries as ‘research.’

 

[TheInfamousKira]

You had no problem solving this without any outside sources?



I also forgot the Remake's rotating hexagon puzzle by the lake, which I just got lucky on and is also infinitely harder.



For me the children's puzzle takes 20 seconds now and first time through took me about a minute.

I've....honestly never had an issue with either of these. It was pretty much pattern prediction, which, I'll admit, isn't everyone's strong suit. I struggle more on puzzles that require sharp short term memory, like transcribing something from a tablet into an approximation on the game map, and you have to look at it in one room, and then go into another to solve the puzzle with information from the first room. That stuff bakes my brain, but the stuff you mentioned thankfully is pretty second nature to me.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

I mean, just call it what it is. The current crop of games journalists are largely talentless hacks who have no subject matter expertise, no original thoughts, and precisely no business doing the job they're ostensibly employed to do.

 

[GigaBowser]

It was good but the old RE4 was still betters

I'm sorry my friends

 

[Rykan]

The game improved upon annoying moments from the original, Capcom let the lore writers connect the entire map in a more coherent way, and they cut the filler. Fans of the original will argue that the filler wasn't filler, but there's very clear padding in the second half of that game that makes the pacing feel slowed and off, compared to the first half that felt greatly paced up until the castle section.

There is no filler or padding at any part in Resident Evil 4. The game continues to push you on forward: There's no "Find x amount of y tasks" and there's no backtracking either.

 

[GigaBowser]

Thing I hated most was pushing the thumbstick in to run I hate that crud

hurted my tumb

 

[March Climber]

There is no filler or padding at any part in Resident Evil 4. The game continues to push you on forward: There's no "Find x amount of y tasks" and there's no backtracking either.

This comes down to a difference of popular opinion vs individual opinion. The well known complaints about the original regarded the island and the second half of the castle. Nearly everyone agreed that the village was the most memorable section in the game because of how good it was.

However, that second part about no backtracking is a lie. There are literally moments in the village where you go down the same areas twice, once in the day and again at night after fighting Del Lago. There are multiple moments in the castle where you have to backtrack to gather certain 'keys' to progress...unless you forgot about the fountain and the castle shooting range section in the big hallway that you go back to 3 times to reach other parts of the castle? Once with Ashley, once without, and once again with her. The island actually did a better job of streamlining the experience, but like I said above, people on average complained about the island not only because the gameplay experience changed(guys with chainguns and crossbows around every corner), but also because the castle was too exhaustively long by the time you even reached the island.

All of this doesn't discredit Resident Evil 4 original from being a 10/10 game, it's simply a matter of the good parts being so good that people put up with the bad because they liked the game overall.

Thing I hated most was pushing the thumbstick in to run I hate that crud

hurted my tumb

For the next Remake, change run to toggle or change the run button entirely.

 

[TheBROgamer]

Original >>> Remake

And yes, I played through the remake numerous times before coming to this decision.

 

[fatmarco]

Completely agree with all the points, and this isn't the first example of this sort of behaviour either.

 

[Madflavor]

 

[TheBROgamer]

I mean, just call it what it is. The current crop of games journalists are largely talentless hacks who have no subject matter expertise, no original thoughts, and precisely no business doing the job they're ostensibly employed to do.

Correct most gaming journalist barely finish games, or gamers in general.

It's just a job to a lot of them.

 

[Rykan]

This comes down to a difference of popular opinion vs individual opinion. The well known complaints about the original regarded the island and the second half of the castle. Nearly everyone agreed that the village was the most memorable section in the game because of how good it was.

While it's true that the island section is the most commonly criticized part of the game,
Saying that the castle section is excessively long is the popular opinion is completely unfounded.

However, that second part about no backtracking is a lie. There are literally moments in the village where you go down the same areas twice, once in the day and again at night after fighting Del Lago. There are multiple moments in the castle where you have to backtrack to gather certain 'keys' to progress...unless you forgot about the fountain and the castle shooting range section in the big hallway that you go back to 3 times to reach other parts of the castle? Once with Ashley, once without, and once again with her. The island actually did a better job of streamlining the experience, but like I said above, people on average complained about the island not only because the gameplay experience changed(guys with chainguns and crossbows around every corner), but also because the castle was too exhaustively long by the time you even reached the island.

