Interesting, and a disturbing graphic representation of the parable.
Truthfully though I'm one of those people who will say that objectively "Resident Evil 4" and "Resident Evil 5" were good games (excepting Sheva's AI in 5). The problem is that they were bad Survival Horror games. The "shit" in this case bing most of what defined the Survival Horror genere, which appealed to a very specific group of people, by removing it you wound up with a campy horror third person shooter game, which admittedly appeals to more people than "Survival Horror" ever did.
One of the problems I have with franchises today is that the reluctance to launch new franchises has lead to the mutilation of long-standing series. People slapping the name of, and a sequel number to, games that have absolutly nothing to do with a series except perhaps using some of the same characters and referances to the setting. Resident Evil 4 was an example of this, sure it involved Leon, but at the same time it didn't use "real" Zombies as per the previous games, there was little need for ammo conservation, and rather than puzzles and trying to work out ways to avoid monsters the entire game was largely based around shooting your way through everything (for which there is plenty of ammo, in previous games there simply wasn't enough bang-bang at various points in the game to make this a viable solution). They literally put you into closed arenas like villages and such and won't let
you progress until you kill every bloody thing there.
None of that makes it a bad game, but it does mean it's not a "Resident Evil" game. It also means that fans of the series do have a right to complain about it. I don't think in cases like this it's general internet "moan about everything".
See, in my mind it's one of those cases where the game should have been launched as an entirely new IP, rather than being made as a "sequel"/Chapter to the Resident Evil franchise.
Incidently my logic also means that I think keeping franchises alive indefinatly is a bad idea, even if they are making money. There is a point at which you've really done everything that can be done well with a given property, at which point it's time to put the property to rest. Even if the property is successful and massive bank can be made by literally pooping out a sequel, in the long term even more money could be made by taking a "keep them wanting more" attitude and bringing the franchise back at a later date when more GOOD ideas for the same material might transpire, or a reboot/new version might be possible.
The gameplay might be good, but really why did say "Resident Evil 4" need the Resident Evil label? I mean the game is set in europe, doesn't involve zombies, and has little or no relevence to "Racoon City" or much of the lore in the universe except what was tacked on sloppily to justify it's sequelhood. Why not make the game a new title other than marketing?
Such are my thoughts.
BTW> For the guy who said he would get probation for making a similar analogy, my experience has shown that it probably wouldn't happen, providing there was some point to what you were saying rather than just trying to be disgusting for the sake of being disgusting. A lot of similar things have been said, and since it's not deliberatly insulting towards anyone in paticular I doubt it would be an issue.
Content wise there was probably worse said in a recent thread about making "unfounded assumptions about popular video game characters" some of which were... interesting, and painful as a lot of them seem like they would probably be true which is what made most of it funny. I think that's the thread where we saw the posting of a picture of a guy farting a stream of fire as well...
