Resident Evil: Village Resident evil VILLAGE leak, trailer ecc

[Hardware]

Am ı the only one who feels that capcom's making this game just to reuse its assets for re4 reimagining? I mean re2 2019 and re3 2020 reuse assets from re7 not to mention storywise they seem to get re7'd due to how disconnected they are to canon re lore with weird changes. Thankfully they arent canon and when re4 gets reimagined; it wont be canon too.

No, I don't think so. This game has been in development for so long and they had no guarantees that the remakes of RE2 and 3 were going to be successful. I think they just did a game that is heavily inspired by RE4 (way too inspired) and that assets will definitely end in that game as well. But spending millions of dollars just to make assets is crazy. As far as I know, Capcom considers the remakes of RE2 and 3 to be canon, just like the remake of 1 is canon. The final outcomes are always the same: Claire and Leon survived Raccoon City with Sherry while Jill and Carlos did the same the next day, seconds before the place was nuked. Jill was infected and got cured with a vaccine (which is what makes her an interesting test subject for Wesker in RE5). The only difference is that Nicholai was working for someone other than Umbrella (which is a slight alteration from the original story). But, within that mess that is the main lore, nothing changes if you overimpose RE2make to the OG game.

 

[mert20004]

I recommend checking these videos out. They explain many differences the games have when compared to og games and why they cant be canon.

Also the reimaginings arent canon.

Source:

13:14

 

[Hardware]

I distinctively remember Peter Fabiano saying the remakes exist "at the same time" as the original games.

 

[mert20004]

I distinctively remember Peter Fabiano saying the remakes exist "at the same time" as the original games.

Yeah; ı know of his tweet. It's a lazy answer. The reimaginings cant exist at the same time as og re2 / re3 due to the amount of contradictions those 2 games have with other entries. ( e.g. Sherry is free of g-virus at the end even though she wasnt in claire a / leon b and this carried over to future re titles like re6 where she had powers from g-virus. ) The og games are more canon since they are more definitive versions while reimaginings are grey canon at best due to being more abridged versions. ( They are as canon as chronicles retellings. )

Also there's no re2 and re3 remake. They are reimaginings, not remakes. There's only one remake and that's released in 2002.

Here's another video that explains why:

 

[Turo602]

It's all canon. Anything can be referenced from any version of any game because it's all meant to represent the same thing. Revelations 2 contradicts REmake and Resident Evil 1 in general contradicts itself. They're video games where the gameplay takes precedence over the storytelling. No game is truly replaced in the canon, they're just expanded on in various ways and meant to be new ways to consume what is essentially the same story, just like the Chronicles games which retold the story of the series via on-rails gameplay, but added a whole bunch of new stuff to the canon.

 

[mert20004]

It's all canon. Anything can be referenced from any version of any game because it's all meant to represent the same thing. Revelations 2 contradicts REmake and Resident Evil 1 in general contradicts itself. They're video games where the gameplay takes precedence over the storytelling. No game is truly replaced in the canon, they're just expanded on in various ways and meant to be new ways to consume what is essentially the same story, just like the Chronicles games which retold the story of the series via on-rails gameplay, but added a whole bunch of new stuff to the canon.

How does rerev2 contradict remake exactly?

Also while the reimaginings are " canon " ; that still doesnt change the fact that og re2 and re3 are more canon than reimaginings. People shouldnt " replace " those games with abridged reimaginings unlike remake which can be used to replace re1 since it's faithful while reimaginings arent really that faithful.

The only thing faithful about re2 2019 when compared to og re2 is the fact that it has survival horror gameplay. Story is an inconsistent mess and characters and their motivations are changed. Especially leon and ada where their backstories are changed and they arent love interests due to their backstories being changed. They are simply friends.

Might as well drop this statement of news bot too:

" RE:2 conflicts with the entire Desperate Times scenario of Outbreak File 2 and the 1969 construction of the R.P.D. conflicts with that game's 1980s date. Ada's false death was clarified as being due to the Tyrant rather than the fall, RE:2 conflicts with her BIO3 scar. Wesker's Report says HUNK found Sherry's G sample thrown away by Leon after he got it from Sherry. In BIO2 and the Chronicles games, the Tyrant was mainly sent to recover Sherry's pendant sample, but the pendant doesn't even have the virus in RE:2.

