Resident Evil Is a Child, Capcom and Fans Are Its Parents

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

natster43:
Holy fuck 0.5 user score? I thought it would be getting a mediocre score, but not that bad, either that or people are just zero bombing it like they did with Mass Effect and such.

Yeah, people are just being the stupid cunts that they usually are when this sort of stuff happens.

I mean, I don't like the game, and in this analogy I do see Capcom as an abusive husband/parent, but Metacritic is just fucking dumb. 0.5 should equal 'barley functional, looks like dogshit, no redeeming features whatsoever' and I can only think of a few games that fit that description. Any of the Resident Evil games not being them.

I really like the title of the article. It makes me laugh. So capcom, how about we talk about the other child? You know, the one your trying to sign all the papers to give over to a orphanage? Oh right, mega man. (let it burn, fans. Let the hatred boil, as i know it is strong with me)

and child services will someday show up as mandatory dlc

You think you got it bad RE fans. Megaman is out selling matches in a cold winter night. Worst RE had was being sent to its room to watch a 24 hour Rambo marathon

Darmy647:
I really like the title of the article. It makes me laugh. So capcom, how about we talk about the other child? You know, the one your trying to sign all the papers to give over to a orphanage? Oh right, mega man. (let it burn, fans. Let the hatred boil, as i know it is strong with me)

I hear you brother.

I haven't played it yet, but 0.5? Come on. I've never even seen a game that was a 0.5. It'd have to be downright unplayable for that to happen. I really doubt it's actually as bad as everyone says. I mean, it might still be bad, but I can't believe it'd be 0.5 bad. This seems like a pretty big overreaction.

natster43:
Holy fuck 0.5 user score? I thought it would be getting a mediocre score, but not that bad, either that or people are just zero bombing it like they did with Mass Effect and such.

I don't know Capcom, if people are that against what you are doing, that kinda means you are doing something wrong.

The Metacritic bombing is happening so often now that it's impossible to take it even remotely seriously, I expect the same treatment with Dead Space 3 and Hitman Absolution regardless of their quality or lack thereof.

Baron_Rouge:
I haven't played it yet, but 0.5? Come on. I've never even seen a game that was a 0.5. It'd have to be downright unplayable for that to happen. I really doubt it's actually as bad as everyone says. I mean, it might still be bad, but I can't believe it'd be 0.5 bad. This seems like a pretty big overreaction.

Even fucking Big Rigs Over The Road Racing has a higher user score than any of the games that have been metabombed; there's something just plain wrong about that.

Kopikatsu:
I'm sure that people have played enough of the game on the day it was released to score it honestly/accurately and come up with a 0.5 average.

Sounds super legit.

Indeed. There are not really many well known games that are so bad that they deserve a score of less than 5/10, and none are so bad that they have absolutely nothing redeemable like a 0.5/10 would suggest.

People love to go to extremes though.

The poor response to footage of 2K Marin's 1950s XCom FPS reboot seems to have prompted the hasty release of a more traditional XCom game from Firaxis.

Actually, there was nothing hasty about that at all. It has been stated, in many interviews with Jake Solomon (the lead designer) of XCOM: EU, that the game has been in production for 4 years at least, largely due to Jake's desire to create it. So it was being made for 3.5 years (or starting from 2008/2009 which is way before the XCOM FPS announcement) and only this year was its existance finally revealed.

Please do a bit better research before writing something like this.

Quick time events, sooo many quick time events...God I hope Yatzee rips the game a new one...

I find comparing a game to a child a bit silly.
You raise a child as best you can so that it will be able to live on it's own when it grows up.
You make a game so that people will buy it. If we're calling the game a child then this would be having a child and raising it simply to please your wife, and then telling the wife you know what's best for the kid and not letting her have much of a say in it. Which pretty much defeats the purpose of the child in the first place. Like buying a car for your daughter's birthday and not letting her drive it while you drive around in it instead.

Jesus Christ this is demeaning. I'm not even a Resi fan but this just seems insulting to the fans. "Me and you are the parents, RE is the baby, and we're right and you're wrong."

