Yeah I totally understand that, people hate resident evil 6 (you would definitely hate that one :)) and I loved it tbh, but I guess because I play more console games than PC, its probably me just being more used to QTE events than PC gamers :)

Resi 6 didn't even have that much QTE events. All they had was the every day button mashing situation, for the most part. I never understood the criticism for that. Especially considering 4/5 had waaay more.

I don't know, with all these multiplatform games lately the difference is less and less. But I am without a doubt a PC gamer first and foremost, I can only play on my laptop after all, and it shows. I have played spectacle fighters, such as MGS revengeance or DMC, but forcing QTEs on my face and blocking my advance completely if I fail is a dealbreaker.

I indeed did not like RE6 at all, be it the stupid over the top explosions, stupid story, or forced co-op. I got it on a sale and played through it because of the name, but I certainly did not enjoy it. Luckily it was easy enough that I could finish it just going through the motions.
It's not the QTEs I hated on that one, no.

hey atleast the forced co op worked. It was a huge improvement over the Ai for Resi-0 and resi 5.

It was still forced coop, which I'm against, and they brought even more of it with those maps with 4 players because reasons. And I don't think it worked that well, those enemies you could only shoot from behind were a royal pain as your partner would never shoot from behind IIRC. It was a game designed to play multiplayer coop, and I stick to single player, so it felt very off IMO.

Well, no. It was still Resident Evil: The characters were the same, the basic story about Umbrella was the same. What did change was mostly all the flaws that made the previous games for me really bad (horrible controls, horrible camera angles, boring slow zombies and jump scares you could detect 2 minutes before they happen) and making it a lot more action but it even retained some of the old gameplay mechanics, like the mixing of herbs. So it is Resident Evil.
I see RE4 more as a modernization and much needed change of pace because RE got really old after all the games following the same formula. There are other Resident Evil games where it could be debated if they really should've been released as Resident Evil since outside of parts of the story and enemies, it had nothing in commong, like RE Survivor, a First Person Light Gun Rail Shooter, which also is one of the worst games of all time.

There are games out there that got panned by critics and fans alike because they had a name that didn't fit and it shouldn't have used that franchise name in my oppinion.
A great example is Silent Hill 4: The Room. The game had absolutely nothing to do with the previous installments: Different characters, different setting, different gameplay, different...everything. Where SH 1 to 3 where psychological horror games with a surrealistic look, The Room was more a generic horror game. Personally i thought The Room wasn't so bad, it certainly is a whole lot better than all the mediocre Silent Hill games that got released since then (except maybe Shattered Memories)

Another game that got panned by fans and critics alike mostly because it was completely different but named as a Sequel is Zillion II: The Tri-Formation. Zillion 1 is a Metroid-style open world Action Adventure with a lot of exploration to do. It's one of the big classics on the Master System. Zillion II on the other hand is a very generic side-scrolling action game and outside of the main character it had absolutely nothing to do with the prequel or even the Zillion TV series.

I played it in SP, you could replay a level as the other co-op character too (I think, never tried it though), I never considered the Co-op forced though tbh. As regards the OTT explosions, I thought it made the experience very cinematic but if you hate QTE's for those sections, I understand.

No it isn't.

The story handwaves umbrella's demise at the very beginning and tells a different (rebooted) story. The first minute goes like this: the big bad of previous games was defeated, I'm not going to tell you how or give any other kind of closure to that story, but worry not because here's a completely new story! It's about Leon. Remember Leon, from RE2? He was cool right? Well, here's the guy again, except he changed from a rookie cop to a super badass special agent and has basically nothing to do with the old Leon, but the name's the same so it's fine.

All the mechanics from previous games disappeared: you're showered in ammo, need to buy/upgrade guns, you have no specific map to explore, no puzzles... And put QTEs instead of jumpscares, over the top action secuences instead of a feeling of tension, and a lot of explosions because they're nice to watch. Keeping health potions as "herbs" instead of calling them "medpacks" does not a Resident Evil make.

Mind you, I enjoyed RE4 a lot. It was a great game. But it was hardly a resident evil no matter how you look at it. Why not call it something else? You had generic villain cult leader as the bad guy, generic special agent as good guy, generic useless girl as the princess, entirely new "zombie" type as main enemy and only Ada (&Wesker) as background to somehow link it to the old series. There's nothing there that benefitted from it being part of the series other than marketing.

Again, if you decide that mechanics are outdated and you can't make that kind of game anymore, that's fine. Make a new kind of game, and start a new franchise. Don't entirely change an established one.

Agreed. I absolutely do not understand its mediocre reception. It's a very good slasher game with a cool style and setting. I enjoyed it basically as much as the Prince of Persia trilogy and its certainly much better than the first game, at least gameplay-wise.

I guess you are not a big fan of the series then...

Who could hate on the game, I though it was the best rhino hunting simulator around!

I'm not a big fan of the series either, given that castlevanias were a console franchise and I don't play on consoles much, but I know what they were supposed to be based on the "metroidvania" genre. When people expect a metroidvania and they get god of war, it's quite normal to be disappointed.

It doesn't mean (necessarily) mean it is a bad game, but it's highly possible it's a horrible castlevania game. Again, because they completely flip the mechanics, fans of the originals don't like that sequel yet people who didn't like the originals do like it, but they keep the name because reasons. It pisses me off.

I still remember sliding down the bannister, lovely game!

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you there. First of all, there have never been any recurring characters in the original series. Even SH3, despite being a direct continuation of SH1's plot, didn't feature any of the original characters and SH4's plot is actually more related to the SH lore than SH2's. Ties between the games have always been *comparably* subtle and SH4's plot is actually directly related to the cult activity that also SH1 and SH3 were about. Walter Sullivan made his first appearance in a newspaper article in SH2 but more importantly many of the snippets of information that reveal SH4's plot actually directly refer to characters from SH1 or SH3 and Walter Sullivan's entire scheme is basically about the same kind of ritual as the one SH1 and 3 were about. Content-wise SH4 is by no means less related to the main story of the series than SH2 is, even if you never really visit Silent Hill in the game (you do explore the outskirts, however, including one important location described in SH1).

As for the gameplay - yeah, sure, there were differences, but not as big as some make them to be, they were certainly smaller than the changes Resident Evil went through with RE4. Many mechanics or iconic elements were either removed or altered but the basic gameplay had remained the same. It was still about exploring environments, beating the shit out of monsters, solving the occasional riddle and putting the pieces of a convoluted plot together. The character controlled pretty much the same (IF you were clever enough to use 2D controls in SH2/3), you still completed that map separated into clearly defined rooms and areas, it was still about those disturbing moments when opening a door without knowing what awaits you on the other side. And the horror, while somewhat different (and perhaps weaker) than in the previous installments, was still psychological by all means.

I'm not saying that SH4 was anywhere near as good as the original trilogy but it sure as hell is a legit Silent Hill game, even if didn't start out as one.

Is Sacred 1 good? I remember loving the second one on my 360 but I always wanted to try out the original.