I was never much of a fan of RE puzzles.

video game stories in general are mostly so generic that I usually skip them entirely(if the game allows me to), and RE5 is no exception.

they really didn't expand pretty much anything from RE4, save making it easier(partner with gun, instead of being helpless). I didn't play the co-op but I doubt it's anything revelatory.

RE4 was massive fun in my opinion, but RE5 sucked. This was largely due to the mandatory co-op. Horror games are supposed to be single player experiences, forcing me to play with sub-par AI really sucked. Which brings me to the second big detractor... RE5 really wasn't "horror" at all. It was an action shooter. Nothing scary about it, and you never felt underwhelmed or desperate EVEN on Professional difficulty where any single piece of damage instantly kills you. (Which I did complete)

Still can't make it past the first level in that damn game.

RE4 was fun, but a little overrated I think. A lot of the suspense in the game comes from crappy controls, f.ex being unable to sidestep even though that would make total sense. In the PC version, aiming your gun was also horrible which perhaps added some suspense. It works in a sense, but it's an incredibly crude way of doing it.

The shooting was so fun in re4. You'd pop 'em in the kneecap and they'd fall over realistically and then you run up and roundhouse kick em in the face!! All while they're screaming some crazy demon spanish

I do enjoy the physics part of leg shooting, but in RE5, it seems like it takes the same amount of leg shots to kill a zombie as it does head shots, which is kind of a deal breaker... especially due to the fact that you can kill one by shooting it in the leg enough. I understand that there's a parasite in these zombies, but I'd like to think that aiming for a specific body part does more than create a visual effect. There isn't any noticeable difference in slowing factor. And it doesn't mean much anyway when you're at distances and in piles large enough that make a gun useless, which undermines the whole point of tactical targeting.
To me, the machete should be the most powerful weapon, because it's used in close quarters, and you should be able to chop heads off if aimed correctly. It's not like that'd be a game breaker, what with all the zombies that wield flaming crossbows and Molotov Coctails...

I think RE4 and RE5 were both pretty fun, although, they'd be better if they weren't called Resident Evil and were just an entirely new IP. I want another old school RE.

Your actually wrong, headshots are more effective then the rest of the body. Maybe you didn't upgrade the guns enough, or a mistake a lot of people make is sticking withe default pistol instead of selling it for the red9 or something.

Resident Evil 4 has a lot of flaws, but it's over the shoulder view was awesome and had some great aiming for a third person shooter at the time

http://www.geekshow.us/wp/wp-content...ox_art_360.jpg

Just bought this. Thumbs up so far.

I said "it seems like".
But yea, I did upgrade as much as possible. I'm only about halfway through the game, but even without upgrades, it seems like there should be some effectiveness to a gun straight to the head even early on in the game. I'd rather the difficulty increase be related to the things I'm fighting, rather than a weapon increasing in "power". But the best weapon so far (incidentally the one I used to kill the chainsaw guy hilariously easily) is the rifle. Good damage on that one right out of the box. It's just too impractical for casual usage, what with the scope, capacity, and speed of use. Headshots are headshots with the rifle. It just irks me when a bullet from a rifle can down a zombie while a bullet from a machine gun or pistol can't.
I'm not a realism junky, but things really could have been thought out differently.