TruthTellah

@Mirado said:

@TruthTellah said:

He should be able to voice his displeasure with a stupid videogame without fearing a torrent of idiocy.

There's something to be said for those that go out and do it anyway and fear no "torrent of idiocy" despite its existence. It doesn't make what these people are doing any better, but it makes the reviewers better people in my eyes because of it.

There are better ways to handle this hate then what he chose, in my opinion.

Honestly, I don't think that's our choice to make.

He didn't lash out at gamers or say anything stupid. All he did was voice that he is a human being with emotions, and that a ton of people being assholes to you can still get to you whether you're expecting it or not. All he's guilty of is having feelings, and it's sad that we have to play monday morning quarterback on how he should feel. It's fine if you prefer when reviewers respond a different way, but to criticize someone rather innocuously expressing sadness over people being needlessly awful toward them is simply tone deaf in a way unfortunately all too common on the Internet today. Far too many people make excuses for why they can mistreat others, and we shouldn't hand out excuses to those people, suggesting that victims are somehow to blame and some words might deserve such hate.

This is why the Internet continues to see a slide downhill in how we treat one another. Not because the awful parts are so strong, but because the good parts are so meek.

@ShaggE: What? I... oh nooooooo

@ShaggE: heh. Here's a fine review from the indomitable Yummylee who already finished the game: http://www.giantbomb.com/resident-evil-6/61-37273/resident-evil-6-user-review-by-guy-with-barry-burton-avatar/35-562587/#7

@Humanity said:

While I don't condone sending stupid messages to people who write reviews just because you don't agree with them, isn't it a bit hypocritical to write some scathing tweets about a game and then get hurt because some people write mean things back to you? His early tweets were along the line of "I would rather do anything other than play this terrible game" which is pretty mean spirited. Shouldn't he as a professional keep that sort of stuff inside and air out his grievances in a calculated journalistic fashion through the review? I'm sure there were some hard working people that put a lot of late nights to make that game happen and aren't they entitled to the same respect he is? Is it ok because they're in Japan?

If you're going to talk shit about a game very blatantly on an open forum you shouldn't whine later that you get hate mail about it. It's not ok to get hate mail, but still, he must know by now how to avoid those situations.

I think you're way off base here, Humanity. Voicing that you don't like something doesn't give license to people to verbally abuse them. That isn't right, and we shouldn't try to make excuses for them. Like "Oh, yeah, that guy hitting his wife was bad. Though, ya know, he wouldn't have done it if she hadn't egged him on." Putting yourself out there for abuse doesn't make abuse okay, and the threat of abuse shouldn't silence you. When you say "you shouldn't whine later", that's a heartless suggestion that someone somehow deserves such mistreatment. People aren't just being disrespectful; they're lambasting the poor man.

He shouldn't -have- to avoid those situations. Next you're gonna tell me women who get attacked at night should know better not to be out at night. Or maybe they shouldn't dress a certain way if they don't want to be touched inappropriately. The sad thing is that someone would have to feel like they -can't- do something without fearing such awful outcomes. That isn't okay. He should be able to voice his displeasure with a stupid videogame without fearing a torrent of idiocy. That isn't a case of him not knowing better. It's a case of people doing something wrong to someone who didn't deserve it. This kind of shaming of a person being viciously attacked is simply sad.

@SuperB: When you can do awesome things in your own life, you still choose to do awesome things in videogames. There will always be a human interest in the separate. Third-person(controlling a third-party character, not being the character) will always exist, whether the games are real or virtual. This isn't a direct choice situation between two options. They can both coexist. First person games haven't gotten rid of third person games, and virtual reality won't get rid of traditional third person games. Human beings were never designed to solely be the acting force. We employ and appreciate tools. The third party. First-person and third-person are simply different parts of what gaming is, and while you may see intermingling, you won't see one replace the other.

@Yummylee said:

@TruthTellah: Cheers! And to be perfectly honest with you, after how RE6 has shaped up, I'd more than happy if I just got another RE5... at least the gameplay was good. They certainly can't make the series even more action packed after all right? The series can only go up from here!...

haha. You would think, but I said that last time. Heck, I keep saying that after every RE movie. If we're lucky, we'll get a spinoff that returns to its roots. The main titles will probably only continue to descend into madness until even COD is put to shame next to their bombast.

@TaliciaDragonsong: I think many game universes are indeed too perfect, with everything wrapped up with a bow. Though, it hasn't always been that way, and there are still plenty of games today which don't tie off everything. Games have always embraced a kind of abstraction, and ironically, in an attempt to go toward realism, many went toward explaining everything. Yet, that is a kind of false realism. The kind of comforting realism of a computer program with nothing but what has been coded in. Yet, life is messy and often awful for reasons unapparent to us. Randomness is nearly impossible in games, but mystery is very alive and well.

