- Spoiler: show
-
- Perspective and Visual Characterization
For example, if I see this:
...I think to myself "Oh no, Jill is trapped in a mansion!".
Whereas if I see this:
...I think to myself "Oh no, Dude X is trapped in a mansion!".
It's not like Jill is better written or more fleshed out or anything. But at least I have a visual reference to absorb. Without it, I find it hard to empathise with the protagonist. I much prefer seeing Claire limp down a corridor in RE2 than seeing blood spatter on the screen in RE7. The former clearly indicates that the character is in a state of distress, the latter looks like an artificial special effect. Because it is.
There's also the tangentially related issue of the Audience Surrogate or Player-Insert character. Personally, I think that designing protagonists with the intention of making them as relatable as possible only ends up making them bland and forgettable. I don't have the urge to see myself in fictional characters, or to turn every story into my story. I much prefer to have fleshed-out protagonists with firmly established personality traits, even if I end up actively disliking them. This issue is not limited to video games, btw. My favorite fictional characters are people that I get to know and understand, they're not empty vessels that need the audience to be complete.
The problem only gets worse when the two issues are combined, and a game has both a first-person camera as well as a bland and forgettable protagonist. I don't find that combination to be "immersive" in the slightest. What it does instead is make me lose interest. RE7 runs into this issue head-first.
Of course, I'm perfectly ready and willing to tolerate the use of a first-person camera in certain action games. But interestingly enough, my favorite first-person games usually find a way to circumvent the aforementioned issues. Neither Master Chief nor Samus are the loquacious type, but they have very memorable visual designs and the games always make sure that the player keeps them in mind through the use of third-person cutscenes, occasional third-person gameplay sections (vehicles / morph ball), and even small visual clues like the visor reflection in Prime. It's always crystal clear who you're playing as. On the other hand, you have games like Doom who completely commit to the non-descriptive nature of their protagonist. Doomguy is closer to a deity than to a human being, he is the symbolic embodiment of the holy war against the forces of Hell. He is the Archangel Michael, embroiled in a never-ending righteous conflict since time immemorial, he is not a guy who's going to go home and do his taxes afterwards. There's no need to show his emotions, because it's not like he's gonna get scared, now is it?
- Cutscene Direction and Camera Design
Time for a few examples.
Let's say you want to introduce your villain in the beginning of your game by having him visit his captives in a cage:
Never mind the differences in graphical fidelity, writing, voice acting, production values or anything like that and let's focus on the cinematography alone. The second, to me at least, is trite and boring to look at in comparison. It's a waste of perfectly decent material that would have greatly benefited from a more elaborate presentation. There are only so many first-person scenes of characters holding monologues in the camera I can watch before they all start to blend together. No matter how interesting the writing may be, it's boring to look at.
If there's no point in giving the player control of the main character, then don't. Giving the player the option to jump on people's heads when they tell their life story is not going to be beneficial for anyone. And if you don't give the player any control, like in the above BioShock example, why not just do a conventional cutscene instead, with all the advantages it provides? Especially since these scripted sequences tend to be unskippable.
I'd rather sit through a 20-minute MGS cutscene than a 30-second exposition scene in Half-Life. Much more visually appealing, and at least I know that I'll have something mechanically engaging to do as soon as I reattain control over the character. These half-baked sequences and forced walking sections are the worst of both worlds and a complete turn-off for me. Give me skippable but substantial cutscenes in-between sections of substantial gameplay, instead of this awkward and highly frustrating mix of both.
Now, all of this is not to say that you can't have non-intrusive interactive elements during cutscenes or cinematic elements during gameplay. But they should always enrich the experience instead of diluting it. Metal Gear Solid 3 understands this perfectly: Whenever it gives the player the option to switch to a first-person view during a cutscene, it's to emphasize a particularly important moment. But if all of its cutscenes were presented in this way, they would lose out on a lot of their appeal. Which brings me to the subject of the fixed camera angles of the classic Resident Evil titles. They are one of the best tools to incorporate interesting elements of photography during gameplay sections without taking control away from the player. The specific design of the camera angles helps to give every room a very distinct visual identity. And like I mentioned at the beginning, the fact that the protagonists are always visible reinforces the notion of their physical presence within the environment.
Let's compare two screenshots taken in the wooden house section during the mid-game in both REmake and RE7:
This frame tells me Who and Where, in a unique way that differs from the frames before and after it.
This shot just tells me Where, and through the exact same perspective that 99% of the game is shown in. The look of the environment is interesting and I can tell that a lot of work went into designing it, but the way it is presented is just boring in comparison.
Camera design in 3D action games is a lost art. God of War will apparently be the next fortress to fall, and yes I'm salty about that as well.
Also, it's not like you can't have subtle traces of camera design even in games with 3D backgrounds and controllable cameras. Imagine how less effective the ladder scene in MGS3 would be without the top-down view and the increasing sense of vertigo it provides in order to underline the no-turning-back thematic of the entr'acte:
Now look at the way RE4 emulates a dolly zoom trick to emphasize some of the melee moves, for example:
As well as the imagery it uses to represent its villains:
This shot implies how much of a sheer physical threat Mendez is through sheer perspective and juxtaposition.
This shot indicates that while Salazar is more of a condescending prick than a physical presence, he is the undisputed lord of the castle (especially since this scene takes place with him on a balcony set one storey above Leon), and that you will have to deal with his subordinates first before you can get to him.
"OH SHIT SON YOU'RE IN TROUBLE NOW".
I mean, none of this is Roger Deakins-level material, but at least there's some interesting imagery going on.
Now, let's look at the way RE7 portrays its villains in comparison:
Close-up of Mia going "Boo!" in front of your face.
Close-up of Jack doing god-knows-what to your face.
Close-up of Marguerite slamming a door in your face.
This is completely boring, but let me make one thing clear: I don't think any of this is the fault of whoever was in charge of these particular scenes. This is a fundamental core visual design flaw. If you insist on having your entire game in first-person, this is the best result you are going to get. Everything of interest will need to happen right in front of the protagonist's face in a way that doesn't rely on his or her reaction or body language. Of course it's gonna get boring after a while.
Not to mention that action scenes suffer as well. Just look at the first 20 seconds of this clip:
Forget proper choreography or exciting editing techniques, getting thrown around in shaky cam followed by vague grunting and close-ups of hands is, again, the best result you are going to get.
Close-ups and POV shots are powerful techniques that should be used sparingly. There is nothing inherently wrong with video games adopting some of the language of photography and/or cinema into their own medium. But at least read the fucking instruction manual first.
In short, stubbornly deciding to present an entire game in first person will automatically reduce the creative potential of its imagery and visual language. And what really pisses me off is that the actual graphics of this game are absolutely gorgeous to look at. The light and shadow effects, the textures... all great. But there is no visual direction that showcases any of this. All the pixels in the world won't do much good if there is no creative direction involved. What a complete and utter waste.
- Sound Design
RE7 ticks all the wrong boxes for me in terms of presentation. It substitutes the insanely charismatic and memorable protagonists of the series for a complete walking snooze-fest. It insists on introducing a restrictive camera perspective that forces the overuse of scripted walking/crawling sequences and hampers both its visual language and its gameplay diversity. RE2 manages to create a better atmosphere with a static background, a piece of music and a limping hero(ine) than RE7 does with its high-end graphics, the Vegemites barfing around in Dolby Pro Logic IIz 9.1 and its idiotic CoD-style blood spatter effect. In short, it's severely lacking in the directional department. It's all Technology and no Technique.