All of this doesn't discredit Resident Evil 4 original from being a 10/10 game, it's simply a matter of the good parts being so good that people put up with the bad because they liked the game overall.

The village section isn't part of the second half of the game. You only go through a very small portion of the village again. The same applies to the castle section you mentioned. The time spent retracing your steps through previously explored areas amounts to just a few minutes in a game that lasts around 15 hours.

You think the Castle section was too long and the military base section wasn't good? Sure. But that doesn't mean that it's filler content.

 

[Cashon]

I definitely think it’s more acceptable in gaming journalism for younger journalists to have no/very little experience with older games. Like in other types of journalism you expect writers to be well versed in say music or movies but the number of times I’ve heard journalists on podcasts say they never played X console or have never heard of X game series…it just seems the norm in gaming journalism circles to have no/little actual experience with older games/systems and just regurgitate common misconceptions/repeated tropes, or information gleaned from previous articles or Wikipedia entries as ‘research.’

This is reasonable though. If you're a music/film critic/journalist, you can go through entire discographies/filmographies in the time that it takes to play 1 game. Time is the limiting factor, so having to not only keep up with all of the new major releases, but also go back and play all of the classics and some of the not-so-classics would simply take up too much time and possibly still not be able to be done while still actually being able to enjoy the games. Especially since games age faster than movies and music.

 

[RaduN]

The one area where the original absolutely murders the Remake, is the cutscenes.

The original has some of the very best directed and mo-capped realtime cutscenes ever made, while the Remake has these crappy directed cutscenes with hilariously bad mo-cap and shitty editing. Zero fucking effort.
Re2 Remake was so much better as well here, with fantastic direction and decent mo-cap.
They screwed up monumentaly here, and it drags an otherwise fantastic game, down quite a few notches.

Good fucking thing the MGS3 remake doesn't touch anything story related, meaning the cutscenes will be frame by frame identical to original, 'cose otherwise i'd be seriously worried.

 

[Soodanim]

Thing I hated most was pushing the thumbstick in to run I hate that crud

hurted my tumb

I cannot STAND this controller layout choice of L3. Even R3 is infinitely better than pushing the stick in then tilting. It's always been awful in every game it's in, and I change it whenever I can. Luckily there's a layout that puts it on R1 in 2/3/4R. It swaps it with either Ashley Wait/Follow or Bolt Gun mine attach, both used far less and not while trying to escape something quickly.

 

[March Climber]

The village section isn't part of the second half of the game. You only go through a very small portion of the village again. The same applies to the castle section you mentioned. The time spent retracing your steps through previously explored areas amounts to just a few minutes in a game that lasts around 15 hours.

You think the Castle section was too long and the military base section wasn't good? Sure. But that doesn't mean that it's filler content.

You've misread what I've stated.

I didn't say the village is part of the second half of the original game. The village is the first big third of the game. I said that you go through most of the same sections in the village twice, which is considered backtracking, in order to get to a separate section of the village that you saw blocked off earlier in the game, just this time with Ashley tagging along. Even counting that alone, it's more than just a few minutes of backtracking in that game, and I think a goalpost is being moved here from what you're now stating just to attempt to sound correct.

You've also misread what I've stated about the military base. I said it does a good job streamlining the experience more than the castle, but the enemy types(aside from the regenerators) are what drag the experience down. I personally think it was still good overall, but as a big fan of any game it's important to recognize your favorite game's flaws exist and point out what they are. The reason the castle drags in the second half is because of areas like the dual towers and bridge, the detour with the small underground cave with the villagers(no I do not mean the minecart section that happens a bit after), the second bug hive room, etc. The areas that you'd forget about and think 'oh yea, I remember this it kind of was just okay/not that great'. Same with the wrecking ball section on the island which was oddly placed and the truck that could plow through metal wall structures that was dumb but funny

I find it odd that people here can agree more on when it comes to pointing out multiple flaws of the remake(and even I've agreed with some of them myself), but if anything negative is stated about the original people tend to try and argue the other person down as if the original sits on an untouchable throne of greatness. I feel like it was easier to discuss the flaws of RE 4 original back in 2004 than almost 20 years later, and that shouldn't be the case.

