X-Play (along with many others) just didn't get it!!

[Jumplion]

When reviewers review a game on what they want it to have as opposed to what it does have it is a big problem.

So let's imagine that everyone takes up x-play on their let?s use re-gen health in survival horror games suggestion. It would kill the genre. Survival horror is mainly about not having enough resources to beat the game. Giving the player what amounts to unlimited health would remove all of the tension that these games require. What is the point of playing a survival horror game that just plays exactly the same as a dodgy action shooter?

But no one is going to listen to them right? Well actually in a world where share prices can hinge on a metacritic result, yes game devs are going to cave into what the reviewers are asking for. Even if what the reviewers are asking for is stupid. For proof witness the barren homogenised mess that is the first person shooter these days.

Finally sure it's their opinion but that doesn't stop their opinion being stupid. We've all got opinions but not all of us are right. I'm so sick of this lazy subjectivist way of looking at the world. There is no way we're ever going to improve our level of discourse if we aren't allowed to call to task people for saying things that are just wrong.

But Sessler never said anything about him wanting a god damn regenerating health mechanism. All he said was that the half-assed cover mechanic is not adequat for a health bar system. Having a cover system with a health bar would mean that the cover system would need to move fluently and quickly so you could get to Sheva or vice versa to health each other. All he said was that it would be as frustrating as if Gears of War had a health bar. A cover mechanic is pretty much built for regenerative health, so why both putting a half-assed one in the game anyway?

You had credit when you said "Finally sure it's their opinion but that doesn't stop their opinion being stupid.", after all it is their opinion but that doesn't mean that there arn't stupid opinions. But that doesn't make them wrong. We won't ever be able to improve our level of discourse if we never let other people just voice their opinions whether or not they are "wrong".

This is all Sessler's opinion, you cannot tell him that he is "wrong" with the game because you can't be "wrong" with an opinion. You can be stupid with one, but that doesn't make it any less "wrong". Learn that and we can finaly stop with these pointless "[reviewer] gave [game] a [score]! That's utter bullshit!" threads.

EDIT: And RE5 is basically an Action shooter, many other reviewers have stated that and I personally agree with them. Stop trying to define what a Survival Horror game should have and what it should have for you to consider it a Survival Horror game, it all matters on a number of things.
EDIT2: And god damnit it, do you think developers will listen to one reviewer who mentioned one thing about regenerative health? Geez, you must think the entire industry is a bunch of sheep or something.

 

[Shadow-Knight]

Let me just start with the fact that my friend has the same opinion, and he's wrong. I completely agree with X-Play. Capcom isn't keeping with the video gaming trends. A game shouldn't need to have BAD controls in order to consider it to be a Survival Horror game. It should use suspense and atmosphere to do that, like Dead Space.

To see my argument with my friend go to: http://allbitgames.wordpress.com

 

[JamminOz07]

I haven't watched the Xplay review yet, but i intend to. I am surprised that Resident Evil 5 scored 3 stars, but the latest 50 Cent game got 4 stars... I mean, I enjoyed Blood On the Sand, but believe that RE5 is superior.

Have played about halfway through RE5. My thoughts so far...

The Inventory screen... doesn't worry me. If you organise at the start of a chapter then you shouldn't have too many problems. Use the quick select, it works fine. If you need to do anything more complex, wait until you're not being swarmed and you should be fine.

Moving/shooting... again, I don't think this is as much of a problem as people make out. Personally, I think it's a lot more realistic than many games, you wouldn't run & gun in real life, you'd never hit anything, and would waste a lot of ammo. That said, I think it would be cool to have the option to move and shoot, except that your movement would be restricted, ie very slow, and your accuracy would be greatly reduced, but they don't have it, so why whinge about it... if it makes that much difference, go and play halo 3 again.

AI player... this hasn't been an issue for me so far. Mainly because I've managed to pick up a human offsider whenever I've played. Can be a bit frustrating though if they won't share ammo and keep disappearing though...

All in all, I'm really enjoying RE5, and I rekon I'll play through it a few times.

 

[n01d34]

When reviewers review a game on what they want it to have as opposed to what it does have it is a big problem.

So let's imagine that everyone takes up x-play on their let?s use re-gen health in survival horror games suggestion. It would kill the genre. Survival horror is mainly about not having enough resources to beat the game. Giving the player what amounts to unlimited health would remove all of the tension that these games require. What is the point of playing a survival horror game that just plays exactly the same as a dodgy action shooter?

But no one is going to listen to them right? Well actually in a world where share prices can hinge on a metacritic result, yes game devs are going to cave into what the reviewers are asking for. Even if what the reviewers are asking for is stupid. For proof witness the barren homogenised mess that is the first person shooter these days.

Finally sure it's their opinion but that doesn't stop their opinion being stupid. We've all got opinions but not all of us are right. I'm so sick of this lazy subjectivist way of looking at the world. There is no way we're ever going to improve our level of discourse if we aren't allowed to call to task people for saying things that are just wrong.

