Only one of your eight paragraphs analyzed the review system, the other 7 were about RE6.

@Brodehouse said:

You're moving the goalposts. If you know that you shouldn't be comparing scores between games, why was it the first thing you did exactly that? And the review system being flawed has more to do with content than it does with your ability to take a score and directly compare it to another and go "well obviously this is 1.4 better than that other one". Stop it. The main thing flawed about the review score system is the people who read them use it to pitch this annoying internet fights because their precious game didn't get a higher score than a game they don't like. That's a severe flaw. Stop doing this. This is why everyone wants to throw the entire system out, because they're sick of fits pitched over a score that's only meant to sum up the review.

Now if everyone could just read this post and understand what it means.

@xaLieNxGrEyx said:

This just reminded me that a half star system (10 points out of 5 stars) would benefit GB and imo be the best score system possible.

Also Kotaku ditched scores for a 50/50 "play or don't play" system which isn't.... useful at all in my opinion.

Absolutely not, why not just go to a 10 point system, or why not a 9.4 or 7.7 system? Changing the score system doesn't fix any problem. The score for a game shouldn't really matter as much as it does. The text of the review is the most important part of it all and what score the game gets is result of that text.

Your first mistake was comparing review scores and your second is that you come off as someone that is arguing for the sake of "you may not have liked it, but I do!!!!!!!!!!!!!" They both miss the point and aren't a problem with the review system. They are your problem as you don't realize that this review system was never meant to compare games. They are used as purchasing advice and as a quick way for people to realize what the quality of this game will be by the opinion of the reviewer. Each case is different for each game and using the review score as a way to compare them is stupid. Your argument easily resembles someone that would compare Skyrim's 5 stars to Tokyo Jungles 4 stars. Both game are extremely different and are acclaimed for different reasons. You can't use this as a way to dismiss the review system since your using the review system as a way to compare these games and determine which is better. Reviews scores shouldn't be used to rank games. I just find it odd that people like you are bothered by Brad's review as I completely see why he would dislike RE6. You may like it, but Brad doesn't. It may not be consistent, but that doesn't make it invalid. I'm glad your enjoying the game and I'm sure that there are many like you. I just can't see why anyone would like enjoy it from what I've seen. Too each their own.

@LiquidPrince said:

@Brodehouse said: @TeflonBilly:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Brodehouse said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Brodehouse said:

This has nothing to do with an analysis of reviews, it's just anger that critics don't like a game you did. This is the kind of stuff that makes Jeff's eyes pop out of his head on Jar Time.

It has everything to do with an analysis of reviews. You cannot critcize something without citing the games that are driving the argument. Me liking Resident Evil is a byproduct of this argument.

No. The argument is a byproduct of you liking RE6.

The Giant Bomb score system has been laboriously described as to refer to recommendation and to be an encapsulation of the text. Game scores are explicitly NOT IN COMPARISON TO EACH OTHER. I don't know how many times it has to be said. Each score is given based on the amount the reviewer would recommend the game, not some end all be all number that is placed there to measure a game's quality. People who continue to make it that are hopeless.

And yet even the Giantbomb staff have stated that they are always in the process of reconsidering how the handle reviews because the current system they have is flawed. As for the games are not explicitly comparable, yeah I know that, and stated that... That's why the system is flawed.

You're moving the goalposts. If you know that you shouldn't be comparing scores between games, why was it the first thing you did exactly that? And the review system being flawed has more to do with content than it does with your ability to take a score and directly compare it to another and go "well obviously this is 1.4 better than that other one". Stop it. The main thing flawed about the review score system is the people who read them use it to pitch this annoying internet fights because their precious game didn't get a higher score than a game they don't like. That's a severe flaw. Stop doing this. This is why everyone wants to throw the entire system out, because they're sick of fits pitched over a score that's only meant to sum up the review.

It wasn't what I did. In fact it was the opposite of what I did. Apparently you're not understanding the context in which I wrote that example. The example of comparing RE6 to Blackwater wasn't made to say, "hey why is this game 1 star and this game 2 stars." It was meant to point out that the current system makes it so that people will inevitably do that, even though it shouldn't be the case. This is a very simple concept and you keep twisting my words to somehow try and prove me wrong about something we're essentially agreeing upon. Go back and reread what I said.

@LiquidPrince said:

So the aforementioned are some of the things that I enjoyed, but how about we address some of the complaints? Are they valid points in my eyes? I increasingly seem to agree with Jeff that the current review system is flawed. I can't exactly pinpoint the issues, aside from the fact that when you have such a limited score based system,people can't help but draw comparisons to other games and say well this game got two stars and it was broken, so how is it that this amazing game also got two stars, or why is this a 95 when this other game is a 95.3. It's sort of a broken system where being too granular is stupid and being too general is exactly that, too general. For example the horrible Blackwater game reviewed by Alex got 1 star, while Resident Evil got 2 stars. "Does that mean that Resident Evil is only marginally better than Blackwater?" "I maintain that that cannot be true in any universe." "However this is not a discussion that I have the solution too, as there are better men than I trying to solve it."

Frankly, you did pose the question but also affirmed it. Unbeknownst to you perhaps even, but with the aforementioned statement. "Does that mean that Resident Evil is only marginally better than Blackwater?" "I maintain that that cannot be true in any universe." RE 6 elicits a lot of contempt for a variety of reasons, that aren't even remotely vetted in Brad's review even. Solely it's my opinion though no matter how much I maintain it's validity, yet nevertheless it too is merely a subjective interpretation much like Brad's review, or your critique even. If you get rid of the interpretation or the difference in opinion between reviewer and buyer, what value does a review really have after that anyway? Not much, but hollow figures and statistics to gleam from.

