This is a short Blog Post constructed for the purpose of setting intending purchasers of "Resident Evil: Raccoon City"'s minds straight, and reduce their concerns for the titles quality following this weeks Games TM Magazine Review.
It was reported that Games TM Magazine had awarded "Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City" with an undoubtedly lackluster 3/10. After purchasing the latest issue, in which the review is featured within, I discovered just how inexcusably terrible the review itself was.
The review has one incredible flaw, 2/3's of the game are neglected, how so? Because the reviewer states that he HASN'T EVEN PLAYED THE CO-OP or VERSUS MULTIPLAYER COMPONENTS, both of which are the highlights of the title, with one of the games differentiating aspects compared to other Resident Evil instalments being it's tactical 4-player co-op and 10-player versus multiplayer modes. He even states that he thinks the multiplayer and Co-Op aspects of the game look much better than that of which he has played...
Whilst he briefly discusses poor teammate AI and a few glitches, he refers to the title as being a generic third-person shooter, stating, "those who have played any third-person shooter at any point in the past will know exactly what to expect here", by doing so, he is essentially referring to the game as being average, in it's own raising it's score to a 5, and, well, that's about it. He hardly discusses the game's mechanics any further, neglecting to discuss in-depth it's class system, weapon upgrade and purchasing, diverse enemy types and more, instead opting to ramble on aimlessly about the games, "utterly pointless idea" and concept, in which whilst doing so shamelessly portraying himself to be a fanboy, restraining his favoured franchise from any potential change.
Should a review's publication be acceptable with 2/3's of the game having not been played and being entirely based upon "four hours" of single-player gameplay? I personally would not say so...
Microsoft announced its financial results for Q3 of fiscal year 2026, including an update on its gaming Xbox business and more.
Not looking good. Hopefully Asha Sharma is able to turn Phil’s disaster around.
To me it's still quite remarkable how they can cash-in 5.3bn in revenue in a single quarter, since their hardware is basically dead.
The stock mark is what makes Microsoft remarkable, They have convinced every institutional and retail investor to just keep piling money into them. Like many big tech giants they are just a big growing pyramid scheme. As long as people keep dropping money into ETF's that cover the market Microsoft will always be liquid. At the same time it is completely stifling innovation and competition. People need to start being more discreet in how they invest their money as it's killing the system.
Riiiiight because people will just flock back to them for one or two games per year.
15+ years of bad performance is what they call irreparable in business. It is time for them to sell off the assets and get out of entertainment.
These declines are on the back of extra revenue received from releasing games like Forza horizon 5 on PlayStation. So I’m being sarcastic here when I said they should go back to exclusives. Killing off a revenue stream from Ps5 sales will only make things worse
The charity event will be streamed live from Gamescom in August.
Thanks to the slip-up of an artist working on the title, we now have more evidence that a new Injustice game is in the works.
i can see how a review can be done without finishing a game since some games demand too many hours to do so but you are correct. If the reviewer doesnt have time to try out every aspect of the game it shouldnt be a review but more a preview. And yes when a reviewer dismisses a highlight of a certain game it should not be considered a review
Well done, KC, well done.
3/10 is harsh.. 5/10 is more appropriate.
Face it, the game sucks.
If they wanted to focus of co-op and multi-player they should have called it something other than Resident Evil. Since it was a RE game I think that reviewing (and grading ) based on single player story was appropriate.
It's not just one outlet that's giving this game a shitty score. It seems like almost everywhere I look, it's the same thing, for the same reasons.
I also think it's acceptable to review a game having not completed it. If you get a good feel for the game, know where the plot is going and all of the game play mechanics that the game has to offer then by all means a review before the game is finished should be fine for a single-player experience. However if the majority of the game revolves around multiplayer and the reviewer didn't play MP - they're missing out on a good chunk of the game and doing an extreme disservice to their readers.
I'm disappointed, I had high hopes for this game.