| |
|
Article written
by: SandBox
Discuss This Article
Other Special Features
Media >
|
TACTICAL HORROR ACTION
With today, the inaugural day of the annual E3 conference,
interest was at an apex while anticipation was also at an all
time high for new information and footage of the latest games.
Naturally for our own purposes here at Biohaze, RE 5 was the one
game in particular which would captivate our minds and which
would lead us to a new level of excitement and conversation for
the foreseeable future. While there is no dispute that Capcom
did indeed come to the show and “deliver” at Microsoft’s keynote
presentation this morning, the real question on my mind is if
what we were shown today truly resonates with the franchise as a
whole and if this footage itself DELIVERED on the premise set by
Mikami himself all of those years ago back in the world of 5th
generation gaming…
Rather than tackle these issues alone, I enlisted the assistance
of George (Yama) and Alex (cvx) and together we pressed the
issue and analyzed what has been debuted and our reactions to
Capcom’s efforts: |
|
|
1)
Do you the feel that the increased presence of action in the games takes
away from the atmosphere and ambience of the environments and story?
Yama: Somewhat. One of the main attractions to the original Biohazard was
the highly detailed surroundings. The importance was further noted
with the immense amount of detail work put into Rebirth and Biohazard 0, the
two titles before the shift. Though Biohazard 4 and 5 have beautifully
detailed textures, the minor intricacies of the earlier titles were more
apparent.
Some of this is due to scale, but the rest is caused by the forceful nature
of the game to keep the player moving. While most of this is overlooked by
adrenalin junkies looking to blast a few limbs off of a screaming
motorcyclist, these are the details that set the mood and kept players
intact with some of the creepiest atmospheres known to gaming. I feel the gameplay and atmosphere need to work together to set the mood and a mix of
pacing is necessary for Biohazard 5.
SandBox:
While I feel that action has assisted Bio titles in the past in terms of
pacing and style, I feel that none of the other games in the series cannon
(excluding Bio 4) placed action as the focal point of game play like Bio 5
has appeared to do. Consequently, I feel that the story and general
atmosphere of the game will take a hit and that whatever classic Bio
elements that is present in the game will seem inconsequential and
unimportant. This could also make the game feel incoherent and “loose”
regarding switching back and forth from action to “rest.” This type of stop
and go game play is not what made Biohazard a bestselling franchise.
cvxfreak:
To an extent, yes, I do agree with this assessment. The previous
Biohazard game play was set up in a way that allowed for gamers
to enjoy the atmosphere and environments in a slow, calm pace
(relatively speaking). However, I do not believe that the
increased presence of action elements detracts from one's
ABILITY to enjoy the game's environments. Indeed, clearing a
room of enemies in Biohazard 4 allowed for gamers to enjoy the
environments, and the new camera angle allowed for a greater
amount of depth than before. Regarding the story, I feel that
the game play brings no serious consequence to the Biohazard
series. As early as Biohazard CODE: Veronica, in fact, Capcom
has strived to diversify the enemy lineup, and the enemy-types
of Biohazard 4 and now 5 looks to be within series boundaries.
2)
Biohazard has always been a series that has stressed the feeling
of impending danger and utter destruction/annihilation on the main
characters. Do you feel that Bio 5 captures this sense of fear and
uncertainty as present in the previous games? Would you say that for a
game to be called Biohazard, this feeling must be experienced by the
player at ALL times throughout the game?
Yama: I feel it succeeds
in new found ways, but doesn’t capture the original motive behind
the series creation. I acknowledge the fact that series tend to evolve,
but how far should they be allowed to go before defacing a franchise?
The current style attempts to overwhelm players with a new formed sense
of tension. To create the intended feel, the game throws a large number
of enemies at the main character. However being fully equipped and able
to fend each and every one off, the sense of tension is diminished to
that of just an action game. Forcing players to solve twisted mind
games all while killing, running and conserving formed a better sense of
overwhelming tension and stress than five hundred pitch-fork wielding
villagers ever could. In order for the new engine to succeed, I
feel tighter confines and a mixture of enemies in one place is
necessary. Biohazard 5 is a departure from the classic series, like it's
predecessor, but can succeed in various new found ways. A mixture of
both formulas could prove to be the most horrifying yet.
