• 64 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Yummylee (22039 posts) -

This... admittedly seems a tad random and almost comes across as a sort of reactionary post to something recent that's been making the waves throughout the interwebs. In a sense it... is sort of reactionary, but rather to the general sentiment regarding the classic Resident Evil games and how they control. Most importantly originating from the consensus of how widely accepted both RE4 & RE5 play, despite RE4 in particular featuring the exact same tank controls as the classic games. I've also always thought of it as a little unfair to how restrictions like not being able to move & shoot in those games is admissible and is commonly justified with such reasoning as ''you don't need to move & shoot'' for example, by @brad in particular.

This Brad, however, respectfully disagrees!

Which of course is 100% true. RE4 is a game that is specifically designed around the fact that you cannot simultaneously move & shoot, only that's similarly how I've always viewed the controls for the original games. I think one of the main fallacies is I would imagine most people often tend to compare the new and the old too directly; because RE4 is a shooter, people then judge the older games and how they control as if they are also shooters which... well, they're not. They're games that feature the act of shooting, but they're not really shooters.

Anywhoo, a blog like this is something I've wanted to post for like forever, but laziness and all that... Weirdly enough--and this isn't the first time--what brought about me actually finally writing up my thoughts on the matter in detail was as a forum response, specifically to @believer258. Only this time I figured I should actually reformat my post, expand it a wee bit, and place it up as a blog.

So... woolah... ?

First Things First

Now, for reals, I would never classify the controls of classic Resident Evil games as being... accessible; they're very unorthodox to say the least. Despite that, because the original games' were rather slow paced and emphasised atmosphere and exploration over most facets, I never felt like the controls were much of a hindrance. The older games may still have had plenty of combat, it was all very rudimentary; most bosses for example primarily required that you simply run away, shoot, run away, shoot ect.

Who needs to move & shoot when you're the mayor of Stunlock City!

The basic source of challenge within the games was that you had to decide between whether it's best using up ammo to kill this hypothetical zombie rather than try to run away. Your attempts at trying to get through a combat encounter without actually engaging in combat might mean you get damaged along the way, due to the intentionally claustrophobic environments, but... hey, you gotta adapt! And that's basically the core appeal for me and survival horror in general: being forced to adapt because you've run low on supplies and having to then think outside of the box and mix up your strategies. It's why I'm also a huge fan of The Last of Us not purely for its story, but because it also had some rather punishing gameplay that focussed on ammo conservation and improvisation. It's essentially what a modern-day survival horror game should strive to resemble, and that's predictably the reason why user-reception to the gameplay is rather mixed, given the nature of survival horror being a divisive one.

Boss battles admittedly tend to clash against certain philosophies regarding survival horror, by placing an enemy in front of you that must be killed to continue the game forward as opposed to giving you the chance to alternatively run away. But as abbreviated earlier bosses--in Resident Evil at least--are rather simple in design and instead exist more for spectacle and/or narrative purposes. Running low or out of ammunition is supposed to be a genuine fear, and should that happen in the midst of a boss battle... well, that would really kinda suck. It's a tricky system to balance, though Resident Evil games usually offset this potential nuisance by making sure there's likely to be additional ammo you can acquire somewhere--if not outside or near the boss arena--to beat it. Not the most elegant of solutions, but... whattayagonnado.

Camera Angles & The Why of Tank Controls

Barry Burton abides by no control scheme but his own. This includes Press X to God Mode.

Camera angles existed for the purpose of accentuating the atmosphere and directing specific scares; it allowed a lot of freedom for the game to actually show you what they want (or don't want) you to see. However analogue control (for a time) didn't quite mesh with camera angles very well. Think the original Devil May Cry, which had camera angles but also allowed you more freedom of movement; it lead to instances of you running from one angle to the next and then having to awkwardly shift to pushing the stick in the opposite direction sometimes. Whereas with tank controls pressing up always made the character move forward for example, regardless of the angle. Though like I said this was only for a time, as with games like Onimusha 3 and the Outbreak games they had evidently figured that issue out, or at least smoothed it some so it wasn't as much of a frustrating hassle. In any case that is why I believe they stuck with the tank controls for so long even when analogues were introduced to controllers.

Now, there's also the complaint concerning camera angles that you can get blindsided by enemies that you couldn't see. But every enemy in a Resident Evil game had a tell, be it a squishy footstep or growl for example, so you would always know if something was close by. Plus from Resident Evil: Director's Cut onward you had auto-aim available, so even if you couldn't see the creature your character would always aim directly at whatever may be within the vicinity. As such, I've always thought that the camera angles never got in the way that much, and they greatly benefited in attributing to the atmosphere of the games a great deal, especially in the first and its remake. Whatever grievances camera angles may have dealt the gameplay, the cinematic direction of the environments more than make up for it.

EDIT: *One such example of a superb use of camera angles is amidst the original Resident Evil's painting puzzle room, which features a murder (!!!) of crows perched above. There's no music, no sounds beyond your character's footsteps and the sporadic ''caws'' of the crows. The angle is situated with the crows at the forefront, watching you from above. As you're going around pressing buttons the camera keeps a lot of its focus on the little shits, building tension as you await for if they should eventually start attacking. The way it's arched down with the crows looming above you gives a great visual metaphor of death and its eternal gaze upon you at that.

Overall with the way the angles present such a cinematic presence, it almost begins to resemble as if you're playing the game amidst a cutscene.*

Though ironically enough I see no reason why being able to move & shoot wasn't implemented into the main games. Outbreak: File 2 introduced such a concept and I think may very well have been the first of the franchise; it didn't drastically change the formula, but it was a nice touch that offered you a little more leeway in allowing you to slowly walk backwards while pulling off some handgun shots at whatever it is you're fighting. Though the enemies you encountered in File 2 were so damn fast to begin with that you were better off skedaddling all the same. Stupid zombie lions...

