Support NeoGAF

[ElyrionX]

Looks like the demo just hit my local Marketplace. Going to check it out and revisit this thread again tomorrow.

 

[zoukka]

Dead Space is slow paced also, that didn't mean that they had to go the RE route with the controls. And that's really the biggest issue for RE5. DS is a slower paced action game like RE, but it still gives you controls where you never feel like your movement is restricted. Critics and gamers now have DS to look toward as an example that you can do a game in RE's style but with a new control scheme.

It's not that simple. For example 95% of Dead Spaces combat happened in tight, short corridors where you could only walk back very little before hitting a wall. RE has much more varied/big enviroments.

Also it annoyed the hell out of me that EA forgot to copy the 180-turn to Dead Space.

 

[Oldschoolgamer]

Why continue to bring up outbreak? That clearly is nothing like the RE4/5 experience so the results aren't really comparable.

The approach to combat hasn't changed at all, and you can still dodge the zombies/ganado/whatever the same way you could back on the PS1. So, when comparing combat situations...you can.

^ This looked more appealing than what we have currently. It looked far more intense. Larger groups of enemies, dodging mechanics, and A.I that wasn't completely inept while still remaining managable without being Left 4 Dead zombies that seek only to rush at you and swing swing swing. In the above footage there are still groups that are slower and throw projectiles but there a few that move straight at you. While dodging/shaking guys off of you your still given the option to make use of the shoot and melee tactic that has been present since RE4.

Look at the trailer again. The A.I. is the same shit it always was. Don't let the number of zombies on screen fool you.

 

[LukeSmith]

Again, I said pro -and- reader reviews, i.e. everyone.

Don't mistake it for people wanting one game to control like another, or people saying all games in a genre should control the same; people want their games to play the best way that fits that game. I haven't seen a single convincing argument yet why the RE series wouldn't be better off this way, and I'm betting most people will agree. (Trying to make it out like it would be somehow diluting RE's identity to adapt to a better control scheme, just because another game has also done it, doesn't count in my book as a convincing argment.)

Let's keep this civil and realistic. It's not going to ruin the game for most people. Most people who stick with it will adjust. But I'd also say most people will finish the game still wishing it had a control scheme where your aim was always in the center of the screen. (Shooting while moving I don't think the complaints will be quite as strong, but I bet that also changes for the next RE).

As for the rest of it, I'll just say this: People used to argue against the dual-stick setup for first person shooters. (Goldeneye controlled just fine! You get used to it! It's too complicated! etc.) People used to argue against Metal Gear using any other perspective (It wouldn't be Metal Gear anymore!) As RE4 itself proved, great series can adapt and evolve--and in fact need to--and still bring along that which made them great in the first place.

See Internet, The "Impossible Dream" was a total MacDonaldism. I bet Shane didn't even play Dead Space. And Shane LOVED MGS old school controls/camera.

 

[Sectus]

The thing to remember is that most of the reviews were comparing RE4 to previous games in the series.

Compare the controls and camera in RE4 to RE as an example.

RE: Fixed camera angles, no chase camera. Shooting and aiming extremely difficult. Enemies can be around the next camera transition and there is no way for you to "look".

RE4: A chase camera!!!! Shooting and aiming in comparison is way easier. You can look where you want to look, although C-stick camera is as wobbly as the town drunk walking out of a bar at 2am.

So if you look at the advance made in the series from RE->RE4 it is a quantum leap of goodness in terms of an action interface.

Unfortunately if you compare it to any other shooter in my opinion the controls are not that great. They're more like a cross between a light gun game and a standard 3rd person shooter than a pure 3rd person shooter. In other words, they're for a shooting gallery of relatively static enemies.

I don't think it's as simple as that. Reviewers had to have played popular FPS games at the time. It makes sense for them to compare to previous RE games in the review, but they actually really enjoyed the game despite having played games with supposedly "superior" controls.

In my opinion, I don't think it's due to one control scheme being directly superior, I think it has to do what people are used to and what they're comfortable with. Shooters on consoles has become drastically more popular the last few years and they ALL are based on the same basic control scheme, so hardcore gamers are really really used to those controls and they expect those controls whenever they see a 3rd person or 1st person shooter. (I think it should be noted that not everybody actually find those controls that comfortable either, people who haven't gotten used to them will definitely find it easier to control a character using 1 analog stick instead of both, which is the primary reason why such games aren't popular in Japan and why Japanese developers aren't using those type of controls)

So mainstream shooter fans will automatically find the controls frustrating and never give it enough time to actually realize how it actually suits the gameplay.

