Since the Resident Evil 5 demo was released, fans have been split down the middle regarding the game's controls. Some think they're outdated and clunky, while others think there is nothing wrong with them. But is it fair to blame the game's controls? Ludwig Kietzmann from Joystiq.com takes a look...

If the frequency and causticity of online discussion is anything to go by, Resident Evil 5's Controls Guy (technical term) has surely become the target of office vandalism, or at least a wall full of passive aggressive post-it notes. In case you hadn't heard: Implausibly beefy protagonist Chris Redfield can't move and shoot at the same time. Nice going, incompetent Controls Guy!

To my mind, this infamous inability to move and shoot simultaneously is a miring of deliberate design, not "bad controls." Poor, inaccurate controls impose an impediment to gameplay, preventing players from performing whatever actions the game has allowed -- and in this case, shooting and moving is not permitted by gameplay. The controls also don't let you roll, fly or slap Sheva upside the head every time she gets a chainsaw massage, but I don't see Controls Guy getting blamed for those shortcomings either.

I'm not saying the blame is unwarranted so much as it is misplaced. It's odd how many come from the background of having loved Resident Evil 4, but stride into the sequel with difficulty, or worse, with fond memories of how Capcom's reinvention ditched those clumsy tank controls -- it didn't. If anything, Resident Evil 5 brings in the big change with its fancy right-stick camera and strife-free strafing, while maintaining RE4's real innovation, the over-the-shoulder camera. I've seen comparisons drawn to two other prominent games, Dead Space and Gears of War, as a means to highlight Resident Evil's seeming antiquity and stubbornness, but to me, those games only reinforce Capcom's intentions.

Miss Razz via joystiq.com »