PS3 Resident Evil 5 demo available now

By Robert Purchese Published 3 February, 2009

Xbox 360 sampler downloaded by 1.8m.

The Resident Evil 5 demo can now be downloaded from the PlayStation Store.

Its 942MB arrival comes a few days behind Xbox 360, which had it last Thursday.

Since then, Microsoft has said more than 1.8 million people have tried the spooky shooter - and over 1.3 million of those during the first three days.

The Resident Evil 5 demo lets players battle through couple of levels from the full game, either alone with a computer-controlled companion, Sheva, or with a friend taking control of her in split-screen or online co-op.

Resident Evil 5 launches for Xbox 360 and PS3 on 13th March, leaving plenty of time to explore the demo. It's not a race.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (106) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • LHH #1 3 years ago

    I heard the PS3 version has three levels instead of the two.

    FIRST!!

  • chrispontius #2 3 years ago

    downloaded it ,thought it sucked big time felt like a arcade shooter nothing like resident evil should be and dodgy controls , res evil 4 was much much better , it looked great just played like crap and it only has two levels not three . ps3 version
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 09:15

  • Vistrix #3 3 years ago

    Such a big dissapointment.

  • Steroyd #4 3 years ago

    RE5 to RE4 is what DMC2 is to DMC1.

    I can understand the realtime menu because of the online co-op but that doesn't excuse how horrible I think the menu system is, the the controls are awful there's no tension as there was in RE4, which had the whole "Oh Sh-- they can run fast now :o" going for them.

    Demo is a bitter disapointment, here's hoping they re-fix RE6 like they did DMC3.

  • skillian #5 3 years ago

    But it does feature a >boob locator. That's gotta be worth an 8/10 at least.

  • menage #6 3 years ago

    @Steroyd

    That lack of tension is probably because it's a demo without any real context or purpose. I've never been tense in a demo, there's no risk whatsoever. seeing as it stops in 15 minutes anyway.

    Dead Space, Blue Dragon, etc all crap boring demo's with pretty good games attached.
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 09:28

  • Eraysor #7 3 years ago

    Shame the game is so terrible. The control scheme is even more dated now than it was back when Resi 4 was released.

  • Thamuhacha #8 3 years ago

    It annoyed me a lot. But I wasn't a massive fan of RE4 (just never grabbed me).

    So I am surprised so many people hate the demo as much as I did!

  • andijames #9 3 years ago

    You do realise there's 4 different control schemes to choose from right?

    I thought the controls were ok personally. Takes a bit of getting used to some elements but it's not that bad. Will reserve judgement till the final game's released.

  • Steroyd #10 3 years ago

    @Menage

    The African slums level reminded me of that part in RE4 when you was trapped in the house and there was wave after wave of las plagus getting to you, it was nowhere close replicating that part even the axe wielding guy was lame, because he was wiping out zombies for me. :/

    With that said the way I easily killed the zombies the game was most likely on easy which might have something to do with the non-pressure, and a stupid decision on Cacpcom's part if true, but the menu and my partner who is more trouble than Ashley ever was in the whole of RE4 in those first few minutes of RE5 alone left a sour taste in my mouth.

  • Bangaioh #11 3 years ago

    I must admit that I didn't explore the demo properly, just quickly tried both levels.
    I'm an old school fan of RE, back to the first release on PSX: played them all and enjoyed most of them (probably REIII was a bit on the weak side while I loved the reissues on NGC) up to REIV that was amazing.
    This demo however feels a bit old... The engine is there, graphics aren't the worst I've seen but the rest seems pretty loose: zombies are extremely dumb, running into walls and not as fast as expected, controls seem to be annoying but I must admit, I need to try the other set ups and see if it actually improves... might eventually buy this but it will be the first Resident Evil I won't buy on day one (and that includes the JP edition of Code Veronica I still have a copy of).

  • menage #12 3 years ago

    @Steroyd

    I'm also not sold on the game if I had to judge it by the demo. I'll wait for user feedback and reviews for that. And I do admit the ai was more of a swamping kind than real intelligence.

    What bothered me the most was mys sidekick though, Who kept humping me all the way through the demo. Bitch get of my back. I wish I could just do this solo without a companion as a choice..

  • Thunderbolt #13 3 years ago

    I really wanted to like the demo and the African setting sounds interesting. Plus I heard that you could modify the controls to best suit your playing style

    But between the awkward controls and the dodgy controls it was extremely frustrating. Havent tried the second level yet.

    Yes, the are 4 alternate control schemes but dont correct the core gameplay IMO.

    GTA IV L&D comes out soon so that should keep me occupied for a while instead

  • Santino #14 3 years ago

    cant help but feel this demo has done capcom more harm than good.

  • vegard #15 3 years ago

    if this game had the same controll scheme as dead space, i'd be all over it. but it doesn't, and creating "tension" by shitty movement controls isn't very interesting to me. it's like having sex with a 87-year old just to feel some extra friction.

  • SteveB #16 3 years ago

    Is there any tearing in the PS3 version ? It was terrible in the 360 demo, the worst I have seen (even in the cut scenes). Anyone who has played both, how do they compare ?

  • des #17 3 years ago

    Demo is awesome,haters can only cry

  • penhalion #18 3 years ago

    @menage

    You do realise there's 4 different control schemes to choose from right?

    None of which allow you to do something as basic as moving while holding a gun....whawhawhawhaaaaaaaaaaaaa! That's all folks!

  • drumbaby #19 3 years ago

    Controls feel old and strange, and I liked RE4 quite alot. Graphics are nice, but not as amazing as the screenshots seemed to suggest. It all looks very clean and sharp, but not particularly atmospheric. Think I'll get Killzone 2 before this.

  • m0thr4 #20 3 years ago

    Graphics are great (no tearing that I could see), but the controls are horrible.

    My biggest gripe is that you can't jump or climb except in certain places where the game says you can, which is extremely old-fashioned. You'll see plenty of objects that could easily be climbed onto in other games, but in this one you're stuck to the ground. Turning around is very cumbersome for a game in which you are frequently surrounded by people running to attack you.

    I had heard that they were going to add a feature that let you step sideways while shooting, but it seems that this only works when not shooting, which isn't useful at all. As in RE4, as soon as you go into aiming mode, you're suddenly rooted to the spot and your gun's laser waves all over the place, making it tricky to get a clean shot.

    I just know Capcom are going to argue that this heightens the tension (as they did for RE4) but for some people, it's only going to heighten the frustration. The bottom line is: the control system constantly reminds you that you're playing a video game. If you're ok with that, then you'll probably enjoy the game.

  • kinky_mong #21 3 years ago

    Bunch of whingers. The controls are fine, people just need to accept that Resi games will never let you run and shoot.

  • menage #22 3 years ago

    @penhalion

    Eh,

    I think you mean someone else.

  • m0thr4 #23 3 years ago

    Bunch of whingers. The controls are fine, people just need to accept that Resi games will never let you run and shoot.

    Ah, that good old British tradition... don't complain, otherwise things might just get better... and that might mean things changing... let's just keep things fucked up, because at least we know where we are.

    /goes off to vote Labour again

  • Steroyd #24 3 years ago

    RE4's controls scheme did heighten tension however level design and enemy AI, complimented the control scheme.

    I know it's just 2 levels but... they've botched the standing and aiming part ontop of that the menu is in realtime, which never helps that you have to micromanage your partners health/ammo all while you're getting lunged at by the zombies and the axe maniac who doesn't hold a candle to the chain saw dude. :/

    I should stop, i'll only make myself more depressed and i'm probably sounding like a broken record at this point, but I'm soooo disapointed in the demo. :_:

  • HermitArcader #25 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • andijames #26 3 years ago

    @penhalion

    It wasn't menage it was me :) Yes i know you can't but that's by design which, to be fair, won't appeal to everyone but is what the developer intended

  • valli #27 3 years ago

    Oh dear... "Dead Space" really messed up this game by showing how 3p controls should be done. It's a shock coming directly from several run throughs in DS!

