Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Resident Evil 5 Dev Talks Demo Feedback

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the bigger-guns-more-zombies dept.

Games 114

MTV's Multiplayer blog sat down with Jun Takeuchi, producer for Capcom's Resident Evil 5, about the feedback they've gotten from the game's demo, which has been downloaded over 4 million times. He comments on the changed control scheme, which has generated a lot of discussion and criticism, by suggesting that their decision will become clear once the full game is out. "We understand that there are many people who want to run and shoot at the same time, but it's not the right alignment for the game." He also says the finished game will have shorter loading times, and he briefly discusses the media-fueled race controversy over the fact that Africa's zombies have dark skin. Takeuchi says, "People will be able to play the game and see what it is for themselves." Kotaku recently ran a preview of Resident Evil 5.

cancel ×

114 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Control Scheme (4, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967997)

In other words, everyone really hated the control scheme, but we don't really care what the customers think. We know better than them. It's not like they've played FPSs or Zombie games before and know what they like.

I played the demo. The controls were horrid. It -acts- like FPS controls, except that you can only turn very slowly, you can't move and shoot, and basically just can't deal with everything that's going on without a lot of grief.

I am by no means King of FPSs, but I know a good control scheme when I use it.

On the other hand, they're following the same tradition that has prevented me from playing every other RE game: Horrid controls.

As for the decision becoming clear once the game's out... It's already clear! Hubris, ignorance and laziness. Period.

Re:Control Scheme (4, Insightful)

OK PC (857190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968391)

I couldn't agree more, you should never be made to have to fight the controls rather than the game. The claims of the controls being awkward in order to increase tension is true to an extent but I don't want to play a game like that.
There are other ways of manufacturing fear and tension without bad controls.
I think a better approach to not being able to move and shoot would be to allow you to but penalise with reduced accuracy.

Re:Control Scheme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26978125)

Limiting the player is not gameplay. It is limiting the player.
Every installment of this series since 3 (PS1) has been steadily taking advantages away from the player until finally we have a military man with 22" arms who is incapable of walking while firing a pistol.

A game like MGS4, with the processing power to allow third person, took a control scheme that was so liberating, the game became more fun than I recall any MGS being. It was intense, it was visceral, it was awesome.

Goodbye Capcom, you disappoint me with your ignorance.
Your control scheme is for loser fanbois, kthx.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

The_Real_GooberMan (698083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26978747)

Play a Call of Duty game on the consoles. I'm rather surprised myself as to how much I'm digging using a limiting control scheme. The game prides itself on the intensity of realism, and using analog sticks with limited turning and movement makes the game feel much closer to real life than twitch-mousing does.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

hellfish006 (1000936) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968395)

in other words you have never played a single resident evil because they have all had control schemes that restricted movement and shooting. Resident Evil 4 has almost similar controls and that was still one of the best games last generation and undoubtedly in the top 20 of all time. The controls work perfectly fine, you just have to learn how to play in their environment.

Re:Control Scheme (2, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968431)

I definitely agree here. The controls are part of the game. They may be a little clunky, but if you were able to run and gun ala gears of war, it would completely ruin the atmosphere of the game.

Re:Control Scheme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26968605)

No it wouldn't. It would require the devs to give the zombies some brains or skills. I only played chapter 1 of Resident Evil 4 but the enemies there are just plain stupid and easy to kill. You just wait until they try to hit you, then you make a few steps back to avoid their swing, and then you run towards them and kill them with the knife. Those folks that throw explosives are just hilarious. They usually kill themselves pretty fast. Maybe this has some educational reasons "Don't play with explosives kids!"... And then there is this guy with the chain saw that is only dangerous because you can't move while shooting.

Honestly, the way to go is to improve the enemies to match the player, not to encumber the player until he matches the enemies. There are simple rules to that. If the enemy has to be dumb, you have to give them surprise or numbers as advantage. If you can't use numbers for any reason you have to make them tough, quick or smart. You can't just place a few stupid enemies in the middle of the room and then make the controls anoying enough to make that a challenge.

The only reason why I keep playing Resident Evil 4 at the moment is because it gets so much praise and I can't believe it is because of what I have seen until now.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26969307)

And I agree with you. I recently went back to my GameCube and replayed Eternal Darkness. Yes it is a somewhat spooky game. But after completing it again, I went back and tried out the Resident Evil remake. HOLY CRAP. I forgot how scary it was just running into a zombie and dreading hearing their moans. RE4 didn't even have this feeling.

Now, I didn't mind Resident Evil 4. It was refreshingly different. But Resident Evil 5 is finally stepping outside of my interest zone for the series anyway....and I *gap* like the original or GameCube type C controls (use the R button like an accelerator.) Meh. Well, not like I was planning on getting a 360 or PS3 anyway.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970733)

RE1 Remake on the 'Cube was the pinacle of the series I think... 2 and 3 were good but the graphics are too dated. Playing the remake at like 1am lights off is some seriously good memories. 4 was a good game but definitly not as scary. I remember contemplating if I should use my last ribbon to save or wait and try and make it a bit further, or if I can afford to use ammo on that zombie up ahead or try and run past. The Midnight Sonata or whatever piano playing echoing through the mansion was extremely well done. I'll buy RE5 but my expectations aren't very high.

I still have the Remake, but sold my Gamecube and the Wii... tempted to pick a Gamecube up for cheap.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26971199)

I'm actually considering picking up the port of RE2 for the Cube because I have some nostalgia playing in on my N64...which I sold a while back. So I know the feeling. :-)

I think Resident Evil 5 might end up turning out like Resident Evil 0 did. Very nice graphics but not very memorable with a strange coop system on the side.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 5 years ago | (#26971319)

Wait.. what? RE2 Port? I did not know about this... must investigate further, thanks!

Re:Control Scheme (1)

Captain Centropyge (1245886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968455)

You could move and shoot at the same time in RE4. You couldn't run, but you could at least walk or back away. That's why I actually enjoyed it. I've been tempted to play the earlier ones (no, I haven't played any others...), but after playing the RE5 demo I won't bother... the controls really do suck.

Re:Control Scheme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26968863)

So you haven't actually played any Resident Evils then?

Resident Evil 4 was a fine game, and Resident Evil 5 is shaping up to be, if nothing else, fun to co-op through... but they are really nothing like classic Resident Evil. To decide not to play the earlier ones because of RE5's controls makes about as much sense as... well, as choosing to play them because of Resident Evil 4, really.

