Resident Evil 5 controls overhauled to be more Gears-like

Well, I'n in for the strafe, but out for the aim while walking

Really, the way it has been up to now, stop to shot, is the more realistic approach this game had has in awhile. I mean, walking to shot and still is something pretty hard, and on a zombie swarm almost impossible I say.

Still, let em do what they think is best

Apparently CJLopez can't walk and shoot (and chew gum) at the same time.

"Gears was a complete clusterfuck should any of your enemies get up close..."


You sure you were playing Gears or Army of Two? o_O

Gears has no issues in close quarters combat.

Yeah, gears works great when dealing with enemies in medium range. But once they got in your personal space, the 3rd person view and slow turning speed made things very difficult.

"Gears was a complete clusterfuck should any of your enemies get up close..."

Hmmm... I never really thought that, but even so, RE has always been worse in that regard, so surely this is a step up either way. In fact, RE combat has always been a cluster fuck anywhere. Even the much improved RE4 was still stiff and the lack of being able to move and shoot at the same times was simply absurd.

Yeah, I'll second and third the dissent to that comment. Even though RE4 was light years ahead control-wise for the series, almost every action could be smoother to perform, more "western" if you like. If your game is asking me to shoot dynamite out of the air while I'm being assailed from all sides...a little help, please?

And as far as close quarters in Gears, I always found the melee attack quite effective, even forgiving (every weapon except the Lancer). I'll grant you that most firearms can get a little janky at close range, but I still found the ability to MOVE AND SHOOT AT THE SAME TIME worth the trade off.

Huh? Gears of War (multiplayer in particular) was built for up close, in your face combat. It has the best up close controls of any game I've played...ever.

I'm not sure what game you two were playing (like Fenix said, maybe it was Army of Two), but if you couldn't handle up close action in Gears then you can't handle up close action in anything.

Vcize

I think we have some frauds in Teh Joystiq Commentz section :( Thats one thing I cant stand. Up close combat in Gears is so well done that I was baffled when jakka said that. Army of Two is a prime example of up close wonky controls and melee action.

Agreed with Jakka here. When they got close you could sort of shoot them but they'd just kill you before you got them.

To say there is NOTHING wrong with the up close combat is Gears is foolish. Blizinski even said so in interviews. The "invincible chainsaw melee" and the broken shotty mechanics eventually made me move on when COD4 came out.

But hey, maybe it's just me. ;)

Obie

You're talking about online MP (which have since been fixed) bugs . The actual CONTROLS (which is what we're all talking about here) are just fine. The controls work very smoothly in SP compared to RE4's gimped controls.

@fenix, agreed. When you compare the two, Gears is more polished. But I would not say it doesn't have issues. In the end I am looking forward to the new controls in RE5 and the tweaks in Gears 2.

Obie, you could just raise the sensitivity you know.
I had that same thing happen to me. People were moving to fast for my crosshair, and I kept on moving. A friend told me playing on Medium was useless, and to move on to High.

Next round, I got all 4 kills. No joke.

Mention one little thing that could have been better and you get a huge quote tree telling you your wrong, it was perfect, perfect perfection in a perfectionists eye...

No game is perfect, even MGS4 as hard as that is to believe :P

You guys are talking about glitches in the game in multiplayer and strength of the enemies in single player, not about the controls.

The controls themselves are astonishingly good up close. 80% of multiplayer combat takes place up close, and a big reason for that is that the up close controls are so good.

Metal_gear, there's a difference between picking out something that you didn't like aobut a game and picking out something that a game did better than almost any other game out there and is one of the reasons for the games immense success and saying that it was done poorly.

To use your MGS4 example, that would be like saying MGS4 had poor presentation values in its cinematics, or that MGS4 does stealth gameplay poorly, or that MGS4 had a weak cookie cutter story. Sure, MGS4 had some problems, but those things listed are all big strengths that it does better than most other games, so to say that THOSE in particular were the weakpoints of the game would draw a response out of you.

I'm with ya on that one, especially since no one else will be doing such a th--wait a minute...

Murderface murderface murderface murderface!!!

DETH-KLOK! DETH-KLOK! DETH-KLOK! DETH-KLOK!

RE4's mercenary mode was similar to that concept, only with a time limit and without an online component. That sounds like it'd make a nice addition to RE5 though.

Write a letter Sammy, I'm sure they would rather calm YOUR concerns than that of hundreds of thousands others that complained. =/

Yeah, screw good controls, the horrible ones make the game so much scarier!

Me and the hundreds of thousands who DIDN'T want to controls changed will do just that, Fenix.

It's funny since Giant Bomb was talking about the same exact thing in their last podcast. You know your game is doing something wrong where the only source of tension in the game is because of the horrible controls.

I dont see why your concerned, there will be NO Wii-like controls for it anyway. Oh and there will be no Wii version either.

