To begin, check out THIS GREAT READ on why Resident Evil 5 is terrible. It is.
But have you guys seen the trailers for Resident Evil 6? Judging from the people who have early access to the demo via Dragon's Dogma, it seems like it's going to be as bad as the trailers imply.
Capcom is struggling so hard to not be awful this generation. Ghost Trick and Street Fighter IV are their only games I own. Inafune left and exposed Capcom's company mandate that 80% of work was to be spent on sequels and how Dead Rising and Lost Planet -- their two most successful new IPs -- had to be developed in secret. They revitalized fighting with Street Fighter IV, and have since only brought back existing franchises, and then released newer versions of those games. Killian left to work on Sony All Stars, Ono collapses and was hospitalized from overwork and claims no one cared. Scummy scummy scummy.
Then again, last gen they essentially closed down Clover (tried to absorb them so they'd have creative control, causing the key members to leave the studio), which made Okami, Viewtiful Joe, and Godhand. Bah.
Throughout the last generation (I'm not sure whether to still call this the "current" one or not), Capcom's efforts haven't brought out the most exciting prospects all around... but there were some that I liked. Amongst those few games I did pick up Resident Evil 5, Asura's Wrath, and wanted to see the revitalization of Street Fighter IV in the hopes that it would rekindle my interest in fighters. It did not. That's not to say I loathed the game or any such thing, but that if you're not you're not fully prepared with the ins and outs of Street Fighter IV before stepping into the online ring then you're going to get taken down every time. I'm proof of that.
The other two games were more my speed. Both good games in their own way, Asura's Wrath has the kind of elements that can engage a player looking for something "Wow!" Resident Evil 5, on the other hand, is nothing the franchise hasn't already seen, though it still holds up as an enjoyable game. Calling this game a total stinker, a zero, a dud, or "awful" is said by the person who doesn't know good games. Technically capable of holding its ground, the game has the looks and the sounds, it has interesting story moments and action sequences. Resident Evil 5 delivers a smart online co-op to the series for the first time, for which all in all is a stable experience.
Now, this is not to paint Resident Evil 6 as the messiah of gaming or any other of Capcom's recent big sellers. Having played the demos or seen what those games would be like, Dead Rising and Lost Planet are two such franchises that didn't appeal enough to generate a sale. A zombie beat 'em up with overly corny comic relief? Pass! Looking more like its predecessor, Resident Evil 6's problem is not that it looks bad - it's just that it looks like more of the same. Thinking about other third-person games, in the gameplay demos we're always watching Nathan Drake and companion (or whoever) stumble across a giant setpiece. They do some digging around. Maybe they come across a little trouble. Then a fight breaks out and they have they have to make a break for it.
Without holding uniqueness along that same formula, Resident Evil 6 doesn't look like it could amaze us. The game actually looks like it's technically up to proportions of a good game, but so was Resident Evil 5. Being a good game isn't always enough. Sometimes you don't want just a "good" time, sometimes you want your game to be the one that is unlike any other. You want to find an unquestionably unbelievable rhythm that surprises and draws you in. You want your game much different from the others. Resident Evil 6 doesn't look too much different from previous offerings, and I think that's what will be its downfall.
Resident Evil 5, on the other hand, is nothing the franchise hasn't already seen, though it still holds up as an enjoyable game. Calling this game a total stinker, a zero, a dud, or "awful" is said by the person who doesn't know good games. Technically capable of holding its ground, the game has the looks and the sounds, it has interesting story moments and action sequences. Resident Evil 5 delivers a smart online co-op to the series for the first time, for which all in all is a stable experience.
Apparently I don't know good games
Being technically proficient doesn't make a game good -- but that's just the opinion of someone who doesn't know good games!
