According to the infamous leaker (so everything needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, even though he's been pretty spot on so far), the plot is very complex and branches out to the main lore. We'll see. Frankly, I keep wondering what the hell is the Umbrella logo doing there (it's actually been in every trailer so far): maybe Spencer belonged to one of the 4 clans...the possibilities for some far-fetched explanation\retcon are almost endless. I deeply miss the days that logo simply meant "Umbrella Corporation" and everything was about bio-weapons, which were test-tube freaks with an anatomy that actually made sense...probably, the only game where we actually saw that idea at display was Code: Veronica: the Hunter II trained to follow the Seeker drone is the only time they actually showed us what these experiments were for (yeah, we also saw the T103 and Nemesis, but they were more like special enemies, not something mass-produced - the same with the dead Tyrants at the end of RE3).
I'll still keep on my opinion that RE Van Helsing seems like a very good and fun game, for sure. I love vampires and werewolves. It certainly doesn't look like any version of Resident Evil I've ever seen (although I will steer of debates like what Resident Evil is, because Resident Evil is a lot of things these days and I pretty much enjoy all the different forms, even though all of them had good and bad games. Also, there's a real toxic gatekeeping that always happens when people start to claim what is the TRUE Resident Evil. A reason I don't watch Avalanche Reviews videos that much).
At any rate, even though I, personally, can't see much of Resident Evil on it, it does seems like a fun game, that explore themes that I actually like it. it also seems way, waaaay more fun and engaging than RE7. So, for now, I'm pretty much on board. I'll probably complain about the story later, but I think I might be a good time fighting those monsters...which was always my favorite part on the series anyway.
At any rate, even though I, personally, can't see much of Resident Evil on it, it does seems like a fun game, that explore themes that I actually like it. it also seems way, waaaay more fun and engaging than RE7. So, for now, I'm pretty much on board. I'll probably complain about the story later, but I think I might be a good time fighting those monsters...which was always my favorite part on the series anyway.
Quite funnily, I do mostly agree with his opinions, even though his idea of a real RE game also includes the static camera angles and tank controls which, quite frankly, I am not sorry we lost as they did hinder the gameplay from evolving. I am sorry we didn't get another game with a dynamic camera like Code: Veronica, but the remake of RE2 does demonstrate that you can have a 100% pure RE-style survival horror experience without those prehistoric techniques. As a working cinematographer and former TV cameraman, I very often cannot stand him talking about "pitcher" quality, especially when it's pretty clear he doesn't know squat about a lot of stuff - he only knows he wants his image crystal clear and goes to spend lots of money on gizmos to boost the output on 20+ years old hardware that was supposed to be used with consumer-grade CRT TV screens (I did plug a PS1 to a professional CRT monitor once for ****s and giggles: because of the cleaner image, 3D models looked even poorer and the compression artifacts on textures were more apparent).
Last edited:
Gatekeeping and defining what something is aren't necessarily related though. A lot of people tend to define things very poorly, but you can objectively study the series and understand exactly what it is that made Resident Evil what it is.
The problem is the toxicity that stems from the anonymity of the internet and fast moving nature of social media. Newbies will talk down on long time fans if they express dislike and long time fans will talk down on newbies for praising the newer stuff. People have no filter or patience with each other and I'm guilty of it too due to how often I've been called both a liberal and a conservative or both an Xbox and Playstation fanboy. You can literally be talking about cookies and suddenly end up being called a goddamn Oreo fanboy. Whatever the topic is, you say one thing and people assume they have you pegged and their worst comes out without fail.
Everyone will always have their preferences and own jumping in points, and that's okay. People can like whatever they want but that doesn't mean you can't critique the way things have changed over the years and pinpoint exactly what makes Resident Evil what it is because no matter how much things have changed, there's always been a degree of semblance to the original game's formula. That's why franchises often "go to their roots" when they begin to lose the spark they once had and stating that shouldn't make anyone like games like Resident Evil 4 or 7 any less or feel invalidated as a fan, especially if you are a newcomer coming into a long running series for the first time.
