July 21
RE5: No shooting while running
From what we’ve seen in the trailers and videos from E3, you can’t shoot while running in Resident Evil 5. Resident Evil 4 has this same problem and quite a lot of people complained about it. The stop and shoot mechanic is back.
We contacted Capcom regarding this issue and they sent a quick response back:
“At the moment you have to stop running to start shooting, we’re using the RE4 control scheme at the moment. The game is still in development and may change nearer to release”
So Capcom may add the ability to shoot while running. I think this is needed because it would be annoying to keep stopping and then shooting. If Capcom changed this, would it make it too fast-paced for an RE game?
Many people are fearing that if Capcom add this ability then it will be classed as a run ‘n gun game. Personally i had no problems with having to stop to shoot, it did get annoying when i died because i simply wasn’t quick enough. Every RE game has been like that. Would adding this ability take the suspense away? Yes it would.
A good example of a run ‘n gun survival horror game is Dino Crisis, do you remember that? It made it fast paced and at the same time scary!
If Capcom were to do something about this then i’d like to see walk and shoot, not run.
Here’s a question: Would you like to see run ‘n gun, walk ‘n gun or stop ‘n gun?
13 Responses to “ RE5: No shooting while running ”
On the one hand, I’d like to be able to move while shooting. The RE games are getting more and more realistic in terms of visuals, and not being able to run and shoot does fly in the face of that realism.
But on the other hand, it might take away from the intensity of the experience if you know you can just run away. Dino Crisis and DC2 were creepy (not DC3 – that was just a bizarre mess of a game), but they were never really on the same level as the RE games.
We all _think_ that it would be better if you could move and shoot, but if it lessens the fear factor, it will ruin the game.
It’s like horror movies – we all wonder why the stupid person goes into the cellar to see what’s growling, when anyone with any sense would run a mile. But if they _did_ run away, the film would be rubbish… and very short.
I disagree.
I’m sure RE4 is a great game, but I couldn’t bear the first 30 minutes of it. I just can’t take in the simple fact why can’t Leon, a highly trained veteran government agent, move and shoot at the same time. It is utterly unlogical and ridiculous that a person would just stand there aiming his gun slowly to his target when a swarm of psychotic canibalistic Spanish villagers are gaining precariously towards him, all wanting to either stab his eyes out or devour his brain.
RE4 is a survival horror game, it should rely on atmosphere, music, settings, plotline, monster designs, pychological fear and occasionally unmanageable intense action to create the “horror”, not a clumsy braindead control scheme that forces players to become an unmovable statue whenever s/he wants to fight back.
To give you an example, FEAR is an intense, fast paced FPS, yet it is capable of manifesting some of the most terrifying “horror” moments in gaming history. This proves that if the developers and designers play their cards right, a traditionally slow pacedd horror game such as RE can still be hauntingly scary without having cumbersome controls that gives players such “horrifying” limited movements.
You’re right – not being able to move while shooting is not at all realistic. But that’s exactly what I said.
Still, for me, the inability to move _does_ add a lot to the tension and fear factor. At the moment, I’m playing Dead Space, in which you _can_ move and shoot. While I’m absolutely loving the game, and finding it creepy, it’s not scaring me anywhere near as much as the Resident Evil games.
Dead Space is graphically much better than RE4, and has a lot more blood and gore; it also has great sound, and makes you jump often. Yet somehow it’s not as scary as the Resi games. The only significant difference is the control scheme. While it _is_ more realistic because you can run away, it just doesn’t instil the same sense of fear.
Even though Capcom have devised an optional new control scheme for RE5, which apparently includes an Uncharted/Gears style cover system, they’ve stated that you still can’t move while shooting. And I’m starting to think that’s a good thing. It plays on what I believe is most people’s biggest fear, which is that the one thing worse than being scared of something is _not_ being able to get away from that thing.
I mean, if you suffer severe arachnophobia and you walk into a room with and see a large one on the wall, you may be scared, but you can turn around and walk out. But how much worse would it be to be locked in that room, with no escape?
You missed my point.
Yes I completely understand that the absurd, cirumscribed control scheme in RE4 was designed to increase the difficulty level of the game, and to fabricate the theme of “horror”. Nonetheless, I have stated that a well crafted, well designed horror game shouldn’t rely on cumbersome, limited movement of the character to be terrifying.
Some of the scariest trademarkt horror titles on the market ever in history: Doom3, Condemned, Undying, FEAR, Suffering, Systeme Shock 2, AVP2, all of these games have fast paced intense 3RD/1ST person action, and yes, the characters in them are capabe of moving while shooting simutaneously. And yet, all of the aforementioned games share one very common similarity: they are all frigging scary.
No, I got your point. I just never got the same sense of fear from those games (at least, the ones I’ve played) as I got from Resident Evil.
So I personally think Capcom’s decision is a wise one, as it adds to the fear I experience. I don’t think it’s fair to say that the Resi games _rely_ on the lack of movement to be scary – it’s just one small aspect that adds to the excellent over-all experience.
I said in my original response that I’d like to be able to move while shooting, so I know where you’re coming from. But since no other game has come close to doing survival horror as well as the Resi series (in my personal opinion), I’d have to say Capcom made the right decision keeping things pretty much as they were.
I personally don’t find it to be that cumbersome. With each new game, it takes me a while to re-adjust, but once i do, it’s fine. Like any other game, it’s just a different control scheme that you need to adjust to, in the same way as not all FPS games use the same button to throw a grenade, or some won’t allow you to go ‘prone’.
