http://gamingtrend.com
October 24, 2014, 01:05:40 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Resident Evil 5 demo coming 26th  (Read 8330 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Grue
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8204


You are likely to be eaten by a grue.


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: February 05, 2009, 03:03:23 PM »

Quote from: Dante Rising on February 04, 2009, 09:31:41 PM

In some ways I feel like I'm playing a different game than other people here. I find Sheva to be a very competent partner. She healed me immediately when I asked, kicked several zombies off my back, stomped a few that were on the ground, and followed my orders quickly. I had a huge smile on my face when several zombies were bearing down on me while I was reloading, and she suddenly came up from the side and gave a massive roundhouse kick that sent the group of enemies sprawling.  I was also happy to see that she can hold her own in a fistfight, and doesn't seem to burn through ammunition at a breakneck pace.


This was something they touched on as well.  They said that having a partner makes the game much less scary.
Logged

XBox Live ID: The Grue
Playstation Network Name: TheGrue
Eduardo X
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2681



View Profile
« Reply #81 on: February 11, 2009, 04:39:23 AM »

What a horrible demo. It's the same old horrible controls, but now with some obliviously racist characters and situations!
Logged

PSN ID: EduardoX
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6617


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #82 on: February 11, 2009, 07:07:22 AM »

Quote from: Eduardo X on February 11, 2009, 04:39:23 AM

What a horrible demo. It's the same old horrible controls, but now with some obliviously racist characters and situations!

Oh no, not this argument again. How is this game racist? Just because it takes place in Africa and the bad guys are African?
Logged
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15621


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: February 11, 2009, 01:20:13 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on February 11, 2009, 07:07:22 AM

Quote from: Eduardo X on February 11, 2009, 04:39:23 AM

What a horrible demo. It's the same old horrible controls, but now with some obliviously racist characters and situations!

Oh no, not this argument again. How is this game racist? Just because it takes place in Africa and the bad guys are African?

I know this argument has been rumbling for a while, but I have to say they chose to set the game in a racially explosive location.  There's going to be some backlash.

Also, I was surprised to find that I felt a little uncomfortable.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
semiconscious
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4416



View Profile
« Reply #84 on: February 11, 2009, 01:44:23 PM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 11, 2009, 01:20:13 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 11, 2009, 07:07:22 AM

Quote from: Eduardo X on February 11, 2009, 04:39:23 AM

What a horrible demo. It's the same old horrible controls, but now with some obliviously racist characters and situations!

Oh no, not this argument again. How is this game racist? Just because it takes place in Africa and the bad guys are African?

I know this argument has been rumbling for a while, but I have to say they chose to set the game in a racially explosive location.  There's going to be some backlash.

Also, I was surprised to find that I felt a little uncomfortable.

& i, on the other hand, felt less uncomfortable shooting a bunch of 'natives' infected with a virus than i did a bunch of 'natives' not infected with a virus in uncharted - go figure...
Logged

"... i'm not against some 'monkey catching'... but i'd rather be collecting pants..."
- snake, 'snake vs monkey' (mgs3:se)
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6617


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #85 on: February 11, 2009, 01:56:23 PM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 11, 2009, 01:20:13 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 11, 2009, 07:07:22 AM

Quote from: Eduardo X on February 11, 2009, 04:39:23 AM

What a horrible demo. It's the same old horrible controls, but now with some obliviously racist characters and situations!

Oh no, not this argument again. How is this game racist? Just because it takes place in Africa and the bad guys are African?

I know this argument has been rumbling for a while, but I have to say they chose to set the game in a racially explosive location.  There's going to be some backlash.

Also, I was surprised to find that I felt a little uncomfortable.

I don't get this argument at all. "Nobody" complained about the very inaccurate rendition of a Spanish village in Resident Evil 4, but when a similar thing is done with an African village in Resident Evil 5, suddenly it's racist? Exclusively treating anything African with silk gloves would be truly racist. This isn't.
Logged
metallicorphan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 16378



View Profile
« Reply #86 on: February 11, 2009, 01:59:21 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on February 11, 2009, 07:07:22 AM

Quote from: Eduardo X on February 11, 2009, 04:39:23 AM

What a horrible demo. It's the same old horrible controls, but now with some obliviously racist characters and situations!

Oh no, not this argument again. How is this game racist? Just because it takes place in Africa and the bad guys are African?


meh,i dont find it Racist
Sheva...your Partner(a Good guy Gal) in the game is also African..and she shoots them as well


http://residentevil.wikia.com/wiki/Sheva_Alomar

« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 02:01:37 PM by metallicorphan » Logged

Manchester United Premier League Champions 2013!!

Xbox LIVE:Metallicorphan
Wii:8565 1513 0206 1960
PSN:Metallicorphan
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3271



View Profile
« Reply #87 on: February 11, 2009, 02:26:53 PM »

I think Bill Harris summed it up nicely awhile ago  His comments were about the trailer but I think the same stuff applies for the demo


Long quote -
Quote
So there are two questions to consider, really: first, what about the people making these comments, and second, is the trailer really racist?

I want to tread lightly here, because this is such a sensitive topic, so let me come up with a descriptive (but not offensive) term to refer to the people who made those comments:
ignorant dickheads.

I'd be more worried about those people, but they'll all starve to death soon, because they're too stupid to find food.

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's move on to the trailer. What was N'Gai referring to when when he mentioned "classic racist imagery?"

He was talking about The Brute.