But Sessler never said anything about him wanting a god damn regenerating health mechanism. All he said was that the half-assed cover mechanic is not adequat for a health bar system. Having a cover system with a health bar would mean that the cover system would need to move fluently and quickly so you could get to Sheva or vice versa to health each other. All he said was that it would be as frustrating as if Gears of War had a health bar. A cover mechanic is pretty much built for regenerative health, so why both putting a half-assed one in the game anyway?

You had credit when you said "Finally sure it's their opinion but that doesn't stop their opinion being stupid.", after all it is their opinion but that doesn't mean that there arn't stupid opinions. But that doesn't make them wrong. We won't ever be able to improve our level of discourse if we never let other people just voice their opinions whether or not they are "wrong".

This is all Sessler's opinion, you cannot tell him that he is "wrong" with the game because you can't be "wrong" with an opinion. You can be stupid with one, but that doesn't make it any less "wrong". Learn that and we can finaly stop with these pointless "[reviewer] gave [game] a [score]! That's utter bullshit!" threads.

EDIT: And RE5 is basically an Action shooter, many other reviewers have stated that and I personally agree with them. Stop trying to define what a Survival Horror game should have and what it should have for you to consider it a Survival Horror game, it all matters on a number of things.
EDIT2: And god damnit it, do you think developers will listen to one reviewer who mentioned one thing about regenerative health? Geez, you must think the entire industry is a bunch of sheep or something.

Why can't an opinion be wrong? It's my opinion that the sky is brown today. Am I suddenly right about that. The problem with the whole "opinions can't be wrong" rubbish is that if we accept it to be true then there is no reason for anyone to listen to anyone. After all we all have our own opinions which are just as right as anyone else?s so why bother listening to what anyone has to say. On the other hand if we accept that an opinion can be wrong then we accept that our own opinions can also be wrong. So it becomes worthwhile listening to what others say because if they can show how their opinion is more correct then we've learned something or increased our understanding of something.

And humanity gets a +1 to enlightenment.

Now if you had of begun with your point that RE5 is more of an action game and explained why you thought so then that would have been more productive then simply yelling at people that they mustn't question the opinions of others.

And yes I do think that developers are sheep. The escalating costs of game development and the industry's increasing reliance of blockbusters forces them to be. Has there been a single big FPS since Halo that's really tried to break the mould?

edit: Also there is a big difference between a fanboy mindlessly screaming that X reviewer didn't like their favourite game and someone making an intelligent point. The OP's post was not the screaming barrel of fanboyism it could have been and he raised some good points. So why try and silence him?

 

[Jumplion]

Why can't an opinion be wrong? It's my opinion that the sky is brown today. Am I suddenly right about that. The problem with the whole "opinions can't be wrong" rubbish is that if we accept it to be true then there is no reason for anyone to listen to anyone. After all we all have our own opinions which are just as right as anyone else?s so why bother listening to what anyone has to say. On the other hand if we accept that an opinion can be wrong then we accept that our own opinions can also be wrong. So it becomes worthwhile listening to what others say because if they can show how their opinion is more correct then we've learned something or increased our understanding of something.

And humanity gets a +1 to enlightenment.

Now if you had of begun with your point that RE5 is more of an action game and explained why you thought so then that would have been more productive then simply yelling at people that they mustn't question the opinions of others.

And yes I do think that developers are sheep. The escalating costs of game development and the industry's increasing reliance of blockbusters forces them to be. Has there been a single big FPS since Halo that's really tried to break the mould?

Please, for future reference, try to keep the "And humanity gets a +1 to enlightenment" stuff to a minimum. It antagonizes people when they see the person they're arguing with act all high and mighty and above another person's opinion (heh, irony?). Just for future reference, I hate it when people do that to me in any argument really.

But anyway, I think we're considering an opinion wrong in two different ways. I'm saying that an opinion can't be wrong when it's just someone's thought on something. You're saying they can be wrong on a factual based IE the sky is brown. That's more an observation on something factual rather than an opinion (which I admit, doesn't make much sense to me either.)

But let's restrict opinion on just games, if we go on to opinions in sciences and stuff we completely get away from the actual point and start going into what is "right" and "wrong" and that's morality, not opinion (though you could say "THe sky is brown, or at least that's how I 'see' it" or something metaphorical). You can't say "In my opinion, Chris's name was Jackson!" because you're trying to make an opinion a fact which makes no sense. You can say "In my opinion, Chris should have been named Jack".

In any review, you have to understand that the reviewer is stating his opinion on a game. He's not trying to make anything a fact, he's saying that "if [game] had [feature] then I think it would have been better." Sessler thought the controls were detrimental to a game, and DO NOT start telling me "It's a horror game!....etc.." because not all survival horror games have to have health bars or stop and point controls. It depends on the game, not what you think should be in survival horror games. He has personal experience to back this up, he personally did not like the controls and viewed them as Capcom trying to fix a wheel that is no longer used/supported.