Perhaps I should clarify that I'm not much of a horror fan in general. I don't particularly care for horror literature or movies, in fact I tend to find them gross and off-putting. Seeing close-ups or reading intricate descriptions of repulsive stuff is not enough to keep me interested. Same goes for most horror games. The only two horror franchises I like are Silent Hill (thanks to its fascinating use of symbolism and sound design), and Resident Evil (thanks to its fantastic core gameplay loop, and the impeccable combat systems of the action titles). I appreciate the classic RE titles as tense and atmospheric action adventure games with cool characters and cheesy but endearing stories. Their horror aesthetics and jump scares are the cherry on top, but they've never been the main appeal for me.
- Story Events and Characters
If I interpret it correctly, the subtext of Ethan's hand being magically healed through the Redneck Stapler Surgery (because he had in fact been infected by Eveline's weird fungus which had boosted his regenerative capabilities) is pretty smooth. I'd like to think that was intentional, just to give the game the benefit of the doubt.
The Bakers are fairly tragic and interesting characters in their own right. What a shame that the last cutscene with Jack showing regret for his actions with his actual personality shining through is just a moronic dream sequence that might or might not be accurate or representative of anything.
The "choice" at the boat pier is another joke straight out of a David Cage story. I thought the game was expecting me to pick Mia, but I actually chose to cure Zoe instead. Partly because I was beginning to suspect that Mia was involved in the events (which she was), and partly because Zoe had been nothing but helpful and supportive to Ethan since the beginning. I was also curious to see how the game would handle the less obvious choice. Imagine my surprise when Zoe got killed off 2 minutes later (which apparently isn't even canon), and to then see Mia wake up near the location of the crash as if she had been on the boat all along! What a completely botched and useless sequence. The game would have been significantly better off with a proper cutscene instead of this contrived setup that it doesn't even commit to.
The race to save Ethan at the end of the boat level is a nice little touch, especially when the music kicks in.
Eveline is more of a catch-all plot device than an actual character. From the creepy kid trope from F.E.A.R and the illusory jump scares to the entire backstory revolving around her, she's everywhere and is responsible for everything. And while we're on the subject, I don't like seeing something like mind control being given such prominence in the context of the RE lore. I know it's not technically supernatural, but the way it is presented is just too close for comfort. For me at least, RE should be grounded in pseudo-science and physical threats, not cheap Alessa rip-offs who puke mushrooms and cause hallucinations.
Lastly, the Redfield "revelation" at the end didn't exactly surprise me given how Capcom had had no qualms about spoiling it with all the promotion they did for Not A Hero. I don't particularly mind his inclusion, but I have no idea why Capcom doesn't just hard-reboot the series if they're going to take such a drastic new direction. I'm struggling to wrap my head around the notion that this is supposed to take place within the same continuity as the rest of the series.
- Gameplay
- Conclusion
The core loop of key item > locked door > chest > enemy > key item is there, but it's completely dumbed down in a way that takes away a lot of the precious tension. Unlike in the classic titles, I killed the majority of the enemies I encountered, and I still had enough ammo to overthrow a small government at the end. "Return to the series' roots"? Pffff.
With that being said, the layered crafting system is probably the mechanical highlight of the entire game. The various ingredients are rare enough to constantly make you feel like you're about to run out of something. That's pretty cool.
Now onto the combat. Oh boy, the combat. The Vegemites are some of the blandest, most boring enemies the series has ever seen. I don't see any interesting mechanical interaction possible with them. They're even worse than the Revenants in Revelations 2. Pure bullet sponges who stagger in your direction until they hit the ground. They're a complete and utter chore to fight. The fact that there are only three variations of them in the entire game and no other standard enemy types otherwise (except for a few insects) is a complete joke. The Mines section that tries so hard to be all combat-driven all of a sudden is ridiculous.
The basic zombies in REmake are more mechanically engaging than these walking punchlines. And that game has about a dozen of other enemy types, too. To go from some of the industry's most rewarding combat systems and impressive enemy variety in RE4-6 to this nonsense makes this pill especially hard to swallow. What a laugh.
..Let's not even start with the "bossfights". Or why the designers thought that the last ingredient that was missing in the RE formula was a block button of all things. First the dodge button in Rev2 and now this. What the hell am I even playing.
My two favorite segment / locations were the old house in the middle and the boat with Mia towards the end. The former because it finally introduced a different enemy type and a new weapon type (burner) that served as an impromptu light source. It also gave me one of the only "Aha!" moments when I discovered the crawlspace behind the nest. The latter because I thought the level design / layout of the boat was the most interesting. The puzzles were solving themselves and the Vegemites were still tedious as hell, but eh.
NB: I refuse to call the Vegemites by any other name. If only because we have a few Australians on this board and they should appreciate the joke. Hi Joshi, how's it going? Thanks for reading my dumb rant, mate.
- Conclusion (for real this time)
I would really like to know how many of the people praising this game to high heaven have actually done any proper run of any classic title in the past couple of years, and how many are just going by what they remember them feeling like.
The Resident Evil games have always been defined by their exceptional polish and replay value. RE6 disappointed most (myself included) by being a broken unpolished mess and victim of its own ambition. What a shame that Capcom's idea of rectifying this was to make a game with impeccable polish but no replay value whatsoever. In an age when most people laugh at the idea of replaying games and prefer to juggle 200+ hours open world and multiplayer titles during their allocated gaming time, perhaps it's a wise business decision. Apparently, it's what people want. But it's definitely not what I want, and I'll certainly think twice before buying any future titles if this is in any way indicative of the direction that Capcom wants to take the series in moving forward.
The more I think about this game, the less I like it. Which is never a good sign in my experience. I wanted to like this game. I tried to stay away from spoilers all year long. I played it alone, at night, while wearing headphones and without any external distractions. And all I can say right now is "meh".
I can't believe I'm typing this, but I honestly feel more motivated to go play RE6 Mercs than to sit through another playthrough of RE7 any time soon. What the hell is wrong with the world.
I'll have a look at the handful of extra modes one of these days, but I would be very surprised if any one of them had the long-term arcade appeal of The 4th Survivor, let alone Mercs. But we'll see.
All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
- KSubzero1000
- Member
- Posts: 3365
- Joined: August 26th, 2015, 9:56 pm
- Location: Germany
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
Alright, let's do this. I finished the game yesterday, so here are my thoughts on RE7, including spoilers, images and embedded videos. I'll also use a truckload of footage from REmake, RE4, Far Cry 3, MGS3, MGS Ground Zeroes, Half-Life 2 & BioShock. Rant incoming.
- Spoiler: show
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
Fascinating post and obviously very heartfelt. I haven't played RE7 and I don't see anything that appeals to me, either from gameplay footage or what I've read. I totally agree with you about the distancing limitations of first person, with a few exceptions as noted (I also prefer it for Skyrim where much of the characterisation comes from my imagination and levelling up perks, etc.). That said, I am still curious about it and will play it in time for the episode. Thanks for the thought provoking post.
