I would still argue that RE4 and RE5 are survival horror games. Mainly because my definition of survival horror games doesn't rely on a particular gameplay mechanic. It's pretty much the same as this excerpt from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_horror#cite_note-NTSC-uk-0

"Survival horror is most commonly associated with the Resident Evil and Silent Hill games, though the genre contains titles which borrow heavily from gameplay styles associated with other genres. These games can resemble beat 'em ups, adventure games, RPGs and first-person shooters. They all deal with dark, violent and supernatural themes typical of horror films. This helps to define the genre more than any specific gameplay mechanic."


By that definition survival horror games are alive and well (unlike the claim in the Kotaku article which I feel is taking a controversial headline and trying to craft an article around it).

I know where me arguing this will lead as I've argued it before...but I disagree. survival horror is not a gameplay mechanic but a sense of surviving with any means necessary. RE4 (and 5) most likely have you shooting till you have bullets and then running if you don't. Its a shooter... Survival horror should have you scared to open the door to the next room...In RE4, if you had that magnum handy, there wasn't anything you were scared off. RE4 and Gears of war have much more in common than RE1 and RE4.

I've heard good things about silent hill 5 tho.

Well that's an opinion...I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who were on the edge of their seats while playing RE4.  A survival horror game does not have to be slow and clunky...there can be a smooth shooting system and lots of bullets and it can still be survival horror...having more bullets and being faster doesn't disqualify it...