Resident Evil 5 Demo Haunting the Marketplace

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="dvader654"]But it controls like RE4.dvader654

For me there is a difference between loving a game (heck, I still pop in RE4 now and again) and loving a timid rehash of said game (one which merely bumps up the texture quality but isn't any more ambitious in terms of design and doesn't seek to address any of the weaknesses of its predecessor).

RE5 reminds me of RECV, another example of Capcom deciding to ignore all innovations within the survival horror genre/all possibility of improvement and just slavishly clinging to an old formula devised around the capabilities of much more limited hardware.

Yeah, but it's only one rehash. It's not Twilight Princess.

But then again, I loved Twilight Princess and would play Twilight Princess 2 if there was one. And I loved RE4 so I guess I'd play RE6 even if it played exactly the same if the overall game is good. And RECV was great too. Didn't care one bit it followed old RE formulas.

I do agree rehashes and lack of imagination is a bad vibe, but I'd only care if the game was terrible. But RE5 still looks like a must-play and a great game. So I think we should forgive its shortcomings because Capcom still made a fantastic sequel.

The more I play the demo, the less I actually want to buy the full game. And this is coming from a person who's bought every single RE game day one. (Save the crappy spin offs i.e. Outbreak, Survivor)

The one thing that is beginning to irk me however, is this defense rooted in the concept that RE5 is designed to play like it's submerged in molasses, which I find to be a patronizing argument. If RE5 can get away with a stiff, unresponsive control scheme then so too should every other game get a pass because ultimately, the argument could be made that sluggish controls are a design choice.

And incidentally, just because those controls were a choice doesn't mean they were the correct choice.

I'm still getting the game day one (I should probably delete the demo) but I think I'm going to cancel the preorder on the Collector's Edition.

The more I play the demo, the less I actually want to buy the full game. And this is coming from a person who's bought every single RE game day one. (Save the crappy spin offs i.e. Outbreak, Survivor)

The one thing that is beginning to irk me however, is this defense rooted in the concept that RE5 is designed to play like it's submerged in molasses, which I find to be a patronizing argument. If RE5 can get away with a stiff, unresponsive control scheme then so too should every other game get a pass because ultimately, the argument could be made that sluggish controls are a design choice.

And incidentally, just because those controls were a choice doesn't mean they were the correct choice.

I'm still getting the game day one (I should probably delete the demo) but I think I'm going to cancel the preorder on the Collector's Edition.

Grammaton-Cleric

And I cant stand this attacking rooted in wanting RE5 to play just like everything else. Games where controls are a bad design choice hurt the game in question. The game will not allow you to perform the action in question, it will not play as it should cause the controls are a mess. RE5 plays exactly as its supposed to. The controls do not impede your performance, they provide the exact controls needed for this type of action.dvader654

I do not want RE5 to control like everything else. What I want is for the gameplay not to be stilted, clunky junk, which is precisely what that demo is. I don't need this game to play like Gears of War but I do need something that is responsive and makes logistical sense within the construct of the game.

RE5 doesn't play like RE4; it's decidedly worse because it uses the RE4 control scheme but throws in new elements that make the RE4 controls untenable. I never had a problem with the controls in RE4 where by contrast I loathe how RE5 plays because the control scheme feels clumsy in this new iteration. On top of that, the melee has been rendered much less effective and the A.I for Sheeva is piss poor.

By you logic, it's acceptable to radically alter the RE formula by forcing the gamer to play with a lame A.I. partner and yet adding strafing or (gasp) full analog control would shatter the brilliant paradigm of RE.

Does that position really make any sense to you? Because the entire crux of your argument is that these precious controls are an integral part of the RE experience, yet it's somehow okay to add insipid, forced co-op into a game franchise that has always been about isolation and a superb one player experience. That's the very definition of a double standard and it doesn't make any sense to be against minor control adjustments but support major game play changes like forced co-op.

The bottom line is that this game is being defended because it's RE, not because it's some glowing beacon of quality game design. Most sequels would get blasted for being this redundant or having these types of flaws, especially with four years between releases. I stand by my comments that this whole defense of RE5 is predicated on the flimsy notion that it's designed to have sluggish, plodding controls, which is asinine. At best it's a foolish design choice and at worst it's lazy programmers letting a popular IP glide on a foundation of mediocrity.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

The more I play the demo, the less I actually want to buy the full game. And this is coming from a person who's bought every single RE game day one. (Save the crappy spin offs i.e. Outbreak, Survivor)

The one thing that is beginning to irk me however, is this defense rooted in the concept that RE5 is designed to play like it's submerged in molasses, which I find to be a patronizing argument. If RE5 can get away with a stiff, unresponsive control scheme then so too should every other game get a pass because ultimately, the argument could be made that sluggish controls are a design choice.

And incidentally, just because those controls were a choice doesn't mean they were the correct choice.

I'm still getting the game day one (I should probably delete the demo) but I think I'm going to cancel the preorder on the Collector's Edition.

ASK_Story

I want this to be one of the best games of 2009 because up until playing that demo, I assumed it would be.

My sincerest hope is that the demo really isn't the best representation of the game because if the entire experience is as bad as that demo is, I'm prepared to write off the franchise and give my money to a more deserving endeavor.

RE5 does play like RE4, the more I play the more the seem exactly alike. Its slightly different in a few things, so anyone that played RE4 extensively will have a sort of shock to the system when they first play it but in the end its the same. i dont understand how the control scheme is clumsy when it is identical to RE4. Are you putting aiming to fastest, are you playing with control scheme A, if so there is no real difference. The enemies act the same, your character moves sort of the same way. The camera positioning maybe a bit different but it still works. There is nothing in RE5 that I couldn't do in RE4.

Melee is actually better in RE5. I understand the first reaction that melee took a hit, I had it as well. Upon further playing I found that the melee system has been completely revamped to offer far more depth. In RE4 you had one type of attack, depending on the enemy it was a certain animation. Sure that one move maybe did more damage or felt it did more damage but it never offered the chance for a follow up. In this game you can take out any regular enemy with one shot to the head, one melee attack to knock them down and then a melee attack to finish them off on the floor. Way more effective than in RE4. Plus you can get your partner involved and do team super moves. Also each character has an instant kill move if you make the enemy kneel to the floor and get behind them. There are far more moves and they are more effective.

