Jump to content

Should a series change itself for new players or those wanting something different?


CandiBunni

Recommended Posts

I was having a discussion with someone over the tank controls, fixed camera angles, puzzles, and general difficulty of the original Resident Evil style versus the new, action-oriented style of 5 and 6, and while I can agree that classic RE was unforgiving and some might find the fixed camera and tank controls awkward or uncomfortable, I myself loved every one of these things.

Since the release of Resident Evil 4, the series has become much more focused on linear progression, constant action, and abrupt quick time events. Some people might enjoy that, and that's all well and good, but I myself don't think that the series should stray from that original style found in RE 0 - REmake. Originally I thought a compromise could be had by giving players the choice between new and classic controls, over the shoulder or fixed camera, and other options to make the game more or less difficult and closer to survival horror or action, but then I then had to ask myself...

"Why change what made the series so popular in the first place?"

For example: I'd say that Resident Evil became popular because of its many puzzles, its emphasis on exploration and finding the next path on your own, for requiring you to scavenge for and effectively manage resources, and constantly weighing you down with heavy amounts of tension, stress, and fear for what lurked around the next corner, the next room, beyond the camera's point of view, or even from whether or not you'd have enough supplies to handle your next encounter.

I believe that a series should retain its core mechanics and all of the little quirks that it's become known for, but that doesn't mean that it can't still provide new experiences for new and old fans alike. Introducing new mechanics and features that mesh well with the existing core, new strategies for players to discover, new modes of play, etc. can all help to keep a series fresh without sacrificing what people loved about it in the first place.

If someone wants a series to stray away from what it's become known for, if they want it to shift focus towards a different style of play, to become something it's not, then I honestly think they should just go looking for a series that already does those things instead.

How do you feel about this? Do you think it fine for a series to take a completely new direction, such as with Resident Evil and its shift from survival horror to action? Is it okay to change or outright remove the core experience that made a series what it is in favour of attracting a new audience?

Edited by Fluttershy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final Fantasy has done the change of direction thing several times. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

 

3D: Good.

 

Non-Turnbased: Not so good.

 

Sequels: Middle Ground depending who you ask.

 

So the answer is; Maybe. Depending on the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the series and how much was changed. It's not simply the 3rd person perspective that "ruined" the horror elements. Take Silent Hill and Dead Space as an example.

Rendering the graphics in real-time and still having a high quality was impossible on PS1 and Saturn and that's the reason why they chose the fixed, pre-rendered camera angles.

 

Personally I thought that RE4 was a really good change for the series and something it needed after RE3 and Code: Veronica became stale.

It also changed the genre from Survival Horror to Survival Terror and getting rid of all the backtracking was a great decision.

What killed the horror aspect for me (in singleplayer) was the introduction of the partner system and that you'd never have to fight alone.

 

I had high hopes for RE6 after playing the Lost in Nightmare DLC, as it showed how you can have horror atmosphere in a coop game but sadly it seems like they chose to go the Desperate Escape route instead.

Anyway, I don't really mind the change. While 1, 2 and 4 were great singleplayer games, I enjoyed 5 in coop with a friend so much that I decided to buy RE6 again for PS3 even though I hated it (and 5) when I played it on the 360 at release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well before this turns into another one of those Resident Evil threads.
 
 
Why not both?
 
Some series have managed to attract newcomers as well as long time fans with sometimes minimal/major changes.

Lets take Pokemon for example, a game that for many people is the introduction to the role playing video games. A series that has been updated with new installments for almost 2 decades now, but what makes it that way?

 

Well the core gameplay remains mostly the same: explore, catch monsters, train said monsters, "catch'em all", etc.

 

Other minor elements have been added, modified and/or adjusted, long time players and newcomers enjoy it alike.

 

Bethesda despite how much I think they're shit is another company that has done this well over the years with The Elder Scrolls franchise I know people that have been playing since Arena (1994) and when Skyrim (2011) came out there were people that rarely play role playing video games enjoyed it.

 

And as much as you want to deny it and wish it would just come tumbling down, dissapear from the face of this earth Call of Duty 4 up to the latest installment brought in an unbelievable influx of new players even those who had never even played video games.

 

 

 

 the little quirks that it's become known for, but that doesn't mean that it can't still provide new experiences for new and old fans alike.

 

This is very important as well, Capcom fighting games are a good example of this, you can beat the crap out of your opponent in all of them but they all have different mechanics/systems techniques that you have to learn in order to get better at the game.

 

Dark Souls 2 was a game that didn't bode well with the first games fanbase, and all of them were complaints about minor quirks, the core gameplay remained largely unchanged.