@JasonR86 said:

Scores for products have been and always will be unnecessary for reviews.

DUDE. That is what I said in my topic, Let's Talk About Metacritic and you hung shit on me. Okay then, you have made my list!

@LiquidPrince

I agree with you overall sentiment on scores, as I discussed in my Blog mentioned above. I mostly got criticised. I long to see the day they don't exist. As for this review though, it isn't just the score, but the analysis itself. You can never change that, as it is just opinion.

I tend to draw the conclusion that the hate for RE6 is just a fashion trend. You want to be seen as fashionable right? Start hating RE6, all the cool kids are. RE6 is the Hipster of games. Unless you vomit bile about the game, then you will never fit in.

I don't own RE6, but I will get it later as it isn't my favoured series, despite having about 12 different titles. You are better off playing more and enjoying the game than swimming against the tide.

@takua108 said:

@xaLieNxGrEyx said:

This just reminded me that a half star system (10 points out of 5 stars) would benefit GB and imo be the best score system possible.

Also Kotaku ditched scores for a 50/50 "play or don't play" system which isn't.... useful at all in my opinion.

Why? Stars are for a quick, at-a-glance overview of what a reviewer thought of a game, nothing more, nothing less. I look at RE6's two stars and say "oh, Brad didn't like this game, but it's not entirely a flaming pile of shit, but it's not very good." If he gave it, say, a 2.5/5, how would that benefit anyone at all? Go to the Help page and read about how Giant Bomb's star system works, it's dead simple.

Unless you're falling into the trap (like OP seems to be) of thinking that reviews are somehow supposed to be perfectly objective or something. This is totally not the case at all!

I say the SUMMARY of the review is better than a score. Just a short paragraph, 30 seconds to read and that will tell you more about the review and far more accurately than any number. That is from a person who is laughed at for breaking anything down at work into numbers and formulas. We would all be better off without scores and let the summaries do the talking. At best I support a 2 point system of Liked, Disliked or a 3 part system of Liked, Mixed and Disliked. Far more useful in conjunction with the summary and then the whole review if you feel like reading it.

Changing the title because I apparently don't analyze reviews as whole enough. Sorry. >_>

@xaLieNxGrEyx: I've advocated in the past for a Buy, Rent, or Skip review system, but with the decline of stores like Blockbuster and Game Fly not being as popular as it once was it doesn't seem really feasible any more.

@Phatmac: I wasn't comparing review scores... I was pointing out that that is a consequence and failing of any current review system that relies on grading the game somehow. Also how would you have me talk about the game the criticisms? You have to criticize subjectivity with subjectivity. If I could objectively prove that RE6 was this great game, then this thread wouldn't exist. Consequently the blog will obviously have a "I like this game, and disagree with you" type of sentimentality.

I feel like people care too much about whether a review is "correct" or not. It's hard to judge something with artistic value purely on facts and features (and for that reason I don't think consistency across reviews are that important either.) If the review communicates the reviewer's feelings on the game well enough, then it should be up to the readers to agree/buy the game or not. If it doesn't, there are other reviews to read. I think Brad's review is pretty clear on why he doesn't think it's good, and as far as I know people who enjoy it either like or can look over the things Brad didn't like.

Re: scores, I don't really understand the purpose of scores when GB even has that one-sentence summary to go with it.

@AsperGamer said:

@JasonR86 said:

Scores for products have been and always will be unnecessary for reviews.

DUDE. That is what I said in my topic, Let's Talk About Metacritic and you hung shit on me. Okay then, you have made my list!

Your blog stated that scores are bad because they don't not equate to your personal tastes. Your blog essentially stated that you want reviews to state back of the box bulletpoints. That you want 'facts' and not 'assessment'. What is a review but an assessment of a product? What your blog boiled down to was that you don't want reviews of video games. You want fact sheets void of what the product is like to experience.

Although the name of the effect escapes me at the moment, the idea of using a number with something attaches more "fact" to the concept even when it can't possibly be a fact. The same thing is happening here with review scores. Reviews are opinions where beyond stated features, they are entirely constructs of opinions written from the author's view. When a score comes into play this starts to wrap the opinion into something that feels more like a fact.

Blackwater was not a game Alex could recommend and got 1 star. RE6 was not a game Brad could recommend and got 2 stars. There is no way to equate either of these two opinions in any shape or form where the score seems to trick people into believe they can try when it is nonsense.

This also applies to series too. It is fine that Brad has one opinion about RE5 while has another about RE6. A call for consistency here is equally nonsense.

@JasonR86 said:

@AsperGamer said:

@JasonR86 said:

Scores for products have been and always will be unnecessary for reviews.

DUDE. That is what I said in my topic, Let's Talk About Metacritic and you hung shit on me. Okay then, you have made my list!

Your blog stated that scores are bad because they don't not equate to your personal tastes. Your blog essentially stated that you want reviews to state back of the box bulletpoints. That you want 'facts' and not 'assessment'. What is a review but an assessment of a product? What your blog boiled down to was that you don't want reviews of video games. You want fact sheets void of what the product is like to experience.

That's it. You made my list TWICE!

You didn't even read it. I said I read the summaries to get an assessment of what reviewers thought, to add to my personal bias. How exactly do I get those summaries without a review? That makes no sense at all. Sure, I said I am only looking for facts, but that doesn't mean I said they can't write whatever they want - just as I will read whatever I want. I want those facts because personal opinions are just that.

I love how we are arguing about essentially agreeing with each other. I think we should go on a date and get to know each other better. Be warned though, I am easy.

