Originally posted by P4Novy:

No counters to make, huh? Sure, better to stay quiet than saying something regrettable.

No, it’s because I already saw through this as an obvious troll post, and the way you respond proves it so.

This will be the last response I’ll ever make to this post. Goodbye.

Originally posted by LXT:

Originally posted by P4Novy:

No counters to make, huh? Sure, better to stay quiet than saying something regrettable.

No, it’s because I already saw through this as an obvious troll post, and the way you respond proves it so.

This will be the last response I’ll ever make to this post. Goodbye.

You just got sick of FAILing over and over to dissuade others to agree with Crowbcat. Buh bye anyway. 👋

trash post

honestly, i won't disagree that a lot of the more interesting elements of the early 2000s era of gaming are very much absent from the remake. playing to death and loving both equally for very different reasons, i can't help but agree with the whole 'soul vs soulless" argument a bit.

when people mention the "soul" of a game, they mean the core identity, the thing that makes it stand out and click among it's contemporaries. the things that RE4 did, in this regard aside from it's overwhelming innovation to third person shooters as a whole, were in it's incredibly robust and snappy player control, and it's emphasis on self aware comedy. where most games would be clunky for the sake of disempowerment, RE4 wasn't afraid to give you all the guns to fight back, and at the same time keep the gameplay fresh with newer enemy designs and additions to older enemies. the game was always meant to be, in my opinion, Resident Evil at it's peak, a comedy laden thrill ride that while having it's moments, wasn't meant to be taken as a serious story. it was fun first, and heartfelt second, while at the same time having plenty of elements of subtlety in it's story and pacing so that you can dig deeper into how and why the characters are who they were, even up to the point of the Castle itself being a way to show off Salazar's character without him being there. each area was unique and colored differently to express it's environment, and in all honesty, this is one reason why i prefer the original's castle sections over the remakes. it comes down more to the lighting and the more sagacious design of the castle's architecture, with all of it's less that practical extras. plenty of this can still be seen in the remake, but i feel like the presentation of it was done far better in the original simply due to it being more outlandish.

another example for me, is Luis. he's sexist, he's a liar, he's a scummy person and presents himself very much as such. he doesn't shy away from objectifying women, and feels neutered as such in the remake despite him still coming across more subtly the same level of "womanizing douchebag". the infamous line in the cabin is very often ignored as an empowerment to Ashley, rather than objectifying her, and i'll never understand the hatred for that moment as it was character defining for both Luis and Ashley at the same time, and again, the remake sort of falls flat on revising this. as well, Luis being a witty nerd was a very good addition to his character in the remake, and i can't take that away from him, although i do wish he wasn't so intrinsically tied to Umbrella as it effectively devalues the fall of Umbrella as a ghost haunting the world with it's memory, essentially making "threads" continue on as opposed to the ideas it presented to the world. people often forget that the fall of Umbrella and lack of tie in in RE4 was intentional to show that it's ideas can exist without it, and having a "researcher of Umbrella" making the las Plagas parasite what it is very much devalues that idea.

pacing overall in the remake is another issue to me. in classic RE4, the villagers aren't shown off as mere monsters directly, instead they have them appear as savage village folk in the first act. when the second act comes around, and night falls, that's when the parasite is revealed and you realize that these aren't just villagers. the remake destroys this sense of "unknowing" when it practically says from the get go that these are parasitic monsters, and while "plaga revival during the day" was a neat shake up mechanically, i think it hurt the remake narratively because it answers an important question of horror before the horror can even begin. the "what" you're facing should never be the first thing explained in any kind of horror, as the more you know, the less afraid you'll be. granted, any returning players know what plagas are, but new players are the bulk of who play RE4R. they're the audience in all reality for a remake. so yeah, they kinda failed the first rule of a horror game: revealing the monster too soon.

i'm going on a very disorganized tangent, but in all honesty, between the deliberately unreliable mechanics and movement, to the entire tonal shift, to even the environment being cluttered to the point of useless noisy backgrounds, it's very easy to see that RE4R wasn't really made with the original audience in mind. it takes itself overtly serious, focuses on disempowering the player through unreliable design decisions, it ♥♥♥♥♥ all over story decisions that served a grander purpose for the sake of revising or enhancing characters (such as krauser no longer working for Wesker, or Saddler being relegated to visions with no formal appearance before the last few chapters.), and it fails to take into account the fact that the original only worked as a story because it was a comedy. it poked fun at itself, and made campy moments feel cool, not out of place and jarring like the remake does. all this amounts to it just being another bargain bin attempt at horror that fails to engage the player on any level where it matters to the horror while throwing away what RE4 actually did well on it's own. it's good enough still however that i can recognize it as just another take on RE4, unlike the last two remakes that almost went out of their way to make the story less fleshed out, degrade entire characters of their intrigue, neuter replayability, and create immense plotholes that didn't even exist in the originals. at leadt i can say that RE4 is fully represented here, even if it's still very different, it still feels whole. i recognize everything that was already in the original, for better or for worse.

