Gaming community reception and sales aren't unrelated at all, despite some number of vocal people online, such as yourself for example, who expressed disappointment. The game is over a year old now and I still have no problems finding games online. Reality remains that critical acclaim and online reception of titles play a small part part in the bigger picture. A good recent example is Bayonetta's commercial performance.

I was surprised at how many people I've met online through random games who experienced the series first with RE5 and loved every bit of it.

I'm not going to disagree that it wasn't a spectacular title. RE4 gets the upper hand simply because it was a landmark title in the series (as much as I disliked the direction), and more importantly, the industry. RE5 simply took the core gameplay engine, improved it, and coupled with some familiar progression steps with enemy and locale design choices, it felt like RE4 with co-op. That said, despite ultimately enjoying it better than RE4, I couldn't help but to wonder how co-op had affected design choices since they were probably going back and forth on its implementation.

Likewise for multiplayer, which I think it was obvious that Mikami took a jab at when asked about the lack of it in the upcoming Vanquish.

I'm not saying they're unrelated. I'm saying they're two different things. That does not mean they are unrelated. But Resident Evil 5's sales have several contributing factors, not just the quality of the title itself or the critical reception. Actually, the critical reception probably had less to do with the sales than the other factors this time around.

For one thing, as I pointed out, Capcom marketed the heck out of this game. Marketing has a lot to do with sales. Is it the sole determinant? Obviously not, but it certainly plays a large part, which is why many games that receive high critical praise still fail to sell a noteworthy amount. Plus, Resident Evil 5 is the sequel to one of the most critically acclaimed games of all time, and, as you said, a landmark title, one which has had a sweeping affect on the industry. Plus, there's the name recognition.

Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles is a perfect example of this. Few would argue that it was a legitimately good or well-made game, but it still ended up selling over a million copies. Why? It certainly wasn't a lack of other games to play on the Wii at the time of its release, and it certainly wasn't a positive critical reception. It was because it had "Resident Evil" in the title. Again, was that the only reason it sold so well? Not necessarily, but it was certainly a large part.

Now, there are obvious exceptions to this. Bayonetta is a brand new IP. It certainly didn't receive the marketing that Resident Evil 5 did. And unlike Resident Evil 5, the critical and online reception has been almost universally positive. In that case, the critical acclaim most likely played a much larger role in its sales. Of course, then there are cases with games like, say, Beyond Good&Evil, which also was a brand new IP, received very little marketing, was almost universally praised by the critics and the gaming community at large, yet it sold terribly.

So it can be a crapshoot.

But I also never said that people did not like it. There are certainly lots of people who enjoy the game, even love it. An internet forum solely (or even video game magazines or websites, for that matter) may not necessarily be the best place to judge a game's reception, but neither are sales. A good example would be something like Devil May Cry 2.

Devil May Cry 2 sold over a million copies, and it was almost universally panned by critics and gamers alike. So why did it manage to sell well? As I said, other factors such as brand recognition, being the sequel to a critically acclaimed title, etc.

Archelon, very nice post. I have to say I agree quite readily with a lot if not all of what you are saying. the gist of it is too me, it was a solid game, a good game in fact. But not at all a great game when looking at it in a perspective not focused solely on financial gains nor units moved. Of course its all opinion, but you have to look at a consensus that builds with games, aggregate looks that do not solely include the fanbase.

The 8.0/10 I gave it is largely based as well on its amazing production values, and the extras it presents, and even then i feel it is stretching it perhaps.

I really don't have any Problem with RE5 , It was a Disappointment Yes.. But That doesn't mean It's a bad Game
Maybe I enjoy it Because It has the characters of My Favorite Games (RE1&RE3) but I think It's a very Good Game
I agree It's not the Best RE Title, But It's Not the Worst

How so, because you say it does? Any high budget media is going to have an equally high marketing campaign. It's common business practice. You spent a LOT of money on this title therefore you want to get it out there as much as possible to ensure you get equal return on your product. No one's buying it if they don't know it exists nor have been persuaded to buy it.

As to the rest of your post. Your original post popped in claiming RE5 to be a large dissapointment that apparently no one really cared for and RE4 is superior and everyone agrees etc.

You say sales are unimportant. But if RE5 was so 'lukewarm' as you state, why did AE and Gold Edition sell so well then? If people thought RE5 was 'ok but nothing amazing' why would they go out and buy a second copy just for two new scenarios if they didn't believe the original content was that amazing to begin with?