And Hey, It Could Always be Worse!

For as often as people like to complain about the Resident Evil games controls, they're really not too bad when put up against the many imitators and inspirations. Tank controls aside, Resident Evil's were still what I would genuinely describe as ''smooth''; they were always responsive and animated well--no worse than RE4--and games like RE3 and the remake in particular have a surprising amount of speed to them.

Fear Effect

Though the Fear Effect games for example even I think are rather clunky, which is ironic given that in these you can simultaneously move & shoot, and even have access to a 4-way directional evasive roll. However because you would often face against enemies that could shoot back (least during the beginning segments before demons and magic and shit is introduced), the tank controls weren't quite up to snuff I think. It did at least have a basic stealth system to it, which was outright necessary to utilise in certain levels like Disc 2 for the original. But nonetheless, the animations were somewhat lethargic and not always the most responsive. I still fucking adore the Fear Effect games mind you, particularly the second, but even I would have difficulty in trying to defend the combat. And yet weirdly enough I'm to believe @jeff actually quite enjoyed it...?

Dino Crisis

Funnily enough I would also consider Dino Crisis to be a little less than ideal as well. While the first in particular is aptly described as ''Resident Evil with dinosaurs'', controls-wise the movement is a little more sluggish; primarily by way of how there's a slight build-up when you start to run, which differs from Resident Evil in that once you begin running you are off. Though that's not my primary issue with the gameplay, and unfortunately enough it's actually related to its one defining element that was to set it apart from Resident Evil -- being the dinosaurs.

As you may expect, the dinosaurs are pretty bleedin' fast. In fact they're even faster than you, which was never the case in Resident Evil beyond maybe boss monsters. They're also incredibly strong and your starting pistol has like zero stopping power and a comically slow firing rate. As such, whenever a dinosaur enters a room (it was often randomised) you were in some deep dinosaur doodoo. Of course, that's the point, but the speed and overall aggression of the dinosaurs simply felt they were a bit too much for the controls to handle. You were at a pretty significant disadvantage, much more so than in a Resident Evil game. I have completed Dino Crisis however--twice in fact--but I don't think its combat is quite as well designed as Resident Evil. Because again, the enemies in Resident Evil are typically slow & sluggish, and even the zombie dogs of the series you were always just ever-so-slightly faster than.

...It has its moments, though

Though hey, at least you can move & aim in Dino Crisis! No, not move & shoot.... move & aim, which I always thought was a rather peculiar inclusion; not like it actually provided any mechanical benefit, either. With all that said, I'm admittedly not so much a fan of Dino Crisis for many other reasons besides. Like how the game takes place pretty much exclusively in drab, boring facility buildings. This was their first survival horror game that tried out 3D backgrounds as opposed to pre-rendered, which while it allowed the camera to sometimes pan alongside you, it meant the environments lacked the superb amount of detail pre-rendered offered. Plus, again, there was very little variety to a lot of it. As the plot went along you simply just kept moving on from one drab facility to another. And dinosaurs in general I never thought were as interesting nor certainly unnerving as the monstrosities that hounded the heroes of Resident Evil. So I'd say without reservation that I actually greatly prefer its more action-orientated arcade-shooter sequel. Jeez, you can't even walk in that game! It's probably about as drastic of a divergence as what Resident Evil saw when RE4 came about.

Silent Hill 2

Another fine example would be Silent Hill 2, which frankly controls like salty garbage. Even by Silent Hill standards SH2 was especially clunky -- even the original I'd say controls better. Its melee combat was practically broken; the difficulty with which it takes James to try and swing that bloody wooden stick you'd think he was suffering from a whole series of mental cognitive problems beyond the... y'know, psychosis and stuff. It would constantly keep bouncing off of stuff and was just a total mess to try and utilise. Fortunately firearm ammo was practically raining from the skies on the Normal combat difficulty setting, which I'd gather is the developers having a little self-awareness that their combat is even more clumsy than it should be.

Oh! Conclusion!

If there's a tank out there that can effortlessly sidestep a rocket, I wanna see it!

So, such is my explanations & justifications of why I think those old zombie games--for what they are--controlled perfectly fine. Now, I'm not demanding that everybody should now be inclined to agree with me, just that hopefully some may at the very least better understand why those old games continue to have their fans so many years onward. After all like I mentioned above, one of the core concepts of why I liked playing Resident Evil games of old was because of the fear of noticing your supplies dwindle and being forced to improvise. Even if because of their age there wasn't that much to improvise with beyond running away... still, early days and all that. Though of course there's still the B-movie storytelling and grotesque monster designs, they also certainly add to the appeal.

The beginning of a beautiful relationship.

That very gameplay scheme is why I really enjoyed the Outbreak games (well, the first one anyway), because it felt like it was the culmination of what Resident Evil was about but for a more modern era. It had degradable melee weapons for example and randomised zombie encounters, alongside analogue control & being able to move & shoot as I previously mentioned. And of course online cooperative multiplayer, even if we didn't have access to it over in Europe for the first game. Though even whence it was belatedly brought over with the sequel, I myself lacked the components for online play anyway, so... That's part of the reason why I prefer the original, as the sequel was made to be drastically more difficult to account for the introduction of online play; playing it solo was truly something of a nightmaaaaarrrrre.

Really, it's not like I specifically enjoy tank controls and think they're better than regular analogue control, I just (usually) have no problem with them. Camera angles, however, I am definitely in favour for and think they legitimately have merit in building atmosphere, especially in conjunction with pre-rendered backgrounds. It's a style I wish we could one day see if only a slight resurgence amidst the indie scene. If not, hopefully The Evil Within will then at least continue the slowly encroaching modern-day survival horror renaissance...

