Resident Evil - Gameplay Changes

How big of a difference in terms of gameplay style is there between Resident Evil 3 and Resident Evil 5. I have never put any real time into a Resident Evil game. I played a bit of 3, 4, and 5. By a bit I mean less than a day.

To me, Resident Evil 3 looks very story driven and seems like what a zombie horror survival game should be. Resident Evil 4 and 5 seem to be like a House of the Dead shoot em up zombie game.

I feel this way because in 3, it looks like zombies are strategically placed to make the setting real and believable. In 4 and 5, it looks like zombies are placed randomly and come in hordes to give you as much action as possible. Also, in 3, it seems like youre exploring a zombie infested city youre unfamiliar with. It 4 and 5, it seems like youre just progressing through a linear level and need to take out zombies along the way.

Resident Evil 3, out of the old style RE titles, was the action based one. If you started the game on normal, you got all the weapons and plenty of ammo to annihilate any enemies that might get in your way. If you play it on hard, you only begin with an assault rifle (which sounds awesome, but it's pretty crappy in that game) and a pistol with very limited ammo and the game becomes survival horror with all the "Survival" aspects intact.

RE3 plays with a fixed camera. While you move, the camera doesn't follow your character around. If you walk off screen, the camera switches to another predesignated location. It's meant to be cinematic. The controls are heavy, and there's very little in terms of accuracy. Although you can aim a shotgun "up" and shoot a zombies head off if you're close enough (or, tap up very quickly and press fire and take off zombie's head at long range... also with the shotgun. If you're good enough). Ammunition and other items are in fixed locations and exploration is very important if you wish to defend yourself. There are also a decent amount of puzzles, but not as much found in earlier (and Code Veronica, which was a little later) titles.

RE5 plays with an over-the-shoulder mechanic similar to that seen in a game like Gears of War. When you aim, your character becomes immobile and your movement control becomes your aiming control. You get a laser sight, even if the weapon doesn't have a laser sight on it, that allows for precision. The game encourages the player to shoot smart. Aim at knees and make your opponent fall over, that type of thing. Of course, just shooting them in the head works fine. The game is more action oriented, surely, as many progression points or doorways don't open unless every enemy in the room is dead. You don't have to search for ammo and health all the time because enemies will drop them. In fact, if you're low on health with no sort of aid, enemies will become more likely to drop health items to help you through the game. You can also abandon weapons to make the game give you ammo that would otherwise be rare. If you drop your shotgun in favor for a grenade launcher, you'll still find shotgun ammo but grenade launcher ammo will become much more common. RE5 has some puzzles, but they're solvable in about 1.5 seconds time. The game is very much an action shooter, but since it keeps things like not being able to move and shoot at the same time it feels mediocre. Not a bad game, but the series lowpoint in my opinion.

Sorry if I wrote too much :P

i hate the way the older RE games play. even at the time i loved the game but hated the way it controlled. so for me the way 5 plays is way better.

Resident Evil 3 by a million times. It was one of the last great survival horror games imo.

Resident Evil 3, out of the old style RE titles, was the action based one. If you started the game on normal, you got all the weapons and plenty of ammo to annihilate any enemies that might get in your way. If you play it on hard, you only begin with an assault rifle (which sounds awesome, but it's pretty crappy in that game) and a pistol with very limited ammo and the game becomes survival horror with all the "Survival" aspects intact.

RE3 plays with a fixed camera. While you move, the camera doesn't follow your character around. If you walk off screen, the camera switches to another predesignated location. It's meant to be cinematic. The controls are heavy, and there's very little in terms of accuracy. Although you can aim a shotgun "up" and shoot a zombies head off if you're close enough (or, tap up very quickly and press fire and take off zombie's head at long range... also with the shotgun. If you're good enough). Ammunition and other items are in fixed locations and exploration is very important if you wish to defend yourself. There are also a decent amount of puzzles, but not as much found in earlier (and Code Veronica, which was a little later) titles.

