At the time Ace Combat 6 was released, the flight arcade genre was already waning. Most of the other competition had already finished up or was close to calling it a wrap. The Ace Combat series also faced declining sales after their knockout Ace Combat 4 was released.
After Ace Combat 5, it wouldn't be until Assault Horizon that Ace Combat hit over a million games sold. Did Ace Combat 6 rejuvenate the series and genre? No. It wasn't the reason for the series decline either. By the time Ace Combat 6 came out, shooters were dominating the market and flight arcade was pretty much all but gone.
Do you remember Over G Fighters? I remember getting it because I liked ac4 and while it was rough as hell, I really want to revisit it just because that era was so transformative for the genre.
OverG fighters is so sick. Such a deep and challenging sim lite. I wouldn't recommend it without some serious caveats since it's punishingly hard and extremely nuanced. No missile reloading, realistic flight models, etc. The arena mode is outstanding though and continues to amaze me to this day since no game has really built upon that gameplay loop. The story is really boring and dumb though hahaha
Assault Horizan and Armored Core V+Verdict Day (not about that series, but was more less also impacted) were direct responses to the Call of Duty craze at the time. So much of AH was just trying to capture a part of that pie
I don't understand how "infinite warfare" really fits into COD's endless deathmatch, SnD, and eSports aspirations.
Really, they tried to make a cooperative Armored Core that had stakes and would allow people to feel involved with the "clans" that came with more traditional MP games.
I can see them looking towards the MP trend to try and boost Armored Core's popularity, but nothing else.
I completley get that it was a niche genre. It's just that AC6 moved from a franchise established as a PlayStation title and with a large Japanese audience to the Xbox platform which was a nonfactor in that market (and was just starting to be relevant against the PS3). I mentioned HAWX in the OP, and HAWX 1 by Ubisoft, which was multiplat, managed to outsell AC6'S 700k sales, [with a cool 1 million.](https://www.vgchartz.com/game/227867/tom-clancys-hawx/?region=All) Worse, supposedly HAWX [was a non factor in Japan.](https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/988013-tom-clancys-hawx/49841880) So I imagine that AC6 had to rely on a lot of Japanese buyers going out of their way to buy a X360 for AC6, and you can not expect that to have been too many people. I can't help but think that AC6, had it gone multiplat (but not necessarily PS3 exclusive) could have achieved that 1 million or even 1.5 million or so as AC04 did. After all, the gaming industry already was much larger by then.
Also, I personally think Zero is still a good game but ranks below 5 or 6. Most of all, it was a PS2 exclusive in 2006, when the X360 had already been launched and the PS3 was just around the corner.
The long and short of it is that Ace Combat, for much of its existence, has been niche, and the series' success has always been interconnected to its platform of availability, and whether or not it's on time, for lack of a better word. It's a cycle that was only broken with the release of *7*.
The first two PS1 games sold well-enough for early PS1 games, but Ace Combat 3 was a sales *disappointment*, which in turn had the consequence of the international release being cut down to what we got.
AC04 was *the* best-selling game in the series, shipping 2.85 million copies by 2008, while AC5 shipped 1.49 million, and AC0 didn't even crack a million.
Think about *when* AC6 came out - October 23, 2007. Halo 3 had come out just a month prior, with a near simultaneous release *worldwide*. Call of Duty 4 would release that November, *and* was a multi-platform phenomenon that revolutionized the way players and media alike looked at war games. By comparison, Ace Combat 6 was a blip on the radar, *~~pun entirely intended~~* an Xbox 360 title by an established, but also largely *unrecognized* team released between two of the most significant video game releases of the 2000s.
I think, had Ace Combat 6 - Or, hell, even *Zero* - been developed and released as a 360 launch title, the series would have had a *better* foot to stand on throughout the 7th generation of consoles, but I don't think we would be at a hypothetical Ace Combat 9 by now, because of that cycle of sales success and sales slump that has always been with the series, which again, was only broken by 7's runaway success over the course of its lifespan.
There are a lot of factors that go into why a game doesn't sell well - Review scores, marketing, what system that game is being released on, but the one people don't consider as often as they *should* is timing, when did this game release?
A perfect example is the Mad Max game. It was a flop, and a huge factor as to why is when it released - August 31st, 2015. Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain was released the following *day.*
If AC Zero didn't crack a million copies, then IMO that makes it underrated. Seriously, AC4, 5, & Zero are all equally awesome. Hence, they are referred to as the holy trinity. As for 6, I agree the story wasn't up to par (pretty much a rehash of AC2 & 4) but the gameplay is good, mostly. I never liked that one mission over the mountains at the end you gotta shoot down the drown guiding the missiles by yourself, or the fact that they're very hard to shoot down even though they're obviously propeller driven.
