Resident Evil 5 Demo Haunting the Marketplace

If Capcom really wanted Sheva to be with you at all times then she needs to be like Alyx was in Episode One - damn near immortal, never near as human.UpInFlames

Played the demo a couple of more times on both stages and I'm absolutely loving this game. Sheva has helped me out more times then I helped her and my game over due to death was because of me dieing so right now I'm not having any problems with the computer controlled Sheva myself.Archangel3371

.... Though I did notice that the default type D "Gears" controls work better for moving around as the two analogs can control the movement and camera simultaneously. Type A only has the left analog for looking around and moving (plus used for aiming the gun) which leaves me wondering how I went through RE4 with that!

I guess I've learned to appreciate the new controls, but it's still miles away from Dead Space's :P

martialbullet

agreed on Dead Space.

the thing with the D controls is that you can only move and control the camera while walking, unless you have the sort of inhuman dexterity required to control the right stick and hold down A at the same time. The inclusion of the run button pretty much destroys this control choice for me as strafe movement is simply useless at this game's walking speed, save for those few times you need to edge around corners to avoid surprises. I tried every control option and the feeling of sluggishness never disappeared. It's funny because I've been playing this franchise for over a decade and the tank controls never felt this wrong to me...i guess Dead Space spoiled me, but I feel like I'm trapped in someone else's bullet-time. I guess i'm just going to have to get used to it again. Honestly, though, the ability to move while shooting would eliminate the majority of the frustration i experienced with the demo.

As for Sheva..I never had her die once, but she revived me a lot my first time through when I made the silly decision of trying to take down the axeman instead of just putting distance between us. She was also healing me a lot that first run, actively injecting me to keep me on my feet whenever my life was low. I really don't see her being a problem.

agreed on Dead Space.

the thing with the D controls is that you can only move and control the camera while walking, unless you have the sort of inhuman dexterity required to control the right stick and hold down A at the same time. The inclusion of the run button pretty much destroys this control choice for me as strafe movement is simply useless at this game's walking speed, save for those few times you need to edge around corners to avoid surprises. I tried every control option and the feeling of sluggishness never disappeared. It's funny because I've been playing this franchise for over a decade and the tank controls never felt this wrong to me...i guess Dead Space spoiled me, but I feel like I'm trapped in someone else's bullet-time. I guess i'm just going to have to get used to it again. Honestly, though, the ability to move while shooting would eliminate the majority of the frustration i experienced with the demo.

As for Sheva..I never had her die once, but she revived me a lot my first time through when I made the silly decision of trying to take down the axeman instead of just putting distance between us. She was also healing me a lot that first run, actively injecting me to keep me on my feet whenever my life was low. I really don't see her being a problem.

Ish_basic

Is Sheva like have a partner was in RE0 cause it wasn't much of an issue in that game (of course in that one you can switch between the two at any time). I will see for myself but plenty of people say its fine so I trust them. As for controls, its like RE4, I dont see the issue. Unless you didn't like RE4 controls in which case you not liking RE5 controls should not be a shock to you.dvader654

If I played this after RE4, I'd have loved it and said it was awesome! But honestly, after playing Gears of War 2, Dead Space, and even Dark Sector, these RE5 controls are hard! I mean, I had a tough time aiming, moving, reloading, etc.!

I guess that's the only thing bad about this game. But it doesn't ruin the experience. Everything else is pretty cool. The graphics are awesome, the animation is superb, and the whole co-op thing is really nicely done. From what I've played, I had fun with it. It does take some getting used to but once I got the hang of it, it was pretty fun. But yeah, those tank controls are a bit rigid. I can't believe RE4 was like this! I thought those RE4 controls were great but after playing other third person shooters that did it better, it really is a difference when playing RE5 with those RE4 archaic controls!

Anyway, like I said, it doesn't break the game for me. I can still appreciated and understand why Capcom did it this way. I still think it's a must-have and a great game.

