Quick Look: Resident Evil 6

@dicnose said:

stop hating on great game just cuz someon you love htaes it.. brad is not god ok.. mb he was paid to hate game but u have free choice sheep..

Ha ! Ha ! That comment really cheered me up, for some reason.

i love resident evil and anything with zombies in but there hasent been a gud resident evil in about 4-5 years i think the series may be dead

@dicnose: what language are you typing in?

I had the same problem Jeff had with Resident Evil 4, that fucking laser sight is some of the worst aiming I ever played in a game. I don't know how people could play a game like that, it always felt off to me. Only the Wii version of RE4 is playable for me because the pointer controls feel so much better.

Man. This quicklook smells like a hate-orgy. And Brad's on top.

A shame RE stopped being about survival horror and more action oriented. If Cappy wanted to do a 3rd person shooter, they should have looked to start a fresh IP.

"Blue Stinger 2" HA!

@Grissefar: @Grissefar said:

@dicnose said:

stop hating on great game just cuz someon you love htaes it.. brad is not god ok.. mb he was paid to hate game but u have free choice sheep..

Ha ! Ha ! That comment really cheered me up, for some reason.

Me too, well done dicnose. Your satire was appreciated

@Brad You can use RB+X to auto-combine herbs and place them in the quick use slot, found that out via a loading screen about 2 hours in.

@dicnose said:

stop hating on great game just cuz someon you love htaes it.. brad is not god ok.. mb he was paid to hate game but u have free choice sheep..

Brad is not god? Excuse me but are we even thinking of the same person here? The guy who S-Ranked Doom II and got the Mile High achievement is not a god? I don't even know why I'm wasting my time talking to you. I don't think you even know what god means.

Gamefly just shipped me a PS3 copy, so i'm on this train, wherever it goes.

I am starting to wonder if I'll like this game. Other Capcom games I adore (Monster Hunter, Lost Planet 2) were not received well by critics and a lot of people complained about the controls and lack of tutorials. I wasn't even excited for this game and it's obviously so different to MH and LP2 but I'm gettin' deja vu here!

Never was a big Resident Evil fan and will be skipping this game. Always enjoy the commentary from the Giant Bomb crew though.

RE4 was one of the greatest games of the last generation, and I am happy to have people agree.

What happened to Capcom? Why did Capcom not do what Square-Enix learnt of only recently and start using play-testers for feedback and fixing things that clearly aren't right? Was this really worked on by 600 people? Is there no equivalent saying of "too many cooks spoil the broth" in Japanese culture?

Does Brad's "I've been lead to believe this isn't great" line about the RE3 section of the game bother anyone else? If he's ostensibly reviewing the game, why is he allowing his opinion to be colored by outside sources? I've been growing more and more concerned that game reviews and game press have been trending away from "game criticism" to "heres what the internet game reviewer zeitgeist says about this game." I'm not naive enough to think that game reviewers shielded themselves from game coverage historically but I think they should at least make an effort to have a genuine experience with a game before heading to twitter to see what the internet thinks.

This one seemingly throw-away comment seems to confirm my suspicions, and also confirm why I have to take all game reviews with silo of salt. If game reviewers are all influencing one another, who's opinion am I actually getting - is this Brad's opinion, Kevin van Ord's opinion, or someone on NeoGaf's opinion? Not to speak for Jeff but I think he was gesturing toward this idea on twitter yesterday, where he wrote, "Not sure how I feel about this new world where reviewers mention RE6 by name instead of just complaining about "the game they're reviewing."

I'm concerned the reviews and impressions we are given by game press are no longer opinions, but rather a summary of internet zeitgeist. I think we are worse off.

It's ok. It's just Brad's opinion. He loved Nuts and Bolts so...

@Grixxel said:

Seems like the quality of the games finally match that of the movies! Weeeeee.