It's a creatively bankrupt amalgam of a bunch of different action games -- games that I don't think are particularly inspired or good in and of themselves (like Gears of War). It has high graphical fidelity, but the actual art direction is needlessly grainy super saturated mess. Before the game saw that brown, tan, sepia environments and burly muscle heads were in vogue, Chris actually looked like a normal human and the game had some color. It's abundantly clear Capcom was without an original idea in their head when they made it -- or that the higher ups refused to let the developers do anything new, which is why it so closely apes RE4 (while simultaneously ruining it)
And to take a page out of your book, saying it has "interesting story moment" is said by the person who has never read a book and doesn't know story telling (presumptuous, 'ey?). Because it's a laughable mess, terribly written and occasionally offensive (ie, the woman who follows Wesker around).
Also, RE5 isn't the first online co-op game in the series. Resident Evil Outbreak. 2003. Great game.
Gears of War is one of the few experiences on the 360 that actually did inspire me. Then they made two sequels (with a prequel on the way). Resident Evil 4 itself is an important benchmark for the Resident Evil franchise. Then in the generation that followed, Capcom would produce the result of a copycat.
Obviously Resident Evil 5 is no homerun for the series, like I've pointed out. It's like the game just retreads everything Resident Evil 4 did, except give it a taste of two-playerisms. What I meant by the co-op comment is that it's an intelligent, probably more sophisticated co-op experience than any the series has seen before it. Outbreak isn't considered one of the numbers in the series, so I wouldn't count that anyway as far as the main entries are concerned.
While Resident Evil 5's story isn't the best plotline out there, it's not quite the disaster you describe. This chapter gives us the deaths of some relatively notable characters in the series. We're in Africa, so the landscape has shifted from out of the woods and inner castle walls to a somewhat duller tribal village.
Resident Evil 5 isn't the epic sensation that Resident Evil 4 was designed to be, but I don't think that just because it lacks originality that it has nothing to show for itself. Being a technically proficient game, it has enough values that we're able to at least be glad it's not on the level of scummy filth that reside out there in the greater reaches of gaming's vast library.
Would you rather have Chris and Sheva paired up and fending off endless waves of horrible infectizoids in a revised setting, or would you have preferred to played Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust? Arguably, it's one of the worst games you could have gotten on the PlayStation 3 that year. Graphics that make puke resemble a beauty queen, jokes that would get Terrible to laugh, and gameplay objectives that cause you to hit yourself in the face repeatedly. Yeah, I'd rather suffer Resident Evil 5's fate myself.
The co-op isn't more sophisticated than Outbreak. Have you played Outbreak? Oh, and it doesn't count? So Code Veronica "doesn't count," either? What an arbitrary distinction. Capcom developed and canon.
What do you even mean by Resident Evil 5's co-op being "intelligent"? Because I would not describe anything about the game using the word "intelligent." It's a markedly stupid game.
Everything you say has this cryptic vagueness about it, like you're not even saying anything. This: "Technically capable of holding its ground, the game has the looks and the sounds, it has interesting story moments and action sequences," sounds like you'd do a great job in PR, because you aren't saying anything with those words. :\
Resident Evil 5 might as well be a less broken Leisure Suit Larry. It's equally devoid of soul and originality. Regardless, I take option B, which is to not play absolute broken trash nor creatively bankrupt exercises in mediocrity and ineptitude.
The plot isn't a disaster because some people die and it's set in a different place?
The plot isn't a disaster because overall for a video game plot, it's not as bad like you claim it to be. I've certainly encountered worse plots. Some video games the story doesn't do anything for the one following it, then there are those that could be better but overall have your attention. Resident Evil 5 is in that second camp. Killzone 3, similarly, is another game that comes to mind with a less inspired story than the one before it. And just like Killzone 3's comparison to Killzone 2, Killzone 3 isn't as gnarly. It's still a good game, it's technically up to par. It's outfitted to be a good game. I'm not sure how to better describe that without going into a lot of details.
