StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Dear Capcom,

Well, I downloaded your RE5 demo on XBL and was frankly impressed that a demo on XBLA came in at under a gig. Then I made the mistake of playing it and went: "fuck me, are people still going wild for this crap?"

Come on Capcom - times have changed since 1997. You're not still producing for the PS1. You've updated graphics. You've implemented multiplayer. You've even changed up some game mechanics. You've moved with the times in many other ways. But you won't change your piece of shit controls? WE HAVE MORE THAN JUST A D-PAD AND FACE BUTTONS NOW YOU KNOW?

All this demo did for me was confirm that I have no interest in playing RE5. And especially no interest in buying it. I bought RE4 for Wii, because the control scheme seemed different enough that it might be worthwhile. But it's still stupid. And the "REVOLUTIONARY CONTROL UPDATES" of RE5 amount to some new button allocations it would seem.

I still have to do a 180, run a few steps, do another 180 and keep firing into order to step back - instead of you know - taking a step back. I'm not asking for them to turn it into an FPS or anything like that, I just want to fight the fucking zombies. Not your shitty fucking controls.

Fuck you muchly,

WeeMadAndo

Indeed, anything positive about this game is subsumed beneath the painfully irritating interface.

I think they either can't be arsed to plot the action intelligently, or are obsessed with some sort of stupid series continuity, hence the retarded control system thats only marginally better than the close your eyes and pray to jesus version I remember from years back.

Simple things like a scoped rifle that requires you to slowly zoom in with the scope, or a crippling shortage of ammunition (presumably to force you into situations where they can show off the "new" grapples and other mechanics) are just incidental when lumped in with the control system.

And its so lame when the cutscene has all the crazy black guys roaring and running around like olympic athletes, then poncing about for ten minutes like brain damaged....zombies...before attacking.

More stupidly designed "action" to compensate for the interface.

Still, it was quite funny throwing my partner across that gap and having 30 zombies eat her alive because I was crippled by the bloody controls.

Oh...fuck that then. I remember trying to play the original RE back in the day and getting completely pissed off and quitting after about five minutes because of the retarded control system. Since it apparently hasn't changed, I can then save my money for another game.

Amusingly, I was just reading an article on Joystiq about how Capcom plans on never changing its control scheme for the RE series because, apparently, it "adds an element of danger". In a zombie game. I can maybe buy that excuse if the character is an engineer or a scared shitless civilian or something, but highly trained police and ex-soldiers? Come the fuck on.

When I played the Japanese demo back in December, I too thought the controls sucked. I reverted back to the RE4 control scheme and found it to be a little bit better since I'm so used to that game, but it's still fucking difficult. You make a valid point, weemadando, about stepping backwards.

Edit: Will a mod please delete the double post? I am a douchetard and hit "Quote" instead of "Edit".

Intentionally crippling a combat system to increase the suspense/difficulty doesn't work. Difficulty != frustrating and it damn sure doesn't create suspense. It lessens it as it takes away from the immersion. I'm not thinking "wow, this is intense." I'm thinking "who would pay $60 bucks to put up with this?"

The laser sight is hard as Hell to see (although aiming in any RE game has been difficult) in day-light. Shambling zombies are a huge threat because you just can't see anything. In fact, the only improvement I've noticed is that your melee weapon is easily accessed (LB). Too bad it has the range of a toothpick and will clip right through a zombie model rather than hit them.

I actually had no trouble seeing the laser sight myself.

But that's utterly beyond the point, yeah i downloaded it too and, wow, the controls are BAD.

Bad bad.

Is there any reason whatsoever that it takes the guy more than a minute to turn completely around while aiming? Is there some bizarre explanation for this shit? I actually sifted through the options sceen to see if i could alter the "turn speed"--i saw something, i believe it was called turn speed or something, and put it to "fastest". Nope. Just makes it turn faster when NOT aiming, the only time when i don't give a fuck about turning around as i can just move in the other direction. I remember playing the original RE series on the PS1 and i dealt with the controls because it was the best we could accomplish, or so i thought at the time, i've since learned better. Really there is no reason a sensible, cover-based control scheme (like Gears of War, Army of Two) could not be used here. It's not that revolutionary. And really all this could be avoided by simply allowing you to move freely while aiming, if somewhat slower than normal...you know like Gears of War, Army of Two, every FPS game made since Quake...

