Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City Review

[Aerograt]

"Instead of tense sequences of fighting off zombie hordes or classic monsters like the Licker, and making every bullet count "

"given how easy it is to run out of ammo"

Just thought I'd point that out.

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.

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.

The L4D A.I. is awful and you know it. Healing players at yellow health and not avoiding spitter acid until the NPCs start getting damaged is just moronic.

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.

Also, this. It's a (good) spin off, and I'm sick of the "OH GOD, I'M NOT SCARED OF RESIDENT EVIL ANYMORE EVEN THOUGH THE GAMES BEFORE RE4 HAD GOD AWFUL CONTROLS, BORING ENEMIES AND A RETARDED CAMERA ANGLES, SO EVERYTHING AFTER RE4 IS BAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDHURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR" mantality. RE5 wasn't scary in the least (except with the Reapers, although that's because they're cheap enemies), yet it's still a solid co-op game. And guess what? The RE5 A.I. is terrible as well.

I'm sorry, but Resident Evil wasn't good until RE4, and that's because it got a focus on combat with better controls/camera and survival horror mixed into it. ORC lost the horror element, but the first Resident Evil games weren't even that scary to begin with. Ooooo, one or two slow moving, health spongie zombies in a hallway. Better get my auto aim out.

...Side note, I'm wondering if the first RE games would have been better as RPG survival horror games since they did have the whole auto aim aspect.

 

[beefpelican]

0:17. One of these things is not like the others. One of these things forgot their combat gear this morning.

 

[cricket chirps]

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?

yea im throwin in with this guy here. This review seemed to be only focusing on the negative. Mentioning something the game tried to do and calling it boring isn't reviewing. "why did it not work you might ask?" then an explanation would have helped your case more.

I personaly thought the online was JUST as fun and frantic as L4D/L4D2. I actually had more genuine scare moments in this online than in L4D because your SO surrounded constantly. You CAN easily get through them without shooting and you should so you have ammo.

I'll give the story to you as being crap. But we all knew this wasn't supose to be a "typical" resident evil game. They made that clear by hyping up RE6 at the same time and making this a stand alone project. Which is a good thing! They need to try different things with the series or it will always be the same old same old.

So why such a negative review?

 

[Silent Biohazard Solid]

Lacking Survival and/or Horror? Resident Evil has been lacking Survival and/or Horror since 2004. So what's new? Resident Evil has been an "Action Shooter" since RE4, it's time people realized that.

 

[Terramax]

snip

I must've played the wrong game.

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

Why would I be trolling? Honestly, I saw L4D2 as a just another average shooter. You shoot things, move on to the next section, and shoot more things, in this case, zombies.

Not to say it was a bad game. But, well, you just shoot zombies. I was under the impression it was loved for its purity - no gimmicks, etc. But I didn't see anything revolutionary or poetic about it. So it's better balanced? But that doesn't mean to say Project Racoon is unplayable, does it? Just a little more average.

 

[-Samurai-]

I actually liked this game. To me it was at least a 2.5 if not 3/5.

Same here. It's not brilliant, but it's good. The multiplayer mode where you have to get on the helicopter is stupid fun.

People just want every new Resident Evil game to be Resident Evil 2. They ***** and ***** and ***** about unoriginality, but when a franchise tries something new, they ***** that is isn't the same as the old games.

If you want RE2, go buy RE2.

This game has some great ideas, and I think that they should expand on those ideas and work on the weaker points to make what could be a great sequel.

 

[cplsharp]

Just thought i'd point out firstly i enjoyed this game (that's my opinion so hold your troll cannons) and secondly i'm fed up of hearing reviewers complain about ammo etc. and how hard it is to kill the military, unless you're playing on anything above normal difficulty at which point it gets exceptionally difficult then there is no issue, if you fire single shots and take your time its 1-3 headshots on military enemies dependent on range and caliber of weapon. watching the gameplay video all i see is spraying and lack of aim. logic is lost a lot of the time i suppose =/. also anyone on 360 who fancies some games gimme a shout (i played it through twice on singleplayer and loved every minute.) gamertag: cpl sharp

 

[Polock]

Didn't even know this game was in production until I saw it on shelves.

"ooh!" I thought. "A new resident evil game?"

I kind of figured it would be a mediocre game just from "gamer sense"

That being said, I'm the guy who actually enjoyed RE5 (on pc co-op). I would probably enjoy this too, but hearing about the weak guns and non-tight controls bugs me.

I'll wait for it to drop in price, and perhaps give it a go.

 

[DTWolfwood]

wait there are ppl who still expect "survival" in their RE titles? shoot if it wasn't for the various grotesqueries that shamble around the game, i would even hardly call it horror. haven't felt a sense of dread in the game since RE3 (well if im honest RE1 was the only time it felt scary, RE2 had a lot shock and awe, and RE3 had unlimited ammo.)

