lol. I remember when the series basically reached its plot conclusion in the 5th one.
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Gender: Male Location: In Luna's mane, chasing STAAARS!
Re: Resident Evil 7
Actually you can. Not to mention Chris. Resident Evil has a pretty decent sized pool of characters and I would like if they brought back some of the more nostalgic this time around that aren't all Bruce Lee like Barry, Rebecca, or Claire.
Thanks Scythe for the sig.
Last edited by Nemesis X on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 01:37 AM
Honestly? I liked six the best. Maybe it didn't faithfully recreate survival horror atmosphere, but it was a lot of fun, and it has a ton of replayability. I also, after getting over initial "this ain't true RE-itis", found Operation Raccoon City to be fun as well.
It could be that I'm no longer interested in spending hours navigating with shitty tank controls to find plugs and keys while pretending to be scared like I was 20 years ago.
I vote make Billy, Rebecca and Claire mains this time. Or just Claire. Even better would be a Mercs mode with all the major players over the years. The damn things were never canon anyways, so having a limited character pool always annoyed me.
I did. If you judge it on its own merits, it does pretty well. In any case, it's a dark, gritty game with four player co-op and versus, that has a lot of replayability. I can't complain with that. I also loved Outbreak and wish I had been able to get my hands on File #2.
As for the controls, I know. I'm simply being ridiculous for its own sake. I have a lot of good memories with RE; I've been with the series since nearly day one (certainly year one). But I'm changing with age, and with less gaming time per day and more friends, I appreciate games that let me accommodate both. I've spent 100+ hours in RE 6 (basically, playing it since launch); nearly as much in RE 5, and RE 4 half as much (unless you count Mercs). You could tally up playtime with all the other core games included (And even Gun Survivor/Outbreak) and it'd be less.
I think I put more time into RE4 than RE5 and 6 combined. I played and beat professional mode 40+ times and did even more on normal difficulty. I unlocked everything many times over and enjoyed every playthrough. RE4 at the moment is my all time favorite game. 6 was fun, but a bit of a downgrade. 6 was even worse.
Revelations was a return to form, though needed the tighter controls, better graphics, and overall better presentation of a numbered release. The enemy designs could have been better too. Still, amazing game for the pacing and story.
As an action game, it doesn't really stand up to its peers, and the story is... ****ed, in short.
If you think it's a good game, more power to you, but I don't think anyone can realistically say that it was a really good Resident Evil game, even taking in to account the more action-oriented the series has become in recent years.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured... the first thought forbidden... the first freedom denied – chains us all irrevocably."
Was RE 6 more fun to play than its predecessors? Y
Was RE 6's story bigger in scope than the previous games and built a foundation for future games? Y
Was RE 6 more comfortable to play? Y
Did RE 6 feature the best multi-player experience in the core series to date? Y
Did RE 6 include tons of mundane puzzles? N
Did RE 6 include horribad voice acting? Mostly N
Did RE 6 have tons of replayability? Y
Just saying. Unless there's some very specific benchmarks that make "real Resident Evil" which 6 lacked, I don't quite follow the crowd here. And I've again, been a huge fan since the beginning.
I disagree too. A lot of your questions boil down to personal opinion.
Was RE 6 more fun to play than its predecessors?
No, it got stale pretty quickly.
Was RE 6's story bigger in scope than the previous games and built a foundation for future games?
Yes. Bigger in scope doesn't equal better story though. RE has never had an award winning story, but RE6 was new levels of low.
Was RE 6 more comfortable to play?
Agreed on this. Easier to play, but I felt RE5 felt tighter. Something about RE6 just came off as sloppy.
Did RE 6 feature the best multi-player experience in the core series to date?
The multiplayer was lame, with the exception of normal mercs which was the dead same as the previous two games.
Did RE 6 include tons of mundane puzzles?
No, not tons. It did have puzzles though. Stupid, easy puzzles that really had no place in the game. If your going to do puzzles, do it right.
Did RE 6 include horribad voice acting?
No, but neither did 5. RE4 voice acting was fine too, except for the occasional cheesy line.
Did RE 6 have tons of replayability?
I actually disagree. After playing through on the hardest difficulty, there wasn't much point besides achievements and pointless collectables. The gameplay was already pretty boring after the first playthrough.
RE6 has the lowest collective reviews of any game in the entire series. Theres a reason for that. Its fine if you prefer it to the rest of the games, but don't try to pass it off as better than the rest when it was clearly the worst in the series.
I can be excited about firing up RE 6, even if it's just to do a few Merc rounds or play co-op with friends. I haven't touched RE 5 except to benchmark in a year, and RE 4 even longer. I haven't touched RE 1/CV in years as well, even though I have readily available copies of each. They just don't have the fun value outside of the initial impact.
Reading is your friend. I have played Outbreak 1 but not 2. In any case, that's irrelevant; MP has been effectively disabled on both games for years. They also lacked VO support.
Ignoring the serpent emblems (which I didn't bother to get all of), I can't say I have replayed the entire campaign more than twice in total and gotten pretty much all of the non-Mercs/Versus achievements.
Maybe ur doin it wrong bro.
Everything does. But at least my opinion is bringing up something more concrete than "I don't think it's a good RE game cuz I don't"; I'm pointing out ways in which it surpasses the previous titles, something a lot of fans want to ignore because it "isn't survival horror anymore".
Disagreed. As I said, much more replay value than any title beforehand. Outbreak would get an exception, if it was still playable anymore.
I'm not sure I can agree with this at all. Overall, the story was entertaining, the characters were likable, and the action was intense. RE has been a B-movie horror plot since 1996; if anything, the production values and dramatic impact of RE 6 eclipse previous titles quite a bit. RE 5 is the only one that comes close, and let's face it - that story was boring as hell once you found out Wesker was alive.
I can't say the same. I can execute a great deal of moves, respond more fluidly, and do a bit more with 6. Perhaps you never overcame the initial learning curve.
Erm, no. The campaign was much better fleshed out. More variety in action, less gritty Black Hawk Down nonsense from RE5. Mercs and Versus have a lot of variety, from free for all, slayers, point races, Ustanek mode, etc. It's like comparing the multiplayer of Goldeneye to Timesplitters III. I don't even see how you could so readily write it off as "dead same" when it's not.
Item fetching doesn't quite count as puzzles. I'm not anti-puzzle, but I am anti-stupid puzzles.
RE 4 was pretty painful in hindsight.
"It's not survival horror"?
I didn't realize the initial impressions of the majority were indicative of a product's merits. If that is indeed the case, many cult classics outright suck because they were panned initially.
Better overall = a little stretching it.
More fun and enjoyable with longevity and playing depth beyond the other titles = absolutely.