 

What I think is that the changes should add on to the series and fix anything thats undeniably wrong while taking into consideration that it will not detract from the unique experience the game offers.

Edited by Ramonachan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, the change in style in the RE series might be for the better... but not for the series itself. You can't deny that RE4 was ingenious and it may actually be the precursor of a new genre. It spawned many games that are similar to RE4, like The Last of Us, TLoU would not be the same if RE didn't take its turn into the action genre.

 

I myself love both types of RE, but you might actually blame the fans for the series changing so drastically, i once read online that RE0's poor sales made Shinji (and his team) change the genre of the series, but guess what? It was a big hit, and personally, i think anyone in charge of Capcom would do what they did, if something is successful you keep the same formula, specially seeing as the "old school" type didn't sell well at the time. (RE0)

 

Unfortunately though, that same successful formula came back and bit Capcom in the ass, RE6's sales weren't nearly as good as RE5's, and turns out it didn't pass the estimate amount of sales Capcom had in mind (when it came out that is). Déjà vu. Perhaps now that they have seen the big hit that REmake was on PSN, then maybe they'll come back to the old style with the not-so-tank controls (REmake's new control scheme weren't tank-ish) and fixed camera angles.

 

I would prefer if they kept the action type of RE going, like what they're doing with Revelations? Why not have two teams, one that makes "old school" RE and the other that makes the action-type of RE? That'd be a win-win for everyone...  :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, the change in style in the RE series might be for the better... but not for the series itself. You can't deny that RE4 was ingenious and it may actually be the precursor of a new genre. It spawned many games that are similar to RE4, like The Last of Us, TLoU would not be the same if RE didn't take its turn into the action genre.

 

I myself love both types of RE, but you might actually blame the fans for the series changing so drastically, i once read online that RE0's poor sales made Shinji (and his team) change the genre of the series, but guess what? It was a big hit, and personally, i think anyone in charge of Capcom would do what they did, if something is successful you keep the same formula, specially seeing as the "old school" type didn't sell well at the time. (RE0)

 

Unfortunately though, that same successful formula came back and bit Capcom in the ass, RE6's sales weren't nearly as good as RE5's, and turns out it didn't pass the estimate amount of sales Capcom had in mind (when it came out that is). Déjà vu. Perhaps now that they have seen the big hit that REmake was on PSN, then maybe they'll come back to the old style with the not-so-tank controls (REmake's new control scheme weren't tank-ish) and fixed camera angles.

 

I would prefer if they kept the action type of RE going, like what they're doing with Revelations? Why not have two teams, one that makes "old school" RE and the other that makes the action-type of RE? That'd be a win-win for everyone...  :blink:

Well, they could produce spin-offs that continued with the formula set by RE4, but return the mainline series to the classic style found in RE 1, 2, 3, CV, 0, and REmake. I think that would be the better thing to do, as those that wanted more of the modern RE could stick with the spin off series, while those of us who want a return to form could have the main series.

REmake did feature a new, more modern control scheme, but it also had the option of using tank controls as well. I myself stuck with the latter, as I feel that's part of the charm and added to the experience, rather than detract from it.

Edited by Fluttershy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been gaming at various degrees of commitment for about 26 years, and never ever had I heard the term "tank controls" used before, except in the last three or so weeks I've seen it pop up in reference to Resident Evil and Grim Fandango. Back in the day (which is always a Tuesday, FYI), we just called them shitty controls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been gaming at various degrees of commitment for about 26 years, and never ever had I heard the term "tank controls" used before, except in the last three or so weeks I've seen it pop up in reference to Resident Evil and Grim Fandango. Back in the day (which is always a Tuesday, FYI), we just called them shitty controls. 

Well, it's been used for many, many years. :P It's a wonder you've not heard it until recently, though. (o . o)'  Personally, I didn't think they were awful then, nor do I now. They're different, and they take some getting used to, but I don't see why they get so much hate from some people. I don't understand what makes them bad so much as just different. Then again, I don't ever seem to have much trouble learning a game's controls nowadays. While I too had to grow used to them way back when, it didn't take me long.

They seem pretty simple to understand, at least to me. Up always moves you up, down always moves you down, left and right turn you in their respective directions, and holding up or down plus left or right moved you forwards or backwards and in that direction.

