• Welcome to the Resident Evil Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Resident Evil series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Resident Evil: Village Resident evil VILLAGE leak, trailer ecc

  • Thread starter Deleted member 21244
  • Start date

UniqTeas

G Virus Experiment
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
1,428
Points
9,995
Age
34
Was Resident Evil really in such dire straits even from the POV of people outside of Capcom? Back then I wasn't part of any online gaming community, but I did read news and reviews from at least 3 websites on a daily basis along with some monthly magazines (who remembers those?) and RE seemed to be in good health. Certainly, moving the series to the GameCube wasn't a very clever move (and they already had Code: Veronica as an example of extra-PlayStation releases), but were people aware that RE1make wasn't selling as fast as hoped?

RE2make is the first game from the Resident Evil franchise that I am actually happy with in about 20 years - I don't care about the plot having been messed up, it's the gaming experience that truly feels like modernized survival horror. I hope Capcom will follow its trend, but, who knows? Yeah, RE8 having started as Rev3 actually worries me about the plot: if it was supposed to be a spin-off, the chances of it being pretty messed up are quite high.

I cannot say exactly how Capcom was viewing the franchise at the time. They had statements about pushing the series in new directions which they did, but inside the Capcom offices - who knows. But yeah - lots of headlines at the time were about how Capcom was stale and they needed new games rather than re-releasing the same games with new paints of coat. Resident Evil and Street Fighter both had major complaints about them. They milked Street Fighter 2 for YEARS and then Street Fighter 3 seemed very generic to the fanbase. Resident Evil had very similar complaints. But I think the Gamecube games were selling enough for them to continue the series even if RE4 wasnt the biggest hit of the time. All complaints from the fanbase are still super relevant, but at the time, it was very sketchy.
 

Hardware

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
63
Reaction score
60
Points
1,538
I cannot say exactly how Capcom was viewing the franchise at the time. They had statements about pushing the series in new directions which they did, but inside the Capcom offices - who knows. But yeah - lots of headlines at the time were about how Capcom was stale and they needed new games rather than re-releasing the same games with new paints of coat. Resident Evil and Street Fighter both had major complaints about them. They milked Street Fighter 2 for YEARS and then Street Fighter 3 seemed very generic to the fanbase. Resident Evil had very similar complaints. But I think the Gamecube games were selling enough for them to continue the series even if RE4 wasnt the biggest hit of the time. All complaints from the fanbase are still super relevant, but at the time, it was very sketchy.

I remember some magazines mildly criticizing Code: Veronica back in the day for not being very innovative, but, at the same time, almost everyone was praising it for its technical achievements and atmosphere. Everyone just lost their minds for RE1make (no recollection of negative opinions) and I mostly skipped anything about RE0. I was frankly quite surprised when Mikami said in 2015 that the reason for RE4 being the way it is was RE1make not selling as much as expected. I am not sure if it was the sole reason, but it is true that Capcom announced that the game had gone past the 1 million units mark in 2008, 6 years after its original release (and we all know AAA games need to sell a minimum of 1 million copies within the first year to be profitable - in the short run, at least).

My two cents is that RE didn't need to get fixed because it wasn't broken. It just needed what I'd call a "physiological update" due to the number of games already released and the new tech available to the devs. Even adding something as simple as a flashlight (we only got it in RE2make, even though I had been dreaming of something like that since "Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare" and "Hookman" showed Leon using one) would've deeply affected the gaming experience and made a new entry feel fresh. Hell, I don't even think they are using stuff like dynamic lighting to its full, survival horror potential as we speak.
 

