Resident Evil 5 Demo Discussion Topic
- Thread starter Looking For Alaska
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So, what it was was this. Capcom decided to put Resident Evil 4 in a big cannon full of pearlescent paint and shot it off to a different country whilst the paint entered every nook and cranny to maek the game look different. But, sorry, it isn't. The gameplay is the same, the character models are the same, hell, even the character 'Ouch I've been shot' animations are the same! Its certainly not a bad thing, RE4 was one of the best games of its year, but if if its just a complete carbon copy of it then why did it take so bloody long out get it out?
And how long has co-op been on the agenda? All I can assume is that Capcom saw how sucsessful Left 4 Dead was and tacked on a co-op element. All I can say is that the AI had better be good - I don't want hundreds of Game Overs from a stupid clown woman running into a man with chainsaw.
And how long has co-op been on the agenda? All I can assume is that Capcom saw how sucsessful Left 4 Dead was and tacked on a co-op element. All I can say is that the AI had better be good - I don't want hundreds of Game Overs from a stupid clown woman running into a man with chainsaw.
Why should the opinions of people who make the games be valued more than the people playing them when there are so many instances where the people making the games proved themselves to be incompetent? The number of times I have encountered control settings that render certain actions physically impossible leads me to not value their capabilities very much because such problems can be found in about five seconds.
It's like telling me to defer to the opinions of the developer of the Python language just because he is a great programmer. It does not change the fact that he invented a language that needlessly forces the people using it to think about invisible characters this pretty much requires the person to consciously defeat their subconscious language processing mechanisms because the human brain gives exactly two shits about spaces. The presence or lack of spacing has no effect on meaning to the brain.
The fact that the creator of Python is a great programmer does not make him right to have designed his language in the way he did. He is still wrong if he tries to argue that it makes it easier for humans to understand if we force indentation upon him and make it meaningful to the machines.
The moral of the story is that developers may be smart, but they are not necessarily that smart.
Played it, had fun I suppose. The co-op was fun, the game was pretty yadda yadda yadda.
It feels just like Resident Evil 4 except you're Chris Redfield (Hooray! Seriously, hooray!). Hopefully the game's story will take a turn back towards the classic Resident Evil games (I know 4 was related but eh) because the control scheme and atmosphere (at least in the demo levels) did not. Until I play the actual game I'm actually thoroughly less excited now, it's like Resident Evil 4, a good game but not a good Resident Evil game.
It feels just like Resident Evil 4 except you're Chris Redfield (Hooray! Seriously, hooray!). Hopefully the game's story will take a turn back towards the classic Resident Evil games (I know 4 was related but eh) because the control scheme and atmosphere (at least in the demo levels) did not. Until I play the actual game I'm actually thoroughly less excited now, it's like Resident Evil 4, a good game but not a good Resident Evil game.
I've never actually played any of the other Resident Evil games because of the bad controls and oh my god did I hate these controls, you need a damn manual just for the controls itself.
But dispite that, it's really good.
I played with my friend and we found out that shouting and panicing really helps you complete the levels.
But dispite that, it's really good.
I played with my friend and we found out that shouting and panicing really helps you complete the levels.
In response to the Kanada and mspencer discussion,
I think we should first define what a 'survival horror' game is? Is there an industry-wide agreed upon standard? If so, what is it?
My take on the discussion is, even if the developers WANT it to be a survival horror game doesn't mean it IS a survivor horror game.
Just because I want to plant an apple tree, but end up planting a pear tree instead doesn't mean the the apples are actually pears. Right?
This makes me think of Doom 3. Was Doom 3 suppose to be a first-person shooter or a survival horror game?
It seems like RE5 might actually more resemble a 3rd person shooter than a survival horror game. In fact, why don't we just called RE5 a Survival Shooter by just creating a new genre?
Most importantly though, is your (kanada) idea that a 'gamer' views don't matter when it comes to making the games. This is completely backward if you want to make a retail AAA title. As a game developer with that goal in mind, you better be damn sure you pay attention to the players of your games and what they are either ranting or raving about.
I'll quote to make this easier to read:
Not being able to move when you have your weapon wielded does not make sense in this game (the melee weapon especially, IMHO).
So, who's right? The developer who designed it this way or the player who doesn't like it? Which one is buying the game? What was the point of the developer making the game in the first place? Kanada514, you seem to think the developers of this game are making it because 'that's the way its suppose to be in a survival horror game'. Well guess what? The original RE was top-down view...so should RE5 also be top-down view? It was also single-player, so does that mean RE5 should be single-player as well? What else should RE5 be that it isn't now? Do these changes perhaps make RE5 something other than a survival horror game?
I'm pretty sure it's obvious that RE5 has expanded into the 3rd person shoot genre or dare I create the genre, "3rd person survival shooter".
I think we should first define what a 'survival horror' game is? Is there an industry-wide agreed upon standard? If so, what is it?
My take on the discussion is, even if the developers WANT it to be a survival horror game doesn't mean it IS a survivor horror game.
Just because I want to plant an apple tree, but end up planting a pear tree instead doesn't mean the the apples are actually pears. Right?
This makes me think of Doom 3. Was Doom 3 suppose to be a first-person shooter or a survival horror game?
It seems like RE5 might actually more resemble a 3rd person shooter than a survival horror game. In fact, why don't we just called RE5 a Survival Shooter by just creating a new genre?
Most importantly though, is your (kanada) idea that a 'gamer' views don't matter when it comes to making the games. This is completely backward if you want to make a retail AAA title. As a game developer with that goal in mind, you better be damn sure you pay attention to the players of your games and what they are either ranting or raving about.
I'll quote to make this easier to read:
The end-user here (the player) knows a whole shit load more about games than you make it seem. It's true, I could care less about what the code does in the background. I don't want to know what happens in the code when I'm changing weapons or running around the gameworld. All I care about is that it makes sense in the game.
Not being able to move when you have your weapon wielded does not make sense in this game (the melee weapon especially, IMHO).
So, who's right? The developer who designed it this way or the player who doesn't like it? Which one is buying the game? What was the point of the developer making the game in the first place? Kanada514, you seem to think the developers of this game are making it because 'that's the way its suppose to be in a survival horror game'. Well guess what? The original RE was top-down view...so should RE5 also be top-down view? It was also single-player, so does that mean RE5 should be single-player as well? What else should RE5 be that it isn't now? Do these changes perhaps make RE5 something other than a survival horror game?
I'm pretty sure it's obvious that RE5 has expanded into the 3rd person shoot genre or dare I create the genre, "3rd person survival shooter".
Pleeeeeaaase tell me that you can aim with the right stick!
The reason I am aprehensive to finish RE4 is because it MAKES me use the fucking left one!
I'M RIGHT HANDED CAPCOM!
The reason I am aprehensive to finish RE4 is because it MAKES me use the fucking left one!
I'M RIGHT HANDED CAPCOM!
You can. The defaults are set as such.Bored Tomatoe said:
Just think of RE4 when someone talks about the shittines of most southpaw setups in console games. The rage you probably felt at re4 is the rage I and many other lefties feel in many of these shooters that want you to break your thumbs to play them.
Definitely not a typical "scary" game ala FEAR 2; much more methodical, but strangely lacking the overall "creepy" atmosphere that most - nay, all horror games should have.
I really don't get the logic behind setting the game in broad daylight - a lot of people are scared of the dark, but very few are scared of the light.
And I thought when you entered a building, your vision would have to adjust, causing you to go "blind" for a few seconds. I encountered none of that in the demo.
The game itself is good - I had a lot of fun with co-op. Scary? No. Suspensful, yes, thrilling, yes, but not "creepy" in any way.
And that's the humour of it.
I really don't get the logic behind setting the game in broad daylight - a lot of people are scared of the dark, but very few are scared of the light.
And I thought when you entered a building, your vision would have to adjust, causing you to go "blind" for a few seconds. I encountered none of that in the demo.
The game itself is good - I had a lot of fun with co-op. Scary? No. Suspensful, yes, thrilling, yes, but not "creepy" in any way.
And that's the humour of it.
I liked RE4...on the Wii. RE5 on the 360 doesn't feel "suspenseful" or "slower-paced". It feels sluggish and plodding. The controls really ruin it for me.