Edited by Fluttershy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:hmm: It's a hard topic to discuss really. I really hope what I'm about to type makes sense xD

 

While I agree keeping old features around and not changing them over public opinion I have to argue that change through public opinion has a lot of the time changed games for the better... I was actually surprised when I heard that it was Halo that added the whole 360 look around function to shooters on the console (unless I've been misinformed), which in turn changed the FPS genre forever, but I never actually thought if it was a good thing for the industry... I mean, sure it's better that watching your shots automatically choose their height such as in Star Wars Dark Forces, or have to line up a shot in Resident Evil with the clunkiness of the tank controls adding to your frustration, but that's actually what made games good...

 

The addition of the second stick may have been a releif to some gamers, but to others it may have been the opposite, but with the fact that Halo was a launch game, it would've been there as a change for the new players. Now I know it isn't series specific, but it is a big change that was implemented - most likely - for new players. Coming more to the present time it seems that game companies constantly change their games using patches - for example, the camera distance patch that was delivered for Resi 6 and the Instant Ada campaign one with it - and at the same time they've managed to satisfy a large portion of their audience.

 

The one thing that developers refuse to listen to time and time again however, is the ever growing group of people who are now complaining about how they are handling DLC, something that Street Fighter 4 can be scolded on before they announce "Fabulous Ultimate Ultra Super-duper Street Fighter 4.5 Arcade Edition". The complaints arising are from the fact that devs are offering DLC with their games as pre-order bonuses which are blatant parts of the game they've just taken out deliberately and labelled "DLC" but this is where the company is actually doing right rather than wrong.

 

Now I may be going a little off track (which means if I am, you can skip this paragraph), but the DLC offered is a feature of the game that may offer a new view or mechanic. If people who want to try out the series from a more recent perspective, and see that there's DLC offered with the game that they wish to get, then surely that would entice them further to order? The same applies for just about any pre-order bonus if I'm perfectly honest. I mean, I wouldn't be a fan of Persona if they hadn't offered a 12" LP with a pre-order of P4A + what appeared to be bonus themes and avatars - which ended up being a pack that you could download to your PC full of wallpapers and facebook icons :shakefist: . If I remember correctly, Nuketown 2025 was offered to people who pre-ordered Black Ops 2 which, while being a revamp, retained the same layout as its predecessor which would've enticed older fans of the series - and essentially fans of the original black ops - to pre-order as it would've been something that they themselves were familliar with.

 

Back on track, Candi's example of Resident Evil's changes is something that is debated quite often. Personally I feel the series should've kept the tank controls, not because it's "the way it's meant to be played" but because of the fact that the 3rd person view in RE 6 and RE 5 made it feel more like an action simulator, rather than the horror that it's supposedly meant to be. The fact that there was co-op also caused the horror experience to die down, as you always had the knowledge that there was someone with you, watching your back so to speak. The same co-op horror kill was displayed in Dead Space 3's campaign and I personally feel that while the co-op feature was well received by others, I would've felt better about it if the AI that'd take over when your IRL partner wasn't playing was a little smarter, or even better could be toggled off, so that I wouldn't feel like I'm babysitting when playing harder difficulties ect. While I feel more strongly against the co-op features introduced in horror games I believe that Capcom was expecting a change in audience - as 5 was released around the time of the squeaker takeover - and in seeing this change, decided to make sure that if there was a child somehow playing the game (because you know, who the hell would buy a resident evil game for their child? That's almost as stupid as buying them CoD!) then the said child would at least have the knowledge that they had someone to turn to - the AI - if they were suddenly hit by a jump scare, or too scared to move on... I don't think that age group actually played RE5 around the time of release though.... something tells me those parents really did buy them CoD.

 

That's all I could actually type on the subject without being prodded to type more, because I hit a block about 2 paragraphs ago xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:hmm: It's a hard topic to discuss really. I really hope what I'm about to type makes sense xD

 

While I agree keeping old features around and not changing them over public opinion I have to argue that change through public opinion has a lot of the time changed games for the better... I was actually surprised when I heard that it was Halo that added the whole 360 look around function to shooters on the console (unless I've been misinformed), which in turn changed the FPS genre forever, but I never actually thought if it was a good thing for the industry... I mean, sure it's better that watching your shots automatically choose their height such as in Star Wars Dark Forces, or have to line up a shot in Resident Evil with the clunkiness of the tank controls adding to your frustration, but that's actually what made games good...

 

The addition of the second stick may have been a releif to some gamers, but to others it may have been the opposite, but with the fact that Halo was a launch game, it would've been there as a change for the new players. Now I know it isn't series specific, but it is a big change that was implemented - most likely - for new players. Coming more to the present time it seems that game companies constantly change their games using patches - for example, the camera distance patch that was delivered for Resi 6 and the Instant Ada campaign one with it - and at the same time they've managed to satisfy a large portion of their audience.