If the game was again, so lukewarm, why was it and why is still in the top 10 most played online games for xbox live in both japan and US? Again, Biohazard 5 and Resident Evil 5, not one or the other, are both in the top 10 for most played online games.

If the games are so lukewarm again as you stated to the vast majority of gamers, why are so many gamers still playing the game even a year later just as much as they were when the game was released?

You said it can't compete with other games yet the above alone proves it can. If both the japanese and US versions of the game are both in the top 10 most played online games for Xbox Live (not even counting PC or PSN players) for over a year, as well as it being listed in the top 10 games on gamefaqs repeatedly throughout the year, obviously it must strike a high cord with a good number of people.

Reviews really don't mean all that much. Hell when I first beat RE5, I felt slightly dissapointed. Everyone else on here on biohaze was all OMEG THAT WAS SO AWESOME. While I was the only one who was sitting in the corner with a stunned expression on my face going "....that's it?" and feeling let down. Yet, I quickly got over that initial dissapointment (while it started to set in for everyone else) and saw the game PAST my expectations and as you mentioned yourself, saw it for what it is as a game itself and really quite enjoyed it and found it to be a very solid game.

So reading the initial reviews of players initial reactions to a game is quite misleading and judging the quality of a game based on that isn't very accurate. Again, had I written a review right after I had beaten Re5 it would have received a far lower score than I would give it today or even a week later after I had beaten it.

I never said RE5 was the be all end all of games. But, your claims that it can't compete with other games and isn't well received aren't very true. For all the people who complain about the game, there are an equal amount of people who quite love and enjoy the game. It just so happens people in general prefer to complain more than anything else. So someone satisified with the game who isn't a fanboy isn't going to rush to go "This game was great" compaired to someone displeased who will easily find it imperative to say "THIS GAME SUCKS!"

Perhaps I should have phrased it better? What I meant was that when ranking a title I do not count DLC in the equation. The 'package', as far as I'm concerned, is only what was originally released. DLC is standalone content that should be judged on its own merits and have no impact on the quality of the original.

All valid points in general, but despite saying that it wasn't a bad game, you seem to be largely crediting marketing efforts and the series' legacy for the success the game achieved. Particularly by comparing it to such titles as UC and DMC2. I completely disagree there since a product, whether a new IP or not, needs to have all aspects of the marketing formula done well to succeed (that of course means a good product). In RE5's case, it wasn't just an initial success like the aforementioned games, but a long term one. The game is still selling and being played to this day. In fact, they needed to ship another million after a month or so as I remember.

For the record, Capcom's marketing budget for their "HD" titles has been essentially the same from Lost Planet and on.

Maybe using Bayonetta was a bad example since the marketing was so-so and more importantly, it's a niche title; it's something that would've been more suitable for the market in the PS2 era, not in 2010.

I never said sales were unimportant. I said they were only one factor to be taken into consideration. Sales alone do not mean that a game is successful in all spectrums of what is considered "success." And that was the point you were trying to make, and apparently still are.

Secondly, do we know just how many people actually bought the game twice? We don't, and realistically, we probably can't. Or, if a person did buy it twice, do we know if they still own the original copy they purchased? There's no real way of knowing for certain.



Lukewarm doesn't necessarily mean bad. As I previously stated, many people who considered it a disappointment still enjoyed it for what it was. A game can be a disappointment but still be a fun experience. I thought I made it very clear that the game received only a few of what could legitimately be considered "bad" reviews.



You're still not understanding what I'm saying. People will enjoy it for what it is and obviously still play it. I never disputed that. They enjoy it for what it is. But when compared to other titles in their respective genres, few would say that it actually surpassed them.

For example, many people consider it to be a better game than Dead Space, but few, even among that select group of people, would argue that it's a better survival horror experience than Dead Space.



They absolutely do mean all that much. As I've said countless times, sales are not the only factor taken into consideration when developing the next game in a series. Developers have to look at what people thought of the game, both the good and bad, and take that into consideration when developing a sequel. This includes reading reviews, looking at message boards, even going so far as to ask gamers directly what they did or did not like about the title. This is how games are improved with each sequel.



Except no one was just reading the initial reactions to the game. People still have the same issues with it today as they did when it first came out. It's that way with pretty much every game ever made. That doesn't mean they can't still enjoy it or play it.