There's nothing wrong with humbling yourself and listening to what the fans are saying. I loved the Devil May Cry reboot despite how the die hard fans felt and I honestly respect their opinions because they know more about Devil May Cry than I do. I still appreciate the reboot as a gamer who likes fun games and I'm glad the fans finally got what they wanted with DMC V which I'll also play but never fully grasp like the real fans do and I've played the original trilogy before, but I'm not exactly the most qualified person to tell you why Devil May Cry is great outside of "I had fun with it" or "combat feels great."
As a diehard Resident Evil fan, Resident Evil 4 is one of my favorite games of all time, but even I can recognize that despite having similarities to previous entries, that it's an entirely new type of game for an entirely new kind of audience. Even Devil May Cry started as a Resident Evil game and has strong similarities to it, yet that's recognized as a new franchise meanwhile Resident Evil 4 is labeled Resident Evil and stars Leon Kennedy. Does that suddenly make it less of an anomaly in the series? And if so, would there have been any need for Resident Evil 7 to "go back to the series' roots" or was it just a redundant change?
But that's not to say that a series can't grow or evolve with the gaming industry and that's the problem that I tend to have with purists as well. They can't recognize the difference between a deviation, a creative choice, or an evolved concept, and they're so stuck in the past that nothing can ever satisfy them unless it's a carbon copy of the very thing they like.
The problem is the toxicity that stems from the anonymity of the internet and fast moving nature of social media. Newbies will talk down on long time fans if they express dislike and long time fans will talk down on newbies for praising the newer stuff. People have no filter or patience with each other and I'm guilty of it too due to how often I've been called both a liberal and a conservative or both an Xbox and Playstation fanboy. You can literally be talking about cookies and suddenly end up being called a goddamn Oreo fanboy. Whatever the topic is, you say one thing and people assume they have you pegged and their worst comes out without fail.
Everyone will always have their preferences and own jumping in points, and that's okay. People can like whatever they want but that doesn't mean you can't critique the way things have changed over the years and pinpoint exactly what makes Resident Evil what it is because no matter how much things have changed, there's always been a degree of semblance to the original game's formula. That's why franchises often "go to their roots" when they begin to lose the spark they once had and stating that shouldn't make anyone like games like Resident Evil 4 or 7 any less or feel invalidated as a fan, especially if you are a newcomer coming into a long running series for the first time.
There's nothing wrong with humbling yourself and listening to what the fans are saying. I loved the Devil May Cry reboot despite how the die hard fans felt and I honestly respect their opinions because they know more about Devil May Cry than I do. I still appreciate the reboot as a gamer who likes fun games and I'm glad the fans finally got what they wanted with DMC V which I'll also play but never fully grasp like the real fans do and I've played the original trilogy before, but I'm not exactly the most qualified person to tell you why Devil May Cry is great outside of "I had fun with it" or "combat feels great."
As a diehard Resident Evil fan, Resident Evil 4 is one of my favorite games of all time, but even I can recognize that despite having similarities to previous entries, that it's an entirely new type of game for an entirely new kind of audience. Even Devil May Cry started as a Resident Evil game and has strong similarities to it, yet that's recognized as a new franchise meanwhile Resident Evil 4 is labeled Resident Evil and stars Leon Kennedy. Does that suddenly make it less of an anomaly in the series? And if so, would there have been any need for Resident Evil 7 to "go back to the series' roots" or was it just a redundant change?
But that's not to say that a series can't grow or evolve with the gaming industry and that's the problem that I tend to have with purists as well. They can't recognize the difference between a deviation, a creative choice, or an evolved concept, and they're so stuck in the past that nothing can ever satisfy them unless it's a carbon copy of the very thing they like.
