They held the power of a new RE in their hands, but they lacked the proper vision

[missvalentine]

It doesn't matter since REmake is the finest RE game EVER. Now that's a fact! ;)

How is your opinion fact? I'm sure there are many people here who disagree with you Jill's Boob. I for one do not think Remake is the best RE game ever. I like RE3 better than Remake. Don't get me wrong, I love Remake, but Remake is second to RE3. Don't go around saying your opinion is fact.

Its quite obvious that after RE3 CAPCOM had absolutely no clue what to do with their flagship title. Not technology-wise, not storywise, after RE3, with an exception of REmake and Outbreak titles, it just had no direction anymore. Which is why theres RE4, UC, DSC, DA and RE5. They serve absolutely no purpose but to sell.

Anyone calling them masterpieces or even "good" games should take a very hard look at their game library.

I agree with this completely. Capcom needs to get RE back on track.

Also has anyone considered the new RE games great success to the fact that there are more people into video games now than there were in the 90's? I mean video games are more popular than ever now. I bet a classic RE game would do just fine in the market now.

Co-sign RE3 did nothing to help the story along either, Jill in skimpy outfits woot
RE2 had atmosphere in RE3 your just waiting for the next time Nemesis will show
up it's no better than RE5.

I don't get your hate for RE3. It makes no sense, it's like saying Remake sucks because it has a lot of atmosphere and is scary. See, pointless.

The things you said about RE3 just before are good things, are reasons i like the game. reason why i think it's better than any other RE game.

BTW, RE3's ending is arguably the most important moment in the entire series. Just imagine were RE would have went and what would of happened if RE3 and Raccoon's destruction had never happened.

Also i don't get your hate for Nemesis, he's the best thing about Resident Evil full stop. He's one of the most popular villains ever.

RE2 was also good, but it just had nothing that stands it out from the crowd, nothing that no other RE game had as well.

[GuardhouseMusic]

In terms of missed potential and the point of this thread, I think it's pertinent enough to include RE4 in this discussion as a comparison point. After all, RE5 seems to expand many game mechanics, and some story elements from RE4. Since it was clear from E3 08 that the game would be similar in style to RE4, I think it's more appropriate to compare those two than RE5 and any of the other games. I'll remind everyone that I'm just shooting my opinionated wad.

RE4 and RE5 share the same accessible and fun gameplay, but there are a few reasons why I believe RE5 is actually worse. Most of them have to do with the co-op function. The chapter select and item management menus, while certainly useful for unlocking secrets and upgrading weapons, destroys the pacing of the game. The local co-op is a drag to kick off, especially when you want to end the game and start a different chapter. The online co-op works much better, but it's a hindrance if one party doesn't have a mic. I don't think I have to get into the single player partner AI.

RE4 and RE5 are both games in which I find myself starting a campaign and then ignoring it at some point. I think this boils down to the scenarios and story the games present.

The keywords IMO for RE4's levels and scenes are bloated and incongruous, the latter relative to what the previous entries give us. If there is a sense of irony (which a lot of people, most notably Yahtzee claim) in the dialogue and scenes, it must be quite subtle, because the last time I checked, every ridiculous one-liner/exchange, every over the top feat Leon performs, Salazar and his castle, the thin political references etc. are all deadpan. While some of the levels are welcome, a lot of them are redundant head-scratchers, specifically the salazar statue, the button-prompt rolling platform leading to the magma chamber, and a good portion of the military-themed areas, among other examples. Plus, there's the issue of the parasite in Leon and Ashley, which is never addressed in game at all. No sense of urgency accompanies this point.

I would describe RE5's story and scenarios with the words shallow, lame, and uninspired. First you run into majini with melee weapons/throwing objects...then you run into majini with dynamite, molotovs, and the occasional turret...then you run into majini with spears, exploding arrows, and shields...then you run into majini with assault rifles and stun rods. Were Capcom seriously thinking that the player would humor them and say "OH SWEET CHRIST THEY HAVE GUNS NOW!!!" in any temperament other than frustration? Plus, say what you will about the graphics and presentation, but I thought the levels looked boring, murky, and devoid of character. I guess I didn't take to the setting. The reason I'm not getting into, say, dogs, lickers, reapers, and plagas is because they're so sparse they almost seem more like mercenaries fodder. I will say that the bosses were all distinct experiences, and most of them were loads of fun; they're the areas I enjoy revisiting the most. The story and dialogue were both horrid IMO. The partner references, Jill's arbitrary role, Wesker's lame arrogant lines. Project W was a narrative failure. The very fact that the co-op aspect influenced the story and dialogue does not work for me at all. I think I would have wanted RE5 to be a single player experience.