I think that's actually the problem here. The relative success of the movies and this strange insecruity Capcom has twoards its core franchises has led them to try to ape in their game what happens in the movies. And the aciton seecquences barely work in the movies (if they do at all). They don't work at all in the game.

But we never found out what the microwave stuff was about! :p

Am I the only one who thinks that the camera is just a little bit too close to the characters? I don't know why but this distrubed me the entire time

@patrick Trust me, Piers goes through some shit in Chris' campaign. I actually thought he was an OK character, though of course adding a character who's already defined within the series would have been better.

I wanted this to be the MGS4 of RE story-wise, with the entire cast of remaining characters cropping up around every corner. Barry arrives in a blimp, make Billy Coen a BSAA soldier, have Tofu as the mastermind behind it all.

Resident Evil needs a reboot...or a mercy bullet to the head.

@MackDaddicus said:

Does Brad's "I've been lead to believe this isn't great" line about the RE3 section of the game bother anyone else? If he's ostensibly reviewing the game, why is he allowing his opinion to be colored by outside sources? I've been growing more and more concerned that game reviews and game press have been trending away from "game criticism" to "heres what the internet game reviewer zeitgeist says about this game." I'm not naive enough to think that game reviewers shielded themselves from game coverage historically but I think they should at least make an effort to have a genuine experience with a game before heading to twitter to see what the internet thinks.

This one seemingly throw-away comment seems to confirm my suspicions, and also confirm why I have to take all game reviews with silo of salt. If game reviewers are all influencing one another, who's opinion am I actually getting - is this Brad's opinion, Kevin van Ord's opinion, or someone on NeoGaf's opinion? Not to speak for Jeff but I think he was gesturing toward this idea on twitter yesterday, where he wrote, "Not sure how I feel about this new world where reviewers mention RE6 by name instead of just complaining about "the game they're reviewing."

I'm concerned the reviews and impressions we are given by game press are no longer opinions, but rather a summary of internet zeitgeist. I think we are worse off.

As much as my gut reaction wants to defend the GB guys, I completely agree with this. I've noticed it more and more. Of course it doesn't happen with every game, but it does happen. People turn anecdotal things they hear on twitter into their own views far too readily. However, I think when it comes to sitting down to do a real review, I still trust them implicitly -- they do take that seriously I feel. For those games they might not be so inclined to invest in in the first place, I think this definitely rings true.

Never been a fan of Resident Evil games. I understand why everyone loves RE4, I got super-bored at RE5, liked Revelations on the 3DS. Played the demo of RE6 and I clearly saw this coming...

@Abendlaender said:

Am I the only one who thinks that the camera is just a little bit too close to the characters? I don't know why but this distrubed me the entire time

I think everyone thinks that, even people who like the game or reviewers who gave it good scores. Of which there are plenty.

@CaLe said:

@MackDaddicus said:

Does Brad's "I've been lead to believe this isn't great" line about the RE3 section of the game bother anyone else? If he's ostensibly reviewing the game, why is he allowing his opinion to be colored by outside sources? I've been growing more and more concerned that game reviews and game press have been trending away from "game criticism" to "heres what the internet game reviewer zeitgeist says about this game." I'm not naive enough to think that game reviewers shielded themselves from game coverage historically but I think they should at least make an effort to have a genuine experience with a game before heading to twitter to see what the internet thinks.

This one seemingly throw-away comment seems to confirm my suspicions, and also confirm why I have to take all game reviews with silo of salt. If game reviewers are all influencing one another, who's opinion am I actually getting - is this Brad's opinion, Kevin van Ord's opinion, or someone on NeoGaf's opinion? Not to speak for Jeff but I think he was gesturing toward this idea on twitter yesterday, where he wrote, "Not sure how I feel about this new world where reviewers mention RE6 by name instead of just complaining about "the game they're reviewing."

I'm concerned the reviews and impressions we are given by game press are no longer opinions, but rather a summary of internet zeitgeist. I think we are worse off.