But man is this game generic XD the controls are shabby at best and the goons you shoot are all bullet sponges.

Lacking Survival and/or Horror? Resident Evil has been lacking Survival and/or Horror since 2004. So what's new? Resident Evil has been an "Action Shooter" since RE4, it's time people realized that.

/highfive

 

[Rheinmetall]

I agree with the review, Operation Raccoon City is mediocre to say the least. Because i'm a big RE fan eventually I will finish the game. I'm not sure though if it counts as a RE game...

 

[Rheinmetall]

If you want RE2, go buy RE2.

And what if I love RE 2, I have already bought it and played it ten times, bought every RE game and supported Capcom all those years, and I want from this company to release at least one more survival horror game after Code Veronica X? I don't have a right to express my disappointment?

 

[Dr Jones]

Why would I be trolling? Honestly, I saw L4D2 as a just another average shooter. You shoot things, move on to the next section, and shoot more things, in this case, zombies.

Not to say it was a bad game. But, well, you just shoot zombies. I was under the impression it was loved for its purity - no gimmicks, etc. But I didn't see anything revolutionary or poetic about it. So it's better balanced? But that doesn't mean to say Project Racoon is unplayable, does it? Just a little more average.

Imo L4D is just so well made. Honestly. The whole director thing (which i admit never really impressed me) is to the characters of the game, like Herman Bang is to his characters, incredibly fair. One moment you are breezing through, but that is just because the harder parts is for later, or vice versa.

I guess it's just the feel of L4D (though we could also compare the fact that Raccoon City is a 2012 game and L4D2 is from 2009).

 

[-Samurai-]

If you want RE2, go buy RE2.

And what if I love RE 2, I have already bought it and played it ten times, bought every RE game and supported Capcom all those years, and I want from this company to release at least one more survival horror game after Code Veronica X? I don't have a right to express my disappointment?

Then you don't buy a game that was never marketed as a survival horror game, and expect it to be a survival horror game. Capcom doesn't owe you another RE 2.

Be disappointed all you want. They don't care. They never said this would be more survival horror.

 

[Spookimitsu]

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.

That was pretty funny, but inaccurate. The game rewards you if you DON'T pray n' spray. Pistol head shots to zombies generally pop the heads right open for me (professional Difficulty). When fighting SPEC-OPS, if you hit them in the body-armour, then yes you are in for a long fight. Start shooting them (and hitting them) in the face and watch how quickly they will drop. When I first started playing the game I said the same things as you, but I took my time and got better.

What WILL piss you off is how scripted encounters with certain individuals in the story, and how hard their pistol hits you.

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...

No, with the exception of the very first stage, you don't have to kill everything, you can pretty much avoid anything until boss fights, or sub boss check points. Which is advisable on Professional difficulty.

Running out of ammo is a ...delicate thing. Do it too much, and whats the point in carrying guns, do it too little and where's the challenge? The strategy? Whats the point in counting bullets? I personally find that even on harder difficulties there is no need to worry about a lack of munitions, but maybe they did that on purpose? I dunno, I would have preferred alot less bullets everywhere.

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

It's nothing of the sort. There is no AI director, and it is not survival horror. It is kind of like playing Contra/Socom in Resident Evil's world.

horrendous collision detection or very shoddy controls? (though I'll admit the latter could be my fumbling)

Not trying to kick a dead horse here, but, most likely a pebkac error, the controls and hit detection are just fine. I haven't missed a shot that wasn't due to my own impatience.

There are alot of comparisons to L4D, but this game isn't anything like L4D. It's not even trying to be like L4D, just because it has 4p co-op and zombies. IT IS NOT SURVIVAL HORROR. It is infact an action game. RE:ORC has no scares, repeat NO SCARES because it isnt survival horror. It has lots of weapons, and lots of bullets. The customizable abilities of the characters are interesting, giving everyone an RPG-like "role" to play as you cruise through the different locals mowing down (or blowing up) everything in sight.

Trying to compare L4D to this is like comparing Splinter Cell to Call of Duty. It isn't a sound argument. The two games aren't even close.

The reviewer was a little harsh, it hardly takes me Ten seconds to join a co-op game. Of course I could wait around all night for someone to join MINE, but I'd rather not do that.

This game is fun(, unless you are tired of shooting stuff) the online community is active, and even on the PS3 people have mics.
My biggest problem with the game is this: I would have preferred if it were developed in-house by the same guys who did Lost Planet 2, if only for the emotes!!!

 

[Terramax]

snip

Thanks for your words. It was nice to read, what sounds to be, rather grounded advice and information.