Presentationally, I think this is a mixed bag. RE5 definitely has better, more memorable music. The only piece of music I appreciate from RE4 is the novistador theme. On the subject of the atmosphere, both were highly limited. I enjoyed the first few encounters with las plagas in RE4, the prison cell novistadors (why were they the only iteration of the creatures that could cloak?), and god damn I'm afraid of colmillos. In RE5, I thought the licker encounters were tense as hell, and reapers (and their cocoons) created a good sense of panic. Passing by a hanging reaper egg and not seeing it hatch puts me on edge because I know it will happen eventually.

[Vector]

And calling RE4 a masterpiece is kind of...well...insane.

'Masterpiece' is a bit much, but as a standalone game, RE4 was pretty stellar across the board with review scores and sales. As a Resident Evil game, however, it's pretty much the opposite of a 'masterpiece.'

[Jill's Boob]

I don't want to get into another RE4 -vs- RE5 debate, but something just occurred to me. The title of this thread (and argument about missed potential) could easily - and moreso - be applied to RE4 as well.

I mean, with RE4, the developers had the opportunity to spin a really fine, true-to-the-franchise RE story. But instead they told a random tale, that - sans Leon, Ada, and Wesker - would not even be an RE title.

So I think many RE5-haters should be thanking RE5 for incorporating that RE4 plot into the main mythology.

Anyway, I am a pretty vocal opponent of RE4, though I can acknowledge that the gameplay is fun as hell (even though I played through RE4 twice and on the third try got very bored and stopped). I think it deserved its awards, mainly for its game mechanic. It is a very well made game, despite my hatred for the characters and paper-thin plot.

So the people speaking of "missed potential for RE5" should step down from their RE4 high horses and apply the same criteria to that title.

And calling RE4 a masterpiece is kind of...well...insane.

[Member_of_STARS]

So... you're telling us that RE4, a game that won numerous GOTY awards and is claimed by lots of people as one of the best games of the previous generation, isn't even a "good" game? o_O

The only thing I saw after the game was released, was people talking about how fun it was to collect pesetas to buy "one more new weapon". The game did what WoW does to WoW addicts, it uses peoples instinct to collect shit they dont need. The only really fun part of the game is the Mercs minigame.

But once you start to dissect the game and weight its aspects individually, theres no way the game is even in the same league as a number of games that have taken the GOTY awards.

[kevstah2004]

The only good thing about RE3 is Nicholai everything else is pfft, I wasn't even interested in the other characters too bad Capcom will probably confirm him as dead because there to lazy to make a decent storyline within a new game for him.
It's kinda sad since Jill had been one of favorite characters but since RE3 I've lost complete interest in her.
Same happened with RE4 Krauser and Luis stories completely out shadow Leon.
It's like their actively killing off anything that's remotely interesting or related to the back story and replacing it with happy go action and RE5 is like the bible it has the 7 most interesting chapter's missing.

[Rakkoon]

Co-sign RE3 did nothing to help the story along either, Jill in skimpy outfits woot
RE2 had atmosphere in RE3 your just waiting for the next time Neme will show
up it's no better than RE5.

I understand this is your opinion, but it just made me laugh so hard.

[kevstah2004]

Its quite obvious that after RE3 CAPCOM had absolutely no clue what to do with their flagship title. Not technology-wise, not storywise, after RE3, with an exception of REmake and Outbreak titles, it just had no direction anymore. Which is why theres RE4, UC, DSC, DA and RE5. They serve absolutely no purpose but to sell.

Anyone calling them masterpieces or even "good" games should take a very hard look at their game library.

Co-sign RE3 did nothing to help the story along either, Jill in skimpy outfits woot
RE2 had atmosphere in RE3 your just waiting for the next time Neme will show
up it's no better than RE5.

[Mr_Zombie]

Anyone calling them masterpieces or even "good" games should take a very hard look at their game library.

So... you're telling us that RE4, a game that won numerous GOTY awards and is claimed by lots of people as one of the best games of the previous generation, isn't even a "good" game? o_O

[Member_of_STARS]

Its quite obvious that after RE3 CAPCOM had absolutely no clue what to do with their flagship title. Not technology-wise, not storywise, after RE3, with an exception of REmake and Outbreak titles, it just had no direction anymore. Which is why theres RE4, UC, DSC, DA and RE5. They serve absolutely no purpose but to sell.