I'm probably just going to rent it from Gamefly because, controls aside, i liked the actual game ITSELF, just not the interface. The fact that i may rent it does not change the fact that the control scheme sucks, blows and swallows.

I was disappointed with this demo. I liked RE4, but they took that and managed to break it. They need to pull another REmake with the older games, bring RE2 and Nemesis to PS3 and 360.

Oscar Wilde wrote:Maybe they don't use the same control scheme as Gears of War because it's... not Gears?

They don't have to use the same control scheme. They just have to use a control scheme that doesn't suck. Or takes notes from Dead Space in how to properly do a good control scheme for a horror game.

Saying "it's not Gears" is completely useless, because the controls of Gears have been used on THOUSANDS of other third-person shooters. By that logic then they're all part of the Gears of War franchise. Which would pretty sweet i guess, but still...

No but seriously, the point is, that anyone should be able to design a control scheme where i can take cover, run while aiming, and still function. Games have been doing this since Tomb Raider, for Christ's sake. I'm not talking theoretical physics here, this is 1997 game design, i just used Gears as an example beacause it's more recent than the other 1e+46 games that use a virtually identical control interface and can be played easier than RE5.

I realized I didn't quite word that right.
I think it's Capcom trying to keep a game built to be action in the survival aspect of the original games, where it was decisions between killing zeds or saving ammo and running, which is retarded because of the fact that Resident Evil 4 wasn't built with "survival" in mind, being that there was money, herbs, and ammo around every corner, and Resident Evil 5 looks like it might be more retarded, given that ammo is low and there's even larger swarms of parasite inflicted villagers.

Whatever Capcom is smoking, they need to "donate" their supplier to Umbrella and get whatever they had when they invented the Survival Horror genre.

18-Till-I-Die wrote:No but seriously, the point is, that anyone should be able to design a control scheme where i can take cover, run while aiming, and still function.

Fuck run while aiming - why can't I step back while aiming? Why can't I initiate a reload without going into aim mode? Combine these two "features" to make combat shitty and irksome!

HOORAY CAPCOM!

It probably wouldn't be so bad, even if the literally cripple-slow speed of movement while aiming and inability to reload was maintained, if as you said you were JUST ABLE TO MOVE WHILE AIMING!

Seriously, i actually kind of like this game (i'm tenative, it's just a demo after all), and i still cant understand what the Hell is up with that.

And you know, it's not like you have to stand rod-straight and unmoving while firing. I mean, i'm pretty sure that soldiers, SWAT teams and even normal people can actually move forward (even IF it is slower than normal!) while still aiming accurately.

Thunder Status: Stolen.

I hear 'tension' and 'survival horror' are things that come from intentionally broken controls and this isn't 100% the fault of conservative fanboys. I'll note that Dead Space has a better control scheme, but still not a 'good' one, because it's trying so hard to be RE.

So generic spainland has more guns than a place in generic africa? Shouldn't you be overflowing in AK-47s to the point where the price is driven so far down by supply you can buy a new guy cheaper than a magazine?

The worst thing about the RE controls is that the port of RE2 on the N64 had proper analogue stick controls and it was released in 1999. So ten years advancements in shiny graphics but backsliding in control? Not sure if it was Capcom who ported RE2 to the N64 or a contracted developer who might have been given leeway to change the precious system.

The shortage of ammo was hilarious, maybe more of a problem in the demo because you've started off with some stupidly low amount. Perhaps the full game will be like RE4 where there's no shortage of ammo after the first half hour.

The graphics were nice in still but there was such horrible screen tear when you turned at all, not sure if thats because my display's at 1080p and its doing one of those awful half-arsed make the game look worse by rendering at too high a resolution when really it should just be using the inbuilt upscaler to do it.

Actually, maybe the crappy turning rate is to make the tearing less obvious?

