What exactly is wrong with the gameplay?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Resident Evil 6
  3. What exactly is wrong with the gameplay?

User Info: Dave_Gahan

4 years ago#11
sbn4 posted...
Inconsistent, tedious, boring, and glitchy some times.

They tried to modernise the controls but it still feels outdated compared to other competent shooters.

Shadow Don posted...
It focused too much on shooter elements over the horror. In one campaign out of four you fight zombies and the other three you spend your time playing wack-a-mole with ak47 totting enemies as they hide behind cover. Its kind of hard to say a game is bad because of something like that if you review it by itself, but thats obviously where the backlash comes from.

As for the gameplay, i dont really agree with you saying the qtes were just as bad as 4. The amount of gimicks, set pieces and qtes in this game is incredible, especially in jake and sherrys campaign. Theres a turret section, the snow level, 2 stealth parts and the motorcycle chase. It felt like almost half that campaign was some kind of gimick instead of the core gameplay.

durangodan posted...
The gameplay has strayed too far away from 4 and 5. It is broken up by too many short cut scenes. When it actually lets you play for a while it's not so bad, but it's like Capcom thought it was a good idea to take control away from the player.

An example of this is at the start of Chapter 2 Ada's campaign. Starts with a cut scene, you then walk about 2 metres along a rooftop for another short cutscene. It doesn't sound like much, but the whole games is like this. It never really lets you settle in and play anything for any length of time. Compare it to the number of times you are interupted by a cut scene in any other RE game.

Always having to correct the camera is another mistake (which it looks like they've reversed in the Revelations port). There should definitely be an option to have the camera fixed behind you. Having a free camera works for most games, not this.

Hit detection is awful. Headshots come easy then hard - who knows.

The skill / upgrade system is dumb. How anyone though this was an improvement is nuts. It's possible to equip different skill sets depending on the situation... but isn't that just a hassle? Is it any fun?

The game is glitchy overall. Doesn't feel solid like.

Single player only should mean single player - no forced AI partner. Co-op only online or local.

There is no one single great campaign all the way through. Eventually Leon's campaign gets screwed after chapter 3. They should've altered the campaigns to feel totally different from each other. As it is, none of the really work. They all had ok parts and crap parts. One should've been pure horror, one action, one new - hand to hand.

I loved the original fixed camera of the early games, but think that 4 is a masterpeice, and everything they have changed since 4 hasn't been an improvemant. You would think that having made such a critically lauded and successful game it would be easy for Capcom to repeat - look at Dead Space, essentially the same game 3 times, they're all good - but no.


User Info: TGAkuma

4 years ago#12
sbn4, Ill agree with you that sometimes it focus' on something that while Im trying to fight. Pretty annoying. I have beaten All gears of war games on insanity. The enemies still just hide behind cover and pop up for a couple seconds to shoot. They hardly move at all and just take it. Only reason its hard is cause they do insane amounts of damage.

So there are flaws in RE6 that I dont agree with but this game still doesnt deserve a 4.5 or even like a 6.0 There are far worse games than this that get rated the same or higher. Theres no way this game is even close to Duke Nukem Forever. I think the gamestop reviewer even pointed out QTEs in his video and he was just doing a jump. Pressing A isnt a QTE. I could be mistaken since I watched it when the game came out.

Seems to me like alot of reviewers like gamespot thought the game wasnt as good as previous RE games and decided to give it a really low score to generate more views. No way this game is a 4.5

User Info: PoopMasterGoetz

4 years ago#13
It just doesn't feel satisfying. The aiming is very stiff and the bullets connecting don't have that satisfying oomph. Especially when you're fighting bosses and they shrug off literally hundreds of bullets with no visible effect.
Gamertag: Triple Escape

User Info: Jwahaha

4 years ago#14
Mechanics are great, gameplay not so much. Plagued with cutscenes and QTEs, doors, dragged out scenes, no alternate costumes, no weapon customization/selection, ridiculously over the top bland vehicle chase, just a bad game.

Start chapter 1 on Leon's campaign again and see how long it takes to do anything worthwhile. Play through Chris's campaign and see count how many doors you open, and did you notice the cutscene-open door-cutscene sequence at the beginning of Chapter 5?

Can't believe I was duped into preordering this game, I gave Crapcom the benefit of doubt from the initial bad press from reviews, on the merit of the previous RE games, never again.

User Info: DetBeauregard

4 years ago#15
sbn4 posted...
By boring and tedious I mean there are a lot of sections in RE6 that are just flat out not fun to play. For instance, nearly everything in Jake's campaign is bad. Chapter 2 is a note worthy offender. The snowmobile chase is annoying. There is a section in the same chapter where you literally just wiggle your stick and mash on a button for a good 5 minutes. That's not my idea of gameplay. In Leon's campaign you are forced to walk during the opening sections. Until the recent patch this was not skippable. The game also forces itself on the player by making you look at points of interests.

The gameplay in general is just inconsistent because outside of Chris' campaign, Capcom has no idea what they want to do with each scenario. Jake's campaign is just a mess. Leon's campaign seems to start out with a clear focus, but completely abandons it for over the top action. The game is just disappointing for me. A lot of times its more frustrating to play than fun.

I can agree with all of this.

User Info: younglinlrules

4 years ago#16
The Prologue was really a bad way for sceptics to start the game... especially because you have to play it again. After the prologue I was worried that the reviewers were actually right; so many QTEs, and the game just seemed frantic.

However, playing the game, I was surprised by how long I would play before a really long cut-scene or a QTE. Moving the control stick when a zombie grabs you is NOT a QTE (that`s like saying "hold A to run" is a QTE).

