ercles on 26/8/2009 at 00:34
RE5 certainly wasn't mind blowing, but it provided the best co-op gameplay I've experienced in a while, after we'd remember how to play the game despite the bastard that is controlling this game. The level design was impressive, as was the sheer ridiculous scale of it all.
This is a definite recommend to anyone who doesn't get their hopes up to high.
Taffer36 on 26/8/2009 at 04:05
I enjoyed Resident Evil 5 for what it was.
Resident Evil 4 evolved to become PURE ACTION. That's basically what I considered it. It basically took everything from Resident Evil 4 and said LET'S DO MORE OF THAT SHIT BUT MAKE IT LOUDER. At this point the "survival horror" element is almost completely lost, and has been replaced by a ridiculously awesome action game.
242 on 26/8/2009 at 09:06
Quote Posted by Taffer36
Resident Evil 4 evolved to become PURE ACTION.
Well, it's still an action adventure by most standards. And honestly, it was creepy in many points, no less creepy than RE1, at least for me.
Thirith on 26/8/2009 at 10:12
At some point I should really get back into Resident Evil 4. I played it for about an hour and then put it aside to play stuff that clicked with me more quickly. On the whole, though, I think that the survival horror genre simply isn't my cup of tea, just like RTS.
june gloom on 26/8/2009 at 17:43
RE4 isn't survival horror though.
swaaye on 26/8/2009 at 19:20
It's a 3rd person survival horror shooter. Yeah I loved RE4 so I suppose that means I need RE5.
june gloom on 26/8/2009 at 19:26
Just because it's in third person and has "Resident Evil" in the name doesn't make it survival horror. Try again.
242 on 26/8/2009 at 19:45
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Just because it's in third person and has "Resident Evil" in the name doesn't make it
survival horror. Try again.
It's survival for sure, if you play it on Expert or Pro. I'm not sure about Horror bit (and I guess you acknowledge that RE1/2/3 aren't comparable in terms of horror with SH/Siren/Fatal Frame, they are in different league horror-wise), but it can be creepy. It certainly was
much more creepy for me that Doom3 or Bioshock f.e.
Actually, it's a degree of horror I like the most, I'd say a light 'horror'. I'm not a fan of
true horror games I mentioned above, they're just too scary for me, but still they attract me by unique and absolutely involving atmosphere, and I can't resist playing them from time to time.
swaaye on 26/8/2009 at 20:21
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Just because it's in third person and has "Resident Evil" in the name doesn't make it
survival horror. Try again.
I have to fight to survive and the game is supposed to be scary, so SURVIVAL+HORROR seems to fit to me. Is "survival" supposed to refer to the apocalyptic aspects of the other games?
I suppose we could sit here and argue about genre definitions using historical games as evidence. Meh no thx. The older RE games are more like Adventure Horror Puzzle Action or something IMO.:) Remind me of Phantasmagoria in some ways lol.
I would definitely define the Penumbra games as survival horror. Hell maybe even System Shock 2.
gunsmoke on 26/8/2009 at 20:35
Typically, survival horror refers to limited resources in a traditional horror setting. Like, not enough ammo present to blast everything you come across, not enough healing items/methods to stay near full power for the most part (you will usually be limping along at times, praying that a green herb/med spray pops up soon).
Usually, ghosts, zombies, overgrown animals/insects/whatnot, or at least a mysterious setting/background/story( and usually it is set in a creepy locale and at night) are the 'horror' that defines the genre. Typically, they favor puzzle solving and adventure aspects instead of action. RE4 basically fit that definition, but relied much more on physical violence and action than exploration and puzzles. It was a great way to advance the genre, though, as IMHO survival horror was getting stale as fuck.