 

[Georges Chiellins]

First mistake you made: thinking there are actual journalists in the gaming world.
Even in the normal world, there are very rare. Those that are true journos are super competent, knowledgeable, and open to discussion and criticism. In the videogame world, they're just glorified fanboys with a platform, relaying what's told to them in an earpiece.


Then, I was think about the game yesterday. First game in a while I was hyped for, got it day one. Beat it. Started another playthrough... and that's it. I only did the mercenaries modes three times (to get that unlock), and that's all.

Mind you, it's a great game. But the original was way better.

These people have to help push sales. Sad but true.

 

[Damian black]

Thing I hated most was pushing the thumbstick in to run I hate that crud

hurted my tumb

First thing I did back when I played re2 remake was to change run to B/circle and set it on toggle. I hate that shit too no matter the game.

Btw I think a lot of people definitely misremember things. Whether it is because a lot of time has passed and they forget the originals or simply because hype, I dont know.
Same thing happened with re2 remake. People screaming masterpiece from rooftops, only to then start noticing the flaws more as time passes.
The game was ok but to me it always felt off for a number of reasons, the characters and dialogues especially, but since it had been years since I played the original I couldnt exactly point out all the issues, but then
I run into this video:



It pretty much explains why the characters are not the same people they used to be and why they suck and I completely agree.
Not a single reviewer talked about any of this stuff in the first few weeks since the game had been released. It was only hype hype hype.

I feel the same will happen with re4 remake in due time.

 

[Drizzlehell]

Sometimes I wonder if people who shit on these remakes even played them in the first place...

 

[Rykan]

I didn't say the village is part of the second half of the original game. The village is the first big third of the game.

You claimed that the second half of the game contained padding, while asserting that the section leading up to the castle was “perfectly paced.” You are now arguing about a portion of the game that you yourself acknowledged as being perfectly paced.

I said that you go through most of the same sections in the village twice, which is considered backtracking, in order to get to a separate section of the village that you saw blocked off earlier in the game, just this time with Ashley tagging along. Even counting that alone, it's more than just a few minutes of backtracking in that game, and I think a goalpost is being moved here from what you're now stating just to attempt to sound correct.

You do not revisit the majority of the same sections in the village twice. Initially, you navigate through most of the area alone as Leon until you rescue Ashley. There is a brief backtracking segment in a small section of the village before progressing to a previously unexplored area until reaching the castle.

You've also misread what I've stated about the military base. I said it does a good job streamlining the experience more than the castle, but the enemy types(aside from the regenerators) are what drag the experience down.

Enemy types do not make a section “padding” or “filler” content.

I personally think it was still good overall, but as a big fan of any game it's important to recognize your favorite game's flaws exist and point out what they are. The reason the castle drags in the second half is because of areas like the dual towers and bridge, the detour with the small underground cave with the villagers(no I do not mean the minecart section that happens a bit after), the second bug hive room, etc. The areas that you'd forget about and think 'oh yea, I remember this it kind of was just okay/not that great'. Same with the wrecking ball section on the island which was oddly placed and the truck that could plow through metal wall structures that was dumb but funny

I find it odd that people here can agree more on when it comes to pointing out multiple flaws of the remake(and even I've agreed with some of them myself), but if anything negative is stated about the original people tend to try and argue the other person down as if the original sits on an untouchable throne of greatness. I feel like it was easier to discuss the flaws of RE 4 original back in 2004 than almost 20 years later, and that shouldn't be the case.

This is not about identifying the flaws of the game.it is about your characterization of these flaws as something they are not. None of the aspects you have described can be classified as filler content.