Resident Evil Community |OT| Got some rare things on sale, stranger!

Furisco · Nov 4, 2017

Yeah... People need to stop saying they have nothing against a certain title and then proceed to shit on it just because it's not the type of Resident Evil they enjoy.

Hopefully Capcom will support both fanbases from now on and sell a shitload of copies.

Dreamboum · Nov 4, 2017

For real, treating RE6 as a success while considering 7 as a failure is such a revisionist stance considering the budget is like night and day, on two different genres no less.

RE6 didn't even come close to 5 and it was on a much tighter budget that didn't include four campaign that are infinity long.

Deleted member 152 · Nov 4, 2017

Blackbird said:
In all ways possible i see RE6 as a "careful what you wish for" style game. It's weird to mee seeing you diminishing not only RE7 but the FP format in every opportunity you can. I may sound a little bit aggressive and hot headed right now, but it's just hard to see everytime people trying to give the impression that Resident Evil 7 was a failure in every way possible. I see people saying like "give this perspective/format one last time" as it needs to be changed asap or Capcom will go down within the next hour.

Yes, RE6 sold better on it's first months. But it was also that huge letdown for the Company not because it didn't sold well comparing to older RE's at the time (except RE5), but because it was supposed to be a game changer inside the franchise and reach every fan possible, making even people that didn't know the franchise as well to make the jump. It had a "blend" of genres, three different campaigns unlocked from the start (with a bonus one as you finish them), epic setpieces on a giant scale and co-op with even four players at the same time in many moments of each path. And i'm not even talking about the extra modes offered inside the title. It was one of the biggest (if not the most) projects inside the entire lifetime of Capcom, and it should have been at least the most profitable from the Resident Evil franchise, but it wasn't.

The production value inside that game is just insane and i just can't see the actual Capcom we know now doing a title in the same scope so soon again, especially after the incredible amout of damage which the company got from the past years, incluiding from RE6 itself.

I'm not saying all of that because i want to see the action horror side of the series going away, but its so weird to see the jump of logics inside the RE fandom while talking of both Resident Evil 7 and RE6, comparing their sales blindly and filling the chest with authority just because they wanted to see more action titles/their type of title didn't do horribly, it's almost like many of you forgot how incredibly damaging this game was on it's first years out there. Many people who knows the franchise for a long time and have been working closer to gaming development (inside information is always better) tried to come out and say why it was actually not fair to treat Resident Evil 6 like a big success or even a more successful title than RE7.

If you go down a few pages ago Dusk Golem said exactly how they actually feel about RE7 and even in the past, cvxfreak, which is even writing a book about the creation/growth of the entire franchise through out the years, said some interesting things about why the development costs of Resident Evil 6 were higher than it's sequence. But using the context that Capcom haven't said anything about the game being a failure as shield, some people treated him horribly and he even deleted his comments about it.

People need to realize that from the beginning, RE7 wasn't trying to top the scope and target sales from Resident Evil 6 in any ways, they knew from the start that this change wouldn't please everyone and that's why they expect a even smaller amount of sales. That being said, the game had a respectful amount of sales compared to it's own expectations from Capcom.

RE6 originally was expected to sell initially 7M units (the highest number of sales inside the whole series at the time, even surpassing RE5 which was on 6M) but it managed to get 4.8M, while RE7 got 3.5M of 4M. The company even used the word failure to express the uneven results on it's own reports by 2013:

Look, i'm not trying to start a fight with you Jaw or even Cyberpunk. I know that the vast majority of fans inside the RE fandom loves action and actually started to grow on the franchise after RE4, and i'm even sure that Resident Evil 7 probably won't ever reach RE6's entire lifetime sales. I don't want to see neither action or survival horror Resident Evil's going away and i know that we'll see more third person/action horror games in the near future.

I'm just exausted of seeing many hardcore RE fans or the majority which loves action trying to discredit RE7 in any way possible. Which i don't even know why, because they're basically on the vast majority inside RE fans and they will see more of their favorite type of game soon. Resident Evil 7 didn't replace any other title in the same veins or took the production by force, it was a natural and organic decision because it wasn't coming together as well. They needed a change and a fresh new air for this new trilogy, and even the development team wasn't achieving results and getting into some creative blocks because they didn't know were to go after RE6. That's why they contacted Takeuchi and he took over the project with a new team.

It's sad to see many people bashing the title and creating a surreal image for Resident Evil 7. Last week i saw a podcast with long time, hardcore RE fans with David Vaughn and one of them mentioned the game as a huge failure, saying that most fans didn't liked it and Capcom was in danger of maybe never making another RE title again. And that's from someone that participates on a big channel/community around Resident Evil for a looong time. It's creating a smoke mirror in front of the game, making people believe that it was the downfall of the entire series (even when RE6 had the same problems before) and one of the most hated titles inside the franchise. Which is completely unfair for one of the most praised games of 2017 (by critics and fans, just see a thread with each one's favorite games of the year or even user reviews) and a successful entrie for Capcom considering it's scope and target/sales. And that's even greater considering all amazing titles inside this year.

Btw, here's a link for context behind each image i posted earlier:

Destructoid: www.destructoid.com/resident-evil-6-is-officially-a-failure-243965.phtml

Rely on Horror: www.relyonhorror.com/latest-news/resident-evil-news/resident-evil-6-and-dmc-failed-to-meet-capcoms-sales-expectations/

Capcom's offical report: www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/news/html/e130204b.html

And if you liked RE7 in any way, i've made the most unsuccessful thread possible (i even consider it a massive failure, Capcom can cut me out after that for sure) about the story/plot of the game. It's a very personal opinion and i sincerely hope it's not a waste of your time: www.resetera.com/threads/resident-evil-7-and-daddy-issues-contain-spoilers.3732/

Excellent post Blackbird. Official reports with their shareholders do not lie to show the perspective on this.