@EXTomar said:

Although the name of the effect escapes me at the moment, the idea of using a number with something attaches more "fact" to the concept even when it can't possibly be a fact. The same thing is happening here with review scores. Reviews are opinions where beyond stated features, they are entirely constructs of opinions written from the author's view. When a score comes into play this starts to wrap the opinion into something that feels more like a fact.

Blackwater was not a game Alex could recommend and got 1 star. RE6 was not a game Brad could recommend and got 2 stars. There is no way to equate either of these two opinions in any shape or form where the score seems to trick people into believe they can try when it is nonsense.

This also applies to series too. It is fine that Brad has one opinion about RE5 while has another about RE6. A call for consistency here is equally nonsense.

I disagree with you on the last sentence. Consistency is completely needed to make anyone's opinion worth listening to. If you praise a game for x one day and malign another game for that very same x, you are confusing people. It doesn't mean that because you liked RE5, you need to like RE6. But if you actively hate RE6, for the very same reasons you loved RE5, then your creating an environment of confusion. It shouldn't be some mystery as to why you score something the way you do. For example, Jeff hates a majority of sports games, therefore we can expect that he will dislike Madden 14 for the very same reasons he disliked Madden 13, assuming that the two games are highly comparable (which I would argue RE5 and RE6 are). If he loved Madden 12 and then hated Madden 13, and then loved Madden 14, it would be difficult to take his opinions seriously. That's not to say that it isn't his right, or that HE HAS to have the same opinion about every game, but that consistency makes your arguments more understandable.

Shane mentions this very thing in the Gametrailers video I posted.

All you need to know is that Vinny's gonna return from vacation with a glowing endorsement for Resident Evil 6 and THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD WILL EXPLODE.

See the problem is Leon's campaign is fine. I wasn't in love with it, but it wasn't complete shit. The cover system is completely useless and should have been scrapped altogether. But then you move on to Chris which is like Gears but with limited ammo, endlessly spawning enemies that transform even if you headshot them, less precise aiming, and lacking the color palette of Gears 3. Chris is whiny and his entire campaign really doesn't contribute to the overall narrative at all. It's a slog and in the end it's all a bit pointless.

Then you play Jake. Wait... why am I playing through boss fights that I already fought through with Leon? They weren't amazing the first time, they are a chore the second. And the vehicle segments. Oh my god the vehicle segments. Look, I can understand mixing up the gameplay. I'm all for it. But if you don't have the controls up to snuff, don't implement them.

Ada's campaign was a mixed bag. I enjoyed seeing her work her way through the story in the background, but that meant you were just revisiting areas all over again. 92% if her fifth chapter is a vehicle segment and then you refight a boss again. Yay!

But I think my biggest problem, the #1 with a bullet issue I have with the game is, the story is absolutely awful. I don't mean cheesy. It just doesn't need to exist. RE5 tied up a lot of the loose ends. So in 6 what do we get? Neo-Umbrella, son of Wesker, and

Ugh.

Okay, immediately noticed some hyperbole in the 4th paragraph that I can not just get over, Blackwater getting a 1 star and Resident Evil 6 getting a 2 star means that RE6 is only marginally better? Um, no, on this scale that represents a significant difference in quality. And I've played the demo, the controls are terrible and clumsy in that game from what I played. You are okay with them, that's cool but don't act like everyone else who hates them are crazy.

@LiquidPrince: Brad has changed since RE5. Game design, in particular Japanese style, have changed since RE5. Gamers and market has changed since RE5 was released. Suggesting Brad and gamers must look at RE6 the same way or have the expectation that Capcom will make RE6 the same way is very fanciful.

And why can't a reviewer love Madden 12, hate Madden 13, and then love Madden 14? It has happened in the past with franchises. It is strange views like this that suggests anyone who feels let down by Mass Effect 3 "isn't being consistent" and no one should take their complaints seriously.

@coakroach said:

All you need to know is that Vinny's gonna return from vacation with a glowing endorsement for Resident Evil 6 and THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD WILL EXPLODE.

Man, that would be awesome. I loved RE5 and I'm currently loving RE6 just as much, I hope the same happens to Vinny.

I watched that gametrailers thing, and what started out as a interesting discussion turned into that one dude basically dismissing everyone elses opinions because they didn't like RE6. It was pretty uncomfortable to watch because he refused to accept other people's opinion on it, as he said hey its just my opinion. Is that series normally that poorly done or was it just a bad episode?

I don't go by reviews I prefer to judge a game with my own experience, usually through a demo or occasionally lets plays or quick looks. which reminds me, whats so bad about the RE6 review?

@twigger89 said:

I watched that gametrailers thing, and what started out as a interesting discussion turned into that one dude basically dismissing everyone elses opinions because they didn't like RE6. It was pretty uncomfortable to watch because he refused to accept other people's opinion on it, as he said hey its just my opinion. Is that series normally that poorly done or was it just a bad episode?

Yeah, he lost all credibility for me.

@LiquidPrince said:

@EXTomar said:

Although the name of the effect escapes me at the moment, the idea of using a number with something attaches more "fact" to the concept even when it can't possibly be a fact. The same thing is happening here with review scores. Reviews are opinions where beyond stated features, they are entirely constructs of opinions written from the author's view. When a score comes into play this starts to wrap the opinion into something that feels more like a fact.

Blackwater was not a game Alex could recommend and got 1 star. RE6 was not a game Brad could recommend and got 2 stars. There is no way to equate either of these two opinions in any shape or form where the score seems to trick people into believe they can try when it is nonsense.

This also applies to series too. It is fine that Brad has one opinion about RE5 while has another about RE6. A call for consistency here is equally nonsense.

