Aiming and Shooting??

#1 Posted by lowestformofwit (199 posts) -

Wasn't it reported that after their E3 demonstrations Capcom were going to make it so you can move while aiming?

Or did I just dream those news reports?

#2 Posted by Dauragon (554 posts) -

You will be able to strafe while in the aiming mode.

#3 Edited by RHCPfan24 (8609 posts) -
Yep, not really actually. (edit)
#4 Edited by lowestformofwit (199 posts) -

How do you strafe while aiming?

#5 Posted by PureRok (4235 posts) -

You can't. You can only strafe when out of aiming mode. You are unable to move when aiming.

#6 Posted by lowestformofwit (199 posts) -

You couldn't do something as simple as that in Resident Evil 4?

#7 Posted by Kratos81 (411 posts) -

The fact that you cant move and shoot will kill this game for me. Why cant I even walk backwards slowly? If capcom thinks this adds "horror", they need to go play deadspace. 

#8 Posted by lowestformofwit (199 posts) -

To be honest it would be nice to be able to move and aim but I still love the demo and can't wait for the full game.

#9 Posted by keyhunter (3207 posts) -

Just shoot them in the dick and then uppercut them.

#10 Edited by ArbitraryWater (11636 posts) -

Why does everyone make a big deal about this? It's not like your enemies shoot back (unlike gears of war, where you spend 10 minutes behind cover, then pop out and shoot the enemy once.)

Oh well. I expect Brad to review this game and give it 3 or 4 stars, all while comparing it to dead space at every opportunity and constantly lamenting how the controls are not exactly like dead space and then talking about how it is not as good as dead space. That is my prediction and you can quote me on it.

#11 Posted by Red (5995 posts) -

When I played Uncharted and was fighting normal pirates, I walked while aiming. Not much, but I still did it. When it got to the point where my enemies were going in melee, I always, ALWAYS shot while moving.

Definitely a dealbreaker for me.
#12 Posted by Damonation (556 posts) -
ArbitraryWater said:
"Why does everyone make a big deal about this? It's not like your enemies shoot back (unlike gears of war, where you spend 10 minutes behind cover, then popping out and shooting the enemy once.)

Oh well. I expect Brad to review this game and give it 3 or 4 stars, all while comparing it to dead space at every opportunity and constantly lamenting how the controls are not exactly like dead space and then talking about how it is not as good as dead space. That is my prediction and you can quote me on it."
The reason everyone likes Dead Space is because the game is easy. You're never low on ammo or money and every enemy can be slowed to a crawl (literally) with 2 shots to the leg. And if they don't have legs you can use the time altering thing.
#13 Posted by Icemael (6317 posts) -
Damonation said:
"ArbitraryWater said:
The reason everyone likes Dead Space is because the game is easy. You're never low on ammo or money and every enemy can be slowed to a crawl (literally) with 2 shots to the leg. And if they don't have legs you can use the time altering thing."
No. Dead Space on normal is harder than RE4 on pro - the reason everyone likes it is because of the awesome atmoshpere, the extremely solid gameplay, the excellent sound design and the smooth controls. I don't really mind the inability to move and shoot in RE5 though - I find the poorly executed real-time inventory a much bigger problem.
#14 Posted by c1337us (5751 posts) -

I didnt have any problem with not being able to move in 4. But I think with the success of Dead Space, people are going to be disapointed in not being able to incorporate some sort of movement. I dont think its an unfair comparison though, everyone made the comparisons between RE4 and DS but it was favorable because it took a control scheme that made RE4 great and enhanced it. Its up to RE5 to keep up with what it started now.

Personally I would like to see some sort of limited movement, straffing and slow shuffle backwards or something so you can position yourself better without getting out of aiming mode. But if they dont, and it plays just like RE4, I wont be complaining.

