Has the DLC improved the RE5 package for you?

And with that, I do agree with a large part of what you stated. I think the problem with RE5 was that RE4 sold 'so' well, far more than even capcom expected, that I think they had all these great ideas for RE5 but were 'scared' to use them. I think they were trying to improve on RE4 and go a step further but then hesitated thinking that if they went too much beyond what RE4 was, they might alienate what people loved about RE4 and take a risk wagering on whether the 'new' RE style with Re5 was bankable or not. So in the end they just played it safe and kept RE5 very much like RE4 to maintain sales on something they knew 'was' bankable.

It's sad but unfortunately that's how business works, and shit like that happens often.

I'll be the first to say I think RE5 could have been a lot better than it was and they could have done a LOT more with it than they did. And there's things about RE5 I just flat out don't like and chapters I find boring as hell. None the less, I still do think RE5 in of itself is a solid game and a very fun one, and it definately has lasting power to compete with other games and has. Doesn't mean it couldn't have been better. But, because it didn't do 'better' doesn't mean the game they gave us isn't solid and a powerhouse in of it's own.

There were certainly complaints regarding Resident Evil 4's control scheme, and many to this day wish you could move and shoot at the same time, or, at the very least, strafe like you can in RE5. I think the difference, however, is that RE4 was the first of its kind. It didn't invent the over-the-shoulder aiming system (I believe it was actually Splinter Cell that pioneered that particular viewpoint), but it most certainly popularized it. Also, you also have to consider what came before RE4. Many gamers disliked the fixed camera angles and tank-style controls from the previous Resident Evils.

While the tank-style controls didn't change drastically with RE4 aside from being a bit smoother and faster in execution, the change in the camera view made a world of difference. I believe this is why so many people feel that RE4's controls were so different from previous RE's, even though they shared essentially the same set up, aiming aside. Another thing to consider is that while countless games have since used the over-the-shoulder aiming system, few, if any, have used it for the same kind of region-specific combat that RE4 and RE5 do. This, coupled with the melee system, is something that is still very much unique to RE4 and RE5.

Now, here's a key difference. Even with its increased action and tempo when compared to RE4, RE5 is still much slower paced than your typical third person shooter, and the aiming/melee system has a lot to do with that. One of the bigger complaints regarding the enemy AI in RE4 was that while, generally speaking, the enemies were faster and more intelligent than the previous games' zombies, they were still not as intelligent as they could have been. Despite sprinting across an area towards you, they would stop just a few feet away and then slowly approach you.

This was a game balancing mechanic that allowed players to be able to more precisely aim at a specific part of the enemy's body. It also helped to compensate for the fact that you could not move and shoot at the same time. It is very much the same with RE5. However, I believe the reason you hear more complaints about it in regards to RE5 is because, as I said, RE4 was very much the first of its kind, so people were generally more willing to overlook little gameplay quirks like these back then than they are now, especially when you consider how many games have been released since then that borrowed and, in many ways, improved upon the basic template laid forth by RE4.

Now, much like RE4 before it, RE5 is not meant to be played like a traditional third person shooter. However, certain concessions that were made by Capcom have led more people to believe that it should be than there might have been had Capcom not made said concessions. To appeal to as broad of an audience as possible, Capcom implemented a more traditional third person shooter-style control scheme, but you still cannot move and shoot at the same time. Essentially, this comes across as only going halfway. Many people do not understand why Capcom would not simply go all the way and let you move and shoot at the same time.

But herein lies the rub. The enemy AI is designed specifically with the player's inability to move and shoot at the same time in mind. This is why so many of the enemies' attacks are only in a straight line, for example, with no way for them to change direction or compensate for a player moving out of the way. It is much more difficult to dodge an enemy attack using the classic control scheme than it is the TPS-style scheme. With the TPS scheme, you can simply step to the side of an enemy attack, and they will miss you completely. In fact, many attacks that require a QTE to dodge can be bypassed entirely simply with a sidestep.

If Capcom had added the ability to move and shoot at the same time, but left RE5's core design as is, it would utterly break the game. Capcom would have to go back in and completely retool all of the enemies' AI, behavior, and attack patterns to compensate for this new ability. At such a late stage in development, this would obviously be an impossibility without further delaying the game by a substantial amount of time. Or, if you want to be cynical, you could say it had more to do with laziness on the developers' parts than anything, but obviously that's not something we can know one way or the other.

Now, Dead Space gets brought up a lot in these types of discussions, due in large part to its control scheme. As I've already explained, simply implementing such a control scheme into RE5 would not have solved the problem, but still many people believe that Dead Space demonstrated that a survival horror title need not be bogged down by certain, shall we say, "hallmarks" of the genre in order to be successful at scaring people. In this case, the inability to move and shoot at the same time. Personally, I think Dead Space would have actually worked better with RE5's control scheme, as most of the enemies in it share much the same behavior as RE5's, but that is neither here nor there.