I swear, my anticipation for that game to live up to what it's selling itself as I'm finding to be far more distressing than just about any horror game >_>...

Outro Music?!

#1 Posted by nasp (353 posts) -

yeah i never had a problem with tank controls.i think they work really well if done right and i think it adds to a horror game when its in the game.i dont think i would love re4 to much if it didnt have the tank controls, because imo it would feel like a regular tps,not a horror game.

#2 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@yummylee said:

Anywhoo, a blog like this is something I've wanted to post for like forever, but laziness and all that... Weirdly enough--and this isn't the first time--what brought about me actually finally writing up my thoughts on the matter in detail was as a forum response, specifically to @believer258. Only this time I figured I should actually reformat my post, expand it a wee bit, and place it up as a blog.

Strangely enough, this could very well describe a blog I plan on writing. Hell, we even have very similar titles!

#3 Edited by impartialgecko (1613 posts) -

I respect your opinion and your arguments are well made, but no. I need sharp controls. Mechanics often make or break games for me. Even the later RE games are abhorrent to me on a control level. Dead Space proved to me that you could make a game with atmosphere and tension that feels good to play.

Nevertheless, a super interesting blog. At least through this I can appreciate the merits of those games' control schemes from a distance.

Online
#4 Posted by believer258 (11984 posts) -

I'm trying to recall what I posted that caused you to post this but I can't. I'm looking through my old posts and I'm not sure what it was, though I seem to remember a short quote tree between you and I about the RE games a few weeks ago. I just can't find it.

@yummylee said:

Anywhoo, a blog like this is something I've wanted to post for like forever, but laziness and all that... Weirdly enough--and this isn't the first time--what brought about me actually finally writing up my thoughts on the matter in detail was as a forum response, specifically to @believer258. Only this time I figured I should actually reformat my post, expand it a wee bit, and place it up as a blog.

Strangely enough, this could very well describe a blog I plan on writing. Hell, we even have very similar titles!

Is it a defense of Quick Time Events? Should I start compiling reasons why they fucking suck?

#5 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@video_game_king said:

Strangely enough, this could very well describe a blog I plan on writing. Hell, we even have very similar titles!

Is it a defense of Quick Time Events? Should I start compiling reasons why they fucking suck?

In that order.

#6 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11276 posts) -

The only thing here worth responding to is the "Oh! Conclusion!" Which I approve of heartily.

Moderator Online
#7 Edited by GunstarRed (5294 posts) -

Deep Fear lets you move and shoot therefore it is a better game.

#8 Edited by Wampa1 (707 posts) -

@yummylee: Weren't the Hunter in the original Resident evil a bit faster than you? I haven't played through it since the DS re-release but for some reason I remember them being able to kill you with one decapitating hit, either that or 5 year old me just panicked whenever they first appeared (A kitchen?)

Also someone should do a Dino Crisis 3 blog, that game seems utterly insane.

#9 Posted by Brackstone (80 posts) -

I agree that tank controls in early survival horror is perfectly understandable, and often the best option. I completely agree with your camera angle argument, the standout example in my mind being a certain winding hallway in Silent Hill 2. You just don't get scares like that without fixed camera angles.

That said, I still can't get behind such controls in RE 4 and 5. I think that sticking to such controls forced the RE developers to have to do some pretty janky/bad things in other areas, and the overall quality of the games dropped as a result.

#10 Posted by EuanDewar (5028 posts) -

Good little write-up duder.

I played Resident Evil 3 a few months ago as my first real go at sinking my teeth into an older-era Resi game. I think it was a bad one to start off on because Nemesis really got on my tits. I appreciate that he's meant to be a menacing presence that never truly goes away but it just annoyed me more than anything. I imagine back in the day when the graphics and gameplay concepts were a little fresher he was much more effective in his role.

Maybe I'll have a go at Resi 2 or something.

#11 Edited by Pr1mus (3950 posts) -

I find myself in complete agreement. Surprising... i know. :D

Especially when considering how actually very responsive the controls are in Resident Evil 2 and 3. As you said as soon as you start running you are off. Turning is fast and precise to the point where it's entirely possible to run around most enemies without ever being grabbed even in the tiniest of rooms when you have complete knowledge of enemy placement and in some of the larger areas it's even possible to react quickly enough to back away or dodge or otherwise maneuver around enemies on your first time through an area. It wouldn't be possible if the controls didn't actually offer speed and precision.

Tank controls are by and large the best control scheme to have in games that use fixed camera angles and a substantial amount of combat and said fixed camera angles are integral to the experience. I'm not particularly for or against tank controls but they are never an obstacle when done right in a game designed for them.

@wampa1 said:

@yummylee: Weren't the Hunter in the original Resident evil a bit faster than you? I haven't played through it since the DS re-release but for some reason I remember them being able to kill you with one decapitating hit, either that or 5 year old me just panicked whenever they first appeared (A kitchen?)

The one hit kill decapitation attack from a hunter or licker only triggers if you are in the caution or danger state. You're also slower when in either of those states which is why they can catch up to you.

#12 Posted by xaLieNxGrEyx (2605 posts) -

Anyone who has ever shot a gun in real life knows you can't hit anything further than 10 feet if you're moving and shooting anyway.

I have no problem with tank controls, I have just as much fun today with all those games as I did when I was 10.

#13 Posted by Daneian (1245 posts) -

I think your points about the controls being relative to the camera angles of course make sense. But more than for their scare factor, i would argue that those angles are there to accommodate the adventure game elements, which are equally as prominent in those games as the action. The devs needed to be able to count on you finding the items and the puzzles so direct your view directly towards them. As important as the tension is to the game, the fact that the decisions increased it was mostly as a side benefit.

