What a dumbfounding series Resident Evil is. First, we have the innovations – popularising the survival horror genre for one. Then later, perfecting the third-person shooter camera, before taking environmental interaction to new heights. The game even led the way in cooperative campaign mechanics. But then there's the series' …
This game is truly a massive disappointment, and yet another example of developers' laziness when it comes to titles with historic innovation and popularity.
This was the last chance for me, for Resident Evil - I won't be buying any further interations.
It can't be worse then operation racoon city? That sunk to new depths of crapness.
I've never really liked the third person camera, I think it took away from the atmosphere of the originals with the fixed point of view.
I remember RE1&2;
The fixed cameras, the "where is that dripping sound coming from", the shuffling noises from *just* offscreen left me constantly cautious about moving to the next screen - sure, it was a byproduct of the limitations of the systems, but it was a game that turned limitations into features and used them to add to the game. For me it was Silent Hill that really picked up the baton with great, atmospheric camera angles and clever devices to keep the suspense.
It seems that today's systems have so few limitations (or that the developers simply aren't compelled, from a sales perspective, to find them) that the games get churned out following a safe, cookie-cutter formula that do ok in sales. (and I don't necessarily blame the devs for this - games like crysis can look good without bringing anything amazing to the table and the masses will flock out and buy it - whereas a game that has heart and soul poured into it will labour in the doldrums of "doesn't look that great, maybe I'll give it a miss").
I'm still holding out hope for a revival of the survival horror series - with the popularity of the "zombie" genre I would have thought this would already have happened - something along the lines of the walking dead, large open spaces, deep characters and conflicts, limited ammo and fuel - the closest thing I've seen recently is "Last Of Us", which is shaping up as a very nice looking title.
I can remember the first time I played RE on the Playstation. The bit where you walk down a corridor and the dogs jump through the window behind you - I genuinely shot out of my seat. Then it was new, and the fact it could scare you in little ways like that was fantastic. Silent Hill 2 also had that thread of fear running through it for me. Who would have thought that Morph would look so scary in a Nurse's uniform....?.
However, the best game with, I suppose, the genre of Horror attached to it for me was Eternal Darkness. That game was excellent in structure, puzzles etc,. i will never forget the time I walked into a room and the protagonist's head just fell off...
It seems that, like Hollywood, games seem to be more interested in effects, rather than substance.
More imagination in games, please! If you can't do imagination, then at least when you re-do older, excellent titles, (Syndicate, I am looking at you) then at least get them right!
You can't move and shoot in RE4, it introduced being able to aim at what you shoot at but it kept you stationary. That's crucial to the game, you can run or you can stand and fight but no doing both. In the games before that you automatically pointed at the nearest enemy when you brought up your gun and could only aim up or down.
IMHO this makes RE4, it would be easier if you could move and shoot but not better.
Agreed. It's a monsterously fun game and making the run / shoot decision makes it more engaging. It's a realistic constraint (you can't run backwards and fire a shotgun IRL) that keeps it interesting. In any case I played the hell out of it and my brother played the hell out of and my friends did too.
Nobody's there for the silly dialogs. It's a fun game. And if one doesn't want to play it, well, there's Call of Duty, Halo and a long line of other games for you to play without getting your paws all over our good time.
I am getting a bit tired of people saying that RE is no longer "survival horror".
No, it isnt the same as it was in 1996 - but isnt that a good thing? Capcom wanted to move away from the traditional RE format as soon as the end of the '90's (Devil May Cry started out as a sequel apparently). the 4th, 5th and now 6th iterations of the game have changed and evolved the whole game over the last few years.
Also, Capcom has to sell games to make money, if people do not want to play games like the first three versions of RE, then Capcom wont make money. If more people want to play games like RE5 then of course Capcom are going to keep making games like that.
IMHO, RE has definitely lost the shock factor and the scares. When you compare it to the Dead Space series, there is something definitely missing. But, at the same time, I personally like the action and pace that has been introduced, makes the story more compelling.
Part of me thinks that Capcom have created RE6 in this mish mash format to gauge exactly what the public want to see in the next iteration, be it a sequel or a complete reboot.
Worst part of modern gaming, don't let the player actually do any of the cool good looking bits, just make them follow an onscreen sequence.
It might seem cool the first time, the second time it becomes 'oh, that again', the third it's worse than a cutscene you can't skip. It stops being impressive because you're really not in control of the action.
Actually designing the games so the player has superior control and can pull off the things shown in many of the QTEs and feel a real sense of accomplishment for doing it would be preferable and more varied.
its worse than that. becuase i am concentrating on which button pops up next, i miss some relaly cool action, as im not looking at it. they are a very curious beast
Can you taser people for carrying white sticks?
I'm sorry but I've played all the RE games bar the ones on the DS, and you couldnt run and shoot in RE4, you couldnt run and shooting in RE5 either. 6 is the first game where that mechanic was deployed. Further, the reviewer makes a point of comparing the game to gears of war. Again sorry, but RE4 was before Gears, so the comparison should be the other way round. The green herb is yes still present but you combine or convert these to Herb pills, which makes me wonder if the reviewer actually played the game for any length, or even at all. The game may be a disappointment to some but actually I think it's quite good. It has moved away from survival horror in a part but I've played the campaign through on the 4 main protaganists and started going through the secondary characters.
RE 1 & 2 = Good
all the rest, especially 5 which i just could not get into at all, have been disappointing. i love the first two though and still play them now and again...none of them since (i guess maybe 3 a bit) have captured the sense of menace and evil in those two.
Re: RE 1 & 2 = Good
I have to agree - I thoroughly enjoyed the older RE games for their ability to scare the pants off me. I gave up after RE5 when it became plain that all they were interested in releasing was a very generic game with all the atmosphere of a Fred West garden party. Like several posters I think QTE sections are just pointless, as while looking for the next button to press you actually miss the pretty on-screen action. Trap-points (that last for too long) and over-reliance upon boss fights just smacks of a lack of imagination or trying to "stretch out" the play time of a game.
Was waiting to see if RE6 was a big improvement upon RE5 but it doesn't sound like it so I probably won't bother buying the game.
That was a good one imo.
- Mounties always get their man: Heartbleed 'hacker', 19, CUFFED
- Samsung Galaxy S5 fingerprint scanner hacked in just 4 DAYS
- Feast your PUNY eyes on highest resolution phone display EVER
- Analysis Oh no, Joe: WinPhone users already griping over 8.1 mega-update
- AMD demos 'Berlin' Opteron, world's first heterogeneous system architecture server chip