Resident Evil 9 Rumors/Leaks Discussion

[Turo602]

Figured this warranted its own thread since it's been brought up a couple of times around the forum.

Just wanted to jump onto what @Jonipoon was saying about the supposed open-world rumor and actually disagree. Personally, I think open-world can and has worked for survival horror. Games like State of Decay and Days Gone are both excellent examples and both happen to be zombie games which is something recent Resident Evil games tend to stray from outside of remakes, so who knows how that would work.

Despite the hordes of enemies seen during the action phase of the series, something Resident Evil hasn't really explored is large groups of fast and aggressive zombies as seen in games like Left 4 Dead, Days Gone, and World War Z.

However, I'm not so sure the structure of the aforementioned open-world games is something that would necessarily suit Resident Evil. But to that, I would like to add that the classic Resident Evil formula as it is isn't too dissimilar from other larger scale open-world games. Batman: Arkham City, Control, Jedi: Fallen Order, and other Metroidvania-like games come to mind. While it hasn't exactly been done yet, I think games like Resident Evil: Village and the recent Resident Evil 4 remake have already made potential strides towards an open-world direction that could honestly work and possibly influence the structure of the Resident Evil 5 remake for the better.

It's also not that surprising when you consider how often Capcom has followed trends with this series and bigger, longer, open-world experiences is where the money is at these days and this decision was without a doubt made by the success of their current best selling game, Monster Hunter: World.

The series has gone through a bit of a Renaissance since 2017 with a focus on classic survival horror design and tropes but after 5 games, I myself have started to wonder when exactly being good isn't good enough and reviewers and players are going to start complaining about the complacency the series is currently in as they originally did with the classic games.

With the remakes drying up and potentially giving us more of the same formula we've already seen many times before, I think Capcom is ready to usher in a new era for Resident Evil before it starts to get stale. But as seen with how they've handled the main series and the remakes despite their differences that have separated the fanbase, I think it's certain that survival horror will still remain at the forefront of whatever this new direction is. After how excellently they handled the Resident Evil 4 remake, I'm willing to give them that much faith. And who knows, maybe open-world Resident Evil is Capcom's ticket to a Dead Rising revival which I'd love to see on the RE engine.

 

[Ikawaru]

Word around the campfire is that RE9 has been pushed back and another remake will come before it. Whether it's 5, CV, or 1 is anyone's guess. Personally, I don't think Capcom has the capability to make a stellar open world RE game and would nearly get crushed under the weight of its own ambitions. It would be the beginning of the series becoming less popular and would have a smaller and more radical fanbase as opposed to the usual mass market appeal the series normally enjoys.

That is not necessarily a bad thing though, as personal enjoyment =\= mass market appeal. Everything finds and audience, big or small. 'Silent Hill' retained a diehard fanbase after the series dwindled in popularity.

 

[Turo602]

I think it's too soon for any remakes to be released given the previous rumor stated several projects were greenlit last year which presumably include remakes of Code Veronica and Resident Evil 5. The fan remakes of Resident Evil 1 and Code Veronica were also shut down in December of 2022 which could potentially point to the exact games that got the green light last year like they did back when they announced the Resident Evil 2 remake.

Unless one of these projects has been in development a lot longer than we may have anticipated or one of these remakes is getting the Resident Evil 3 treatment, I don't see any of them releasing before Resident Evil 9. The whole delay talk seems to be nothing more than diarrhea of the mouth from Dusk Golem who admittedly doesn't know when Resident Evil 9 will release outside of its original plans and now "murmurs" of a delay which may or may not be true and another Resident Evil game which may or may not release before it.

His comments about said game however do seem interesting as he seems to have an idea of what the game is and would consider its reveal funny as it would catch us off guard. There's at least 2 unaccounted projects of the supposed 5 that are said to be in development that could predate whatever games were greenlit last year that could potentially be releasing soon along with RE9.

If I'm not mistaken, last we heard of Revelations 3 was that it was cancelled? Yet I can't help but feel like the timing of it couldn't be more perfect given its rumored ties to Nintendo who are also rumored to be releasing a brand new console soon. Is it possible Revelations 3 was halted due to the Switch's hardware limitations and moved on over to its successor?