The control scheme does of course stem from the original games, where the environments were fixed, and the systems they were running on perhaps didn’t have the power to allow for moving and shooting at the same time. As such, the control system is almost as iconic as the games, and I think that to lose it would be a shame.
If nothing else, the controls are something that sets the series apart from other similar games – and let’s face it, the series has so far sold better than practically all of them, so most people clearly like the way it works.
I would hate moving and shooting. Being able to move in 8 directions with pivot turning would great. It would make dodging easier, and get a better shot at a more dangerous enemy. But run and gun is very unrealistic. And since run and gun would never work in the real world. So why put it in a game that has a very high level realism?
Try as I might, I couldn’t get past the fact that I was forced to stand perfectly still when shooting in RE4. It was unwieldy and ruined the experience for me.
I am sure that works both ways so to avoid displeasing anyone, please make it a togglable option. Basically toggling the ability to shoot and move to off is one way to amp up the games difficulty.
By toggling it off, you instantly make the game far more accesible to a whole slew of new people.
Everyone is complaining that this plays just like RE4 with updated graphics. Why not introduce this togglable option to keep the gameplay feeling fresh and new.
how can you be against running and shooting if it’s a togglable option that you can turn off and on.
No one forces you to use these features just because they are available out there for the people that want them. :p
If you feel that the game isn’t challenging if you can move and shoot, toggle the option off (which will be the default setting anyways).
It’s like playing on the Hard difficulty as opposed to the medium difficulty. You will likely get more achievements or trophies for beating the game with that setting off.
But if you need to be able to move and shoot to enjoy the game, then you’re not screwed over.
It’s just an option. You can play the game however you prefer.
Why not have 3 different control settings so that every type of gamer can play through the game exactly how they want to.
Classic RE controls (the one toggled on as default)
RE4 controls
Traditional TPS controls – allowing us to move and shoot at the same time.
If for no other reason. You should like the fact that it greatly enhances the longeivity of the game. Once you play the game a million times in the mode you wanted to play, you can now play through it with entirely different controls in a harder or easier difficulty and have a completely new experience.
Having three completely distinct control schemes has never been done before. But I think it’s a fantastic idea none the less. Think about how cool it would be if you could have a completely diffrerent experience simply by using a different control scheme.
[...] Source [...]
Walk’n'gun sounds good… at least give us some maneuverability…
You know what, I don give a damn to run n shoot thing, but I’m really concerned about the fact that in RE5, just like RE4, we cannot strafe and oh boy that really hurts my feelings… I for one don’t see much of improvement gameplay/controlling wise, based on what I’ve seen so far.
playing the game coop is alright, the graphical upgrade was a must anyway, and of course another unrelated story to previous games, which I could hardly find any hints that re1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are actually sequels! since the writers failed each time they tried to make some connections, who rights them anyway..
but regardless of my problems which might others concerns too, this game is highly anticipated, especially by myself because there’s no single RE game — except RE0, RE1 remake, and the DS title — that I haven’t played. but I would be much, much, much more happier if these problems never existed. with putting Kojima Productions aside, Japanese game developers are known for being extremely lazy. and I have so many names to add, but simply puting Capcom and Konami eases my pain. just look at the step backs PES takes each year..
there is so much burden on my shoulders, and so many words in my chest.. but ain’t got no time to tell em all…
I agree with what everyone has to say, especially Paranoimia’s point with horror movies.
“The series has so far sold better than practically all of them.”
Your statement is essentially false.
RE4 sold altogether 2.6 million copies, while DOOM3’s sales surpassed RE4 by almost a trenmendous 35% margin, a staggering 3.5 million sales.
You may also find it interesting to know that RE4 fails to make it to the list of any notable “Most Scary Video Games Award” on any publishing platforms, inluding IGN, GamePro, EGM, PC Gamers, GameSpot, and even New York Times. While titles that i have mentioned, such as Doom 3, Clive Barker’s Undying, FEAR, System Shock 2, are regular winners of the awards.
This proves that RE4, while scary, is still far from being the top dog of the horror genre pack. And there are definitely many aspects it can improve on to increse its “scariness”, chiefly its “horrifyingly” limited control scheme.
@ Midnight Tempest (For some reason, I can’t reply directly to your last comment, so I’ve had to reply to my own).
I did not say that RE4 had sold more than all the others – I said the RE SERIES has sold more. The fact that it’s on it’s 5th game (not including Code Veronica, Zero or numerous other spin-offs) is testament to the fact that people like the series as it is.
However, since you seem intent on focusing solely on RE4, I’ll do the same.
I did find it interesting that RE4 hasn’t made any of the ’scariest game’ lists, so I did a little bit of investigation, and found something even more interesting.
It seems that the ’scariest game’ lists are quite arbitrary, since most seem to fly in the face of the review score of their respective organisation.
Of the 6 sources you mention, in reviews, 4 of them (IGN, EGM, Gamespot and NYT) gave RE4 a score as high or higher than all the other games you mention.
In fact, the average review score for RE4 is 96/100, which is at least 4 points higher (and in many cases, much more) than all of the other titles you mention – 92 for System Shock 2, 88 for FEAR and Doom 3, 85 for Undying and AVP 2, and just 81 for Condemned. See for yourself at MetaCritic.
Incidentally, RE4 also scooped no less than 24 ‘Game of the Year’ awards from various game-related publications, including EGM, GamePro and Gamespot, and taking the runner-up spot with IGN. So again – it’s omission from those lists is truly bizarre.
Clearly, the Resi control scheme doesn’t appear to be much of an obstacle for most people, and RE4 is widely perceived to be the best that the Survival Horror genre currently has to offer.