You SHOULD play the earlier ones, because they're damn fine games, just don't expect them to be *anything* like the newer ones.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968457)

On the other hand, they're following the same tradition that has prevented me from playing every other RE game: Horrid controls.

Yup. I played Resident Evil 10 years ago and couldn't stand the controls then. I tried the RE5 demo just yesterday in fact and the controls STILL suck, just differently. Won't be buying this game.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

dontPanik (1296779) | more than 5 years ago | (#26969579)

I played Resident Evil 10 years ago

You played it years ago? So how would you say RE10 stands up in the series?

Re:Control Scheme (2, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968601)

Resident Evil has always had this control scheme. If it were changed and they still called it Resident Evil, I'd be pretty upset.

If you can't figure out how to play the game the way its made to be played, don't play it.

That's like complaining that your monster can't attack people in Monsters (tower defence game) or that Jumpman Jr. can't jump.

Re:Control Scheme (1, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968857)

Resident Evil has always had this control scheme. If it were changed and they still called it Resident Evil, I'd be pretty upset.

It seems like they changed the camera, but didn't change the controls. Why aren't you complaining about the camera?

Anyway, RTFA. The whole thing is a fucking advertisement for hubris. Let me summarize:

Q: It seems like people want to use the whole screen in co-op, instead of the black bars on the sides. It's hard to see what's going on in co-op even on a 34" HDTV [destructoid.com] .
A: Fuck 'em! We spent a lot of effort on this visual effect, which we have decided makes the game easier to play. At least, on our 52" DLP.

Q: People were underwhelmed with your control scheme, which you changed but apparently not in a good way. What's up?
A: Fuck 'em! It just doesn't make sense to shoot at Zombies while you run! That can mess up your alignment and then you need to go to the chiropractor!

Q: Are you guys racist?
A: When the game comes out, you'll see just how racist we are.

Q: Ouch, the loading times suck. Can you fix it?
A: Fuck 'em! We're going to make the game we want to make.

Q: Why no Wii support?
A: Because it wouldn't look Mahvelous enough. Supporting the world's most popular console might make business sense, but we're in it for art, baby!

Re:Control Scheme (0)

xch13fx (1463819) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970471)

Q: Ouch, the loading times suck. Can you fix it? A: Fuck 'em! We're going to make the game we want to make.

thats microsofts fault since they thought theyd be so fucking clever and charge for a hard drive cuz its a console not a real computer so everything has to load from disc. thanks for making me pay extra m$ and gimping the system at the same time.

Re:Control Scheme (4, Insightful)

N1AK (864906) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970671)

thanks for making me pay extra m$

Someday you're are going to have an epiphany and realise that MS did not hold a gun to your head, march you into the store and make you buy the fucking console.

Re:Control Scheme (0)

xch13fx (1463819) | more than 5 years ago | (#26971291)

No I'm not. Hopefully M$ will before I get another console branded by them since they received so many consumer and developer complaints. But with all their money they have bought exclusive rights to a lot of tittles so when it comes to certain games my options are limited. And they got lucky the ps3 was 600 when it released because i have been a PlayStation fan since the first RE and I'm just not gonna pay that kind of money for nothing more then a console.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

randyest (589159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26971657)

Interesting rambling rant that totally missed GP's point. But this part caught my attention:

I'm just not gonna pay that kind of money for nothing more then a console.

So you're not gonna pay that kind of money for nothing more, fine, but then what did the console do?!

Re:Control Scheme (1)

Hellpop (451893) | more than 5 years ago | (#26973399)

That's funny! Don't hear you complaining about how Sony stole exclusive rights when the PS came out, eh?
So you paid money for nothing more, then paid for a console?
That sounds like you kind of screwed yourself, buddy.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

PaganRitual (551879) | more than 5 years ago | (#26975963)

I think I just worked out what the number in your username stands for. You know you're not going to be able to change that in a year, right?

(Why do I have this feeling that if I were to go create a new user account the id would be 1463820.)

Re:Control Scheme (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970661)

The visual split screen is a good idea -- it enforces a nice 16x9'ish viewing field which doesn't change the FoV when playing split-screen, whereas normal split-screen systems do (you lose height or width).

Sure, its not utilizing the whole screen, but it allows their render engine to be much more aggressively optimized and have a similar play experience to full-screen play.

The racism thing is stupid. The last game took place in Europe and all the zombies were white. Now its in Africa and they're all black. Go figure.

The load times the company did say they were working on and should be improved.

PS the Wii's hardware sucks comparatively -- they'd have to write essentially a whole new game to work on it.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26971365)

The visual split screen is a good idea -- it enforces a nice 16x9'ish viewing field which doesn't change the FoV when playing split-screen, whereas normal split-screen systems do (you lose height or width).

Shucks, changing the FoV might almost give you functionality similar to having peripheral vision. It would be terrible to give the player the option to choose, wouldn't it?

PS the Wii's hardware sucks comparatively -- they'd have to write essentially a whole new game to work on it.

I don't know that I agree. Lots of games have had a port with reduced capabilities on a given platform, and still sold fine. That's a marketing decision, though. Ultimately I don't care. I'm not playing it anyway. My issue is with the pure arrogance. Maybe he should just go work directly for Sony.

Re:Control Scheme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26974797)

It would actually be a pretty terrible option to give the player. A wider FOV would contain more objects and thus have a lower framerate, making the experience worse. From a gameplay perspective it would also add complexity in how monsters approach/are triggered/balancing because some players would be able to see more than others.

Aside from that I played the demo and thought the controls sucked. I don't have a PS2 any more so I can't dig out 4, but I remember loving that so i'm not sure what has changed. Maybe nothing and it just takes longer to get back in the groove than the demo allows, I don't know.

Re:Control Scheme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26969435)

There's a big difference between can't and won't. There is no apparent value in adapting to their control scheme. It is not the player who profits from this frustration, but the publisher. If enough people find value in this exercise, good on CAPCOM. But, for those of us with shit to do, Takeuchi can keep his baby.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968871)

What I think makes this previous from the other RE is mainly the pace. RE4 made it quicker but not "gonna send you down a hallway, WAIT there's a chainsaw. too late you're dead. Please restart demo" quick. Insta-death + poor controls for the speed + starting over from the start....no thanks.