But then I also question the recent listings for Resident Evil 7, 2, and 3's PS5 ports that seem to be scheduled for July which corresponds with the usual summer game conferences where I'm sure their official announcement will be accompanied by a bigger Resident Evil reveal which can't be Revelations 3 if its marketing and exclusivity are tied to Nintendo, unless they had obligations to Nintendo which kept the game from releasing all this time until their next console dropped despite still being a multi-platform release. I also can't imagine some nothing spin-off or multiplayer game being the highlight of a segment that features games like Resident Evil 7, 2, and 3.

As for Resident Evil losing its popularity, I highly doubt it. I mean, it didn't happen with 5, it didn't happen with 6, it didn't happen with 7, and it didn't happen with Village. Capcom knows how to tap the general audience that even a game as flawed as RE6 still harbors a sizeable following. Resident Evil going open-world, for whatever that means, will appeal to a mass audience on name alone as it did when both RE4 and RE7 shook the very foundation of the series and brought in many newcomers because of its trusty brand name.

I honestly think Capcom can pull it off. I've never doubted their ability to make great games and when it comes to Resident Evil, they've been on a hot streak of quality. But will it please us as Resident Evil fans? Well, that's a whole other discussion. Whatever they do with RE9, it'll likely be a great game. Hell, it could be the greatest game they ever made, but that doesn't mean they're doing right by the series.

I'm not so concerned with whether or not Capcom can translate survival horror into an open-world experience because they'll probably nail that but then fumble it by making it too easy so it can be accessible to newcomers like they did with Village. My main concern still lies with the overall presentation, gameplay, tone, atmosphere, and portrayal of legacy characters.

Is it gonna look, play, and feel like a Resident Evil game and do justice to the story and characters of the series? Is it gonna be yet another faceless protagonist in some generic horror world with characters who don't look or act like the characters they announce themselves to be? Those are the things I don't trust Capcom to get right yet nobody else will care about because they'll be too busy gushing over how good the game was and not whether or not it should even be called Resident Evil anymore.

 

[Jonipoon]

I think open world as a concept is misused and misunderstood far too often. Games like Jedi: Fallen Order and Control are not open world, they're semi open world which is a whole different thing in itself.

Forgive me if I'm being a tad bit one-sided here, but true open world games are by essence based on free choice, which in basic terms means that you can choose your objectives at your own pace without having to follow a specific linear path, and if you choose to wait you can do so and find plenty of other things to do. The world itself isn't "locked" or "inaccessible", but certain areas might be depending on your level. That's why true open world games almost always have RPG elements in them, because you need some sort of progression system to make it worthwhile spending hours upon hours roaming the same place while also keeping enough secrets hidden in order to make the progression feel rewarding as a player. The reason why I don't find this concept appealing in horror games is because I think it contributes to a "power fantasy" where you gain so much strength and skills that it ultimately diminishes the horror. However, it works great for action and fantasy games.

Resident Evil 4 is a great example of a semi open world game structure. You have large open areas that are intertwined and connected, but they will remain inaccessible until you complete the main objectives. A true open world will not keep the area itself from being inaccessible, but you might find it more challenging depending on your current level of progression. So for example, if Resident Evil 4 was truy open world you would be able to fight the troll immidiately, but you'd probably die. On the other hand, you could build up too MUCH progression before fighting the troll and ultimately find the fight to be childishly easy.

@Turo602 you mentioned Days Gone as a great example of open world done right in a horror game, although I would argue that its status as a "horror" game is highly debatable. Neverttheless I thought it was boring as hell, as I found its open world to be empty and lacking in interesting objectives. I can imagine the early builds of The Last of Us: Part II feeling similar to Days Gone, which could explain why Naughty Dog decided to scratch the concept and go for the semi open world structure instead (which in my opinion is the BEST choice for modern horror games). Hell, even RE classics like 3: Nemesis and Code Veronica utilized antique forms of semi open world, and quite successfully if you ask me.

