Denis Dyack: We're Pretending Resident Evil 4 Never Happened
In part one of our interview, Denis Dyack introduces Shadow of the Eternals, the spiritual successor to Eternal Darkness.
Resident Evil 4 was a nice change of from what the series had offered up until that point. However, I firmly believe they should change gameplay styles that emulate if not completely copy the gameplay styles of RE 1-3. Just my opinion. Thought RE 5 was fun but lacked......something. RE 6 kinda ruined it for me. Again just my opinion.
For the people that say you cant please everyone, you've missed the point. That's the actual problem, RE and Silent Hill was not meant for everyone. It was meant for a niche audience in the first place. It was not meant for little kids that like collecting treasure and gold coins and buying and upgrading weapons like Modern Warfare and black Ops., mixed with Gears Of war gameplay.
It was designed specifically with a specific audience in mind. That's the whole point for a specific genre in the first place. For variety in our games we play? So all games aren't the same game every game we play. I don't want to play Ghost recon, Splinter Cell, Silent Hill and resident Evil and Tomb Raider and Gears Of War to get the exact same gameplay experience, 3rd person QTE action with upgradable weapons. I play different styles and genres of games to get a completely different experience. That's what RE and Silent Hill are meant to be, a completely different experience to the rest.
.A specific niche genre is not meant to be half 3rd person action with QTE events, half horror, half Super Mario, half COD Modern Warfare. Of course you can do that in games, that's fine, just don't call if Resident Evil then, call it something else.
I liked RE4 until................................
I realised this is actually a treasure hunting Mario game with an AWFUL vender guy that comes around and is in different places throughout the game world. RE 4 was pretending to be a survival horror game that I knew and loved. But It wasn't. It was a bizarre mix of RPG treasure hunting gameplay with an RE name. The games have NOT Improved since RE4, so I have to say that RE4 was the downfall to the survival horror focused Resident Evil franchise , period. Every single time I saw the treasure and the vender, especially at really stupid times.
Like when you are captured by the villagers and the vender, whispers "psst,psst" And it was an excuse to put RPG elements in the game. It pulled me right out of the horror experience completely. I was like really? you cant be serious? you are trying to sell me things while im a hostage? . I immediately thought, this game has now officially become a joke.
If you don't believe me? Look at RE6, since RE5 is just like Re4. RE4 was the beginning of the Survival Horror genre being raped in favour of 5 million sales. Survival horror, is meant to be a niche audience. It wasn't meant for the action crowd. Now they have their grubby hands on the franchise, its turned into a QTE/ 3rd person semi survival horror/semi action game mess, trying to make everyone happy. its a joke.
I know I'm gonna get a lot hate for this, but RE4 was really boring, I applaud them changing the mechanics up, but the distinct lack of scares, bland setting, and boring story just didn't do to for me, it's a great example of how gameplay mechanics can advance, but not really an exampleof a great game
I absolutely loved Eternal Darkness. I am looking forward to this.
ED had an awesome atmosphere. I hope this does the same thing. The videos certainly give that impression.
Always thought of Denis Dyack as a really smart and likable person. I remember how I loved to listen to him go on about anything that was currently on his mind on 1UP Yours back in the Bettenhausen/Lee glory days. He could for instance talk about space exploration and he always seemed really knowledgeable and had that ability to draw you in to his world and mindset, and make it interesting and engaging to listen to.
Eternal Darkness is a game that has grown on me over the years, looking back. I didn't initially think of it as that great. The gameplay was clunky, combat boring and the way you summoned different magic spells seemed really arcaic and downright frustrating at times. But it had so many unique touches. The thick atmosphere at the Roivas mansion. The Lovecraftian mystique surrounding slumbering ancient evil entities about to re-awaken. The way music and sound design was used to always make you be on your toes and play with your expectations. The storytelling and how it was presented to you as you got to follow this cursed family and their ancestors back through history and millennia. I haven't really had the same experience with any other game the way Eternal Darkness made me feel and got under my skin.
I'm not sure about this new game yet. But I like the dude. How can you not? Look at those innocent deer eyes and rosy baby cheeks!
RE4 is actually still a scary game. even though RE4&5 changes the series formula, they are still high quality games. RE6 on the other hand is complete rushed and dumb down game.
Hmmm, I glad Denis Dyack is confident in "Shadow of the Eternals" but I'll wait and see how this one turns out.
He has every right to promote his product, but sometimes, his hype and promises don't always deliver (remember Too Human & X-Men: Destiny?).
Still, I'll be fair and wait to see how SotE ends up being.
People just cut it out, the 3 first Resident Evils were the best but don't forget that games nowadays are more complicated, if they would make Re4 like the 3 first ones it would have seem like an indie game, you need to do new things and RE4 was new, in every direction, one of the best games of this era, we've seen games like Gears Of War, Uncharted and a lot of other games that followed RE4's mechanichs, yeah it wasn't that scary but the gameplay and the story were outstanding, it was long enough, more than 10 hours (considering that new games like COD ones are 5-6 hours long, and way too easy), it had different envirovments and you never get bored playing, RE5 was also a good game but more like a good adventure game than a survival-horror game, if it had another name everyone would love it, RE6, well, that was actually crap
Instead of ignoring RE4, why not embrace the improvements it made, while circumventing the obvious urge to push the action elements?