Anyone calling them masterpieces or even "good" games should take a very hard look at their game library.

[Jill's Boob]

That's cool. But you should probably stop making untrue statements like "RE4 was made as a parody" or "Capcom promised to tie up all loose ends with RE5." NEVER has anyone from Capcom ever uttered such things.

But your claims are epistemologically subjective since the primary relevant evidence for determining the truth value of your statements is based on your own beliefs.

Also, since you like RE3 more than RE2, is that because of your expectations being lower for RE3 (before it was released) than your expectations for RE2 prior to release? Or were you offput that RE2 was "less over the top" than RE3?

But I have one last question. You said:

So I didn't think it was impossible for RE5 to top RE4.

Yet up above, you implied that you had HUGE expectations for RE5, so in essence, there was no way it would live up to your own hype. Also, you (numerous times) referred to RE4 as a masterpiece. Usually masterpieces are hard to top.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that RE5 had lots of potential. But the level of success it achieved will vary from person to person, since the subject matter is purely subjective.

Case closed.

[Rakkoon]

Is this a court room? My SUBJECTIVE opinion is that RE5 had a ton of potential and most of it was wasted. Yeah, sure I expected it to be a masterpiece and I had high hopes, all due to RE4's success. And I doubt I was the only one. The end result was a disappointment to me. I remember what I felt while playing RE4, and I remember I kept replaying it countless times. I am already bored with RE5.

And about RE2 being superior to everything that followed it...I too disagree. I actually like RE3 more than RE2, I think it's a better game. So I didn't think it was impossible for RE5 to top RE4. It just didn't happen. Maybe I should paraphrase myself. I don't think it topped it. Scratch that, it DIDN'T top it.

To sum it up, I agree that RE5 is lots of wasted potential, and I do think it turned out to be a mediocre game. That's how I feel, and while it may be subjective, I can't see how anything could be more objective to me than my own subjectivity.

[Jill's Boob]

I can see what Rakkoon is trying to say. Sure, RE5 had exactly the same gameplay as RE4 with few fixes here and there and added co-op, but it lacked the pace. RE4 was more action oriented than any other game, but it was still creepy, still had slower sections and overall had better pacing. Even though I like RE5, I don't think (and I'm sure you will point it out as "subjective" ) the game managed to preserve it - it wasn't as smooth as RE4 and with all those Majini armed with guns and machineguns, it was even more action oriented.

Well, that makes one of us, since I cannot quite understand what he/she is trying to say. The argument is that RE5 is not a masterpiece because of opinion, or based on supposed facts that "RE is made as a parody" or "RE5 promised to answer/tie up all RE loose ends EVER" (2 things which have NEVER been stated by anyone from Capcom) is just assinine.

I understand if you and Rakoon prefer RE4 over RE5, but this thread is about the missed potential (which all games end up having compared to dedicated fans' expectations), not RE4 vs RE5, especially based on made-up facts and personal opinions.

I could banter back-and-forth on ways that RE4 is better than RE5 and (many more) ways in which RE5 is better than RE4. But they're all subjective items which differ from person to person.

It doesn't matter since REmake is the finest RE game EVER. Now that's a fact! ;)

[Mr_Zombie]

RE5 only really was RE4.5 imo because it only added next gen sound effects and graphics and graphical effects and a co-op and asscrap cover system. The only part of RE5 that really wasn't an add on to RE4 was the AI, they built it from the ground up and turned the knob to 11.

Don't you think that's a little... harsh? If RE5 is according to you RE4.5, then how would you call RE2? Or RE3? RECV? REmake? RE Zero? What you are accusing RE5 of can also be said about every main game in RE series after RE1 - it was just "RE1.5", "RE1.6", "RE1.7" etc. :/
The only real sequel that would deserve the title "RE2" then would be RE4, because it was the only game after RE1 that added lots of new ideas and not only better graphics and few gimmicks.

Yet it is a masterpiece, whereas RE5, which took the exact same formula from RE4, and added in co-op (to share the "masterpiece" experience with a friend) and a new setting, and a tweak to improve enemy AI. And RE5 is a failure? Get real.

I can see what Rakkoon is trying to say. Sure, RE5 had exactly the same gameplay as RE4 with few fixes here and there and added co-op, but it lacked the pace. RE4 was more action oriented than any other game, but it was still creepy, still had slower sections and overall had better pacing. Even though I like RE5, I don't think (and I'm sure you will point it out as "subjective" ) the game managed to preserve it - it wasn't as smooth as RE4 and with all those Majini armed with guns and machineguns, it was even more action oriented.