RE9 going "open world" could mean anything, but I sincerely hope it's just a larger, more complex form of semi open world.

 

[Turo602]

I think the idea of open-world has been muddled in recent times with people equating lack of structure to open-world game design, which was heavily popularized with the release of Breath of the Wild. But lots of open world games have structure, including one of the earliest examples in The Legend of Zelda on NES which uses a lock and key system to gate players from accessing different parts of the map which only became more prevalent as the series continued to grow.

Games like Control and Jedi: Fallen Order share a lot of DNA with a game like The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time which itself is an early example of 3D open-world video game design which many refer to today as a Metroidvania for its much more explicit use of lock and key design compared to earlier entries that put emphasis on player choice and freedom.

Part of the reason I don't see the shift to open-world for Resident Evil as that big of a deal is because Resident Evil has always operated like an open-world game. Things like exploration, non-linear gameplay, and the implementation of a lock and key system that gradually opens up the environment all stem from traditional open-world design but due to its more streamlined and claustrophobic level design, it's often equated to a Metroidvania which couldn't be more perfect considering words often associated with Metroid games are isolation, atmosphere, and dread.

While there is a certain level of power fantasy that comes with these type of action adventure games like Metroid, Jedi, and Control, I think it can be argued that Resident Evil has always followed that same late game plow through enemies trope. Based on how well you play, it's very possible and likely you'll not just end up with tons of health and ammo, but you'll also have acquired some brand new heavy duty firepower by the end of the game.

As for Days Gone, I thought it was an excellent game that captured survival horror perfectly in an open-setting. I've always cited Red Dead Redemption II as a perfect template for an open-world survival horror game because of its methodical and emergent gameplay and its intricate survival mechanics. I know when I've come across many of the game's more creepy encounters or dangerous wildlife, I can't help but imagine how great it would be if the entire game was based around horror. Luckily, because of games like State of Decay and Days Gone, I don't really have to imagine anymore.

Exploration and resource management are at the forefront of these experiences which itself is a staple of Resident Evil gameplay, except an open-setting allows for a far more emergent experience that isn't foreign to Resident Evil either with enemies like Mr. X, Nemesis, and even the Crimson Heads. There's an unpredictability to the horror you experience when you're scavenging, exploring, or traveling to a destination. To use Days Gone as an example, your motorcycle can run out of fuel, need repairs, or simply be parked nearby as you went off to find more materials to help you survive only to find a massive horde of zombies you are ill-equipped to face standing between you and your bike and if you get spotted, you're gonna wish all you had to run from was a singular foe like Nemesis.

I don't think I ever felt overpowered in Days Gone and especially State of Decay where your characters are permanently killed off regardless of how much you've increased their stats. You only ever really felt capable of dealing with the threat because regardless of how many resources you can infinitely scavenge off of the world, you're still limited by what you can carry and will constantly find yourself dealing with threats that drain your resources and encourage you to go scavenging again. It's a loop that works and can go as far as the developer wants it to, seeing as despite how similar both games are, their approach to survival is vastly different as I've mentioned with State of Decay's permadeath mechanic which also applies to its vehicles, which are a lot more temporary than Deacon's motorcycle in Days Gone, as well as the stat increasing and base building mechanics that are central to surviving and progressing in the world of State of Decay.

There's many approaches an open-world Resident Evil game can take and while games like Days Gone and State of Decay make an excellent case for viable survival horror in an open-world, I don't think Resident Evil should necessarily emulate these style of games. As I've said before, I think Resident Evil as is has a lot in common with open-world game design and should play to their strengths.

Resident Evil: Village already felt like the first step towards an open-world Resident Evil game which I've complemented before on how it basically took the original Resident Evil 4 and turned it into a much more classically designed Resident Evil game with a seamlessly interconnected world. As much as I loved the changes made to the Resident Evil 4 remake, its structure was still largely linear, but the way each area was designed did feel a lot more connected and seamless with merchant requests, locked drawers, and optional puzzles serving as the reasons to backtrack through the environment.

