Mar 25, 2009 01:17
Well, it wasn't as bad as it started out to be - although the beginning sequences were definitely a refreshing break - and it didn't have nearly as much silly Capcom oddness as most of their games (the awesome RE4 included), so I can say, confidently, that it was fun, well-built, and a joy to play (as well as to look at). My previous complaints still apply: old-school character control, and a clinging to some (but not most) of classic RE conventions (why do the infected carry ammunition for stuff they don't have? why do I give a crap about combining different colored plants? what's with the weird jewels and oddities? how is it that magnum bullets can be found sealed in a cavern that no-one's stepped foot in for centuries?). I know it's a fantasy game, but I'd prefer to be able to buy my upgrades and ammo in an efficient in-game system (more like Metal Gear Solid 4 - which RE5 nevertheless stole a bit from), and I prefer boss-battles that make sense within the game and are fluid - not these weird things that stand out. Granted, RE5 did make strides in that department, but it was on the verge of being a smooth, flowing ride - but didn't quite make it. Which is almost worse than not being anywhere near there at all, because you can almost grasp that transcendent "ahhhh" moment that the best video games give you, but never quite... Also I stand by my conviction that Uncharted was a far better adventure game, and Dead Space a far better survival-horror game. This was more adventure-mild-fright. And even Uncharted did that better. So...
However, that's when compared to its own past successes, and to other excellent, top-tier games. Which is to say, while this isn't as good as those others are, it is still, nevertheless, a top-tier game, and, on that merit alone, is pretty much worth playing. Given that the top-tier makes up maybe 3 percent of the games out there, and all... So while you could name a handful of games better (in some cases - ahem, Dead Space - FAR better) than RE5, you could name thousands that are far, far worse. I just wanted to throw that in there for some balance, because, really, it was fun.
It was also short. I'm not sure yet if it was too short or not. Its welcome was wearing a bit thin - run here, find that, shoot this, pretend to be amazed at the "secret" that was obvious from the beginning, rinse, repeat - so any more and I might have simply stopped caring. In a similar way, I'm not sure if Mirror's Edge was too short or not. At first I thought it was, but then again, how much running and running and jumping and running (over and over and over) can you honestly do? And throwing in a couple "crawling through air duct" sequences doesn't count, and the elevator rides were just to hide the next level loading in the background. So yeah. After about 9 hours of running, the thrill starts to wear off. So, I guess they were both basically just the right length.
Of course that's a problem when you're investing maybe 60 bucks on a game (buy used!) and you're getting only 9-15 hours out of it. Oblivion, on the other hand, you could easily get 100 hours out of, if you wanted (and if your eyeballs didn't melt). But then Oblivion is a special case. Lots of long games are long simply because they're padded. OH NOES, NEED RED KEY FOR RED DOOR! MOST GO FIND - ALL THE WAY AT THE OTHER END OF THE WORLD! WHAT? NEED BLUE KEY TO OPEN BLUE DOOR THAT RED KEY IS HIDING BEHIND? AH CRAP! Seriously. So I'd rather have ten hours of blistering, non-repetitive fun. I just want to pay $30 for it, is all.
So yeah, if you're into "shoot it in the head!" games - get RE5. But get Dead Space FIRST. Really. If only because it does that by, well, not doing that. Instead you get to slice off limbs and whatnot. Ooooh, gooey messy joy. Plus overall it's just way better. Promise.
Now see, there's a game I'll pay top dollar for when it comes out: Dead Space 2.
And am I the only one who was unimpressed by how hard Bioshock wanted to be cool?
My dog likes wasabi.
Just sayin'.