IkariWarriorKH: 100% agree about everything you wrote

Here's the thing though. Everyone complained about Re5 and it's pacing and how Public Assembly was the only true moment in the game a lot of people felt overwhelmed and enjoyed. Thus Desperate Escape took the cue and made the scenario feel like Public Assembly, only moreso. And for that, people complain again?

Again, it's "Desperate" Escape. The point was to make Jill and Josh overwhelmed by majini. To accomplish this there are a numerous amount of spawn points and they trigger when you get close to them or open doors etc. which keeps a constant outpouring of enemies coming at you at all times. This obviously keeps you feeling tense and scared and definately makes you feel overwhelmed and makes it hard to deal with all of the oncoming enemies at once. Again, that is the point of the scenario.

You say that if someone accomplishes their goal it doesn't leave them free of being nitpicked or judged etc. Well that's something to think about as well. While anything can be criticized, that in of itself is a problem. There is literally NOTHING Capcom can do that will please everyone. Look at all of the DLC given. They had a suggestions topic on Capcom Unity about what people wanted in the new DLC awhile ago. 90% of the suggestions were the following:

-Jill/Chris Flashback Scenario
-Jill/Josh escape scenario
-New Mercs Characters
-New Mercs Levels
-Playable Excella
-Playable Josh
-Old School Chars like Barry/Rebecca/Claire
-New Costumes
-Shirtless Chris (Yes, numerous people did in fact ask for it)
-STARS/RE3 Jill
-Trenchcoat Wesker
-Jill/Wesker playable in campaign

Those were the top 12 suggestions. There were other suggestions but 90% of every suggestion fit into one of the above. Now out of those 12, Capcom gave us 8 of them in the new DLC. That means only 4 of them weren't addressed. Despite giving more than half of those suggestions to the community in the new DLC, you STILL have numerous people complaining the new DLC is garbage because it lacks Wesker/Jill and STARs Jill etc.

You have NUMEROUS people who ASKED for new costumes, yet when Capcom gave us new costumes, they all complained "WTF IS WITH NEW COSTUMES INSTEAD OF NEW CHARACTERS!!!!". Then when it was revealed that we would have new characters like Josh/Excella/Barry/Rebecca, numerous people complained "WTF WITH BARRY/REBECCA/EXCELLA WHY NO NEW JILL/WESKER COSTUMES INSTEAD!!"

So as you can see, people complain about EVERYTHING and completely for the sake of complaining. People criticize over moronic things. Just yesterday I was on Capcom-Unity and saw a topic about some girl complaining about the Qu'uaran or however you spell it laying on the floor in the library in Lost in Nightmares and how this is greatly offensive to Muslims and Capcom needs to patch the game and remove it and how they're horrible for daring to do something like that etc. etc.

It's a friggin library, there are books on the floor because someone rumaged through the place. If there was a bible on the floor or a Torah, no one would give a crap. Yet here someone is complaining and getting majorly upset over something so petty and trivial.

So that brings us back to the point. Capcom set out to do something, the accomplished it, yet everyone is still gonna sit and criticize and complain about the most trivial of things. Now the fact they accomplished what they wanted to do with the scenario and gave people what they asked for doesn't matter because someone thinks RE4 did it better? Do you not see the pettiness behind that?

How did RE4 do it better when Re4's Mike segment played almost identical to how RE5's main game plays? It throws a number of enemies at you, lets you wipe them out, then you move forward unharmed until you reach the next trigger and a new wave comes out for you to deal with. DE as I said plays like an 'extreme' version of RE5 without the lulls in action, to accomplish the 'Desperate' feeling of the scenario and give people what they liked about the Public Assembly area, and yet as I said, people STILL complain that it wasn't good enough and that it should be like the RE4 Mike Segment.

So here we go again. RE5 comes out which paces and plays identical to that RE4 Mike Segment in it's entirety. People complain it's boring and the Public Assembly part with enemies constantly coming non-stop was the high point of the game and the rest of the game never lived up to that. Now DE comes out and gives you the Public Assembly high-light throughout the entire scenario and people complain it should be more like the main game with it's pacing?

It's the same thing over and over. People bitch and complain about one thing, then when Capcom gives them what they want, they go and hop on the opposite train and now complain that what they got would be better if it was like what they were bitching and complaining about previously.

