Resident Evil 5 is one of the biggest games of 2009. At the same time, the game is getting plenty of criticism well before its release.
Capcom has announced and released the original Resident Evil, Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 3 on Steam.
Capcom recently released Resident Evil Requiem, and it's been so successful that it's seemingly dragging along every other Resi game with it.
That's certainly true in the UK; the latest physical retail charts have come in, and the top 10 includes five Resident Evil games across all platforms.
Capcom has removed the recently added Enigma DRM from the PC version of its survival horror game, Resident Evil 4 remake.
I love it... Best game so far this year in my opinion... Possibly will be my GOTY... Shame people complain its too much like Resi4 when games like Gears2 and God of War2 dont get people complaining that they are similar to their previous installments...
...because you do not buy the game complete, capcom want to ripoff you selling some download content. I Miss The good ol' days of the Super NES, Saga Genesis when you pay for the game,you pay for the whole game.
imo... because of r5 not have nothing new or spectacular and lost all survival horror
And i thought it was a Mighty Fine Game
Some really Good Locations
Good Campaign length
Fantastic Graphics
Some Great Cut Scenes
I know it not a Huge Step forward from Resi 4
But Yeah i do feel the Next one needs to make Bigger steps towards this Gen
Aside from the DLC thing (which is bullshit on Capcom's part) and the racism thing (which is bullshit on EVERYONE'S part), I think it's getting a lot of bad press because it didn't really innovate. Yeah, co-op stirred up the Resident Evil formula, but the gaming press (including the myriad of commenters who read and post) is so thirsty for innovation that it tends to overlook the most crucial factor: is the game fun?
Call it archaic, backwards, whatever.. but is it fun? Hell yes. It's an appropriate extension of their formula in the transition to the new generation of consoles. Remember Code Veronica? Some people loved it, some people called it atrocious and unplayable because it used the PS1 camera/control scheme. But it was an appropriate extension of what they already had, and it latched them into a new generation of hardware. Resi 4 came years later. You can expect the next Resident Evil to innovate the formula, but I didn't see anything wrong with this one. You have people like Adam Sessler b!tching that it's not as innovative as Bioshock or Mass Effect, yet neither of these games are really innovative at all if you've played System Shock 1 or 2 or Knights of the Old Republic or Jade Empire, merely extensions of the formulas they had already established (I'm really about this 'extension of formula' phrase today, jesus). But do we really want fun to be sacrificed in the name of innovation? Take Mirror's Edge, which is hailed as last year's flagship 'innovator.' A first person game without guns, GASP! People said that about Myst, too. I thought Mirror's Edge was so linear that the game was crippled. In one level, I died a good number of times trying to hop over a 7-foot gap (after having leaped 20 feet horizontally over a street), only to realize that the devs wanted me to wall-run and not jump. Maybe that should've been more obvious to me than it was, but why the hell couldn't I jump over the gap when it's not only within Faith's acrobatic ability, but MINE as well? There's so little freedom within the gameplay that, at least for me, it just sucked all the fun right out of it. "Next-gen," whatever, I'd rather play an HD version of any game from the last 8000 console generations than suffer through that type of "innovation."
That's my opinion, yes, obviously a lot of people liked Mirror's Edge, I'm just using this to illustrate the ill effects of innovation simply for the sake of innovation. I definitely don't believe that RE5 innovates in any way, but it carries infinitely more substance than a lot of games today that are focused solely on "innovation."
Innovation is best in small chunks than giant steps at a time, otherwise it tends to crumble under its own weight. Take COD4, for example. Play the single-player and look at the gameplay alone and by itself. Absolutely nothing new, nothing innovative. It's more or less COD2 in the middle east in the 2000's. But the multiplayer introduced a class and perk system that was hailed as innovative. It's not a huge change, really, and doesn't have a dramatic impact on the core gameplay, but it was so perfectly innovative that people are still picking COD4 over a ton of shooters that have come out since.
That was full of tangents, but hopefully I got my point across somewhere in there.