But again, this is why RE5 is held to a much higher standard than RE4 seemingly is. One common counter-argument is that previous games in the series did little to change or improve upon their predecessors, but no one complained about that. Well, first of all, people did complain about that. A lot. But that is not the key point to be considered here.

Earlier games in the series were released within a year to two years time between each title. So it was a little more understandable, even forgivable, that the games were so remarkably similar with each subsequent release. Also, the first real competitor didn't appear until, what, 1999? 2000? However, blatant copycats and games inspired by RE4 appeared almost immediately, and now, just about every third person shooter and survival horror game takes at least one or two cues from RE4's basic design. Heck, even games in entirely different genres (RPGs, platformers, open world games, etc) take some inspiration from RE4.

This, ultimately, I believe is why people may have been disappointed with RE5, or seem to judge it more harshly than they did RE4, or even previous games in the series. RE5 was in development for four years. In that time, we've seen countless big name releases like Gears of War, Dead Space, Uncharted, etc, that share some similarities with RE4, but each found some way to adapt or improve upon its basic design. Many expected something similar with RE5. What they got was essentially RE4 in HD and with co-op. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Of course not.

However, for many, it felt like Capcom was playing catch up after having set the standard themselves back in 2005. Instead of setting a new standard, Capcom was seemingly settling for less, even resting on their laurels. I believe that, had RE5 been released within a year or two's time, perhaps even three years, people would be much more forgiving of its apparent "play it safe" mentality. But after waiting for four years, I think a lot of people expected more, especially after the resoundingly positive response that initial trailer back in 2007 received.

I believe, and I think many will agree with me, it showed a much more daring approach to the game than the final product. But again, this is just my opinion.

As an aside, I'm still interested to find out just how much of the originally planned mechanics (the light/shadow dynamic, the more aggressive and intelligent enemies, fully destructible environments, etc) were scrapped solely as a result of the implementation of co-op, and how many of them were scrapped because they simply didn't work. I certainly hope it's the latter and not the former, because I would have happily taken those over co-op.

I think that is a consensus for the people who dont love it. I haven't met many people who flat out hate the game really, because its really not bad game at all, to me its just a safe and routine one which left much to be desired. I mean even G4 when they gave it most disappointing of the year, they took into account that it really isnt a bad game really, just feels a little done and old. I mean i give the game maybe a 7.5-8 with dlc , around there, and that we have to remember is a good score for a game aggregate, games in the 9.0 and over are considered to have been incredible games with only minor flaws.

But ya I agree. Re 5 seemed to understand how ground breaking Re4 was, and it seemed unwilling to innovate as such in the same level. Online co-op isnt so much an innovation ( outbreak) as it was a commonality of the day. Im sure there was pressure to try and recreate the Re4 formula, and often times, the second trick doesn't turn quite as well as the first overall, in many things.

In some ways, this might sound crazy but im kind of glad it did receive a Luke warm reception next to Re4. I want the series to flourish, but perhaps that may lend a hand in the development of Re 6 and so on to take more risks and break more boundaries. Games all over are now doing this and I would love to see Resident Evil continue this in their pursuits.

Everything should be co-op.

Not forced co-op, but have the option there.

No, co-op requires different level design and gameplay, it's not as simple as having an option that you can turn on and off.

No, co-op requires different level design and gameplay, it's not as simple as having an option that you can turn on and off. I still feel that the very best games are single player games and I do think that RE5's campaign could have been better if it was a focused single player game. Then again the replay value would not be as high. For RE5 they designed the whole game for co-op so it worked, it was a great game, one of the best co-op games out there. I think you can do both, have a true single player campaign and a slightly different co-op one. You get the best of both worlds, everyone is happy.

What of Perfect Dark? Timesplitters? RE: Outbreak? And games of that nature?

Granted their FPS' except for Outbreak, but still, having it just be turned on and off is fine. For example, I think a co-op addition to Bayonetta would be amazing, I was talking about that with my friend the other day. There's already a few parts of the game where Jeanne is fighting with you, so why not have Jeanne be there in every level for a second player to control (with added enemies for balance, and maybe no witch time)? And in single player, have it be the normal game. I think it would work splendidly.

That's just one example but you probably get the picture. Of course, what you say could work to. RE5 would be slightly better if there were two campaigns, the one we have now for co-op, and another with just Chris and having Sheva just show up every now and then to help out. Of course, this would require them to edit the level design so a second person isn't required at some points, and to basically make every cutscene twice, which is why they didn't bother probably.

There's no such thing as a single-player game that wouldn't be made better by having co-operative multiplayer. That's how I've always thought.