RE5 plays with an over-the-shoulder mechanic similar to that seen in a game like Gears of War. When you aim, your character becomes immobile and your movement control becomes your aiming control. You get a laser sight, even if the weapon doesn't have a laser sight on it, that allows for precision. The game encourages the player to shoot smart. Aim at knees and make your opponent fall over, that type of thing. Of course, just shooting them in the head works fine. The game is more action oriented, surely, as many progression points or doorways don't open unless every enemy in the room is dead. You don't have to search for ammo and health all the time because enemies will drop them. In fact, if you're low on health with no sort of aid, enemies will become more likely to drop health items to help you through the game. You can also abandon weapons to make the game give you ammo that would otherwise be rare. If you drop your shotgun in favor for a grenade launcher, you'll still find shotgun ammo but grenade launcher ammo will become much more common. RE5 has some puzzles, but they're solvable in about 1.5 seconds time. The game is very much an action shooter, but since it keeps things like not being able to move and shoot at the same time it feels mediocre. Not a bad game, but the series lowpoint in my opinion.

Sorry if I wrote too much :P

IndianaPwns39

Cinematic is the word. 3 seemed to put me into that world and there seemed to be a realistic amount of zombies to give a creepy feeling. 4 and 5 seemed like shoot em ups to me. I remember seeing hordes of zombies (some wearing robes with scythes) climbing up ladders and mechanical gears spinning and it all seemed so weird.

Did you feel this way because I really want to know if the developers did in fact change the core gameplay of the series. I never had the chance to seriously play a Resident Evil game and now that I do, it seems like a completely new game.

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

Resident Evil 3, out of the old style RE titles, was the action based one. If you started the game on normal, you got all the weapons and plenty of ammo to annihilate any enemies that might get in your way. If you play it on hard, you only begin with an assault rifle (which sounds awesome, but it's pretty crappy in that game) and a pistol with very limited ammo and the game becomes survival horror with all the "Survival" aspects intact.

RE3 plays with a fixed camera. While you move, the camera doesn't follow your character around. If you walk off screen, the camera switches to another predesignated location. It's meant to be cinematic. The controls are heavy, and there's very little in terms of accuracy. Although you can aim a shotgun "up" and shoot a zombies head off if you're close enough (or, tap up very quickly and press fire and take off zombie's head at long range... also with the shotgun. If you're good enough). Ammunition and other items are in fixed locations and exploration is very important if you wish to defend yourself. There are also a decent amount of puzzles, but not as much found in earlier (and Code Veronica, which was a little later) titles.

RE5 plays with an over-the-shoulder mechanic similar to that seen in a game like Gears of War. When you aim, your character becomes immobile and your movement control becomes your aiming control. You get a laser sight, even if the weapon doesn't have a laser sight on it, that allows for precision. The game encourages the player to shoot smart. Aim at knees and make your opponent fall over, that type of thing. Of course, just shooting them in the head works fine. The game is more action oriented, surely, as many progression points or doorways don't open unless every enemy in the room is dead. You don't have to search for ammo and health all the time because enemies will drop them. In fact, if you're low on health with no sort of aid, enemies will become more likely to drop health items to help you through the game. You can also abandon weapons to make the game give you ammo that would otherwise be rare. If you drop your shotgun in favor for a grenade launcher, you'll still find shotgun ammo but grenade launcher ammo will become much more common. RE5 has some puzzles, but they're solvable in about 1.5 seconds time. The game is very much an action shooter, but since it keeps things like not being able to move and shoot at the same time it feels mediocre. Not a bad game, but the series lowpoint in my opinion.

Sorry if I wrote too much :P

erglesmergle

Cinematic is the word. 3 seemed to put me into that world and there seemed to be a realistic amount of zombies to give a creepy feeling. 4 and 5 seemed like shoot em ups to me. I remember seeing hordes of zombies (some wearing robes with scythes) climbing up ladders and mechanical gears spinning and it all seemed so weird.

Did you feel this way because I really want to know if the developers did in fact change the core gameplay of the series. I never had the chance to seriously play a Resident Evil game and now that I do, it seems like a completely new game.