It's pretty clear with a quick glance at the Metacritic User scores that some people are jumping on the Hate Bandwagon.

The critic reviews however are mixed. Which is what I would expect for a Resident Evil title.

Ninjat_126:

Mcoffey:
This is what happens when you throw out your original fanbase to jump onto the brainless action bandwagon, especially when you're grossly inept doing it properly.

Yeah... I only played the demo, but if looked pretty awful at being both an action game, and a survival-horror game.

Resident Evil has never been known for having good controls, but it's not too late to change! Is it?

It's the weirdest, most disappointing thing too. 4 was perfect in it's mix of action and horror. It's so sad that they went from that to this sorry state.

There's a thalidomide joke in here somewhere...

LysanderNemoinis:
I don't blame the fans so much as I blame the all the generic military shooters and their fans. I mean, Resident Evil is a big series, but RE4 is one of their highest sellers and it didn't move so much as a fifth of what the Call of Duty games sell within their first week. Capcom likes money (as do we all), and wants to make more of it. So there you go. Besides, I think the 'fans' they did listen to are the CoD fans complaining about the controls and slower pace of the older games for being 'gay' and not 'hardcore' and since they're the ones dictating things these days, that's how things have gotten to the way they are. I enjoyed the demos, and will get RE6, and though I lament the loss of horror, it's still a good game in my opinion. If you have to be mad at anyone, I'd be mad at people like my best friend who won't even so much as look at a game if it isn't a brown 'n' gray military shooter.

Yup, you've hit the nail on the head. I personally prefer the direction 4 took, because it didn't look and control like arse or take itself too seriously, while maintaining an excellent atmosphere and being a chilling but thoroughly enjoyable experience. 5 less so, 6 even less so.

Though I'm fine with some action, it may have been better to launch spin offs or NEW IP's FOR IT CAPCOM!

Brandon Logan:
It's pretty clear with a quick glance at the Metacritic User scores that some people are jumping on the Hate Bandwagon.

The critic reviews however are mixed. Which is what I would expect for a Resident Evil title.

I read the user reviews on metacritic and a good 25% of them were about those islands being disputed between china and japan and a bunch of racist gibberish.

The rest was fan ire.

I stepped back from my RE4 fandom and replayed the demos, they're a passable and enjoyable action thing, but a poor horror thing. QTE's are fucking annoying though.

natster43:
Holy fuck 0.5 user score? I thought it would be getting a mediocre score, but not that bad, either that or people are just zero bombing it like they did with Mass Effect and such.

No. If you read them (and I got tired after about 20 to 25 of them, they have valid reasons for disliking the game. I too found the game to be utterly weak. I rather go back and play 4 and 5 again. The camera is something to die from. The biggest problem I have is not that its an action game... its just not a good action game either.

Well if resident evil series is a child to capcom, then they are the mother who keeps getting pregnant so she can get more money from welfare. She doesn't give two craps about the kids and only sees them as a way to get more money for trying to support a child she cares nothing about.

captcha: full house

Yup if she keeps having all these kids it sure will be.

"The way I always think of it is that if Resident Evil represents a child, then the fans and us as creators are the two parents," he told the PlayStation blog. "The resulting games are like the children that are born between both of us. And just like real parents, you're not always going to agree on what is best for raising that child."

With the what now?
That's such a weird analogy to use. Because in this case one of the parents (capcom) presumably wants to make a child that the other parent (the fans) wants to buy. Any way you choose to deconstruct that analogy yields a broken home and a screwed up kid.

His analogy works better for things like Elder Scrolls where Bathesda and the modders both shape what it ultimately becomes.

BBboy20:

Cecilthedarkknight_234:
If capcom wants to sell their product at a chance of making decent revenue then they have no choice but to adapt what actually sells in the market

So essentially, turn your product into a shell of it's former self. Got it.

Then tell me how do you expect capcom to compete in this market anymore?? Games with pre-rendered backgrounds and tank controls "which i loved about most of the games" do not sell on the current market. This has been coming since the massive change in re4 which was more action oriented with qte's so either we learn to accept this or the franchise will die off completely. Hell maybe that would be the best thing after re6's story wrap up...

