TGS 08: RE5's 'Shooter' control scheme lessens strife, adds strafe

by Ludwig Kietzmann { Oct 10th 2008 at 11:28PM }

click to enlarge

If there was any doubt as to whether the Resident Evil series had abandoned its traditional survival-horror mechanics in favor of a more action-packed horror experience, the appearance of "shooter" controls in the franchise's fifth installment should completely eradicate it. You know, if the fact that the not-zombies drop ammo wasn't enough to convince you.

As hinted at in an earlier producer interview, Resident Evil 5 does indeed have an optional control scheme that is more in line with the third-person shooter genre. The left analogue stick now allows you to strafe to the left and right, with aiming (enabled via the left trigger) and turning assigned to the right analogue stick. The controls are a step away from Resident Evil 4's tank controls and feel considerably more familiar and intuitive.

We're relieved -- and you may be inclined to disagree -- that Chris Redfield and his spirited partner are still unable to move and shoot at the same time. By not entirely giving in to the demands of shooter fans and placing one significant limit on your offensive capabilities, Capcom has preserved the sense of anxiety felt when a monster approaches. Shoot or run? Make the choice!

Gallery: Resident Evil 5 (10-03-2008)

Tags: Biohazard-5, Capcom, Horror, Resident-Evil, Resident-Evil-5, Shooters, TGS-08, TGS-2008

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

DangerMouse @ Oct 10th 2008 11:38PM

Good. I don't mind stopping to shoot, but using the same stick to walk forward and turn was such a pain. I just hope the right stick used to look around isn't as restrictive as RE4.

t3kni9e @ Oct 10th 2008 11:39PM

Good, because being able to shoot and move at the same time would have made this game too easy and into a action shooter.

SkreeHunter @ Oct 11th 2008 12:30PM

I'm not too familair with guns but I get the feeling that moving and shooting would really mess up your aim anyway.

t3kni9e @ Oct 11th 2008 12:45PM

Well in real life and in more realistic shooters, yes that is true. But most games don't do it, except more tactical shooters like RB6V maybe CoD4 slightly, but if it does it's not very noticeable. But in real life, hell yeah it really messes up your aim.

waynski1457 @ Oct 10th 2008 11:40PM

As long as it remains optional and the default controls are the same, then I can safely ignore it and continue on while whiners can enjoy it. We all win!

Jtenma @ Oct 10th 2008 11:41PM

I am probably still going to try to use the default control scheme first...

I like the claustrophobic feeling you get from it. But if it annoys me, I'm gonna def change it.

Yourself @ Oct 10th 2008 11:41PM

I don't get the point of mapping turning to a separate stick if you can't move and shoot. Isn't that the whole point of dual analogs?

Surely I'll give both a try, but I had absolutely no problem with RE4's controls (particularly the Wii version). Not sure why all of a sudden everyone is acting like they sucked.

Vidikron @ Oct 10th 2008 11:51PM

Exactly. Strafe is meaningless if you can't shoot. I suppose you're suppose to move, then shoot, then move some more, and then shoot some more :-/

Ludwig Kietzmann @ Oct 11th 2008 2:44AM

Actually, being able to strafe makes navigating the levels a lot easier -- you don't have to turn your whole body to get around a table and thus don't lose sight of your enemies. You're still "aiming" with your right stick in the sense that you're pointing in the direction you want to go. You just can't aim your gun without pulling the left trigger.

Yourself @ Oct 11th 2008 3:29AM

Ah well, if the man's played it says so, then we'll have to assume there's some value in it. Luckily, in a turn of good game design, they actually left an 'option' in there, if anyone knows what those are these days.

Vidikron @ Oct 10th 2008 11:49PM

I know bad controls are a staple of the survival horror genre, but I think it's lame. Purposely gimped controls shouldn't be a gameplay feature.

bm @ Oct 11th 2008 12:33AM

Yeah. They could add a jump button too. And a double jump. UT has had that for years! It's 2008, people!

Vidikron @ Oct 11th 2008 3:15AM

Don't be stupid (asking a lot from you, I know). I'm not saying add double jump or anything like that, but to be able to move like a normal human would be nice. Again, the idea that gimped controls adds to game is utterly stupid, IMO. It's a cheap way to add difficulty and nothing more.

What's truly amusing is that when the first couple of REs were released most people complained about the controls. But after a while it seems the core audience has come to accept the shitty controls as part of the genre and any attempt to have actual good controls results in complaints.

t_m @ Oct 11th 2008 7:23AM

I'm not much of a gun expert... but i think in real life its pretty hard to run and shoot even remotely accurately.

Right america?