The partner AI is actually really damn good. I think I only had Sheva die once on me the whole time I played with her, even when I experimented with her by giving her no weapons or making her go on attack mode, she managed to stay alive. I advise everyone to keep her on cover, she will basically do exactly what you do. If you shoot she will shoot, if you run she will run, she will always be around to give you help when you need her. She acts as an extension of your character, you can almost pretend she is not there. In a game this chaotic I am shocked at how well behaved the AI is, she doesn't steal your ammo, she wont go around getting herself killed, she doesn't waste ammo for no reason (again as long as you dont put her in attack mode), she knows when to heal and when not to. By far this was my biggest concern with the game and so far I am extremely pleased with the results.

My logic is fine, those additions you mention COMPLIMENT (could be a good addition or a bad one) the RE4 style gameplay but they dont change it. Changing the scheme changes the combat, change the combat you change the game. Should the combat stay like this forever, of course not, does it need to change after ONE game, no it does not. There is plenty room to explore this type of game.

I am sick of everyone wanting this game to be something its not. Why muse everygame play just like every other. EVERY single freaking shooter has the same boring twin stick control scheme. One game has a different control scheme, not one that is broken, not one that doesn't work, just one that doesn't fit the usual categories everyone is used to and everyone freaks out. The last 4 years has changed nothing, games have had the same controls as they did back in 2005 when RE4 came out, there have been no magic advancements in controls, so dont act like RE5 is a step back, its just different, just like RE4. This westernization of everything is going to far, I for one am sick of it and I am glad a developer sticks with a formula that worked even if its different.

As I said before leave my RE alone, go play another game if you want the same controls, the same combat as everything else.

(ok went off on a rant but yeah I am fed up with people telling me that the game I am playing is broken, when it clearly is not)

dvader654

Your RE?

Spare me your indignities. I've been playing this franchise since day one and I've allowed for plenty of concessions when it comes to control. Your entire argument is hypocritical because you defend radical change when it suits your own viewpoint and then reject minor change for some narrow adherence to a construct that was never all that wonderful to begin with.

As for Sheeva, her AI is garbage. She's a dull-witted automaton and she gets in the way constantly. It's obvious they made her as a stand in for co-op, which is what this pathetic entry is all about. RE is officially a forced two-player experience. Hooray for the death of the singular RE game. Maybe the next game can be RE: Party Edition because god knows this series is no longer even remotely about survival horror.

Also, adding a stomp move to the melee doesn't revamp it and make it superior, especially when the overall effectiveness of the standard melee attack has become a nerfed, flaccid shadow of it's former self. Perhaps if the developers had added more than one type of swing to the knife attack, the idea of an expanded melee system would have been effectively implemented. Then again, such adjustments might actually "ruin" the gameplay by, you know, making sense and being intuitive.

And despite your incessant protestations, adding strafing and full analog control wouldn't radically alter the gameplay. What it might do is force the lazy developers to actually improve the ridiculous AI of the enemies, most of whom, like RE4, run at you and then come to a halt so they can be easily dispatched. I guess, technically speaking, making the control slower and less responsive is one way to up the difficulty but frankly, that seems like a pretty backwards mentality in terms of game design.

And yes, the control scheme is busted because the game is stiff and unintuitive. Your whole diatribe about games being "westernized" is off point and completely irrelevant because I've played plenty of Japanese games that control beautifully. RE5 and its controls are not some perfect little slice of sublime gaming and frankly, it plays like a broken, unpolished third person shooter. Crappy controls do not make it special and your fierce, fetishistic commitment to banality and stagnancy doesn't imbue your arguments with any higher degree of truth. You operate under the notion that you and those who share your mindset are the only fans "who get" what RE is all about and that's simply untrue. There are plenty of RE fans who have been loyal supporters of this franchise for a very long time and we are genuinely unhappy with this demo and for good reason.

The truth is that you were going to love this game no matter what so instead of acting like the control complaints are not legitimate (because they most certainly are) why not just admit you have fanboy blinders on and be honest with yourself and the rest of us? It's okay to love this game and this franchise unconditionally but this mass delusional cool aide you want everybody else to drink just isn't going to happen. RE5 may not be a step backwards but at best it's a step to the side, which is hardly something to praise given the pedigree of the franchise.

RE5 does play like RE4, the more I play the more the seem exactly alike. Its slightly different in a few things, so anyone that played RE4 extensively will have a sort of shock to the system when they first play it but in the end its the same. i dont understand how the control scheme is clumsy when it is identical to RE4. Are you putting aiming to fastest, are you playing with control scheme A, if so there is no real difference. The enemies act the same, your character moves sort of the same way. The camera positioning maybe a bit different but it still works. There is nothing in RE5 that I couldn't do in RE4.

Melee is actually better in RE5. I understand the first reaction that melee took a hit, I had it as well. Upon further playing I found that the melee system has been completely revamped to offer far more depth. In RE4 you had one type of attack, depending on the enemy it was a certain animation. Sure that one move maybe did more damage or felt it did more damage but it never offered the chance for a follow up. In this game you can take out any regular enemy with one shot to the head, one melee attack to knock them down and then a melee attack to finish them off on the floor. Way more effective than in RE4. Plus you can get your partner involved and do team super moves. Also each character has an instant kill move if you make the enemy kneel to the floor and get behind them. There are far more moves and they are more effective.

The partner AI is actually really damn good. I think I only had Sheva die once on me the whole time I played with her, even when I experimented with her by giving her no weapons or making her go on attack mode, she managed to stay alive. I advise everyone to keep her on cover, she will basically do exactly what you do. If you shoot she will shoot, if you run she will run, she will always be around to give you help when you need her. She acts as an extension of your character, you can almost pretend she is not there. In a game this chaotic I am shocked at how well behaved the AI is, she doesn't steal your ammo, she wont go around getting herself killed, she doesn't waste ammo for no reason (again as long as you dont put her in attack mode), she knows when to heal and when not to. By far this was my biggest concern with the game and so far I am extremely pleased with the results.

My logic is fine, those additions you mention COMPLIMENT (could be a good addition or a bad one) the RE4 style gameplay but they dont change it. Changing the scheme changes the combat, change the combat you change the game. Should the combat stay like this forever, of course not, does it need to change after ONE game, no it does not. There is plenty room to explore this type of game.

I am sick of everyone wanting this game to be something its not. Why muse everygame play just like every other. EVERY single freaking shooter has the same boring twin stick control scheme. One game has a different control scheme, not one that is broken, not one that doesn't work, just one that doesn't fit the usual categories everyone is used to and everyone freaks out. The last 4 years has changed nothing, games have had the same controls as they did back in 2005 when RE4 came out, there have been no magic advancements in controls, so dont act like RE5 is a step back, its just different, just like RE4. This westernization of everything is going to far, I for one am sick of it and I am glad a developer sticks with a formula that worked even if its different.

