"If Resident Evil represents a child, then the fans and us as creators are the two parents... And just like real parents, you’re not always going to agree on what is best for raising that child."
- Resident Evil 6 producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi reflects on the delicate tension between a designer's intuition and a player's instinctive feedback.
Unfortunately, trying to please both parties can be quite risky, as Kobayashi and his team proved with their latest game. Resident Evil 6 has received very low reviews for such a high-profile title, with a number critics calling the game out for feeling directionless and awkward.
Kobayashi says that the team at Capcom wanted to surprise fans with something new and exciting, but in the end it seems the team's effort to appeal to everyone ended up missing the mark altogether.
"We want to make sure that what we do pleases [the fans] but the initial reaction might not always be positive," he says. "We do listen to the fans but we can’t be beholden to them at every turn or I don’t think we’ll ever make progress in terms of the series' development."
But when your game is trying to add new elements and also appeal to long-time fans, it can be easy to lose track of what people really want. Based on the reception for Resident Evil 6, it seems Capcom may have fallen into that very trap.
Oh how the awesome have fallen. This makes me a sad sad sad panda. :( I was going to buy this game at full price but now I guess I will wait for the Greatest Hits list at 30 bucks.
While I kind of like the idea of games being all things to everyone, but realistically jacks-of-all-trades are just bad at everything. No need to appeal to every niche, just pick one.
At the same time, I'm pretty sure even if they did try and pick one niche to go after, they'd have still not have been able to pull it off. After Shinji Mikami left Capcom, RE has lost a lot of its magic.
It's worse. Capcom tried to open up the goose to get all the gold out and all they ended up with was a dead goose.
Trying to suggest in any way that 'what we do pleases [the fans]' is just an insult to the fans. Ok you screwed up Capcom, don't make it worse by pretending you were doing anything but chasing the Gears Of War crowd. I'm really offended by Hiroyuki's response.
The interviewer wanted to know how they'd be returning the game to it's roots and overcome the gameplay hurdles the previous Sonic Adventure games had suffered through. The producer was much more interested in exploring more of the multi-character mechanic and alternative play styles they'd developed on the Adventure games (apparently oblivious to the public's loathing of this diversion) and seemed obsessed with the story. Wavelength disconnect I guess. In the end the game was an unmitigated disaster and a new low for Sega.
Which begs the question, if Sonic has so much trouble changing up mechanics, why is Mario relatively so capable at it? Talent? Flexibility of the original mechanic? Diversification amongst the original few games? Who knows?
I agree, "Jack of Trades, Master of none" is not a great foundation for a game. Just like any D&D-like game if you spread your self thin, you wont be good at anything. Sure you could cast a spell, shoot an arrow, dual wield, make potions, befriend animals and hide in shadows, But you'll never really see any of the good end game skills.
Its one thing to be versatile but its best to stick to one main path. I think its best to go in one direction then several, you'll always have disgruntled fans but you will have more if you just lightly cater to everyone.
my 2¢
I don't know. I wonder if this is just like RE5, where everyone hated it and then you listen to journalists today and they look back on it like, "it wasn't that bad."
" I don't know. I wonder if this is just like RE5, where everyone hated it and then you listen to journalists today and they look back on it like, "it wasn't that bad." "
Resident Evil 5 has Metacritic Scores of 83, 84 and 86 (PS3/360/PC), it's not that Journalists really hated the game.
I loved RE5. Many of my friends and random people I know from forums played it countless times and loved it. I know many people who hated it too, some because of the aiming thing, some because it's not survival horror, some because they just hate whatever is popular, but I'd say the phrase "like RE5, where everyone hated it" is not very accurate.
One thing that would make a game much better for everyone - get rid of the QTEs. Does anyone enjoy them? Yet that seems to be the hallmark of modern game design.
its still mostly passive, only with QTEs I'm forced to endure the cutscene for fear i might miss hitting the x button when it says to hit the x button. not only that, but i can't get any passive enjoyment out of the cutscene itself, as i am constantly scanning the bottom of the screen for arbitrary button mashing instructions. its the laziest game design i can think of and it sucks.
also don't compare QTE with a cutscene. QTE by design forces all cutscenes to be driving around in a truck, or jumping off a cliff, doing dumb rubbish etc as opposed to a well designed cutscene which should move the story forward.
You know why the QTEs are so plentiful in this weird subset of tripleAness? Hype.
It's comparatively easier to just put some button presses over a beautiful, well rendered cutcenes full of particle effects and whatnot than designing a grounded, mechanical challenge over the same situation. Also, for a short burst of intensity (for the uneducated player), is much more cost-sensitive, and you still have, oh my, an incredible helicopter chasing scene with explosions everywhere.
If you are going to have a industry living on massiveness and loudness, churning lying trailers in order to please the lowest-common denominator, this the best solution the thinking minds behind these mammoths can think of is the humble QTE.
Also: RE4 was filled to the brim with QTEs and everyone is still head over heels about that game.
I'm sad to say that Nintendo executive Reggie Fils-Aime was right when he said that gamers are insatiable. I'm really disappointed with the Internet's exaggerated criticism of RE6 (and Diablo III). Yes, RE6 is not a survival horror game. But it deserves a metascore that is higher than 67. Capcom deserves praise for taking the series in a bold new direction. The gaming press needs to let go of their misleading nostalgic feelings about earlier entries in the series and embrace RE's evolution. I'm sure that if Capcom stuck to the old RE formula the press would be clamoring for change. [Edited]
That's no defense. That's like if Blizzard sells you Diablo 4 as a re-skinned solitaire. "Resident Evil" is a series of survival horror games. If Resident Evil 6 isn't a survival horror game, its fallen at the first hurdle and every bit of scathing criticism is deserved.
If the developers didn't want to make a survival horror game, they shouldn't have made a sequel with the Resident Evil brand. Maybe then they would have had an unbiased and fair examination of the game they were producing (though, from what I've read about RE6, it still wouldn't have been all that great).
I don't see anything wrong with a Resident Evil game not being a survival horror game. RE5 wasn't a survival horror game, and one could argue that RE4 wasn't either (because of its controls and camera system). I enjoyed playing both RE4 and 5 as much as I enjoyed playing RE1-3 and Code Veronica. Yes, the newer RE games lack survival horror gameplay elements, but playing them is still a thrilling experience. RE6's action drama is not a far cry from survival horror in that respect. Also, I'd argue that Capcom did the right thing and kept things fresh by introducing new enemies and locations. Shuffling zombies and old mansions aren't exciting any more.
Capcom isn't taking the fan base for granted. I remember when game journalists criticized older RE games for their "tank-like controls" and fixed camera system. The controls and the camera system contributed significantly to the survival horror gaming experience. But Capcom changed that in RE4 in order to please the fans. I think the new controls and camera system had more to do in making RE an action game than daylight settings and fast enemies.
Capcom's choice to take the RE series in a new direction isn't just about attracting new fans. It's also about keeping old fans interested. Gamers' tastes change as technology improves and as other game companies create new gaming experiences. Capcom is just trying to keep the franchise relevant. I don't believe that RE6 should be lambasted because it's not a survival horror game. It should be appreciated because it's different, innovative, bold and takes risks. Just like RE1.
I also want to say, I don't think the newer REs are without flaws. For example, I wanted RE5 to have more puzzles and a less linear level design. Also, I think it should be said that RE5 had high production values, high replay value and great graphics, controls, cutscenes, voice acting and character design.
I quite agree. By now, blaming the divergence from survival horror for the failure of the game doesn't hold water. If that was the reason it failed, it would have failed two entries ago. It didn't. Something else is wrong.
If by fail you mean "did not receive high review scores", then I agree.
My theory is that part of the reason why many journalists gave RE a low score is because they were unhappy that Capcom dismissed calls for a return to the series' survival horror roots. In March, Resident Evil: Revelations producer Kawata was quoted as saying that the market for survival horror games is small when compared to the market for action games like Call of Duty. That may or may not be true, but saying that certainly didn't please journalists that are long-time series fans and survival horror fans.
If Capcom wants its games to receive higher scores, it needs to get journalists to "buy into" the new direction. Marketing data won't fly with passionate gamers. My advice to Capcom would be to improve their relationships with journalists.
RE6 producer Kobayashi's remarks about disagreeing with the fans are also revealing. They're another example of how Capcom isn't handling criticism well. North Americans live in a business environment in which the customer is always right. At this point, disagreeing with the fans is not helpful. Capcom should look at how Blizzard handled exaggerated criticism of Diablo 3. Instead of telling the fans "you have your opinion and I have mine", Blizzard wisely made changes to Diablo 3. Capcom should respond with humility or make some concessions.