 

The one thing that developers refuse to listen to time and time again however, is the ever growing group of people who are now complaining about how they are handling DLC, something that Street Fighter 4 can be scolded on before they announce "Fabulous Ultimate Ultra Super-duper Street Fighter 4.5 Arcade Edition". The complaints arising are from the fact that devs are offering DLC with their games as pre-order bonuses which are blatant parts of the game they've just taken out deliberately and labelled "DLC" but this is where the company is actually doing right rather than wrong.

 

Now I may be going a little off track (which means if I am, you can skip this paragraph), but the DLC offered is a feature of the game that may offer a new view or mechanic. If people who want to try out the series from a more recent perspective, and see that there's DLC offered with the game that they wish to get, then surely that would entice them further to order? The same applies for just about any pre-order bonus if I'm perfectly honest. I mean, I wouldn't be a fan of Persona if they hadn't offered a 12" LP with a pre-order of P4A + what appeared to be bonus themes and avatars - which ended up being a pack that you could download to your PC full of wallpapers and facebook icons :shakefist: . If I remember correctly, Nuketown 2025 was offered to people who pre-ordered Black Ops 2 which, while being a revamp, retained the same layout as its predecessor which would've enticed older fans of the series - and essentially fans of the original black ops - to pre-order as it would've been something that they themselves were familliar with.

 

Back on track, Candi's example of Resident Evil's changes is something that is debated quite often. Personally I feel the series should've kept the tank controls, not because it's "the way it's meant to be played" but because of the fact that the 3rd person view in RE 6 and RE 5 made it feel more like an action simulator, rather than the horror that it's supposedly meant to be. The fact that there was co-op also caused the horror experience to die down, as you always had the knowledge that there was someone with you, watching your back so to speak. The same co-op horror kill was displayed in Dead Space 3's campaign and I personally feel that while the co-op feature was well received by others, I would've felt better about it if the AI that'd take over when your IRL partner wasn't playing was a little smarter, or even better could be toggled off, so that I wouldn't feel like I'm babysitting when playing harder difficulties ect. While I feel more strongly against the co-op features introduced in horror games I believe that Capcom was expecting a change in audience - as 5 was released around the time of the squeaker takeover - and in seeing this change, decided to make sure that if there was a child somehow playing the game (because you know, who the hell would buy a resident evil game for their child? That's almost as stupid as buying them CoD!) then the said child would at least have the knowledge that they had someone to turn to - the AI - if they were suddenly hit by a jump scare, or too scared to move on... I don't think that age group actually played RE5 around the time of release though.... something tells me those parents really did buy them CoD.

 

That's all I could actually type on the subject without being prodded to type more, because I hit a block about 2 paragraphs ago xD

Halo wasn't the first to offer players the chance to look around in 360 degrees. Indeed Goldeneye and Perfect Dark did this well before on the N64. Halo did give us the modern FPS control scheme for consoles, as well as solve the issue of difficult aiming with its well implemented aim assist. Other than that, I wouldn't say it revolutionised console FPS at all. That being said, it was still a very well made game, and my favourite in the series.

I do agree that co-op does take away some of the stress, tension, and general anxiety of playing a horror game. Some might like it for that very reason, while others just might find it fun to play through it with friends. I love having such heavy amounts of stress, nervousness, tension, fear, dread, etc. all piling up on me, which could lead me to making potentially fatal mistakes if I'm not careful. For me, that's part of the experience when it comes to survival horror. I love knowing that, if I make a mistake, it could either end with my death, or at the very least leave me struggling with even less resources than before. It forces me to get better and learn from my mistakes, lest I be stuck in the same situation again and again.

Edited by Fluttershy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halo wasn't the first to offer players the chance to look around in 360 degrees. Indeed Goldeneye and Perfect Dark did this well before on the N64. Halo did, however, give us the modern FPS control scheme for consoles, as well as solve the issue of difficult aiming with its well implemented aim assist. Other than that, I wouldn't say it revolutionised console FPS at all. That being said, it was still a very well made game.

I do agree that co-op does take away some of the stress, tension, and general anxiety of playing a horror game. Some might like it for that very reason, while others just might find it fun to play through it with friends. Myself, I like having such heavy amounts of stress, nervousness, tension, fear, dread, etc. all piling up on me, which could lead me to making potentially fatal mistakes if I'm not careful. For me, that's part of the experience when it comes to survival horror. I love knowing that, if I make a mistake, it could either end with my death, or at the very least leave me struggling with even less resources than before. It forces me to get better and learn from my mistakes, lest I be stuck in the same situation again and again.