The Brute caricature was created in the U.S. in the post-slavery era, and it portrayed every black man as a dangerous animal--dangerous because he was no longer controlled by slavery. I'm going to warn you, the following passage is very painful to read, but it's important, so I'm quoting it at length:
The brute caricature portrays Black men as innately savage, animalistic, destructive, and criminal -- deserving punishment, maybe death. This brute is a fiend, a sociopath, an anti-social menace. Black brutes are depicted as hideous, terrifying predators who target helpless victims, especially White women. Charles H. Smith, a writer at the end of the 1890s, claimed, "A bad negro is the most horrible creature upon the earth, the most brutal and merciless."1 Clifton R. Breckinridge, a contemporary of Smith's, said of the Black race, "when it produces a brute, he is the worst and most insatiate brute that exists in human form."2 George T. Winston, another "Negrophobic" writer, claimed:
"When a knock is heard at the door [a White woman] shudders with nameless horror. The black brute is lurking in the dark, a monstrous beast, crazed with lust. His ferocity is almost demoniacal. A mad bull or tiger could scarcely be more brutal. A whole community is frenzied with horror, with the blind and furious rage for vengeance."

During slavery the dominant caricatures of Blacks -- Mammy, Coon, Tom, and picaninny-- portrayed them as childlike, ignorant, docile, groveling, and, in general, harmless. These portrayals were pragmatic and instrumental. Proponents of slavery created and promoted Black images that justified slavery and soothed White consciences. If slaves were childlike, for example, then a paternalistic institution where masters acted as quasi-parents to their slaves was humane, even morally right. More importantly, slaves were rarely depicted as brutes because that portrayal might have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

During the Radical Reconstruction period (1867-1877), many White writers argued that without slavery -- which supposedly suppressed their animalistic tendencies -- Blacks were reverting to criminal savagery. The belief that the newly-emancipated Blacks were a "black peril" continued into the early 1900s. Writers like the novelist Thomas Nelson Page lamented that the slavery-era "good old darkies" had been replaced by the "new issue" (Blacks born after slavery) whom he described as "lazy, thriftless, intemperate, insolent, dishonest, and without the most rudimentary elements of morality." Page, who helped popularize the images of cheerful and devoted Mammies and Sambos in his early books, became one of the first writers to introduce a literary Black brute. In 1898 he published Red Rock, a Reconstruction novel, with the heinous figure of Moses, a loathsome and sinister Black politician. Moses tried to rape a White woman: "He gave a snarl of rage and sprang at her like a wild beast." He was later lynched for "a terrible crime."

The "terrible crime" most often mentioned in connection with the Black brute was rape, more specifically, the rape of a White woman. At the beginning of the twentieth century, much of the virulent, anti-Black propaganda that found its way into scientific journals, local newspapers, and best-selling novels focused on the stereotype of the Black rapist. The claim that Black brutes were, in epidemic numbers, raping White women became the public rationalization for the lynching of Blacks.

The lynching of Blacks was relatively common between Reconstruction and World War II. According to Tuskegee Institute data, between the years 1882 and 1951, 4,730 people were lynched in the United States: 3,437 Black and 1,293 White.7 Many of the White lynching victims were foreigners or belonged to oppressed groups, for example, Mormons, Shakers, and Catholics. By the early 1900s lynching had a decidedly racial character, that is, White mobs lynched Blacks. Almost 90 percent of all the lynchings of Blacks occurred in Southern or border states.

Many of these victims were ritualistically tortured. In 1904, Luther Holbert and his wife were burned to death. They were "tied to trees and while the funeral pyres were being prepared, they were forced to hold out their hands while one finger at a time was chopped off. The fingers were distributed as souvenirs. The ears...were cut off. Holbert was beaten severely, his skull fractured and one of his eyes, knocked out with a stick, hung by a shred from the socket." Members of the mob then speared the victims with a large corkscrew, "the spirals tearing out big pieces of...flesh every time it was withdrawn."

A mob lynching was a brutal and savage event, and it necessitated that the lynching victim be seen as equally brutal and savage; as these lynchings became more common and more brutal, so did the assassination of the Black character. In 1900, Charles Carroll's The Negro A Beast claimed that Blacks were more akin to apes than to human beings, and theorized that Blacks had been the "tempters of Eve." Carroll said that mulatto brutes were the rapists and murderers of his time. Dr. William Howard, writing in the respectable journal Medicine in 1903, claimed that "the attacks on defenseless White women are evidence of racial instincts" (in Blacks), and the Black birthright was "sexual madness and excess." Thomas Dixon's, The Leopard's Spots, a 1902 novel, claimed that emancipation had transformed Blacks from "a chattel to be bought and sold into a beast to be feared and guarded."

In 1905 Dixon published his most popular novel, The Clansman. In this book he described Blacks as "half child, half animal, the sport of impulse, whim, and conceit...a being who, left to his will, roams at night and sleeps in the day, whose speech knows no word of love, whose passions, once aroused, are as the fury of the tiger."13 The Clansman includes a detailed and gory account of the rape of a young White virgin by a Black brute. "A single tiger springs, and the black claws of the beast sank into the soft white throat." After the rape, the girl and her mother both commit suicide, and the Black brute is lynched by the Ku Klux Klan. This book served as the basis for the movie The Birth of a Nation (which also portrayed some Blacks as rapist-beasts), justified the lynching of Blacks, and gloried the Ku Klux Klan. Carroll, Howard, and Dixon did not exceed the prevailing racism of the so-called Progressive Era.

Beasts. Brutes. The black peril. Black devils.

That's what N'Gai was talking about when he spoke of "classic racist imagery"--the notion that black people represent a lurking evil that lives just below the surface.