Hardware

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
63
Reaction score
60
Points
1,538
We also know that Capcom had like 10 different Resident Evil games in conceptual development during the early 2000s, so to call this epoch in time ”messy” would be an understatement.
Yeah, they had RE1.9 (later 2.1 and even later 3), RE3 (later RE4, before getting scrapped), RE4, C:V, RE0, and Gun Survivor in the oven between 1999 and 2000 alone. Plus the outsourced ports of RE2 for the N64 and RE1 for the GBC. But my impression was that the audience was still quite hungry for survival horror games in the pre-RE4 era. Also, and that might be just me, but stuff like RE1make felt like high-quality filler: yeah, it was cool to see the original game with those state-of-the-art graphics and better voice acting, but what most people wanted was the next chapter in the saga, especially after RE2, RE3 and C:V all ended on a sort of cliffhanger with every character (minus Claire) stating that Umbrella had to be taken down. So I can see why a lot of people skipped the remake of RE1 despite its undeniable qualities or why there wasn't this big interest over RE0. I don't think Capcom or Mikami ever factored in the fact the players saw the games more like movies than "only" games, so they wanted to move forward, not dwell on the same story about Raccoon City over and over.
 

Turo602

The King of Kings
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
2,367
Reaction score
2,614
Points
21,318
Yeah, they had RE1.9 (later 2.1 and even later 3), RE3 (later RE4, before getting scrapped), RE4, C:V, RE0, and Gun Survivor in the oven between 1999 and 2000 alone. Plus the outsourced ports of RE2 for the N64 and RE1 for the GBC. But my impression was that the audience was still quite hungry for survival horror games in the pre-RE4 era. Also, and that might be just me, but stuff like RE1make felt like high-quality filler: yeah, it was cool to see the original game with those state-of-the-art graphics and better voice acting, but what most people wanted was the next chapter in the saga, especially after RE2, RE3 and C:V all ended on a sort of cliffhanger with every character (minus Claire) stating that Umbrella had to be taken down. So I can see why a lot of people skipped the remake of RE1 despite its undeniable qualities or why there wasn't this big interest over RE0. I don't think Capcom or Mikami ever factored in the fact the players saw the games more like movies than "only" games, so they wanted to move forward, not dwell on the same story about Raccoon City over and over.
I don't think the problem was with REmake itself but the platform it was on. They took a series that was mainly on Playstation and made it exclusive to Nintendo. Not even RE4 sold that much better than REmake on the Gamecube. Yet when REmake was ported and remastered on modern consoles, it broke sales records.

The direction definitely wasn't the issue when it came to RE4 though, nor was it fan or critical feedback. It was Capcom becoming overzealous with a popular IP and running it into the ground with oversaturation like they did with Street Fighter. They had too many projects going on for different consoles while Resident Evil 4 was stuck in development hell, and even though Zero was being criticized for being more of the same, RE4 was already fixing that issue long before it became the action game we know it as now.

I feel like the point of REmake was to re-establish what a Resident Evil game is and lay out the groundwork for future installments, which we're currently seeing with RE7 and all the games that have come out since. REmake took things back to basics and modernized it for the time, which is why Zero, a game originally developed for the N64 took a backseat and released after REmake and was just "more of the same." Meanwhile, they were saving the majority of their big innovations for Resident Evil 4.

I remember hearing that the reason the game was scrapped was due to rendering issues on the Gamecube, so at what point they decided to call it quits on making a survival horror game because of REmake underperforming is quite confusing.
 

Hardware

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
63
Reaction score
60
Points
1,538
I don't think the problem was with REmake itself but the platform it was on. They took a series that was mainly on Playstation and made it exclusive to Nintendo. Not even RE4 sold that much better than REmake on the Gamecube. Yet when REmake was ported and remastered on modern consoles, it broke sales records.

The direction definitely wasn't the issue when it came to RE4 though, nor was it fan or critical feedback. It was Capcom becoming overzealous with a popular IP and running it into the ground with oversaturation like they did with Street Fighter. They had too many projects going on for different consoles while Resident Evil 4 was stuck in development hell, and even though Zero was being criticized for being more of the same, RE4 was already fixing that issue long before it became the action game we know it as now.

I feel like the point of REmake was to re-establish what a Resident Evil game is and lay out the groundwork for future installments, which we're currently seeing with RE7 and all the games that have come out since. REmake took things back to basics and modernized it for the time, which is why Zero, a game originally developed for the N64 took a backseat and released after REmake and was just "more of the same." Meanwhile, they were saving the majority of their big innovations for Resident Evil 4.

