Resident Evil 7 Albert Wesker to return in RE7?

[Turo602]

If your mom says so, sure. You're a winner too. :happy:

 

[xMobilemux]

 

[PlayerUp.com]

Capcom has always specialized in gameplay but I personally never had an issue with the direction the story was going until Resident Evil 5. They haven't made a really good elite Resident Evil game in over a decade and I myself lost interest in supporting the series after Resident Evil 5 because I think they have lost touch on what it takes to make a really good game. I think people are going to look at the reviews this time around before rushing out to buy the game.

Where everything went wrong was how they closed Resident Evil 5. If they really wanted to close Albert Wesker chapter, they should have brought everyone back for one big fight against Albert Wesker where many die but the good guys find a way to prevail. Instead they took the character that has appeared in more Resident Evil's than any other character and supposedly killed him off like they do with every typical final boss. Let me list what they did wrong here:

- They changed Albert Wesker character into something he isn't. They made him look stupid to be quite honest.

- For some reason, Wesker just couldn't find a way to kill Chris and Sheva even though he was clearly more powerful. The odds realistically of Chris and Sheva defeating Wesker had to be about 1 in 10000 and as always Capcom has to have the good guys win. Howabout for once you make a twist and have them lose?

- For some reason, they made Wesker less powerful when adding Uroboros. Goodbye Superspeed.

- For some reason, a rock had to split apart from under him. So he's standing their in lava burning yet he couldn't take his super long arms and just grab onto something and return to the surface. No instead he grabs onto the helicopter. Just think about this for a second. If you are Wesker, and truly burning, first thing you're going to think is how do I get out from this lava. I guess the lava wasn't that hot.

- The last part is how ridiculous they made the graphics when the RPGs are coming at him. Literally 100+ youtube videos went up discussing if the rockets hit him or not. Poorly done.

- Lastly, they never kill off a main character (good guy). Instead they keep piling on new characters that always prevail despite the less than 1% odds at surviving.

What I would do if I was calling the shots for Resident Evil 7:

- Change the series direction. Instead of the good guys always prevailing, I think it's time for the series to go the direction of having a global outbreak. Doing this could extend the series an additional 3 to 6 games and reboot it back to how it was during the Resident Evil 2 days.

- The villains have to be unpredictable and more interesting. Bringing Wesker back is fine as a 3rd party, but they additionally need a villain who cares nothing about humanity and wants the world to end. Maybe that could be Alex, maybe they could be someone else. It doesn't really matter. I'm just tired of each game being so predictable. Based on Capcoms past, you should expect whomever the main villain is, he will definitely die at the end of the game. There won't be any twists.

- Stop adding so many characters and then retiring them. Kill them off. Downsize it and focus on the main characters. We still don't know who Alex Wesker is, we don't know what happened to Steve, where is Rebecca, Barry, Billy, Carlos? Finish their stories instead of adding more so people can have proper closure.

We can make excuses all day but in the end it's Capcom poor story that has been one of the biggest reasons the franchise has gone downhill. If they do this right, they can revive the series. I think we all have doubts they can turn this around.

We all have our opinions, but what's clear to all of us is that the series needs some major changes if it's going to survive moving forward.

 

[Hel]

Yes most of what you say is a matter of opinion and not really a valid counter point to what I'm saying, if you enjoy the game then awesome, I respect that, but pretty much everything you've stated just points at streamlining and dumbing down and being ok with it.

At the moment my opinion is that TR2013 is good, yours is that it is bad, how are we supposed to argue about that? But as I said, my point wasn't to prove you wrong anyway, at least not in your general opinion about the game, I just wanted to point out that story isn't the only thing you can like about it, because I also like pretty much everything else, whether you call it "streamlining" or "dumbing down" or whatever. (By the way, can someone explain to me what "streamlining" means? I've never heard that word outside this thread.)

