Resident Evil 5.... most critics (not Brad) need to shut it.

Ok, I'm breaking the relative silence of my blog posts to rant about the seemingly ridiculous treatment of Resident Evil 5 by many of the critics out there. Having listened to the thrashing that Adam Sessler (G4) gave the game, in addition to the hour-long bitch-fest that Joystiq just posted about the game, I just can't understand the backlash. Now that I've had a chance to play through the game, I have to agree with Brad's review. This game is good. Really good.

Ok, I'm breaking the relative silence of my blog posts to rant about the seemingly ridiculous treatment of Resident Evil 5 by many of the critics out there. Having listened to the thrashing that Adam Sessler (G4) gave the game, in addition to the hour-long bitch-fest that Joystiq just posted about the game, I just can't understand the backlash. Now that I've had a chance to play through the game, I have to agree with Brad's review. This game is good. Really good.

I'm really enjoying the game too. I understand where the criticism comes from, it's undeniably archaic - and for that the game probably doesn't deserve some of the bigger plaudits. But it's fun. I'm even loving the single player with the supposedly "stupid" Sheva. I can't see why people are complaining about her so much. She leaves you to do all the item management, like, erm, you would have done if the game wasn't meant to be played co-operatively.

Whatever. I'm having a blast. I'll say again for the like, 10th time, it's archaic and has maybe been improved by the excellent Dead Space... but I still love it.

meh, i still thinks the game sucks

The game is outstanding in it's own right.  Sheva's buddy AI is very good and better than most, and like the TC posted, the production values are astounding, with only Gears as a rival(360 at least).  And the controls while they take getting used to, are purposeful in design.  To say they are archaic isn't fair imo, because the designers were going for a certain feel, and this style of controls is their take on the gameplay.   They did compromise a little by offering 4 options anyway.  People will complain based on what they wanted their beloved franchise to be, not enough on what this game really offers....which is quite good, especially the  stellar co-op experience.  And then Sessler....he unfairly judged the game imo, based on his sensibilities about the racist symbology: out of place imo at best on his part ,and pretentious, and disingenuous at worst.  Kind of a 'look -at-me' move on his part.  Anyway, Brad's review was right on for me, as well as the TC's post.

So you appreciate the critics whose viewpoints you agree with but believe the ones who you don't agree with need to be quite...

Actually, a well organized, thoughtfully presented defense of a game you enjoy is always appreciated in my book.  I don't know how the actual game plays since I've only been able to experience the demo so far.  I'm certain I won't be able to find anyone in my gaming circle who has the time or will to play the game co-op, so it's unlikely that I'd get much pleasure from the game.  However, voices like yours dilute the perception that the game is crap, even though most professional critics (including Sessler) never say that.  Well done, but remember that every voice, yours included, should be heard provided they are civil and reasoned.

I think the game is great. Awesome graphics with INTENSE character models that look real............ and playing with a friend couldn't be any funner.

"Ok, I'm breaking the relative silence of my blog posts to rant about the seemingly ridiculous treatment of Resident Evil 5 by many of the critics out there. Having listened to the thrashing that Adam Sessler (G4) gave the game, in addition to the hour-long bitch-fest that Joystiq just posted about the game, I just can't understand the backlash. Now that I've had a chance to play through the game, I have to agree with Brad's review. This game is good. Really good.

Before going forward, it's worth mentioning that I played through it with a friend, so I didn't have to rely on the AI partner. But as a co-op game, it was easily the best experience I've had with that kind of play. The teamwork- from item management, to boss strategies, to the healing system -is far more intricate than anything I've experienced in Gears of War or other Co-op Games. This was probably the first time I've ever felt that winning was a team effort. Just as an example, first aid sprays and herbs will heal both characters if they are in close enough proximity. 

But moving on to the game: the production values are simply astounding. From graphics to sound, this game is phenomenal. Yes, the controls are not Call of Duty or Gears of War, but if you enjoyed and understood the RE4 control scheme, then you won't mind this at all. The enemy AI is poor, but it has to be or else you'd be overwhelmed by the tank controls. This means that it's balanced, not that both systems are broken. I think if this game played like gears, then it would be hammered for being yet another knock-off (a-la fracture or dark sector).

