Steve and I are done playing Resident Evil 1. We have vanquished our fear! This game can't scare us! And so, as we emerge from the darkness of the recording room and into the light of an empty office, Steve and I take some time out to reflect on playing Resident Evil 1 for the first time.

Just a quick correction to the video; though we indicate otherwise in this recording, the game we are actually playing next is F,E,A,R 1! Not Condemned 1 (that comes later.) Stay tuned this weekend for new episodes!

To see our Resident Evil videos, click here!

If you like the video, please subscribe to us on the Giant Bomb youtube channel!

Follow MattBodega and Steve "LemonPuddingPop" on Twitter!

Stay tuned for episodes this weekend!.

Neat-o!

I like the FPS thing this video has going on.

Resident Evil is more stubborn about dying than Albert Wesker :P.

Sorry guys, I have to disagree with you on this. This game requires slow, careful playing. To be fair, RE does not explain a damn thing to you. But to that extent, you clearly didn't know what you were doing. Now that seems like bad game design, but at the time, the need to explore with genuine care and sincerity through this creepy ass mansion is what made the game work. Is it perfect? No, but it was 1995.

Also there were a lot of scary sequences that you guys never got to; the dogs are famous because they happen at the beginning, but there's some seriously creepy environments later on. You just didn't get there, so it sounds a little silly to say that it's not scary later on, if not presumptuous. I realize that if you didn't play it during the '90s, then the game will probably not work for you. So I understand why you come to those conclusions.

P.S. when you play condemned, the scary levels do not really begin until mid-way through the game. I know you're jumping into all these from the get-go, but the first creepy level in condemned is in the abandoned mall (level 5 I think). So any conclusions you draw about that game without at least getting that far will be relatively baseless.

But to that extent, you clearly didn't know what you were doing.

Criticising one of my, and many other people all time faves is really damn ballsy.

I can understand why you didn't like it, but in 1995 it was the shit!

Also, "Chris has fewer slots than Jill," yeah he does, at least one less.

Bawoosh!

Yep. And somehow, some people want RE to go back to that bad controlling bullshit. Big ol titties.

I for one like every enemy encounter to have weight and significant.  
 
But yeah, the inventory, or at least weapon selection, could be better. 

@SonicFire said:

But to that extent, you clearly didn't know what you were doing.

Yea, I have to agree with you on this. I spent half the time watching the videos, the other half yelling "DON'T TAKE THAT SHOTGUN; THERE'S A FAKE ONE YOU CAN USE FOR THIS PUZZLE! JUST PUSH THE DAMN STATUE DOWN TO THE FIRST FLOOR, YOU GET AN ITEM FROM IT!"

I've been loving the Fear Gauntlet. You two are really doing a really fantastic job (never thought I'd say that about a Matt Kessler project). Looking forward to more. Keep it up duders.

Also, people really need to stop bitching so much about how you're playing these games. That's not the point. Personally, it's far more enjoyable watching you fumble through blindly. It's pretty effective at creating actual moments of panic during your gameplay sessions.

Sorry guys, I have to disagree with you on this. This game requires slow, careful playing. To be fair, RE does not explain a damn thing to you. But to that extent, you clearly didn't know what you were doing. Now that seems like bad game design, but at the time, the need to explore with genuine care and sincerity through this creepy ass mansion is what made the game work. Is it perfect? No, but it was 1995.

Also there were a lot of scary sequences that you guys never got to; the dogs are famous because they happen at the beginning, but there's some seriously creepy environments later on. You just didn't get there, so it sounds a little silly to say that it's not scary later on, if not presumptuous. I realize that if you didn't play it during the '90s, then the game will probably not work for you. So I understand why you come to those conclusions.

I guess it was a good time to stop.  No real memorable moments happen until you get into the lab below the garden (No I didn't think the giant snake or tree was all that great).  It was a long way until there, with lots of annoying fetch puzzles to send you back and forth.  
 
Also, when you return from the garden, new enemy types populate the mansion, which the team would have likely lacked ammo and health to face.

@Video_Game_King said:

@SonicFire said:

But to that extent, you clearly didn't know what you were doing.

