Resident Evil Revelations too long!

I found resident evil revelations for Xbox 360 an enjoyable game.... but did anyone else feel like the game went on for to long? Not to the mentions the story, enemies and characters were bad but despite that there is something very likeable about the game:) 

I didn't get that feeling. I wanted it to last even longer because I really enjoyed it. It was a much more enjoyable RE title then 5 and 6, because it went back to it roots to an extent. I didn't mention 4 because I am not yet sure, because 4 had better enemies and mechanics, but as a RE experience, sure, I prefer Rev, again. Excluding the Terragrigia part of the game, it was awesome. I will agree that the enemies were not that good, but all in all I am satisfied. The story was better then 4, 5 and 6 combined, I don't know what are you talking about (I did enjoy having Wesker in 5 a lot, but the story basically went with "he wants to destroy the world" thing, which is very boring).

Shrike wrote:

I didn't get that feeling. I wanted it to last even longer because I really enjoyed it. It was a much more enjoyable RE title then 5 and 6, because it went back to it roots to an extent. I didn't mention 4 because I am not yet sure, because 4 had better enemies and mechanics, but as a RE experience, sure, I prefer Rev, again. Excluding the Terragrigia part of the game, it was awesome. I will agree that the enemies were not that good, but all in all I am satisfied. The story was better then 4, 5 and 6 combined, I don't know what are you talking about (I did enjoy having Wesker in 5 a lot, but the story basically went with "he wants to destroy the world" thing, which is very boring).

I agree with you on 100%.Plus the soundtrack was epic.

Shrike wrote:

I didn't get that feeling. I wanted it to last even longer because I really enjoyed it. It was a much more enjoyable RE title then 5 and 6, because it went back to it roots to an extent. I didn't mention 4 because I am not yet sure, because 4 had better enemies and mechanics, but as a RE experience, sure, I prefer Rev, again. Excluding the Terragrigia part of the game, it was awesome. I will agree that the enemies were not that good, but all in all I am satisfied. The story was better then 4, 5 and 6 combined, I don't know what are you talking about (I did enjoy having Wesker in 5 a lot, but the story basically went with "he wants to destroy the world" thing, which is very boring).

Resident Evil 4 I found to be a more enjoyable game than revelations. But yeah revelations is more true to the roots of resident evil than 4 was. Resident evil 4 and resident evil 1 remake are my favourite RE games.

Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil Code Veronica were good but I felt that they were given too much hype/overrated. That said it could just be because the graphics were poor. Also I might be biased because I only started getting into RE in 2002 when the RE1 remake came out.


My least fave RE games are RE0 and RE6

You must be the first person I ever see saying the game was too long or the characters were bad.

I think the game was just perfect in its length, especially when playing on a handheld. I do like the fact that the game gets even more playability from the addicting Raid Mode. I also liked all of the characters, Keith Lumley is definitely in my top RE characters. Enemy design was pretty cool too.

Then again, I would still prefer if they didn't introduce a dozen new characters in each game.

Mass Distraction wrote:

Enemy design was pretty cool too.

Also the way they "melt" and growl after you kill them.

Mass Distraction wrote:

You must be the first person I ever see saying the game was too long or the characters were bad.

I think the game was just perfect in its length, especially when playing on a handheld. I do like the fact that the game gets even more playability from the addicting Raid Mode. I also liked all of the characters, Keith Lumley is definitely in my top RE characters. Enemy design was pretty cool too.

Then again, I would still prefer if they didn't introduce a dozen new characters in each game.

Reviewers said that the game had some of the worst characters in RE history and the storyline was bad.

Jamesy wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

You must be the first person I ever see saying the game was too long or the characters were bad.

I think the game was just perfect in its length, especially when playing on a handheld. I do like the fact that the game gets even more playability from the addicting Raid Mode. I also liked all of the characters, Keith Lumley is definitely in my top RE characters. Enemy design was pretty cool too.

Then again, I would still prefer if they didn't introduce a dozen new characters in each game.

Reviewers said that the game had some of the worst characters in RE history and the storyline was bad.

So?

will1234562 wrote:

Jamesy wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

You must be the first person I ever see saying the game was too long or the characters were bad.

I think the game was just perfect in its length, especially when playing on a handheld. I do like the fact that the game gets even more playability from the addicting Raid Mode. I also liked all of the characters, Keith Lumley is definitely in my top RE characters. Enemy design was pretty cool too.

Then again, I would still prefer if they didn't introduce a dozen new characters in each game.

Reviewers said that the game had some of the worst characters in RE history and the storyline was bad.

So?

Aren't reviewers usually experts?

Jamesy wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

You must be the first person I ever see saying the game was too long or the characters were bad.

I think the game was just perfect in its length, especially when playing on a handheld. I do like the fact that the game gets even more playability from the addicting Raid Mode. I also liked all of the characters, Keith Lumley is definitely in my top RE characters. Enemy design was pretty cool too.