Now bring on that SFIV demo Capcom!!!:twisted:

Its not lame, its a design desicion that effects the overall combat of the game and without it would change the entire combat dynamic of the game. Change that and its not RE4 anymore, its just like every other shooter out there. Thats whats so special about RE4, there is nothing like it, no game has that same intense up in your face, every bullet counts type combat.dvader654

Jumping into the above argument, i think that in the first place, the inability to move and shoot was a decision at first forced on developers...Nobody stood around and said "this is what RE is going to be about - plant and swivel gunplay." Rather when RE1 first hit shelves there was only one directional pad on a controller and yet the game concept required you to be able to move and aim in 360 degrees. The only possible way to make this happen was to include a toggle button (R1) that would change the function of the directional pad from controlling movement to controlling aim. Just because this is the way RE1 was made, doesn't mean that that's what the devs wanted at the time...it's just what they had to work with.

Now we have dual analog sticks AND a directional pad. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to move and shoot anymore...it's just that developers, as they tend to do so often, don't bother to think about why gameplay is what it is...few stop to think about why things are the way the are, that maybe what we classify as "tradition" is actually choices forced on us by limited technology and not the product of some artistic vision. It wasn't that this was the best way to do it, just the only way at the time. Well, we have options now. It's ridiculous as I look at the control schemes...it seems the only difference is which analog stick they kill while aiming. In every scheme there's a analog stick just sitting there, asking to be used. So why not?

and trust me..the ability to move and shoot is a far less drastic change than the move from zombies to...whatever they are now - than the move from "put a bullet in their brain," to headshots don't matter. This franchise has changed character more times than an Eddie Murphy flick...it can survive mobile gunplay.

As some people have already mentioned, what bothered me most in the demo was Sheva. I've only played each level once, but I wasn't able to complete either because she kept getting herself killed. It was pretty ridiculous. I also agree that controls feel clunky in this game, but at least you can increase the aiming speed, which is nice. I think if the game handled a bit more like Dead Space it would be more fun to play. I still think it's a good deal of fun otherwise though.Foolio1

Just throwing in an updated post about my experience with the demo. Today one of my friends came over and we decided to play some offline co-op. Needless to say it was a ton of fun. Though the way they divide up the screen is a little weird. Each person gets their own little 16:9 screen (though I suppose on a 4:3 TV it would be that ratio unless it will be letterboxed like RE4, but mine is widescreen) with the two staggered leaving a bunch of black space. A little strange at first, but helpful in the fact that neither player loses any range of vision that you would have playing on the TV by yourself, granted it was just smaller. It was considerably more fun to play with a friend, especially sitting next to each other, coordinating our actions, and of course yelling and laughing as we ran for our lives from the villagers and the guy with the huge axe.

While first playing alone may have left me a little unsure at first, seeing how much fun the co-op will be has gotten me way more excited for the game now than I ever was before (and I was already pretty excited being quite the RE fan). After finishing both parts of the demo with my friend I was totally ready to play through the rest of the game right then and there, lol. March seems so far away now!

This will be a tough game to critique because part of me wants to love it and part of me wants to dismiss it completely.

From a visual standpoint, the game is damn near peerless. Even among games like Uncharted, Gears, and Killzone 2, RE5 looks stunning. The animation isn't quite as impressive as the entire visual package when taken as a whole but overall the presentation of this game is simply stunning.

Here's the problem: RE4 was released four years ago and things have frankly changed considerably in those few years. When RE4 initially released, third person shooters were a mostly ignored genre and RE4 brought the style back with a vengeance. While still utilizing a tank-like movement system, the paradigm of stiff, unresponsive RE combat was shattered forever and gamers who had suffered through the previous entries' abysmal control scheme felt the improvements were vast and the pace and combat improved exponentially. And while I've always been of the opinion that RE4 was always just a tad over praised, it certainly deserves the distinction of making third person shooters viable again.

The problem is that other developers took some of the concepts from RE4 and expounded upon them in ways that Capcom seems to have ignored. Certain things that were acceptable four years ago simply don't gel with gamers today, especially now that we've played so many other outstanding third person shooters. While I hate to beat on this particular drum, Dead Space, which borrowed copiously from RE4, does the movement of the character infinitely better than RE5 while still managing to keep the requisite tension and solid pacing of a survival horror game.

The truth is that the RE4 control scheme doesn't feel as intuitive in RE5. It feels stiff, unresponsive, and downright clunky. RE5 has a brisk pace that simply isn't served by this control scheme and the real shame is that with a few minor tweaks, these issues could be easily solved. There is no viable argument for omitting full analog support nor is there any reason to force gamers to hold down a button to run. Chris needs to be quick, agile and fleet of foot but frankly, he feels like Frankenstein with a quick turn.

