Eurogamer Reviews Resident Evil 5

[GalacticAE]

7/10 isn't bad for your average shooter. Are you people really angry at the 8/10 they gave MGS4? The game was good but not without flaws. 8/10 means it's well above average. God forbid a publisher gives a game you like a score below 10 these days.

[Umon Daisuke]

And here come the defenders

I read it to be a fair review.

I've finished it and the fact the review complains that "it's like RE4 and you have to stop and shoot" from the get go isn't what I call fair. It's a sequel and unlike RE4, they tried to stick adhere to the series' roots better. I would personally give it an 8 as a single player game, and an 8.5 overall.

What I would certainly not call fair by any stretch of imagination is their FEAR 2 review. So to say that some press outlets get a bit overboard in their criticism is an understatement, as do the ones who give out perfect scores too frequently.

Now Edge rated the game the same as the new 50 Cent game; talk about bizarre.

[rehunk88]

well i just cant respect that and the reason i cant respect that is that im totally against the mgs 4 rating its clearly a 9.5/10 so in my eyes thats a small 8
so in my eyes that 7 out of 10 is just alot of bull !

[Mr. Spencer]

Thing is, having to stop and shoot is an iconic trait of the RE series.

[rehunk88]

its allways been like that stop and shoot thats just how the game is.

[Jill's Boob]

Why are people getting bent out of shape over reviews? You're going to love this game if:

(a) you've played the demo over-and-over again
(b) you love Resident Evil
(c) you visit this site like an unhealthy addiction to talk RE
(d) you enjoyed RE4 despite it's horrid story

All reviewers do not think alike, and then their own personal preferences come into play. Like Gene said, certain games post-RE4 have advanced the genre. RE5 is a follow-up to RE4. And there are traits of the RE series (like Spencer said) that just don't change, like being unable to run & gun. All the criticisms...stopping to shoot, limited inventory, etc...the naysayers fail to recognize that it's part of the game mechanic. Just because you can't do something in a game doesn't mean it's a flaw. But RE5 will be issued demerits because it refuses to be a full-blown FPS like the thousands of other FPS games that flood the market.

Ridiculous? Unfair? Absolutely. But nothing to lose sleep over. All that matters is whether or not you enjoy the game.

And why do people always act like MGS4 is some sort of video game sent from Heaven that is the benchmark of a "perfect 10" videogame?! Did the disc come with free handjobs? I don't quite understand what makes that game the pinnacle of entertainment. Do you suffer from withdrawals when you don't play it? Is it so awesome that you find yourself playing it every day, watching all 700 hours of cutscenes?

[rehunk88]

in our eyes ( the fans) mgs 4 is kick ass game its not our fault that u dont like it !

and we are getting out of shape as u call it couse if they can be so wrong with mgs 4 then they are also wrong with re 5 clearly they dont know how to rate games !

[BadWolfX]

That's a stupid thing to say - of course they know how to rate games, it's what they do for a living and whining about the score not being high enough isn't going to change a bloody thing. Bear in mind, it's only one persons opinion. And, in my mind anyway, anything between 7 and 10 is a game worth playing.

[Henry Spencer]

7/10 isn't bad for your average shooter. Are you people really angry at the 8/10 they gave MGS4? The game was good but not without flaws. 8/10 means it's well above average. God forbid a publisher gives a game you like a score below 10 these days.

Totally agree with all that. Too many games are getting high scores nowadays, so it's nice to see a change in perspectives. Not all positives. There's been a lot of overrated games this gen.

I do think the actual complaints for RE5 are silly though, they complain you can't run and shoot, there are too many destructible containers to obtain any items (there was just as many in RE4), the game is an all out action game (which is essentially an evolution because of RE4's gameplay) and that there is no more horror. All lame complaints, I'm sure the game has a fair few cons, all games do, but the actual complaints being lodged against RE5 are a bit unfair, since it's really continuing what was started in RE4, and all the present complaints were also what some fans saw as cons in RE4.

Seems to me that the news of a "reboot" for RE6 will definitely be happening now...

[Archelon]

I think something people seem to be forgetting is the amount of time between RE4 and RE5 in comparison to the amount of time between previous games in the series. There was a year to two years tops between most of the previous games in the series, and many of them were on the same generation of consoles. Not only have four years passed since the release of RE4, but it was on a previous generation of consoles, to boot.

I think people were generally more forgiving of the minor improvements made to the formula with each subsequent game in the past, because there was such a short amount of time between each release. Not only that, but back then, there really weren't many other games like the RE series, the old Alone in the Dark PC games notwithstanding. The first real competitor, Silent Hill, didn't arrive on the scene until, what, 1999? 2000? There weren't a whole lot of games that copied the RE formula.