"RE6 producer Kobayashi's remarks about disagreeing with the fans are also revealing. They're another example of how Capcom isn't handling criticism well. North Americans live in a business environment in which the customer is always right. At this point, disagreeing with the fans is not helpful. Capcom should look at how Blizzard handled exaggerated criticism of Diablo 3. Instead of telling the fans "you have your opinion and I have mine", Blizzard wisely made changes to Diablo 3. Capcom should respond with humility or make some concessions."
This pretty much summarises my feelings on the matter perfectly. Although I disagree with you on the point of RE being ok to "not" be survival horror", my main problem with his comments are the arrogance. Fans are upset because they're not happy with the direction the game is going, ignoring that is being insulting.
RE6 is getting a lot of criticism that's completely unrelated to its genre. I'm sure there are some people out there that dislike it just because it's not in the mold of the original RE games, but it's short-sighted to dismiss all of the other very legitimate complaints against it.
I'm not dismissing legitimate complaints against the game. I am doubtful that RE6 is so flawed as to deserve a metascore of 67. My view is supported by evidence. RE6 is a Capcom-developed, AAA title made with high production values. Since 2009, several gaming journalists from prominent publications have been grumbling about the series' new direction. And the major criticism leveled against the last entry was that it wasn't a survival horror game. Those are good reasons to suspect that criticism of RE6's flaws is overblown.
"In March, Resident Evil: Revelations producer Kawata was quoted as saying that the market for survival horror games is small when compared to the market for action games like Call of Duty. That may or may not be true, but saying that certainly didn't please journalists that are long-time series fans and survival horror fans."
I think many people aren't happy with this statement, because following it would be the death sentence for the gaming industry.
It would be like every soft drink producer in the world would suddenly starting to sell only Cola, because the market for Cola is the biggest single market for softdrinks in the world.
Maybe fans and journalists are sometimes fed up with so called rational "business arguments", that are nothing but badly disguised greed for more money. Sure, the main goal of a company is to make money, but the real trick is to be able to make money without sacrificing every last bit of everything else to it.
If you're going to sell me red water and call it wine, then don't expect me to later praise the quality of your water, because I'm going to bash the quality of your wine.
I'm fairly positive that the main complaint is in how different the expectation is from the end result. And I do think it's fair to critique it critically based on previously established expectations which have clearly strayed.
No, I have not played the game. No, I am not here to bash it.
No, I haven't played it yet. I hope to receive it in the mail soon and play it this weekend. I have, however, seen a lot of previews (and reviews), and played RE5, which looks to me very similar to RE6 and even received similar criticism. I don't think I'll be eating my hat this weekend because, like I mentioned earlier, this is a Capcom-developed AAA title with high production values. The chances of a game of this caliber deserving a metascore of 67 is low, especially when one considers the unfair criticism about the franchise's new direction in the months leading to the game's release.
It's true, I am giving Capcom the benefit of the doubt. But that's because I'm familiar with the quality of their games. I've completed RE1-5 and Code Veronica and several games from their other major franchises. Truly, I suspect that RE6's low review scores have more to do with the fact that it's not a survival horror game than with the game's flaws. And that's not fair.
I see your point. The fans and journalists have a valid opinion. I'd prefer not to see Capcom base major decisions on increasing profits. The focus should be on entertaining fans. And I think that Capcom has to improve its public relations and convince fans that action drama gameplay is funner than survival horror.
@ Danny Bernal,
My understanding is that before the game's release, fans were very aware that, with the exception of Leon's campaign, RE6 is not a survival horror game. Many commenters consider RE5 to be the series' departure from survival horror. A lot of the previews that I watched or read touched on the fact that RE6 had a very strong focus on action. At some point, Capcom even called RE6 an "action drama". I don't think fans were misled.
@ Anthony, I finished the first three campaigns and I'm on the last one. I agree to an extent that RE6 plays differently than RE5, but not radically differently. You might find this interesting: I thought the game was broken as I fumbled through the first 5 hours of Jake's campaign. However, after modifying key settings, I started enjoying myself.
I'm giving RE6 an 8/10. I have issues with the camera, the excessive use of QTEs, unforgiving set pieces, frustrating enemies and narrow environments. However, the positives far outweigh the negatives. I would have certainly given the game a higher score if it wasn't so frustrating at times. I'm looking forward to sharing my review on my blog.