I remember hearing that the reason the game was scrapped was due to rendering issues on the Gamecube, so at what point they decided to call it quits on making a survival horror game because of REmake underperforming is quite confusing.
Yeah, I agree: the userbase was on the Playstation line of machines. Moving the series to Nintendo was not a shrewd move, especially after Code: Veronica didn't do that well on the Dreamcast alone (maybe they thought it was because Sega had grown weaker, while Nintendo seemed strong enough to fight against Sony and Microsoft - as it turned out, it was not). Apparently, Mikami and his people were not happy with the PS2 hardware (like most devs, actually) and originally offered the RE exclusive to Microsoft, but the latter's Japanese reps failed to make a good impression. Truth is, they should've clenched their teeth and stuck with Sony - that's what Konami (yeah, I know they are the bad guys now) did with Metal Gear Solid and Silent Hill despite the platform not being easy to work with nor as powerful as everyone hoped. True, Sony definitely paid them handsomely to retain the exclusive, but I doubt Microsoft was offering less for the chance of snagging one of those franchises (I remember rumors circulating around early-2000 about Microsoft trying to get its hands on MGS).

I agree, RE0 felt like it took several steps backward when compared to REmake. Parts of it actually came across as antiquated even when compared to RE3 and C:V. Graphics and zapping system aside, it really felt like a game from 1998 (which is what it essentially was). As I said many times before, it was the first game that made me want for an updated RE - but that's because it really was nothing new. Even today, it feels like an elaborate mod.

I remember, being the naive guy that I was, thinking that most of the ideas in REmake (the Crimson Heads, the defense items) had been introduced to make them canon\legit in RE4. As it turns out, that wasn't really the case (or maybe it was at one point - we don't really know much about the Castle build). The only thing that was supposed to tie the remake to the elusive 4th chapter was the picture of Spencer's castle, which was more of a super-hidden easter egg than anything else.

The reasons behind the RE4 prototypes cancellation do wary. Technical issues like the GameCube's limited memory have been addressed for both the Castle build as well as Hookman. But, according to Mikami in later interviews, the switch to action-heavy gameplay happened because the remake of RE1 didn't do as well as expected. It might be true even though, again, I think that a real sequel with some slight innovations would've fared better. Also, it's not like RE4 was this super smash-hit on the GameCube: it sold about 1.3 million copies in the first year, which is good but not astonishing. Once it was ported to PS2, it sold about 2 million units in the same time period despite the port being technically inferior and the fact the game was already one or two years old by that point.

 
Last edited:

Magnolia Grandiflora

Kahnum of Outworld
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,248
Reaction score
4,565
Points
39,478
Age
30
I don't think the problem was with REmake itself but the platform it was on.

This. I was pretty upset when the REmake came out and, as a long time fan and PlayStation-user, I was unable to play it. It kinda felt like a slap in the face, to be honest. My favorite video game series decides to go all in on a remake that looks amazing and I can't play it until 13 years later when they finally decided to port it to the series' home console.

I personally find that a lot of the titles that didn't initially sell well in regards to the Resident Evil series were due to terrible decisions on Capcom's part, namely making certain titles exclusive to other consoles. (And those titles did better when ports were later released.)

It was like when they came out with Dino Crisis 3 and it was an Xbox exclusive. I get that not everyone is as console monogamous as I am and the game is terrible anyway but why would you release a sequel in a series that's only ever been on PlayStation and PC as an Xbox exclusive? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Fans have proven time and time again that they'll buy crap you just have to make it accessible.
 