I also have to disagree with what you said about me liking Legend, Underworld and Anniversary when they are the same as the reboot, because they aren't, not by a long shot, while I don't consider those 3 games to be great, I do think they're fairly good because Legend took what the first 3 games did right and reworked them pretty well, the platforming, gymnastic shooting, enemy variety, puzzles, vehicle segments etc

I was mostly talking about Legend when I compared it to the reboot, and let's face it: Legend is easy even on the highest difficulty, there's no exploration at all because the path is as straight as it can be, the QTEs and overload of cutscenes were introduced with this title, there are maybe three puzzles throughout the whole game and they aren't even hard with Zip and Alister or sometimes even Lara herself always giving away the solutions, the rest is about shooting generic human enemies (I don't know what "variety" you see in that department, there are four or five wild animals among the armies of soldiers, and that's it), and as if that wouldn't already make it easy enough, giant help windows that can't be switched off pop up every two minutes to tell you exactly what you need to do (if that's what you mean by "hand holding"). Yes, it's fun and it has some great platforming, but as I said before, it also has everything you're criticising about the reboot, and it's so easy that even people who have never heard of videogames before shouldn't have any problems playing it. So if anything, Legend is a "dumbed down" version of Tomb Raider, yet you enjoy that game, but not the more complex TR2013. How does that make sense? I mean, it doesn't have to, you can't argue about taste, but still.

Tomb Raider 2013 was keyword here "marketed" as a game about survival, I saw all the marketing about "A Survivor is Born" and the Guide to Survival videos when the game itself has absolutely nothing survival related, again, apart from its story.
For example, the part near the beginning of the game where Lara finds the bow and then kills a deer for "food", after that pointless segment, you don't ever have to do that again the entire game, Lara never starves, never looses strength or anything, what was the point of that?

The point was to carefully introduce players to the new combat system and allow them to practice in a relatively safe environment before the real enemies come in. I know it was marketed differently, but since when do game developers actually keep their promises? Underworld, too, was supposed to have a number of features that didn't make it into the final game, where did they go? Never trust a trailer or the word of a developer, that's more or less an unspoken rule, and not just for Tomb Raider.

 

[xMobilemux]

At the moment my opinion is that TR2013 is good, yours is that it is bad, how are we supposed to argue about that? But as I said, my point wasn't to prove you wrong anyway, at least not in your general opinion about the game, I just wanted to point out that story isn't the only thing you can like about it, because I also like pretty much everything else, whether you call it "streamlining" or "dumbing down" or whatever. (By the way, can someone explain to me what "streamlining" means? I've never heard that word outside this thread.)

Yeah you like the game and that's fine, btw streamlining means the same as dumbing down, as in making the entire game easier and more accessible for newbies.
You want an even more horrible case of what streamlining is, go look at Ninja Gaiden 3.

I was mostly talking about Legend when I compared it to the reboot, and let's face it: Legend is easy even on the highest difficulty, there's no exploration at all because the path is as straight as it can be, the QTEs and overload of cutscenes were introduced with this title, there are maybe three puzzles throughout the whole game and they aren't even hard with Zip and Alister or sometimes even Lara herself always giving away the solutions, the rest is about shooting generic human enemies (I don't know what "variety" you see in that department, there are four or five wild animals among the armies of soldiers, and that's it), and as if that wouldn't already make it easy enough, giant help windows that can't be switched off pop up every two minutes to tell you exactly what you need to do (if that's what you mean by "hand holding"). Yes, it's fun and it has some great platforming, but as I said before, it also has everything you're criticising about the reboot, and it's so easy that even people who have never heard of videogames before shouldn't have any problems playing it. So if anything, Legend is a "dumbed down" version of Tomb Raider, yet you enjoy that game, but not the more complex TR2013. How does that make sense? I mean, it doesn't have to, you can't argue about taste, but still.

Well I was more or less talking about Legend as well as the other 2, suppose I should have mentioned that, my mistake.
I said Legend, Anniversary and Underworld were decent, I don't think they're good, just decent, as in mediocre, I haven't played them in a long time and don't even really want to, Legend started off ok by having good gymnastic shooting, good platforming and vehicle segments etc, then Anniversary and Underworld bought back the enemy variety with the dinosaurs, giant spiders and the like.
Also yes that is handholding.
Also one very important Tomb Raider feature I forgot to mention that was absent in the reboot but is featured in every other game in the franchise, was the swimming segments, love em or hate em, they were an important part of Tomb Raider.
While Legend and the other 2 weren't good, they were still Tomb Raider games, the identity was still there, the reboot isn't Tomb Raider at all, everything Tomb Raider is gone and replaced with every generic gameplay cliche in the book, it is far more dumbed down than the other 3 CD games.