 

Modern FPS control scheme, that was it xD

 

As for the mistakes in games, I do recall there being a shortage of ammunition in RE5 - unless I was missing something other than the heads of the manjini - but the game itself did have quite a few BS moments, such as the continued scripted spawn of Chainsaw units in the oil field :shakefist: That would normally be the area I'd lose all my saved up ammunition on too xD I guess that was the dev's way of adding tension, through limiting your resources, but none of this really mattered post game because iirc you could get an unlimited ammo RPG if you got through the game in 6 hours or less - again that probably needs verifying like my previous 360 view comment xD

Edited by Katsuragi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As most have said, it really depends on the game. Looking back at FF7 and FF8 it's too easy to ask yourself, Was it the stories that made these so brilliant? Or the game itself. Squeenix messed up both of these aspects after 12 imo, some may well disagree. The RE series definately lost most of it "Whats around the corner" scares with re4, I myself didn't like it at all when it 1st came out. You could look as far back as the Pacman arcade game becoming stale and the attempt to revitalize with pacmania. What about COD AW with it's mario double jump? it's a different game yet many are still going to complain if this didn't exist saying "it's the same game". At the end of the day, the game just needs to be good and it's safe to say many producers/developers just ride off name alone while ending with bad results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I think change is good. When a series only sticks to one style, it begins to suffer what many have dubbed the Call of Duty effect. Namely, retaining the exact same gameplay, tone and style without doing anything to properly innovate the series. Final Fantasy suffered this for nearly 20 years before Square got the balls to change things on the PS2.

 

I am very supportive of Capcom's decision to go for a more action oriented approach. They are still able to retain that feeling of dread (at least for me) by putting you in areas that evoke that feeling, even though you can easily fend off your enemies. Bosses are still insanely hard to kill, and often-times you come across an enemy that practically eats up all of your ammunition, and will leave you barely clinging on to life. Action does not mean the series is going bad. The core mechanics remain the same, the basic theme remains untouched. sure they added co-op. Sure they got rid of tank controls and wonky camera angles. Sure the series is more action focused. But it is still Resident Evil. Honestly, the series has gotten more popular after the change than it was before. RE5 sold over 6.5 million copies. 

 

In general, I think it's a good idea for developers to experiment with new things in their games. Sure, gamer input matters, but if developers always listened to outside input, if gamers always had their way, then arguably the majority of games would be a shoddy mess stuck in the 1990s era of game design. One of the biggest culprits of this lack of innovation isn't Call of Duty, it's Street Fighter. 

 

Street Fighter is one of Capcom's biggest franchises. And it -excuse my bad language- fucking sucks. Not  because it's a bad game, but because of awful design because the fans refuse to let them innovate. The controls are nearly impossible for new players to understand, the fighters move like they are stuck in wax, and the combos are impossible to read. The tutorials are nonexistent and horribly implemented when they do show up. All that aside, the balancing issues are so horrible that they end up releasing ten thousand different versions of the exact same thing just to fix it. This could be fixed if they actually put time in to make innovation happen. This series is a prime example of why developers sometimes need to ignore the fans and do what they want with their games.

 

Because sometimes the fans don't know what they are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think change is good. When a series only sticks to one style, it begins to suffer what many have dubbed the Call of Duty effect. Namely, retaining the exact same gameplay, tone and style without doing anything to properly innovate the series. Final Fantasy suffered this for nearly 20 years before Square got the balls to change things on the PS2.

 

I am very supportive of Capcom's decision to go for a more action oriented approach. They are still able to retain that feeling of dread (at least for me) by putting you in areas that evoke that feeling, even though you can easily fend off your enemies. Bosses are still insanely hard to kill, and often-times you come across an enemy that practically eats up all of your ammunition, and will leave you barely clinging on to life. Action does not mean the series is going bad. The core mechanics remain the same, the basic theme remains untouched. sure they added co-op. Sure they got rid of tank controls and wonky camera angles. Sure the series is more action focused. But it is still Resident Evil. Honestly, the series has gotten more popular after the change than it was before. RE5 sold over 6.5 million copies. 

 

In general, I think it's a good idea for developers to experiment with new things in their games. Sure, gamer input matters, but if developers always listened to outside input, if gamers always had their way, then arguably the majority of games would be a shoddy mess stuck in the 1990s era of game design. One of the biggest culprits of this lack of innovation isn't Call of Duty, it's Street Fighter. 