this is not meant to question the remake's success and achievement, as for what it is, it does a lot right. but in comparing to the original, it's paramount that we understand the identity of the original and what it meant as an experience rather than deride it as something purely outdated or in need of total revision to be replaced by the remake, because it CANNOT replace the identity that the original puts forward. even if it cannot be replicated, i am certain that it cannot be replaced. the original RE4 is far too unique, both today and back in it's time, for that to ever be the case.

in this way, yes, RE4R lacks the original's "soul" now that we've defined what that is.

Originally posted by Da Evil Wizard:

trash post

Thanks for letting us know.

Originally posted by Unmotivated:

honestly, i won't disagree that a lot of the more interesting elements of the early 2000s era of gaming are very much absent from the remake. playing to death and loving both equally for very different reasons, i can't help but agree with the whole 'soul vs soulless" argument a bit.

when people mention the "soul" of a game, they mean the core identity, the thing that makes it stand out and click among it's contemporaries. the things that RE4 did, in this regard aside from it's overwhelming innovation to third person shooters as a whole, were in it's incredibly robust and snappy player control, and it's emphasis on self aware comedy. where most games would be clunky for the sake of disempowerment, RE4 wasn't afraid to give you all the guns to fight back, and at the same time keep the gameplay fresh with newer enemy designs and additions to older enemies. the game was always meant to be, in my opinion, Resident Evil at it's peak, a comedy laden thrill ride that while having it's moments, wasn't meant to be taken as a serious story. it was fun first, and heartfelt second, while at the same time having plenty of elements of subtlety in it's story and pacing so that you can dig deeper into how and why the characters are who they were, even up to the point of the Castle itself being a way to show off Salazar's character without him being there. each area was unique and colored differently to express it's environment, and in all honesty, this is one reason why i prefer the original's castle sections over the remakes. it comes down more to the lighting and the more sagacious design of the castle's architecture, with all of it's less that practical extras. plenty of this can still be seen in the remake, but i feel like the presentation of it was done far better in the original simply due to it being more outlandish.

another example for me, is Luis. he's sexist, he's a liar, he's a scummy person and presents himself very much as such. he doesn't shy away from objectifying women, and feels neutered as such in the remake despite him still coming across more subtly the same level of "womanizing douchebag". the infamous line in the cabin is very often ignored as an empowerment to Ashley, rather than objectifying her, and i'll never understand the hatred for that moment as it was character defining for both Luis and Ashley at the same time, and again, the remake sort of falls flat on revising this. as well, Luis being a witty nerd was a very good addition to his character in the remake, and i can't take that away from him, although i do wish he wasn't so intrinsically tied to Umbrella as it effectively devalues the fall of Umbrella as a ghost haunting the world with it's memory, essentially making "threads" continue on as opposed to the ideas it presented to the world. people often forget that the fall of Umbrella and lack of tie in in RE4 was intentional to show that it's ideas can exist without it, and having a "researcher of Umbrella" making the las Plagas parasite what it is very much devalues that idea.

pacing overall in the remake is another issue to me. in classic RE4, the villagers aren't shown off as mere monsters directly, instead they have them appear as savage village folk in the first act. when the second act comes around, and night falls, that's when the parasite is revealed and you realize that these aren't just villagers. the remake destroys this sense of "unknowing" when it practically says from the get go that these are parasitic monsters, and while "plaga revival during the day" was a neat shake up mechanically, i think it hurt the remake narratively because it answers an important question of horror before the horror can even begin. the "what" you're facing should never be the first thing explained in any kind of horror, as the more you know, the less afraid you'll be. granted, any returning players know what plagas are, but new players are the bulk of who play RE4R. they're the audience in all reality for a remake. so yeah, they kinda failed the first rule of a horror game: revealing the monster too soon.

