Originally posted by Carnivol
View Post
Level design and balance, gametype balance, weapon balance, moddability, amazingly reliable netcode, and then a shitton variables thrown in, without breaking any of those.
As for marketing, COD4 was seriously modest compared to some of its competitors, and certainly a blip on the radar compared to what MW2 and even the first Black Ops did. You seem to be a bit confused with this one, but considering this happened 5 years ago and the game probably never interested you past the rather simplistic SP (even though it just reeks of Clancy meets Bay, it still has more substance than a whole bunch of celebrated titles in 2007 and beyond)
The end result? Majority of COD fans take COD4 as a valid sequel, sinking as many hours into the game as was done with the predecessors. It achieved everything RE4 did, without ripping the community apart.
If you're having issues with figuring out what the game did right, then you appear to have been out of the loop, there are limited to no technical flaws with the game with the exception of not having been able to cater to every conceivable colour on the taste pallet.
Is it a bad game? Not really. I think RE6 can be used as a prime example of what's basically WRONG with the current day review system. You know, where a game is either a 10/10 top or a total flop. While no one could probably justify giving it a top score, you'd have a lot of explaining to do if you gave it a notably low score; considering all the stuff you're likely to've previously given a better score.
Hey, Chimera. Not dead, just wanted to drop in to see if there's discushin' around RE6.
Comment