 

Street Fighter is one of Capcom's biggest franchises. And it -excuse my bad language- fucking sucks. Not  because it's a bad game, but because of awful design because the fans refuse to let them innovate. The controls are nearly impossible for new players to understand, the fighters move like they are stuck in wax, and the combos are impossible to read. The tutorials are nonexistent and horribly implemented when they do show up. All that aside, the balancing issues are so horrible that they end up releasing ten thousand different versions of the exact same thing just to fix it. This could be fixed if they actually put time in to make innovation happen. This series is a prime example of why developers sometimes need to ignore the fans and do what they want with their games.

 

Because sometimes the fans don't know what they are talking about.

That's the thing. They haven't kept the core mechanics of classic Resident Evil with newer installments. Rather than having to scavenge for and manage your resources carefully, you're given ample supply of weapons ammunition, and healing items. In the past Resident Evil games, every enemy was a serious threat. One wrong move could put you at a massive disadvantage not just in the next room ahead, but possibly throughout the rest of the game. New Resident Evil titles are much more forgiving, and there exist only a few enemies that pose any serious threat anymore. You're far too empowered in new Resident Evil games to really feel any considerable fear or tension.

The theme hasn't remained the same either. What was once a series famous for its dark, moody, and foreboding atmosphere is now a fast paced, over-the-top, Hollywood-style action movie. The fear, the sense of dread, and the stress just aren't there anymore.

If they'd like to mix things up with the Resident Evil formula, that's fine, but I feel that they should do so only in spin-offs, and even create a spin-off series within the Resident Evil franchise. They've completely abandoned the old style that made the series popular to begin with, and that's an awful thing to do. Those who want that particular style of survival horror now have nowhere to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing. They haven't kept the core mechanics of classic Resident Evil with newer installments. Rather than having to scavenge for and manage your resources carefully, you're given ample supply of weapons ammunition, and healing items. In the past Resident Evil games, every enemy was a serious threat. One wrong move could put you at a massive disadvantage not just in the next room ahead, but possibly throughout the rest of the game. New Resident Evil titles are much more forgiving, and there exist only a few enemies that pose any serious threat anymore. You're far too empowered in new Resident Evil games to really feel any considerable fear or tension.

The theme hasn't remained the same either. What was once a series famous for its dark, moody, and foreboding atmosphere is now a fast paced, over-the-top, Hollywood-style action movie. The fear, the sense of dread, and the stress just aren't there anymore.

If they'd like to mix things up with the Resident Evil formula, that's fine, but I feel that they should do so only in spin-offs, and even create a spin-off series within the Resident Evil franchise. They've completely abandoned the old style that made the series popular to begin with, and that's an awful thing to do. Those who want that particular style of survival horror now have nowhere to go.

 

Ahem... Resident Evil Revelations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahem... Resident Evil Revelations

Resident Evil: Revelations 1 was closer to the classic Resident Evil style, and I did enjoy it, but it still wasn't quite close enough. It's the one exception. Ever since Resident Evil 4, the series has become more action-horror than survival-horror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was having a discussion with someone over the tank controls, fixed camera angles, puzzles, and general difficulty of the original Resident Evil style versus the new, action-oriented style of 5 and 6, and while I can agree that classic RE was unforgiving and some might find the fixed camera and tank controls awkward or uncomfortable, I myself loved every one of these things.

Since the release of Resident Evil 4, the series has become much more focused on linear progression, constant action, and abrupt quick time events. Some people might enjoy that, and that's all well and good, but I myself don't think that the series should stray from that original style found in RE 0 - REmake. Originally I thought a compromise could be had by giving players the choice between new and classic controls, over the shoulder or fixed camera, and other options to make the game more or less difficult and closer to survival horror or action, but then I then had to ask myself..."Why change what made the series so popular in the first place?"For example: I'd say that Resident Evil became popular because of its many puzzles, its emphasis on exploration and finding the next path on your own, for requiring you to scavenge for and effectively manage resources, and constantly weighing you down with heavy amounts of tension, stress, and fear for what lurked around the next corner, the next room, beyond the camera's point of view, or even from whether or not you'd have enough supplies to handle your next encounter.

I believe that a series should retain its core mechanics and all of the little quirks that it's become known for, but that doesn't mean that it can't still provide new experiences for new and old fans alike. Introducing new mechanics and features that mesh well with the existing core, new strategies for players to discover, new modes of play, etc. can all help to keep a series fresh without sacrificing what people loved about it in the first place.