Foetoid @ Oct 11th 2008 8:14AM

Spot on t_m. Vidikron, you're a tool. Find me a video of US soldiers in Iraq circle strafing their enemies and popping head-shots. The Resident Evil series is the ONLY series of shooter that actually feels real to play cause running and shooting in RL is BS. It gives the player a sense of claustrophobia and panic as they have to choose between shooting or running to get into a better position. Its a staple thats made the Res Evil series so famous, not a 'gimped control scheme' In fact, in my 23 years of playing games, the only style of any controls i've ever found to be 'gimped' is dual-analog FPS controls like Halo. Gears is great, but actual FPS games are gimped to the max.

xeleion @ Oct 11th 2008 9:00AM

Ok then, let people move and shoot.. but take a chunk our of their accuracy for doing so. Even if you can't run and shoot, I'm sure people could walk and shoot in real life without too much trouble. That should be an option in the game.

Haggard (Mr.ESC resurrected on a... thursday?!) @ Oct 11th 2008 9:04AM

Yeah, but action games' good controls are balanced out by the fact that in real wars, each soldier doesn't kill about 3,000 enemies.

Vidikron @ Oct 11th 2008 11:06AM

"Spot on t_m. Vidikron, you're a tool. Find me a video of US soldiers in Iraq circle strafing their enemies and popping head-shots. The Resident Evil series is the ONLY series of shooter that actually feels real to play cause running and shooting in RL is BS. "

I'm not saying that circle strafing or whatever is a strategy that's going to work in real war situation. WTF? And, yes, shooting while moving won't be as accurate. But you could build that into the game just fine. Just reduce the accuracy proportional to player speed. And let's not forget that we're talking about gun-less zombies here. At least being able to walk backwards while shooting would likly be a very good strategy. But, hey, go ahead and compare it to an actual war... because that makes perfect sense. And do you honestly believe that no one ever shoots while moving? LOL...

And, come one, you're trying to claim that RE's controls are fine, but any dual analog is gimped? That's just flat out stupid... makes no sense whatsoever.

ToRo @ Oct 11th 2008 11:30AM

@Vidikron

I agree with you 100%. Why do we need really bad control schemes to add to the gameplay? The first I played a Resident Evil (RE2), the first thing that went through my head is "wtf is up with these controls". It was so awkward and just NOT fun. I couldn't get my self to beat the game.

The same goes for RE4. I have the gamecube version in my room just laying there because I just can't get passed the awkward controls.

Sidepocket @ Oct 11th 2008 10:15PM

Vidikron

Take Fire Arm lessons.

Then come back to this thread.

Vidikron @ Oct 12th 2008 1:20AM

@Sidepocket

I own 5 firearms. But thanks for playing.

edgore @ Oct 10th 2008 11:50PM

"Shoot or run? Make the choice!"

Choose a side Capcom, we're at war!

(apologies to Stephan Colbert)

Graham Wellington (formerly ronald.raygun) @ Oct 11th 2008 12:04AM

RIIIIGGGLLLLLLEEESSS!!!!

edgore @ Oct 11th 2008 12:14AM

I love you.

Foetoid @ Oct 11th 2008 9:31AM

Would you like to know more?

IGLAW @ Oct 10th 2008 11:51PM

I never much liked the idea to begin with. RE4 was immaculate, and that included its controls. Anyone I ever heard complaining about it would compare it to Gears of War ("they're both third person shooters so you can compare them"). /:

I was relieved to hear the classic controls were still there.

SecretAgentHam @ Oct 10th 2008 11:59PM

thank gawd. if they would have turned RE5 into a straight shooter i would have turned my back on this title. a sigh of relief...

LaughingTarget @ Oct 11th 2008 12:21AM

I like the addition myself, feels more organic. The control scheme was the biggest thing keeping me from enjoying the RE series. People can move and shoot at the same time, and that goes doubly so for trained police/soldiers. They could add an accuracy detriment for moving to add to the realism.

Josh @ Oct 11th 2008 12:24AM

w00t

neko to kuruma @ Oct 11th 2008 12:27AM

Well, I'll try it since aiming is assigned to the right stick so I might like it better than RE4 which I just couldn't play. Still not thrilled about the whole stop and shoot deal, though. :\

wiredknight @ Oct 11th 2008 12:37AM

F that. Being able to move and shoot at the same time was all I wanted to do. Maybe the other control changes will make it more appealing, but otherwise I might have to pass on this one.

RE's controls have always been a big turn-off for me, ever since the original. I was hoping this one might be different.

Psycho300x @ Oct 11th 2008 1:16AM

...then whats making it different from Gears of war? Resident evil is doing its own thing control wise, for the best, Resident evil isnt ment to be a shoot em up...

Ludwig Kietzmann @ Oct 11th 2008 2:47AM

Well, consider that almost none of the enemies in RE shoot back. You're in danger of being killed by melee attacks, not flying bullets. Your targets are all slow and generally get at you if you panic or let their numbers overwhelm you. The Gears of War connection is pretty tenuous.

wiredknight @ Oct 11th 2008 2:59AM

@Psycho

I'm aware that RE's control scheme is deliberately less fluid, but that doesn't make it better. For me it really breaks the immersion having to run, turn around, shoot, turn around, and repeat. It's just awkward. In my opinion, it would be a far more reasonable setup if they just severely limited your movement while aiming, rather than completely disabling it.

