I have just received RE5 through the post, I didn't play the demo as I have played the previous games in the series. I don't have any sort of problem with the lack of 'run n gun' gameplay.

The issue that I have with the controls is the fact that if you use the dual stick control, left stick for straff and right for truning, as soon as you hold the trigger to lift your weapon the turn and look stick changes from the right to the left. This is not even archaic, it is just plain wrong. It might just be my brain, but having a control scheme where one minute the left stick is forward, back, straff left and right, then the next minute you have to think about that stick beig look up and down and turn left and right it totally distances you from the in game experience.

As far as I'm concerned the controls should be as transparent as possible.

Sorry for the rant, just stopped playing RE5 and really annoyed.

Cheers for listening.

If you want to get your girl into another co-op game, the Gears of War games are great split-screen, as is Halo 3. Left 4 Dead can also be played locally, but that might be a bit much.

The big problem I'm having with the game is the lack of any sort of dodge. You can't dive out of the way, or jump, or duck, or anything. You have to do a quick 180* turn and run away, then do another quick turn and fire, then another quick turn and run some more, etc. etc. It's clumsy, archaic, and down right doesn't make sense. If a dude came straight at me with a chainsaw in real life, I would not just turn around and run in the direction he's already moving.

Anyway, RE5 has many other issues that are preventing it from the greatness it has the potential to be, that the control issue is merely just another item on the list.

I notice your twitter status isn't exactly positive regarding the split-screen. My question is this: Is it THAT bad that it makes the game unbearable? I ask this because the girlfriend has only just started to get into gaming, and this game would mark the first non-Lego game we've played. She'll only play 2 player games, so I was hoping that this one would be great.

Your thoughts?

She loved LittleBig Planet, and the Lego's, so this is really the first step into serious gaming and I don't want to ruin it right off the hop.

The controls of a game are the link between a player and the game and represent the tactile feeling a player will have with the game as they play it and RE5 made me want to put the controller down where better games tend to make me want to do anything but.

The graphics are well done, but I don't think I can deal with how clunky the controls are… You are right about Capcom, they really have some oddities in their games lately. That Dead Rising save system was by far the worst I've seen in a game. I felt like I was back to playing NES games, you die and you start all over, lovely

Yes, the pacing of the game is much slower than run-and-gun shooters.

No, this doesn't mean that RE5 will be inferior to any other shooter.

No, this doesn't mean that RE5 needs any "action control" run-and-gun control schemes.

The guys at Capcom haven't just "taken a step in the right direction." They got it exactly right with Resident Evil 4. The over-the-shoulder stop-and-shoot scheme (really, there are too many hyphenated phrases in this comment) works like a charm– it feels like what a zombie invasion should: intense.

If RE were a run-and-gun game, being surrounded in zombies wouldn't be nearly as tense as is. You don't just run through, blindly shooting at foreheads. You have to pace yourself, strategize, and plan ahead.

That's where the criticism stems. The mass population of shooter fans weren't prepared for this new kind of gameplay. They're impatient. When they complain that the character is too slow, or how they hate that they can't move and shoot, it's because they don't know how to combine strategy with their shooters.

If Capcom were to make an "action control" scheme, they'd be downsizing their own achievement. Instead of having a unique and interesting way to fight through a zombie invasion, they'd have the same run-of-the-mill shooting galleries that the rest of the market is saturated with.

I think my problem with Capcom's argument that the freezing the character in place is done to add urgency and excitement doesn't really fly. If nothing else Dead Space proved them completely wrong on that notion.

I think mainly I feel this way because it goes against the reality of how a person would react, so it feels like a mistake instead of being true to the environment. As seen by a majority of these posts the first reaction of most people playing the game is to run and shoot , I'm guessing much like they would in real life, (they also would most likely crap themselves too, but no need for that much reality), so when game developer restricts that it makes the game feel flawed and ruins the experience. I mean at least you would walk with your weapon drawn? Heck anyone who has watched COPs on TV knows that that is the first reaction a person has in a dangerous situation.

I illustrate for a living and much like illustration you can do the craziest stuff that you want with your idea, but if something you do goes against the reality you created it will ruin your idea completely. In RE5's reality you are Redfield a member of star's alpha team an elite human killing machine. He has taking out all sorts of evil and survived. Only one thing, his main weakness is the inability to use a weapon and move, that just makes absolutely no sense.

Imagine any other medium trying to pull something like this off and telling us it builds suspense? If this was a movie we'd all be yelling at the screen, "MOVE IDIOT!", but because it's a video game we're supposed to believe it adds quality? I have to disagree.

Hopefully they come to their senses and fix this with a patch. If not there is always Killzone 2 and FEAR 2, but it would be a shame to have to pass this one up.