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
A very interesting read, especially the perspective on first vs third person.
From my own point of view, as someone who played the game in VR, first person was not an issue obviously, but was a core element that elevated the game. Anything I would have to say would be coloured by not only the VR experience, but also how the game compares to other VR experiences (ie the first big budget game that was co-developed for VR from the ground up, the quality of that experience (eg the shooting section in the mines is fluid and polished in the context of other VR games - and also massively empowering in VR as it's the first time you have a surfeit of ammo), and the fact it is a 'full length' triple A game). So the limitations you mention there are a positive in VR. This doesn't affect the debate though as we are talking about the standard version.
Outside of the VR aspect, I found it to be reasonably standard over-the-top grand-guignol fare that was very well executed (again in the sense of the game I played) and would agree along broad lines with your criticisms (though I'm not comparing it to other RE games as I have only played one). The main issue I had with the game was the lack of player agency at times, especially in the first half of the game, but I don't know where the boundary is between 'enjoyable guided experience' and 'this is an issue'.
From my own point of view, as someone who played the game in VR, first person was not an issue obviously, but was a core element that elevated the game. Anything I would have to say would be coloured by not only the VR experience, but also how the game compares to other VR experiences (ie the first big budget game that was co-developed for VR from the ground up, the quality of that experience (eg the shooting section in the mines is fluid and polished in the context of other VR games - and also massively empowering in VR as it's the first time you have a surfeit of ammo), and the fact it is a 'full length' triple A game). So the limitations you mention there are a positive in VR. This doesn't affect the debate though as we are talking about the standard version.
Outside of the VR aspect, I found it to be reasonably standard over-the-top grand-guignol fare that was very well executed (again in the sense of the game I played) and would agree along broad lines with your criticisms (though I'm not comparing it to other RE games as I have only played one). The main issue I had with the game was the lack of player agency at times, especially in the first half of the game, but I don't know where the boundary is between 'enjoyable guided experience' and 'this is an issue'.
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
Ok this is gonna take a little bit for me to unpack but I'll try to respond sooner rather then later, and dont worry it`s Like Leon says every 10/10 game has people who hate it and every 0/10 has people who love it, I dont think anybody would be on this forum if they didnt like hearing and arguing about opinions on videogames XD. Besides I think out only real disagreements are on MGSV(which to be fair Im in the clear minority) and now RE7.KSubzero1000 wrote: ↑February 5th, 2018, 11:18 pm Alright, let's do this. I finished the game yesterday, so here are my thoughts on RE7, including spoilers, images and embedded videos. I'll also use a truckload of footage from REmake, RE4, Far Cry 3, MGS3, MGS Ground Zeroes, Half-Life 2 & BioShock. Rant incoming.
PS: Todinho, I'm starting to realize that every time we end up disagreeing about a game, be it MGSV, FE: Awakening, TLoU, and now this, I'm the grumpy old fart who's raining on everyone's parade. But I'm really not that negative of a person otherwise. I'd much rather be waxing lyrical about stuff I enjoy than criticizing stuff that others like. But the problem is that these games are all either inspired by or direct sequels to stuff that I adore, and I hate to see them squander the stuff that makes the originals so great. That's why I can't look away from their shortcomings.
- Spoiler: show
- KSubzero1000
- Member
- Posts: 3365
- Joined: August 26th, 2015, 9:56 pm
- Location: Germany
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
Thanks for the kind words, guys. It's nice to know all that research wasn't in vain.
I've had some more time to crystallize my thoughts today, and I think the core issue boils down to this: RE7 is a horror simulator. Believe it not, I don't mean this in disparaging way. What I mean is that the core design philosophy of this game (and others in the same vein) is to emulate the sensory experience of the protagonist. The actual experience of a human being who's trapped in a spooky mansion would me much closer to RE7 than REmake. Real life is obviously in first-person, there is no such thing as ambient music or fixed camera perspectives, etc... In that sense, I can understand why people like this "realistic" style of presentation. It's just that I much prefer Direction over Simulation, which in many ways are complete opposites from one another.
When people see a screenshot of a classic RE game, they are often put off by the external perspective and the lack of intuitive camera-relative controls. Whereas I'm amazed at the way this perspective enables the director to subtly guide the experience through use of specific imagery. Where others see restrictions, I see ingenuity.
On the other hand, when I look at a Valve-style FPS or VR technology (which is very much the logical progression of the same basic design philosophy), all I can think is "so, does this mean that it'll be limited to first-person or a disembodied perspective?". Where others see immersion, I see restrictions.
Since you guys seem to appreciate this, here are some more of my thoughts on the subject, complete with concrete examples of camera design and so on. Oh, and there will be a nice twist later on, so don't skip ahead, please.
First of all, I recommend reading this article about the Rule of Thirds, this one about the concept of Lead Room, this one about Negative Space, and this one about Picture Composition if you have the time and are inclined to do so. Interesting stuff. If nothing else, then at least this gif displaying the Rule of Thirds should suffice:
Please note how it makes use of the steadily decreasing negative space between the two characters to convey danger. This grants this specific scene / frame its own distinct visual identity.
(I couldn't find a comparable RE7 gif to save my life, sorry. My point is that while the first person perspective viewpoint of a monster marching towards you is obviously more life-like, it loses out on this kind of subtle underlying visual elements.)
Let's look at some other examples of fixed camera perspective conveying specific pieces of information in the classic RE titles:
This frame instantly tells me that the two elements worthy of further attention are the corpse and the device by the door, without the need to frantically look around.
This frame very subtly draws attention to the windows in the background through its framing, which will come in handy later on. The eye is instantly drawn towards them, isn't it? This is deliberate, and not a random occurrence.
Magnificent use of contrast. Also, the pillar on the left is a borderline pixel-perfect implementation of the aforementioned Rule of Thirds.
This one conveys detailed information about all three dimensional axes through composition alone. Keep in mind this is a static image and not an actual polygonal 3D background.
This one shows an enemy in the foreground, the two protagonists in the middleground, and another enemy in the background, as well as the healing herbs at the bottom of the central cupboard. You could hardly ask for a more complete picture. ...Or could you?
Now, if you have a nagging feeling that there's something wrong with these pictures but you can't quite put your finger on what it might be, then I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you're not imagining things. The bad news is... Well, I promised you a twist, didn't I? Click at your own peril.
...Or just provide a more complex and appealing image composition during quiet, contemplative moments:
And now look at this shot from RDR in comparison:
This is the kind of nuance that gets lost when graphical fidelity becomes the main priority without considering how to present things in an interesting way. Proper direction is very important. Video games should be more than just tech demos.
You can even have trace elements of this kind of stuff in fast-paced action games. Unfortunately, I can't find any decent gif of this, but the camera in Ninja Gaiden Black tilts ever so slightly whenever an offscreen enemy detects Ryu. This is not an immediately apparent visual effect, but it's enough to make you feel like something important just happened.
There's also the way in which the camera will zoom out and start panning alongside a circular rail during the FreeFlow combat sequences of the Arkham games, while still remaining adjustable:
Last but not least, the God of War games are the absolute masters of non-controllable mobile camera design within 3D environments. I strongly recommend watching the last section of this video to hear it directly from the horse's mouth. Every scene / location has its own pre-programmed fluid camera perspectives:
From wide establishing shots that draw attention to the scale of the background...