Oh right, Because Dyack is a shitlord.
That headline sounds like Capcom's motto. I imagine it is a big banner that hangs above the entrance to their studios.
I believe that the Resident Evil franchise eventually had to change the controls and camera angles due to its limitations. Yes, the tank-like controls and fixed camera angles created a lot of tension, but they also added a lot of frustration. I remember how I use to waste ammo on Resident Evil 2 trying to line-up shots, especially against the faster moving enemies. Fixed camera angles made me nervous going around corners but made absolutely no sense in a large-scaled room, where the room felt like it was broken up into sections. Resident Evil 4 made it possible for you to take on enemies coming from multiple directions, and even conserve ammo by navigating the environment effectively. If anything is bringing this franchise down, it is the developers obsession with action. For example, it is hard to be afraid of things that go bump in the night when you have military-grade weapons such as a RPG.
Let's not forget how much SH Homecoming sucked! There hasn't been a good classic style Triple AAA survival horror game since REmake.
@nyran125tk I wrote 'people are hard to please' below, but it appears you've taken it out of context in a tirade against me and anyone else who enjoyed RE4.
You're bitching about it, but in 2005 what would you have done to make it better? It's easy to criticize, much harder to create, and perpetual sequels with minor innovations get stale very quickly (look at Activision).
You'd probably still be complaining if 4, 5 and 6 had the same game as RE3, just because it didn't meet your non existant expectations of how the series should of advanced.
Seriously, I'd love to play your version of what RE4 is "meant to be".
People are EXTREMELY hard to please.
@theace89"not really an exampleof a great game."
Entering that town at the start of RE4 was one of the greatest videogame moments of all time.
@theace89 im so with you bro... i really think RE4 was the WORST thing it could happen to the series... and every time i see it praised.... oh god i just dont understand anyone anymore :/
@theace89 Lmfao i don't hate you i just think you must be the most boring gamer around i'd hate to know what a fun game is to you lol
@Kazuma_Kiryu I hope your a girl? seeing a guy say Look at those innocent deer eyes and rosy baby cheeks makes me feel funny and thinking about you looking like kazuma is just creepy now lol
@jophy ever hear of a gateway drug?
That's exactly what's wrong with the mindset. You're comparing a slow methodical survival horror style game-play to an action block buster. As if the former were automatically inferior to the latter. Does REmake look like an indie game? Hell no, it still looks great.
People like you are exactly why the genre is virtually kaput. Really makes me a sad gamer.
@PIzo93 Gears of War and Uncharted didn't follow RE4 mechanics. There's no inventory management, weapon customization, and you can move while you aim just to point out a few key differences in the mechanics. In Uncharted you can shoot and throw grenades while hanging. In Gears of War you can take cover and blind fire. There's no currency system.
I fail to see how either game copied RE4's mechanics.
@CBN16 As a standalone game, it's fine. But as a Resident Evil game, it doesn't fit. RE4, much as it was loved, doesn't either. Just great gameplay, but you could have stripped all the RE elements from it (Leon, Umbrella, Ada...that's all there really was), you wouldn't have noticed at all. You'd just say to yourself, "Hey, this is a great new series!"
@CBN16 No horror element ?
@Mister_Zurkon That's exactly what's wrong here, it's assumed they it only made improvements. It was essentially a gateway drug for the developers of resident evil to make millions by shitting on what former fans of the series loved about the series. I don't even think the 'improvements' can be definitively stated as such, they were really just changes, that more people I guess happened to catch on to. Fuck the survival horror fans though... who cares about them. :/ that's what upsets me.
@kingoflife9 Currently planned for Wii U and MS Windows.
@YesSheWillThe 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.
I agree about tank controls. I am glad we will never see that "horror" again.
@LE5LO @nyran125tk That's the problem though, they are trying to please everyone now to get 5 million sales. That's why all these games are coming out that's half Mario/half 3d person shooter/ half action/ half horror/half rpg all having QTE events. Its not a full niche game now. I feel that's the problem, they are focusing so much on trying to please everyone and they should be focusing on just making the niche game they always wanted to make in the first place. Instead of worrying about trying to please everyone. Like for example. Im glad Mass effect 3 ending came out the way it did. Because the developers STUCK to exactly what they were trying to achieve and in turn kept its creative intent. They weren't trying to please everyone, they were trying to design and kept to the game they wanted to make. Now devlerops are scaredto design unique experiences now, just incase the action crowd doesn't like it, just because its the majority of gamers.
@lonewolf315 Those game used the over the shoulder shooting mechanic that RE4 had. Sure other games also used the mechanic but RE4 was one of the first to do it so well, so many did emulate it. I also think Cliff B. at one point said RE4 in part inspired elements of Gears of War, but I could be wrong about that. Regardless, I can't deny I am still a bigger fan of the older RE games.