If someone wants a series to stray away from what it's become known for, if they want it to shift focus towards a different style of play, to become something it's not, then I honestly think they should just go looking for a series that already does those things instead.

How do you feel about this? Do you think it fine for a series to take a completely new direction, such as with Resident Evil and its shift from survival horror to action? Is it okay to change or outright remove the core experience that made a series what it is in favour of attracting a new audience?

Stagnation is the death of any franchise. Rinse and repeat only carries you so far (well, unless your an unimaginative Japanese gamer). Edited by starcrunch061
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stagnation is the death of any franchise. Rinse and repeat only carries you so far (well, unless your an unimaginative Japanese gamer).

That is why in my original post I suggested they add new mechanics so long as they mesh well with the core mechanics that make the series what it is. They can also add in new modes and features to provide players with alternative ways to play (ala Forge in Halo). It's also completely fine for them to create spin-off series of the existing franchise to experiment with new gameplay styles that don't necessarily have to adhere to the core mechanics of the original series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't talk for the RE series, never played even one of the games. But I can give my opinion on FF.

 

FF, back in the day, Square made subtle changes in every installment, they started with a turn.based style, and made their way towards the now know ATB. Changes like summons and improved job systems kept the games fresh, however, the changes weren't THAT big, imo, this was because the focus of the games was in story-telling. 

 

When the 3D era came, the games improved in a great way, we got whole new systems like the Materia in VII, Junction in VIII and a return to turn-based combat in X. But, in a way, the games kept being FF, and some of this games are loved by the fans.

 

The big huge change happened at XIII (actually, I think it was X, but people seem to ignore this and just hate XIII with passion), and I love that game, it really is a new era of FF, but people hated it, idk way, maybe it doesn't feel like FF to them. Either way, Square kept pushing the XIII saga, they are commited to this changes, and if you need further evidence, take a look at XV. 

 

In general, I think this changes are good, even though games like X and XII are not of my liking, a series needs to improve on its bases to keep it interesting. Better examples of this are the Persona and inFAMOUS series. Every game is pretty much the last one with improved mechanics, it retains what made the first installments good, and adds new elements to create a whole new game.

 

But, when a series chages too much, or too little, players notice, and start complaining, somtimes overracting. Either way, what you need to do is stop buying this games, publishers only care for money, lets be real, and if a game keeps selling no matter the hate, nothing is going to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they'd like to mix things up with the Resident Evil formula, that's fine, but I feel that they should do so only in spin-offs, and even create a spin-off series within the Resident Evil franchise. They've completely abandoned the old style that made the series popular to begin with, and that's an awful thing to do. Those who want that particular style of survival horror now have nowhere to go.

 

I know we've had this conversation before, but what the heck.

 

The developers have absolutely no obligation to those "who want that particular style of survival horror".  You may think they do, because you're upset that old fashioned survival horror has gone the way of the dodo, and you may be upset at Capcom for contributing to that... but they really don't owe you anything.  It's their franchise, it's their canvas to work off of, they can do what they like with it, and as long as they didn't falsely advertise RE4 and beyond as anything but an over-the-shoulder third person shooter that expands the story/universe they've created, they've done nothing unethical or immoral.

 

And that's kind of my response to the question in the OP.  The developers have the creative license take a franchise in any direction they want as long as the new entries are advertised appropriately and information is out there for the consumers to make an informed purchase.  There is no "what they should or should not" do.  They can appease whatever fans they want to appease.  Or appease no one.

 

If you don't like the new games, don't play them.  If no one plays them, then maybe the developers will see the error of their ways.  If you're the only one that doesn't play them, and the franchise continues to be a screaming financial success in spite of that, then tough titties.

Edited by PleaseHoldOn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we've had this conversation before, but what the heck.

 

The developers have absolutely no obligation to those "who want that particular style of survival horror".  You may think they do, because you're upset that old fashioned survival horror has gone the way of the dodo, and you may be upset at Capcom for contributing to that... but they really don't owe you anything.  It's their franchise, it's their canvas to work off of, they can do what they like with it, and as long as they didn't falsely advertise RE4 and beyond as anything but an over-the-shoulder third person shooter that expands the story/universe they've created, they've done nothing unethical or immoral.

 

And that's kind of my response to the question in the OP.  The developers have the creative license take a franchise in any direction they want as long as the new entries are advertised appropriately and information is out there for the consumers to make an informed purchase.  There is no "what they should or should not" do.  They can appease whatever fans they want to appease.  Or appease no one.