As much as my gut reaction wants to defend the GB guys, I completely agree with this. I've noticed it more and more. Of course it doesn't happen with every game, but it does happen. People turn anecdotal things they hear on twitter into their own views far too readily. However, I think when it comes to sitting down to do a real review, I still trust them implicitly -- they do take that seriously I feel. But for those games they might not be so inclined to invest in in the first place, I think this definitely rings true.

Nothing new here and like I said before I come to Giantbomb for the hi jinx I could care less about their serious games coverage

@Ghostiet said:

On an unrelated note, if the redesign doesn't come with a new video player, fuck this shit.

They showed that it is going to on one of those subscriber stream things.

@takua108 said:

@Ghostiet said:

On an unrelated note, if the redesign doesn't come with a new video player, fuck this shit.

They showed that it is going to on one of those subscriber stream things.

What does that mean?

@SomeJerk said:

RE4 was one of the greatest games of the last generation, and I am happy to have people agree.

What happened to Capcom? Why did Capcom not do what Square-Enix learnt of only recently and start using play-testers for feedback and fixing things that clearly aren't right? Was this really worked on by 600 people? Is there no equivalent saying of "too many cooks spoil the broth" in Japanese culture?

@SomeJerk: There actually is:

船頭多くして船山に登る (en.wiktionary.org)

Literally "The boat with many captains will be driven up a mountain." (i.e. in the wrong direction)

I find it very interesting how in completely different languages and cultures we came up with the same kind of idioms twice (like "gold coins to cats" → To cast pearls before swine).

@Generiko: it looks decent enough on HTML 5 on HD,.

@CaLe: I get what you're saying but I really thinks that you're in the wrong place to make such a remark. This is one of the few review sites where this game is being bashed (rightfully so? who knows...). I think that brad, just like you, lives in a connected world. He have friends and collegues who play the same game, maybe fellow collegues reviewers. People tend to listen to others' opinions to help themselves form their own opinions. That doesn''t mean that they end up having all the same opinions, sometimes the exchange can make you form opinions diverging from the majority.

At any rate, it's quite clear that the sheer disgust manifested by brad in this quicklook comes from a really sincere place in his heart... ;)

@Smokey_Earhole said:

@takua108 said:

@Ghostiet said:

On an unrelated note, if the redesign doesn't come with a new video player, fuck this shit.

They showed that it is going to on one of those subscriber stream things.

What does that mean?

Sorry if that wasn't coherent, I just woke up :P

There was a livestream a little bit before the BLLSL3 wherein Dave and Alexis were showing off some of the Giant Bomb redesign, and included in that was a new video player.

I can't find the video here on the site though... maybe it's archived on twitch or something?

@DeviTiffany said:

I had the same problem Jeff had with Resident Evil 4, that fucking laser sight is some of the worst aiming I ever played in a game. I don't know how people could play a game like that, it always felt off to me. Only the Wii version of RE4 is playable for me because the pointer controls feel so much better.

RE 4 has the most satisfying and accurate aiming in any shooter; just watch a Mercenaries video on youtube to see that in practice. There must just be something wrong your and Jeff's left thumb.

If RE 4 really had terrible aiming, the PS2 and GC versions wouldn't have got an average review score of 96. When it comes to RE 4, Kasavin > Gerstmann.

@leejunfan83 said:

@CaLe said:

@MackDaddicus said:

Does Brad's "I've been lead to believe this isn't great" line about the RE3 section of the game bother anyone else? If he's ostensibly reviewing the game, why is he allowing his opinion to be colored by outside sources? I've been growing more and more concerned that game reviews and game press have been trending away from "game criticism" to "heres what the internet game reviewer zeitgeist says about this game." I'm not naive enough to think that game reviewers shielded themselves from game coverage historically but I think they should at least make an effort to have a genuine experience with a game before heading to twitter to see what the internet thinks.