...To the instantly recognizable 2D perspective of fighting games when emphasizing a duel.
What I find so cool about all this is that none of these images have been taken from cutscenes. These are the viewpoints from which the gameplay is being presented without ever restricting the player's use of the game's basic mechanics. Camera Design is one of, if not the best way to adopt visually appealing elements from the languages of cinema and /or photography without sacrificing interactivity in the process. That's why I'm sad to see it slowly but surely being abandoned. Now that Resident Evil is in first-person and God of War uses an over-the-shoulder camera, what else is there?
In case that wasn't clear, this has nothing to do with graphics or art design. I look at a game like Horizon for example, and I can definitely tell that there were some very talented artists working on it. But how much of their work will I simply never get to experience under ideal conditions because of the freely controllable third-person camera that has become the standard? I find this idea of developers leaving their directional duties to the player very off-putting. Making cool or beautiful stuff is not enough if you make so little effort in presenting it.
The term "cinematic elements" in video games has nowadays become synonymous with either cutscenes or scripted set-pieces, both of which tend to dilute the mechanical aspect(s) of the game instead of enriching it. I just think there's a lot of wasted potential in that regard. I find God of War or MGS3 to be cinematic in a good way, but Heavy Rain and Uncharted to be cinematic in a bad way. I hope this makes sense.
I don't know, food for thought I suppose.
PS: To make a very long story short, my initial idea was to illustrate and explain the differences in replay value between the classic Resident Evil titles and RE7. Whenever I finish playing through REmake, I've seen hundreds of these beautiful backgrounds but I always feel like I could have done it faster, or while taking less damage. The game takes care of the visual aspect and entrusts me with the mechanical one. Whereas a game like RE7 who commits so rigorously to its simulation design leaves me feeling like I've missed out on a lot of cool visual elements that it didn't bother to show me. I feel like I've done everything but am left unsatisfied in the visual department. It's hard to explain, but the two reactions are basically the exact opposite.
PPS: Oh god it's 5 in the morning what the fuck am I doing?!
Let me be perfectly clear: None of what I wrote was intended to push people away from RE7. In fact, I would encourage you to play it and to form your own opinion in the process. I don't know if you've played any of the classic titles, and I know you didn't ask for any advice, but I were to give one it'd be this: Forget anything you may know about the rest of the series and think of its core design philosophy as Gone Home with a horror aesthetic superimposed on top of it. Perhaps you'll enjoy it more than I did by approaching it in this manner!
Take your time, man. I'm looking forward to reading your response at some point, be it tomorrow or next month.
I've had some more time to crystallize my thoughts today, and I think the core issue boils down to this: RE7 is a horror simulator. Believe it not, I don't mean this in disparaging way. What I mean is that the core design philosophy of this game (and others in the same vein) is to emulate the sensory experience of the protagonist. The actual experience of a human being who's trapped in a spooky mansion would me much closer to RE7 than REmake. Real life is obviously in first-person, there is no such thing as ambient music or fixed camera perspectives, etc... In that sense, I can understand why people like this "realistic" style of presentation. It's just that I much prefer Direction over Simulation, which in many ways are complete opposites from one another.
When people see a screenshot of a classic RE game, they are often put off by the external perspective and the lack of intuitive camera-relative controls. Whereas I'm amazed at the way this perspective enables the director to subtly guide the experience through use of specific imagery. Where others see restrictions, I see ingenuity.
On the other hand, when I look at a Valve-style FPS or VR technology (which is very much the logical progression of the same basic design philosophy), all I can think is "so, does this mean that it'll be limited to first-person or a disembodied perspective?". Where others see immersion, I see restrictions.
Since you guys seem to appreciate this, here are some more of my thoughts on the subject, complete with concrete examples of camera design and so on. Oh, and there will be a nice twist later on, so don't skip ahead, please.
First of all, I recommend reading this article about the Rule of Thirds, this one about the concept of Lead Room, this one about Negative Space, and this one about Picture Composition if you have the time and are inclined to do so. Interesting stuff. If nothing else, then at least this gif displaying the Rule of Thirds should suffice:
- Visual Language of the classic Resident Evil fixed Camera angles
Please note how it makes use of the steadily decreasing negative space between the two characters to convey danger. This grants this specific scene / frame its own distinct visual identity.
(I couldn't find a comparable RE7 gif to save my life, sorry. My point is that while the first person perspective viewpoint of a monster marching towards you is obviously more life-like, it loses out on this kind of subtle underlying visual elements.)
Let's look at some other examples of fixed camera perspective conveying specific pieces of information in the classic RE titles:
This frame instantly tells me that the two elements worthy of further attention are the corpse and the device by the door, without the need to frantically look around.
This frame very subtly draws attention to the windows in the background through its framing, which will come in handy later on. The eye is instantly drawn towards them, isn't it? This is deliberate, and not a random occurrence.
Magnificent use of contrast. Also, the pillar on the left is a borderline pixel-perfect implementation of the aforementioned Rule of Thirds.
This one conveys detailed information about all three dimensional axes through composition alone. Keep in mind this is a static image and not an actual polygonal 3D background.
This one shows an enemy in the foreground, the two protagonists in the middleground, and another enemy in the background, as well as the healing herbs at the bottom of the central cupboard. You could hardly ask for a more complete picture. ...Or could you?
Now, if you have a nagging feeling that there's something wrong with these pictures but you can't quite put your finger on what it might be, then I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you're not imagining things. The bad news is... Well, I promised you a twist, didn't I? Click at your own peril.
- Spoiler: show
- Other Examples of Camera Design
...Or just provide a more complex and appealing image composition during quiet, contemplative moments:
And now look at this shot from RDR in comparison:
This is the kind of nuance that gets lost when graphical fidelity becomes the main priority without considering how to present things in an interesting way. Proper direction is very important. Video games should be more than just tech demos.
You can even have trace elements of this kind of stuff in fast-paced action games. Unfortunately, I can't find any decent gif of this, but the camera in Ninja Gaiden Black tilts ever so slightly whenever an offscreen enemy detects Ryu. This is not an immediately apparent visual effect, but it's enough to make you feel like something important just happened.
There's also the way in which the camera will zoom out and start panning alongside a circular rail during the FreeFlow combat sequences of the Arkham games, while still remaining adjustable:
Last but not least, the God of War games are the absolute masters of non-controllable mobile camera design within 3D environments. I strongly recommend watching the last section of this video to hear it directly from the horse's mouth. Every scene / location has its own pre-programmed fluid camera perspectives:
From wide establishing shots that draw attention to the scale of the background...
...To the instantly recognizable 2D perspective of fighting games when emphasizing a duel.
What I find so cool about all this is that none of these images have been taken from cutscenes. These are the viewpoints from which the gameplay is being presented without ever restricting the player's use of the game's basic mechanics. Camera Design is one of, if not the best way to adopt visually appealing elements from the languages of cinema and /or photography without sacrificing interactivity in the process. That's why I'm sad to see it slowly but surely being abandoned. Now that Resident Evil is in first-person and God of War uses an over-the-shoulder camera, what else is there?
