Nobody is playing RE6 anymore

And what happened to SS? I remember seeing that for the first time and going "Whoa... what the fuck? I must have been really awesome." Then I tried to get SS on every stage.

I feel that the level design is what really made it hard to swallow. The stages seemed to be based off of the general design of Resident Evil 6's levels, but it suffered from the general familiarity with the actual level, and I think the reason for that is that Resident Evil 6's campaign was designed. It seems to be more like Resident Evil 6 wanted to take you on a tour and drag you everywhere showing off it's great content and then slap you across the head when you're not paying attention. It was a string of levels that quickly booted you out before you had a real chance to even get your feet sunk into it.

Compare that to Resident Evil 4, the village was well designed map that was made scary in two ways, the fear of being overwhelmed by insane blood thirsty villagers, and when you return after dark when you don't know what's out there to come and grab you and rape your ear. Even though you knew the stage, it was a new environment because there were more hazards: you had the President's daughter trailing behind you, the ganados bursted and ate your face, and they set up bear traps. You had a familiar level design, but a new way to take it on. That's why it worked great as a mercenary map. RE6's mercenary maps seemed to be inspired by the game's general design, not it's actual stages.

And Resident Evil 6 good? Eh... the combat system coupled with the quickdraw made me feel like it wasn't a Resident Evil game at all. The game felt bloated with ideas that didn't get it's point across and crammed with

Game designers are too focused on making their games look pretty. Dynamic shadows and high resolution textures don't make a good game, what makes a good game is good gameplay.

RE6 has an excellent combat system for a shooter, it is smooth and intuitive; encouraging you to be right in the middle of the action throwing punches and bullets in equal amounts. Unlike other 3rd person shooters where it is all about remaining behind chest high walls.

Unfortunately that is all it has going for it. The story is a mess with a pen and with all the QTE's it makes it impossible to pay attention properly. The level design seems is so bad they need a button to tell you where to go. And once you beat the game there is little else to do, leading to zero replay value to a rather short game.

Resident Evil 4's strongest feature was how long the game was. IIRC the average play-time was over 20 hours, and with the pro mode as well as costume and weapon unlockables, it made a 2nd or 3rd run-through worth your time.

RE6 might have done well with a PvP deathmatch mode.

VitalSigns wrote:

Game designers are too focused on making their games look pretty. Dynamic shadows and high resolution textures don't make a good game, what makes a good game is good gameplay.

Maybe that's cause every single effing review of a new gen game starts with "Runs smoothly at 60fps" or "There are some framedrops here and there" which I couldn't care less about, but for some reason that's the only thing the game has to offer for some peopple

VitalSigns wrote:

Game designers are too focused on making their games look pretty. Dynamic shadows and high resolution textures don't make a good game, what makes a good game is good gameplay.

Tell that to the "PC master race". They will never ever understand this argument. Just like PAUL said, if it doesn't run 60+ fps and support the latest graphics cards on high end computers, it's a shitty game.

VitalSigns wrote:

RE6 might have done well with a PvP deathmatch mode.

I think there was one. It was DLC though, just like all the other game modes that would propably have been interesting.

PAULSAMSON wrote:

VitalSigns wrote:

Game designers are too focused on making their games look pretty. Dynamic shadows and high resolution textures don't make a good game, what makes a good game is good gameplay.

Maybe that's cause every single effing review of a new gen game starts with "Runs smoothly at 60fps" or "There are some framedrops here and there" which I couldn't care less about, but for some reason that's the only thing the game has to offer for some peopple

To be fair frame drops are pretty annoying. It's not a big deal whether it runs at 30 or 60, but it should at least stay at a consistent rate.

Mass Distraction wrote:

VitalSigns wrote:

Game designers are too focused on making their games look pretty. Dynamic shadows and high resolution textures don't make a good game, what makes a good game is good gameplay.