I played the demo once and gave it up after that little scene. I'm not going to restart a demo if you're trying to force your learning curve ahead of time.

Re:Control Scheme (5, Informative)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26969017)

The controls were horrid. It -acts- like FPS controls, except that you can only turn very slowly, you can't move and shoot, and basically just can't deal with everything that's going on without a lot of grief.

Resident Evil does not and never has played like an FPS. Ever. Resident Evil plays like a survival horror game. That's the whole point.

Resident Evil 5 uses the over the shoulder control scheme as RE 4 (In fact, the exact same control scheme, and indeed gameplay mechanics in every way shape and form(which is not in and of itself a bad thing)), and which can be seen in Dead Space. You have a limited field of vision as enemies slowly advance. The goal is to increase tension by restricting your off-screen view. You must plan the outcome of the encounter with much less than perfect awareness of your surroundings.

Survival horror games are all about management. Enemy management, ammo management, health management. The game is a long series of encounters in which trade offs must be made. Go for the critical hit but likely to miss headshot, or the more sure body shot. Take down nearby villager or more distant las plagos? Use shotgun/rifle/grenade ammo now, or save if for a more difficult encounter? Use green herb now or wait for a red herb booster? Run or shoot? This is the bread and butter gameplay of the genre. The control scheme is a part of that.

They are not about fragging enemies in quick succession, while circle strafing or bunny hopping around the room. I would go so far as to say that survival horror games are about as far away as you can get from FPS games without getting rid of guns altogether. The controls promote split second decisions that have serious consequences. Make the ewrong move, and you're in trouble. It encourages players to make serious tactical decisions.

Resident Evil is not an FPS. It is a survival horror game and plays as such. Long may the genre endure I say.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

pxlmusic (1147117) | more than 5 years ago | (#26969903)

that said, has anyone here played Silent Hill 5?

if so, how was it?

Re:Control Scheme (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970403)

OT- but I will tell you SH5 sucks big time, very buggy and uninspired. This from a fan of the series. If you must, rent it.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

pxlmusic (1147117) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970493)

right.

the soundtrack isn't bad, though.

what did you think of SH4? i have yet to finish it.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970891)

I didn't mind it as much as many fans did. I mean it was certainly a departure, but I think it was done tastefully. The problem with 5 is that it tries to be RE4-like, but is just a really weak effort. It is very unpolished, and seems like it was rushed out the door. Perhaps it could have been a better game if given more time, we will never know for sure. SH5 is not a terrible game by any stretch of the imagination, but there are so many better ones out there that I think it is only worth playing if you are a big SH junkie, which I am.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

pxlmusic (1147117) | more than 5 years ago | (#26971067)

thanks for the good info. i am also a SH junkie, and will probably play it just to have played it.

i have the OST for SH4 in my car cd player right now.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

Miltazar (1100457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970413)

Yes I have. Its nothing like the original SH games. They pull scares that the originals tended to avoid, such as the generic jump out at you scary. That type that RE uses heavily is very heavily used in SH 5. Control scheme is about usual, and by that I mean bad as always. Story isn't that interesting compared to the old ones. In short it shows that the original SH creator didn't work on this one.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

pxlmusic (1147117) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970579)

thanks for the heads up.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

Miltazar (1100457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970373)

That said, I think this way of gaming has hit an impasse. Everyone complains about controls but most don't realize that they are intentionally bad. That is one of the ways they introduce challenge. Same as back in one of the first of these types of games, Alone in the Dark. Controls always suck in these games.

However I think that in this day and age, intentionally crippling the player control wise to make it difficult is a pretty lame way to design a game. I loved RE 1 and 2 because it was a zombie game and there were so few so I was willing to look past the horrible controls to play it. Now however I have many more options, whether it be Left 4 Dead or plenty of other games. Most of which don't have control issues.

I did play the demo, but the atmosphere really doesn't hook me. Its mostly day time, and its not really scary. Controls are horrible, and although its zombies its just not interesting to me. I'll be skipping this RE game.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

Sbetsho (841441) | more than 5 years ago | (#26969193)

This would only be issue if the rest of the game would be like a FPS-game. Here the enemies are relatively slow and don't have guns to shoot at you. Had you fps-controls, the game would be too easy and less intense, unless the enemies had guns as well, in which case it would hardly be a Resident Evil -game.

Re:Control Scheme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26969263)

Agreed. The controls is what makes sure I won't be buying the game. And it gets crowded by zombies way too quick. Quicker than one can turn while aiming.

Re:Control Scheme (2, Interesting)

Theoboley (1226542) | more than 5 years ago | (#26969349)

I couldn't agree with you more. I Played through half the demo and because of the horrid controls, and my record of breaking controllers over my knee when games frustrate me, this game will be a pass for me.

The other RE games weren't nearly as bad as this. Another gripe I have is that I'd rather take care of myself in a game rather than having to babysit another AI computer player who can't shoot for beans.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26972265)

RE4 had excellent controls, I hear these are much the same. The older REs had really awful controls. I went back to RE0 after playing RE4, couldn't finish it, it was that bad. RE4 was pretty much ideal. Maybe you're just bad at them.

Re:Control Scheme (0, Flamebait)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26972735)

Or maybe you've never played a game with good controls.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26973199)

That's certainly possible. If there's a survival horror game with better controls than RE4, I haven't played it. I'm certainly interested though, so what do you suggest?

Re:Control Scheme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976141)

I find this whole conversation a bit moot because "controls" do not mean the same thing for a 3rd person game as it is for a FPS game.

And for the record, I recall being pretty happy with RE4's controls. Perhaps there was some annoyances, but for the most party, I recall loving that game to bits. Perhaps it was because it was one of the few games the Gamecube had. =P

Re:Control Scheme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26972267)

Completely agree. I could not fathom what I was doing wrong trying to walk/run and shoot or pivot faster than an 85 year old grandmother with a bad hip replacement and it wouldn't let me. Now I know that was wrong. It's a 'feature'.

Hey, maybe after no one buys RE5 they'll do better with Resident Evil 6: Chewing Gum and Walking at the Same Time.

Re:Control Scheme (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26974323)

Too bad it's not coming out for the Wii. The RE:4 control scheme for that was nearly perfection... and that's amazing for the notoriously clunky RE series.