You're trying to justify criticizing his opinion. This is a game review, if I think that RE5 would have been better if it had fluffy unicorns with chainsaws for horns, then that's my opinion. It may be a stupid opinion, but it's not "wrong".

The sooner you learn that his opinion is personally stupid to you, but not "wrong", the sooner we can get over all this "[reviewer] gave [game] a bad score!@!^@$^" thread crap.

Though to be honest, I don't think either of us are getting the point to the other. I'd rather just save time and agree to disagree.

 

[PirateKing]

I bought RE5 after seeing the review and although I don't think it's quite as good as RE4, I still think it's really good.
I'm kind of torn on the real time inventory thing. Sometimes it's endlessly aggravating, especially in a bossfight I recently took part in, but it does make the game particularly intense at times.
Sheva's AI is the main thing I could complain about. She has occasionally demonstrated some excellent reasoning and avoided traps like giant solar lasers. But other times it's like having two heads to avoid losing. It would be nice to have the option to make her stay put while I handle a group of enemies, a la RE4.
As for controls, moving while shooting might've been cool, but one thing I'm really glad they included is that you can now strafe.
That's what I think.

 

[n01d34]

Please, for future reference, try to keep the "And humanity gets a +1 to enlightenment" stuff to a minimum. It antagonizes people when they see the person they're arguing with act all high and mighty and above another person's opinion (heh, irony?). Just for future reference, I hate it when people do that to me in any argument really.

But anyway, I think we're considering an opinion wrong in two different ways. I'm saying that an opinion can't be wrong when it's just someone's thought on something. You're saying they can be wrong on a factual based IE the sky is brown. That's more an observation on something factual rather than an opinion (which I admit, doesn't make much sense to me either.)

But let's restrict opinion on just games, if we go on to opinions in sciences and stuff we completely get away from the actual point and start going into what is "right" and "wrong" and that's morality, not opinion (though you could say "THe sky is brown, or at least that's how I 'see' it" or something metaphorical). You can't say "In my opinion, Chris's name was Jackson!" because you're trying to make an opinion a fact which makes no sense. You can say "In my opinion, Chris should have been named Jack".

In any review, you have to understand that the reviewer is stating his opinion on a game. He's not trying to make anything a fact, he's saying that "if [game] had [feature] then I think it would have been better." Sessler thought the controls were detrimental to a game, and DO NOT start telling me "It's a horror game!....etc.." because not all survival horror games have to have health bars or stop and point controls. It depends on the game, not what you think should be in survival horror games. He has personal experience to back this up, he personally did not like the controls and viewed them as Capcom trying to fix a wheel that is no longer used/supported.

You're trying to justify criticizing his opinion. This is a game review, if I think that RE5 would have been better if it had fluffy unicorns with chainsaws for horns, then that's my opinion. It may be a stupid opinion, but it's not "wrong".

The sooner you learn that his opinion is personally stupid to you, but not "wrong", the sooner we can get over all this "[reviewer] gave [game] a bad score!@!^@$^" thread crap.

Though to be honest, I don't think either of us are getting the point to the other. I'd rather just save time and agree to disagree.

Hey agreed. But I would like to point out that I don't it's wrong for Sessler or anyone else to express their opinion. Just that the opinion itself can be wrong. But yeah we appear to be butting up against some kind of semantic difference over the word opinion. That's cool.

Oh and sorry about the +1 thing. Twas meant as a joke and something to lighten the mood. Obviously it failed on both accounts so again sorry.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

I actually agree with most of their points.

I actually agree with ALL of their points. The AI sucks and so do the controls. And the worst part about it is that the AI sucks BECAUSE of the controls. The voice acting is horrible, the writing is just as shitty as ever, and the inventory system is so annoying. It doesn't add anything to the experience, it just pulls you out of it. At least in my opinion.

 

[Jumplion]

Hey agreed. But I would like to point out that I don't it's wrong for Sessler or anyone else to express their opinion. Just that the opinion itself can be wrong. But yeah we appear to be butting up against some kind of semantic difference over the word opinion. That's cool.

Oh and sorry about the +1 thing. Twas meant as a joke and something to lighten the mood. Obviously it failed on both accounts so again sorry.

That's fine, I'm grumpy right now since it's midnight for me. I'm not saying you can't do the whole "+1" thing, but just make sure you time it right or make it more obvious you were joking or you'll sound pretentious. I'm guilty of those instances myself, I'll admit.

Anyway, I needz mah beauty sleep! Good show and all that.

 

[Iwamori]

Regardless of what any reviewer has to say, resident evil 5 is a last gen game made for current gen consoles (complete with all old school controls and mass quick time events).

I expect Yahtzee to do a sound thrashing sometime in the future.