Woah, woah there mate. RE5 IS a masterpiece :P

Its easy to see why CoD is so popular when you watch four guys playing local coop. Its simply fun,the kind of fun that most gamers want these days. In a few years it'll be some other franchise and that's OK.

As a coop action shooter; I almost agree. As a RE title; not even close imo.

Why not?

Why shouldn't they be? The most popular sports game, two popular (and very good) multiplayer shooters and an insanely popular content creation game. Seems fair.

Way too heavy on the action and too light on the survival horror. RE 6 takes it even further and is basically a QTE gallery interspersed with long shootouts and ridiculous bullet soaking enemies.

People will never agree on these kind of lists. Everyone and their grandmother has their own ideas of what is and isn't good.

No a game cant be good if its has insufficient fps for the type of game it is. The minimum requirement should be constant 30FPS without a single drop. Ideal would always be 60+

Every turn based rpg with ~20fps is okayish (it has no impact on the gameplay)
Beyond two Souls  with ~20 fps is borderline okayish (because it is a relatively action lacking game with "slow" gameplay)
GTA5 with sub 25fps is a joke (bad FPS or even worse FPS jumping all over the place like 22-30 kill precision of the controls)
The Last of Us with sub 20 is a joke too (same as above but with 18-30 fps)
Castlevanie Lords of Shadows with sub 15 is a joke. (360 version)
Xenoblade Wii (PAL VERSION) running at 25fps is also kinda sufficient because the gameplay does not suffer at all (no hectical gameplay)


Action games that need precision (shooters with PVP etc) and racing games should always be 60.  Slower paced action games (Zelda/Skyrim) are okay with 30.




For resolution the rule is the similar. 1080+ would always be ideal. 720p is sufficient in some cases.

If you have a corridor shooter  720p with AA is sufficient.
Shooters with huge maps (like Battlefield) 1080p+ would be ideal because people can be far far away. (low resolution and the gameplay suffers)
Racing games @ 720p are sufficient.
Games with great art-style/comic style @ 720p are sufficient.  (Seriously Ratchet & Clank Tools of Destruction runs at 960x704 and looks fantastic)
8 Player smash would be horrible if it would be sub-720p so "the higher the better"also applies here.


Every game that VISUALS > GAMEPLAY is a mediocre game at best and in no way a 80%+ game or GOTY worthy. (because its more a techdemo than a game)

For me personally I care for FPS and resolution far more than for geometry of the world etc especially when the art style is good.
I don care if something irrelevant for gameplay is 10% more round than in its last installment when in turn FPS or in some cases resolution suffer because of that.

I don't agree. If anything, RE5 was more akin to old Resident evil games than RE4 by giving you an extremely limited (although generous at times) inventory, a companion that could take care of herself (well, duh, most of the time when the AI didn't go retard), a weird plot featuring the most iconic villain of the franchise and a more refined gameplay from the foundation of RE4.

I don't agree either with your description of RE6, but I admit that one took the formula to a strange way. I loved it anyway.

Such fuc... BS!