I was worried about the controls at first, but over time, the game became significantly more fluid to play. I realized that it wasn't the controls that sucked: it was me. Most of the sequences that I found frustrating or terrible; they were usually my fault (for instance, Ada's sub escape sequence, I must have died four times because I didn't realize one of the gates had a lock you could shoot). The game was a lot more fun when I learned how to take cover/slide/roll effectively.

Yes, the game has it's flaws: some segments really do feel sloppy and unpolished, but overall, a score of 4.5 is a joke. Even a 6 is probably too low; the game's fun and the control's are fine. It has a lot of great moments and some not so great ones. I found some segments cut-scene/QTE heavy, but they we're, in reality, pretty well spaced apart (not nearly as frequent as reviewers led me to believe). I found it better than RE5. I'll admit, RE5 had a great level of polish, but my god, the AI partner was TERRIBLE. Totally ruined most of the game for me. Making your partner unkillable in RE6 was a great decision.

I found a lot of the "bad" reviews seemed irrational; like their hatred of the shift in tone caused a reluctance to properly learn the controls, and a complete focus on the games negatives. Or I felt they were using the game as some kind of whipping boy to make a point about the decline of survival horror.

When people argue that, even if you accept the change in tone, RE6 is still a bad/mediocre action game, I just don't get it at all.

User Info: Jiryn

4 years ago#17
Personal problems

-Spastic Camera that is too quick to spin and go out of control while moving.
-Being knocked on your ass whenever you take a bullet
-Over use of the "Evolver" type enemies which you think they are dead only for them to regenerate with new abilities.
-Too limited of ammo when the game is constantly throwing waves of enemies at you
-Very generic shooting (Chris's campaign) where it feels like a lower quality version of already established shooting franchises.
-Less exploration then previous REs. more about moving you from set piece to set piece
-Pain in the ass inventory system and management when trying to keep yourself armed and stocked for combat
-Semi crappy combat controls
-Over abundance of QTEs specifically the "Spin Analog stick to not die" crap which I feel is going to break/wear out my controller.

That being said, I really liked the game during Leon's campaign. It felt like a true horror game.
RE was never about the scare/fear side of horror and more about the shock and disgust.
The patience it takes to play FFXI and EQ is the patience it takes to kill yourself by bashing your head into a wall.

User Info: sbn4

4 years ago#18
I never said Gears was hard. I had/have way more fun with it than RE6.

And I'd say RE6 deserves a 6 or a 7 at most. The game is a sloppy unfocused mess. Chris' campaign is the only thing with consistency and it is bogged down by bad controls.

Don't get me wrong, the game is fun once in a while. Unlike most haters, I still play this game.
"No man should fight any war but his own."

User Info: zenandi

4 years ago#19
TGAkuma posted...
So there are flaws in RE6 that I dont agree with but this game still doesnt deserve a 4.5 or even like a 6.0 There are far worse games than this that get rated the same or higher. ...No way this game is a 4.5

I could not agree more.

First of all, people make a huge error when comparing this to a Gears of War game etc. It is NOT a shooter. Just because it happens to have guns and can be played that way doesn't mean its a shooter --- Assassin's Creed has stealth options but it is hardly a full stealth game. It is a bit laughable as a matter of fact.

The game engine then, is MERCENARIES. No ifs or buts about it. All of the most problematic bits are no longer frustrating when you've got the Counters down and stuff like that -- i.e. Mercenaries skills.

Now the problem -- the campaign does NOT allow the game engine to shine. This is basically a square peg in round holes kinda thing. For the gameplay to really shine, it needs the pressure cooker of Mercenaries, and preferably without the BS bullets shooting back. This is probably the only game I know where the main campaign does not sell what the gameplay can do all that well, and a mini-game actually does it much better justice.

Just look at Desperate Escape, which largely dropped all pretenses at stories, and instead gave you ample room to revel in the new-style Mercenaries gameplay. It was a GREAT DLC. Better than most of the campaign in RE 5. It took the best of its strengths and ran with it.

That's the problem.

People who complain largely aren't into mercs. If they were, they'd get their money's worth right there and be liable to cut the campaign some slack.

But to your point, in no way is this a 4.5 game is right.

Even if I accept some of the criticisms are legitimate, 4.5 is a joke score when you consider that Fable 3 (Concept fail) and Alpha Protocol (Technical fail) are vastly inferior games that got better scores. Heck, AC 3 isn't all that interesting and has most of the same faults btw, and no one cries foul.

User Info: shnoob2

4 years ago#20
Normally people just parrot the opinions and mindset of whatever the earliest reviews suggest. A lot of people, many of which have no interest in RE, just spout nonsense and echo the "popular" opinion.

All of their faults with the game are proof of that, because none of them hold any water. The camera was never bad. The game technically has the best graphics in the series because it's the first RE with ragdoll and numerous decals. Not to mention it has FEWER QTE's than 4 or 5, especially since there aren't any in cutscenes. The story (not saying much) is far and away the best the series has told.

The only real faults are that there are only 3 Mercenaries maps (stock) and the environments are not varied enough (too many night time locations). This game, objectively, is a solid 8/10 and a great action game. Hell, it's potentially scarier than RE4 ever was and is a big step in the right direction compared to RE5 (which was also a good game).

The fanboys (including Kevin Van Ord) and the parrots gave this game a lot of hassle for no reason other than it sharing the same title as the survival horror versions of the franchise.

This is proven true by the praise many of the said parrots are giving Revelations. The "praisers" likely haven't even played it. That is a topic for a different day, but if they didn't like 6 then Revelations won't do them any favors. It does have a much better setting, though.
"GET OFF MY PLANE!"- Han Solo in Airforce One
DLC and Online Passes = the downfall of video games.
  1. Boards
  2. Resident Evil 6
  3. What exactly is wrong with the gameplay?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived