Resident Evil 5

[Daltone]

Have people who are having major troubles with the control scheme not played through RE4 or any other significant RE release in the past 10 years, or are we just spoiled by similar games with super fluid/ergonomic control schemes like Uncharted Drake's Fortune, Gears of War 2, etc.??

I wouldn't say that we were being spoiled by those games in terms of control - I would say that that is (or at least should be!) the standard. Perhaps it's time for Capcom to throw out the cheap and easy 'let's restrict their movement to make the game more tense' thing that they have gotten in to. Even RE4's controls are hardly leaps and bounds above the first Resident Evil's (drop the camera over the shoulder, add in some context sensitive stuff and give you free aiming.. am I missing something?) In this day any sense of panic and/or dread should not come from you being unable to do something as basic as move properly.

Just a thought.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I wouldn't say that we were being spoiled by those games in terms of control - I would say that that is (or at least should be!) the standard. Perhaps it's time for Capcom to throw out the cheap and easy 'let's restrict their movement to make the game more tense' thing that they have gotten in to. Even RE4's controls are hardly leaps and bounds above the first Resident Evil's (drop the camera over the shoulder, add in some context sensitive stuff and give you free aiming.. am I missing something?) In this day any sense of panic and/or dread should not come from you being unable to do something as basic as move properly.

Just a thought.

This brings up a question that plagues the series and its over-all success.

Even with the dynamic shift in camera work, Resident Evil 4 STILL at it's core controls like any other RE game.

That is, it controls with "RE Tank" controls and "stop & shoot" gameplay.

And with the above-average amount of criticism that I've seen regarding the RE5 demo's controls ... most of which I consider to be unwarranted - or at the least I am confused by considering the legacy that those controls have had over the course of the series ...

I feel the need to pose these question(s) :

Do people really believe that Capcom should scrap the tank controls and stop & shoot gameplay in favor of something more Gears of War or Uncharted like?

Would a Resident Evil game STILL be a "Resident Evil game" if the control scheme and play style was completely supplanted?

In my opinion, the controls are a part of the legacy/trademark of the series, and I wouldn't want to see them go away.

Of course, this isn't to say that a game series can't survive or flourish in that dramatic a style change (see Mario, Zelda, Metroid).

OR on the other hand, a game series can falter repeatedly or fail to retain the respect of the series audience when trying to make core changes to a series trademark (see any 3D Castlevania game).

Despite all of the frustration/criticism that RE5 is suffering at the moment (I think that some of it has to do with an influx of XBOX users that have never had an opportunity to play the series/be reminded of its dated control scheme in recent years) I feel that there is little to no reason for Capcom to look back historically on the critical praise and overall sales that the series have garnered and see with any type of critical eye that there is/was a NEED to re-vamp the control scheme.

People love the series. People buy the series on lots of platforms. People don't generally bitch about the control scheme (at least not as much as I've seen until this past demo) because it's the control scheme that the series that has had since day one.

If RE4 was any type of failure (and it was anything BUT any type of failure) I could see these complaints to be more realistic, or at least more worthy of prompting Capcom to re-visit the controls with a more critical eye.

And to their credit they DID add some options (just not the much whined-about "move and shoot").

But I digress ...

Do you think the series should have completely revised controls to play more like Gears or Uncharted?

Do you think that would be an affront to the legacy of the series?

Thoughts please.

[exit]

Well I've played the demo a bit more and I was able to get the hang of the controls after my second go at it, so now things don't seem as rough as they were the first time around. I played Co-Op mode with a buddy and it's a dream, the first level doesn't do much with it, but the second level (which I can't seem to beat on single player) really shows how well it works and helps the game shine.

Have people who are having major troubles with the control scheme not played through RE4 or any other significant RE release in the past 10 years, or are we just spoiled by similar games with super fluid/ergonomic control schemes like Uncharted Drake's Fortune, Gears of War 2, etc.??

I personally was spoiled with Dead Space, which is what helped give me my survival horror fix, but not played a Resident Evil since RE4 also helped me loose a feel for the usual control scheme. I still don't see why Capcom hasn't updated the controls a bit, standing still while trying to shoot a guy wearing a potato sack as he's flinging a chainsaw at you just seems a little silly now.

