X-Play Gives Resident Evil 5 A 3 out of 5 (Video)

  • 105 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by JJOR64 (18956 posts) -
  

Holy......  Well I'm still getting this game.  What do you guys think of the review?
  
#2 Edited by Dolphin_Butter (1915 posts) -

What I'm thinking is that somewhere out there, Shawn Elliot is burying his face in his palms over what you just said.

#3 Posted by TheLawnWrangler (1656 posts) -

:O unexpected on this end, but I do agree with him on his points at the end 

#4 Posted by Red (5995 posts) -

That's actually a good review.

I'm not a RE5 hater, but he made some great points, backed up by good footage to prove it.
#5 Edited by WilliamRLBaker (4777 posts) -

The problem I see is his bitching bout the game not changing...people bitched and then the shit that was RE4 changed and they loved it the 2nd game to use it WHAT? why hasn't it changed?

you can do one of two things with a game you can make a game that will make the hardcores and the fans happy of you can bastardize the game,story and every thing else to make every one else happy and to appeal to a wider audiance.
The t virus was made in africa? or the progenator virus? sorry no thats not part of the RE canon that i know of. they are yet again changing the story and thus causing massive plot holes to develop in past games, which is why i hated RE 4 and disliked RE0 somewhat and i wont like RE5 its not an RE game he said it him self.
Its an action game with next to no puzzles and a linear plodding pace thats not RE in my mind even RE4 atleast had puzzles this seems to be the natural evolution of RE 4 a total shitty action game with the resident evil name.

P.S: ill end up playing it but im not gonna buy it.

#6 Posted by papercut (3479 posts) -

I've recently been having trouble swallowing Xplays reviews, but everything they said seems to be legit.

#7 Edited by RedSox8933 (2428 posts) -

Guess what? X-Play also gave Fable II Game of the Year.

I've never seen sessler do this bad of a review. he nitpicked SOOO much. it was painful to watch. Why even bring up the racism issue. he said that it was unnecessary for them to put the symbolism in the game. what symbolism?

#8 Posted by papercut (3479 posts) -
RedSox8933 said:
"Guess what? X-Play also gave Fable II Game of the Year."
Exactly what I was saying, but those controls look frustrating as hell, which i don't get, because I never thought of RE4s controls being frustrating.
#9 Posted by Jeffsekai (7028 posts) -

I 100% agree, Im so sick of RE lovers trying to cover up what makes RE to bad all the time by saying "thats just what RE is" this review is good proof that, that type of thinking just doesn't cut it anymore. I mean this isn't even a survival horror game anymore.

#10 Posted by Karmann (622 posts) -

whatever, it's still awesome imo.

#11 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (4777 posts) -
Jeffsekai said:
"I 100% agree, Im so sick of RE lovers trying to cover up what makes RE to bad all the time by saying "thats just what RE is" this review is good proof that, that type of thinking just doesn't cut it anymore. I mean this isn't even a survival horror game anymore."
Im an RE lover and I hated RE 4 and 5 and i agree this game isn't RE its an action game with the RE title on it.
I want my cinematic sometimes bad camer angles, I want my sometimes inane puzzles, I want my cheesy B movie voice acting, I want my slow lumbering zombies and i want my you have 2 bullets in this area gameplay that was RE not this shit.

#12 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -

I think he was a bit too harsh; 3 stars is reserved for shovelware. He made some valid points but he also made a few invalid ones; he took some time to discuss how the game had scenes that could be interpreted as racism, but only a complete dumbass would. He also kept on saying how the control scheme makes moving and aiming sluggish, but this added to the tension in RE4, as it does in RE5 as well. Also there'd be no point in moving and shooting at the same time because a) it's extremely inaccurate in real life and b) the game would be way too easy.

#13 Posted by kaiozu (5 posts) -

I just beat it and it has it's highs and lows. But overall I'm extremely disappointed. 

#14 Posted by papercut (3479 posts) -

I don't know if they can salvage this, it seems like ever since Gears came out, third person shooters all have to do that! I wouldn't like a RE game that controlled just like Gears. Should they just ditch it?