#14 Posted by believer258 (11984 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@video_game_king said:

Strangely enough, this could very well describe a blog I plan on writing. Hell, we even have very similar titles!

Is it a defense of Quick Time Events? Should I start compiling reasons why they fucking suck?

In that order.

Changing your pictures, there.

#15 Posted by Nightriff (5145 posts) -

Random thought, did anyone else...imagine that the camera angles in the first RE felt like they could be video cameras and someone was recording/watching the events taking place (besides the player)? I know the first time I played the game I was expecting to come across a room with a bunch of tv's with views on all the hallways and rooms in the mansion...

Wait...did that actually happen in the game? God damn its been a long time since I've beat the first game.

#16 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5706 posts) -

@nightriff: REmake is a legitimately good game; gamecubes are cheap as well. This + This = 30 bucks. Granted originally it was terrible except for the comedic value.

#17 Posted by Nightriff (5145 posts) -

@fredchuckdave: I have the REmake, a GC, controller and everything already. I'm just trying to remember if what I described actually happened in the game or just some weird fever dream or movie. Although I have been debating on playing through all the games in the main series lately...

#18 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5706 posts) -

@nightriff: Assuming you played it within 10 years you shouldn't have that much trouble remembering; just think invincible crazy lady. And dogs going through windows.

#19 Edited by tourgen (4542 posts) -

yeah, mostly agree. tank controls are fine for the type of game they were making. I like your discussion of the use of camera angles too. I always felt they were different but not any worse or more clunky than arcade shooter controls once you accounted for how they fit into the rest of the game design.

run & gun controls are fine for arcade games like battlefield or call of duty. seriously though running and hitting anything with an automatic weapon - it's really pretty silly. It does speed up the gameplay in an arcade game and fits with that style of game much better than other styles of control. That doesn't mean it needs to be the same for all games that have a gun in it.

#20 Edited by Yummylee (22039 posts) -

@nasp said:

yeah i never had a problem with tank controls.i think they work really well if done right and i think it adds to a horror game when its in the game.i dont think i would love re4 to much if it didnt have the tank controls, because imo it would feel like a regular tps,not a horror game.

Yeah, absolutely. To this day RE4 & RE5 can still stand as two relatively unique third-person shooters because of their intended limitations.

@adam1808 said:

I respect your opinion and your arguments are well made, but no. I need sharp controls. Mechanics often make or break games for me. Even the later RE games are abhorrent to me on a control level. Dead Space proved to me that you could make a game with atmosphere and tension that feels good to play.

Nevertheless, a super interesting blog. At least through this I can appreciate the merits of those games' control schemes from a distance.

Yay! This is literally the sort of response I was hoping for, complete with oodles of praise to soothe my frail ego ;P

@believer258 said:

I'm trying to recall what I posted that caused you to post this but I can't. I'm looking through my old posts and I'm not sure what it was, though I seem to remember a short quote tree between you and I about the RE games a few weeks ago. I just can't find it.

I, er... I bookmarked it. Though it was just so I could copy/paste it when the time came for me to finally start adapting it into a blog!

@mooseymcman said:

Which I approve of heartily.

I quoted the only thing worth responding to. And thanks! I knew you'd feel that way!

@gunstarred said:

Deep Fear lets you move and shoot therefore it is a better game.

Woop woop woop woop woop
@wampa1 said:

@yummylee: Weren't the Hunter in the original Resident evil a bit faster than you? I haven't played through it since the DS re-release but for some reason I remember them being able to kill you with one decapitating hit, either that or 5 year old me just panicked whenever they first appeared (A kitchen?)

Also someone should do a Dino Crisis 3 blog, that game seems utterly insane.

I don't believe so. They had their leap attack that could cover some serious ground, but their natural running speed i'm pretty sure was slower than yours. They were fucking vicious all the same, though... There's of course their insta-kill decapitation attack for one thing, and in the original Resident Evil the amount of i-frames they had on their side was just absurd!

Dino Crisis 3 lol. Never played it myself due to its peculiar exclusivity to the original xbox, but yeah I'd at the very least be interested in some GB video content giving it a look see one day. Or, I dunno, if @arbitrarywater was to blog about it...

@brackstone said:

I agree that tank controls in early survival horror is perfectly understandable, and often the best option. I completely agree with your camera angle argument, the standout example in my mind being a certain winding hallway in Silent Hill 2. You just don't get scares like that without fixed camera angles.

That said, I still can't get behind such controls in RE 4 and 5. I think that sticking to such controls forced the RE developers to have to do some pretty janky/bad things in other areas, and the overall quality of the games dropped as a result.

Oh nice, great pick! Similar deal to running away from the red mist during Silent Hill 3, too. One such camera angle that has always stuck with me is the one in the original Resident Evil in the painting puzzle room. The way it's arched down with the crows looming above you gives a great visual metaphor of death and its eternal gaze upon you. The way the angles present such a cinematic presence, it almost begins to resemble as if you're playing the game amidst a cutscene.

RE4 I believe controls pretty well all things considered, though RE5 I do believe was the tipping point. RE4 has plenty of action of course, but RE5 increases that up all the more and the whole final third of that game I think is pretty damn rotten. From the boss battle against Wesker & Jill to then having all of the basic enemies equipped with guns, such situations began to clash against the slow and stodgy controls, and it just didn't work with me. The over-reliance on QTEs for dodging Wesker's attacks in particular always got on my nerves; RE5 probably has one of the worst cover systems I can recall at that.

#21 Edited by Yummylee (22039 posts) -

@euandewar said:

Good little write-up duder.

I played Resident Evil 3 a few months ago as my first real go at sinking my teeth into an older-era Resi game. I think it was a bad one to start off on because Nemesis really got on my tits. I appreciate that he's meant to be a menacing presence that never truly goes away but it just annoyed me more than anything. I imagine back in the day when the graphics and gameplay concepts were a little fresher he was much more effective in his role.

