Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City Review

[Waaghpowa]

I had to wait for the PC version because, for some unapparent reason, it was delayed about 2 months. Good thing I stuck to my guns and waited, because now I know not to get it.

 

[Denamic]

Another victim of FPSitis.
Or TPSitis in this case.
Do people never learn?
If you've people who like a series, they most likely like the genre of the games too.
Why would you make another game in the series and switch genre?
Oh, you like coffee? Have some coffee flavoured tampons! You'll love them.

 

[Don Savik]

So you try to start a game thats based around team based 4 player coop BY YOURSELF and get mad because nobody joins you.

And you get frustrated and give it a low score.

Sounds about right.

 

[CD-R]

So you try to start a game thats based around team based 4 player coop BY YOURSELF and get mad because nobody joins you.

And you get frustrated and give it a low score.

Sounds about right.

I would too. Left 4 Dead is also based around team based 4 player Coop but it's at least playable by yourself. So is Borderlands.

 

[Don Savik]

So you try to start a game thats based around team based 4 player coop BY YOURSELF and get mad because nobody joins you.

And you get frustrated and give it a low score.

Sounds about right.

I would too. Left 4 Dead is also based around team based 4 player Coop but it's at least playable by yourself. So is Borderlands.

So whats the exact qualifier here? Do all games based around team coop have to be playable by yourself (defeating the point of the game)? What about Team Fortress 2? or Other team oriented games? And Borderlands is boring when played single player, so by your logic it should've gotten a bad score.


And since Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil 5, Mercenaries DS, Revelations, all the movies, WHY do we still think the games are supposed to be "hardcore survival horror" (whatever the hell people think that means anyways). Its a third person shooter with horror elements equivalent to dead space. They didn't market it as a scary horror game even, so its not false hype. From day 1 we could tell what the mood of the game was going to be. Just no pleasing the internet I guess.

 

[krazykidd]

Eh, I bought this with three friends. And do you know what? We love it! Yes, the game is technically and graphically not very good but playing through some awesome Resident Evil environments and scenarios while blasting zombies in the face with some great weapons and special melee kills, all with three of your friends, is just great fun.

We've played the campaign through three times altogether and it's still enjoyable.

You know , just because you enjoyed it doesn't make it a good game . People enjoy bad games all the time , just sayin'.

OT: yeah i think the whole survival/horror genre has turned into action/gore . But then again , gamers these days would complain if the game was too hard so ... I think this is what we call a lose/lose situation.

 

[bullet_sandw1ch]

What's up with Spectre's goggles?

It's like he's wearing toilet role tubes on his eyes.

i imagine that if someone threw a bunch of quarters in the air, he'd be blind.

 

[Rad Party God]

So... it's pretty much a Left 4 Dead clone gone wrong.

I completely agree that the franchise turned bonkers after Resident Evil 4, I think I'll dust off the first Resident Evil game (NOT the PS1 version... it sucks... seriously...), or better yet, I'll dust off 2 & 3, those were amazing.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I agree with this review. Your AI teammates are useless. I could not get past a certain boss because they literally stood and stared at a wall while I tried to fight for my life. The story is an utter mess and assumes you are familiar with Resident Evil 2's storyline--something I know only as a generalization. The coolest part of the game, when they are left to die and have to hold out, you don't even get to play but instead are just told about it through a cutscene. I wanted to play that! There are also huge time jumps in the storyline, and I often found myself going, "Wait, when did I get here?"
And trying to find anyone to play with...yeah, good luck with that. I left my game open and I got through three levels and still no one joined my game. However, if I click quickplay, I find something instantly. Makes me wonder if there's a connection issue or something.
Did not like the multiplayer, but that's because I suck. Unloaded a full magazine of a SMG into another player and it didn't even phase him. He runs up, knocks me down with a shoulder charge, then kills me instantly with a heavy melee, so yeah.

All that being said though, I found the game to be rather amusing when I actually played with real people. Get even one more person in your group and the campaign becomes much more fun.

 

[Metalrocks]

had a feeling it will suck. todays RE games are nothing more but a shooter. no horror what so ever. i miss the tension we had in the original 3 games. fighting hordes of zombies is not scary. having a handful of them gives more tension in my opinion. not that i was scared really in the first 3 games but it did gave you a uneasy feeling at times.

i pretty much lost interest in this franchise.

 

[Nevrus02]

As a reader I'm beginning to be off-put by the lee-way being given to sum up opinions in titles. I know reviews are subjective, but the sense of objective legitimacy the reviews once had is ruined by titles like "Slightly Less Forgettable." I'd rather see the old standard of titling it by the piece being reviewed and that alone.

 

[CD-R]

So you try to start a game thats based around team based 4 player coop BY YOURSELF and get mad because nobody joins you.

And you get frustrated and give it a low score.

