I'm sorry, but I just don't jive with the idea that genres have to comply to certain 'standards' to be considered acceptable, especially when it regards controls. All games have rules that are balanced within the game's mechanics. If it had bad controls then they would artificially make the game frustrating and cause unavoidable loss due to glitches or unresponsiveness. RE has never had that problem. The series has always been perfectly balanced and very fair, meticulously designed around the way you are able to maneuver your character. Games do different things. The best ones are those that
don't conform to every little norm just for the sake of universal acceptance. Dead space did well, but it took no chances. It didn't try to be even the slightest bit unique and that I think kept it from real recognition. I don't
want to play another dead space. Honestly, that game bored me silly. I respect it's intentions and what it did it did exceptionally well, but it's very different from the kind of experience the RE series is going for. This is why the idea that a control scheme can be 'outdated' and 'archaic' drives me nuts, how can it be outdated if we've had games where you can run, strafe, and shoot since before wolfenstein 3d? You're free to not like the controls, but for god's sake stop calling them old.
Well, to be fair that was before we had the mighty framework engine.
I'm still convinced that RE4 was a horrendous oversight and no one really realized what kind of mistake they were making until it was too late. At least that's what I tell myself so I can sleep at night.
The sourcenext remakes of RE2 and 3 were wonderful.