'the franchise's new, action-packed direction.'

Action, schmaction. I know some people have been complaining since RE4, but RE4 and RE5 were decent games (if hardly horror). RE6 is a sloppy turd that can't figure out what it is, decides to throw in every single mechanism from every previous game and all the spin-offs, and does none of them well.

Grey Carter:
Resident Evil Is a Child, Capcom and Fans Are Its Parents

Actually Resident Evil is a child, Capcom are the parents and the Fans are social services. It just so happens that the parents won't listen to professional advice, resulting in the child's suffering under the weight of it's parents' neglect.

I wouldnt mind these new RE games if they werent so bland and boring. I highly enjoyed the old games and i highly enjoyed RE4, but RE 5 was just an annoying and unpleasant game to play. RE 6 seems to be both worse and better than the 5th game, Leon scenario seems decent, but id rather not play the rest, hated those parts in the demo. Unfortunately you have to suffer through 20 hours of Re5 gameplay to get to Adas scenario, which seems to be the most promising part of the game.

Im defineately staying away from this one, im only interested in 2/4 of the game, and not interested enough to give Capcom any money. Personally id prefer if they stopped making AAA RE games and instead made some smaller games with a more defined and focused target audience. I hate these AAA games that are made to please every gamer in the world, just doesnt give as good results as something made for a niche audicence.

Soooo basically the typical K-drama bipolar relationship?

Also, the condom broke.

Legion:

Kopikatsu:
I'm sure that people have played enough of the game on the day it was released to score it honestly/accurately and come up with a 0.5 average.

Sounds super legit.

Indeed. There are not really many well known games that are so bad that they deserve a score of less than 5/10, and none are so bad that they have absolutely nothing redeemable like a 0.5/10 would suggest.

People love to go to extremes though.

Hold up. Your avatar. What is that from? Is that a grown up version of Edward Elric?? :0

I think that if this game WASN"T a resident evil game it would work better. Why? Resident Evil is a label that comes with a few things. Obviously RE6 fails the RE test.

If it wasn't an RE.. sure.. sound interesting. As an RE it just hurts the fans giving it less a chance to shine on its own.

That's an interesting way of looking at things. I haven't played the game yet, but the demo left me feeling a little down. Mainly because I couldn't figure out the controls. 1/2 a second on the loading screen to memorize all those buttons was not enough time. Also, the laser sight may as well not even be there because it's so faint.

You can move and shoot now though, which I seem to recall EVERYONE complaining about the lack of that feature in 4 and 5. Now though, the game's too action-packed. So...we go back to not moving and shooting then? Stand and shoot?

This is way to silly not to role play!: "In that case I want a divorce Capcom! Do you enjoy screwing up our child telling him he should fit in with the in-crowd action games instead of being unique a horror game?! And you wonder why our Dante is a smoker! Its your fault! You ruined this family! D':<

Kopikatsu:
I'm sure that people have played enough of the game on the day it was released to score it honestly/accurately and come up with a 0.5 average.

Sounds super legit.

Edit: Really, the scores are pretty meaningless. I'm just waiting for it's sales figures to be released. That'll tell the true story.

Edit 2: Score is down to 0.4 now.

Did I just read you right? The sales figures don't mean jack when determining the quality of a game. I'm not agreeing with 0.5 score either, but don't say that the sales figures tell the "true story" they don't. Sales figures will show that the game sold mostly/purely under the Resident Evil name, not because of its "evolution" of mechanics for the action gamer. I don't always agree with Jim Sterling, but his Destructoid review did have an interesting opinion or fact (call it what you may) which is, if the game was released under a new IP it would bomb at the same rate as games like "inversion" a generic third person shoot em up with a crap story.

masticina:
I think that if this game WASN"T a resident evil game it would work better. Why? Resident Evil is a label that comes with a few things. Obviously RE6 fails the RE test.

If it wasn't an RE.. sure.. sound interesting. As an RE it just hurts the fans giving it less a chance to shine on its own.

The RE label does come with a few things. BOWs, camp, and hilarious narm. RE6 meets all criteria. Happy day!

Sniper Team 4:
That's an interesting way of looking at things. I haven't played the game yet, but the demo left me feeling a little down. Mainly because I couldn't figure out the controls. 1/2 a second on the loading screen to memorize all those buttons was not enough time. Also, the laser sight may as well not even be there because it's so faint.

You can move and shoot now though, which I seem to recall EVERYONE complaining about the lack of that feature in 4 and 5. Now though, the game's too action-packed. So...we go back to not moving and shooting then? Stand and shoot?

I had some issues with the controls at first, but you get used to them. They're actually set up pretty well with the possible exception of cover (Never use it because your sensitivity like triples behind cover for some reason) and having to aim before dodge rolling (Not a huge deal). Of course, you have to relearn everything in Agent Hunt because playing as the monsters is so much different from playing as the Agents. The best tactic is to play dead in Grapple Mode, wait for an Agent to get close, then suddenly spring up and tear their throat out, because everything else (except for throwing your weapon, which only works once) is very slow and exaggerated...and the Agents can counter-kill you instantly if you try it with a weapon. Still really fun though. Especially when you get to play as a BSAA zombie (with helmet) that can shrug off bullets like they're particularly fluffy marshmallows.

DrunkenMonkey:

Kopikatsu:
I'm sure that people have played enough of the game on the day it was released to score it honestly/accurately and come up with a 0.5 average.

Sounds super legit.

Edit: Really, the scores are pretty meaningless. I'm just waiting for it's sales figures to be released. That'll tell the true story.

Edit 2: Score is down to 0.4 now.

Did I just read you right? The sales figures don't mean jack when determining the quality of a game. I'm not agreeing with 0.5 score either, but don't say that the sales figures tell the "true story" they don't. Sales figures will show that the game sold mostly/purely under the Resident Evil name, not because of its "evolution" of mechanics for the action gamer. I don't always agree with Jim Sterling, but his Destructoid review did have an interesting opinion or fact (call it what you may) which is, if the game was released under a new IP it would bomb at the same rate as games like "inversion" a generic third person shoot em up with a crap story.

If the reviews don't determine the quality of the game, and sales don't determine the quality of the game, then what does? Reviews and personal opinion are subjective and therefore easily discounted. Sales are objective and reliable data.

Edit: Let me put it this way: Sales will determine the future of the Resident Evil series (Not even whether it lives or dies, but what direction it goes in), not reviews.

Publishers/developers go where the money is. If RE6 sells well, then it'll continue on it's path to action-ville. If not, they may rethink it.

Kopikatsu:

masticina:
I think that if this game WASN"T a resident evil game it would work better. Why? Resident Evil is a label that comes with a few things. Obviously RE6 fails the RE test.

If it wasn't an RE.. sure.. sound interesting. As an RE it just hurts the fans giving it less a chance to shine on its own.

The RE label does come with a few things. BOWs, camp, and hilarious narm. RE6 meets all criteria. Happy day!

Sniper Team 4:
That's an interesting way of looking at things. I haven't played the game yet, but the demo left me feeling a little down. Mainly because I couldn't figure out the controls. 1/2 a second on the loading screen to memorize all those buttons was not enough time. Also, the laser sight may as well not even be there because it's so faint.

You can move and shoot now though, which I seem to recall EVERYONE complaining about the lack of that feature in 4 and 5. Now though, the game's too action-packed. So...we go back to not moving and shooting then? Stand and shoot?

I had some issues with the controls at first, but you get used to them. They're actually set up pretty well with the possible exception of cover (Never use it because your sensitivity like triples behind cover for some reason) and having to aim before dodge rolling (Not a huge deal). Of course, you have to relearn everything in Agent Hunt because playing as the monsters is so much different from playing as the Agents. The best tactic is to play dead in Grapple Mode, wait for an Agent to get close, then suddenly spring up and tear their throat out, because everything else (except for throwing your weapon, which only works once) is very slow and exaggerated...and the Agents can counter-kill you instantly if you try it with a weapon. Still really fun though. Especially when you get to play as a BSAA zombie (with helmet) that can shrug off bullets like they're particularly fluffy marshmallows.

DrunkenMonkey:

Kopikatsu:
I'm sure that people have played enough of the game on the day it was released to score it honestly/accurately and come up with a 0.5 average.

Sounds super legit.

Edit: Really, the scores are pretty meaningless. I'm just waiting for it's sales figures to be released. That'll tell the true story.

Edit 2: Score is down to 0.4 now.

Did I just read you right? The sales figures don't mean jack when determining the quality of a game. I'm not agreeing with 0.5 score either, but don't say that the sales figures tell the "true story" they don't. Sales figures will show that the game sold mostly/purely under the Resident Evil name, not because of its "evolution" of mechanics for the action gamer. I don't always agree with Jim Sterling, but his Destructoid review did have an interesting opinion or fact (call it what you may) which is, if the game was released under a new IP it would bomb at the same rate as games like "inversion" a generic third person shoot em up with a crap story.

If the reviews don't determine the quality of the game, and sales don't determine the quality of the game, then what does? Reviews and personal opinion are subjective and therefore easily discounted. Sales are objective and reliable data.

USER REVIEWS ONCE PEOPLE PLAY IT FOR A WHILE, sorry for the caps. Yes reviews and personal opinion are subjective, but you have to look at more than one review to determine that, read the comparisons between sites so as to avoid bias from just one site, if there is an overall consensus that the game is bad, then it's bad, read the user reviews after people actually play the damn game in its entirety to then further look at the quality. If the professional critics opinion doesn't convince you.

Sales are objective and reliable data, but they only show if people bought it, not if they kept it. if you find return rates for the game that on the other hand is much more telling of its quality. Although I'm not sure that info is available, or even exists. More so a lot of people follow the herd instinct (ie Diablo 3 sales) when everybody is hyping a game up and the season is dry for popular games, people will most likely go with the popular choice if there is one.

Hell, if there was data that showed the trend that the game was bought at, that would also help. If a game is good then there is no reason for the sales to die down after one week. If people sing praises to friends, then sales should stay steady (not the preorder steady). On the other hand if the game is bad or mediocre then sales should literally slow down to a crawl or just plain die after that first week. If people collected sales over the course of a year or a few months you'd be able to see trends, but they don't so, we won't see it.

But as I said before sales do not indicate quality. COD keeps selling like hot cakes, but it is essentially just reskins of different guns, and more maps. If you call that quality, then that's fine.

It all comes down to the ultimate equalizer.... "we play the game for ourselves to determine its quality.

edit: just to clarify subjective opinions should not be easily dismissed due to its subjective nature, within every opinion there is a grain of truth. If 100 people say the controls suck, you can't exactly dismiss all those opinions can you, controls are a concrete mechanic that either works or it doesn't. If you want to go into more detail, you can scientifically prove it, by setting up experiments with randomized gamers and a decent sample size, but I think that goes beyond the practical for the purposes of deciding whether a game is bad or not.

insanelich:
Breaking news: Capcom admits to fucking its fans.

*clap

clap

clap

clap

clap*

How to see if an game reviewer is biased:
Average Game Review score: 66 out of 100
Average User Review score: 0.6 out of 10 or 6 out of 100

If a game reviewer is on the "positive" side of game review score: NOT TRUSTWORTHY

IGN: the game publishers self-esteem; "IGN, did I do well?" "Yes, Game Publishers; You've figured out that 2+2=9; good job; now where is my million dollars?"

DrunkenMonkey:

Kopikatsu:

masticina:
I think that if this game WASN"T a resident evil game it would work better. Why? Resident Evil is a label that comes with a few things. Obviously RE6 fails the RE test.

If it wasn't an RE.. sure.. sound interesting. As an RE it just hurts the fans giving it less a chance to shine on its own.

The RE label does come with a few things. BOWs, camp, and hilarious narm. RE6 meets all criteria. Happy day!