This one seemingly throw-away comment seems to confirm my suspicions, and also confirm why I have to take all game reviews with silo of salt. If game reviewers are all influencing one another, who's opinion am I actually getting - is this Brad's opinion, Kevin van Ord's opinion, or someone on NeoGaf's opinion? Not to speak for Jeff but I think he was gesturing toward this idea on twitter yesterday, where he wrote, "Not sure how I feel about this new world where reviewers mention RE6 by name instead of just complaining about "the game they're reviewing."

I'm concerned the reviews and impressions we are given by game press are no longer opinions, but rather a summary of internet zeitgeist. I think we are worse off.

As much as my gut reaction wants to defend the GB guys, I completely agree with this. I've noticed it more and more. Of course it doesn't happen with every game, but it does happen. People turn anecdotal things they hear on twitter into their own views far too readily. However, I think when it comes to sitting down to do a real review, I still trust them implicitly -- they do take that seriously I feel. But for those games they might not be so inclined to invest in in the first place, I think this definitely rings true.

Nothing new here and like I said before I come to Giantbomb for the hi jinx I could care less about their serious games coverage

There is no such thing as serious game coverage.

Damn you to hell, Wong.

So the Co-Op works well? That's good to know that the one thing the RE fans didn't want is the one thing they worked the most on. I thank you guys for this Quick Look because you made me realize I shouldn't pay full price for this game and can wait on it.

To Brad's defense though, I've heard him say something along the lines of "I've heard from here or there that people didn't like this or that, but I totally disagree." Although, I can't think of an instance of it offhand, so I guess you could take my comment with a grain of salt.

@Humanity said:

@algertman said:

Still a better game than Mass Effect 3.

Keep telling yourself that.

I will, because it's the truth.

@CaLe said:

@MackDaddicus said:

Does Brad's "I've been lead to believe this isn't great" line about the RE3 section of the game bother anyone else? If he's ostensibly reviewing the game, why is he allowing his opinion to be colored by outside sources? I've been growing more and more concerned that game reviews and game press have been trending away from "game criticism" to "heres what the internet game reviewer zeitgeist says about this game." I'm not naive enough to think that game reviewers shielded themselves from game coverage historically but I think they should at least make an effort to have a genuine experience with a game before heading to twitter to see what the internet thinks.

This one seemingly throw-away comment seems to confirm my suspicions, and also confirm why I have to take all game reviews with silo of salt. If game reviewers are all influencing one another, who's opinion am I actually getting - is this Brad's opinion, Kevin van Ord's opinion, or someone on NeoGaf's opinion? Not to speak for Jeff but I think he was gesturing toward this idea on twitter yesterday, where he wrote, "Not sure how I feel about this new world where reviewers mention RE6 by name instead of just complaining about "the game they're reviewing."

I'm concerned the reviews and impressions we are given by game press are no longer opinions, but rather a summary of internet zeitgeist. I think we are worse off.

As much as my gut reaction wants to defend the GB guys, I completely agree with this. I've noticed it more and more. Of course it doesn't happen with every game, but it does happen. People turn anecdotal things they hear on twitter into their own views far too readily. However, I think when it comes to sitting down to do a real review, I still trust them implicitly -- they do take that seriously I feel. For those games they might not be so inclined to invest in in the first place, I think this definitely rings true.

That's kind of just human nature. We all follow the herd to some extent and our opinions are rarely 100% our own but rather a product of the people and culture we are surrounded by. You can't just totally blank out games media if you are a games journalist. I think most people commenting on this have played games long enough to realise that there's a lot that is wrong with this game in a fairly objective sense. The camera for example is a pretty glaring issue that even the people who like the game have trouble reconciling. That the story and gameplay are such a mess doesn't surprise me. If as many as 600 people worked on this, it's not hard to see how too many cooks can spoil the broth, and I think tricky summed it up perfectly by pointing out that we're at this weird place with Japanese games at the minute where they're pandering to Western audiences rather than sticking to the Eastern flavour and suffering for it.

