That sentence there is enough to stop this argument but Helas...... not gonna happen.

... and thats where your going wrong. Heres an old saying that perfectly explains it all...

"For those who know, no explanation is necessary... For those who dont, no explanation is possible."

but if its an option why do you even care?

this is what me, and clearly LEBATO dont understand...how can anyone complain about an OPTIONAL control scheme in a game? it makes no sense what so ever.

I have to take your stance on this. If it's optional, what exactly is the problem?

To you.Whatever the terminology, I was using the word design a million times a couple pages back but now it seems to be forgotten. We, well at least I wasn't arguing about if it was a control issue, or a design issue or both as a result of design decisions.First of all, it wasn't going to be "run'n'gun", we are asking for walk and shoot, among other things I mentioned pages back.

So using all the driving assists in Forza changes the whole dynamic of the game, so what? And so does allowing damage, etc. Let those who like them use them. Forcing in-car camera in PGR4 MP is an option that changes the dynamic, so what? If you don't like it, you ignore those matches. It's simple really, and if I know several people who wouldn't have considered Forza otherwise for example. It's not that it is "improper".It was an extreme example since Jin didn't seem to like the Forza one. My controls scheme makes sense too (some games used something close to that), it's just that you and I both agree that it is stupid in this day and age, much like the lack of movement while aiming is stupid to me in this day and age, which is a control issue as a result of a crappy design decision......according to me and several others of course.

Well first of all, ONCE AGAIN, it's not a problem with the control scheme, or at least any complaint I've seen hasn't been related to the control scheme. Hence why Lebato's hypothetical FPS isn't relevant. Complaining due to lack of run'n'gun...or walk'n'gun.. is like complaining that Gran Turismo doesn't have bullet time and a constantly refilling turbo meter. The game isn't designed with that specific aspect in mind, so the devs should be expected to waste time putting it in because people don't understand how the game is meant to be played? Sure.You know, I don't even really care. They could announce the option tomorrow and I'd be no worse off. It's the incessant bitching and moaning that Capcom somehow owes it to gamers, even self-proclaimed non-fans of the series, that they should put something in that changes how they feel their game should be played. Seriously, 12 pages because people don't like that RE5 isn't Gears?That pretty much sums up my beef right there.

I just dont like that you keep saying people want it to be gears. That's not the case at all. If they did allow you to move while aiming I imagine it would be at an incredibly slow pace. Allowing you to slowly move backwards while aiming would not change the game in the drastic way everyone keeps claiming. Either way, I'm going to play this game because of the co-op. I don't know that I would if it wasn't included.

Well, what I think started the discussion is the fact that Simon and a couple of others were actually sort of mad--at least that's what it looked like--simply because the option was there, and gave some ridiculous (unexpected from Simon really) reasons on why it would be "TRAGIC" if the option had been there which is why the word selfish surfaced, adequately so.

I do think it's a stupid decision on Capcom, but I will simply not buy the game. If you look outside this forum you'll see many people--even those who like the current setup--would have liked the ability to move and shoot, how that was somehow made into "run and gun" and basically "gears of war" is just from people who took the words of that--dumbass--Capcom guy in the interview too serious.

Your GT analogy is bad regardless, it's more like complaining about GT not having damage among other simple things they are updating, which for a "simulator" looks pretty bad, and is perfectly reasonable to expect that. RE5, which is pretty much a third person shooter as much as some people seem to be in denial regarding this, might as well include a good shooting mechanic--which would in now way break the game away from its "uniqueness", and better yet, it would only be for those who want it.

And lastly, I'm tired of people treating developers like gods or some supernatural beings. They are just like you and me, doing their job and getting paid for it.

I spend a good part of my time in the demo finding temporary safe ground, getting some shots off, then quickly and safely trying to relocate to another area. Walking and shooting would basically eliminate this aspect, so yeah, it would change the game in a fairly drastic way.No, you're just miffed that my analogy actually made sense relative to the situation unlike your previous one. People want something in the game that's in other similar-looking games that would change the way the game is played. And sure, good for you guys that you seem to know better than Capcom how their game should be made...I mean, they're obviously noobs... but flooding the thread and basically ruining it for people who are excited for the game is fucking annoying.

not if it was slow. people seem to think we want to be able to sprint 50MPH in every direction while shooting off 10,000 rounds....but we dont, we just want a slow (we're talking SLOWWWW) walking speed while shooting, not fast enough to escape the zombies but enough to be able to back away for a few seconds before having to completely turn around and leg-it.