I also reject the assertion that stilted controls are a design choice that improves the tension of the game. Allowing you to shoot while moving wouldn't diminish the tension at all; nor would allowing the gamer to strafe. The lack if strafing in particular is simply ridiculous, just as it was in RE4; strafing is basic combat strategy.

Lastly, the RE franchise is fast becoming an action series with little emphasis on horror. I defended RE4 when it opted to become more about combat than atmosphere and exploration but RE5, at least based on the demo, lacks anything that would make it feel like survival horror. Also, forcing one-player co-op was simply a mistake. One of the most satisfying aspects of RE is the notion of isolation and taking on hordes of enemies alone; now the player is saddled with a partner who not only consumes resources but also ends the game when she dies. As Up in Flames commented, RE5 is potentially one long escort mission, which should scare the living hell out of anyone who suffered through the lame escort missions in RE4.

RE5 is a gorgeous and intense game but Capcom is really selling it and us short by adhering to such an archaic control scheme. Unless the full game is somehow radically different than the demo, I'm expecting this game to score plenty of 8's.

You can forget all the GOTY talk with this one.

You know what? I've had a change of heart. I just gave the "Type D" control scheme another try and not only do I prefer it immensely to the "classic" scheme, but I now realize just how silly (to put it nicely) it is to have a dedicated "run" button and not allow us to move while aiming. As the above poster so thoroughly put, the tank controls were a neccessary evil in the beginning, never a "feature" or mainstay of the series. If the more stubborn among us wanted that restriction so bad, they could have simply included it in one of the control settings. Ta da!

And the "intensity" argument, as others have said, just doesn't cut it, firstly because Dead Space has proven just how exciting and desperate things can get *with* free movement, and secondly because this game, I'll finally admit, really isn't about survival horror anymore. I mean, whatever creepy atmospheres and cheap scares this game has in store later on won't be very effective while casually chatting over a headset.

Speaking of which, anyone who hasn't tried the demo's co-op should jump on it right away. Fun stuff.

You are seriously telling me that if you take RE4 and slap on a Gears like control scheme without changing anything else the game would not play completely different (the run button is not the issue, I agree with you on that, no need for it).dvader654

[QUOTE="dvader654"]You are seriously telling me that if you take RE4 and slap on a Gears like control scheme without changing anything else the game would not play completely different (the run button is not the issue, I agree with you on that, no need for it).Skylock00

If you had a control scheme like a typical 3rd person shooter, most people would assume they can just shoot everything. About 1/3 into the game when they have a giant boss to face and no bullets, Resident Evil will be blamed for bad design choices.

[QUOTE="creepy_mike"]

4. The new default control scheme. Sure the fact that its clunky and convoluted is no problem for those of us who opt for the classic RE4 layout, but the fact that its the default scheme in this demo is causing several newbies to assume that's how the game is meant to be played, and just hours after the demo's official release, various forums are already filled with complaints of how awful the whole thing is. Now does this do justice to the immediate successor of a game that's been universally praised for its fluid and intuitive controls? The way it stands now, the uninitiated think its just a third-person shooter where you can't move while aiming. Listen up, kiddies: The primary face button shoots, not the trigger. And the right stick? Just pretend it isn't there. You'll get the hang of it in no time.

Skylock00

Youre kidding right? The tank controls have been in every damn resident evil game and i wouldnt want them to change anything, and with the move while you shoot would just make chris like master chief, a run n gun guy. The controls arent as complicated as you think, i played RE0 and thought it was really complicated to control, then i played RE4 and played it and thought the game was easy to control. To hell with traditional 3rd person shooters.ConkerAndBerri2

If you had a control scheme like a typical 3rd person shooter, most people would assume they can just shoot everything. About 1/3 into the game when they have a giant boss to face and no bullets, Resident Evil will be blamed for bad design choices.

jks22112

1. Controls that take advantage of the fact that we're using analog sticks, and remove the run button.

2. SOME level of ability to move while aiming, like slow controlled walking, even, so if an enemy closes in and does a vertical swipe at you, you can side step as a means of getting out of the way without having to remove your grip on the gun, and (if we're talking about traditional RE4 controls) rotate your body 90 degrees before you can step to the side.