i'm going on a very disorganized tangent, but in all honesty, between the deliberately unreliable mechanics and movement, to the entire tonal shift, to even the environment being cluttered to the point of useless noisy backgrounds, it's very easy to see that RE4R wasn't really made with the original audience in mind. it takes itself overtly serious, focuses on disempowering the player through unreliable design decisions, it ♥♥♥♥♥ all over story decisions that served a grander purpose for the sake of revising or enhancing characters (such as krauser no longer working for Wesker, or Saddler being relegated to visions with no formal appearance before the last few chapters.), and it fails to take into account the fact that the original only worked as a story because it was a comedy. it poked fun at itself, and made campy moments feel cool, not out of place and jarring like the remake does. all this amounts to it just being another bargain bin attempt at horror that fails to engage the player on any level where it matters to the horror while throwing away what RE4 actually did well on it's own. it's good enough still however that i can recognize it as just another take on RE4, unlike the last two remakes that almost went out of their way to make the story less fleshed out, degrade entire characters of their intrigue, neuter replayability, and create immense plotholes that didn't even exist in the originals. at leadt i can say that RE4 is fully represented here, even if it's still very different, it still feels whole. i recognize everything that was already in the original, for better or for worse.

this is not meant to question the remake's success and achievement, as for what it is, it does a lot right. but in comparing to the original, it's paramount that we understand the identity of the original and what it meant as an experience rather than deride it as something purely outdated or in need of total revision to be replaced by the remake, because it CANNOT replace the identity that the original puts forward. even if it cannot be replicated, i am certain that it cannot be replaced. the original RE4 is far too unique, both today and back in it's time, for that to ever be the case.

in this way, yes, RE4R lacks the original's "soul" now that we've defined what that is.

I have never read a more accurate depiction of how I feel about this games "soul" after playing the OG.

Originally posted by 𝒩𝑜𝓍𝒾𝒶𝓃:

Originally posted by Unmotivated:

honestly, i won't disagree that a lot of the more interesting elements of the early 2000s era of gaming are very much absent from the remake. playing to death and loving both equally for very different reasons, i can't help but agree with the whole 'soul vs soulless" argument a bit.

when people mention the "soul" of a game, they mean the core identity, the thing that makes it stand out and click among it's contemporaries. the things that RE4 did, in this regard aside from it's overwhelming innovation to third person shooters as a whole, were in it's incredibly robust and snappy player control, and it's emphasis on self aware comedy. where most games would be clunky for the sake of disempowerment, RE4 wasn't afraid to give you all the guns to fight back, and at the same time keep the gameplay fresh with newer enemy designs and additions to older enemies. the game was always meant to be, in my opinion, Resident Evil at it's peak, a comedy laden thrill ride that while having it's moments, wasn't meant to be taken as a serious story. it was fun first, and heartfelt second, while at the same time having plenty of elements of subtlety in it's story and pacing so that you can dig deeper into how and why the characters are who they were, even up to the point of the Castle itself being a way to show off Salazar's character without him being there. each area was unique and colored differently to express it's environment, and in all honesty, this is one reason why i prefer the original's castle sections over the remakes. it comes down more to the lighting and the more sagacious design of the castle's architecture, with all of it's less that practical extras. plenty of this can still be seen in the remake, but i feel like the presentation of it was done far better in the original simply due to it being more outlandish.

another example for me, is Luis. he's sexist, he's a liar, he's a scummy person and presents himself very much as such. he doesn't shy away from objectifying women, and feels neutered as such in the remake despite him still coming across more subtly the same level of "womanizing douchebag". the infamous line in the cabin is very often ignored as an empowerment to Ashley, rather than objectifying her, and i'll never understand the hatred for that moment as it was character defining for both Luis and Ashley at the same time, and again, the remake sort of falls flat on revising this. as well, Luis being a witty nerd was a very good addition to his character in the remake, and i can't take that away from him, although i do wish he wasn't so intrinsically tied to Umbrella as it effectively devalues the fall of Umbrella as a ghost haunting the world with it's memory, essentially making "threads" continue on as opposed to the ideas it presented to the world. people often forget that the fall of Umbrella and lack of tie in in RE4 was intentional to show that it's ideas can exist without it, and having a "researcher of Umbrella" making the las Plagas parasite what it is very much devalues that idea.

pacing overall in the remake is another issue to me. in classic RE4, the villagers aren't shown off as mere monsters directly, instead they have them appear as savage village folk in the first act. when the second act comes around, and night falls, that's when the parasite is revealed and you realize that these aren't just villagers. the remake destroys this sense of "unknowing" when it practically says from the get go that these are parasitic monsters, and while "plaga revival during the day" was a neat shake up mechanically, i think it hurt the remake narratively because it answers an important question of horror before the horror can even begin. the "what" you're facing should never be the first thing explained in any kind of horror, as the more you know, the less afraid you'll be. granted, any returning players know what plagas are, but new players are the bulk of who play RE4R. they're the audience in all reality for a remake. so yeah, they kinda failed the first rule of a horror game: revealing the monster too soon.