I was going to mention Dark Souls, but Lysergica already said it well. I might also mention the long history of gaming, which for decades has hamburgers fighting aliens and plumbers fighting a Kafka-esque war through a sea of tubes littered with unending reptilian threats. Games are weird, and often the mechanics are the only thing that truly makes sense. While many games today may appear to be too put together and explained, it's often the illusion of a skin-deep impression. Games are still weird and imperfect in an absurd way if you look at them long enough. And some games still take just a glance to see the unexplainable. It simply depends. There is no neat and perfect answer to your question when it comes to gaming at large, and in a way, that's rather perfect.

@Yummylee: Thanks for the write-up!

Though, I don't think you have to worry about this being the last Resident Evil game. I'm pretty sure this will still sell decently, and it will be enough for at least another one and perhaps some more spinoffs.

As far as there being another "Resident Evil" game in the vein of the quality survival horror RE games, well... then I have a strong feeling that ship has already sailed. May it rest in peace in the Undying Lands of Valinor, surrounded by the most beloved horrors of its time.

@ShaggE said:

@SpaceInsomniac said:

What happened?

The internet happened. If even a fraction of these people have actually played RE6 before rating it, I'll eat everybody's hat.

I imagine a handful, or a fraction of the whole, have indeed checked out the game. I know a number of people who are already done with a lot of the game; so, for the hardcore, I'm sure many are already done and ready to rage on message boards and metacritic.

Lucky for you, my hat is reasonably tasty.

(it's made of only the finest chocolate)

@SuperB said:

@TruthTellah said:

@SuperB said:

@TruthTellah:

The third-person games, are the arcade 2D lateral and vertical development, made with sprites or bitmaps, create and animate sprites manually with the traditional system, at present, increasing the resolution of everything, which means return to redraw settings and characters as 2D bitmaps at higher resolutions (HD 1080p). And development games 2.5D, ie with 2D gameplay but polygonal or 3D games with fixed or scroll prospects?

Why there's a lot of interest in games in the third person?

Why a thing will not replace the other?

Wait, what? That isn't what third-person means. Though, I apologize, but I can hardly understand what you are saying in this comment. If English isn't your first language, it's all good; I'll try to be clearer.

A first-person game is one where the perspective is in the first-person, aka. emulating your vantage point. You are supposed to be the character. Examples: FPS, Portal, Call of Duty, Elder Scrolls: Skyrim, etc.

A third-person game is one where the perspective is in the third-person, aka. you looking down upon a separate character. You are controlling or influencing a character or many characters, not acting as a character. Examples: Most Platformers, Strategy Games, Puzzle Games, RTS, Tetris, Mario, etc.

First-person games may one day be taken over by virtual reality setups, as it is a natural progression over time, but third-person games will still exist, as there are many experiences in gaming that simply can't be achieved from being in the place of a character. So, no matter how big a part of gaming virtual reality may one day become, it won't ever be all of gaming. There will always be third-person gaming.

So, when in the future, have the ability to recreate an advanced Virtual Reality, in which we are totally immersed in it, as the film suggests Enter the Matrix, where the playing field or simulated experience is that reality or virtual. Is it possible that even at this point, also have side-scrollers games with 2D gameplay lateral or vertical, and people playing them as well as the concept or style arcade (platformers, beat'em up, shoot em'up, and subgenera run and gun and fight Vs), which today mark games as Hardcorp Uprising (Contra), R-Type Dimensions, Raiden IV, Ultimate Ghost'n Goblins, Sonic 4, ..., is now distributed through of digital download platforms such as minor or second product line, when compared with 3D gameplay games or 3D Full graphics. And if you do not see then as a thing of the distant past, something very retro, like the arcade game concept, preferring forms of gambling and more complex game mechanics (3D gameplay)?.

In the era of video game consoles, 32 and 64 bits, with the boom of polygonal graphics, and 3D game mechanics, many people thought That 3D is 2D but better. It might also be argued That the mechanical or lateral and vertical development, are very simple and limited in play, and That This Type of fixed screens do not allow much showmanship...

I'm sure you mean well, but I feel like I'm talking to someone through a very poor translation of some sort. I'm pretty sure we're not even talking about the same thing.

Will Virtual Reality possibly be big in the future? Sure. Will it replace all other kinds of games? Not at all. Even if it's in a virtual simulation, people will play from the third-person perspective in many different games. People want that Matrix-y first-person experience, but they also want third-person control and scenarios where being something isn't the best way to do something. So, is VR probably part of the future of gaming? You bet. Is VR going to take over gaming any time soon? Unlikely, but we'll see. Though, even if it became dominant, people would still be drawn toward third-person style games alongside that. One does not replace the other, now or at any time in the future.