What are you playing now?

[alanschu]

But really, crippling the player by deliberatly fudging the controls in order to make him more 'vulnerable' or whatever is just plain flunking game design 101. No matter how you might argue, there are always better options that dont run the risk of frustrating players.

 

 

Though I agree with Hell Kitty that it is a dev choice, I do agree with Kaftan as well.

 

Crippling the controls intentionally is as bit wonky.

 

It would be like saying you can't turn your head and move your hands at the same time. OK, sure, it's a gameplay mechanic that will make the game harder, but it is also fairly arbitrary and dumb.

 

 

I can't support it.

 

 

At the same time, that's grossly different than being able to move and fire a gun.

[Purkake]

At the same time, that's grossly different than being able to move and fire a gun.

 

Well, you could say that they are both arbitrary limitations in controlling your character to artificially increase the difficulty/scary factor.

[alanschu]

At the same time, that's grossly different than being able to move and fire a gun.

 

Well, you could say that they are both arbitrary limitations in controlling your character to artificially increase the difficulty/scary factor.

 

 

I'd actually wager that it's decidedly less arbitrary than CrashGirl's analogy.

 

At least the not moving and firing a gun has some basis in reality.

 

 

Just because other games let you run and gun and shoot people in the eye from 4000m out with a small caliber pistol.

 

 

 

 

This sounds similar to the FPS whiners complaining that you couldn't run off the edges in GoldenEye back in the N64 days. Boo-freaking-hoo. Complain about the bad guys suddenly moving in slow motion before they get to you sure, but because you have to actually stop and shoot? Meh, that never hindered my gameplay experience.

 

Heck, even in most FPS games I find myself stopping before I shoot, because the good ones woefully penalize my accuracy for not doing so. But yeah, I guess for the people that aren't good at those games, the ability to still pull off lucky shots because you were able to shoot while circle strafing and bunny hopping is a desired feature.

 

But I suppose a woefully inaccurate, bullet wasting, ineffective option would have made people happier?

Edited September 24, 2009 by alanschu

[Purkake]

Your argument might hold some water if anything in RE5 or in any of the RE games was anywhere close to reality. I'm sure they just slipped that little bit of reality in there to balance all the other crazy stuff.

 

If you just had awful aim when shooting while moving, there wouldn't be a problem. Who the hell stands still when a hoard of zombies is slowly coming at them?

 

I'm not asking for Quake here, just some control over my character, please.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Purkake

[alanschu]

If you just had awful aim when shooting while moving, there wouldn't be a problem. Who the hell stands still when a hoard of zombies is coming slowly at them?

 

I'm not asking for Quake here, just some control over my character, please.

 

 

When the horde is near you, you fire off a shot or two, and run back. It's what I've done in every single Resident Evil game.

 

You do have control over your character. There's no reason for you to stand completely still and just let the horde swamp you, unless you've ended up backing yourself into a corner.

[Slowtrain]

But really, crippling the player by deliberatly fudging the controls in order to make him more 'vulnerable' or whatever is just plain flunking game design 101. No matter how you might argue, there are always better options that dont run the risk of frustrating players.

 

 

Though I agree with Hell Kitty that it is a dev choice, I do agree with Kaftan as well.

 

Crippling the controls intentionally is as bit wonky.

 

It would be like saying you can't turn your head and move your hands at the same time. OK, sure, it's a gameplay mechanic that will make the game harder, but it is also fairly arbitrary and dumb.

 

 

I can't support it.

 

 

At the same time, that's grossly different than being able to move and fire a gun.

 

 

Actaully I disagree tyhat it is less arbitrary.

 

 

While the choice between running vs shooting is a gameplay factor; the choice bewteen turning your head to look at something vs raising a hand to make an attack could just as easily be a significant gameplay factor. The only difference is one of scale: running and shooting are big movements; turning your head and raising your hand are smaller movements.

 

 

Either way they are simply arbitrary choices no how to limit a players control in order to make the game harder.

 

Its a cop out n game design in my opinon. Ther are other, more interesting. and less annoying ways to make games challenging.

[Purkake]

If you just had awful aim when shooting while moving, there wouldn't be a problem. Who the hell stands still when a hoard of zombies is coming slowly at them?

 

I'm not asking for Quake here, just some control over my character, please.

 

 

When the horde is near you, you fire off a shot or two, and run back. It's what I've done in every single Resident Evil game.

 

You do have control over your character. There's no reason for you to stand completely still and just let the horde swamp you, unless you've ended up backing yourself into a corner.

 

Because slowly walking backwards while shooting is a totally foreign and unheard of tactic, known only by few masters in the Tibet.

 

Shooting, running a few meters back and shooting again makes a lot more sense...