#15 Posted by guerrajr (57 posts) -

I haven't played the game yet so I can't say if its any good.  I do agree with some of the criticism.  The whole thing about not being able to move while you aim is a little out dated.  But from what I played of the demo It didn't bother me. Some people won't be able to get passed that and its fine.  I thought the racism thing was a little unnecessary.  From everything I've read and seen of the game, and the demo itself, I never felt the game was being racist.  When I first saw the unlockable Sheva costume, it did make me say, "Wow that could be taken the wrong way. Especially in a game thats been surrounded by controversy concerning racism."  but again I dont think its that big of a deal.  As far as the review itself, it does bother me that people get mad at a reviewer for giving it a score they don't like. Whats the poing of  reading about the opinoin of another person on a game when you only want them to have the same opinion as you.  If you're going to get mad at every review score that you dont think a game should revieve then you should stop reading and following them.

#16 Posted by Red (5995 posts) -
Geno said:
" He also kept on saying how the control scheme makes moving and aiming sluggish, but this added to the tension in RE4, as it does in RE5 as well. Also there'd be no point in moving and shooting at the same time because a) it's extremely inaccurate in real life and b) the game would be way too easy. "
I think that a game should be difficult and tense because of actual, realistic difficulty. Making a game worse so it adds difficulty is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
#17 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -
Red said:
"Geno said:
" He also kept on saying how the control scheme makes moving and aiming sluggish, but this added to the tension in RE4, as it does in RE5 as well. Also there'd be no point in moving and shooting at the same time because a) it's extremely inaccurate in real life and b) the game would be way too easy. "
I think that a game should be difficult and tense because of actual, realistic difficulty. Making a game worse so it adds difficulty is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
"

So should tanks in call of duty move at 200mph, and be able to fly? The way a game controls is often related to what type of game it is. If Chris did a super happy skip throughout the game, wouldn't that detract from the atmosphere? The first thing I immediately noticed and appreciated playing RE4 (and now RE5) was how great the control felt towards the environment. Because your default walk is so slow, it adds a sense of foreboding to the game (this is after all, partially a horror game). If Chris could run around like some Olympic athlete the game would definitely lack the atmosphere.
#18 Posted by papercut (3479 posts) -
Geno said:
"Red said:
"Geno said:
" He also kept on saying how the control scheme makes moving and aiming sluggish, but this added to the tension in RE4, as it does in RE5 as well. Also there'd be no point in moving and shooting at the same time because a) it's extremely inaccurate in real life and b) the game would be way too easy. "
I think that a game should be difficult and tense because of actual, realistic difficulty. Making a game worse so it adds difficulty is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
"
So should tanks in call of duty move at 200mph, and be able to fly? The way a game controls is often related to what type of game it is. If Chris did a super happy skip throughout the game, wouldn't that detract from the atmosphere? The first thing I immediately noticed and appreciated playing RE4 (and now RE5) was how great the control felt towards the environment. Because your default walk is so slow, it adds a sense of foreboding to the game (this is after all, partially a horror game). If Chris could run around like some Olympic athlete the game would definitely lack the atmosphere. "
Tanks are that way because they are powerful and you have to give something up for that. Chris moves sluggish for no good reason. If you wana talk about atmosphere, should he be more concerned about the zombie gnawing at his neck?
#19 Posted by LiquidPrince (15922 posts) -
kaiozu said:
"I just beat it and it has it's highs and lows. But overall I'm extremely disappointed. "
Why's that?
#20 Posted by Claude (16255 posts) -

You can read his review and watch his soapbox here.

#21 Posted by Randolph (374 posts) -

+5 respect for him.  Calling the game out for the brain dead single player partner AI is essential, it really does break the game for anyone who doesn't play it online co-op.  When will devs learn that you add online to solid single player games, and you do NOT make an online game and tack on a single player.  At least be upfront with me that the real meat and enjoyment is all in the online.  Sheva is a goddamn retard.

#22 Posted by GioVANNI (1285 posts) -

I completely agree with his review. 

#23 Posted by papercut (3479 posts) -

The Sess is a smart man

#24 Edited by daniel_beck_90 (3159 posts) -

I do not agree with the review , RE5 is a kick ass game and deserves much more credit .  The game may not appeal to every single gamer due to unique controls and emphasis on combat but it is still a fabulous title  .