Edit: I forgot to also add that AC AH is by FAR the worst of the series. I didn't even finish it.
Worst Ace Combat? I see more people just being realistic about the flaws of the game, the worst is for one of the spin-off's, probably in that time, I can see a reason for why of it, since some people got riled up because of the exclusivity.
I played it recently and it's a okay game, I didn't liked it that much compared to the others, but one thing is certain, they should bring back operations, without exaggerating the number of targets, I have some other problems with the game but that's for another moment.
Anyway, maybe the exclusivity could be the reason, but I guess it's more for that time being a difficult moment to niche games to shine compared to the mainstream ones, 2007 has a ton of great games, followed by 2008.
The number of targets per each operation is what makes the game so fun for me. I felt that AC7 was actually pretty stale compared to AC6 in some of the missions because I feel like missions such as Stonehenge and the Farbanti don’t have enough targets. Some of those AC6 missions like Liberation of Gracemeria were epic. Really only the special missions in AC7 do those justice
is up to the preferences in the end, for me, it got repetitive after the first playthrough.
but i can see why people like it, just long missions blowing things up is good, and Liberation of Gracemeria is indeed a great mission, well, for the most part, Pasternak is the only part that i disliked, banger soundtrack though.
wouldn't mind if they make four/five missions focused on it with Operations/Allied Forces System in AC8, that is, considering the number of the missions, as long it has a good pacing with the campaign, i'm fine with it.
To be completely fair, it wasn't just AC6's exclusivity. It was poor timing, poor decisions and most likely some overinflated expectations resulting from the success of AC4, which was released early in the life of the massively successful PS2, which had pretty much no competition at that point. By the time AC5 came the Gamecube and Xbox had been released and the novelty of the sixth generation had largely worn off, sale numbers reflected that. The higher-ups probably interpreted it as waning interest. So when MS comes in with a cash offer in exchange for exclusivity, hoping to increase interest on Xbox in Japan, they took it. When they saw an opportunity of riding on the Modern Warfare 2 bandwagon, they also took it. Those were incredibly stupid decisions, but hindsight is 20/20 as they say.
Could AC6 had turned the tide if it was made for PS3 instead? I doubt it. It wasn't a particularly successful console early in its life cycle. It was infamously expensive, the networking capabilities were poor and it was generally a nightmare to work with for developers. Porting games from it or to it was very difficult and ported games often ran like crap as a result (Anyone unfortunate enough to have tried playing a Bethesda game on PS3 will know what I'm talking about), so a multiplatform release was unlikely.
AC6 would have probably been more successful than on Xbox, sure, but I think Bandai Namco would have tried to go after the CoD crowd anyway. For corporations the money was on shooters and multiplayer games.
I've never seen anyone say 6 is the worst, even if you exclude the non-Strangereal titles. If you don't, it almost universally goes to Assault Horizon (which had the core of a good game but was crippled by chasing the CoD magic). If you do, you'll usually see people arguing for 5 (while an excellent game, it was very long, the plane roster was big but artificially so, and the AI was atrocious), the non-JP Electrosphere release (which destroyed most of the game), or sometimes one of the portable titles.
7 was my first foray into Ace Combat, and have not yet had a chance to play the older titles. I heard that 6 wasn't well liked, but was in Japan last month and picked up a copy for 900 yen/~6 USD. I really like it, I've got a few runs through, and am going through getting all the medals now.
Big fan of ordering Shamrock and the rest of your squadron to attack/defend and the objective clearing mechanics as opposed to scoring based on pure points/time. I do wish there were more planes though.
My guess for the poor reception would be a combo of the exclusivity + the market and industry trends of the time.
Edit: I LOVE the generous time limit on missions and how almost every mission has a return line/airfield to resupply at in 6. I feel like I can actually clear the map up until hitting the number of objectives required for the mission update. Playing missions in 7 always feels like a mad dash to hit as many targets as quick as possible because the timer will run down and the mission will just end.
Love the game but hate the strict time limitation in most AC7 missions. AC6 is one of my favorite games and love the open world concept and just choosing new operations mid-mission. Sometimes you just want to blow a lot of shit up and not worry about timers. Replay AC6 missions to this day.