Just a friendly FYI. ;)

Although I agree with RE purists who say that the No-Movement aiming controls added to the tension of RE4, it just doesn't seem very practical that someone well-trained in the use of firearms (Redfield) couldn't move at least a little while firing...so long as the movement affects the accuracy of your aiming (a la every shooter made in the last 7 years or so), I think it's a fair trade-off, especially since you'll still have to be sparing in your use of ammo.

In summary, my opinion is that this change to a Gears-like movement system is a good thing, but RE purists should definitely get the option to switch it back, one way or another, the gameplay mechanics will change at least a bit because of this alteration, but that doesn't mean it will be a bad thing.

Maybe I'm alone in this but since when was Resident evils tension and drama dependent on its controls. The Run and gun controls of Gears are great and may well add to the tension and drama. Seeing how theres no aiming cursor on Gears you'll waste tons of the already Ammo you have trying to kill waves of infected. Then if you do wanna aim it decreases your speed tremendously which will leave you open for infected attacks when they attack in great numbers. That already sounds more drama filled with good controls. Its a win/win

@ Chris:

Get outta my head, dude!

Have you even played Gears of War? You can only move very slowly while you are aiming.

xGenDeathx and Chris +1

Excellent points.

I hated the controls in RE4. It was so stiff and sluggish, and it was difficult getting out of a tough situation, since i couldn't see a damn thing to the left of me. Yeah, i know the right stick could see left, but they didn't take advantage of the analog function very well. RE's always had knack of having shitty controls and hard to see camera angles to make up for the shitty AI. Gears of War took what RE4 did and perfected it. If RE5 is more like GoW, then awesome.

What kind of bullshit reasoning is this? You like tension created by shitty controls? Fuck that. Did you like the blinding static camera angles of the early games too?

I don't disagree with the sentiment that RE4 has crappy controls (Wii version excluded, where the crappy controls worked fantastically).
I simply object to the game apparently turning into a faster paced action series and inevitably less of a tension filled horror game.

Seems to me the tension should come through things such as less firearm usage and scary atmosphere. Not through controls that don't make your character feel or act human. We all know a person doesn't freeze and wait to be killed when they fire a pistol, so why the hell do we see that in the RE games? It doesn't make it scary - it makes it frustrating.

I guarantee that if a real life mob of zombies came at you in a room and you could shoot while trying to get away, climbing the walls and stuff - you would be scared shitless still!

There's other elements in the game already that can make it creepy and scary. It's not as big a jump as RE4 was to RE1/2/3, and it went through a major overhaul, for the better too. I don't see this as that big of deal, it still has the same look and feel, imo.

First, just to clarify Chris, Resident Evil 4 didn't have a aiming reticle either, except in the Wii edition, which was only put there for the perpose of the Wiimote. In other versions of the game, you had to aim by the laser sight, with the exception of sniper rifles.

Second, and this is just my opinion, but the reason why being able to move and aim at the same time is bad is because it either requires double analog stick controls (shit) or use Goldeneye-style stick to move and use buttons to aim (sluggish and uses up four face buttons just to aim).

Finally, the reason why there should not be an option for control schemes (I'd rather have dual-analog controls than an option) is because game designers *should* build their game with the control scheme in mind.

For example, Resident Evil 4 was designed fantastically, where the lack of strafe is very minor because the level design made it where strafe really wasn't that relevant. The places where I said to myself "I wish I could strafe right now" are few and far between, which is a testament to the designers building the levels with the control scheme in mind.

If you allow two control schemes, it means the designers either need to take into consideration both (increases time to design a level and/or makes levels feel generic) or build the game focusing on one control scheme (making the other feel broken).

I gotta agree with Samfish. The only thing I would add onto the RE4 controls would be the ability to strafe, other than that I'm fine. If I can get through the whole game multiple times without much of a problem then I really can't call the controls "broken".

Samfish's argument seems to be hinged on the assumption that giving RE5 action-game controls would automatically make it a fast-paced action game, but Sam I'm telling you this will not happen! If you had played through Gears' single-player campaign then you would know that there are some very slow-paced RE-inspired moments of suspense involving a mansion where little creepy "Wretches" keep popping out from around corners. Controls do not define the personality of a game.

Agreed, the Wiimote controls of RE4 were great,I enjoyed it better than the GC edition.

Exactly! Who the fuck wants to be like a game that won a shit ton of awards. PFFT! The nerve!

Why is that bad? Gears of War controlled damn well. So it's not surprising that other games would be copying off of it.

Yeah I think I have to roll with Fenix on this....Not giving Gears its props is completely just hating on it for no good reason.

Nothing against GoW(most of its awards were rightfully earned), however, as long as Capcom doesn't make RE5 directly similar but improves functionality... then by all means, go ahead.