SliChillax
Member
Bullet sponge enemies, weapons feel like they do nothing, too much stuff going on I get a headache. I still wouldn't say it's a bad game, it just gets tiresome really quickly.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Is Resident Evil 6 an objectively bad game, or just a bad Resident Evil game?
- Thread starter oni-link
- Start date
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
This game gets a lot of flack because "ITS NOT SURVIVAL HORROR!" Big deal. I mean Rocky started out as a straighforward boxing movie and the fourth one he's trying to save America from the Soviet Union. Same shit happened the the Fast and Furious movies. RE 6 is perfectly enjoyable all on it's own.
TheSpaceBetween
Member
Much like every RE post 4, it's just a bad RE game. You could even argue that 4 was a bad RE game. 6 wasn't without it's problems, but in no way is it a bad game.
Brian_FETO
Banned
The gifs are awesome
If I can enjoy Devil's Third I can't imagine the campaign being that bad, but the real draw is still Mercenaries
If I can enjoy Devil's Third I can't imagine the campaign being that bad, but the real draw is still Mercenaries
Whompa02
Member
Someone more interested in seeing digital polygonal boobs than actually playing a good videogame.
Muchi Muchi Pink
Member
That's because the enemies are designed around the melee and counter mechanics. Weapons are just for set ups.
AndyMoogle
Member
Why not both?
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Hang on, Rocky wasn't about boxing, it was a love story
BrianRoyale
Member
I actually loved RE5, and that's probably a bad resident evil game, but it was the first game I played Co-op with my friend so we just really really had fun with it, plus it was overall a good game(in my opinion). We then went and played RE6 together and...well, we never made it through all three campaigns. Something is really wrong with that game, perhaps it's the pacing(3 different campaigns) and QTEs, but man it dragged and became uninteresting to play. It really felt like the game Capcom decided to make to cater to all the different RE fans, and ended up being a muddled mess. It played fine shooting wise, but beyond that i think we made it through the Leon campaign and part of the Chris one before stopping.
So yeah I'd say it's generally not a good game, maybe I wouldn't say bad because it has good things in it, but overall it's a bit of a mess regardless of it being RE or not.
So yeah I'd say it's generally not a good game, maybe I wouldn't say bad because it has good things in it, but overall it's a bit of a mess regardless of it being RE or not.
Whompa02
Member
Well we're S.O.L then because that gif features none of the above.
I agree with the crossing paths aspect I really thought it was cool, helped a few co oping friends on the intersecting parts. I really would like to see this used again doesn't even have to be in RE.
Muchi Muchi Pink
Member
Lost Planets 4! Bring back the fun of LP2.
family_guy
Member
It's a good game although some scenarios aren't as good as others. I didn't like most of Chris's missions. Leon probably has the best missions.
Barry Burton
Member
It's both.
RE4-6 are all bad RE games, if the intent of the series is to be survival horror.
That being said, RE4 is an excellent third-person shooter, RE5 was solid in that regard and RE6 was pretty bad. Game design and level design regressed considerably over the course of those three games.
The combat in RE6 is actually a lot more fun than I was expecting going in. I never would have thought I'd favor Chris Redfield's campaign over the others.
But that's really the only positive I can say about RE6. It was a real grind, stretched to a nearly-insufferable 25-30 hours of bloat. Even if it was just Chris' and Leon's campaigns, it still wouldn't have been a good game but it would have at least been tolerable. The other campaigns were pretty terrible.
EDIT: It's also worth noting that I've never cared for Mercenaries mode, in any RE game. People seemed to like it a lot in RE5 and RE6. To me, it's not something that adds to the experience.
RE4-6 are all bad RE games, if the intent of the series is to be survival horror.
That being said, RE4 is an excellent third-person shooter, RE5 was solid in that regard and RE6 was pretty bad. Game design and level design regressed considerably over the course of those three games.
The combat in RE6 is actually a lot more fun than I was expecting going in. I never would have thought I'd favor Chris Redfield's campaign over the others.
But that's really the only positive I can say about RE6. It was a real grind, stretched to a nearly-insufferable 25-30 hours of bloat. Even if it was just Chris' and Leon's campaigns, it still wouldn't have been a good game but it would have at least been tolerable. The other campaigns were pretty terrible.
EDIT: It's also worth noting that I've never cared for Mercenaries mode, in any RE game. People seemed to like it a lot in RE5 and RE6. To me, it's not something that adds to the experience.