As I said before leave my RE alone, go play another game if you want the same controls, the same combat as everything else.

(ok went off on a rant but yeah I am fed up with people telling me that the game I am playing is broken, when it clearly is not)

dvader654

hmmm... it seems to me that people in this thread either hate the controls or are ok with them. So just for fun, I'll list each of you guys. :P

Ok with controls ---------------------- Hate the Controls---------------I Dont Want to be on this list
_____________________________________ ____________________________________________
-dvader654---------------------------Grammaton-Cleric----------------Ask_Story
--HiResDes--------------------------- Skylock_00
- _Dez__-------------------------------ragnaar
-ShinobishGuy------------------------CarnageHeart
-Archangel3371_----------------------TriangleHard
-UT_Wrestler--------------------------retsamedoc
-LoG_Sacrament_---------------------RandolfScott
-jks22112-----------------------------AtomicTangerine
-Mantorok-----------------------------Ish_basic
-btaylor2404--------------------------Jbul
-Dutch_Mix----------------------------MAILER_DAEMON
-Foolio1-------------------------------Rusteater
-creepy_mike ------------------------dalger21
-AzelKosMos
-D3s7rUc71oN
-martialbullet
-whisperingmute
-viewtiful26
-SteelAttack
-istuffedsunny
-warmaster670
-EdgecrusherAza

___________________________________________________________

Total
___________________________________________________________
22 Ok with Controls -13 Hate'em- 1 Not Sure.

P.S Yes, I have too much time on my hands.

Edit 2: If you think I misinterpreted you and placed you in the wrong bracket, let me know. :P

That is a nice list S0lid, but the mere fact that there are more people who are ok with the controls than there are people who hate the controls doesn't mean much. Look at the list of haters... we aren't a bunch of people who just picked up a controller for the first time and we aren't whining just for fun. I think it is great that there are folks here who are fine with the controls, but isn't it odd that there are so many of us who hate the controls? How often does that happen with this group? I don't want RE5 to control like Gears or whatever, but I feel like Capcom has given us a poor toolset with which to experience RE5 and I am clearly not alone.rragnaar

I also wanted to note in my post that almost no one, not even dvader or me, LOVES the controls. So there's obviously something wrong with the controls. I've said it all along that even though RE5 doesn't NEED a 'run and gun' control scheme, the devs should've still included it. After all, it is a standard nowadays.

That said, the thing that irks me (and I feel it bothers dvader too) is the assertion that the controls are broken. I've also been playing games for as long I can remember, and I dont think I'm giving this game a free pass just because I'm a RE fan. I enjoyed the demo a lot and loved every second of the online coop. There's no way I would've enjoyed it if the controls were broken.

Oh no!

I just read Eurogamer's impressions on the first three chapters of RE5 and it seems like they've started the "race" debate again.

Please, I dont want this thread(or the official one) to turn into a huge debate about whether Capcom is racist or not. I am so ***ing sick of this BS of a story. I hope someone makes a seperate thread about it so I never waste another second of my time reading about this ridiculous controversy.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]That is a nice list S0lid, but the mere fact that there are more people who are ok with the controls than there are people who hate the controls doesn't mean much. Look at the list of haters... we aren't a bunch of people who just picked up a controller for the first time and we aren't whining just for fun. I think it is great that there are folks here who are fine with the controls, but isn't it odd that there are so many of us who hate the controls? How often does that happen with this group? I don't want RE5 to control like Gears or whatever, but I feel like Capcom has given us a poor toolset with which to experience RE5 and I am clearly not alone.S0lidSnake

I also wanted to note in my post that almost no one, not even dvader or me, LOVES the controls. So there's obviously something wrong with the controls. I've said it all along that even though RE5 doesn't NEED a 'run and gun' control scheme, the devs should've still included it. After all, it is a standard nowadays.

That said, the thing that irks me (and I feel it bothers dvader too) is the assertion that the controls are broken. I've also been playing games for as long I can remember, and I dont think I'm giving this game a free pass just because I'm a RE fan. I enjoyed the demo a lot and loved every second of the online coop. There's no way I would've enjoyed it if the controls were broken.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]That is a nice list S0lid, but the mere fact that there are more people who are ok with the controls than there are people who hate the controls doesn't mean much. Look at the list of haters... we aren't a bunch of people who just picked up a controller for the first time and we aren't whining just for fun. I think it is great that there are folks here who are fine with the controls, but isn't it odd that there are so many of us who hate the controls? How often does that happen with this group? I don't want RE5 to control like Gears or whatever, but I feel like Capcom has given us a poor toolset with which to experience RE5 and I am clearly not alone.rragnaar

I also wanted to note in my post that almost no one, not even dvader or me, LOVES the controls. So there's obviously something wrong with the controls. I've said it all along that even though RE5 doesn't NEED a 'run and gun' control scheme, the devs should've still included it. After all, it is a standard nowadays.

That said, the thing that irks me (and I feel it bothers dvader too) is the assertion that the controls are broken. I've also been playing games for as long I can remember, and I dont think I'm giving this game a free pass just because I'm a RE fan. I enjoyed the demo a lot and loved every second of the online coop. There's no way I would've enjoyed it if the controls were broken.

Which control scheme are you using? I felt the same way when I was messing with the default controls and the other variations. Something about it just felt a little off, but that could be from playing so much RE4 on the Gamecube, which is why I can't play anything else other than the A controls.

Man, love that list! Way to read through this whole thread and put a list together. I figured that since I only said like 2 things way back I wouldn't be on there, but when it said I hated the controls, I just wanted to give everybody a hug!

But yeah, this is getting a bit heated. I think RE5 will be a fantastic game, and I probably would have liked the demo way more had I not played Dead Space. I don't think it is so much that the controls are BAD, but more that this game came out of nowhere and beat RE5 to the punch and did everything better.

The one thing Grammaton has right though is that RE fans tend to cling to terrible conventions that everybody hates except for the die hard fans who resist all change. RE4 was the breath of fresh air the series needed, and it is sad to see it get back into the habit of safe, predictable sequels.

I love no franchise unconditionaly, I love certain franchises cause of the way the play. No name on the box is going to convince me to like a game, I have criticized many games in franchises I love so don't give me that BS. What a surprise, Grammaton attacking the person instead of the argument.