You can compare it to something like flight simulators. You have flight sims which has realistic movement where you have to rotate the aircraft in order to quickly move in another direction. And you have flight sims with more "arcadey" controls where you simply have to push left or right to travel in that direction. Neither control scheme are superior, but they lead to *different* gameplay experiences. One might also argue that the latter is more accesible but leads to more simplified gameplay, which I personally think is how it is with the RE4/RE5 controls.

In a shooter like Gears of War or Dead Space, you don't really think much about movement because it's usually very obvious where you should move. In Gears you can avoid almost every melee enemy by moving backwards or strafing while shooting. In Dead Space you can do the same thing only you have to let go of the aim button so you can run in the same direction if enemies get too close.

In RE4 you have to choose when to shoot, and when to move. That limitation makes positioning and movement a bigger part of the gameplay and a much bigger challenge. In my opinion, that limitation also makes it more suspenseful and increases the tension.

I think that becomes more apparent if you look at how the game is designed. Every area is non-linear enough to let the player move freely around to find good spots to attack from, and more importantly it lets the AI flank the player from almost every direction at any time.

There's also a good deal of things which are unique to RE4. The stun + melee attack system, the way enemies hesitate before attacking, the way they sometimes walk instead of running, their limited attack range. Those things would have to be completely changed or removed if they wanted more traditional shooter controls.

I'm probably going way offtopic now, but it reminds me of another genre I personally loved but was basically killed because mainstream gamers hated the controls. Back in early 90's you had platformers with very "twitchy" controls where every input would lead to immediate movement (which is how platformers are now). You also had more "cinematic" platformers like Prince of Persia and Flashback where input didn't lead to immediate movement, it simply started an animation and that animation is what controlled the movement frame by frame. It made everything feel "delayed" and harder to get used to, but it was a different experience and gave the game an entirely different feel.

 

[Pojo]

I don't care what it is, but RE4 whoops Dead Space's and Gears's ass so hard it's ridiculous. But that's what you get with ingenious game design.

Every level was crafted with as much love and care as the gameplay itself. RE4 didn't just give you arenas to kill people in, they gave levels with a cohesive design and a ton of variety. I love all of these games for what they are, but RE4 is something rarely seen.

Oh, and you hit the nail on the head with the 180 turn. I missed it in Dead Space. Can't say I missed anything when I went back and played RE4 recently. It's a deliberate design choice that isn't going to change unless the formula changes, and do you all really want that?

EDIT: Sectus, never thought about the Japanese point of view with the controls. It is more casual. I play so many games that I don't notice it, but you made me think of when my dad tried to play Halo after being somewhat accustomed to Goldeneye's one stick scheme.

 

[Flynn]

In my opinion, I don't think it's due to one control scheme being directly superior, I think it has to do what people are used to and what they're comfortable with.

Lemme guess. You ride a recumbent bicycle.

 

[Future PhaZe]

The approach to combat hasn't changed at all, and you can still dodge the zombies/ganado/whatever the same way you could back on the PS1. So, when comparing combat situations...you can.




Look at the trailer again. The A.I. is the same shit it always was. Don't let the number of zombies on screen fool you.

The amount of enemies isn't anything to scoff at. Also that dodging mechanic is ACTUAL dodging rather than the bullshit strafing, diagonal movement, 180 turn and etc. Also the A.I IS doing different things there. Yes there still remain some of your slower opponents, but there a few enemies that actively sprint/grab from a range farther than what's been seen in RE5 thus far not to mention he doesn't slow down while in range.

 

[BamYouHaveAids]

Yes. I was originally going to buy it, but now I'm going to rent it and pass the rented disc along to my friends to further limit the sales. I don't like being made a fool of.

 

[Sectus]

I must be in the minority, because I don't think DS took any important steps in terms of controlling a character. In fact, I think subtracting the quick turnaround was a huge step down, especially since they liked to spawn stuff behind you. Granted, the vents were visible and it was clear as day where the monsters were coming from, it was a hassle to deal with stuff that crept up on you.