I personally feel RE5 failed as a Resident Evil game since it was supposed to be a masterpiece

No it wasn't; you want it to be a masterpiece; everyone who thought RE4 was a masterpiece expected RE5 to top it; but no one ever stated that it will. People's expectations were just too high.
It's like saying every classic RE game (bar REmake of course ;P) after RE2 failed as a RE game because they weren't as great as RE2 was; but this is wrong. There are masterpieces and there are (very) good games. RE5 was just that, a very good game.

[Jill's Boob]

RE4 was simply a side story. The way I see it, it didn't take itself too seriously. The 'cool' dialogue was clearly on purpose, and the story was so far fetched it never made me get my hopes up.

"RE4 was simply a side story." This sentence is objective. Yet your next sentence is subjective: "The way I see it, it didn't take itself too seriously." Then, objective all over again: "The 'cool' dialogue was clearly on purpose, and the story was so far fetched it never made me get my hopes up."

So, let me get this straight. RE4 didn't take itself seriously, and its story was so farfetched to never get your hopes up. But you didn't know the story until after you played it. Which contradicts your next sentiment:

Before the game was released, I knew better than to expect a great story.

What is this based on? Why did you not expect a great story, despite only knowing as much about RE4 pre-release, as you knew about RE5 pre-release?

So you are blaming RE5 on not meeting your personal expectations, while giving RE4 a free pass on not meeting your expectations since you didn't (supposedly) have any for it? Brilliant reasoning, Watson! How fair and noble of you!

What turned it into a masterpiece was the way it was done. The great direction and atmosphere, the whole 'feeling' of the game.

You claiming it to be a masterpiece...due to the factors you list...is this objective, or subjective?

It was clearly more action packed than previous games, true, and it was over the top at times, but never as ridiculous as RE5 in that department.

I'm confused. RE5 was basically RE4 with a different story, different setting, and co-op. So, it is basically RE4.5. Yet you're saying RE5 was more ridiculous since it was more "over the top."

Describe where RE5 was more "over the top." Because I didn't see Chris and Wesker having a sword duel with hunting knives, or Chris and Sheva pulling off Cirque de Soliel agility to dodge lasers in a corridor, nor did I see Chris & Sheva outrunning a giant animated stone statue of a Napoleonic Spaniard dwarf.

It was not that linear either.

Yes, it was. It started at Point A, and ended at Point B. The only difference is that in RE4 you could go backwards through levels you had completed, without any benefit or detriment. Otherwise it was just as linear as 5.

I feel the way the action was directed was far superior to RE5.

Subjective.

But in the end, the African environment almost made me feel like I was in a Tomb Raider game. Again, it didn't have the creepy feeling I always get no matter which RE I play. RE5 is the only RE game that didn't give me a single chill up my spine. The co-op was part of the reason too. I can honestly say I didn't enjoy it a single bit.

Subjective.

A new highly-anticipated RE game in HD marketed as much as RE5 was, with Hollywood music and Hollywood-directed cutscenes, which promises to conclude the whole main story of Resident Evil resolving the 10 year old Wesker/Chris conflict and explaining about Spencer and all the different viruses sounds like pure masterpiece material to me. Only the way all this was done was way too shallow and far from what a masterpiece would look like. This game didn't need to be over the top the way RE4 was. And RE5 was actually more over the top than RE4. I don't see how anyone older than 13 would find that appealing.

Where exactly did RE5 "promise to conclude the whole main story of Resident Evil resolving the 10 year old Wesker/Chris conflict and explaining about Spencer and all the different viruses?" You state this as if it is objective, yet it really never was promised to completely answer every question YOU ever had about the franchise. Do you not see how you're unfairly (not to mention illogically) judging a game just because it didn't meet YOUR expectations? You are trying to state that somewhere the producers factually stated that they were gonna satisfy the questions that Rakoon has about the franchise. That RE5's #1 goal was to satisfy YOU.

Your sentiment is way off base, and you've done nothing other than turn this into an RE4 vs RE5 debate, though at the same time you are trying to declare that RE5 is NOT a masterpiece because YOU think it as such.

All in all, this thread is about the missed potential of a video game, of which you are not really addressing; you are mostly just stating your opinions as fact, all the while trying to emphasize that the game promised things which it never actually did.

I understand if you are displeased with the way it turned out, but that doesn't allow you to completely make up shit about it based on your subjectivism. Subjective matters are NOT certain.