3. More of a focus on the survial side of things through resource restrictions that are more typical of what we had in older RE games, where wasteful tactics are punished, and strategically sound ones are rewarded through having more resources for tougher battles.

Those are the kinds of things I'm talking about.

I understand what your're saying, but being able to move and shoot doesn't matter to me. I don't think they'd be able to change back to limited ammo like in previous RE game. IMO, RE5 controls great. And as much as I played RE4, thinking like the game wants me to think has become natural. That's the big problem, I think. You just have to think a different way when you play resident evil. Get a lot of distance between you and the enemy, plant, and shoot. When they are close, then there is a problem. That is another reason why you shouldn't be able to move and shoot, just the enemy type. they are slow, but not too slow, and kinda dumb, but pretty smart at the same time. (I hope I'm making sense.) Not that it's that hard to let your aim down for a second, back up a bit, then aim again. I just don't get the complaints, honestly. I understand you're not trying to turn Resident Evil into Max Payne, (no disrespect to mp, I love it) but I do believe it would take out a lot of the intenseness from the game.

I do see where you are coming from with item restriction, and the run button. I don't mind the run button, really. It's ok with me, but I wouldn't be sad if it was gone. I'd like to see a more item restriction, horror approach. Health and ammo STILL aren't in highest quantities in the game. Atleast if its like RE4. The strategic part about that game, which was great, was decided what gun to use, and when to use it, and not wanting to waste all your ammo for like, your shot gun when you think you could need it later.

This will be a tough game to critique because part of me wants to love it and part of me wants to dismiss it completely.

From a visual standpoint, the game is damn near peerless. Even among games like Uncharted, Gears, and Killzone 2, RE5 looks stunning. The animation isn't quite as impressive as the entire visual package when taken as a whole but overall the presentation of this game is simply stunning.

Here's the problem: RE4 was released four years ago and things have frankly changed considerably in those few years. When RE4 initially released, third person shooters were a mostly ignored genre and RE4 brought the style back with a vengeance. While still utilizing a tank-like movement system, the paradigm of stiff, unresponsive RE combat was shattered forever and gamers who had suffered through the previous entries' abysmal control scheme felt the improvements were vast and the pace and combat improved exponentially. And while I've always been of the opinion that RE4 was always just a tad over praised, it certainly deserves the distinction of making third person shooters viable again.

The problem is that other developers took some of the concepts from RE4 and expounded upon them in ways that Capcom seems to have ignored. Certain things that were acceptable four years ago simply don't gel with gamers today, especially now that we've played so many other outstanding third person shooters. While I hate to beat on this particular drum, Dead Space, which borrowed copiously from RE4, does the movement of the character infinitely better than RE5 while still managing to keep the requisite tension and solid pacing of a survival horror game.

The truth is that the RE4 control scheme doesn't feel as intuitive in RE5. It feels stiff, unresponsive, and downright clunky. RE5 has a brisk pace that simply isn't served by this control scheme and the real shame is that with a few minor tweaks, these issues could be easily solved. There is no viable argument for omitting full analog support nor is there any reason to force gamers to hold down a button to run. Chris needs to be quick, agile and fleet of foot but frankly, he feels like Frankenstein with a quick turn.

I also reject the assertion that stilted controls are a design choice that improves the tension of the game. Allowing you to shoot while moving wouldn't diminish the tension at all; nor would allowing the gamer to strafe. The lack if strafing in particular is simply ridiculous, just as it was in RE4; strafing is basic combat strategy.

Lastly, the RE franchise is fast becoming an action series with little emphasis on horror. I defended RE4 when it opted to become more about combat than atmosphere and exploration but RE5, at least based on the demo, lacks anything that would make it feel like survival horror. Also, forcing one-player co-op was simply a mistake. One of the most satisfying aspects of RE is the notion of isolation and taking on hordes of enemies alone; now the player is saddled with a partner who not only consumes resources but also ends the game when she dies. As Up in Flames commented, RE5 is potentially one long escort mission, which should scare the living hell out of anyone who suffered through the lame escort missions in RE4.

RE5 is a gorgeous and intense game but Capcom is really selling it and us short by adhering to such an archaic control scheme. Unless the full game is somehow radically different than the demo, I'm expecting this game to score plenty of 8's.