I disagree with you on the last sentence. Consistency is completely needed to make anyone's opinion worth listening to. If you praise a game for x one day and malign another game for that very same x, you are confusing people. It doesn't mean that because you liked RE5, you need to like RE6. But if you actively hate RE6, for the very same reasons you loved RE5, then your creating an environment of confusion. It shouldn't be some mystery as to why you score something the way you do. For example, Jeff hates a majority of sports games, therefore we can expect that he will dislike Madden 14 for the very same reasons he disliked Madden 13, assuming that the two games are highly comparable (which I would argue RE5 and RE6 are). If he loved Madden 12 and then hated Madden 13, and then loved Madden 14, it would be difficult to take his opinions seriously. That's not to say that it isn't his right, or that HE HAS to have the same opinion about every game, but that consistency makes your arguments more understandable.

Shane mentions this very thing in the Gametrailers video I posted.

Well in order for consistency to exist, there needs to be consistency between games. The thing is that one of the main reasons Brad maligns RE6 is because of controls. In the review for RE5 for this site, Brad doesn't mind the controls of RE5, because it is working off of what RE4 did. Everything I've heard and seen from others, the controls between the 2 (RE6 and RE5) are pretty different. If the game plays fundamentally and mechanically different from the last, where's the consistency between the two? If there isn't consistency between the games, you can't exactly expect consistency between reviews. Developers can make missteps and make advances in between a game and its sequel.

Also because one game mechanic is in one game and the reviewer likes that mechanic there, but then that same mechanic is also in another game and the reviewer does not like that mechanic there, docks a review point for it; that means that mechanic doesn't work in that game and doesn't work as good in the other game. If the review states why certain mechanics don't work or do work, then there shouldn't be confusion at all.

@LiquidPrince said:

@EXTomar said:

Although the name of the effect escapes me at the moment, the idea of using a number with something attaches more "fact" to the concept even when it can't possibly be a fact. The same thing is happening here with review scores. Reviews are opinions where beyond stated features, they are entirely constructs of opinions written from the author's view. When a score comes into play this starts to wrap the opinion into something that feels more like a fact.

Blackwater was not a game Alex could recommend and got 1 star. RE6 was not a game Brad could recommend and got 2 stars. There is no way to equate either of these two opinions in any shape or form where the score seems to trick people into believe they can try when it is nonsense.

This also applies to series too. It is fine that Brad has one opinion about RE5 while has another about RE6. A call for consistency here is equally nonsense.

I disagree with you on the last sentence. Consistency is completely needed to make anyone's opinion worth listening to. If you praise a game for x one day and malign another game for that very same x, you are confusing people. It doesn't mean that because you liked RE5, you need to like RE6. But if you actively hate RE6, for the very same reasons you loved RE5, then your creating an environment of confusion. It shouldn't be some mystery as to why you score something the way you do. For example, Jeff hates a majority of sports games, therefore we can expect that he will dislike Madden 14 for the very same reasons he disliked Madden 13, assuming that the two games are highly comparable (which I would argue RE5 and RE6 are). If he loved Madden 12 and then hated Madden 13, and then loved Madden 14, it would be difficult to take his opinions seriously. That's not to say that it isn't his right, or that HE HAS to have the same opinion about every game, but that consistency makes your arguments more understandable.

Shane mentions this very thing in the Gametrailers video I posted.

Well in order for consistency to exist, there needs to be consistency between games. The thing is that one of the main reasons Brad maligns RE6 is because of controls. In the review for RE5 for this site, Brad doesn't mind the controls of RE5, because it is working off of what RE4 did. Everything I've heard and seen from others, the controls between the 2 (RE6 and RE5) are pretty different. If the game plays fundamentally and mechanically different from the last, where's the consistency between the two? If there isn't consistency between the games, you can't exactly expect consistency between reviews. Developers can make missteps and make advances in between a game and its sequel.

Also because one game mechanic is in one game and the reviewer likes that mechanic there, but then that same mechanic is also in another game and the reviewer does not like that mechanic there, docks a review point for it; that means that mechanic doesn't work in that game and doesn't work as good in the other game. If the review states why certain mechanics don't work or do work, then there shouldn't be confusion at all.

@Demoskinos said:

@mrpandaman

@LiquidPrince said:

@EXTomar said:

Although the name of the effect escapes me at the moment, the idea of using a number with something attaches more "fact" to the concept even when it can't possibly be a fact. The same thing is happening here with review scores. Reviews are opinions where beyond stated features, they are entirely constructs of opinions written from the author's view. When a score comes into play this starts to wrap the opinion into something that feels more like a fact.

Blackwater was not a game Alex could recommend and got 1 star. RE6 was not a game Brad could recommend and got 2 stars. There is no way to equate either of these two opinions in any shape or form where the score seems to trick people into believe they can try when it is nonsense.

This also applies to series too. It is fine that Brad has one opinion about RE5 while has another about RE6. A call for consistency here is equally nonsense.

I disagree with you on the last sentence. Consistency is completely needed to make anyone's opinion worth listening to. If you praise a game for x one day and malign another game for that very same x, you are confusing people. It doesn't mean that because you liked RE5, you need to like RE6. But if you actively hate RE6, for the very same reasons you loved RE5, then your creating an environment of confusion. It shouldn't be some mystery as to why you score something the way you do. For example, Jeff hates a majority of sports games, therefore we can expect that he will dislike Madden 14 for the very same reasons he disliked Madden 13, assuming that the two games are highly comparable (which I would argue RE5 and RE6 are). If he loved Madden 12 and then hated Madden 13, and then loved Madden 14, it would be difficult to take his opinions seriously. That's not to say that it isn't his right, or that HE HAS to have the same opinion about every game, but that consistency makes your arguments more understandable.

Shane mentions this very thing in the Gametrailers video I posted.

Well in order for consistency to exist, there needs to be consistency between games. The thing is that one of the main reasons Brad maligns RE6 is because of controls. In the review for RE5 for this site, Brad doesn't mind the controls of RE5, because it is working off of what RE4 did. Everything I've heard and seen from others, the controls between the 2 (RE6 and RE5) are pretty different. If the game plays fundamentally and mechanically different from the last, where's the consistency between the two? If there isn't consistency between the games, you can't exactly expect consistency between reviews. Developers can make missteps and make advances in between a game and its sequel.

Also because one game mechanic is in one game and the reviewer likes that mechanic there, but then that same mechanic is also in another game and the reviewer does not like that mechanic there, docks a review point for it; that means that mechanic doesn't work in that game and doesn't work as good in the other game. If the review states why certain mechanics don't work or do work, then there shouldn't be confusion at all.

Seeing as brad didn't even understand the controls its hard to take his critique of the controls seriously when he doesn't even know how to use the tools like they were meant to be. Secondly, RE5 was much ridiculed for the controls as well people kept citing dead space and wanting the series to let you walk & shoot so capcom responded to those exact critiques.

Responded doesn't mean responded well. They tried to fix the controls, there seems to be a large amount of contention on whether or not they succeeded.

@LiquidPrince said:

So then I'm going to move over to more specifics. Brad cites difficulties with the controls being unwieldy, however in my experience (and I realize that this me stating my opinion over his), they are better in absolutely every respect to Resident Evil 5. They maintain that sort of accuracy when shooting that RE5 had, but have evolved to allow far better mobility in action scenes.

Nope, you are not as accurate as you were in RE5. In RE5 Chris and Sheva were robots. You pointed at something and you stayed pointed right the fuck on. They were like precision lasers. In RE6 they introduce gun sway which, while not being a bad mechanic in and of itself, creates a massive dissonance of design. Even in the context of RE6, the inclusion of gun sway in completely nonsensical. There is no clearer indication that the people at Capcom were adding systems to make the game more "shootery" without understand why those systems exist or how they would interact with the rest of the play experience.

@Barrock said:

@twigger89 said:

I watched that gametrailers thing, and what started out as a interesting discussion turned into that one dude basically dismissing everyone elses opinions because they didn't like RE6. It was pretty uncomfortable to watch because he refused to accept other people's opinion on it, as he said hey its just my opinion. Is that series normally that poorly done or was it just a bad episode?

Yeah, he lost all credibility for me.

I know a lot of people on these boards hate GT with a passion, but I actually enjoy Invisible Walls every now and then. That episode, however, was absolutely awful to witness. Shane was acting like a 10-year old, and Marcus Beer (who I always enjoy) just looked sad and confused. Really a weird episode, as I really don't picture Shane acting like that normally. I think he got a lot of flack for his (stellar) RE6 review on the GT boards, and maybe somehow felt it was time to justify his score. Too bad he did it in a childish and immature fashion.

@Demoskinos said:

@twigger89 Once you learn the controls you have more fluidity and options at your disposal then most third person shooters. Ducking,Rolling ,Quick-shots a cover system even a fairly robust melee system. The combat absolutely shines in mecenaries mode. Your taking fools down left and right.

For me the biggest problem with the combat is the fluidity. Or the lack there of. Resident Evil 4 and 5 mechanics were specially designed to work with one another and that game has flow. You have pin point accuracy which is used for targeting specific limbs. The enemys react visibly to your shots that is when you can melee.

Fighting a group of enemys in Re4 is a fun and dynamic experience using the tools you have. Are you going to shoot the ganado in the middle in the head to get a roundhouse kick that will knock down multiple enimeys? How about using the shotgun, maybe throw a grenade.

RE6 takes away those aspects unique to RE4 and 5 combat. The reactions in favor of unsatisfying shooting and loose aiming. The precision melee in favor of spam able attacks that are unreliable because they don't always hit. Plus the 180 back turn often fails to turn the camera around. The combat feels like tight and more sluggish.

@LiquidPrince: Yea I have been disappointed with all the low grades for Resident Evil 6 also. I have yet played it but was very excited about it. At this point because of the low grades I'm making sure I play the demo when I get time instead of just trusting that Capcom always makes good with the RE series (which lately I don't think they have). For the quicktime events that Brad hated so much, I look at the 4.5 review of another reviewer on gamespots site and he complained that the quicktime events are very long, which come to think of it I think in RE5 there was one quicktime moment in that game that I might have felt was a bit long also. Either way me I have been so so on quicktime events, if there long and don't have the right check points with them they can become a very annoying distraction to the actual game itself, and I kind of sense with out actually playing RE6 yet this might have happened. This doesn't mean Brad hates quicktime moments but just might not like them when there done wrong.

I don't want to sound like I'm defending his review but at this point I'm feeling like Capcom might have went further down the wrong direction with RE6. For me RE5 ruined it when they tried to piece in what had happened with RE4 with the rest of that very long boring Umbrella Corp story. For me I wish after RE4 they would kept away form Umbrella Corp. This story has really ran too long, just think about it there are young gamers that they are trying to get into this series but yet there more then 5 games in and this story just won't end. For me RE4 was a new direction and someone made a bad decision with the story in RE5.

For me I have become frustrated with what Capcom has done with the story of this series, its overly long and not very easy to grasp. Sometimes you just have to go a different direction! I still have fond memories of RE4 and like to play it from time to time, but I like to forget everything else, including those really bad Milla Jovovich movies!!