#15 Posted by clubsandwich (3795 posts) -
RHCPfan24 said:
"Yep."
err, no, you can't. you can strafe but you can't while aiming.
#16 Posted by RHCPfan24 (8609 posts) -
clubsandwich said:
"RHCPfan24 said:
"Yep."
err, no, you can't. you can strafe but you can't while aiming."
Oh, yeah, that article confused me for a sec. Nvm.
#17 Posted by Pibo47 (3166 posts) -
Kratos81 said:
"The fact that you cant move and shoot will kill this game for me. Why cant I even walk backwards slowly? If capcom thinks this adds "horror", they need to go play deadspace. "
HAHAHAHAHA! Deadspace "scary". Nice one, that was the most UN-scary game i have ever played.
If you want scary, play this.
#18 Posted by Icemael (6317 posts) -
Pibo47 said:
"Kratos81 said:
"The fact that you cant move and shoot will kill this game for me. Why cant I even walk backwards slowly? If capcom thinks this adds "horror", they need to go play deadspace. "
HAHAHAHAHA! Deadspace "scary"."
Hey, it was still a lot scarier than RE4!
#19 Posted by Damonation (556 posts) -
Icemael said:
"No. Dead Space on normal is harder than RE4 on pro - the reason everyone likes it is because of the awesome atmoshpere, the extremely solid gameplay, the excellent sound design and the smooth controls. I don't really mind the inability to move and shoot in RE5 though - I find the poorly executed real-time inventory a much bigger problem."
The atmosphere was the most generic part about it. Its another game that takes place in a dark, broken down space ship. Of course you think the atmosphere is awesome, you've seen it several times before. Its almost comforting to be in that setting in games because so many of them use it. The gameplay is solid because they copy pasted it from RE 4 but added strafing which made the boss encounters easy too. As long as you kept strafing they couldn't hit you. The time slowing mechanic utterly ruined the encounters with the Regenerator; first you slow him down, shoot out one of his legs, then run away. I did like the strategic dismemberment but they don't let you figure out that that was the best way to use it. Even before the game came out, they were toting it as the game's main hook, mostly because that was the only original thing they did in the game. The reason the game is easy is because the guns and time slow mechanic are over-powered, and the most efficient way to kill enemies is literally written on the walls before you even get your gun. Its hard to fear something when you know all of it's weaknesses and have more than enough hardware to shut it down. I like the game but I was disappointed by it.
#20 Posted by Icemael (6317 posts) -
Damonation said:
The gameplay is solid because they copy pasted it from RE 4 but added strafing which made the boss encounters easy too. As long as you kept strafing they couldn't hit you.
They took something great and made it even better. What are you complaining about? And the boss fights in RE4 are also easy as hell - run away, stop and shoot until the boss comes close to you, repeat.
The reason the game is easy is because the guns and time slow mechanic are over-powered, and the most efficient way to kill enemies is literally written on the walls before you even get your gun. Its hard to fear something when you know all of it's weaknesses and have more than enough hardware to shut it down.
It's hard to fear something(that just looks like a normal human) when all you gotta do is shoot it in the leg/face, do a melee attack and then knife it to death. That's practically the only thing you did in RE4.
But whatever, it's your opinion.
#21 Posted by Damonation (556 posts) -
Icemael said:
"They took something great and made it even better. What are you complaining about? And the boss fights in RE4 are also easy as hell - run away, stop and shoot until the boss comes close to you, repeat.

It's hard to fear something(that just looks like a normal human) when all you gotta do is shoot it in the leg/face, do a melee attack and then knife it to death. That's practically the only thing you did in RE4.
But whatever, it's your opinion."
Well they took RE 4 and made it much more generic and easy. If you're making a survival horror game, you at least have to fear the possibility of death which is something that Dead Space failed to grasp, except in the moments when tentacles grabbed you and pulled you into a death hole (which were the best parts).

As for the enemies in RE 4, yes, a majority of the enemies look human, but it also had way more enemy types than Dead Space which, in the later chapters of the game, simply painted the previous enemies black and increased their resistance to damage. RE 4 had dogs, Regenerators, those flying bug things that spit acid on you, those giant Ganados with the armor that covered all but their head, and those stronger Ganados with the chain gun. With each of those enemies you had to change you attack strategy, especially when they mixed them together. Dead Space had a fair amount of enemy types too but they all had the same weakness which meant you never had to change your tactics.
#22 Posted by Icemael (6317 posts) -

I really don't understand how you can possibly find Dead Space easier than RE4. You're making a good point about enemy variety though - that's something they'll hopefully improve in the sequel.

#23 Edited by pause422 (6179 posts) -

I loved RE4 for its time, but you're talking out of your ass. I remember all of those enemy types...you didn't have to change shit. You didn't need something called a "strategy" in the game at all. The game was not difficult, it was just longer. Dead Space basically took that, made the shooting more solid and added things to gameplay which a lot of time gave you more options, and made it more fun to plenty of people.  There's nothing more or less difficult in Dead Space than RE4. They were both not exactly hard.

I really love everyones backwards thinking with this genre of game, look, its pretty much completely changed from the old school style survivor horror to more third person shooter territory. Accept it. The whole living in the past is ridiculous with some of you people, a game adds things to gameplay, or gives you more options and possibly fun to have, and its a bad thing, because you don't think that's how its supposed to be.