As the OP says, Capcom is doing this on purpose, which I believe is due to a massively conservative fanbase. In the early 360 days all Capcom releases were disturbingly 8bit or arcade in sensibility, and they've never really grown up or changed. Which is fine when their product is good, not so fine when the product is bad.

The fact that everyone here, including the optimists, have erupted into a storm of hate makes me so wary of this game i don't think i'll even bother with the demo for weeks. I guess that's ok, since I haven't been able to work up a shit about the RE series in general since i'd heard of it back in grade school.

Oscar Wilde wrote:Whatever Capcom is smoking, they need to "donate" their supplier to Umbrella and get whatever they had when they invented the Survival Horror genre.

Capcom didn't invent the survival horror genre, they just added blood, guts and bad acting to Alone in the Dark.

Stark wrote:As the OP says, Capcom is doing this on purpose, which I believe is due to a massively conservative fanbase. In the early 360 days all Capcom releases were disturbingly 8bit or arcade in sensibility, and they've never really grown up or changed. Which is fine when their product is good, not so fine when the product is bad.

And was lambasted by retards on GFAQs (I know, surprising...) because the controls were actually functional.

Still, I haven't tried this demo out myself yet... So, I'll withhold judgement until later. (Honestly, there're only two things I want out of CAPCOM... A new Breath of Fire game, and a new [maybe 3d...] Darkstalkers... both of which are only slightly more likely than the second coming of Christ...)

I think the Darkstalkers end times are already come for Capcom with Tatsunoko vs Capcom.

They didn't reuse the same old Morrigan sprite again.

CaptHawkeye wrote:The fact that everyone here, including the optimists, have erupted into a storm of hate makes me so wary of this game i don't think i'll even bother with the demo for weeks. I guess that's ok, since I haven't been able to work up a shit about the RE series in general since i'd heard of it back in grade school.

The nice thing about demos is that you can experience the pain with only a loss of time and bandwidth. I personally love shitty demos because it lets me experience a bit of awful without any money changing hands.

Download the "Two Worlds" demo if you want a truly pathetic/unintentionally hilarious ("The Taint" never gets old) experience. At least RE5 has co-op.....

Heh, yeah; the Bioshock demo took me from 'wow this is an interesting game I hear it has dynamic AI and emergent ecologies sounds cool' to 'oh jesus it's another corridor with the lights turned out -DELETED-'. A 'bad' demo saves you a lot of time.

While we're on the topic of who 'invented' the 'survival horror' genre, someone should probably prove it even exists. RE are just really limited adventure games; at least Alone in the Dark let you fuck around a lot more instead of railroading you from the get-go. 'Survival Horror' = crap adventure game with crap controls and LOL ZOMBAYS. Deadspace was crap but it was way better than RE and much of it's crapness stemmed from trying to emulate the narrative-heavy style of RE with the action, exploration and puzzles taking a distant backseat to the EXPERIENCE.

Stark wrote:Heh, yeah; the Bioshock demo took me from 'wow this is an interesting game I hear it has dynamic AI and emergent ecologies sounds cool' to 'oh jesus it's another corridor with the lights turned out -DELETED-'. A 'bad' demo saves you a lot of time.

While we're on the topic of who 'invented' the 'survival horror' genre, someone should probably prove it even exists. RE are just really limited adventure games; at least Alone in the Dark let you fuck around a lot more instead of railroading you from the get-go. 'Survival Horror' = crap adventure game with crap controls and LOL ZOMBAYS. Deadspace was crap but it was way better than RE and much of it's crapness stemmed from trying to emulate the narrative-heavy style of RE with the action, exploration and puzzles taking a distant backseat to the EXPERIENCE.

From what I understand Penumbra: The Black Plague actually might be close to survival horror in that you have no weapons, no real chance to fight and the only way to beat the game is to, well, survive the horror.

If Dead Space is better than RE than god fucking help that series. I apparently haven't been missing ANYTHING.

Reading into the controls amuses me. No shooting while moving? I'm no fan of cone fire either but Capcom seems to think the best game design is in the manner of a broken transmission. Where shifting from aspect of gameplay to the other must be as jarring as possible.