O.k. I'm done complaining about the RE series, didn't mean to make this a rant but this is what happens for me when I talk about RE.

@NinesSC2 said:

I'm just going to list all the things that I can see would put off people.

- The camera is extremely bad and jumps around like crazy and is super slow to reverse back to shoulder view.

- Small framrate issues, seen worse, yet certain people are extremely picky.

- Too many bad mini games/QTE. Horrible climbing ones that keep reaccuring. Same with lots of bad vehicle ones. Stealth sections are annoying trial and error.

- Dialoge goes from really good and immersive to super weird, hammy, borderline "japanse/anime". But then again if you picked Resident Evil for the voice acting, you probably deserve to waste your money.

- Laser sight acting up at long distances within the crosshair. Even the fact that there is both is strange.

- If you're the typer of person that goes through the plot with a big fat magnifying glas at all times, then this game is not for you.

- Cover system is horrendous. I completed all 3 chapters and I'm still not entirely sure how you take cover behind small obstacles that you can also jump over.

- Boss fights can be frustrating when you don't know what to do and you run out of bullets trying to find out.

If you can overlook all these things, then you'll probably see this is an awesomely paced game with extremely many gameplay hours. Sick shit happens constantly, the new character Jake all though fleshed out poorly is extremely awesome. The character animation and facial expressions are top notch and there is tons of fan service. I haven't tried co op yet, but online I can imagine it being super awesome. Mercenaries is back and better than ever.

As in regards to the whole review thing, it's subjective. It all comes down to enjoyment, Brad pointed out a ton of flaws that are apparent to him and most people and it hindered his enjoyment of the game. It might not hinder yours.

Personally I can't say I'm not enjoying Resident Evil 6, but some things are just outright annoying. It could have been great in my eyes.

The part for Ada is the only trial and error aspect of the stealth in the entire game, but all you do is run through that part at the beginning, while Jake's and Sherry's part isn't trial and error at all. The Laser sight can be changed to just the red sight like in RE4 and five, which is what I use. The game has great voice acting, so it's not the "voice acting" that you're referring to. This isn't opinion, I thought I'd state the facts.

@Brodehouse: Exactly. The mechanics of gameplay were perfectly balanced for the demands of combat. In RE6 the combat is just as demanding if not moreso, but the mechanics are worse in almost every way. The balance of the game is totally fucked.

@Demoskinos: Nope.

Because of the reticule, guns no longer have a target point and now have a target area like every other modern shooter. They way this is translated to the laser sight is through sway while aiming.

@NTM said:

@NinesSC2 said:

I'm just going to list all the things that I can see would put off people.

- The camera is extremely bad and jumps around like crazy and is super slow to reverse back to shoulder view.

- Small framrate issues, seen worse, yet certain people are extremely picky.

- Too many bad mini games/QTE. Horrible climbing ones that keep reaccuring. Same with lots of bad vehicle ones. Stealth sections are annoying trial and error.

- Dialoge goes from really good and immersive to super weird, hammy, borderline "japanse/anime". But then again if you picked Resident Evil for the voice acting, you probably deserve to waste your money.

- Laser sight acting up at long distances within the crosshair. Even the fact that there is both is strange.

- If you're the typer of person that goes through the plot with a big fat magnifying glas at all times, then this game is not for you.

- Cover system is horrendous. I completed all 3 chapters and I'm still not entirely sure how you take cover behind small obstacles that you can also jump over.

- Boss fights can be frustrating when you don't know what to do and you run out of bullets trying to find out.

If you can overlook all these things, then you'll probably see this is an awesomely paced game with extremely many gameplay hours. Sick shit happens constantly, the new character Jake all though fleshed out poorly is extremely awesome. The character animation and facial expressions are top notch and there is tons of fan service. I haven't tried co op yet, but online I can imagine it being super awesome. Mercenaries is back and better than ever.

As in regards to the whole review thing, it's subjective. It all comes down to enjoyment, Brad pointed out a ton of flaws that are apparent to him and most people and it hindered his enjoyment of the game. It might not hinder yours.

Personally I can't say I'm not enjoying Resident Evil 6, but some things are just outright annoying. It could have been great in my eyes.

The part for Ada is the only trial and error aspect of the stealth in the entire game, but all you do is run through that part at the beginning, while Jake's and Sherry's part isn't trial and error at all. The Laser sight can be changed to just the red sight like in RE4 and five, which is what I use. The game has great voice acting, so it's not the "voice acting" that you're referring to. This isn't opinion, I thought I'd state the facts.

Frankfully I found the Jake and Sherry part extremely trial and error. You can remove the crosshair? Cool didn't know that. The game overall has great voice acting yeah, so I was probably refering to the script then. Thank you for the facts.

@SuperFusion said:

For me, I think the most bizarre part of the video game review "system", if there even is one, is that how games like Resident Evil 6 can play host to such differences in reviews. (IGN 7.9) (GB 2 Stars) We all have our preferences, sure, but aren't we all playing the same game here? How can some people say "the game controls like shit" and some say "the controls feel fine"? I feel like Jeff is right in saying that the review system is pretty flawed if games can land such a huge difference in scores. Aren't the point of reviews to judge the game based on facts and not on how YOU feel about it?

No you have it turned around, game reviewers specifically set out to tell you how they feel about a game. That's why there's more than one reviewer. If you could just score games based on pure facts the only things you could talk about would be like... poly counts, or texture resolution, or other stale technical stuff. And then a computer would just review everything.

