As long as the action is done well, I'm looking forward to it.
It looks somewhat freaky and the graphics look stellar.
The tension in RE4 was unequal to any other game I played. I was constantly freaked out about what I thought was going to happen. It was unlike the first few Resident Evil but in this day in age, a game like that might not do it for people anymore.
Originally posted by Smasandian
If everybody loved RE4, I don't understand why people ***** about a more action oriented RE6.
I'm fine with co-op depending on how it's done, but I just don't see 2 to 6 player co-op as something necessary for RE, of all franchises. And if you choose to play solo, I only hope you don't have to have some annoying AI like Sheva follow you around everywhere, let alone 4 or 5 of them.
And as for Capcom trying to appeal more to the CoD fanbase (based on the link I posted earlier), what this person said here on facebook pretty much summed it up for me.
"Look Capcom, I understand. You want a large market, you want to sell as many units as you can, you want a high profit from your current most successful franchise. I respect that. But for the love of all that is good and holy do not dumb down Resident Evil for a bunch of 13 year old's (Who shouldn't even be playing Resident Evil or COD in the first place.) and if I've learnt one thing, trying to appease to the COD fanbase (like Dragon Age II) will only result in your game being shit. So don't try and be COD, you're not COD and you'll never get COD's numbers, just be what you are: Resident evil. You know, the series in which RE5 sold 5.5 million copies...that was good right? so just stick to being resident evil, and don't ruin the good thing you've got going here."
I'll still likely give RE6 a chance, but I don't know if I'll come out liking it anywhere as much as I did its predecessors. Still looking forward to it more than Operation Raccoon City, at any rate.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Action sells better, guys. And as long as the games are good, enjoy them.
And sales =/= quality. The main reason RE5 sold as much as it did was because it was made in a way to appeal more to people new to the series, with co-op features and such. Hell, most people I know who got and played RE5 never played a previous game before in the series.
Originally posted by SmasandianI can kinda see where they're coming from. If Silent Hill had James come back looking like he's been hopped up on steroids and had him flipping through lasers or punching boulders, I'd be pissed. Sure, they have the option not to play it, but theres not many games like the old Resident Evil games so getting their survival horror fix is probably kind of hard.
As long as the action is done well, I'm looking forward to it.It looks somewhat freaky and the graphics look stellar.
The tension in RE4 was unequal to any other game I played. I was constantly freaked out about what I thought was going to happen. It was unlike the first few Resident Evil but in this day in age, a game like that might not do it for people anymore.
I'm hyped for Resident Evil 6. I was hyped for Resident Evil 5 and loved it. This will probably be the same.
I just get annoyed by people who want something new but complain that it's not the original games.
All RE games have some sort of scary, survival aspect. Some are much more than others but both RE4 and RE5 required smart use of ammo and accurate firing.
The difference is that both games control much better than the first RE games. That's a good thing. If they went back to the original designs, there is no way the franchise would survive.
Originally posted by Kazenji
With that link you posted Ridley there'ss a bit in it about puzzles/riddles"though the trailer for Resident Evil 6 doesn't make it look like the riddle-ridden games of yore"
ummmm RE 5 had some puzzles just maybe not as mind bending as the previous games.
Originally posted by General G
RE5 most certainly tried. It didn't do as well as RE4 or other RE games, but it tried and it succeeded in parts of the game for sure.
Originally posted by General G
RE5 most certainly tried. It didn't do as well as RE4 or other RE games, but it tried and it succeeded in parts of the game for sure.
Tried? Maybe in a way that a newborn puppy with severe brain damage tries to walk or bark. I have played through the game a couple of times on all but the hardest difficulty setting and I don't remember anything approaching survival horror.
RE5 is an action game with some very banal horror elements that get further marginalized by the forced co-op(be it with another player or the retarded AI), borderline C movie plot, characters, and dialogue. Don't get me wrong, RE has always been this way(except for the action and co-op), but at least in the past it had some relatively cheap-but-fun scares, some actual survival horror and satisfying gameplay. I always liked RE for what it was, but RE5 somehow managed to shit over even that.
Originally posted by ArtificialGloryThat would depend on your definition of "survival horror". I would consider certain aspects of the game to certainly be "survival horror", an example being this part here, starting at 8:00 in:
Tried? Maybe in a way that a newborn puppy with severe brain damage tries to walk or bark. I have played through the game a couple of times on all but the hardest difficulty setting and I don't remember anything approaching survival horror.RE5 is an action game with some very banal horror elements that get further marginalized by the forced co-op(be it with another player or the retarded AI), borderline C movie plot, characters, and dialogue. Don't get me wrong, RE has always been this way(except for the action and co-op), but at least in the past it had some relatively cheap-but-fun scares, some actual survival horror and satisfying gameplay. I always liked RE for what it was, but RE5 somehow managed to shit over even that.
I mean, you're surrounded by zombies and you're stuck in that area, have to survive until the chopper gets there, there's an infinite number of zombies, and you have limited ammo. Sounds like "survival horror" to me.
As I said, it would therefore depend on "your" definition of survival horror. Personally, I would consider any situation in which your objective is to survive with limited resources against a horrific enemy in a suspenseful atmosphere to be "survival horror". With that definition you can make distinctions. Like, Halo under that definition would not count as survival horror because even though the enemy might be "horrific", you do not have limited resources.
Under that definition, while RE5 is more action oriented than its predecessors, it does possess survival horror traits.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
As I said, it would therefore depend on "your" definition of survival horror.
Yea, it's "my" definition and hopefully the definition of any other person who doesn't suck. For example, there's an instance in WoW where you have to fight off the undead and escape on an airship. I am not sure what kind of gimp would dare call that "survival horror" though.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That would depend on your definition of "survival horror". I would consider certain aspects of the game to certainly be "survival horror", an example being this part here, starting at 8:00 in:I mean, you're surrounded by zombies and you're stuck in that area, have to survive until the chopper gets there, there's an infinite number of zombies, and you have limited ammo. Sounds like "survival horror" to me.
It's not survival horror, it's survival action. It would be survival horror if it was actually, you know, horrific. If it actually instilled a sense of terror and fright. Killing an endless wave of enemies that drops ammo and health when they die while you run around in broad daylight is not horror, it's survival action.
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
It's not survival horror, it's survival action. It would be survival horror if it was actually, you know, horrific. If it actually instilled a sense of terror and fright. Killing an endless wave of enemies that drops ammo and health when they die while you run around in broad daylight is not horror, it's survival action.
Well, maybe some people do find it horrific. After all, black people wielding melee weapons who are trying to kill you is pretty horrific, right? Right?
Originally posted by FinalAnswer"Horrific" is relative, so you really can't use that as a qualifier. Would Silent Hill not be considered survivor horror because there are people who play it that aren't scared by it at all?
It's not survival horror, it's survival action. It would be survival horror if it was actually, you know, horrific. If it actually instilled a sense of terror and fright. Killing an endless wave of enemies that drops ammo and health when they die while you run around in broad daylight is not horror, it's survival action.