But Capcom cannot just rest on its laurels and look solely at the fact that the game sold gangbusters or that people are still playing it a year later. They have to look at the criticisms just as much as they do the praises. Otherwise the series will grow stale if they simply rehash the same game over and over again.



Again, my point wasn't that it couldn't compete with other games. Perhaps I could have worded it better, but my point was that when it is looked at strictly as a survival horror title or strictly as a third person shooter, few would argue that it holds up to the basic criteria most people consider to be hallmarks or necessities of each respective genre. Again, that does not mean that they cannot or will not enjoy it for what it is.

Capcom just needs to figure out exactly what they want to do with this franchise. If they want to turn it into a full blown first person shooter, then they can't let certain remnant game mechanics from the past hold them back. Likewise, if they want to return the series to its survival horror roots, then they need to go in the direction of Lost in Nightmares rather than the main game, and certainly not Desperate Escape.

Capcom needs to commit to one or the other, or at least find a way to strike a better balance between the two. This is just my opinion, but one of the biggest issues with Resident Evil 5 is that it tried to be too many things to too many people. It was, as the saying goes, a "jack of all trades, but master of none." It lacked a singular focus or vision. Lost in Nightmares and Desperate Escape each demonstrate just such a singular vision.

So each scenario offers a possible future direction for the series to take. My biggest question right now is if there is anyone at Capcom who can achieve the fullest potential of either direction.



Perhaps I'm coming off as a lot harsher than I intend to, because I really do consider it a solid title, and I enjoyed it for what it was. Do I still consider it a disappointment? Yes, but I still have fun with it. I just have to take it for what it is and not compare it to other games.

I agree that you must have a good product for a game to be a long term success. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with Resident Evil 5. It's well-made, it has a solid foundation, and the presentation is excellent. Again, many people who consider it a disappointment still consider a solid, even good, game. There are very few who would outright call it a bad game.

But again, for a series to continue to flourish, the developers have to take into consideration all aspects of the game's reception, both good and bad. Just because people are still playing it and buying it now does not mean that a large number of people do not take issue with some of the design choices, and those people have every right to be heard as those who unequivocally loved the game.

I'm not saying every person who just goes around yelling "IT SUCKS!!!11!!1!one" should be given the time of day, but there are lots of people who can provide a thoughtful, relatively unbiased critique of the game, and these need to be taken into consideration by Capcom when developing the next game.



See, now that's surprising. When you consider the live action viral videos, all of the public demonstrations they had for the game (especially that one where they displayed it on the side of a hotel building), the viral websites (though I suppose these probably don't cost anything to make), etc.

RE5 was my least favorite game in the series, I liked it about the same as CVX, I'd given it about a 6/10. Only part I liked was the bit with the Lickers and Jill's battle.

But LIN and DE both blew me away! I loved them, better than RE5 in their entirely. And makes me love RE5 so much more. Definitely lifts the package up to a 8/10 easily. But LIN and DE are so different to RE5 I don't even want to class it as the same game.

I want to class them as their own little games, they are so brilliant, I'd give both LIN and DE easy 9.5's out of 10.

I open the door and walk into this thread. A huge wall of text stands before me, even my magnum cannot hurt it.

Why would they not try to market RE5 as much as they did? I really do not think they could of spent all that much on it to be honest. The live action viral videos had no name actors and not anything that would be hard to film. If I had the people, I could make similiar quality videos with my camera and put them on youtube. The only gripe I have about the marketing is how much they choose to show in their trailers. Other then that they did a fantastic job.

-Website was top notch
-Adam's Blog was a fun read while waiting for the game
-BSAA websites (along with their updates) were good for the buildup
-Live Action viral videos really got people speculating
-Trailers gave away a little too much but I have to admit that the showing of Jill Valentine's gravestone at the end of one of them was brilliant...they shouldn't of had anymore trailers after that.

I was in on the hype and honestly the first time I played through the game...it lived up to the hype. I don't go around nitpicking story elements or wishing something had gone a different direction. It diminished after numerous playthroughs but that is to be expected.

The DLC added alot to an already great game, I think everyone assumed there would be DLC since RE4 gave us the Ada missions and really I think too many people try to compare Ada's Seperate Ways to the DLC of RE5. Ada's content is a bit longer but the RE5 DLC is far more rich in enjoyability. The only gripe I have with it, is that it doesn't seem to fit with the pacing of the original game when you pair them together. If you play DE between chapter 6-2 and 6-3...the climax of DE is far better then that of RE5. LiN is a good playthrough before you play the main game though.