And as far as your comment about the controls go. Maybe to you a different control scheme might handle the action and overwhelming odds better, but, as I pointed out. A game like Gears of War which most people say is superior in controls does NOT work superior to me. I have a far harder time controlling my characters in Gears then I do in RE. In RE I can move around perfectly without incident and have zero fuss with the controls. So again, it's to each different person. It doesn't mean that the controls or gameplay is 'bad' for RE, it just may be 'bad' for that specific player.

And your comment about the consensus. A mass majority of gamers think Final Fantasy 7 is the greatest game ever made and that Final Fantasy 8 sucks. Does that make both statements true because a mass majority says so? Think about it this way, if there's 10 people in a room and 9 of them think Pepsi is the best and only One dislikes pepsi, does the opinion of the 9 make it 'fact' that Pepsi is good and make the 10th persons opinion not matter?

Just because a larger, more vocal group agrees on an opinion doesn't make said 'opinion' a fact.

Keep in mind the 'consensus' complaining about RE5's controls are the great majority of people who grew up in the Xbox era with first person shooters etc. Not all no, but, a great majority of the complaints about controls are from these people who are used to playing bread and butter shooters, so RE5's gameplay is foreign to them. And people don't like what they don't know or are not comfortable with.

For example, even when Outbreak was still around. A lot of people loved the analog control for it. Myself however, I am tried and true in the tank controls of RE that the analog controls through me off and just felt very uncomfortable to me. So I was one of the only people who played outbreak with the D-pad and liked it that way.

Again, it comes down to what you're used to and what feels natural to you. It doesn't mean the controls or gameplay is bad, it's just that a great majority of people are used to their God of War/Devil May Cry or Gears/Halo/Call of Duty etc. type controls which are usually very similiar, so having a game like RE that plays vastly differently in it's controls and how the character moves etc. is very strange and 'weird' for them, thus many just can't adapt and thus complain.

Doesn't make their 'opinion' a fact though.

That didn't even make sense. "kthx" is an internet term that has been used by many people for years and is still used today.

You really need to stop the trolling attempts towards me, it's getting quite old. >_> I don't even have a problem with you, just let it go man.

I didn't say it didn't work, I said it was flawed. Something a lot of gamers and reviewers agree with considering the action direction the series has taken. If it didn't work I wouldn't enjoy the 'new' Resident Evil at all.

Yes but as I pointed out, a group of people agreeing on an opinion doesn't make it fact.

Again, 9 out of 10 people saying Final Fantasy 7 is the best game ever and Final Fantasy 8 sucks does not make it factually true that ff7 is the best and ff8 is a sucky game.

I don't think RE5's gameplay is flawed at all. I wouldn't mind additions to it, but, I don't think it's flawed. So long as RE5 doesn't throw away it's current gameplay and controls completely in favor of being yet another typical action/adventure/shooter like every other game, I'm 'personally' happy.

It's sort of like RE1. I don't think RE1's controls are flawed at all, but, I don't mind the new additions to the controls that stuff like RE3 added with dodging and 180 quick turn.

But again, I don't personally see anything flawed about the current controls/gameplay that makes it difficult or hard to play the game or ruins the experience in any way.

There are plenty of people, who like me, have zero problem with the current controls or gameplay and don't feel they're flawed. Thus you don't hear anything from us usually because we're not complaining, we're content. The only reason you have so many people complaining about controls or moving + shooting etc. is because they're doing just that, complaining. There will always be more negative vocals than positive.

Look at Xbox Live for example. You see people use the Review system almost exclusively to bad rep people. Most of us only use it to send bad rep, but we most of the time forget to give positive rep to the people who played nicely or well.

Same Logic. Complainers are going to complain and you're going to have a large vocal group of them that 'seems' to outshine the rest of a community simply because the rest of the community is content and not looking to jump on a message board and start complaining about anything thus you rarely hear from them.

So again, 9 out of 10 people saying something doesn't mean much. If you get 10 people who are new school RE fans, the logical outcome is that a bulk majority are going to agree that the controls suck. Whereas if you get 10 people who are old school RE fans, there's a good chance most would agree the controls are fine.

