>

But maybe to them it is not horror. Why does your experience of media need to matter to someone else? How does their understanding of it affect you in any way whatsoever?
Its an action horror game...like what? 
If your comparing it to the games before it, then yea it is barely horror but its still a horror game. 
Idk how anyone can change your view because its litetally an action horror game lol. >

There’s a gaming forum im banned from where people frequently say it’s not horror so this is the only place I can argue :( >

The only argument i can see is that they are saying its not primarily horror. Like the action is definitely the predomiment feature, not the horror >

It's a mix of genres with horror being one but not the main standout genre.
Also (as fantastic as the game is) it doesn't have the same feel as the games that came before it which can really make it feel like it lost a bit of its survival horror by comparison in particular. >

This. It took me years to view it as the good game it is, but it definitely was the downturn for the franchise and the dropping off point for a lot of fans. >

Technically Action-Horror would be the most accurate. It is definitely horror-themed, but outside of the one encounter with the one boss that you freeze and shatter... there was nothing scary in the entire game.
It also was the first major diverger in the Resident Evil series from the old-school Survaival-Horror mechanics with fixed cameras and 6\~8 slot inventories.
If it had to have only one category or one main category, it'd definitely be action and not horror. Survival-horror always had a sense of some slowness, building tension, and at least some difficulty learning to control. RE4 is just "aim for head, bang bang dead". Not to mention the *QUICK TIME EVENTS*. Horror games don't(or shouldn't) have QTEs, and RE4 introduced a bunch to a series that never had anything like that before. Look back at Silent Hill 1-3, RE1-CV:X, and other PS2 era horror games. RE4 is very much about action and shooting things before anything related to horror. Plenty of generic humanoids to kill, then generic humanoids with an extra dangerous head. >

Good detailed comment. But I will try maybe push back in a few things.
I agree things can be horror themed, but I think RE4 did enough to make horror a central theme all around…but had to balance it with new mechanics. The first two/thirds of the game maintained typical horror settings (dark village and claustrophobic castle). Plus it had encounters with enemies like chainsaw man, Ashley part, the regenerators, etc…where I think the suspense was great. It was really toward the end where it got too action based because at that point you had collected enough weapons and gear to take on any small group of enemies.
I do agree that RE4 lost the survival part. The game gave you too much ammo and so equipment (as long as you were smart about it) that you never felt too outgunned. But the game didn’t jump full action either. Remember people still considered RE4 controls to be tank like because you couldn’t move and shoot, and the game definitely made sure to have slow down parts with puzzle and hidden items to explore. The change in camera made it so you could now aim directly at body parts and so it wasn’t like the old games were bullets were just random hits, it tried to balance it out as much as possible.
Quick time events have been used in games like Until Dawn and some of the other story horror games. And remember this was 2004, quick time events (well some had previously) were not that pervasive as later years. So to say they couldn’t be in horror games is a bit of stretch since they weren’t well popular back then.
That said RE4 was the catalyst for eventually turning RE into an action game with the following 2 sequels. Once the next generation came out and the influence of COD, all games wanted to cash in on the action genre and RE was no exception. But let’s not retroactively apply that to RE4 which came out in 2004. I think of it as a “horror shooter”, which ‘shooter’ is action based but depends on the context >

It's possible for something to be more than one genre, and for people to feel more one thing than another depending on who they are. >

I agree, but saying “it’s not horror” decidedly refuses to categorize it as horror at all. Action-horror is still horror. I’m arguing against the people who say it’s not horror at all. >

But maybe to them it is not horror. Why does your experience of media need to matter to someone else? How does their understanding of it affect you in any way whatsoever? >

It is a puzzle, Survival horror, Action-adventure, Third-person shooter game.  Very rarely do people describe a videogame using just one genera. >

let's define what Horror first is.
Horror is an intense feeling of fear, shock or disgust.
People who claim that RE4 isn't horror prob have a higher threshold for fear, shock or disgust. they believe that entering a creepy village, alone is just normal day-to-day live. so, from their point of view, RE4 is not a horror game.
RE4 is definitely intended to be a horror game. it is marketing as such.
but, ultimately gamers can decide what the product is.
now, I'm not gonna try to change your view on the game itself. it is impossible. since you are the one that have the feeling. well, same thing right? you cannot change their point of view, since they are the one that have the feeling.
It is important to understand and ACCEPT that, otherwise, we will not have a feedback system. everyone will have the same opinion. >