In case that wasn't clear, this has nothing to do with graphics or art design. I look at a game like Horizon for example, and I can definitely tell that there were some very talented artists working on it. But how much of their work will I simply never get to experience under ideal conditions because of the freely controllable third-person camera that has become the standard? I find this idea of developers leaving their directional duties to the player very off-putting. Making cool or beautiful stuff is not enough if you make so little effort in presenting it.
The term "cinematic elements" in video games has nowadays become synonymous with either cutscenes or scripted set-pieces, both of which tend to dilute the mechanical aspect(s) of the game instead of enriching it. I just think there's a lot of wasted potential in that regard. I find God of War or MGS3 to be cinematic in a good way, but Heavy Rain and Uncharted to be cinematic in a bad way. I hope this makes sense.
I don't know, food for thought I suppose.
PS: To make a very long story short, my initial idea was to illustrate and explain the differences in replay value between the classic Resident Evil titles and RE7. Whenever I finish playing through REmake, I've seen hundreds of these beautiful backgrounds but I always feel like I could have done it faster, or while taking less damage. The game takes care of the visual aspect and entrusts me with the mechanical one. Whereas a game like RE7 who commits so rigorously to its simulation design leaves me feeling like I've missed out on a lot of cool visual elements that it didn't bother to show me. I feel like I've done everything but am left unsatisfied in the visual department. It's hard to explain, but the two reactions are basically the exact opposite.
PPS: Oh god it's 5 in the morning what the fuck am I doing?!
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
I'm glad you stayed up until dawn to write that, interesting stuff! And it explains to me why I find "horror simulators", as you call them, scary (because any threat running directly at you is inherently scary) but not entirely satisfying. I studied photography at school and I think I'm somewhat hard wired to find satisfaction in elements like the rule of thirds and carefully crafted visual perspective.
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
Just to give you a difference of perspective Stan, you absolutelly should play RE7 with the classic RE games in mind, 7 is very much a streamlined version of it, taking the style of game from 1996 and taking it to 2017.KSubzero1000 wrote: ↑February 7th, 2018, 4:15 amLet me be perfectly clear: None of what I wrote was intended to push people away from RE7. In fact, I would encourage you to play it and to form your own opinion in the process. I don't know if you've played any of the classic titles, and I know you didn't ask for any advice, but I were to give one it'd be this: Forget anything you may know about the rest of the series and think of its core design philosophy as Gone Home with a horror aesthetic superimposed on top of it. Perhaps you'll enjoy it more than I did by approaching it in this manner!
Im still reading through but if you havent already and can bare a second playthrough you absolutelly should play the game on Madhouse, I dont think it will suddenlly make you like the game but I think you'd enjoy a playthrough on that mode way more.
- KSubzero1000
- Member
- Posts: 3365
- Joined: August 26th, 2015, 9:56 pm
- Location: Germany
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
Exactly! Glad to hear it.
Also, it should be said that visual techniques such as the Rule of Thirds are rooted in basic (and universal) human responses and sensory processing. I don't think you need to know or understand the exact technical details of how this stuff works in order to appreciate its effects, even subconsciously. Specific images will just instinctively "feel" either right or wrong to the vast majority of people.
...This point of view is so foreign to me I find it hard to find the necessary words to address it. Streamlining is the process of reducing a system's complexity in order to display its core qualities more prominently. Not trying to emulate the sensations it creates through the use of a diametrically opposed formula. RE7 is streamlined RE in the same way that artificial sweeteners are streamlined sugar.
Let's just say I am eagerly anticipating your upcoming analysis, buddy.
I have taken your recommendation under advisement and will probably give it a go at some point. But I really don't think it's going to make such a big difference, considering that the issues I have with this game are of a much more fundamental nature than the technicalities of the save system or the exact number and/or locations of bullets lying around. Presentation is my main issue here.
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
Oh, absolutely. I suppose a better way to have made my point is that I actively enjoy recognising those structures, and maybe because of that I feel even more lost and oddly frustrated by alternative approaches than the average person. Probably inhibiting my own enjoyment of things by getting too academic about it, but the horror sim is just never going to cut it for me.KSubzero1000 wrote: ↑February 7th, 2018, 5:06 pmExactly! Glad to hear it.
Also, it should be said that visual techniques such as the Rule of Thirds are rooted in basic (and universal) human responses and sensory processing.
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
Ok so I think I got it, I tried to do it in a way as to address your points and kinda of extrapolated from there, I didnt talk too much about the camera shift but I found fascinating read all the stuff you pointed out in the 2 posts, now I think it`s fair to say you never really "got past" the First person perspective, also you make alot of comparisons to Remake and yeah RE7 isnt as good as Remake that game isnt only the best Resident Evil game but the best Survival Horror game ever made when it comes gameplay. I dont think anything I said will change your mind but food for thought as they say:
On addition to what I said I also wanted to bring up was the feeling of disenpowerment and enpowerment that RE7 captures very well but I think this video here sums it up best, it's long and it goes over each section of the game but it does a good in getting at what I'd mean by that here:
Also just for fun here is the great AGDQ run of RE7 this year :
- Spoiler: show
On addition to what I said I also wanted to bring up was the feeling of disenpowerment and enpowerment that RE7 captures very well but I think this video here sums it up best, it's long and it goes over each section of the game but it does a good in getting at what I'd mean by that here:
Also just for fun here is the great AGDQ run of RE7 this year :
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
What did you guys think of Resident Evil 6?
I started the game last week and I've only played Leon's first few chapters and Ada's first chapter so far. I'm quite impressed so far though, the action cut-scenes are very cheap and annoying but the gameplay and atmosphere is top notch in my opinion. The shaky cam and camera angles during Ada's escape was incredible.
Many would probably argue the game suffers from being too much of an action game and not enough of a survival horror as was the case with Resi 5. Personally I've enjoyed all the Resi Evil games I've played through the years.
I started the game last week and I've only played Leon's first few chapters and Ada's first chapter so far. I'm quite impressed so far though, the action cut-scenes are very cheap and annoying but the gameplay and atmosphere is top notch in my opinion. The shaky cam and camera angles during Ada's escape was incredible.
Many would probably argue the game suffers from being too much of an action game and not enough of a survival horror as was the case with Resi 5. Personally I've enjoyed all the Resi Evil games I've played through the years.
- KSubzero1000
- Member
- Posts: 3365
- Joined: August 26th, 2015, 9:56 pm
- Location: Germany
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
@Todinho:
First of all, thanks for taking the time to respond to me, I really appreciate it. I love this kind of substantial back-and-forth. I also made sure to watch the two videos you posted in their entirety, but more on that later.
Now if you don't mind, time for round three. I'll be using selected quotes from your post this time around, to better discern our main points of contention. But I'd like to make one thing clear first: I completely respect your point of view, and I am not trying to convince you otherwise or to prove you wrong in any way. I'm just trying to better explain mine, because I feel like there are some fundamental misunderstandings at play here.
Peace!
First of all, thanks for taking the time to respond to me, I really appreciate it. I love this kind of substantial back-and-forth. I also made sure to watch the two videos you posted in their entirety, but more on that later.
Now if you don't mind, time for round three. I'll be using selected quotes from your post this time around, to better discern our main points of contention. But I'd like to make one thing clear first: I completely respect your point of view, and I am not trying to convince you otherwise or to prove you wrong in any way. I'm just trying to better explain mine, because I feel like there are some fundamental misunderstandings at play here.
