THE FRANCHISE IN A NUTSHELL:In the beginning there was a mansion, its
surrounding property, and a laboratory underneath it. That was it. The game
relied on mystery, environment, it's slow-paced, high tension, moody atmosphere.
You had to save ammunition (the knife is your friend) not just for stronger
enemies, not just in case of a horde of zombies, but because you don't know when
you will REALLY need that ammunition; in fact, you were scared to use it. Hence,
the genre Survival Horror was born (some people consider Alone in the Dark the
first, which may be true, but Resident Evil was the first huge success).
Resident Evil 1-4 relied on this Survival Horror system. Actually, it was more
or less an attitude.
Yes, I did include Resident Evil 4 as a Survival
Horror game because at the beginning you have a basic handgun and a janky
shotgun--which belonged to a farmer, most likely--against these people that are
not acting entirely normal (yet they're not zombies, which was SO refreshing--at
the time) and a gigantic ogre like boss. In Resident Evil 4 there is a real
sense of John Carpenter's The Thing-esque paranoia about the odd acting
residence (which is essentially very true to the title "Resident Evil" in the
sense that you're going against these residents that are, indeed, evil; and the
Japanese title still concurs with the game, too). The deeper you go in Resident
Evil 4, the less scary it becomes, but that's because you've figured out the
mystery and now you're trying to solve the problem. But, the first half of the
game is pure horror (the first time you go into the village is probably the
scariest the franchise has ever been before and after)--and then even toward the
end of the game, there are still some moments of horror that will get
you.
Then there was Resident Evil 5: it was about a guy who killed a
bunch of angry people infected with parasites and Star Wars' misfit monsters and
Agent Smith from The Matrix made an appearance, but he dyed his hair blonde.
Okay, I'm joking as you know, but that doesn't mean it isn't the truth. It was a
decent action game (and Mercenaries was really fun with a partner) but not a
very good Resident Evil game. This was always my comparison: If Resident Evil 4
was the Casino Royale of the Resident Evil franchise (a reboot which saved a
dying franchise and breathed new life into it), then Resident Evil 5 was the
Quantum of Solace of the Resident Evil franchise (gimmick after gimmick and an
exploitation of the previous title's changes: what that means is that Resident
Evil 5 said to itself, "Resident Evil 4 changed a lot of things, so I'm going to
change even more things." A decent action game, but a horrible Resident Evil
game from almost every aspect except for its dazzling graphics.
RESIDENT
EVIL 6:I thought that Resident Evil 5 was the Quantum of Solace of the
franchise . . . but I was wrong.
The game starts off without explanation:
Leon and an injured girl (Helena) are in a ravaged city--zombies are everywhere
and a helicopter is seemingly shooting at you. You make your way through the
city only for you to realize that it was just a very interactive title and
credits sequence. At the end of the gameplay you see a monster's foot and Leon
says something smart like usual and then we see the title--Resident Evil 6--and
now you're in the menu where you can choose your campaign or its multitude of
special features.
You can initially choose from Leon's campaign, Chris's
campaign, or Jake's campaign, but choose wisely because once you pick one you
have to see it through to the end. But, before getting into the campaigns, I'll
discuss my general thoughts about the game.
The general critiques about
RE6 have been quite consistent. Imagine that you have a person with ADHD that
loves action movies--but is trying to throw in horror to appeal to the fan
base--and is trying to put together a very elaborate plot without the necessary
skill for storytelling to tell it. The game is very unfocused; you're not sure
who's the main* villain--in fact, not even the villains know who the true
villains are. And when you beat the campaigns, only the least important details
are explained--and even worse--in mundane manners.