So saying "A lot of people have complained about it" doesn't really do much since a lot of people complain about EVERYTHING. And as I mentioned, when capcom DOES address these issues and adds in what the community complained about, the community usually RE-complains about the new thing and says they should have left it alone and they liked the old way better even though they did nothing but complain about the old way and demanded this new way.

Desperate Escape did indeed more fully correlate with the survival and assembly place style of game play. I mentioned how i was surprised that it took the only area in Resident Evil 5 that truly forced that 'rushed survival' and ran with it. But you seem to be leaping to the idea that people are judging this scenario on assembly place, and presuming they took a favorable look at it. Im not speaking for everyone, but im not sure that this is the case.In my case, I felt it was definitely a step up from the main game, entirely. But, again it felt hectic and much more akin to a mercenaries level then a beautifully paced scenario from Resident Evil 4.

Right, I'm not arguing with your opinion on what the scenario was, as I too felt it was for that purpose. But , and this is just a thought, we cant be sure exactly what they wanted in its design. Again, I agree with you, but who knows. The negativity mentioned was that perhaps the scenario suffered from this design, that the pace was too hectic and was taken in a negative view because of that. Sometimes it works, and other times people much prefer the pacign to be set so there feels like an order to it.

I agree, Capcom can not please everyone ever. Nor can anyone company in fact, and nor should it be an aim. But, i want to address that in two points. Here is the difference between my complaints, and some of the people you mentioned. My complaints are that I very much enjoyed the DLC, so much I would give both a favorable 8.5/10. Some people are...less intelligent in their debates then I, some would give it a 1/10 because it lacked Wesker. Im a Wesker fan, and in no way would I do that lol. As well, my complaints do not originate in what should have 'replaced' the DLC ( ie. im not mad because there wasn't More jill costumes, or a wesker scenario, although id promote them) Therefore, im taking the dlc they gave, and reviewing it on my own accord and sharing it here. Im not idly criticizing....unimportant things as you listed. Instead, im simply judging a good dlc, and learning and looking into things and seeing what I felt they did great, and not so great.

Secondly, im not sure how my complaints..actually 'insights and views' into the dlc reflect in any way a wish for capcom to please everyone, nor for them to have changed it. Again, im not sure I understand your points here, I simply am judging a product, not asking for Capcom to please everyone. That's why its a score out of /10, and not a love it or hate it score..there is grey everywhere remember.

They accomplished it yes, but yet again, games are reviewed and judged regardless of what the producers feel they have and have not done well. Aliens Vs Predator has an online mode, the producers did indeed accomplish that goal, and it allows for different species battles in high intensity. But again, that's simply said, it is a task of those playing to see how well they did that or not. Anyone can accomplish a goal, that is always done. A goal of Aliens vs predator was too create an intense online mode. You might say they accomplished it...but how well? Thats where my review comes in, and yours, and everyone else's , and a consensus is built.

As far as the Mike segment goes, i wont comment on that as its not my issue. I cant even remember it clearly enough to give a response, but ill say that i think you are clearly over exaggerating on the bitching here, i mean almost everyone gave it a favorable score and opinion, and simply noted flaws and issues they thought were handled better in Re4. Its funny, you preach each person to their own (IE. controls) but cant seem to understand perhaps the same concept applies here.


Ikari, I cant really understand here. The argument you are making is riddled with double standards, as well as im not even sure what to make of it sometimes. You do know that I know what an opinion is right? I do, i mean I really like Devil May Cry 4, some people don't and much prefer bayonetta and GOW, Its an opinion of mine that Devil May Cry 4 is better. But, despite my opinion, even I have to build a consensus of the populace ( terrible examples lol) I can keep my opinion, but also share the 'views' of the populace. Yes Uncharted controls smooth and sweet, and I can see how Resident Evil 5 can be criticized for it because of its action and shooter orientation. I can like Devil May Cry 4, but also see why people don't, and if enough don't, understand the idea of change..maybe not agree with it, but view the popular opinion and take it in stride at the minimum..I mean we did go from Re 0 to 4 right . So, when i build that consensus, my personal opinions can be used in an argument of course, but even I would have to apply logic into the scenario. People see Resident Evil 5 is by far the most shooter and action pushed game ever in the series. The cover mechanic, enemies with guns, co-op , open level design etc etc. have lead many to not understand why they would want to limit the game when ti is clearly not the same as when it started. Its like...if a bicycle is turned into a motorcycle, yet it lacks parts and pieces the most praised bikes around have, yes you may enjoy the ride still and even like it better, but the consensus is that the ride wont match up to the current trend, and that in itself must at least be acknowledged.