I have a simple suggestion: Go fucking play an original RE, or the remakes on the gamecube or something if you just want the games to be that. Its not hard. I've never found a single game in this genre 'scary' at all, so that doesn't even make a difference. I find them more intense when you're in first person far more to third person, or top down tank view, and I honestly don't know who would think the opposite of that.



also ya Pibo- Penumbra is a real good horror/adventure/puzzle game. The background music you hear in it really makes you feel unsettling. People should pick the Penumbra games up off Steam if you want a different kind of horror experience, where you are truly helpless.

#24 Posted by Icemael (6317 posts) -
pause422 said:
"I've never found a single game in this genre 'scary' at all, so that doesn't even make a difference."
You should go play one of the Project Zero(Fatal Frame in NA) games. Play it at night, with headphones.
#25 Posted by pause422 (6179 posts) -

The problem is everyone uses the term wrong. I always feel it comes down to, if the atmosphere makes you feel unsettling, maybe some background music adds to that, and sound design, and you just generally feel sorta creeped out by the way things are, its done well. That isn't scared, and monsters jumping at you when you don't expect it isn't scared either. People misuse the term far too often is what I get from it. I know games that myself and others have found like I describe, and I've had to stop playing them before after a certain amount of time, because of how it makes me generally feel.   That definition isn't "scared" though. Using the term correctly, I don't know a single game, or movie/anything, thats ever genuinely scared myself or anyone else.

There's a big difference between an unsettling feeling, being "jumpy" a few times because you weren't expect monster A to be in location B and jump at you, and being literally scared. 

#26 Edited by PureRok (4235 posts) -
Damonation said:
"Icemael said:
"They took something great and made it even better. What are you complaining about? And the boss fights in RE4 are also easy as hell - run away, stop and shoot until the boss comes close to you, repeat.

It's hard to fear something(that just looks like a normal human) when all you gotta do is shoot it in the leg/face, do a melee attack and then knife it to death. That's practically the only thing you did in RE4.
But whatever, it's your opinion."
Well they took RE 4 and made it much more generic and easy. If you're making a survival horror game, you at least have to fear the possibility of death which is something that Dead Space failed to grasp, except in the moments when tentacles grabbed you and pulled you into a death hole (which were the best parts).

As for the enemies in RE 4, yes, a majority of the enemies look human, but it also had way more enemy types than Dead Space which, in the later chapters of the game, simply painted the previous enemies black and increased their resistance to damage. RE 4 had dogs, Regenerators, those flying bug things that spit acid on you, those giant Ganados with the armor that covered all but their head, and those stronger Ganados with the chain gun. With each of those enemies you had to change you attack strategy, especially when they mixed them together. Dead Space had a fair amount of enemy types too but they all had the same weakness which meant you never had to change your tactics.
"
Space had their resistance to fear the moments when the later chapters of those stronger Ganados with the armor the armor that Dead Space had dogs, Regeneric and made it much more generators, those enemy types that Dead Space which meant you into a death hole. As for that spit acid on you, those flying bug thing that Dead Space failed to change your tactics. Well they mixed the same weakness which meant you at least have to damage. RE 4 and those stronger Ganados with the armor that Dead Space failed to grasp, except in they took RE 4 and those enemy types too but it also had to change you into a death which, in the chain gun. With each of those enemies you at least have to fear the later chapters of the possibility of the same weakness which, in the armor the same weakness which, in the possibility of those flying bug things that Dead Space had way more enemies look human, but they all had the game, you had to change you at least have to damage.

That's all I read when I read that.
#27 Posted by lvl10Wizard (326 posts) -
ArbitraryWater said:
"Why does everyone make a big deal about this? It's not like your enemies shoot back (unlike gears of war, where you spend 10 minutes behind cover, then pop out and shoot the enemy once.)

Oh well. I expect Brad to review this game and give it 3 or 4 stars, all while comparing it to dead space at every opportunity and constantly lamenting how the controls are not exactly like dead space and then talking about how it is not as good as dead space. That is my prediction and you can quote me on it."

I think your prediction is a good one since it reflects my opinion on the game! If the RE5 demo in any way reflects the game that gets released then Dead Space owns RE.
#28 Posted by elbow (368 posts) -
Damonation said:
"The reason everyone likes Dead Space is because the game is easy. You're never low on ammo or money and every enemy can be slowed to a crawl (literally) with 2 shots to the leg. And if they don't have legs you can use the time altering thing."
So harder difficulty makes a game better? Better yet, poor design choice on Capcom's part is what we should expect?

