Resident Evil 6 Catch-Augh

GameTrailers gave it an 88. Their reviews tend to be pretty thoughtful and unbiased.

Thin_J wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

Alright, we played through all three demo campaigns. It is grand hyperbole in my eyes to call any of it "terrible."

All the press embargoes are up. Was poking around on twitter a few minutes ago. Prepare yourself for a lot of grand hyperbole from the games press

Even people who championed RE5 are telling people to save their money on this one.

I only read one site's reviews so it ain't a thing!

Based on what I played, I'd go 3/5. I could see why someone might go 2/5. For reference, 1/5 is "terrible."

I don't worry about bias so much.

I just lean on individual reviewers and sites I generally trust.

I mostly find that GameSpot, GameTrailers, The Escapist and Giant Bomb share my general assessment of games in the genres I'm interested in. IGN can be hit or miss, depending on who's at the wheel of the review. Etc. Etc. Some sites I go to only for the LOL factor (Polygon, Destructoid, and such).

The giantbomb guys spent the morning talking about how bad it is on twitter. The most staunch defender of RE5 that I could remember was Jeff Cannatta and RE6 made him kinda angry when he was talking about it in the TRS review. His word of choice was atrocious.

This whole thing is a major bummer.

More time to play XCom I guess.

Thin_J wrote:

The giantbomb guys spent the morning talking about how bad it is on twitter. The most staunch defender of RE5 that I could remember was Jeff Cannatta and RE6 made him kinda angry when he was talking about it in the TRS review. His word of choice was atrocious.

This whole thing is a major bummer.

More time to play XCom I guess.

From what I gather from the myriad reviews, it's a game for people who like action games, not for people who like Resident Evil games.

I can't think of the last AAA game that had such polarizing reviews. I'm almost interested in playing it just to find out what side I'm on.

I was planning to pick this up since RE5 was a big coop game for my brother and I. The reviews are bad enough I'm willing to wait until things slow down and the game gets cheaper. I'm sure it will still be fine for messing around in coop.

Are you allowed to move and shoot at the same time in this one? If so, I'm out.

Thin_J wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

Are you allowed to move and shoot at the same time in this one? If so, I'm out.

You are, but they counteract that addition by making the red dot you aim with shift around inside a secondary outer crosshair. It makes the combat super annoying.

Is that what that was? I gave up on the demo after a few minutes because I was constantly re-adjusting my aim to compensate. That had me thinking "this would play better with a mouse." Now that I know it's a feature and not a bug, I still don't want it.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Are you allowed to move and shoot at the same time in this one? If so, I'm out.

You are, but they counteract that addition by making the red dot you aim with shift around inside a secondary outer crosshair every time you take a shot. It makes the combat super annoying.

If that's the tradeoff I'd rather not be able to move while I shoot.

LobsterMobster wrote:

From what I gather from the myriad reviews, it's a game for people who like action games, not for people who like Resident Evil games.

You mean except for the part where all the action mechanics are bad?

So they used the Counter-Strike/Call of Duty model where your accuracy decreases as you move (indicated by a widening crosshair) but just showed you where the targeting reticle was moment-to-moment rather than giving you a big open space where a shot could land?

gains wrote:

Is that what that was? I gave up on the demo after a few minutes because I was constantly re-adjusting my aim to compensate. That had me thinking "this would play better with a mouse." Now that I know it's a feature and not a bug, I still don't want it.

Yeah if you watch the dot in relation to the four outer pips you can see it moves around randomly between shots.

*Clocky: movement didn't seem to have any effect. The dot shifts position every time you fire a bullet. And the difference between this and the Call of Duty or CS model is that in those games all guns have a definite pattern to the recoil tht can be compensated for with aim movement. In this the red dot seemed to move randomly in all possible directions at different times.

Any who, I've poo-poo'd enough I think. Just more than a little upset they ruined this one for me.

You don't have to move for the laser-dot to bounce around. It was the first thing I did when co-oping with Blind Evil to make sure it wasn't just a whiskey fueled hallucination. I stood there, aimed, and the reticule bounced around for a while. A long while.

I should note that Piers, the sidekick in Chris's game, gets a handgun or rifle-that-uses-handgun-bullets with a smaller crosshair, and as a result accuracy was much, much less of a problem.

Clocky: the general issue is that this isn't like RE4 or RE5 where you could componsate for the shakey laser-sight. The shaking was minute, at least in comparison to this laser dot bouncing about the crosshair.

I read the Destructoid review, and unsurprisingly Jim Sterling was pretty brutal, though I can understand why. I stick by my earlier quote that Capcom tried to reinvent the wheel by taking a tire and punching holes in it to increase the air flow.

Computer and Video Games has a pretty thorough collection of reviews. A bit off topic, but I find it amusing that those quotes can not only reveal what sites have actual talented writers in quick snippets, but most of the bad writers are from sites I never heard of.

Reminds me of my struggle to try and get into games writing and being frustrated by my struggling peers.

But in any event, I'm actually a bit startled at all the 7's in that list. I thought it was a good thing at first until I realized 7 is where AAA games go to die.

