EmP's Resident Evil review

Wait a minute. I've seen this review before. Where have I seen it before?

Here's my further comment on this review.

I think there are spots in this review where you (EmP) haven't proofread the logic of your thought while in search of strong presentation.

For instance - 'Then, it was an unforgettable experience, but, now, a nostalgic glance back will cause cracks in even the most hardy of rose-tinted glasses.'

An unforgettable experience never ceases to be an unforgettable experience, until it's forgotten. Its nature can be reevaluated later, but obviously not its quality of not-being-able-to-be-forgotten. And the other thing is, the worst time to assess whether an experience is going to be unforgettable is at the time at which you are having the experience. The above line is vulnerable to both of these conundrums.

But that's just a line. Coming up is my musing about the broader logic of the review.

The use of the term 'mistakes' in this review got me thinking. It is true that 'mistake' can be used with prejudice, as it is here, to attribute poor judgement to someone, rather than to describe the making of an empirically verifiable error. If a reader sympathises with this review's arguments, they might say to themselves 'Capcom made mistakes a,b and c as they created the original Resident Evil.'

Viewed the other way, it's difficult to say Capcom made any mistakes. They made a million selling game which worked as intended. There are no bugs in it, and the argument of this review is that the game seems poorer today because of changes in gaming styles, preferences and technology over time. In a sense, if mistakes had been made in creating the game, it would have scored sixes when it came out. I'm not sure you can occupy all these grounds at once (it was broke when they made it, but it was unforgettable, but now time has passed and it's really broke?)

I get that you have your own ideas about hardcoded elements of the game, and then relative ideas about how the game stands up over time. But your perspectives on the two got tangled up for me the way this review was written.

Then, it was an unforgettable experience, but, now, a nostalgic glance back will cause cracks in even the most hardy of rose-tinted glasses.

Now? The cracks were showing as far back as 1997. After seeing a friend play RE2, I was kind of surprised at how hokey the original game was. (Those Hunter monsters are always scary, though.)

I think the word you are looking for is "accomplishes".

"Resident Evil deserves its recognition for what it accomplices and what it brought to the table, but that doesn’t mean what it does wrong should get a get-out-of-jail-free card."


Also you probably do not need "its" in that sentence.

I meant to reply to this sooner, but things kind of stacked up on me.

Bloomer: I'd actually wanted to sub this on your RotW slot as I assumed you'd react strongest to it, one way or the other. I'm going to have to disagree with you take on the experience being unforgettable. Until I replayed it, the original Res was placed on such a pedestal that the description fit it -- now it's entirely forgettable outside of the obvious negatives like the kooky dialogue and the tank controls. What I hoped to stress with this line is how unkind time has been to the title. Until my replay of Res, I would always say that Res 2 was my favourite of the series, but now I'm almost afraid to revisit it. It's not the kind of horror I would expect from the series.

EDIT: On refelection, there's almost certainly a better word choice I could employ to make the point I wanted to make. I'll give the review a complete going over once I've finished the other review I'm working on now.

As for the mistakes, I would certainly label the idea to use the very worst voice actors available as such. Other than that, I agree with your points. I was never a fan of the cumbersome tank controls or some of the cheaper scare tactic, but I adored this game like millions of others back when, so it's probably the wrong word choice there. I'll give some thought to an appropriate edit.

SECOND EDIT: I've gone back and put placeholder edits in place. I don't think they fix these issues, but they help make the points I wanted to make well enough until I can plough more time into an ultimate fix.

Joesph: Now as in "Now was the time I decided to replay the game" more than anything else.

CD: Thanks for that!

Zipp: You be crazy.

Hey Emp,

have to disagree with you take on the experience being unforgettable.

Actually I don't think I would say PS1 RE is unforgettable, even in my world, but what I think isn't relevant for this particular point anyway. It's purely about the use of the word 'unforgettable' in the review. (I know it's not there anymore, which is good :) )

A writer cannot say that something used to be unforgettable. It falls into the area of phrases like 'pretty unique'. By definition, if you are talking about a thing now, it has not been forgotten. Trying to assess if the thing previously had the state of being impossible to forget, and then was forgotten (invalidating that status) and has since been remembered but has also acquired a new status where it's possible to forget about it... it just becomes an impossible idea when presented this way.

Of course if you were writing humourous Hitchhiker's Guide style fiction, 'previously unforgettable' is potentially a good phrase, but not for a serious critical review.