Hold up. Your avatar. What is that from? Is that a grown up version of Edward Elric?? :0
That's a younger version of Hohenheim. The intros for Brotherhood had me fooled too, that's what I thought it was xD
OT: I played 4 and 5, and the difference in game quality is staggering. It wasnt gradual, ALL fear was taken out of resident evil 5 and it was just a shooter. It was just gears of war, more or less. It was fun to play co-op, but my friend and I both agreed throughout that it was a bad game.
I can only imagine how bad 6 is. I played ORC too... *shivers*
The RE label does come with a few things. BOWs, camp, and hilarious narm. RE6 meets all criteria. Happy day!
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.
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.
Consider me convinced on that point, I don't have any counter argument except well sometimes people won't seed to cover their tracks because seeding is much more traceable and then actually downloading a torrent. But yeah your point does stand. Well to put it more bluntly people torrent because they want to try out a game like a demo sometimes, so that helps boost the download numbers. Anyway I've remembered that there was a game that actually defied your sales equate quality logic, and that's probably why I was so strong against that point. Planescape Torment was a failure in the sales department when it originally came out in the 90s, but guess what? after some time it garnered universal acclaim. Which only shows that quality can sometimes be determined after people chew on a game for a little while and let everything sink in so there is no knee jerk reaction like with what happened with mass effect 3. Anyways I don't feel like arguing anymore since your torrent point kinda convinced me, so cheers :)