Yes. If you sat down and played the series through you would notice a massive jump in gameplay differences between Resident Evil: Code Veronica (The last core installment that used the old mechanics), and RE4. 1-C:V were very survival horror, making players have to conserve ammo by avoiding enemies and greatly relied on jump scares. RE4 felt more like a B-Horror/Action movie full of humorous dialog but had an interesting atmosphere, but all but abandoned what the original games established. It wasn't horror anymore, but straight up action. I believe RE4 was an addicting formula and a great game, but it didn't feel like Resident Evil. 4&5 are completely different from the others, aside from recurring characters from the franchise. Even the "zombies" found in 4&5 aren't technically zombies.

[QUOTE="erglesmergle"]

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

Resident Evil 3, out of the old style RE titles, was the action based one. If you started the game on normal, you got all the weapons and plenty of ammo to annihilate any enemies that might get in your way. If you play it on hard, you only begin with an assault rifle (which sounds awesome, but it's pretty crappy in that game) and a pistol with very limited ammo and the game becomes survival horror with all the "Survival" aspects intact.

RE3 plays with a fixed camera. While you move, the camera doesn't follow your character around. If you walk off screen, the camera switches to another predesignated location. It's meant to be cinematic. The controls are heavy, and there's very little in terms of accuracy. Although you can aim a shotgun "up" and shoot a zombies head off if you're close enough (or, tap up very quickly and press fire and take off zombie's head at long range... also with the shotgun. If you're good enough). Ammunition and other items are in fixed locations and exploration is very important if you wish to defend yourself. There are also a decent amount of puzzles, but not as much found in earlier (and Code Veronica, which was a little later) titles.

RE5 plays with an over-the-shoulder mechanic similar to that seen in a game like Gears of War. When you aim, your character becomes immobile and your movement control becomes your aiming control. You get a laser sight, even if the weapon doesn't have a laser sight on it, that allows for precision. The game encourages the player to shoot smart. Aim at knees and make your opponent fall over, that type of thing. Of course, just shooting them in the head works fine. The game is more action oriented, surely, as many progression points or doorways don't open unless every enemy in the room is dead. You don't have to search for ammo and health all the time because enemies will drop them. In fact, if you're low on health with no sort of aid, enemies will become more likely to drop health items to help you through the game. You can also abandon weapons to make the game give you ammo that would otherwise be rare. If you drop your shotgun in favor for a grenade launcher, you'll still find shotgun ammo but grenade launcher ammo will become much more common. RE5 has some puzzles, but they're solvable in about 1.5 seconds time. The game is very much an action shooter, but since it keeps things like not being able to move and shoot at the same time it feels mediocre. Not a bad game, but the series lowpoint in my opinion.

Sorry if I wrote too much :P

IndianaPwns39

Cinematic is the word. 3 seemed to put me into that world and there seemed to be a realistic amount of zombies to give a creepy feeling. 4 and 5 seemed like shoot em ups to me. I remember seeing hordes of zombies (some wearing robes with scythes) climbing up ladders and mechanical gears spinning and it all seemed so weird.

Did you feel this way because I really want to know if the developers did in fact change the core gameplay of the series. I never had the chance to seriously play a Resident Evil game and now that I do, it seems like a completely new game.

Yes. If you sat down and played the series through you would notice a massive jump in gameplay differences between Resident Evil: Code Veronica (The last core installment that used the old mechanics), and RE4. 1-C:V were very survival horror, making players have to conserve ammo by avoiding enemies and greatly relied on jump scares. RE4 felt more like a B-Horror/Action movie full of humorous dialog but had an interesting atmosphere, but all but abandoned what the original games established. It wasn't horror anymore, but straight up action. I believe RE4 was an addicting formula and a great game, but it didn't feel like Resident Evil. 4&5 are completely different from the others, aside from recurring characters from the franchise. Even the "zombies" found in 4&5 aren't technically zombies.

Alright thanks for confirming that. I knew I wasnt crazy. I hope they go back to the old formula.