Logged

kronovan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7930



View Profile
« Reply #88 on: February 11, 2009, 03:28:51 PM »

For anyone who thinks the setting and theme of this game is racist, I hope for your sake you didn't play Far Cry 2.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15621


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: February 11, 2009, 04:15:52 PM »

I think the difference between this and FC2 is that RE5 is a fantasy/horror scenario while FC2 is, essentially, real-world.  Further, I think FC2 deals with the political unrest directly, putting you in the middle of warring factions - you get the sense that you're not going to fix the problem, and you're just being hired to take care of some specific situations - for every side involved, I might add.  They're killing each other, you're just there.

Now I haven't played more of RE5 than the demo, so maybe all of this is addressed in the gameplay.  Given past RE games, I tend to doubt it, but who knows.  They may be growing up.   

On a personal level, I don't have a problem with someone trying something like this at all, but, yeah, if you're going to set a game in Africa, have Africans charging like they're rabid at the white protagonist and ask you to mow them down, then you should expect some complaints and contoversy.  Eye roll icons don't change that.

I'm still willing to give the benefit of the doubt, having not played the game yet.  I'm not actually condemning them.  I do think that people have a right to wonder if the game crosses a line, though.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6617


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #90 on: February 11, 2009, 04:23:17 PM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 11, 2009, 04:15:52 PM

I think the difference between this and FC2 is that RE5 is a fantasy/horror scenario while FC2 is, essentially, real-world.  Further, I think FC2 deals with the political unrest directly, putting you in the middle of warring factions - you get the sense that you're not going to fix the problem, and you're just being hired to take care of some specific situations - for every side involved, I might add.  They're killing each other, you're just there.

Now I haven't played more of RE5 than the demo, so maybe all of this is addressed in the gameplay.  Given past RE games, I tend to doubt it, but who knows.  They may be growing up.   

On a personal level, I don't have a problem with someone trying something like this at all, but, yeah, if you're going to set a game in Africa, have Africans charging like they're rabid at the white protagonist and ask you to mow them down, then you should expect some complaints and contoversy.  Eye roll icons don't change that.

I'm still willing to give the benefit of the doubt, having not played the game yet.  I'm not actually condemning them.  I do think that people have a right to wonder if the game crosses a line, though.

You do realize the people you fight are possessed by a parasite that controls their thoughts and behaviors, right? They essentially become "zombies".
Logged
kronovan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7930



View Profile
« Reply #91 on: February 11, 2009, 04:37:39 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on February 11, 2009, 04:23:17 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 11, 2009, 04:15:52 PM

I think the difference between this and FC2 is that RE5 is a fantasy/horror scenario while FC2 is, essentially, real-world.  Further, I think FC2 deals with the political unrest directly, putting you in the middle of warring factions - you get the sense that you're not going to fix the problem, and you're just being hired to take care of some specific situations - for every side involved, I might add.  They're killing each other, you're just there.

Now I haven't played more of RE5 than the demo, so maybe all of this is addressed in the gameplay.  Given past RE games, I tend to doubt it, but who knows.  They may be growing up.   

On a personal level, I don't have a problem with someone trying something like this at all, but, yeah, if you're going to set a game in Africa, have Africans charging like they're rabid at the white protagonist and ask you to mow them down, then you should expect some complaints and contoversy.  Eye roll icons don't change that.

I'm still willing to give the benefit of the doubt, having not played the game yet.  I'm not actually condemning them.  I do think that people have a right to wonder if the game crosses a line, though.

You do realize the people you fight are possessed by a parasite that controls their thoughts and behaviors, right? They essentially become "zombies".

More or less my point. I think the protagonists actions in RE5 can be more forgiven than those in Far Cry 2. In FC2 you're fighting exterminating people who could have consciously made another choice had circumstances shifted either way. Whereas in RE5 you're taking down an enemy that has less control over their actions than a severely brainwashed Hitler youth.
Logged
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: February 11, 2009, 04:42:46 PM »

Quote from: kronovan on February 11, 2009, 04:37:39 PM

More or less my point. I think the protagonists actions in RE5 can be more forgiven than those in Far Cry 2. In FC2 you're fighting exterminating people who could have consciously made another choice had circumstances shifted either way. Whereas in RE5 you're taking down an enemy that has less control over their actions than a severely brainwashed Hitler youth.

But Farcry 2 pretty much makes the point that the protagonists's actions should not be forgiven. You aren't playing a good guy.   You're a bad guy fighting other bad people. 
Logged
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15621


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: February 11, 2009, 04:51:44 PM »

Quote from: kronovan on February 11, 2009, 04:37:39 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 11, 2009, 04:23:17 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 11, 2009, 04:15:52 PM

I think the difference between this and FC2 is that RE5 is a fantasy/horror scenario while FC2 is, essentially, real-world.  Further, I think FC2 deals with the political unrest directly, putting you in the middle of warring factions - you get the sense that you're not going to fix the problem, and you're just being hired to take care of some specific situations - for every side involved, I might add.  They're killing each other, you're just there.

Now I haven't played more of RE5 than the demo, so maybe all of this is addressed in the gameplay.  Given past RE games, I tend to doubt it, but who knows.  They may be growing up.   

On a personal level, I don't have a problem with someone trying something like this at all, but, yeah, if you're going to set a game in Africa, have Africans charging like they're rabid at the white protagonist and ask you to mow them down, then you should expect some complaints and contoversy.  Eye roll icons don't change that.

I'm still willing to give the benefit of the doubt, having not played the game yet.  I'm not actually condemning them.  I do think that people have a right to wonder if the game crosses a line, though.

You do realize the people you fight are possessed by a parasite that controls their thoughts and behaviors, right? They essentially become "zombies".

More or less my point. I think the protagonists actions in RE5 can be more forgiven than those in Far Cry 2. In FC2 you're fighting exterminating people who could have consciously made another choice had circumstances shifted either way. Whereas in RE5 you're taking down an enemy that has less control over their actions than a severely brainwashed Hitler youth.

