Raccoon City. An iconic city. Do you need to destroy the city?

5
0
50
#1
Hi, guys!

I find the background of Umbrella and Raccoon City very intriguing and rich. The city is practically a character of the game.

And I was thinking how interesting it would be for Capcom, in this reimagination, to resolve not to destroy Raccoon City. However, at the end of RE3, just isolate the city, through walls (like a Boston City of game The Last of Us).

The circumscription areas were also abandoned, by order of the authorities. The destruction of the city not be justified by any influence of environmental activists and public authorities. Anything that might sound plausible - even the radiation could influence the mutation of the T and G viruses.

The important thing was to keep the city of Raccoon as scenery, and it would present that ghostly, wild, deserted, deserted look, like the New York City of the movie I Am the Legend, and as it is currently Chernobyl.

Then, Capcom would invest a very curious plot to justify the return to the city, after many years.

Maybe Umbrella would return the searches inside the city, collecting samples of T-Virus and G-Virus. Do not know. I could think of something more elaborate. But it would be fantastic to explore the Raccoon after ten years, for example, would be.

What do you think?

 
Last edited:
3,872
3,952
32,026
#2
In my head I've always wondered what would happen if they created another town over the site of the old one. (I'm sure this would have to be years in the future, far enough that the general populace would've forgotten about what happened there.)

Would the radiation from the missiles affect the viruses that had been there in any way? Could an infected specimen survive radiation - like the plants perhaps? Would that entire area be a hazard to healthy humans? Would there be another outbreak if they did build another town there due to residual infected/possible surviving virus samples? Etc.

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who ever wonders what happened to the city after the nuke.
 

Shinigami7724

Lurking is my jam.
1,309
511
15,368
#3
Personally, I enjoy when locales are revisited. You get a familiar vista without it being the same thing and you can go wild with it.
Obviously as long as they don't JUST have it be in this singular area all the time it's fine.

Would love to revisit RC like how Outbreak does it with a completely different perspective comparative to RE2. Especially in this new engine.
 

UniqTeas

G Virus Experiment
206
74
2,883
#4
I have been dreaming of an open-city Resident Evil Outbreak #3. I just don't know how it would work. At all. haha
 

Jonipoon

Valentine's valentine
235
93
1,788
#5
Perhaps there could be a wall built around it after the city is destroyed, in a "just in case" scenario. And then over 2 decades later scientists discover that part of the virus has survived in the soil, lying dormant and then mutated into nearby plantlife. And then they send in some troopers to investigate...
 
18
1
157
#6
I would nuke the city with a Tsar Bomba.

Raccoon City is a dead city no point in abandoning it while the outbreak can perhaps spread around the entire world. Ever since the zombies tookover the city the city was a lost cause to save.

Okay just bring in a international coalition of NATO, Russia and China even if they wipe out the zombies and other creatues with a million or so troops along with fighter jets, tanks and helicopters the virus is still there. With an abandoned city you might have people wanting to go back just like the chernobyl diaster some people have returned to their radiation land. How about the people especially thrill seekers going to RC just for the thrill of it only to get infected by a abandoned city.

Nuking the city was the only logical way in a situation that has been lost. There was no hope in saving the city.