Then again, I would still prefer if they didn't introduce a dozen new characters in each game.

Reviewers said that the game had some of the worst characters in RE history and the storyline was bad.

...and? Should I conform to everyone elses opinion and not have my own? Besides, it really depends on the reviewer.

Jamesy wrote:

will1234562 wrote:

Jamesy wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

You must be the first person I ever see saying the game was too long or the characters were bad.

I think the game was just perfect in its length, especially when playing on a handheld. I do like the fact that the game gets even more playability from the addicting Raid Mode. I also liked all of the characters, Keith Lumley is definitely in my top RE characters. Enemy design was pretty cool too.

Then again, I would still prefer if they didn't introduce a dozen new characters in each game.

Reviewers said that the game had some of the worst characters in RE history and the storyline was bad.

So?

Aren't reviewers usually experts?

Professionals and experts are two different things. Reviewers are professionals, they get paid to play games and express their thoughts. No one can be a video game playing expert. What the hell would that even mean?

Based on that, you base your opinions on a video game based on the opinions of a guy who played a video game and got paid to do it. Reviewers also praised MW3, but I, like many gamers hated that game. Should you base your opinions and your wallet on whatever reviewers say? Or do you just like people telling you what to do, what to like, how to eat, and wha to wear?

Jamesy wrote:

Aren't reviewers usually experts?

Expert at what? Expert at sharing subjective opinions? They're no more qualified than you or me.

I think the story and the characters were the most interesting we've had in years, and the main enemies are basically just weird looking zombies. They did do a pretty bad job with Jill, and Quint was annoying, but everyone else was fine.

37 Narwhals wrote:

Jamesy wrote:

Aren't reviewers usually experts?

Expert at what? Expert at sharing subjective opinions? They're no more qualified than you or me.

I think the story and the characters were the most interesting we've had in years, and the main enemies are basically just weird looking zombies. They did do a pretty bad job with Jill, and Quint was annoying, but everyone else was fine.

I think the final boss battle was brilliant wasn't it though? I took me a fair few attempts before I figured the monsters illusions  

Jamesy wrote:

will1234562 wrote:

Jamesy wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

You must be the first person I ever see saying the game was too long or the characters were bad.

I think the game was just perfect in its length, especially when playing on a handheld. I do like the fact that the game gets even more playability from the addicting Raid Mode. I also liked all of the characters, Keith Lumley is definitely in my top RE characters. Enemy design was pretty cool too.

Then again, I would still prefer if they didn't introduce a dozen new characters in each game.

Reviewers said that the game had some of the worst characters in RE history and the storyline was bad.

So?

Aren't reviewers usually experts?

No, they're always tools.

Jamesy wrote:

will1234562 wrote:

Jamesy wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

You must be the first person I ever see saying the game was too long or the characters were bad.

I think the game was just perfect in its length, especially when playing on a handheld. I do like the fact that the game gets even more playability from the addicting Raid Mode. I also liked all of the characters, Keith Lumley is definitely in my top RE characters. Enemy design was pretty cool too.

Then again, I would still prefer if they didn't introduce a dozen new characters in each game.

Reviewers said that the game had some of the worst characters in RE history and the storyline was bad.

So?

Aren't reviewers usually experts?

M-Must...stifle...laugh..HAHAHAHAHA! Oh man. No way. Never rely on reviews. These guys could care less about making an honest review as long as they get paid. It's better to try a demo or watch gameplay.

Nobudy wrote:

Never rely on reviews. These guys could care less about making an honest review as long as they get paid. It's better to try a demo or watch gameplay.

Yes, so much what Nobudy says. Professional reviews, at least. I've played and loved a lot of games I would have otherwise passed up if I listened to these tools. The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct being one example. And everyone on this site that knows me well enough knows how picky I am about games these days.

Independent reviewers who do their thing on sites like Blogspot, on the other hand, are a different story. I wouldn't base my buying off them entirely, but because they're reviewing games they think they'd like because they want to rather than are being paid to, I'd take their reviews into much higher consideration. With the big sites like IGN, Gamespot, and so on, you never know whether the reviews you're reading are truly impartial because publishers have a history of giving out freebies and other perks in return for favorable reviews.

It's like that even in my favorite gaming magazine in here. All professional mediums have so many reviewers that it's practically impossible for one person who likes a certain genre to review only games of that genre. So many times I've read a reviewer first mention that he doesn't usually play games of the genre they are reviewing at the time. Can't really say I'd trust a review like that a 100%.

Ghost Leader wrote:

With the big sites like IGN, Gamespot, and so on, you never know whether the reviews you're reading are truly impartial because publishers have a history of giving out freebies and other perks in return for favorable reviews.

Speaking of IGN, one of their worst reviews actually circled the net as an example on how NOT to write a review. They actually had a person who literally hated beat 'em ups review Double Dragon Neon. Most of the review was just him ranting about how the genre is dead and how everything about it sucks, then proceeded to slap a 3/10 at the end.