You can forget all the GOTY talk with this one.

Grammaton-Cleric

I don't know what is more disheartening, this post or the posts which defend RE5 by asserting that RE4 is so perfect that to try to improve it would be heresy.

Before RE4 the RE games clung to a formula, ignoring opportunities to improve it, post RE4 Capcom is reverting to form. What a shame. I haven't yet played the demo (that will wait until next week) but nothing I've seen or read about it is remotely encouraging.

I'm pretty much indifferent on the controls.

In my honest opinion, if Dead Space can do it, so can RE 5.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]I don't know what is more disheartening, this post or the posts which defend RE5 by asserting that RE4 is so perfect that to try to improve it would be heresy.

Before RE4 the RE games clung to a formula, ignoring opportunities to improve it, post RE4 Capcom is reverting to form. What a shame. I haven't yet played the demo (that will wait until next week) but nothing I've seen or read about it is remotely encouraging.

dvader654

No one is saying not to improve on RE4 with RE5. I just believe wholeheartedly that making the controls into a different type of games controls is NOT improving the formula, all its doing is making it more like a game its not. RE4 worked just fine with the controls it had, hell part of it was because of the controls. This team obviously is playing it safe with RE5, this is very much sticking to the RE4 formula, I agree some new additions or some mixing of old RE style elements would have been welcome, but this is what we are getting. It doesn't bother me that much cause I want more RE4, hell I wish they made a cash-in sequel years ago.

As long as RE5 is RE4 on steroids I will love it, probably not as much as RE4 but I dont see how one direct clone sequel is such an issue. If the old RE games held the formula for 6 games and had relatively great games till the end, surely this one can hold it for 2 games. The next game sure, they should really try to change things up. I am way past the point of wishing RE5 was something more than it is, I have accepted what this game will be a long time ago, at this point I just want to enjoy another RE4 type game.

I simply fail to see how adding the ability to strafe or implementing full analog support radically alters the core game play. It's still Resident Evil and the game would still be essentially the same but instead of clunky tank controls you would get a character that actually moves and responds like a soldier.

What you are basically doing is defending bad design choices by claiming they are integral to the success of the franchise, which is simply outlandish. One of the reasons RE4 was so incredibly good was because the developers made some much needed changes that made it play considerably better than previous RE games and what was needed here was a bit more of that type of evolution. There is no reason not to implement these standard mechanics into a game that is so heavily rooted in the shooter genre.

RE5 is still a day one purchase for me but I'm already disappointed in what I've played and unless something radically changes between now and March I'm of the opinion that Dead Space is the new gold standard for survival horror.

All I keep hearing is Dead Space. Am I the only one who thought Dead Space was a utterly forgetable game? Honestly it was nothing but a combination of Doom 3 and Resident Evil 4. They both did what Dead Space did, years before, and probably better.jks22112

I disagree. Dead Space was a very well made title all around. Had excellent graphics, the atmosphere, gameplay, and the story. It may have not done anything new per say but it was definitely welll made. Arguably one of the best titles of 2008 in my opinion.

Besides the point, Dead Space proved that you could use RE4's control mechanics, integrate the ability of moving while aiming, and still get a game that is just like RE4.

I've tried the first level about 5 times and every time after the first try, Sheva died and made me lose. I'm thinking this game will still be real good, but you are gonna need a buddy.

Cause every enemy and location in the game is designed around the fact that you can't move and shoot. You cant just add a control scheme into a game that is not designed around it and expect it to work. You throw in Gears like controls into RE4 and the combat gets messed up, all the encounters play differently know.

Look at the game you are playing, its NOT like Gears, its not like other 3rd person shooters. Adding that control scheme wouldn't magically fit into this type of game. Many AI changes would have to be made, many enemy changes would have to be made, even the design of the areas would have to change. RE5 did not change much of anything from RE4, that is the core issue, if you want the controls changed you need to have the style of game changed.

dvader654

It doesn't have to play like Gears of War; those are in fact your words, not mine. I just want the game to employ a responsive, intuitive and logical control scheme that keeps up with the pace of the action. You have yet to explain how a few small tweaks to the control interface renders it an entirely different game.