i'm going on a very disorganized tangent, but in all honesty, between the deliberately unreliable mechanics and movement, to the entire tonal shift, to even the environment being cluttered to the point of useless noisy backgrounds, it's very easy to see that RE4R wasn't really made with the original audience in mind. it takes itself overtly serious, focuses on disempowering the player through unreliable design decisions, it ♥♥♥♥♥ all over story decisions that served a grander purpose for the sake of revising or enhancing characters (such as krauser no longer working for Wesker, or Saddler being relegated to visions with no formal appearance before the last few chapters.), and it fails to take into account the fact that the original only worked as a story because it was a comedy. it poked fun at itself, and made campy moments feel cool, not out of place and jarring like the remake does. all this amounts to it just being another bargain bin attempt at horror that fails to engage the player on any level where it matters to the horror while throwing away what RE4 actually did well on it's own. it's good enough still however that i can recognize it as just another take on RE4, unlike the last two remakes that almost went out of their way to make the story less fleshed out, degrade entire characters of their intrigue, neuter replayability, and create immense plotholes that didn't even exist in the originals. at leadt i can say that RE4 is fully represented here, even if it's still very different, it still feels whole. i recognize everything that was already in the original, for better or for worse.

this is not meant to question the remake's success and achievement, as for what it is, it does a lot right. but in comparing to the original, it's paramount that we understand the identity of the original and what it meant as an experience rather than deride it as something purely outdated or in need of total revision to be replaced by the remake, because it CANNOT replace the identity that the original puts forward. even if it cannot be replicated, i am certain that it cannot be replaced. the original RE4 is far too unique, both today and back in it's time, for that to ever be the case.

in this way, yes, RE4R lacks the original's "soul" now that we've defined what that is.

I have never read a more accurate depiction of how I feel about this games "soul" after playing the OG.

This was just me ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ my brain on whatever came to mind, this wasn't an organized explanation at all. I actually have more to really talk about and discuss as far as the identity concept and how it plays into both the original and remake, but at this point, i might as well make a Youtube video on it with a full on script and visual examples. Lol there's just too much to express that i just can't do justice in a comment on Steam.

Originally posted by Unmotivated:

Originally posted by 𝒩𝑜𝓍𝒾𝒶𝓃:

I have never read a more accurate depiction of how I feel about this games "soul" after playing the OG.

This was just me ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ my brain on whatever came to mind, this wasn't an organized explanation at all. I actually have more to really talk about and discuss as far as the identity concept and how it plays into both the original and remake, but at this point, i might as well make a Youtube video on it with a full on script and visual examples. Lol there's just too much to express that i just can't do justice in a comment on Steam.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on character personalities and dialogue changes in remake compared to OG. That's probably my biggest issue with the remake, just how much they neutered all the dialogue and changed the characters.

Originally posted by ChiefMendez:

Originally posted by Unmotivated:

This was just me ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ my brain on whatever came to mind, this wasn't an organized explanation at all. I actually have more to really talk about and discuss as far as the identity concept and how it plays into both the original and remake, but at this point, i might as well make a Youtube video on it with a full on script and visual examples. Lol there's just too much to express that i just can't do justice in a comment on Steam.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on character personalities and dialogue changes in remake compared to OG. That's probably my biggest issue with the remake, just how much they neutered all the dialogue and changed the characters.

Eh, i might make a video on it at some point then. Like i said, there's a lot to talk about, and that discussion would be an almost one or even two hour video with how much there is to compare and explain. It'll take me months of work. Lol

I'll post it if i ever get it done with a formal explanation of what the video actually is, cuz i know tons of people here are wary of content farming.

You mean the goofiness? I guess.

Originally posted by Unmotivated:

Originally posted by ChiefMendez:

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on character personalities and dialogue changes in remake compared to OG. That's probably my biggest issue with the remake, just how much they neutered all the dialogue and changed the characters.

Eh, i might make a video on it at some point then. Like i said, there's a lot to talk about, and that discussion would be an almost one or even two hour video with how much there is to compare and explain. It'll take me months of work. Lol

I'll post it if i ever get it done with a formal explanation of what the video actually is, cuz i know tons of people here are wary of content farming.

Well with your profile name I'm not holding my breath

Coming through really hard and really strong in a way that makes sense.

Originally posted by ChiefMendez:

Originally posted by Unmotivated:

Eh, i might make a video on it at some point then. Like i said, there's a lot to talk about, and that discussion would be an almost one or even two hour video with how much there is to compare and explain. It'll take me months of work. Lol

I'll post it if i ever get it done with a formal explanation of what the video actually is, cuz i know tons of people here are wary of content farming.

Well with your profile name I'm not holding my breath

Lol yeah, very true.

Originally posted by THE VERY REVEREND MISTER BONK:

Coming through really hard and really strong in a way that makes sense.

Let's get you banned bud.