Resident Evil series reboot??

Zero-Cool

Resident Evil, one of my favourite gaming series, might be getting a reboot. Resi 1 & 2 were classics, 3 was okay (Nemesis made it special), 4 was a change to the series and Capcom nailed it! I thought 5 was crap until I played 6.....

Masachika Kawata (producer of several Resi games) made the sickening statement below in the run up to Resi 6.

"Looking at the marketing data [for survival horror games] ... the market is small, compared to the number of units Call of Duty and all those action games sell," Kawata reasoned. "A 'survival horror' Resident Evil doesn't seem like it'd be able to sell those kind of numbers."

It was a true statement but how about a new IP? Why piss all over the mechanics of one of the most recognised games series?

Kawata then made a quote from the new link below:

“Looking at last year – something like, for example, Operation Racoon City – it was quite an experimental attempt in bringing the Resident Evil series to new genres. And in light of that game, certainly I would say that I review my thoughts on that [the importance of action]. But I think it’s undeniable to say the series returning to its roots is important, and those roots are horror.”

Only took millions of screaming fans to realise that huh?

http://www.relyonhorror.com/latest-news/resident-evil-news/capcom-confirms-that-resident-evil-will-return-to-its-roots/

Anyway, what are peoples thoughts on a series reboot?

penev10

RE6 has sold almost 4m copies at this stage, can't see them altering much tbh.

A reboot is what is needed from the fans perspective, and a return to Arklay Mansion is surely on the cards at some stage, but I can't see Capcom going back to the old controls and fixed angle cameras that were a large part of the experience.

Zero-Cool

Yeah those tank controls and camera angels really helped towards the horror aspect but Resi 4 really pulled off the horror as well. I would like to see Resi 2 done with the Resi 4 engine.

Angron

People say Resi 5 was crap but I kind of liked it. And it was a freaking masterpiece compared to Operation Racoon City, haven't played 6 yet though.

tampler

Denny M wrote: »

People say Resi 5 was crap but I kind of liked it. And it was a freaking masterpiece compared to Operation Racoon City, haven't played 6 yet though.

IMO, Resident Evil 5 was a great game. Just not a great Resident Evil Game.

Angron

tampler wrote: »

IMO, Resident Evil 5 was a great game. Just not a great Resident Evil Game.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree.

Azza

I love how they always seem to draw the wrong conclusions.

They say that the performance of Operation Racoon City may cause them to review the idea of changing over to a straight up action shooter game. The problem with that is that the game was suppose to be crap. Had they made a good game and it performed disappointing then they could of drawn that conclusion.

I've played all the main series Resident Evils except Code Veronica and I've liked them all (even 6) and I think 2 and 4 where the best. I personally don't care which way they go as long as its good game.

ShadowHearth

I smell another OLd vs NEW RE fight here.

I will try to stay away from it as much as possible! Anyway, No matter what we like or dont like Crapcom will do it their way and call it AWESOME!

I started voting with my wallet. I did not buy Racoon city or RE 6 even on sale. Its just crap. Though i did buy RE Revalations on 3DS, which is freaking awesome! This little game even proves, you dont need to be as much in action as gang bang porn star and you still can use the new type camera.

If i remember right, they are porting revalations to PS3 and xbox. first smart move i sow crapcom do in years ( if you exclude the birth of revalations ).

Retr0gamer

What else there left to explore in the resident evil universe. Wesker is now dead so there's no main villian to drive the series forward and Raccoon City was destroyed. Resi 4 was the reboot Resi needed and capcom squandered that focusing on multiplayer instead of a more focused single player experience.

I think a reboot is needed but for gods sake don't give it to Ninja Theory or some other inept Western studio.

Resi 6 might have sold 4 million copies but most of those were heavily discounted very early on and capcom was expecting a lot better sales than that.

Angron

Retr0gamer wrote: »

What else there left to explore in the resident evil universe. Wesker is now dead so there's no main villian to drive the series forward and Raccoon City was destroyed. Resi 4 was the reboot Resi needed and capcom squandered that focusing on multiplayer instead of a more focused single player experience.