I have to agree with Simon. Too often companies take the fan base of a franchise as a given, and then chang ethe formula to attract new fans. "Hey, it';s resident evil, but it is also [insert whatever genre] too!"
@Phil: Well thanks for the clarification. I'll accept that your longer form comments seem more reasonable, just that the way you were expressing them originally sounded kind of insulting.
Also I don't completely hate QTEs. I think they're ok.
I don't want to get into an argument about the meaning of opinions or whatever, but to answer your question directly, I generally feel that the community on gamasutra is more polite than, say, kotaku or other such sites.
edit: the comment I'm responding to was removed but for the record I don't think you needed to Phil. it was good clarification
Still, not quite as big a fiasco as Banjo Kazooie. We waited 8 years for more platforming sweetness. I suspect now that beloved childhood franchise is quietly dead.
Played Leon's campaign for 4 hours last night (finished chapter 1 & 2). Solo on Elite difficulty. There are definitely some problems but on the whole, I was surprised to find that I really enjoyed what I played. WAY better than RE5.
The problem is that Chris' campaign is moreso of the RE5 gameplay. They honestly should have gone the Starcraft 2 route and released separate games. It's rather insulting how blatantly they tried to pander, rather than just developing a stronger core game.
Games are not children and developers and fans are not their parents. At least for the most part, and especially in the case of Resident Evil. The direction of this series has long been guided by the chase for mainstream success, not the development of any systems, narrative, gameplay mechanics or genre style. There are lots of reasons for this, some good, some bad, but the end of the line is Resident Evil 6.
If I had to guess I'd say I'm very near the end of the game, and my opinion is that this is a very clear-cut case of feature-creep, kitchen-sink, hit-all-your-target-demographics development. While I understand why so many people like RE5, at the time of its release I remember feeling like the series was already cannibalizing itself. If that wasn't true then, it is now.
In a way this timing is fortuitous. With the next generation around the corner, Capcom can make use of this wake-up call. Now's the time for fresh starts!
If a game is trying to sell on brand name alone, they deserve to be blasted to bits when it isn't the same 'brand' (which people will view as genre). Or in other words, if 1, 2, 3 are survival horror the brand better stick to it. Otherwise they deserve to get ripped a new one.
That is today's AAA dilemma. No one will take a chance on making a new game with niche mechanics, so instead they take a known franchise, turn it into an action game that 'everyone' will like in some regard, slap a 3, 4, 5, or 6 on the box along with a brand name people expect and then they complain when gamers get it and tell them it sucked ass and was nothing like the originals. Baffling.
I know this isn't always the case of why a AAA game flounders, but it does seem to be one of the common threads.
Examples:
Mass Effect - originally viewed RPG, now 3rd person shooter (this didn't really have a lot of time to solidify though - it could have been 3rd person shooter from the get go and people just mistook it as RPG). It also had the theme "choices matter", and in the end most people viewed it as "choices give me a new color".
Dragon Age - Stat Heavy RPG; now Action game
Resident Evil - Survival Horror; now Action game (I'm also seeing a trend here with action games)
Knights of the Old Republic - Bioware RPG; now an MMO with a monthly sub and online community.
Sonic - Platformer with angst - Once in a while a platformer, but with all sorts of 'friends' in it and Sonic doesn't have an attitude anymore. The interesting thing here is when it returned to its roots more, it seemed to get a better response
Ace Combat - Combat sim with arcade flair - now CoD in the air.
I'm sure others can add to this list easily.
What is a better way to handle this? A good example from the board gaming world are D&D board games. Everyone knows them, many won't touch one because of the mechanics - so when they come out with a new game with all different mechanics they didn't call it D&D 15 - Lords of the Waterdeep - They called it "Lords of the Waterdeep" then then put D&D on the box at the bottom. People buying it know it is different than a typical D&D game, and those that know D&D by heart still buy it due to brand recognition. When gamers get angry all it takes is the gamer's saying "didn't you read the back to know it wasn't a typical D&D game?" Gamers then defend the changes for the developer by mocking the people that are a few shy of a 6-pack.