Okay, so for example let's say a toy maker builds you a bear. The bear has a hole in its gut. Stuffing is falling out. The eye isn't sewn on properly. The material used to dress the bear up stinks like liquor. Is this made to be a good bear, or would you recall the product? Technically, Resident Evil 5 is designed to be a good enough game that it holds up well enough that it's not mediocre, that it's not the awful mess you imagine it to be.
I haven't played Outbreak, but from what I understand it's not a number in the series. Would you count everything with the Resident Evil name on it as part of the saga? I know I wouldn't. I've played one of the Gun Survivors at the arcade. A lightgun-focused spin-off of the major entries, the game is not designed in the same way as one of the major entries. Outbreak is made to be a multiplayer-focused title, just like Operation Raccoon City. Is the Star Wars Christmas Special included as a chapter in the entire Star Wars saga? Or, is it more of an offshoot of the main numbers we know backwards and forwards?
And intelligent co-op is that of what I see in the artificial intelligence. Have you ever played another Resident Evil 5 where the computer actually combats the villains alongside you? Did Ashley have to hide or did she pick up a gun? Did Jill and Barry band together or did he have to go grab himself a sandwich elsewhere? It's the first time I've actually seen the computer doing work by your side, and if you let it, a fellow PlayStation Network user. Back in 2004 I'd imagine the PlayStation Network not being on the same level that is today, with friend lists and a PlayStation Store for grabbing the add-on package.
I prefered not having a companion anyway. It does kind of ruin the mood. Well, not in RE5, since it wasn't really a survival horror game, but in the earlier games it would have made it less scary. The AI was pretty awful too; the worst part was simply that you had to depend on them sometimes. For the most part I could just play the game as if they weren't there, but in certain scenes, both characters are important and you can't complete it if one of the characters (the AI) keeps screwing up. I do like RE5, I think it's a decent game, but it's not good as a RE game. Honestly, the RE games never really had a great story. For a video game, it's fine, and I think RE5 was about as good as the others.
Long article I'll have to get to it later. But I will say that despite the many shortcoming of RE5 I still had fun with the title playing online with my best friend. We're separated by 950mi. so RE5 fit the multiplayer aspect we were looking for perfectly - mainly 2-player co-op.
That said, I do think it's the worst of the (main) Resident Evil games. The entire concept of survival horror is seemingly at odds... or is it dead? EA recently announced that Dead Space would be less "scary" or something to that effect and also include a co-op multiplayer mode a la RE5. Good news for fans of online co-op not so good for fans of edge-of-your seat terror.
I haven't seen any RE6 trailers but I'm definitely not holding my breath for anything even remotely similar to the original series - mainly single player survival horror.
This generation has been super sad for fans of Japanese game studios... or at least the one's that were my favorites - Capcom & Square-Enix. Trying to become more mainstream has only alienated the original fans in my estimation. Which is what I think happened to Resident Evil 5 and Final Fantasy XIII.
I get where all the oldies are opinion wise as far as the new RE games go, yeah they've IMPROVED the gameplay and its different from its old static camera angles, and the controls are less tank like.
You know what I love the old games like REmake and RE2 and 3, but honestly, I loved RE5 aside from a bit of an anti-climatic ending.
Anyway, the game was a blast to play co-op and offered tons of extra content in the Mercinaries, costumes, etc. And had great DLC.
How does that make it a bad game?
yeah I agree, it wasn't as scary as it should have been, but that alone in no way makes it terrible.
I've decided from here on out, i'm no loonger joining the "hate bandwagons" you only miss out things doing that.
I'll try the game out, and if I have fun, then its worth it for me. if other people want to be closed minded, well then they're the ones that are missing out.
As for CAPCOM being good or bad. People complain about them making difficult choices to try and make money. Yeah they do make so dirty moves like Marvel vs. CAPCOM 3, and then like 8 months later or whatever it was releasing the "Ultimate" version.
But you guys have to remember that at the end of the day. . . . . they are a BUSINESS, they exisit for the purpose of making a profit, not to fulfill the everywhim of gamers as many seem to think.