    Great atmosphere, pacing, settings and cut scenes though. Capcom should force the RE5 devs to complete DS then spend a month polishing their controls accordingly.

  • chessboxer #28 3 years ago

    I give this Meh/10.

    I will be playing KZ2 and SFIV in March methinks.

  • VandelayIndustries #29 3 years ago

    All Capcom have to do is put two modes in; An old school one - as they have done and a run and gun mode. Maybe throw in an achievement/trophy for beating the game in old school.

    If they don't do this I think they will lose quite a few sales.

  • rhubarbandcustard #30 3 years ago

    My 'broadband' connection is so slow, that I have given up downloading demos. All of them appear to be at 1 gig in size and it means having to leave my console on all night.

    Not going to happen as:
    a) my 360 would probably red ring
    b) my ps3 gets so hot in a couple of hours gaming that left on all night it would probably explode
    c) frigging leccy bill grows each quarter like a cancerous tumour

    Can't they just give out compilation demo discs at Game?

    Why is hardware so poorly fucking made?

  • Pac #31 3 years ago

    I have no problem with the controls, however 2 things did spoil it for me:

    The screen tearing is horrendous on the 360 - possibly the worst I have ever experienced. Hopefully this is just a problem with the demo code.

    Secondly the AI of the computer controlled character is not great and if the character gets killed (by a one hit kill enemy for example) it is game over. If this happens often during the finished game it could get terribly annoying (thought the online co-op was amazing though).

  • Bulbatron #32 3 years ago

    When people complained about the controls on this demo when it came out on the Xbox 360, lots of people seemed to think it was because the complainers just wanted it to be another Gears of War. I wonder if it will be any different for the PlayStation 3 version. After all, the PlayStation format was the original home of Resident Evil.

  • optimusprym8 #33 3 years ago

    There may have been lots of people downloading it but I doubt many of them will convert to buyers. The demo just shows how out of touch and out of date the control system is. It's a PS2 game with pretty graphics. Having to restart the whole thing if you or your partner dies is just annoying but that's not part of the bigger annoyances with the game. Had the controls been more like Dead Space then I might have thought about getting it but I'm not paying good money for ancient technology.

    Fail

  • m0thr4 #34 3 years ago

    My 'broadband' connection is so slow, that I have given up downloading demos. All of them appear to be at 1 gig in size and it means having to leave my console on all night.

    No it doesn't. Both consoles have a feature that switches them off when downloads have finished. Read your manuals.

  • Weezer #35 3 years ago

    Epic meh. Shan't be buying.

  • m0thr4 #36 3 years ago

    Thanks to you whiny cunts shouting racism we now have chinese people and white people breaking down our doors in RE5 IN AFRICA.

    Hey, that was Crapcom's choice. They could easily have made the playable characters black instead, thus avoiding any charges of racism but still keeping the scenario reasonably believable.

    And thanks to you whiny cunts RE6 will have run and gun controls like Doom.

    You bitch about RE losing its survival horror theme, YOU ARE THE FUCKING REASON THIS SERIES ISN'T AS GOOD AS IT COULD BE BECAUSE YOU NEVER SHUT THE FUCK UP MOANING.

    So, you're implying that clunky, unresponsive and unrealistic character controls are an integral part of the survival horror genre?

  • Rash' #37 3 years ago

    I agree there's more whining in this thread than necessary. I thought the graphics and art direction were great. What is apparent from the beginning, control wise, is not much has changed since RE4. That as far as I'm concerned is a good thing. It was the combination of limiting controls with fast paced opponents that created the sense of tension in RE4. It's an excellent control system that serves the game well.

    I thought the collaboration introduced with a more influential partner in Sheva was interesting. I've not spent enough time to comment on the pop up menu and it's ability to share and exchange items with your partner (CPU assisted or player controlled) but holds promise in raising tension in a team dynamic.

    What worked well was the ability to assign items to the dpad, making item switching fast and intuitive.

    People in here really need to get a grip. I'm off to try it online. :)

  • Greebo #38 3 years ago


    Since I'm snowed in, I thought I'd download the PS3 demo to compare to the 360 version I've had a few days.

    Annoyingly at twice the filesize of the 360 demo, it looks like I'll be waiting a while!

    Screen tearing is definitely down to the game not having been through final optimisation yet. Capcom know how to do good presentation and I'm certain it will be gone in the final release.

    I for one and looking forward to this. Split screen co-op was great fun!

  • m0thr4 #39 3 years ago

    When people complained about the controls on this demo when it came out on the Xbox 360, lots of people seemed to think it was because the complainers just wanted it to be another Gears of War. I wonder if it will be any different for the PlayStation 3 version. After all, the PlayStation format was the original home of Resident Evil.

    I think that's a bit unfair on Xbox 360 owners... I don't think anyone necessarily wants the control system of Gears of War, or of any other particular game. I think people just want the control system from RE4, but improved to be more responsive.

    Capcom's philosophy seems to be that restrictive controls create tension. The problem with this approach is the kind of tension it produces can vary from person to person. What's tense in a good, scary way to one person can just as easily be pure unpleasant frustration for others. There are other, far better ways to create tension in video games that don't involve hobbling the main character (e.g. pacing the levels properly, good use of music & audio) and therefore avoiding frustrating your players, and we've seen this in plenty of games recently.

    I think the team behind RE5 have possibly been working for the same company (and on the same game) for too long and are stuck in a rut. As a developer myself, I've seen this happen countless times and the only solution is to mix your teams up a bit to get a fresh approach. Also, they've flogged the original story to death, so perhaps the best thing to do would be to lay it to rest and leave us with good memories.

  • Vin #40 3 years ago

    Switch to 720p to get rid of the screen tearing.

  • actionfitz #41 3 years ago

    @vegard
    03-Feb-09 09:57:03

    if this game had the same controll scheme as dead space, i'd be all over it. but it doesn't, and creating "tension" by shitty movement controls isn't very interesting to me. it's like having sex with a 87-year old just to feel some extra friction.

    ----


    ewww fucking harsh dude... lol
    I hear ya about the Deadspace controls though.
    if the only way devs can make a game have tension is to give your character cataracts and a gammy leg... and say there you go! go waste some zombies now you baddass!...you get my drift.

  • dominalien #42 3 years ago

    Coming from Dead Space, it was a rude awakening that I couldn't move while aiming. I guess it didn't bother me when I was playing RE4. Also, on the default control scheme (Type D?) the strafing inconsistency is really annoying, at least at first (walk and L stick strafes, run and L stick turns). Also, knife is annoying, requiring me to press L2 and wait a bit before pressing R1 to swing, otherwise the swing doesn't register.

    I got absolutely slaughtered by the axe guy in one mission and the chainsaw guy in the other. Still, looking forward to playing this as soon as it comes out!

  • penhalion #43 3 years ago

    @menage

    Oops sorry. No idea why I associated that quote with you?!?!?

    The controls are ghastly to say the least. I'm genuinely not sure how capcom think frustration is the same as tention. It certainly isn't. The controls of Resi 4 and now 5 are frustrating. They argue that not being able to move while shooting adds to the atmostphere, yet silent hill 1 and 2 allowed you to move and shoot and had better tention and atmostphere than resi ever has.

    Basically the arguments used by capcom simply don't ring true.

  • Pac #44 3 years ago

    Surely the people saying that the controls are broken must realise that this is a matter of opinion - right?

    Some people have even implied that the controls are somehow “ancient" or antiquated. The fact of the matter is that run and gun games go back much further than RE games (Castle Wolfenstein, Doom etc).

    I bet for every person that complains about the controls there are just as many that find the control scheme adds to the tension.

    The franchise seems popular enough! Why change it?

  • m0thr4 #45 3 years ago

    @penhalion

    I was thinking more of games like the original Half Life (now 10 years old!). There are plenty of incredibly tense and scary "survival horrror" moments in that game, yet it simply uses the Quake 2 engine and controls.

