meh, I don't think its scary. Just annoying - limiting ammo yet giving little to no feedback response on how effective you are with the ammo you have, while forcing you into situations where you have to take out enemies is flawed game design, not survival/scary.
In fact, in the instances where enemies infinitely respawn, there's no indication that this will happen. You don't get to split the difference between Action Mans and Scary Mans and call it good when the elements you use are diametrically opposed. The reason infinite respawn works in Action Man is that there's little worry about ammo, and the respawn only serves as a bottleneck before you push up. In Scary Mans, limited ammo works because there's always a choice to run or fight, and the limit forces you to rethink a current situation, stack it up against possible futures, and make a decision. Even in RE4, where ammo is plenty, there's still so much stuff coming at you that it still forces you to think about conservation. RE6 just limits drops (and makes increasing ammo per drop a skill you have to buy) and that's "scary?" Not really, it's just annoying. Case in point - I'm near the end of Chris' campaign and now I run from everything. Not because I'm scared or want to conserve ammo - it's because conflicts are annoying and I'd gladly run from the ones I can and do the ones I can't like the chore it is.
That's where it really gets me - the whole thing feels like homework. Even the "good" controls really aren't, once I've had more time to digest them. You have very quick actions like rolling, sliding, and ducking that are the most cumbersome to do (hold LT, press A, or LT+move+A, or move+A (run) + LT) that can put you in the prone position if you hold LT too long. Maybe they thought that was dynamic, but to have a move that's meant to be faster than standard walking go into a complete standstill is bonkers for a game that supposedly promotes Action Mans sensibilities. Holding LT is the only way you can fire, but butt up against a wall unintentionally and BAM - taking cover. This really hurts combat in close quarters and narrow hallways - I found myself unintentionally getting stuck to stuff and then being wide open for the guy right in front of me, all because I was trying to line up a shot.
To give it credit, when actions work together there's a glimmer of a good game. Taking cover, popping up to nail someone, then taking a dash, slide, and lean up against a new hiding spot is fun. Staggering a guy with a shotgun then hitting them with melee is satisfying. It's just for every moment of that there's hours of shots that don't feel like they're working, taking cover and being unable to lead out of it to aim, taking cover when you just want to aim, missing melee hits altogether, getting shot on your ass to only get knocked down again once you finish the uninterruptable getting up animation...
OH! Other nice thing - 'dem graphics! I'm really surprised by how much mileage they get out of the MT Framework. Especially impressed by facial animations - all of it feels eerily real in a good way...
Then the movement - bleh! At first you may think its standard third person shooter fare, but its not. Rather than move/look its move/camera. I think its an important difference. In games like Gears and Transformers, all movement is relative to where you're facing. Left and right strafe or sidestep, back takes steps back...RE6 is more like Lost Planet 2. Pushing any direction on the left stick moves you full tilt that way without regard to where you were 'facing' because the right stick assumes control of a camera, not the pivot point of your movement. This kind of control works for platformers, RPGs, but third person shooters? Not so much...especially when it means in smaller, tighter environments the camera likes to get stuck (or the forced moments of "LOOK AT THIS SHIT" the devs do, swinging the camera at a thing and locking the camera until you've walked by it or stared at it long enough).
On that note, the more I play this, the more it feels like LP2, only worse. The controls are goofy like Lost Planet 2, only make sense in an obtuse way, and the twin stick movement is for movement/camera, not move/look. The difference is LP2 can be kinda janky and dumb fun because the controls don't work against the settings - big ass, open playgrounds. In fact, the few parts where LP2 tries tighter areas, is when the jank really sets in. RE6 has been mostly inverted in that sense, with janky controls butting up against narrow or cluttered environments for a majority of the time.
You may argue that this is the point, that the game is meant to confound you thus adding "tension" while still being action oriented. I think it's the opposite - that Capcom had a control framework in stuff like LP2 and RE5, applied new actions and ideas to the series in a LP2 fashion (read: in a way that makes no sense), and then decided that since they want so much to be like a western dev, slapped a echo of a stereotype of what they think Action Mans is to that audience. They even went so far as to make it a point that RE6's genre is (I shit you not) "dramatic horror" - they aren't even trying to make players feel resourceful, so the lack of ammo, et al. are just bad design choices, not deliberate survival-anything.
After 6 hours of this business it strikes me as a game that will make it's way to $20 in under a year - the price it deserves for a take on the RE universe in the quasi-playable fashion LP2 was.
Bookmarks