RE:3 conflicts with BIO3 even more explicitly. Tyrell Patrick is essentially a completely different character. It changes a lot of established names to the point it's hard to tell what some are even meant to be replacing. The P-12A Waste Incineration Plant is "Raccoon Nuclear", conflicting with Umbrella Chronicles. Then there are countless lore changes like the nature of the railgun, NEST2, Nathaniel Bard, etc. In both games, the events of 0&1 are mostly ignored and all the old connections to the original game are gone, like Ada's cover. The Archives books are essentially the series story bibles which the developers have used for the past 15 years, but the reimaginings contradict much of them. "

 

[Turo602]

Because Claire references the Jill Sandwich line which was rewritten in REmake. Therefore, they chose to reference the original RE1 because the line is more iconic, meaning they can reference any version of these games at any time. If people can accept Chris and Jill's scenarios somehow both being canon at the same time in both Resident Evil 1 and REmake, then REmake 2 can do it too and still be considered canon. The orphanage didn't exist in the original Resident Evil 2 but they can still reference it in the future if they feel like it.

 

[mert20004]

Because Claire references the Jill Sandwich line which was rewritten in REmake.

That's a official localization issue. In og japanese script; claire doesnt reference it. Most of the references to past re titles in rerev2 are exclusive to official localization and doesnt exist in og japanese script.

If people can accept Chris and Jill's scenarios somehow both being canon at the same time in both Resident Evil 1 and REmake, then REmake 2 can do it too and still be considered canon.

Thing is; re2 has scenarios which connect to each other along with zapping system unlike re1 and remake which has parallel scenarios. While re2 2019 adds things; at the same time, it also cuts things and it cuts more than adding unlike remake which does the opposite. Plus it has many contradictions to future re titles.

 

[Turo602]

That's a official localization issue. In og japanese script; claire doesnt reference it. Most of the references to past re titles in rerev2 are exclusive to official localization and doesnt exist in og japanese script.


Thing is; re2 has scenarios which connect to each other along with zapping system unlike re1 and remake which has parallel scenarios. While re2 2019 adds things; at the same time, it also cuts things and it cuts more than adding unlike remake which does the opposite. Plus it has many contradictions to future re titles.

I'm pretty sure people were using the original Japanese scripts to say Alex Wesker was male too, but that clearly didn't matter. Resident Evil is a franchise made to appeal to westerners anyway, so I doubt the original Japanese scripts count for much.

That doesn't matter. They're both still canon just like both scenarios in Resident Evil. The whole series is built on a contradiction so whatever contradictions one wants to find with any version of RE2, it's all canon anyway so it doesn't matter. The events don't change, they just keep adding to it.

 

[mert20004]

I didnt know that bit about alex. Though og japanese script is still more canon than official localization.

 

[Jonipoon]

I stopped trying to make sense of the canonicity in the Resident Evil series years ago.

 

[Hardware]

I stopped trying to make sense of the canonicity in the Resident Evil series years ago.

Yeah, me too - they started truly messing up the lore from RE4 onwards, which is kind of funny considering how obsessive they were with the narrative elements in the days of RE 1.5, but I chalk that up as another proof of Mikami & Pals' erratic behavior.

 

[Wasker1995]

New Gameplay video

 

[Hardware]

Doesn't look much like Resident Evil, it reminds me of a mix of Outlast and The Evil Within - I am still getting it because it's a horror game and I like horror games. Plus, I am curious to know what the different creatures are and what far-fetched explanation they came up with in order to fit all this stuff in RE lore.

 

[Unknown]

Although it looks like a better game than 7, i’m not seeing any Resident Evil here

 

[Hardware]

Although it looks like a better game than 7, i’m not seeing any Resident Evil here

Personally, I am not very pleased by the fact you can pick up coins from the downed enemies to buy guns and upgrades from the merchant. It encourages killing everything that moves and smothers the "survival horror" concept: that's one of the many gripes I have with RE4. I should be fleeing from the creatures, shooting them only when necessary, not to necessarily kill but to at least stun them momentarily - that's one the things RE2make nailed perfectly: it's easier to kneecap zombies and move forward than killing them, while trying to shoot the lickers very often is not the brightest idea. Unless they somehow managed to perfectly balance survival and coin-gathering, I am afraid we're going to see another RE4, only with a darker tone and a better plot (two things 4 reallllly lacks).