    EDIT: Or what about System Shock (and its sequel)?
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 12:04

  • kinky_mong #46 3 years ago

    Ah, that good old British tradition... don't complain, otherwise things might just get better... and that might mean things changing... let's just keep things fucked up, because at least we know where we are.


    You would have a point if people weren't also whinging about the game changing with a co-op partner and real time menu.I personally had a great time playing the demo with a friend online and thought the tension of the second level when the chainsaw guy turns up was even better when I had my friend panicking in my ear.

  • m0thr4 #47 3 years ago

    Surely the people saying that the controls are broken must realise that this is a matter of opinion - right?

    Yes, of course. I never said they were broken, just that I found them frustrating

    Some people have even implied that the controls are somehow “ancient" or antiquated. The fact of the matter is that run and gun games go back much further than RE games (Castle Wolfenstein, Doom etc).

    Those are first-person games. Games that manage third-person in 3D are much more recent and have, until recently, rarely managed to get the control system right.

    I bet for every person that complains about the controls there are just as many that find the control scheme adds to the tension.

    That could be right, in which case Capcom will do well with this game. I suspect though, that it's more likely that some of the people who enjoyed RE4, and have played other games since, will not want to go back to that control system. I also doubt that anyone who has never played a Resident Evil game before will be too impressed. So my bet is that this game will not do as well as previous games.

    The franchise seems popular enough! Why change it?

    You're absolutely right; if it sells enough to recoup the costs of development and provide a better return for Capcom's investors than the last game, then there is no need to change it. We shall have to see if this turns out to be the case.

  • Eurytus #48 3 years ago

    "I bet for every person that complains about the controls there are just as many that find the control scheme adds to the tension. "

    I just can't understand the need for artificially creating tension. I mean the whole point of the zombie genre in movies is that it doesn't matter how mobile the people are, it doesn't matter how much weaponry they have. Despite all their disadvantages the zombies will wear them down in the end.

    By forcing you to stand still and shoot Capcom are basically removing the main differentiation between human and zombie, the mobility. Moreover it makes no sense whatsoever. It simply ends up being another artificial barrier which reminds you that you are in a video game and if anything drains the tension away leading to frustration instead.

  • Rash' #49 3 years ago

    mOthr, The charge of unresponsive is unjustified. Yes the controls are exotic but they are consistent and responsive within their design.

    I also think the years of third and first person games with "realistic" controls have stifled gamers ability to appreciate control schemes outside the "norm".

    I'm not suggesting they're perfect but they're not as bad as "unresponsive" and "horrible".

    Edit. The implication the controls are unrealistic made me laugh. A typical western ideal that shoots for realism when alternatives can serve just as well.
    Edited by 2 at 03/02/09 @ 12:21

  • m0thr4 #50 3 years ago

    Ah, that good old British tradition... don't complain, otherwise things might just get better... and that might mean things changing... let's just keep things fucked up, because at least we know where we are.

    You would have a point if people weren't also whinging about the game changing with a co-op partner and real time menu.I personally had a great time playing the demo with a friend online and thought the tension of the second level when the chainsaw guy turns up was even better when I had my friend panicking in my ear.

    I was only referring to the control system (the only part I have a problem with), so I think my point still stands. The complaints about the co-op partner only seem to extend to "solo" mode where your partner's AI is a bit clumsy.

    I'm sure online co-op is a brilliant way to play the game and may even mitigate the control scheme, I just haven't tried it yet.

  • m0thr4 #51 3 years ago

    mOthr, The charge of unresponsive is unjustified. Yes the controls are exotic but they are consistent and responsive within their design.

    When I say, 'unresponsive', I'm specifically talking about how quickly the character is able to turn around.

    I also think the years of third and first person games with "realistic" controls have stifled gamers ability to appreciate control schemes outside the "norm".

    There's a reason why games companies stick to the norm and use what has worked well in the past, maybe tweaking it to making it even better. An 'exotic' control system is simply a barrier to playing the game that doesn't need to be there. It adds unnecessarily to the learning curve and divides your potential customers (as we can see here).

    Games should evolve the same way living things do: discard what doesn't work, but keep what does work and refine it as much as possible.

    Put it another way, if RE4's control system was the ultimate in creating tension in video games, don't you think other companies would have copied it by now?

    I'm not suggesting they're perfect but they're not as bad "unresponsive" and "horrible".

    Well, as someone else pointed out, that is a matter of opinion, and I was just expressing mine.

  • tomnol #52 3 years ago

    I guess "It creates tension" translates to "We couldn't have been arsed to rewrite the whole engine".

  • ryohazuki1983 #53 3 years ago

    How the hell do you kill the chainsaw dude, I had 2 attempts at the game, first time he just ran up to me and killed me, next time I ran away and exploded one of the barrels, and shot him loads of times, but he didn't die and ended up getting me again.

    Maybe i'm just shit, I enjoyed the game but not sure if i'm gonna buy it if I can't even defeat the chainsaw dude in the demo!

  • makeamazing #54 3 years ago

    I was really looking forward to this, but am not that impressed so far.

    Controls were pants, yes i hear you can change them within the game, but seriously as the default controls they do not work very well at all.

  • Rash' #55 3 years ago

    mOthr, exotic controls are only a barrier if they're shoehorned into a game not designed for them. I suspect your issue is with the ability to navigate 3D space and for that you feel a more realistic solution would be more appropriate. I agree that's a matter of opinion.

    And not all great designs are copied, BOP's ability to jump in and out of an online space being a recent example.
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 13:19

  • m0thr4 #56 3 years ago

    And not all great designs are copied, BOP's ability to jump in and out of an online space being a recent example.

    You mean, like you can in "Test Drive Unlimited", which was released some years earlier?

    ;-)

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #57 3 years ago

    "when I had my friend panicking in my ear. "

    Tell him frankie says relax, mothra :-)

  • bad09 #58 3 years ago

    "Microsoft has said more than 1.8 million people have tried the spooky shooter"

    and 1.6 million were disappointed...

    A lot of people are not happy, Capcom are gonna hurt on this one I think - Hopefully they'll listen go back to what made RE great on the next one.
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 13:33

  • Rash' #59 3 years ago

    mOthr, What so you push right, right, right and bam! you're online? Either way, the point still stands: not all great designs are copied. And I'm glad. I'd much rather savour a diverse range of creative experiences then have a one way evolutionary sytem. I couldn't disagree with your philosophy more.

    Finally, I think many who played RE4 are forgetting what made the game brilliant: the constant on slaught of brilliantly memorable set pieces. This demo gives a good indication of the quality to expect.
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 13:45

  • Bulbatron #60 3 years ago

    "I think that's a bit unfair on Xbox 360 owners... I don't think anyone necessarily wants the control system of Gears of War, or of any other particular game. I think people just want the control system from RE4, but improved to be more responsive. "

    mOthr4, I may have garbled my last post slightly. What I was saying was, that every time somebody complained about the controls on the Xbox 360 demo, they were often assumed by other people to be a person who wanted the game to be like Gears of War. So what I am saying is, that since the PlayStation 3 does not have Gears of War, what will now be the response to players complaining about the controls?

    I never had a problem with the controls myself, having had no problems with any of the previous Resident Evil games (from the main story, that is). My frustration came from all the changes that had to be made to allow for co-op. The actual co-op itself was a lot of fun, but the problem was that it spilled over into single player mode, meaning that solo players also had to put up with the real-time inventory and A.I. partner.

    Now I am fully aware that many people had no problems at all with either the inventory or the A.I. I just wish I had their reflexes and skill They rightly pointed out that the inventory contains shortcuts and the ability to swap objects around the menu, while Sheva can be told to either attack or hold back.

    But everybody is different and unfortunately, I am just not skilled enough to keep myself alive AND watch out for the A.I. at the same time. Managing the inventory AND ordering the partner around at the same time as keeping myself alive is a hell of a lot to manage. Especially when the death of my A.I. partner means it is Game Over for me as well. Perhaps as well as b+up/down for attack/hold back, they should also have included b+left/right for wait here/stay out of harm's way.