@MikkaQ said:

@SuperFusion said:

For me, I think the most bizarre part of the video game review "system", if there even is one, is that how games like Resident Evil 6 can play host to such differences in reviews. (IGN 7.9) (GB 2 Stars) We all have our preferences, sure, but aren't we all playing the same game here? How can some people say "the game controls like shit" and some say "the controls feel fine"? I feel like Jeff is right in saying that the review system is pretty flawed if games can land such a huge difference in scores. Aren't the point of reviews to judge the game based on facts and not on how YOU feel about it?

No you have it turned around, game reviewers specifically set out to tell you how they feel about a game. That's why there's more than one reviewer. If you could just score games based on pure facts the only things you could talk about would be like... poly counts, or texture resolution, or other stale technical stuff. And then a computer would just review everything.

I agree wholeheartedly. What is the point of striving for an objective review? They would all be boring and the same. You could not talk about the quality of the game instead given out information like "there are four campaigns". Everyone experiences things differently. Hence how the controls are interpreted differently, I personally thing the controls are functional, but with issue, and not my issue with the game.

A review is an opinion, which is why to get the most out of a review you need to understand the tastes of the reviewer in question. Giantbomb is based on this idea. So instead of people looking at score give context to it.

@NinesSC2 said:

@NTM said:

@NinesSC2 said:

I'm just going to list all the things that I can see would put off people.

- The camera is extremely bad and jumps around like crazy and is super slow to reverse back to shoulder view.

- Small framrate issues, seen worse, yet certain people are extremely picky.

- Too many bad mini games/QTE. Horrible climbing ones that keep reaccuring. Same with lots of bad vehicle ones. Stealth sections are annoying trial and error.

- Dialoge goes from really good and immersive to super weird, hammy, borderline "japanse/anime". But then again if you picked Resident Evil for the voice acting, you probably deserve to waste your money.

- Laser sight acting up at long distances within the crosshair. Even the fact that there is both is strange.

- If you're the typer of person that goes through the plot with a big fat magnifying glas at all times, then this game is not for you.

- Cover system is horrendous. I completed all 3 chapters and I'm still not entirely sure how you take cover behind small obstacles that you can also jump over.

- Boss fights can be frustrating when you don't know what to do and you run out of bullets trying to find out.

If you can overlook all these things, then you'll probably see this is an awesomely paced game with extremely many gameplay hours. Sick shit happens constantly, the new character Jake all though fleshed out poorly is extremely awesome. The character animation and facial expressions are top notch and there is tons of fan service. I haven't tried co op yet, but online I can imagine it being super awesome. Mercenaries is back and better than ever.

As in regards to the whole review thing, it's subjective. It all comes down to enjoyment, Brad pointed out a ton of flaws that are apparent to him and most people and it hindered his enjoyment of the game. It might not hinder yours.

Personally I can't say I'm not enjoying Resident Evil 6, but some things are just outright annoying. It could have been great in my eyes.

The part for Ada is the only trial and error aspect of the stealth in the entire game, but all you do is run through that part at the beginning, while Jake's and Sherry's part isn't trial and error at all. The Laser sight can be changed to just the red sight like in RE4 and five, which is what I use. The game has great voice acting, so it's not the "voice acting" that you're referring to. This isn't opinion, I thought I'd state the facts.

Frankfully I found the Jake and Sherry part extremely trial and error. You can remove the crosshair? Cool didn't know that. The game overall has great voice acting yeah, so I was probably refering to the script then. Thank you for the facts.

What I meant was, if you consider being patient and walking behind each of those bugs to then simply melee them as they're not facing you trial and error, I don't know if you know what trial and error means. Of course, I am not saying you don't because I know you do, but it isn't trial and error at all. There is a specific way to do it, and it's apparent almost right off the bat. The bugs have a pattern, and as long as they're not facing you, all you do is melee them and you're good to go. And yes, you can change the crosshair into the red sight, or whatever it's called.

@ImmortalSaiyan said:

I agree wholeheartedly. What is the point of striving for an objective review? They would all be boring and the same. You could not talk about the quality of the game instead given out information like "there are four campaigns". Everyone experiences things differently. Hence how the controls are interpreted differently, I personally thing the controls are functional, but with issue, and not my issue with the game.

A review is an opinion, which is why to get the most out of a review you need to understand the tastes of the reviewer in question. Giantbomb is based on this idea. So instead of people looking at score give context to it.

This is the type of thing I'm talking about. Is there not value in pursuing objective reviews, even if it is a carrot always dangling ever out of reach?

@NTM said:

@NinesSC2 said:

@NTM said:

@NinesSC2 said:

I'm just going to list all the things that I can see would put off people.

- The camera is extremely bad and jumps around like crazy and is super slow to reverse back to shoulder view.

- Small framrate issues, seen worse, yet certain people are extremely picky.

- Too many bad mini games/QTE. Horrible climbing ones that keep reaccuring. Same with lots of bad vehicle ones. Stealth sections are annoying trial and error.

- Dialoge goes from really good and immersive to super weird, hammy, borderline "japanse/anime". But then again if you picked Resident Evil for the voice acting, you probably deserve to waste your money.

- Laser sight acting up at long distances within the crosshair. Even the fact that there is both is strange.

- If you're the typer of person that goes through the plot with a big fat magnifying glas at all times, then this game is not for you.

- Cover system is horrendous. I completed all 3 chapters and I'm still not entirely sure how you take cover behind small obstacles that you can also jump over.

- Boss fights can be frustrating when you don't know what to do and you run out of bullets trying to find out.

If you can overlook all these things, then you'll probably see this is an awesomely paced game with extremely many gameplay hours. Sick shit happens constantly, the new character Jake all though fleshed out poorly is extremely awesome. The character animation and facial expressions are top notch and there is tons of fan service. I haven't tried co op yet, but online I can imagine it being super awesome. Mercenaries is back and better than ever.