Sounds about right.

I would too. Left 4 Dead is also based around team based 4 player Coop but it's at least playable by yourself. So is Borderlands.

So whats the exact qualifier here? Do all games based around team coop have to be playable by yourself (defeating the point of the game)? What about Team Fortress 2? or Other team oriented games? And Borderlands is boring when played single player, so by your logic it should've gotten a bad score.

If they give you the option of playing the exact same campaign by yourself than yes I see no reason why they shouldn't at the very least be playable. If this game was multiplayer only than yeah I could see your point. But it wasn't. Now that doesn't mean the single player campaign has to be as good it just needs to not suck. If the game plays good in co-op but completely falls apart when you're alone then that's not good game design. Paul's main complaints are that the game is boring and poorly designed. Borderlands may not have been as good in single player but it wasn't broken or unplayable either. Co-Op isn't meant to carry a game alone. It's meant to enhance an already good game.

Team Fortress 2 is not a good example because it's not a co-op game. It's a competitive team based multiplayer game.

 

[subtlefuge]

Surely the runningout of ammo is a good thing? As in the PS1 era Resi's where you had to be conservative with your ammo or you'll die.

I'm assuming the problem is, whilst in previous games you can avoid fighting zombies, in this the whole point is you can't pursue forward until you've killed everything?

That being said, the reviewer's failed to point out how this is that much worse than Left4Dead.

I played L4D2, and honestly I didn't find it to be any more innovative or interesting than what this appears to be. In fact, the only difference seems to be the switch from 1st to 3rd person. Is anyone able to elaborate how L4D is supposedly that much better?

One key point is that the mechanics make the game playable. The game shifts in difficulty based on the health of your teammates, speed of progression, whether you close doors behind you, etc. The level design is clever. The hit detection is spot on. There are built-in mechanics that reward you for being selfless and playing as a team. There is dialogue and banter to help lighten things up and make it enjoyable. The game creates natural crescendo moments through careful sound design and pacing.

Really, there's likely more than a hundred things that make L4D better than this game.

 

[vxicepickxv]

Surely the runningout of ammo is a good thing? As in the PS1 era Resi's where you had to be conservative with your ammo or you'll die.

I'm assuming the problem is, whilst in previous games you can avoid fighting zombies, in this the whole point is you can't pursue forward until you've killed everything?

That being said, the reviewer's failed to point out how this is that much worse than Left4Dead.

I played L4D2, and honestly I didn't find it to be any more innovative or interesting than what this appears to be. In fact, the only difference seems to be the switch from 1st to 3rd person. Is anyone able to elaborate how L4D is supposedly that much better?

One key point is that the mechanics make the game playable. The game shifts in difficulty based on the health of your teammates, speed of progression, whether you close doors behind you, etc. The level design is clever. The hit detection is spot on. There are built-in mechanics that reward you for being selfless and playing as a team. There is dialogue and banter to help lighten things up and make it enjoyable. The game creates natural crescendo moments through careful sound design and pacing.

Really, there's likely more than a hundred things that make L4D better than this game.

The mechanics of L4D are pretty simple, but they're done so well, that they work for L4D. The nuts and bolts of the engine, the incredible tightness of the engine, the well put together multiplayer services(PC,YMMV) and shifting game world make for a great experience. It's also older, which also means cheaper, but it's well worth the price now.

As for the review, the part about the monsters that started at 1:36 and ended in a rant about evaluating your life was gold.

 

[A BigCup of Tea]

So you try to start a game thats based around team based 4 player coop BY YOURSELF and get mad because nobody joins you.

And you get frustrated and give it a low score.

Sounds about right.

I would too. Left 4 Dead is also based around team based 4 player Coop but it's at least playable by yourself. So is Borderlands.

So whats the exact qualifier here? Do all games based around team coop have to be playable by yourself (defeating the point of the game)? What about Team Fortress 2? or Other team oriented games? And Borderlands is boring when played single player, so by your logic it should've gotten a bad score.


And since Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil 5, Mercenaries DS, Revelations, all the movies, WHY do we still think the games are supposed to be "hardcore survival horror" (whatever the hell people think that means anyways). Its a third person shooter with horror elements equivalent to dead space. They didn't market it as a scary horror game even, so its not false hype. From day 1 we could tell what the mood of the game was going to be. Just no pleasing the internet I guess.

Hey i found borderlands quite fun on my own (granted it's more fun with someone else)

OT: i think i'm going to go halfway on this game and rent it as i've heard good and bad things about it

Captcha: Three strikes

 

[Kopikatsu]

So you try to start a game thats based around team based 4 player coop BY YOURSELF and get mad because nobody joins you.

And you get frustrated and give it a low score.

Sounds about right.

I would too. Left 4 Dead is also based around team based 4 player Coop but it's at least playable by yourself. So is Borderlands.