I imagine a combination of both of these games is the likely outcome of an open-world Resident Evil game. Even the way Village set up its 4 lords felt like it could easily be tweaked to give the player more freedom to tackle each area in whatever order they want that could potentially create a sense of player discovery throughout various playthroughs to find the most optimal order for speed runs which is something already baked into the series' DNA.

Non-linear gameplay and player freedom have always been what makes speed running possible in this series and it's what makes open-world gaming so appealing to begin with. All they really have to do is expand the number of choices a player can make so that the game feels more open-ended while still retaining its identity as a Resident Evil game. If Capcom somehow messes that up, then I'll truly be at a loss for words because it's not that difficult to adapt when it already has so much in common with open-world game design. But again, I don't think Capcom is THAT clueless when it comes to making games.

My chief concern going into RE9 still remains the overall presentation, characterizations, and narrative because they've already proven to me at least that they know how to design Resident Evil games, that is, when they're not cutting corners and rushing development or trying to overly correct "issues" for a casual audience and I don't think we have to worry too much about 1 of those considering how long the game has allegedly been in development.

 

[Jonipoon]

I hear you. And it's not like I'm completely against the idea of Resident Evil going full open world, it's just that I have concerns about it. Valid concerns.

One other thing that's important to mention is that horror games, for the most part, remain heavily centered around stories with a sense of urgency. Sure, there's time to breathe and calm down in-between enemy encounters in order to solve puzzles, read memos and what not, but the story is usually structured around a character that wants to escape whatever place they're in as fast as possible. You can't have a true open world with vast freedom of choice and expect to keep that same level of urgency you get from a more linear structured world. Because if you can do everything at your own pace, why worry about those zombies on the other side of the mountain when you can just go to sleep comfortably in your camp and do some sweet side quests? In order find the perfect balance of just enough sense of urgency and just enough open world, a semi open world is the key to success; and as we've already agreed on the Resident Evil series has a history of hitting that sweet spot.

Part of the reason why I don't like Days Gone is because I don't find it scary. It's more of an action game rather than a horror game which tends to be more suitable for open world structures. The story itself does not have that "sense of urgency" because, frankly, there is no set story when you're free to explore the world at your own pace. Comparingly, Red Dead Redemption II works perfectly as an open world game because the story plays out over the course of a long time. However, it's not really fair to compare it to a zombie game because the expections one gets from a Western themed adventure game are completely different. I don't really need a huge sense of urgency in a game that is literally made to distract you from completing the main storyline, and rewards you for it.

However, one way to make true open world work for Resident Evil is to go back to its roots - mystery. Resident Evil 1 is still the closest thing the series has ever come to a detective story, where you slowly investigate the strange, dark mansion for clues in order to reveal the hidden conspiracy and dirty secrets behind it all. Even if there was a sense of urgency, you knew that Jill and Chris had to investigate further because they didn't know what was going on until the very end, and that's why the story so closely resembles mystery/detective fiction more so than any other game in the series.

A case could therefore be made to take inspiration from Deadly Premonition, the most successful open world horror game in my opinion. Because of its emphasis on mystery (it's basically a detective story set in a strange David Lynchian-town of bizarre people and events) the freedom of choice to explore the mystery at your own pace contributes to the sense of urgency rather than diminishes it the way an action-oriented game would do. The problem with almost every Resident Evil game that comes after RE1 is that the world and its citizens knows about zombie outbreaks, so there's not much mystery left in the world to explore. A case has to be made for RE7, because even though I don't like the game for obvious reasons I have to give it credit for managing to induce at least some sense of mystery. RE7 would've been even better if the game was titled something completely different, and then at the end (or mid-through) it would be revealed as a Resident Evil game and players would drop their jaws.

 

[Turo602]

I'll be honest, I don't think a narrative sense of urgency is that important when it comes to video games. It's a great observation about the series and survival horror games but I don't think that's ever really reflected in-game and in open-world games specifically, it's a poor narrative choice for reasons you've already stated. I often joke in Zelda games how the situation is always dire in Hyrule and Link is just chasing chickens and fishing while Zelda is stuck in a castle holding off Ganondorf until Link arrives.