As in regards to the whole review thing, it's subjective. It all comes down to enjoyment, Brad pointed out a ton of flaws that are apparent to him and most people and it hindered his enjoyment of the game. It might not hinder yours.

Personally I can't say I'm not enjoying Resident Evil 6, but some things are just outright annoying. It could have been great in my eyes.

The part for Ada is the only trial and error aspect of the stealth in the entire game, but all you do is run through that part at the beginning, while Jake's and Sherry's part isn't trial and error at all. The Laser sight can be changed to just the red sight like in RE4 and five, which is what I use. The game has great voice acting, so it's not the "voice acting" that you're referring to. This isn't opinion, I thought I'd state the facts.

Frankfully I found the Jake and Sherry part extremely trial and error. You can remove the crosshair? Cool didn't know that. The game overall has great voice acting yeah, so I was probably refering to the script then. Thank you for the facts.

What I meant was, if you consider being patient and walking behind each of those bugs to then simply melee them as they're not facing you trial and error, I don't know if you know what trial and error means. Of course, I am not saying you don't because I know you do, but it isn't trial and error at all. There is a specific way to do it, and it's apparent almost right off the bat. The bugs have a pattern, and as long as they're not facing you, all you do is melee them and you're good to go. And yes, you can change the crosshair into the red sight, or whatever it's called.

Lol well this explains things. The reason I found it trial and error was because I didn't know you could melee them from behind. I thought you were supposed to stay out of their bluish field. So I sniped some of em and then prayed I could make it back to the dumpsters before the big baddie would maul me. So I was in the wrong again, my bad. Yet I'd stil l like to say that it's not super apparent that you can melee the bugs from behind.

@NinesSC2: No, that's true. I didn't mean it was "super" apparent, I just meant that it should have been apparent if you didn't wait too long to think about acting on it. I contemplated it for about a minute and a half as I watched what it was doing from a distance, then I ran up to its back and saw the trigger prompt, so I punched it. I was worried it'd alarm the guy, luckily it doesn't. I guess I shouldn't have said it like "Oh, come on, it's obvious you idiot!" Ha ha. Anyways, now you know though, so if you ever play it again, it won't be as bad. You basically just have to learn their pattern so you can time the running into it and punching it correctly. I don't know what happens if you get caught there. Also, you'll never have to use the dumpsters.

@EXTomar: Except that there wasn't that anyone that I have read that completely hated Mass Effect 3. Most of the hubub was directed at the ending. Even Jeff gave it a respectable 4 stars. That is consistency, because he said that the game play was similar, but the story disappointed him. If he came back and said the controls (which are very similar) are complete horse shit and then I had a difficult time doing anything in that game, and that it was all different, then you would raise an eyebrow I think.

At the end of the day: who cares? A review is merely a guide to someone who is on the fence about paying $60 for a game. It's up to the person to do a sufficient amount of research to see whether the game is for them or not. If you're enjoying it, then all the more power to you. I feel like people put way too much emphasis on reviews.

If you love the Resident Evil franchise and you know you are getting RE6, then there's no need to be upset about the "review system" and its flaws or whatnot. Buy your game and enjoy it. Just know that reviews are meant for people who are not sure whether they should be buy it or not.

played through first 3 campaigns, started the 4th, played a couple hours of Mercenaries and even more of Agent hunt (Which is Really fun) I have even replayed all of Leon's campaign with a friend.

It's okay. I still want to play it more, and I haven't touched Borderlands 2 in weeks. I have no idea whats wrong with me.

@LiquidPrince: Again I have to point out that obsessing about a score is a bad idea where trying to make another comparison is just as meaningless. Why not point out Mass Effect 2 got 5 stars but Mass Effect 3 got 4 stars? Where is the moaning about consistency? The comparison is meaningless where the comparison between RE5 and RE6 are just as meaningless.

Look we get it that Brad didn't like the game while you like it. Where is the problem? I'm never going to say that either opinion is right or better but I will object when one tries to suggest Brad's opinion is wrong. It is a meaningless idea that Brad can't have an opinion, positive or negative, because it doesn't match your expectations.

@LiquidPrince: I don't get how you can put as little emphasis how well something is executed as you do.

Your mass effect example would raise an eyebrow, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Mass effect 3 refined the ME2 system. RE6 threw out the RE5 system, and replaced it with a shoddy one. When that happens you don't copy paste scores for "consistency" .

@EXTomar: Brad didn't like the game and so many of you. That's fine. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just saying what's on my mind. If you for some reason feel like this discussion has no further value, then I'm not going to argue with you. You seem to be taking it as though I'm trying to defend this game, and that everyone is wrong. That's not the case. I'm just writing my thoughts as I experience the game.

@Tobli: I would disagree. RE6 in my opinion feels exactly like what RE5 felt to me, but just better or more robust.

Also I just got to the much maligned rope climbing section in Leon's campaign and it left me with a "you've got to be kidding me feeling." Not because the section was bad, but because it was so unbelievably easy, I didn't even have to think about it. It literally took all of 5 seconds, a short 3 second cutscene, and then another 5 seconds of climbing. How any one failed this, especially people who have played so many other games, is beyond me.

Reading Brad's review here which is on the low end then reading Tim Turi's review on Game Informer which is on high end it's like they're playing two entirely different video games, particular if you compare both reviewer's comments about the controls it is night and day. Brad seemed to have little understanding of the mechanics and for Tim they were one of the highlights of the experience. The disconnect there is just astounding.