In all honesty, the game itself isn't really failing. If it did, I think Capcom would've gotten the idea of not releasing another game. But then again, there are the people that like the franchise's story and how far it has gotten. Sure, it's not what it used to be, but it was bound to happen. I remember that shortly after Code Veronica was released, there was a forum thread where people were already complaining about the use of Zombies, that they are being "Overrated".
This game doesn't really deserve the low ratings that reviewers give it, but it is their opinion. Yet, the game sells, and there are people that are pretty satisfied with the change, myself included. I love the classics, and I love the change that they added. And Leon's Campaign does seem less action and more Survival Horror elements, not completely but it's there.
Besides, the change makes the classic games Unique. And change means trying something new, which may sound bad, but in the end, it's a great idea. While I do think Survival Horror fits this franchise more, there are ways to make it better, and changing genre can help find that sweet spot for the game.
Maybe not in my lifetime but the game will eventually find the mechanics and genre that fits right for the game. Maybe bring it back to Survival Horror with new experienced changes. Think of it as "Re-Design to Perfection".
People just need to open up their eyes and tolerate change. Change is good, it means different results. Different Results means that you can mix different mechanics and form something new that can enhance the experience of the player. I welcome the change.
Resident Evil started off a survival horror but then tried to go after the new game who grew up on halo and call of duty, they turned it into an action shooter (this has been happening since RE4). The only reason they changed it to an action horror was to chase after the new player base, not because they thought it would be a better game. Rather than being a trend setter they are being a follower, and what you are going to get is a weak generic everyday shooter.
I am defiantly going to wait until it goes on sale for $20 before picking it up.
I have a feeling that not many people here have actually tried playing Resident Evil 6 yet, or gone beyond trying the demo. I've been playing it; so far the experience has been a mix of "this feels like a watered-down Resident Evil" moments coupled with a heavy reliance on QTEs. If Capcom just wants to make CGI films, they should own up to this desire and go all for it; disguising it in a game with QTEs makes for both a bad game experience and a muddy CGI viewing.
That said, the game itself still has a good, solid core and its no more or less limited and on-rails than your typical single player campaign in CoD. But the problem of course is that fans of this franchise would like something more, and can remember when we actually had that.
Resident Evil 6 is a good game....but it's lost some of what made it distinct, and that's where the real problem is.
While I kind of like the idea of games being all things to everyone, but realistically jacks-of-all-trades are just bad at everything. No need to appeal to every niche, just pick one.
At the same time, I'm pretty sure even if they did try and pick one niche to go after, they'd have still not have been able to pull it off. After Shinji Mikami left Capcom, RE has lost a lot of its magic.
Trying to suggest in any way that 'what we do pleases [the fans]' is just an insult to the fans. Ok you screwed up Capcom, don't make it worse by pretending you were doing anything but chasing the Gears Of War crowd. I'm really offended by Hiroyuki's response.
http://spong.com/feature/10109440/Interview-Next-Gen-Sonic-The-Hed gehog-Producer
-Interview
The interviewer wanted to know how they'd be returning the game to it's roots and overcome the gameplay hurdles the previous Sonic Adventure games had suffered through. The producer was much more interested in exploring more of the multi-character mechanic and alternative play styles they'd developed on the Adventure games (apparently oblivious to the public's loathing of this diversion) and seemed obsessed with the story. Wavelength disconnect I guess. In the end the game was an unmitigated disaster and a new low for Sega.
Which begs the question, if Sonic has so much trouble changing up mechanics, why is Mario relatively so capable at it? Talent? Flexibility of the original mechanic? Diversification amongst the original few games? Who knows?
After Shinji Mikami chopped of his own head, Resident Evil Games haven't been the same ever since. :P
Its one thing to be versatile but its best to stick to one main path. I think its best to go in one direction then several, you'll always have disgruntled fans but you will have more if you just lightly cater to everyone.
my 2¢
Resident Evil 5 has Metacritic Scores of 83, 84 and 86 (PS3/360/PC), it's not that Journalists really hated the game.
Seems one can't even disagree with the masses without getting torn apart.
"Resident Evil 6: QTEs before it was cool."
It's comparatively easier to just put some button presses over a beautiful, well rendered cutcenes full of particle effects and whatnot than designing a grounded, mechanical challenge over the same situation. Also, for a short burst of intensity (for the uneducated player), is much more cost-sensitive, and you still have, oh my, an incredible helicopter chasing scene with explosions everywhere.