The point was to carefully introduce players to the new combat system and allow them to practice in a relatively safe environment before the real enemies come in. I know it was marketed differently, but since when do game developers actually keep their promises? Underworld, too, was supposed to have a number of features that didn't make it into the final game, where did they go? Never trust a trailer or the word of a developer, that's more or less an unspoken rule, and not just for Tomb Raider.

There you go, streamlining, dumbing down and hand holding.
I remember the glorious days of the first Tomb Raider games where they just threw into hell and you had to figure things out for yourself.

 

[Hel]

Also one very important Tomb Raider feature I forgot to mention that was absent in the reboot but is featured in every other game in the franchise, was the swimming segments, love em or hate em, they were an important part of Tomb Raider.

That we can finally agree on. There was a lot of water in the reboot, but none to actually swim and dive in, and I missed that too, even though I was never a great fan of water-based levels or locations.

I remember the glorious days of the first Tomb Raider games where they just threw into hell and you had to figure things out for yourself.

That's not entirely correct, there has always been some sort of training level or course in every game. TR2013 implemented the training in the first "level" like The Last Revelation, Angel of Darkness and Underworld, the Chronicles had that too although it was optional, and the first three TRs as well as Legend and Anniversary had Croft Manor for you to practice in.

 

[Turo602]

Streamline - To alter so as to make more efficient or simple.

Efficient - Functioning or producing effectively and with the least waste of effort; competent.

Simple - Not complicated.

Hmm, nowhere do I see anything about dumbing down... Sounds to me like something that works well and is easy to use. What does this say about Tomb Raider? Nothing. Both games are very different, easy to use, and work well. Anyone who tries to make the older Tomb Raider games some complicated, hardcore, achievement of gaming, is sadly mistaken.

 

[Edge Stylez]

Albert? nah, i always said a clone of him with jake´s blood i guess, but different name, also wesker was always a key on every game, capcom cant stop his role.

 

[letmelive311]

I love this juicy debate. Ladies and Gents It would be interesting to see how Capcom plays wesker back. he does represent Evil it self. I wouldn't say he made or broke the franchise or even is RESIDENT EVIl. For the definition of Resident Evil is Evil that is close to home, or among us. Capcom seems to be bringing that evil around the globe. We see it in Africa, Antarctica, china and In the U.S. I like the picture they are painting with the multiple games they are producing, its as if the evil you cannot escape, its not just in one town, but could slither in your neighborhood. As a RE fan I like to be supportive as I can so that the games keep coming. But then also voice my opinion so that perchance a developer reads our conversation and ponders on what they should bring to the game. My Suggestion finish what you started! I hate how Chris Redfield saved one of the most original and important characters in RE5 and it never explained in RE6 where Jill Valentine went. I want answers! I hate how some of the aspects of the game are left un explained. where is Rebecca chambers? Where is Barry Burton? Who exactly is the original 11 on the BSSA? Maybe these holes of information is what Capcom uses to develop story, but i think thats lazy.

My Prediction for Wesker anyways is this. Despite him melting away in LAVA! I think he had a plan B. Hes been in and out of labs, experiment on his own body, that I would guess him signing up to clone himself. And since we saw cloning done in RE6, Capcom is making it known that cloning of characters is totally possible.

As for Alice in the game, Im half amused. I love Milla J and think she kicks ass and would love to play her as a video game character, but her story HAS to fit the RE Universe, and how the movies go, there is no way in hell its going to make sense. Unless someone can point out how Capcom can do this?

 

[KevinStriker]

RE2, 3, and the other successful entries before 5 where Wesker didn't appear at all or just in a minor role would like to have a word with you.

On topic: The moment Wesker comes back from the dead again is the moment I lose all respect for Resident Evil. Surviving a Tyrant impalement and a plunge out of a high window is still somewhat believable given the circumstances, but if he doesn't die from two rockets straight to the face while submerged in lava, they'll have to create a singularity or something to get rid of him for good. And aside from the ridiculousness, I don't want him back either; even Simmons had more depth as a villain than Wesker.

Oh, and unless you're playing Separate Ways, he's only briefly mentioned in RE4.