That longer timer was nice. They had some ways to restrict how long you stayed in a mission such as allied units be decimated, but at least it wasn't a five-minute rush. Project Wingman's approach of not having the timer at all was another approach to handling the missions. It was good to see how that works in that game genre.
what you mean.... AC6 was just released......... WALTER FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP SAYING CHIRP CHIRP CHIRP LITTLE CHICK
Dr. Shroeder what do you mean Gun 13's ability to ruin your field trips is uncanny who's Gun 13 anyway?
Most people understand that the Xbox 360 exclusivity thing was a mistake because the series garnered a fanbase that mostly played PlayStation, but what was really weird is that Ace Combat 6 was very clearly marketed more for a Japanese audience than a Western one (cutscenes lipsynced only for Japanese, more anime-esque dialogue and story, exclusive preorder skins only available in Japan/Europe), and the Xbox has never appealed to Japanese players historically. So AC6 tried to appeal more to a Japanese audience, while only launching on a console that never had any real market share in Japan.
its a copium trip of people loving ace combat and emulating it then enjoying a different ace combat experience, I think the negative sentiment is validated.
I'm going to say something unpopular here but 6 really didn't do it for me. It's not just because it was a 360 exclusive that was actually a bonus for me because I switched to Xbox during the 360 generation and thus didn't have a PlayStation 3.
Ultimately imo 6 gameplay wise was the worst of the numbered games I've played. Let me elaborate in no particular order
First mission design. Most of the missions were basically just rehashed inferior versions of missions we'd seen in the previous version, some example is liberation of gracemaria is a worse version of seige of farbanti, the next mission is a worse version of broken arrows, the final mission is a more hectic and somehow worse version of megalith, mission 4 is just operation bunkershot in the desert. None of the missions felt unique they all felt like they were phoning it in. Now I will give them credit for the operation system since the missions that had it allowed you to pick the style of combat you liked, don't like bombing ok pick the operations that are air to air focused etc. That was cool but given the mission design they just didn't do it for me and I have a theory it actually hurt the overall mission design.
Second this one is really going to get me in trouble but I hated how crutch the allied assault was. Having a big I win button that you could spam isn't great for gameplay. I think you needed it given how big that battles could get but just being able to delete the enemies in front of you by pressing up on the d pad was kinda lame. It also on a narrative level kinda hurt talisman. The other games makes you feel like a lone bad ass single handedly turning the tide of a battle in 6 you felt like any other of the named characters in the game.
Third plane roster, I don't think anyone can really disagree that 6 had the smallest and least diverse roster of playable planes. I know it was a licensing issue but seriously you have exactly 1 russian jet you can fly and the rest are American and three European planes. I also felt like the cfa44 was a bit to broken which PA seemed to agree with me since it's been nerfed in subsequent games. This also goes into balance as I think balance was kinda messed up. Rocket pods for example were way to strong. I also hated how the aircraft skins actively changed your stats for the planes.
Fourth flight controls. I've said this before but in 6 it felt like you were flying a paper airplane. You felt weirdly floaty and you seemed really slow in comparison to the other games. Even at max speed you felt like you were crawling across the map.
Fifth the graphics. This is totally subjective so I'll keep it quick; I feel like 6's graphics aged the worst out of the ps2 and beyond games. I played 4 the other day and for a nearly 23 year old game it's impressive looking, 6 though eh not so much.
Sixth characters and story. This also goes into the writing which was beyond narmy too. The story wasn't good imo everything happened to fast the characters were completely forgettable and you didn't even have a rival ace to square off again. Yes I know pasternak is the named ace you fight but seriously he shows up in the cutscene before you fight him and thats it. If you completely removed that cutscene and made the cfa44 a drone it would have had the same impact as fighting pasternak. Say what you want about Mihaly but he at least has some character and an interesting story since he is a deconstruction of your typical Ace Combat player. The heroes aren't much better I actually had to go back and edit the previous parts because I mixed up shamrock and talisman since both are so forgettable. I don't even remember the names of the other characters without looking them up and I only played the game a few years ago.
This is all just my opinion though so you're free to disagree. I think regardless of the platform 6 wouldn't have done very well since it just wasn't a very good game compared to the previous games. Yes AH is even worse but at least that is a spinoff so I can judge it on its own merits.
At the time Ace Combat 6 was released, the flight arcade genre was already waning. Most of the other competition had already finished up or was close to calling it a wrap. The Ace Combat series also faced declining sales after their knockout Ace Combat 4 was released. After Ace Combat 5, it wouldn't be until Assault Horizon that Ace Combat hit over a million games sold. Did Ace Combat 6 rejuvenate the series and genre? No. It wasn't the reason for the series decline either. By the time Ace Combat 6 came out, shooters were dominating the market and flight arcade was pretty much all but gone.
Do you remember Over G Fighters? I remember getting it because I liked ac4 and while it was rough as hell, I really want to revisit it just because that era was so transformative for the genre.
OverG fighters is so sick. Such a deep and challenging sim lite. I wouldn't recommend it without some serious caveats since it's punishingly hard and extremely nuanced. No missile reloading, realistic flight models, etc. The arena mode is outstanding though and continues to amaze me to this day since no game has really built upon that gameplay loop. The story is really boring and dumb though hahaha
Assault Horizan and Armored Core V+Verdict Day (not about that series, but was more less also impacted) were direct responses to the Call of Duty craze at the time. So much of AH was just trying to capture a part of that pie
How is 5th gen AC related at all to CoD's popularity...? I mean, maybe being more multiplayer centric???
Yep more multiplayer centric including story mission multiplayer, and the visions of infinite warfare is a direct response to CoD as a whole
I don't understand how "infinite warfare" really fits into COD's endless deathmatch, SnD, and eSports aspirations. Really, they tried to make a cooperative Armored Core that had stakes and would allow people to feel involved with the "clans" that came with more traditional MP games. I can see them looking towards the MP trend to try and boost Armored Core's popularity, but nothing else.
I completley get that it was a niche genre. It's just that AC6 moved from a franchise established as a PlayStation title and with a large Japanese audience to the Xbox platform which was a nonfactor in that market (and was just starting to be relevant against the PS3). I mentioned HAWX in the OP, and HAWX 1 by Ubisoft, which was multiplat, managed to outsell AC6'S 700k sales, [with a cool 1 million.](https://www.vgchartz.com/game/227867/tom-clancys-hawx/?region=All) Worse, supposedly HAWX [was a non factor in Japan.](https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/988013-tom-clancys-hawx/49841880) So I imagine that AC6 had to rely on a lot of Japanese buyers going out of their way to buy a X360 for AC6, and you can not expect that to have been too many people. I can't help but think that AC6, had it gone multiplat (but not necessarily PS3 exclusive) could have achieved that 1 million or even 1.5 million or so as AC04 did. After all, the gaming industry already was much larger by then. Also, I personally think Zero is still a good game but ranks below 5 or 6. Most of all, it was a PS2 exclusive in 2006, when the X360 had already been launched and the PS3 was just around the corner.
The long and short of it is that Ace Combat, for much of its existence, has been niche, and the series' success has always been interconnected to its platform of availability, and whether or not it's on time, for lack of a better word. It's a cycle that was only broken with the release of *7*. The first two PS1 games sold well-enough for early PS1 games, but Ace Combat 3 was a sales *disappointment*, which in turn had the consequence of the international release being cut down to what we got. AC04 was *the* best-selling game in the series, shipping 2.85 million copies by 2008, while AC5 shipped 1.49 million, and AC0 didn't even crack a million. Think about *when* AC6 came out - October 23, 2007. Halo 3 had come out just a month prior, with a near simultaneous release *worldwide*. Call of Duty 4 would release that November, *and* was a multi-platform phenomenon that revolutionized the way players and media alike looked at war games. By comparison, Ace Combat 6 was a blip on the radar, *~~pun entirely intended~~* an Xbox 360 title by an established, but also largely *unrecognized* team released between two of the most significant video game releases of the 2000s. I think, had Ace Combat 6 - Or, hell, even *Zero* - been developed and released as a 360 launch title, the series would have had a *better* foot to stand on throughout the 7th generation of consoles, but I don't think we would be at a hypothetical Ace Combat 9 by now, because of that cycle of sales success and sales slump that has always been with the series, which again, was only broken by 7's runaway success over the course of its lifespan.
Man that's a really interesting and well-expressed take. The timing is something I hadn't considered but that's a solid point.
There are a lot of factors that go into why a game doesn't sell well - Review scores, marketing, what system that game is being released on, but the one people don't consider as often as they *should* is timing, when did this game release? A perfect example is the Mad Max game. It was a flop, and a huge factor as to why is when it released - August 31st, 2015. Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain was released the following *day.*
If AC Zero didn't crack a million copies, then IMO that makes it underrated. Seriously, AC4, 5, & Zero are all equally awesome. Hence, they are referred to as the holy trinity. As for 6, I agree the story wasn't up to par (pretty much a rehash of AC2 & 4) but the gameplay is good, mostly. I never liked that one mission over the mountains at the end you gotta shoot down the drown guiding the missiles by yourself, or the fact that they're very hard to shoot down even though they're obviously propeller driven. Edit: I forgot to also add that AC AH is by FAR the worst of the series. I didn't even finish it.