Yea, I have to agree with you on this. I spent half the time watching the videos, the other half yelling "DON'T TAKE THAT SHOTGUN; THERE'S A FAKE ONE YOU CAN USE FOR THIS PUZZLE! JUST PUSH THE DAMN STATUE DOWN TO THE FIRST FLOOR, YOU GET AN ITEM FROM IT!"

Yeah, GODDAMMIT, WHY didn't they use a FAQ instead of just playing the game for themselves and experiencing it like a new player would?  
 
Oh, wait, because going in blind and unsure of themselves is explicitly the purpose of these videos.

Sorry guys, I have to disagree with you on this. This game requires slow, careful playing. To be fair, RE does not explain a damn thing to you. But to that extent, you clearly didn't know what you were doing. Now that seems like bad game design, but at the time, the need to explore with genuine care and sincerity through this creepy ass mansion is what made the game work. Is it perfect? No, but it was 1995.

Also there were a lot of scary sequences that you guys never got to; the dogs are famous because they happen at the beginning, but there's some seriously creepy environments later on. You just didn't get there, so it sounds a little silly to say that it's not scary later on, if not presumptuous. I realize that if you didn't play it during the '90s, then the game will probably not work for you. So I understand why you come to those conclusions.

P.S. when you play condemned, the scary levels do not really begin until mid-way through the game. I know you're jumping into all these from the get-go, but the first creepy level in condemned is in the abandoned mall (level 5 I think). So any conclusions you draw about that game without at least getting that far will be relatively baseless.

@GilbertMordinAndSullivan:

Like I said, the game doesn't tell you anything. And by running through it (as opposed to carefully paying attention to their location in the mansion and their surroundings) they got way more frustrated than they otherwise might. You simply can't beat the early RE games (first time through) by running around aimlessly. It's very much an adventure game in that context, where they're thinking it's pure action.

@Mahonay said:

Also, people really need to stop bitching so much about how you're playing these games. That's not the point. Personally, it's far more enjoyable watching you fumble through blindly. It's pretty effective at creating actual moments of panic during your gameplay sessions.

Yes, that's fine, until they start criticizing and evaluating the game as though they had played it from start to finish. Snap judgement of ANY of these more serious horror games is going to be problematic if this is the case.

That said, I love these videos, because the horror genre is extremely dear to my heart.

@SonicFire said:

@Mahonay said:

Also, people really need to stop bitching so much about how you're playing these games. That's not the point. Personally, it's far more enjoyable watching you fumble through blindly. It's pretty effective at creating actual moments of panic during your gameplay sessions.

Yes, that's fine, until they start criticizing and evaluating the game as though they had played it from start to finish. Snap judgement of ANY of these more serious horror games is going to be problematic if this is the case.

That said, I love these videos, because the horror genre is extremely dear to my heart.

I think 2 hours of play time is more than enough time to judge a game like Resident Evil. That game doesn't exactly present more elements other than killing zombies, solving puzzles and item management. We're not talking about some RPG that takes time to open up. They are not snapping to judgement, they are giving their frank thoughts on the experience they had with the game. These are not reviews and I don't believe it's being presented as such.

Yelling BIg ol Titties in a empty office? Priceless!! Love the behind the scenes stuff.

A tip for when you play the Resident Evil remake. Use control type C. It's waaay better.

@Mahonay said:

@SonicFire said:

@Mahonay said:

Also, people really need to stop bitching so much about how you're playing these games. That's not the point. Personally, it's far more enjoyable watching you fumble through blindly. It's pretty effective at creating actual moments of panic during your gameplay sessions.

Yes, that's fine, until they start criticizing and evaluating the game as though they had played it from start to finish. Snap judgement of ANY of these more serious horror games is going to be problematic if this is the case.

That said, I love these videos, because the horror genre is extremely dear to my heart.

I think 2 hours of play time is more than enough time to judge a game like Resident Evil. That game doesn't exactly present more elements other than killing zombies, solving puzzles and item management. We're not talking about some RPG that takes time to open up. They are not snapping to judgement, they are giving their frank thoughts on the experience they had with the game. These are not reviews and I don't believe it's being presented as such.