#25 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (4777 posts) -
Geno said:
"Red said:
"Geno said:
" He also kept on saying how the control scheme makes moving and aiming sluggish, but this added to the tension in RE4, as it does in RE5 as well. Also there'd be no point in moving and shooting at the same time because a) it's extremely inaccurate in real life and b) the game would be way too easy. "
I think that a game should be difficult and tense because of actual, realistic difficulty. Making a game worse so it adds difficulty is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
"
So should tanks in call of duty move at 200mph, and be able to fly? The way a game controls is often related to what type of game it is. If Chris did a super happy skip throughout the game, wouldn't that detract from the atmosphere? The first thing I immediately noticed and appreciated playing RE4 (and now RE5) was how great the control felt towards the environment. Because your default walk is so slow, it adds a sense of foreboding to the game (this is after all, partially a horror game). If Chris could run around like some Olympic athlete the game would definitely lack the atmosphere. "

but tanks are like that they are slow, they are sluggish. Chris and Sheva have no reason to be that way, It all so pisses one off when they do super fast movements that a trained professional is capable of in cut scenes and super kung fu but are incapable of this in gameplay.

#26 Posted by JoelTGM (5596 posts) -

From my experience with the demo, I had the exact same complaints that he had with the game.  No buy for me!

#27 Posted by Damonation (556 posts) -

Its fine that he doesn't like the game and all, but I don't like that he (in his Sessler's Soapbox segment) talks about how much work goes into video game reviews but then calls his the "honest" one. Is he implying that other reviewers are lying, or that they spend as much time with a product as he does but then throw out their opinion for something less controversial? That seems a little disrespectful.

And film reviewers (personal favorite) do more than just "sum up the plot, talk about high and low points, and say whether it was good or bad." They factor in cinematography, musical score, editing, choreography, blah, blah, blah. Shit, look how many categories the Oscars have. I don't know what half of them are.

#28 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (4777 posts) -
Damonation said:
"Its fine that he doesn't like the game and all, but I don't like that he (in his Sessler's Soapbox segment) talks about how much work goes into video game reviews but then calls his the "honest" one. Is he implying that other reviewers are lying, or that they spend as much time with a product as he does but then throw out their opinion for something less controversial? That seems a little disrespectful.

And film reviewers (personal favorite) do more than just "sum up the plot, talk about high and low points, and say whether it was good or bad." They factor in cinematography, musical score, editing, choreography, blah, blah, blah. Shit, look how many categories the Oscars have. I don't know what half of them are."
I think your reading far to much into it.
#29 Posted by Damonation (556 posts) -
WilliamRLBaker said:
"I think your reading far to much into it."
Probably, but why bother saying that stuff in the first place? I watch the show every day, and during the lead up they kept advertising it as, "controversial and brutally honest." I'd think they would have enough confidence in their work so that they wouldn't have to fluff it like that, at least without that 'honest' part.
#30 Posted by NickM (1069 posts) -

I pretty much stopped watching when Sessler started talking about racism. He tries to make X-Play relevant but ends up being stupid and needy. I've been to an African country much like the one in the game, and guess what? A lot of black people there. if they decided to set the game there so, be it. There is no need to bring your politics to the table. RE4 had you kill hundreds of Spanyards, but people weren't so worked up about that. Hell, I'm Russian and im still having a blast playing games like Call of Duty 4 and Feedom Fighters where you mow down hundreds of 'commie' aggressors.

I played about half the game and had an amazing experience so far. Yes I played Gears, and yes, I played Dead Space, but I don't really think that RE5 needed to imitate them by incorporating all the new stuff. You could do rocket jumps in Team Fortress for well over a decade now, but it dosn't mean that they should be in all games. I trully think that the gameplay and the controls are great for what they are.

There are people who call it RE 4.5. But, if that is really the case, than which game isn't a 1.5? Is Halo 3 really that much different from Halo? Is Gears 2 a huge leap from Gears? Is GT5 Prologue that much different from Gran Turismo? No, not really. Most games find a good gameplay formula and stick with it.

Some might call me an RE lover or an appologist. They may be right. But the reason that I am is that I trully love the game, otherwise I wouldn't be bothered to write this.

Thank You for reading.

#31 Posted by Kowbrainz (923 posts) -
Geno said:
"I think he was a bit too harsh; 3 stars is reserved for shovelware. "
Shovelware is more like a 2 star game really; a 3 star game is at least playable and has several redeeming factors. The problem here is that RE5 is stuck in the past, and the additions aren't really adding anything to the experience which has been developed in previous installments of the franchise - it's all been turned into an action game but with key elements and features from that genre missing.

