Sectus said:
My response was more about the general complaints from people who feel like it should play like certain other games. No, one single change wouldn't make it like like Gears, but one single change also wouldn't satisfy all those people who are complaining about how it has awkward controls and how it's so slow.
Well, I can only really speak for myself, and I think simply allowing the player to move while aiming would be enough for me. When I play, that's the only thing that stands out as something I'd want changed, as far as controls. Far too often can you find yourself facing a group, as an example, and be forced to put your weapon down and leave yourself open to attack just to be able to backpedal (which is already slow enough). This limited control is not something Resident Evil inherently needs, especially not after having turned into a 3rd-person shooter.
Sectus said:
Enemies in Gears 2 most definitely doesn't react to every single bullet. Fire at an enemy with a lancer and you'll have to hit him several times before you see any reaction, and when there finally is a reaction it's only one of 3 things: they're stunned (with the same animation each time), they get downed, or they die.
That honestly hasn't been my experience with Gears 2. I believe they improved the hit-detection system over the first one. More than a few times I've seen an enemy jerk violently around as he was being shot to shit with a Lancer, which I didn't recall having seen in Gears 1.
Sectus said:
Compare that with RE5 and you'll see enemies react to almost every bullet, and when they do get stunned, they've got a bunch of different animations which has different consequences (some take longer to recover, some can let the player do a melee attack, and etc...). If you go back and play RE4 and then compare it to RE5, you'll notice the enemies has a ton of new animations, and the player has a bunch of new moves to do as well (like attacking enemies who are lying on the ground). There are some re-used animations (although they seem to have been a little more finetuned this time), but it's definitely not the same "identical set of canned animations".
The new melee moves are great, especially the stomp, and I have no complaints about the animations on Chris or Sheva. I really don't think the enemies have a "ton of a new animations", though. The ones that trigger the new melee attacks, yeah, but the vast majority seem directly cut-and-paste from RE4, albeit rendered with a much higher level of graphical fidelity. The game is definitely gorgeous, there's no doubt about it, which is why it's disappointing to me that as much attention wasn't paid on the animation as on the other aspects of the graphics. I think it's the single biggest reason that some people feel that RE5 is simply "RE4 in HD" (I'm not about to make a judgement like that having only played the demo, and I'm sure the full campaign has some nice surprises in store).
Sectus said:
Comparing it to L4D would be a joke. I can't remember the last time I've seen so little enemy AI and animation variety in a game.
You're saying that about L4D? The animation on the zombies is absolutely fantastic, and the enemy AI is solid considering the limited amount things you can do with zombies. Large hordes are unleashed at you but they don't just run straight at you directly. Some do, but others climb walls and all sorts of objects, attempt flanks, bash through doors, and just generally roam around all over. Their movement throughout the environment is top-notch.
Anyway, as I said earlier, I don't want to keep harping on RE5 like some hater, because I like it. It's obviously a very well-made game, you can tell that just from the demo. Huge amount of polish, excellent character and environmental designs, and generally enjoyable to play. And Sheva is pretty awesome. I just think it could've, and should've, been even greater.