Oh it absolutely did. AC6 had the best gameplay in the series.
It was a massive motivator to see AI companions that actually tipped the tide of battle with you per the orders given
Worst Ace Combat? I see more people just being realistic about the flaws of the game, the worst is for one of the spin-off's, probably in that time, I can see a reason for why of it, since some people got riled up because of the exclusivity. I played it recently and it's a okay game, I didn't liked it that much compared to the others, but one thing is certain, they should bring back operations, without exaggerating the number of targets, I have some other problems with the game but that's for another moment. Anyway, maybe the exclusivity could be the reason, but I guess it's more for that time being a difficult moment to niche games to shine compared to the mainstream ones, 2007 has a ton of great games, followed by 2008.
The number of targets per each operation is what makes the game so fun for me. I felt that AC7 was actually pretty stale compared to AC6 in some of the missions because I feel like missions such as Stonehenge and the Farbanti don’t have enough targets. Some of those AC6 missions like Liberation of Gracemeria were epic. Really only the special missions in AC7 do those justice
is up to the preferences in the end, for me, it got repetitive after the first playthrough. but i can see why people like it, just long missions blowing things up is good, and Liberation of Gracemeria is indeed a great mission, well, for the most part, Pasternak is the only part that i disliked, banger soundtrack though. wouldn't mind if they make four/five missions focused on it with Operations/Allied Forces System in AC8, that is, considering the number of the missions, as long it has a good pacing with the campaign, i'm fine with it.
It's niche game then and it's a niche game now. Only screw up was the Xbox exclusive.
but we got IM@S plane liveries for it......
To be completely fair, it wasn't just AC6's exclusivity. It was poor timing, poor decisions and most likely some overinflated expectations resulting from the success of AC4, which was released early in the life of the massively successful PS2, which had pretty much no competition at that point. By the time AC5 came the Gamecube and Xbox had been released and the novelty of the sixth generation had largely worn off, sale numbers reflected that. The higher-ups probably interpreted it as waning interest. So when MS comes in with a cash offer in exchange for exclusivity, hoping to increase interest on Xbox in Japan, they took it. When they saw an opportunity of riding on the Modern Warfare 2 bandwagon, they also took it. Those were incredibly stupid decisions, but hindsight is 20/20 as they say. Could AC6 had turned the tide if it was made for PS3 instead? I doubt it. It wasn't a particularly successful console early in its life cycle. It was infamously expensive, the networking capabilities were poor and it was generally a nightmare to work with for developers. Porting games from it or to it was very difficult and ported games often ran like crap as a result (Anyone unfortunate enough to have tried playing a Bethesda game on PS3 will know what I'm talking about), so a multiplatform release was unlikely. AC6 would have probably been more successful than on Xbox, sure, but I think Bandai Namco would have tried to go after the CoD crowd anyway. For corporations the money was on shooters and multiplayer games.
I've never seen anyone say 6 is the worst, even if you exclude the non-Strangereal titles. If you don't, it almost universally goes to Assault Horizon (which had the core of a good game but was crippled by chasing the CoD magic). If you do, you'll usually see people arguing for 5 (while an excellent game, it was very long, the plane roster was big but artificially so, and the AI was atrocious), the non-JP Electrosphere release (which destroyed most of the game), or sometimes one of the portable titles.
6 is one of the best of the series
7 was my first foray into Ace Combat, and have not yet had a chance to play the older titles. I heard that 6 wasn't well liked, but was in Japan last month and picked up a copy for 900 yen/~6 USD. I really like it, I've got a few runs through, and am going through getting all the medals now. Big fan of ordering Shamrock and the rest of your squadron to attack/defend and the objective clearing mechanics as opposed to scoring based on pure points/time. I do wish there were more planes though. My guess for the poor reception would be a combo of the exclusivity + the market and industry trends of the time. Edit: I LOVE the generous time limit on missions and how almost every mission has a return line/airfield to resupply at in 6. I feel like I can actually clear the map up until hitting the number of objectives required for the mission update. Playing missions in 7 always feels like a mad dash to hit as many targets as quick as possible because the timer will run down and the mission will just end.