Sniper Team 4:
That's an interesting way of looking at things. I haven't played the game yet, but the demo left me feeling a little down. Mainly because I couldn't figure out the controls. 1/2 a second on the loading screen to memorize all those buttons was not enough time. Also, the laser sight may as well not even be there because it's so faint.

You can move and shoot now though, which I seem to recall EVERYONE complaining about the lack of that feature in 4 and 5. Now though, the game's too action-packed. So...we go back to not moving and shooting then? Stand and shoot?

I had some issues with the controls at first, but you get used to them. They're actually set up pretty well with the possible exception of cover (Never use it because your sensitivity like triples behind cover for some reason) and having to aim before dodge rolling (Not a huge deal). Of course, you have to relearn everything in Agent Hunt because playing as the monsters is so much different from playing as the Agents. The best tactic is to play dead in Grapple Mode, wait for an Agent to get close, then suddenly spring up and tear their throat out, because everything else (except for throwing your weapon, which only works once) is very slow and exaggerated...and the Agents can counter-kill you instantly if you try it with a weapon. Still really fun though. Especially when you get to play as a BSAA zombie (with helmet) that can shrug off bullets like they're particularly fluffy marshmallows.

DrunkenMonkey:

Did I just read you right? The sales figures don't mean jack when determining the quality of a game. I'm not agreeing with 0.5 score either, but don't say that the sales figures tell the "true story" they don't. Sales figures will show that the game sold mostly/purely under the Resident Evil name, not because of its "evolution" of mechanics for the action gamer. I don't always agree with Jim Sterling, but his Destructoid review did have an interesting opinion or fact (call it what you may) which is, if the game was released under a new IP it would bomb at the same rate as games like "inversion" a generic third person shoot em up with a crap story.

If the reviews don't determine the quality of the game, and sales don't determine the quality of the game, then what does? Reviews and personal opinion are subjective and therefore easily discounted. Sales are objective and reliable data.

USER REVIEWS ONCE PEOPLE PLAY IT FOR A WHILE, sorry for the caps. Yes reviews and personal opinion are subjective, but you have to look at more than one review to determine that, read the comparisons between sites so as to avoid bias from just one site, if there is an overall consensus that the game is bad, then it's bad, read the user reviews after people actually play the damn game in its entirety to then further look at the quality. If the professional critics opinion doesn't convince you.

Sales are objective and reliable data, but they only show if people bought it, not if they kept it. if you find return rates for the game that on the other hand is much more telling of its quality. Although I'm not sure that info is available, or even exists. More so a lot of people follow the herd instinct (ie Diablo 3 sales) when everybody is hyping a game up and the season is dry for popular games, people will most likely go with the popular choice if there is one.

Hell, if there was data that showed the trend that the game was bought at, that would also help. If a game is good then there is no reason for the sales to die down after one week. If people sing praises to friends, then sales should stay steady (not the preorder steady). On the other hand if the game is bad or mediocre then sales should literally slow down to a crawl or just plain die after that first week. If people collected sales over the course of a year or a few months you'd be able to see trends, but they don't so, we won't see it.

But as I said before sales do not indicate quality. COD keeps selling like hot cakes, but it is essentially just reskins of different guns, and more maps. If you call that quality, then that's fine.

It all comes down to the ultimate equalizer.... "we play the game for ourselves to determine its quality.

edit: just to clarify subjective opinions should not be easily dismissed due to its subjective nature, within every opinion there is a grain of truth. If 100 people say the controls suck, you can't exactly dismiss all those opinions can you, controls are a concrete mechanic that either works or it doesn't. If you want to go into more detail, you can scientifically prove it, by setting up experiments with randomized gamers and a decent sample size, but I think that goes beyond the practical for the purposes of deciding whether a game is bad or not.

You know what's the best way to tell if a game has quality or is still relevant,
check to see if it's torrent's Seed:peer ratio is any good; the lower it is; the worse and out-of-date it is; and it is an actual data point, which is Representative of how much people want to share their experience with other people, if an bunch of people are just leeching with no/little seeders; its no good as a product.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here