I think a reboot is needed but for gods sake don't give it to Ninja Theory or some other inept Western studio.

Resi 6 might have sold 4 million copies but most of those were heavily discounted very early on and capcom was expecting a lot better sales than that.

That just reminded me of how horrible the AI was in 5, it was possibly the worst in a game.

GarH

I loved Code Veronica. Brought me back to memories of playing RE1 on playstation in a dark room with sound turned up.
And speaking of RE1, the 'remake' on the Gamecube was fantastic, every bit as good as the original in terms of atmosphere and gameplay.

Oh, and I hated RE5.

penev10

In modern games people expect accurate aiming and a first person perspective (even if it is the over-the-shoulder type). This would take away from the challenge (and ensuing tension) that the early RE games offered where anything more than a single zombie was brown-trousers time. Look at Twin Snakes on the GC and how the FPP changed the whole dynamic of the game.

Now you either have to add more and more zombies or bullet sponges to the mix to even out the challenge. RE4 pulled it off with a never ending line up of great set pieces but it did lose out on the type of atmosphere the original formula had.

Dead Space had a good thing going with the dismemberment as it meant the player had to be accurate under pressure which added to the tension but again it just became a case of adding more and more enemies. The sequel had nowhere else to go but to up the ante with the enemies and add more firepower to balance it out - turning it into a shooter.

So really what I'm saying is it has to come down to challenge and perceived danger in order to generate that tension and apprehension we all associate with the classic RE feel. The Souls games have it - every enemy is a threat and you need to be on your toes the whole time which creates a anxiety/relief cycle that is so satisfying. This comes from having a deep combat system where timing and strategy are everything.

If a survival horror game could take from that and deliver a deep combat experience where every encounter is a genuine struggle then I think they might redress the challenge balance a put the tension and atmosphere back into the genre.

Yakult

Thought RE4 was a good game, just about. Cant say Im interested in the Resident Evil brand anymore tho (other than the early games of course). The films absolutely butchered the series and I found the games after 4, were pretty generic. No different to the countless of other fps shooters out there which just bore me to death. Can see why people like it, just not for me. Hope they do a real zombie survival game some day again. Still hopeful each time they announce something..

Azza

I smell another OLd vs NEW RE fight here.

I will try to stay away from it as much as possible! Anyway, No matter what we like or dont like Crapcom will do it their way and call it AWESOME!

I started voting with my wallet. I did not buy Racoon city or RE 6 even on sale. Its just crap. Though i did buy RE Revalations on 3DS, which is freaking awesome! This little game even proves, you dont need to be as much in action as gang bang porn star and you still can use the new type camera.

If i remember right, they are porting revalations to PS3 and xbox. first smart move i sow crapcom do in years ( if you exclude the birth of revalations ).

Lol at Crapcom.
This the same company thats made the highly regarded Resident Evil 1, 2 and 4 as well as the supposedly superb remake of the original. The Megaman series. DMC 1 and 3 and oh the Street Fighter series!!. The Dead Rising games where pretty solid two. RE Revelations wasn't bad either. Yes they have made bad games but man do people give them **** unfairly.

Say whatever you want about 6, but it did improve the control system over 4 and 5. It did have alot of content. The multiplayer modes are good (not just the co-op) agent hunt mode is mean't to be really fun and the story is on the same level as the rest of the series (corny and stupid).

The core gameplay the shootings mechanic is where the game divides people. If you don't like it and I can understand why people don't, you won't like the game because there is so much of it, which is fair enough. But I did actually like fighting the Javo enemies, so I enjoyed the game. The amount of mutations variations was pretty cool. There was also alot of QTE's but they don't annoy me as much as other people. A couple of on the rail sections where dreadful though and some of the boss fights where overlong and quite bland.

As for Revelations which the consoles and PC are getting an enhanced edition of in May I think. Its a good game, the atmosphere is like the old series and that's nice. It proves the old type of game can work with the current camera system.