PROh1bited
Banned
Bad game in general. Never have I been so disappointed with a game in my life.
The perfect Dark
Banned
One of the worst games I've played in my life
I haven't played the full game but from the demo gameplay mechanics seems really confuse and badly execute, lot of things seems copy and paste from the most selling games. Doubt it's just because it's a demo. For example even the demo of the terrible ps3 version of Bayonetta, shows enough what masterpiece is it.
Combat mechanics are sublime but woefully underutilized and poorly explained in the campaigns. People who say the gameplay is amazing are correct but spend most of their time in Mercenaries, people who say the game sucks are correctly talking about the shitty campaigns which are bloated with gimmicks, vehicle sections, etc.
Either way it's a bad "Resident Evil" game, but I always think such points don't mean much anyway.
Strider7
Member
To me, 6 is an outstanding game. Where it fails for me is wasted opportunity on the plot and characters. I know this is Resident Evil we are talking about here, but this was supposed to be our big epic fight against what remained of Umbrella, and an ensemble of all the heroes before.
And yet there is no sign of Jill, Claire, Barry, Rebbecca or even Sheva. Instead of the obvious choices, we got more new characters that nobody cares about like Helena and Piers. (I didn't really mind Jake.) Our villain is an angry Ada sister/clone thing and a T-rex Zombie man. And of course, the most egregious offense: Not enough HUNK.
Other than that I love the globetrotting adventure and settings. It had a good mix of different styles between the different campaigns.
And yet there is no sign of Jill, Claire, Barry, Rebbecca or even Sheva. Instead of the obvious choices, we got more new characters that nobody cares about like Helena and Piers. (I didn't really mind Jake.) Our villain is an angry Ada sister/clone thing and a T-rex Zombie man. And of course, the most egregious offense: Not enough HUNK.
Other than that I love the globetrotting adventure and settings. It had a good mix of different styles between the different campaigns.
Neff
Member
It feels to me like they'll drop it and go in a different direction after the divisive nature of 6. A lot of people simply had a hard time with the controls, even though they were fine.
No, it's objectively good (in both Mercs and the campaign, since they're exactly the same).
Wheeeee!
Joey knows what's up.
The Baron Count
Member
Conversations like these would go a hell of a lot smoother if people would quit thinking that something is bad/good based on much they like/dislike it.
It's such a childish way to look at things and is also the biggest issue I see with the newest generation of reviewers on youtube or whatnot. People seem to only give a damn about finding opinions that match their own regardless of how logical they are and it leads to reviewers not having to be professional and instead "playing to" that crowd. Confirmation bias is rampant on the internet.
I can list tons and tons of things that are good that I don't like. Smash Bros probably being the most notable. Me not liking it has nothing to do with how well executed something is. Games are designed with certain goals in mind, not to be everything to everyone. Looking at what a game did right/wrong while divorcing your own preferences from it isn't difficult. This is why there are absolutely objectively good and objectively bad games, with most notable titles usually falling somewhere in between, but since there are so many people who will think something is "bad" if it isn't made especially for them, these conversations will always be messy.
Personally if someone can't tell the difference between something being bad and them just not liking it then I have a very hard time taking them seriously. If a game has a strong following at all, then I think it's pretty clear it isn't "bad". You don't get millions of fans or even hundreds of thousands in this medium by releasing something bad. You can sort of do that in other mediums because they are non interactive, but if a game outright plays like shit, it sure as hell isn't going to get a following usually. Though I'm sure there are probably examples of this happening.
I think for RE6 it's pretty easy to see that it falls in the middle with most people agreeing that certain things were crap and certain things were good. The mechanics seem to be the only thing most people are divided on, though if they were actually objectively bad, I don't think there would be as many people expressing adoration for them as they are.
The combat system felt very Capcom to me in that it had a certain set of rules that aren't intuitive at all unless you specifically use them to your advantage. That's RE in a nutshell actually.
Marty-esque
Member
When people talk about not playing the game the right way do they mean the melee stuff? Like stunning enemies followed up with the wrestling moves?
Jakartalado
Member
It's bad. I mean, the combat works perfectly for an action game, but the story is bad. It starts good with Leon, but the rest is just terrible.
Bosses are terrible, the controversial camera was utterly stupid at launch, sound design is pretty much the same from Resident Evil 5, and the graphics......
Just bad in everyway, the movement and shooting was excellent (after the camera fix), and I understand how it can be fun when playing with friends, but it's a bad game.
