Resident Evil 5 vs Resident Evil 4

How do you like it, Lana?

I did the first couple of chapters with GK earlier. Beyond the fact that I kept forgetting the controls (and he kept laughing at how many times I went "eww"😉, I enjoyed what I played.

I also cracked up at the fact that I kept scoring with higher accuracy than he did 😛

Originally posted by BackFire
4 is the better simply because it's more consistent. RE5 was great before the enemies got guns and it implemented some dinky cover system and started playing like a 3rd rate Gears of War clone.

In the end 5 came across like it didn't know what it really wanted to be. And that's too bad, had they just kept it going as it was for the first 2/3rds it would have been much better.

Am I bad for liking Chris better than Leon?

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Am I bad for liking Chris better than Leon?

🙁

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Am I bad for liking Chris better than Leon?

Meh. Not saying Leon wasn't awesome or anything. Just kinda liked Chris more in the end for a reason I can't quite put my finger on. I see your point though.

zombies with guns made me a bit upset

Originally posted by jalek moye
that is very true the last chapters are such crap because of that. I havn't beat it yet but the guns part are fun but no where near as fun as the earlier chapters

I wonder where Gears got ITS ideas from.

Something Resident Evil 4 shaped.

-AC

I'm going to retract my statement before, after playing it more and more I find 5 to be the better game.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I wonder where Gears got ITS ideas from.

Something Resident Evil 4 shaped.

-AC

Originally posted by jalek moye
i dont get what you're saying. Gears does a better job at that that 3rd person action shooter then resident evil does.

How? Because it took something GREAT that existed first, and adapted it to fit.

So let's chill before we call 5 a Gears clone. Gears is a 4 clone.

-AC

The difference is Gears evolved and enhanced the aspects it borrowed from RE4 and made them its own while still employing a number of unique aspects that hadn't been done before. RE5 did not, it just put in a sloppy clunky cover system that was unintuitive and almost entirely worthless and threw in some enemies with guns and called it a day.

It was like the RE5 team was developing their game and then 2/3rds of the way through played Gears and decided it liked some parts of that game and just shoehorned those aspects into RE5 on the fly.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How? Because it took something GREAT that existed first, and adapted it to fit.

So let's chill before we call 5 a Gears clone. Gears is a 4 clone.

-AC

Originally posted by BackFire
The difference is Gears evolved and enhanced the aspects it borrowed from RE4 and made them its own while still employing a number of unique aspects that hadn't been done before. RE5 did not, it just put in a sloppy clunky cover system that was unintuitive and almost entirely worthless and threw in some enemies with guns and called it a day.

It was like the RE5 team was developing their game and then 2/3rds of the way through played Gears and decided it liked some parts of that game and just shoehorned those aspects into RE5 on the fly.

That's the thing though.

The cover system was thrown in. It's not obligatory. It doesn't force you to take cover and use it. In Gears, you have to.

-AC

I think that's bad though, something just pointlessly thrown in seems sloppy and spastic, like they're just lazily ripping off something else without trying to put their own spin or style to it or even making it decent.

In RE5, enemies armed with miniguns are a bigger pain in the ass than the ones in RE4.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's the thing though.

The cover system was thrown in. It's not obligatory. It doesn't force you to take cover and use it. In Gears, you have to.

-AC

Originally posted by jalek moye
actually at some points you have to

I was never forced to.

-AC