There's a lot wrong with this game and I think there's a lot more to it than Brad having heard that a section of the game may indeed suck. Give the guy some credit, jeez.

Good quick look! I'm glad I had time to cancel my pre order. What a disappointment.

Had fun with the demo. Looking forward to getting this. Dont know what the problem is.

@Lysergica33: but other reviewers on this site have said they purposefully avoid all media and reviews of games they are working on. see jeff/ryan

@algertman said:

@Humanity said:

@algertman said:

Still a better game than Mass Effect 3.

Keep telling yourself that.

I will, because it's the truth.

The ridiculous comparison of survival horror to sci fi RPG aside, while Mass Effect 3 might not get the core of being an engaging Role Playing Game completely down, it is a competent, if not above average third person shooter. Resident Evil 6 in addition to being a poor survival horror game and underwhelming entry into the series is also an extremely lackluster third person shooter when you strip everything else aside.

So keep your truth close to your heart because thats the only place where it will ever ring true.

The two things that are pointed out in this QL about the UI being different between the characters & how much better the other recent Capcom game (Asura's Wrath) did the quick time events and here it's rather messy. Hard to tell if Capcom gives their employees access to other games being worked on but that might have helped this team as it looks like they threw together a hot mess knowing that if it has Resident Evil in the name that it will sell like crazy regardless of how good it is to play.

Also is there not a game manual on the disc instead? With some games on what they put on the load screens for controls/tips, I'd not have played some games that long without some idea on controls & gameplay making the game fun to play.

@CaLe said:

@MackDaddicus said:

Does Brad's "I've been lead to believe this isn't great" line about the RE3 section of the game bother anyone else? If he's ostensibly reviewing the game, why is he allowing his opinion to be colored by outside sources? I've been growing more and more concerned that game reviews and game press have been trending away from "game criticism" to "heres what the internet game reviewer zeitgeist says about this game." I'm not naive enough to think that game reviewers shielded themselves from game coverage historically but I think they should at least make an effort to have a genuine experience with a game before heading to twitter to see what the internet thinks.

This one seemingly throw-away comment seems to confirm my suspicions, and also confirm why I have to take all game reviews with silo of salt. If game reviewers are all influencing one another, who's opinion am I actually getting - is this Brad's opinion, Kevin van Ord's opinion, or someone on NeoGaf's opinion? Not to speak for Jeff but I think he was gesturing toward this idea on twitter yesterday, where he wrote, "Not sure how I feel about this new world where reviewers mention RE6 by name instead of just complaining about "the game they're reviewing."

I'm concerned the reviews and impressions we are given by game press are no longer opinions, but rather a summary of internet zeitgeist. I think we are worse off.

As much as my gut reaction wants to defend the GB guys, I completely agree with this. I've noticed it more and more. Of course it doesn't happen with every game, but it does happen. People turn anecdotal things they hear on twitter into their own views far too readily. However, I think when it comes to sitting down to do a real review, I still trust them implicitly -- they do take that seriously I feel. For those games they might not be so inclined to invest in in the first place, I think this definitely rings true.

Brad's got some pretty good foresight then, if he knew not to like it months ago to be in line with what the internet would eventually tell him to think.

@fox01313 said:

The two things that are pointed out in this QL about the UI being different between the characters & how much better the other recent Capcom game (Asura's Wrath) did the quick time events and here it's rather messy. Hard to tell if Capcom gives their employees access to other games being worked on but that might have helped this team as it looks like they threw together a hot mess knowing that if it has Resident Evil in the name that it will sell like crazy regardless of how good it is to play.

Also is there not a game manual on the disc instead? With some games on what they put on the load screens for controls/tips, I'd not have played some games that long without some idea on controls & gameplay making the game fun to play.

I always thought it was odd that game reviewers find it so hard to go to the options menu and look around.

