Resident Evil 5 was an amazing game with one HUGE problem

#1t0taldjPosted 1/21/2012 1:00:04 PM

which would had aslo boosted the critical success. The GOD DAMN DLC, which was actually part of the game, then taken out and rereleased as DLC. 

Just imagine yourself when you first got your hands on RE5, but with all the content that was taken out. It would have been a much much better experience that what you really had. 

#2thevirgin878Posted 1/21/2012 1:04:40 PM
I just think the overall setting was lame, was not a fan of the whole sunnday day bright skies vibe, yeah it got a bit dark later one, but the whole time the setting was what was killing it for me
#3OmegaFlare18Posted 1/21/2012 1:38:38 PM
I just didn't think it was that intense. Yeah it was fun but Resident Evil 4 had that constant "ooh ****, run damnit, ack, there's more, turn around, oh no reload damnit!"

5 was just easy
---
PSN: MachineHero09
Gamertag: Mystyr E
#4Famine_10f4Posted 1/21/2012 1:43:14 PM

There were a few more things than that...

#1: Co-op partner, killed the tension but also the A.I was brain dead (was great when you had and actual person, still killed tension).

#2: Easy. The enemies would run up to you and then stop 5 feet away from you for the head shot... what? The chaindsaw guy would lift his saw and then sit there for 2 seconds before making his swing... again, what?

#3: The setting was great. Multicoloured Africa? Not so great.

I believe that might have been it... For me anyways.

#5CrimsonWing321Posted 1/21/2012 8:03:03 PM

Yeah I was arguing with my brother-in-law that said re5 was bad and took a step backwards, but actually it plays better than re4.

I just got done playing re5 an hour ago and it's seriously fun and on veteran there were some oh **** moments. The big thing I think people hated was the ability to not move and shoot. However, "Precision Shooting" is the gameplay element and the entire game revolved around this mechanic. Many of you say that Re5 was too easy, well i'm pretty sure moving and shooting would've made it even easier.

Not too mention that's the tension element, you have a guy running at you and ducking while you try and aim, while several other enemies are coming from your blind side. The fact is if re4 was awarded so many accolades, it's quite odd that re5 garnered so much hate, when they aren't entirely different.

The game plays fine and the A.I. is actually quite well. She does overheal you, but I rarely needed healing at all. Also consider this, would you really want to fight for kills against the A.I. She takes pot shots in order to keep the enemy off you and let's you go in for the kills. I made it through each and every chapter on each difficulty by myself.

The only issue that I came across with the A.I. is when you fight Wesker in his 7 minute round before Jill, the problem only happened on professional mode where Wesker would take her down and I couldn't get to her in time. Still, after perserverance I made it through the battle on single player.

Really, Re5 is an outstanding game, it's just people were expecting run-n-gun gameplay and a bit more from the story.

#6qbertmasterPosted 1/21/2012 8:15:02 PM
Resident Evil 5 was a game with a couple redeeming qualities, but overall, it was plagued (no pun intended) with bad design and lacked much of the qualities for what re5 great.

When I saw the earlier trailers before Sheva was introduced, I was pumped. It looked like they planned to create horror without tension or suspense, but with intensity. There were too many enemies to possibly deal with which created urgency, desperation, and a feeling of isolation.

Instead we got a pretty, colorful game with linear design, textbook definition co-op, and sparse enemies that used the same exact animations from Re4
---
Remember... if it's slightly complicated, there is a wikia for it.
#7P00DGEPosted 1/21/2012 8:25:50 PM
My problem with it was that it felt too segmented and "arcadey". The chapters being segmented like that with a shop in between and the ability to play any chapter at any time. It just felt like a collection of unrelated gobbldegoop to me.
#8P00DGEPosted 1/21/2012 8:30:38 PM
qbertmaster posted...
Resident Evil 5 was a game with a couple redeeming qualities, but overall, it was plagued (no pun intended) with bad design and lacked much of the qualities for what re5 great.

When I saw the earlier trailers before Sheva was introduced, I was pumped. It looked like they planned to create horror without tension or suspense, but with intensity. There were too many enemies to possibly deal with which created urgency, desperation, and a feeling of isolation.

Instead we got a pretty, colorful game with linear design, textbook definition co-op, and sparse enemies that used the same exact animations from Re4


Also, THIS. The early trailers made this game look incredibly intense. The end product was the opposite of what they showed us before. Having a forced partner removed all elements of isolation or risk, and the number of enemies you face at once was no where near as many as they promised. I had hoped that it would have all the action-based gameplay the final product delivered, but with more enemies than you could ever handle to the point that most of the action gameplay was used for self defense while running from most enemies with your life hanging on a thread. Instead, you had even MORE ammo than RE4, with a partner, and a never ending supply of life ala adrenaline. And the game managed to be even more linear than RE4, which at least had some areas that were revisited. The final product was fun, but it just wasn't intense or exciting. Just a collection of maps designed for mindless co-op shooting, with a very segmented, arcade feel to it.
#9ArayzielPosted 1/21/2012 11:03:46 PM
qbertmaster posted...
Resident Evil 5 was a game with a couple redeeming qualities, but overall, it was plagued (no pun intended) with bad design and lacked much of the qualities for what re5 great.

When I saw the earlier trailers before Sheva was introduced, I was pumped. It looked like they planned to create horror without tension or suspense, but with intensity. There were too many enemies to possibly deal with which created urgency, desperation, and a feeling of isolation.

Instead we got a pretty, colorful game with linear design, textbook definition co-op, and sparse enemies that used the same exact animations from Re4


Thiiiiiis. I remember the first trailer showed like at least a few dozen enemies on screen which was intense. I mean, how would one even deal with all that? It looked overwhelming. Then in the actual game we had like 5 enemies at once with a friggin partner. Also, the original trailers showed a much cooler dodging system (you could even duck to avoid axe blows and etc... it looked awesome)
#10GoldsicklePosted 1/21/2012 11:31:09 PM

From: CrimsonWing321 | #005
Many of you say that Re5 was too easy, well i'm pretty sure moving and shooting would've made it even easier.


Mercenaries 3D had walk-and-shoot & run-while-reloading, while fighting against enemies from RE4 & RE5 and yet I don't see the stand-to-shoot apologists proving their claims that they could circle-strafe all enemies without getting hit.

In the Mercenaries 3D board the feedback I get about this control scheme is how it 'gives you enough mobility without breaking the game'.

It's pretty clear that all the claims that "walk and shoot will make RE5 too easy" is purely an exaggerated assumption.
---
There is no such thing as a "Quick Time Event done right".
A game that has Quick Time Events is a "video game done wrong".