Jonipoon

Professional Sandwich Consumer
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
885
Reaction score
999
Points
6,140
Age
30
Yeah, they had RE1.9 (later 2.1 and even later 3), RE3 (later RE4, before getting scrapped), RE4, C:V, RE0, and Gun Survivor in the oven between 1999 and 2000 alone. Plus the outsourced ports of RE2 for the N64 and RE1 for the GBC. But my impression was that the audience was still quite hungry for survival horror games in the pre-RE4 era. Also, and that might be just me, but stuff like RE1make felt like high-quality filler: yeah, it was cool to see the original game with those state-of-the-art graphics and better voice acting, but what most people wanted was the next chapter in the saga, especially after RE2, RE3 and C:V all ended on a sort of cliffhanger with every character (minus Claire) stating that Umbrella had to be taken down. So I can see why a lot of people skipped the remake of RE1 despite its undeniable qualities or why there wasn't this big interest over RE0. I don't think Capcom or Mikami ever factored in the fact the players saw the games more like movies than "only" games, so they wanted to move forward, not dwell on the same story about Raccoon City over and over.
It's a pretty common complaint among fans of the classic trilogy + CV, that RE4 basically skipped the whole plot about taking down Umbrella. I felt so bummed playing RE4 the first time when the intro sequence said that "Umbrella was finished". So, the ultimate bad corporation that put all of us into this hellhole is taken out of the story just like that, because their stocks crashed? How exciting. The first three games always gave me the impression that Umbrella was essentially deep state with lots of corrupt politicans behind their backs. Digging deeper into the lore even shows us that both Umbrella, their rival company, the US government plus black-marketeers were able to secure samples of the G-virus prior to the destruction of Raccoon City. Cutting Umbrella out of the equation was a bad move on Capcom's part.

At the same time, I've never been a fan of the whole "save the world" plots of RE4/RE5/RE6 (especially RE6) that turned our relatable police characters into secret agents. Any game dealing with the eventual takedown of Umbrella would've had to include some sort of "save the world" plot, but with the right story it could've been done right.
 

mert20004

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
227
Reaction score
85
Points
2,153
Saw the trailer for re8. Overall ı was pretty bored by it. It seems to have more variety than re7 though plus ı liked chris' design but that's it.

I think the game is gonna be disconnected to canon re lore just like re7 and reimaginings.
 

Hardware

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
63
Reaction score
60
Points
1,538
It's a pretty common complaint among fans of the classic trilogy + CV, that RE4 basically skipped the whole plot about taking down Umbrella. I felt so bummed playing RE4 the first time when the intro sequence said that "Umbrella was finished". So, the ultimate bad corporation that put all of us into this hellhole is taken out of the story just like that, because their stocks crashed? How exciting. The first three games always gave me the impression that Umbrella was essentially deep state with lots of corrupt politicans behind their backs. Digging deeper into the lore even shows us that both Umbrella, their rival company, the US government plus black-marketeers were able to secure samples of the G-virus prior to the destruction of Raccoon City. Cutting Umbrella out of the equation was a bad move on Capcom's part.

At the same time, I've never been a fan of the whole "save the world" plots of RE4/RE5/RE6 (especially RE6) that turned our relatable police characters into secret agents. Any game dealing with the eventual takedown of Umbrella would've had to include some sort of "save the world" plot, but with the right story it could've been done right.
Well, I cannot see how an old-time fan couldn't be bothered by Umbrella being wiped out like that. It is especially fastidious when you consider that the scenario for 1.5 was rewritten in order to make Umbrella the main villain and guarantee more sequels since the company was supposed to have been shut down after the events of RE1. I guess that "more sequels" only meant RE3 (which is hardly a real sequel) and C:V. Oh, and "Gun Survivor", the bad game with the good plot.
I am not so sure that any game following Umbrella's demise would've inevitably dealt with the "save the world" plot: even without Umbrella, the whole BOW black market would've still been something secretive. The "save the world" plot was forced from RE4 onwards because they turned the villains into Marvel-style characters, even though one could argue that even C:V was about saving the world, given Alexia's plans (but, since she's insane and alone, nobody really cares). I can see many possible scenarios where the characters don't save the planet even after Umbrella is gone...just look at REV2 and RE7: they are not about something menacing the whole world.
 