 

If you don't like the new games, don't play them.  If no one plays them, then maybe the developers will see the error of their ways.  If you're the only one that doesn't play them, and the franchise continues to be a screaming financial success in spite of that, then tough titties.

"The developers have absolutely no obligation to those "who want that particular style of survival horror".  You may think they do, because you're upset that old fashioned survival horror has gone the way of the dodo, and you may be upset at Capcom for contributing to that... but they really don't owe you anything."

It is because of myself and those who grew up playing classic Resident Evil titles that the series took off to begin with. It is because of us that it has enjoyed such a successful life and lasted as long as it has. Were it not for those of us who played, loved, and supported the classic Resident Evil titles, the series would not be where it is today. We are fans just like any other, and were it not for us, and those of us who continue to support the series, it would no longer be bringing in any profit. Our voices matter, and they should indeed listen to what we want, as it is because of us that a game either succeeds or fails.

"The developers have the creative license take a franchise in any direction they want as long as the new entries are advertised appropriately and information is out there for the consumers to make an informed purchase.  There is no "what they should or should not" do.  They can appease whatever fans they want to appease.  Or appease no one."

 

"If you don't like the new games, don't play them.  If no one plays them, then maybe the developers will see the error of their ways.  If you're the only one that doesn't play them, and the franchise continues to be a screaming financial success in spite of that, then tough titties."

I don't play them. That does not mean I am not allowed to voice my criticisms and concerns for the direction they've taken the franchise.

You should be well aware of the many criticisms made towards modern Resident Evil titles.

  • That they have become like Hollywood blockbuster action movies, foregoing horror and tension for edge-of-your-seat thrills.
  • That they have developed a heavy reliance on quick time events.
  • That in trying to appeal to all types of players, they've failed to excel in any particular area.
  • That they have left the series lore a convoluted mess that's far too "complex" for its own good.

    The name "Resident Evil" will, by itself, move plenty of copies, no matter what the game is like, but as we saw with the re-release of Resident Evil Remake, and the recent rise in popularity of horror games, there is no doubt that a new Resident Evil, similar to the classic games, would indeed sell.

I am not the only one that does not play them. Many, many people feel the same way I do, and our voices matter just as much as those who actually like what Resident Evil has become. We should not be ignored just as much as you should not either.

"...then tough titties."

I would appreciate it if you left your attitude and remarks like this at the door, thank you. Whether or not it is your intention, it comes off passive-aggressiveness, and it is completely unnecessary.

Edited by Bubblegum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't play them. That does not mean I am not allowed to voice my criticisms and concerns for the direction they've taken the franchise.

You should be well aware of the many criticisms made towards modern Resident Evil titles.

  • That they have become like Hollywood blockbuster action movies, foregoing horror and tension for edge-of-your-seat thrills.
  • That they have developed a heavy reliance on quick time events.
  • That in trying to appeal to all types of players, they've failed to excel in any particular area.
  • That they have left the series lore a convoluted mess that's far too "complex" for its own good.

    The name "Resident Evil" will, by itself, move plenty of copies, no matter what the game is like, but as we saw with the re-release of Resident Evil Remake, and the recent rise in popularity of horror games, there is no doubt that a new Resident Evil, similar to the classic games, would indeed sell.

I am not the only one that does not play them. Many, many people feel the same way I do, and our voices matter just as much as those who actually like what Resident Evil has become. We should not be ignored just as much as you should not either.

"...then tough titties."

I would appreciate it if you left your attitude and remarks like this at the door, thank you. Whether or not it is your intention, it comes off passive-aggressiveness, and it is completely unnecessary.

 

You're welcome to have your opinions and criticisms.  I don't even entirely disagree with them.  Understand however there's a difference between having an opinion on a topic, and what essentially amounts to telling a developer what they should or should not do with their brainchild.

 

And if you have a problem with my candor, please just report me and let a moderator determine if it warrants an attitude adjustment on my part.

Edited by PleaseHoldOn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome to have your opinions and criticisms.  I don't even entirely disagree with them.  Understand however there's a difference between having an opinion on a topic, and what essentially amounts to telling a developer what they should or should not do with their brainchild.

 

And if you have a problem with my candor, please just report me and let a moderator determine if it warrants an attitude adjustment on my part.

I have done nothing but express my own thoughts and opinions during the entirety of this thread. When I used the word "should", that was not so much me saying that a developer absolutely has to do "X" no matter what they may think or what, but rather what do others believe would be the "right" thing to do, or the "best" thing to do.

I am aware of the report function and I will use it if I feel the need, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour. You needn't be so aggressive towards myself and others, as we have done absolutely nothing to warrant it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...