Personally, when I think of urgency from a game-design perspective, a game like The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask or Dead Rising comes to mind where all your objectives are under a timer which creates a distressing environment for the player and it's something Resident Evil has dabbled in to a smaller extent with those classic self-destruct sequences which I believe also originated from the Metroid series.

But you make a really good point about open-world games in general when it comes to narrative structure and their gameplay loop. However, Days Gone doesn't really suffer from this type of archaic design as its story structure and open-world synergizes quite brilliantly. Rather than following one storyline to the end, there are several intertwining story threads that unfold throughout the game that dictate what you're doing at any given time and the side quests are things that actually make sense narratively and benefit the player without ever making the story feel like you need to be doing something urgently that you currently aren't.

I know it doesn't really present itself as a horror game as it's much more narratively focused like The Last of Us but its gameplay loop and mechanics are ripped straight from the survival horror genre and its open-world allows for many complex situations to arise from just interacting with the world which is where the horror happens as opposed to the usual scripted encounters of survival horror games. That emergent gameplay is exactly why I look to a game like Red Dead Redemption II as a template for open-world survival horror because it does survival so well and can at times feel like a horror experience with its incredible atmosphere and strange oddities all while grounding the player into reality and not making them feel like a superhero. Sure, there's no sense of urgency to games like Days Gone and State of Decay but it doesn't really need it in a post-apocalyptic world where survival is status quo and the world is dangerous and constantly working against your favor.

Which, let's not also forget, the Capcom data breach did have Resident Evil 9 codenamed "Apocalypse" and I really don't know how I feel about that for this series. Clearly, the world seems fine in Shadows of Rose but there's also a possibility Resident Evil 9 takes place after that and maybe the whole Chris/BSAA story is being saved for a different game so that RE9 can "move the series along" in a "fresh new direction." Wouldn't be the first time they abandoned storylines...

But I do like the idea of incorporating detective work and mystery solving in a Resident Evil game, especially if it's going to take on a more open structure and will surely need some form of change of pace to the gameplay. They were cops and puzzle solving plays a huge role in the series so I can definitely see how that could work. I feel like the Genesis scanner in Revelations would have been a perfect tool for such a thing rather than somehow grabbing herbs from scanning enough enemies... But maybe that type of approach is something that can flesh out another remake of Resident Evil 1 and justify it a little more.

Also, came across something funny today. Maybe @Ikawaru was onto something.

 

[~Excella~]

Word around the campfire is that RE9 has been pushed back and another remake will come before it. Whether it's 5, CV, or 1 is anyone's guess. Personally, I don't think Capcom has the capability to make a stellar open world RE game and would nearly get crushed under the weight of its own ambitions. It would be the beginning of the series becoming less popular and would have a smaller and more radical fanbase as opposed to the usual mass market appeal the series normally enjoys.

That is not necessarily a bad thing though, as personal enjoyment =\= mass market appeal. Everything finds and audience, big or small. 'Silent Hill' retained a diehard fanbase after the series dwindled in popularity.

I have read it's another RE1 remake, which is stupid as it doesn't need it. RECV needs one, I can't believe this hasn't been done yet.

 

[Turo602]

I have read it's another RE1 remake, which is stupid as it doesn't need it. RECV needs one, I can't believe this hasn't been done yet.

Actually, Dusk Golem has followed up on his previous leak and is now saying RE9 is going to be revealed soon and will likely release in January next year.

 

[~Excella~]

Actually, Dusk Golem has followed up on his previous leak and is now saying RE9 is going to be revealed soon and will likely release in January next year.

Yes but there is a rumor a remake is coming before 9 that would possible be another RE1 remake. At the same time, I’ve also read that this year won’t be any RE releases so I doubt the remake rumor has any truth to it for 2024. There are I think like 5 RE projects coming along the next X amount of years.

 

[Jonipoon]

I don't think another RE1 remake is a bad idea, but if it happens at the cost of a CV remake I would vote against it.