[Daltone]

This brings up a question that plagues the series and its over-all success.

Even with the dynamic shift in camera work, Resident Evil 4 STILL at it's core controls like any other RE game.

That is, it controls with "RE Tank" controls and "stop & shoot" gameplay.



If RE4 was any type of failure (and it was anything BUT any type of failure) I could see these complaints to be more realistic, or at least more worthy of prompting Capcom to re-visit the controls with a more critical eye.

And to their credit they DID add some options (just not the much whined-about "move and shoot").

But I digress ...

Do you think the series should have completely revised controls to play more like Gears or Uncharted?

Do you think that would be an affront to the legacy of the series?

Thoughts please.

I have to say that I've been on my soapbox about RE4's controls for some time, and this half arsed attempt at adding something new only serves to show how unwilling Capcom are to go and do a total overhaul.

I understand the reasons behind not changing what isn't broken - Resident Evil still sells by the bucketload. To me RE4 was nothing but a glorified version of duck hunt with some really pretty graphics and a plot borrowed from the 1980s (are you a bad enough dude to rescue the President's daughter?), but people loved it and that's ok.

In my eyes, and my opinion doesn't exactly seem to be the commonly held one, the Resident Evil series is starting to look like it's going to go the same way as the Tomb Raider franchise. Ultimately, I would rather see the series take a dive into uncharted waters and see what comes out. Yes, Castlevannia's 3D manifestations were utter crap, but then you look at something like Prince of Persia which took the 3D platformer and did something new and brilliant with it. The previous premier 3D platformer of the the time - Tomb Raider, suddenly looks really old and clunky and is left trying to emulate what Prince of Persia did so brilliantly. When you come to it, the Prince was doing exactly what we wanted Lara to be able to do all those years ago.

You can be Resident Evil without sticking to that control scheme. I like the setting for RE5, I really do. I prefer it to the village from RE4 and the island of bland from Veronica. However, if playing the damn thing is more of a chore then a delight, if the lacking control schemes diminish the game as a whole why not just go for it and do something completely different?

The obvious answer is because people liked RE4, they didn't hate the controls there as much as I did, and so there is no need for something completely different, and an overhaul of the game mechanics would unbalance the game as it is designed now.

EDIT: Playing a 2009 game should not be comparable to this monstrosity - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvxo_...eature=related

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I neglected to reference "Dead Space" which seems to be a great benchmark in terms of Survival Horror game fans' opinion of how a modern entry in the genre should play control-wise.

I'm curious as to whether or not the game has made an impact in the Japanese market or sold enough for Capcom to take a look at it as a possible "direction" for future entries in the series.

In the event that Capcom ever did decide to fully revise the series I'd be willing to take a look...but there's something about the classic style of gameplay that the series retains that I really enjoy, antiquaterd or not.

[BHvrd]

Played the demo with some DUMB ASS person.

They stood there and kept getting pummled by zombies and when the guy with the big axe came, he nailed her, lol, I was like.....FUCK.

I must have used a stim on her heart about 5 times, that's how bad my partner sucked, but regardless that experience was really fun, showed me that you CAN keep a player alive even if they are being extremely beaten! Cause instead of just health you can slap stims in their chest to keep them going, which is really cool and seems unlimited.

Everything aside, it's fun, yes I agree the zombies look kinda dumb and yes the controls are a bit of a pain, but yeah, it's fun! Day one buy for me (if I have the money, heh).

[maxlords]

I'd say that their long-term adherence to the control scheme is just awful. There's no shame in revising a BAD control scheme. I love the concept of the RE games. I love the storylines. I find the games unplayable except for RE4 and that had a moderate learning curve to it. 4 is the ONLY RE I've ever finished....the rest I just read the novelizations. Seriously. They're utter dreck for controls. Bleah. Why is that necessary? Oh wait...it isn't. You can have a scary ass game with better contols (i.e. Silent Hill series for example).

I think that people would still buy it cause it's RE. Most people hate the RE controls but love the stories, as hokey as they are, as the game version of B movies. I don't see how that would ruin the legacy. I think it should be fluid and responsive. Why is clunky unrelenting control allowed for this series after all these years anyway? ANY other series, people would be bitching to hell and back and boycotting the game.