I can understand that the developers didn't want to mimic a FPS control scheme, because turning Resident Evil into a generic shooter like Dead Space would really degrade the franchise. That's no excuse for poor controls, though.

fp!!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26968003)

1st!!!!!one111111

Loved it! (2, Informative)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968091)

The demo was so much fun, playing co-op with a friend was really hard. We had to try the scenerio a good 5 times before we finished it.

The game has a sense of urgency, my heart was pounding during the first invasion of zombies into the house. The game requires a level of strategy I hadn't seen before.

To all these people that are whinging about the controls, it's refreshing that a somewhat different approach to game playing has been released. I'm tired of all the Doom wannabes.

Shame on the media for beating up the story regarding "media-fueled race controversy over the fact that Africa's zombies". Here's News! Its in Africa! If the scene was in New York, then you have got a point, but this is just blatant attempt to stir the pot in order to get reviews.

I'm definitely going to buy this game when it comes out.

Re:Loved it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26969385)

I agree with nighty5. Where were all the complaints when RE4 was among the best selling games for 2 years in a row, even selling well again on the Wii on it's 3rd re-release. How many of you people complaining about the controls have actually played the previous games? The controls have been improved since then. The game has come from a tradition of standing still and aiming prior to shooting, since RE1. If you could run and shoot, the game would be way to easy. Even if every whiner from video game blog comment sections doesn't buy the game because of the controls, this game will still sell better than most generic shooters out there.

Race (4, Interesting)

Spad (470073) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968097)

Of course, nobody cared that the first 4 games featured white zombies.

Also, I'd imagine that if the game, set in Africa, featured exclusively white zombies, there would be just as much "controversy" surrounding it.

Re:Race (2, Informative)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970439)

Only white people can be racist.

Re:Race (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26978895)

Only white people can be racist.

Ever lived in a multicultural city? I doubt it, because then you'd have heard what real and outspoken racism sounds like. It comes from everywhere. Just an an example I've worked with Korean and Chinese who have regularly said some of the nastiest and most unabashedly racist things I've ever heard about Blacks, Hispanics, "lesser" (in their minds) Asians and presumably (when I wasn't around) Caucasians.

Re:Race (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26972383)

Of course, nobody cared that the first 4 games featured white zombies.

Is there much of a problem with white-on-white racism where you're from? Of course there weren't racial concerns from the first few.

Not that I have a problem with race in this game, I just think we gamers are being illogical with our reaction to this. N'gai and others raised valid concerns.

Re:Race (1)

Talgrath (1061686) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977495)

N'Gai complained about the game after seeing a single clip that was less than three (3) minutes long; you can't raise valid concerns from seeing three minutes of footage.

Re:Race (1)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26973095)

Resident Evil? Africa?

I thought this was supposed to simulate the events following Hurricane Katrina.

Re:Race (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#26973301)

"I don't get all this controversy over black zombies. You see, I don't see death. People tell me I'm alive and I believe them because I don't hunger for brains." -- Stephen T. Colbért

He hasn't actually said this, so that's why I used the é. And I only just changed my signature to this (away from "Real cherries may contain pits."), so save your redundant mods.

Re:Race (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26973557)

You're point is good, but I believe there was black zombies in at least RE2 (one of the S.T.A.R.S. guys was black and I believe was turned into a zombie). And RE4 was in a Latin American setting with plenty of hispanic zombie "Las Plagas" and "Los Ganados".

Generally, I've noticed the media gets more worked up over dark skin races that lighter skin races. As that long ago SNL skit joked.

Race Issue (2, Interesting)

N1AK (864906) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968163)

To try and chime in before comments saying that there is no race issue, and the fact the Zombies are black is irrelevant. The newsweek journalist who made the comments makes extensive attempts to clarify that having black skinned zombies alone wouldn't be an issue.

There was stuff like even before the point in the trailer where the crowd turned into zombies. There sort of being, in sort of post-modern parlance, they're sort of "othered." They're hidden in shadows, you can barely see their eyes, and the perspective of the trailer is not even someone who's coming to help the people. It's like they're all dangerous; they all need to be killed.

I have not seen the trailer, but if the author is correct then this issue isn't as clear cut and it can't be dismissed as a black guy getting excessively defensive. I also wonder whether the reason the pre-zombie people are shown as dangerous is by intention, not due to racial prejudice but instead because it builds tension, or whether the developers thought showing the player character interacting with nice friendly local children and then soon after blowing their heads off wouldn't be taken well by players (sometimes it is nice to have clear good & evil although perhaps a game like RE5 would actually be better with more grey area to make players think?).

Overall I recommend that people who have skipped the race article link thinking it is a load of bollocks have a read, although the guys style annoys me and it is light on details there is more to it than you might think.

Sort of comment (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968345)

although the guys sort of style sort of annoys me

Sort of fixed that, for you...

Re:Race Issue (5, Interesting)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968567)

The moron who wrote the article decided that every piece of zombie lore and the objective of every zombie game and movie suddenly is racist if the zombies are black.
"It's like they're all dangerous; they all need to be killed. It's not even like one cute African -- or Haitian or Caribbean -- child could be saved. They're all dangerous men, women and children. They all have to be killed." - like all the other zombie games where you try to save the zombies. Or most modern FPS. Or space invaders. Killing everything has a long tradition in video games.

"this dark, dangerous continent filled with people who only want to do you harm goes back a long, long way." - yeah, the first zombie movies used it, and so did King Kong, the Odyssey, "here there be sea monsters", etc.

"he doesn't really interact with them, he sort of walks through this thing and it's sort of, "Is he there? Is he not?" It's a very strange thing, and it taps into sort of this very racist iconography" - Noninteractive characters in video games are now racist?

"The music that they're using in the trailer is very reminiscent of the music used in Black Hawk Down which was set in Africa -- Somalia" - Oh just give me a fucking break already. You're really stretching this stuff.

This next quote rams my point home:
"The imagery is not the same. It doesn't carry the same history, it doesn't carry the same weight." - So, since the zombies are black, and there's a different history, shooting a black zombie has much more weight than killing a white one. Under this standard, RE4 is full of racism if you look at Spanish history.