Also, if your assertion is correct, and changing the control scheme makes for an entirely different experience, then wouldn't that lend credence to those who claimed RE4 wasn't a "true" RE game? RE4 extricated a number of RE conventions, including combat, pre-rendered environments, and fixed camera angles while switching the emphasis on the game from exploration to combat. All of those changes arguably made RE4 the best of the series and yet, four years later, you'd have me believe that there is no more room for improvement? That even small changes would sacrifice the integrity of the core gameplay experience?

With all due respect, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

All I keep hearing is Dead Space. Am I the only one who thought Dead Space was a utterly forgetable game? Honestly it was nothing but a combination of Doom 3 and Resident Evil 4. They both did what Dead Space did, years before, and probably better.jks22112

Regardless of how good any game actually is there is always going to be detractors. What's important to note is that your personal response to the game is largely incidental for a few key reasons:

- The game was an overwhelmingly critical success.

- The controls were heavily influenced by RE4 but vastly improved and made more responsive.

- The game featured a number of unique innovations and elements and executed them all with an impressive level of polish.

Like it or not, Dead Space has been acknowledged as one of the best Survival Horror games in recent years and much of that success is credited to a superior control scheme. Given how much the developers borrowed from RE4 when designing Dead Space, it's a shame Capcom couldn't have borrowed a few of their ideas for RE5.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

Cause every enemy and location in the game is designed around the fact that you can't move and shoot. You cant just add a control scheme into a game that is not designed around it and expect it to work. You throw in Gears like controls into RE4 and the combat gets messed up, all the encounters play differently know.

Look at the game you are playing, its NOT like Gears, its not like other 3rd person shooters. Adding that control scheme wouldn't magically fit into this type of game. Many AI changes would have to be made, many enemy changes would have to be made, even the design of the areas would have to change. RE5 did not change much of anything from RE4, that is the core issue, if you want the controls changed you need to have the style of game changed.

dvader654

It doesn't have to play like Gears of War; those are in fact your words, not mine. I just want the game to employ a responsive, intuitive and logical control scheme that keeps up with the pace of the action. You have yet to explain how a few small tweaks to the control interface renders it an entirely different game.

Also, if your assertion is correct, and changing the control scheme makes for an entirely different experience, then wouldn't that lend credence to those who claimed RE4 wasn't a "true" RE game? RE4 extricated a number of RE conventions, including combat, pre-rendered environments, and fixed camera angles while switching the emphasis on the game from exploration to combat. All of those changes arguably made RE4 the best of the series and yet, four years later, you'd have me believe that there is no more room for improvement? That even small changes would sacrifice the integrity of the core gameplay experience?

With all due respect, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I have explained in the posts above how it will change the game so I will not repeat myself.

Once again I am not saying there is no room for improvement, where do you keep getting that notion from. What I am saying is changing the controls is not improvement. I think changing the control scheme to a dual analog full movement scheme will harm the game. RE4 play unlike anything else, yes Dead Space comes really close, and maybe the way its done there could work with RE5, the character moves so slow that I could see it working. Still I dont know if it will work, what I do know works for this type of game, is the RE4 scheme, stopping to shoot had a big impact on the combat.

The controler thing is preference. Yeah I know the majority of people are in love with dual stick moving and stuff but I am not. I am so glad that RE5 provides something different from the norm, why should everything play exactly the same way. The controls do not make or break the game. If you want to talk about improvements how about actual stuff like level design, gameplay scenarios, boss fights, pacing, the addition of good puzzles, maybe a more open ended world instead of the linear constant moving forward that was in RE4. Those are places that can be improved, the controls are fine for this type of game, when the type of game changes again then so will the controls.

So you are honestly asserting that changing the controls doesn't constitute an improvement? That's a bizarre statement that goes against just about everything I've learned and experienced as a gamer these last two decades.

Even small control tweaks can have a major impact on gameplay.

Also, dual analog isn't necessarily what I'm referring to. Truth be told, what RE5 needs is the ability to move while shooting, strafing ability, and full analog movement without a run button. Those three changes, all relatively minor, would make RE5 an infinitely better experience and would have minimal impact on the core gameplay experience.

I also take issue with your comment that control doesn't make or break this game when in reality the control is going to piss a lot of people off and for good reason; it just doesn't work that well. Have you actually played through the demo yet? Because I love RE4 and I'm very annoyed at the way RE5 plays.