THE C-VIRUS (some
spoilers in third paragraph):
1/5From the very start of the franchise
what interested me more than the mutants or the zombies or the ganados/majini,
was the virus or the parasite used to create such monstrosities. Resident Evil
was about the T-Virus (Tyrant Virus) and, if you take Lisa Trevor into
consideration, the origins of the G-Virus as well. Resident Evil 2 was about the
effects the T-Virus and the G-Virus (which resulted in a form of unstable
biological immortality at the cost of the human soul or consciousness); Resident
Evil 3--which takes place at the same time as Resident Evil 2--continued to lay
down the foundation of the T-Virus, but as opposed to showing the G-Virus (which
only Leon was going against), the game focused on to what extent the T-Virus
could be used for biological weaponry. For instance, the Nemesis-T Type was
designed by a European branch of Umbrella to prove that T-Virus test subjects
could still retain most of their intelligence. And to test out this hypothesis:
Go kill all the S.T.A.R.S. members in Raccoon City so we could kill two birds
with one stone. Resident Evil: Code Veronica was about the T-Veronica virus
(which is a little harder to explain, but it's important to know that it's a
variation of the Progenitor Virus which is the basis for all the previously
mentioned viruses). I'm going to skip explaining the biological agents in
Resident Evil Zero because it's essentially the same as in the first game, and
finally go into Resident Evil 4, which was a game changer. The T-Virus was
mentioned; Luis said that he had scene a sample at some medical center: that
means that the T-Virus has been ultimately erradicated from the world;
domesticated, you could say. Resident Evil 4, however, brought in a new type of
biological weapon--the Las Plagas. Although many of the Las Plagas experiments
in RE4 were accidental and experimental--such as the big salamander in the lake;
it was just a byproduct of the experimentations taking place. And then Jack
Krauser (who has a previously unknown history with Leon, but was later explained
in Resident Evil: Darkside Chronicles), who was previously working for Wesker,
pretending to work for Saddler, actually did take a gift from Saddler--the
Plagas, which he injected into himself--and became more powerful (although I
think the arm injure he had obtained against Javier in Darkside was a motivating
factor). At one point, he mutated his arm. The point being, all the mutations in
Resident Evil 4 made sense. And then we go into Resident Evil 5: the Uroboros
makes perfect sense in a biological standpoint, because such a virus would need
biological matter to grow in size; but it was the Las Plagas that didn't make
sense. Ricardo Irving, for instance, injected himself and became a giant sea
monster . . . oh, and he just happened to be on a boat . . . how
convenient.
Now, in Resident Evil 6, we have the C-Virus. Unlike in
Resident Evil 1-5, I have no idea what the origins are, I have no idea how its
biology works (other than it is a conductor of heat in many ways); I have no
idea, partially because there are no in-game documentation about this virus or
the B.O.W.'s designed from it. That's frustrating, because I don't know about
you guys, but in previous games I made sure I collected every single document
and I read them. At the time I didn't even like reading books (now I do, but
that's not the point), but I still enjoyed furthering my experience. Is it
realistic that there will be documents lying around? Probably not, but it's more
realistic that some of the insane, ridiculous action sequences in this game
which makes the motorcycle majini in Resident Evil 5 look like Christopher Nolan
realism. Does CAPCOM think we are illiterate and can't read or don't want to
read? Or, are they* the ones becoming illiterate (by the way, the game does have
documents, but they can only be accessed through Special Features; I read some
of the documents on the B.O.W.'s and they're not really explained intelligently,
and the explanation for some of them, like the Chainsaw mutatant, was downright
laughable--appearing that a thirteen year old fanboy wrote it without a sense of
what they were righting would be perceived as humorous)?
The C-Virus, oh
the C-Virus. The C-Virus makes zombies; the C-Virus causes zombies to become
obese, causes zombies to grow strange screaming organs in their throats, causes
some zombies to become Liker-wanna-bes, and causes some zombies to still wield
weapons--guns and bats and golfing clubs--and to still turn cranks occasionally
to hinder your process (come on!); the C-Virus causes zombie dogs--which are
identical to the T-variation (but what about cats? what about deer? what about
raccoons? what about birds? what about animals that escaped from the zoo?); the
C-Virus creates gigantic shark mutants, mutants that are three times as large as
4's El Gigante, mutants that somehow--through a C-Virus mutation--grow a
chainsaw for a hand which has its heart inside of it (I don't think Neo-Umbrella
designed this one through any scientific proceedure; I honestly think it just
created itself by a naturalistic evolution of the C-Virus), mutants that are
ripoffs of the Iron Maiden Regenerators from Resident Evil 4, or a snake that
can turn invisible; the C-Virus causes hosts who inject themselves directly to
still keep their intelligence, but to grow a lot stronger and to become
mutated--they're called J'avo; the C-Virus causes a J'avo to mutate into a dozen
different things, ranging from Bee-headed men that can send bees at you,
spider-bodied men, the growth of wings, the growth of two long legs for super
jumping, the growth of explosive larvi for their entire body, and more; the
C-Virus causes some J'avo to caccoon themselves and then spore new
horrors--lizard things (or, you can just say its the dinosaur that killed the
fat guy from Jurassic Park), bunky bohemoths with rocks for skin, flying
creatures, or a swarm of insects; the C-Virus is responsible for the coolest
B.O.W. since Nemesis, Ustanak, the bio-mechanic super freak . . .
