SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Jun 20 2012 03:15 pm

Four = great.
Five = meh.
Six = all signs point to meh.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

This looks like it could be a fun action game, but I just don't feel like I know anything about how it'll play. One nitpick is that it seems like they just really can't get Chris right, huh? I appreciate him looking less caveman-ish, but it's still kind of ridiculous.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

http://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/20083/resident-evil-6-has-regenerating-health

Quote:

Survival horror games generally lose a bit of punch when your health automatically regenerates. Yet it also changes the strategy of the game and gives newer players a bit of leeway. Resident Evil 6 seems out to split the difference between tradition and welcoming new players.

Players are swarming over the newly released Xbox 360 demo and are surprised to find that the health system has been altered. The health meter has been changed to a series of blocks; once a block is empty, it won't refill. However if you have even a sliver of health left in a block you can recover the whole block eventually. The famous herbs come in to refill empty blocks completely.

Of course any change to a franchise will be controversial. But this one has gamers arguing over whether the franchise has lost its bite.

It is worth noting that nobody outside of Capcom has seen what effect this has on the whole game, whether this change applies to all difficulty modes, or whether different levels of difficulty have faster or slower recovery times. But when has that ever stopped an argument over a video game on the Internet?

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

Wow, I know I try to put rose-tinted glasses off, but somebody at Capcom has got a screw loose. They're basically just dumping off all of their most devoted fans with stuff like this.

Posted: Jul 03 2012 11:17 pm

I never understood automatic health recovery a lot of games have these days. At least they seem to have shown some restraint with this block thing. Still, this does not sit will with me. If it was an easy mode thing, then I'd say have at it. But since it sounds like the default way to play, my faith has been shaken.

Posted: Jul 04 2012 12:14 am

Personally, I don't ask much of this franchise. Just leave the history alone and we're good.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

I don't mind regen health off the bat, and I actually really like the incremental regen that they're describing in some games (Far Cry 2, Medal of Honor: Airborne, and Resistance: Fall of Man all handled it well enough). I dislike regen health when it comes to a few factors:

-When it's constantly washing out the screen with black and white/blood filters. Uncharted 2 and 3 gave us some of the most beautiful, corolful environments that I couldn't see half the time because the screen was black and white from the health system, and I don't even want to talk about the Hell's Highway mission in Brothers in Arms 3.
-When I can just effectively press a button to go into cover, and not worry about getting hurt at all.
-"YOU ARE HURT, GET TO COVER!" Ooooooohhh, so that's what bullets do to me.
-Don't have my character absorb three thousand rocket shots, and regen his health each time just to have him get knocked out by a rifle butt or give up when a pistol is pointed at him in an ensuing cutscene.

I don't hate everything new. I can respect when developers try new things to compliment other ideas, I just dislike the whole "doing it because everyone else is," approach these kinds of additions.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

I don't like regen health, i've stated this many times on this forum and won't write a long elaborate explanation but it makes the games easier and sucks the fun and tension out of them. FPS are different to survival horror though.

Ultimately i can accept that regen does work in FPS games: the games aren't unplayable or anything i just don't like the system and therefore i won't play them.

Regen health in survival horror just doesn't make sense. How is there any surviving involved if you can magically reheal. I know it is not totally the case with this with the bracketed system but it has no place anywhere in the franchise - what i took from this is that even with the bracketed system you can basically never heal - go down through the brackets regenerating small amounts and then eventually use a herb. It's basically postponing using health items.

So basically the franchise seems to me to have gotten to the stage that if it's using regen at all the series is no longer survival horror. The game is a third person action shooter and i will brace for the hate wagon here but RE4 started this.

It's not an awful game RE4 and it does to stuff very differently but those changes have lead into basically what has happened now. Capcom has seen that the design decisions in RE4: over the shoulder shooting, QTEs - mass x to escape where clearly the way forward with the reception the game received. The game started to move away from total survival horror into action/survival horror.

Then RE5 received a mediocre response and now we have gotten RE6 where we have finally reached: total action shooter. It just seems to me how things have went.

On saying that we could have went the way it's going with RE4 design choices but what if RE4 was like RE2 and 3? I imagine the franchise honestly wouldn't have faired too much better, released same sort of gameplay as the previous titles but on a PS2 so upgraded and it would have grown stale (apart from i loved Outbreak). So i guess innovation was essential for the future for the franchise and in that respect the RE4 we have was the correct way to go.

However it has lead to this. Either way in those two scenarios we were eventually going to reach a point where the franchise would (dare i say it being perhaps a bit too harsh) become total shit. Nothing lasts forever, it happens with most franchises and RE having as many games as it does, it was inevitable.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

Bumping with news.