Indeed, I get the feeling this reviewer didn't know what he was talking about. That being said, I've yet to come across an Escapist review that did.

 

[Spookimitsu]

snip

Ha thanks, but make sure to take mine with a grain of salt, I skipped out on most shooters of last year, and the HD re-releases on the PSN of RE4 so I was a little overdue for some mindless Raccoon City fun.

But therein may lie some of the problems, it is kind of mindless. It is hard to put into words the depth of the AI stupidity, and I know it's a point that many people harp upon. I personally just ignore them, and if they get in my line of fire I'll shoot them too. I don't mind playing solo. Secondly, the single player campaign is admittedly short. I just finished my first mostly solo playthrough (professional difficulty) last night, but I haven't been grinding away at it at all. Play co-op and you can beat the game in a few evenings. Playing co-op on pro mode? May take a few more evenings.

Co-op is the way to go though, I only chose to play offline so that I could go through all of the stages in order on the hardest difficulty. Co-op is by far more enjoyable.

In regards to my previous statement about Lost Planet 2, the two games are worlds apart in terms of gameplay depth, but they are from two very different development teams.

Maybe they will continue this side story action genre, as I found playing for Umbrella rather pleasant. I'd like to see the MT Framework 2.0 and some classic lost planet Capcom monster huntin' ingenious gameplay tied altogether. Fingers crossed for a vetted well thought out & executed sequel.

 

[fanklok]

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?

Because L4D doesn't have a history of survival horror, which according to the review this game isn't at all. It doesn't fit in with the theme of the rest of the series while L4D set out to do what it does on day one, give you a bunch of guns and hordes of undead to mow down.

 

[Sampler]

horrendous collision detection or very shoddy controls? (though I'll admit the latter could be my fumbling)

Not trying to kick a dead horse here, but, most likely a pebkac error, the controls and hit detection are just fine. I haven't missed a shot that wasn't due to my own impatience.

Judging by your comment on PS3 users having mic's I'll presume that's version you're using, I on the other hand played it on the 360 - which to be fair I didn't mention but thank you for comparing your apple to my orange.

I played it through with a friend (the new form of local co-op of end of the level/die play and pass seeing how actual local co-op must've shagged all game developers mums or something) and he can attest to how I sat shooting at an enemy, cross-hairs firmly between his squinty eyes and unloaded a clip - not only seemingly missing with every shot but also not alerting the blithering idiot to my presence allowing me to rinse and repeat to still no avail. This being just one of many examples (before someone jumps on me for being down on a game because one thing went wrong).

I've been a long time Resi fan, I even have both outbreak games on the PS2, and was rather looking forward to this from the fairly awesome looking trailer but the story is stilted and the controls rushed and horrid which brings me back to my biggest bugbear in gaming - they're thousands of game engines that do this well, I find it highly incredible that it was cheaper to knock together the half-assed attempt than it was to buy an existing engine off the shelf that actually works and then spend the time and effort making the game fun instead. So far there's no element I've come across that screams the need for a bespoke engine either.

All-in I think when I see 'Slant-Six' on the side of a game from now on I'll give it a wide berth.

RE:ORC has no scares, repeat NO SCARES

You mean besides the scripted elements where a boss burst through a wall with no previous warning or similar "jump" tactics - however I do agree it's no survival horror, a run and gun game, but to say they didn't attempt to put scares in (however badly) is a little inaccurate.

 

[Spookimitsu]

RE:ORC has no scares, repeat NO SCARES

You mean besides the scripted elements where a boss burst through a wall with no previous warning or similar "jump" tactics - however I do agree it's no survival horror, a run and gun game, but to say they didn't attempt to put scares in (however badly) is a little inaccurate.

Meh, its a game about a zombie outbreak. I think that a few zeds unexpectedly crashing through a door is obligatory to say the least, but at no point is it scary. Thrilling, is kinda pushing it, but scary is farfetched.

 

[Rheinmetall]

Then you don't buy a game that was never marketed as a survival horror game, and expect it to be a survival horror game. Capcom doesn't owe you another RE 2.

Be disappointed all you want. They don't care. They never said this would be more survival horror.

I didn't expect really a survival horror game- but I didn't expect Killzone and I didn't expect this trainwreck either to be honest. And how did it even cross their mind to put the Resident Evil name in this title? It is so misleading for the customers! It's not about survival horror and another RE 2, this simply isn't Resident Evil. Do we even have to discuss about it that it isn't Resident Evil?

Also you are very wrong that Capcom owes me nothing. On the contrary, they owe me a lot. As a gamer yourself you should have understood me. This could have been the cynical comment of a manager, not of a gamer.