I'm glad you asked about what facts I have, because I have direct statements from a developer under Capcom themselves who believe what I stated to be true. Here:
Also, you only need to look at the sales of certain games to realize that action sells to the mass market far more than any other. This is why COD has become a prime target in today's industry to gain inspiration from, if you are interested in making a game that will earn tons of cash. Games like these are completely over the top, badly written (Factually in terms of plot holes and inconsistency), deliver a lackluster campaign experience (Yet deliver decent multiplayer experiences), all the while being very easy to make. Yet, still make profit due to being part of the action genre.
This is also a argument that holds the same logic in question as our main discussion at the moment. Just because action games like COD have a massive audience, does that mean they are better than any other game? Not sure what logic I'm talking about with this question? Let me elaborate:
If a certain control scheme isn't used as often as another control scheme (Like a certain game isn't as popular as another), does this essentially mean this control scheme is any worse (Does this mean that this specific game is worse when compared to the popular one) than the other?
Now, the whole argument started due to you thinking that Tank Controls were frustrating. You never stated 'In my opinion, I think Tank Controls are frustrating', but instead said it as though it was a fact (Or at least a shared opinion by many). I'll provide the proof:
'I believe that the Resident Evil franchise eventually had to change the controls and camera angles due to its limitations.'
This directly states that the above sentence was your own opinion.
'Yes, the tank-like controls and fixed camera angles created a lot of tension, but they also added a lot of frustration.'
A lot of frustration to everyone, or just yourself? You should have said:
'Yes, the tank-like controls and fixed camera angles created a lot of tension, but I also believe they added a lot of frustration.'
I absolutely love how you are now trying to put the blame on me as the one who was saying things as though they were facts, yet you're completely fine with your original post (And other posts after). Also, I've been the one who defended that EVERYONE has different opinions on the subject, and that you shouldn't have been so selfish with some of your statements. Don't believe me yet, then take a look at what you wrote here:
''Heh, you claim that the issue is personal preference, but the word we are looking for is "progress." Games are evolving to where the environments are vast and more interactive. Enemies are fast, deceptive, and attack in swarms (thanks to technological advancements). Game characters look and move more life-like.''
This is you completely wiping away the notion that there are other opinions out there. You are stating that moving on from Tank Controls IS progress, and that it being a preference/opinion issue was simply not the case. You have completely contradicted yourself in this regard.
@YesSheWill @YesSheWill Lmao, that was not a contradiction in the slightest. I guess you missed the many times that I mentioned controlling certain games like that and how it comes 'naturally'. I just played the game and naturally adjusted to the control style the developers wanted me to use. Again, you seem to be stuck under this concept that ONLY masters can remotely play the game well, which is a selfish thought process on your part. Just because 'you' couldn't play it well at first, doesn't mean that others couldn't. Remember, this is a control style, not a 'obstacle' for people. If you don't like the style, that's fine, but stop making it out like it's impossible that others can easily utilize the control scheme.
You also said there were 'other' contradictions, but failed in actually showcasing them. This means you cannot be making a 'concise' post (As you put it), as you're completely skipping information. Based on your last post, I am under the assumption that you may not understand certain words, or are just ignorant to their actual definitions. If this is the case, you should skip out on using these words out in future arguments -- otherwise people may not take your comments seriously.
Now you're sliding around a word and how you were using it a certain way. Based on the fact you see the control scheme as 'unconventional', I'm taking it you are using the word 'mastering' by its EXACT definition (Whether used as a verb or noun, matters not). You must be if you think the controls will usher in difficulty from the average player (Making it out like players who have never experienced these controls before will end up having a really hard time). You also talk about the controls as though they are something you need to master before you can play the game properly. You then state how some people need to gather a certain understanding over controls before being able to enjoy the overall experience (At least that is what I'm gathering from your statement). I also disagree with this notion. I had a hard time getting used to the controls during my time with Deus Ex back in the day. Despite having a hard time with the controls, I absolutely loved the overall experience. I'm sure some people may not be able to have a good experience with games unless the controls meet up to their standards, but that comes down to personal preference.
Also, there are many games that hold controls that are different to that of the 'average' game (Whatever that means, as controls have no definitive standard). These games do very well, despite how different their controls might be when compared to others. I mean you basically stated that if someone likes a game enough, they would push themselves to adapt to a certain control scheme. You keep saying it like this is the ONLY way people can play games outside of what some people may consider 'average' controls. I'm sure some people need a little adjustment to certain controls, but not in the way you're making it out to be. Some people only need a few moments to adjust, while some need a slightly longer amount of time to naturally understand the controls; but to make it out like it's some insanely difficult endurance test that you're only undertaking due to liking the game in any kind of way is, again, completely selfish on your part. Even during a bad game I'd take time to understand whatever the control scheme was. Sometimes it'll come naturally to the player, other times it wouldn't. Like I said, I couldn't grasp the controls properly during my first time playing Deus Ex, but I still played it all the way through. I was bad at the controls, and it had nothing to do with the game implementing a bad design with its control scheme. The overall experience was enjoyable despite some squabbles I had with the control scheme, which was due to human error anyway.