I can definitely agree with a lot of Sessler's review here. The stab at racism and symbolism was a bit off but I don't think his judgment was poor otherwise. I probably would have given the game a 4, but perhaps my love of RE4 comes into that, and if this was a stand-alone game I might be thinking differently.
#32 Posted by pweidman (2326 posts) -

Sessler's ramblings beginning the review about racism is out of place and sounds the bell of bias against the game, regardless of his other complaints and the sad back peddle recognition of its decentness at the end.  Maybe expectations not met, or maybe he couldn't get comfortable with the controls, or difficulty, but his review seems pretty unbalanced, and lacks credibility for me.  And I like Sess in general, and love his rants usually.

#33 Posted by TheBigBeefy (157 posts) -

Sessler wasn't saying the game was racist, If any of you would get pass your unholy love of Resident Evil you'd see or rather hear that. He just says that some of the symbolism or whatnot was uncalled for. I for one don't let reviews dectate what I will or will not buy and I don't act like a fanboy whenever a game series I like gets a low rating.

#34 Posted by NickM (1069 posts) -

TheBigBeefy, yeah, we realize that he said "visual symbology'. But, that I think is a problem. What symbology is he talking about? That there are black people in Africa? To me it sounds like he is just picking on it.

#35 Posted by RichardLOlson (1852 posts) -
I enjoy the old RE from back in the day.  I liked the shitty camera angel and the potted plants that gave you health.  I think they've focused to much on the glitz and glam instead of the game play, just like final fantasy.  Since gears of war came out, most 3 person games looks just like gears. 
#36 Posted by KingOfIceland (654 posts) -

I like how people have no problem saying that bad controls, sluggish gameplay and dodgy A.I. are the key factors of the Resident Evil games. And as a dude who likes games I can tell you that f***ing bullsh*t. Other games have been scary, suspenseful and tension filled without being broken on purpose so Capcom has no excuse for not doing the same.

You wanna know what I think are the key things that make Resident Evil Resident Evil?
1: Good Puzzles. RE 5 has none of that   
2: Good Athmosphere: Perhaps there is some of that in the full game, but the demo had NONE of that.
3: Jump Scares: I barely flinched in the demo, seems like the greater focus on action's taken that out as well
4: Exploration: That's gone too? G-reat..... uggghh
THOSE thing's made me like the RE games, not botched controls and shooting tons of dudes. This notion that the controls, character movement and A.I have to be this way to make the game feel "Residenty Evily" is absurd and doesn't make any sort of sense.

Do I think the game's shit? No. I did like playing the demo and there's tons of stuff that's done well. I think a lot of people will like that game and most of them think the controls are servicable. But many people, my self included, are going to have issuse with those problems and no ammount of justification's goinna change our minds and that's just how it is in a post-Gears-Dead Space world. So instead of trying to find some sorry-ass explanation to justify those problems, just accept that people don't like it and move on.
My favourite game of last year was Fallout 3 and guess what, it's riddled with bugs, the gunplay's junk, it looks very barren and dull and there's tons of rough edges and janky stuff in it that a lot of people ave a problem with and I fully agree with most of the complains agains it. But I feel no need to try to make petty excuses for it, because I like that game and I can deal with the fact that other people don't.

#37 Posted by NickM (1069 posts) -

Anyway, I'm done with this forum. if you don't like the game, there is no reason to start bitching (pardon my language). I wouldn't care if it got a 0 out of 5, I'm still loving the game to no end. I just wanted to point out that some of the points made in the review, while true, are not necessarily right for this particular series and game.

Thank You, Good Night and have fun a diner.

#38 Posted by F1 (346 posts) -

I think it is a great review. I hold Adam's opinion in high regard. But between the GB review and the X Play review, I think I'll take a gamble and get the game anyway. Adam explains his review in his Soapbox video on the site, and he seems to state that the main problem about the game is that it doesn't innovate and keep up with the times. I can see where he's coming with that. Still, being such a big fan of RE4, I don't see that being a big problem for me.
However I disagree with him on the racism issue. Just read "NickM"s post for an explanation.

#39 Posted by DuhQbnSiLo (2139 posts) -

OWNED

Don't understand how people can like this halfed ass shit

#40 Posted by Snipzor (3317 posts) -

I find it funny that he mentioned the theme of racism in the game, which is as a whole idiotic because he himself points out that it isn't actively racist but there is still something going on. It's crap, people had no problem identifying Eastern Europeans as backward inbred racists, why take the bait now? It's like Eric Holder said earlier this year, we are a nation of cowards on the discussion on race. You know who finds RE racist? Idiots, that's who. It's as if Adam is just saying "I'm not uncomfortable on race, see me identify this as a theme and why it is bad", pathetic and completely unnecessary in a review based on critical thought revolving around the purpose of the game. To see if it entertains well enough to deserve our attention.

Anyway, for the rest of the review he is somewhat right. But nitpicking on the inventory just shows he didn't use it for its intended purpose. He didn't use it strategically. You don't use inventory when in danger, you use it before and after confrontation to ensure that you have everything you need for future purposes.

That's all I have to say on the review. I'll come back when I play more of the game (Using a different profile to test the game on offline co-op).

#41 Posted by Origina1Penguin (3501 posts) -

That's probably the same score I would give the game.  However, I completely disagree with any notions of the game beings racist or even having undertones of such.

#42 Posted by TheHBK (5475 posts) -

Yup, I have said it and heard it many times, bad controls are no way to build up tension.  And this game throws out the puzzels and backtracking, now you need to make sure you get the action right, and maybe you don't need to move and shoot, i don't remember doing that muchn in gears except when fighting wretches.  But you should be able to turn faster, and not have to use a run button!  What the fuck!  Seriously, this just shows how fucking lazy they are at capcom.  A run button.  When you have fucking analog sticks!  Since Super Mario 64 you have been able to push the the analog stick lightly to walk or all the way to run.  And yet 2009, 13 years later, we still can't do it in RE5.
They announced the game way back when, before the new consoles started coming out.  And then came out saying 2009.  Man, I wondered what they were doing.  Now I wonder why it didn't take 18 months or two years.  They just wrote a crappy story and make new graphics while keeping the RE4 gameplay.  What the fuck did they do the rest of the time?  they didn't think of anything else to do because I don't see where the extra development time went.

#43 Posted by Snipzor (3317 posts) -
TheHBK said:
"Yup, I have said it and heard it many times, bad controls are no way to build up tension.  And this game throws out the puzzels and backtracking, now you need to make sure you get the action right, and maybe you don't need to move and shoot, i don't remember doing that muchn in gears except when fighting wretches.  But you should be able to turn faster, and not have to use a run button!  What the fuck!  Seriously, this just shows how fucking lazy they are at capcom.  A run button.  When you have fucking analog sticks!  Since Super Mario 64 you have been able to push the the analog stick lightly to walk or all the way to run.  And yet 2009, 13 years later, we still can't do it in RE5.They announced the game way back when, before the new consoles started coming out.  And then came out saying 2009.  Man, I wondered what they were doing.  Now I wonder why it didn't take 18 months or two years.  They just wrote a crappy story and make new graphics while keeping the RE4 gameplay.  What the fuck did they do the rest of the time?  they didn't think of anything else to do because I don't see where the extra development time went."
Clearly you have never been involved in the fine art of zombie dodging son.
#44 Edited by TheHBK (5475 posts) -
Snipzor said:
"TheHBK said:
"Yup, I have said it and heard it many times, bad controls are no way to build up tension.  And this game throws out the puzzels and backtracking, now you need to make sure you get the action right, and maybe you don't need to move and shoot, i don't remember doing that muchn in gears except when fighting wretches.  But you should be able to turn faster, and not have to use a run button!  What the fuck!  Seriously, this just shows how fucking lazy they are at capcom.  A run button.  When you have fucking analog sticks!  Since Super Mario 64 you have been able to push the the analog stick lightly to walk or all the way to run.  And yet 2009, 13 years later, we still can't do it in RE5.They announced the game way back when, before the new consoles started coming out.  And then came out saying 2009.  Man, I wondered what they were doing.  Now I wonder why it didn't take 18 months or two years.  They just wrote a crappy story and make new graphics while keeping the RE4 gameplay.  What the fuck did they do the rest of the time?  they didn't think of anything else to do because I don't see where the extra development time went."
Clearly you have never been involved in the fine art of zombie dodging son."