Yes I love everything about RE4, I believe it is by far one of the greatest games ever made, it has nothing to do with what franchise it was cause come on, it doesn't really play like any past RE games. It could have been called "Crazy Spanish Village", it wouldn't change the brilliance of that game. I could have easily been the guy that got angry that his precious franchise changed, but that is not me. I go by what I play, what i like and RE4 to me is still the most interesting action/shooter like game to come out in the last 4 years. I loved the way it controled, I loved the way the action was set up.

RE5 is a direct sequel to that, it maybe a lazy one, and that is totally open to criticism. The important thing is that it does play like RE4, that this new team didn't screw everything up and mess up the balance. You think the game would be the same with full movement and shooting, fine, I do not, we disagree on that one major point so of course we will have a difference of opinion I have played enough games to know that a game where you have to stop and pick your shots carefully does not play like a game where you can move about and aim at the same time. Whether you think one is better than the other is PREFERENCE. And this is what it all comes down too, you perfer a different type of shooter, I do not. I rather play RE4 right now above any shooter in the market, I rather have a direct sequel to RE4 like RE5 over any shooter on the market.

So yes I am being completely honest to myself, I love the way RE5 plays and I am doing backflips that they chose not to give in to all this pressure and change it. THANK GOD this is not like every other game out there. It took a damn long time but after 4 years I finally get a new fix of RE4 style action. Now will this game be as good as RE4, I highly doubt that. But when I judge RE5 it will be on the merits of it being a game and not on the control decision. Are the controls going to be a real issue for many, sure, but don't bring me the crap that its broken. Don't tell me I am wrong for enjoying these controls. They function perfectly within the context of what the game is trying to do.

I fear so many have already decided what they think of this game. Its a month before release, look at the outrage in the community. The community decided what to think of this game before even playing it and that is why this argument is so annoying. I know it seems like a am trashing the argument of different controls, I honestly do not believe in them but yes its a valid argument, but not to the extent of not giving the game a chance. Here is a demo with incredible depth, that really showcases how fun co-op can be and all people are talking about is a control scheme that was in the previous game which was praised as one of the best games ever. It makes no sense to me.

dvader654

I didn't attack you personally on any level but rather addressed what seems pretty obvious. If that observation offended you then I apologize but given the inflammatory nature of your comments in the previous post, I'm mystified why you are suddenly sensitive to such comments given how ferociously you are defending RE and basically calling it "My RE." Such statements paint you as zealot, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but at the same time infuses your posts with a wee bit of fanaticism. You've always struck me as a staunch defender of the franchises you love and frankly, while I don't always agree with your opinions, I've always respected your unwavering devotion because enthusiasm can be infectious.

Regardless, you have failed to address why you think it's completely unacceptable to add a few control tweaks that would increase mobility for fear of shattering the delicate balance of RE game play yet in the same breath defend and rationalize large changes to the formula that actually hinder and expose the RE4 controls as flawed. You claim RE5 plays just like RE4 but that really isn't true because the real-time inventory is cumbersome and counter-intuitive when fumbling with the RE4 controls and having to deal with a CPU- controlled partner with those same controls is also a burden. Those two changes alone radically alter the dynamic of the game, which is why so many of us who loved RE4 (Hell, it was the game that made me buy a Wii) don't like how RE5 plays. It's RE4 controls on a game that isn't RE4 and it doesn't work well.

I will also restate that defending the controls of this game as a design choice is an excuse that can be applied to any game. I submit that any game released in 2009 that involves shooting as the primary gameplay component and doesn't allow you to do something as basic as strafing or moving while shooting is fundamentally broken, regardless of whether it was a conscious choice on the part of developers.

I would also be remiss not to remind you that many gamers took issue with RE4 back in 2004 because of all the changes made to the classic RE formula, many of which altered the franchise permanently. Yet you consider RE4 to be the best game in the franchise and one of the best games ever made despite the fact that the developers made massive alterations to the RE formula. Is it really fair to expect most gamers to be content with stagnation four years later, especially when very small tweaks could have made this game so much better than it currently is? Why were you so willing to accept change in 2004 and now reject change as some harbinger of doom for the franchise in 2009?

Lastly, this game deserves all the bad karma it's receiving. If the demo is a lousy indicator of how the final game will play, that's Capcom's fault for releasing it. If the demo is indicative of the final product, I'm glad gamers have the opportunity to play it for themselves and not waste money on a game they may end up loathing.

And if the final build is as lousy as the demo, I promise you the backlash will be severe. I was expecting RE5 to be a high watermark but what I've played so far is gorgeous but ultimately forgettable.

Man, love that list! Way to read through this whole thread and put a list together. I figured that since I only said like 2 things way back I wouldn't be on there, but when it said I hated the controls, I just wanted to give everybody a hug!

AtomicTangerine

You were flip flopping on the game so much, I didnt know what to do with you. :lol:

[spoiler] and I still dont. :lol: [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

RE5 does play like RE4, the more I play the more the seem exactly alike. Its slightly different in a few things, so anyone that played RE4 extensively will have a sort of shock to the system when they first play it but in the end its the same. i dont understand how the control scheme is clumsy when it is identical to RE4. Are you putting aiming to fastest, are you playing with control scheme A, if so there is no real difference. The enemies act the same, your character moves sort of the same way. The camera positioning maybe a bit different but it still works. There is nothing in RE5 that I couldn't do in RE4.

Melee is actually better in RE5. I understand the first reaction that melee took a hit, I had it as well. Upon further playing I found that the melee system has been completely revamped to offer far more depth. In RE4 you had one type of attack, depending on the enemy it was a certain animation. Sure that one move maybe did more damage or felt it did more damage but it never offered the chance for a follow up. In this game you can take out any regular enemy with one shot to the head, one melee attack to knock them down and then a melee attack to finish them off on the floor. Way more effective than in RE4. Plus you can get your partner involved and do team super moves. Also each character has an instant kill move if you make the enemy kneel to the floor and get behind them. There are far more moves and they are more effective.

The partner AI is actually really damn good. I think I only had Sheva die once on me the whole time I played with her, even when I experimented with her by giving her no weapons or making her go on attack mode, she managed to stay alive. I advise everyone to keep her on cover, she will basically do exactly what you do. If you shoot she will shoot, if you run she will run, she will always be around to give you help when you need her. She acts as an extension of your character, you can almost pretend she is not there. In a game this chaotic I am shocked at how well behaved the AI is, she doesn't steal your ammo, she wont go around getting herself killed, she doesn't waste ammo for no reason (again as long as you dont put her in attack mode), she knows when to heal and when not to. By far this was my biggest concern with the game and so far I am extremely pleased with the results.

My logic is fine, those additions you mention COMPLIMENT (could be a good addition or a bad one) the RE4 style gameplay but they dont change it. Changing the scheme changes the combat, change the combat you change the game. Should the combat stay like this forever, of course not, does it need to change after ONE game, no it does not. There is plenty room to explore this type of game.

I am sick of everyone wanting this game to be something its not. Why muse everygame play just like every other. EVERY single freaking shooter has the same boring twin stick control scheme. One game has a different control scheme, not one that is broken, not one that doesn't work, just one that doesn't fit the usual categories everyone is used to and everyone freaks out. The last 4 years has changed nothing, games have had the same controls as they did back in 2005 when RE4 came out, there have been no magic advancements in controls, so dont act like RE5 is a step back, its just different, just like RE4. This westernization of everything is going to far, I for one am sick of it and I am glad a developer sticks with a formula that worked even if its different.

As I said before leave my RE alone, go play another game if you want the same controls, the same combat as everything else.

(ok went off on a rant but yeah I am fed up with people telling me that the game I am playing is broken, when it clearly is not)

S0lidSnake

hmmm... it seems to me that people in this thread either hate the controls or are ok with them. So just for fun, I'll list each of you guys. :P

Ok with controls ---------------------- Hate the Controls
___________________________________________________
-dvader654 ---------------------------Grammaton-Cleric
-Ask_Story --------------------------- Skylock_00
- _Dez_ -------------------------------ragnaar
-ShinobishGuy ------------------------CarnageHeart
-Archangel3371 ----------------------TriangleHard
-UT_Wrestler -------------------------retsamedoc
-LoG_Sacrament ---------------------RandolfScott
-jks22112 ----------------------------AtomicTangerine
-Mantorok ----------------------------Ish_basic
-btaylor2404 -------------------------Jbul
-Dutch_Mix ---------------------------MAILER_DAEMON
-Foolio1 ------------------------------Rusteater
-creepy_mike ------------------------dalger21
-AzelKosMos
-D3s7rUc71oN
-martialbullet
-whisperingmute
-viewtiful26
-SteelAttack
-istuffedsunny
-warmaster670
-EdgecrusherAza
-HiResDes

___________________________________________________________

Total
___________________________________________________________
23 Ok with Controls -13 Hate'em

P.S Yes, I have too much time on my hands.

Edit: **** me, GS reformatted my post. **** you GS!

The one thing Grammaton has right though is that RE fans tend to cling to terrible conventions that everybody hates except for the die hard fans who resist all change. RE4 was the breath of fresh air the series needed, and it is sad to see it get back into the habit of safe, predictable sequels.

AtomicTangerine

Actually, I think I'm kind of in the middle. The controls aren't great but I can live with it if the overall game is good. So does that mean I'm okay with the controls or hate them? I don't know.

Ask_Story

lol, Ok. I guess I'll add another category in that list:

"I dont want to be on this list."

:P

This will sound silly since I was just in here whining, but I just played through Shanty Town and I loved it! The controls clicked this time and it all fell into place.:D

rragnaar

*shakes head*

[spoiler] :P So does that mean I can put you in the OK section of the list? :lol: [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

The one thing Grammaton has right though is that RE fans tend to cling to terrible conventions that everybody hates except for the die hard fans who resist all change. RE4 was the breath of fresh air the series needed, and it is sad to see it get back into the habit of safe, predictable sequels.

dvader654

Yes, reviewers have been kind to the REs, but the popularity of the franchise had been steadily falling pre-RE4 (admittedly Mikami's determination not to let the people who made the franchise wildly popular play another true RE game undoubtedly had something to do with it) and even RE4 didn't do much to reverse the decline since some people don't believe in second chances (I was called a Nintendo fanboy by a guy when I talked about RE4's quality).

It looks like RE is resuming its tradition of conservatism, glowing reviews, and decline.

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="Skylock00"] Well, coincidentally, one of the only things that wasn't changed from previous REs to RE4 was the controls themselves, as the controls remained almost identical with the exception of some shooting controls, right down to the tank controls, run button, and so forth.CarnageHeart

Yes, reviewers have been kind to the REs, but the popularity of the franchise had been steadily falling pre-RE4 (admittedly Mikami's determination not to let the people who made the franchise wildly popular play another true RE game undoubtedly had something to do with it) and even RE4 didn't do much to reverse the decline since some people don't believe in second chances (I was called a Nintendo fanboy by a guy when I talked about RE4's quality).

It looks like RE is resuming its tradition of conservatism, glowing reviews, and decline.

You may be right in that history does repeat itself. Mikami also claimed he will not play RE5 because he doesn't want to get mad if the game is horrible.

But to be fair, we really can't say RE5 is inferior or a bad game just based on one demo. I think all of us should play the whole game first then decide if it's great or not.

And I liked that. I know RE controls have been hated for a long time pre RE4 and now post RE4. The thing is you cant tell me RE1, RE2, RECV, REmake, RE4 were bad games, they all shared the same scheme and each game I mentioned was highly praised and is loved by many. Why cant RE5 be allowed into that list. Why now, why is this game the end all where the controls have to change or its the end of the world for this franchise.dvader654

S0lid. I am not OK with controls. You have earned a swift kick in the groin.

Having said that, I think that the heated debate that is taking place in this thread shows that the conscious design choices that the developer team has made in this game are questionable at best, and stale and anachronic at worst. Stiff controls were needed in the first games because of technical limitations, there was no way around it, but now? This is a questionable design choice from the dev team, which had all the time and resources to change things in this area in the same way they diametrally changed the way you play the game by forcing you to play alongside an AI controlled character. For whatever reason, they didn't change the control scheme; maybe because the ARE indeed convinced that this is paramount to ensure a proper RE experience, or because they are using the "if it isn't broken..." approach, while riding the critical success that RE4 was. But the thing is that for an increasingly number of people, things ARE broken, and need(ed) to be fixed.

Some of the things that the Euro preview mentions, God I am already seeing the horror. Forums are going to be on fire.