In the end, Tank Controls are a specific play style. You either can or can't play this design choice. Just because you're bad, doesn't mean the controls are bad. Some people take almost no time to adjust to the design choice the developers chose for their control scheme, some people may need a little more time. As long as the controls come naturally (Which they will for some), then it does not matter what they are. This is the case with ANY game, not just ones that implement Tank Controls.
@YesSheWill @RAD_RADIO I apologize if I'm getting somewhat confused here, but I feel that your post seems to be directed towards me in some way as well. If it's not, then just think of it as me replying to your comment anyway (Even if it wasn't supposed to be directed at me).
Nobody is saying that the newer RE games must remain using camera angles and tank controls. The whole conversation took place because you showed clear negativity towards tank controls. You even described anything that came after tank controls as 'progress'.
I honestly don't care 'what' they use, as long as it is good. I'm just defending a control style. Let's not pretend like things automatically get better just because they were made in the future. The wheel was invented a LONG time ago, and its use remains the same to this day. Even games like Tetris are still incredibly popular in this day and age. I think most developers don't understand that simplicity is sometimes the best choice when it comes to games. They are too focused on trying to reinvent things that never needed to be reinvented.
Take Minecraft, for instance. It uses old-school graphics, simplistic gameplay, and relies on the concept of building blocks together for fun, or surviving for fun. It has made a MASSIVE impact on the indie industry, despite how simple it controls -- and how it borrows elements from older games, rather than newer ones.
Resident Evil 4 is easily one of the greatest games of all time. It was so fresh at the time that people loved the heck out of it. It's a game I have gone back to play many times. No words can describe how great it is... BUT (And this is a major but), I DO NOT consider it a Resident Evil game. Despite the character and title name, there was literally nothing about it that makes it a sequel to the other games. It not only made a complete genre shift, control shift, and setting shift; but it was generally so incredibly fresh with its own story and gameplay elements, that it could have easily generated its own new franchise of games. The story itself is told in a completely different way to that of the old games. By the way, this has nothing to do with tank controls (Before you start heckling me about how you think I only consider games with tank controls to be called Resident Evil). That's not it at all. The only reason why the developers stuck Resident Evil on the title was so that it would sell more copies -- due to the name sake alone. This could have been the start of a 'new' and exciting franchise of games, but instead we have to keep playing a franchise that should have probably ended after the REmake.
Let's not pretend that RE4, RE5, and RE6 have good stories, either. They were completely bonkers and stupid. I think RE4 was supposed to be stupid, (At least in a mindless adventure, Indiana Jones type of way) while the games after it took themselves far too seriously. I mean don't get me wrong, the direct cutscene story elements weren't anything to write home about it the older RE games, but at least the first lot of games kept a certain amount of consistency. It felt a lot more down to earth as well, and in turn I could naturally take it all in -- as it felt a lot more genuine with what it was trying to go for. The best story elements came from the note finding anyway. This allowed the player to piece together the deeper story elements and background happenings themselves. That aspect of it was always well done. Maybe not the Silent Hill level of depth, but still well executed. I'd take that over the crazy nonsense later games brought to the table. It's also another reason why I felt RE4 is not supposed to be part of the franchise, as the game itself seems to be trying to make itself separate from the older games in every way possible. That's not a bad thing, but it would make sense to at least give the game a new title so that it could start its own franchise. I think that would have been a much stronger decision for the long run, too. Now people are just getting fed up with all these crappy RE games that keep getting thrown out, just to generate easy profit. If it had been a fresher franchise, fans would be tolerating the failings a lot more, and be much happier to wait until a good sequel to RE4 came out.
And that's what it boils down to in the end. All these newer RE games were sequels to RE4, not to the franchise as a whole. That's why they are so inconsistent and jarring to some people. I'm waiting for the day that developers understand the concept that franchises 'can' actually end. This concept seems to be completely invisible to them, however. Think about it, when is enough actually enough? Are we going to make it all the way to Resident Evil 43, on the Playstation 6? It's usually the sign of bad developers when they absolutely refuse to stop making crappy games, usually by milking a well know franchise name (Just slapping Resident Evil on the cover will guarantee some kind of profit).
