IGN says Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City "is in jeopardy"

Another thing my usual readers should note: I'm a total Resident Evil fanboy. If I had to profess my fanboyism for any one gaming franchise, it would be Resident Evil first and foremost. No doubt.

This is why RE: Operation Raccoon City has me torn. While the yet unreleased game's existence is old news, I found a recent IGN preview in which the author, Richard George, complains that the game "fails to find a sense of gameplay that feels right, and can't even seem to recreate the atmosphere and environments that millions have come to love over the past 15 years," and that "a game this flawed has warning signs all over it." He has only played the first four levels of the game out of an unknown amount, and the game won't go gold for another month, but still. It's worth noting.

So before I go off on my little dissection of about what he's complaining, I'll get the obvious bullet points out of the way, just to get everybody on the same page:

• RE:ORC is being developed by Slant Six, not Capcom. These are the guys behind a few up and down SOCOM games. They're a Western developer, and to the best of my knowledge the first one to handle the full development of a RE title.
• RE:ORC does not play like other RE games. It actually has more similarities with Gears of War 3 than it does any Resident Evil title. (See the gameplay video at the bottom of the post to see what I mean.)
• RE:ORC is a non-canon spin-off that really only further muddles an already thin-spread set of events. RE0-3, Outbreak 1&2, Dead Aim, Umbrella Chronicles, Darkside Chronicles and all the remakes and rereleases in between all occur in Raccoon City, between July and September of 1998.

So now, we're all informed on what RE:ORC is what it clearly isn't, right? Good. Now onto the rant...

Mr. George's preview has me worried due to a few specific things: the AI is described as dreadful for over half the article, the camera positioning is made an issue, and the "snap-to" cover system, which he describes simply as working "for the most part", apparently doesn't have a dedicated button. These are all stripped straight from the official list (that I just now made up) of the worst possible things to get wrong in a cover-based third-person shooter. They all directly impact gameplay, and regardless of what else is in the experience, if playing the game becomes a hassle, there's really nothing that can redeem the product as a whole. [See: AMY]

That being said, I don't know the author's gaming background. He often refers to the "classic RE feel" that RE:ORC is failing to capture. What that entails, I have no idea, because the game's sheer premise seems to make it obvious that Slant Six and Capcom aren't even trying to capture a "classic RE feel". It's a shooter, made to reel in more Call of Duty fans than anything else. Classic survival horror elements have no place here. The player is empowered by a multitude of weapons, executions, superpowers like turning invisible, cover-based shooting, etc. That's not classic RE. Demanding that ORC resemble the originals' horror feel is like demanding that a DJ's remix of "Freebird" remain a classic rock song. You can feel free to dislike the remix on the base of it being a remix, but you knew it was a remix going in. What were you expecting?

He also cites the lack of customization as an issue, stating specifically:

"Most offensive in this seemingly endless list of offenses is your ability to become infected by zombies, which over time will turn you into a mindless member of the undead. While a seemingly interesting tactical problem, the way it's implemented is beyond frustrating, as your ability to heal yourself without a medic is limited to say the least. The fact that you can only carry one antidote, yet wield a half dozen grenades at the same time, is a severe oversight. Players should be able to determine their armaments prior to missions or on-the-fly."

Here, I see a problem with his point of view. He complains that healing is an issue "without a medic". If it weren't an issue without a medic, what's the medic's purpose? Games that involve class customization need to make each class feel important to play, much like how, in SW:TOR, my medic is in high demand for group missions because, well, she's a medic. If anyone can heal himself fairly easily by choosing antidotes over grenades, why would anyone else choose to play a medic? George also says he wants customization, but full customization can potentially create more problems than they solve. Grenades and antidotes clearly serve two completely different gameplay purposes, and giving the player free will in how many he carries of each can drastically change the intended experience. If grenades aren't essential to living but antidotes are, why would I even carry grenades? Hell, why carry guns? Just stock up on 50-100 antidote samples and run through the level. That would be smartest.

Basically, while I don't want to belittle IGN's points on a game that they've played and I haven't, I have issues with the issues they bring up. Some of them sound reasonable, others sound more like a fault of unrealistic expectations, and wanting the game to be something it isn't. This isn't horror. This isn't an RPG. This is a Gears/SOCOM mutant baby [judging by what's been shown], complete with Hunters, Lickers, William Birkin and an excuse to finally kill Leon S. f***ing Kennedy. If executed well by that premise, then I'll be a happy customer. Judging by this footage, I just may be:

Gameplay showing that clearly this is meant to be an action-y shooter affair.

Expect more from me on this game as we get closer to March 20th (and likely afterward). If you're also interested in RE:ORC, or simply wanted to comment on how you can't spell ignorance without IGN (as most of the internet likes to do), be sure to rate or comment. And be sure to read IGN's impressions as well, to see if you agree. Let's get a discussion going!