There's three sub genres for each style of Resident Evil and I am sure the "Revelations" sub line will please the more action and game play mechanic routes. I think 7 is a great success when you compare it to the times of today and what we know on how they worked on this with budget and R & D. It's been a long time that Resident Evil gave me a sense of dread on exploring an unknown place with the Baker estate. It brought me back to the same experience I had with the first original two games and that's a tremendous feat to achieve in this day and age. It shows Capcom still has talented folk and not afraid to push back into barriers of the Resident Evil DNA when it feels the brand is in potential danger if the general audience and criticism with a certain style.

Resident Evil 7 is not a "careful what you wish for" by any means.

Dreamboum · Nov 4, 2017

I think the most important part of RE7 that was overlooked is that it brought back the same kind of social space that made the first REs so popular back in the day. The demo helped so much towards that, we wanted to know more, we tried to share tricks between each other, trying to find what were the requirements to advance in this derelict house. It was like the first RE, magazine sharing tips, trying to find out cool new stuff that were hidden between friends.

It was fun, it was unexpected. Resident Evil making a splash, remembering the huge gasps during E3 as the Resident Evil VII title card appeared, the cheers as the demo was available the same day. I think people are not realizing how huge of a thing that is, people were looking forward to a Resident Evil that wasn't the usual formula. Capcom reinvented the series again, and in hindsight I'm sure it'll be seen as a huge achievement, we're just at that "early RE4 stage" of disappointment that will be swept away in a few years. If VR did take off we wouldn't even have this discussion to begin with, this game *made* the accessory something to look forward to.

Phil's Empty Chair · Nov 4, 2017

I really enjoyed RE7's first half, the Mansion but after that it went downhill imo. I don't mind another first person Resi but I do hope they give REmake 2 the same treatment as the first and stick to static camera angles.

Deleted member 152 · Nov 4, 2017

A_R_N_O_S said:
I really enjoyed RE7's first half, the Mansion but after that it went downhill imo. I don't mind another first person Resi but I do hope they give REmake 2 the same treatment as the first and stick to static camera angles.

The best trio of design

Main titles - RE7-9 being first person survival horror and refine the formula with interesting scenarios
"Revelations"/Sub series - Traditional third person survival action horror with the best mechanics of 5 and 6 with coop play and mercs/raid
remakes - continue the classic design to match the legacy of prior titles and how REmake did it. This can easily work for 2, 3, and CV.

Golnei · Nov 4, 2017

Zombie Fred said:
Main titles - RE7-9 being first person survival horror and refine the formula with interesting scenarios
"Revelations"/Sub series - Traditional third person survival action horror with the best mechanics of 5 and 6 with coop play and mercs/raid
remakes - continue the classic design to match the legacy of prior titles and how REmake did it. This can easily work for 2, 3, and CV.

Keeping all three as concurrent styles of game without any massively obvious budget imbalances like Rev 2 would be ideal, but I'm not sure if that's what's actually going to happen.
RE7's confidence to commit to a single gameplay direction was refreshing, at least - hopefully RE8, the unannounced project and RE2 Remake can do the same rather than being diluted mashups of contradictory design elements which prevent them from fully delivering on their potential. And of course, that they don't suffer from Capcom standard production issues - as their main series, it shouldn't be as much of a factor, but still...

StallionDan · Nov 4, 2017

I hope first person view goes away.

If mainline are FPV it means we are left with budget titles for everything else. So missing features and short campaigns.

Revelations games are not a replacement for action titles.

Jawmuncher · Nov 4, 2017

Blackbird lol damn dude. I guess I was the straw that broke the camels back right there. I just want to state that with my post earlier it wasn't a knock on RE7 itself. Was more saying the series could've easily stayed alive and been successful without such a change was all I was getting at.

I wasn't saying we needed another RE6 style game. Rather another OTS of High quality I think would've been enough to appease most buyers was all. Like hypothetically if RE7 OTS had been something like "The best RE since 4" much like RE7 FPS has been touted as. I don't think keeping the OTS style would've mattered.

I'm not the biggest fan of RE7. But I can see the appeal of it for others and there are elements I like from it. To me RE7 is just a case of getting trying something new and not getting it right all the way. Which to be fair isn't exactly always going to be the case. I've said before in other threads I'm interested in seeing RE8 but with fixes to RE7s low points.

To loop this back around to RE2make the comment on "Careful what you wish for" was in relation to what RE2make could potentially be in terms of scope and gameplay. If capcom is aiming at a two pillar structure instead of three (horror and action rather than those along with classic). RE2make is potentially a game more akin to be something aimed at fans of RE4 (Since at this point I think they know even if they go full on action we'll never see it to the extent RE6 unless it's a spinoff).

So overall it's fine lol. I know the RE fanbase is rather passionate and we all have our dislikes and likes. I don't really knock anyone for what they like and if I do it's in a joking manner not meant to be taken that seriously.

Jawmuncher · Nov 4, 2017

Reading the other comments after blackbird I think a lot of people mistook what I was trying to say. I was talking in the scope of RE7 being what capcom sees as a "classic" title thus RE2make doesn't have to be that.

Then the other point was just the RE series wouldn't have just suddenly died if we did get another OTS game as RE7 instead of what we got. I never even said anything about RE6 being better or downplaying RE7 itself.

I was strictly talking from a hypothetical capcom business position.

Deleted member 1162 · Nov 4, 2017

random comment of personal feelings not related to the debate:

i really wish Resident Evil 6 came out on PC first. i expressed this before on another thread, what hurt my personal experience was the frame rate dipping during co-op on ps3/360. i triple dipped (ps3/360 at launch) and pc later.
i loved 5's co-op and was hoping to catch that magic at launch and was sad that my co-op buddies that i played with 5 abandoned me in the middle of 6 =( (i admit it was pretty uninspiring) these were the same guys who would go into resident evil 5, grab ammo and treasure. save. go back rinse and repeat, till we farmed stockpiles of ammo and money.
later when Re6 came out on pc it was amazingly better. but by the time i asked my friends to come back, the ship sailed for them and they were unto other games... =( i had no one to play with so i played by myself.... and it wasn't as engaging.

if i had to debate what i want in RE. i'd want tank controls permanent, no other option. fixed camera angles and no auto aim. that would be the perfect horror.