Magnolia Grandiflora

Kahnum of Outworld
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,248
Reaction score
4,565
Points
39,478
Age
30
@Hardware Yeah but I think RE7 departs in a different way. (Like scrapping all the original RE characters/plot points.)

It honestly seemed like a genuinely good game when I watched gameplay of it but I had a serious problem with it literally having nothing to do with previous RE's and I don't understand why they couldn't have connected it to the series or titled it something else. (And no, I don't count Redfield's strange appearance or the inclusion of Umbrella to be a sufficient connection. That could have literally been anybody.)

I also wish that you could choose between first person and over the shoulder so that I could've had the chance to play it. I think I would've enjoyed it.
 

Hardware

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
63
Reaction score
60
Points
1,538
@Hardware Yeah but I think RE7 departs in a different way. (Like scrapping all the original RE characters/plot points.)

It honestly seemed like a genuinely good game when I watched gameplay of it but I had a serious problem with it literally having nothing to do with previous RE's and I don't understand why they couldn't have connected it to the series or titled it something else. (And no, I don't count Redfield's strange appearance or the inclusion of Umbrella to be a sufficient connection. That could have literally been anybody.)

I also wish that you could choose between first person and over the shoulder so that I could've had the chance to play it. I think I would've enjoyed it.
What I wanted to point out is that, in RE7, you have another biological incident that doesn't involve saving the world. New characters would've been necessary in the long run, you can't have the same ones over and over. Actually, it's a trend that started with RE2: most people take Leon and Claire for granted nowadays, but I remember that in '97\'98 people were kind of shocked about Chris and Jill not being in the game.

That said, RE7 felt rather alien to Resident Evil in tone and style. It's another game that should've been its own IP, if you ask me.
 

Hardware

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
63
Reaction score
60
Points
1,538
This. I was pretty upset when the REmake came out and, as a long time fan and PlayStation-user, I was unable to play it. It kinda felt like a slap in the face, to be honest. My favorite video game series decides to go all in on a remake that looks amazing and I can't play it until 13 years later when they finally decided to port it to the series' home console.
I hear you, man. I've always been a Playstation user since the late-90s and I was pretty furious when they announced that RE had become a Nintendo exclusive. I actually got a GameCube (all black, to go along with my PS2) ONLY for RE1make, RE0, and RE4 (which, at that time, only existed as a title) and I was pretty embarrassed by the fact I owned TWO consoles: it really made me feel like a spoiled kid. But I didn't want to miss out on the next important game in the series (RE4) like I did with Code:Veronica (by the time the latter was ported to PS2, half the plot had already been spoiled on magazines and chatrooms - who remembers those?). You can imagine how frustrated I felt when RE0 turned out to be a weak entry and RE4 was....well, RE4.
 

Jen

Girly Gamer
Premium Elite
Premium
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
2,171
Reaction score
3,710
Points
30,226
Age
28
My thoughts on the showcase are pretty much the same as a lot of people in this thread.

I think I'll probably feel about RE8 the same way I did RE7, in that as a game it's all right in itself, but terrible as a Resident Evil game. I hate what RE7 did in relation to Resident Evil and this is just a further continuation of that.

I haven't looked at any of the major leaks so I don't know if I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but what is really irritating me is how suddenly Ethan is being portrayed to be 'special'. In the trailer, everyone seems to know of him and is making him out to be a big deal. I think a lot of people thought that Ethan was bland in RE7 (because you're apparently meant to be playing the game to experience it for yourself - which wasn't what I wanted out of Resident Evil anyway), but now it seems like Capcom's response to that is 'Look guys, Ethan really is special, he's really important!', when really, I couldn't care less about Ethan or anyone around him. I find Mia downright annoying (I'm derisive whenever I see someone say that they wish she could star in a game), and I don't care about any baby they have together. I also hate how Chris is being made to fit into a story about Ethan and Mia, when he should be the star of the show.

The merchant is ridiculous, and to say 'the merchant is back' is crazy when this guy looks nothing like the merchant from RE4. I also find the hype over the tall woman ridiculous too.

