AT one point Masachika kawata said that with the aount of money they spent on marketing, they spent about as much as a full game

I can try and find the interview but you'll have to trust me if i cant. So apparently, it was alot, and they put a huge effort into it.

Well even if they did spend an astronomical amount of advertising, I personally am glad they did. It certainly increased my interest before the game came out and that made getting it alot better. I consider January 2009-March 2009 my definitive Resident Evil 5 experience. Between getting involved in story discussion, reading the BSAA website, watching the viral videos and then finally playing the game hardcore all through March...it made for probably my favorite gaming experience on a next gen system.

To kind of stay on topic, I love the DLC but I don't think it had the same impact for me as the actual game itself. Alot less hype for me...but I guess thats to be expected...we didn't really get anything new as far as storyline progression...unless you count a few files in LiN that may or may not be relevant. It would be like if I read the entire script before I played the game...I would still enjoy it...just alot less.

I just read most of this thread and I must say it is one of the most intelligent discussions I have seen on this site. Archelon your post was fantastic, I don't agree with everything you say but you explained yourself very well. The resulting discussion was a great read as well.

Yes the general perception is that RE5 was a letdown, which again after RE4 what won't be. There are also a lot of people that don't consider it that great a shooter cause of the controls. That is what bothers me, why is it ok for RE4 but not for RE5. I know Capcom tried to throw in some crappy hybrid system, so it is partly their fault. The way I see it, I am a fan of RE4's combat, it is unique, it is not like any shooter out there. Gears and RE4/5 are two very different shooters. I don't understand how someone can love RE4 and then say RE5s gameplay as bad cause of controls when that is part of what makes this unique combat system works. I like that RE5 is like RE4, I perfer up close combat to hiding behind cover pop and shoot gameplay any day. I am a big fan of RE4's gameplay and RE5 offered me another excellent RE4 like experience, not as good but with far more features.

I view the RE5 reaction like I do reaction to games like MGS2 or Zelda: WW. Sequels to major franchises, to games that are considered masterpieces. When the sequel doesn't live up to that predecessor the flaws and criticism become more apparent. When you compare RE5 to the general population of action games it is clear it is in the top tier, it is such a well made game from top to bottom. I understand some people don't like this style of game and that is fine but the game is quality, it screams quality.

Yes its a great thread, hope it keeps going.
In my opinion, on your second paragraph, the reason i feel many felt that the controls didn't work as well for Re 5 then they did for Re4 was that Re 5 did seem to take Re 4's action, and bolster it too a very high level...kind of like Re 4 mad max version. Dont get me wrong, even at times in Re 4 I was starting to feel like the action was too heavy, but for me it towed a line alot better between atmosphere, some creepiness, and the such. Resident Evil 5 was void of that aside from one area..the licker lab.

To me...and id love to hear other peoples input on this, the biggest complaint I have with the controls is that the enemy AI suffers for it. Re 4 was somewhat of a turning block you might say..it inspired games like Gears and other shooters even...very monumental in its task. So the years after Re 4 did give us a host of games that improved the TPS genre, so that must have something to do with it as well.

But back to enemy AI...i mean in all honesty, the majini are not really that much more advanced then the Ganado in attack patterns, routine, or the such. That alone would be fine, but again...the bolstered action direction made many feel like..if your gonna do it...maybe add a little more to make it really fun. To me the enemy AI was what i was most disappointed at. With more fluid controls and such, enemies can then be granted to be more hostile, faster, stronger, and more vicious. I still smile thinking of that first Re 5 trailer in 2005..when the enemies were sprinting at Chris in the alleyway, thinking of that made me realize other games have done this, and maybe Re 5 might have benefited from trail and error with a tweaked system.

Nothing wrong with Re5's controls as a stand alone idea..but when mixed with action heavy game play even compared to Re4, and the same enemy AI and routine..i started to back away from my statements of keeping the same controls and maybe experimenting with new ones.

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.

Archelon

Bravo, pretty much summed up the arguments I have made over the past year on the game very well, and in much less space then I did as well lol



I agree fully. Both the 2005 trailer and the 2007 extended trailer showcased a much more bold and daring direction for the game. It was still Re 4 in theme, but the various mechanics planned to be added ( dodging, blindness mechanic, heat/cold) as well as faster, more aggressive enemies, as well as environments more suited to those...It just looked beautiful

I would wager my money on the co-op haven been a large result of this..It was already stated that many of the elements of the game were changed, scrapped, or tailored to match the experience. At the drop of a hat I too would have switched them around, the co-op is fun especially with a buddy and a mic, but a deeper more interesting take on the game design would have been much more fulfilling to me.

Its actually somewhat depressing really..too think back at what was showcased, planned, and the like. I think you said it very well in that Capcom seemed to play it so safe, safe to an extreme in fact, enemies that sprint and attack, blindness and not seeing whats around you, wide open environments with places to hide and be attacked. The four years of development seemed like so lost on me..the graphical and visual presentation account for much of this im sure.

Yes i personally thinks tht the DLC packages hav improved (my) RE5. DE definitely is my favourtie DLC so far becos of the story and unlimited zombies, it is very difficult to complete professional with just urself... it is a very challenging gam and so tht is why i love it ;)

I actually Agree with Knuckles
Jill in the Boxart = $$$$

Wow, just read through this entire topic. I really have to agree with Archelon. And great posts too! I always did think most of the budget for RE5 was spent on marketing, I wonder, if they had spent more on the technology and trying to actually make the game, I wonder how much of that beta stuff would actually be in the game. Remember the photographs showing army's of Gigante's attacking towns and many other amazing things?

I heard the official reason for not including those ideas was that the 360 and PS3 wouldn't be able to handle it. But if Naughty Dog could figure out a way to have fully movable sets and levels in Uncharted 2 (Which took them a few months to get working properly they said in an interview), and if God of War can have colossi as traversal set pieces, then that means it was just capcom being lazy and not attempting to figure out a way to do it. They figured they'd make a lot of money anyways, and didn't bother trying to push the benchmark any further.


Oh and Knuckles is right on the ball.

If I have noticed one peculiar thing lately, it's this, an RE game that has lots of Jill and Wesker, is bound to sell well. UC has tons of both character, and sold millions, so did RE5 and GE. DSC on the other hand, didn't have either (except a small cameo apparently) and only sold a few hundred thousand. Go figure.

Jill, she sells games you know.