If they hadn't played the following Resident Evil games, they'd still be under the impression that Albert Wesker is a good guy.

@Brodehouse said:

@Mahonay said:

@SonicFire said:

@Mahonay said:

Also, people really need to stop bitching so much about how you're playing these games. That's not the point. Personally, it's far more enjoyable watching you fumble through blindly. It's pretty effective at creating actual moments of panic during your gameplay sessions.

Yes, that's fine, until they start criticizing and evaluating the game as though they had played it from start to finish. Snap judgement of ANY of these more serious horror games is going to be problematic if this is the case.

That said, I love these videos, because the horror genre is extremely dear to my heart.

I think 2 hours of play time is more than enough time to judge a game like Resident Evil. That game doesn't exactly present more elements other than killing zombies, solving puzzles and item management. We're not talking about some RPG that takes time to open up. They are not snapping to judgement, they are giving their frank thoughts on the experience they had with the game. These are not reviews and I don't believe it's being presented as such.

If they hadn't played the following Resident Evil games, they'd still be under the impression that Albert Wesker is a good guy.

Because we all know how important the integrity of the Resident Evil story line is.

I thought all RE games with the exception of the light gun ones (and that gameboy one) used tank controls?
 
Great mini-ER! Can't wait for FEAR!

RE1 sure have bullshit controls.

Old games are old.

Great video! Nice to see that you'll be doing these check in after playing each game.

Giving people a taste of what the games were or have to offer is good enough.

@GilbertMordinAndSullivan:

Won't argue with you there at all. I think it's more entertaining for them not to know what's up (though it does reduce their own scare factor)

I only objected in the first place because I don't think that Matt and Steve's assessments are very well founded. And broad generalizations based on little more than a quick look are somewhat dumb.

And broad generalizations based on little more than a quick look are somewhat dumb.

@SoldierG654342:

Hahaha, I concede to you sir.

@SonicFire: I don't disagree with your disagreement but I feel compelled to defend their motivations and feelings anyway. I staunchly share their feelings and Kessler perfectly echoed mine when it comes to the early RE games. There's a simplicity to their views I can appreciate. Basically the game stops being scary and starts being frustrating after a point and really when game design prevents not only the horror but also progression that sucks to whatever's afterwards. Seeing those later sequences would be like filling a glass that's already full, they've recognized the legitimate scariness of the game and simply giving them more of the same aspects they already agree is scary wouldn't change anything.

I also don't think (I hope anyway) that they're arguing from the perspective of not knowing anything about the game prior and being from that time to simply tolerate those controls. In that way they're spoiled and that's a legitimate issue when it comes to playing these games. After all their modern-ness and age immediately made Castlevania 64's horror fall very flat. The basic question comes down to "Is this game scary to two informed video game players in 2011?" No is their answer and I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that.

This has been really interesting to watch. It's also been really interesting to see peoples responses to watching it themselves.

i did enjoy watching you guys play resident evil 1 but i want to see you guys beat it completely. 
 
i enjoyed watching you guys scream/ get scared from the game. i was expecting a lot of what you went threw, like the dog room. i was just saying where are the dogs here they are :D

@Tuffgong:

You know I have nothing but respect for ya man. I will say that I am an old veteran of these games, and as such can't understand why they're so frustrating to people now. I actually loaded up RE2 tonight, to see if I was out of my mind. But I can say that I hadn't the slightest problem with it. Maybe for me it's kind of like riding a bike.

I still think that they're objectively wrong in saying that the game stops being scary, when they only saw the first 10 percent of it. it just sounds silly for them to harp on literally the first jump scare in the game and say "yup, that's it."

I'll be honest, I wouldn't tell ANYone to play the original PS1 resident evil now. RE2, yes, but not the first. Especially given the REmake (which is, by far, the scariest in the series), it doesn't make sense. But these controls permeate ALL of the entries in the series, until RE4. Also, a quick look at the options menus in these games will reveal that there's a good auto-aim.

