Is this game worse of better than RE5?

#1SlamVookPosted 11/29/2013 12:10:05 PM
Long time RE player since RE1. I was very late but i was able to play and beat RE5 not long ago to catch up with the series.

I heard both RE5 and RE6 were questionable, but this one had a harder time. What gives?

RE5 was annoying at the beginning, even worse since i grabbed veteran difficulty from scratch since im confident with these kind of games. Eventually things go better tho and ended up liking it after realizing how good Sheva is as an ammo holder and occasional Sniper.

I heard this game allows to move while shooting. Never really complainded about not being able to move and shoot in RE games tho.

So.. how is this game? What makes it "questionable" or kinda bad for many players?

I would also like to know how hard the game is. I assume it has a normal and hard difficulty by default. How does it compared to RE5?

THanks.
---
I think that dude was a dude, dude!
#2sbn4Posted 11/29/2013 1:58:47 PM
This is a game that you need to get used to. There are improved mechanics, but it feels weird when you first start playing it. Enemies (especially zombies) initially feel cheap rather than challenging. Laying on the ground making you believe they are dead, only to grab you and take off one block of health even when they don't bite you is dumb.

The other bad things in the game is the campaigns just lack flow. They feel all over the place and aren't coherent. I still think Leon and Chris' campaigns are okay, but Jake and Ada's to be abysmal. There are questionable game design choices. The game forces you to look at points of interest and the camera is not alterable in these sequences. Its really annoying. There are far too many command action prompts for my liking as well.

The game should be relatively cheap, so you shouldn't feel burned if you don't like it. But be prepared to make some adjustments. The game is not hard at all especially since you can just restart checkpoints to conserve health. RE5 is a harder game. Plus I find it to be the overall better game.
---
"No man should fight any war but his own."
#3Syn_VengeancePosted 11/29/2013 2:19:43 PM
sbn4 posted...
This is a game that you need to get used to. There are improved mechanics, but it feels weird when you first start playing it. Enemies (especially zombies) initially feel cheap rather than challenging. Laying on the ground making you believe they are dead, only to grab you and take off one block of health even when they don't bite you is dumb.

The other bad things in the game is the campaigns just lack flow. They feel all over the place and aren't coherent. I still think Leon and Chris' campaigns are okay, but Jake and Ada's to be abysmal. There are questionable game design choices. The game forces you to look at points of interest and the camera is not alterable in these sequences. Its really annoying. There are far too many command action prompts for my liking as well.

The game should be relatively cheap, so you shouldn't feel burned if you don't like it. But be prepared to make some adjustments. The game is not hard at all especially since you can just restart checkpoints to conserve health. RE5 is a harder game. Plus I find it to be the overall better game.


I couldnt agree more.
---
This is War, Survival is your Responsability
#4ZGMF_600_GuaizPosted 11/29/2013 3:51:29 PM
RE6 feels bloated: it tries to provide 4 different campaigns with different focus (action, "horror", pursuit, etc.). However the execution feels poorly done. The story is also all over the place and more importantly, despite the advertising:

Umbrella is unrelated to the plot

I still did liked Chris' campaign, and I feel that its the one that feels like a continuation to RE5.

That being said, personally I preferred RE: Revelations: while it takes a step back in the action department, it retakes survival horror elements from previous entries.

While RE6 can be considered to be more closely related to RE5, RE: Revelations feels more similar to RE4.
#5SunburstPosted 11/29/2013 4:02:21 PM
IMO, worse.
---
There can be only one.
#6AndyDonoPosted 11/29/2013 4:17:28 PM
Imo RE 5 is a overall better game.
---
I`m neither an ally of yours nor a tool of those police who think themselves men of justice. I live as I think is right. -Saeba Ryo (City Hunter)
#7LeftiesRulePosted 11/29/2013 5:58:59 PM
I liked 6 better than 5. But 4 was better than both 5&6.
#8SSJ_JinPosted 11/29/2013 6:05:22 PM
Worse than 5. Which is funny because when 5 came out I remember thinking how bad it was compared to RE4. Then I played 6. Then I tried 5 again and wow was it...amazing. 6 is that bad.

But if you're an RE fan you might as well get it, especially since it's cheap. I'm a Mercs person so I still find fun in 6 from that alone.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7KDXVEOqj8
http://antir.site90.net/
#9GoldsicklePosted 11/29/2013 6:55:20 PM
RE5: Better level design and boss mechanics, bad controls.

RE6: Better controls, boring level design and boss doesn't require serious co-op.
---
My thoughts about Bioshock Infinite:
http://tinyurl.com/mn5ll4x (WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS)
#10DestinyKnotPosted 11/29/2013 7:04:17 PM(edited)
Goldsickle posted...
RE5: Better level design and boss mechanics, bad controls.

RE6: Better controls, boring level design and boss doesn't require serious co-op.


..how does RE5 have bad controls when you have 4 different controller types to choose from? -_-

Type B is practically incidental to RE6's controls, except no quick-shot (which is cheap as hell anyway) and no moving while aiming/shooting, but those are more of game mechanics than controls.

And yes, RE5 is by far the better game. RE6 is pretty bad..pretty much on the same level as ORC