Sure...you could move and shoot. And? This didn't have F.E.A.R. or Crysis level AI, so it really didn't matter. You killed the monsters the same way you did back in RE: Directors Cut, and the fact that you had zero reason to be careful about your movements made it even easier. Not to mention the fact that you had stasis.

Dead Space's tension didn't come from the enemies (which is a shame really). It came from the environments you were in, and the different sounds and set pieces. It might have done some other things that people might call "evolving the genre" (which it didn't), but controls are nowhere on that list. Before I get called on it, I was playing the PC version with fucked up aim, before I used the fix to make it sexy. :/

I completely agree with that. While I enjoyed Dead Space, the combat and enemies were one of the weakest parts of the game. Enemy AI rarely became more interesting than "run straight at you" and combat rarely became more tactical or varied than "circlestrafe or walk backwards while shooting at the enemies' legs/arms".

Lemme guess. You ride a recumbent bicycle.

Sure, take what I say out of context, that makes you look real intelligent.

 

[KittenMaster]

The amount of enemies isn't anything to scoff at. Also that dodging mechanic is ACTUAL dodging rather than the bullshit strafing, diagonal movement, 180 turn and etc. Also the A.I IS doing different things there. Yes there still remain some of your slower opponents, but there a few enemies that actively sprint/grab from a range farther than what's been seen in RE5 thus far not to mention he doesn't slow down while in range.

You realize that RE5 is just a demo right? RE4 had different variations of enemies that progressively got better at closing in on you, as well as monsters that *were* fast. Plagas parasites (present in RE5, though seemingly at a point in the game where they're not fully developed) also provided 'zombies' and some specific enemies with a form of extended limb to attack you with, but already the flying enemies present in the shanty level already require a different approach than you would the zombies.

Now, I haven't played Dead Space (I want to, but I'm not made of money), but it's probably unfair to compare a short demo to a whole game's worth of enemies. We don't know what kind of enemy lineup RE5 will have yet.

 

[El Pescado]

I downloaded it and absolutely hated it with all my heart, but then I changed it to Control Type A and now I kinda like it.

I still wish for a Wii Port though. RE4: Wii Edition ruined this kind of game for me...

 

[Future PhaZe]

You realize that RE5 is just a demo right? RE4 had different variations of enemies that progressively got better at closing in on you, as well as monsters that *were* fast. Plagas parasites (present in RE5, though seemingly at a point in the game where they're not fully developed) also provided 'zombies' and some specific enemies with a form of extended limb to attack you with, but already the flying enemies present in the shanty level already require a different approach than you would the zombies.

Now, I haven't played Dead Space (I want to, but I'm not made of money), but it's probably unfair to compare a short demo to a whole game's worth of enemies. We don't know what kind of enemy lineup RE5 will have yet.

Like I said I'm still really looking forward to the game. It's my most anticipated title this year and RE remains my favorite series in gaming. I'm just pointing out that there was an option that could have been taken that might have improved the experience,.

And that constant upgrade in quality throughout RE4 is part of the reason why I have faith in the fact that RE5 will be a great game. If it can match RE4's pacing it should be a treat.

 

[Flynn]

Sure, take what I say out of context, that makes you look real intelligent.

It's a joke, but you see what I'm getting at. There's a reason why people ride normal bicycles. Yeah, because that's the way all bicycles have been made forever. But also because recumbent bicycles, though technically more efficent -- are damn hard to maneuver.

There will always be a minority who will prefer this method and continue to argue that its superior. But they'll never win.

 

[Oldschoolgamer]

The amount of enemies isn't anything to scoff at. Also that dodging mechanic is ACTUAL dodging rather than the bullshit strafing, diagonal movement, 180 turn and etc. Also the A.I IS doing different things there. Yes there still remain some of your slower opponents, but there a few enemies that actively sprint/grab from a range farther than what's been seen in RE5 thus far not to mention he doesn't slow down while in range.

The only difference is that one of the enemies had a grab move, where he pinned you so the enemies could get free hits. Pretty sure I saw that in a recent video of the current version of RE5 too.