Maybe I'll have a go at Resi 2 or something.

Thanks! And RE2 I'd consider to be a much better game in general, even if its lack of the now staple 180-degree turn is unfortunate. Nemesis can definitely come across as a total ass sometimes yeah. In fact he's very similar to how the dinosaurs functioned in Dino Crisis, in that he's much faster than you and can take a bullet like a champ. Though while you do encounter him plenty, he's of course not a lesser enemy and there is still plenty of time where you're left without him hounding you through every door.

Trying to get good at the dodge manoeuver is undoubtedly pretty vital in getting away from the fucker, though sometimes simply bearing through his attacks and hoping you have some spare herbs to recuperate is all you can do. Also, it's worth noting that he'll only attack with his right hand; might hopefully make avoiding his attacks a little easier!

Still, that you don't have to fight him at every turn (only 3/10 fights against him are mandatory) is a great feature they implemented. Every live-selection choice that involves you getting the Hell away from that guy, you damn well take it!

@pr1mus said:

I find myself in complete agreement. Surprising... i know. :D

Especially when considering how actually very responsive the controls are in Resident Evil 2 and 3. As you said as soon as you start running you are off. Turning is fast and precise to the point where it's entirely possible to run around most enemies without ever being grabbed even in the tiniest of rooms when you have complete knowledge of enemy placement and in some of the larger areas it's even possible to react quickly enough to back away or dodge or otherwise maneuver around enemies on your first time through an area. It wouldn't be possible if the controls didn't actually offer speed and precision.

Tank controls are by and large the best control scheme to have in games that use fixed camera angles and a substantial amount of combat and said fixed camera angles are integral to the experience. I'm not particularly for or against tank controls but they are never an obstacle when done right in a game designed for them.

Yup, the responsive of the controls is something that definitely needs to be emphasised. They may be clunky, but they're not unintuitive or anything like that; when you press button Y to peform action X (Action X sounds like a great Megadrive game name), your character will then do do that very action! Which, hey, that's more than you could say about RE6. The amount of times my character would duck rather than do a forward leap... And that cover system! Just, ugh.

The 180-degree turn in particular is what brought about a whole new dimension to playing Resident Evil :P It legitimately changes so much about how much mobility you have in getting away and avoiding attacks. A shame there was never any release of RE2 to incorporate it, though. Even the very original ''master of unlocking'' Resident Evil eventually had it implemented with Deadly Silence.

@xalienxgreyx said:

Anyone who has ever shot a gun in real life knows you can't hit anything further than 10 feet if you're moving and shooting anyway.

I have no problem with tank controls, I have just as much fun today with all those games as I did when I was 10.

Eh, to be fair applying real life logic to justify a lack of moving & shooting in games is a bit of a moot point when you consider what other inhumane feats you can often perform in these games. Boulder -- s'all I need to say!

@daneian said:

I think your points about the controls being relative to the camera angles of course make sense. But more than for their scare factor, i would argue that those angles are there to accommodate the adventure game elements, which are equally as prominent in those games as the action. The devs needed to be able to count on you finding the items and the puzzles so direct your view directly towards them. As important as the tension is to the game, the fact that the decisions increased it was mostly as a side benefit.

That's also a very good point, yeah. Though every item in that game shined about as bright to set off every magpie in Raccoon City most likely :P Nonetheless, pointing you directly towards an item with it maybe placing it in the foreground can be used as a means to signify its importance. Such as if it's a really important narrative key-item or is just a really useful weapon you're bound to use throughout the game!

@nightriff said:

Random thought, did anyone else...imagine that the camera angles in the first RE felt like they could be video cameras and someone was recording/watching the events taking place (besides the player)? I know the first time I played the game I was expecting to come across a room with a bunch of tv's with views on all the hallways and rooms in the mansion...

Wait...did that actually happen in the game? God damn its been a long time since I've beat the first game.

Ha, honestly I never even considered that :o It sounds like the sort of reveal you'd expect from one of Silent Hill's joke endings.

#22 Posted by Nightriff (5145 posts) -

@yummylee said:

@nightriff said:

Random thought, did anyone else...imagine that the camera angles in the first RE felt like they could be video cameras and someone was recording/watching the events taking place (besides the player)? I know the first time I played the game I was expecting to come across a room with a bunch of tv's with views on all the hallways and rooms in the mansion...

Wait...did that actually happen in the game? God damn its been a long time since I've beat the first game.

Ha, honestly I never even considered that :o It sounds like the sort of reveal you'd expect from one of Silent Hill's joke endings.

That's what I was thinking, it would be something out of Silent Hill now that I've played some of those games. Maybe its RE0 that had a room with...Wesker watching? I don't know. Now I really want to play all those games just to see if I'm crazy or not.

#23 Posted by ZombiePie (5707 posts) -

@yummylee: I read your title as "A Defense of Resident Evil: Survivor's Controls," from which I was prepared to call you a crazy person. Now I see you are just obsessive.

Moderator
#24 Posted by EuanDewar (5028 posts) -

@yummylee: Which one from this period in the Resi franchise do you think holds up the best nowadays? I mean aside from like Resident Evil Remake, I don't think I own any of the consoles that thing was on anymore.

#25 Posted by SoldierG654342 (1783 posts) -

Survival Horror combat is all about the resource management meta-game, not the tactile action of engaging the enemy. You are supposed to be thinking "Do I have enough bullets? Is it worth it? What if there's something stronger close by? Should I just run past?" The actual fighting is secondary.