RE4 could have been their calling card to start a new 'great' franchise, but instead we've completely milked and mutilated a once loved series. At this point, it's just an inconsistent, badly written mess of a franchise.
@YesSheWill @pokajabba Again, what you consider 'progress' does not necessarily constitute as progress just because you believe it to be true. In fact, most people would consider the older games in the franchise to be better than RE6, perhaps even RE5. If you look at the general consensus on these newer games, people are not experiencing anything on the level that the 'old' games were able to give a player naturally. This is clear evidence that there is no such thing as progress in regards to how people feel about control styles, but only that the general audience prefers one style over another. Which is fine -- but here in lies the problem to that. People prefer action over horror, hence why most games fall into the action category nowadays. This is called 'change', not progress.
If these games had made true 'progress', then people couldn't and wouldn't complain about the action elements, the style of gameplay, the story, the enemies, ect; and they certainly wouldn't be turning back towards the older games. This is what has happened, though. Even RE4 counts as change. The reason why it was adored all over was due to how 'fresh' the game felt. It certainly helped popularize the 'over-the-shoulder' shooter type games. But again, it was just something different, not something necessarily better.
And please, I had to laugh about your comment on how characters 'moved more lifelike'. Yea, because doing backflips, frontflips, surviving insane situations by using impossible acrobatics, makes the characters feel 'lifelike'. Only in terms of 'graphics' does your comment make any sense, but that is a different debate all-together. The characters in the old RE games moved closer to real people than anything that was introduced in RE4/RE5/RE6.
If you pushed a statue, they would push it normally with an element of struggle -- Not roundhouse kick the object into oblivion.
When you climbed onto boxes or ledges, they would do it like most people in real life might perform the action -- Not triple front flip over the damn thing.
If you went up against a boss, you'd have to use everything in your disposal and kill 'said' boss as safely as possible (Since your characters were far more vulnerable and you absolutely had to keep your distance) -- As opposed to shooting their weak point a couple of times then cartwheeling up to the thing and punching the crap out of it (Quick-time event style).
If you were blocked by a bolder, you'd have to find a way round -- Not beat the crap out of the bolder with your fists (Seriously?)
I could come with so many ridiculous aspects that not only make the characters feel like they are complete fantasy (Basically, meaning that they are not grounded to any type of reality at all), but also many reasons to why such silly things can take me out of the overall 'horror-experience'. If you truly prefer all this type of stuff, then more power to you. But please don't pass it off like it was better when it's still just a preference issue.
To answer your question on whether I think 'Tank-Controls' are relevant, I'd have to say that I've already answered your question to some degree in my previous post. I'll enhance it little further, though. Indie games still utilize the 'tank-scheme', and to be completely fair, a fair chunk of the greatest horror games of all time had tank controls. I think developers are still figuring out how to make a great horror game without tank-controls, and a lot of their games fail. Only a small percentage have actually made it (And I'm not talking about first-person horror games, which have been around for years. Guess what, though? They never needed to 'change' that style for horror games). In fact, I think tank controls might be more relevant than ever. Some developers probably look back at those games and wonder 'why' they worked and why their own games sucked, even though they used the standard of control scheme we see today (Which are apparently better to some).
Fixed camera positions should not matter if you know how to use tank-controls. Again, if you are any good with the control scheme, you should be able to maneuver easily around -- despite the camera position. It's only a fixed position. The tank-controls are still the exact same controls, so I'm not sure what your argument was here.
You failed to realize that I never 'mastered' the controls on the RE games myself. I just play them the way they were meant to played -- with a tank control scheme. I played the crap out of Super Mario 64, Perfect Dark, ect, in my past. Many years playing these games, in fact. I still never 'mastered the controls', though. I played them normally because they were fun to play, like I did with the RE franchise. You don't need to be a 'master' to play the game normally. It's like you have something stuck in your head telling you that only the 'masters' and people who know how to use 'tank controls' can remotely play these games. It's not rocket science. You just play the way the developers wanted you too, utilizing the control scheme they picked out. You were either good or bad with whatever those controls were. You do not need to be some type of master to play Resident Evil.
You sound like someone who is completely biased against this control scheme. Sure, you have a point of view. Thanks for sharing it. But don't act like your point of view is some kind of fact. You don't like the control scheme, and that is all. There are many people who don't like it, or genuinely find it hard to use that style of controls. My best friend, for instance, falls into the latter category. At least he knows it's because he sucks at it, though. And it's not like RE5 and RE6 were insanely loved by people, neither. If we really wanted to get into it, we could have a discussion on the way your character still moved like a tank in RE4 (Something that people do not tend to realize).