I get that, but the setting is still the setting.  You can't choose it and then be surprised when people complain, is my point.

Further, the pulp genres (sci-fi, fantasy, horror) frequently are used to dramatacise or satire problems in society.  Recently, there has been a shift to using those genres purely for entertainment, with no weight added to them, but that potential is still there, kind of imbued in the genre.  If you're going to choose a hotbed location, people's minds are going to start drawing parallels.

Again, I'm just pointing out that there is no need to be dismissive of folks feeling edgy around this stuff.  Hopefully, the game will come out, and it will all be handled properly.  But you can't just say, "Look, they're zombies.  This could have happened anywhere..."  The designers chose where to set this and what the zombies would look like.

Honestly, the fact that the real humans in FC2 made a bad choice makes them fairer game, in my gaming opinion (not necessarily the same as my real-world opinion).  Zombies are a sad lot, in the sense that they had their fate thrust on them.  Don't get me wrong, I'd still slap a bullet in one's eye rather than let one eat my brain.  I'm just pointing out the landmines of the genre.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3271



View Profile
« Reply #94 on: February 11, 2009, 05:20:50 PM »

Lets be honest.  The real real reason there is a stink over RE5 and not FC2 is that RE5 is a much bigger franchise.  It gets a lot more attention, a lot.


Logged

Glycerine
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 638


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: February 11, 2009, 05:31:57 PM »

I played the demo last week for a few minutes and wasn't that impressed, but I do plan on spending more time with it before release.  One thing that really turns me off is having a partner through the entire game.  I hated those segments of RE4, but then again Ashley didn't fight back.  I'll reserve judgment until I at least finish the demo, but so far it's fallen from a "must have" to a "must rent".
Logged

Eduardo X
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2681



View Profile
« Reply #96 on: February 12, 2009, 06:19:08 PM »

I let this drop off my radar.

Imagine there is a game where you play somebody going to Israel, and then all the Jews become crazy and you have to mow them down. Maybe your character is German, even. And the Jews are all part of some huge conspiracy to take over the world.
Crazy or not, would it still be ok for a game to portray you as a German slaughtering Jews?

I use this comparison because both Jews and Africans have been the targets of whole-scale slaughter.

And the reason I don't think FarCry 2 is as problematic is that it understands the history of colonialism and genocide, and the game is about a character ADDING to that chaos and how even though you are making these decisions, you are supposed to feel uncomfortable with your actions. Adding a parasite that controls the minds of black people doesn't make them less black, it just lets you feel better about mowing them down.

I was pretty uncomfortable with Uncharted's seemingly exclusively brown and black enemy roster, too. It was the main reason I stopped playing.
Logged

PSN ID: EduardoX
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12521


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: February 12, 2009, 06:34:08 PM »

Count me among those that think the RE control scheme kills any interest I may have had in RE5.  Of course, I don't have much interest in survival horror to begin with so the fact that the game controls like shit only serves to make an already uninteresting game worse.  Turned off the demo after about 10 minutes last night.
Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4693


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #98 on: February 12, 2009, 06:41:39 PM »

So should all games set in locales with a primarily black population be verboten, because they might be construed as racist?

Quote
I'm still willing to give the benefit of the doubt, having not played the game yet.  I'm not actually condemning them.  I do think that people have a right to wonder if the game crosses a line, though.

Agreed.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 06:48:45 PM by Laner » Logged
Eduardo X
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2681



View Profile
« Reply #99 on: February 12, 2009, 08:45:43 PM »

Quote from: Laner on February 12, 2009, 06:41:39 PM

So should all games set in locales with a primarily black population be verboten, because they might be construed as racist?
Nobody has made mention of forbidding anything. RE5 will come out and will be successful, and in my eyes, will still be racist.
Logged

PSN ID: EduardoX
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6617


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #100 on: February 12, 2009, 09:50:33 PM »

Quote from: Eduardo X on February 12, 2009, 06:19:08 PM

I let this drop off my radar.

Imagine there is a game where you play somebody going to Israel, and then all the Jews become crazy and you have to mow them down. Maybe your character is German, even. And the Jews are all part of some huge conspiracy to take over the world.
Crazy or not, would it still be ok for a game to portray you as a German slaughtering Jews?

I use this comparison because both Jews and Africans have been the targets of whole-scale slaughter.

And the reason I don't think FarCry 2 is as problematic is that it understands the history of colonialism and genocide, and the game is about a character ADDING to that chaos and how even though you are making these decisions, you are supposed to feel uncomfortable with your actions. Adding a parasite that controls the minds of black people doesn't make them less black, it just lets you feel better about mowing them down.

I was pretty uncomfortable with Uncharted's seemingly exclusively brown and black enemy roster, too. It was the main reason I stopped playing.

This isn't a game about germans slaughtering jews by the hundreds. That would be tasteless because it would most likely be an overt attempt at being provocative. RE5 isn't. The reason they put the game's events in Africa is because they wanted the end to the story to begin at the very beginning (of humanity). It's a touch of irony that was the main argument they used when they decided where the game was going to take place. Go ahead, check the first announcement videos. The devs proudly talk about how they reached that decision.

By your definition, any zombie game that occurs in a non-white population is instantly racist. If the next Resident Evil features a large section where you have to fight your way through, say, Chinatown in a major US city, that would be racist according to you. If it takes place in, say, Vietnam, it would also be racist. Do you realize what someone who's so extremely anti-racist that they treat every non-white race with silk gloves is? A racist. From dictionary.com: "Racism: Discrimination or prejudice based on race." (among other definitions).

