gamingeek said:

Dvader said:

- "one of the reasons we awarded the high score was due to to the impressive visuals"

WAT? The high score is an 8.0 from an official mag and that is because of the visuals. So to a weary eyed bastard like me that's a 7/10

That makes it two 8.0 reviews so far. Oh Capcom.

Those scores seem well deserved. Game has sky high production values, but alters dramatically the way the series has played, historically, even more so than the change in player perspective provided by the RE4 overhaul. Unfortunately for Capcom, these changes (or lack of) won't be nearly as welcome as the RE4 ones. It's weird that RE is one of the only major game franchises ( that I can think of) that doesn't get free passes left and right from the dick sucking hype machine that is the specialized press nowadays.

gamingeek said:

Good point there. Maybe because apart from the over the shoulder RE4 design, everything else veers distinctly away from RE? Setting? Broad Daylight? Country? Co-op? Shooting african masai warriors in skirts?

No, I refuse to believe the lower scores till I play it. I bought freaking Deadly Creatures thanks to leo, so I can't pass up this. Might have to wait though, I have Gears 2 in the closet, still playing 3 other 360 games and two other Wii games with HOTD Overkill in the post and Madworld out soon? Oh and mustn't forget about tenchu, or Fable 2, or Fallout 3 or Little Kings Story.

Just kill me now. Games need to be a lot cheaper and a lot shorter.

Yeah. However, in my eyes, scores are good, though. Not low. Following on the footsteps of a gaming milestone such as RE4 is hard for any game, even more so when most of the team involved is now absent. RE4 had it all, mindblowing graphics, a new, fresh camera perspective, impeccable pacing. This game is trying to reach a higher level with two weights bringing it down: A couple of bizarre game design decisions, and the refusal of the dev team to shake things up the way the RE4 dev team did once.

Punk Rebel Ecks said:

Or maybe it's different but not as well developed or fun?

The fun factor is something that varies greatly between individuals. A game that is shit to me might be gold for GG or you. I really believe they tried to cater to the audience that eats shooter games for breakfast, but fell short because of their unwillingness to change some things, control wise. At the same time, they have the risk now of alienating part of their fanbase because of the radical changes made to the way the game is played, mainly the focus on co-op. After an excellent game such as RE4, this is nothing but a lose-lose situation for them.

gamingeek said:

I've read a couple of times now that later stages of the game goes Gears. Cover based used all the time.

If this is true, it is gonna feel awkward. Trying to shoehorn faster paced shootouts and cover mechanics within a clumsy control scheme (not clumsy per se, but clumsy because of the environment you are being put into) is exactly the kind of iffy design choices that I was talking about.

Coopersville said:

Okay, I'm a little concerned about the game becoming cover-based later on. There's nothing Resident Evil about that. Everything else I'm cool about, though.

Contextual cover is completely contextual can not move left/right etc and is quite prevalent in the later part of the game.

RE5‭ ‬has never really looked like a master of its own destiny.‭ ‬Like one of its heroes,‭ ‬it feels like something tugged about by a disgruntled mob.‭ ‬A cling-to cover system,‭ ‬for example,‭ ‬only made itself known once during our trip through the opening chapters,‭ ‬and fell flat on its face thanks to RE’s ponderous aiming system.‭

So why is it there‭? ‬And if the answer’s what we think,‭ ‬since when did Resident Evil let its followers‭ (‬in this case,‭ ‬Gears Of War‭) ‬call the shots‭?

Ugh.

Irving Ricardo and that he is a business man working for Tricell

gamingeek said:

SteelAttack said:

Punk Rebel Ecks said:

Or maybe it's different but not as well developed or fun?

The fun factor is something that varies greatly between individuals. A game that is shit to me might be gold for GG or you. I really believe they tried to cater to the audience that eats shooter games for breakfast, but fell short because of their unwillingness to change some things, control wise. At the same time, they have the risk now of alienating part of their fanbase because of the radical changes made to the way the game is played, mainly the focus on co-op. After an excellent game such as RE4, this is nothing but a lose-lose situation for them.

I've read a couple of times now that later stages of the game goes Gears. Cover based used all the time. This is not RE4. I agree partly with what you said, I just hope that it manages to match RE4s pacing, its superb level design and variety and constant push forward.

This is the whole issue for me going forward now, that could really mess up the game.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=208944

Resident Evil 5: 7 hours completed

Xbox World 360 Magazine has responded to claims they finished the long-awaited horror sequel in just 7 hours - considerably shorter than the "20+ hours" promised in US publications.

"As previously stated our first completion time, minus cut-scenes, was seven hours, thirty-six minutes and one second," the mag posted on its blog, even posting screenshots as proof. "For reference purposes, the total length of all the game's cut-scenes clocks in at 80 minutes.

"This time was achieved in single player and on the normal difficulty. This was not a speed-run, nor were we pressured for time, and was not, as suggested, merely the time to complete the first three chapters of preview code."

As the mag points out, this makes Resident Evil 5 considerably shorter than its predecessor - though you can't see everything in the new game that quickly.

"We wish to stress that you cannot see all there is to see in Resident Evil 5 in under ten hours - something which the review makes very clear. There are plenty of extras to unlock and reasons to keep playing. But the fact remains that the first run-through of the campaign is brief; especially when compared to 4's.

"We can only suggest that those citing 20+ hour completion times need to brush up on their gaming skills. :-)"

Read our summary of XBW's review here. Resident Evil 5 is out on March 23

Archangel3371 said:

Meh I never equate the time it takes to play through a game once to it's quality. As they say you won't see everything it has to offer in 10 hours plus there are unlockables and lots of reasons to make you want to play the game again so stating that a game is short based on one playthrough can be misleading.

It took me slightly over 20 hrs. on my first playthrough of RE4 then you have my time spent with multiple playthroughs plus time spent playing Mercanaries and it equals a ton of game time spent. I'm sure RE5 will be the same and with online co-op plus trying to get up the leaderboards it will probably be even more time spent with it.

Really? 20 hrs? Damn I tend to meander through that game so I'm slow and it took me 6 hours less. What were you doing? 6 hours of trying to aim the camera up Ashley's skirt?

Exclusive boss footage