Edited September 24, 2009 by Purkake

[alanschu]

Either way they are simply arbitrary choices no how to limit a players control in order to make the game harder.

 

I won't dispute that Resident Evil maintains its mechanic to prevent simple running and gunning, however, given games typically don't even feature the mechanic you describe (turning your head and raising your arm), you're effectively stating that pretty much every game makes an arbitrary decision to either turn your head, or raise your hand.

 

 

So you're stating that the inability to turn your head, as well as raise your hand, is an arbitrary decision by Sir-Tech to make Jagged Alliance 2 more challenging?

[Maria Caliban]

I

[Purkake]

Anyone defending RE5, let me ask you this: Dead Space allowed you to walk and shoot at the same time, did it detract from the experience in any way? Would the game have been better with the more "realistic" stand-still-to-shoot model?

[alanschu]

Anyone defending RE5, let me ask you this: Dead Space allowed you to walk and shoot at the same time, did it detract from the experience in any way? Would the game have been better with the more "realistic" stand-still-to-shoot model?

 

 

We're stating that Resident Evil 5's (or any resident evil for that matter) shooting system doesn't detract from its gameplay experience either, so your point is irrelevant.

Edited September 24, 2009 by alanschu

[Slowtrain]

Either way they are simply arbitrary choices no how to limit a players control in order to make the game harder.

 

I won't dispute that Resident Evil maintains its mechanic to prevent simple running and gunning, however, given games typically don't even feature the mechanic you describe (turning your head and raising your arm), you're effectively stating that pretty much every game makes an arbitrary decision to either turn your head, or raise your hand.

 

 

Every game makes arbitrary decisions on how to make game challenging. Certainly. Does a weapon fo 20 points of damage? Or 50? How much health does a pc get per level. Etc. Those are all arbitrary numbers that come out of an attempt to baolance difficulty and challenge.

 

 

My issue isn't with devs using arbitrary design choices.

 

My issue is specifically with applying arbtitrary design choices to player control of their character. Controlling your character shouldn't be a minigame; It should be as intuitive and transparent as possible. There are other ways to make the concept of moving vs shooting a part of gameplay, then simply saying abitrarily either X or Y.

 

As I said that's just my opinion. Obviously others disagree.

 

So you're stating that the inability to turn your head, as well as raise your hand, is an arbitrary decision by Sir-Tech to make Jagged Alliance 2 more challenging?

 

TB games like that are all about controlling and regulating action and movement by the numbers. Its a different approach and not really comparable.

[Purkake]

Anyone defending RE5, let me ask you this: Dead Space allowed you to walk and shoot at the same time, did it detract from the experience in any way? Would the game have been better with the more "realistic" stand-still-to-shoot model?

 

 

We're stating that Resident Evil 5's (or any resident evil for that matter) shooting system doesn't detract from its gameplay experience either, so your point is irrelevant.

 

So you're saying that moving while shooting would add nothing to RE5 or even detract from it?

 

Why not talk about the mechanic in general? If it is so realistic, why don't more games still use it?

Edited September 24, 2009 by Purkake

[alanschu]

Anyone defending RE5, let me ask you this: Dead Space allowed you to walk and shoot at the same time, did it detract from the experience in any way? Would the game have been better with the more "realistic" stand-still-to-shoot model?

 

 

We're stating that Resident Evil 5's (or any resident evil for that matter) shooting system doesn't detract from its gameplay experience either, so your point is irrelevant.

 

So you're saying that moving while shooting would add nothing to RE5 or even detract from it?

 

 

I don't think it would add nor detract from it. I think it's virtually irrelevant. I am more than able to enjoy the Resident Evil games with the current firing mechanism, and more than able to enjoy other games as well. The combat system in Resident Evil has never been an issue for me.

 

 

The one "plus" that Resident Evil's combat system has for me is simply that it's different than every other game out there. But this "plus" is pretty insignificant that I really don't care about it.

 

 

Why not talk about the mechanic in general? If it is so realistic, why don't more games still use it?

 

I'm getting the feeling you just suck at Resident Evil about now...

If you don't like it, don't play it. It's as simple as that.

 

if Resident Evil's combat mechanic is so detrimental to the game, how come the game franchise has had so much success that it's spawned several sequels, and even movie spinoffs, as well as other spinoffs like Dino Crisis? I guess those game buyers just like playing with the most unintuitive complicated game controls, in spite of all the other better designed and superior combat systems in other survival horror games.

Edited September 24, 2009 by alanschu

[Purkake]

I can enjoy Fallout 3 along with its combat system, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't use a whole lot of improvement.

 

I'm not saying that RE5 is inherently unenjoyable because of the combat system. I'm saying that it is a outdated way to increase the difficulty and could use a whole lot of overhauling.