Ed, I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just trying to show you that you've taken the anti-racism to an extreme. The 5+ other Resident Evil games all took place among a white population. Why isn't that racist? RE4 grossly misrepresented Spanish people, yet nobody cried foul (neither do you, from what I can see). What makes the Spanish so special that they don't deserve your silk gloves? Is it that they're white, perhaps?

RE5 isn't racist. You may think it is, but it isn't.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 09:52:08 PM by TiLT » Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4693


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #101 on: February 12, 2009, 11:43:07 PM »

Quote from: Eduardo X on February 12, 2009, 08:45:43 PM

Quote from: Laner on February 12, 2009, 06:41:39 PM

So should all games set in locales with a primarily black population be verboten, because they might be construed as racist?
Nobody has made mention of forbidding anything. RE5 will come out and will be successful, and in my eyes, will still be racist.
Fair enough.  But it begs the question - from what you've seen of the game, what would Capcom have to do to make it *not* racist, in your eyes?  Other than changing the skin color of everyone?

Honest question - I'm just wondering what they could have done to avoid the "racism" tag, other than to avoid making the cannon fodder non-caucasian .
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 11:50:14 PM by Laner » Logged
PeteRock
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6798


Fabulous is a state of being. For me, anyways.


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: February 12, 2009, 11:57:01 PM »

Quote from: Eduardo X on February 12, 2009, 06:19:08 PM

I let this drop off my radar.

Imagine there is a game where you play somebody going to Israel, and then all the Jews become crazy and you have to mow them down. Maybe your character is German, even. And the Jews are all part of some huge conspiracy to take over the world.
Crazy or not, would it still be ok for a game to portray you as a German slaughtering Jews?

I use this comparison because both Jews and Africans have been the targets of whole-scale slaughter.

And the reason I don't think FarCry 2 is as problematic is that it understands the history of colonialism and genocide, and the game is about a character ADDING to that chaos and how even though you are making these decisions, you are supposed to feel uncomfortable with your actions. Adding a parasite that controls the minds of black people doesn't make them less black, it just lets you feel better about mowing them down.

I was pretty uncomfortable with Uncharted's seemingly exclusively brown and black enemy roster, too. It was the main reason I stopped playing.

You see racism because you choose to, which only continues to undermine an effort to move away from a racist perspective.  Is the film Black Hawk Down inherently racist because white Americans are defending themselves against wave after wave of black antagonists?  Or because the film is based on a historical event we can look beyond color?  Was RE4 inherently racist because the point of the game was to slaughter zombie Spaniards?  Aren't most zombie-themed games inherently racist against the white population as a majority of zombies are of caucasian origins? 

Claiming racism against a game like RE5 only continues to undermine the anti-racism movement.  Why should it be considered racist to have black zombies?  Isn't it racist to claim that allowing black zombies in a game is, well, racist?  That seems a bit ridiculous.
Logged

Beauty is only skin deep.  Which is why I take very good care of my skin.
Eduardo X
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2681



View Profile
« Reply #103 on: February 13, 2009, 01:18:38 AM »

RE4 was pretty messed up. It made the zombies into foreigners, albeit foreigners who don't have a history of being murdered for being Spanish.

The developers may have said "we're setting this in Africa where life began," but then forgot the 500+ years of history where white people(and others) have traipsed around the continent, murdering and pillaging with the excuse of "they're not even human, so it is ok." To ignore that history is ignorant and inexcusable.

And PeteRock, the ludicrous argument that I choose to see racism is not really based in reality. How could we look beyond color in the movie Black Hawk Down? The race factor of the entire war is based on, again, racism and colonialism. Why do you think Somalia was conquered by European nations? Did it have to do with the respect of the inhabitants that Europeans held?

And it is equally rediculous to claim that pointing out racism when it rears its head "continues to undermine the anti-racism movement." No, letting people who unfairly benefit from racism define what is allowed to be called racist undermines the movement.

Having white zombies isn't racist because there isn't an unfinished history of exploitation and mass-murder of white people due to their race. Can you say the same for black people?
Logged

PSN ID: EduardoX
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15621


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: February 13, 2009, 02:44:30 AM »

I don't think the people who made the game are being racist, really, but I do think they were foolish to not see that setting their game in the middle of an area that is racially turbulent at best might raise a few eyebrows.

On an unrelated note, the "Anybody who calls somebody racist is racist and hurting anti-racism" argument is not only circular, but also ridiculous.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
PeteRock
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6798


Fabulous is a state of being. For me, anyways.


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: February 13, 2009, 03:51:13 AM »

Quote from: Eduardo X on February 13, 2009, 01:18:38 AM

The developers may have said "we're setting this in Africa where life began," but then forgot the 500+ years of history where white people(and others) have traipsed around the continent, murdering and pillaging with the excuse of "they're not even human, so it is ok." To ignore that history is ignorant and inexcusable.

Inexcusable?  Perhaps ill-advised, or questionable.  But not so unforgivable as you might suggest.

Quote
And PeteRock, the ludicrous argument that I choose to see racism is not really based in reality. How could we look beyond color in the movie Black Hawk Down? The race factor of the entire war is based on, again, racism and colonialism. Why do you think Somalia was conquered by European nations? Did it have to do with the respect of the inhabitants that Europeans held?

Racism is often due to perception and point of view.  And perception of racism is often driven by background, experience, and personal point of view.  Racism in the case of RE5 is extremely subjective. 

Quote
And it is equally rediculous to claim that pointing out racism when it rears its head "continues to undermine the anti-racism movement." No, letting people who unfairly benefit from racism define what is allowed to be called racist undermines the movement.

Doesn't inherent racism involve intent?  If Capcom did not set out to develop a racist game, and the storyline in RE5 is not racially driven but part of Capcom's storytelling and vision, how can Capcom be unfairly benefiting from racism when their design and intent was not in a racist capacity?