And your comment about the consensus. A mass majority of gamers think Final Fantasy 7 is the greatest game ever made and that Final Fantasy 8 sucks. Does that make both statements true because a mass majority says so? Think about it this way, if there's 10 people in a room and 9 of them think Pepsi is the best and only One dislikes pepsi, does the opinion of the 9 make it 'fact' that Pepsi is good and make the 10th persons opinion not matter?

LoL...who here is arguing fact and Falicy? Its not me. There doesn't have to be fact and falicy mixed in here, which is why I chose the word consensus, It is a fact Resident Evil 5 was reviewed lower in number then Re4, but there is a consensus it was a lesser product then Re4. This consensus isn't shared by the entire group ( hence the words meaning) but the logic of the word must be acknowledged. Its like, yes there is no fact nor fiction to which is a better game, The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time, or E.T. the video game. There isn't fact because its rooted in our minds and opinions, fact comes from numbers and the physical ( IE. 5>4, the sun rises and sets)...but you have to use logic and the consensus and acknowledged the reasoning for the opinion that Oot is far better. An extreme example but it works in theory.

IMO Desperate Escape is paced very well.

The thing is you're comparing the Mike Segment of RE4 to Desperate Escape and dvader and yourself are stating that it is not as well paced as that segment. Here's the thing though, they're two ENTIRELY different things.

The Mike Segment plays as I mentioned, identical to how RE5 in of itself plays in it's entirety. They give you a large map, start you at the beginning and throw some enemies at you in a mini-cutscene where they appear. You kill those enemies and move forward, when you move a bit further up the level, a new mini-cutscene appears and more enemies come. You dispatch of them and so on it repeats itself. All of RE5 plays like this, and that is exactly how the Mike Cutscene played out.

Now you had numerous people complain about RE5 and it's pacing for just that, being too slow and that it never lives up to that Public Assembly intensity.

So the scenario is designed specifically for that. It has multiple spawn points with a good amount of enemies pouring out of those spawn points for a good deal of time. So that in the very liklihood that you kill a few and think you're done and move on, you still have more coming out plus the new ones from the new spawns you just triggered. Thus you get the illusion that there's a never ending wave of enemies that keeps coming and overwhelms you.

So you never get that moment where you kill everything and then walk forward in silence and calm.

Again, that was the point.

So to compair it to a segment from RE4 that 1) plays identical to how RE5's main campaign plays out and 2) is a completely different setup from DE to begin with and thus an inproper use for a comparison, is just kind of silly.

It'd be like complaining about Excella lacking the depth of Annette and basing the comparison on both of them being antagonists and scientists for BioWeapon producing companies. It would be an unfair Comparison considering they're entirely different characters. Annette is empathetic mostly due to her daughter, Sherry who she is worried about and cares about. That is where Annette's depth comes from. Whereas Excella lacks such a link and is just a selfish and greedy villainess. It's an entirely unfair comparison. A more 'fair' comparison would be Brian Irons to Excella since they both fit a similiar role character wise to compair with whereas Annette and Excella do not.

I mean think about it in all honesty. How exactly can you give your audience the feeling of being overwhelmed and impossible odds while providing RE4/RE5 pacing with lulls in the action at the same time? It defeats itself when you do that. It's like you're asking to be overwhelmed and have tons of enemies all at once, but, you DON'T want to 'actually' be overwhelmed and want the game to give you a breather and allow you to get by without too much trouble. It just doesn't compute. You can't have your bread and eat it too.

And as far as consensus goes. The problem there is that for example with RE4 and FF7. Both of these games garner their popularity by introducing a series to a demographic that mostly never touched the series or the genre beforehand. Thus it imprints a special bond with them and becomes the groundwork for which they judge all future titles in that genre or series and nothing will ever be able to live up to the memory regardless.

So that already makes your 'consensus' a large group of very BIASED individuals.