That still would change the game completely. Having that tension that somebody might be coming from behind while you're shooting the ones ahead is a million times better reward to be honest.

To each his own but I think having that mechanic in the game is what saves the game from being another your typical 3rd person shooter. Otherwise, this wouldnt be resident evil anymore.

it isnt resident evil anymore. hasnt been since 4.

Oh I know but at least it still captures the tension element which is achieved through that control system. if that's gone, it's over completely. so i'm holding on to that for as long as it's possible.

Love it, and the graphics are amazing, cant wait for the full game.

Funny. The name still says Resident Evil on the box

... HEYOOOOO!

sadly thats the only similarity the game has.


resident evil in name alone.

Games NEED to evolve. The old RE peaked with Code Veronica, that was it's high point. There's no where to go from there but down after that.
RE 4 was something that felt really refreshing and new. I'm glad they did it.

Final Fantasy can rest on it's formula. Not everyone wants to do that though.
By your logic Mario now is only Mario by name. Banjo is only Banjo now by name. Zelda/Link is just a lie too! These games have undergone major gameplay changes because they felt it was needed to progress. RE isn't any different.

Well, from the old REs, I thought Code Veronica was the only one worth buying. That game was awesome. The other one I believe, Code Nemesis was pretty good too, but you are right, Code Veronica was the high point.

Yea Code Veronica rocked but why did they have to change it for RE4 ?

Why not use the same concept.Mario hasn't really changed, the game obviously had to change when it went 3D but the concept of Galaxy is still much the same as 64 besides the control method.

As for Banjo the concept there changed massively and many people were pissed off that it had become about making vechicles and racing than about standard platforming.

There are ways to change games and many times when developers change the concept of an actual game it is for the worse.

If they want to express a new game style then they should make new IP's.LOL come off it FF12 was hugely different than any other FF game and many people liked it many people didn't, but the thing is when you have over 5 million fans it is unwise to change something in a way that could potentially alienate half the userbase.

I'm all for innovation but when it has a big impact on the core gameplay then I don't think it's such a good idea, which is where I personally think RE went wrong when it went from veronica to RE4, especially if you look at the beta of RE4.

i agree, some games do need to evolve, but RESI 4/5 took a wierd half evolutionary step and is some "hills have eyes" freak of nature imo. it needs to take the other half step for me to take any notice.

zelda was a bad choice of example considering it hasnt actually changed much at all gameplay wise since its inception.

and yes, banjo nuts and bolts is a travesty compared to the old games. and reviews clearly proove my point. (from the 92/90 average of banjo 1/2 to the 79 average of nuts and bolts)

as for mario...personally i see that franchise as a slightly less embarrasing version of sonic, where its 2D counterparts where clearly superiour, but it's 3D games are pretty good too. unlike sonic which hasnt had any good 3D games.....yes, including adventure1/2 on dreamcast.

im a purist when it comes to games. it's the reason i didnt like the daylight direction splinter cell double agent made, and its the reason im not as excited by the prospect of conviction.

the big gameplay altering changes made to games more often then not tend to be for the worse imo. but thats just what comes with change. your are going to alienate the hardcore fans (of which i was a hardcore resident evil fan) yet make new fans at the same time (which resident evil 4 did) its unavoidable.

it's rare a game can make so many huge changes gameplay wise like resi 4 did without losing a good portion of its old fans. hell, even MGS4 which i loved doesnt compare to its original and some older fans where completely put off with the more action oriented third person shooting aspect. i just like things to stay the way they are if they are better in the first place.

it's the reason we've seen very little change in the FPS/RPG and fighting game genres. change too much and they stop being FPS's/RPG's and fighting games. and if you're a fan of those genres you're bound to be upset, especially if you consider their changed state to be infinately worse then what they had in the first place....which is exactly my feelings towards resi 4/5.

i love the survival horror genre, and i love third person action games....but i dont like the weird concoction resi 4/5 was/is. i liken it to my love for chicken, and chocolate...great on their own, but combined into a chicken/chocolate smoothie....i think i'll pass.