Lastly, the type of gameplay paradigm shift you mention has already occurred: Dead Space has been released and it plays better than RE5. Personally, I'm disappointed that Capcom is willing to rest on their laurels and let themselves get outclassed by a dev team at EA but I guess that's their prerogative. I still think RE5 has some amazing qualities but that demo has deflated my GOTY expectations.

I just played the second level in the demo, and there was one part in particular that leads me to believe that a different control scheme could have helped...

I got to the part where you approach a gate and a guy with a chainsaw starts coming after you. All I had left at that point was my pistol, so I started shooting and that guy didn't react at all at getting shot. Basically, I just turned around and ran back a bit, then turned around again and shot him until he got close and repeated this process over and over. The game compensates for your lack of mobility by making this guy go super slow when he gets close. There were plenty of times where I accidently got very close to him and he never chainsawed me at all. I'm not sure how this fight would have turned out if it continued though cause my AI buddy decided to stand next to him and die...

Basically, I would just like it if this game was made more intense by both making the enemies good at killing you and you good at doing things while moving. It's a little bit too much when Chris can't even reload his gun while he is walking or look at his inventory while moving. This game might get outclassed by Dead Space, something I would have never believed before I played the demo.

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

I just played the second level in the demo, and there was one part in particular that leads me to believe that a different control scheme could have helped...

I got to the part where you approach a gate and a guy with a chainsaw starts coming after you. All I had left at that point was my pistol, so I started shooting and that guy didn't react at all at getting shot. Basically, I just turned around and ran back a bit, then turned around again and shot him until he got close and repeated this process over and over. The game compensates for your lack of mobility by making this guy go super slow when he gets close. There were plenty of times where I accidently got very close to him and he never chainsawed me at all. I'm not sure how this fight would have turned out if it continued though cause my AI buddy decided to stand next to him and die...

Basically, I would just like it if this game was made more intense by both making the enemies good at killing you and you good at doing things while moving. It's a little bit too much when Chris can't even reload his gun while he is walking or look at his inventory while moving. This game might get outclassed by Dead Space, something I would have never believed before I played the demo.

dvader654

As for Dead Space, excellent game, but atany time did you really feel that the combat in that game was ever as intense or interesting as RE4, cause I didn't.

Yeah, RE4's combat might have been a little more fun, but that also had the benefit of existing in 2004 before Gears of War and the like. It's not like the RE games exist in a vacuum, so for RE5 to have the same impact, they had to step it up. It still looks to be a great game, it just won't be as huge as RE5 was. However, I'm betting if I had a buddy to play this game with that maybe some of my complaints would be alleviated.

As for Dead Space, excellent game, but atany time did you really feel that the combat in that game was ever as intense or interesting as RE4, cause I didn't.

dvader654

[QUOTE="jks22112"]All I keep hearing is Dead Space. Am I the only one who thought Dead Space was a utterly forgetable game? Honestly it was nothing but a combination of Doom 3 and Resident Evil 4. They both did what Dead Space did, years before, and probably better.Grammaton-Cleric

Regardless of how good any game actually is there is always going to be detractors. What's important to note is that your personal response to the game is largely incidental for a few key reasons:

- The game was an overwhelmingly critical success.

- The controls were heavily influenced by RE4 but vastly improved and made more responsive.

- The game featured a number of unique innovations and elements and executed them all with an impressive level of polish.

Like it or not, Dead Space has been acknowledged as one of the best Survival Horror games in recent years and much of that success is credited to a superior control scheme. Given how much the developers borrowed from RE4 when designing Dead Space, it's a shame Capcom couldn't have borrowed a few of their ideas for RE5.

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

I just played the second level in the demo, and there was one part in particular that leads me to believe that a different control scheme could have helped...

I got to the part where you approach a gate and a guy with a chainsaw starts coming after you. All I had left at that point was my pistol, so I started shooting and that guy didn't react at all at getting shot. Basically, I just turned around and ran back a bit, then turned around again and shot him until he got close and repeated this process over and over. The game compensates for your lack of mobility by making this guy go super slow when he gets close. There were plenty of times where I accidently got very close to him and he never chainsawed me at all. I'm not sure how this fight would have turned out if it continued though cause my AI buddy decided to stand next to him and die...

