Anyone see the direct-to-video Resident Evil: Degeneration movie that came out a few months ago? It was pretty bad, from from cheesy voice acting to mediocre plot (even by video game movie standards).
Right on its heels is Capcom's tie-in iPhone game. It's straight up Resident Evil, right down to the clunky gunplay, slow zombies and awful dialogue. But that's what we love about Resident Evil. And, thankfully, the game is better than the movie.
Not in the face! Not in the face!
The plot involves a jetliner full of zombies crashing into an airport, unleashing the T-virus on unsuspecting travelers. After the government locks down the premises, it calls in special agent Leon Kennedy to rescue the survivors, among them his Resident Evil 2 companion, Claire Redfield. The plot is largely delivered through text-based cutscenes--forgettable and skippable for the most part.
The game plays from a third-person, over the shoulder viewpoint, as in Resident Evil 4 and 5. As in those games, shooting can only be done while standing still, and movement is tied to a D-Pad. There's no sophisticated aim/look mechanism, just run-stop-shoot-run.
To be fair, Resident Evil's developers have always said the clumsiness of the controls is to build the tension of the combat and the scenes. But this iPhone version's controls seem a little too clumsy with movement. Trying to navigate a narrow, winding hallway is more frustrating than it should be. Throw in a few zombies, and it can be maddening.
Combat is handled fairly well, though. By requiring Leon to stand still, aiming is about as easy it could possibly be, especially with the laser sight on your guns. There's a slight auto-aim function built in, as well, snapping to heads and chests.
Coupled with the tricky movement controls and the necessarily slower gunplay, zombie fights can be especially challenging in narrower parts. Leon's melee attack is surprisingly effective, though it does seem like a bit of a copout for the subpar movement controls.
Resident Evil: Degeneration seems like it can't decide if it wants to be an action shooter, or an old-school survival horror/puzzle game like its predecessors. The fact is that it does neither particularly well.
As an action shooter, it's simply too clumsy, especially compared to superior genre titles like Gameloft's Terminator Salvation. As a survival horror game, it's not scary and does little to evoke the mood. Its puzzles, which mostly involve fetching keycards, are a far cry from what used to be one of the franchise's hallmarks.
That's not to say it's not fun, though. There's enough detail in the gameplay to please older fans of the Resident Evil series. The challenge of managing items in the limited inventory, upgrading weapons and the slow, methodical stumbles of the classic zombie are all there. But those new to the series will find the presentation lacking, especially when compared to similarly priced titles at its $6.99 price point.
In the end, Resident Evil: Degeneration is a pretty satisfying zombie blaster, despite its faults. Fans of the series will find $6.99 worth of action here. However, those indifferent to Resident Evil might want to consider waiting for a price drop.
15 Comments
Great review
It's really interesting comparing this review to that of Caster, written by the same author. Somehow price didn't matter here (Caster got hit for being pricey for its category, but it's $2 cheaper.). Clumsy controls didn't matter here (Caster's are near flawless). Lack of mood and originality didn't matter here (Caster had tough enemies, but not enough variety). Despite its flaws, Resident Evil gets a 3 Good, while Caster gets a 2 Caution.
If this reviewer scored them similarly, I could chalk him up as tough. Instead, he comes off as biased.
After playing the game for about 15 minutes, I have found it pretty lacking overall. The controls are pretty annoying as Leon moves slow, there is no way to adjust the camera, and to shoot you must first press a button then aim, which takes too long. The menus are also pretty ugly and the graphics are mediocre in comparison to what is coming out these days. There is little that has gotten me interested yet.
Thanks for the feedback, cmfnyc.
If you really want to compare Caster to Resident Evil, I guess I'll explain what I saw as the major differences.
These are two drastically different games. Caster, you're running around shooting fast-moving bugs who shoot back. Resident Evil, you're shooting at slow, lumbering zombies.
Resident Evil's controls function within its framework. There's nothing crippling the underlying concept of the game. Zombies are zombies. All the pieces fit together and they work.
Don't get me wrong, Caster's a good game at its core. But its innovation and cool concepts are rendered useless due to some poor design in terms of the monsters. The underlying concept goes to waste.
Feel free to e-mail me at kelvin@slidetoplay.com if you'd like to toss around a few more ideas.
Thanks again. It's always nice to see an engaged readership.
And Tim, I wrote in those last three-four sentences just for you!
...Me? Or some other Tim? Was this a direct port of the N-Gage title? And yeah... I totally agree with the entire Caster review. Awesome concept... poor execution. Fun and variety matter a lot. Nice review - this is one I'll have to wait on a sale for.