- Spoiler: show
Peace!
Re: Our next podcast recording (17.2.18) - 307: Resident Evil 2 (Biohazard 2)
While as a child I only watched my father play through the original Resident Evil the sequel was the first game in the franchise I played it by myself and I'll never forget that intro: Out 2 leads slowly realizing something is terribly wrong in the city, the truck explosion separating them, meeting the gun shop owner only to have him die to a swarm of zombies immediatly after and that mad dash through the streets overtaken by the undead until reaching the Police Station. Sufice to say RE2 made a pretty good first impression on me from the get go, as a child I beat Scenario A but never went through Scenario B and got the true ending(for reasons I'll elaborate ) later though I replayed the game and since have beaten it multiple times.
The first thing that strikes me when it comes to RE2 is how the scenarios work, in the first game you had 2 characters each that went on their on campaigns with small variations within them but in 2 you have 2 scenarios that both characters can go through and depending how you do them you can affect the story giving you effectivelly 4 different campaigns you can playthrough. It might sound like a smal thing and it is but I always found the idea very neat and dont think I've ever seen a game try a similar system since which only make RE2 stand out more.
The second are the pre rendered backgrounds, not only do they look great at the time but especially after coming back to the game many years later it's amazing how much they help in preserving the game's atmosphere, while the 3D models and CG cutscenes have aged terribly the pre rendered backgrounds still look as good today as they did back in 1998 and are a vital part in preserving the game's horror aesthetic.
Gameplaywise the game is certainly an improvement over the first, combat overall feels alot better with some new interesting enemies thrown in but also how the guns handle and feel, while still constricted to the combat of the first game actually firing guns in this game feels way better then the Resident evil 1 to me. It's also worth to point out that Resident Evil 2 while still being a fairly open game is more linear then it's predecessor, while you can backtrack through the entire map in RE1 by the end, RE2 is sectioned off in 2 clear "phases" the Police station and the Lab, I think this is interesting to note here because much like the gradual increase in action this will be an ongoing trend of the series going foward.
If I have one issue with the game is Scenario B which is alot weaker then A in my opinion, while alot of people like Mr X and he's certainly scary the first time he shows up he never really felt much of a threat to me even the first time I played it as a child and even his design is kinda of boring to look at for me, compare him to the much more interesting William Birkin and his constant evolutions and Mr X just feels like a distraction, to me he's a concept that would only be fully realized in the next game.
Residen Evil 2 isnt my favorite game in the series but it's without a doubt one of the best survival horror games ever made doing everything a good sequel should by expanding and refining almost every aspect of the original and it sits comfortably for me as the third best entry.
The first thing that strikes me when it comes to RE2 is how the scenarios work, in the first game you had 2 characters each that went on their on campaigns with small variations within them but in 2 you have 2 scenarios that both characters can go through and depending how you do them you can affect the story giving you effectivelly 4 different campaigns you can playthrough. It might sound like a smal thing and it is but I always found the idea very neat and dont think I've ever seen a game try a similar system since which only make RE2 stand out more.
The second are the pre rendered backgrounds, not only do they look great at the time but especially after coming back to the game many years later it's amazing how much they help in preserving the game's atmosphere, while the 3D models and CG cutscenes have aged terribly the pre rendered backgrounds still look as good today as they did back in 1998 and are a vital part in preserving the game's horror aesthetic.
Gameplaywise the game is certainly an improvement over the first, combat overall feels alot better with some new interesting enemies thrown in but also how the guns handle and feel, while still constricted to the combat of the first game actually firing guns in this game feels way better then the Resident evil 1 to me. It's also worth to point out that Resident Evil 2 while still being a fairly open game is more linear then it's predecessor, while you can backtrack through the entire map in RE1 by the end, RE2 is sectioned off in 2 clear "phases" the Police station and the Lab, I think this is interesting to note here because much like the gradual increase in action this will be an ongoing trend of the series going foward.
If I have one issue with the game is Scenario B which is alot weaker then A in my opinion, while alot of people like Mr X and he's certainly scary the first time he shows up he never really felt much of a threat to me even the first time I played it as a child and even his design is kinda of boring to look at for me, compare him to the much more interesting William Birkin and his constant evolutions and Mr X just feels like a distraction, to me he's a concept that would only be fully realized in the next game.
Residen Evil 2 isnt my favorite game in the series but it's without a doubt one of the best survival horror games ever made doing everything a good sequel should by expanding and refining almost every aspect of the original and it sits comfortably for me as the third best entry.
- AndrewBrown
- Member
- Posts: 357
- Joined: November 21st, 2015, 8:37 am
- Location: Portland, OR
- Contact:
Re: Our next podcast recording (17.2.18) - 307: Resident Evil 2 (Biohazard 2)
By the time I played Resident Evil 2, I was older, wiser, and more cynical than the scared little boy sitting in the dark after being abandoned by his brother. Zombies had become rote and predictable. The awkward dialog and crude character models were amusing rather than off-putting. As though aware that this may happen, Resident Evil 2 was prepared for me: When I rounded a corner in the Raccoon City Police Department and saw a creature creep by the window, I was unnerved. I was accustomed to a crash of glass and the swell of tense music when a Cerberus leapt through a window. This first sighting of a Licker deliberately subverted that expectation: A fleeting glimpse accompanied only by the faintest clicking of its claws on the side of the building, followed by a tense silence. I stood motionless, staring at that window, waiting for the jump scare that never came. It was an anti-jump scare, and scarier than anything else in the entire videogame. It took several minutes of steeling my nerves before I could walk through that door and view that iconic first appearance of a Licker on the ceiling.
If Resident Evil is the proof-of-concept, then Resident Evil 2 is the prototype. The series' ideas existed in that first incarnation, but the bones that typify the next few releases are laid down here and expanded upon to create something far more human and engaging. The limited setting of a spooky mansion is exploded to a city enveloped in viral apocalypse. Glamorous elite soldier player characters are replaced by untrained civilians caught in situations beyond their control or understanding. The greed of a single man is revealed to be symptomatic of an entire corporation and its competitors which have transcended morality to pursue profit and power for their own sake. The fixed camera angles are more claustrophobic, the puzzles more esoteric; the secrets more deviously buried. Perhaps the secret to advance from proof-of-concept to prototype, as evidenced by Resident Evil 2, is more, more, more.
If Resident Evil is the proof-of-concept, then Resident Evil 2 is the prototype. The series' ideas existed in that first incarnation, but the bones that typify the next few releases are laid down here and expanded upon to create something far more human and engaging. The limited setting of a spooky mansion is exploded to a city enveloped in viral apocalypse. Glamorous elite soldier player characters are replaced by untrained civilians caught in situations beyond their control or understanding. The greed of a single man is revealed to be symptomatic of an entire corporation and its competitors which have transcended morality to pursue profit and power for their own sake. The fixed camera angles are more claustrophobic, the puzzles more esoteric; the secrets more deviously buried. Perhaps the secret to advance from proof-of-concept to prototype, as evidenced by Resident Evil 2, is more, more, more.
Re: Our next podcast recording (17.2.18) - 307: Resident Evil 2 (Biohazard 2)
After the personal milestone that was the first one, I think that I was unusually late to the second entry, I can’t remember if I bought this one, or borrowed a copy. I do know that my current PS1 copy isn’t the original one I played through and one I picked up a few years later.
