Winterfang
Banned
RE5 has the best human and enemy design the series has seen in years. The locals are surprinsily varied, shit ton of content (RE6 also has a lot) and very repayable. Is super cheese also, which I love.
What was wrong with Resident Evil 5?
- Thread starter Afrocious
- Start date
bobawesome
Member
I'm a pretty big fan of Resident Evil 5 but what?
Lethal_NFS
Banned
Residen Evil 5 was outstanding. Of course I played the entire game in co-op as it was meant to be played.
Resident Evil 6 was a giant turd of a game.
Resident Evil 6 was a giant turd of a game.
Which is incredible really as the first trailer had bucket loads.
Personally I only really had issues with the inventory, turret sections, reuse of El Gigante where he didn't fit, and partner actions during fights like ripping the thing off Jill's chest over and over again.
Winterfang
Banned
RE6 is so fucking bad. The enemies suck also, the puzzles are horrendous, the environments where not made with combat in mind.
A lot of the combat scenarios in RE5 are almost directly ripped off from RE4 with very little difference or excitement.
The gun rpg mechanics where stripped from RE4 rather than enhanced.
The environments outside the opening environment and swamp levels really sucked. (A few good ones like the garden are standouts and some of the best in the series).
The difficulty and scenarios wasn't nearly as intense as RE4 despite having 2 players, very few scenarios did achieve this and happened to be the most memorable ones (duo chainsaw dudes, lickers).
A lot of the enemies are just straight ripped from 4 or a mish mash (del lago+salazar = irving for example minus the fun combat of both, el gigante--errr ndesu became a turret section).
Complete lack of atmosphere.
The game is fun as shit and mercs mode co-op is some of the best there is and it really is a good, fun game but it's a step down from RE4 in almost every department bar the graphics and thats a damn shame. The pacing was very solid, something I can't say about Resident Evil 6.
Also it completely wastes it's co-op system. It has the coolest co-op system where you have to share everything with your partner but it hardly capitalizes on this with interesting scenarios that separates the two or heavily limits you (I can recall maybe 1 or 2 extremely short, hardly fufilling scenarios that touch lightly on this leaving me wanting more).
Mercs is a better example of that due to it's randomness but only slightly. Outbreak was a great example of how to handle a co-op of that style.
The gun rpg mechanics where stripped from RE4 rather than enhanced.
The environments outside the opening environment and swamp levels really sucked. (A few good ones like the garden are standouts and some of the best in the series).
The difficulty and scenarios wasn't nearly as intense as RE4 despite having 2 players, very few scenarios did achieve this and happened to be the most memorable ones (duo chainsaw dudes, lickers).
A lot of the enemies are just straight ripped from 4 or a mish mash (del lago+salazar = irving for example minus the fun combat of both, el gigante--errr ndesu became a turret section).
Complete lack of atmosphere.
The game is fun as shit and mercs mode co-op is some of the best there is and it really is a good, fun game but it's a step down from RE4 in almost every department bar the graphics and thats a damn shame. The pacing was very solid, something I can't say about Resident Evil 6.
Also it completely wastes it's co-op system. It has the coolest co-op system where you have to share everything with your partner but it hardly capitalizes on this with interesting scenarios that separates the two or heavily limits you (I can recall maybe 1 or 2 extremely short, hardly fufilling scenarios that touch lightly on this leaving me wanting more).
Mercs is a better example of that due to it's randomness but only slightly. Outbreak was a great example of how to handle a co-op of that style.
ForsakenLotus
Member
I feel like Resident Evil 4 is a game that can't be replicated. Even though the first three Resident Evil games were all good in their own rights, there was certainly a - stagnant isn't quite the right word - Horror games are a niche genre and the juxtaposition of seemingly awkward gameplay in RE to more fluid gameplay in most mainstream titles made Shinji Mikami feel like he needed to reinvent the series. And that is what RE4 is.