    Unfortunately, I just don't have the skill or reflexes manage it as it appears in the demo. The Resident Evil games have never been lightweight when it comes to difficulty, but they have never asked so much of the player before, and I hate the feeling that after all this time with the series, I am probably going to suck at this latest entry.

    As I said before, I had no problem with the controls myself in terms of moving around. Having said that, I see no reason why Capcom shouldn't at least provide the OPTION for more traditional third-person-shooter controls for those who want them. While the traditional Resi controls do provide extra tension, I think if a game is done well enough in other areas, such as the atmosphere, suspense and audio, then making the controls artificially complex really isn't necessary.

    Capcom seem to be taking big steps towards making the series feel more modern and contemporary, so it seems strange that none of the control methods offered in the options screen of the demo seem to be trying to make the same leap that other areas of the game are attempting. Would it hurt to at least offer a set of controls that are similar to games such as Dead Space? No, of course it wouldn't, because those who want the triditional controls need not use the newer ones.

    Of course, all thes observations are only based on the demo, so things may be different when the full game arrives. And I fully recognise that many of my problems with the demo are simply because I am not good enough at managing the A.I. partner and the real-time inventory, but that doesn't stop me from feeling increasingly alienated by a series I used to love.

  • Rash' #61 3 years ago

    I love how people are judging how good a yet to be released game is because of a demo.
    Edited by 2 at 03/02/09 @ 13:50

  • penhalion #62 3 years ago

    @ryohazuki1983

    You kill both the axe guy and the chainsaw guy in the same way i.e. you shoot them until they drop to one knee, then you do a melee attack. It takes about 4 - 5 melee attacks like this to kill them. Chainsaw guy is easiers as you can use the sniper to shoot him in the head and that drops him to his knees every time.

    So yes I've played and mastered the Resi games and yes I absolutely hate the controls. I like to die when it's my fault and not because the controls caused it. In particula this is true of the resi bosses, where you can't even back up while shooting them and have to stand and take the punishment. That's not tention that's downright unfair gameplay!

  • bad09 #63 3 years ago

    "I love how people are judging the quality of yet to be released game of a demo."

    Not aimed at Rash' in particular but It's funny how the pro RE5 guys are saying this, what is the point of a demo if not to let you judge for YOURSELF if it's a good game or not.

    Sure I've played crap demos and enjoyed the full game a couple of times but really guys people don't like what Capcom have done you just have to deal with it.

    Now if that demo is a one off and the rest of the game plays COMPLETELY different, fine, but we all know, just like 4, what we are seeing is what we are getting throughout.

  • Gecks #64 3 years ago

    the controls are a bit shit when you're running (weirdest turning circle ever), but otherwise i found them fine. resi evil games (well, 4 + 5) are like mobile shooting galleries. you plonk yourself in a position of perceived safety, pop some heads, then move on. the resi series has always placed restrictions on player movement but they are never arbitrary. i can dig it.

    also, it's clear (to me) that this is a game for co-op play. playing in single player would be like playing left 4 dead in single player. a couple of goes online with my mate and we were really getting into it. IMO those two levels have the kind of tension that i felt i should have been experiencing in the opening stages of resi 4, but never did. i can really dig it.
    Edited by 6 at 03/02/09 @ 17:40

  • Thunderbolt #65 3 years ago

    Rash',

    You do know that you dont have to defend everything.

    If this game was released ten years ago it would have been great however since the last RE game there have been several advances in the survival horror genre noticebly Dead Space and Left 4 Dead.

    I have a feeling that Capcom are doing a Sony here and being incredibly arrogant only for it blow in the faces IMO.

  • m0thr4 #66 3 years ago

    mOthr, What so you push right, right, right and bam! you're online? Either way, the point still stands: not all great designs are copied. And I'm glad. I'd much rather savour a diverse range of creative experiences then have a one way evolutionary sytem. I couldn't disagree with your philosophy more.

    If you can name one great design that hasn't been copied, then I'll believe you. Until then...

  • m0thr4 #67 3 years ago

    I have a feeling that Capcom are doing a Sony here and being incredibly arrogant only for it blow in the faces IMO.

    Well, it's either arrogance or ignorance. :-)

  • Rash' #68 3 years ago

    mOthr, depends on ones definition of great...

    :)

    You're missing the point though. Your suggestion that the best designs are copied is flawed. Treasure regularly innovate in the shooter genre and yet nobody copies them. Bioware's interactive dialogue is still a design only used in their RPGs (as far as know). The use of synesthesia as tool to heighten the players' involvement is a device still predominantly used by Tetzuya Mizuguchi. And how many devs thought Strangers Wrath's use of third and first person was worth further investigating?

    I don't agree with your notion that one size fits all.
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 14:55

  • Steroyd #69 3 years ago

    Type A controls which are based of RE4 is a marked improvement, however the issue about the AI companion still remains.

  • Rash' #70 3 years ago

    bad, I'll give you that the demo, as a taster of the full game, is open to judgment calls, but if you haven't played the full game you're not really in a position to say whether Capcom should go back and make RE great again. Furthermore, there is more to analyse than just the controls. I don't buy this argument that the controls make the game bad. The criticism on this thread is too simplistic for that. If the controls leave people divided than they obviously work, so rather than dismissing the game because one critique maybe it'd be better to appreciate the other areas of the game. After all you felt passionate enough to write about it here so, why not put that effort into the actual game?

  • m0thr4 #71 3 years ago

    You're missing the point though. Your suggestion that the best designs are copied is flawed. Treasure regularly innovate in the shooter genre and yet nobody copies them. Bioware's interactive dialogue is still a design only used in their RPGs (as far as know). The use of synesthesia as tool to heighten the players' involvement is a device still predominantly used by Tetzuya Mizuguchi. And how many devs thought Strangers Wrath's use of third and first person was worth further investigating?


    You've used some really bad examples to illustrate your point. I could easily argue those games haven't been imitated because they weren't terribly popular with consumers, or that they have been imitated, or that they weren't unique in the first place. I'm guessing you've not been playing video games that long, and/or you haven't played many PC games.

    Treasure may lead the field of side scrolling shooters, but their ideas have filtered down into other games plenty of times over... it's just that Treasure usually choose to use them all in the same game. Anyway, it's such a limited market, I'm not surprised they haven't been imitated more.

    Bioware's interactive dialogue is really no different to interactive dialogue in scores of other games - it's just a slightly different way of presenting the same information (and I disagree that it's any better than the traditional methods).

    As for Tetsuya Mizuguchi using synesthesia, you should be careful when reading the pompous wafflings of video game journalists who misuse words in an effort to impress. Blending your sound and music with the graphics and gameplay is not the same thing, but it has been emulated several times since.

    Finally, I haven't played "Stranger's Wrath", but I've played many other games that switch the character between first-person and third person - are you absolutely sure you haven't?


    I don't agree with your notion that size fits all.

    Good, because I don't have that notion. I just believe that good design prevails through imitation and improvement.
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 15:25

  • Marshall2008 #72 3 years ago

    If your a RE fanboy you will love this. Anyone new to the franchise will hate it.

  • Rash' #73 3 years ago

    mOthr, I've been playing a good while, but I'm a console gamer, as I'm always felt the PC to be a bit too impractical for me. So maybe that's something to consider. I think in the context of good design prevails through imitation and improvement, i would add the Wiimote to Treasure's work.

  • Cadence #74 3 years ago

    Are the controls much worse than RE4? If they're the same then I've got absolutely no problem and will be buying this. Are the people that are complaining comparing this to RE4 or is it their first time playing a RE game?

    Also, what's the deal with the real-time menus? I don't like the idea that I can't pause the game and carefully choose my next weapon or combine some herbs for example, without getting mauled in the background!
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 15:37

  • kungfubob #75 3 years ago

    i havent really played much of the resi evil games. i played the first and second games but left out the others.