So whats the exact qualifier here? Do all games based around team coop have to be playable by yourself (defeating the point of the game)? What about Team Fortress 2? or Other team oriented games? And Borderlands is boring when played single player, so by your logic it should've gotten a bad score.


And since Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil 5, Mercenaries DS, Revelations, all the movies, WHY do we still think the games are supposed to be "hardcore survival horror" (whatever the hell people think that means anyways). Its a third person shooter with horror elements equivalent to dead space. They didn't market it as a scary horror game even, so its not false hype. From day 1 we could tell what the mood of the game was going to be. Just no pleasing the internet I guess.

I agree. At no point did they say that they were trying to make a scary game. The very first gameplay video they showed had the USS running while shooting and stabbing people in the throat.

It's also worth mentioning that the ad campaign for Resident Evil 1 invented the term 'survival horror'.

 

[silasbufu]

Looks pretty mediocre.
Resident Evil 2 is one of my childhood games ( I got to play RE1 after the second, I don't remember why ), which pursued me into gaming altogether, but I wasn't expecting much more because this is the main direction games are going nowadays.
I know nostalgic comments like this one might be annoying but I feel this is the truth right now (graphics and accesibility more important than gameplay/story/atmosphere)

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Surely the runningout of ammo is a good thing? As in the PS1 era Resi's where you had to be conservative with your ammo or you'll die.

Not in a game designed this way, it isn't. In old Resident Evil games, you could survive small-scale encounters with just a magazine or two for a handgun. And, if all else fails, you can run the hell away.

This? Not so much. You're expected to spray bullets and hope for the best. You're not so much an elite special forces team as you are firefighters armed with low-caliber bullet hoses.

It's not supposed to be a survival horror game. You're not a lone agent trapped in the middle of an outbreak with sparse weapons and ammo, you're a fully trained special forces squad equipped for a specific mission. The game is supposed to be a shooter based in the RE universe; the brand doesn't instantly mean survival horror.

I understand the trained special forces part, but as to it not being horror...c'mon, mate. Most of us have seen Predator and Aliens. Trained soldiers are no excluding factor for a horror game.

And even then, I'd have loved if it actually played as if you were...well, a special forces team. You might have a fair bit of firepower, but resupplies aren't as common as you might like, so you need to rely on conservation of ammo and making your shots count. That's what actual special forces do: every shot has a purpose, and if that purpose isn't 'kill,' it's probably to set up a kill.

Surely the runningout of ammo is a good thing? As in the PS1 era Resi's where you had to be conservative with your ammo or you'll die.

I'm assuming the problem is, whilst in previous games you can avoid fighting zombies, in this the whole point is you can't pursue forward until you've killed everything?

That being said, the reviewer's failed to point out how this is that much worse than Left4Dead.

I played L4D2, and honestly I didn't find it to be any more innovative or interesting than what this appears to be. In fact, the only difference seems to be the switch from 1st to 3rd person. Is anyone able to elaborate how L4D is supposedly that much better?

Not sure if trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Let's set aside countless things like production quality, graphics, characters, etc, and focus on one aspect: the guns. I can neatly illustrate everything that's wrong with this game and everything that's right with the L4D games just by looking at the guns.

In this, you have a fully automatic bullet-hose. Each bullet does about as much damage as a blown kiss to a zombie, and for a special forces operative, you can't aim for shit. So every single encounter is an exercise of the pray 'n spray school of shooting.

Now consider Left 4 Dead. The guns have varying degrees of accuracy, rates of fire, magazine sizes, and caliber, but the one thing they all have in common is the feeling that each bullet actually counts for something. High-caliber rounds can take down zombies with one shot, and weapons hit where you want them to. If you're frantically spraying bullets, it's because things have already gone tits-up. The rag-tag survivors of both L4D games had more fire discipline than this supposed special forces team. The OSS put the 'special' in 'special forces.'

I'm pretty sure Capcom just phoned it in when it came time to research firearms, because to them, there's only two types of guns in the word: ones that act like MAC-10s being fired with one hand, and sniper rifles. Maybe shotguns, if you're feeling particularly creative.

"ridiculous outfits"? have you even played a CAPCOM game before?

But in the past, they've at least shown some restraint when it comes to designing the uniforms of soldier-ish people. Maybe it's just because Umbrella's dress code is just as bad as their business plans.

 

[Dr Jones]

I played L4D2, and honestly I didn't find it to be any more innovative or interesting than what this appears to be. In fact, the only difference seems to be the switch from 1st to 3rd person. Is anyone able to elaborate how L4D is supposedly that much better?

Better controls, better character interaction (really, the character's feelings for eachother are incredibly detailed, look it up on the wikia), better multiplayer (Versus is quite fun), better atmosphere, better replayability, developed by Valve etc.