The demo is out tomorrow according to RE6 on facebook.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

I'll have to find time in my busy Borderlands 2 schedule to check it out.

Posted: Sep 18 2012 04:06 pm

Guess who was the first to get the demo.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

Lol YES i love when Conan plays shit. It's fucking hilarious.

"I don't like them turning into pasta or shellfish"

Even Conan knows that RE4 was the decline in the series This Is A Joke

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

That was Conan's best gaming review yet. I love this new bit of his. All he has to do is drop "Fan Corrections" and he'd be golden.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/resident-evil-6

0.6/10

Posted: Oct 02 2012 06:34 pm

I'm guessing they're doing that because Capcom replaced the voice actors for Leon and Ada?

Also, a quote from one of the negative user reviews:

loudnigra wrote:

This game was simply awful, /v/ was right. I shouldn't play video games anymore.

That explains a lot.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

Cameron wrote:

I'm guessing they're doing that because Capcom replaced the voice actors for Leon and Ada?

Also, a quote from one of the negative user reviews:

loudnigra wrote:

This game was simply awful, /v/ was right. I shouldn't play video games anymore.

That explains a lot.

Yeah i would take the user reviews with a serious pinch of salt.

The critic ones aren't too great either though. 77 is not really a good score.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

Let's look at reviews from some of the more reputable sources at least, here:

http://www.gamespot.com/resident-evil-6/reviews/resident-evil-6-review-6397185/
"With Resident Evil 6, a once-mighty series makes another stumble. From a production standpoint, this atmospheric third-person shooter (this is no survival horror game, certainly) hits a number of high notes, weaving multiple stories into a single narrative that you untangle from different perspectives. It's unfortunate that actually interacting with Resident Evil 6 is an excruciating chore. This is a wannabe action film that resents your interference, and punishes you by forcing one horrible quick-time event after another upon you."

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/resident-evil-6-review-capcoms-exquisite-corpse-is-2012s-most-spectacular-failure/
"Resident Evil 6 is the true realization of that ambition, a hydra whose three heads are weighed down by a lack of focus. It had too much money, too much equipment, and the insanity of Resident Evil 6 is the result. Eichiro Sasaki and his 599 followers have made one of the most memorable failures in video game history, and while Capcom shouldn’t be rewarded for their wastefulness, Sasaki’s team should be applauded for making something so terribly grand."

http://www.gamezone.com/products/resident-evil-6/reviews/review-resident-evil-6-fails-to-live-to-up-series-standards
"I can't claim that RE6 is the definitive co-op experience, but it does seem like a fine way to waste an afternoon, much like how one can enjoy select Michael Bay movies if they're willing to dial back their expectations a bit. In short, Resident Evil 6 is an unremarkable 3rd person shooter best enjoyed with a buddy."

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/10/01/resident-evil-6-review/
"It's no longer clear what makes Resident Evil tick, so Capcom is dissecting it. Resident Evil 6 is a steel tray of plump, disconnected organs, each representing a crucial element of the monstrous franchise. There's educational worth in this exercise, but the gross sight of it in progress can be hard to stomach."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-01-resident-evil-6-review
"The game represents a tremendous amount of effort and investment and, for those impressed by such things, Resident Evil 6 may delight. But all the effort in the world won't make up for a lack of vision. This game is blind to imagination and focus. Capcom's uncertainty about the series' identity post-Mikami (and post-Uncharted) is hardcoded into its structure: four campaigns offering different, flawed expressions of that potential. And the inevitable price for this wavering is a lack of coherence. Resident Evil 6 is an unwieldy tribute to the series' past, an uneven expression of its present and an unwelcome indication of its future."

http://www.1up.com/reviews/resident-evil-6-review-identity-crisis
"RE6 delivers great graphics, but visuals can only drive an experience so far, and it doesn't take much to see the gameplay compromises made in the name of accessibility. To their credit, the developers have iterated on a survival horror concept and turned it into an inclusive and competently-made cooperative action game, but the end result feels far removed from the series' roots. RE6 presents blockbuster-caliber entertainment, sure, but it also forces you to revisit rough portions of gameplay and rarely challenges a player outside of arbitrary difficulty levels and cheap deaths via phoned-in quick-time events. The unfortunate truth is that Capcom hasn't figured out a new way to terrify gamers in the eight years since RE4. While building on that game's masterful formula of stop-and-pop gunplay is a smart approach, RE6 serves as proof that too many compromises and too much empowerment can ultimately erode what makes Resident Evil, at its core, work."

http://www.oxmonline.com/resident-evil-6-review
"Resident Evil 6 is solid, challenging, and at moments outright amazing, but razzle-dazzle Hollywood production never quite masks a subtle, intangible lack of focus and pacing that pervades its formidable spread of content. If you can experience its action-tastic, gore-stained highs with a friend, though, this horror-shooter opus presents an offer (and a value) that’s impossible to resist."