Deleted member 671 · Nov 4, 2017

What I will say about RE 6 is that it was doomed to fail right out of the gate. They essentially made three and a half games worth of content and smooshed it all into one cluster fuck of a game. A loveable cluster fuck, but a cluster fuck all the same. Their sales projections were also a load of bunk. 7 million sales in under six months for RE 6 was never going to happen, just like 2 million in 3 months was never going to happen with DmC due ot the massive changes to the look of the franchise and the PR nightmare, just like Dragon's Dogma was never gonna sell whatever ludicrous amount they wanted it to due to being such a huge project. 2010 to 2013 Capcom was out in left field with its expectations. Like I said, it's like Square Enix with the Tomb Raider reboot. 5.2 million sales in under 6 months is great, and it proved to have long legs, it just wasn't an "OMG SMASH HIT STOP THE PRESSES" like Capcom expected it to be.

kc44135 said:
I hear this a lot with REmake 2, but the problem with that for me is that it brings with it the connotation that classic RE gameplay is outdated, which I really can't agree with. Tank controls are outdated, but many games have shown it's more than possible to do fixed camera angles without them. Beyond that... I just don't see the issue with that style of gameplay? You have to auto-aim at enemies, but it's a system that works very well, and it allows for the game to have very specific/strict amounts of ammo due to it being unlikely you will miss. Those camera angles also just add so much atmosphere and personality to those older games, and make it feel like you're playing through a Horror movie (this was especially important for RE2, which was very cinematic for the time).

There are aspects of the older games that could use modernizing (real-time inventory, being able to use items without having to go into your inventory, being able to slowly move and shoot, perhaps a dodge/defense item mechanic, etc.), but that was what was so initially exciting about REmake 2 to me. It was a chance to revisit the classic style and make it better (just like REmake did for RE1), rather than turn RE2 into something unrecognizable. :/

I wouldn't say that it's outdated necessarily, however, it is harder to sell to a wide audience. Every single thread about the classic controls has a ton of people vehemently against them. So at the very least I would say that Capcom wouldn't go with Tank controls, which is a very core part of REmake's design.

Curious, though. Which games have had a fixed camera lately in the vein of RE 1 - 3? I can't think of any AAA titles in the past ten years that have.

How About No · Nov 4, 2017

CrimsonCrescendo said:
Curious, though. Which games have had a fixed camera lately in the vein of RE 1 - 3? I can't think of any AAA titles in the past ten years that have.

Not AAA but published by Activision, White Night

kc44135 · Nov 4, 2017

CrimsonCrescendo said:
I wouldn't say that it's outdated necessarily, however, it is harder to sell to a wide audience. Every single thread about the classic controls has a ton of people vehemently against them. So at the very least I would say that Capcom wouldn't go with Tank controls, which is a very core part of REmake's design.

Curious, though. Which games have had a fixed camera lately in the vein of RE 1 - 3? I can't think of any AAA titles in the past ten years that have.

Tank controls are outdated and unnecessary, even for a game with fixed camera angles. I'm cool with them myself, but I don't think there's any reason they would have to be forced on people in RE2. Maybe just make them an option (or put them on the D-pad) and leave it at that. For combat, you just have to make sure character's turning animations are slow enough that can't easily escape from an enemy, and/or ensure the AI's tracking on attacks is good enough to keep up with more nimble players (this was the problem with REmake HD; there were no anmiations for turning with the new controls, and the enemies weren't designed to keep up with players that could turn on a dime). RE: Outbreak, for instance, worked well as an RE title with both fixed camera angles and standard analog controls, and could be a great example of how to make RE2 work with modernized controls.

As for games that have fixed camera angles recently? Very few. Different genres, but DMC4 and God of War 3/Ascension had them. Until Dawn also featured them, as does Supermassive's new game from this year (forgot the name... Hidden... something, I think? It was a stealth release for whatever reason). The fact that there are so few games with fixed camera angles nowadays is why I want so badly for them to return. There are tons of FP and OTS Horror games out there now, but none with that perspective, or that can match the atmosphere and personality of those older RE games (I loved RE7, but it doesn't come close to the older games in terms of atmosphere for me).

Leo Sagittarius · Nov 4, 2017

I have a slight preference for OTS over the classic mode because from a horror point of view, I feel it adds to that claustrophobia feeling of having the zombies in your face at any moment.

Deleted member 1162 · Nov 4, 2017

that's a interesting idea. slow turning. it's about the same effect as having tanks controls.
one of the best things about RE was that the limitations created tension. whether it's ammo, ribbon tape or controls.
i'm just against having so called "improvements' to controls/movesets/ gameplay that break the tension.
example: having updated regular controls for Remake parallels to having something ridiculous like infinite ammo rocket launcher. just totally breaking the tension and gameplay.

once auto aim was introduced, the nice tension that was in Re1 psx was broken. the tension was gone from killing enemies off screen. everything was so comforting that gameplay reduced to a monotonous task running around with limited "tank" controls and tedious item management.

i felt from this ease of gameplay, people's desires evolved of wanting modern controls and more action. since the fixed angles were bc of hardware limitations and trying to get high polygon count on characters, tank controls were needed. now that limitation lifted, there is no logic sense for using fixed angles / tank controls.

all i'm saying is those limitations, unintentional or not, were elements that created the survival horror genre. i'd be for a faithful reaction of limited controls and camera angles but if re2 remake decides not to do this, i'd like the suggestion kc44123 made of making alternative limitations to recreate tension.

edit:
pls no auto aim:
i mean, how much tension could there be if you enter a new room, press L1 and your character instantly moves? you really going to be surprised or scared?

Furisco · Nov 4, 2017

StallionDan said:
I hope first person view goes away.

If mainline are FPV it means we are left with budget titles for everything else. So missing features and short campaigns.

Revelations games are not a replacement for action titles.