But
how? The game never gets into the scientific aspects of the virus. That's
something that I always loved about the franchise until Resident Evil 5. Now,
granted, a lot of these mutations are very cool--but hardly any of them make
sense. Unless of course they went through the effort of trying to make them make
sense. Why couldn't one of their campaigns have been about figuring out how ONE
virus could do all these things? Another big problem is this: the C-Virus is TOO
GOOD. It'll put the T-Virus, G-Virus, T-Verinica, Las Plagas, and the Uroboros
out of a job. Especially since Ustanak is one of the hardest B.O.W.'s in the
series. You see the problem here, don't you?
They're trying to please the
fans in unintelligable ways. I'm sorry CAPCOM, I'm not that stupid. And I know
there are a lot of other fans who feel the same way.
GAMEPLAY:
2/5Those of us who were good at RE4 were probably good at RE5; both
games essentially had the same gameplay mechanics, aside from RE5's clunky
inventory system. Well, RE6 throws that out the window in almost every way. The
gameplay is what wounds the entire game fatally. I don't mind about walking
while shooting, but I do mind about the unfixed camera behind the character. It
feels like I'm playing a videogame adaptation of a movie in some points of the
game. The weird thing is, the creators probably thought they were helping out
the player by having a fluid camera behind them at all times, but really it
gives me a headache and it's hard to aim my character when I need to run
somewhere. The old system had its flaws, but this
new-and-supposed-to-be-improved system creates even more.
Oh, and get
this. You know how you could shoot enemies in the legs in RE4 and RE5 and they
fall to their knees so you can do some interesting melee attacks? Well, in RE6
you can't shoot enemies to their knees--hence, creating less melee variety. I
wonder which one of the creators said to the others, "We should definitely get
rid of shooting enemies in the legs." It's a really strange decision they made
that I don't understand the point of which.
And quick time events. There
are tons of them, but none of them are as good as the Leon vs. Jack Krauser
scene from Resident Evil 4. A lot of people have complained about this, but I
didn't mind. I was just never blown away, aside from the final Ustanak battle at
the end of Jake's campaign. That was innovative, I must say.
LEON AND
HELENA: 4/5Have you ever read an over bloated novel that could have been
a whole lot better if the author cut out at least 25% of it? Well, that's what
Leon's campaign felt like. His campaign is deliberately designed for the
Survival Horror Resident Evil fan--you know, the gamers that likely hate on RE4
and RE5 because they have no Survival Horror (or a lack of); "zombies" return
only* in Leon's campaign, and it also features some really cool
zombie-variations (although I couldn't help but compare most of them to Left 4
Dead's super zombies). Leon's campaign starts off in an intense situation
without much explanation, then travels through a zombie infested Tall Oaks, goes
to a church which happens to have an underground laboratory underneath (there is
sort of* a reason for this), then goes to China (which he randomly and too
conveniently reunites with an old acquaintance immediately after the rough
landing of the plane, which will undoubtedly make the player giggle with how
unlikely the by-chance meeting really is).
Leon's campaign is the heart
of Resident Evil 6. Leon knows Sherry, Leon knows Chris, Leon has a thing for
Ada (who seemingly is/isn't the villain in the game), and by theory does the
most important things in the game. The game's creator(s) deliberately did this
because Resident Evil 4 was the most successful in the franchise.
The
highlight of Leon's campaign is the atmosphere; the flaw is its overly bloated
length (this campaign feels as long as Resident Evil 5 as a whole, and yet there
are still two other campaigns--technically three more--to go).