Another thing I haven't understood is the complaints regarding inventory. This is RESIDENT EVIL. Do you remember that RE1 had 6 Slots, and key items took up spaces. This is one of the hallmarks of the series, and inventory management is part of the experience. While you get only 9 slots, there is an enormous pre-mission inventory. What is incredible is the way they have dealt with item management. Put simply, you can always quit out and dynamically keep any items in your inventory. This means that whenever you play (and whoever you play with) you can have your items with you. This is something of an RPG system that practically begs the player to go through multiple runs.

When I hear critics bitch about how resident evil 4 did things so much better, It's hard not to think that they're looking back through rose-colored lenses. Yes, RE4 was incredible and a revolution at the time. But the story was NEVER great, the inventory NEVER worked fluidly, and the environments were not so distinct. Listening to Joystiq go on was almost laughable when they tried to explain how the RE4 story kept you moving clearly through. But really, do you remember Salazar's castle? Playing that game 5 times, it never made sense. Finally, Resident Evil hasn't been scary for a long, long time. 

Ok, of course I'm an apologist for this game, that's the point of this post. But I'm not defending it because it's resident evil (there are plenty of RE games I'd never recommend to anyone). I'm defending it because it was the most rewarding co-op experience I've had so far. Brad nailed it in his review.

"

"SonicFire said:

"Ok, I'm breaking the relative silence of my blog posts to rant about the seemingly ridiculous treatment of Resident Evil 5 by many of the critics out there. Having listened to the thrashing that Adam Sessler (G4) gave the game, in addition to the hour-long bitch-fest that Joystiq just posted about the game, I just can't understand the backlash. Now that I've had a chance to play through the game, I have to agree with Brad's review. This game is good. Really good.

Before going forward, it's worth mentioning that I played through it with a friend, so I didn't have to rely on the AI partner. But as a co-op game, it was easily the best experience I've had with that kind of play. The teamwork- from item management, to boss strategies, to the healing system -is far more intricate than anything I've experienced in Gears of War or other Co-op Games. This was probably the first time I've ever felt that winning was a team effort. Just as an example, first aid sprays and herbs will heal both characters if they are in close enough proximity. 

But moving on to the game: the production values are simply astounding. From graphics to sound, this game is phenomenal. Yes, the controls are not Call of Duty or Gears of War, but if you enjoyed and understood the RE4 control scheme, then you won't mind this at all. The enemy AI is poor, but it has to be or else you'd be overwhelmed by the tank controls. This means that it's balanced, not that both systems are broken. I think if this game played like gears, then it would be hammered for being yet another knock-off (a-la fracture or dark sector).

Another thing I haven't understood is the complaints regarding inventory. This is RESIDENT EVIL. Do you remember that RE1 had 6 Slots, and key items took up spaces. This is one of the hallmarks of the series, and inventory management is part of the experience. While you get only 9 slots, there is an enormous pre-mission inventory. What is incredible is the way they have dealt with item management. Put simply, you can always quit out and dynamically keep any items in your inventory. This means that whenever you play (and whoever you play with) you can have your items with you. This is something of an RPG system that practically begs the player to go through multiple runs.

When I hear critics bitch about how resident evil 4 did things so much better, It's hard not to think that they're looking back through rose-colored lenses. Yes, RE4 was incredible and a revolution at the time. But the story was NEVER great, the inventory NEVER worked fluidly, and the environments were not so distinct. Listening to Joystiq go on was almost laughable when they tried to explain how the RE4 story kept you moving clearly through. But really, do you remember Salazar's castle? Playing that game 5 times, it never made sense. Finally, Resident Evil hasn't been scary for a long, long time. 

Ok, of course I'm an apologist for this game, that's the point of this post. But I'm not defending it because it's resident evil (there are plenty of RE games I'd never recommend to anyone). I'm defending it because it was the most rewarding co-op experience I've had so far. Brad nailed it in his review.

"

Adam fag boy at Xplay clearly going for ratings and attention for the show. I bet the producers wanted this. Ratings nothing  more then to spark and draw attention. And yup it worked.The game is great. I forgive Morgan Webb I'd still destroy that amazon to shreds."

Adam fag boy at Xplay clearly going for ratings and attention for the show. I bet the producers wanted this. Ratings nothing  more then to spark and draw attention. And yup it worked.The game is great. I forgive Morgan Webb I'd still destroy that amazon to shreds."