I hope the first person view stays on the mainline titles and we get a side OTS game with high production value.

kc44135 said:
Tank controls are outdated and unnecessary, even for a game with fixed camera angles. I'm cool with them myself, but I don't think there's any reason they would have to be forced on people in RE2. Maybe just make them an option (or put them on the D-pad) and leave it at that. For combat, you just have to make sure character's turning animations are slow enough that can't easily escape from an enemy, and/or ensure the AI's tracking on attacks is good enough to keep up with more nimble players (this was the problem with REmake HD; there were no anmiations for turning with the new controls, and the enemies weren't designed to keep up with players that could turn on a dime). RE: Outbreak, for instance, worked well as an RE title with both fixed camera angles and standard analog controls, and could be a great example of how to make RE2 work with modernized controls.

That's a cool idea but it would spawn a bunch forum game designers saying it's bad game design and that they cannot believe how something like that exists in the current year.

Yeah, i'm grumpy.

kc44135 · Nov 4, 2017

davidwhangchoi said:
that's a interesting idea. slow turning. it's about the same effect as having tanks controls.
one of the best things about RE was that the limitations created tension. whether it's ammo, ribbon tape or controls.
i'm just against having so called "improvements' to controls/movesets/ gameplay that break the tension.
example: having updated regular controls for Remake parallels to having something ridiculous like infinite ammo rocket launcher. just totally breaking the tension and gameplay.

once auto aim was introduced, the nice tension that was in Re1 psx was broken. the tension was gone from killing enemies off screen. everything was so comforting that gameplay reduced to a monotonous task running around with limited "tank" controls and tedious item management.

i felt from this ease of gameplay, people's desires evolved of wanting modern controls and more action. since the fixed angles were bc of hardware limitations and trying to get high polygon count on characters, tank controls were needed. now that limitation lifted, there is no logic sense for using fixed angles / tank controls.

all i'm saying is those limitations, unintentional or not, were elements that created the survival horror genre. i'd be for a faithful reaction of limited controls and camera angles but if re2 remake decides not to do this, i'd like the suggestion kc44123 made of making alternative limitations to recreate tension.

edit:
pls no auto aim:
i mean, how much tension could there be if you enter a new room, press L1 and your character instantly moves? you really going to be surprised or scared?

Well, first off, on the subject of auto-aim, I disagree, and feel it's essential to any game with fixed camera angles. There are two reasons for this. The first is obviously that it allows you to aim at enemies from off-screen, as well as tell if there any enemies ahead of you. I understand that this removes some of the tension of the gameplay, but it's still pretty important to have for this reason (RE1 actually has an interesting approach to this, where you could only lock-on to enemies if you're character had already seen them; I really liked this approach, as it could maintain tension and the element of surprise that a lack of auto-aim could bring, while still providing the benefits of lock-on in combat).

Second, and just as important, it prevents you from being able to miss. This is key, because it allows the developer to design the game around very specific/strict amounts of ammo. If you give the player the ability to aim (and miss), you have to balance the game around that, introducing things like dynamic difficulty, ammo drops from enemies, etc. as otherwise the experience will be too frustrating for most folks. Auto-aim ensures that if the developer gives you 100 bullets, pretty much every one of them will hit their target, and so then that can design a section with say, a dozen zombies, where you'd need more than 100 bullets to take 'em out, forcing you to pick and choose your targets carefully, and get out of there without killing everything in sight. With auto-aim, the devs can restrict you whilst still seamlessly guiding you through the experience in a way that doesn't encourage playing the game like a shooter.

As for restricting players in ways that seem less arbitrary than the original game, I think this will be an essential course of action for Capcom regardless of the form RE2 takes. There's no way they can release a AAA $60 game in 2018/19 with Tank Controls, and expect it to be received well. At the same time, as you say, restrictions and limitations are crucial for a Horror experience to be effective and scary, not to mention that discovering how to overcome those limitations as a player can be immensely fun and satisfying.

Here are a few of my own suggestions for RE2; For starters, keep fixed camera angles please for the love of all that is holy, please. Second, allow a player to move in the direction they press the stick, but limit a player's turning speed, and implement a half-second or so delay for when a player turns 180 degrees (just like REmake's quick-turn), to ensure they can't easily escape enemies. Let the player move and shoot, but make sure they can only do so slowly. Give the enemies new abilities to surprise the player as well.

For instance, zombies in RE2 can only grab from in the front, or do a quick-turn to grab you if you're behind them (They have tank controls too, essentially). Well, give them the ability to lunge to their left or right to catch a player trying to run circles around them, as well as charge a short distance towards the player if they run from them (RE3 and CVX implemented this as a way to balance the inclusion of quick-turn, whilst REmake and Zero slowed down the speed of the quick-turn instead). This allows them to keep up with the player's newfound mobility.

There are other smart changes that I think could be made to improve the experience. For instance, have a laser sight attached to the player's guns, not for OTS aiming, but to allow them to see which target they're locked onto in groups, and where exactly they're aiming in the environment when not locked on (depth perception is an issue with fixed camera angles, and one that a laser sight could help remedy). Add an icon that says "check" or something similar when the player can interact with something in the environment, rather than having to mash X/A on everything (and allow it to be turned off for those who dislike this). Also, have the inventory be real-time, force players to reload in real-time to enhance the tension of combat, and allow players to use items automatically without having to go into their inventory (in order to avoid those awkward moments where, say, you're just to far away from that hole to use your crank, and have to open your inventory, go up to said hole, and re-enter the inventory again to use said crank).

These are all the sorts of improvements and modernizations I feel could be brought to a new classic style RE, without throwing away the core of the experience of what made those older games so great. This is all contingent on RE2 having fixed camera angles, tho. They're gonna make it a TPS, aren't they? :(

kc44135 · Nov 4, 2017

Sorry for that wall of text, guys. It's just that I'm passionate about this particular series like no other, and love sharing my thoughts and ideas for future entires, and especially for the return of classic style RE, since there hasn't been a game of that style in a very long time. Just couldn't help myself. :p

Deleted member 152 · Nov 4, 2017

kc44135 said:
Sorry for that wall of text, guys. It's just that I'm passionate about this particular series like no other, and love sharing my thoughts and ideas for future entires, and especially for the return of classic style RE, since there hasn't been a game of that style in a very long time. Just couldn't help myself. :p

It's a good write up, don't apologies.

