I really enjoyed RE5. Played it both coop and solo and had a lot of fun.

I think it's worth remembering that it was The only third person style shooter at the time that forces you to stop moving to fire your weapon and I remember a lot of people not liking at the time. Especially when you consider the period that game came out in. Not being able to move while shooting was very unusual to most.

Its also a shame only PC players for to enjoy the no mercy mode in mercenaries as its so over the top. I played that mode non stop and even now when I think about RE5 my diet thought is "that no mercy mode was so incredible".

I liked it a lot at the time, enough to get the Platinum. I played a decent amount in local co-op.

I'll probably never play it again though, while I play through RE4 again almost every year.

RE6 was terrible though and I don't understand how anyone enjoyed the gameplay.

Resident Evil 5 is a fun action game, made better with co-op. A random person favorited this tweet a couple of days ago and the notification reminded me of my official position on the game's ending:

If you want to say RE4 is better and RE5 is a step down, sure, but also RE4 is one of the greatest games ever made. I could probably make an argument for how RE5 has aged worse than RE4, but at the time RE5 was a fine game.

Never even played it coop, and I still thought it was good. Does it live up to the incredibly high expectations set for it after re4? Who cares! If you like this style of game and think re5 is genuinely terrible, you're being a) hyperbolic, b) never intended to give it a fair chance, or c) all of the above.

Today? Probably not, back then it was quite novel in co op. 6 is actually a better game I think.

Yes.

...but I had more fun with RE6.

It definitely isn't a bad game.

Fun game, especially with coop partner. The controls haven't aged well and the story gets goofy but it is a good time.

Did I play through it? Yes.
Did I enjoy myself? Yes.
Do I think it's a good game? Nope.

I know that not every game I like is actually an example of a "good" game, and I think RE5 fits the profile of a fun-but-not-good game. It's just like with every other form of entertainment. Hell, I've watched that "Dragnet" movie with Dan Aykroyd and Tom Hanks a good 50 times. Ugh, wtf is wrong with me...

The game is full of thematic problems and the gameplay is basically a carbon copy of the previous game, but I'd still call RE5 a 'good' game. The real question to ask is whether or not RE0 is a good game.

@shivermetimbers: I'm teetering on the brink of finally playing Zero for the first time. What's your take?

It's a decent game but not a very good Resident Evil game.

It was a fantastic, fantastic co op experience.

It wasn't the surprise sweeper that 4 was, but it's still a solid, fun game. I spent plenty of time with it. Never even had the trouble with AI Shiva that you often see brought up, though I didn't exactly depend on her for anything too vital other than the scripted stuff.

Edit: Also punching that boulder was dumb. But great!

It's not good. Add coop to any OK game and it can become great - that's why people think this game is good. Playing it solo is an incredibly frustrating experience and it is even worse when you realize it's a follow up to RE4.

That whole part with all the "tribal" outfits was terrible. Normally Resident Evil has a corny story, but usually they don't delve into anything really racist. I feel like that section, and how the game just treats Africa as some fantasy, monster-slaying playground, kind of brings the whole thing down. I might overlook it if the rest of the game was better, but it's just a combat-heavy reskin of RE4. All of the atmosphere and tension is gone when you're playing with a buddy in a shooting gallery. The story doesn't even get really entertaining until Wesker shows up. At that point they finally ditch all the semi-serious military shit and go back to the B-movie antics that define the series.

The boss fights, The Mercenaries, and the least few levels are fun, but everything leading up to that was just garbage. It's a bad game. And it ruined some 360 sticks for sure.

I never finished it. I found it to be a borked version of the RE Remake from what I played tho.

Nope. I remember that very brief time where ever game forced coop into its singleplayer. What an awful time it was.

No... those games have not been good for about a decade.

It is one of the best in the series and it is what Resident Evil Outbreak should have been.

I thought it was ok even though I played through it solo. Don't remember the ai character being too terrible. So, I voted yes, it's a good game.

I dunno, I've played through it solo a few times and had a lot of fun with it. Sheva's AI does occasionally cause frustration, but most of the time I found that I could either ignore her or she was helping in some way. There are also a handful of moments in that game that just don't play very well. Otherwise? Yeah, had a lot of fun with it. Controls well, guns feel great, enemies are fun to kill, levels are generally well-designed and play to the strengths of the mechanics, difficulty ramps up at a steady pace and almost consistently feels like a fair challenge. Story has its great dumb moments, especially in the latter half. I wouldn't outright say it's a great game (outside of co-op, I mean, let's not kid ourselves, co-op's where RE5 really shines), but I'd definitely call it a good one.

It's my favourite in the series. It takes the mechanics of 4 and builds a much more action-oriented game around them, stripping out most of the "scary" horror elements which meant I had to play 4 in single-save increments because it was too intense for me at the time and replacing them with slightly goofier, over-the-top action horror themes.

I will not argue that it's incredible, or that it pushes things in any way. I think 4 on the whole is a game which achieves much more and deserves its recognition. In fact I'd say from a purely qualitative perspective I'd put several other games in the series ahead of it. But 5 is far more my speed; I ended up playing it four or five times over in a mixture of solo and co-op, and I've been planning to play through it again recently.

One thing I like about RE5 is how Sheva says, "I need a herb". I had a good time with RE5 when it came out.

A buddy and I had a great time playing through it when it first came out. All I really remember about it are zombies eventually using guns and riding motorcycles, and a lame QTE for the end of the game. So it's fun (in co-op), but not very memorable, making it an ok game. 3/5

It's pretty clearly a good game.

I think Resident Evil 5 is a great game. I strongly disagree with Ben on this one.

Resident Evil 6, though? Yeeeeeesh.

The story? no

The bosses? meh

The shooting? Yeah pretty good. location based damage is a lot of fun.

The Coop experience? Fantastic. Easy to play the campaign online with a buddy and have a good time. Since the game isn't too long, going through the entire game is a lot more feasible than say, Divinity OS. And once you beat the story, you can still do the challenges which get really hard at some point. Just a fantastic game to hang out with a buddy on the internet and shoot some zombies together while going through these environments over time. Can't find many coop campaign shooters on PC.

If you never get to play it coop, i can see it being quite a drab forgettable game. You want to get to a door and shout Chris Chris Chris! over and over to get the best experience.

RE5 is a mediocre game that can be made enjoyable in co-op. It also has some funny/campy moments.

Overall, it's not very good.

As someone who chastised Ben on Twitter for claiming this game is bad, I'll also weigh in here. Listen I get that the campy stuff isn't for some people, but I refuse to believe that the story is outright, unbiased bad. Like it's somehow offensive to assume there is good stuff in there.

Coming into RE5, returning to Chris, I really felt like there was a lot of hype to finally see, you know some resolution in the series? Wesker had been lying in the shadows and teased as this big deal villain for games, and he never really got his chance to shine like he did in RE5. Like maybe I'm crazy but his pseudo Neo Agent Ninja bullet dodging and subsequent morphing into crazy dude that you have to fight on a fucking Volcano totally works for me. Sure it's just more crazy build bullshit, but at least the story went somewhere, we saw a conclusion, a villain got a chance to romp it up for almost a whole game and they gave him some meaning. I'm not saying everything works in that game, but I think the Jill Boss fight, the fight with him pre the Volcano and some parts of the Volcano fight are all pretty solid game. I mean it's certainly no worse than Kojima stuff, which gets heralded even though it controls far worse than RE5 imo.

None the less, I thought RE5 was as Brad put it, "awesome." Solo it was a less tolerable game, but I didn't find it to be unbearable. It was like having a slightly more competent Ashley around that could shoot. RE4 is great don't get me wrong, but Ashley is by no means any better than the Solo experience in RE5. Perhaps it was just me by I enjoyed the bosses more, I felt there was a lot more bosses, and this was especially true when you played Co Op that teamwork would make the experience go a lot better, and the encounter design while not something top notch like a Destiny, was still often clever and interactive in ways that I felt good about. It really didn't feel to me like I was just using it as an excuse to hang out with someone which is something a lot of co op games can linger on. There was just a solid amount of co op things to do and solve in that game, a surprising amount honestly. Doors and barricades that can only be pushed with both parties.

Like obviously none of this stuff is revolutionary, and I think that is part of what drives the argument here. RE5 is simply a very full experience, but it really doesn't push any grounds. Your going to find more examples of better versions of the things that RE goes for. However RE5 really knew what it wanted to be, and went for it. I have to respect that honestly. If that makes it the "Majoras Mask" of the RE series so be it.

I've only ever played it solo, but yeah, it's a good game with some re-he-he-heally dumb moments (in an enjoyable way).

That said, the tone and gameplay of 5 lead to us getting RE6, so boo for that. But then, 6 lead to 7, so yay for that.

Yes and no... The first third or so is pretty darn good, after the motorcycle showdown things start to go downhill, and it only gets worse as it goes.

But that first third!...

No exaggeration it's maybe my favorite co-op gaming experience. Brilliantly designed game. Not being single player is more a missed opportunity than it is an actual flaw. It's designed and paced as the multiplayer game it is.

RE6 is a brainless beat-em-up that doesn't care to learn anything from 4 or 5. Could be fun in that "incredibly dumb arcade game" sorta way but it wasn't for me.

Upon watching the first trailer of the game, I couldn't believe how incredible the concept was. Daytime horror in a real-world scenario? Sign me up!

After hyping the game so much, my first play through with a friend (who had only played RE1) was a crushing disappointment. We laughed about most of the game as we played but then reality sunk in as I remembered how spent the last 6 months recommending this title to literally hundreds of people.

My gaming reputation was altered in March of 2009 which is why RE5 will always be a gut punch for me.

Once it introduces the enemies who use firearms--one of my chief complaints about Resident Evil 4 as well--the game exhausts my attention. No amount of Anime Wesker or absurdist boulder punching can help it recover.