Basically, I would just like it if this game was made more intense by both making the enemies good at killing you and you good at doing things while moving. It's a little bit too much when Chris can't even reload his gun while he is walking or look at his inventory while moving. This game might get outclassed by Dead Space, something I would have never believed before I played the demo.

dvader654

As for Dead Space, excellent game, but atany time did you really feel that the combat in that game was ever as intense or interesting as RE4, cause I didn't.

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

As for Dead Space, excellent game, but atany time did you really feel that the combat in that game was ever as intense or interesting as RE4, cause I didn't.

Skylock00

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

I have explained in the posts above how it will change the game so I will not repeat myself.

Once again I am not saying there is no room for improvement, where do you keep getting that notion from. What I am saying is changing the controls is not improvement. I think changing the control scheme to a dual analog full movement scheme will harm the game. RE4 play unlike anything else, yes Dead Space comes really close, and maybe the way its done there could work with RE5, the character moves so slow that I could see it working. Still I dont know if it will work, what I do know works for this type of game, is the RE4 scheme, stopping to shoot had a big impact on the combat.

The controler thing is preference. Yeah I know the majority of people are in love with dual stick moving and stuff but I am not. I am so glad that RE5 provides something different from the norm, why should everything play exactly the same way. The controls do not make or break the game. If you want to talk about improvements how about actual stuff like level design, gameplay scenarios, boss fights, pacing, the addition of good puzzles, maybe a more open ended world instead of the linear constant moving forward that was in RE4. Those are places that can be improved, the controls are fine for this type of game, when the type of game changes again then so will the controls.

dvader654

So you are honestly asserting that changing the controls doesn't constitute an improvement? That's a bizarre statement that goes against just about everything I've learned and experienced as a gamer these last two decades.

Even small control tweaks can have a major impact on gameplay.

Also, dual analog isn't necessarily what I'm referring to. Truth be told, what RE5 needs is the ability to move while shooting, strafing ability, and full analog movement without a run button. Those three changes, all relatively minor, would make RE5 an infinitely better experience and would have minimal impact on the core gameplay experience.

I also take issue with your comment that control doesn't make or break this game when in reality the control is going to piss a lot of people off and for good reason; it just doesn't work that well. Have you actually played through the demo yet? Because I love RE4 and I'm very annoyed at the way RE5 plays.

Lastly, the type of gameplay paradigm shift you mention has already occurred: Dead Space has been released and it plays better than RE5. Personally, I'm disappointed that Capcom is willing to rest on their laurels and let themselves get outclassed by a dev team at EA but I guess that's their prerogative. I still think RE5 has some amazing qualities but that demo has deflated my GOTY expectations.

What I am saying is that at this point RE5 is done, its an RE4 clone, if the controls worked fine for RE4 why is it such a giant issue now. If RE5 was did make changes to the enemies, did change up the AI routines and stuff then a change to the controls would make sense, but when it plays identical to RE4, messing with that aspect that was essencial to that gameplay is not a good idea. There are so many more additions to this game that can make or break this game FAR MORE than it having a control scheme that bugs people. We have a whole co-op mode, we have an AI partner that is stuck with you even on single player, we have real time inventory, all those things I feel will make or break RE5 not the controls. Thats why this bugs me so much, its like everyone is hung up on something so simple.

Four years is a long time when referring to videogames and the controls in RE4 are no longer acceptable when applied to a game in 2009. It's also important to note that the demo introduces new elements, including a real-time inventory system and a CPU controlled teammate whose own livelihood is directly attached to your own. These elements add a higher level of tension and require faster response time, thus the transplant of RE4 controls into RE5 doesn't mesh well. You seem to be operating under the assumption that RE5 is merely RE4 with improved graphics but the reality is that changes have been made and those alterations, combined with an archaic control scheme, harm the integrity of the game. You keep stating that RE5 plays exactly like RE4 but that isn't actually true.

My advice would be to play the demo before you completely discount the criticisms being levied against it. You might be surprised at just how poorly it plays.

I have actually played the demo, and agree with him. I do not see a problem with the control scheme at all. I got it right away and never had a problem with it. The inventory system had me confused for a bit, but after I figured out you could use the D-Pad, it made it alot better. Re5 is a different kind of game, and I think you have to think differently when you play it.