Sorry, but the arguments claiming racism were pathetic. Especially the first one:

"Wow, clearly no one black worked on this game." - The only truly racist thing I found in the whole article, because it:

a. creates a stereotype ("all black people think like me, no non-black could possibly think like me")
b. makes a wildly inaccurate assumption based on personal prejudice (see above)
c. is wrong factually (anyone want to make a bet that no Capcom employees working on RE5 are black? Anyone?)
d. is wrong morally (I hope I don't have to explain this)

Could the game be racist? It's possible, I haven't played it yet. Is anything in the trailer that this guy talked about racist? No.

Re:Race Issue (1)

dontPanik (1296779) | more than 5 years ago | (#26969727)

It's like they're all dangerous; they all need to be killed. It's not even like one cute African -- or Haitian or Caribbean -- child could be saved. They're all dangerous men, women and children. They all have to be killed." - like all the other zombie games where you try to save the zombies.

You took that completely out of context. obviously you're not going to save zombies. But why does every single person in the trailer have to be percieved as evil? Why does every person have to become a zombie? You could argue that it's more fun that way, but you have to be responsible. You have to realize that black people are a bigger deal than spanish people in America. I have never played a RE game before. So therefore when I see the trailer I think, "there's a white guy killing black zombies." Yes, I'm ignorant of the game series, but you have to expect that most any person seeing that trailer is going to be as ignorant as me. And as a company like Capcom, you have to be more responsible.

"this dark, dangerous continent filled with people who only want to do you harm goes back a long, long way." - yeah, the first zombie movies used it

What movies exactly? George Romero's early films had black protagonists who were percieved as (perhaps ambiguously) good.

Re:Race Issue (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970525)

You have to realize that black people are a bigger deal than spanish people in America.

I hope you realize Capcom is a Japanese company, and the people working on this title have are not Americans, or even white themselves.

Re:Race Issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26970529)

You have to realize that black people are a bigger deal than spanish people in America.

Wow, you're extremely racist. People are people, but zombies are evil deal with it. Play RE 1 through 4 and you might start to see how your racist ideas have clouded the issue. This is survival horror game, if you are nice to the infected or undead they will just eat you. Also, you can leave most of them alive and run past doing so saves you ammo so killing everything is just wasting time.

PS: Granted most people assume that you need to kill everything, but that says more about them than the game.

Re:Race Issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26973701)

Yes, I'm ignorant...

Well then, I hope you don't mind me taking your content out of context and branding you a racist due to your own self-admission! :)

Re:Race Issue (1)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 5 years ago | (#26975317)

"But why does every single person in the trailer have to be percieved as evil?"

You're going to kill them when they become zombies, so why make them happy good people? Would that be more respectable, to kill the happy good people once they become zombies, rather than the evil ones who become zombies? Why?

"Why does every person have to become a zombie?"

Because it's a zombie game.

"What movies exactly? George Romero's early films had black protagonists who were percieved as (perhaps ambiguously) good."

I wasn't talking about race there, I was talking about a spooky place full of bad people, which is probably as old as storytelling. Somehow the author thought it was a racist element in RE5, rather than a very common theme in many stories.

Re:Race Issue (1)

Talgrath (1061686) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977483)

I'm guessing you know nothing about this game since there is a positive black person in the game, the other main character of the game is a black woman that is working with the white male guy; neither of them seem terribly concerned about the race of the zombies they are shooting for some reason, funny that.

Re:Race Issue (1)

dontPanik (1296779) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977559)

The objectional content isn't in the game itself. The objectional content is in the trailer for the game. That is where the controversy lies.

Re:Race Issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26969845)

nerds don't understand racism and have no perspective on history, news at 11

Re:Race Issue (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970563)

"The music that they're using in the trailer is very reminiscent of the music used in Black Hawk Down which was set in Africa -- Somalia" - Oh just give me a fucking break already. You're really stretching this stuff.

You nailed it, this guy is a moron. However I would like to clarify that there is a reason the music sounds somewhat like Black Hawk Down. The developers early on said that they were inspired by the atmosphere of the film, so it is not surprising to see some similarities. I myself noticed this as well.

Re:Race Issue (2, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26972783)

"The imagery is not the same. It doesn't carry the same history, it doesn't carry the same weight." - So, since the zombies are black, and there's a different history, shooting a black zombie has much more weight than killing a white one. Under this standard, RE4 is full of racism if you look at Spanish history.

So because no Spanish person complained about RE4, no black person can complain about RE5? It's been grandfathered in? Who knows why Spaniards didn't complain. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that racism against Spanish people has historically been nowhere near as bad as racism against black people, so they don't feel the need to complain?

I don't think the game is racist, but the illogical responses from gamers are annoying me.

"Wow, clearly no one black worked on this game." - The only truly racist thing I found in the whole article, because it:

a. creates a stereotype ("all black people think like me, no non-black could possibly think like me")
b. makes a wildly inaccurate assumption based on personal prejudice (see above)
c. is wrong factually (anyone want to make a bet that no Capcom employees working on RE5 are black? Anyone?)
d. is wrong morally (I hope I don't have to explain this)

It's a little absurd that you're claiming now the article is racist because of that one overstatement. It is an overstatement, but you're going overboard in your paranoia to prevent your games from being censored, don't try to throw racism back at those who try to bring it up. If people making these arguments are wrong, two wrong racism accusations don't make a right. If their concerns are valid, then let them say what they want.

And not that it matters (at all), but Capcom is a japanese company, right? They probably didn't do everything in house, the voices at least are probably not japanese people, but it's not like Japan is very diverse. The odds that a black person worked on anything besides voice acting seem pretty low to me. Again, though, that's just odds and is trivial anyway.

Re:Race Issue (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#26973267)

So because no Spanish person complained about RE4, no black person can complain about RE5? It's been grandfathered in? Who knows why Spaniards didn't complain. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that racism against Spanish people has historically been nowhere near as bad as racism against black people, so they don't feel the need to complain?

Or maybe it's because "Spanish" is a designation of nationality, not race, Einstein.

Re:Race Issue (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26974943)

Or maybe it's because "Spanish" is a designation of nationality, not race, Einstein.

I think that's a fairly trivial difference, as you can still be just as prejudiced against a "nationality" as you can a race, and race and nationality are pretty interchangeable terms in so many cases. Anyway, if you do think that is an important distinction, that would be another reason why the lack of reaction to RE4 matters little when talking about the reaction to RE5: there's no hint of racism there.