The reason I'm commenting now is because I firmly believe that tough controls are ESSENTIAL to good horror games, particularly where combat is concerned. If you feel totally empowered in combat, then you will simply not feel the right degree of tension (such as in Dead Space). Good horror games should make the prospect of an encounter scary, frustrating, and something maybe better avoided. Otherwise, who the hell cares what jumps out? There's literally ONE actual scary game with good combat, and that's the first Condemned. But that works because of the sound design.

Sorry to ramble; I could literally write for hours on horror games :)

@SonicFire: I don't think clunky controls and deliberately frustrating combat are good enough. That seems either necessary at the time but lazy now. RE4 and Dead Space, despite a sense of power and control still gave me that one quality where I know this is a scary game: the "I just wanna stay here in my safe little corner" feeling. That, for me anyway, signals that they've done something right. Of course the controls make it much less scary the second time around but the first is rather scary to me anyway. Likewise the new high watermark for horror games, Amnesia, gave me this feeling but much more profoundly because the game was designed to make you feel powerless. As a result there simply is no combat which is a brilliant idea.

I see where you're coming from and to a certain degree logistics is preventing them from truly seeing it to the end. However it's not so unimaginable to see how if someone told me about the later scares, I can see where they would be analogous to the dog jump scare but less predictable. Despite that when the game, whether because of the game or the player, takes you out of the horror and frustrates you with clunkiness then you're no longer feeling scared. That problem is what I too would have, where it's no longer fear but lament at fighting the obstacle which is so ever present that it's just too much of a pain in the ass. But I'm of particular distaste with the first RE for this reason. I totally agree that RE2 would have been the better choice.

Always up for a healthy back and forth and it feels good to be doing this again :)

@Tuffgong:

Definitely man. Although I do think some level of control frustration is going to be needed (at least in my opinion). I think RE4 and Dead space are fantastic games (see my avatar) but I did not find them scary in the slightest, primarily because I played as an action hero. In contrast, when you look at the list that the interns have assembled, many of these have challenging controls and poor combat: fatal frame, resident evil, silent hill, siren, etc. There's a reason that these games top peoples' lists.

I agree that amnesia was brilliant in just saying "no" altogether, but unfortunately you can't repeat that and sustain a genre (which, no surprise, the scary game/horror genre is all but dead, with only about 5 games in as many years having come out). I think you can make controls work fluidly, but there needs to be some level of strict resource management, camera restriction, or other things to reduce the agency of the player. Otherwise, the player is going to feel like they have control over the situation, even if they're weak.

Unfortunately, the larger problem is that no studio wants to risk the money on a AAA horror title these days. Sure, there's going to be another Silent Hill, but it's been several iterations since that series was in Japanese hands (where it belongs). Amnesia itself was a HUGE risk by an indie developer, and RE has lost whatever mojo it had when it comes to being scary. There's just not an audience for it; the vast majority of the gaming population doesn't want to be scared, and it's not like a franchise game will be the answer. Maybe knowing that is why I want these guys to really run the gauntlet on the game ahead, and not render a verdict on them (or their scare factor) in an hour.

I agree that amnesia was brilliant in just saying "no" altogether

@SonicFire: I totally agree with you that limitation is the most apparent way to make a game scary. It's just how they implement in the limitation that makes or breaks it as immersive and scary. Funny enough that I found RE4 scary but not RE5. Probably because I ammo was never an issue and the game wasn't terribly innovative over RE4. However that first time through RE4 was plenty tense to me. Terrifying? No and that goes for Dead Space. However there is a difference between limitations and clunky controls. Maybe those bad controls are all a symptom of a time and place of horror game design that doesn't hold up to those who never played them.

@Tuffgong: @Tuffgong said:

Maybe those bad controls are all a symptom of a time and place of horror game design that doesn't hold up to those who never played them.

Well RE kind of invented the genre as it became known. But that last point is the salient one. I think it's a generational gap. Old-school fans can't see the problem with the controls, and newcomers can't see how the controls are not a problem. It's funny, but I suppose both viewpoints are valid. I honestly don't find the tank controls to be even detrimental (well, once the instant 180 degree turn came in RE2), but that's just me.

What's really bad (as I think Kessler and Steve will find out) is that the REmake is INCREDIBLY difficult, even for veteran RE players. Playing through that game (even on Normal) as Chris is a serious gaming accomplishment. I don't think they'll be playing that one too long...

