I was finally able to play the Resident Evil 5 demo. Since my 360 is dead (I should really ship that off to Microsoft already) I had to wait for the PSN release.
Going into this demo I already had very mixed feelings on Resident Evil 5. The very first teaser trailer looked fantastic, with amazing visuals. Once we started seeing gameplay footage, graphically it still looked great, but there was something VERY familiar about it all. The environments and characters were far more detailed, but the gameplay and animations looked straight out of Resident Evil 4. Don't get me wrong, RE4 was an amazing game for its time, but a simple graphics upgrade wasn't going to do it for me.
After playing through the demo's two sections, I'm not sold on the game. I really think Capcom is playing it a little too safe. Given the huge success and critical acclaim of the previous title, it looks like they decided to change very little, add a second character for some co-op elements, and keep the rest of the game unchanged.
But what is wrong with that you ask? Many series' are defined by their core gameplay, with sequels simply improving some aspects or adding new wrinkles here and there. But in the case of Resident Evil - a series which excelled early on for defining a genre and pretty pre-rendered backgrounds, not necessarily for its fantastic gameplay - refusing to adapt with the times just holds it back. I'm going to be perfectly blunt here. The controls for the entire Resident Evil series suck. Plain and simple. It wasn't as big an issue in the first few games, given that those titles use a fixed perspective in which the camera angles would constantly change without warning, so a traditional control scheme would not have work. That was fine. But when the series moved away from pre-rendered backgrounds into full 3D worlds, the controls refused to acknowledge that change. Simple additions which would remove the handcuffs from the player, such as strafing and moving while firing, still were out reach for the games' protagonists.
This really began to be a problem (for me at least) with Resident Evil 4. I'm playing a special government agent. Probably a good one since I am tasked to find the president's daughter all by myself. Yet I cannot side-step around a corner? Really? I can't take a few steps back while firing on an advancing enemy, or at the very least advance with my weapon drawn?! I let it slide in RE4, since the game was developed for the Gamecube and that controller did not sport the traditional "dual analog" stick design of the PS2 or Xbox. Sure, you had the yellow stick which could have substituted, but I let it be. It didn't help that RE4 was far more action/combat oriented than any RE before it and the cumbersome controls only seemed to make you feel handicapped, instead of giving you the freedom to do what you wanted.
So after playing the RE5 demo, I am disappointed to see that yet again, you are handicapped by the controls. I will give them props for finally adding the ability to strafe, that one addition automatically improves the entire game by 50%. In fact, I'd say that strafing is more important than being able to shoot while moving, so again, thank you Capcom for adding this even though it is not very "RE-like" to do so. Now, c'mon guys, why can you still not shoot while walking?
I really hate it when people argue that the controls are the way they are because this is a "survival horror" game, not an action game. That the controls add to making the game scary. Really? The controls are the way they are because when the series was created, there was no such thing as dual analog sticks. It was physically impossible to allow the player to move in "3D" and aim freely and walk at the same time. But we no longer have that physical restriction, so the reason Capcom has decided to keep it the same way all these years is either for nostalgia or because they like defining this series with really crappy, archaic, limiting controls. The second argument is just as ridiculous. You mean the game needs to rely on bad controls to create a tense environment? If so, then the developers are not doing their jobs correctly. A game should be scary because of the in game atmosphere, the situation you are in, and the dangers you are facing, not because the controls are so sluggish you know you can't defend yourself properly. I found Dead Space plenty scary and atmospheric and that game's controls were just about perfect.
I see Resident Evil as a series that had a lot of success despite of core gameplay/control flaws. It did other things so well, that those flaws were easy to overlook. But it seems to me that Capcom is refusing to correct those flaws now, even though it would be simple to do so. Shame. Because I do not believe that adding the ability to walk and shoot as "breaking" what RE is. The Metal Gear series is another which I felt was in this same situation, yet Konami adapted and improved the game greatly with its latest release. By MGS: Snake Eater, the series' gameplay and controls were feeling downright prehistoric. A terrible, unnecessary overhead camera made sneaking around harder than it needed to be. The aiming system required you to hold down about four buttons to shoot. It was terrible, flawed, and well past its prime. For MGS 4, Konami completely overhauled the controls, took full advantage of today's controllers, and the game played beautifully, all the while still feeling like Metal Gear. Take note Capcom, that's how its done.
Anyway, this is along whiny post just to say that I was not too impressed with RE5. While playing the demo I couldn't shake the feeling that I had already played this game back when it was called RE4. It is definitely not a purchase for me, at least not until it drops in price. That's fine, I'll be playing Killzone 2 either way.
No comments:
Post a Comment