Besides...it's a demo. We don't know all of the enemy behaviors and attack patterns yet. Hell, there are enemies that jump on you like you were a goomba, that were shown during TGS.

I thought I saw everything in RE4, until a regenerator ran not stop towards me in PRO-mode, while I was taking all day aiming the bolt action rifle.

And...I don't know if it worked out, but a high number of enemies also means more work with the AI. Sure, they could cheat like they did with Dead Rising, but I don't see that flying as well in a game of this nature.

 

[itsinmyveins]

I just tried the demo out and my first feelings are that I can't stand the fact that you can't move while aiming. This wasn't an issue back with RE4, but now? I'm fine with not being able to run or walk fast, but you should at least be able to walk slowly. When I'm playing RE5 now it just feels like a part of the controls have been left out.

 

[Dark Octave]

I just tried the demo out and my first feelings are that I can't stand the fact that you can't move while aiming. This wasn't an issue back with RE4, but now? I'm fine with not being able to run or walk fast, but you should at least be able to walk slowly.

This is exactly how I feel as well. I feel like I just wanna break the ropes that suddenly appear around his legs when he starts to aim.

I'll learn to live with it though if I have to.

 

[Dot50Cal]

I'd love to see a video of how you people complaining about not moving while shooting play. Seriously, if someone can show me that, I would really appreciate it. Do you like..forget that you can't and try and run into a mob or something? Why is it an issue after 10 minutes of play??

 

[bloodydrake]

I don't have demo but it sounds like the controls are basically identical to Silent Hill Homecoming except the view is more Gearish? Is that about right?

 

[itsinmyveins]

This is exactly how I feel as well. I feel like I just wanna break the ropes that suddenly appear around his legs when he starts to aim.

I'll learn to live with it though if I have to.

I'm honestly thinking of skipping the game. I mean, it sounds like such a minor thing -- not being able to move while aiming -- but it just makes the controls feel unnatural after you've played so many games where you can do that. It's like they'd say "you can only turn right from now on. No turning left -- you'll have to turn all the way around if you need to!". I'm sure it'd make it harder, but it's also stupid and totally unnecessary. Having to turn around, run a few metres, turn around, shoot and then repeat instead of just slowly backing while shooting seems like somewhat of an awkward solution.

 

[Sectus]

It's a joke, but you see what I'm getting at. There's a reason why people ride normal bicycles. Yeah, because that's the way all bicycles have been made forever. But also because recumbent bicycles, though technically more efficent -- are damn hard to maneuver.

There will always be a minority who will prefer this method and continue to argue that its superior. But they'll never win.

But the situation isn't like that. It isn't a case of which control scheme is more comfortable, it's what works for the game. I'm not asking for other shooters to have RE4 controls, that would be stupid. But the controls have been designed around the gameplay, it's one of the reasons which makes the game so unique and fun.

If you're unwilling to adapt to different gameplay and want another traditional shooter, RE5 isn't a game for you.

 

[bryehn]

Apparently I don't like the controls at all judging from that demo. I don't like the hybrid tank/shooter controls, I'd prefer them to be one way or the other. If they're going to go the shooter route, they really should allow moving and aiming. Even if the accuracy drops a ton, it'd be far less frustrating.

Truth be told, I still prefer the old-style RE2-3 gameplay/controls. I really miss those games.

 

[RoboPlato]

I honestly don't know why people keep saying that Dead Space's controls are so much better. I can't remember one time where moving while aiming was particularly useful and I barely did it. It also lacked a quick turn, which is a huge step backwards from RE4's control scheme.

 

[Flynn]

But the situation isn't like that. It isn't a case of which control scheme is more comfortable, it's what works for the game. I'm not asking for other shooters to have RE4 controls, that would be stupid. But the controls have been designed around the gameplay, it's one of the reasons which makes the game so unique and fun.

If you're unwilling to adapt to different gameplay and want another traditional shooter, RE5 isn't a game for you.

What's the defining trait of Resident Evil then? Is it shooting zombies. If so the gameplay is flexible. See Left 4 Dead.

Is the defining trait, shooting zombies except you can't move when you're trying to shoot? If so, then yes, that particular part of gameplay is vital to RE.

But you gotta ask, "why?"