SandBox: I feel that having the player feeling and sensing danger and the
fear of the known are absolutely essential in any biohazard game. From
what I have seen so far, Chris seems to be of the attitude of:”There are
some enemies….let me go eradicate them.” I don’t feel that Biohazard has
ever been the type of franchise in which you go out LOOKING FOR TROUBLE.
This type of gung-ho game play is hazardous to the Bio formula. I feel
that is important for the player to also have a general sense of fear
while playing and to feel that at ANY moment something could pop up at
them and cut them into pieces. Complacency is something that should not
be a part of any Biohazard experience, this also heavily ties into
storytelling and ambience as well. The player is aware of their
surroundings and basic circumstances, but they are ignorant of the big
picture and must piece together what is going on in the world through
the GAME-PLAY in order to figure out who/what is pulling the strings
behind the scenes. Having a player feeling like an uber-juiced up
commando unmercifully crushing enemies leaves little to the imagination.
The Bio series is very much about how each individual player reacts to
the high trauma and stress and going into a game guns-drawn-a-blazing
destroys this experience.
cvxfreak:
More so than the traditional series do Biohazard 4 and 5 capture that
sense of danger and annihilation. Even Umbrella Chronicles is superior
to the original games in that regard, while the Outbreak games do come
halfway in between old and new. They each achieve this feeling in their
own way, with the slow enemies and limited ammo in the older games
offset by the character's slow movement, and the newer games offsetting
enemy speed advantages with plenty of ammunition. In the end, the new
Biohazard style wins out. While I hold the Biohazard name to certain
standards in order for a game to be entitled to the title, I feel that
the sense of danger is not one of the defining points in a title
qualifying for the Biohazard name. The series has come so far in over 12
years for it to be held to standards that haven't been true in half the
series' lifespan.
3)
Do you feel that "features" such as in-game weapon switching and plug-in
& plug-out cooperative game play significantly detract from core
Biohazard principles? If so, does this mean that the series is moving in
a new direction and the series will longer be the Biohazard brand that
we grew up with?
Yama:
Completely. As we’ve already covered, if one thing is important in the
Biohazard series it is the atmosphere and sense of realism. A cinematic
value has always been attributed to the series,
especially the last of the classic mainstream saga. Aside from a
player’s character, all other NPC’s for the most part are choreographed. The moment a players split decision deciphers an
NPC, the movement is unnatural and the sense of cinematic
quality is lost. The same is to be said if another player is controlling
the second character on screen. The feeling of playing through a virtual
cut scene, such as Rebirth, is replaced by a more traditional gaming
experience. Though undeniably fun, co-op tends to allow players to rely
on each other whereas the Biohazard series is known for a feeling of
helplessness. Titles like Outbreak or even Gears of War are
successful in what they set out to do, however Biohazard 5 is a mainstream title
and certain standards have came of the series. I'll gladly acept
additional replay value as long as it doesn't hamper the initial play
through.
SandBox:
I feel that these new features heavily detract from the Bio formula and
could possibly lead to pacing and balancing issues within the game. The
in-game weapon switching takes away from the strategic aspect of the
series while the cooperative play is something which has never been done
before in the series (with the exception of the outbreak games). While
it remains to be seen how these changes will be implemented within the
actual game, I feel that tinkering with the traditional formula in this
way is the first step towards fundamental change for the series. Whether
this change is the result of evolution in game design or a result of
changing gaming patterns, the fact of the matter is that the traditional
Bio formula is becoming less popular with each installment and I feel
that over time we will see the powers at be deviate further and further
from the traditional center of the series and that the result will be a
series which will become unrecognizable to series veterans.
cvxfreak:
I do not feel that technological advancements detract from the core
Biohazard principles, whatever those may actually be. In-game weapon
switching, once gamers actually have Biohazard 5 in their hands, should
not be a big deal, and I'm positive gamers won't notice a huge
difference in the Biohazard 5 game play on that basis alone.
