shoul RE5 have scored higher than 8.5?

In the review, they said RE5 is similar to RE4. The graphics are said to be some of the best this generation, gameplay just as good as re4. The only complaint was about a small detail for the online component. Obviously its not revolutionary, but it builds on the same greatness of re4, and improves on it. If this is all true then what reason did re5 get a 8.5 compared to re4 which got a 9.6? hmmm i smell a conspiracy....

It definetly deserved a higher score, it's easily one of the bets games this gen.

From what I know some people didn't really like that it didn't actually improve on any of the flaws of RE4. RE4 was an incredible jump from the old games in the series, but it still had flaws, but you could overlook them for how much better the game was. With RE5 there's no overlooking them because there is no jump from RE4.

never was a big fan of re games. Ive played it for a while over a friends house but it still feels like the old ones to me

No i think 8.5 was generous considering how short and unscary the game was.Big-Boss56

People no longer remember that Capcom built the RE4 shooting mechanics in preparation for RE5, which was revolutionary back then, but completely lost its effects now. And all that put on top of the fact that is a shorter game. 8.5 sounds fair enough.

In the review, they said RE5 is similar to RE4. The graphics are said to be some of the best this generation, gameplay just as good as re4. The only complaint was about a small detail for the online component. Obviously its not revolutionary, but it builds on the same greatness of re4, and improves on it. If this is all true then what reason did re5 get a 8.5 compared to re4 which got a 9.6? hmmm i smell a conspiracy....

blaznwiipspman1

I gave it personally a 7. I thought it didn't meet up to expectations considering it's predecessor is better than Resident Evil 5 in every category except for graphics. Capcom should've done a better job. CleanPlayer

I think it deserves what it got. Its an incredible and fun game nonetheless.

I just got to the El Giante with the beard and that battle sucks because all you do is shoot him from a turrent? I mean that is kinda boring. I thought it would be an epic battle with me on foot.

People no longer remember that Capcom built the RE4 shooting mechanics in preparation for RE5, which was revolutionary back then, but completely lost its effects now. And all that put on top of the fact that is a shorter game. 8.5 sounds fair enough.

PSdual_wielder

I gave it personally a 7. I thought it didn't meet up to expectations considering it's predecessor is better than Resident Evil 5 in every category except for graphics. Capcom should've done a better job. CleanPlayer

[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"]I gave it personally a 7. I thought it didn't meet up to expectations considering it's predecessor is better than Resident Evil 5 in every category except for graphics. Capcom should've done a better job. CleanPlayer

I can understand why Resident Evil 5 didn't receive many 9's and 9.5's, but to me it's one of the best games of this generation. I didn't expect an evolution. All I wanted was a 'Resident Evil 4-2', and I got it and I'm loving it.

AA seems perfect for this game to me

I'm playing it coop and having a lot of fun with it. There are a lot of glaring design decisions, but that has more to do with Japanese game design culture more than anything else. The guy that created Dead Rising is right, a lot of Japanese designers are stuck in the past..RE needs to be reworked from the core up, not just a few changes and prettier graphics..

That being said, 8.5 is not a bad score for it. The game looks great and it is incredibly fun at times.

I think an 8.5 is fair. I'll probably give it more when I come to rate it but an 8.5 is nothing to shake a stick at. [QUOTE="Big-Boss56"]No i think 8.5 was generous considering how short and unscary the game was.Silent-Hal

I'm playing it coop and having a lot of fun with it. There are a lot of glaring design decisions, but that has more to do with Japanese game design culture more than anything else. The guy that created Dead Rising is right, a lot of Japanese designers are stuck in the past..RE needs to be reworked from the core up, not just a few changes and prettier graphics..

That being said, 8.5 is not a bad score for it. The game looks great and it is incredibly fun at times.

I'm playing it coop and having a lot of fun with it. There are a lot of glaring design decisions, but that has more to do with Japanese game design culture more than anything else. The guy that created Dead Rising is right, a lot of Japanese designers are stuck in the past..RE needs to be reworked from the core up, not just a few changes and prettier graphics..

That being said, 8.5 is not a bad score for it. The game looks great and it is incredibly fun at times.

8.5 was too much if you ask me.

RE5 is living in the past. What worked on the Gamecube does not work now, it's just not enough. RE5 is a carbon copy of RE4, and that is a major problem.

Lower. It should have been lower.

Though 8.5 is not a bad score but for games like RE5 , which has been in development since 4 years. Is INDEED a BAD SCORE.Revolution_Ali

8.5 isn't a bad score for any reason. It's still a good game worth playing.

RE5 should of gotten atleast a 9. Why is there so much hate for this game? It boggles the mind.

The game isn't similar to RE4. The only thing they have in common is the controls, and RE5 made it even better by adding strafing and Triggers for shooting. RE5 was a closer RE game than 4.

4 was my favourite game of all-time but 5 got robbed in scores. Reviewers kept talking about it not being a RE game, when 4 was a ****ing fairytale when you look at it. They also deducted scores for no walking and shooting yet 4 was the same. I guess logic doesn't exist in this world.

It should've got a 9,the same guy gave dead space a 9 a game that doesn't have any replay value after you beat it,the controls are horrible,cheesy story and character and yet ut gets a 9...RE5 does more and is better game and gets 8.5 :roll:, it got a 9 because of the lack of survival horror games and EA big wallet.McdonaIdsGuy

RE5 should of gotten atleast a 9. Why is there so much hate for this game? It boggles the mind.

The game isn't similar to RE4. The only thing they have in common is the controls, and RE5 made it even better by adding strafing and Triggers for shooting. RE5 was a closer RE game than 4.

4 was my favourite game of all-time but 5 got robbed in scores. Reviewers kept talking about it not being a RE game, when 4 was a ****ing fairytale when you look at it. They also deducted scores for no walking and shooting yet 4 was the same. I guess logic doesn't exist in this world.

Aljosa23

Evolution of standards, I suppose. Resident Evil 4's controls were built around the Gamecube controller, specifically the lack of a proper second analog stick. Because of the lack of a second analog stick. it couldn't be faulted for not allowing run'n'gun. With RE5 however, it's reasonable to expect the capability of run'n'gun despite it likely forcing enemy design to change simply because of the controller and other games with similar control schemes e.g GeoW that allowed run'n'gun.

Evolution of standards, I suppose. Resident Evil 4's controls were built around the Gamecube controller, specifically the lack of a proper second analog stick. Because of the lack of a second analog stick. it couldn't be faulted for not allowing run'n'gun. With RE5 however, it's reasonable to expect the capability of run'n'gun despite it likely forcing enemy design to change simply because of the controller and other games with similar control schemes e.g GeoW that allowed run'n'gun.

Technoweirdo

Though I do agree with you, if they added slow walking while aiming but stopped while shooting, they would of made the enemy A.I. smarter and the game would of been even more intense.

[QUOTE="McdonaIdsGuy"]It should've got a 9,the same guy gave dead space a 9 a game that doesn't have any replay value after you beat it,the controls are horrible,cheesy story and character and yet ut gets a 9...RE5 does more and is better game and gets 8.5 :roll:, it got a 9 because of the lack of survival horror games and EA big wallet.creeping-deth87

Gamespot doesn't give sequels that are too similar to their predecessors AAA. Look at Call of Duty World at War, Zelda TP, and Resident Evil 5, all very similar games to their predecessors, all AA. Its pretty obvious that this is how Gamespot works now, I had no idea how people were hyping RE5 AAA when it looked very similar to RE4.

Doesn't mean that they're bad games though, I would've given them a 9.0.

[QUOTE="Technoweirdo"]

Evolution of standards, I suppose. Resident Evil 4's controls were built around the Gamecube controller, specifically the lack of a proper second analog stick. Because of the lack of a second analog stick. it couldn't be faulted for not allowing run'n'gun. With RE5 however, it's reasonable to expect the capability of run'n'gun despite it likely forcing enemy design to change simply because of the controller and other games with similar control schemes e.g GeoW that allowed run'n'gun.

Aljosa23

Chapter 5 excluded anyhow. :P With all due seriousness though, that's where we hit a snag with reviewing games: Games trying to remain unique and determining if a game sticking with it's roots, however old, is a bad thing or not. For GameSpot, sticking to roots is bad.

Though I do agree with you, if they added slow walking while aiming but stopped while shooting, they would of made the enemy A.I. smarter and the game would of been even more intense.

I didn't say enemy A.I though they would have to improve that too. :P The mere addition of Sheva alone however should have made Capcom make radical improvements in enemy intelligence and level design for the enemy to take advantage of but not so great an advantage that if either Chris or Sheva were incompetent (And her A.I is), the two would be massacred.

Personally i feel the score was just right, and it did feel way to similar to RE5 that the new, and exciting factor that got me to rebeat RE4 20+ times just isnt there this time around. RE4 still had some semblence of fear in it too, so i was still able to believe it was a RE game. The castle act was really awesome with the blind dude, and what not with crazy cultist just seemed like a better story. RE5 was basically a TPS that also happens to have the same name as Resident Evil.

[QUOTE="creeping-deth87"][QUOTE="McdonaIdsGuy"]It should've got a 9,the same guy gave dead space a 9 a game that doesn't have any replay value after you beat it,the controls are horrible,cheesy story and character and yet ut gets a 9...RE5 does more and is better game and gets 8.5 :roll:, it got a 9 because of the lack of survival horror games and EA big wallet.McdonaIdsGuy

Gamespot doesn't give sequels that are too similar to their predecessors AAAkholdstare61

[QUOTE="kholdstare61"]

Gamespot doesn't give sequels that are too similar to their predecessors AAAMcdonaIdsGuy

[QUOTE="McdonaIdsGuy"]

[QUOTE="kholdstare61"]

Gamespot doesn't give sequels that are too similar to their predecessors AAAloco145

[QUOTE="loco145"]

[QUOTE="McdonaIdsGuy"]

Then why Geow2 with broken multiplayer got a 9.0?

McdonaIdsGuy

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Technoweirdo"]

Evolution of standards, I suppose. Resident Evil 4's controls were built around the Gamecube controller, specifically the lack of a proper second analog stick. Because of the lack of a second analog stick. it couldn't be faulted for not allowing run'n'gun. With RE5 however, it's reasonable to expect the capability of run'n'gun despite it likely forcing enemy design to change simply because of the controller and other games with similar control schemes e.g GeoW that allowed run'n'gun.

Technoweirdo

1. Chapter 5 excluded anyhow. :P With all due seriousness though, that's where we hit a snag with reviewing games: Games trying to remain unique and determining if a game sticking with it's roots, however old, is a bad thing or not. For GameSpot, sticking to roots is bad.

Though I do agree with you, if they added slow walking while aiming but stopped while shooting, they would of made the enemy A.I. smarter and the game would of been even more intense.

2. I didn't say enemy A.I though they would have to improve that too. :P The mere addition of Sheva alone however should have made Capcom make radical improvements in enemy intelligence and level design for the enemy to take advantage of but not so great an advantage that if either Chris or Sheva were incompetent (And her A.I is), the two would be massacred.

2. Really? I thought you were talking about enemy AI when you said the bolded part. I just wish there wasn't a cover system and the enemies were smarter. Adding walking + shooting wouldn't be a problem then.

Yes.

RE5 is the one game this generation i've replayed more then 3 times. Great game. Great Story. I've loved RE from the day it came out on PSX and I haven't been let down since. The transition Action is okay. I feel that the characters of Resident Evil arn't new to this there not afraid anymore.. So why should you be. RE4 should have been a little more scary due to what it was and I think it was a little bit more then RE5.

RE5 is about a personal Vendetta. Chris has a mission hes been going at this mission for a long time now hes trained his body and his mind. Hes going to go after Wesker he wants to know what happened to Jill. He isn't afraid anymore hes not the guy he used to be. If you are someone who has played RE from the beginning you shouldn't be afraid anymore. RE was never really scary tho IMO thats why I played Silent Hill.

Deserving score - 9/10

Mario is rehash central and it gets a better score almost ever gen. Mario 64 and Galaxy is the same game but new Controls and a new Mechanic. RE5 is same as RE4 but with more Replay, Coop and Slightly better controls.

I understand why GS gave it an 8.5. They couldnt get over the last gen controls. I replayed the demo yesterday and I cant even get over the controls. The controls are the main reason Im not going to get this game. The game becomes frustrating because of the controls. If I could walk and shoot/reload/knife, id get this game in a heartbeat. Nonstop-Madness

I understand why GS gave it an 8.5. They couldnt get over the last gen controls. I replayed the demo yesterday and I cant even get over the controls. The controls are the main reason Im not going to get this game. The game becomes frustrating because of the controls. If I could walk and shoot/reload/knife, id get this game in a heartbeat. Nonstop-Madness

[QUOTE="Nonstop-Madness"]I understand why GS gave it an 8.5. They couldnt get over the last gen controls. I replayed the demo yesterday and I cant even get over the controls. The controls are the main reason Im not going to get this game. The game becomes frustrating because of the controls. If I could walk and shoot/reload/knife, id get this game in a heartbeat. McdonaIdsGuy

In the review, they said RE5 is similar to RE4. The graphics are said to be some of the best this generation, gameplay just as good as re4. The only complaint was about a small detail for the online component. Obviously its not revolutionary, but it builds on the same greatness of re4, and improves on it. If this is all true then what reason did re5 get a 8.5 compared to re4 which got a 9.6? hmmm i smell a conspiracy....

blaznwiipspman1