However the shooting mechanics where pretty unsatisfying, the enemies don't seem to react to getting hit. The enemies are quite bland and uninteresting to fight. Some of the characters are just dumb. That stupid swimsuit women with her massive knockers and hair over her eyes was just embarrassing. The Jessica character was almost as bad while the 2 other BSAA agents you play as where pretty dumb too. Story wise its about the same as the other Resident Evil games.

Like I enjoyed the game. I have no problem with the slower pace or less interesting enemies to fight or more puzzles to solve. But to me the better atmosphere is negated by poorer core gameplay. When I do get to fight the enemies I want them to be more fun to fight.

I rate it about the same as 5 and 6.

And if you want a another good decision Capcom has made recently, its not using games for windows live anymore on its PC games and has switched to Steamworks. Huzzah!!!

ancapailldorcha

I rather enjoyed RE5. Didn't have too much bother with the AI (most of the time) but killing Wesker ended the series for me. I've no intention of buying RE6 or ORC. I'm guessing Capcom went survival action to mimic COD to gain sales.
Unless the series goes back to horror, I think I'm done with it. If I want COD, I'll buy COD and not some rip off with plagas or whatever they are now.

snausages

penev10 wrote: »

RE6 has sold almost 4m copies at this stage, can't see them altering much tbh.

It underperformed though. They were looking for about 7 million IIRC. It was hardly a cheaply made game either.

The brand has been diminished by ORC and RE6 being the last two RE releases in recent memory.

They should definitely reboot RE. The series reached a logical closure point with RE5. But while they're at it they should remove their boot from the arse of DMC and bring the old series back. RE has been running on steam for a while now but DMC still had a lot of life left. The main problem with DMC4 is that it was rushed out the gate. We only got half a game. A victim of tight budgeting and deadlines.

Mark Hamill

penev10 wrote: »

In modern games people expect accurate aiming and a first person perspective (even if it is the over-the-shoulder type). This would take away from the challenge (and ensuing tension) that the early RE games offered where anything more than a single zombie was brown-trousers time. Look at Twin Snakes on the GC and how the FPP changed the whole dynamic of the game.

Now you either have to add more and more zombies or bullet sponges to the mix to even out the challenge. RE4 pulled it off with a never ending line up of great set pieces but it did lose out on the type of atmosphere the original formula had.

Dead Space had a good thing going with the dismemberment as it meant the player had to be accurate under pressure which added to the tension but again it just became a case of adding more and more enemies. The sequel had nowhere else to go but to up the ante with the enemies and add more firepower to balance it out - turning it into a shooter.

So really what I'm saying is it has to come down to challenge and perceived danger in order to generate that tension and apprehension we all associate with the classic RE feel. The Souls games have it - every enemy is a threat and you need to be on your toes the whole time which creates a anxiety/relief cycle that is so satisfying. This comes from having a deep combat system where timing and strategy are everything.

If a survival horror game could take from that and deliver a deep combat experience where every encounter is a genuine struggle then I think they might redress the challenge balance a put the tension and atmosphere back into the genre.

Instead of more zombies/bullet sponge enemies, why not have less ammo available in the game, less max ammo capacity and have it that if you get hurt in the game, it slows you down and you need to (or at least are encouraged to) drop items to move faster to escape the enemy or environment? Go the whole hog and make it realistic weight based inventory - no more carrying a handgun, shotgun, rifle, flamethrower, crossbow and magnum with a hundred rounds each.

Then get Guillermo del Toro (or someone with imagination) to design the monsters.

Bang, tension and atmosphere again.

penev10

Ammo rationing if done right is a great way to heighten tension but if miscalculated it can just be frustrating. It's definitely one of the dynamics of the classic RE's that works.

Realistic inventories and fatigue would be great too. I've often thought that a open world/sandbox survival horror with such features would be great. Making it from house to house scavenging, not knowing what you'd encounter as its randomly generated. The threats of starvation, dehydration and persistent injuries making every decision crucial *dreams*

ancapailldorcha

snausages wrote: »

The main problem with DMC4 is that it was rushed out the gate. We only got half a game. A victim of tight budgeting and deadlines.