If you are going to have a industry living on massiveness and loudness, churning lying trailers in order to please the lowest-common denominator, this the best solution the thinking minds behind these mammoths can think of is the humble QTE.
Also: RE4 was filled to the brim with QTEs and everyone is still head over heels about that game.
If the developers didn't want to make a survival horror game, they shouldn't have made a sequel with the Resident Evil brand. Maybe then they would have had an unbiased and fair examination of the game they were producing (though, from what I've read about RE6, it still wouldn't have been all that great).
Capcom isn't taking the fan base for granted. I remember when game journalists criticized older RE games for their "tank-like controls" and fixed camera system. The controls and the camera system contributed significantly to the survival horror gaming experience. But Capcom changed that in RE4 in order to please the fans. I think the new controls and camera system had more to do in making RE an action game than daylight settings and fast enemies.
Capcom's choice to take the RE series in a new direction isn't just about attracting new fans. It's also about keeping old fans interested. Gamers' tastes change as technology improves and as other game companies create new gaming experiences. Capcom is just trying to keep the franchise relevant. I don't believe that RE6 should be lambasted because it's not a survival horror game. It should be appreciated because it's different, innovative, bold and takes risks. Just like RE1.
My theory is that part of the reason why many journalists gave RE a low score is because they were unhappy that Capcom dismissed calls for a return to the series' survival horror roots. In March, Resident Evil: Revelations producer Kawata was quoted as saying that the market for survival horror games is small when compared to the market for action games like Call of Duty. That may or may not be true, but saying that certainly didn't please journalists that are long-time series fans and survival horror fans.
If Capcom wants its games to receive higher scores, it needs to get journalists to "buy into" the new direction. Marketing data won't fly with passionate gamers. My advice to Capcom would be to improve their relationships with journalists.
RE6 producer Kobayashi's remarks about disagreeing with the fans are also revealing. They're another example of how Capcom isn't handling criticism well. North Americans live in a business environment in which the customer is always right. At this point, disagreeing with the fans is not helpful. Capcom should look at how Blizzard handled exaggerated criticism of Diablo 3. Instead of telling the fans "you have your opinion and I have mine", Blizzard wisely made changes to Diablo 3. Capcom should respond with humility or make some concessions.
This pretty much summarises my feelings on the matter perfectly. Although I disagree with you on the point of RE being ok to "not" be survival horror", my main problem with his comments are the arrogance. Fans are upset because they're not happy with the direction the game is going, ignoring that is being insulting.
I think many people aren't happy with this statement, because following it would be the death sentence for the gaming industry.
It would be like every soft drink producer in the world would suddenly starting to sell only Cola, because the market for Cola is the biggest single market for softdrinks in the world.
Maybe fans and journalists are sometimes fed up with so called rational "business arguments", that are nothing but badly disguised greed for more money. Sure, the main goal of a company is to make money, but the real trick is to be able to make money without sacrificing every last bit of everything else to it.
I'm fairly positive that the main complaint is in how different the expectation is from the end result. And I do think it's fair to critique it critically based on previously established expectations which have clearly strayed.
No, I have not played the game. No, I am not here to bash it.
No, I haven't played it yet. I hope to receive it in the mail soon and play it this weekend. I have, however, seen a lot of previews (and reviews), and played RE5, which looks to me very similar to RE6 and even received similar criticism. I don't think I'll be eating my hat this weekend because, like I mentioned earlier, this is a Capcom-developed AAA title with high production values. The chances of a game of this caliber deserving a metascore of 67 is low, especially when one considers the unfair criticism about the franchise's new direction in the months leading to the game's release.
It's true, I am giving Capcom the benefit of the doubt. But that's because I'm familiar with the quality of their games. I've completed RE1-5 and Code Veronica and several games from their other major franchises. Truly, I suspect that RE6's low review scores have more to do with the fact that it's not a survival horror game than with the game's flaws. And that's not fair.
I see your point. The fans and journalists have a valid opinion. I'd prefer not to see Capcom base major decisions on increasing profits. The focus should be on entertaining fans. And I think that Capcom has to improve its public relations and convince fans that action drama gameplay is funner than survival horror.
@ Danny Bernal,
My understanding is that before the game's release, fans were very aware that, with the exception of Leon's campaign, RE6 is not a survival horror game. Many commenters consider RE5 to be the series' departure from survival horror. A lot of the previews that I watched or read touched on the fact that RE6 had a very strong focus on action. At some point, Capcom even called RE6 an "action drama". I don't think fans were misled.