Posted: Oct 02 2012 10:04 pm

I usually go by the user scores because the critics always seem to fuck me over by giving a pile of shit glowing reviews. At a 0.4 currently, that just doesn't look good for this game ever seeing my house.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

Beach Bum wrote:

I usually go by the user scores because the critics always seem to fuck me over by giving a pile of shit glowing reviews. At a 0.4 currently, that just doesn't look good for this game ever seeing my house.

That is clearly 4chan being upset about something and banding together to falsely lower the score. Don't go by that.

Posted: Oct 02 2012 10:17 pm

Still, those reviews are speaking truth.

Posted: Oct 02 2012 10:22 pm

JoshWoodzy wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

I usually go by the user scores because the critics always seem to fuck me over by giving a pile of shit glowing reviews. At a 0.4 currently, that just doesn't look good for this game ever seeing my house.

That is clearly 4chan being upset about something and banding together to falsely lower the score. Don't go by that.

Even so, based on the last few games in the series and the poor critic reviews this game is nothing worth buying new. I'm honestly failing to see how some of the critics are giving it anything near the 70s when all they do is say how crappy it is.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

sidewaydriver wrote:

Still, those reviews are speaking truth.

Oh yeah, I was just referring to the 0.4 that Metacritic users gave it. Reading all the reviews paint a pretty grim fucking picture, that's for sure.

BeachBum wrote:

Even so, based on the last few games in the series and the poor critic reviews this game is nothing worth buying new. I'm honestly failing to see how some of the critics are giving it anything near the 70s when all they do is say how crappy it is.

Yeah, I will certainly not pay for this game until it's 19 bucks.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

Beach Bum wrote:

JoshWoodzy wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

I usually go by the user scores because the critics always seem to fuck me over by giving a pile of shit glowing reviews. At a 0.4 currently, that just doesn't look good for this game ever seeing my house.

That is clearly 4chan being upset about something and banding together to falsely lower the score. Don't go by that.

Even so, based on the last few games in the series and the poor critic reviews this game is nothing worth buying new. I'm honestly failing to see how some of the critics are giving it anything near the 70s when all they do is say how crappy it is.

There's been problems with reviewers scoring systems for years. Like for RE they say the games are bad but then give them a 7. They basically only really use the top 4 numbers now. The numbers are inflated pretty much. It truly perplexes me as to why reviewers think that 7/10 is average. When i went to school if i got an average grade it was 50 as it's the central number hence the definition of the word.

http://bnbgaming.com/2011/04/24/overrated-the-truth-about-videogame-reviews-and-the-power-that-they-wield/ <- more in that.

I used to have a picture saved which better illustrates but i guess this is sort of true:

Posted: Oct 03 2012 10:55 am

I think that video games are one of the few places where critics can be trusted. Occasionally I'll buy a game based solely on its critical success (I had no interested in Red Dead Redemption until it got a 98 Metascore, for instance) and I've never been disappointed. With the limited amount of time I have to play games, I try to make sure that the only ones I buy are really fucking good, and critics have always helped a lot in that. They play tons and tons of games annually, and have a good idea how to objectively score them without letting whatever niche appeal they have skew their score. Plus, every game review has to be its own essay, so you can actually get details on why a game is or isn't worth buying.

User reviews are so prone to bias that they're hardly worth reading a lot of times. You ever noticed that every piece of shit Sonic game gets amazing user scores even though the critical reviews fail? That's because their fanboys flood the user section and up jump it. And as Josh points out, sometimes groups of people will target games to downvote the scores. On top of that, the inverse of what Alow talks about is rampant in user scores. People tend to either give games a 10 out of 10 (OMG BEST GAME EVAR!!!!) or a 0 (this game suxxx1 fans are fags) with no in-between at all. That doesn't make for a very accurate read on how good a game is or isn't.

Quote:

When i went to school if i got an average grade it was 50 as it's the central number hence the definition of the word.

50s in every US school I've ever been to is failing. Just saying. 70s is pretty on par for what constitutes average over here. I think your issue here might be a difference in what constitutes average. I would guess that it rated in the 70s because it was a good game that had major issues. None of the reviews Josh posted trashed the thing, and most of them even said it was a good game rather than an average one.

Posted: Oct 03 2012 12:15 pm

A GameFAQs user confirms that Wesker's hypothesis is still not yet revealed to have come true, so I can now do my next two Top 10 lists, which both have Code: Veronica on them and involve Steve, with certainty. Maybe in the next non-revisionist title, in which Claire hopefully makes her third playable non-revisionist appearance.