Damonation said:
"The gameplay is solid because they copy pasted it from RE 4 but added strafing which made the boss encounters easy too. As long as you kept strafing they couldn't hit you. The time slowing mechanic utterly ruined the encounters with the Regenerator; first you slow him down, shoot out one of his legs, then run away. I did like the strategic dismemberment but they don't let you figure out that that was the best way to use it. Even before the game came out, they were toting it as the game's main hook, mostly because that was the only original thing they did in the game. The reason the game is easy is because the guns and time slow mechanic are over-powered, and the most efficient way to kill enemies is literally written on the walls before you even get your gun. Its hard to fear something when you know all of it's weaknesses and have more than enough hardware to shut it down. I like the game but I was disappointed by it."
I'm starting to wonder if you've even played Dead Space? Your criticisms of the game are totally unmerrited because you have a bias towards supporting Capcom's choice with Resident Evil 5. This game is obviously going to be compared to Dead Space, and from what many people here feel, it probably wont be as good. You can say what you will, but there is something to be said for when people enjoy a game more than another, specially when they are both part of a certain genre with very compareable gameplay mechanics. The common theme to your excuses is that it isn't hard therefore it must suck or shouldn't be compared, there is something inherantly flawed with your arguement because like a said before, just because a game is harder, does not make it better.

Damonation said:
"Well they took RE 4 and made it much more generic and easy. If you're making a survival horror game, you at least have to fear the possibility of death which is something that Dead Space failed to grasp, except in the moments when tentacles grabbed you and pulled you into a death hole (which were the best parts).

As for the enemies in RE 4, yes, a majority of the enemies look human, but it also had way more enemy types than Dead Space which, in the later chapters of the game, simply painted the previous enemies black and increased their resistance to damage. RE 4 had dogs, Regenerators, those flying bug things that spit acid on you, those giant Ganados with the armor that covered all but their head, and those stronger Ganados with the chain gun. With each of those enemies you had to change you attack strategy, especially when they mixed them together. Dead Space had a fair amount of enemy types too but they all had the same weakness which meant you never had to change your tactics.
"
Uh right... so every third person shooter since RE4 has been generic and easy? What's more, you actually though Resident Evil 4 was scary? Resident Evil 2 is scary, RE4 can't even hold a candle up to it. The only redeemeably qualities of RE4 is the gameplay, which was admittedly revolutionary at the time, but everything else was just forgetable.

The part in bold gave me a good laugh, if the game says "strategic dismemberment", then what the hell do you expect? Like honestly, hack the fucking limbs off so it doesn't come to get you. Your post is filled with so many double standards that I can't even begin to list just why it's soo wrong. You're holding on to something that is inherantly flawed with Resident Evil 5, the fact that you can't strafe and shoot at the same time is a major mistake. I think it was Takeuchi or Ono that acknowledge the fac that the AI was slow in reacting because they had to compensate for the pacing of the game; the AI looks fucking brainless, this is what they call "compensating"?

Capcom's Japanese development team just doesn't seem to understand what the hell "nex-gen" truly means. If anyone here has played Devil May Cry 4 then they know that to expect from RE5; they failed to make the drastic changes they needed to make on DMC4, instead opting for the same gameplay in DMC3, and that did not turn out so well, as literally, it was pleagued by the same gameplay problems as it's predecessor. The same shit is going to go down RE5, and this is no ones fault but Capcom.
#29 Posted by lvl10Wizard (326 posts) -
Damonation said:
"Icemael said:
"They took something great and made it even better. What are you complaining about? And the boss fights in RE4 are also easy as hell - run away, stop and shoot until the boss comes close to you, repeat.

It's hard to fear something(that just looks like a normal human) when all you gotta do is shoot it in the leg/face, do a melee attack and then knife it to death. That's practically the only thing you did in RE4.
But whatever, it's your opinion."
Well they took RE 4 and made it much more generic and easy. If you're making a survival horror game, you at least have to fear the possibility of death which is something that Dead Space failed to grasp, except in the moments when tentacles grabbed you and pulled you into a death hole (which were the best parts).