 

[GotchaForce]

I'm with the op, totally down the the way RE games have controlled and thought the people wanting to change it were being a bit drastic...but having just played it it does seem like something is off. I played the first part with the D controls and did allright, but switched to A (the RE4 style, a game I played the hell out of) for the second half and couldn't stand it (I kept aiming above enemies heads).

I definetly need to play a lot more but my feeling right now is that either the game's camera and control in balance with the level design just isn't up to RE4 standards or Gears of War and Dead Space makes it hard to go back.

 

[zoukka]

What's the defining trait of Resident Evil then?

Strongly scripted zombie horror.

And RE4 was a horror game even though you shot enormous amounts of stuff in it. I don't know anyone who hasn't shat their pants in one or more sections in that game. It's not Silent Hill but even a veteran like me felt tension almost constantly due to frequent new enemies and bosses.

It's in the fucking ceiling!

 

[itsinmyveins]

But the situation isn't like that. It isn't a case of which control scheme is more comfortable, it's what works for the game. I'm not asking for other shooters to have RE4 controls, that would be stupid. But the controls have been designed around the gameplay, it's one of the reasons which makes the game so unique and fun.

If you're unwilling to adapt to different gameplay and want another traditional shooter, RE5 isn't a game for you.

Well, how come I'm so sure it'd work better if it'd let you at least walk while aiming? That doesn't really give you that much of an advantage while it's nowhere near as frustrating as the turn-run-turn-gun-method.

 

[sugaki]

The thing is, there's nothing good about RE5's control scheme. I find no advantage to having that over the Over-the-shoulder 3rd person view in Gears of War. It's just clunky, crappy execution.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Strongly scripted zombie horror.

And RE4 was a horror game even though you shot enormous amounts of stuff in it. I don't know anyone who hasn't shat their pants in one or more sections in that game. It's not Silent Hill but even a veteran like me felt tension almost constantly due to frequent new enemies and bosses.


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a168/kennedy014/re4verdugo1.jpg

It's in the fucking ceiling!

I always thought the laboratory in the island was some kind a "gift" to the RE fans, it feels almost like a laboratory from any other RE.

Vorador was amazing, but It takes the cake for me

 

[zoukka]

Well, how come I'm so sure it'd work better if it'd let you at least walk while aiming? That doesn't really give you that much of an advantage while it's nowhere near as frustrating as the turn-run-turn-gun-method.

In Dead Space you were impervious to all enemies facing you if you just had ammo. Much thanks to the slow backwards walking while spamming deathbeam at Necromorph limbage.

 

[Coverly]

The Majini AI is almost 100% the same as the Ganado AI in Resident Evil 4. They run up to you, stop when they are at about 3 yards away, and then slowly advance on you. If you were given the ability to walk and shoot, you could infinitely break the AI by backing up while shooting. I'm not even sure why you would want it, since the game is very easy already because of this.

Well maybe they should come up with better AI rather than reuse last-gen's? Why excuse the AI for not being up to par?

Considering the whole point of the combat is to shoot them in a stun location, and then go do a contextual attack, its a huge mystery why you people keep calling for it. I don't know, maybe you are not good at playing video games or something. Personally, I, and many others, have no issues with the old style controls. Adding the strafe seemed like an unnecessary thing to me, since the enemies telegraph their move for such a long time that I could only imagine that there must be something wrong with the brains of those complaining about that too.

They are valid complaints, there's no need to say they just suck or have some sort of brain irregularity. While you might be ok with it because you're used to the R4 controls(kind of like the example given with the op), many of us don't care for it(again, like the 2nd friend in the op), hence the thread.

This is stupid. What are ps1 movements doing in my next-gen game?
That's not a character, it's a car! It sure backs up like one.
Does that not look unnatural to you? Would stepping a bit to the left or the right a little too much to ask?

I'm all for adding the option to appease these mutants though. But since it would entirely break the game, it would have to be labeled appropriately. Perhaps slap and achievement on it so everyone knows they played through on that mode :lol

If it breaks the game then they shouldn't attempted to put western type controls in the first place. It's not like this is a rush job, they've had time to adapt the AI and environments if they wanted to.

 

[itsinmyveins]

In Dead Space you were impervious to all enemies facing you if you just had ammo. Much thanks to the slow backwards walking while spamming deathbeam at Necromorph limbage.