Quote
Having white zombies isn't racist because there isn't an unfinished history of exploitation and mass-murder of white people due to their race. Can you say the same for black people?

So, where was your disgust at the release of Saint's Row (or is at acceptable for blacks to kill blacks?) or either of the Gears of War titles (the character of Cole is as stereotypical as it gets).  Your perception of racism is a product of your point of view.  If one sees racism, and another does not, who is right?  Neither?  Both, as the view is rather subjective? 

Many things can be viewed as racist.  What if RE5 featured a black man butchering armies of the white undead?  Wouldn't that also be racist, despite the white community's lack of history of personal strife against the black community?

What about the use of the "N" word?  When the black community uses it, apparently that is considered acceptable behavior, however if the white community uses it, then we quickly run into a problem.  Does that have to do with intent?  Tone?  Point of view? 

At least with RE5 set in Africa, as a majority of the African community is black, it only makes sense for a majority of the game's characters to also be black.  And while you slaughter armies of the black undead, there are still apparently dark-skinned characters who aid the lead protagonist's struggle.

You see the game as racist.  Does that mean it is racist?  I don't think so.
Logged

Beauty is only skin deep.  Which is why I take very good care of my skin.
PeteRock
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6798


Fabulous is a state of being. For me, anyways.


View Profile
« Reply #106 on: February 13, 2009, 03:56:01 AM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 13, 2009, 02:44:30 AM

I don't think the people who made the game are being racist, really, but I do think they were foolish to not see that setting their game in the middle of an area that is racially turbulent at best might raise a few eyebrows.

On an unrelated note, the "Anybody who calls somebody racist is racist and hurting anti-racism" argument is not only circular, but also ridiculous.

Does calling anything racist that features black characters in a negative light do anything productive?  Is a black man eating fried chicken inherently racist?  What if he likes fried chicken?  Intent goes a long way, and to simply claim "RACIST!" at the drop of a hat is rarely constructive.

RE5 can be viewed as racist, but is it?  I don't think so, especially when the developers are located in a region that has little first-hand history with the opression of the black community. 
Logged

Beauty is only skin deep.  Which is why I take very good care of my skin.
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15621


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #107 on: February 13, 2009, 04:13:04 AM »

Quote from: PeteRock on February 13, 2009, 03:56:01 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 13, 2009, 02:44:30 AM

I don't think the people who made the game are being racist, really, but I do think they were foolish to not see that setting their game in the middle of an area that is racially turbulent at best might raise a few eyebrows.

On an unrelated note, the "Anybody who calls somebody racist is racist and hurting anti-racism" argument is not only circular, but also ridiculous.

Does calling anything racist that features black characters in a negative light do anything productive?  Is a black man eating fried chicken inherently racist?  What if he likes fried chicken?  Intent goes a long way, and to simply claim "RACIST!" at the drop of a hat is rarely constructive.

RE5 can be viewed as racist, but is it?  I don't think so, especially when the developers are located in a region that has little first-hand history with the opression of the black community. 

I think we're into semantics here.  The designers may not be racist.  A game can't really be racist, as it's not a living being.  But that game can be racially insensitive.  Ignorance doesn't change that because you are making a game for a worldwide audience who will (or should) be aware of the problems in the setting you've chosen.  Yes, it makes sense that the infected characters would be black, because that's the location, but it also makes sense that the characters have a lot of perceived baggage going along with them, as that's also part of the location.

I think Eduardo X's Nazi analogy was a little overblown, but there is a similarity there.  Not so much if the lead character were a German, but if the infected were all the Jews in the slums or camps, sure.  It would even make sense, since the Nazis were experimenting like crazy at the time.  I'm sure Umbrella could have come out of that.  However, I wouldn't want to play a game where I had to infiltrate the slums and kill a bunch of Jewish zombies to get at the bad guys.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
Sparhawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1834



View Profile
« Reply #108 on: February 13, 2009, 04:27:51 AM »

GUYZ I HEARZ BLACK PEOPLE LIVE IN AFRICA AND IF A VIRUS FUCKS SHIT UP THERE BLACK PEOPLE ARE INFECTED BECAUSE THE VIRUS IS RACIST! OMG IF YOU PLAY RE5 YOU'RE IN THE KKK!

 eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

I'm sorry but come on...

i think some folks are being overly sensitive. So Capcom = Nazi? Shit, better cancel my SFIV pre-order since I don't like having fun beating up on fictional life forms that are asian, american, and whatever because when I play games I'm paying attention to the race of the character. The darker the skin the harder I press buttons.
 If they're a dark elf I use a nail gun to press buttons with.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2009, 04:31:04 AM by Sparhawk » Logged

PSN: Kal_Torok
Xbox Live: Sparhawk GT
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6617


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #109 on: February 13, 2009, 07:13:22 AM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 13, 2009, 02:44:30 AM

On an unrelated note, the "Anybody who calls somebody racist is racist and hurting anti-racism" argument is not only circular, but also ridiculous.

Indeed. It's a good thing nobody here is saying that, then. We're not saying that calling someone racist is racism, but instead we are saying that treating a particular race differently from another race (in this case Ed thinks it's right for white people to be zombified, but wrong for black people), even if done under the guise of anti-racism, can be considered racist if taken too far.
Logged
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15621


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: February 13, 2009, 01:24:17 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on February 13, 2009, 07:13:22 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 13, 2009, 02:44:30 AM

On an unrelated note, the "Anybody who calls somebody racist is racist and hurting anti-racism" argument is not only circular, but also ridiculous.