By making the enemies more human, and less grotesque-mindless meat monsters, the game had a more naturally unnerving scariness to it. Combine that with what was to many (I think) the first mainstream third person shooter, and you had something that felt fresh both thematically and mechanically. But I feel like the formula was almost destined to fail, and here's why:
It's in an odd place mechanically. Nowadays we have great third person shooters like Gears of War and Vanquish (Mikami!) which are dynamic, precise and fast. Resident Evil cannot compete against these in terms of its gameplay. And people in search of more pure or psychological horror will find the action heavy game design counterintuitive. Resident Evil doesn't really satisfy either camp.
So with RE4, they were new an interesting enough to capture the spotlight. With RE5 it wasn't fresh or new. It wasn't even as scary, especially with a partner playing with you.
If Resident Evil is supposed to be scary, a co-op semi action game is probably not scary. If it's supposed to be a good third person shooter with horror elements, it can't compare to the best in the genre.
By making the enemies more human, and less grotesque-mindless meat monsters, the game had a more naturally unnerving scariness to it. Combine that with what was to many (I think) the first mainstream third person shooter, and you had something that felt fresh both thematically and mechanically. But I feel like the formula was almost destined to fail, and here's why:
It's in an odd place mechanically. Nowadays we have great third person shooters like Gears of War and Vanquish (Mikami!) which are dynamic, precise and fast. Resident Evil cannot compete against these in terms of its gameplay. And people in search of more pure or psychological horror will find the action heavy game design counterintuitive. Resident Evil doesn't really satisfy either camp.
So with RE4, they were new an interesting enough to capture the spotlight. With RE5 it wasn't fresh or new. It wasn't even as scary, especially with a partner playing with you.
If Resident Evil is supposed to be scary, a co-op semi action game is probably not scary. If it's supposed to be a good third person shooter with horror elements, it can't compare to the best in the genre.
Jawmuncher
Member
Everything you listed is basically why I enjoy RE5 more so than RE4.
RE4 is damn good, but after playing 5 it pails in comparison for me since 5 just about gave me everything I asked for while play 4.
Winterfang
Banned
I don't understand why they didn't let the D-pad quick item selection in RE6. It would had made that stupid Ada boss section much much passable.
Also
Hydra to the left, Magnum to the right, Rifle up, Health Spray down. Professional Mode, suck by balls =)
Also
Hydra to the left, Magnum to the right, Rifle up, Health Spray down. Professional Mode, suck by balls =)
Polioliolio
Member
Chris Roidfield, Neo Wesker, and bullshit like this is what made the game near unbearable for a classic RE fan.
Still a fun co-op game.
Still a fun co-op game.
Fancy Clown
Member
Riposte
Member
Shooting Ashley is an instant gameover and she is hardly nimble. It can be quite an issue in the "water room" and the second/optional Gigante fight. I don't recall if Sheva even block your shots unless you have friendly fire on. You should be playing coop anyway.That's not the point of those GIFs. The point is that the friendly "AI" acts absolutely idiotic.
Enemies in front of us? Not a problem master, I will just rush through them.
Player throwing a grenade? Not a problem master, I will just run right into the grenade.
Player needs help? Not a problem master, I will just not do anything at all because fuck this game.
EDIT: Oh old thread.
Neff
Member
I felt that taking RE4's combat, slowing it down, and adding melee opportunities to arm shots and downed opponents certainly made fights against Majini less tense than those against Ganados. I still sometimes wonder what the 'crowd' version shown in the first gameplay trailers would have been like (technically impossible on PS3/360, but I wonder all the same).
But still a brilliant, brilliant game as it stands.
L4DANathan
Member
It was a great game, but a terrible Resident Evil, is probably how I'd describe it.
Fancy Clown
Member
All that really needs to be said about RE5.
Berserking Guts
Member
My wife and I co-op RE5 more then any other game. I remember playing the game once with the AI and hating it, but the co-op is some of my favorite last gen gaming.
Campaign in Resident Evil 5 is less fun than RE4.
Bad level designs:
- Rotating elevator room. In the science lab there is floor that rotates clockwise slowly and functions as an elevator.
A design like this makes no sense at all
- too few enemies in most areas in the SP story.
Bad level designs:
- Rotating elevator room. In the science lab there is floor that rotates clockwise slowly and functions as an elevator.
A design like this makes no sense at all
- too few enemies in most areas in the SP story.
The vehicle/turret section was pretty dumb.
But I liked everything else. You could do melees on grounded enemies instead of knifing them!
I only remember having a problem with the partner AI before I found out you could press the B/Circle button when grabbed/incapacitated to force your partner to come help you.
But I liked everything else. You could do melees on grounded enemies instead of knifing them!
I only remember having a problem with the partner AI before I found out you could press the B/Circle button when grabbed/incapacitated to force your partner to come help you.
SolVanderlyn
Thanos acquires the fully powered Infinity Gauntlet in The Avengers: Infinity War, but loses when all the superheroes team up together to stop him.
Ironically, the best thing about the game, which is the co-op, is what drags it below RE4's level. Let me explain.
If you look at the original design documents, the game had a much different feel to it. Chris was thinner, Barry Burton was going to play a role, the enemy design was slightly different, Jill was going to play a much larger role and Sheva a much smaller one, and there was no co-op. From what I can tell, RE4's sense of isolation and slower pacing was going to be present until they decided to make some changes at the last minute - I.E., forcing co-op gameplay with Sheva.
So I feel like...
-The original vision was compromised and the game feels more like an action title than was intended.
-That said, the co-op we did get was a blast.
Oftentimes I don't know if I'd rather have seen a more RE4-like RE5 or if I should just enjoy it for what it is. I still don't really have an answer.
If you look at the original design documents, the game had a much different feel to it. Chris was thinner, Barry Burton was going to play a role, the enemy design was slightly different, Jill was going to play a much larger role and Sheva a much smaller one, and there was no co-op. From what I can tell, RE4's sense of isolation and slower pacing was going to be present until they decided to make some changes at the last minute - I.E., forcing co-op gameplay with Sheva.
So I feel like...
-The original vision was compromised and the game feels more like an action title than was intended.
-That said, the co-op we did get was a blast.
Oftentimes I don't know if I'd rather have seen a more RE4-like RE5 or if I should just enjoy it for what it is. I still don't really have an answer.
Rekki-Maru
Banned
RE, should've ended with RE5.
They could've wrapped up the whole Ada/Leon stuff with another movie.
They could've wrapped up the whole Ada/Leon stuff with another movie.
Winterfang
Banned
I'll like that they made the game fun. Classic RE games aged really badly because once the graphics stop impressing you, there's just bad gameplay and story left.
Hours Left
Member
Not much, it accomplished pretty much exactly what it was intended to do and is really a great game. There's a reason it's Capcom's most successful game of all time and continues to sell even to this day.
Been a fan of the series since it's inception and I don't feel the same at all. Chris's redesign in particular is one of the best parts of the game, as it finally gave him an iconic look. He was always in Jill's shadow before, not anymore.
Kagoshima_Luke
Gold Member
Nothing's wrong with Resi 5. I gave it a nine out of ten back in the day, and stand by that score. One of my favs from last gen.
Resi 4 is one of the best of all time, so... no.
Resi 4 is one of the best of all time, so... no.
Jawmuncher
Member
Really agree with this.
Until RE5 he was just so bland and just didn't stick out like any of the other characters.
Rain City Gamer
Member
This!
I will also add that the controls were outdated at this point in gaming with Gears of War controls being the cream of the third person shooter crop, the tank RE5 controls felt archaic.
There's the problem. RE games shouldn't be fun to play. It should be an immersive experience. They should evoke something greater than fun.
Winterfang
Banned
This is what the designs say to me
Survivor of a zombie apocalypse, leader, hero.
Random shithead that dies in 2 seconds.
Krappadizzle
Member
Me and a fellow Gaffer beat this last month coop. It's fun with a buddy, that A.I. is shit though. Story in it is laughably bad though. It just felt weird as a whole package to be honest. I can't really place one specific thing.
Resident4t.
Member
It's boring and unremarkable. It also started the half baked co-op mechanics trend in Resident Evil games so it sucks even more for that. It's completely forgettable in every aspect, especially the boss fights. It's not a bad game necessarily, it's just not a very memorable one.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
My roommate and I played through RE4 while we were hyping ourselves up for 5, trading off levels and mercenaries runs. Then we got 5 on release day and played through the game co-op.
We had way more fun with 4.
I particularly thought balancing was way off in 5 mercenaries. In 4 you were constantly balancing your health, ammo, kill streak, and time remaining. 5 had all of those elements, but out of wack. We had the most success doing a loop of the entire level ignoring enemies and just picking up all the time extensions, then turning around and killing enemies. Threw off that perfect balance that 4 had.
We had way more fun with 4.
I particularly thought balancing was way off in 5 mercenaries. In 4 you were constantly balancing your health, ammo, kill streak, and time remaining. 5 had all of those elements, but out of wack. We had the most success doing a loop of the entire level ignoring enemies and just picking up all the time extensions, then turning around and killing enemies. Threw off that perfect balance that 4 had.
WaveMagicBravo
Neo Member
If it didn't have the RE title on it, or RE characters in it, it would have been a serviceable and sometimes fun action game, but I gotta compare it to RE4, because it's in the same series and is a direct sequel.
-Character AI (this has been touched on already, so I'll leave it as that)
-horrible UI, especially mixed with the horrible character AI (why is it only 8 slots, and a rocket launcher takes up the same amount of space as a handgun bullet. Everyone knows why RE4 did this better.)
-Non sense plot, which mainly relied on bring back faces and names from the previous games for no reason and really did nothing with them. ( RE4's story was admittedly a little crazy [which you'd expect from a game about the walking dead] but it was simple and still engaging without awkwardly crowbarring a lot of old lore. RE5 relied to much on this old lore, while RE4 used it as spice to flavor its new dish)
-pacing was awful and meandering (RE4 used its scenery and environments to help tell the story of the locales and their history with salazaar subtly while simultaneously and effectively building tension. It wasn't a series of mishmashed set pieces in african settings that didn't really have a lot of meaning)
-Lack of puzzle diversity (compared to RE4, this also has been touched on already)
-Artificial difficulty inflation at varying difficulties, bullet sponges+enemy buffs+artificial ammo scarcity (RE4's difficulty settings were more based strategy and testing your ability with the game in the same vein as say Godhand)
-RE5 built on a formula that RE4 pretty much revolutionized (to be fair this isn't so much a problem with RE5 as it is with the expectations everyone had of it)
-Chris Redfield on steroids, punching boulders (RE4 had a more organic tongue in cheek sense of humor that worked better with its characters)
RE5 WAS NOT A BAD GAME!!! It wasn't broken or completely boring, it just isn't up there with RE4.
-Character AI (this has been touched on already, so I'll leave it as that)
-horrible UI, especially mixed with the horrible character AI (why is it only 8 slots, and a rocket launcher takes up the same amount of space as a handgun bullet. Everyone knows why RE4 did this better.)
-Non sense plot, which mainly relied on bring back faces and names from the previous games for no reason and really did nothing with them. ( RE4's story was admittedly a little crazy [which you'd expect from a game about the walking dead] but it was simple and still engaging without awkwardly crowbarring a lot of old lore. RE5 relied to much on this old lore, while RE4 used it as spice to flavor its new dish)
-pacing was awful and meandering (RE4 used its scenery and environments to help tell the story of the locales and their history with salazaar subtly while simultaneously and effectively building tension. It wasn't a series of mishmashed set pieces in african settings that didn't really have a lot of meaning)
-Lack of puzzle diversity (compared to RE4, this also has been touched on already)
-Artificial difficulty inflation at varying difficulties, bullet sponges+enemy buffs+artificial ammo scarcity (RE4's difficulty settings were more based strategy and testing your ability with the game in the same vein as say Godhand)
-RE5 built on a formula that RE4 pretty much revolutionized (to be fair this isn't so much a problem with RE5 as it is with the expectations everyone had of it)
-Chris Redfield on steroids, punching boulders (RE4 had a more organic tongue in cheek sense of humor that worked better with its characters)
RE5 WAS NOT A BAD GAME!!! It wasn't broken or completely boring, it just isn't up there with RE4.