Well, how is that really different from running a bit, turning around shooting, running a bit, turning around repeatedly, apart from being a much better control scheme? And the thing is that enemies aren't always coming from the front either.

 

[itsinmyveins]

If it breaks the game then they shouldn't attempted to put western type controls in the first place. It's not like this is a rush job, they've had time to adapt the AI and environments if they wanted to.

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't break the game though. Easier -- yes. But that's because the controls would make sense. Just add a bit of health to the enemies then.

 

[Sectus]

What's the defining trait of Resident Evil then? Is it shooting zombies. If so the gameplay is flexible. See Left 4 Dead.

Is the defining trait, shooting zombies except you can't move when you're trying to shoot? If so, then yes, that particular part of gameplay is vital to RE.

But you gotta ask, "why?"

No, the defining trait of Resident Evil isn't shooting zombies. RE4 and RE5 doesn't even have zombies (and the other games in the series isn't relevant considering how different their gameplay is).

For me, the defining trait of RE4 and RE5 is the actual gameplay. How you're forced to constantly be on the move because you're getting flanked, the slow yet fast feel to the action, the dynamic enemy AI, the more realistic character behaviour (no, shooting while running isn't all that realistic), all the different ways you can deal with combat, the unique melee system, and more. Dynamic combat is probably one of me most defining traits of RE5 for me. You can't stick to one single tactic and use that for every single encounter.

Left 4 Dead is one of the worst comparisons you can make, there's very few similarities in gameplay. If that's the type of game you were expecting then I can understand you're disappointed how RE5 plays.

 

[itsinmyveins]

(no, shooting while running isn't all that realistic)

Dude, I'm sure a lot of people would be happy just being able to walk slowly while aiming.

 

[zoukka]

Well, how is that really different from running a bit, turning around shooting, running a bit, turning around repeatedly, apart from being a much better control scheme?

Well in RE4 you took some damage pretty often when running away in the last moments.

This is stupid. What are ps1 movements doing in my next-gen game?
That's not a character, it's a car! It sure backs up like one.
Does that not look unnatural to you? Would stepping a bit to the left or the right a little too much to ask?

You sir are not wrong. Though you are complaining in a wrong place. RE has nothing to do with realism. It's a pure videogame experience. Everything Capcom puts into it serves the overall gameplay experience believe it or not. I just find it hard to accept that so many people refuse to see RE as what it is... this series is not aspiring to be Gears or Uncharted.


Do you guys want the next Mario to have a lock on system for enemies? It would be in fact more comfortable to just hold a button and push the stick upwards to close in on enemies? Yeah no.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Well in RE4 you took some damage pretty often when running away in the last moments.

Yeah, but that's because it's such a bother to turn around and run away that you'd rather try and stay put and hope to finish the enemies off before they reached you

Do you guys want the next Mario to have a lock on system for enemies? It would be in fact more comfortable to just hold a button and push the stick upwards to close in on enemies? Yeah no.

That's not a good comparison, though.

It's like I'd say that you wouldn't want Mario to be able to jump in the next game.

 

[zoukka]

Yeah, but that's because it's such a bother to turn around and run away that you'd rather try and stay put and hope to finish the enemies off before they reached you

Bingo. Now that you have "got" RE4, you can truly enjoy it for what it is good sir

It's like I'd say that you wouldn't want Mario to be able to jump in the next game.

Wuut?

 

[itsinmyveins]

Bingo. Now that you have "got" RE4, you can truly enjoy it for what it is good sir

If the player would rather get hit than use the tactics intended I don't know if it's really that good game design. It's just bothersome and annoying. It works as long as there aren't many enemies on screen, though.

Wuut?

That's my reaction to your comparison with auto aim in Mario too. It's not the same thing, to put it simply.

 

[Sectus]

Well, how come I'm so sure it'd work better if it'd let you at least walk while aiming? That doesn't really give you that much of an advantage while it's nowhere near as frustrating as the turn-run-turn-gun-method.

Just look at the .gif Dot50Cal posted, you can avoid almost all attacks by just walking around. If you could do that while shooting, that would kinda make things insanely easy.