Indeed. It's a good thing nobody here is saying that, then. We're not saying that calling someone racist is racism, but instead we are saying that treating a particular race differently from another race (in this case Ed thinks it's right for white people to be zombified, but wrong for black people), even if done under the guise of anti-racism, can be considered racist if taken too far.

 
Quote
PETEROCK: Claiming racism against a game like RE5 only continues to undermine the anti-racism movement...Isn't it racist to claim that allowing black zombies in a game is, well, racist? 

On the other hand, I don't think anyone said Capcom = Nazi. 

There's a lot of shouting but little listening going on here.  Both sides.  I know, I know.  Welcome to the internet.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2009, 01:26:11 PM by Bullwinkle » Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
Eduardo X
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2681



View Profile
« Reply #111 on: February 13, 2009, 01:29:58 PM »

Tilt, turning Africans into zombies is more about the history of racism than it is about their skin color. There are few places where a white protagonist killing black people would not seem racist because there are few places in the world where white people killing black people is not part of the history.
I keep using other situation to try to clarify the issue, so here are a few more:

  • White people killing Native Americans who have turned out to be savages.
  • White people killing aborigines in Australia who turn out to be savages.
  • Japanese people killing Chinese or Korean people who turn out to be savages.

You just can't separate these situations from history.


Quote
So, where was your disgust at the release of Saint's Row (or is at acceptable for blacks to kill blacks?) or either of the Gears of War titles (the character of Cole is as stereotypical as it gets).  
I hated GoW, and Cole was one of the reasons. I also couldn't stomach Saint's Row, and had a hard time with San Andreas for the same reason. I even hate how GRAW is all about killing Mexicans, though the storyline in those two games is a bit more plausible. But that's not what I'm arguing about here.
Logged

PSN ID: EduardoX
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6617


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #112 on: February 13, 2009, 01:52:53 PM »

Quote from: Eduardo X on February 13, 2009, 01:29:58 PM

  • White people killing Native Americans who have turned out to be savages.
  • White people killing aborigines in Australia who turn out to be savages.
  • Japanese people killing Chinese or Korean people who turn out to be savages.

You just can't separate these situations from history.

Yes you can. You just don't want to, because shouting "racism!" makes you feel good. I don't see a problem with any of the above, because you aren't killing any of those races because of their race. You're killing them because they've become something else.

Let's compare this to something that hasn't got anything to do with racism: Many cities and towns in the northern end of Norway were burned to the ground by the Germans in WW2 in order to deny their enemies use of these towns. Now imagine Resident Evil taking place in that region, where events lead to a town being burned to the ground to stop the zombie plague there. It's easy to draw a historical parallel to WW2, but why should you? These two events have nothing to do with each other. John F. Kennedy was assassinated during his presidency. Does that mean it's tasteless for 24 on TV to show a fictional president being assassinated? Scandinavian vikings were brutal people, killing and spreading fear across the British isles. Does that mean it's tasteless to present a viking as a hero in a game?

You're chasing ghosts, Ed. The racism you see in RE5 is only in your head. With pretty much every major fictional event in games happening in the US, it's a breath of fresh air to see the Resident Evil series explore different locales. I'm glad your way of viewing racial relationships isn't the de-facto standard, or we'd see nothing but whites killing whites in video games (as if we don't have enough of that already).
Logged
PeteRock
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6798


Fabulous is a state of being. For me, anyways.


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: February 13, 2009, 03:30:33 PM »

Quote from: Eduardo X on February 13, 2009, 01:29:58 PM

Tilt, turning Africans into zombies is more about the history of racism than it is about their skin color. There are few places where a white protagonist killing black people would not seem racist because there are few places in the world where white people killing black people is not part of the history.

The game features a black protagonist as well, and word is that she is more skilled than the Redfield character.

When evaluating the setting of the game, it references real-life issues and problems known to exist in African villiages, such as illegal drug testing by pharmaceutical manufacturers and problems with poverty and disease.  These topics aren't racist, they're real.  Unfortunate?  Absolutely.  But very real.  Is the issue with Chris Redfield being the white protagonist?  Because he is accompanied by a black protagonist with her own storyline and I don't believe she's portrayed with any specific racial stereotypes.

Quote
I keep using other situation to try to clarify the issue, so here are a few more:

  • White people killing Native Americans who have turned out to be savages.
  • White people killing aborigines in Australia who turn out to be savages.
  • Japanese people killing Chinese or Korean people who turn out to be savages.

You just can't separate these situations from history.

You can't separate them from history, but you can work to move on from them.  Dwelling in the past of black oppression will do nothing to progress forward.  Not to mention that you oversimplify the scenario.  While on the surface one could say that a white person is killing Africans who have turned out to be savages, but what about a black teammate doing the same, or black uninfected Africans coming to your aid?  It isn't, pardon the cliche, black and white.  You have black protagonists, a white character, real issues of poverty, disease, illegal drug testing, all set in a realistic world with real problems and poignant issues.  The game involves much more than a rudimentary "whites killing blacks" game mechanic.


Quote
Quote
So, where was your disgust at the release of Saint's Row (or is at acceptable for blacks to kill blacks?) or either of the Gears of War titles (the character of Cole is as stereotypical as it gets).  
I hated GoW, and Cole was one of the reasons. I also couldn't stomach Saint's Row, and had a hard time with San Andreas for the same reason. I even hate how GRAW is all about killing Mexicans, though the storyline in those two games is a bit more plausible. But that's not what I'm arguing about here.

It just seems that you're screaming "racism" while knowing fairly little about the game and the actual history being addressed.  The game isn't about white oppressing blacks, it's about real issues beyond basic racial stereotypes.