Tell that to the "PC master race". They will never ever understand this argument. Just like PAUL said, if it doesn't run 60+ fps and support the latest graphics cards on high end computers, it's a shitty game.

PC gamers are morons, they talk all day about how much better the graphics are on PC games, however, if you look only 1% are actually playing the game at that level.
They spend most of their time trying to troubleshoot and even the latest gen cards are only playing at just under Xbox360 level and nowhere close to PS4, and I don't think there is a computer that can match the PS4 or Xbox One.

Mass Distraction wrote:

VitalSigns wrote:

RE6 might have done well with a PvP deathmatch mode.

I think there was one. It was DLC though, just like all the other game modes that would propably have been interesting.

I know what you're talking about and it isn't PvP deathmatch, it's like a competitive horde in which both players are on a divided map. Pulling off high combos and other tricks sends more enemies towards your enemies side. So, you're trying to overwhelm your opponent, however, you aren't directly fighting other players.

There was a deathmatch DLC in RE5, however, the combat system in RE5 didn't lend itself well to PvP.

VitalSigns wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

VitalSigns wrote:

Game designers are too focused on making their games look pretty. Dynamic shadows and high resolution textures don't make a good game, what makes a good game is good gameplay.

Tell that to the "PC master race". They will never ever understand this argument. Just like PAUL said, if it doesn't run 60+ fps and support the latest graphics cards on high end computers, it's a shitty game.

PC gamers are morons, they talk all day about how much better the graphics are on PC games, however, if you look only 1% are actually playing the game at that level.
They spend most of their time trying to troubleshoot and even the latest gen cards are only playing at just under Xbox360 level and nowhere close to PS4, and I don't think there is a computer that can match the PS4 or Xbox One.

Amen, brother, to the whole moron thing. Still, not all PC gamers are dolts, only the ones that are trying to prove their delusional superiority somehow.

As for the power of a souped up PC compared to a current gen console, your statement is incorrect. In fact, PS4 and Xbone are both built of high caliber PC parts with some console tweaks made into them and made work on their own OS. That being said, a computer, if built correctly, can easily surpass a current gen console. It'll be ridiculously expensive, though, so not nearly everyone can afford it.

VitalSigns wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

VitalSigns wrote:

RE6 might have done well with a PvP deathmatch mode.

I think there was one. It was DLC though, just like all the other game modes that would propably have been interesting.

I know what you're talking about and it isn't PvP deathmatch, it's like a competitive horde in which both players are on a divided map. Pulling off high combos and other tricks sends more enemies towards your enemies side. So, you're trying to overwhelm your opponent, however, you aren't directly fighting other players.

There was a deathmatch DLC in RE5, however, the combat system in RE5 didn't lend itself well to PvP.

The mode from RE6 you're talking about is Onslaught and that was propably the most interesting of the bunch.

I just checked and what I thought was correct. The Survivor mode from RE5 was also available for RE6 as DLC, having both the team deathmatch and regular deathmatch modes. There were also three different modes that I had completly forgotten about where players playing as humans fought against players playing as the mutants, namely Agent Hunt, Siege and Predator.

Here's the wiki page: http://residentevil.wikia.com/Category:Resident_Evil_6_game_modes

Mass Distraction wrote:

VitalSigns wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

VitalSigns wrote:

Game designers are too focused on making their games look pretty. Dynamic shadows and high resolution textures don't make a good game, what makes a good game is good gameplay.

Tell that to the "PC master race". They will never ever understand this argument. Just like PAUL said, if it doesn't run 60+ fps and support the latest graphics cards on high end computers, it's a shitty game.

PC gamers are morons, they talk all day about how much better the graphics are on PC games, however, if you look only 1% are actually playing the game at that level.
They spend most of their time trying to troubleshoot and even the latest gen cards are only playing at just under Xbox360 level and nowhere close to PS4, and I don't think there is a computer that can match the PS4 or Xbox One.