I'm not the biggest Resident Evil guy, but I played RE4 and know Leon knows the President, because the whole point of the game is that Leon is in Europe to save the Presidents daughter, Ashley. You'd think Patrick and Brad would remember that, being fans of the series and all that.

@Humanity said:

@algertman said:

@Humanity said:

@algertman said:

Still a better game than Mass Effect 3.

Keep telling yourself that.

I will, because it's the truth.

The ridiculous comparison of survival horror to sci fi RPG aside, while Mass Effect 3 might not get the core of being an engaging Role Playing Game completely down, it is a competent, if not above average third person shooter. Resident Evil 6 in addition to being a poor survival horror game and underwhelming entry into the series is also an extremely lackluster third person shooter when you strip everything else aside.

So keep your truth close to your heart because thats the only place where it will ever ring true.

Mass Effect 3 in addition to being a poor sci fi RPG and underwhelming entry into the series is also an extremely lackluster third person shooter when you strip everything else aside.

I don't think outside influence is required to make one realise that a shitty game is, in fact, a shitty game.

@fox01313 said:

Also is there not a game manual on the disc instead? With some games on what they put on the load screens for controls/tips, I'd not have played some games that long without some idea on controls & gameplay making the game fun to play.

All you need to do is look at the controls in the menu, but I don't know if Brad ever did that because it seems like he doesn't know about the Quick Shot move (LT plus RT) and it took him 12 hours to figure out how to roll.

@Lysergica33: I think my comment is being used against Brad when in fact I was defending him. I do believe they take reviews seriously, and Brad is reviewing this game. My comment was more about the games they are less likely to invest in or take any time to learn about. And yes I agree it is a natural thing in the connected world we are in; it just lacks consistency. That being said, my guilty pleasure is seeing the angry reactions to Jeff's offhand dismissal of games. I really do enjoy it.

I'm part of the problem, is what I'm saying.

Also I would like to point out that Vinny is exempt from any of this. He seems to always wait until he can judge a game for himself, even if it means having to play the shitty prequels to it.

@CaLe said:

@MackDaddicus said:

Does Brad's "I've been lead to believe this isn't great" line about the RE3 section of the game bother anyone else? If he's ostensibly reviewing the game, why is he allowing his opinion to be colored by outside sources? I've been growing more and more concerned that game reviews and game press have been trending away from "game criticism" to "heres what the internet game reviewer zeitgeist says about this game." I'm not naive enough to think that game reviewers shielded themselves from game coverage historically but I think they should at least make an effort to have a genuine experience with a game before heading to twitter to see what the internet thinks.

This one seemingly throw-away comment seems to confirm my suspicions, and also confirm why I have to take all game reviews with silo of salt. If game reviewers are all influencing one another, who's opinion am I actually getting - is this Brad's opinion, Kevin van Ord's opinion, or someone on NeoGaf's opinion? Not to speak for Jeff but I think he was gesturing toward this idea on twitter yesterday, where he wrote, "Not sure how I feel about this new world where reviewers mention RE6 by name instead of just complaining about "the game they're reviewing."

I'm concerned the reviews and impressions we are given by game press are no longer opinions, but rather a summary of internet zeitgeist. I think we are worse off.

As much as my gut reaction wants to defend the GB guys, I completely agree with this. I've noticed it more and more. Of course it doesn't happen with every game, but it does happen. People turn anecdotal things they hear on twitter into their own views far too readily. However, I think when it comes to sitting down to do a real review, I still trust them implicitly -- they do take that seriously I feel. For those games they might not be so inclined to invest in in the first place, I think this definitely rings true.

There's truth here. You would get more diversified views if all reviewers were hermetically sealed away when reviewing games so that they have no idea what each other are thinking and then these competing views would more accurately mimic the diversified views that a game's audience can have towards any one game (although those who buy it are often effected by the same zeitgeist effect as well). I've realised I struggle not to let the popular feeling towards a game colour my judgment of it when I'm playing one - I do think reviewers should work hard to protect themselves from this - I do know some do.