Silly insults like calling someone Einstein sarcastically because they weren't careful about race vs other types of nationality really don't help your case or credibility. I'm not for censorship and don't think this game is actually racist, but the angry gamer response I'm seeing to this matter makes me think we SHOULD censor the game, if only because my fellow gamers need to grow up.

Re:Race Issue (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#26975611)

I think that's a fairly trivial difference, as you can still be just as prejudiced against a "nationality" as you can a race, and race and nationality are pretty interchangeable terms in so many cases.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Have you been to Spain? They're as white as any other Europeans. Also, there are 3 races: negroid, caucisoid, and mongoloid. I guess you could say Mongolians are all mongoloid. Other than that, it's really not applicable.

I'm not for censorship and don't think this game is actually racist, but the angry gamer response I'm seeing to this matter makes me think we SHOULD censor the game, if only because my fellow gamers need to grow up.

It's a real shame that censoring games isn't up to you. Nor do you hold any sway over the meaning of the words "race" and "nationality." Listen-I'm just trying to educate you, friend. If I were in your shoes I'd want someone to tell me if I was misusing words. That way, I'd sound like less of an idiot.

Re:Race Issue (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976875)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Have you been to Spain? They're as white as any other Europeans.

Again, that just makes the comparison to RE4 worthless.

Listen-I'm just trying to educate you, friend.

Fine, but in the future you might want to adopt a less abrasive tone when trying to educate people. If you insult someone, they don't give a shit what you're saying even if it is right.

Re:Race Issue (3, Insightful)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 5 years ago | (#26975609)

"So because no Spanish person complained about RE4, no black person can complain about RE5?"

Ummm, that's not what I said at all. What I'm saying is that in RE4 you go into Spain, all the Spaniards become zombies (or close enough), and you kill them all. In RE5 you go into Africa, all the Africans become zombies, and you kill them all. Just because you kill all the Africans doesn't make RE5 racist, anymore than RE4 was. It's how zombie games are, you kill everyone who becomes a zombie, and everyone becomes zombies. The author is arguing that this basic premise of most zombie games is racist because this one takes place in Africa and the zombies are black. That's BS.

People are free to complain about anything they like. If the article was well thought out and had legitimate concerns, that would be great. But when their complaints are moronic I am also free to rip those complaints to shreds.

"It's a little absurd that you're claiming now the article is racist because of that one overstatement."

The absurdity is all yours, as I never complained the article was racist, I pointed out the one statement in the article that actually was racist and gave precise reasons why it was. It's really (not-Allanis-Morrisette-type) ironic.

BTW, you might want to look up paranoia before accusing someone of it again. Thinking an author is a moron and pointing out his fallacies is not paranoia.

Re:Race Issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26969507)

I just read the article, quite carefully, and then watched the trailer with that in mind.

The introductory section shows people going about their daily lives (equates pretty well with how you'd imagine the scene in a movie so perhaps a bit stereotypically).

There is some interaction between people here but mostly people walking about.

The main character walks past some people down the street just like most of them are doing to each other.

Seriously, this looks almost like it was directly pulled from a movie when a character enters the village and the camera pans around to show the scene.

There is no violence or anything I can see that looks like a negative portrayal on the people themselves (there's a crowd gathered at one point, people yelling and throwing things but that looks like a 'time of civil unrest' emphasis.. it's not showing the populous as negative) UNTIL the first zombie shows up. Then it looks ALOT like Resident Evil 4. Hordes of zombies moving towards the character throwing things (like the scythes/axes in RE4 that you can deflect).

So.. what I see here is a zombie game placed in a location where the populous has a different skin color.. JUST LIKE THE LAST GAME.

If they think that's racist then they need to re-examine the idea themselves.

The only reason we're not seeing this in .. say somewhere in America or England (for instance).. is that the governments would have more influence and have to do something (adding another element to the game)like actively quarantining the area (limiting exploration and making the game feel smaller) // sending in large military forces to cleanse the area of zombies // bombing the area // etc.

Besides all that, the tone of the character sets seems to fit a rougher area with, perhaps, a sense of turmoil.

Re:Race Issue (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970605)

The only reason we're not seeing this in .. say somewhere in America or England (for instance).. is that the governments would have more influence and have to do something (adding another element to the game)like actively quarantining the area (limiting exploration and making the game feel smaller) // sending in large military forces to cleanse the area of zombies // bombing the area // etc.

Yup, and we have already been to the US, for RE1-3 Code Veronica, and the various crappy spin-offs.

Article is old, it's much worse than we thought (4, Informative)

NotInfinitumLabs (1150639) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970009)

excerpted from here. [eurogamer.net] A game journalist's experiences with the finished version of the game

There's also the spectre of the old racism debate, hovering the background. That debate is only going to get louder and more urgent once the game is released, and is being covered beyond the cosy world of the specialist gaming press, since there's imagery in here that goes beyond the general air of foreign menace that caused a ruckus in the first trailers.

One of the first things you see in the game, seconds after taking control of Chris Redfield, is a gang of African men brutally beating something in a sack. Animal or human, it's never revealed, but these are not infected Majini. There are no red bloodshot eyes. These are ordinary Africans, who stop and stare at you menacingly as you approach. Since the Majini are not undead corpses, and are capable of driving vehicles, handling weapons and even using guns, it makes the line between the infected monsters and African civilians uncomfortably vague. Where Africans are concerned, the game seems to be suggesting, bloodthirsty savagery just comes with the territory.

Later on, there's a cut-scene of a white blonde woman being dragged off, screaming, by black men. When you attempt to rescue her, she's been turned and must be killed. If this has any relevance to the story it's not apparent in the first three chapters, and it plays so blatantly into the old clichés of the dangerous "dark continent" and the primitive lust of its inhabitants that you'd swear the game was written in the 1920s. That Sheva neatly fits the approved Hollywood model of the light-skinned black heroine, and talks more like Lara Croft than her thickly-accented foes, merely compounds the problem rather than easing it. There are even more outrageous and outdated images to be found later in the game, stuff that I was honestly surprised to see in 2009, but Capcom has specifically asked that details of these scenes remain under wraps for now, whether for these reasons we don't know.