Now, fast forward to 2005 with the release of RE4. It's something new. It's something fresh. It's like the release of the first Resident Evil back in 1996 all over again. Only this time, the basic formula is copied, tweaked, some may even say "improved," by countless competitors. Four years pass, and RE5 is finally released. In many people's eyes, it turns out to be essentially RE4HD with co-op, and these people review it as such.

Had RE5 been released only a year or two after RE4, I imagine it would have received similar accolades to RE4. There certainly wouldn't have been the same backlash that there appears to be now from the gaming public. RE4 introduced (or, at least, popularized) many gameplay mechanics that have since become standard in many action/adventure and third person shooter games such as the over-the-shoulder perspective and QTEs (I know RE4 didn't introduce these, but as I said, it arguably is what made them popular).

I think many people, given the amount of time between RE4 and RE5, expected RE5 to show similar innovations. In my opinion, this is a reasonable expectation, though perhaps a little unrealistic given Capcom's track record in the past. Again, had RE5 been released a mere year or two after RE4, I doubt people would have held such lofty expectations for the game.

When one considers all of that, I think a 7 out of 10 is a very fair score. I'm not really sure when a 7 out of 10 became a "bad" score, though.

[Umon Daisuke]

Why do some of you here like comparing the RE4 engine to that of Gears or any similar action title? Action wasn't Mikami's intention, and neither was the RE5 team's. So any of those so-called competitors took the basic premise and made their "own" brand of action from it, the original series shouldn't be faulted for not obliging and moving towards more action (frankly, I do think they will with the next installment and finally abandon any RE stables)

The press praises sequels that offered little improvement over its predecessors (Was Halo 3 truly a great game? Was GTAIV that large of a leap?). But when developers try maintaining the core of the series *better* than its predecessor, it's a sin.

Had the game implemented strafing and running and shooting with popular movement controls, Eurogamer would be singing a different tune. Funny thing is, Edge gave it a similar score which is incidentally what they gave to the new 50 Cent game.

All I say is this: Play the game. It's hard imagining doing certain great points of the game in the previous generation of consoles.

[Umon Daisuke]

Totally agree with all that. Too many games are getting high scores nowadays

Which makes it more of an anomaly to see great games get lower scores at times.

[Archelon]

Why do some of you here like comparing the RE4 engine to that of Gears or any similar action title? Action wasn't Mikami's intention, and neither was the RE5 team's. So any of those so-called competitors took the basic premise and made their "own" brand of action from it, the original series shouldn't be faulted for not obliging and moving towards more action (frankly, I do think they will with the next installment and finally abandon any RE stables)

The press praises sequels that offered little improvement over its predecessors (Was Halo 3 truly a great game? Was GTAIV that large of a leap?). But when developers try maintaining the core of the series *better* than its predecessor, it's a sin.

Had the game implemented strafing and running and shooting with popular movement controls, Eurogamer would be singing a different tune. Funny thing is, Edge gave it a similar score which is incidentally what they gave to the new 50 Cent game.

All I say is this: Play the game. It's hard imagining doing certain great points of the game in the previous generation of consoles.

Defensive much?

I also find it rather ironic that you of all people would now claim that action wasn't Mikami's intention with RE4.

[Umon Daisuke]

No, pointing out the obvious, but even if I were, are you really one to talk? :p You repeat the same points in a large post whenever RE4 is trashed.

Yes, action wasn't his intention but to make it more of a fast paced thriller, but it felt like action because of ammo abundance and then-AI issues; none of the systems had the resources to make the AI truly smart and threatening (some are in RE5 though later on).

Kamiya on the other hand did make the first version into an action game, which later turned into DMC.

[LVL100 Merchant]

Why are people getting bent out of shape over reviews? You're going to love this game if:

(a) you've played the demo over-and-over again
(b) you love Resident Evil
(c) you visit this site like an unhealthy addiction to talk RE
(d) you enjoyed RE4 despite it's horrid story

All reviewers do not think alike, and then their own personal preferences come into play. Like Gene said, certain games post-RE4 have advanced the genre. RE5 is a follow-up to RE4. And there are traits of the RE series (like Spencer said) that just don't change, like being unable to run & gun. All the criticisms...stopping to shoot, limited inventory, etc...the naysayers fail to recognize that it's part of the game mechanic. Just because you can't do something in a game doesn't mean it's a flaw. But RE5 will be issued demerits because it refuses to be a full-blown FPS like the thousands of other FPS games that flood the market.

Ridiculous? Unfair? Absolutely. But nothing to lose sleep over. All that matters is whether or not you enjoy the game.

And why do people always act like MGS4 is some sort of video game sent from Heaven that is the benchmark of a "perfect 10" videogame?! Did the disc come with free handjobs? I don't quite understand what makes that game the pinnacle of entertainment. Do you suffer from withdrawals when you don't play it? Is it so awesome that you find yourself playing it every day, watching all 700 hours of cutscenes?

Best post ever.