 

[KennedyKiller]

My Suggestion finish what you started! I hate how Chris Redfield saved one of the most original and important characters in RE5 and it never explained in RE6 where Jill Valentine went. I want answers! I hate how some of the aspects of the game are left un explained. where is Rebecca chambers? Where is Barry Burton? Who exactly is the original 11 on the BSSA? Maybe these holes of information is what Capcom uses to develop story, but i think thats lazy.

But you're just wanting information because you don't have it...RE has ALWAYS has plot holes, that they filled in, even YEARS later...I mean...When RE2 came out, there was next to NO mention of Jill...But they filled in what happened to her with RE3...Also, if a game poses a question, and the VERY next game answers it, that gets boring after 2 or 3 games...There needs to be some spread to it. To keep us on our toes and guessing. Just like how a TV show works. If in episode 3 of *Insert show here* a question is posed, then why would they answer it RIGHT in Episode 4, or, they could wait, then come episode 11, BAM, out of nowhere, and when you least expect it, you get your answers...That's much better storytelling...

Oh, and unless you're playing Separate Ways, he's only briefly mentioned in RE4.

But Separate Ways is JUST a pivitol to the over all story, as the main story. Possibly even MORE so. Separate Ways completes the game and the FULL story. You can't exclude it to make a point. That's just grasping for straws...

 

[egregious zombiemasher]

It will be an act of sheer absurdity to bring Wesker back. He made impact on RE fans and series. Period. But the way capcom sets his see-off in RE5, i say that they gotta be seriously Desperate IF they bring him back or even considering it. What`s been said and done so far in Resident Evil regarding the Beloved antagonist should stay that way. But i gotta say that it would be interesting to see Jake and Pops eye to eye, but then again "IF ONLY" comes into play so, i suppose we gotta let him go eventually.

 

[ToCool74]

I say screw bringing Albert Wesker back, give us a new villian who is still a wesker but ends up being different and more dangerous than Albert, I'm talking about Alex Wesker.

The way he was alluded to in RE5 LIN gave me the impression that he is going to be the smarter of the 2 given the fact that he discovered the secret to immortality.

That and the fact that he was the only one to survive the Prototype Virus along with Albert leads me to believe he also gained superhuman powers which along with his high intelect and him discovering the secret to immortality should make for a very dangerous threat.

I want him to be different while also being more menacing and even more dangeous than his "brother" Albert.

 

[KevinStriker]

Just remember, Alex Wesker's status is unknown, meaning he can be alive or dead.

 

[Hel]

Yep... unlike Albert Wesker, who is definitely dead. Anything else would be ridiculous after RE5.

 

[ToCool74]

Just remember, Alex Wesker's status is unknown, meaning he can be alive or dead.

The fact that he discovered the secret to immortality as well as the fact that he should have super powers comparable to Albert leads me to believe he is alive,

After all who could kill him?

 

[Spikeyroxas]

Please no more clone story lines.
Please no more clone story lines.
All the live action films pretty much did this and it got ridiculous. Re6 touched up on it but I hope it ended that aspect too.

 

[xMobilemux]

The only way Alex Wesker could even come close to the impact Albert made in one game is if Alex showed up in RE7 and killed half the main roster, something really f**ked up like snapping Claire's neck in front of Chris before killing Chris and leaving only one main character and some new comers to kill him, would set up a new story direction in which Alex could end up developing over, because knowing Capcom Alex will just get the wasted villain treatment like Simmons got, when Simmons was actually meant to be a big character in the lore and we never even heard of him until the one game he died in.
Alex will never gain the big time villain status Albert got and still has unless he does some really evil s**t over the course of multiple games.

 

[Hel]

Wow, I like the sound of that! I would hate if Chris and/or Claire were the ones to fall victim to Alex Wesker's killing spree, and if they killed off all my favourite characters, I probably wouldn't continue playing, but the idea in itself is still great.

 

[xMobilemux]

Resident Evil has plenty of characters for Alex to kill to make an impact, if The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones has proven anything it's that seeing a favorite character get suddenly killed off creates a hell of an impact.
If Alex could do what Albert couldn't and kill Chris, Claire and other RE characters then that would prove that he is far more evil and dangerous than Albert and show that he's not your typical villain that the hero defeats in the end.