Pro from Dover
Member
RE4, RE5, RE6... Masterworks all, you can't go wrong.
Riposte
Member
Agreed.
I think it falls into the "it's a great game but a bad [insert franchise name here]"
I know that there already was RE4 that was action focused but RE5 feels like the complete departure from the survival horror genre for the series and this upset some people who expected a classic RE.
I know that there already was RE4 that was action focused but RE5 feels like the complete departure from the survival horror genre for the series and this upset some people who expected a classic RE.
Mechanized
Member
I think RE5 is better than 4. Skipped 6 though, didn't look appealing at all.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Heh, nah. RE4 was amazing.
RE5 was a really good game. It just lacked the atmosphere from previous Resident Evil games and it was more action than survival horror. Also, imo it wasn't scary at all. Takes place in broad daylight, inventory system was not as good as RE4, forced co op(should of been optional imo) and less frightening environments. RE5 and RE6 imo are excellent games, but they didn't quite have the Mikami touch.
That's not the point of those GIFs. The point is that the friendly "AI" acts absolutely idiotic.
Enemies in front of us? Not a problem master, I will just rush through them.
Player throwing a grenade? Not a problem master, I will just run right into the grenade.
Player needs help? Not a problem master, I will just not do anything at all because fuck this game.
I don't know what's going on with that second gif but the AI absolutely will move out of your way. Maybe someone had a second player controlling them?
skLaFarebear
Member
It came out after RE4. It's a great game but not a better sequel.
Nope. It was AI (see the "COVER" text, AI is in cover mode).
Yeah, I'm pretty sure she moved away a second later. Still she moved slower than Ashley. And also did all the other idiotic things. Try to play with the terrible AI on Professional and you are done for. I remember trying to beat the Jill fight on Professional with the AI. It was so bad. The AI isn't able to do shit.
I was able to just tell Ashley to jump into a dumpster and be out of the way. I can't do that with Sheeva.
Capcpom could have made RE5 singleplayer (no terrible AI ruining things) and coop. There are just a few instances, where coop is really "required".
Riposte
Member
The Sheva AI isn't always that slow (and Ashley isn't all that fast, or mobile, even in the GIF), it might be the context (no danger) or commands given. Perhaps more important, what that comparison fails to show you don't get an instant gameover if you happen to shoot her.
And dumpsters are not always a solution in RE4. I've given two examples where Ashley is nothing but a huge hindrance; hectic scenarios with a big target that says "shoot to get gameover" you also need to protect - total "escort quest" moments. In one case, this encourages you to take to one of the most boring (yet potent) strategies in the game (put your back to the wall and then shoot the shotgun until there are no more enemies) when up against probably the most interesting fight in the whole game (the "water room"). The best thing you can say about Ashley is that she's not around (either not present or temporarily removed) for more than half the game, including most of the most dangerous situations (e.g., boss fights). If anything, that should be the point there. Ashley is otherwise a worse AI with worse management (and consequence) and if they had her with you throughout the game she would be hated much more than Sheva. On the other hand, if you play RE5 correctly, there's no AI.
Honestly, not that sympathetic you didn't enjoy the hardest difficulty with the given AI in a clearly co-op designed game. You, like a lot of people, have a barrier in your mind which says "RE5 must be a single-player game!", whereas with many other games its perfectly acceptable for them to be viewed first and foremost as multiplayer games and that playing them as a single-player game is considered non-ideal and inferior/limited. What decides this is always arbitrary and based on things outside of the game (e.g., what the box says and what you believe the words on the box must represent). People carry too much baggage and let it overshadow the game itself. I think this is illustrated how you feel RE5 must justify how its multiplayer is "required", as if games need to justify their core concept, as if every co-op game is a criminally stolen single-player game.