#26 Edited by Yummylee (22039 posts) -

@nightriff said:

@yummylee said:

@nightriff said:

Random thought, did anyone else...imagine that the camera angles in the first RE felt like they could be video cameras and someone was recording/watching the events taking place (besides the player)? I know the first time I played the game I was expecting to come across a room with a bunch of tv's with views on all the hallways and rooms in the mansion...

Wait...did that actually happen in the game? God damn its been a long time since I've beat the first game.

Ha, honestly I never even considered that :o It sounds like the sort of reveal you'd expect from one of Silent Hill's joke endings.

That's what I was thinking, it would be something out of Silent Hill now that I've played some of those games. Maybe its RE0 that had a room with...Wesker watching? I don't know. Now I really want to play all those games just to see if I'm crazy or not.

Oh yeah, Wesker & Birkin are for a time watching Rebecca & Billy's shenanigans during when you're exploring the Umbrella training academy. I don't think that was actually meant to then represent the idea that its camera angles are essentially Wesker watching you from a control room throughout the whole game, though I do like the way you think! That's actually a really inventive idea in fact; surprised no-one else has done it. You could place over an intentionally fuzzy filter in a similar style to K&L2 even, to account for the idea that you're being watched over by CCTV or what have you.

Though there are games where you can control your character whilst watching yourself from CCTV, at least for a time. That'd make for a fun concept page even, if I could only remember some specific examples...

@zombiepie said:

@yummylee: I read your title as "A Defense of Resident Evil: Survivor's Controls," from which I was prepared to call you a crazy person. Now I see you are just obsessive.

No-one can defend Resident Evil: Survivor's anything... Also, flagged. Your 'obsessive' accusation I find to be rather hurtful if I'm quite honest U_U

Regardless of how true it may be.

@euandewar said:

@yummylee: Which one from this period in the Resi franchise do you think holds up the best nowadays? I mean aside from like Resident Evil Remake, I don't think I own any of the consoles that thing was on anymore.

In terms of gameplay I'd say RE3 & remake undoubtedly play the best. Though I think you'd still be better off with RE2, as it's undoubtedly the easiest of the lot. Plus, it has a fun story and the Scenarios system (while archaic by today's standards) is intriguing.

@soldierg654342 said:

Survival Horror combat is all about the resource management meta-game, not the tactile action of engaging the enemy. You are supposed to be thinking "Do I have enough bullets? Is it worth it? What if there's something stronger close by? Should I just run past?" The actual fighting is secondary.

Yeah, pretty much. Succinctly put.

#27 Posted by Yummylee (22039 posts) -

@tourgen said:

yeah, mostly agree. tank controls are fine for the type of game they were making. I like your discussion of the use of camera angles too. I always felt they were different but not any worse or more clunky than arcade shooter controls once you accounted for how they fit into the rest of the game design.

run & gun controls are fine for arcade games like battlefield or call of duty. seriously though running and hitting anything with an automatic weapon - it's really pretty silly. It does speed up the gameplay in an arcade game and fits with that style of game much better than other styles of control. That doesn't mean it needs to be the same for all games that have a gun in it.

Oh yeah, for sure. Games such as the classic syphon filters for example I think are borderline unplayable for me weirdly enough!

#28 Edited by Nightriff (5145 posts) -
@yummylee said:

@nightriff said:

@yummylee said:

@nightriff said:

Random thought, did anyone else...imagine that the camera angles in the first RE felt like they could be video cameras and someone was recording/watching the events taking place (besides the player)? I know the first time I played the game I was expecting to come across a room with a bunch of tv's with views on all the hallways and rooms in the mansion...

Wait...did that actually happen in the game? God damn its been a long time since I've beat the first game.

Ha, honestly I never even considered that :o It sounds like the sort of reveal you'd expect from one of Silent Hill's joke endings.

That's what I was thinking, it would be something out of Silent Hill now that I've played some of those games. Maybe its RE0 that had a room with...Wesker watching? I don't know. Now I really want to play all those games just to see if I'm crazy or not.

Oh yeah, Wesker & Birkin are for a time watching Rebecca & Billy's shenanigans during when you're exploring the Umbrella training academy. I don't think that was actually meant to then represent the whole game and its camera angles is essentially Wesker watching you from a control room through the whole game, though I do like the way you think! That's actually a really inventive in fact; surprised no-one else has done it. You could place over an intentionally fuzzy filter in a similar style to K&L2 even, to account for the idea that you're being watched over by CCTV or what have you.

Though there are games where you can control your character whilst watching yourself from CCTV, at least for a time. That'd make for a fun concept page even, if I could only remember some specific examples...

Looks like I remember something from those games then, did you get attacked by a Hunter after finding the console?

I haven't played them but don't the Manhunt games use a fuzzy filter because a mad man is watching you and making you kill everyone...or something?

#29 Edited by Yummylee (22039 posts) -

@nightriff: I don't believe so. Maybe? Your introduction to the Hunters in that game is when you accidentally uncover what looks to be a Hunter pen basically with what look like small jail cells, that much I can remember at least. And yeah, when you commit an execution in Manhunt the camera then switches to a static-filled cutscene showing you committing acts of gloriously OTT violence. Though it's still only technically a cutscene. I'm more thinking of games where you're, for example, inside a lift and the camera switches to the perspective of CCTV, but you can still move around and have control of your character.

#30 Posted by Nightriff (5145 posts) -
#31 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@nightriff:

I'm not even sure what you're referring to.

#32 Edited by Nightriff (5145 posts) -

@video_game_king: Essentially, the perspective of the character is from cameras with a fuzzy/cctv filter look.

#33 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@nightriff:

All the time or just in bits and pieces? The former sounds like Lifeline, whereas the latter could be any game, but most likely Manhunt.

