Resident Evil 6 was always going to be a divisive game, because it's a deeply divided game - as splintered and self-conflicted as the monstrosities it contains. It doesn't cruise evenly to the finish, after the example of many North American shooters, but heaves up and down like a beached shark as different scenarios latch onto the central mechanics, some inspired, some terrible.
You could attribute this chimerical structure to a cynical, impractical desire to win over as many flavours of gamers as possible - those who enjoy bombast, those who've kept up with the Resident Evil universe, those who expect the direction to rival the average Hollywood blockbuster - and you'd be onto something. But the result is a shooter that can't be predicted, that's always happy to set off in a fresh direction, and at this late stage in the console cycle, I'm bang up for the idea of an unpredictable shooter. Sadly, it seems not everybody's convinced. The game's Metascore speaks for itself.
But too often, the complaints I've read in other reviews appear to stem from some preconception about how Resident Evil 6 should handle, based (admittedly) on the associations the game rouses with its presentation and choice of over-arching mechanics. You get the sense that people resent having to think about an established idea - the third-person shooter - in a new way. Are these the same people who cry out continually for overhauls and reboots of their favourite genres? I hope not. I really do.
The herbs-and-tablet system, for instance, has taken a lot of flak for "convoluting" the well-honed business of how you heal up, or at least perpetuating the long-extant Resi system whereby herbs are combined to make healing items. Personally, I think being given the choice of whether to burn through a single green herb for a single health block or wait in hopes of finding a red herb to combine it with adds challenge. Ditto having to tap out the right number of pills when I'm healing up in the fray, or attempting to work out how many bullets I can endure without taking permanent damage (each health block will fill itself back up, Halo style, providing it isn't emptied completely).
There's been a lot of chest-beating about "over-powered melee", too, but five big hits in this game will drain your stamina gauge dry, leaving you unable to pull off the auto-aimed "quick shots" that are often crucial to surviving the attentions of tougher foes. Micro-managing your melee output pays real dividends on higher difficulty levels, as attempting to bludgeon everything to death is a fine way to guarantee zero room for manoeuvre when reinforcements arrive.
It's been suggested that zombie mutations - probably my favourite aspect of the new Resident Evil - mean there's no longer a reward for firing on limbs. I'd counter that the sense of desperation that comes from trying your damndest not to shoot a mutation-triggering spot in a raging fire-fight is reward a-plenty. There are still "safe places" to shoot zombies, and more efficient ways to bring them down - all that's changed is that the consequences for aiming awry have been escalated.
10 comments so far...
fracturedrich on 2 Oct '12 said:
ill make my own mind up ive just bought it
YoungTobias on 2 Oct '12 said:
The critical consensus is far from infallible - again, see how the mainstream press handled the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy. Too much dogma, too many straw man constructs and assumptions based on pre-existing dispositions and corporate biases, too much appealing to the authority of EA and the cultural capital of BioWare, and not enough actual research or analysis on why the majority of players detested such a key aspect of the product they'd purchased. If anything, it's refreshing to see a game like Resident Evil not fall into the same elitist trap - heaven forbid, there might even be some level of autonomy and independence in the reviews for this! We couldn't possibly have that!
CunningSmile on 2 Oct '12 said:
Wow YoungTobias bringing up ME3 in an unrelated thread? Unheard of!!!
FishyGinger on 2 Oct '12 said:
Do you have to mention that in every post tobias? Did that game actually rape you in the ear, kill your children then eat you last cornetto or something? Seriously, you have issues...
You say that it has a lot of problems but for me there were just too many in the demo to warrant a high score. Maybe it was a case of just being a poor demo but nothing besides the demo has made me think that it could be good.
ItchyRash on 2 Oct '12 said:
You must be a blast to hang out with with. Does everything in your life relate back to the Mass Effect 3 ending? I can only assume this is a joke now that you're very aware of
msbhvn on 2 Oct '12 said:
Hm, sounds a little like you're so busy looking for the silver lining, you can't see the cloud. But then, you've played Resi 6 all the way through and I've only played part of the first demo.
BlargMcblarghonk on 2 Oct '12 said:
Just had a look at the user score on metacritic somethings definitely not right there.
Thrasher on 3 Oct '12 said:
But there's so so much more wrong with this game than most reviewers are letting on. For example, the game does not allow you to shoot a corpse that you know is so obviously a zombie because the game wants you to walk up to the corpse for a QTE event where you stamp on the zombie's head. This is the case throughout the game. If you ever see a corpse blocking your way, you have to let it attack you or wait for it to get up and then attack you. You simply have no choice in the matter. And when you become aware of this particular feature, all immersion is instantly broken. This game seems to actively discourage you from being an intelligent, astute gamer. It's kind of worrying that Capcom thinks this is okay.
Baryonyx on 3 Oct '12 said:
I'll reserve judgement on this game until I've played it, but my main concern seems already to have been confirmed, and that is that Capcom cannot move away from the cheesy blockbuster trappings that have seen the brooding, atmospheric and beautifully judged and crafted RE4 turn into something with all the credibility of a summer action movie for teenagers.
Johnbhoy69 on 3 Oct '12 said:
Just completed Leon mission, which started out so well then leads to a truly anti climatic ending...the ''revelation'' about Leons man feelings is something we have known since RE2.
Now im starting the Gears of War mission...oops I mean Chris's Mission.
The main problem Ive noticed is the serious Lack of ammo, don't go saying it adds the the survival horror feel by making you try to conserve ammo as it doesnt.! In a game where progression depends upon shooting and killing if not all then most of the enemies you encounter its very idiotic to include little to no ammo drops, instead we get skill points...completely useless till the end of the level...but you cant get to the end of the level as you have no ammo to shoot enemies.
Im currently running around beating up the gun weilding J'avos instead of shooting them as I have 0 bullets in ANY of my guns. And my co-op partners are about as useful as a mint flavored suppository.
Agent Hunt...sounded like fun till I played it...As a slow rambling zombie, I made my way to the players location. One f**king shotgun shell to the face and Im back to the respawn point to make my slow as f**k way to him/her again. I literally only played 2 games of it so I dont know if you can do this but wouldnt being a more faster agile Zombie (Like the doctor Zombie from Code Veronica) be more challenging both for the invader and the defender?
There has only being one shining moment in this game, and that was in the first 90 minutes of Leons mission. Think its time Capcom did what they are doing with Devil May Cry... Let another Team have a go at it.