@Shady said:

@Xeirus said:

@DarthOrange said:

This includes the already discovered No Hope Left difficulty level and option to play (I almost wrote “enjoy”) Ada Wong ’s campaign in co-op.

Professional journalism at its finest.

Opinions... go figure. You want cold facts with no personality go to CNN.

I think the amount of arguing stemming from RE is hilarious. People are so pissed that it's a bad game they have to fight about it all the way down.

My roommate was fucking stocked and talked about RE coming out for months, he owns every single ones, and even replays thems to this day... even he did not buy RE6 after playing the demo.

Personally I've disliked all of the RE games, I think they're incredibly boring. But this is legitimately a bad game, deal with it.

Only a few outliers think this game is truly awful. The Metacritic average places this game in the decent range if you want to play the numbers game. You haven't even played the game, so what value can your opinion possibly offer? They can spin it however they like because it is their site. However, some people actually find this game fun. If you can't deal with that, then sad day for you.

It is not only a few outliers that think the game is awful. The metacritic averages for the critics is mediocre at a 66, but the user rating is at a 1.5 out of 2322 ratings! A 1.5!

@SleepyDoughnut said:

@Shady said:

@Xeirus said:

@DarthOrange said:

This includes the already discovered No Hope Left difficulty level and option to play (I almost wrote “enjoy”) Ada Wong ’s campaign in co-op.

Professional journalism at its finest.

Opinions... go figure. You want cold facts with no personality go to CNN.

I think the amount of arguing stemming from RE is hilarious. People are so pissed that it's a bad game they have to fight about it all the way down.

My roommate was fucking stocked and talked about RE coming out for months, he owns every single ones, and even replays thems to this day... even he did not buy RE6 after playing the demo.

Personally I've disliked all of the RE games, I think they're incredibly boring. But this is legitimately a bad game, deal with it.

Only a few outliers think this game is truly awful. The Metacritic average places this game in the decent range if you want to play the numbers game. You haven't even played the game, so what value can your opinion possibly offer? They can spin it however they like because it is their site. However, some people actually find this game fun. If you can't deal with that, then sad day for you.

It is not only a few outliers that think the game is awful. The metacritic averages for the critics is mediocre at a 66, but the user rating is at a 1.5 out of 2322 ratings! A 1.5!

How is 66 mediocre? That's a decent score. Maybe you don't know what decent means. As for the user rating, it is useless as it got spammed just before the game came out. The user rating averages on Gamefaqs/Gamespot is much more inline if obviously skewed.

@Shady said:

How is 66 mediocre? That's a decent score. Maybe you don't know what decent means. As for the user rating, it is useless as it got spammed just before the game came out. The user rating averages on Gamefaqs/Gamespot is much more inline if obviously skewed.

In video game reviews anything below a an 8 is terrible.

@Shady said:

I'm not a big fan of Splinter Cell: Conviction, but the co-op in that game worked because they designed it around that idea. RE6 (and RE5 to a lesser extent) are in the same boat. Say what you will about the gameplay but by making sure the campaign worked as a co-op game first it made that experience fun and natural not shoehorned in as many seem to think. Hell, even Brad loved RE5 because of it. I know I'm shitting on him, but his beef was never with the co-op aspect of the game, which, I think at least lends credence to his disappointment with this new entry.

I thought Conviction was fine, but it was just really bad as a Splinter Cell game. But my point was that in all of them you had the SP, and then Co-Op. They were separate things, each designed with that in mind. If RE5 and 6 had done something like that, it probably wouldn't be as terrible, but I know I don't want to have to coordinate with a friend every time I want to play a game. If you fill a game full of co-op doors and add an AI that refuses to open them, that's a problem, even if you are "supposed" to be playing with a human all the time for this 30-whatever hour game.

I do kinda want a Brad/Vinny co-op QL Part 2 to see how that works, though.

too bad free is still too expensive.

@Campion said:

"Free?" We paid for the fucking disk, that includes everything on it

That is way of base with what the situation is with RE6. And Capcom had very good reasons for why it used on disk DLC in the past even if its a little fucked that if it was done in time for the game to go gold then why is it even DLC. But I digress, the situation with RE6 as they've explained it the things they're adding were not ready at the time the game was to be shipped so they included partial code for those options to be finished after the game was released.

The reason why they did it so much with fighting games was even if a character was DLC both the person who paid for it and the person who didn't whom that person is fighting both had to have the data. Mortal Kombat didn't do what Capcom did and if a character even had an alternate costume the game went to shit and wouldn't work if the other player didn't have the extra content. They then had to put a free "optional" DLC pack that put the characters into people who didn't own the DLC's games to fix the issue so then there was an extra layer of hassle added onto the game for people who were not going to get that stuff to begin with.

Also you do not pay for the "disk", you are licencing content from the publisher. You technically do not "own" any video game you have. You have paid for the rights to access what they deem you able to. Fine print in Terms of Services and blah blah blah, etc, etc. You get the idea.

We can all sit and spin on the needles like LP records about if RE6 "was okay" or "wasn't okay" all day long, but the fact remains Capcom is giving away what it was hoping to sell. Let’s be honest, on-the-disc or not Capcom was planning to sell that DLC content up until a week ago. Now, they are giving it away, so ‘that’ is the more interesting discussion.

Very few games give away their DLC even when things look bleak for sales. Therefore, you have to imagine Capcom North America, despite what are probably good sales, is very concerned with the review scores by allowing the DLC to go out for free. The question in Capcom’s own mind must be, “Can we save face with disappointed customers and even convince people to keep buy RE6 with free DLC?”