Amen, brother, to the whole moron thing. Still, not all PC gamers are dolts, only the ones that are trying to prove their delusional superiority somehow.

As for the power of a souped up PC compared to a current gen console, your statement is incorrect. In fact, PS4 and Xbone are both built of high caliber PC parts with some console tweaks made into them and made work on their own OS. That being said, a computer, if built correctly, can easily surpass a current gen console. It'll be ridiculously expensive, though, so not nearly everyone can afford it.

I know they aren't all dolts, I figured you'd know the type I was talking about.

However, just because a computer looks more powerful on paper, doesn't mean it's going to perform as well. Console games are optimized to use that hardware whereas PC games have to be able to accept a wide range of different parts. So, lets say you have processor much more powerful than the 8 core 1.80GHz processor on the Xbox One. Since the game has to run just as well on 6 core, 4 core, 3 core, 2 core, and 1 core processors, the PC game won't be able to make use of the processor as well as the console game can, which is designed exclusively to use the Xbox One's processor.
I have an example of this at home, when I attempt to play Skyrim. Even though every part of my computer is better than the Xbox360's, it still couldn't run at the same quality. Draw distance, textures, lighting, etc; all lower than the 360 despite it being a supposedly faster machine because the PC game wasn't designed to use my particular GPU to it's maximum due to it having to be compatible with a wide range of the other GPUs and CPUs it might encounter.

Just because a PC looks better on paper doesn't necessarily imply that the game will be able to utilize all of that power to it's maximum potential.

Also, it's funny how a lot of PC gamers think that games run entirely on their GPU, so they will have a crappy CPU and the best GPU money can buy, then sit there dumb struck when the game doesn't seem to be running any better despite their recent upgrade.

Mass Distraction wrote:

VitalSigns wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

VitalSigns wrote:

RE6 might have done well with a PvP deathmatch mode.

I think there was one. It was DLC though, just like all the other game modes that would propably have been interesting.

I know what you're talking about and it isn't PvP deathmatch, it's like a competitive horde in which both players are on a divided map. Pulling off high combos and other tricks sends more enemies towards your enemies side. So, you're trying to overwhelm your opponent, however, you aren't directly fighting other players.

There was a deathmatch DLC in RE5, however, the combat system in RE5 didn't lend itself well to PvP.

The mode from RE6 you're talking about is Onslaught and that was propably the most interesting of the bunch.

I just checked and what I thought was correct. The Survivor mode from RE5 was also available for RE6 as DLC, having both the team deathmatch and regular deathmatch modes. There were also three different modes that I had completly forgotten about where players playing as humans fought against players playing as the mutants, namely Agent Hunt, Siege and Predator.

Here's the wiki page: http://residentevil.wikia.com/Category:Resident_Evil_6_game_modes

I stand corrected.

VitalSigns wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

VitalSigns wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

VitalSigns wrote:

Game designers are too focused on making their games look pretty. Dynamic shadows and high resolution textures don't make a good game, what makes a good game is good gameplay.

Tell that to the "PC master race". They will never ever understand this argument. Just like PAUL said, if it doesn't run 60+ fps and support the latest graphics cards on high end computers, it's a shitty game.

PC gamers are morons, they talk all day about how much better the graphics are on PC games, however, if you look only 1% are actually playing the game at that level.
They spend most of their time trying to troubleshoot and even the latest gen cards are only playing at just under Xbox360 level and nowhere close to PS4, and I don't think there is a computer that can match the PS4 or Xbox One.

Amen, brother, to the whole moron thing. Still, not all PC gamers are dolts, only the ones that are trying to prove their delusional superiority somehow.

As for the power of a souped up PC compared to a current gen console, your statement is incorrect. In fact, PS4 and Xbone are both built of high caliber PC parts with some console tweaks made into them and made work on their own OS. That being said, a computer, if built correctly, can easily surpass a current gen console. It'll be ridiculously expensive, though, so not nearly everyone can afford it.