Capcom needs to get back to true survival horror with controls you would expect from a game in 2012. The type of gaming that makes you nervous and uneasy playing it (see Amnesia)

Gumbie wrote:

Capcom needs to get back to true survival horror with controls you would expect from a game in 2012. The type of gaming that makes you nervous and uneasy playing it (see Amnesia)

Maybe so, but we're not doing a great job of letting them know. RE5 was the best selling entry in the franchise and the hardest to classify as "survival horror."

Blind_Evil wrote:

Maybe so, but we're not doing a great job of letting them know. RE5 was the best selling entry in the franchise and the hardest to classify as "survival horror."

While it may have sold, people clearly don't remember RE5 the same way they remember RE, RE4 or RE:CV. It followed the most influential instalment of the series, it was bound to attract the core fans and even go beyond that thanks to bigger marketing efforts and the simultaneous multiplatform release the previous games never had. Ultimately, I remember many players being rather unsatisfied. Some considered it to be too action-oriented. And those who didn't mind that direction, disliked the controls.

So, when RE6 approached its release, many people were more sceptical right from the get-go. There's less goodwill than there was prior the launch of RE5. Undoubtedly, Capcom will still a buttload of copies simply due to an enormous marketing effort and the brand itself, but given how they slightly bet the farm on this (600 devs worldwide, rah rah) it may hurt them nevertheless. I'd guess they realized that had invested huge amounts of money into something that had problems and wouldn't get high scores across the board quite a while ago, which is why they pulled RE6 from its original November release and moved it to early October.

The issue with your take on it is that:

1. Capcom (and most if not all publishers) cares more about what sells than what is well regarded.

2. When they actually do consider the subjective appreciation of a game, Capcom measures their worth first and foremost by the Japanese opinion. Famitsu (the Japanese gaming Bible, rightly or wrongly) still scored the game a 39/40 and we have no idea how the Japanese player-base responded to 5. Maybe it's their favorite?

Blind_Evil wrote:

1. Capcom (and most if not all publishers) cares more about what sells than what is well regarded.

Yes, they do care about the former - they, however, can't ignore the latter for obvious reasons. If people don't like something about a game, that means the next one will be a tougher sale. Which is why they have marketing departments and focus-test the hell out of everything. It seems pretty evident to me that Capcom did not ignore the feedback to RE5 and tried to address some of the complaints. The tank controls got removed. Also, more importantly, they threw a massive amount of resources towards the project to craft four different campaigns, thereby also trying to please those who thought that RE5 was too action-laden.

The problem is that the quality isn't just there.

When they actually do consider the subjective appreciation of a game, Capcom measures their worth first and foremost by the Japanese opinion. Famitsu (the Japanese gaming Bible, rightly or wrongly) still scored the game a 39/40

I could write a paragraph or two about whether anyone should take Famitsu seriously or not - Chris Kohler already did a pretty great job though ages ago. Funnily enough, it involves another Capcom games. So yeah, whenever a Japanese publisher readies an enormously important project, they 'can rely' on Famitsu having their back.

Also, the Japanese market will carry a series like Monster Hunter - for a far more expensive game like RE6, it's the Western market that ultimately decides whether it's a success or not. There's a reason why they turned it into a shooter - and it's not Japan.

Spunior wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

1. Capcom (and most if not all publishers) cares more about what sells than what is well regarded.

Yes, they do care about the former - they, however, can't ignore the latter for obvious reasons. If people don't like something about a game, that means the next one will be a tougher sale. Which is why they have marketing departments and focus-test the hell out of everything. It seems pretty evident to me that Capcom did not ignore the feedback to RE5 and tried to address some of the complaints. The tank controls got removed. Also, more importantly, they threw a massive amount of resources towards the project to craft four different campaigns, thereby also trying to please those who thought that RE5 was too action-laden.

When they actually do consider the subjective appreciation of a game, Capcom measures their worth first and foremost by the Japanese opinion. Famitsu (the Japanese gaming Bible, rightly or wrongly) still scored the game a 39/40

I could write a paragraph or two about whether anyone should take Famitsu seriously or not - Chris Kohler already did a pretty great job though. Funnily enough, it involves another Capcom games. So yeah, whenever a Japanese publisher readies an enormously important project, they 'can rely' on Famitsu having their back.

The least action-oriented parts of RE6 are more action oriented than RE5, so I don't think they got that message. And I know Famitsu isn't the most reputable source, as I implied in the bolded bit. But that's the only Japanese review I know of, and I know it's the one with the most pull in Japan. Japanese gamers and Japanese game developers are familiar with Famitsu. Comparatively, they don't know a damn thing about theverge.com/gaming or Gamespot. One will be taken more seriously than the other. Simple cultural and linguistic dynamics make this inevitable.

My overall point is this, and nothing anyone's said addresses it: Resident Evil 4 was about on par with the series' sales history. The next game went well beyond that, so it only makes sense for them to lean further into what sold best. Maybe this game will bomb and the next game will head back in the other direction.

I'm starting to really reconsider my stance on "going back to a game's roots", especially after I made a comment on the original Dead Space's potential in the Catch-All for 3.