@pokajabba 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. What I am getting at is do you think that tank-control schemes are still relevant in a survival/horror game? I also addressed fixed camera angles, but I guess you didn't have any complaints on how I addressed that issue. Just an assumption on my behalf. And while we are talking about assumptions, you assumed that I failed at mastering the control scheme on RE2, but the truth of the matter is I completed the game. My example where I mentioned lining-up shots was based on my initial experience with the game. Sure, some people can adapt to things that others cannot, but I can't see how the RE franchise could have progressed with games designs as I have mentioned in my original comment. Now, I could go on about how cooperative play and multiplayer play much larger roles now as oppose to back then, but if you don't understand my point by now, you probably never will.
@RAD_RADIO Agreed, It's hard to please people though, I can't imagine if they'd kept the series the same you wouldn't of got tired of it eventually. But going back to the roots of the franchise now could be a good idea for Capcom, I wouldn't write off the idea yet, I'm sure they'd be thinking about it considering the negative reactions 5 and (specifically) 6 got.
@steve4123456789RE4 has the 2012 Guinness world record for Best-Selling Survival Horror Game.
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.
(Continues in my next response)
@pokajabba@YesSheWill Contradictions, bad assumptions, and baseless facts plague your rather lengthy post, but I will try to keep my post as concise as possible. In your last post, you said, "I never 'mastered' the controls, though I played them normally because they were fun to play." In your first post you said, “I never once had that issue (Even at a much younger age),” when referring to my initial issues lining-up shots.Seeing how you played the game “normally” and never had issues lining-up shots (at a much younger age), even in the heat of the moment of being caught off-guard or dealing with a flying enemy (such as the crows) , I would say that you have ‘mastered’ the controls, since you have never once had an issue lining up shots.Now there were other contradictions, but it is best to move on to the other matter where you made some bad assumptions about me.In your last post, you ranted a great deal about ‘mastery’.I assume that was in response to me mastering the control scheme of RE2.Of course, I was reflecting on my past experience with RE2, but you went on to say this about me,” It’s like you have something stuck in your head telling you that only the ‘masters’ and people who know how to use the ‘tank controls’ can remotely play these games.”“You do not need to be some type of master to play Resident Evil.”It is clear in this instance that you took my words out of context.I used ‘master’ as a verb, and you used it as a noun.But one thing is true (coincidently) about this idea you had about me, I do believe that you have to know how to use ‘tank controls’ to play these types of games.I have yet to find someone who enjoyed any game with unconventional controls without attaining some level of understanding of the control schemes.If a person likes a particular game enough, they will push themselves to adapt to the controls.I can attest to this notion through my experience playing BioShock.Before Bioshock, I played first-person shooters solely with the left-thumb stick being my aim controls.Of course, Bioshock did not give you the option to switch the functions of the thumbsticks, so I had to either adjust or stop playing the game.I eventually made the necessary adjustments, and now I find myself playing other first-person shooters with similar control schemes.Finally, I would like to address my last point about your baseless facts.Now my original post was just my opinion, because I started off saying, ‘I believe,” versus me saying,” The fact of the matter is…”You attempted to introduce some facts into the argument, but they were more so just your opinion.You said,” People prefer action over horror, hence why most games fall into the action category nowadays.”So from what reliable source did you pull this fact from, or did you just make a calculated guess?Either way, this statement of yours is at best plausible.I took the time to reread your posts as to make sure that I understood what you were conveying.Are you doing the same?
@YesSheWill @RAD_RADIOI 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.
@RAD_RADIO @YesSheWill I don't recall giving my personal opinion on what direction horror/survival games should be headed after RE2/RE3, or any other games that were still using such control schemes and camera angles at the time. I just stated that progress (or change) was eventually going to take place. Now you are ranting on about 'more' as if that is not the expectations of most gamers when they buy sequels or next-gen game consoles. But the reality is that 'more' has been the expectation since the first game console. But let me make my opinion clear on the RE series: I don't like the direction it has been going for the past few years. Over emphasizing action, having an arsenal of weapons, and ridiculous use of Quick-Time-Events seem to be the new vision. This very vision is why I have moved on to other titles like Dead Space (which unfortunately seems to be headed in the very same direction). Horror/Survival games need to give the player a sense vulnerability in order to achieve the desired effect. Tank-control schemes and fixed camera angles presents that kind of atmosphere, but developers can't rest their laurels on just these elements of game design.
@YesSheWill There's your problem. You and most of the industry keep using the word MORE, as if that's necessarily a good thing.
More enemies, more weapons, more ammo, more healing items, more environments, more, more more!!! "More" is definitely not the most important element of survival horror. To be honest, if you don't understand the idea that you're suppose to be uncomfortable playing a survival horror, than maybe the genre just isn't for you.
Let me be clear here, Resident Evil 4 is not a survival horror. It really is not.
@YesSheWill @pokajabbaAgain, 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.