I'm just really not a fan of this direction for the series at all. I really dislike that it's first person again and I also kind of hate the supernatural gothic story aspect that seems to be at play here. I'm not saying that wouldn't make for a good game, but it just doesn't cut it for Resident Evil, in my opinion. I really don't understand the logic of the direction it's taken (apart from appealing to casuals and streamers). The only Resident Evil game to win a Game of the Year award in modern times is Resident Evil 2 Remake, which to me says a great deal, and that game gave me real hope that Capcom still knew how to make a decent RE game and that they'd take that into consideration with the future of the series. But hey, lets ignore that and stick to first person and bland characters and story... It's no wonder that the RE fanbase is a mess of factions with different ideas on what Resident Evil truly is.

Also, why are bolt cutters suddenly everywhere in Resident Evil?
 
Last edited:

Magnolia Grandiflora

Kahnum of Outworld
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,248
Reaction score
4,565
Points
39,478
Age
30
@Jen You summed up my feelings about Ethan and Mia perfectly! My husband and I just got done watching a playthrough of 7 and I couldn't stand her. Neither of us liked that the player chose to save her, even though I hear that gets you the good ending for whatever reason, and wish Zoe had been saved instead.

They're both just really bland and honestly, Miss Mia brought that **** on herself. Don't work with bioweapons and you wouldn't be held in the middle of nowhere for 3 years by crazy mold people.
 

Jonipoon

Professional Sandwich Consumer
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
885
Reaction score
999
Points
6,140
Age
30
You could argue that Ethan is considered "special" because of his previous Mold infection, but it doesn't really cut to the chase.

Perhaps the whole plot of RE8 is just a bad dream, and it ends with Ethan waking up in the sofa with his wife and daughter beside him, having slumbered through an old vampire flick on Netflix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jen

Jen

Girly Gamer
Premium Elite
Premium
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
2,171
Reaction score
3,710
Points
30,226
Age
28
@Jen You summed up my feelings about Ethan and Mia perfectly! My husband and I just got done watching a playthrough of 7 and I couldn't stand her. Neither of us liked that the player chose to save her, even though I hear that gets you the good ending for whatever reason, and wish Zoe had been saved instead.

They're both just really bland and honestly, Miss Mia brought that **** on herself. Don't work with bioweapons and you wouldn't be held in the middle of nowhere for 3 years by crazy mold people.
Agreed, I saved Zoe first time round. Shame it's pretty much a total waste of a choice in the next cutscene... :ROFL:

To me, Ethan and Mia are to the game series what Alice is to the movies - they make the entire series bend around them and their stories.

You could argue that Ethan is considered "special" because of his previous Mold infection, but it doesn't really cut to the chase.

Perhaps the whole plot of RE8 is just a bad dream, and it ends with Ethan waking up in the sofa with his wife and daughter beside him, having slumbered through an old vampire flick on Netflix.
I would say that that previous infection is as important as Capcom decide to make it, and they've chosen that as a convenient way to try and make Ethan seem more relevant and special. They could just have easily had it mean nothing, just like some of the previous infections other characters (Jill, Claire etc.) have had.

I kind of wish I could wake up on the sofa and this new direction of RE be a bad dream.... :ROFL:
 
Last edited:

Hardware

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
63
Reaction score
60
Points
1,538
The only Resident Evil game to win a Game of the Year award in modern times is Resident Evil 2 Remake, which to me says a great deal, and that game gave me real hope that Capcom still knew how to make a decent RE game and that they'd take that into consideration with the future of the series. But hey, lets ignore that and stick to first person and bland characters and story...
I am playing the Devil's advocate here, but Village was already in development before RE2make was released. It was originally supposed to be Revelations 3 (following the tradition that tech used for previous mainline games is recycled for the spinoffs - that's what DuskGolem\AestheticGamer says at least) and then got promoted to mainline entry because they thought it was so good. There's a good chance that Resident Evil 9 (which will probably not feature a numbered title) will be like RE2make. I hope so. Even though we are talking years from now.
 
Top