@SonicFire: Based on the fear gauntlet tower I didn't see any other RE game besides 4. In a way I wished they'd just done that because it is graphically much more disturbing but based on that it looks like they made the right choice. Ideally I wish they would have chosen RE2 but hey that's life.

I see understand both how people love RE1 and how people hate it. I remember loving the GC re-release at the time, but I probably wouldn't really want to go play it now.

Edit: I am pumped for F.E.A.R. because that game has a lot of great jump scares, even early on.

I think I'm younger than the interns or atleast around the same age or so, but I played Resident Evil 1 when I was a kid. They make it sound like you would have to be 200 years old to have played when it came out. ;P

Big ol' titties! I'm actin' a fool on the subway!

@Castiel said:

I think I'm younger than the interns or atleast around the same age or so, but I played Resident Evil 1 when I was a kid. They make it sound like you would have to be 200 years old to have played when it came out. ;P

Yeah. I saw this game at a young age, but like 5 years after it came out. I'm still a bit nostalgic for it.

I have to agree with Matt, the game is barely playable to a modern gamer. It had it's day but there's a lot of unwarranted nostalgia for a game with such horrible controls. I've never understood why survival-horror fans love shitty tank controls and awful combat so much. I really liked RE 1 - 3 when they first came out but that was because I hadn't played a lot of third-person action games and developers will still struggling with control/camera issues. I'd much rather play Dead Space or STALKER these days, they've got a good amount of tension and atmosphere without controls that fight every input.

Holy hell there are a lot of back seat drivers here.

I have to agree with the guy here in this thread that mentioned it seems kind of silly for them to have such a retrospective as if they got anywhere close to finishing the game at all. On the one hand, I understand the limitation of not being able to play a significant chunk of every single game on the Fear Gauntlet list, but at some level, doesn't that sort of ruin the point of it? If you're barely giving any game on the list time to actually be scary (unless it's plainly obvious at the outset that they're not scary, like with Luigi's Mansion or Doom) then it sort of betrays the spirit of what the Fear Gaunlet is purported to be.
 
The dogs shattering through the window is a legendary moment in gaming to be sure, but there are a lot of memorable moments in RE1 and a lot more creepy environments if they had actually continued playing. Saying you "conquered your fear" of a game by haphazardly playing an hour and ahalf of it just seems incredibly presumptuous. At least the RE videos got me interested in the Fear Gauntlet, but if you're not going to invest a fair bit of time on any given game on the list then I guess I just don't see the point. It devalues a lot of really good games on that list to just treat it as a sampler and half-assedly play them for a little while, and then walk away from them as if you're entirely qualified to give what amounts to a product review. (Especially considering that Resident Evil isn't actually that long of a game. There are speedruns of that game being done in less than an hour, IIRC. It worries me for how they'll treat a game like Clock Tower, which is incredibly good, but doesn't start off particularly well. You're not going to get the experience by playing for a half hour.)
 
That was probably a lot more bitchy than I intended to to come off being, though. Sorry about that.

try the remake sometime pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaasssssssssseeeeeeee 
 
  

Did RE1 come out before the original version of Alone in the Dark? Either way, the player drives very similar in AitD. A lot of 'running in an arc into a walls' in that game too.
 
That and maybe Phantasmagoria are the two games I feel are missing(?) from the list of games you're playing.
 
There are many games which I felt were scary back in the day that I'm sure wouldn't be the least bit scary today, titles like Elvira: Mistress of the Dark, Dungeon Master and even Impossible Mission.

I have to agree with Matt, the game is barely playable to a modern gamer. It had it's day but there's a lot of unwarranted nostalgia for a game with such horrible controls. I've never understood why survival-horror fans love shitty tank controls and awful combat so much. I really liked RE 1 - 3 when they first came out but that was because I hadn't played a lot of third-person action games and developers will still struggling with control/camera issues. I'd much rather play Dead Space or STALKER these days, they've got a good amount of tension and atmosphere without controls that fight every input.

Did RE1 come out before the original version of Alone in the Dark?