I mean let's face it. Most intelligent humans, even the ones who aren't trained as police officers or soldiers can figure out how to shoot a gun while walking slowly.
Sure, it affects your accuracy, but they could easily mimic that in the game. In that case, it would still be a choice: keep your aim steady, or keep a bit of distance between you and your targets.

In A World (XBL) @ Oct 11th 2008 1:04AM

Boooo! They should free up the R-trigger to shoot "from the hip" like in Gears. Move the "Locate Partner" to RB, move "Map" to the back button. Oh well... close enough.

Psycho300x @ Oct 11th 2008 1:14AM

they should call RE5 with strafe the "pussy" controls, people dont seem to get RE is a Survival horror game style, RE4 tried to keep that by making leon move like a tank.

wiredknight @ Oct 11th 2008 3:03AM

Let's put you in a survival situation and see if you make one movement at a time. The game should make it difficult to survive via enemy/weapon/pickup/etc balancing and resource management, not difficult because the controls are terrible.

Fosssil @ Oct 11th 2008 3:16AM

Right, since having clunky controls is SO frightening...

Resident Evil, for me, has always been more terrifying when I am completely engaged in the action. Things such as the gimped controls in RE4 and fixed-camera angles in the earlier games actually made the action *less* scary to me, because I was constantly being pulled out of the atmospheric encounters in the game by those subtle little annoyances.

While I certainly don't want the game to devolve into a run-of-the-mill 3rd person shooter, any change that increases fluidity and keeps me better engaged in the gameplay (read: this new control scheme) is a good one in my book.

Just_a_guy @ Oct 11th 2008 1:35AM

straifing is over raited. I only use it when moving down VERY tight hallways and then I would rather be turining than straifing.

serotoninzero @ Oct 11th 2008 4:08AM

You should start strafing. It's good for you. Builds strong muscles.

fred @ Oct 11th 2008 11:19AM

I strafe twice a day and lost 50 pounds in two months

R @ Oct 11th 2008 4:14AM

I always wanted to get into RE, but have been totally unable to. A specially trained operative like leon should easily be able to at least backup while shooting, if nothing else. I agree with wiredknight and vidikron in that making it so you cant move and shoot doesnt make the game more fun, it just pisses you off. After hearing all the praise for RE4, when it came out on ps2 I rented it. I didnt spend more than 2 hours on it before utterly giving up because not being able to move and shoot as a group of people with chainsaws zerg rushed me was just annoying.

Making moving while shooting allowed, but having it reduce damage/accuracy makes alot of sense. Or at least let me stay in aim mode while I back up, not have to swap views, turn around, shuffle awhile, turn back, aim, fire a bullet, rinse and repeat.

Thats not fun...its just retarded.

Foetoid @ Oct 11th 2008 8:21AM

So you sucked at one of the best games of last/this gen, and are crying about it? I finished RE4 12 times on the GC, then happily traded it for the Wii version when it came out and was very happy with the controls/graphics improvement. If you don't take the time to play a game enough to adapt to the controls that are the way they are to deliberately challenge you, why do you play games at all? If RE4 didn't have the quick-180degree-turn i would be 100% pissed off with the controls. When you learn to use it properly, it changes the whole game.

R @ Oct 11th 2008 2:29PM

Wow, what did I do to you, fuck your mother? Jesus son, lay off.

Yeah, I did suck at RE4. But I stand by my statement that having to spend 15-20 seconds running away, turning around, repositioning myself, to fire one bullet because the developers suck so badly at making a tense environment/scary atmosphere that they have to gimp the controls to make you scared is retarded.

Doom 3 was a fairly scary game and they gave you the BFG. Im sure its possible to make a RE that lets you move and shoot and still have it be scary if its made well. Plus, if this were done, it would open up RE to a much wider audience, increasing its sales. I know Im not the only one that didnt play it because of its control scheme.

Sidepocket @ Oct 11th 2008 10:15PM

If you were dropping out of aim mode, turned around 180, ran back a few feet, turned around and aim...instead of just going out of aim mode and moving the analog stick back...I think you have more problems than the controls. I think it has to do with that gray organ between your ears.

More proof that you were somehow scared by Doom 3.

Vidikron @ Oct 12th 2008 1:13PM

I find it amusing that you are bashing Doom 3 when it is very much like RE in how it attempts to scare you. Both games rely heavily on jump-out-and-surprise-you scare tactics.

TheE3Guy @ Oct 11th 2008 4:14AM

YES! IMO the controls in RE4 sucked. This is a very welcome improvement to the game!

Megadanxzero @ Oct 11th 2008 7:11AM

I'll probably end up using the original controls. Not once did I think 'Oh if only I could strafe' in RE4. Plus I really don't want to use RT to shoot. I dunno, I just think it'll feel weird... Using both shoulder buttons never feels right to me

I'm not sure why they didn't make it so that the different controls schemes just change the way the analogue sticks work and leave all the other controls the same. Or letting you customise the other controls however you want

At least you can't shoot while moving...