Blackbird · Nov 4, 2017

Jawmuncher said:
Blackbird lol damn dude. I guess I was the straw that broke the camels back right there. I just want to state that with my post earlier it wasn't a knock on RE7 itself. Was more saying the series could've easily stayed alive and been successful without such a change was all I was getting at.

I wasn't saying we needed another RE6 style game. Rather another OTS of High quality I think would've been enough to appease most buyers was all. Like hypothetically if RE7 OTS had been something like "The best RE since 4" much like RE7 FPS has been touted as. I don't think keeping the OTS style would've mattered.

I'm not the biggest fan of RE7. But I can see the appeal of it for others and there are elements I like from it. To me RE7 is just a case of getting trying something new and not getting it right all the way. Which to be fair isn't exactly always going to be the case. I've said before in other threads I'm interested in seeing RE8 but with fixes to RE7s low points.

To loop this back around to RE2make the comment on "Careful what you wish for" was in relation to what RE2make could potentially be in terms of scope and gameplay. If capcom is aiming at a two pillar structure instead of three (horror and action rather than those along with classic). RE2make is potentially a game more akin to be something aimed at fans of RE4 (Since at this point I think they know even if they go full on action we'll never see it to the extent RE6 unless it's a spinoff).

So overall it's fine lol. I know the RE fanbase is rather passionate and we all have our dislikes and likes. I don't really knock anyone for what they like and if I do it's in a joking manner not meant to be taken that seriously.

That's completely fine, i don't wanna sound like i want to antagonize you or any people who loves action RE titles. For several years you had the same problems with people trying to define what the "true Resident Evil experience" should be, which i think is stupid in many ways and shouldn't be even considered fair by many fans. If people enjoy what the direction is and the game is successful enough to maintain itself, no one should really care if it's action on third person, survival horror on FP or fixed camera angles.

I understand it's hard to see something you love going away, but it's not always a definitive thing and in some cases like action and classic RE titles, there's so much entries to explore and try again that maybe it's time to let go, before it gets worse and some damaging games appear.

But that's not even the case with action horror Resident Evil games (third person perspective too). Their fans are both passionate and vast inside the general public, and gladly it won't go away in the near future, even after 10 years of titles on that style. I know it's hard to put so much faith on Capcom these days, but there will be a title for most people here.

Just summarizing how i feel, most RE games rocks (from all genres and perspectives) and i'm glad to see people like you being passionate about what you love, that's why i discuss with everyone here as well. Now i'm even cheering for a new Dino Crisis title and a more balanced/well put together version of RE6. We can still dream.

Zombie Fred said:
The best trio of design

Main titles - RE7-9 being first person survival horror and refine the formula with interesting scenarios
"Revelations"/Sub series - Traditional third person survival action horror with the best mechanics of 5 and 6 with coop play and mercs/raid
remakes - continue the classic design to match the legacy of prior titles and how REmake did it. This can easily work for 2, 3, and CV.

That's excatly what i'm hoping too. Despite all it's current problems, Capcom still remains being a huge company, and the Resident Evil series is such a large and beloved franchise. There is a space for everyone as long it's well managed (don't laugh at me, i still have some faith thinking about that company).

TRUE ORDER · Nov 4, 2017

StallionDan said:
I hope first person view goes away.

If mainline are FPV it means we are left with budget titles for everything else. So missing features and short campaigns.

Revelations games are not a replacement for action titles.

I don't really like FPS so I wouldn't mind if Capcom would go other way with the new series but I must say that I enjoyed 7 for what it is.

I see Revelations as a hybrid to please both kind of fans (retro and action oriented games) not a replacement so we need something to compensate the lack of Mercenaries mode in 7 at the very least...

How About No · Nov 4, 2017

Hmm I was watching Stop Skeletons From Fighting's PSX Resident Evil video from last year (cuz I don't watch enough SSFF)

Was interesting to find out that Capcom USA made the game harder than Biohazard on purpose, by removing auto-aim, adding more enemies, and reducing ammo amounts. For getting more money out of rentals.

Deleted member 419 · Nov 4, 2017

Does anyone think there's even a remote chance that REmake 2 will end up being basically "REmake: Raccoon City," a combined adaptation of RE2 and RE3, where beating the RE2 campaign as either Leon or Claire unlocks the Jill campaign for RE3?

RE3 is a very small game and I also don't think it has the same kind of marketing pull that RE2 does. I think it'd be reasonable (maybe?) to think Capcom might attach it to RE2 and market the whole thing as the Raccoon City saga.

I don't know. That probably won't happen, but my fear is that RE3 doesn't have enough individual marketing power to get a dedicated remake of its own, and if that ends up being the case then we'll have REmake, REmake 2, and RE4-7, leaving RE3 the only one still stuck as a 90s era game.

StallionDan · Nov 4, 2017

FiveSide said:
Does anyone think there's even a remote chance that REmake 2 will end up being basically "REmake: Raccoon City," a combined adaptation of RE2 and RE3, where beating the RE2 campaign as either Leon or Claire unlocks the Jill campaign for RE3?

RE3 is a very small game and I don't think it has the same kind of marketing pull that RE2 does. I think it'd be reasonable (maybe?) to think Capcom might attach it to RE2 and market the whole thing as the Raccoon City saga.

I don't know. That probably won't happen, but my fear is that RE3 doesn't have enough individual marketing power to get a dedicated remake of its own, and if that ends up being the case then we'll have REmake, REmake 2, and RE4-7, leaving RE3 the only one still stuck as a 90s era game.

We discussed this the last page.

TLDR - Some want it, some don't. Some think it possible, some don't.

RE3 actually has more content than RE2, RE2 just recycles the one campaign 4 times so seems like is more.