Clearly you have not faced a real zombie like I have.  Pressing a run button is an example of how archaic the game's controls are.  I remember when it was great to be able to press the a button and back to turn around 180 degrees in Code Veronica but today, its not something we need to be doing.  So don't go assuming that people have not played these games and go back to sucking Capcom's dick you candyass.
#45 Posted by Snipzor (3317 posts) -
TheHBK said:
"Snipzor said:
Clearly you have never been involved in the fine art of zombie dodging son."
Clearly you have not faced a real zombie like I have.  Pressing a run button is an example of how archaic the game's controls are.  I remember when it was great to be able to press the a button and back to turn around 180 degrees in Code Veronica.  So don't go assuming that people have not played these games and go back to sucking Capcom's dick you candyass."
Jesus, are you butthurt or do you have some sand in your vagina? Seriously calm down, it's not as if Capcom violated you for hours straight leaving you incapacitated. I was there for every resident evil game (Not including survival) and I recall zombie dodging being more than 180 degree turn and running away. If you really did have your share of RE games in the past, you would know this.
#46 Posted by TheHBK (5475 posts) -

Yeah I was talking about how great of an innovation that was at the time, because you couldn't do that in the first 3 games until they were rereleased on the Dreamcast and the ohter two on the gamecube.  So if you can stop sucking so much rotten zombie dick, you can realize that half assed development on games (graphics developers did a great job though) you can see that they did nothing for the series.  Besides, since you seem the type, i am sure you are ok with it.  Hell I am even sure you had dreams about Steve from code veronica pounding your tender ass with his manhood.  Case closed bitch.

#47 Posted by Snipzor (3317 posts) -
TheHBK said:
"Yeah I was talking about how great of an innovation that was at the time, because you couldn't do that in the first 3 games until they were rereleased on the Dreamcast and the ohter two on the gamecube.  So if you can stop sucking so much rotten zombie dick, you can realize that half assed development on games (graphics developers did a great job though) you can see that they did nothing for the series.  Besides, since you seem the type, i am sure you are ok with it.  Hell I am even sure you had dreams about Steve from code veronica pounding your tender ass with his manhood.  Case closed bitch."
You are clearly angry about something, you should probably take a breather or two (dozen).
#48 Posted by AutomaticSnake (390 posts) -

3/5 is too high, i would give it a 1/5.

#49 Edited by Slunks (329 posts) -

While people may not agree with the Sess-dog, he didn't make any points that he forgot to back up. Everything was laid out on the table, and he's mostly right from what I can tell. He's not begging for an overall change, such as RE4 successfully did, but merely just keeping up with the times. A sloppy cover system, strict and clunky inventory management, bad AI, mediocre dialog and plot; the only thing that was probably not necessary was the mention of racism -- but who knows? I picked up the game today and will be holding off until I can run through with a friend in a week, but maybe my stance on the race issue will change as I play through it.

I respect Adam as he is a long-time journalist in the industry, and reviews such as this show why he's not afraid to go against the grain and really take an objective review and present it as subjectivity.

I believe anyone who tries to use the Gears 1 -> 2 debate forgets that RE4 came out a few years ahead. The fact that Gears 2 didn't differ much from its former doesn't justify that it should also receive a 3/5 (or even 4/5) rating, as the methods of game play design didn't change nearly at all in between.

But I'm sure this post won't affect anyone's stance on Adam's review. Since his opinion must be wrong. ; )

#50 Posted by TheHBK (5475 posts) -
Snipzor said:
"TheHBK said:
"Yeah I was talking about how great of an innovation that was at the time, because you couldn't do that in the first 3 games until they were rereleased on the Dreamcast and the ohter two on the gamecube.  So if you can stop sucking so much rotten zombie dick, you can realize that half assed development on games (graphics developers did a great job though) you can see that they did nothing for the series.  Besides, since you seem the type, i am sure you are ok with it.  Hell I am even sure you had dreams about Steve from code veronica pounding your tender ass with his manhood.  Case closed bitch."
You are clearly angry about something, you should probably take a breather or two (dozen)."
No not angry.  Maybe at the fact that capcom messed this game up.  Well anyway, I just love a good back and forth and thought you could keep up.  I guess not.  I am sorry that I hurt you feelings.
Back on topic.  Now it seems so clear that most of us are taking issue with how RE5 came out, but now that I think about it, anyone concerned over the way Brad reviewed it?  I mean I guess he is one of the few, but from hearing the last bombcast, I wonder what Jeff would have had to say about it.  Hope they talk about this on tuesday, cuz it seems like you could get some good disagreements going.

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.