 

[Mr.R]

I find that "avoiding" enemies to be one of the biggest myths on Resident Evil history. Most pre-RE4 games have enough ammo to kill pretty much every enemy on the game on the standard difficulty, if you look hard enough. RE2 has ammo to kill everything twice. Code Veronica has so much Handgun bullets and Shotgun Shells (especially on the Chris part) to kill everything. Even Remake start to throw a lot of ammo on your way after the guardhouse. I think the only fixed-camera RE that keeps you on your toes about ammo (and still have enough to kill everything) is Zero. I'm not counting here hard difficulties, since that's the point. Nor the easiest ones either. Standard difficulty. I know, because I tend to kill every enemy I can, except on obvious cases, like the start of RE2, in the streets and so on. I think most people just don't look hard enough, since (especially on the fixed camera angles) a lot of ammo was hidden behind things or in drawers, but even so...I always find the "avoiding enemies" angle of RE to be so strange, because I never did that. Maybe on Outbreak.

 

[Hardware]

I find that "avoiding" enemies to be one of the biggest myths on Resident Evil history. Most pre-RE4 games have enough ammo to kill pretty much every enemy on the game on the standard difficulty, if you look hard enough. RE2 has ammo to kill everything twice. Code Veronica has so much Handgun bullets and Shotgun Shells (especially on the Chris part) to kill everything. Even Remake start to throw a lot of ammo on your way after the guardhouse. I think the only fixed-camera RE that keeps you on your toes about ammo (and still have enough to kill everything) is Zero. I'm not counting here hard difficulties, since that's the point. Nor the easiest ones either. Standard difficulty. I know, because I tend to kill every enemy I can, except on obvious cases, like the start of RE2, in the streets and so on. I think most people just don't look hard enough, since (especially on the fixed camera angles) a lot of ammo was hidden behind things or in drawers, but even so...I always find the "avoiding enemies" angle of RE to be so strange, because I never did that. Maybe on Outbreak.

True, you eventually have enough ammo to kill everything in sight, but you have to collect them first before you can clear an area and you don't gain anything from killing enemies. And it takes more than a playthrough to actually become so confident about shooting everything anyway - save for, maybe, RE3. Actually, I don't think I ever killed all the zombies in the OG RE1 or the remake and, after returning from the courtyard, I always avoided place like the dog corridor because of the spiders.

 

[Springhosen]

@Hardware I don't know about the eventually part. When I was younger I used to always kill all the enemies on RE1 and RE2 because I wasn't good at dodging and I don't remember having to backtrack to do it. You just have to be thorough when you sweep an area but there's definitely enough ammo to go around.

 

[Turo602]

True, you eventually have enough ammo to kill everything in sight, but you have to collect them first before you can clear an area and you don't gain anything from killing enemies. And it takes more than a playthrough to actually become so confident about shooting everything anyway - save for, maybe, RE3. Actually, I don't think I ever killed all the zombies in the OG RE1 or the remake and, after returning from the courtyard, I always avoided place like the dog corridor because of the spiders.

Exactly. Resident Evil games have always gotten easier on subsequent runs because you know where ammo is and aren't just exploring the unknown. It's very easy to run low or even out of ammo if you're not playing smart and just shooting everything in sight without any kind of plan because of the way zombies and ammo are allocated.

You can eventually find more ammo, but by then, you're scraping by with each encounter until you accumulate a lot. I never waste shotgun ammo or special guns on zombies because I don't know what I have to fight up ahead that may require it and when I might find the appropriate ammo next. It's only once you beat the game when you can freely kill everything because you're reducing your backtracking and encountering enemies in a smarter order because your moment to moment gameplay is now improved by your knowledge of the bigger picture. And that's even if you're bothering wasting time picking things up since you're sort of encouraged to dodge things anyway for speed runs.

Unless you've gotten the shotgun in REmake, fighting crimsons would be foolish as you'd just be burning through your pistol ammo when there might be more zombies up ahead, and you'll most definitely lose lots of health playing this way. The same logic can be applied to the dogs early on.

This is also the case with a game like Code Veronica, where you can easily become stuck fighting the same enemies over and over again because they constantly respawn that I just ended up dodging them because fighting them would be a waste of time, ammo, and health.

Dodging enemies becomes a necessity, just like in the intro to RE2 and it's why lots of gamers become stuck and feel like they can't progress. There's a certain kind of skill or puzzle solving element to exploring and dealing with encounters that just isn't present in games like RE4 that want you to eliminate everything.

I'm skilled enough at these games by now to end up with tons of resources by the end, but it literally doesn't compare to how insanely loaded my inventory is by the end of RE4 and how comfortable I am during each encounter. The psychology between these games are just vastly different and it seems like RE8 is going back to that RE4 style of combat.