One of the first things you see in the game, seconds after taking control of Chris Redfield, is a gang of African men brutally beating something in a sack. Animal or human, it's never revealed, but these are not infected Majini. There are no red bloodshot eyes. These are ordinary Africans, who stop and stare at you menacingly as you approach. Since the Majini are not undead corpses, and are capable of driving vehicles, handling weapons and even using guns, it makes the line between the infected monsters and African civilians uncomfortably vague. Where Africans are concerned, the game seems to be suggesting, bloodthirsty savagery just comes with the territory.

Later on, there's a cut-scene of a white blonde woman being dragged off, screaming, by black men. When you attempt to rescue her, she's been turned and must be killed. If this has any relevance to the story it's not apparent in the first three chapters, and it plays so blatantly into the old clichés of the dangerous "dark continent" and the primitive lust of its inhabitants that you'd swear the game was written in the 1920s. That Sheva neatly fits the approved Hollywood model of the light-skinned black heroine, and talks more like Lara Croft than her thickly-accented foes, merely compounds the problem rather than easing it. There are even more outrageous and outdated images to be found later in the game, stuff that I was honestly surprised to see in 2009, but Capcom has specifically asked that details of these scenes remain under wraps for now, whether for these reasons we don't know.

All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison. If we're going to accept this sort of imagery in games then questions are going be asked, these questions will have merit, and we're going to need a more convincing answer than "lol it's just a game.

S0lid. I am not OK with controls. You have earned a swift kick in the groin.

Having said that, I think that the heated debate that is taking place in this thread shows that the conscious design choices that the developer team has made in this game are questionable at best, and stale and anachronic at worst. Stiff controls were needed in the first games because of technical limitations, there was no way around it, but now? This is a questionable design choice from the dev team, which had all the time and resources to change things in this area in the same way they diametrally changed the way you play the game by forcing you to play alongside an AI controlled character. For whatever reason, they didn't change the control scheme; maybe because the ARE indeed convinced that this is paramount to ensure a proper RE experience, or because they are using the "if it isn't broken..." approach, while riding the critical success that RE4 was. But the thing is that for an increasingly number of people, things ARE broken, and need(ed) to be fixed.

Some of the things that the Euro preview mentions, God I am already seeing the horror. Forums are going to be on fire.

One of the first things you see in the game, seconds after taking control of Chris Redfield, is a gang of African men brutally beating something in a sack. Animal or human, it's never revealed, but these are not infected Majini. There are no red bloodshot eyes. These are ordinary Africans, who stop and stare at you menacingly as you approach. Since the Majini are not undead corpses, and are capable of driving vehicles, handling weapons and even using guns, it makes the line between the infected monsters and African civilians uncomfortably vague. Where Africans are concerned, the game seems to be suggesting, bloodthirsty savagery just comes with the territory.

Later on, there's a cut-scene of a white blonde woman being dragged off, screaming, by black men. When you attempt to rescue her, she's been turned and must be killed. If this has any relevance to the story it's not apparent in the first three chapters, and it plays so blatantly into the old clichés of the dangerous "dark continent" and the primitive lust of its inhabitants that you'd swear the game was written in the 1920s. That Sheva neatly fits the approved Hollywood model of the light-skinned black heroine, and talks more like Lara Croft than her thickly-accented foes, merely compounds the problem rather than easing it. There are even more outrageous and outdated images to be found later in the game, stuff that I was honestly surprised to see in 2009, but Capcom has specifically asked that details of these scenes remain under wraps for now, whether for these reasons we don't know.

All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison. If we're going to accept this sort of imagery in games then questions are going be asked, these questions will have merit, and we're going to need a more convincing answer than "lol it's just a game.

SteelAttack

Yikes... When I played the game, I only saw humans and zombies, not black and white. The rational part of my brain tells me we should be fine considering the lack of zombies' rights groups, but deep down I know I'm gonna see this on Fox News or something.

S0lid. I am not OK with controls. You have earned a swift kick in the groin.

Having said that, I think that the heated debate that is taking place in this thread shows that the conscious design choices that the developer team has made in this game are questionable at best, and stale and anachronic at worst. Stiff controls were needed in the first games because of technical limitations, there was no way around it, but now? This is a questionable design choice from the dev team, which had all the time and resources to change things in this area in the same way they diametrally changed the way you play the game by forcing you to play alongside an AI controlled character. For whatever reason, they didn't change the control scheme; maybe because the ARE indeed convinced that this is paramount to ensure a proper RE experience, or because they are using the "if it isn't broken..." approach, while riding the critical success that RE4 was. But the thing is that for an increasingly number of people, things ARE broken, and need(ed) to be fixed.

Some of the things that the Euro preview mentions, God I am already seeing the horror. Forums are going to be on fire.

One of the first things you see in the game, seconds after taking control of Chris Redfield, is a gang of African men brutally beating something in a sack. Animal or human, it's never revealed, but these are not infected Majini. There are no red bloodshot eyes. These are ordinary Africans, who stop and stare at you menacingly as you approach. Since the Majini are not undead corpses, and are capable of driving vehicles, handling weapons and even using guns, it makes the line between the infected monsters and African civilians uncomfortably vague. Where Africans are concerned, the game seems to be suggesting, bloodthirsty savagery just comes with the territory.

Later on, there's a cut-scene of a white blonde woman being dragged off, screaming, by black men. When you attempt to rescue her, she's been turned and must be killed. If this has any relevance to the story it's not apparent in the first three chapters, and it plays so blatantly into the old clichés of the dangerous "dark continent" and the primitive lust of its inhabitants that you'd swear the game was written in the 1920s. That Sheva neatly fits the approved Hollywood model of the light-skinned black heroine, and talks more like Lara Croft than her thickly-accented foes, merely compounds the problem rather than easing it. There are even more outrageous and outdated images to be found later in the game, stuff that I was honestly surprised to see in 2009, but Capcom has specifically asked that details of these scenes remain under wraps for now, whether for these reasons we don't know.

All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison. If we're going to accept this sort of imagery in games then questions are going be asked, these questions will have merit, and we're going to need a more convincing answer than "lol it's just a game.

SteelAttack

[QUOTE="SteelAttack"]

S0lid. I am not OK with controls. You have earned a swift kick in the groin.

Having said that, I think that the heated debate that is taking place in this thread shows that the conscious design choices that the developer team has made in this game are questionable at best, and stale and anachronic at worst. Stiff controls were needed in the first games because of technical limitations, there was no way around it, but now? This is a questionable design choice from the dev team, which had all the time and resources to change things in this area in the same way they diametrally changed the way you play the game by forcing you to play alongside an AI controlled character. For whatever reason, they didn't change the control scheme; maybe because the ARE indeed convinced that this is paramount to ensure a proper RE experience, or because they are using the "if it isn't broken..." approach, while riding the critical success that RE4 was. But the thing is that for an increasingly number of people, things ARE broken, and need(ed) to be fixed.