Intent and impact are two different things. A comedy that you don’t find funny doesn’t stop being a comedy. >

true.
horror, comedy, etc is a man made concept, their definition can transform over time, between places.
one culture can accept it as comedy, it is the objective truth there. but the other culture can view it completely different, a  dark, evil thing. im sure you can find an example for this.
so, like i said, I couldn't change your view if it's based on your feeling. it is your subjective truth. but hopefully you can at least understand that other people truth exist. >

Its an action horror game...like what? 
If your comparing it to the games before it, then yea it is barely horror but its still a horror game. 
Idk how anyone can change your view because its litetally an action horror game lol. >

There’s a gaming forum im banned from where people frequently say it’s not horror so this is the only place I can argue :( >

The only argument i can see is that they are saying its not primarily horror. Like the action is definitely the predomiment feature, not the horror >

It's a mix of genres with horror being one but not the main standout genre.
Also (as fantastic as the game is) it doesn't have the same feel as the games that came before it which can really make it feel like it lost a bit of its survival horror by comparison in particular. >

This. It took me years to view it as the good game it is, but it definitely was the downturn for the franchise and the dropping off point for a lot of fans. >

Technically Action-Horror would be the most accurate. It is definitely horror-themed, but outside of the one encounter with the one boss that you freeze and shatter... there was nothing scary in the entire game.
It also was the first major diverger in the Resident Evil series from the old-school Survaival-Horror mechanics with fixed cameras and 6\~8 slot inventories.
If it had to have only one category or one main category, it'd definitely be action and not horror. Survival-horror always had a sense of some slowness, building tension, and at least some difficulty learning to control. RE4 is just "aim for head, bang bang dead". Not to mention the *QUICK TIME EVENTS*. Horror games don't(or shouldn't) have QTEs, and RE4 introduced a bunch to a series that never had anything like that before. Look back at Silent Hill 1-3, RE1-CV:X, and other PS2 era horror games. RE4 is very much about action and shooting things before anything related to horror. Plenty of generic humanoids to kill, then generic humanoids with an extra dangerous head. >

Good detailed comment. But I will try maybe push back in a few things.
I agree things can be horror themed, but I think RE4 did enough to make horror a central theme all around…but had to balance it with new mechanics. The first two/thirds of the game maintained typical horror settings (dark village and claustrophobic castle). Plus it had encounters with enemies like chainsaw man, Ashley part, the regenerators, etc…where I think the suspense was great. It was really toward the end where it got too action based because at that point you had collected enough weapons and gear to take on any small group of enemies.
I do agree that RE4 lost the survival part. The game gave you too much ammo and so equipment (as long as you were smart about it) that you never felt too outgunned. But the game didn’t jump full action either. Remember people still considered RE4 controls to be tank like because you couldn’t move and shoot, and the game definitely made sure to have slow down parts with puzzle and hidden items to explore. The change in camera made it so you could now aim directly at body parts and so it wasn’t like the old games were bullets were just random hits, it tried to balance it out as much as possible.
Quick time events have been used in games like Until Dawn and some of the other story horror games. And remember this was 2004, quick time events (well some had previously) were not that pervasive as later years. So to say they couldn’t be in horror games is a bit of stretch since they weren’t well popular back then.
That said RE4 was the catalyst for eventually turning RE into an action game with the following 2 sequels. Once the next generation came out and the influence of COD, all games wanted to cash in on the action genre and RE was no exception. But let’s not retroactively apply that to RE4 which came out in 2004. I think of it as a “horror shooter”, which ‘shooter’ is action based but depends on the context >

It's possible for something to be more than one genre, and for people to feel more one thing than another depending on who they are. >

I agree, but saying “it’s not horror” decidedly refuses to categorize it as horror at all. Action-horror is still horror. I’m arguing against the people who say it’s not horror at all.