CHRIS AND
PIERS: 2/5The first thing that you will ask is: what the heck happened
to Jill Valentine? And who the heck is Piers? The game never answers those two
questions, but it only hints at the fact that Chris never gave up the fight
against bioterrorism after he saved the world from the Uroboros. It's a little
jarring when we first see Chris Redfield; he's lost his memory and he acts like
a depressed Tony Stark drinking and smoking himself to death in a bar in some
country. Piers was his old partner and he recruits Chris back into the force
(why didn't they just have Jill Valentine instead? I really don't know). Piers
is one of the least likeable characters in the franchise just because of how
bland he is and really has no purpose in the story or the history of the
franchise. I would have at least liked some references to what happened to Jill
Valentine, but I was left unsatisfied.
To say the least--and without
spoilers--Chris's story is structured oddly; but, moving on from that, there is
only one strength to his campaign. And that's when he and his team go into a
building to chase a snake B.O.W.. It did not contribute to the plot at all
(which is good, because RE6 is soooooo plot heavy that it gives me a headache);
nope, Chris is just in a frenzy to chase down this snake B.O.W. at all costs
(and it's no doubt a shout out to the first Resident Evil game). It's actually
when Chris is walking the "screenwriters" path to keep the plot moving when I
care the least about what's happening. The problem with Chris's campaign is that
they--the creators of the game--forced his purpose in the game (I'd like to say
more, but that would include spoilers) by giving him personal vendetta instead
of just doing his job. A BSAA operative's purpose is to kill B.O.W.'s and to
rescue civilians--it would have been a lot simpler if that's what Chris's
purpose in the game was, instead of being so plot driven.
Ultimately
Chris's campaign is a narrative mess. They tried way too hard with his
personality, his past (by ignoring a lot of it), his purpose, etc.. Instead of
just letting him do what he does best . . . kill B.O.W.'s and then--and ONLY
then--discover what's going on in the grand scheme of things. The ONLY
redemptive quality about his campaign was hunting the snake: that felt like
survival horror. Although, on that note, I wish that Chris could have been able
to save more of his team. There's no reward in inevitable cutscenes killing off
the team. In that sense, CAPCOM is the monster, not the snake. In this Skyrim
day and age, players need to be rewarded or punished for in game
choices.
JAKE AND SHERRY: 3/5Let me say this right off the bat.
Only one element to this campaign makes it worthy of playing: the Nemesis-esque
bio-mechanical B.O.W. which was designed and programmed for one thing and one
thing only: to capture Jake Muller. Why? Well, if it hadn't been for most of the
trailers of the game, then it would be a spoiler, but since everyone knows, it
isn't a spoiler anymore. Jake Muller is Wesker's son. That's why he's important.
Sherry Birkin magically finds him in a European country (she wasn't--but somehow
was--trying to find him from the beginning. It's hard to explain. It goes back
to a similar awkward narrative that the Chris campaign had). And she knows that
he has rare antibodies that can save the world. Talk about taking it slow and
letting the player discover the mystery on their own, which is a huge problem
the game has in general . . . it treats the audience like everyone is a Michael
Bay fan and doesn't care about story and characters, but only the spectacle and
thrilling events. I think the usually-good-reviews that RE5 had sort of enforced
this ideology that
not-everything-has-to-make-sense-because-the-fanbase-doesn't-care-too-much-about-logic
(why CAPCOM? Are you saying I'm stupid or just complacent with the
mundane?)-just-give-them-zombies-and-they'll-be-satisfied. Honestly, I wish the
creators took care in their story as if I was watching a Christopher Nolan film
instead of a Michael Bay film. I think the Resident Evil fan base is too smart
for some of the very illogical "moments"/plot elements in RE6; a lot of which
are in Jake's and Sherry's campaign.
What I found most annoying about
this campaign is that I thought it would answer the most questions, such as what
"Ada Wong" is up to, and Jake's origins and what about the crazy awesome Ustanak
B.O.W.? As cool as these questions are, none of them are really answered at all.
They're half-baked ideas that never really formed.