    I actually like the demo but i would like to see better AI for the zombies and a revised control system. Its like Chris Redfield has a pole up his butt and it can be more of a hinderance than help but i guess thats the way the game was meant to be played.

  • Artemus #76 3 years ago

    Like a lot of people, I found the controls in the demo really hard work. After a few plays, I got more used to them but it still feels really unnatural.

    Oh and I didn't find the controls in RE4 a problem at all.
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 16:11

  • tomnol #77 3 years ago

    I love how people are judging how good a yet to be released game is because of a demo.

    What else is a demo for then?

  • Steroyd #78 3 years ago

    @Cadence

    The default controls are worse, thankfully there's a RE4 control scheme option.

    I'm comparing it to RE4, I found RE4 sublime from beginning to end, and I've never been this initially disapointed in a game, since Devil May Cry 2.
    It seems Capcom wanted to make a TPS type control scheme, to please the Gears/Uncharted crowd while retaining the RE4 type gimpage, which isn't working.

  • Darren #79 3 years ago

    Well the controls are as clunky as ever with Chris feeling like a tank when turning and movement is irritatingly laggy to the point where it feels like I'm wading through treacle or something... even when running! When you only have a couple of enemies coming at you then the controls are passable to fine but frustration soon sets in when you have more that three enemies approaching you because the controls can't respond fast enough. They feel dated IMO. Chris Redfield is a former S.T.A.R.S. agent not a bloody geriatric so why does he move like one?!? :?

    Apart from the controls though, which you get used to (read: learn to tolerate), the game otherwise is pretty good and the graphics are excellent if a little non-interactive. The Xbox 360 version definitely has the visual edge though with much better anti-aliasing and shadows that don't flicker. Also the 360 controller makes the clumsy controls just that bit less annoying so I think I shall buy the 360 version.

  • 8bitMofo #80 3 years ago

    Oh, hang on a mo. Let me just stand perfectly still to reload, while you swing that fucking axe at me.

    Capcom = Shitty animation-loving faggots.

  • ryohazuki1983 #81 3 years ago

    @penhalion

    Cheers, will give it another go.

  • rogueJT #82 3 years ago

    funny thing about this is that itwould probably have sold a lot more had Capcom not decided to release this demo.

    Looks like i'll buy SFIV instead.
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 17:37

  • bad09 #83 3 years ago

    @ evilfoxhound

    "Chirst, gamers are getting harder and harder to please these days."

    See I don't think it is that. I honestly think that despite the pretty pixels of current gen, games companies a lot of the time are more and more moving away from what gamers actually want. Hands up who wanted a co-op mode in RE? Not many I'd figure judging from the reception the demo has had.

    I find myself complaining more and more these days, to the point that other day I shocked Mrs bad09 by telling her I was fed with gaming and maybe it was time to hang up my controller.

    (Of course that all went away when I turned on L4D and then bought a DC!)

  • JahB #84 3 years ago

    i hate to join the bitching, but i downloaded this today and it was appalling.

    why in the world did they add this stupid co-op character? the point of a survival horror game is to be ALONE - excepting enemies of course - in a SCARY environment, not to have some digital bimbo run after you. and if that decision wasn't bad enough, it's game over when she dies. i can put with the worst of difficulties, i have no problem with having to restart because i messed it up, but game over because i didn't save the AI is an epic fail.

    being forced to constantly save somebody else is not survival horror. why don't they just call this RE:Bodyguard

  • m0thr4 #85 3 years ago

    Had another play just now and can enumerate more precisely what I didn't like about the controls:

    1. You have to press a button to run. Why, when you have two analogue sticks at your disposal?
    2. As soon as you start running, turning suddenly moves from the right stick to the left stick and the right stick becomes useless so there's no strafing at all (FFS!?!)
    3. Turning with the right stick is too slow when you're surrounded and there's no way to adjust this in the options
    4. You're rooted to the spot when you're shooting and you certainly can't step sideways (just like in RE4)
    5. The camera is too low behind you; when you're walking, your character obscures too much of the left side of the screen. When you're using the knife, the camera is ridiculously low and your character obscures even more of the screen.

    To be honest, I'm not after Half Life or Gears of War style controls at all. I think the biggest problems are with 1, 2 & 3 above. In fact point 2 sounds awfully familiar from Dead Rising, another game whose controls just plain annoyed me. These are odd design decisions that not only make the movement of your character feel stiff and cumbersome, but also make it look that way to an observer - check out someone else playing it (on YouTube for example) and you'll see what I mean.

    If those three points were fixed, I could actually live with points 4 & 5.
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 18:52

  • kurtxx #86 3 years ago

    Just to let you people know, yes there is a lot of screen tearing in the 360 demo, but only if you run in 1080p..
    Play the game in (same res as the ps3 version) 720p and there is none what so ever..
    Hopefully they will have the 1080p mode fixed by release..

  • septimus #87 3 years ago

    Shame really. Dead Space > RE5. Never mind, at least DS does survival horror right so not missing much. I think co-op will be the only thing to save this game for me personally.

  • bad09 #88 3 years ago

    @ septimus

    Cheers mate, you've reminded me my little break from DS for other games (many unfinished games on my shelf these days) before doing impossible mode is up - well it's not really but the mere mention of DS made me want to plat it :)

    / Goes back into the nightmare.....

  • VMerken #89 3 years ago

    M0thr4 and related Control Whinerz(tm),

    Some advice to you all: if you don't like the controls or can't be arsed to learn them through a few practise runs, go play something else that has what you so obviously desire. According to the current fad, Dead Space should get your money instead because it contains all those generics you crave. Or try Simon Says. I hear that one has very intuitive controls. It's challenging, too.

    Now let's take a look at M0thr4's five points of contention with the controls (and focus especially on 1, 2 and 3 since those appear to be his biggest problem) and allow me to shine a subtle, different light on them:

    >>>1. You have to press a button to run. Why, when you have two analogue sticks at your disposal?

    And that is a problem why? Are you too lazy to hold a single button to instruct your character to go from "walk" to "run"? I guess
    they should also have included infinite ammo because pressing a reload button and running out of ammo are so... "last gen".

    Remember Devil May Cry? A spin-off from Resident Evil 4. It had the dual analogue stick controls you refer to. It even had no reloading fuss! Executed to a tee, I might add. Easy times. So they could have implemented this kind of thing just as easily into Resident Evil 4...

    But they didn't. Why? Because you don't need it in Resident Evil 4. Devil May Cry REQUIRES dual analogue controls because the enemies will cut you down in seconds unless you're the greatest Devil May Cry player that ever existed. It also needs it because the game is about Stylish Hard Action, not Survival Horror. A focus on Action and a focus on Survival, those are two very different things which may induce the need for differing approaches.

    In Resident Evil 4 (and quite likely Resident Evil 5 as well), all the tools that are REQUIRED to survive the adventure without problems are there. You just need to have the patience to try and find them.

    Functional Design. Giving only what is needed to achieve the objectives set out by the developers. It's a concept. One I like because it challenges the mind, but that's of course subjective opinion.

    >>>2. As soon as you start running, turning suddenly moves from the right stick to the left stick and the right stick becomes useless so there's no strafing at all (FFS!?!)

    Here, the harsh fact has been learned that there is no "real" strafing in Resident Evil games apart from some cautious walking. And the "FFS!?!" implies that strafing should be a given in any game.

    On what grounds? I don't remember seeing "must have strafing" as an obligated necessary rule for a game.

    By the way, the right stick generally tends to control the camera (to look around you) in Setting D, not strafing or other translational movement. Swing the knife and this will become obvious. Now try Setting A, where the right stick is camera control only. It will allow you to perform some insanely quick 90 degree turns.The left stick turning is part of the "tank" style controls which is typical for this series. Love it or hate it, I don't care. All I know that it gets the job done, and that is the only thing controls need to take care of.

    I generally go to options, select Setting A and don't look back.

