There And Back Again - Series Tales 2012-09-23 21:33:56
One of my favorite series has to be the Resident Evil series. I love the survival horror elements, the bizarre creatures, the weapons, the characters, the stories, the music, and the designs each game has. However at the same time when looking at a series and its newer installments how should you judge them?
I mean each video game is its own game, the gameplay may be similar to its predecessor, but there is change to each one. The question is though, should you judge the game on its own merits or use the predecessor as a template that it would have to improve on or go a drastic step by completely rearranging the formula?
Resident Evil 4 changed the formula drastically, by changing the camera angle and having more action oriented gameplay than survival horror. It was something new and fresh... even though Resident Evil 3: Nemesis already gave us the more action oriented gameplay, but not from this angle.
Resident Evil 5 borrowed the gameplay from Resident Evil 4 and made it co-op, I would call it a single player game, but that would be giving credit to the partner AI, which deserves none! They changed their main characters around so much though that it became a really cheesy C-Action Movie and was extremely laughable. You know the voice acting from Resident Evil and Resident Evil: Survivor made me laugh my ass off, but the files and story from those games were still tense, with Resident Evil 5 this story is just laughably bad. The game is still fun to play though.
However if I were to grade it side-by-side with Resident Evil I would give it a low score, I mean this is the follow-up to Resident Evil 4, which had a laughable story and really makes you question these settings, but at least there was something tangent there -- a religious conspiracy. The past games had stories of survivors trying to live and survivors dying due to the virus and their turmoil of turning into these beasts or moments before being mauled by them.
Let's say though Resident Evil 5 was the only Resident Evil game that existed and none came before it. Well the story would still be highly laughable mainly because it takes itself so seriously when it just isn't, but as I said a C-Action Movie. By giving myself Resident Evil amnesia I can appreciate the charm that this game gives, but the partner AI I am confused about since Half-Life perfected it and I'm wondering what the fuck Capcom has been smoking lately, then again they can't even get a robot to fucking duck so there really is no hope here.
Still I could find it fun, this set-up reminds me of Smash TV in some ways with just endless enemies coming after you. With only you and your friend to take them all out, which if you're like me you always pick Sheva so you can Somersault kick people and Roundhouse kick people... that's right I'm Chuck Norris with a tight ass.
This is where I am at a standstill. A lot of video games in series tend to be judged with the other games in the series even though on their own they hold up. Which criteria is the more appropriate one. If it is a game that involves a cohesive storyline to intertwine characters then okay if there is some continuity issues then fine, but what if each game in turn has a different story that intertwines as it is told and keeps everything together, but then in turn becomes a different game? This is enough to make your fucking head spin round and round and have one of those ugly little bastards come flying out of it!
Whenever I see a new game come out in a series I ready myself for the onslaught of people bitching and moaning about the past incarnation. I have seen this with Call of Duty and The Elder Scrolls series, always jumping back to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Yeah you won't hear them talk about the first Call of Duty, Call of Duty II, or The Elder Scrolls: Arena and The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall though now will you?
Bioshock 2 decided to do something different and look what happened to it. It was judged side-by-side with Bioshock. Duke Nukem Forever went through development hell, it still came out, and it was shot down by being compared side-by-side with its past incarnations.
It seems nostalgia has a limit of how far back it can go, the first game picked up and then fuck the rest, it came before I heard of it so it doesn't matter. I think that comment alone makes out three hipsters trying to play Twister, but don't believe in colors.
All I know is that each video game is its own. When developers make a new game they try to do something different or add something new while still remaining fresh. It is a cruel double-edged sword that developers have to maneuver, the only problem is once they get it right and give the sword to gamers, they start flailing it around cutting themselves and then bitch at the developer that they didn't make the sword right... even though many developers do make the sword right.
Just because this sword looks a bit similar to the last one doesn't always mean you can wield it the same way and just because it looks different doesn't mean you already know how to wield it and can just bypass or say it fucking sucks.
1. Do you judge video games individually or compare them with their predecessors and why?
2. What is your favorite video game series and why?
3. What is your favorite game from the series and why?
4. What series do you think needs to take a break and why?
5. What series do you think needs to just die and why?
6. What series do you think needs to come back and why?
7. Favorite gun from a First-Person Shooter?