Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This one caught me off-guard and it's kinda hilarious how true it is
Yeah, this doesn't smell right at all.
Game has a lot of potential, but the playerbase isn't there to justify pumping in too many resources or even Dev time.
There's probably more people in the world playing Train Simulator 2018 with 500USD worth of DLC right now than an actual RE licensed multiplayer title.
Yikes.
with a little bit of balancing this game could be chess match of epic fun, it doesnt even need to change the core mechanics, just the balance and vaules of some things
I mean metal gear survive had a more players at launch, or heck for a month if had over 4000 players (peak at above 7000) and it costed 40$ at launch so seeing RE resistance with such a low playerbase + it was sold with RE3...........
There's a reason why more people playing brain-dead games. Nobody want to lose. This is why all skill-based games like Quake or Starcraft 2 have smallest playerbase in compare with other.
After 60 hours of playing as MM I decided that Resistance is very skill-based, most teams lose to me because they think this game is some sort of "walk on the beach", but it's not, they have to understand abilities, characters and develop strategy against good MM.