Resident Evil 6 - Page 3

Metacritic currently shows a metascore of 77, and only 4 of the 14 reviews are below a 75, so that seems like a pretty gross mischaracterization...

- Jer

I've had a good time reading some scathingly sarcastic reviews but I'm still gonna pick it up this week. Co-op made up for a lot of RE5's problems; I hope the same holds true here.

In this day and age, a big-budget game tied to a major IP that scores on Metacritic below 80 is generally considered a critical "failure" within the industry.

Also, gotta admit my guess from two weeks ago was pretty close: We'll see if it stays at 77.

EDIT: Just checked. It's now averaging a 69. Give it a few days while more reviews roll in. It'll probably stabilize score-wise somewhere in the low 70s.
Edited by confidenceman - 10/1/12 at 8:29pm

I have noticed that reviews are all over the place. It seems to be an either love it or hate type maybe. None the less I will be picking it up on the way home from work and soon as I can turn out the lights headphones on and hope I like it. There has been games in the past that people ripped but I loved. As long as its not as bad as racoon city I think Ill dig it.

Seems the European reviews are calling a lemon a lemon, but they usually do that as there's less industry payola flowing to them. The real thing to watch for is in independent reviewers and smaller internet rags over here that don't get a slice of ad revenue or dirty handshakes. That some of the big names are rating it in the 70's-80's probably means capcom didn't grease the goose this time. Oops!

You can't just "buy" good scores. It doesn't work that way. That's just something the internet likes to believe. Which isn't to say that publishers don't influence game review scores. They do. It's just a lot more subtle (and more pervasive) than that.

Being a game reviewer is like being a private in the military tasked with writing threat estimates of foreign countries. Generals never talk to you or tell you what do write, but you definitely know what they'd like to hear, and you know your career may depend on it. And while you may have some personal integrity, you don't always notice when your opinion is being subtly swayed by what you think you're supposed to write. Doesn't matter if you're an "independent" site or not.

EDIT:
As an example, the 8.8 review for Resident Evil 6 from Gametrailers is strange. If you listen to or read the text of the review, it's a series of negative things. I've been watching reviews on the site for a very long while (not because I ever agree with their inflated scores, but because I like to see a video summary of the game in action), and I can usually pretty safely guess the score they're going to give at the end based on the tone of the review. Their RE6 review score, however, didn't at all match the text of the review. The text suggest a score somewhere around a 7.5-7.8, but the score itself was much higher. That IMO is a perfect example of that "subtle" influence at work. It's a negative review with an unexpectedly high score. The reviewer's conscious brain recognized the game's many faults, but some unconscious part told them it needed ultimately to have a higher score. Then that bizarrely dissonant text and review made it past the editor. Then it made it past video production. Etc.

If they were truly getting "paid" by a publisher for a positive review, they would have written a positive review. Instead, they end up with this oddly contradictory situation where the negative text and the positive score sit side by side--and made it past a lot of other editorial eyes along the way.
Edited by confidenceman - 10/2/12 at 8:05am

Sure you can. If you don't think ad revenue, exclusive contracts to pump out "first" reviews, and even withholding review discs down the line doesn't have influence; I got a bridge to sell you Joe. It might not be benni's changing hands directly, but it's close enough. Especially with the lucrative ad buys.

There's a reason there was a HUGE ad campaign on IGN, they got the exclusive first review, then gave GTA4 a perfect 10/10. It wasn't because the game was perfect.

Like I said, there's massive pressure and influence. But it's never as direct as "Give X score and we'll give you X cash." Ad buys are a tiny part of a much larger series of influences.

Frankly, the much bigger influence is the role of PR firms in doling out developer interviews, preview code, video content, etc. Burn that bridge and you're screwed as a writer. Doesn't matter if you're "independently" funded. But also remember that most reviewers get paid almost nothing (and sometimes literally nothing). Publishers host fancy preview and launch events for journalists. Many journalists are friends with people who work in development, publishing, and PR--especially if they've been in the industry for a long time. Many journalists are aspire to work in development or publishing (many have already made the jump). I could go on and on. There's no way around all of that, regardless of how independent your site claims to be. The only thing you can look for as a reader is a writer whose opinion you value. That's about it.

Advertising dollars are the furthest thing from a reviewers' mind. Trust me.

And I hate to say it, but I'd almost trust a big, well funded site more than a small one. The big ones can usually afford to say what they think without running the risk of pissing any publishers off. They can usually weather a PR blacklist no problem (for many, blacklisting is just a regular part of doing their job). Unfortunately, many big sites treat their writers like crap, so they end up with crappy, underpaid, disposable writers who are "hooked" by their love for games. Many editors are like drug dealers with a staff of destitute addicts. You can tell a site is run like this when they've got some seriously awful writers (IGN, for example). The worst part is, readers don't seem to notice or care.

All a very long way of saying: Capcom is small potatoes for most journalists. They lose nothing by pissing them off. But it's a chicken and egg situation. Is Capcom "small potatoes" because they have been making bad games over the past few years? Or are their games (like RE6) only now being called "bad" because there's a recent industry-wide turn against them?
Edited by confidenceman - 10/2/12 at 8:33am

The PS3 metascore is still holding at 77 for now, but that 45 from Gamespot is troubling, as I almost always agree with their ratings. Hopefully the co-op play will brighten things up like it did with RE5. And the bit I read about being able to drop into someone's game as an enemy sounds interesting, even if it's a swipe from the Souls games...

- Jer

spoilers obviously

Basic premise, this ain't RE4 or even RE5, large step back.

68 on 360. And as many people were reminded by the scoring fiasco for Skyrim, the way Metacritic divides PS3 and 360 scores has more to do with how sites report their multiplatform game scores. Doesn't have anything to do with actual differences between versions.