As for the enemies in RE 4, yes, a majority of the enemies look human, but it also had way more enemy types than Dead Space which, in the later chapters of the game, simply painted the previous enemies black and increased their resistance to damage. RE 4 had dogs, Regenerators, those flying bug things that spit acid on you, those giant Ganados with the armor that covered all but their head, and those stronger Ganados with the chain gun. With each of those enemies you had to change you attack strategy, especially when they mixed them together. Dead Space had a fair amount of enemy types too but they all had the same weakness which meant you never had to change your tactics.
"

I can see a lot of the points here. Dead Space is admittedly an easy game but I think the argument fails because RE4 wasn't a difficult game at all! The thing is, if you find Dead Space too easy turn the difficulty up! I'm playing it for my third time and on impossible difficulty and the possibility of death is very real!
#30 Posted by Icemael (6317 posts) -
pause422 said:
"The problem is everyone uses the term wrong. "
Then please, define fear.

ArbitraryWater said:
"Oh well. I expect Brad to review this game and give it 3 or 4 stars, all while comparing it to dead space at every opportunity and constantly lamenting how the controls are not exactly like dead space and then talking about how it is not as good as dead space. That is my prediction and you can quote me on it."
Games should be compared. If neither the controls nor the game as a whole is as good as Dead Space, the game should obviously get a lower score than Dead Space.
#31 Edited by CKZaibatsu (5 posts) -
elbow said:
"Damonation said:
"The reason everyone likes Dead Space is because the game is easy. You're never low on ammo or money and every enemy can be slowed to a crawl (literally) with 2 shots to the leg. And if they don't have legs you can use the time altering thing."
So harder difficulty makes a game better? Better yet, poor design choice on Capcom's part is what we should expect?

Damonation said:
"The gameplay is solid because they copy pasted it from RE 4 but added strafing which made the boss encounters easy too. As long as you kept strafing they couldn't hit you. The time slowing mechanic utterly ruined the encounters with the Regenerator; first you slow him down, shoot out one of his legs, then run away. I did like the strategic dismemberment but they don't let you figure out that that was the best way to use it. Even before the game came out, they were toting it as the game's main hook, mostly because that was the only original thing they did in the game. The reason the game is easy is because the guns and time slow mechanic are over-powered, and the most efficient way to kill enemies is literally written on the walls before you even get your gun. Its hard to fear something when you know all of it's weaknesses and have more than enough hardware to shut it down. I like the game but I was disappointed by it."
I'm starting to wonder if you've even played Dead Space? Your criticisms of the game are totally unmerrited because you have a bias towards supporting Capcom's choice with Resident Evil 5. This game is obviously going to be compared to Dead Space, and from what many people here feel, it probably wont be as good. You can say what you will, but there is something to be said for when people enjoy a game more than another, specially when they are both part of a certain genre with very compareable gameplay mechanics. The common theme to your excuses is that it isn't hard therefore it must suck or shouldn't be compared, there is something inherantly flawed with your arguement because like a said before, just because a game is harder, does not make it better.

Damonation said:
"Well they took RE 4 and made it much more generic and easy. If you're making a survival horror game, you at least have to fear the possibility of death which is something that Dead Space failed to grasp, except in the moments when tentacles grabbed you and pulled you into a death hole (which were the best parts).

As for the enemies in RE 4, yes, a majority of the enemies look human, but it also had way more enemy types than Dead Space which, in the later chapters of the game, simply painted the previous enemies black and increased their resistance to damage. RE 4 had dogs, Regenerators, those flying bug things that spit acid on you, those giant Ganados with the armor that covered all but their head, and those stronger Ganados with the chain gun. With each of those enemies you had to change you attack strategy, especially when they mixed them together. Dead Space had a fair amount of enemy types too but they all had the same weakness which meant you never had to change your tactics.
"
Uh right... so every third person shooter since RE4 has been generic and easy? What's more, you actually though Resident Evil 4 was scary? Resident Evil 2 is scary, RE4 can't even hold a candle up to it. The only redeemeably qualities of RE4 is the gameplay, which was admittedly revolutionary at the time, but everything else was just forgetable.

The part in bold gave me a good laugh, if the game says "strategic dismemberment", then what the hell do you expect? Like honestly, hack the fucking limbs off so it doesn't come to get you. Your post is filled with so many double standards that I can't even begin to list just why it's soo wrong. You're holding on to something that is inherantly flawed with Resident Evil 5, the fact that you can't strafe and shoot at the same time is a major mistake. I think it was Takeuchi or Ono that acknowledge the fac that the AI was slow in reacting because they had to compensate for the pacing of the game; the AI looks fucking brainless, this is what they call "compensating"?