#34 Posted by Yummylee (22039 posts) -

Aha, Republique is the perfect example of what I was talking about, least for the perspective. Still can't quite recall the game I'm thinking of where you're temporarily viewing the game via a lift camera but can also move around. Don't want to derail this too much anywhoo :o

#35 Posted by Nightriff (5145 posts) -

@yummylee: I apologize for derailing your thread, my bad.

#36 Edited by Yummylee (22039 posts) -

@nightriff: Nah, it's no problem. In terms of blog responses it's usually a case of diminishing returns the longer it's up, so there's no real harm should the conversation differ elsewhere slightly at this point I'd say :P Plus it's admittedly easier having it here than opening up a new thread. Though one should eventually be made, if only to properly discuss if it's worth creating a new concept page for the idea of having control whilst you're viewing the action via a security camera.

OH! DmC would also be another such example for this hypothesised page, too.

#37 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11904 posts) -
@yummylee said:

@wampa1 said:

@yummylee: Weren't the Hunter in the original Resident evil a bit faster than you? I haven't played through it since the DS re-release but for some reason I remember them being able to kill you with one decapitating hit, either that or 5 year old me just panicked whenever they first appeared (A kitchen?)

Also someone should do a Dino Crisis 3 blog, that game seems utterly insane.

I don't believe so. They had their leap attack that could cover some serious ground, but their natural running speed i'm pretty sure was slower than yours. They were most nonetheless fucking vicious, though... There's of course their insta-kill decapitation attack for one thing, and in the original Resident Evil the amount of i-frames they had on their side was just absurd!

Dino Crisis 3 lol. Never played it myself due to its peculiar exclusivity to the original xbox, but yeah I'd at the very least be interested in some GB video content giving it a look see one day. Or, I dunno, if @arbitrarywater were to blog about it...

Yeah.... don't get me wrong, I have a nasty tendency to descend into self loathing from time to time, but playing Dino Crisis 3 would serve no one. When I play things that are bad or divisive, chances are, people have heard of them. It's why I'm playing Final Fantasy XIII right now and alternating between "This is okay" and "This is somewhat less okay" while I'm playing it. Dino Crisis 3 is like... a forgotten stain on a series that wasn't super beloved to begin with. Playing that and then writing about my torment and anguish would just be a repeat of my Grabbed by the Ghoulies blog.

Also I agree with you one hundred percent (which I understand is unbeatable). Of course, I've also unlocked the infinite Rocket Launcher in RE1, RE2 and REmake and can consistently do sub 2:30 in either RE2 A scenario, so maybe you're preaching to the choir here.

#38 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@yummylee said:

Still can't quite recall the game I'm thinking of where you're temporarily viewing the game via a lift camera but can also move around.

Oh shit! Is it one of those Siren games?

#39 Posted by Aetheldod (3626 posts) -

Tank controls FTW!!!!! Nice write up duder and RE4 & onwards suck balls

#40 Posted by StarvingGamer (8370 posts) -

The controls are what made RE5 one of the most mechanically satisfying games ever.

Fuck the haters.

#41 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5706 posts) -

@starvinggamer: Yep. Though same could be said for RE4 and RE6 (RE6 has something of a learning curve though; horrifying).

#42 Posted by StarvingGamer (8370 posts) -

@fredchuckdave: Yeah, but neither 4 nor 6 puts it together quite as well in terms of encounter tuning and level design (from a gameplay perspective). Also I found 5 had the most satisfying carrot-on-a-stick upgrade system. There's a reason I only played 4 once and haven't finished 6, but played through 5 something like 4 times.

#43 Edited by Yummylee (22039 posts) -

@arbitrarywater said:

Yeah.... don't get me wrong, I have a nasty tendency to descend into self loathing from time to time, but playing Dino Crisis 3 would serve no one. When I play things that are bad or divisive, chances are, people have heard of them. It's why I'm playing Final Fantasy XIII right now and alternating between "This is okay" and "This is somewhat less okay" while I'm playing it. Dino Crisis 3 is like... a forgotten stain on a series that wasn't super beloved to begin with. Playing that and then writing about my torment and anguish would just be a repeat of my Grabbed by the Ghoulies blog.

Also I agree with you one hundred percent (which I understand is unbeatable). Of course, I've also unlocked the infinite Rocket Launcher in RE1, RE2 and REmake and can consistently do sub 2:30 in either RE2 A scenario, so maybe you're preaching to the choir here.

Well, no harm in throwing it out there :P

Also, I've managed to complete RE2 A scenarios in roughly about 1:40 ;)

@video_game_king said:

@yummylee said:

Still can't quite recall the game I'm thinking of where you're temporarily viewing the game via a lift camera but can also move around.

Oh shit! Is it one of those Siren games?

I've only played Blood Curse, but that at least isn't what I'm referring to. Your ''sightjack'' ability allows you to view the game from the perspective of a whatever-zombie--complete with a grungy, framerate-destroying filter over it--but you yourself can't simultaneously view via the sightjack and control your character.

@aetheldod said:

Tank controls FTW!!!!! Nice write up duder and RE4 & onwards suck balls

Thanks, though saying RE4 in particular ''sucks balls'' seems a tad harsh. RE6 for sure, and RE5 has its issues too (though I'd probably still classify it as being... good). But RE4 is a lengthy, well paced, atmospheric, versatile, innovative and simply fun shooter.

@starvinggamer said:

The controls are what made RE5 one of the most mechanically satisfying games ever.

Fuck the haters.

lol well ok then.

#44 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11904 posts) -

@yummylee: My best time is something like 2:01 on Claire A, but then I figure that the Gamecube version allowing cutscene skip probably bumps the time down a little. Same for the DS version of RE1, where without cutscenes sub 1 hour times are possible (and I've done that with Jill, believe me)

#45 Posted by csl316 (8938 posts) -

That was an enjoyable read and highly relevant in 2014. No, really. Last of Us had me thinking about how slow-paced/weighty combat makes more sense in survival horror.