Bosses are terrible, the controversial camera was utterly stupid at launch, sound design is pretty much the same from Resident Evil 5, and the graphics......
Just bad in everyway, the movement and shooting was excellent (after the camera fix), and I understand how it can be fun when playing with friends, but it's a bad game.
nailbombxx
Member
Mediocre game in general, especially bad Resident Evil game
gahh, fuck this thread is givin' me the itch for RE6 last stand no mercy mercs
the ultimate in challenge and tension in re6! you better play perfectly and always be moving + managing enemies properly and not opening yourself to instakills from the harder hitting dudes!
when things ramp up at 200/300 enemies under those conditions... man, it's a thing of beauty just making it through those scrapes nonstop knowing that one wrong move will splat your dumb ass
what i mean by variants of enemies is both the ones that will spawn and more importantly, the types that dynamically appear from the more human dudes (j'avo)- they can mutate at any given time and turn into real motherfuckin' problems that make you start reconsidering what you're going to do right there on the fly- for example, if you see a buncha guys turn into the stretch arm guys then you better start hauling ass and killing them because they will be a huge problem if things start getting hectic. or if the shield guys start showing up in mass that means you gotta start using explosives to clear them out or maneuver around them so you don't get boxed into a bad/death-inducing position. there's considerations you have to make with every different mutation and how they affect how you're gonna deal with the huge fuckoff mass of dudes that are probably right behind you or around the corner or whatever
you get a very smooth 'flow' going with the constant movement and shredding of enemies if you want and when it clicks a lot of stuff starts to make sense in terms of why they were designed that way- see: OTG stomp/melee not being invincible or killing enemies unless positioned correctly. they mean to use it as a method of taking out knocked down enemies when things aren't as tense because if it did kill regardless of position/make you invincible the gameplay flow would boil down to doing the various crowd control melee options that you have to just infinitely stomping grounded enemies over and over. if they did that then they'd have to make a concession of design and make the OTG attack push enemies back like in RE5 or make it potentially lock you into a position where enemies are attacking you when you recover from the slow invincible move. stuff like that starts coming through when you can build that pace with your gameplay
here's another old giant ass gif i guess
the ultimate in challenge and tension in re6! you better play perfectly and always be moving + managing enemies properly and not opening yourself to instakills from the harder hitting dudes!
when things ramp up at 200/300 enemies under those conditions... man, it's a thing of beauty just making it through those scrapes nonstop knowing that one wrong move will splat your dumb ass
a lot of folks say that, but i more encapsulate it as a deeper understanding of the variants of enemies + your given options at a time and what enemies are coming up (considering no mercy mercs spawns)- you want to be at certain spots and deal with certain enemies (revolver guys, rpg guys, sniper guys are all essential to take out asap- especially the first two)
what i mean by variants of enemies is both the ones that will spawn and more importantly, the types that dynamically appear from the more human dudes (j'avo)- they can mutate at any given time and turn into real motherfuckin' problems that make you start reconsidering what you're going to do right there on the fly- for example, if you see a buncha guys turn into the stretch arm guys then you better start hauling ass and killing them because they will be a huge problem if things start getting hectic. or if the shield guys start showing up in mass that means you gotta start using explosives to clear them out or maneuver around them so you don't get boxed into a bad/death-inducing position. there's considerations you have to make with every different mutation and how they affect how you're gonna deal with the huge fuckoff mass of dudes that are probably right behind you or around the corner or whatever
you get a very smooth 'flow' going with the constant movement and shredding of enemies if you want and when it clicks a lot of stuff starts to make sense in terms of why they were designed that way- see: OTG stomp/melee not being invincible or killing enemies unless positioned correctly. they mean to use it as a method of taking out knocked down enemies when things aren't as tense because if it did kill regardless of position/make you invincible the gameplay flow would boil down to doing the various crowd control melee options that you have to just infinitely stomping grounded enemies over and over. if they did that then they'd have to make a concession of design and make the OTG attack push enemies back like in RE5 or make it potentially lock you into a position where enemies are attacking you when you recover from the slow invincible move. stuff like that starts coming through when you can build that pace with your gameplay
here's another old giant ass gif i guess
Sebastian Suola
Member
I've loved Resident Evil since 1996, but couldn't even finish this turd. A terrible, terrible video game. There might be some good gameplay mechanics there, sure. But when everything else is just godawful... Yeah, no. For what it's worth, I loved every Resident Evil until 4, and thought 5 was still pretty good.