Last summer I completed a GameCube playthrough of RE:2, the first since I first played it through some time back when it first came out on the PS1. I’d grown hungry for the experience again after hearing about the possible re-make and decided I couldn’t wait any longer and reached for my copy from my shelf.
I played through as Claire this time and again, I didn’t play through the repeat game with the second character. I’m sure that if this was your new game, you’d be perhaps encouraged to play through the same game again with a different character – mind you, I didn’t when I first played it all those years ago.
I think graphically there is an improvement over the first one, the backgrounds look more detailed and the lighting looks sharper than the first one but again, this is the GameCube version which will be enhanced over the original PS1 game so is perhaps an unfair comparison. I’m a big fan of the fixed camera angles and off-screen audio clues to what is coming up, the second one feels like it leans more into this, or maybe I just notice it more.
Puzzles seem lighter to me in this one and less story based, I don’t know, the legitimacy of the puzzles felt more at home in a creepy, secluded mansion than it did in an inner town police station. Not that they really make sense in any reality but the Mansion seemed much more believable than a Police Station. It also feels like there is less of a branching path, or illusion of at very least. It’s perfectly plausible to not find out/work out that you can weaken Plant 42 in the first one with the poison, rather than using a stack of ammo to kill it. I don’t remember there being any similar scenarios in this game – or maybe I just didn’t find them.
I don’t feel as interested in the story or the characters this time around either, I remember feeling the same when I first played it and it felt the same more recently too. Maybe it’s the setting of this game, or what to me feels like lesser compelling mystery surrounding the whole affair, it’s like I’ve now seen the monster and I’m no longer wowed by it.
I feel like I want to like RE:2 more than I do, it feels shorter (maybe because I only really want to play half of the game I suppose) and more muddled than the Spencer Mansion did. The areas feel more open and less creative than the previous game also.
Reading through other peoples thoughts on the game I seem to perhaps be in the minority here, I still enjoyed the game and looing back at it in the series I feel that it’s as essential as any other entry, I just didn’t enjoy it as much as the first game.
Last summer I completed a GameCube playthrough of RE:2, the first since I first played it through some time back when it first came out on the PS1. I’d grown hungry for the experience again after hearing about the possible re-make and decided I couldn’t wait any longer and reached for my copy from my shelf.
I played through as Claire this time and again, I didn’t play through the repeat game with the second character. I’m sure that if this was your new game, you’d be perhaps encouraged to play through the same game again with a different character – mind you, I didn’t when I first played it all those years ago.
I think graphically there is an improvement over the first one, the backgrounds look more detailed and the lighting looks sharper than the first one but again, this is the GameCube version which will be enhanced over the original PS1 game so is perhaps an unfair comparison. I’m a big fan of the fixed camera angles and off-screen audio clues to what is coming up, the second one feels like it leans more into this, or maybe I just notice it more.
Puzzles seem lighter to me in this one and less story based, I don’t know, the legitimacy of the puzzles felt more at home in a creepy, secluded mansion than it did in an inner town police station. Not that they really make sense in any reality but the Mansion seemed much more believable than a Police Station. It also feels like there is less of a branching path, or illusion of at very least. It’s perfectly plausible to not find out/work out that you can weaken Plant 42 in the first one with the poison, rather than using a stack of ammo to kill it. I don’t remember there being any similar scenarios in this game – or maybe I just didn’t find them.
I don’t feel as interested in the story or the characters this time around either, I remember feeling the same when I first played it and it felt the same more recently too. Maybe it’s the setting of this game, or what to me feels like lesser compelling mystery surrounding the whole affair, it’s like I’ve now seen the monster and I’m no longer wowed by it.
I feel like I want to like RE:2 more than I do, it feels shorter (maybe because I only really want to play half of the game I suppose) and more muddled than the Spencer Mansion did. The areas feel more open and less creative than the previous game also.
Reading through other peoples thoughts on the game I seem to perhaps be in the minority here, I still enjoyed the game and looing back at it in the series I feel that it’s as essential as any other entry, I just didn’t enjoy it as much as the first game.
- Simonsloth
- Member
- Posts: 1639
- Joined: November 22nd, 2017, 7:17 am
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Our next podcast recording (17.2.18) - 307: Resident Evil 2 (Biohazard 2)
I just want to say I’ve really enjoyed reading all the posts in this thread. I love the nostalgia and personal anecdotes because a lot (maybe all) grew up on these games and it’s great to hear the personal experiences that everyone had!
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
Agreed. I don't have the 1st vs. 3rd person hangups, though I see KSubzero's points as he's explained them very clearly. I'm more worried about what I read as this really guided and scripted nature of the game. I didn't mind the opening since it set such an engrossing tone, but I wouldn't want that to be the whole game.
I'll try and go into RE7 as blank as I will still be able to do when the time comes.
- psychohype
- Member
- Posts: 28
- Joined: August 2nd, 2017, 1:10 am
Re: Our next podcast recording (17.2.18) - 307: Resident Evil 2 (Biohazard 2)
I'd say Capcom really nailed both the tone and scope for Resident Evil 2. Even as the setting moved from a macabre rural mansion to a more urban setting, the game retained the right style of unsettling creepiness inside the police station, and I can't imagine that was an easy feat to pull off. It also enlarged the scope of the game without going overboard. The short journey from the game's starting point to the police station was a clever way to reveal the widespread devastation of Racoon City while making first-time players momentarily feel like they had truly arrived at a kind of sanctuary location in the midst of an urban hellscape.
The ideas the game retained from the original—the puzzles, the action, and the finding of keys to unlock new areas within the main location—were well implemented once again. And the ideas it introduced—the lickers, the expanded branching narrative of the second play through with Mr. X as the proto-Nemesis—all worked pretty well too.
In fact, I'd say the game is so well executed in terms of it being a faithful sequel that it almost risks being overshadowed by other games in the series that did more to stand out. I'm thinking mostly of Resident Evil 4, which was a major reinvention of the series years later, but even Resident Evil 3, which probably had more flaws but also took more steps to try new ideas.
Anyway, great game and admirable continuation of the series. I'm glad we were given this kind of a sequel before the series really jumped the shark just a couple entries later.
The ideas the game retained from the original—the puzzles, the action, and the finding of keys to unlock new areas within the main location—were well implemented once again. And the ideas it introduced—the lickers, the expanded branching narrative of the second play through with Mr. X as the proto-Nemesis—all worked pretty well too.
In fact, I'd say the game is so well executed in terms of it being a faithful sequel that it almost risks being overshadowed by other games in the series that did more to stand out. I'm thinking mostly of Resident Evil 4, which was a major reinvention of the series years later, but even Resident Evil 3, which probably had more flaws but also took more steps to try new ideas.
Anyway, great game and admirable continuation of the series. I'm glad we were given this kind of a sequel before the series really jumped the shark just a couple entries later.
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
Ok Ksubzero I just got around to reading your full reply and I am gonna try and make a more complete response because you touched on some interesting points that I want to further elaborate on but I wanted to say something before because I think it's gonna help us frame this debate better.