Many sites will report the same review to Metacritic as PS3 and 360 even though they only played the 360 version (which is the default platform for PR firms when they send review copies to game sites). Luckily, in the wake of Skyrim, many sites stopped doing that, and they'll only report a score for the platform they played the game on for the review. But now you get situations like RE6 where you have a third as many sites reporting scores for PS3 as for 360. So the few high scores are skewing much higher for PS3 than for 360. But it has nothing to do with the game being different on one console versus the other.

Yet one more way in which Metacritic is useless and misleading.
Edited by confidenceman - 10/2/12 at 9:35am

who cares about what score each game gets. just play the dang game and enjoy it.

It's kinda amusing, because a lot of their complaints were mine going into RE4/5. Not sure what has changed, except for the novelty just wearing off, and other games doing a much better job. The really wasn't a story to RE4/5 either. There were issues with pre-canned animations and hit boxes. Dumb AI. Nonsensical locations, ect. None of that is new.

Based on playing the demo and reading some reviews, though, it doesn't sound like those are the killer issues. The core problem is that this feels rushed and cheap, and in trying to pander to what they think are "Western" tastes, they've completely ditched what made the series special in the first place.

And I'll say it again, Shinji Mikami is a genius when it comes to game mechanics. I'd honestly put him next to Miyamoto as one of the true talents of game design. Even if RE4 had some minor problems in places, the core movement and shooting was tight and tense and fun. And RE5 I'd argue was only good because it directly copied what worked in RE4. And now that RE6 tried to rebuild the mechanics from scratch, they've failed utterly. So all of those basic issues that have been around since RE4 now seem that much bigger because the core play mechanics aren't there to make up for it.

The video kinda goes into what I was talking about. This engine is STILL using pre-canned animations, instead of kinetics and physics. So, if you or an enemy is in mid-animation, it takes precedent and runs it's course which means shots not hitting and generally frustration because objects are not reacting to your actions in real time.

Example being an enemy in a getting up animation, or stagger animation can't receive damage until it's played out. So meleeing them will do nothing, and you end up getting hurt once your animation stops because they're now within their melee range.
Edited by TyrantII - 10/2/12 at 10:37am

Speaking of obnoxious gaming journalists, I really can't stand listening to more than a 30 seconds of the Giant Bomb folks, let alone a 30 minute video. It's like a group made up of the worst stereotypes of comic book nerds and basement dwellers. Jeff Gerstman, in particular, is an ass who acts like the King of Gaming Nerds. Can't stand him or the rest of them.

So, no, I couldn't watch that video. Got a clip?

I should consider buying PS3....would definitely play it soon as I can

Sorry, don't have one. One guy kinda sounds like Seth Rogen, but a bit more dude-bro.

That pretty much describes all of them.

I cannot even imagine the traumatic series of life events that would have to occur for me to even consider watching a video review.

Agreed. Another douchebag just like them is Greg Miller from ign, and his ridiculous "up at noon" show that celebrates douchebaggery.

LOL! Best post of the year?

- Jer

I just watched that show today for the first time (for his interview with Gary Whitta). That will be the last time I watch that show. Greg Miller makes the Giant Bomb crew look like a bunch of classy gentlemen. He even turns his fight with cancer into an occasion for further douchebaggery.

Readers beware I'm not a good review type. I started with Leon and is nothing ground breaking but good so far.... As good as my reviews get. Now just wish I could coop with someone other then a non dbag or AI.

I hate every gaming podcast/video/etc. except for QuarterToThree and GameTrailers reviews - GT gets the same guy to do the voice for every review so there is nobody showboating, and QT3 is just a bunch of old-school dudes talking about what they like in games. As an old-school dude who just wants to hear what people like in games, this is great for me. I have no interest in people trying to rile up fanboys, expand their "brand", fight internet warz, try to drop memes, or whatever.

I'm gonna give this game a try down the road. It seems like a disaster, but a well-meaning and ambitious one.

I'm with you. But I'm not a fan of GT reviews. I just watch them to get a quick 5-min visual summary of a game. Their opinions are usually way too generous (similar to IGN). They're suckers for bombast and big budgets, and they almost never cover the games I like most. I watch Bonus Round for the interviews, but I can't stand Geoff Keighley. Dude acts/talks/looks like a 5-year-old in his Dad's clothing. Not familiar with QuartertoThree.

Finding a quality podcast is a fool's errand. There used to be some great ones, or maybe I've just gotten tired of the format and tone of gaming podcasts. I occasionally listen to Wired's GameLife. Smarter and less obnoxious than most. And I still really like Ludwig Keitzmann (at Joystiq) and will listen to their podcast if he's talking about a game I'm curious about. Other than that, most of my gaming content comes from a handful of forums, Gamasutra, and Eurogamer.

I'm also curious what the finished Polygon site will be like. So far, I'm not impressed with their Verge gaming portal, but I'm hoping they'll get it together for the finished product.
Edited by confidenceman - 10/3/12 at 10:15am

I thought so too!

I made it through maybe 30 minutes of RE5 before packing it in. RE4 got a pass on its mediocre control mechanics because a) it was Resident Evil b) it was earlier this gen and c) it was an improvement on the PS1 era control mechanics of previous iterations. RE5 had no such excuses and personally I found it pretty much unplayable (or at least thoroughly lacking in fun).

That RE6 would be more of the same is hardly surprising. This IP needs to be put to bed or handed to another developer.

IMHO of course.

Cheers

They already did that. They handed it to a eastern European dev team. They ruined that too.

"Handing it to another developer" is pretty much Capcom's MO these days. It hasn't worked out too well so far. They're slowly bleeding their IP dry one by one.

I'm curious where their big money makers are these days.
Edited by confidenceman - 10/3/12 at 2:19pm