To be fair though, the changes from RE1 to 2 to 3 were not very large, and very similar, so I fail to see why Capcom would really change the formula after taking such a huge (and great risk).

IMO, this choice (staying the same) will be the most profitable for Capcom. X360 owners will eat this game up, stat. This is one good thing about the X360. With all the PC/FPS freaks out there buying up anything that has a gun, this game is to surely do gangbusters. 500k first week confirmed on X360 in the US.

the gameplay looks freakishly similar to RE4, and many of the animations look exactly the same. However the graphics are much better and being similar to RE4 is not a bad thing.

you'd think after all this training, agents would have learned to move and shoot at the same time by now.

Come on... at least the ability to back away while you're shooting... Is it really that difficult? I'm loving RE4 but the inability to move and shoot at the same time is a bit retarded...

I really liked the control scheme in Resident Evil 4 and have to ask, if it's not broken why fix it?  And we have no idea if the gameplay is completely dupilicated and unchanged.  The light and darkness that the developers spoke about before is very interesting (if you go from a dark building into the blazing sun or vice-versa it takes your eyes a bit to adjust).  Also the AI may have been significantly improved in such a way that it makes playing the game feel different. 

I could look at any many games in other franchises, like say Mario Kart, SSB, Mario, and Zelda for instance, and from a few seconds of gameplay pass judgment and say something like the gameplay "is completely duplicated and unchanged" but that is doing a great disservice to some pretty great games.  I'm curious though when you saw gameplay for the latest SSB game did you make any comments similar to: "but personally I would have liked to see some change" and "gameplay.. is completely duplicated and unchanged"?

Anyways the few parts shown remind people a lot of RE4 but that in no way should be taken as how the entire experience of the game will be like compared to RE4.  For all we know RE5 will be far more intense and faster than RE4.  Also the production values for the game are simply incredible and that holds out the possibility that the game will be as well. 

Oops I thought they might have been asking about an earlier RE5 trailer on PSN, I didn't realize a new one was added today (well yesterday).  And it's on XBL as well.

I guess I know now not to take your judgment on graphics seriously if you thought a part of the graphics in the RE5 demo looked like crap.

I like to see my games, not giant black shadows all over everything.

Did you seriously just compare the difference between PS2 and Xbox/GC last gen to being the same as the difference between the Wii and 360/PS3 this gen?

Seriously? Please tell me you didn't mean to say that....

Also, the game looks fuckin' amazing, RE has gotten a lot better since 4 and this will be an even better game I am confidant. I can't believe how much people are expecting from graphics now, if that was supposed to look bad somehow then I seriously dunno what game looks good.

To the people pointing out that PS3 games had framerate issues, they do in the case of 360 ports...

PS: It's really shocking to see Wii Sports outsold FF X considering it's packed in with most systems lol...

a) turn your brightness up
b) this trailer is for both the 360 and PS3...why do keep arguing against the 360 when this trailer could be from the PS3?

Also, you argue that games sometimes look better on the 360 just because they put more development time in the 360 versions.  ....and?  That's hardly an argument...that's a reason to buy a 360...

Is this accurate (regarding both RE4 and RE5)?

I can understand shots being less accurate if a player is moving, but not being able to move and shoot at the same time is just idiotic.