 

Why not talk about the mechanic in general? If it is so realistic, why don't more games still use it?

 

I'm getting the feeling you just suck at Resident Evil about now...

If you don't like it, don't play it. It's as simple as that.

 

if Resident Evil's combat mechanic is so detrimental to the game, how come the game franchise has had so much success that it's spawned several sequels, and even movie spinoffs, as well as other spinoffs like Dino Crisis? I guess those game buyers just like playing with the most unintuitive complicated game controls, in spite of all the other better designed and superior combat systems in other survival horror games.

 

Oh I avoid them like plague, but I have played it a bit.

 

You of all people(being on this board) should know that popularity has very little, if anything to do with a game's quality.

 

Also, Dino Crisis came out last on the PS1 and the XBOX, a time when unintuitive controls were all but the norm.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Purkake

[alanschu]

I'm not saying that RE5 is inherently unenjoyable because of the combat system.

 

It certainly seems to be a real big sticking point. Especially in light of your concerns about what you're player is supposed to do while surrounded by enemies.

 

 

I'm saying that it is a outdated way to increase the difficulty and could use a whole lot of overhauling.

 

I'd wager it doesn't even make the game more difficult, although that'd probably only be true for the first games, because the designers obviously felt it'd be a concern because they intentionally made the AI retarded in RE4, presumably to compensate.

 

I guess in a way I'd consider the combat mechanic detrimental to RE4, if only because it made the developers feel it was necessary to have hostiles conveniently slow down and let you shoot them in the face.

 

Resident Evil 4 was way too easy IMO. That, and I really preferred the zombie angle, rather than infected angle.

 

 

 

You of all people(being on this board) should know that popularity has very little, if anything to do with a game's quality.

 

Right. Because all those people just love buying ****ty games.

 

You'll get some that slip through the system, but I think you'll find more often than not, games that sell really well are probably actually pretty good games. It's not a hard and fast rule, especially with more niche style games. But I most certainly DO correlate a games success with the quality of the game. Even if I don't care for the game. But yeah, go ahead and say "you of all people," or some junk like that, and assume what thoughts I have. This would hardly be the first time I've made such a statement on these very boards (with you being on this board).

 

You can tell yourself your lies to make yourself feel better and limit your cognitive dissonance, but if the combat system was any sort of signifciant detriment to the Resident Evil games, they would NOT have been so successful. Because sure as **** the game story and setting themselves are NOT that special.

Edited September 24, 2009 by alanschu

[Bos_hybrid]

It's funny to see people complaining about the controls in RE5, because they are probably the most fluid in the whole series. IMO The series has really died after Code Veronica, the new viewpoint, the new breed of 'zombies' and the abandonment of puzzles make me yearn for the previous game style. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the games after, but it's just not Resident Evil anymore.

[alanschu]

^^ This I agree with.

[Purkake]

The newest game in the series has the best controls in the series? Shocking.

 

I'm saying that it is a outdated way to increase the difficulty and could use a whole lot of overhauling.

 

I'd wager it doesn't even make the game more difficult, although that'd probably only be true for the first games, because the designers obviously felt it'd be a concern because they intentionally made the AI retarded in RE4, presumably to compensate.

 

I guess in a way I'd consider the combat mechanic detrimental to RE4, if only because it made the developers feel it was necessary to have hostiles conveniently slow down and let you shoot them in the face.

 

Resident Evil 4 was way too easy IMO. That, and I really preferred the zombie angle, rather than infected angle.

 

So it's just there for that sweet Resident Evil style?

 

The bottom line is that I find it stupid, but as I said nothing is stopping people from having fun with the game, my opinions are not absolute truths.

 

Even the controls in Dead Space were way too stiff and slow for my liking. I just prefer games where I have as direct control over my character, at least for real-time action games, even if it is unrealistic. On the other hand people in real life aren't controlled by gamepads or a KB/M combo so some abstraction is necessary and appreciated.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Purkake

[kingofsquid]

Back on track, now.

[Purkake]

Back on track, now.

 

Only if I can get back on the track while shooting my gun.

[Guard Dog]

Finally getting around to playing Icewind Dale 2. I've had it for at least six years now, never even opened it.

[Purkake]

Just for the lulz load up on Power Word: Silence once you get it.

 

It's pretty fun.

[Hell Kitty]

Crippling the controls intentionally is as bit wonky.

 

The controls are only crippled when compared to other, different types of games, and if we assume that the movement and combat of FPS is the default at which all games do (or should) start at.

 

It's like when people complain about turn-based combat being crippled or outdated compared to real-time. Why does my character just stand there and let himself get shot? I don't like the way this works is not the same as bad design.

[Purkake]

Compare it to Dead Space which is as close to the control scheme as you're going to get with a non-RE game.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Purkake