More Resident Evil 5 Reviews

[A-J]

Two more Resident Evil 5 reviews have surfaced. First off Edge Magazine reviewed the game in their 200th issue. They gave the game a 7/10 score. We don't have transcripts or notes of the things they liked or disliked yet so stay tuned.

Edge Resident Evil 5 Review

Also, Computer and Video Games reviewed the game as well, they gave it a 7.3 out of 10. Listing good graphics, set pieces and co-op action as the pro's and controls, similarities to RE4 and too much barrel smashing as the con's.

CVG Resident Evil 5 Review

[Zombie Fred]

I am sure the game will be in the mid 8 to low 9 area, hopefully it stays in that. Looks like that the whole reboot is defiantly going to happen when Capcom see these reviews on the cons.

[Mr. Spencer]

Bricks will be shat.

[BadWolfX]

...too much barrel smashing?

[randomwab]

If I'm not mistaken, the EDGE review is the EuroGamer review printed. In other words, see this for the text: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/re...-evil-5-review

[Henry Spencer]

Too much barrel smashing? Too much action? Did these people play RE4?

[Handsome Rob]

Bricks will be shat.

Only those bricks which are part of a destructible environment

The rest will be shitting on the "too many barrels exploding".

[GalacticAE]

Too much barrel smashing? Too much action? Did these people play RE4?

Seriously, there's really not much of a difference. They should've known what they were getting into.
Like the difference between RE1 and 2. Different setting, same general gameplay.

[A-J]

well here's the thing, i kinda agree that knifing barrel after barrel can get very tedious. It'd have been better if they introduced a context based move for breaking barrels like they did for attacking downed enemies.

[ThWorldGreatest]

RE5 deserves those scores sadly , i really expected the game to be long with tons of unlockables but it only took me 7:30:47 hours to complete the whole game, which is very small compared to RE4, and im also disappointed with the story itself , here's hoping that they'll release some good DLC along the way to make up for it.

[Archelon]

I posted this in the Eurogamer review thread, but I'll repost it here, as it's still relevant:

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.

[Jill's Boob]

^While you have some valid points concerning people's expectations, you're neglecting to consider other factors that come into play for the production of RE5:

- RE4 came out late in the life cycles of the Gamecube/PS2. Thus, RE5 was being built for the next generation of consoles. Now I know jack about computer programming, but surely there had to be some issues with designing for consoles that came out in late 2007. Sure the game was designed on the MT framework (is that right?) which is PC based, but Capcom surely had to work around the programming/limitations/unknowns of 2 new consoles.
- A lot of effort was placed into RE5. They did extensive motion capture, involved a symphony for the musical score, implemented co-op gameplay mechanics, etc. This all probably took a long time to carry out.
- DLC extras were probably also being worked on; maybe that extended the programming time?

I guess people's expectations are too high, I don't know. You are totally right that maybe more changes needed to be implemented during a 4 year break between games, but the things I mentioned above make me feel that Capcom had other factors that contributed to the long hiatus.

Either way, I found RE4 to be a fun game, despite having the worst possible characters & story. A follow-up, which fixes those things (I'll find out in a few days) means that this game is a resounding success to me.

RE5 will never be judged fairly, as for some reason, people tend to believe that a sequel needs to be an almost completely different game each and every time. RE4's personal accolades are also a heavy burden to follow. Plus, RE5 is being judged against the plethora of FPS games, though this game is not meant to have those kinds of controls.

But it doesn't matter what reviewers say - only how the true fans feel this game measures up against the other games in the core RE series.

[BadWolfX]

So, I could agree with that review, if it didn't basically boil down to "It's the same as 4, but it didn't come out soon enough after 4 to still be cool, so it sucks". The whole review may not be that way but that's how that came off to me. Games do not need to change everything for each sequal - 4 had a working formula and that has been built on in 5. To expect a complete overhaul after such a success of a game is incredibly stupid.

And if I did come out quicker, people would've complained that it was rushed and not enough time spent on it and it wouldn't of been as good a game as it may be. (Wow, I just ruined the English language)

[Jill's Boob]

So, I could agree with that review, if it didn't basically boil down to "It's the same as 4, but it didn't come out soon enough after 4 to still be cool, so it sucks".

Hey, you said what I was thinking with one sentence. Why did I have to write so much?!

But yeah...you're right. RE5 is a natural progression of RE4, with a few necessary tweaks. And I don't care how long it took them, as long as they give me good characters and a good story (jury is still out, but after reading the impressions of a few lucky folks, it looks as if RE5 shames RE4). And hey, the new game is automatically better because it doesn't contain Leon.

If RE4 won so many awards, then it must have had something right. Why drastically change what works? RE4 in HD is a compliment. Maybe that's not "award-winning" in 2009, but I'd rather play RE5 than any other game on the market.

[Archelon]

^While you have some valid points concerning people's expectations, you're neglecting to consider other factors that come into play for the production of RE5:

- RE4 came out late in the life cycles of the Gamecube/PS2. Thus, RE5 was being built for the next generation of consoles. Now I know jack about computer programming, but surely there had to be some issues with designing for consoles that came out in late 2007. Sure the game was designed on the MT framework (is that right?) which is PC based, but Capcom surely had to work around the programming/limitations/unknowns of 2 new consoles.
- A lot of effort was placed into RE5. They did extensive motion capture, involved a symphony for the musical score, implemented co-op gameplay mechanics, etc. This all probably took a long time to carry out.
- DLC extras were probably also being worked on; maybe that extended the programming time?

I didn't neglect those things, and it was not my intention to imply to imply that Capcom didn't put a lot of effort into the game.

I wasn't saying that RE5 should have been released a year or two after RE4, or even that it could have been released in such a short amount of time. My point was that had it been released in its current form one or two years after RE4, it probably wouldn't be viewed as negatively by reviewers as it apparently is now.

However, regardless of how much time and energy they put into things like the musical score, the motion capture for cinematics, and even the co-op gameplay, the fundamental gameplay is still relatively unchanged from RE4. I don't personally believe that is a bad thing, but reviewers are going to be much more critical on a sequel when there is such a long span of time between it and previous game than if it was released within a year or two, and, in their eyes, relatively little has changed.