When I played the Leon
campaign, I thought that Chris's and Jake's campaigns would make sense out of a
lot of random B.O.W.'s and plot events; when I played the Chris campaign,
nothing was answered, so I was thrilled that the Jake campaign would answer
everything. Nope. Not at all. His blood is important and that's all that you*
need to know.
CONCLUSION:There are moments in the game that are
better than any moments from any of the other games. In fact, if they had
trimmed anywhere from 25% to 50% of the game, then maybe this game would be just
as good--if not better--than Resident Evil 4. But the problem is this: think of
RE6 as a buffet, but you can't choose what you eat; you have to eat in a
random--but set--order. If green beans are first, you gotta eat them. Then
cheesecake could be next (AWESOME), and then . . . you gotta eat piss and snot
soup (EEWWW), and then some tasty Chinese food, and then fried poop. You see,
it's the highs and lows of the game which makes it so disappointing. I could
have forgiven the clunky controls and awkward inventory if they cut out all the
mundane aspects of the campaigns, making them more to the point, even if each
campaign was cut in half. Then it would have been an amazing game.
But
it's all the crap (no pun intended) that you're force to eat which makes it so
frustrating at times; for instance, in the Leon campaign, there's a part where
you have to chase a zombie dog around a graveyard (spooky, right? You're in a
graveyard, so it HAS to be spooky--and there's lightning, too) because it has
the key . . . and somehow it's smart enough to know that you need it and it runs
away and doesn't attack you. And it's all the illogical inclusions of B.O.W.'s
(that are cool, mind you, but without purpose) which makes me feel like I'm
watching a Paul W.S. Anderson adaptation. Then there are all the pacing issues
too. It's such a fast paced game that you can't stop and smell the flowers and
enjoy--and be disturbed by--the horrific terrain and scary atmosphere. CAPCOM
tried to do way too much. They cannot make this the scariest game in the
franchise and a high octane thrill ride at the same time. They need to get off
the fence and decide what they want to do. And I hope it's the former, and not
the latter for the next game.
WAYS TO SAVE THE DYING FRANCHISE:In
the beginning of my review, I referenced 28 Days Later. The reason is, CAPCOM is
trying to cure the franchise without truly understanding. Yes, they listened to
some complaints, but ignored others. Yes, Ustanak is an amazing B.O.W.; yes,
Chris isn't so bulky anymore; yes, zombies have returned (sort of); yes, they
tried. But they weren't very smart in the sense that they don't understand their
own franchise and they exploited beloved characters to the point of
ridiculousness. Must they deliberately hire a few fans to be the creative
directors in the next game? Does it need to come down to that? At this rate . .
. absolutely. If they want RE7 to survive. Otherwise, there's no hope
left.
Resident Evil is not Uncharted, it's not Gears of War, it's not
Call of Duty, it's not a racecar game, it's not an on-rails shooter. Resident
Evil, from 1-4, has always been about exploration and horror, stumbling onto a
mystery and trying to solve it, and survival. While Resident Evil 5 was not a
Survival Horror game, it did attempt to stay true to Resident Evil 4. It didn't
take enough risks, mind you, but it didn't step backwards either (the only*
gripe I have with RE5 is some of the story decisions and how Wesker could
teleport).
Resident Evil 7 needs to take a step back. No they need to
take a couple hundred meters back and objectively and subjectively look at the
franchise. What works? What doesn't work? Horror works. Too much action doesn't.
RE6 had so much environmental action to the point of predictability--such as
walking across a bridge, you knew it would fall--but the thing about
predictability is that it isn't scary. Actually with the environment going
haywire while playing the game, it could be looked upon as a Final Destination
videogame adaptation too (really). RE6 failed to understand that having
awesomely grotesque monsters doesn't make it a scary game (such as being in a
graveyard while there's lightning). Pacing is what makes games scary. Why were
the first few games so scary? Not because of what happened, but because of what
didn't* happen. In RE6 too much happened.
Resident Evil 7 needs to be
shorter (gasp!) and to the point. There needs to be a clear cut villain or two
or three (like in RE4), and a sense of exploration and difficulty. If Resident
Evil 7 took some RPG elements and throw in Dark Souls-esque difficulty and
strategy, it could be the greatest game of all time; but--and this is probably
scary for CAPCOM--they need another reboot. They must if they want to survive,
because for RE7, I'm going to be smart enough to read the reviews first, and if
it's not a good game--and if it's not a horror game--I'm not going to buy it.