It's always a tricky discussion but like Turo said, humbling yourself will take you a long way. I mean, I thought Tomb Raider: Legend was an amazing game but apparently old time fans thought it was crap. But since I haven't played the OG Tomb Raider games I would never ever state that Legend is the true definition of a Tomb Raider game.
When it comes to Resident Evil, the best option would be to define the series through the use of different eras. For example you could say that RE4 defined the action era of the series, but it would be wrong to call it a good definition of what started the series. Likewise, RE7 is a good definition of the VR streaming era. But the most "definitive" era will always be the first three games, and you could possibly cram CV and Zero in there as well. If you look at it that way, it's easier to get along. The problem is, like mentioned above, that many people refuse to acknowledge basic stuff like that.
When it comes to Resident Evil, the best option would be to define the series through the use of different eras. For example you could say that RE4 defined the action era of the series, but it would be wrong to call it a good definition of what started the series. Likewise, RE7 is a good definition of the VR streaming era. But the most "definitive" era will always be the first three games, and you could possibly cram CV and Zero in there as well. If you look at it that way, it's easier to get along. The problem is, like mentioned above, that many people refuse to acknowledge basic stuff like that.
I think you can definitely cram CV and 0 in that package, with the latter embodying the stagnancy of the classic formula. 3 actually used to be quirkier of the bunch back in the day, but it was still within the margins of what RE was supposed to be. The series definitely needed an upgrade, but it shouldn't have been the game they sold us as RE4 - which is a pretty good game in its own right (I never thought of it to be the utter masterpiece they say it is: too much padding in the second half and it gets repetitive after a while), but it's a terrible RE game. I really hate when its fans get angry at you for pointing it out and in return they virtually press in your face all the accolades it won or the amount of copies it sold as proof it's the greatest RE game ever: there was never an award for best RE game and very few critics, if any, actually pointed out that, for all its merits, 4 failed at being a true sequel like movie critics would do. Selling a lot doesn't mean much either in terms of the game staying true to the series - if anything, it actually supports the argument that it strained too far from its roots since it managed to attract people who wouldn't have played a RE game otherwise (even though its original release on GC sold 1.3 million copies, which is a far cry from the 4 millions RE2 sold on the PS1 alone - but there where definitely less GameCube units around and, with Nintendo being the Disney of gaming, selling something that was not kid-friendly was definitely an achievement from a marketing POV). Had RE4 been the true sequel with the necessary upgrades people like me wanted (essentially, RE2make - which takes a lot of stuff from RE4, it "simply" uses it to scare people), the series could've probably ended in the PS3\360 era like Metal Gear Solid...even though Capcom wouldn't have allowed for it: Street Fighter and MegaMan are still around and are more than 30 years old after all. RE7 and Village, much like RE4, actually demonstrate that the creatives want and above all can create something new...and that people would buy them even if the products weren't carrying the Resident Evil brand. Much like Devil May Cry and, to a lesser degree, Onimusha (which was roughly conceived as a Resident Evil-like game set in feudal Japan - it even used the 1.5 engine in its original PS1 incarnation). I am not including Dino Crisis, definitely not the first one, because I see it as a game that couldn't distance itself too much from Resident Evil, no matter how much I liked it.