Maybe you guys should have second opinion reviews like other sites and some other major game magazines do (OXM, Famitsu, etc)...you don't have to always have to keep backing up the person that reviewed the game cause he's from the same site. It's always great to hear other opinions, or differing opinions from the same site or magazine.
I mean seriously, your reviewer gave a laughable 3 score at a crappy game like Hill Billy. Just saying, would be nice to see another opinion from a more respected reviewer at STP.
@klouud: The Tim he was talking to is me =]
@Caster discussion: My $.02, but I actually feel that Caster is the superior of the two. Maybe it is just that I like face-paced gameplay instead of slowly shooting through puzzles, but overall the production seemed a step higher. Also, there is a Mac version of Caster for only $5 (same price as iPhone game). It is basically the same thing but I found the experience to be much better on my Mac. The draw distance was much larger, the controls were excellent, and the quality of the images was much higher. You also saw more of what was going on at once, which was a big plus. Before you count out that game's concept, I highly suggest trying the Mac/PC/Linux version. The experience is pretty different than the iPhone version while it is the same game. There is also a demo of each if you just want to try it out.
Here is the link to the computer versions of Caster: http://www.elecorn.com/caster3d/
@ jeffyg3: Kelvin is the head editor at STP... I think that gives him some credibility =] . Also, you don't need to agree with the scores that we reviewers give games... it is all personal opinion!
I know it's all personal opinion, all I was saying is that it would be great to see second opinions in more places like the big review places do.
And I agree about Caster, that was definitely a good game, the STP review seemed a bit harsh.
FWIW, I am also a reviewer here and gave my opinion...
Very good review. But I'm not sure if i should buy this game or not. Maybe I'll buy it. :)
www.TAPelicious.com
I agree. I'm getting tired of seeing reviews that seem to hold no consistency from one game to another other than the fact that the reviewer happens to like the game more (and it shows in their review).
You state that it's all a matter of personal opinion, but you made an adamant stand that reviewers make purchases based on your reviews and number guides and that is the point of the site. At least call it what it is instead of misguiding readers. This is a blog site and all material is a matter of personal opinion instead of a logical rating system of reviews.
Stand by your words. This is clearly one of those 1 or 2 score apps until the price comes down as many of your other reviews tend to be. You also don't mention at all how long it takes to finish the game. It is actually quite short.
This site has become a joke. I hope others read this and notice the inconsistency from one review to another. There needs to be some better rating system (gameplay, sound, re-playability, bang for buck, so on) or an explanation as to the rating besides your personal comments and feelings and attaching a number to it.
I'm removing this site from my list and sticking with better review sites like iphone games network, or touch arcade until this site cleans up their act.
Thanks for the response, Kelvin. I appreciate it and the offer to toss ideas via email. I'll pass, but only because our exchange would probably boil down to I think zombie shooters are boring, while you may like them. I like running around in a sandbox shooting at things that shoot back. Maybe you don't. That we have preferences doesn't really matter, though.
I really only have one point to make. Slide to Play's scoring format needs an update. To put it in reviewspeak, it's a buggy 1.0 release that doesn't compare favorably to others in this genre:
Slide to Play can't decide between just reviewing games without scoring (ala Pocketgamer) and offering detailed scoring (Touch Arcade). In the end, the site's scoring system seems pretty arbitrary and worthless when compared to its peers. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to love in Slide to Play reviews. They are incisive and insightful, but hampered and ultimately undercut by the messy scoring system. Hopefully, an update will fix this. And I'll be happy to review the site once this happens. Until then, I'd wait for a price drop.
Review Descriptions: 2
Uneven. Some delivered offhandedly, others dig into details
Review Analysis: 4
Strong, but Caustic. Slide to Play is great at finding flaws, but sometimes harps on them while discounting strengths. Still tough love can make better games.
Review Scoring: 1
From Caution to Good in a Single Point. Its one score fits all at this site, and often it doesn't fit well.
Review Overall: 2.5
Slide to Play endeavors to be the tough guy of review sites, but it's approach is hampered by a scoring system that lacks detail and comes off as arbitrary. While the site is useful, it seems best used as a second or third opinion, when need.
There's a lot of potential here. The reviewers are clearly knowledgeable and insightful. The design is clean with detailed screenshots. With better scoring system and greater consistency, this could be a must read. We'll stay tuned for that.
I may have been a little harsh or jumped the gun in my comment, but cmfnyc says it best.
Hey guys, thanks as always for your comments.
I want you to know that your feedback is really valuable to me--I would much rather get your honest opinion on how we're doing than not hear anything at all!
We're working hard to address your concerns, and I'm planning to address these comments and others in my editorial this week.
Add a Comment