I think they can do both. I don’t think it is a very honorable way to boost sales, but it is an honorable way to save face with those who bought early without knowing the scores.

I'm officially okay with on disc DLC. But free is better than paid obviously.

@MonkeyKing1969 said:

Let’s be honest, on-the-disc or not Capcom was planning to sell that DLC content up until a week ago. Now, they are giving it away, so ‘that’ is the more interesting discussion.

Nah, right out of the gate it was set to be Residentevil.net unlocks. they've be touting about it for months before the game was released.

@algertman said:

@Shady said:

How is 66 mediocre? That's a decent score. Maybe you don't know what decent means. As for the user rating, it is useless as it got spammed just before the game came out. The user rating averages on Gamefaqs/Gamespot is much more inline if obviously skewed.

In video game reviews anything below a an 8 is terrible.

When you frame it like that, it makes video game reviews completely useless.

@Shady said:

@algertman said:

@Shady said:

How is 66 mediocre? That's a decent score. Maybe you don't know what decent means. As for the user rating, it is useless as it got spammed just before the game came out. The user rating averages on Gamefaqs/Gamespot is much more inline if obviously skewed.

In video game reviews anything below a an 8 is terrible.

When you frame it like that, it makes video game reviews completely useless.

... yes...

@RAMBO604: Also you do not pay for the "disk", you are licencing content from the publisher. You technically do not "own" any video game you have. You have paid for the rights to access what they deem you able to. Fine print in Terms of Services and blah blah blah, etc, etc. You get the idea.

This gets parroted a lot, however it isn't actually true. You buy the game, you own the game. Ever notice how people that make mods don't get arrested? Because it's legal to mod your games. It's legal to sell your games to others. It's legal to RENT your game to someone. Publishers put all that crap you mentioned into the fine print to fool gullible people like you into believing it. You just accept their word for it when they tell you what your rights are. The truth is, you own your games. You own the data on the discs.

I often hear the argument that it's on the disc because they had a separate budget for DLC and it just works out coming out at the same time as the full game, so why not save the users download time by putting it on the disc. Win/Win, right?

The problem is how we PERCEIVE things. While it seems like it's OK to put DLC on the disc for us as a "convenience", it's not. It seems like a money grubbing strategy. Just don't be shitty Capcom, that's all. I don't buy your games, but I know the people that do feel constantly like they're being punished. You're rarely rewarded well enough to become an early adopter of Capcom games, buying them at full price.

Still, free is free. At least they're making steps towards making customers feel like they're valued.

@tanookigt: All software is technically licensed not just video games. You DO own that license. You can sell, trade, do whatever with that content as you damn well please. And actions are taken against modders if not legal action then banning and so forth for using mod tools to make cheats. There is specific wording in ToS's to protect such content. This is case in point with DOTA. Blizzard's ToS stated that you could mod the game but could not profit from it and that content was owned by Blizzard.

Outside of video games modifying other software will get you in big trouble because those mods are typically cracks. You don't own photoshop, you own the license, Adobe has sold you access to it. This is the way the legal system works for software.

Do not say its gullibility, only a moron would say that the legal system is incorrect. They own it, you don't. The government says they are not able to stop you from doing very many things like reselling and modifying but it does protect them as far as what that content is.

Publishers would love to say for example stop GameStop from reselling shit. But the same laws that say that software is so and so's legal property also protects you the license holder from them and second hand markets from them. In most instances but fine print exists for a reason so when there is cause for something they can do it. Like withholding content. But you as the license holder are legally protected from recourse for most everything you do with the content.

I'm not saying its right for the way Capcom uses it, in my original post I believe I used the term "its fucked". But as far as why Capcom did it with fighting games is because literally if they didn't it breaks the fucking game end of story. Its a limitation of the hardware. Theres no good way around it currently. And so you either put it on the damn disk or you dramatically split the user base online because people who don't buy the content probably don't care enough to download that content so other people can use it.

The bad news: it's a completely free basketball.

I don't like the idea of having Ada's campaign unlocked from the start. I mean, her actions, both helpful and traitorous, left a lot to the player's imagination. While I personally expected the "secret" behind this, I think her campaign really wraps the game up and should be left until the end.

@Jeric: I don't understand why they're doing this either. Her campaign is what links all the others together and has some decent reveals that lose all their worth without the context of the other campaigns, in particular Chris's. The end of Chapter 4 for her seeing that before playing through Chris's takes that awesome what the hell is going on moment away completely. Which was probably best story beat in the entire game.

The only way I could see Co-Op working in Ada's campaign is if they did the Halo 1 and 2 style "there are just two of the same character in co op mode" thing that merge them into one Ada for the cut scenes. It's not super elegant, but how much of Resident Evil 6 is?

@RAMBO604 said:

@Jeric: I don't understand why they're doing this either. Her campaign is what links all the others together and has some decent reveals that lose all their worth without the context of the other campaigns, in particular Chris's. The end of Chapter 4 for her seeing that before playing through Chris's takes that awesome what the hell is going on moment away completely. Which was probably best story beat in the entire game.

@fearthereaperdotca said:

The only way I could see Co-Op working in Ada's campaign is if they did the Halo 1 and 2 style "there are just two of the same character in co op mode" thing that merge them into one Ada for the cut scenes. It's not super elegant.

Exactly.

Spare me cynicism against Resident Evil 6 Patrick Klepek, you sir like Shadows of the Damn.

@nimbil said:

Spare me cynicism against Resident Evil 6 Patrick Klepek, you sir like Shadows of the Damn.

But that game was good and RE6 was not...

"I almost wrote “enjoy”

Idiot.

well atleast it is free