Just played the first demo on my PS4 Pro. Graphically, it looks pretty good in general - there were some minor collision errors, but it's probably stuff that will be fixed in the final build. Although it runs pretty smooth, it really pushes the PS4 Pro hardware (I reckon the final game will have the fans run at full speed like "The Last of Us Part 2") and, upon closer inspection, it's pretty evident the trailers we saw were from the next-gen version: the graphic downgrade is not so severe to compromise the experience (I am definitely not going to buy a PS5 now just for it - and, given how scarce they are, I wouldn't be able to anyway), but playing the demo and watching the trailer at the end (the same one we saw this past week) on my 55'' UHD TV are not exactly the same trip, visually-speaking. The images on the PS5 version "pop out" more, so to speak. The character's facial animations are kind of stiff and their lip movements are not in synch with what they say: I hope the final game will improve them, because they are a far cry from RE:3's lifelike animations and they don't feel on pair even with what we saw in RE7. Also, cut-scenes seem to be pretty long on average and 1st person doesn't feel to be the right perspective imho.The RE Engine has been upgraded and now things have a less "wet and shiny" look, which fits better with the rural, wintery setting. The beast men are pretty tough to kill even on normal mode (the first one I encountered took 3 shots from the shotgun and one pistol round to go down) and there was some nice suspense building as I walked through the tall grass and I heard them growling and tracking me while staying hidden...that said, they didn't feel as scary as I hoped and, maybe it's the demo lowering the amount of damage you can take since you cannot replay it, but I felt a bit too invincible - my health dropped to "danger" once but you can insta-cure you with "health fluids" like in RE7 and it immediately ramped up to "fine". As I feared, it takes a lot of hints from RE4, so, unlike 7 and RE:2&3, you have your guns, ammo and health items in a different inventory from the "key items" - meaning there's way less management to make: I don't really like this prospect, as limited inventory space is one of the things that make RE-style survival horror what is...and is also the single element that made 7 feel closer to the classic formula in my eyes. I think there will be some backtracking, but it won't be as predominant as in 7 and 2 (well, even 3 had you backtracking a bit - it's just that everything was more linear and you had less ground to cover). That said, the puzzle-solving seems a bit less dumb than in RE4 (where you typically had only one key item to use at any time and it was pretty obvious where you had to stick it). The item-crafting part is closer to "The Evil Within" and "The Last of Us" than, say, RE:3. In general, it looks like an interesting horror-adventure game...even though it doesn't really feel like RE: the design is remindful of RE4 (the village and its inhabitants seem to be stuck in the early 1900s and colors are more muted and less vibrant, even though it's not all filtered in brown as in 4), but the atmosphere is more serious and dark...actually, it doesn't even feel like RE7 from what I experienced...it sort of reminded me of "Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth". Oh, yeah: the beast men (which don't look like werewolves - the ones we glimpsed in the last trailer are probably a different species) can infect people and turn them into rabid, zombie-like beings...maybe they keep mutating as the infection takes over their bodies: the first stage is the rabid zombie, then they become beast men (deformed but still human enough to use axes and machetes) and eventually fully devolve in werewolves\lycans.
Last edited:
Yeah, I was staying away from gameplay videos as I didn't want to spoil the surprise...this guy actually managed to get a bit further than I did - my playthrough was cut short before Elena fell into the fire, but I did take my time exploring the area and checking the menus. I also found a blue jewel in what appeared to be small church\chapel (I had to shoot it off the wall, as in RE4): this guy didn't even go there - I reckon it wasn't his first playthrough.
The PS5 version has a better shader, allowing for a less contrast-y picture. It also looks more pleasantly soft..if these were scenes from a movie, I'd say that the PS4 version was shot on Zeiss lenses (possibly some old glass, like Super Speed primes or even re-housed Contax Zeiss photographic lenses), while the PS5 version was captured with Cooke primes.
You can tell the PS4 hardware is not particularly enjoying this. If a demo (which is supposed to be optimized and take up less space) has collision errors and other problems, who knows what the full game will be like. Obviously there will be patches to fix upcoming problems but I don't want to be a part of that. I'll probably wait for a Halloween sale.
