-
From fixed camera, to third person, to now first person the RE series is constantly doing something new and creative in both horror and gameplay.
RE and the following RE2 and RE3 (originals) are pretty much the only fixed camera games that had a lasting popularity and are still played today. RE was not the first fixed camera view game but it was the first one to feel as smooth as it did; changing the camera perspective to multiple corners of the room, rather than only having one view for each area like most games did at the time. Sadly fixed camera view is just not an ideal nor popular game style so to keep the series relevant they had to shift to third person.
RE4 was obviously not the first Third-person shooter around but it was the only one I know of to win as many game of the year awards as it did. I recently found out this was because it was the first game to shift the camera over the shoulder rather than having it directly behind your head, also the zoom in feature while your aiming hadn't really been done in third-person shooters at that time either. Any third person game today that uses the over the shoulder view has to thank the RE4 team for this.
RE5 and RE6 added online co-op to the campaigns in order compete with online multiplayer games. It wasn't a major success but still an innovative idea.
RE7 and RE8 pretty much speak for themselves. Revitalized the series and hopefully gave the team a template to continue the series. Pretty much two of the greatest horror games ever created. RE7 actually got so many complaints for being "too scary to play". Absolutely love that.
-
Yeah, that's why they're still relevant to this day. I would say Final Fantasy games innovate more, though.
-
I would argue that the original, at least, was pretty innovative. Some elements were certainly derivative, but the way they adapted Sweet Home gameplay to the more powerful PS hardware was an innovation.
But I definitely think RE has survived for so long because it is endlessly reinventing itself.
ID: hzc9pqk -
RE is one of the most diverse IP in terms of gameplay, I can hardly recommend any other horror game series, seeing as all others are dead and only Resident Evil is the horror series from the 90s still alive, it deserves a lot of kudos for that alone.
-
That's not what innovative means.
"To begin or introduce (something new) for the first time."
Innovative means that you're coming up with the ideas, not copying them. It's still valid that RE has always been comfortable evolving, but just by definition that isn't what innovation is.
ID: hzc0ureResident evil 1 revolutionized horror games, so did 4 and 7. There's no denying that.
ID: hzc7d6zI definitely agree. Doing established things the right way is enough to revolutionize.
ID: hzcbwrd7 didn't revolutionize anything despite being good. It took ideas from 2010s "walking sim" horror and combined them with old school survival horror gameplay. It sort of copied PT in a way, it did nothing new.
ID: hzcflhiI think OP gave a couple clear examples of something new the series creators did that noone else did before. Therefore being innovative. At this point you are just playing semantics
ID: hzcgcenNo, I don't believe those are innovations. Every reference to what made specific Resident Evil games great is qualified by how it took existing mechanics and tailored them to suit the game.
"RE was not the first fixed camera view game..."
"RE4 was obviously not the first Third-person shooter around..."
"RE5 and RE6 added online co-op to the campaigns in order compete with online multiplayer games."
ID: hzctmqsWhere did you get that definition?
Merriam-Webster, in the Invention vs Innovation section, clarifies the meaning quite well by saying:
Innovation, for its part, can refer to something new or to a change made to an existing product, idea, or field.
So something can be "innovative" by using an evolved iteration on previous concepts.
INB4: The reason I linked "innovations" instead of "innovative" is that the definition for innovative literally states "characterized or tending to innovations"
Edit: Can downvote me all you want doesn't change your unsubstantiated definition vs the place that society officially recognizes as a dictionary...
-
Even though I’m not a big fan of some of the changes or directions certain games took, I’m glad the series is willing to evolve.
I love the fixed camera games and grew up with them but I understand that even back in the day people complained about the controls and camera. RE4 popularized the OTS camera and revitalized the series. RE5 has fantastic co-op, RE6 has some good mechanics and ideas but is a bad overall game. RE7 was a welcome reboot and brought back survival horror gameplay mixed with modern trends. RE8 really took the AAA direction and ram with it, even if the execution is lackluster to say the least.
-
Agreed same with final fantasy and from soft games.
-
Innovative isn't the word I would use, but varied.
Innovative implies that they came up with something new, which RE never really did until RE4.
RE1 took the concept of the Alone In The Dark games and refined them. RE4 was the first game of it's kind and innovative on the third person shooter genre, and RE7 is survival horror combined with light elements of the first person horror trend of the 2010s.
That being said, as much as one could love RE for being varied and not feeling like you are getting the same game twice, it does also create a mixed bag feeling for some who want a series with a consistent gameplay and/or story identity, which is what leads into a divide in the fanbase.
Personally speaking, I feel RE would've been a lot better as a standalone anthology horror series, where every game is purely survival horror with it's own story with it's own characters, with no ties to any overarching plot or stuff like that.
There would be those that heavily disagree of course as they love the characters and lore, but that's just how I feel about it because the games I found myself enjoying the most in the series are the ones with a standalone story, those being RE1/R, RE4, and RE7. The only exception is RE2R because of how just damn good it's gameplay is.
-
RE4 was obviously not the first Third-person shooter around but it was the only one I know of to win as many game of the year awards as it did.
Plus didn't Cliff Bleszinski say that RE4 was one of the things that gave inspiration to the gameplay of Gears of War?
Yeah found it.
Bleszinski said the seeds of Gears of War were sown by three titles. The first was Capcom's Resident Evil 4, which made an indelible impression on Bleszinski even before its January 2005 release. "I really liked the pacing and the over-the-shoulder view," said the designer.
And then Gears of War was kind of a huge inspiration for 3rd person shooters going forward.
-
Gimme a small budget, side story fixed camera game. We don’t need third person shooter main entries and also third person shooter side games. What would a fixed camera game be like now? The original remake still looks amazing nearly 25 years later. It’d be gorgeous, the controls would obviously be improved… Keep evolving, keep innovating. Throw the rest of us a bone. Slower paced puzzle games still exist and do well. Once every 5 years as a budget side game.
-
RE7 is great but RE8 is not that good
ID: hzcg117It was one of the highest selling games winning multiple awards and was incredibly well received by just about everyone. Its also become my favorite to replay.
-
Personally that just ruined the series to me when it did that. For me a main numbered series should not change its type of gameplay.
ID: hzcfselI would say RE8 winning multiple game of the year awards and being incredibly well received speaks for itself.
ID: hzcggjcDon't see how. Wouldn't change my views on the series. It doesn't matter what awards are won to the individual, what matters to them is what they themselves view as good or not.
Subscribe
Login
0 Comments
RE1 is pretty much a straight up clone of Alone in the Dark. It was so blatant that Mikami refused to acknowledge any parallels for decades.
It’s definitely a lot better though.