Capcom's Japanese development team just doesn't seem to understand what the hell "nex-gen" truly means. If anyone here has played Devil May Cry 4 then they know that to expect from RE5; they failed to make the drastic changes they needed to make on DMC4, instead opting for the same gameplay in DMC3, and that did not turn out so well, as literally, it was pleagued by the same gameplay problems as it's predecessor. The same shit is going to go down RE5, and this is no ones fault but Capcom."
every third person shooter since RE4 has been generic and easy.....YES!!  Your taking alot of what damonation says out of context.  Also with STRATEGIC dismemberment i would expect there be more than ONE strategy then the mindless "hack their limbs off".   You talk of next gen changes but what you really mean is that RE5 isnt like Gears of war which was influenced by Kill Switch and RE4.  If things were your way all games would be exactly the same.  Damonation based all his opinions on fact and yes games suck now because of all this casual gamer bullshit thats going around, in which all games must be easy and pre-schooler friendly.
#32 Posted by Damonation (556 posts) -

@elbow
If you have a PS3 you can send me a friend request and check my trophy list. I do have Dead Space and I do like the game. Hey, we can even play RE 5 together if you like.

#33 Edited by elbow (368 posts) -
CKZaibatsu said:
"every third person shooter since RE4 has been generic and easy.....YES!!  Your taking alot of what damonation says out of context.  Also with STRATEGIC dismemberment i would expect there be more than ONE strategy then the mindless "hack their limbs off".   You talk of next gen changes but what you really mean is that RE5 isnt like Gears of war which was influenced by Kill Switch and RE4.  If things were your way all games would be exactly the same.  Damonation based all his opinions on fact and yes games suck now because of all this casual gamer bullshit thats going around, in which all games must be easy and pre-schooler friendly."
Like Gears you say? What about Uncharted? Army of Two? Metal Gear Solid 4? Grand Theft Auto IV? Mass Effect? The changes that Gears of War made to the RE4 formula were evolutionary, if you will. No game can be called a Gears copycat because it introduced mechanics that are now staples of the genre. It made improvements, good improvements, and for you to say that all games would be the same, please compare the above games that I've listed. Resident Evil 5 is nothing but a relic of the past with a new coat of paint, the idea that a game must be hard for to be enjoyable, is down right fucking stupid, same goes with that casual gamer bullshit; are any those games that I've listed casual games? Perhaps they contain a certain casual appeal to them, but to outright say that they aren't appealing games, that they don't curtail to the core gamer, is just stupid.

As for the part of me taking a lot of what he says out of context, much like him, you also have a strong support towards what RE5 is doing, you say he based his opinions on facts, please show me how games suck now because they aren't hard?
#34 Posted by pause422 (6179 posts) -

I gotta say one thing here, I'm really tired of people giving credit to gears for supposedly making this style of game what it is. Its only because gears is popular and everyone's played it that you think this game did it first, when you actually have no idea.

#35 Posted by Damonation (556 posts) -
elbow said:
"You also have a strong support towards what RE5 is doing,"
Well you prefer Dead Space to Resident Evil so should we ignore your points about Dead Space? No, that is your opinion and it is perfectly valid, as is mine.
#36 Edited by elbow (368 posts) -
Damonation said:
"elbow said:
"You also have a strong support towards what RE5 is doing,"
Well you prefer Dead Space to Resident Evil so should we ignore your points about Dead Space? No, that is your opinion and it is perfectly valid, as is mine."

You've got it all wrong, to me Resident Evil 4 is one of the very best game of last generation, but at the same time I've come to realize that it is an outdated game, just like Devil May Cry 3 is, making DMC4 an outdated game as well. The problem is that when criticism towards a game is thrust out there, and some people just don't like it. It's up to debate, so when we get into an arguement it's over opinions right? But at the same time, there's fair criticism, and there is isn't. To say that all third person shooters since RE4 are easy and generic is not fair criticism, to point out all of the flaws of Dead Space - a damn good game - in order to show how it fails in contrast to RE4 is also not fair when you fail to also criticize many of the problems that RE4 had.

I have no problem with people liking what Capcom has done with RE5, but at the same time it's part of being human to be objective and if we don't criticize games, if we don't share opinions, that's when games start to suck.
#37 Posted by JJOR64 (18956 posts) -

Hey guess what, this is just a demo.

#38 Posted by ShadowSkill11 (1783 posts) -

For those of you complaining about the controls. Have you:
a. Only played the 360 demo?
b. Never played a RE game before?

Those of us that have played the RE games before know what to expect. The newbies that haven't all think that adding gears of war controls would make it better but fail to realize it would completely change the game mechanics.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.