Your post really crystalized our differences of perspective when it comes to the series I think, to me Resident Evil and well Survival horror in general is held by 3 pillars: First is the horror itself, second is the resource management and third is exploration. These are the 3 main things Im looking for in not only Resident Evil but survival horror games in general, which to me is why Silent hill is stil a great survival horror game despite being alot more mechanically shallow then Resident evil.
Now it's not that I dont care about the mechanical depth in a RE game, and this will become very clear once I write my correspondence on RE3 I hope, but it is less important to me than those 3 pillars I cited.
Now just to exemplify our differences of perspective, and correct me if Im wrong, But In RE3 the main appeal to you when say fighting Nemesis would be the actual combat, how you fight him, how to dodge him, best use your weapons and the strategies you can employ there. For me the main appeal lies in thinking "Do I have enough ammo and healing itens for this?Is the Iten Im gonna get from him worth it? Will I have enough resources after I fight him to deal with enemies on the following area?"
I think we care about both but we put more emphasis in one over the other.
Now to go back to those 3 pillars I mentioned, I think it's incontrovertible to say that despite whatever hang ups you may have about how well implemented those 3 aspects are, RE7 ticks all of those boxes but more then that those are the main focus of the game I also think it's fair to say that those 3 pillars have been quickly eroded in the series since RE4 which is why I mark their return here as very important.
One thing that you said that did bother me though was when you were talking about depth and using games like TLoU like examples, now Im not mad or anything but my main issue is more like that you seem to misrepresent my position.
Now I never made the argument that TLoU was a mechanically deep game , but that it has enough depth for it to be interesting and that its gameplay is really satisfying.
I dont think that a game can be classified in a binary state of Shallow or Complex, compre TLoU to RE4 and it will be shallow but compare it to silent hill or more fittingly Uncharted and it will be more complex, now how you much you can enjoy a game based on the depth of it's mechanics is very much a personal thing, but I dont think it's fair to judge someone's taste because they can enjoy the gameplay of something you dont, it's like if you criticize someones taste for enjoying Fast food because it isnt gourmet food and implying they cant enjoy gourmet as much as you can because they can still eat and enjoy fast-food, see what Im saying? I dont think that's what you were trying to say but that's what it sounded like to me at the very least.
I hope this cleared some things up and was usefull, I will try and write the more comprehensive respose tomorrow but no promises.
PS:Let's not get into a a Code Veronica debate here otherwise we will be here forever XD,
Your post really crystalized our differences of perspective when it comes to the series I think, to me Resident Evil and well Survival horror in general is held by 3 pillars: First is the horror itself, second is the resource management and third is exploration. These are the 3 main things Im looking for in not only Resident Evil but survival horror games in general, which to me is why Silent hill is stil a great survival horror game despite being alot more mechanically shallow then Resident evil.
Now it's not that I dont care about the mechanical depth in a RE game, and this will become very clear once I write my correspondence on RE3 I hope, but it is less important to me than those 3 pillars I cited.
Now just to exemplify our differences of perspective, and correct me if Im wrong, But In RE3 the main appeal to you when say fighting Nemesis would be the actual combat, how you fight him, how to dodge him, best use your weapons and the strategies you can employ there. For me the main appeal lies in thinking "Do I have enough ammo and healing itens for this?Is the Iten Im gonna get from him worth it? Will I have enough resources after I fight him to deal with enemies on the following area?"
I think we care about both but we put more emphasis in one over the other.
Now to go back to those 3 pillars I mentioned, I think it's incontrovertible to say that despite whatever hang ups you may have about how well implemented those 3 aspects are, RE7 ticks all of those boxes but more then that those are the main focus of the game I also think it's fair to say that those 3 pillars have been quickly eroded in the series since RE4 which is why I mark their return here as very important.
One thing that you said that did bother me though was when you were talking about depth and using games like TLoU like examples, now Im not mad or anything but my main issue is more like that you seem to misrepresent my position.
Now I never made the argument that TLoU was a mechanically deep game , but that it has enough depth for it to be interesting and that its gameplay is really satisfying.
I dont think that a game can be classified in a binary state of Shallow or Complex, compre TLoU to RE4 and it will be shallow but compare it to silent hill or more fittingly Uncharted and it will be more complex, now how you much you can enjoy a game based on the depth of it's mechanics is very much a personal thing, but I dont think it's fair to judge someone's taste because they can enjoy the gameplay of something you dont, it's like if you criticize someones taste for enjoying Fast food because it isnt gourmet food and implying they cant enjoy gourmet as much as you can because they can still eat and enjoy fast-food, see what Im saying? I dont think that's what you were trying to say but that's what it sounded like to me at the very least.
I hope this cleared some things up and was usefull, I will try and write the more comprehensive respose tomorrow but no promises.
PS:Let's not get into a a Code Veronica debate here otherwise we will be here forever XD,
- KSubzero1000
- Member
- Posts: 3365
- Joined: August 26th, 2015, 9:56 pm
- Location: Germany
Re: All things Resident Evil (Biohazard)
Yeah, that's probably a good example. Although it's also part of the reason why I'm not that big a fan of RE3, because fighting Nemesis can be so repetitive and frustrating. But I think this does encapsulate very well the different ways that you and I approach Resident Evil.Todinho wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm Now just to exemplify our differences of perspective, and correct me if Im wrong, But In RE3 the main appeal to you when say fighting Nemesis would be the actual combat, how you fight him, how to dodge him, best use your weapons and the strategies you can employ there. For me the main appeal lies in thinking "Do I have enough ammo and healing itens for this?Is the Iten Im gonna get from him worth it? Will I have enough resources after I fight him to deal with enemies on the following area?"
Fair enough. I think they're very poorly implemented, but those are indeed the main focus of the game. Good point.Todinho wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm Now to go back to those 3 pillars I mentioned, I think it's incontrovertible to say that despite whatever hang ups you may have about how well implemented those 3 aspects are, RE7 ticks all of those boxes but more then that those are the main focus of the game I also think it's fair to say that those 3 pillars have been quickly eroded in the series since RE4 which is why I mark their return here as very important.
Genuinely sorry about that... I didn't mean to imply that you had bad taste at all and I even explicitly said so in my post. I guess I should have been more clear. My point was simply to clarify why I cared so much about mechanical depth, not that other people are wrong for having different priorities.Todinho wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm One thing that you said that did bother me though was when you were talking about depth and using games like TLoU like examples, now Im not mad or anything but my main issue is more like that you seem to misrepresent my position.
Now I never made the argument that TLoU was a mechanically deep game , but that it has enough depth for it to be interesting and that its gameplay is really satisfying.
If you knew how often I've heard people argue that TLoU was an improvement on RE4 on every front, including mechanics... That's why I'm a bit harsh on that topic, because I feel like the industry as a whole is slowly but surely leaving behind some of the stuff I care about based on that type of feedback. (Not yours.)
If you have the time, I strongly recommend watching the Mark Brown and RE4 videos I posted at least, to help with establishing a frame of reference.
Edit: And also, it should be said that complexity and depth are, again, not the same thing.
Take your time. Looking forward to it.
Hey man, you started it!
Edit:
I re-read my post, and I really don't see where I did that...? I was merely explaining what is important to me, not judging anyone else. A direct quote would be appreciated.I dont think it's fair to judge someone's taste because they can enjoy the gameplay of something you dont