Deleted member 419 · Nov 4, 2017

StallionDan Oh whups, I didn't see that, just saw the stuff about whether REmake 2 will be over-the-shoulder vs. fixed camera.

It'll be fixed for sure, by the way. I'm not sure if Capcom has commented on this directly, but it was probably only greenlighted because the modern REmake ports overperformed. They're not going to change the formula up too much with it, especially since RE7 was such a departure.

Deleted member 1162 · Nov 4, 2017

kc44135 said:
Well, first off, on the subject of auto-aim, I disagree, and feel it's essential to any game with fixed camera angles. There are two reasons for this. The first is obviously that it allows you to aim at enemies from off-screen, as well as tell if there any enemies ahead of you. I understand that this removes some of the tension of the gameplay, but it's still pretty important to have for this reason (RE1 actually has an interesting approach to this, where you could only lock-on to enemies if you're character had already seen them; I really liked this approach, as it could maintain tension and the element of surprise that a lack of auto-aim could bring, while still providing the benefits of lock-on in combat).

Second, and just as important, it prevents you from being able to miss. This is key, because it allows the developer to design the game around very specific/strict amounts of ammo. If you give the player the ability to aim (and miss), you have to balance the game around that, introducing things like dynamic difficulty, ammo drops from enemies, etc. as otherwise the experience will be too frustrating for most folks. Auto-aim ensures that if the developer gives you 100 bullets, pretty much every one of them will hit their target, and so then that can design a section with say, a dozen zombies, where you'd need more than 100 bullets to take 'em out, forcing you to pick and choose your targets carefully, and get out of there without killing everything in sight. With auto-aim, the devs can restrict you whilst still seamlessly guiding you through the experience in a way that doesn't encourage playing the game like a shooter.

As for restricting players in ways that seem less arbitrary than the original game, I think this will be an essential course of action for Capcom regardless of the form RE2 takes. There's no way they can release a AAA $60 game in 2018/19 with Tank Controls, and expect it to be received well. At the same time, as you say, restrictions and limitations are crucial for a Horror experience to be effective and scary, not to mention that discovering how to overcome those limitations as a player can be immensely fun and satisfying.

Here are a few of my own suggestions for RE2; For starters, keep fixed camera angles please for the love of all that is holy, please. Second, allow a player to move in the direction they press the stick, but limit a player's turning speed, and implement a half-second or so delay for when a player turns 180 degrees (just like REmake's quick-turn), to ensure they can't easily escape enemies. Let the player move and shoot, but make sure they can only do so slowly. Give the enemies new abilities to surprise the player as well.

For instance, zombies in RE2 can only grab from in the front, or do a quick-turn to grab you if you're behind them (They have tank controls too, essentially). Well, give them the ability to lunge to their left or right to catch a player trying to run circles around them, as well as charge a short distance towards the player if they run from them (RE3 and CVX implemented this as a way to balance the inclusion of quick-turn, whilst REmake and Zero slowed down the speed of the quick-turn instead). This allows them to keep up with the player's newfound mobility.

There are other smart changes that I think could be made to improve the experience. For instance, have a laser sight attached to the player's guns, not for OTS aiming, but to allow them to see which target they're locked onto in groups, and where exactly they're aiming in the environment when not locked on (depth perception is an issue with fixed camera angles, and one that a laser sight could help remedy). Add an icon that says "check" or something similar when the player can interact with something in the environment, rather than having to mash X/A on everything (and allow it to be turned off for those who dislike this). Also, have the inventory be real-time, force players to reload in real-time to enhance the tension of combat, and allow players to use items automatically without having to go into their inventory (in order to avoid those awkward moments where, say, you're just to far away from that hole to use your crank, and have to open your inventory, go up to said hole, and re-enter the inventory again to use said crank).

These are all the sorts of improvements and modernizations I feel could be brought to a new classic style RE, without throwing away the core of the experience of what made those older games so great. This is all contingent on RE2 having fixed camera angles, tho. They're gonna make it a TPS, aren't they? :(

actually i'm referring to Re1 psx which had no auto aim function. (later the black label director's cut had it and green label dual shock).
and those broke the game and made it easy for off screen targets.

Suede · Nov 5, 2017

How About No said:
Hmm I was watching Stop Skeletons From Fighting's PSX Resident Evil video from last year (cuz I don't watch enough SSFF)

Was interesting to find out that Capcom USA made the game harder than Biohazard on purpose, by removing auto-aim, adding more enemies, and reducing ammo amounts. For getting more money out of rentals.

This is pretty good, thanks. I think I'll subscribe to the guy.

Kinda crazy to think its been over 20 years already, I still remember huddling around the TV with my half-cousins to watch them play RE1 and being absolutely terrified of the opening (even if it were censored). I remember running as fast as I could when going back home that night haha.

Encephalon · Nov 5, 2017

davidwhangchoi said:
actually i'm referring to Re1 psx which had no auto aim function. (later the black label director's cut had it and green label dual shock).
and those broke the game and made it easy for off screen targets.

Didn't the Japanese original have auto aim?

Ryuichi Naruhodo · Nov 5, 2017

A reminder that Capcom's Q3 Fiscal Report will be Tomorrow , We will get updated Sales Results and hopefully may get some news down the line in the report or in the Q&A

Deleted member 1162 · Nov 5, 2017

Encephalon said:
Didn't the Japanese original have auto aim?

yeah also: "Japanese release has an adjusted difficulty (Enemies have less health, both characters have more health, Ink Ribbons contain 3 instead of 2, Zombies are easier to defeat by shooting the torso)" (from the other site)
not really that great tension. the Saturn version did not have auto aim like the psx western release.

i never used auto aim for re2. much better experience, imo.
years later, I did use it for director's cut arrange mode: advance. that was pretty damn tough.

Bowl0l · Nov 5, 2017

Is there a deluxe edition upgrade for Relevation 2?

Encephalon · Nov 5, 2017

davidwhangchoi said:
yeah also: "Japanese release has an adjusted difficulty (Enemies have less health, both characters have more health, Ink Ribbons contain 3 instead of 2, Zombies are easier to defeat by shooting the torso)" (from the other site)
not really that great tension. the Saturn version did not have auto aim like the psx western release.

i never used auto aim for re2. much better experience, imo.
years later, I did use it for director's cut arrange mode: advance. that was pretty damn tough.

Really? I thought the Saturn version did. Regardless, the classic games feel largely designed around auto aim. It's silly to have a game where an enemy is a screen away, perhaps a few feet, but you can't reasonably aim at it because you don't know where exactly it is. I don't really see what is to be gained from a lack of auto aim. Tension shouldn't be derived from arbitrary restrictions created by what is essentially the art direction of the original games. Enemy and character health is probably better in the western versions, but I prefer the Japanese version of RE2 for the enemy placement. It's much easier to avoid enemies - in a game that is all about avoiding enemies. Which unfortunately means what I consider to be the best version is on the Dreamcast. Though I might try to pick up the Japanese PC re-release and see if I can get it to work.

kc44135 · Nov 5, 2017

Zombie Fred said:
It's a good write up, don't apologies.

Thx, Zombie Fred . Still think I got a little carried away there tho, lol. Regardless, my point is ultimately that I see a lot of potential in a return to the classic formula and gameplay. I think Capcom could create something really special if they were willing to return to the original formula one last time.

davidwhangchoi said:
actually i'm referring to Re1 psx which had no auto aim function. (later the black label director's cut had it and green label dual shock).
and those broke the game and made it easy for off screen targets.

Actually, the original Japanese release of RE1 had auto-aim, which is what I was referring to. The game was definitely designed for it, and it's inclusion was intentional. It's actually very integral to the design and balance of Classic RE. It was deliberately removed from the original U.S. release, seemingly in a misguided attempt to make the game more difficult, but was added back into later re-releases of RE1.

Kromeo · Nov 5, 2017

StallionDan said:
We discussed this the last page.

TLDR - Some want it, some don't. Some think it possible, some don't.

RE3 actually has more content than RE2, RE2 just recycles the one campaign 4 times so seems like is more.

Last time I played RE 3 it took me about the same time to finish as one scenario from 2, about 6 hours

Gradon · Nov 5, 2017

Kromeo said:
Last time I played RE 3 it took me about the same time to finish as one scenario from 2, about 6 hours

I'm so used to RE2 now that the fastest I last completed LeonA was 1:30. I have only ever finished 3 once, I reckon it will take me a long time. REmake fast times elude me as I always take 10-15 hours.

Jawmuncher · Nov 5, 2017

Bowl0l said:
Is there a deluxe edition upgrade for Relevation 2?

There is if you look in the store

kc44135 · Nov 5, 2017

Kromeo said:
Last time I played RE 3 it took me about the same time to finish as one scenario from 2, about 6 hours

Length doesn't really matter when we're talking about REmakes tho. REmake is 8-10 hours in length, which is around twice the length of RE1 (4-5 hours). The same could be true of RE2/3 REmakes (They could be longer than REmake, even).

Regardless, the reality is that Capcom wouldn't combine these games for a couple specific reasons. First off, Capcom is likely to add a significant amount of content to RE2 (much like Re1's REmake), with 10+ hours for each scenario (remember that there are multiple scenarios in RE2) not necessarily being out of the question. We could looking at a 30-40+ hour game with all four scenarios combined for all we know, and I don't see how another full game could be fit in there.

Second, there is potentially major financial benefit in separating these REmakes, should RE2 prove successful. Assuming it's a major hit, there's the potential for more REmakes in the future, with RE3 being the next, most obvious candidate. Capcom wouldn't want to throw away potential profits by combining two games they could easily sell separately.

Asbsand · Nov 5, 2017

You could make a new IP or indie game today that uses tank controls and slick level design and people would say it was one of the best. If they don't do tank controls and fixed camera angles for RE2 it'll be such a cop out. They really have to imo. If they're afraid of limited appeal they could make the game 3D but make the ability to switch between over-the-shoulder RE4 style and fixed angles on the fly.

Bowl0l · Nov 5, 2017

Jawmuncher said:
There is if you look in the store

i can find the deluxe edition but not the upgrade.

Fancy Clown · Nov 5, 2017

Did half of Resident Evil 5 on veteran with a buddy the other day and every time I play this game again my estimation of it rises. It's just such a solid arcady expansion of 4's gameplay concepts. Especially after playing a bunch of Evil Within 2, which I do like quite a bit, it was nice to get back to such rock solid gameplay mechanics and incredibly paced variety of encounters. It's a shame we didn't get another RE game that further explored 4&5's gameplay systems and encounter design.

Jawmuncher · Nov 5, 2017

Bowl0l said:
i can find the deluxe edition but not the upgrade.

What specifically do you own?

Bowl0l · Nov 5, 2017

Season Pass, PS4

Jawmuncher · Nov 5, 2017

Bowl0l said:
Season Pass, PS4

You should have everything story wise in the Season Pass. Is there something you think you're missing?
Deluxe just has Costumes, Wesker, and a Raid Map pack

Map Pack - https://store.playstation.com/#!/en...pack/cid=UP0102-CUSA00924_00-BHR2RAIDSTAGE100
Wesker - https://store.playstation.com/#!/en...sker/cid=UP0102-CUSA00924_00-BHR2RAIDWESKER00
Costume Pack - https://store.playstation.com/#!/en...pack/cid=UP0102-CUSA00924_00-BHR2COSTUMEPACK0

You don't need any of this especially if it's not on sale

Blackbird · Nov 5, 2017

kc44135 said:
Length doesn't really matter when we're talking about REmakes tho. REmake is 8-10 hours in length, which is around twice the length of RE1 (4-5 hours). The same could be true of RE2/3 REmakes (They could be longer than REmake, even).

Regardless, the reality is that Capcom wouldn't combine these games for a couple specific reasons. First off, Capcom is likely to add a significant amount of content to RE2 (much like Re1's REmake), with 10+ hours for each scenario (remember that there are multiple scenarios in RE2) not necessarily being out of the question. We could looking at a 30-40+ hour game with all four scenarios combined for all we know, and I don't see how another full game could be fit in there.

Second, there is potentially major financial benefit in separating these REmakes, should RE2 prove successful. Assuming it's a major hit, there's the potential for more REmakes in the future, with RE3 being the next, most obvious candidate. Capcom wouldn't want to throw away potential profits by combining two games they could easily sell separately.

I think you're onto something here. Considering that RE2 has 4 main scenarios which they could still use as separate and make four different paths, or just combine them on two big campaigns, there's enough material to build upon and make a more definitive title. Enough maybe is not the right word, because we are talking about a AAA remake of one of the most beloved and highest selling titles of a entire franchise like Resident Evil, on 2017. It may seem like a remake type of job is more easily doable/cheaper, but considering that entire game and everything we passed since the REmake from GameCube, the production value and budget of this project probably is pretty large.

Games aren't cheap and easily profitable these days, they're mainly risky projects that demands cetain amount of investment and time to achieve the quality and scope of modern AAA titles. We don't know exactly what they are crafting inside Capcom right now (fixed camera angles, over the shoulder, FP or even all those perspectives), but depending what they're doing, it's gonna double the ammount of time and investment inside the whole project. Even if it's something more akin to the original Rebirth, Hirobayashi already said that just updating the graphics is not enough, so a development this big for two different titles which they could reserve time and sell separately doesn't sounds like a good idea at all, at least seeing from the company side, not consumer dreaming about everything they want from their titles. Tbh, i think it's not even a fair question to be made right now considering everything we know about the industry current state and this project.

I don't think many publishers could sustain a project this big, and certainly Capcom is not even in a place where it would be healthy to spend that kind of money, at least not right now.

Jawmuncher · Nov 5, 2017

When you bring it up that way it sounds like we won't even get four campaigns.

Blackbird · Nov 5, 2017

I don't know, it depends solely on how Capcom is seeing this project from the inside, which is impossible to answer right now. Personally, if they're doing a remake like Rebirth, they should maintain the game like it was before, just add things to make a complete and definitive version of RE2.

I think the A and B scenarios are essential and a big part of the title, i just don't know exactly how they're gonna implement them.

Bowl0l · Nov 5, 2017

Jawmuncher said:
You should have everything story wise in the Season Pass. Is there something you think you're missing?
Deluxe just has Costumes, Wesker, and a Raid Map pack

Map Pack - https://store.playstation.com/#!/en...pack/cid=UP0102-CUSA00924_00-BHR2RAIDSTAGE100
Wesker - https://store.playstation.com/#!/en...sker/cid=UP0102-CUSA00924_00-BHR2RAIDWESKER00
Costume Pack - https://store.playstation.com/#!/en...pack/cid=UP0102-CUSA00924_00-BHR2COSTUMEPACK0

You don't need any of this especially if it's not on sale

Just to confirm, was there a deluxe ed. upgrade dlc for season pass owners?
i will follow your advice and wait for a sale.

MrCarter · Nov 5, 2017

Blackbird said:
Last week i saw a podcast with long time, hardcore RE fans with David Vaughn and one of them mentioned the game as a huge failure, saying that most fans didn't liked it and Capcom was in danger of maybe never making another RE title again.

What's hilarious about this is the irony of RE7 being one of the highest rated games in 2017 yet it's still a "huge" failure by some.

Deleted member 1162 · Nov 5, 2017

Encephalon said:
Really? I thought the Saturn version did. Regardless, the classic games feel largely designed around auto aim. It's silly to have a game where an enemy is a screen away, perhaps a few feet, but you can't reasonably aim at it because you don't know where exactly it is. I don't really see what is to be gained from a lack of auto aim. Tension shouldn't be derived from arbitrary restrictions created by what is essentially the art direction of the original games. Enemy and character health is probably better in the western versions, but I prefer the Japanese version of RE2 for the enemy placement. It's much easier to avoid enemies - in a game that is all about avoiding enemies. Which unfortunately means what I consider to be the best version is on the Dreamcast. Though I might try to pick up the Japanese PC re-release and see if I can get it to work.

i really wanted the pc release.

kc44135 said:
Actually, the original Japanese release of RE1 had auto-aim, which is what I was referring to. The game was definitely designed for it, and it's inclusion was intentional. It's actually very integral to the design and balance of Classic RE. It was deliberately removed from the original U.S. release, seemingly in a misguided attempt to make the game more difficult, but was added back into later re-releases of RE1.

since it was not on Saturn either, i'm going to talk a friendly trash, just to jest: i picked chris, you probably picked jill needed barry so you don't turn into a Jill sandwich. so i understand your need for auto aim =P

all kidding aside. agree with both you and Encephalon that auto aim was put in as well as tank controls due to the fixed angles originally by the developers.
though the US release intentionally took that out as well as the enemies difficulty was bumped to be harder to kill, and last, the name was changed to "Resident Evil." it this western release that defined the genre "survival horror" most people have played it as "resident evil" not "biohazard" as their 1st experience. hence the OT name.
limitations whether intentionally misguided or not, leaning on audio cues for offscreen hit or miss, blind aim was part of the "survival horror" experience for "resident evil"

funny, random change of topic, speaking of name change, it reminds me of another franchise that came out in Japan and when marketers changed the name in the West, it became so popular that Japanese developers officially adopted the US name for the franchise. but i can't recall which franchise it was...

Resident Evil Community |OT| Got some rare things on sale, stranger!

Crisis Dino

Crisis Dino

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

Unshakable Resolve - Prophet of Truth

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

Gotham's Finest

User requested account closure

Saw the truth behind the copied door

Crisis Dino

Crisis Dino

Crisis Dino

Unshakable Resolve - Prophet of Truth

Crisis Dino

Unshakable Resolve - Prophet of Truth

User requested account closure