Dude, they were very minor stuff - actually, it's the same kind of issue you see in RE:2 when you lock Mr.X outside of the darkroom and his head and hands go through the door. This time around it was more evident because I was going through rows of tall grass. It was more annoying when Ethan wouldn't pick-up an item because, although the X button appeared on the screen, I wasn't looking at it from the right angle...I guess you can chalk that up to hit detection...and I am pretty sure this one thing will get fixed. The demo actually begins with a disclaimer card telling you it is not the final game and there might be issues and glitches. I have a lot of reservations about this game, but the technical side of things is the last of my concerns - on my PS4 Pro, the demo did run at a pretty constant 60fps and the environments were pretty gorgeous to look at - not "The Last of Us Part 2" kind of gorgeous, but very good-looking anyway. My only concerns are the stiffer facial animations (seriously, it cannot hold a candle to RE:3) and the fact the frame-rate might drop in crowded situations. Oh, yeah: shooting at the beast men is not as satisfying as shooting at the zombies (especially the ones in RE:2) or even the Molded: they barely bleed and you cannot take bits off their bodies even with a shotgun at point blank range.
There is a theory going around that Mother Miranda is actually Jill! How real do you think this is?
This does look better than re7 but not gonna buy ps4 or 5 for this game. Im not fan of 1st person camera.. I Will watch from youtube how story will continue.
I Will stick with my old resident evil games and i Will wait for revelations 3
I Will stick with my old resident evil games and i Will wait for revelations 3
Jeez, that'd be lazy as hell - how many times can Jill be a villain wearing a bird-like mask? Also, Mother Miranda seems to have been around for quite some time. I think she's going to be a new character, like Lord Saddler...actually, she's essentially this games' Lord Saddler if you ask me, while Lady Dimitrescu is the new Salazar (instead of being a very short man, she's a very tall woman - which is the easiest reversal one can think of). The different areas apparently run by different clans, where you can find different enemies, actually reminds me of "Soul Reaver"...Moreau's reservoir, which seems to be populated by aquatic freaks, could be this game's equivalent of Rahab's Drowned Abbey. Also, given how most of the characters we have seen in trailers so far (like Elena, her father and the few other villages) aren't actually so important in the main story, I wouldn't be surprised if Lady D just happens to be the first or second boss and will be just like Salazar or Mendez once you reach the end of the game: somebody you barely remember and who stopped being the focus of the story after the midpoint.
Just went through the Castle demo: even though I died on my first try (I got killed by one of Lady D's daughters), I managed to get through the whole thing in 15 minutes - I should've taken my time to explore more. The Castle looks great with excellent lighting effects even on a PS4 Pro. The zombie creatures roaming Dimitrescu's castle are creepy enough, I have to say. I got to do some business with Duke - unlike The Merchant, it seems he will also offer you hints about what to do. If you explore for resources and loot for treasures to trade, you'll probably be flooded with ammo in the real game: the enemies are pretty strong in standard difficulty, but they always drop money\jewels\herbs\gunpowder when you down them, so you'll be encouraged to kill as many as you can to get better guns...which just kills the survival horror element. The new merchant also offers ammo this time around, which is both good (hated I couldn't get them in RE4) and bad (again: the more you kill, the better equipped you get). This is just RE4 with a gothic setting, a darker tone and some level of backtracking (hard to tell how much back and forth we will do - even though I don't think there will be a lot of it - above all, we won't be traveling over great distances): nothing bad per se, but it's not "Resident Evil". Oh, yeah: in a corner of one of the dungeons you find surgical supplies, syringes and a note that seem to refer to people being used as guinea pigs (it's very vague, but it's remindful of the one found in Lost in Nightmares about the prisoners being administered whatever virus created the blobs). It's probably a hint of some experiment having been conducted in the area, even though I am quite curious to see how they fit the vampire girls turning into swarms of insects in the RE lore.
Oh, yeah: in the game they insist on calling Lady Dimitrescu "Dee-mee-treskh". I am not Romanian myself but I am familiar enough with Romanian names to know it is supposed to be pronounced "Dee-mee-tres-coo". Either they made a HUUUGE mistake or there's something more about the big lady we don't know yet.
Last edited:
That'd be the even worse than her being a real vampire...which might be the case - maybe they came up with an idea like some BOW company having discovered vampires, werewolves and everything else are real and are trying to replicate them for mass production. I wouldn't be surprised: RE has been jumping shark since 0 and the magic singing leechman.