 

[zoukka]

If the player would rather get hit than use the tactics intended I don't know if it's really that good game design. It's just bothersome and annoying. It works as long as there aren't many enemies on screen, though.

No of course you run when you KNOW you'll get hit. RE4 was fine tuned so you can pretty much survive any situation however grim. That's the beauty of it.

That's my reaction to your comparison with auto aim in Mario too. It's not the same thing, to put it simply.

No I still think my analogy was pretty nice. You still would have to time your jumps and assess the weak points of your enemies. It would just be easier. Just like moving and shooting.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Just look at the .gif Dot50Cal posted, you can avoid almost all attacks by just walking around. If you could do that while shooting, that would kinda make things insanely easy.

Then add health to the enemies, add more of them, whatever. Having to move around like that instead of just walking (which would make you move slower, increasing the chance of you being hit by thrown objects) is just clumsy.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

If the player would rather get hit than use the tactics intended I don't know if it's really that good game design. It's just bothersome and annoying. It works as long as there aren't many enemies on screen, though.

You know you can run forward, it's more, enemies attack pattern favors that evasion move rather that turning back and running (because there's a possibility that you back is filled with enemies too).

And the game rewards good aiming, it's not only kill your enemies before they reach you, it's slow them down before they reach you so you can gain some yards.

Then add health to the enemies, add more of them, whatever. Having to move around like that instead of just walking (which would make you move slower, increasing the chance of you being hit by thrown objects) is just clumsy.

More health would only make the game more annoying, to add straffing and shooting, they should had to make new enemies, animations and entirely different A.I. And they didn't so sticking with RE4 controls it's a goood choice...

 

[itsinmyveins]

No of course you run when you KNOW you'll get hit. RE4 was fine tuned so you can pretty much survive any situation however grim. That's the beauty of it.

So how would making the player able to walk slowly disrupt all that? I mean, if it's too easy you can just increase the difficulty.

No I still think my analogy was pretty nice. You still would have to time your jumps and assess the weak points of your enemies. It would just be easier. Just like moving and shooting.

No, it's not. It's like being able to run while you throw shells/fireballs. Something you can do in the Mario-games.

You know you can run forward, it's more, enemies attack pattern favors that evasion move rather that turning back and running (because there's a possibility that you back is filled with enemies too).

And the game rewards good aiming, it's not only kill your enemies before they reach you, it's slow them down before they reach you so you can gain some yards.

But how would being able to move totally spoil that? I mean, obviously your aim would be worse if you move, so there'd be a downside to it. You can still stand still for better aim and using that "old fashioned" tactic, though.

More health would only make the game more annoying, to add straffing and shooting, they should had to make new enemies, animations and entirely different A.I. And they didn't so sticking with RE4 controls it's a goood choice...

Judging from the demo I'd say those enemies would work well. You can still be surrounded and all, you know.

 

[JBuccCP]

Just played it again, I hadn't played it since they locked the Japanese demo. The controls bugged me more than I remember, I'm sure I'll get used to them but I was frustrated a couple times while playing. If there's one thing I would change, even more than moving while shooting, it's to keep the damn laser in the center of the screen. That really bugged me and I kept missing while trying to shoot guys legs.

 

[YuriLowell]

This thread is hilarious.

Resident Evil never got rid of tank controls, it just moved the perspective.

 

[Future PhaZe]

I'm trying to get used to Type D controls right now. Type C was perfect for me but I realized I'm going to be a lot more accurate with using the right analog for my aiming. Still though I keep getting mixed up with my melee and snipe zoom which is causing me issues . I'll get used to it though. I want Type D locked in my head for when the game launches.

 

[zoukka]

So how would making the player able to walk slowly disrupt all that? I mean, if it's too easy you can just increase the difficulty.

It still wouldn't be the fucking same. Didn't I just give several examples from Dead Space. I played it at the hardest difficulty possible and the walking was clearly broken. I mean not everyone wants their games challenging but I do. It really is pointless to argue this when the balance was perfect in RE4 and will be close/better in RE5. You talk like implementing "walk" only requires enemies to gain more health/numbers to balance everything out? Really think it's that simple?

Maybe the game would be more enjoyable to some people, but like this thread shows, there's the other half too. RE4's strongest aspect is the fact that everything is strickly guided and restricted by talented people. Loosen those restrictions and you lose something that made RE4 the classic it still is.