    >>>3. Turning with the right stick is too slow when you're surrounded and there's no way to adjust this in the options

    Try tapping the left stick down and tapping the run button: instant 180 degree turn. Right stick + aim weapon in Setting A = instant 90 degree left or right turn. Practise that for a while and escaping the mob shouldn't be a problem. Or did you want something else? Fly away like Neo? Or hit an enemy in the face for disruption and then punch your way out? Wait, that's already in the game.

    You did take a good look at the control setup, no? Oh that's right, you expected standard fps fare.

    >>>4. You're rooted to the spot when you're shooting and you certainly can't step sideways (just like in RE4)

    And this is a problem why? Anticipate the enemy, find opportune spots to fire and they'll never get you. Hit and run. It's not that difficult.

    >>>5. The camera is too low behind you; when you're walking, your character obscures too much of the left side of the screen. When you're using the knife, the camera is ridiculously low and your character obscures even more of the screen.

    You never played third person games before. You see, in third person games, you can by definition see the player character and he or she will partially block the camera's view because of it. Also, if the character covers up something I want to see for some reason, I tend to have the reflex to adjust the camera so that I can.

    Whether the camera's too low or too high, that's subjective, and I'm sure geniuses will produce papers where they used Gauss curves and 95% certainty intervals determining the ideal third person camera for standardised use in all future third person games. Statistics "fix" all.

    Finally, to the Control Whinerz who think their Control Whining will make Capcom see the light and change their ways: where do you get the idea that you are right and Capcom is wrong? Capcom set the rules of the game they created. Just as they did with all their other games. Their house, their rules. Your house, your rules. So either play according to those rules or go find something else. Or maybe design a game of your own? One that gets everything right and shows how every other game should be? Please, enlighten us.

  • Chufty #90 3 years ago

    Or you could just get the PC version

  • m0thr4 #91 3 years ago

    @VMerken

    You clearly spent a lot of time getting that off your chest, but your responses (which often bordered on cheap ad hominem attacks) did little to convince me. In turn then...

    1. There's no reason why left/right/forward back movement can't be controlled solely with the left analog stick, allowing the character to move smoothly from walking to running and everything in between. This works well in other video games and would work well in this one. Why not have this as an option?

    2. You're looking at it the wrong way round. The ability to step sideways (as well as turning, moving forwards, backwards, etc) is a feature most human beings have had for thousands of years. Why would you then omit it from a video game in which you play what is presumably a human being? Why not at least have it as an option?

    3. Ok, you got me on that one fair and square. I missed that particular combination from the screen that shows all the many button combinations required to control your character.

    4. It's a problem because it's just not realistic and feels artifical to me. Human beings aren't glued to the spot when shooting in real life - why should this be the case in a game?

    5. On the contrary, I've played many many 3rd person games before (Rainbow Six, GRAW, Gears of War, Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank Future, Dead Space to name some of the most recent) and this has almost never been a problem. Normally, the view behind your character isn't so close up or low down, and you have a camera control that allows you to pan around a bit more so you can always see the scenery. In RE5, this camera is extremely limited. I don't think I've ever played a game in which the main character you're controlling obscures quite so much of the screen. If you have, please enlighten me.

    Finally (to correspond with your "Finally";), I'm not whining any more than you are. I'm certainly not expecting Capcom to change their game, otherwise I would be posting on their forum as I doubt they ever look at this one. If Capcom's business model is based on, Their house, their rules. Your house, your rules. So either play according to those rules or go find something else., then lots of luck to them, but I'm glad I'm not a shareholder. I do design software for a living and have not had any complaints about usability from my customers. I would love to apply those skills to video games, but the pay is crap and there are already plenty of developers besides Capcom doing a fine job without me.
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 21:54

  • VMerken #92 3 years ago

    >>>You clearly spent a lot of time getting that off your chest

    Nahh, this kind of thing has pretty much been standard fare since Resident Evil 1.

    >>>but your responses (which often bordered on cheap ad hominem attacks)

    Well, when I see people do the Control Whining thing (as defined below) and are stating it as if it is the absolute and veritable truth which all game designers in the world need to follow to perfection, I tend to repay the favour. And I also wonder why all those people aren't complaining to FIFA that players really should be able to hold the soccer ball in their hands while playing. After all, that's a much "better" control method than kicking it with their feet.

    >>>1. There's no reason why left/right/forward back movement can't be controlled solely with the left analog stick, allowing the character to move smoothly from walking to running and everything in between. This works well in other video games and would work well in this one. Why not have this as an option?

    >>>2. You're looking at it the wrong way round. The ability to step sideways (as well as turning, moving forwards, backwards, etc) is a feature most human beings have had for thousands of years. Why would you then omit it from a video game in which you play what is presumably a human being? Why not at least have it as an option?

    Because these two things have been deemed by the designers to be not required for this game, hence the option is not there. Gaming rules set by Capcom, makers of this game. Functional design which sets game limitations - and its challenges. Feel free to set your own rules in your own games.

    We are playing what is presumably a human being, yes, but that is what it is, isn't it - "presumably". There are tons of actions a human can do which a computer character can't - does that mean all computer games have bad controls because you can't perform these actions?

    >>>4. It's a problem because it's just not realistic and feels artifical to me. Human beings aren't glued to the spot when shooting in real life - why should this be the case in a game?

    Yes, and run+gun without suffering weapons recoil is quite the realistic and conventional way of trading gunfire. Like running and gunning, hit and run is a different game concept, allowing for different game play. Also, I've seen quite a number of people standing still while firing a weapon. Makes aiming easier for them, I think.

    But this is just subjective banter, besides the point that the controls set the restrictions, that they define the rules for the game you are playing. In chess, you can move what is presumably a tower, for example, and only vertically and horizontally at that. Worse still, this mighty construction can get stuck behind puny human beings if they're in the way! Where's the realism in that?

    Back to video games - if Resident Evil 5 required whatever kind of run+gun and whatnot (hiding behind walls, strafing cover fire by partner character, etc) in order to reasonably get through it, Capcom would have implemented it. They are probably not daft to the point that they will keep the tank controls if the enemies require more advanced control tactics because then 95% of the playing community will be trounced and that *will* have repercussions. I again refer to Devil May Cry (and in a sense Devil May Cry 3) as proof of this. I shall also refer to Resident Evil 3 which introduced auto aim, evasion moves and the quick turn to make life easier against fast enemies such as Nemesis. If it's needed, Capcom has always been keen to put it in. They may deserve the benefit of the doubt here.

    --- That's also why I tend to reply in the fashion you are reading now. Over the years, I have seen them improve controls to cater for the new challenges in the game. That's why I know they work this way on Resident Evil. The day they'll truly truly eff up the controls, I won't deny it. But until now, I haven't seen anything a little practise *from the player* won't fix. If the player cannot be bothered to practise, then he or she should move on to something more up their alley. Me, I like thinking up alternatives to situations. Makes me feel more actively involved with the action, you know? Up close and personal, all that.

    >>>5. On the contrary, I've played many many 3rd person games before (Rainbow Six, GRAW, Gears of War, Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank Future, Dead Space to name some of the most recent) and this has almost never been a problem. Normally, the view behind your character isn't so close up or low down, and you have a camera control that allows you to pan around a bit more so you can always see the scenery. In RE5, this camera is extremely limited. I don't think I've ever played a game in which the main character you're controlling obscures quite so much of the screen. If you have, please enlighten me.

    In Setting A, camera views, control et al. is the same as it was in RE4. Never had even the slightest problems with it. The view while firing is limited because the designers do not WANT you to have an expansive view while firing. They want to keep the pressure on you ("where did they go?";), making you actively cover blind spots by adjusting the camera. And by making this process slower than mouse+keyboard+full vision fps players are used to, you just know that this is potentially risky. And thus you start looking out for alternatives. Such as listening for audial cues. At the same time, ammo's limited and quickly depleting. That's what puts the "Survival" in Survival Horror. Pressure and resource management. Action vs Survival. It's all in the design philosophy.

    >>>Finally (to correspond with your "Finally";), I'm not whining any more than you are.