And I consider myself a diehard fan. I've beaten Resident Evil 4 20+ times and
can't think of any flaws; I played Resident Evil 5 twice before realizing it was
a little bit of a disappointment; I played only the Leon S. Kennedy campaign to
realize that Resident Evil 6 was simply not a great game. RE6 felt like it was
essentially an on-rails game: there's no straying from the path and no sense of
exploring the area. Why not have a few houses available to go through to see if
there is anything of use?
And for the love of God, bring back the
merchant. I hate "buying" things on a screen. It might not make a whole lot of
sense how he can transport as quickly as you can, but at least the
buying/selling process makes sense with the merchant. Also they could give him a
backstory too, because clearly he isn't entirely human. And if your character
learns skills, then why not have random BSAA operatives around the city which
know skills that you can learn from? Maybe Erickson with a broken leg and hiding
on a roof can teach you a move or give you a gun if you find him crutches in the
city (but without any cookie crumb trail system to lead you the way; let the
players find it themselves), and the possibilities could go on forever. Kind of
like in Skyrim. And speaking of which, it needs to have a lot more RPG
elements.
All in all, CAPCOM needs to slow it down for Resident Evil 7.
Resident Evil fans (unless they're fans of the films, too) generally are patient
people: that's why they're Resident Evil fans. In the first five or six games,
there was a lot of walking around, not knowing what to do exactly; there were a
lot of puzzles and a lot of backtracking. So why are the creators treating us
like we have ADHD and no attention span and no intelligence at all? Seriously,
Resident Evil fans don't need (and generally don't want) non-stop action; we
don't need the cookie crumb trail system to tell us where to go (we like finding
our own way); we like to play a Resident Evil game and have a sense of
accomplishment afterward, like the effect that Dark Souls has--with difficulty
comes rewarding accomplishment. Come on CAPCOM. Know who your fans are. Don't
assume that we're all Paul W.S. Anderson fans. Some of us expected a Christopher
Nolan-esque tale, not another Schumaker game where the characters have rubber
nipples on their suits. The creator of the series mentioned recently that the
fans and the creators have like two parents trying to do what's best for their
kid, and that they're going to disagree with one another. Come on, CAPCOM!
That's a very unfair thing to say, because we're the ones who made you
successful, and we are--for the most part--flat out telling you guys that you're
going too far. If the fans and the creators are like two parents that disagree
with one another, then CAPCOM is trying to make our broad shouldered son into a
dancer instead of a football player, which is what he does best. Resident Evil
is not meant to be as ridiculous as its Paul W.S. Anderson film counterparts,
end of story.
IN A NUTSHELL:Pros:
1) Great dialogue
2)
Terrifying creature designs
3) Enemy variety
4) Atmosphere
5) Really
great moments
6) The partner system is fixed (although I'd prefer without
one)
7) Imaginative boss battles
8) Fantastic cutscenes
9)
Ustanak
Cons:
1) Inventory (a step down from RE5)
2) Melee is too
convenient, and thus not rewarding
3) Controls are clunky, camera fluidity is
irksome
4) Mundane tasks (chasing a zombie dog around a cemetary)
5)
Forced plot (they meet up in the darnest spots)
6) No in-game documents
(which would help make sense out of some random B.O.W.'s)
7) No typewriters
(but it's such an on-rails game, why would it matter?)
8) No treasures (which
makes buying skills VERY difficult)
9) No point in exploration (BECAUSE THERE
ARE NO TREASURES OR DOCUMENTS!)
10) No merchant (come on, CAPCOM, bring the
man back)
11) The C-Virus (the T-Virus has children to feed; you're putting
it out of a job)
12) Too long (with too many mundane moments in all the
chapters to even revisit)
- On that note, the campaigns are so long that it
would be a task to replay any of the campaigns.
13) Not scary (although it
had its moments)
14) Confusing plot elements
15) Too much action
(seriously, this is Michael Bay's Resident Evil; I'd prefer Christopher Nolan's
or Frank Darabont's)
16) Vague B.O.W. origins (a chainsaw arm, really?)