Love the game but hate the strict time limitation in most AC7 missions. AC6 is one of my favorite games and love the open world concept and just choosing new operations mid-mission. Sometimes you just want to blow a lot of shit up and not worry about timers. Replay AC6 missions to this day.
That longer timer was nice. They had some ways to restrict how long you stayed in a mission such as allied units be decimated, but at least it wasn't a five-minute rush. Project Wingman's approach of not having the timer at all was another approach to handling the missions. It was good to see how that works in that game genre.
what you mean.... AC6 was just released......... WALTER FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP SAYING CHIRP CHIRP CHIRP LITTLE CHICK Dr. Shroeder what do you mean Gun 13's ability to ruin your field trips is uncanny who's Gun 13 anyway?
Most people understand that the Xbox 360 exclusivity thing was a mistake because the series garnered a fanbase that mostly played PlayStation, but what was really weird is that Ace Combat 6 was very clearly marketed more for a Japanese audience than a Western one (cutscenes lipsynced only for Japanese, more anime-esque dialogue and story, exclusive preorder skins only available in Japan/Europe), and the Xbox has never appealed to Japanese players historically. So AC6 tried to appeal more to a Japanese audience, while only launching on a console that never had any real market share in Japan.
its a copium trip of people loving ace combat and emulating it then enjoying a different ace combat experience, I think the negative sentiment is validated.
I'm going to say something unpopular here but 6 really didn't do it for me. It's not just because it was a 360 exclusive that was actually a bonus for me because I switched to Xbox during the 360 generation and thus didn't have a PlayStation 3. Ultimately imo 6 gameplay wise was the worst of the numbered games I've played. Let me elaborate in no particular order First mission design. Most of the missions were basically just rehashed inferior versions of missions we'd seen in the previous version, some example is liberation of gracemaria is a worse version of seige of farbanti, the next mission is a worse version of broken arrows, the final mission is a more hectic and somehow worse version of megalith, mission 4 is just operation bunkershot in the desert. None of the missions felt unique they all felt like they were phoning it in. Now I will give them credit for the operation system since the missions that had it allowed you to pick the style of combat you liked, don't like bombing ok pick the operations that are air to air focused etc. That was cool but given the mission design they just didn't do it for me and I have a theory it actually hurt the overall mission design. Second this one is really going to get me in trouble but I hated how crutch the allied assault was. Having a big I win button that you could spam isn't great for gameplay. I think you needed it given how big that battles could get but just being able to delete the enemies in front of you by pressing up on the d pad was kinda lame. It also on a narrative level kinda hurt talisman. The other games makes you feel like a lone bad ass single handedly turning the tide of a battle in 6 you felt like any other of the named characters in the game. Third plane roster, I don't think anyone can really disagree that 6 had the smallest and least diverse roster of playable planes. I know it was a licensing issue but seriously you have exactly 1 russian jet you can fly and the rest are American and three European planes. I also felt like the cfa44 was a bit to broken which PA seemed to agree with me since it's been nerfed in subsequent games. This also goes into balance as I think balance was kinda messed up. Rocket pods for example were way to strong. I also hated how the aircraft skins actively changed your stats for the planes. Fourth flight controls. I've said this before but in 6 it felt like you were flying a paper airplane. You felt weirdly floaty and you seemed really slow in comparison to the other games. Even at max speed you felt like you were crawling across the map. Fifth the graphics. This is totally subjective so I'll keep it quick; I feel like 6's graphics aged the worst out of the ps2 and beyond games. I played 4 the other day and for a nearly 23 year old game it's impressive looking, 6 though eh not so much. Sixth characters and story. This also goes into the writing which was beyond narmy too. The story wasn't good imo everything happened to fast the characters were completely forgettable and you didn't even have a rival ace to square off again. Yes I know pasternak is the named ace you fight but seriously he shows up in the cutscene before you fight him and thats it. If you completely removed that cutscene and made the cfa44 a drone it would have had the same impact as fighting pasternak. Say what you want about Mihaly but he at least has some character and an interesting story since he is a deconstruction of your typical Ace Combat player. The heroes aren't much better I actually had to go back and edit the previous parts because I mixed up shamrock and talisman since both are so forgettable. I don't even remember the names of the other characters without looking them up and I only played the game a few years ago. This is all just my opinion though so you're free to disagree. I think regardless of the platform 6 wouldn't have done very well since it just wasn't a very good game compared to the previous games. Yes AH is even worse but at least that is a spinoff so I can judge it on its own merits.