All I'm saying is that you can't demean a entire control scheme based on your own failings with it. Especially when a good chunk of the greatest horror games actually implemented it, and many horror-games today completely fail, even when using the RE4 formula.
@YesSheWill The problem here is that tank controls are SUPPOSED to work like tank controls. Basically, the controls are meant to suit the standards of a certain control scheme that some people are perfectly okay with. In which case, it sounds to me like you have 'preference' issue. Just because you do not like a certain control scheme, does not necessarily mean it's 'bad'.
For example, I hate the way certain action games today 'play' (Including control schemes), but that does not necessarily mean they are bad. Remember, just because you can't do it, does not mean that there are other people who can't utilize the controls perfectly fine. It would be like saying that you hate 'backflips', just because you can't do it yourself. On the basis of that, the Resident Evil series had very well implemented tank controls. They worked exactly when I wanted them to (The only instance of it not being 'quite' as good, was with the first Resident Evil. In which it didn't respond correctly with the button inputs at times, but still worked pretty well).
It just boils down to personal preference in the end. Some people can't stand using a mouse and keyboard to control their games. Does it mean that the mouse and keyboard are bad? No... So saying it's bad based on the fact you couldn't use it yourself is a little selfish.
I mean you stated how you couldn't 'line up shots' properly in RE2. I never once had that issue (Even at a much younger age). I don't understand how you can demean an entire control scheme based on your failings. That makes no sense to me. I'm not trying to have a go here, but sometimes you need to take responsibility for your own actions. I disliked the control scheme to many games, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were bad, and I'd never demean the entire game based on my own failings.
For the RE franchise, my button inputs responded when I wanted them too, I could maneuver the character perfectly well, and more importantly it all felt fluid. Basically, the characters did exactly what I wanted them too during each game (The only instance where the controls didn't work perfectly with the tank scheme would be the first RE, in which improvements were made in later installments). Some tank controls do not work as well as others (Just like any control scheme for any game), but this general style of gameplay (Tank controls) has nothing particularly wrong with it. You either like it or you don't, just like when it comes to the style of gameplay for many other games out there.
@kalgert123 I honestly have no idea what you're saying in your first sentence. People can get their views scewed depending on what they see or what is said.
I agree with your second bit, which was what I've been trying to say. Words don't fully matter, but they do have the ability to color other people's views. It doesn't necessarily mean that what is being said 'should' be listened too, or that it makes any difference to how the game is for others who have played it.
Basically, any game (No matter how good) can look terrible depending on what's is said or shown towards it. Some people can make their decisions based on something as trivial as this, which is a real shame (Reviewers do this all the time). Some people can't help but listen to others, it's human nature.
@kalgert123 @Dinostrich @pokajabba It's not really rated THAT high. It was just surprisingly good for what it was, which is why it gained a fair bit of attention. It's also pretty much the only mod/game that has done something like this, which makes it something fresh. It has problems, of course. All games have had problems, though.
I guess people enjoy trying to survive as long as they possibly can. You are given a world to explore and asked to survive within it. That's usually a premise many people like (Look at how popular Minecraft is). Most of the tense moments come from human players. You just don't know whether to trust or shoot them on the spot, which is one of the best parts about the game. Especially when you're close to death and could use someone's aid at that specific moment in time.
It's whether you're interested in being part of that sort of experience. Some people won't be, which is fine. It just means you can go off and play whatever games you are interested in. Different people like different games.
@kalgert123 @pokajabba Way to completely miss the point I was making. Basically, you can make any game sound like crap if you just share your opinion on the basic premise of the game.
DayZ - Just running away from zombies.
Metal Gear Solid - Just sneaking until you reach the boss.
You can make the greatest games in the world sound like complete crap if you do that. Not that I'm saying DayZ is the greatest game in the world (Not even close). But I can take a game like Metal Gear Solid and easily make it sound like the worst thing ever created.
@kalgert123 You can make anything sound bad with the type of enthusiasm you are using, which can be applied to any game ever made.
Call of Duty - You just run around and shoot people. You go from similar location to similar location shooting the same type of enemies. ZzZzZzZz
Titanfall - You just jump around shooting robots, unless you get in one. In which you just walk around shooting other robots. ZzZzZzZz
Metal Gear Solid - You just sneak around until you reach the bosses. ZzZzZzZz
The Last Of Us - You just sneak around the same groups of enemies using similar sorts of tools at your disposal. You also just have the same conversations with the same people, throughout. ZzZzZzZz
You can make any game sound bad if you have no enthusiasm towards it.
pokajabba's comments