Imagine if Street Fighter IV had clunky controls. Well...it's Street Fighter, but it's clunky...we don't care cause it's Street Fighter though. Or Mega Man......Oh...Mega Man 10 has clunky tank controls...and you can't fire and run at the same time...but who cares, cause it's pretty.
Riiiiiiiight. But it's acceptable for RE? No thanks. I'd rather play something I can actually control. It's not scary anymore at this point to not be able to escape the slow zombies because I can't run and shoot at the same time. It's not even a surprise. It doesn't raise the tension level because they've done it in EVERY game. It's just irritating.

[The 1 2 P]

Have people who are having major troubles with the control scheme not played through RE4 or any other significant RE release in the past 10 years??

Unfortunately the only Resident Evil game I've played to completion was Survivor on the PS1. I have about 8 other RE games(including two copies of RE4 which I've still yet to play) but I only played most in demo form. I've even gotten use to the Silent Hill controls(which mimic those of RE) but I haven't played that in awhile either. I'm going to play the demo about 3 times by myself tonight and then I'll start partnering up again. This game is too good to pass up from not being able to adapt to the control scheme.

[Daltone]

In the event that Capcom ever did decide to fully revise the series I'd be willing to take a look...but there's something about the classic style of gameplay that the series retains that I really enjoy, antiquaterd or not.

I'm all for the classic style of the series in a classic setting. I own every 'real' RE that's been released (I did play through the first Gun Survivor but I nearly fell asleep), sometimes on multiple platforms, and have played through them all. Going back through the first two (even on the DS!) is akin to slipping in to a pair of old, comfortable shoes because you know exactly what you're getting, setbacks and all. The thing is that by the time you get to Nemesis things are starting to get a bit stale. Sometimes you've just got to push the boat out.

[kainemaxwell]

I liked the control scheme for Re4 over the previous games, which is what finally got me to buy and enjoy 4.

Anone see this yet:
http://kotaku.com/5145249/zombies-in...-evil-5-launch

[Half Japanese]

I loved RE4, though it's been a bit too long since my run through it to be able to capably contrast the control scheme between that and RE5. The most important aspect to me is that it looks to be a solid co-op experience, and while trends are changing for the better in that regard, good co-op games are still few and far between.

I got the hang of the controls pretty quickly, but I'll agree with the sentiment that there's no shame in overhauling something that has been severely outclassed by its peers. Games like Uncharted and loads of other third-person action games have such excellent controls that it makes RE5 look ancient in comparison. I used to play Unreal Tournament on the Dreamcast pad with "southpaw" controls (buttons to move and strafe, stick to look around), but now that dual analogs has become the norm, I would never return unless the game was good enough to warrant it and didn't allow me to choose more fitting and modern controls.

[mnkysuit]

After playing through the demo a few times I got used to the controls. Something tells me the demo just couldn't do the whole game justice.

My one gripe that I still can't get past is the amount of exploding barrels, bullets, and grenades it takes to kill the chainsaw (zombie?). It's kind of outrageous.

[kaedesdisciple]

I'd say that their long-term adherence to the control scheme is just awful. There's no shame in revising a BAD control scheme. I love the concept of the RE games. I love the storylines. I find the games unplayable except for RE4 and that had a moderate learning curve to it. 4 is the ONLY RE I've ever finished....the rest I just read the novelizations. Seriously. They're utter dreck for controls. Bleah. Why is that necessary? Oh wait...it isn't. You can have a scary ass game with better contols (i.e. Silent Hill series for example).

I think that people would still buy it cause it's RE. Most people hate the RE controls but love the stories, as hokey as they are, as the game version of B movies. I don't see how that would ruin the legacy. I think it should be fluid and responsive. Why is clunky unrelenting control allowed for this series after all these years anyway? ANY other series, people would be bitching to hell and back and boycotting the game.

Imagine if Street Fighter IV had clunky controls. Well...it's Street Fighter, but it's clunky...we don't care cause it's Street Fighter though. Or Mega Man......Oh...Mega Man 10 has clunky tank controls...and you can't fire and run at the same time...but who cares, cause it's pretty.
Riiiiiiiight. But it's acceptable for RE? No thanks. I'd rather play something I can actually control. It's not scary anymore at this point to not be able to escape the slow zombies because I can't run and shoot at the same time. It's not even a surprise. It doesn't raise the tension level because they've done it in EVERY game. It's just irritating.

Castlevania, anyone? You find me a game that has a more clunky, unrelenting control scheme than the original Castlevania games. Yet, who complains about it? No one, because the games are almost universally considered great. You have to get used to the control scheme in order to play the game with any amount of skill. Does the same not hold true for RE, or do we have to hold Castlevania in higher regard simply because it was made 20+ years ago? If another 2D, whip-brandishing Castlevania game were put out with a harsh, stiff control scheme, it would be lauded as a great, high skill-based entry into the Castlevania series.

Castlevania's classic control scheme is considered part of the game, as RE's classic-inspired control scheme is considered similarly. Changing the control scheme would mean changing how the entire game is laid out and played, from weapon choice and placement to ammunition and other item placements even to comply with a run and shoot concept. At this point, is it still a survival horror game, or is it nothing more than Gears of War with zombies? The classic-inspired control scheme forces you to be careful with every step (jump), every shot (whip-lash) and every item (sub weapon) usage, because your life is always on the line.

I would look forward to another such Castlevania game and I am looking forward to this next entry in the RE series. I know what they both are and what they aren't.

[Daltone]

I would look forward to another such Castlevania game and I am looking forward to this next entry in the RE series. I know what they both are and what they aren't.

So what you're saying is that you'd rather be having awkward virgin sex over and over again simply because to you that's what sex is? Don't get me wrong, it's not bad, but it could be so much better.

[kaedesdisciple]

So what you're saying is that you'd rather be having awkward virgin sex over and over again simply because to you that's what sex is? Don't get me wrong, it's not bad, but it could be so much better.

So what you're saying is you can dismiss (not address) my points with an extreme yet completely unrelated comparison that may draw some laughs but not actually say anything. Good job.

[Daltone]

So what you're saying is you can dismiss (not address) my points with an extreme yet completely unrelated comparison that may draw some laughs but not actually say anything. Good job.

Surely my previous posts on the subject deal with the aforementioned points?

[Kid Fenris]

Castlevania, anyone? You find me a game that has a more clunky, unrelenting control scheme than the original Castlevania games. Yet, who complains about it?

I do. Prior to Rondo of Blood, the controls in Castlevania games are sluggish and terrible, and the games are consequently dull. I find less fault with Resident Evil's control system, as the actual game design is more forgiving and doesn't kill the player quite as unfairly as Castelvania often does.

[Kid Ice]

I played the PS3 demo for the first time tonight. I thought it....sucked. Not sucked like *sucked*, but sucked the way GTAIV sucked...that after a long wait and great anticipation, it's just more of the same.

Maybe it's just the demo, but man, I quit that sucker awfully quick. I played that crappy NHL demo longer.

[maxlords]

I do. Prior to Rondo of Blood, the controls in Castlevania games are sluggish and terrible, and the games are consequently dull. I find less fault with Resident Evil's control system, as the actual game design is more forgiving and doesn't kill the player quite as unfairly as Castelvania often does.

Both Rondo and Castlevania IV have spot-on controls, as did SotN even though IMO it was a step in the wrong direction. So after 3 games that slowly got a little better each time, they IMPROVED THE CONTROLS! Bloodlines doesn't control badly either. So....that's not really the same as keeping essentially the same scheme for 6 games straight (including Code Veronica of course). Not to mention all the GBA and DS ones that control GREAT.

And if I saw another new Castlevania come out that controlled like one of the original 3....I'd be just as pissed.

[Kid Fenris]

Both Rondo and Castlevania IV have spot-on controls.

Castlevania IV has a slow, awkwardly paced control system and, more importantly, level design that makes the control inadequate. That's the key here. Resident Evil may have lousy controls, but it doesn't have lots of bottomless pits or instantly fatal spikes.

So....that's not really the same as keeping essentially the same scheme for 6 games straight (including Code Veronica of course).

It would be the same, since there were about 5 or 6 Castlevanias (counting the GameBoy titles) with lousy control before the series bothered to improve it. Resident Evil has lasted longer with the same control design, but I maintain that it has less reason to improve now than Castlevania did in 1992.