Quote Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Ishin Ookami View Post
you gotta love fanboy logic. Now if I didn't play any past RE titles, how would I know that RE4 wasn't such a quantum leap? only differences is the aiming is more precise, thanks to the game taking MGS's aiming system, and now your fighting cultists on crack. Oh yah, and the game is more like contra instead of survival horror. You still control like a tank, cant dodge, can't strafe, and cant get around effectively. Saying the dodge is contextual is just fanboy speak for during specific sequences, which is still whack. I did like the fact it's more action oriented, and the quest was long. It wasn't at all horrible, just not awesome. And definitely not the quantum leap that the reviewers were paid to make it out to be.
I don't even know how to answer this. You can certainly say RE4 wasn't as good as is made out, I'd disagree but that's ultimately a question of personal taste. If you're seriously suggesting that there was little significant progression between 3/Code Veronica and 4, however, then I don't know what to say, except that I disagree and that I've been a player of the series since the original was released on the PS1. I found 4 to be a massive, and hugely refreshing, change, that completely abandoned the old notion of always dodging as many enemies as possible in favor of blowing them away, added a huge number of new ways to fight stuff (Rather than just bugging them out by standing slightly out of reach and knifing them), and was generally a frakking great game that revitalized a flagging series.

Hell, just read what wikipedia says on it;
Quote Originally Posted by Wikipidia
Resident Evil 4's game mechanics have been completely revamped to incorporate fast-paced gunplay, quick controls and shootouts involving massive crowds of enemies in large open areas. This, combined with an abundance of healing items and ammunition is the polar opposite of previous Resident Evil games. Previous titles in the series have focused on exploration and attempted to instill a sense of fear via small amounts of ammunition and healing items and deadly enemies in small, tight spaces. The player can fire more ammunition and kill more and more enemies in one playthrough of this game than in all of the other games in the franchise combined (not including the Gun Survivor sub-franchise, in which the player is deliberately given infinite pistol ammo) - a typical playthrough can result in the player killing hundreds of enemies.
First of all, Wikipedia is a website where anyone can contribute an opinion, and it will be posted so long as it contains new info and thoughts. So don't believe everything you read. Heck, even professional critics can have their opinions bought out at times. I personally concider Advent Children to be a complete and utter piece of crap, yet in December we were having critics review the film, stating they were reviewing the PSP version which wasn't even distributed until April. If sony and/or square hadn't paid for them to say this, they could have sued them for false advertising and generating hype as I'm sure they received many complaints when the release was pushed back, and even more when it was actually released. Then there is the whole "Halo was the greatest FPS of it's time" racket. To which I give the raspberry as It would have been a mediocre playing FPS even five years prior to it's release. Trust me, opinions get bought all the time in this industry.

Second of all, the only thing that kept me playing the game was the contra like aspect of "shoot em all and let the high score sort em out" that RE4 subscribed too. That was the only thing that made it any fun at all. The story was complete crap, I'm still trying to figure out what ADA is doing on a mercenary mission while wearing a cocktail dress, and the controls to move your character around were still tank like. Which by that point in the industry was inexcusable. In prior RE titles, I hated having to pull out of aiming mode and wiggling the control stick aimlessly whenever an enemy attacked in the feeble hopes that my character would avoid it. That was still the order of the day in RE4.

And while I'm picking apart the game, the game could have put more technique in there while fighting enemies. all minor enemies can be taken out with the same formula; head shot to knock em off balance, leg shot to knock em to the ground, continuous head shots until the head pops, and lather rinse repeat. Shotguns for large crowds and big enemies, and sinper for far away shots. I'm sorry but capcom has done so much better in the past, I prefer a game that subscribes to technique, where there are different ways to take down different enemies. This helps to keep the player on his toes, and from getting bored. And I also found most of the boss battles to be pretty mundane, I really think capcom could have done better instead of subscribing to formula.

I think it's a fun game overall, just not the end all and be all some make it out to be. You'd have to be a super fan of the franchise (which I'm not, I long defected to Fatal Frame for my survival horror kicks) to think RE4 was a quantum leap in terms of gameplay. It was an improvement, a evolution for the franchise, but not a drastic one.