    I pointed out things from a different perspective (one nourished by well over a decade of Resident Evil playing and watching reviewer upon reviewer shun the "tank" control scheme whereas taking a little time to practise would show them that they still work pretty well - I can park any character on any pixel of the screen (unless it's unreachable such as air)) and giving some helpful advice and gameplay tips (apparently needed considering your point 3).

    I am not whining, I think. What I define to be Control Whining is someone saying "These controls are not what I think they should be thus they are truly and absolutely wrong wahh wahh make it better I won't touch it if you don't You are SO going to pay for these obvious design flaws Capcom noone will buy your clearly fubar game".

    Me, I am taking the game as it is, facing the challenge and playing it. I say, "Bring it on Capcom, my player character will survive your challenge". So if *that* is Control Whining, I should probably use a different term for what I previously stated to be Control Whining.

    >>>I'm certainly not expecting Capcom to change their game, otherwise I would be posting on their forum as I doubt they ever look at this one. If Capcom's business model is based on, Their house, their rules. Your house, your rules. So either play according to those rules or go find something else., then lots of luck to them, but I'm glad I'm not a shareholder. I do design software for a living and have not had any complaints about usability from my customers. I would love to apply those skills to video games, but the pay is crap and there are already plenty of developers besides Capcom doing a fine job without me.

    Well, considering the fact that we are looking at Resident Evil 5 and considering the commercial/gaming impact of Resident Evil 1, Resident Evil 2, Resident Evil 3, Dino Crisis (also with them tank controls), Resident Evil: Code Veronica and Resident Evil 4, I'd say the developers did pretty well there over the years.

    Also, I firmly believe that after the "full 3D" overhaul in Resident Evil 4, Capcom have earned the right to try and expand upon it. In the past, Resident Evil 2 expanded upon Resident Evil 1 and is considered to be the superior one (it was also immensely popular). Resident Evil 5 may be to Resident Evil 4 what 2 was to 1, so Capcom deserves a shot at realising that potential. If it doesn't, then the think tank may start running again and who knows, Resident Evil 6 might require run+gun. We'll see.

    All right, time for bed. Let's see if I can survive the day job tomorrow.
    Edited by 1 at 03/02/09 @ 23:23

  • -Hex- #93 3 years ago

    @penhalion

    "None of which allow you to do something as basic as moving while holding a gun....whawhawhawhaaaaaaaaaaaaa! That's all folks!"

    That would make it action horror. Not survival horror. It's far more tense that way.

  • 3william56 #94 3 years ago

    I have to add my voice to the chorus of whinges about the controls. Two buttons to fire? Are you kidding? No shoot from the hip without aiming? No automatic pickup of ammo? No automatic changeout of empty guns? No lock on? Takes half an hour to turn around?

    The graphics are awesome, the design awesome, the animation is good, the cut scenes excellent. I'd love to love it. But as with every other Resi game, it sh*t me to tears inside 1 minute once the zombs turned up as I spent more time fighting the controls than the zombs.

    Real shame.

  • Rash' #95 3 years ago

    mOthr, what most frustrates me is that as a self proclaimed games designer you think it perfectly acceptable to shoehorn your blueprint for 3D movement into the design of a game that has its own legacy to uphold.

  • Bulbatron #96 3 years ago

    -Hex-, I'm not sure I agree with your strict definition of Survival Horror and Action Horror. I don't think the two are defined by their control methods - more specifically, whether it is possible to move and shoot at the same time.

    It is possible to move and shoot at the same time in the Silent Hill games for example - though admittedly, it's an ability I have rarely if ever taken advantage of.

    Also Condemned - Criminal Origins is, in my opinion, a great example of modern Survival Horror. Yes, it's in first-person and yes, it does speed up occasionally, but these moments are rare. The player spends most of the time creeping about with melee weapons. Guns - and more importantly ammo, are extremely rare. Dead Space is another good example - for me, due to the tone of the game, it is Survival horror. Ammo can be plentiful at times, but it can also become pretty scarce.

    Action Horror - to me at least - would include games such as Left 4 Dead, Alone in the Dark 2008 or F.E.A.R. You are almost constatly under threat from enemies, but you nearly always have to ammo to deal with it.

    So to conclude, I would say that the line between Survival Horror and Action Horror can be blurry. If you were to ask me about some of the games I have listed above again in the future, I might have a slightly different opinion. And admittedly, some of those same examples do break their own rules somewhat. For example, it is possible for Survival Horror to have speedier moments and for Action Horror to slow down from time to time.

    But anyway, the point I am coming to here, is that the difference between Survival Horror and Action Horror, is not defined solely through the control method, and whether it is possible to walk and shoot at the same time. Nor is it defined through whether it is played in first or third person perspective (I know you never said it was -Hex- I'm just trying to head of those who try to make that connection). What it is defined by, in my opinion, is the tone and atmosphere. This is most often (though not exclusively) illustrated by the speed and frequency of the action set-pieces, compared to puzzles and exploration.
    Edited by 1 at 04/02/09 @ 10:09

  • Rash' #97 3 years ago

    My fundamental problem with the argument "good design prevails through imitation and improvement" is that rather than "it can" the argument becomes "it should". Good design can prevail but to suggest it should runs the risk of creating a homogeneous creative environment, which doesn't encourage difference and innovation.

    That's the fundamental issue behind most criticism levelled at the controls; that since RE4 things have moved on and so Capcom should move with the status quo. I don't agree with this primarily because I'm playing the demo and the controls are perfectly workable. They are a design choice that stay true to the legacy of the series yet (contray to popular opinion) have been refined to acknowledge recent developments in 3D movement.

    This argument over controls isn't a matter of good design, rather a conflict of taste. To which I say: to each their own.

  • dominalien #98 3 years ago

    Dead Space was survival horror only on impossible, if at all. When playing on normal for the first time, I finished the game with plenty of ammo left over in the store. It basically showers you with stuff, I was never left without supplies. Not survival horror stuff, at least for me.

    If a developer makes intuitive, perfectly tuned, responsive and flexible controls, the difficulty of the game needs to be upped. More, tougher to kill enemies. Limit the control options of the player and you have to limit the difficulty of the game.

    No one complained about the controls in RE4 when it came out. Why? Because we weren't used to more fluid/flexible control schemes from games like Dead Space. RE4 was a sort of revolution at the time - complete reinvention of the series, seen as huge progress. I remember people talking about "no strafe", but no one dwelt on it too much and everyone got by - the game was universally regarded as fantastic.

    Now comes RE5, with relatively similar controls (I'm not happy with Type D controls, changing them to Type A solved most of my problems - remember that Type D controls were introduced to appease the "no strafe no play" guys) and here we are bitching about what basically we saw as "very good" a few years back. I believe the problem are our expectations (as in: we are used to strafing, etc), not the controls themselves. I am sure the game is tuned to be challenging but playable using the controls provided. It is up to everyone to make up their own minds whether they are willing to put up with that or not.

    PS. About the controls being somehow "unrealistic" because the on-screen character can't do what a real-life human could: I don't see people complaining about monster tentacles coming out of peoples' necks when you shoot their heads off being unrealistic, why do you apply a different standard to controls? ;-)

  • Rash' #99 3 years ago

    domin, exactly! it's like they're saying: game X can do this so why can't game Y... Because they're not the same game! they don't have the same artistic and creative agendas. say the controls aren't to your taste, but to imply it's bad design is a bit egotistical.

  • dominalien #100 3 years ago

    @Rash'

    To be perfectly honest, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

    On the one hand, I'm sure RE5's controls are suited to the task at hand and will allow people to complete and enjoy the game.

    On the other, I'm certain many gamers who have played other games with perhaps more natural and less constrictive controls, will have trouble adjusting to its reality.

    Personally, I play games for the story - a game holds no value for me if it has no story (with the exception of some driving games, perhaps), and I'm willing to put up with a lot in order to see the story through.