Co-operative game play is also a logical evolution from Capcom's
ambitions as far back as 1999, when development of Biohazard 0 was
underway for the Nintendo 64. The Outbreak games went even further with
their online cooperation component, and Umbrella Chronicles also brought
forward the two-player dynamic. So, to tout the co-op gameplay as a
gigantic change is simply misleading. As for the series' direction, it
has not been within its traditional roots for nearly 6 years, so it's
fair to say that the change has already occurred. Biohazard has spun off
in various directions, which is a testament to the series' game play
flexibility, a plus point in my view.
FINAL
THOUGHTS
Yama:
I would have loved to see the Biohazard series continue the way
Mikami had originally intended. The technically aged Rebirth and
Zero are still some of the most fantastic looking titles to date
and to see this formula continue into the HD era would have been
truly breathtaking. In consideration of Biohazard’s sister
series Dino Crisis, it would have been fitting for a series that
progressively surrounded itself by action to consolidate the new
game play mechanics. Though in the end the best of both worlds
is obviously too much to ask for and it is safe to say the
series we once knew and loved is dead. This is a new page in
survival horror, for better or worse...
Despite some of my concerns for the series and admitted longing
for the classic formula, I feel Biohazard 5 is going to succeed
at what it sets out to do and ultimately be a great title. As
much of a departure Biohazard 4 was, it did something
revolutionary. A mixture of these elements in addition to what
made the other titles so memorable could equate to a chilling
and exciting title.
cvxfreak: As I have yet to
play Biohazard 5, I can only theorize to an extent, but I think my
viewpoints will come to pass. Having recently completed Biohazard 0 on
the Wii, I do have a dose of classic Biohazard in my head. At the same
time, playing through it, even as a diehard fan, I can see why Capcom is
so adamant to move forward with the series. I think gamers should
appreciate the traditional Biohazard games that actually came out, and
treasure them as the best of the best that would be difficult to top by
a new game, especially with the departure of much of the staff that was
involved in the series in its early years.
SandBox: Above all, the atmosphere and ambience are what
define a true Biohazard title. It is also important as you also
mentioned for the player to feel that dreaded sense of helplessness and
danger. These feelings which the player experiences during game play
further shape the style and direction the given title takes during its
progression. We both also agree that to have senseless action mixed in
with the traditional core game play will not work and will lead to
confusion and unbalanced game mechanics. A title that is all frenetic
action and hell raising will lead to a title that is too high strung for
its own good and that will ultimately lose its artistry in the long run.
What I want to see happen for Bio 5 is rather simple. The action in the
game needs to be worked out in terms of is specialized and complex ONLY
in moments where it needs to be. The title should be made to be holistic
and open to the player in that the player can explore and make of their
situation what they will rather than forcing endless gunfight
confrontations and motorcycle battles down upon the player. The action
should not stand out on its own and should be incorporated within the
core Biohazard principle mechanics; it should be stylized uniquely and
individually apart from the other parts of the game and then tied to the
other parts of the whole to form one cohesive experience.
_________________________________________________________________________
What does the future hold for our beloved Biohazard
series? While change seems inevitable in the game world today,
we should not be complacent and let any kind of alteration
influence our minds or feelings. It is important to remember how
this series began, where it came from, and what influenced
people like Mikami to make such a bold statement to the entirety
of the gamming community when he created the original Biohazard.
Ingenuity is important and it is essential to break new ground
and expand one’s horizons. But when ingenuity is not backed by
purpose or reason, entropy is the result and the ultimate result
is ingenuity for the sake of ingenuity; which benefits no one. |
|
|
|
|
|