Very nicely put by the TC. I haven't played either RE4 or 5, but I never really understood why this game was getting such a heavy backlash from people. Complaining how RE5 doesn't revolutionize like 4 did has always struck me as something an idiotic statement. Especially when you consider how much Gears 2 was being praised for improving on the things that the first one did, without any complaint about lack of revolution whatsoever. RE4 brought a revolution to the Resident Evil series, and this game improves upon those things from what I gather from Brad's review. So I really do not see how it's any different from Gears 2.

For the most part, i like your review(?) but there was a single thing i dissagreed with. Now that i've played the demo of RE5, i really appreciate the cooldown time i got while switching weapons. I felt that changing weapons in RE5 was far too hectic, since you had to look for the item you wanted and select it often while the enemies were coming down on you. While the realtime weapon change is more fluid, it isn't necessairily positive to the gameplay experience, at least it wasn't for me.

You AgentJ said:

"For the most part, i like your review(?) but there was a single thing i dissagreed with. Now that i've played the demo of RE5, i really appreciate the cooldown time i got while switching weapons. I felt that changing weapons in RE5 was far too hectic, since you had to look for the item you wanted and select it often while the enemies were coming down on you. While the realtime weapon change is more fluid, it isn't necessairily positive to the gameplay experience, at least it wasn't for me."

Good co-op play is not:
"Just as an example, first aid sprays and herbs will heal both characters if they are in close enough proximity. "

I think a lot of people in this thread are confusing realism with context.

What's wrong with the G4 review? It was a good review, and most of the points were valid.

I played the demo. The game is good, but I just can't get over not being able to walk and shoot at the same time. I think they could maby just make it so that you would be mooving really slow while shooting but not stopping entirely. It's just one thing, but enoying enough that I don't enjoy it.

HOW THE FUCK IS IT ENJOYABLE?!

I can't get to like it! Not even with another human player!

ZOMG, THERE ARE OPINIONS ON THE INTERWEBZ!!!

DOOD I KNOOOOWZZZ.

I get opinions, but I just don't get this game having so many good reviews.

I agree, the subject of this game being in Africa should not be a problem.  Any Zombie fan knows that there have been movies in locations like this.  Zombies aren't just about American locations, there are Voodoo zombie stories that go to locations like Africa.  So I hate when they say the location wasn't correct.  And bottom line the game is more fun and deep then L4D which I can't stop hearing critics rave about, heck after I beat the 4 scenarios in that game I didn't have much interest after that.  This game is a modern day classic!!!

The game is beautiful to look at.  The game is not blatantly racist but like Adam Sessler it is playing with fire and some people may take it the wrong way with some of the imagery, there is also no reason for Capcom to have take the risk.  It could be in africa but just didn't need some weird stuff they had in there, (tribes people walking like savages.) Also, the controls suck, get in the way too much.
So in conclusion, the game sucks, big ass african cock.

I rented it yesterday and have got about half way through so far.

The game's awesome, i'm really enjoying it.

I think telling anyone to "shut it" for saying their opinion is one step closer to fascism. You're not a fascist, are you?


Edit: picked a better word.

Hey, we all have opinions. And we're all allowed to express them however we want to. The funny thing is that we all like different games for different reasons. What we want and or get out of them can be totally different. I wrote this original thread because so much of the criticism came off as rather unprofessional and whiny. I just don't understand in so many words why a good experience isn't taken into consideration. I think there was almost nothing that Capcom could have done that would not seriously piss off some people. If you can think of what that might have been, I'd love to know.

I don't get why the majority of reviewers are constantly comparing it to RE4. If you love that damn game so much then go play it! This is RE5. Capcom tried something new. I think if you were let down by the game then maybe your expectations were misplaced moreso than the game underperforming or underdelivering. But for God's sake stop comparing it to RE4. We know how "transcendental" that game was. But to constantly keep referring to it when talking about RE5 is just lame. Methinks some people just may have set their expectations a wee bit higher than they should have. These are the same people that bitch and moan about nothing new being attempted and when it is they bitch and moan about how it isn't "more of the same." Get the fuck over it already and make up your friggin' minds. Either you want games to implement new mechanics or you just want the same old shit with a new can of paint.

I think there was almost nothing that Capcom could have done that would not seriously piss off some people.

Topic Creator, play Dead Space and maybe your opinion might change.