I didn't know DMC4 was rushed, though it would explain the lackluster Dante sections. Rather enjoyed it myself and am somewhat sad they're rebooted the series. The new game actually looks ok. If it wasn't such a cheap grab for profit, I'd buy it.

Azza

Mark Hamill wrote:

Instead of more zombies/bullet sponge enemies, why not have less ammo available in the game

penev10 wrote:

Ammo rationing if done right is a great way to heighten tension but if miscalculated it can just be frustrating. It's definitely one of the dynamics of the classic RE's that works.

Have you guys played RE6, because it does require you to ration ammo. Ammo is pretty scarce so you won't to use the melee system on weaker enemies as much as possible.

Mark Hamill wrote:

Then get Guillermo del Toro (or someone with imagination) to design the monsters.

Again have you played 6. It had your typical zombies sure but the I thought the Javo mutations where pretty cool. There was 15 mutations separate mutations and sometimes the can have more than 1 variation at a time. I thought they did a good job mixing up the combat with them.

Mark Hamill

Azza wrote: »

Have you guys played RE6, because it does require you to ration ammo. Ammo is pretty scarce so you won't to use the melee system on weaker enemies as much as possible.

But you still get fairly big and powerful guns, your characters are very efficient with them (as long as they have ammo) and (AFAIK) your melee is quite powerful. In the end, you still feel like a powerful, capable character.
I was thinking more along the lines of Silent Hill, were you are a regular guy, with little to no real gun skill, only a few straightforward guns with very limited ammo and your melee skills/weapons as awkward as a normal person who has never had to bash someone's head in.
Alternatively, you could go with army-level guy with big guns, but have nearly immortal enemies. Zombies where it almost doesn't matter where you shoot them, whatever remains will still go for you. You could make it that being too good leaves more body parts trying to get at you (maybe like The Thing, each severed body part can act independently or grow a mouth).

The idea is to bring back the despair and panic for each time you encounter something. Thus negating whatever skill the character starts off with and making you feel screwed all the time, like you should in a survival horror.

Azza wrote: »

Again have you played 6. It had your typical zombies sure but the I thought the Javo mutations where pretty cool. There was 15 mutations separate mutations and sometimes the can have more than 1 variation at a time. I thought they did a good job mixing up the combat with them.

I had a quick google and some of the human sized ones look kinda cool, but the bigger ones look pretty messy. You need to balance repulsive with confusing.

Augmerson

I want zombies. More zombies. I want more derelict mansions, more destroyed cityscapes. Some kind of L4D scheme, but with more survival horror. Like having to find supplies to board up a window, while somebody tries to pick off the zombie onslaught. Something like Outbreak but done properly, and with just zombies. I loved RE4 but god damn it I want zombies.

krudler

There were a few sections in RE6 where the camera switched to a fixed viewpoint and I just thought how cool it would be to play the whole game like that. I only played the Cube remake not too long ago and its still brilliant, tank controls and all. Imagine how good prerendered backgrounds could look on the current or next gen.

snausages

If they are seriously considering the open world route then it shows that they don't understand why RE6 ended up the mess it did. RE6 was a hodgepodge of bad game ideas. It was a patchwork of currently fashionable gaming trends rather than something genuinely distinctive. Open-world would be the exact same crap all over again.

Azza

Mark Hamill wrote:

But you still get fairly big and powerful guns, your characters are very efficient with them (as long as they have ammo) and (AFAIK) your melee is quite powerful. In the end, you still feel like a powerful, capable character.
I was thinking more along the lines of Silent Hill, were you are a regular guy, with little to no real gun skill, only a few straightforward guns with very limited ammo and your melee skills/weapons as awkward as a normal person who has never had to bash someone's head in.
Alternatively, you could go with army-level guy with big guns, but have nearly immortal enemies. Zombies where it almost doesn't matter where you shoot them, whatever remains will still go for you. You could make it that being too good leaves more body parts trying to get at you (maybe like The Thing, each severed body part can act independently or grow a mouth).

