I don't get RE5

[Sion_Barzahd]

Can't really be surprised that its similar to RE4 in gameplay and controls. They were after all, the best control system for a RE game yet.
The previous games i never enjoyed due to the massively clunky controls.
Co-op is a brilliant idea, and i can't wait to play through it with a friend. Survival horror and friends goes hand in hand for a good laugh.

 

[stiver]

RE4 was bad. Shallow, watered down game.

RE2 stands as the best game in the series, and probably will stay that way based on the direction of the series.

 

[SpySmasher]

RE4 was bad. Shallow, watered down game.

RE2 stands as the best game in the series, and probably will stay that way based on the direction of the series.

RE2 was amazing. The two CD set was genius, replayability went through the roof. As much as I love RE2, I still have to say that RE4 was very, very good. It took the series into a great direction, redefining it. I can say I love both games equally.

 

[shadow skill]

I've just never liked how contrived the difficulty was in RE games, not being able to move and shoot is just fucking stupid and the puzzles were just bullshit. The whole ribbon saving system made me want to punch whoever made the game. That said I think RE 2 was the best out of the ones I have played.

 

[Syphonz]

In my opinion, the best RE games breakdown like this (excluding the horrific 'survivor' and 'Dead Aim')

1. Resident Evil 2
2. Resident Evil 3: Nemesis
3. Resident Evil 4
4. Resident Evil
5. Resident Evil: Code Veronica (x)

I don't think I missed any there that are considered canon. If RE5 is just the gears 2 version of RE4, then it could be a little better and overtake it as #3 in my list, but it'll really have to WOW me to even get consideration to be compared with Nemesis...That game was awesome.

 

[haveyouseen_mywallet]

i haven't enjoyed resident evil since re3

 

[chronobreak]

RE4 was bad. Shallow, watered down game.

RE2 stands as the best game in the series, and probably will stay that way based on the direction of the series.

Your opinion is now fact, 100 gleaming pieces of bullion to you!

 

[The Wooster]

Co-op. Zombies (kind of). I'm looking forward to it.

On the direction of the RE series. Well... I've already summarised my feelings on that.

Imagine a young boy eating a sandwich.
It's a delicious turkey and shit sandwich.
The boy doesn't much like the taste of shit but he sure does like turkey, so he puts up with the shit.
Many years later, and many turkey and shit sandwiches later someone offers the boy a sandwich.
The sandwich is just turkey.
"Man." says the boy, looking forelornly at his sandwich, "it just isn't the same without the shit."

 

[Maet]

In my opinion, the best RE games breakdown like this (excluding the horrific 'survivor' and 'Dead Aim')

1. Resident Evil 2
2. Resident Evil 3: Nemesis
3. Resident Evil 4
4. Resident Evil
5. Resident Evil: Code Veronica (x)

I don't think I missed any there that are considered canon. If RE5 is just the gears 2 version of RE4, then it could be a little better and overtake it as #3 in my list, but it'll really have to WOW me to even get consideration to be compared with Nemesis...That game was awesome.

You overlooked RE0. Can't say I blame you though.

 

[Nutcase]

The way the enemies reacted to shots to legs, weapon, head, etc., dodged, covered their head and used shields. The blind prisoners. The hidden treasure. And so on.

Most shooters involve at least some reaction to being shot in a specific region

Certainly. But the headshot-melee combo, dropping the enemies off a ledge with a single leg shot, shooting weapons out of their hands and out of the air, lining up a mob for a grenade by slowing the frontmost ones with leg shots, and well-placed partial invulnerability like in the prisoners put RE4 far above par.

and secrets have been in the genre since at least Doom if not Castle Wolfenstein.

It's not that having secrets is unique. It's having good secrets. Wolf3D is an example of what were, in hindsight, perfectly crappy secrets. It neither offered hints (so you could use observation) nor made it a challenge to check if a secret exists in a given location (like many platformers do). You would just push every single wall you saw and see if it opens up. RE4 gives you a good amount of hints, and a variety of treasure between easy and hard-to-find. Even the crows were fun "treasure chests" because you had to get them before spooking them, or they'd fly off for good.

Again: please name games that have *good* mechanics of these types, for I'd like to play them.

 

[hellthins]

The way the enemies reacted to shots to legs, weapon, head, etc., dodged, covered their head and used shields. The blind prisoners. The hidden treasure. And so on.

Most shooters involve at least some reaction to being shot in a specific region

Certainly. But the headshot-melee combo, dropping the enemies off a ledge with a single leg shot, shooting weapons out of their hands and out of the air, lining up a mob for a grenade by slowing the frontmost ones with leg shots, and well-placed partial invulnerability like in the prisoners put RE4 far above par.

and secrets have been in the genre since at least Doom if not Castle Wolfenstein.

It's not that having secrets is unique. It's having good secrets. Wolf3D is an example of what were, in hindsight, perfectly crappy secrets. It neither offered hints (so you could use observation) nor made it a challenge to check if a secret exists in a given location (like many platformers do). You would just push every single wall you saw and see if it opens up. RE4 gives you a good amount of hints, and a variety of treasure between easy and hard-to-find. Even the crows were fun "treasure chests" because you had to get them before spooking them, or they'd fly off for good.

Again: please name games that have *good* mechanics of these types, for I'd like to play them.

Doom had good secrets, you just had to pay attention, Wolf3D was just secrets existed before RE4. Off color walls, strange switches, etc. etc. Also, again, to cite Doom, if we're talking just strategy utilizing enemy weaknesses, then in-monster fighting.

As for utilizing monster weaknesses as tactics or damaging their ability to do things... sounds like most RPGs to me. At least, any RPG that has a list of abilities based around debuffing of some sort. Devil May Cry as well, one of my favorite tactics was putting enemies between me and a leaping enemy. Little lizard bastards and Nobodies and what not.

Again, I'm not saying it was a bad game, but that a lot of its popularity probably has something to do was it breathed some life back into a really, really crappy game in terms of gameplay. Sure, RE did claustrophobia right but it was more a tank simulator in a zombie apocalypse than playing a real person.

Now if you're referring to just coolness factor, then there's a lot of games out there of all genre that are based around coolness factor. Well, and weak points. Glowing weak points. Shiny glowing weak points, usually, but still.

 

[Nutcase]

Again: please name games that have *good* mechanics of these types, for I'd like to play them.

Doom had good secrets, you just had to pay attention, Wolf3D was just secrets existed before RE4. Off color walls, strange switches, etc. etc. Also, again, to cite Doom, if we're talking just strategy utilizing enemy weaknesses, then in-monster fighting.

As for utilizing monster weaknesses as tactics or damaging their ability to do things... sounds like most RPGs to me. At least, any RPG that has a list of abilities based around debuffing of some sort.

RPGs and tactical games have had that sort of thing from the beginning of time, but we're talking action games here.

Headshots are standard issue on every shooter. E.g. Jericho moves the "headshot" location to a different spot. I give it props for going for a little variety, but that does not mean it has any more tactical choice. You always want to shoot the "head" and keep shooting until the target goes down. Not so in RE4. It's not obvious whether in a given situation you should shoot the head, the weapon, legs, and what you should do after you hit: run in for melee combo, shoot more, back up. To top it off, the fastest way often comes with a cost. Shoot the head? You risk the tentacle burst. Shoot the leg of a ledge-dwelling ganado? The body drops into an unreachable location, and you have that much less ammo.

Again, I'm not saying it was a bad game, but that a lot of its popularity probably has something to do was it breathed some life back into a really, really crappy game in terms of gameplay. Sure, RE did claustrophobia right but it was more a tank simulator in a zombie apocalypse than playing a real person.

Funny, since I think RE4 takes a lot of crap for no other reason than the RE name. It's like "Alien" fans pissing on "Aliens", judging it solely on its merits as horror because that's what the first one was. Never mind that it's a good action movie.

Now if you're referring to just coolness factor, then there's a lot of games out there of all genre that are based around coolness factor. Well, and weak points. Glowing weak points. Shiny glowing weak points, usually, but still.

What coolness factor? All I'm talking about is game mechanics that are fun and *way* too rare. When I asked for examples of good secrets and reactive targets, you quoted a fifteen year old game and totally different genres.

I agree with you on that Doom was definitely trying to do secrets right, even in the face of severely limiting technology. Monster infighting was a great mechanic. Yet another thing we are not seeing much at all in modern games.

 

[hellthins]

Again: please name games that have *good* mechanics of these types, for I'd like to play them.

Doom had good secrets, you just had to pay attention, Wolf3D was just secrets existed before RE4. Off color walls, strange switches, etc. etc. Also, again, to cite Doom, if we're talking just strategy utilizing enemy weaknesses, then in-monster fighting.

As for utilizing monster weaknesses as tactics or damaging their ability to do things... sounds like most RPGs to me. At least, any RPG that has a list of abilities based around debuffing of some sort.

RPGs and tactical games have had that sort of thing from the beginning of time, but we're talking action games here.

Headshots are standard issue on every shooter. E.g. Jericho moves the "headshot" location to a different spot. I give it props for going for a little variety, but that does not mean it has any more tactical choice. You always want to shoot the "head" and keep shooting until the target goes down. Not so in RE4. It's not obvious whether in a given situation you should shoot the head, the weapon, legs, and what you should do after you hit: run in for melee combo, shoot more, back up. To top it off, the fastest way often comes with a cost. Shoot the head? You risk the tentacle burst. Shoot the leg of a ledge-dwelling ganado? The body drops into an unreachable location, and you have that much less ammo.

Again, I'm not saying it was a bad game, but that a lot of its popularity probably has something to do was it breathed some life back into a really, really crappy game in terms of gameplay. Sure, RE did claustrophobia right but it was more a tank simulator in a zombie apocalypse than playing a real person.

Funny, since I think RE4 takes a lot of crap for no other reason than the RE name. It's like "Alien" fans pissing on "Aliens", judging it solely on its merits as horror because that's what the first one was. Never mind that it's a good action movie.

Now if you're referring to just coolness factor, then there's a lot of games out there of all genre that are based around coolness factor. Well, and weak points. Glowing weak points. Shiny glowing weak points, usually, but still.

What coolness factor? All I'm talking about is game mechanics that are fun and *way* too rare. When I asked for examples of good secrets and reactive targets, you quoted a fifteen year old game and totally different genres.

I agree with you on that Doom was definitely trying to do secrets right, even in the face of severely limiting technology. Monster infighting was a great mechanic. Yet another thing we are not seeing much at all in modern games.

The way you presented it, I have no idea if you're referring to coolness or simply the basic mechanics of monsters having weak points. I mean, that's a long standing tradition of games period.

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

The Combat looks REALLY slow, you have to stop moving/move slowly to aim properly? When has that ever worked?

I'm guessing it worked in RE4. I am looking forward to it because I really liked RE4 and just want to play that again only slightly different. Also it seems pretty cool and I want to see what they come up with for why the people are acting...insanely evil.

 

[blood77]

I really don't get whats so good about that game, I know its not out yet but the way people are getting hyped up about.

The movement looks REALLY clunky, in the videos I've seen you get stuck on little things in the floor and have trouble passing through doors.

The Combat looks REALLY slow, you have to stop moving/move slowly to aim properly? When has that ever worked?

The AI is either retarded or its handicapped to balance the difficulty that comes from the way the game seems to be controlled. Zombies just stand on the other side of the room waiting for you to kill them.

I know a lot of people are really hyped for this game, so could you tell me why its so great?

You kill Zombies, nuff said.

 

[EzraPound]

I never really dug the RE series, though I intend to pick up RE4 for the Wii since it received so much praise (I owned an Xbox last-gen).

 

[excessum ado]

The Combat looks REALLY slow, you have to stop moving/move slowly to aim properly? When has that ever worked?

Uuuuum....Resident evil 4. You know arguably one of the best games on the PS2. Christ do some research before you badmouth a game.

 

[Avida]

Im almost certain the controls were changed from those from RE4 after the backlash, ill look for a reference later..

 

[SpySmasher]

The Combat looks REALLY slow, you have to stop moving/move slowly to aim properly? When has that ever worked?

Uuuuum....Resident evil 4. You know arguably one of the best games on the PS2. Christ do some research before you badmouth a game.

Very true. I bought a Gamecube recently, and plan on buying RE4 for it. Even though I own RE4 on my PS2. It's such a great game.

 

[roblikestoskate]

Hmm. RE4 was a great game and had some fresh ideas. Things like over-the-shoulder third-person perspective, camera jostle, quicktime events, context-sensitive actions, group AI, escorting defenseless NPCs, and in-game cinematics were all handled very well and came together in a fresh way. We can see influences of RE4 within the first ten minutes of Gears of War or Dead Space. We were treated to fancy particle and blur effects, upgradeable weapons, great set pieces, memorable boss battles, and a fun attache case/grid-based item management system. Given all this, it's natural to expect great things from RE5.