There will be plenty of people who refuse to see anything untoward in this material. "It wasn't racist when the enemies were Spanish in Resident Evil 4," goes the argument, but then the Spanish don't have the baggage of being stereotyped as subhuman animals for the past two hundred years. It's perfectly possible to use Africa as the setting for a powerful and troubling horror story, but when you're applying the concept of people being turned into savage monsters onto an actual ethnic group that has long been misrepresented as savage monsters, it's hard to see how elements of race weren't going to be a factor.

All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison. If we're going to accept this sort of imagery in games then questions are going be asked, these questions will have merit, and we're going to need a more convincing answer than "lol it's just a game."

Re:Article is old, it's much worse than we thought (1)

Talgrath (1061686) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977709)

So because black men are depicted as being violent and black zombies turn a white woman into a zombie, the game is racist? Nonsense, that's projection; people looking at the game from a racial perspective want to see racism there, so they do.

Re:Race Issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26972523)

People are talking about only this trailer, the game setting should be no surprise by now. This trailer is meant to flesh out the character, not the setting. He questions himself and his job, a common theme many men and women around the globe have pondered.

I saw an impoverished place, and in it all the people were black. There was only one brief snippet of the daily life scenes (maybe making up 5% of the scenes) that showed a man's face partially shadowed with an expression of mistrust or maybe grief/despair.

These places exist in the world. You can question whether you want to play a game set in such a setting, but the theme of some horrid disease or outbreak originating in the third world is fueled by media, myth, and historical facts (in some cases). Most recent fiction treats zombiefication as a disease.

This setting evokes people's fears of places that they only partially understand and actually makes a pretty good setting for a zombie film. The fact that they chose to place a zombie game in such a setting should be no more upsetting than films such as Outbreak.

Stephen Totilo had a decent reason that he did not want to play a game like RE5, he's worked as a humanitarian in a place of which the game setting reminds him. N'Gai Croal seems to be a tool who, much like Jesse Jackson, feeds off of racism in an unhealthy way.

I've lived in other countries, some of it while doing humanitarian work. Let me tell you, the "racism" I see here at home is tame, really tame. That we're even bitching and moaning over a video game trailer ought to be a humongous sign of how damn good we've got it. Yeah, I'm sure there's still some awful KKK or racially motivated gang violence here in the US, it's the exception, not the rule. The imagery we see here in the US is really clean of racist tones, it's not true in most places, even many first world countries. So be offended if you want, but I think you lack a world of experience.

The trailer was not racist and I encourage N'Gai Croal, for whom I could not find a complete bio but I see has a degree from Stanford and has worked at multiple prestigious news organizations, to travel and spend some time in other places. He might get a different perspective on things. Because right now, I have a strong urge to dismiss him as a freaking moron. Yeah, and he might actually be racist himself (responding to another poster), though without knowing more about him, it'd be impossible to judge for sure, there's surely some damning evidence in his interview. I suspect mostly that he's just arrogant, though.

Re:Race Issue (1)

Talgrath (1061686) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977649)

I seriously disagree; he looked at one clip of the game and made a judgment, granted he didn't say the game is out and out racist but he more or less hinted that he considered it to be racist. What N'Gai Croal claimed is that the images in the game resembled images from the days of apartheid in Africa, and that a white guy shooting black zombies is shocking and racially insensitive (which is a way of saying "racist" without being defamatory).

I think this quote from the interview with MTV really showed me why I disagree so much with him on this issue:

"There was a lot of imagery in that trailer that dovetailed with classic racist imagery. What was not funny, but sort of interesting, was that there were so many gamers who could not at all see it. Like literally couldnâ(TM)t see it. So how could you have a conversation with people who donâ(TM)t understand what youâ(TM)re talking about and think that youâ(TM)re sort of seeing race where nothing exists?" - N'Gai Croal

Here's why most gamers don't see it, because it was before their time. A 20-something or younger individual in America has probably never seen the "racist imagery" that N'gai claims is in the game; they have little idea that a white cop shooting shooting black people in Africa brings up bad memories for some older black individuals. Rather, they see the trailer for what it is meant to be; the next Resident Evil 5 game in which you're surrounded by zombies and bad things will happen to you if you don't shoot the zombies. What N'Gai and others are conveniently ignoring is that the game has a strong, black female character partnered up with the white male character and that they are working together as equals; or perhaps she's just not "black enough" for people like Croal (she does have lighter skin than the zombies and all).

What the essence of this problem is is that the older generation of black and white individuals in this country are not willing to move on; they are stuck in the horror of the past and refuse to let the country heal. There are still racists out there, there are still racial problems in the United States; but to say that a video game is racist because it features primarily black antagonists in Africa seems extreme to me. If all the zombies had been black, would it have been okay, or would they complain that there aren't enough black people in a game set in Africa?

Children for decades have been taught that, to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., people should be judged on the basis of their actions, words and thoughts rather than the color of their skin; many (if not most) of these children have grown up taking this on face value, then people like N'Gai Croal tell us that wait, skin color does matter when you're making a game or a movie, that if an image in your game or movie matches (in their mind) some racial imagery of the past that you've never seen then it is racist. Never you mind that they're zombies, the important thing is that they're black and a white guy is shooting them and that's racist! Martin Luther King Jr. encouraged us to judge people on who they were; it's sad that people are being chastised for following that great man's words.

No Wii (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26968269)

Takeuchi's back-handed slagging of the Wii is a cleaver attempt to distract everyone from the obvious answer to why this title will not appear on Nintendo's platform: it's not a family-friendly game that fits their demographic.

Re:No Wii (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968369)

That's a really interesting claim.

I think Mortal Kombat Armagultimate-whatever-it-is for the wii and (from what I suspect) Metroid Prime III doesn't really fit the demographic either, and at least MP3 seems to do well (Mortal Kombat).

And hey--just because I like Wii Sports, Zelda and Mario, does that mean I don't like blood and zombies?

Re:No Wii (1)

sabre3999 (1143017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968865)

An interesting claim indeed. Surely the GP never played No More Heroes... gratuitous blood and violence, and only available on the Wii.

Re:No Wii (1)

myspys (204685) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968465)

Just like the gamecube, which saw Resident Evil 4 first of all platforms?

Re:No Wii (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26968701)

That was actually mainly because of technical weaknesses in the other consoles. Technically the GC was the most powerful of that gen of consoles, not because of the hardware, but because of efficiency. They had to rescale and change the game to bring it to the other consoles as the other consoles graphics implementations were not as efficient

Re:No Wii (2, Insightful)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 5 years ago | (#26969531)

You have, possibly without realising it, hit upon the real reason there's no Wii port of RE5. And it's far more worrying for Nintendo than any branding/demographic issue.