MaximusPayne
Member
NO
NO
NO
NO!
NOOOOOO!
WRONG!
WROOOOOOOONGGG!!!
*falls back and rolls away*
/thread
Silent Hill
Banned
It's a bad game in both ways IMO.
Jawmuncher
Member
I can't wait for Jake to come back in RE7
Yeah. So now RE6 it's bad because it's too much deep. Jeez.
Jawmuncher
Member
While his comment went a bit too far, there's just as much hyperbole on the other end saying the gameplay mechanics are bad.
RSB
Banned
RE6 is far from perfect, but it is still a good game. I also consider it a good RE game, but then again, I'm a fan of both classic and action RE.
Personally, I love RE6, even with its flaws (it has quite a few) mostly because the gameplay is so good (the best in the genre IMO)
That said, the game does leave a bad first impression, in fact, I kind of hated it myself at first, after playing the demo. Luckily, all the positive comments about its gameplay in the OT convinced me to give the game a second chance,
Personally, I love RE6, even with its flaws (it has quite a few) mostly because the gameplay is so good (the best in the genre IMO)
That said, the game does leave a bad first impression, in fact, I kind of hated it myself at first, after playing the demo. Luckily, all the positive comments about its gameplay in the OT convinced me to give the game a second chance,
It's definitely flawed. My biggest complaint is that the real-time inventory is unintuitive. I'd have much preferred being able to hotkey weapons to the d-pad and storing the rest, like in RE5 and REV. And placing bombs with first aid sprays, I don't even... I can live with the story, the pacing, the QTE's, but the inventory gets in the way of the core gameplay for me.
Also, the weapon upgrading system of previous games gave the series that "loot" feel. Different types of guns with different stats that you could invest in with tangible effects.
Also, the weapon upgrading system of previous games gave the series that "loot" feel. Different types of guns with different stats that you could invest in with tangible effects.
Well the game generally has been received negatively, this is arguably a fact, so my question was asking "is this because it's a bad game, or just a bad Resident Evil game?"
That said, and this is slightly off topic, but I think there are games that are objectively bad. Something like Ride to Hell: Retribution, is an objectively bad video game
Crankshaft
Member
6 is an amazing game. People judge it harshly because it wasn't the "resident evil" that they wanted.
If the game had been named something other than resident evil then the reviews would have been much higher.
I am a long time Resident Evil fan. RE is one of my favorite game series. The only thing I can complain about 6 is that the levels were a tad bit too long for my taste.
If the game had been named something other than resident evil then the reviews would have been much higher.
I am a long time Resident Evil fan. RE is one of my favorite game series. The only thing I can complain about 6 is that the levels were a tad bit too long for my taste.
The Baron Count
Member
How is it bad when the actual act of playing it is great? This is exactly the kind of logic I can't follow. I suppose if you were to average that stuff out in some silly arbitrary way then maybe that makes sense, but why think of things in that way? Clearly the game got some things very right.
I don't know if I agree with that. RE has never been a shallow game in my opinion, so it's not like this fanbase just can't hang with some deeper systems.
I do think a hell of a lot of people just flat out didn't give a shit about learning how everything works though. Honestly almost any series that has been around this long is going to have a lot of fans who are very conservative in that way. I don't necessarily think that is an out right fault.
Jawmuncher
Member
The Dear Leader
Banned
I like it, it's a good 3rd person action game and a good Resident Evil game too, the gameplay felt great and there is a lot of game to play.
I remember capcom has released a notable number of patch to fix the gameplay stuff. I mean it seems quite clearly they even know where they want to go with this game. Probably some things have been improved but from the demo this game shows a lot of discrepancies.
MMaRsu
Member
Ah more mercenaries lol. As if thats what the game is supposed to be about. Le sigh.
Also, nice horrible gif of Uncharted on purpose.
mikefrails
Banned
It's the natural progression of the third person shooter. The dodging and sense of thrill from the gunplay in general were improvements to me.
It's not only that. The game is basically a character action game (think DMC, Bayonetta etc.) with guns. You have many options to deal with enemies and to dodge their attacks, various moves depend on your and enemy's position, you can use other enemies as shields (an enemy can take a blow from other enemies or can interrupt another enemy's attack) or use their weapons/attacks against them (BSAA zombies with grenades, those exploding J'avos, zombies with pipes...). And the game is designed around the combat (at least when it doesn't throw you into yet qnother chase scene or scripted sequence).
Similar threads
- Locked