Mass Distraction wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

With the big sites like IGN, Gamespot, and so on, you never know whether the reviews you're reading are truly impartial because publishers have a history of giving out freebies and other perks in return for favorable reviews.

Speaking of IGN, one of their worst reviews actually circled the net as an example on how NOT to write a review. They actually had a person who literally hated beat 'em ups review Double Dragon Neon. Most of the review was just him ranting about how the genre is dead and how everything about it sucks, then proceeded to slap a 3/10 at the end.

Don't get me started on IGN - the majority of their reviews are ridiculous.If they say a game sucks that means the game is awesome.

Vandal wrote:

Based on that, you base your opinions on a video game based on the opinions of a guy who played a video game and got paid to do it. Reviewers also praised MW3, but I, like many gamers hated that game. Should you base your opinions and your wallet on whatever reviewers say? Or do you just like people telling you what to do, what to like, how to eat, and wha to wear?

Ok, that's one end of the spectrum. The other end is that reviews save people from buying crappy games. If it wasn't for reviewers, I would've spent $60 on RE:ORC. Aliens: Colonial Marines.....yup I came close to purchasing it.

There's so much information out there, you'll be a fool not to listen.

Known_Hero wrote:

If it wasn't for reviewers, I would've spent $60 on RE:ORC.

Again, depends on the person. I myself enjoyed ORC. Maybe not worth the pre-order price I paid for it but still, a thoroughly enjoyable game that I have no regrets of acquiring.

Mass Distraction wrote:

Known_Hero wrote:

If it wasn't for reviewers, I would've spent $60 on RE:ORC.

Again, depends on the person. I myself enjoyed ORC. Maybe not worth the pre-order price I paid for it but still, a thoroughly enjoyable game that I have no regrets of acquiring.

Let's keep it real, RE:ORC is a 6 hour campaign with a disgustingly unbalanced MP. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but these features don't warrant a $60 price tag. That's my point. Reviews save people from making these type of mistakes.

If a game you're excited for recieves terrible reviews across the board, wait until the price drops. Better to be safe than sorry.

IGN, Game-whatever, YouTube, there's plenty of info out there. Don't let it fall on deaf ears.

I read reviews sometimes, not for the rating but for the reasoning behind the rating. If a game gets a bad rating because of certain game-play decisions, such as excessive QTEs, then I'll take that into consideration. If a game gets a bad rating for something I don't mind like "bad controls," then I'll disregard it because I never have problems with controls. I also always check out game-play videos before buying it because trailers are useless.

I stopped taking IGN seriously when a reviewer claimed that RE4 doesn't have tank controls, and that Code Veronica aged badly because it has ports.

37 Narwhals wrote:

I stopped taking IGN seriously when a reviewer claimed that RE4 doesn't have tank controls, and that Code Veronica aged badly because it has ports.

Seriously? People gave bad reviews just because of that? As for QTEs, I've learned to adapt to it and make the best of it by using the breakout skill.

Nobudy wrote:

37 Narwhals wrote:

I stopped taking IGN seriously when a reviewer claimed that RE4 doesn't have tank controls, and that Code Veronica aged badly because it has ports.

Seriously? People gave bad reviews just because of that? As for QTEs, I've learned to adapt to it and make the best of it by using the breakout skill.

It starts off as a fairly average description of the game, it gets stupid at the "The Effects of Age" and "The Impact on Resident Evil 6" sections.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/09/04/revisiting-resident-evil-code-veronica

The QTEs when an enemy grabs me are actually the only kind I don't mind. It's the "press x to not die" or "rotate the stick to continue the story" kinds that bother me.

Known_Hero wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Known_Hero wrote:

If it wasn't for reviewers, I would've spent $60 on RE:ORC.

Again, depends on the person. I myself enjoyed ORC. Maybe not worth the pre-order price I paid for it but still, a thoroughly enjoyable game that I have no regrets of acquiring.

Let's keep it real, RE:ORC is a 6 hour campaign with a disgustingly unbalanced MP. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but these features don't warrant a $60 price tag. That's my point. Reviews save people from making these type of mistakes.

If a game you're excited for recieves terrible reviews across the board, wait until the price drops. Better to be safe than sorry.

IGN, Game-whatever, YouTube, there's plenty of info out there. Don't let it fall on deaf ears.

I guess you're right. It would've been worth it if they actually had the full game on the disc, though. For what it was I would say about 30 bucks would've been a fair price.

Btw. I wouldn't trust IGN with any game reviews.

37 Narwhals wrote:

Nobudy wrote:

As for QTEs, I've learned to adapt to it and make the best of it by using the breakout skill.

The QTEs when an enemy grabs me are actually the only kind I don't mind. It's the "press x to not die" or "rotate the stick to continue the story" kinds that bother me.

The Breakout skill actually affects all QTEs, even the ones that have you just spinning the stick for some dumb reason. Saves sooooo much time.[/quote]