The idea is to bring back the despair and panic for each time you encounter something. Thus negating whatever skill the character starts off with and making you feel screwed all the time, like you should in a survival horror.

Yeah its true that your characters are quite capable as they also have been in RE series. They have all come from military or special forces background the only exception being Claire who's was trained by her brother and emmm Steve, but I've tried to repress what I saw of that character from my memory.

In RE6 where was a few nice additions. Each character had there own signature weapon. They had there own signature melee move tied into it. And Jake had a more complex melee system that allowed him to string together longer combo's although I suspect people didn't use it and stuck to his basic combo's. Melee was powerful but not without risk and did have a stamina bar governing it, to prevent abuse. I suspect on higher difficult levels the game would be very challenging.

What your suggesting are quite radical departures from what RE has ever been both old and new. I prefer you first suggestion over the bullet sponge zombies though.

krudler

snausages wrote: »

If they are seriously considering the open world route then it shows that they don't understand why RE6 ended up the mess it did. RE6 was a hodgepodge of bad game ideas. It was a patchwork of currently fashionable gaming trends rather than something genuinely distinctive. Open-world would be the exact same crap all over again.

This, open world and Resi don't work. The biggest problem with 5 and 6 was there was zero tension or scares, Leons campaign has a few good sections but Chris' was like playing Gears of War, felt like any old generic action game.

4 got the balance right, it expanded the outdated mechanics so it wasnt constant backtracking with items and things to unlock that thingy to get the key for something or other for that jewel to use in the..thing. It was constantly pushing you forward with minimum step retracing, and it had plenty of tension, the first village, being overwhelmed with the locals, hearing that chainsaw...Great stuff.

Azza

krudler wrote:

This, open world and Resi don't work. The biggest problem with 5 and 6 was there was zero tension or scares, Leons campaign has a few good sections but Chris' was like playing Gears of War, felt like any old generic action game.

I thought the enemies in Chris and Jakes campaign where more interesting to fight than the zombies in Leon's campaign. The atmosphere was better in Leon's campaign.

Is Gears of War that bad a series to be compared to. I heard they where quite good games?

krudler wrote:

4 got the balance right, it expanded the outdated mechanics so it wasnt constant backtracking with items and things to unlock that thingy to get the key for something or other for that jewel to use in the..thing. It was constantly pushing you forward with minimum step retracing, and it had plenty of tension, the first village, being overwhelmed with the locals, hearing that chainsaw...Great stuff.

Most would say the amount of tension was reduced in 4 considerable from the early games in the series. I agree thought its still got more than 5 or 6 which are nearly complete void of it.

Cravez

I thought that backtracking was one of the key aspects of the earlier games? They did it well with a bit more realistic inventory management and set pieces. For example, in RE1 if you took the east corridor on the ground floor

the dogs would jump through the windows

. If you had left an item you needed to get back in that direction you either had to take a longer route around the mansion or go back in and fight the dogs.

Later in the game you had to backtrack to complete certain things, where sometimes new enemies were triggered such as Hunters which added more tension in areas you previously thought were safe.

Dunno about others but backtracking never bothered me.

deathrider

The unfortunate truth, lads, is that if there was indeed going to be a reboot, it probably wouldn't bring back any old Res E style. Instead, I reckon, it would just start the story again in the more action orientated way that the later games have featured.

ancapailldorcha

deathrider wrote: »

The unfortunate truth, lads, is that if there was indeed going to be a reboot, it probably wouldn't bring back any old Res E style. Instead, I reckon, it would just start the story again in the more action orientated way that the later games have featured.

Good point. Noone wants another DMC.

K.O.Kiki

penev10 wrote: »

Realistic inventories and fatigue would be great too. I've often thought that a open world/sandbox survival horror with such features would be great. Making it from house to house scavenging, not knowing what you'd encounter as its randomly generated. The threats of starvation, dehydration and persistent injuries making every decision crucial *dreams*

I think you just described WarZ without PvP :pac: