This is supposed to be "next-gen" after all.

I'm not some Halofan4life, FPS RULEZ sorta person. But with the advances in technology, I thought that games were supposed to become more realistic.

Dead Space was quite well executed and had a run and gun mechanic. A run and gun mechanic does not necessarily make a game "easier": ammo can be scarce, the atmosphere can be oppressive, the enemies can be smarter/ more agile/ more plentiful. Design choices are what affect the challenge of a survival horror game, and I don't agree with the ones the RE has made.

As well, the control scheme for Resident Evil has remained relatively the same for over a decade. Enough is enough. How many times do you plan on purchasing the same piece of software with updated graphics and a new number stamped on it?

The fact that a seasoned marine (cop/ whatever he is), isn't trained well enough to run let alone WALK backwards while using a fire-arm is ludicrous.

Oh, and I stand by my point that the game is graphically unimpressive aside from the character models.

There just isn't enough here for ME to warrant a $70 Canadian + tax purchase.

More power to you if you see greater value in the game then I do. I sincerely hope that you enjoy it.

Peace,
- C

P.S. And I second your point that the game has lost it's survival horror edge, the atmosphere is much more action oriented. Sort of like a crippled Devil May Cry w/ zombies.

expected things to improve over what was perfect for last gen, it's much the same why i left feeling ripped off after play DMC4. a total last gen experience on a new gen console with HD resolutions. Though

The only break through i see with this game is that it added better graphics, co-op and a limited online play. apart from that nothing's changed.

So I agree with you. These games had higher potential, but just go a graphics update. Dead space to me was the turning point of why i fell away from RE5, everything about Dead space was well executed. I'll be passing on Re5 for sure.

Nothing else.

Your SOLE complaint is the whole 'no shooting without stopping' thing?

You know there are all kinds of games with very different gameplay mechanics. Re4/5 is only one of them, and you'll never guess, it's perfectly possible to be fun to play.

You're missing out.

- No run and gun mechanic.
- After playing Dead Space, it just doesn't seem "scary". And Dead Space wasn't terrifying by any means, but it had all the key survival horror components: limited ammo, tough enemies, claustrophobic/ eerie environments, great atmosphere.
- Character models are nice, facial animations are off - a long cry from the "Uncanny Valley" and more akin to early Godzilla flicks.
- Environments are bland.
- Aside from some of the graphics and the online component, nothing feels very "next-gen".

I'm not saying that this will be a bad game, I just don't understand how every review/ preview has the same complaints listed and yet this game gets a free pass.

I'm not excited about it. That's great if you - and a lot of other people - are. Hope that you all like the game. Who knows, maybe it'll be your copy I pick up in the bargain bin :)

- No run and gun mechanic.

Must it have one? Why? Because some people, such as you, can only handle one particular shooter mechanic? Not willing to, as it were, try different experiences?

- After playing Dead Space, it just doesn't seem "scary".

Never played RE1, 2, or 3, so I can't judge them for 'scariness'. I don't think RE4 was going for 'scary' (you say scary, I think Fatal Frame/Siren), it was going for 'panic inducing' in that you're constantly being surrounded. RE5 is going along the same path.

Also -

- The fact that a seasoned marine (cop/ whatever he is), isn't trained well enough to run let alone WALK backwards while using a fire-arm is ludicrous.

I take it you never played RE4 to completion, or if you did you must have found this an issue and hated it, after all Leon's a Secret Service agent with acrobatic skills who can't walk backwards while firing.

- Character models are nice, facial animations are off - a long cry from the "Uncanny Valley" and more akin to early Godzilla flicks.

I tell you what, I'll give you this one - if it isn't any different in the full game.

- Environments are bland.

What's bland about them? I'm not seeing 'bland'. This just seems like you're looking for things to complain about or make bullet-points about.

- Who knows, maybe it'll be your copy I pick up in the bargain bin :)

I doubt it, I don't sell or trade my games in. Although that's largely due to the insulting prices the shops offer :)

Yes, I played RE: 4 till completion and didn't enjoy it either. I have played every iteration of the franchise except for the Wii version and including the Dreamcast version, so I think that my opinion has a good deal of experience behind it.

Should it have a run and gun mechanic? Yes. The mechanic exists because it WORKS AND IS REALISTIC. Almost every person who has played the game wishes that the feature was implemented. You are the exception.

As far as the mood of the game, it is survival HORROR. It should induce fright, that is it's purpose. If you had played the first few games in the series, you would know that they are sparsely-munitioned, cinematic, jump-fests. The emphasis is on survival, stealth and conservation (of life and ammo). It is not a zombie-mowing gun extravaganza. And if the latter is the choice the developers decided upon, would it not make sense to have complimented a better control scheme to compliment change in atmosphere? (Aka: Run and Gun)

If you have a copy of the demo, I suggest that you load it and take a discerning look at the environments - they are poorly textured and low-poly. Hence I refer to them as "bland".

Again, all of this is merely my opinion, you are more than entitled to your own.

It's clear that we disagree, and that's cool. You enjoy your purchase, and I will enjoy my purchase of something else (or a second-hand version).

Peace.

P.S. I'm not looking to make "bullet points" or for things to complain about. I am a consumer, and my money has value to me. I am critical in how I make my purchases. I also would like to see gaming evolve as an adult form of entertainment. And I personally (again, this is just my opinion and something we may disagree over) don't believe in supporting a franchise that doesn't seem - to me - to have done anything intriguing or creative over it's last iteration. Supporting titles in the industry that do not exhibit growth will not lead to artistic creativity in the future. It just tells a developer:
"That's alright, put another number and a new coat of paint on it and you can have my $70".

You could have just said it should be the same as every game ever. There's no arguing with someone like you, you lack reasonable arguments.

Other than Code Veronica, 6 is the one ai want to see remade the most only because pretty much everything has to be redone; can't streamline that hot mess.

6 was pretty bad. 5 just tried too hard in being an action-oriented RE4.

In some fairness to Capcom, 5 was the first Resident Evil on then-new hardware for them (X360 and PS3). And it was pretty damn hard to follow up RE4.

Imagine everyone's surprise when EA of all companies dropped Dead Space.

The first half of 5 wouldn't be too hard to do in the more grounded style the remakes have gone for, but the second half gets pretty silly and uncomfortable at parts.
6 is a wash. You'd have to basically make a whole new game to salvage that one at this point.

6 is garbage. 5 is excellent.