And I have little reason to defend the game at all, as odds are I won't play it due to the frustrating control scheme, but it seems a bit much to condemn this game and its developers as being "racist" when I think that is only possible when oversimplifying things.  But when weighing the big picture I don't believe the game is as racist as you might suggest.
Logged

Beauty is only skin deep.  Which is why I take very good care of my skin.
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9423



View Profile WWW
« Reply #114 on: February 16, 2009, 02:04:40 AM »

Eh, I think Sheva could have had darker skin and still have been very attractive.  Also, it's clear to me that while the developers aren't outright racists, it's clear they are ignorant of the implications of the setting.  By the same logic as people are arguing on game forums, you could say they're racist against Spanish people since you mercilessly slaughtered entire towns full of Spaniards in RE4.  But then again, like the zombies in RE5, the zombies in RE4 were just that, zombies.  It's horrific what happened to them, especially since it wasn't by choice, but they're zombies now and someone has to deal with them.  That's the extent of my thoughts on racism on the game.

However, back to the game itself.

I just played co-op through the demo with a friend, split screen, and thoroughly enjoyed it even though we both found it very difficult.  It seems like the boss zombies like Mr. Sledgehammer and Mr. Chainsaw are pretty fast, and there's no consistent way to stun them besides blowing up a barrel on them or similar.  I wonder though, I noticed that shots from behind a target seem to hurt and stun normal zombies more, so perhaps the same is true with the bosses?

Also, I think some of the difficulty is the fact that these two missions in the game aren't the starting missions, as such in the game you're likely to have 1-2 gun upgrades by the time you reach that point, which should make it easier to kill the normal zombies, and easier to stun the bosses.

That said, in co-op we didn't manage to kill either boss.  The first level we simply ran around avoiding Mr. Sledgehammer until the helicopter arrived.  Before we were holding out in the room and died 2 times, the third time we ran through the hole in the wall and just kept running, covering each other as we went.

We still haven't managed to get past Mr. Chainsaw yet, that guy is fast and kills in one hit.  The farthest we got was hitting him with every explosive barrel available and shooting him a bunch, which did nothing.

Another part of the problem is we can't tell how weak the bosses are at any moment.  Not to mention the above problem of not knowing how to stun the enemy and thus be able to use the knockback melee attacks.

I also didn't find the controls that bad, they are an issue, but it's as much as issue of learning them.  I used the "shooter" style controls where left stick controlled movement and right stick controlled rotation.  I do wish I could aim like the third person shooter, but I'm okay with the classic laser sight mode.

I'm definitely getting the game and playing co-op with friends.  I also kind of hope they give an option to make the difficulty higher or lower on a per-player basis, kind of like Gears 2.  I would love have a friend who doesn't normally play these games join in, setting him on easy so that AI ignore him more often, his bullets do more damage and he takes less damage, and he has a bit of auto-aim or just aim assist on.
Logged
godhugh
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1064


View Profile
« Reply #115 on: February 16, 2009, 03:36:14 AM »

Shoot Mr. Chainsaw in his wide open eye and you'll stun him every time. Then, run up real quick and uppercut him. Do that 5-6 times and he'll go down. Once I figured that out, he became quite a bit easier.
Logged
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6617


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #116 on: February 16, 2009, 05:14:10 AM »

Resident Evil bosses always have their eyes as their weak points. smile

I've heard that the large attack by the townsfolk IS the first level in the game though, so don't expect to be lulled into the action. Even RE4 did this, to some extent.
Logged
Eduardo X
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2681



View Profile
« Reply #117 on: February 16, 2009, 05:44:47 AM »

I don't understand why they don't let you move and shoot. It is obviously a decision, as RE4 was the same way, but I just don't get it.
Logged

PSN ID: EduardoX
Teggy
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8700


Eat lightsaber, jerks!


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: February 16, 2009, 06:00:00 AM »

Quote from: Eduardo X on February 16, 2009, 05:44:47 AM

I don't understand why they don't let you move and shoot. It is obviously a decision, as RE4 was the same way, but I just don't get it.

I'm not saying I like not being able to run and shoot, but I can think of a good reason for it - realism. You've always played well-trained S.T.A.R.S. agents. If you've ever played a Rainbow Six game, you know that moving while shooting means you have a much lower chance of hitting the target. You might slowly move forward while shooting, but you never circle strafe, and you certainly don't jump and shoot.

OK, yes, you are fighting zombies and crazy monsters. But maybe what they are going for is a realistic...um...zombie shooter?
Logged

"Is there any chance your jolly Garchomp is female?" - Wonderpug
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9423



View Profile WWW
« Reply #119 on: February 16, 2009, 07:56:40 AM »

Nah, it's not a decision made just to try and make it more realistic.  Rather, it's a design decision to use realism as a game mechanic.  That's the way you have to see it to understand it.  They're not trying to be realistic in any way with this game, it's just that they're willing to use some realistic things to achieve their goals.  Also note that they also balance the AI to this, as the zombies are still slow and dumb, but capable of small bursts of speed or intelligence.  If they included moving and shooting, even if it was wildly inaccurate, because the combat happens up close where accuracy doesn't matter as much you'd still be hitting a lot.  They would then have to make the AI much more difficult with them attacking much, much more often and not letting up on the player.

Thanks for the tip about the eye.  We were playing split screen so things can get pretty small, not to mention it's hard to concentrate when a madman with a chainsaw that kills you in one hit it running towards you.  Also I can confirm that attacks to the back of normal zombies stuns them a lot more, however I still don't know if that's true for bosses.

RE4 may have had a town attack early on, but those were all just normal zombies.  With 5, they threw in Mr. Hammer.  In some ways though, that inclusion was a bit better as it forces you to move around instead of barricading yourself in that first room.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2009, 08:58:53 AM by Turtle » Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.307 seconds with 104 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.086s, 2q)