Some of the things that the Euro preview mentions, God I am already seeing the horror. Forums are going to be on fire.

One of the first things you see in the game, seconds after taking control of Chris Redfield, is a gang of African men brutally beating something in a sack. Animal or human, it's never revealed, but these are not infected Majini. There are no red bloodshot eyes. These are ordinary Africans, who stop and stare at you menacingly as you approach. Since the Majini are not undead corpses, and are capable of driving vehicles, handling weapons and even using guns, it makes the line between the infected monsters and African civilians uncomfortably vague. Where Africans are concerned, the game seems to be suggesting, bloodthirsty savagery just comes with the territory.

Later on, there's a cut-scene of a white blonde woman being dragged off, screaming, by black men. When you attempt to rescue her, she's been turned and must be killed. If this has any relevance to the story it's not apparent in the first three chapters, and it plays so blatantly into the old clichés of the dangerous "dark continent" and the primitive lust of its inhabitants that you'd swear the game was written in the 1920s. That Sheva neatly fits the approved Hollywood model of the light-skinned black heroine, and talks more like Lara Croft than her thickly-accented foes, merely compounds the problem rather than easing it. There are even more outrageous and outdated images to be found later in the game, stuff that I was honestly surprised to see in 2009, but Capcom has specifically asked that details of these scenes remain under wraps for now, whether for these reasons we don't know.

All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison. If we're going to accept this sort of imagery in games then questions are going be asked, these questions will have merit, and we're going to need a more convincing answer than "lol it's just a game.

GodModeEnabled

[QUOTE="SteelAttack"]

S0lid. I am not OK with controls. You have earned a swift kick in the groin.

Having said that, I think that the heated debate that is taking place in this thread shows that the conscious design choices that the developer team has made in this game are questionable at best, and stale and anachronic at worst. Stiff controls were needed in the first games because of technical limitations, there was no way around it, but now? This is a questionable design choice from the dev team, which had all the time and resources to change things in this area in the same way they diametrally changed the way you play the game by forcing you to play alongside an AI controlled character. For whatever reason, they didn't change the control scheme; maybe because the ARE indeed convinced that this is paramount to ensure a proper RE experience, or because they are using the "if it isn't broken..." approach, while riding the critical success that RE4 was. But the thing is that for an increasingly number of people, things ARE broken, and need(ed) to be fixed.

Some of the things that the Euro preview mentions, God I am already seeing the horror. Forums are going to be on fire.

One of the first things you see in the game, seconds after taking control of Chris Redfield, is a gang of African men brutally beating something in a sack. Animal or human, it's never revealed, but these are not infected Majini. There are no red bloodshot eyes. These are ordinary Africans, who stop and stare at you menacingly as you approach. Since the Majini are not undead corpses, and are capable of driving vehicles, handling weapons and even using guns, it makes the line between the infected monsters and African civilians uncomfortably vague. Where Africans are concerned, the game seems to be suggesting, bloodthirsty savagery just comes with the territory.

Later on, there's a cut-scene of a white blonde woman being dragged off, screaming, by black men. When you attempt to rescue her, she's been turned and must be killed. If this has any relevance to the story it's not apparent in the first three chapters, and it plays so blatantly into the old clichés of the dangerous "dark continent" and the primitive lust of its inhabitants that you'd swear the game was written in the 1920s. That Sheva neatly fits the approved Hollywood model of the light-skinned black heroine, and talks more like Lara Croft than her thickly-accented foes, merely compounds the problem rather than easing it. There are even more outrageous and outdated images to be found later in the game, stuff that I was honestly surprised to see in 2009, but Capcom has specifically asked that details of these scenes remain under wraps for now, whether for these reasons we don't know.

All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison. If we're going to accept this sort of imagery in games then questions are going be asked, these questions will have merit, and we're going to need a more convincing answer than "lol it's just a game.

GodModeEnabled

S0lid. I am not OK with controls. You have earned a swift kick in the groin.

Having said that, I think that the heated debate that is taking place in this thread shows that the conscious design choices that the developer team has made in this game are questionable at best, and stale and anachronic at worst. Stiff controls were needed in the first games because of technical limitations, there was no way around it, but now? This is a questionable design choice from the dev team, which had all the time and resources to change things in this area in the same way they diametrally changed the way you play the game by forcing you to play alongside an AI controlled character. For whatever reason, they didn't change the control scheme; maybe because the ARE indeed convinced that this is paramount to ensure a proper RE experience, or because they are using the "if it isn't broken..." approach, while riding the critical success that RE4 was. But the thing is that for an increasingly number of people, things ARE broken, and need(ed) to be fixed.

Some of the things that the Euro preview mentions, God I am already seeing the horror. Forums are going to be on fire.

One of the first things you see in the game, seconds after taking control of Chris Redfield, is a gang of African men brutally beating something in a sack. Animal or human, it's never revealed, but these are not infected Majini. There are no red bloodshot eyes. These are ordinary Africans, who stop and stare at you menacingly as you approach. Since the Majini are not undead corpses, and are capable of driving vehicles, handling weapons and even using guns, it makes the line between the infected monsters and African civilians uncomfortably vague. Where Africans are concerned, the game seems to be suggesting, bloodthirsty savagery just comes with the territory.

Later on, there's a cut-scene of a white blonde woman being dragged off, screaming, by black men. When you attempt to rescue her, she's been turned and must be killed. If this has any relevance to the story it's not apparent in the first three chapters, and it plays so blatantly into the old clichés of the dangerous "dark continent" and the primitive lust of its inhabitants that you'd swear the game was written in the 1920s. That Sheva neatly fits the approved Hollywood model of the light-skinned black heroine, and talks more like Lara Croft than her thickly-accented foes, merely compounds the problem rather than easing it. There are even more outrageous and outdated images to be found later in the game, stuff that I was honestly surprised to see in 2009, but Capcom has specifically asked that details of these scenes remain under wraps for now, whether for these reasons we don't know.

All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison. If we're going to accept this sort of imagery in games then questions are going be asked, these questions will have merit, and we're going to need a more convincing answer than "lol it's just a game.

S0lid. I am not OK with controls. You have earned a swift kick in the groin.