Now you have these Biased individuals complaining about a sequel to their beloved game not living up to 'their' standards and expectations, completely ignoring the expectations of the series in of itself and thus the series or genre now has to evolve to meet the demands of the new audience while alienating previous fans.

Look at FF7, ff7 fans complained and rallied so much over ff7 (which is not even THAT great of a game to begin with, a good game yes, but, still) that it spawned numerous sequels, movies, etc. while fans of other entries in the series are largely ignored in wanting sequels or movies of their own. Games like FF8 are heavily panned largely by the FF7 audience because expectations were that of it being a sequel to FF7 and for it to play like FF7 and when it did not, it was a dissapointment. Future titles after that were better received due to the 'new' fanbase adjusting to and understanding how the series works by that point and not holding the same expectations against future titles but 8 for example is still tarnished because of it. Does that make ff8 'actually' a bad game though because a 'consensus' of players who are entirely biased to FF7 and expected ff8 to be something it never intended to be and were dissapointed and unsatisifed with the game when it did not meet those delusional and impossible expectations?

The same happened with RE5. After RE4 opened up a new audience of RE fans, large expectations were involved from that audience about how RE5 should play, including petty things like Leon should be the star again etc. When these expectations weren't met, RE5 was panned by these people as being inferior.

So again, we have a 'consensus' of largely overtly biased people. Yet, I and others are to take the opinions of these BIASED individuals to heart and hear their opinions and try to understand them despite the FACT these individuals on large do not try to understand or care about the opinions of anyone else or try to understand the series in of itself and simply cater to their expectations based on RE4 and nothing more?

That is exactly why 'consensus' or 'majority opinion' means little. Because even in society, 'majority opinion' relies heavily on what 'so and so' says is popular and cool, thus everyone else likes it as well. Same with opinions. Someone less knowledgeable or even less intelligent hears someone else make a comment or criticism about a game, movie, whatever, regardless of whether it is factually true or not, but, now this person goes along and states that opinion as if it was original and their own and pronounces it as a testament. This goes on and on until you have a great majority of people all spouting the same exact criticisms and opinions despite whether those criticisms have been or can be debunked or are factually incorrect.

A perfect example again is ff7 and ff8. Near anyone who is an ff7 fanboy who hates on ff8 will use as a criticism of ff8 "You have to draw stupid magic for hours just to make your chars powerful" and complain the game is faulty and inferior due to this gameplay aspect. Again I state, almost anyone who is a fanboy of ff7 who dislikes ff8 will make that statement as a defense by why they dislike ff8. When in FACT, ff8 does NOT require you to draw magic 'at all'. Using Card Mod or the Refine Ability will easily grant you all the magic you need in far faster and easier merits than drawing in battle would.

But, again, these people simply heard this statement elsewhere and with their limited experience with FF8, took it as testament and use it as a method to complain about the game and feel justified in doing so. Thus again, your 'consensus' is a large group of very BIASED and also IGNORANT people.

That's why opinions are opinions. It doesn't matter if 400 people all agree with one opinion, as long as one single person disagrees, it is still individual opinion and the weight of the 400 can't force their opinion to be factual or disprove the opinion of the one unless there is indeed factual evidence to support it being fact and not opinion.

Because as easily as you can say "Well a lot of people have complained about this and that" I can just as easily reply with 'Well a lot of people also stated they were quite happy with this and that". And both statements would be entirely true, so why would the statement of the complaints outweigh the statements of content with the product?

So in closing I ask how exactly a 'consensus' makes a valid stance against anything? Unless you can prove with evidence that support a Factual claim, nothing you say is anything more than opinion. And opinion is 100% subjective. Therefore it holds no true weight and no sheer amount of people in unision agreeing to one opinion can override or claim a more 'valid' opinion.

hahaha you do make me laugh.

For someone who claims to be all about the "facts," this is a an awfully large assumption.



Now who's presenting their opinion as fact? =P



Another sweeping generalization not befitting a person who is only concerned with factual information.

You're lumping two very different groups of people into one basket. While there are certainly those who will parrot whatever they read or hear from other people, there are also just as many, if not more, who will offer a much more reasoned and thoughtful critique of a product. You are not taking these people into consideration.