I'm giving RE6 an 8/10. I have issues with the camera, the excessive use of QTEs, unforgiving set pieces, frustrating enemies and narrow environments. However, the positives far outweigh the negatives. I would have certainly given the game a higher score if it wasn't so frustrating at times. I'm looking forward to sharing my review on my blog.
Also I don't completely hate QTEs. I think they're ok.
I don't want to get into an argument about the meaning of opinions or whatever, but to answer your question directly, I generally feel that the community on gamasutra is more polite than, say, kotaku or other such sites.
edit: the comment I'm responding to was removed but for the record I don't think you needed to Phil. it was good clarification
Resident Evil 6 tries - and fails - to please ANYONE
If I had to guess I'd say I'm very near the end of the game, and my opinion is that this is a very clear-cut case of feature-creep, kitchen-sink, hit-all-your-target-demographics development. While I understand why so many people like RE5, at the time of its release I remember feeling like the series was already cannibalizing itself. If that wasn't true then, it is now.
In a way this timing is fortuitous. With the next generation around the corner, Capcom can make use of this wake-up call. Now's the time for fresh starts!
That is today's AAA dilemma. No one will take a chance on making a new game with niche mechanics, so instead they take a known franchise, turn it into an action game that 'everyone' will like in some regard, slap a 3, 4, 5, or 6 on the box along with a brand name people expect and then they complain when gamers get it and tell them it sucked ass and was nothing like the originals. Baffling.
I know this isn't always the case of why a AAA game flounders, but it does seem to be one of the common threads.
Examples:
Mass Effect - originally viewed RPG, now 3rd person shooter (this didn't really have a lot of time to solidify though - it could have been 3rd person shooter from the get go and people just mistook it as RPG). It also had the theme "choices matter", and in the end most people viewed it as "choices give me a new color".
Dragon Age - Stat Heavy RPG; now Action game
Resident Evil - Survival Horror; now Action game (I'm also seeing a trend here with action games)
Knights of the Old Republic - Bioware RPG; now an MMO with a monthly sub and online community.
Sonic - Platformer with angst - Once in a while a platformer, but with all sorts of 'friends' in it and Sonic doesn't have an attitude anymore. The interesting thing here is when it returned to its roots more, it seemed to get a better response
Ace Combat - Combat sim with arcade flair - now CoD in the air.
I'm sure others can add to this list easily.
What is a better way to handle this? A good example from the board gaming world are D&D board games. Everyone knows them, many won't touch one because of the mechanics - so when they come out with a new game with all different mechanics they didn't call it D&D 15 - Lords of the Waterdeep - They called it "Lords of the Waterdeep" then then put D&D on the box at the bottom. People buying it know it is different than a typical D&D game, and those that know D&D by heart still buy it due to brand recognition. When gamers get angry all it takes is the gamer's saying "didn't you read the back to know it wasn't a typical D&D game?" Gamers then defend the changes for the developer by mocking the people that are a few shy of a 6-pack.
This game doesn't really deserve the low ratings that reviewers give it, but it is their opinion. Yet, the game sells, and there are people that are pretty satisfied with the change, myself included. I love the classics, and I love the change that they added. And Leon's Campaign does seem less action and more Survival Horror elements, not completely but it's there.
Besides, the change makes the classic games Unique. And change means trying something new, which may sound bad, but in the end, it's a great idea. While I do think Survival Horror fits this franchise more, there are ways to make it better, and changing genre can help find that sweet spot for the game.
Maybe not in my lifetime but the game will eventually find the mechanics and genre that fits right for the game. Maybe bring it back to Survival Horror with new experienced changes. Think of it as "Re-Design to Perfection".
People just need to open up their eyes and tolerate change. Change is good, it means different results. Different Results means that you can mix different mechanics and form something new that can enhance the experience of the player. I welcome the change.
I am defiantly going to wait until it goes on sale for $20 before picking it up.
That said, the game itself still has a good, solid core and its no more or less limited and on-rails than your typical single player campaign in CoD. But the problem of course is that fans of this franchise would like something more, and can remember when we actually had that.
Resident Evil 6 is a good game....but it's lost some of what made it distinct, and that's where the real problem is.