yeah, but even with those changes, RE4 was still close to be considered an RE game than RE5 would be, because RE5 just wasn't scary as it should have been, it completes its purpose of being a survival horror game. And even if mikami did set a new tone it doesn't mean that the new director should have taken that much liberty and changing the tone that much
RE4 wasn't scary at all. Sure, it had its dark places that usually give you a "this should be scary"-vibe, like the graveyard, but there are zero moments that are creepy in that game. RE5 takes another step with the franchise and moves it into daylight. It's not scary, but they left the scary part out right after you pressed "start" on RE4, so what's the difference? In terms of story, at least RE5's story tied the las plagas stuff into the main plot. Mikami did a terrible job with his story, turning it into some weird sidequest.
I consider RE5 a really, really good game. It's enjoyable, fairly long and lots of replayability. RE4 is good too, but RE5 beats it easily thanks to the co-op mode. My only complaint is that there are absolutely no scary bits in it, much like the previous game. But after RE4, who expected it to be scary? Capcom probably kept this direction because RE4 did so well as it did.
All the complaints in this thread really suprised me. Some of you make it sound like it's the worst shit ever. It's a well made game... at least that's my opinion. It's also nice to see that most of Mikami's newfound stupid influence is absent from RE5 (no more large walking statues, living knight armor or some other silly poo). I wish they had left out the troll but at least they brought back previous enemies such as the lickers rather than making up new ones that made no sense.