And the Mario analogy didn't hit it seems. I used lock on as an example of a thing that isn't necessary but would make the game easier and more "relaxed". Like my sister who has trouble hitting enemies in SMG all the time if they appear diagonally to Mario. Lock on would help her, but she wouldn't be playing the same game anymore.

This is a very tricky thing to explain, but I sure hope you give the game a chance.

I mean, obviously your aim would be worse if you move, so there'd be a downside to it.

Randomness is unacceptable to these kind of games. It really is.

 

[itsinmyveins]

It still wouldn't be the fucking same. Didn't I just give several examples from Dead Space. I played it at the hardest difficulty possible and the walking was clearly broken. I mean not everyone wants their games challenging but I do. It really is pointless to argue this when the balance was perfect in RE4 and will be close/better in RE5. You talk like implementing "walk" only requires enemies to gain more health/numbers to balance everything out? Really think it's that simple?

Maybe the game would be more enjoyable to some people, but like this thread shows, there's the other half too. RE4's strongest aspect is the fact that everything is strickly guided and restricted by talented people. Loosen those restrictions and you lose something that made RE4 the classic it still is.

The controls in Dead Space are a lot better than the ones in RE5. There's more, though. I haven't finished Dead Space yet, but so far you rarely fight as many enemies in as open areas, which of course makes it easier.

Point still stands though -- no one would force you to walk. I like challenging games, but like this the controls feel more gimped than balanced.

And the Mario analogy didn't hit it seems. I used lock on as an example of a thing that isn't necessary but would make the game easier and more "relaxed". Like my sister who has trouble hitting enemies in SMG all the time if they appear diagonally to Mario. Lock on would help her, but she wouldn't be playing the same game anymore.

This is a very tricky thing to explain, but I sure hope you give the game a chance

The difference is that in RE5 being able to move slowly is a lot more natural evolution of the controls than adding auto aim to Mario. I'm not arguing about putting a walk option in because it'd feel more relaxed, I want it in the game because there should be one.

Randomness is unacceptable to these kind of games. It really is.

A less precise aim while walking wouldn't be "random", though.

 

[cvxfreak]

Again, I said pro -and- reader reviews, i.e. everyone.

Don't mistake it for people wanting one game to control like another, or people saying all games in a genre should control the same; people want their games to play the best way that fits that game. I haven't seen a single convincing argument yet why the RE series wouldn't be better off this way, and I'm betting most people will agree. (Trying to make it out like it would be somehow diluting RE's identity to adapt to a better control scheme, just because another game has also done it, doesn't count in my book as a convincing argment.)

At the same time, the people who argue have also failed to prove that changing the controls would make RE better or be the best way to control "their game." Meanwhile, millions of people enjoyed RE4 and there is evidence that people are able to play the game well and exert a reasonable amount of skill. Just go to Youtube.

Look at it this way. I can't perform very well in the average western third person shooter, which is why I generally don't play them. I think I dislike them for the same reason most Japanese gamers do. When I do happen to try them, I think the controls and the game setups are far too complicated and I find the concept of dual analog to actually be confusing. I remember playing Call of Duty 2 and not making very much progress. Why? Not because the controls are bad, but because they're unsuitable for me. I can't imagine ever being a pro at a CoD game, but there's plenty of evidence that people are, so the controls cannot be bad.

With RE5, people like to quote games like Gears and Dead Space as compelling evidence that RE is better off with new controls. Those games ironically have never received the type of praise or reception that RE4 did a few years back. They have performed poorly with Japanese gamers, while RE4 was most successful in the U.S. and the best selling game of its type in Japan (near 1 Million). But there are underlying game design differences that substantiate the controls for those games and not RE.

If RE's controls frustrate someone, then by all means, please play something else like Dead Space. RE5's already made enough changes to suit western gamees, so it's unnecessary to change the controls, which in turn alter the gameplay, in order for it to become something else. At this point, changing the controls means gameplay changes. I'd rather see RE evolve again and then employ new controls from the get go with design wrapped around it, rather than Capcom shoe-horn the new ones into RE5, which will screw with the gameplay balance. The only exception to this would be the Wiimote with the RE gameplay, which turned out better than most would have expected.