Fear Effect and Dino Crisis 2 are god damn classics in my eyes.

#46 Edited by Yummylee (22039 posts) -

@arbitrarywater: Oh aye, that's pretty impressive. In fact if this Speed Demos' records are to be believed as the world's overall records (probably not?), then you're quite possibly in the running if you were to then add up all of the additional minutes from cutscenes! I can't recall how fast my own is, though as a kid I do remember how I kept trying to beat it faster & faster with the hope that I could somehow unlock Barry Burton as a playable character. The pre-teen me always thought he looked the 'coolest', until Solid Snake entered my world >_>

I'd like to think kids of our age all attempted the same stupid rituals. First, is of course trying to do a kamehameha, and the second would be to attempt a Solid Snake impersonation, because gravel voices are just like so awesome and badass!!! Though to be honest, Snake's voice from MGS1-3 I still think is kinda cool... Especially in 2 because of how he's also now the mentor character that knows all the secrets.

#47 Edited by DoctorDonkey (330 posts) -

Despite all the (completely valid) hate that RE6 gets, I had the most fun actually playing that game compared to 4 and 5. Now don't get me wrong, 4 and 5 are clearly better in almost all other aspects, but from a pure gameplay standpoint, it was a lot more fun for me. I had no issues with RE4&5, all the encounters and enemy AI were built with stationary shooting in mind, but given the choice, I'd always rather play RE6. That's why I love the mercenaries mode in 6, it strips out all the campaign bullshit that ruins that game for me, and keeps it strictly business. Granted it doesn't explain itself at all, but once I got over that initial learning curve, it played fantastically. Take RE6's gameplay, refine it, and put it into a better game. That is the only direction I hope Resident Evil goes, and I hope it does so via a complete reboot.

#48 Edited by Yummylee (22039 posts) -

@csl316 said:

That was an enjoyable read and highly relevant in 2014. No, really. Last of Us had me thinking about how slow-paced/weighty combat makes more sense in survival horror.

Fear Effect and Dino Crisis 2 are god damn classics in my eyes.

Absolutely. The Last of Us is basically the poster child for what modern-day survival horror should strive for, least the bigger budget kind. That is unless The Evil Within is able to one-up it X_X

@doctordonkey said:

Despite all the (completely valid) hate that RE6 gets, I had the most fun actually playing that game compared to 4 and 5. Now don't get me wrong, 4 and 5 are clearly better in almost all other aspects, but from a pure gameplay standpoint, it was a lot more fun for me. I had no issues with RE4&5, all the encounters and enemy AI were built with stationary shooting in mind, but given the choice, I'd always rather play RE6. That's why I love the mercenaries mode in 6, it strips out all the campaign bullshit that ruins that game for me, and keeps it strictly business. Granted it doesn't explain itself at all, but once I got over that initial learning curve, it played fantastically. Take RE6's gameplay, refine it, and put it into a better game. That is the only direction I hope Resident Evil goes, and I hope it does so via a complete reboot.

I'd be fine with that. So long as this reboot is an actual reboot--complete with them shedding off all the convoluted narrative baggage--and they actually stick to a particular tone and style of game, then sure. One thing that I've always really disliked about the more modern RE games is their way of pandering to the survival horror fans of the series (IT'S LIKE RACCOON CITY YOU GUYS! RACCOON CITY?! REMEMBER!?) while also designing a game that now has virtually nothing to do with how Resident Evil was originally conceived. Revelations seemed like a much more earnest attempt at bridging the old and the new, but it also unfortunately didn't especially excel in either style of the series. I'm really curious to see just what RE7 will look like, because... I can't even really begin to guess at this stage.

RE6's Mercs mode is undoubtedly the best part of that whole game, though despite that I still much preferred playing RE4 & RE5's all the same. I've always found that the core shooting of RE6--even when you take out all of the obnoxious QTEs and terrible vehicular sequences--just feels so weirdly... limp. And, I only really liked playing the zombie maps at that.

#49 Posted by Fitzgerald (286 posts) -

I haven't had time to read it yet, but the formatting and layout of this post is beautiful! This is literally the best looking forum post I have ever seen.

#50 Posted by OneKillWonder_ (1785 posts) -

Nice write-up, man. I really don't have a problem with these controls, either. I mean, I grew up playing these games so I got used to them pretty quick. RE2 was my first PS1 game, and I remember having trouble getting my brain around moving in a 3D space at first, but after awhile I got the hang of it, and then continued to seek out similar games because of how much I enjoyed that gameplay. I think by the end of the tank-controls lifespan, Capcom had perfected it. The REmake played incredibly well and was very fluid, snappy, and responsive for using that same scheme, and that's one of the many reasons I think that game is easily the best in the series.

That said, even as a huge fan of old school survival horror, I don't think a survival horror title needs those controls to work. They are a defining characteristic of the genre from that era, not the genre as a whole. I do really miss camera angles, though...there's something really intriguing about seeing exactly what the developer wants you to see at any given time. It's great for sustaining tension, and in certain cases, giving a game a real cinematic feel that would otherwise be lost.

I'm glad you mentioned Silent Hill 2, too. I don't remember having that much trouble playing it when I was a kid. There were noticeable differences between it and the first game, but I thought it was relatively the same. Then I bought the HD collection and played SH2 again for the first time in years. Holy fuck, that game DOES play like garbage. Every enemy encounter was beyond frustrating because of how the enemies moved out of the way. I was constantly missing by an inch or hitting a wall and taking unnecessary damage. The game is still great, but I can't say I really had a good time playing it like I could back then. It's best to try and stockpile ammo in that game to avoid as much melee combat as possible. SH1 actually does play better.