The Wii can't handle the game from a hardware perspective.

The Gamecube was perfectly competitive with the rest of its generation; more powerful than the PS2 and certainly a reasonable match for an Xbox. The Wii is still closer in its hardware capabilities to a Gamecube than to a PS3 or Xbox 360. Where the Wii does get ports of cross-platform games, these often tend to be co-developed with the PS2 version. Expect to see the Wii cut out of more and more "big news" games as this cycle goes on and developers get more comfortable with the hardware on offer elsewhere. It's not just about graphics - more sophisticated physics modelling and more generally elaborate design philosophies also demand better hardware.

The installed base won't save it, either. The PS2 benefitted from its huge installed base last time around, because most PS2 owners were, to some extent, "gamers". They bought games. The Wii demographic buys, on average, far fewer games (and many Wiis sit unused in cupboards).

Re:No Wii (1)

triffid_98 (899609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26975791)

Bingo. For all intensive purposes the Wii is a Gamecube with a SD slot and goofy nunchucks.

The Wii can't handle the game from a hardware perspective.

The Gamecube was perfectly competitive with the rest of its generation; more powerful than the PS2 and certainly a reasonable match for an Xbox. The Wii is still closer in its hardware capabilities to a Gamecube than to a PS3 or Xbox 360. Where the Wii does get ports of cross-platform games, these often tend to be co-developed with the PS2 version.

Re:No Wii (1)

anomnomnomymous (1321267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968745)

And House of the Dead Overkill is?
Stop the bullshitting about not fitting their demographic: I'll bet that House of the Dead is going to sell shitloads, just because it caters to that group that's currently neglected on the Wii.
I like Wii myself (and most of the cutesy games by Nintendo), but I wouldn't mind some more 18+ titles on there.

Re:No Wii (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26974387)

Despite the fact that Resident Evil 4 for the Wii was very popular, and highly acclaimed?

Re:No Wii (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979055)

Despite the fact that Resident Evil 4 for the Wii was very popular, and highly acclaimed?

Capcom has some very skilled technical people, but their management often seems to be almost comically wrong-headed.

The one thing I still use my Wii for.... (3, Informative)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968617)

The one thing I still use my Nintendo Wii for is Resident Evil 4. I couldn't believe the difference the motion control scheme made in terms of offering such refreshing game play for a survival-horror style game. I had played RE4 on the PS2 and enjoyed it but the Wii version shames the previous platform releases overwhelmingly.

Literally pointing and shooting at the screen for Resident Evil 4 on the Wii has spoiled my expectations for what Resident Evil 5 was going to be on the PS3/360.

Even if they improve the control scheme (I've played the demo, hate the controls) it's not going to be as fluid and fun (at least in my opinion) as the Wii version of RE4.

Sony and MS need some better wireless guns and controllers for games like this. If fighting games get arcade sticks, racing games get steering wheels, where are the rail gun controllers?

Re:The one thing I still use my Wii for.... (1)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26970147)

I'm pretty sure they do have gun controllers for those consoles. At the least, I know a new Time Crisis came out for the PS3 last year, with a gun controller in the box.

where are the rail gun controllers

I'd be a little intimidated if i need a rail gun to take down a simple zombie.

Re:The one thing I still use my Wii for.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26971613)

house of the dead overkill. buy it

Re:The one thing I still use my Wii for.... (2, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26974455)

Resident Evil 4 for the Wii was great, and you're right about it spoiling Resident Evil 5. Anybody that has played 4 on the Wii is going to feel like they took a step backwards when they play RE5. Better graphics? Sure. But who cares, because that's layered over a game that is just not as much fun to play.

I know you can get gun peripherals for the other consoles, but I think their presence will be a rarity.

Too slow. (-1, Flamebait)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968827)

Maybe it's the mentioned control scheme and I couldn't find the option to change it but my god was it annoying only being able to walk at roughly half the speed of a geriatric cripple.

The graphics were fantastic but the zombies were less than scary, they just looked like equally geriatric, crippled African men. Then there were these flying imps that seemed completely out of place, I wasn't sure if maybe I'd stumbled into a level from Dungeon Keeper or something.

The aiming system was quite horrible too.

So it has potential but I'd agree, the controls are the biggest killer. It's not fun being forced to play like a slow moving grandad.

RE5 controls (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26969477)

If it plays like RE4, it is perfect.

I am tired of dumbing down games by making every single one of them play like Quake. It is highly unrealistic.

I love RE4, play it all the time, and have never had a problem with the controls, nor have they impacted my performance or enjoyment of the game.

People complained about Silent Hill's control scheme, then they modernized it for SH4 which left the game unplayable for many veterans as you couldn't pick the old, more intuitive scheme.

The control issue is an issue for a very vocal minority.

XOMEGA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26973279)

I dont see why everyone is always bitching and whining about the control scheme. This is the best control we've ever seen from RE, do you guys remember the old games? Good God. They were damn near unplayable, but those who were able to stick through it thoroughly enjoyed themselves. RE4 had a great redesign for the controls, making the game fun to play. and RE5 has further perfected the controls established in RE4. Theres nothing wrong with the control, in fact its rather nice and smooth; if your pissed about not aiming fast enough change the camera rotation speed. Another thing, its all over the net that RE5 doesnt feel as creepy as the old classic REs, which is true to a degree; however I did find that the RE5 demo kept me in a constant state of "Oh Shit". It wont give nightmares, but it'll keep your heart racing and yelling at your partner to move. So complaints about not being creepy enough, but now you want to make him freely run around and shoot like an FPS? hell you never could in old REs at all, and the idea is to feel vulnerable; which not being able to move when you aim does a great job of. The game gives you great control and abilities, while still keeping fear and vulnerability. Quit whining, this is survival horror, we dont want Marcus Fenix and Solid Snake(though I love him) coming in a ruining the horror.

Controls Argument (1)

hidannik (1085061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26975187)

Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth has a full-on FPS control scheme.

Yet, Attack of the Fishmen from that game is the single most panic-inducing sequence I've ever encountered.

Capcom's argument is complete bollocks.

Hans

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>