    Trying the RE5 demo the other day, I found the controls jarring. But, I am coming almost directly from playing Dead Space three times over. I am sure that when I get the full game, I will fumble at the controls for a time, and then gradually the Dead Space reflexes will fade and be replaced by RE5 reflexes and when I complete that, I will approach the next game (Uncharted 2? Who knows.) with RE5 controls ingrained into my brain and will have to adjust once again. I appreciate that there may be some players who will be unwilling to go to the trouble and will skip this (and some other games as well, perhaps?) and play games who which will instantly fulfill their expectations, control-wise or other-wise. ;-)

    That said, as a former game designer and current software designer in general, I have deep appreciation for refusing to make certain design changes. Someone who says "why don't they change this, it'll take five hours of coding, tops" may be right, but when you sit down and think, REALLY think about what a superficially superfluous change will do to the rest of the product, when you think of the testing that will have to be re-done, you may decide that you won't be able to make it on time. It seems probable to me that the Capcom guys saw their controls as a bit behind the times, investigated the issue (hence Type D controls) and decided that changing them radically would cost (in time and money) too much to be a good decision - "good" as in "good for the project in general", not just "good for players". Remember, instant player control gratification is key, but it is just one element in a complex system of interlocking pieces which have to work together well.

    Great ideas are a dime a dozen, but it's the ability to fit them into the existing reality that determines whether they are implemented or not. I'd say Capcom is taking a risk here: on the one hand, they could delay the game and bring the controls up to very modern standards to appease Eurogamer readers. On the other, they can introduce a "half-solution" in the shape of Type D controls hoping this will allow more people to enjoy the game. They seem to have decided that it will be more beneficial to them and to the project to release the game sooner with "traditional" controls rather than delay it by God knows how much. Whether the risk will pay off, we shall see.

  • Rash' #101 3 years ago

    domin, i think it's a matter of taste. as you point out people's expectations coupled with how much they're prepared to invest in a game define their appreciation of a devs work. however people are confusing liking (as a matter of personal taste) with appreciating. you don't have to like something to appreciate it. it's here that i get frustrated because too many are also confusing their tastes with the gospel of game design. certainly the decision to not move while shooting was a design choice, so rather than sit here and say "we've moved on", why not try to understand the design choice of the dev and appreciate what it brings to the experience.

    the critics are quick to dismiss the sense of tension created by the choice as hackneyed and cliché because their expectations have moved on. wouldn't it be more truthful to acknowledge that maybe RE5 tackles the challenge of survival horror differently and that maybe that difference isn't to everyone's taste?
    Edited by 2 at 04/02/09 @ 13:42

  • JasonB81 #102 3 years ago

    i have the 360 version, and i don't think this game will do all to well, they should have released it before DeadSpace. There is no reason for these horrible controls and inventory management in a post DeadSpace era. They should really call up EA and ask for permission to be consulted by the Devs of DeadSpace.

    Frustration does not equal tension. I beat both chapters, and had fun with my friends online, but at the same time, there was an omnipresent air of frustration because of the controls. They are not intuitive at all. DeadSpace had great atmosphere and tension, and the controls were brilliant. There is no excuse for this, some developers really need to open there eyes to the ever changing genre we call videogames.

  • VMerken #103 3 years ago

    Rash', I must admit, you are being far more patient with this than I am. Over the years, mine is starting to wear thin. It's nice to see I do not stand entirely alone on this. Oh, and I better not mention to the Controlz Lynch Mob that Chris and Sheva (and just about any character in any RE game before) can't jump or crouch in this game unless it tells them to, that this is as "ridiculous" as the lack of strafing and run+gun since the characters are "presumably human" and in control of their legs :), but... oops.

    Dominalien, you have said some very sensible things, especially the adaptation process you are talking about. It's that which - at the moment - keeps a group of video games from becoming a cocktail of Standardized Bore. Personally, I think it's fun to adapt to new rules because that's what makes games different and possibly challenging. But, I have to disagree with the "instant player control gratification is key" statement. It is not key at all, just an option one may take on (possibly due to economic arguments). Upon further reading, I also disagree with "limited controls = limited difficulty" in games - there are some fiendishly hard games with fiendishly hard enemies (on par with tough games which have your subjective "most advanced controls evah";) but also with very simple control setups out there, yet people get through them and do it well. It merely takes practise, something players are less and less willing to invest, it seems. Probably because of the many scientific studies which prove that the majority of players want to be gratified with controls. Instantly.

    I agree with your reasoning behind the gradual design changes, though. Keeping in mind the development history behind RE4, it is obvious why Capcom won't reinvent just yet.

    And as for you farticus, I'm sure Capcom is weeping over the many lost sales it suffered from designing Resident Evil 1, 2, 3, Code: Veronica and 4 the way they are. Many sleepless nights, I'm sure. Can you imagine that, a game design company putting their own game design before copying game design from other game design companies and easily cash in on whatever is the current control fad? Well I never!

    I'll try to end with an analogy about a very simple game to sum up my thoughts on the "game control issues" I have observed. Food for thought, maybe? Remember those crate pushing games, where you need to push a set of crates to an exit point? Well, because you can only push the crates, you really need to start to think about what to do and plan ahead. Me, I do that. I accept that you can only push crates, that that was the designer's intent, and I - since I like the game - work with it, practise it and eventually solve the challenges.

    What I see happening (for over a decade now) with Resident Evil 1 to 5 is the same as if a vocal group of people started whining about the crate pushing game not having the option to pull the crates; that it is not "with the times" (i.e. the current fad). That games have moved on and now offer crate pulling as well. That the current "reference" (totally objectively determined, of course) crate game from another developer has crate pulling. That the player character is "presumably human" and hence should be able to pull the crates. That "instant player control gratification is key" and merely crate pushing is not instant player control gratification (this again objectively determined). That introducing crate pulling will force the developers to make the box puzzles even more difficult than before which isn't a trivial process. That the developer will lose sales if there's no box pulling RIGHT AWAY.

    I wonder why those people aren't actually playing the game with crate pushing and pulling, then, but there you go.

    The above is all fine and dandy, but then it is important to realise that you do not have a crate pushing game anymore. You change the rules, you get a different game. And maybe that's not what the developer of the crate pushing game wants. Maybe he just wants to keep the crate pushing, but refine the elements around it. Or adapt it to fit to the new platforms. Maybe, eventually, he does want crate pulling in there, because he found a set of challenging puzzles (which took a lot of research and effort) requiring pushing and pulling so it's justified to him. Well, if he does, I'll do the same as I always do.

    Naturally, then everything cycles again and people will start wondering, "why is there no 3D/variable crate pushing/rotation in this game!?!", demanding swift adjustments from the developer, or else.
    Edited by 2 at 04/02/09 @ 21:04

  • VMerken #104 3 years ago

    "I have to add my voice to the chorus of whinges about the controls. Two buttons to fire? Are you kidding? No shoot from the hip without aiming? No automatic pickup of ammo? No automatic changeout of empty guns? No lock on? Takes half an hour to turn around?"

    Hahahah. You missed the "I win the game!" button. One press and it's all over and you can move on to the next game. There's also no visible weapon damage, no blood fluid physics, no character jumping or crouching, no using the toilets, ... man I wonder why Capcom even bothered with this tripe.

  • Bulbatron #105 3 years ago

    "Dead Space was survival horror only on impossible, if at all. When playing on normal for the first time, I finished the game with plenty of ammo left over in the store. It basically showers you with stuff, I was never left without supplies. Not survival horror stuff, at least for me."

    Yeah OK, good point, dominalien. I didn't really think of that. I suppose what made me put this game under the label of Survival Horror is that there are a lot of slower sections. But as I said myself, the line between survival and action horror can be pretty blurry. I think Dead Space is one of those games - and the difficulty level certainly does make a difference.

  • gelf #106 3 years ago

    I've never agreed with the complaints about RE controls right from the first game. I enjoy run and gun games however I wouldn't want Resident Evil games to be controlled like one because it would make it an entirely different style of game. I'd find it a very dull gaming world if everything became so standardised. If there's no sidestepping that's fine because the games designed to be played without it.