Having said that, I think that the heated debate that is taking place in this thread shows that the conscious design choices that the developer team has made in this game are questionable at best, and stale and anachronic at worst. Stiff controls were needed in the first games because of technical limitations, there was no way around it, but now? This is a questionable design choice from the dev team, which had all the time and resources to change things in this area in the same way they diametrally changed the way you play the game by forcing you to play alongside an AI controlled character. For whatever reason, they didn't change the control scheme; maybe because the ARE indeed convinced that this is paramount to ensure a proper RE experience, or because they are using the "if it isn't broken..." approach, while riding the critical success that RE4 was. But the thing is that for an increasingly number of people, things ARE broken, and need(ed) to be fixed.

Some of the things that the Euro preview mentions, God I am already seeing the horror. Forums are going to be on fire.

One of the first things you see in the game, seconds after taking control of Chris Redfield, is a gang of African men brutally beating something in a sack. Animal or human, it's never revealed, but these are not infected Majini. There are no red bloodshot eyes. These are ordinary Africans, who stop and stare at you menacingly as you approach. Since the Majini are not undead corpses, and are capable of driving vehicles, handling weapons and even using guns, it makes the line between the infected monsters and African civilians uncomfortably vague. Where Africans are concerned, the game seems to be suggesting, bloodthirsty savagery just comes with the territory.

Later on, there's a cut-scene of a white blonde woman being dragged off, screaming, by black men. When you attempt to rescue her, she's been turned and must be killed. If this has any relevance to the story it's not apparent in the first three chapters, and it plays so blatantly into the old clichés of the dangerous "dark continent" and the primitive lust of its inhabitants that you'd swear the game was written in the 1920s. That Sheva neatly fits the approved Hollywood model of the light-skinned black heroine, and talks more like Lara Croft than her thickly-accented foes, merely compounds the problem rather than easing it. There are even more outrageous and outdated images to be found later in the game, stuff that I was honestly surprised to see in 2009, but Capcom has specifically asked that details of these scenes remain under wraps for now, whether for these reasons we don't know.

All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison. If we're going to accept this sort of imagery in games then questions are going be asked, these questions will have merit, and we're going to need a more convincing answer than "lol it's just a game.

[QUOTE="SteelAttack"]

S0lid. I am not OK with controls. You have earned a swift kick in the groin.

Having said that, I think that the heated debate that is taking place in this thread shows that the conscious design choices that the developer team has made in this game are questionable at best, and stale and anachronic at worst. Stiff controls were needed in the first games because of technical limitations, there was no way around it, but now? This is a questionable design choice from the dev team, which had all the time and resources to change things in this area in the same way they diametrally changed the way you play the game by forcing you to play alongside an AI controlled character. For whatever reason, they didn't change the control scheme; maybe because the ARE indeed convinced that this is paramount to ensure a proper RE experience, or because they are using the "if it isn't broken..." approach, while riding the critical success that RE4 was. But the thing is that for an increasingly number of people, things ARE broken, and need(ed) to be fixed.

Some of the things that the Euro preview mentions, God I am already seeing the horror. Forums are going to be on fire.

One of the first things you see in the game, seconds after taking control of Chris Redfield, is a gang of African men brutally beating something in a sack. Animal or human, it's never revealed, but these are not infected Majini. There are no red bloodshot eyes. These are ordinary Africans, who stop and stare at you menacingly as you approach. Since the Majini are not undead corpses, and are capable of driving vehicles, handling weapons and even using guns, it makes the line between the infected monsters and African civilians uncomfortably vague. Where Africans are concerned, the game seems to be suggesting, bloodthirsty savagery just comes with the territory.

Later on, there's a cut-scene of a white blonde woman being dragged off, screaming, by black men. When you attempt to rescue her, she's been turned and must be killed. If this has any relevance to the story it's not apparent in the first three chapters, and it plays so blatantly into the old clichés of the dangerous "dark continent" and the primitive lust of its inhabitants that you'd swear the game was written in the 1920s. That Sheva neatly fits the approved Hollywood model of the light-skinned black heroine, and talks more like Lara Croft than her thickly-accented foes, merely compounds the problem rather than easing it. There are even more outrageous and outdated images to be found later in the game, stuff that I was honestly surprised to see in 2009, but Capcom has specifically asked that details of these scenes remain under wraps for now, whether for these reasons we don't know.

All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison. If we're going to accept this sort of imagery in games then questions are going be asked, these questions will have merit, and we're going to need a more convincing answer than "lol it's just a game.

GodModeEnabled

Religions of systems of beliefs which govern conduct, so as long as religion is important, I don't doubt that it will continue to play a big role in human history. Race is more of a social construct though so there's more hope on that front.

Anyway, I've seen too many stereotypes in Japanese commercial art to dismiss claims of stereotyping out of hand without knowing what specific things the complainer is talking about, but as a black guy who would love to see more blacks in videogames, I tend to err on the side of caution when interpretting ambiguous events.

I understand that they are some sort of monster thing, in the game. But If its like RE4 they were human at one time. It just didn't seem to right. I dunno, I got over it, but the first time I played the demo, it just seemed wrong. Can't really explain it. jks22112

...What the hell did I get myself into when I clicked this thread?King9999

I think it's safe to say that Resident Evil 5 has divided the community.

Religions of systems of beliefs which govern conduct, so as long as religion is important, I don't doubt that it will continue to play a big role in human history. Race is more of a social construct though so there's more hope on that front. Anyway, I've seen too many stereotypes in Japanese commercial art to dismiss claims of stereotyping out of hand without knowing what specific things the complainer is talking about, but as a black guy who would love to see more blacks in videogames, I tend to err on the side of caution when interpretting ambiguous events.CarnageHeart

[QUOTE="jks22112"]I understand that they are some sort of monster thing, in the game. But If its like RE4 they were human at one time. It just didn't seem to right. I dunno, I got over it, but the first time I played the demo, it just seemed wrong. Can't really explain it. Skylock00

[QUOTE="Pedro"]Put me on the list for "game still controls like @$$ but just worse". I know for a fact that if this was a no name game NO ONE would even ponder pre-odering or purchasing this game after playing the demo.dvader654

Yes everyone that likes this game is brainwashed by the name... :roll:

Unbelievable.

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="Pedro"]Put me on the list for "game still controls like @$$ but just worse". I know for a fact that if this was a no name game NO ONE would even ponder pre-odering or purchasing this game after playing the demo.Pedro

Yes everyone that likes this game is brainwashed by the name... :roll:

Unbelievable.