I'm pretty sure the original RE creator is no longer attached, but what if he was? What if RE6 was the direction he wanted it to go regardless of what fans wanted? Should the fans hold that against him? Should we be bitchy that the franchise creator has a vision for his franchise to progress and it isn't where we would have taken it?

On the other hand, every time a new Zelda comes out people bitch that it hasn't changed up the formula since Ocarina of Time (though I'd argue that Wind Waker is certainly a change in the formula, not to mention the obvious Majora's Mask). Yet they changed the Resident Evil formula and people want what is old instead.

Fact of the matter is a creator should be allowed to make the game he wants, and it should be judged on its own merits. People shouldn't criticize Resident Evil 6 because it isn't survival horror like the original games in the series. If they do, it should be because the mechanics are flawed and/or broken and that interferes with the game being fun.

If Metacritic really matters, though, well Resident Evil: Revelations, which focused more on an isolated environment, horror and the sort of challenge found in RE4 and 5, is sitting at 82%. I don't know what they were expecting, and I know VGChartz isn't reliable, but it seems that Revelations sold 600,000 worldwide, which for the 3DS at that time period might be good? I'm not sure how to judge that, but a portable game selling about as well as some of the AAA console games these days seems like a success to me.

But Capcom is projecting 7 million sales worldwide for RE6, and if their review ratings are looking like they are, well... I mean, let's face it, they were high hopes to begin with.

ccesarano wrote:

I'm pretty sure the original RE creator is no longer attached, but what if he was? What if RE6 was the direction he wanted it to go regardless of what fans wanted? Should the fans hold that against him? Should we be bitchy that the franchise creator has a vision for his franchise to progress and it isn't where we would have taken it?

Yeah, Mikami left after RE4. And we'll find out sometime what he would have made, as he's making a horror game now for Bethesda (they bought his new studio).

Fans have every right to criticize the media they consume. The line between criticism and backseat development is debatable and everyone can decide where they stand on the issue. Personally I try to limit the second-guessing and stick to responding to what is there, but that's a less popular (or at least less visible) position of late. There's a reason I'm an office worker and these guys make video games.

I don't think RE6 will sell seven million copies. I think five is a possibility in the long-term, considering the series' history. Gamers are pretty notorious for complaining up a storm and forking out regardless.

This is true. The financial success would be guaranteed if everyone signed petitions and Facebook/Steam groups to boycott the game.

Speaking of how publishers look at sales when deciding on the direction of a franchise...

Sales numbers aren't out yet for Resident Evil 6 in the US that I could find, but sales in Japan are strong. It was the week's top-selling game with 676,585 units sold across both PS3 and 360; comparatively, Resident Evil 5 sold 398,747 across two platforms in its opening weekend.

Exact numbers are never released for the UK, but Resident Evil 6 had the fourth-best opening numbers of the year after FIFA 13, Borderlands 2, and Mass Effect 3, respectively.

Sorry, ccessarano.

I haven't paid much attention to this game, except for the funny logo, but I've heard the game has launched with some substantial glitches and a patch that further messed things up.

For anyone that has actually played the game on PS3 is it stable?

I see that from some of the posts here that the mechanics might be sub-par, but I'll still give the game a shot as long as it isn't causing harm to PS3s.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Exact numbers are never released for the UK, but Resident Evil 6 had the fourth-best opening numbers of the year after FIFA 13, Borderlands 2, and Mass Effect 3, respectively.

Sorry, ccessarano.

Buh? Did ME3 get some sort of delayed release over there?

Being behind FIFA 13 is no surprise. It's Europe. They love kicking each other's balls around.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Sorry, ccessarano.

Eh, I've been able to enjoy the demo for 6, as flawed mechanically as it is. I'm kind of over hating something because it's different from what I'm used to at this point.

As long as I can get my RE4 style games on the 3DS I'll be happy anyway. Revelations is still probably the best RE game since RE4.

ccesarano wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

Exact numbers are never released for the UK, but Resident Evil 6 had the fourth-best opening numbers of the year after FIFA 13, Borderlands 2, and Mass Effect 3, respectively.

Sorry, ccessarano.

Buh? Did ME3 get some sort of delayed release over there?

She means those games' individual first weeks, not this past week in particular. It's confusing.

Blind_Evil wrote:
ccesarano wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

Exact numbers are never released for the UK, but Resident Evil 6 had the fourth-best opening numbers of the year after FIFA 13, Borderlands 2, and Mass Effect 3, respectively.

Sorry, ccessarano.

Buh? Did ME3 get some sort of delayed release over there?

She means those games' individual first weeks, not this past week in particular. It's confusing.

Unless I've been misled I think you got a typo there.

We need to get you out of Games and Platforms sometimes, sir.

Spoiler:

This has been out in the wild for a while so I don't think Clocky would mind me linking it.

Well that answers that.

I think a lot of people are buying RE6 on the hope of what it could have been rather than what it really is. I know that as I learned more about it I thought, "that couldn't possibly be right." Might be a lot of people thinking it's just more RE5. And you know, a lot of people actually seemed to enjoy it for what it is. Those people are wrong, but we don't have to tell them that.