Sectus said:
I'm not saying it would magically turn into Gears 2. I'm saying it would be completely different
But how? You still haven't successfully made any actual distinction here.
Fuck no. Sorry, but the gameplay in those games are NOTHING alike.
In Gears it's all about staying in cover, and while you're in cover it's basically a shooting gallery. If you happen to get flanked, you have to run to another cover and while you're moving you're vulnerable. If you're fighting melee enemies you just have to run backwards (or circlestrafe) to safely kill those enemies.
RE4 and RE5 doesn't play that at all. The whole vulnerability is actually the opposite. In RE5 you're vulnerable while you're standing still, and while you're moving you can avoid practically every attack in the entire game. So your primary goal is finding a safe spot to shoot from, but the rest of the gameplay encourages or forces you to keep moving, which is where the challenge and gameplay comes from. If you keep standing still, you won't be able to take advantage of the melee attacks and you'll be flanked within seconds.
And those two respective gameplay strategies are different...how? You certainly aren't invincible in cover for Gears, because you take immense risk popping up for more than a few seconds in Hardcore/Insane mode. It sure as hell isn't a shooting gallery for that same reason (that you'll get lit-up like a Christmas tree if you pop up for more than a second or two). On top of that, there are numerous times in both Gears games where no one piece of cover is absolutely perfect, and you'll be taking shots from multiple angles, so you never feel totally safe at all and
will have to find a better position. My underlying point with Gears is that no matter where you are, you are most certainly vulnerable.
Your primary goal in Gears is to find a safe spot to shoot from, but the rest of the gameplay encourages or forces you to keep moving, which is where the challenge and gameplay comes from. If you keep standing still, you won't be able to take advantage of the melee attacks and you'll be flanked within seconds.
So I don't know what you're trying to get at here. Everything you're saying can be applied to Gears and RE4 and back again. What distinction are you trying to make?
I'm primarily talking about stop'n'shoot. Tank controls might have been a defining feature for some, but they've proven they can incorporate very similar controls with little effect on gameplay (I still think Type A controls is the way the game is supposed to be play, and it feels better that way once you're used to them). And well, how should they have "evolved" the stop'n'shoot mechanic? If they thought it actually improved the gameplay, should they have gone "Never mind, all other games lets you move while shooting, we are obviously wrong even though we think the game controls fine and is a lot fun."
What are these "very similar controls" you speak of? "Very similar" to what? If you're implying "very similar" to modern TPS, they aren't very similar at all. And if that is indeed what you're hinting at, I'd suggest that those "very similar" controls had little effect on gameplay because they weren't incorporated in a significant capacity at all.
Regarding your second question about how they should have "evolved" stop'n'shoot, how about borrow a page from Gears' fine-aim mode and at least let the player side-step while the gun is drawn? Remember? In Gears, you hold Left Trigger, gun comes up, camera zooms in a bit, and you move significantly slower than if you were to shoot from the hip? Bam. Right there. Include that in the Control Type D option. Make the left joystick useful.
In my opinion, what needs to evolve is people's willingness to actually adapt to different controls. It's really not that hard getting used to standing still while shooting. Heck, you're perfectly still 90% of the time you're shooting in Gears, why can't you get used to it in RE5?
First, no, people are actually pretty willing to adapt to different controls, as it is. You can see evidence of that across the industry, within numerous genres. The problem here is that this control system is very much outdated. People can attribute it to the franchise style as much as they want, but the truth of the matter is, the control scheme is not a modern control scheme. If it were a modern control scheme, side-stepping wouldn't have been added. Control Type D wouldn't have been added. We already see features that effectively concede the dated nature of the original control scheme. Nobody in their right mind should argue otherwise.
Furthermore, you are not perfectly still 90% of the time you're shooting in Gears. When you're popping out of cover to take a shot, if you remain still for anything above a few seconds, you're going to die. If you want to survive in multiplayer, you learn to shoot from the hip so you don't have to stand still as you shoot, on your way to a more secure defensive position. And when you do need to fine-aim with the Left Trigger, you sure as hell do not stand still even 30% of the time when you don't know for certain that it's safe to do so. Because otherwise, you will get lit up and it will not be pretty. Make no mistake. If you're perfectly still 90% of the time you're shooting in Gears, you're either lying/exaggerating, playing with complete scrubs who aren't punishing you well enough for flimsy strategy, or playing on Easy campaign mode. Either way, I think you're pulling numbers out of your ass.