I know they aren't all dolts, I figured you'd know the type I was talking about.

However, just because a computer looks more powerful on paper, doesn't mean it's going to perform as well. Console games are optimized to use that hardware whereas PC games have to be able to accept a wide range of different parts. So, lets say you have processor much more powerful than the 8 core 1.80GHz processor on the Xbox One. Since the game has to run just as well on 6 core, 4 core, 3 core, 2 core, and 1 core processors, the PC game won't be able to make use of the processor as well as the console game can, which is designed exclusively to use the Xbox One's processor.
I have an example of this at home, when I attempt to play Skyrim. Even though every part of my computer is better than the Xbox360's, it still couldn't run at the same quality. Draw distance, textures, lighting, etc; all lower than the 360 despite it being a supposedly faster machine because the PC game wasn't designed to use my particular GPU to it's maximum due to it having to be compatible with a wide range of the other GPUs and CPUs it might encounter.

Just because a PC looks better on paper doesn't necessarily imply that the game will be able to utilize all of that power to it's maximum potential.

Also, it's funny how a lot of PC gamers think that games run entirely on their GPU, so they will have a crappy CPU and the best GPU money can buy, then sit there dumb struck when the game doesn't seem to be running any better despite their recent upgrade.

Yeah, I just didn't want anyone else reading this think we are generalizing a certain type of gamer. I don't like it myself when that actually happens.

What you said is exactly what's wrong with the whole "PC master race" statement. I much prefer playing a game on a console when all I (usually) need to do is pop the disc/k or cart/d into the system and start playing instead of spending an hour trying to make a game work because there's some tiny bit of data that doesn't like some particular part of my setup. You would have to be a computer aficionado to actually make the best use of what you have and when you just want to play a game and have fun, things like that mean nothing to me.

37 Narwhals wrote:

PAULSAMSON wrote:

VitalSigns wrote:

Game designers are too focused on making their games look pretty. Dynamic shadows and high resolution textures don't make a good game, what makes a good game is good gameplay.

Maybe that's cause every single effing review of a new gen game starts with "Runs smoothly at 60fps" or "There are some framedrops here and there" which I couldn't care less about, but for some reason that's the only thing the game has to offer for some peopple

To be fair frame drops are pretty annoying. It's not a big deal whether it runs at 30 or 60, but it should at least stay at a consistent rate.

What I mean is that in these days that's the first thing that reviews point first, IMO i think that there are more important things to point out first.

PAULSAMSON wrote:

37 Narwhals wrote:

PAULSAMSON wrote:

VitalSigns wrote:

Game designers are too focused on making their games look pretty. Dynamic shadows and high resolution textures don't make a good game, what makes a good game is good gameplay.

Maybe that's cause every single effing review of a new gen game starts with "Runs smoothly at 60fps" or "There are some framedrops here and there" which I couldn't care less about, but for some reason that's the only thing the game has to offer for some peopple

To be fair frame drops are pretty annoying. It's not a big deal whether it runs at 30 or 60, but it should at least stay at a consistent rate.

What I mean is that in these days that's the first thing that reviews point first, IMO i think that there are more important things to point out first.

The real problem is that game developers keep making games nobody can run. I think the people who make video cards are slipping money under the table to game developers to make sure people keep buying newer and more powerful graphics cards.

PC gamer when they buy a new game: All right, I just downloaded [insert game] from steam, it was advertised as having all sorts of new lighting and texture effects that totally blow the console game away. *Inserts game and sets all the graphics settings to low*
-or-
All right, I just downloaded [insert game] from steam, it was advertised as having all sorts of new lighting and texture effects that totally blow the console game away. *gets on newegg and grabs $500 worth of hardware*

Console gamer when they buy a new game: All right, I just bought a new game! *puts CD in and begins playing*

Of course, since the game was optimized for the console, it looks indistinguishable from the "high" setting on a PC.

I wish people would still play Onslaught. Love that mode. D: