La Femme Fatale
The Queen
I disagree. Here’s the thing; what’s the point of having a sequel to Lord of the Rings franchise when the ring is destroyed and Sauron’s croaked? What’s the purpose of a sequel to the Wizard of Oz where the Wicked Witch is dead and Dorothy’s back in Kansas? American Idol without Simon? Albert Wesker is Resident Evil’s main antagonist. Yes, there are a few games where he isn’t directly featured, but you can bet your ass he was meddling around in the background.
Here’s how stories work; you have a beginning, middle, a climax, and an end. Usually, around the climax/end; the protagonist overcomes either the antagonist or whatever other issues exist. Applying this model to the Resident Evil franchise, Chris (the protagonist) defeats Wesker (the antagonist) in RE 5. While this might not be the last game, it is certainly nearing the end of the franchise, at least story-wise. Yes, there might be a bit more of the remnants of the viruses to overcome in RE 6 and possibly 7, but the war is essentially over.
Bringing in a new villain to fill Wesker’s position is more than a little pointless. Not only does it drag the franchise further, but Wesker is obviously a fan favourite. He’s very popular with consumers, so anyone Capcom tries to put in his place will be met with hostility. It’s not that RE needs Wesker to be ‘better’, but his involvement ties most of the stories together. Capcom just can’t get rid of the main elements and still attempt to call their product ‘Resident Evil’… and expect it to be well-received all in one. This is why a new lead villain won’t work well, imo.
If Wesker is dead, it makes sense for Capcom to‘re-invent’ the series because… quite frankly, it’s ‘finished’. However, the last time we saw this done was with RE 4, and it did take some heat from fans for being too detached from the main story. I don’t know if Wesker is dead or not, I’ll hold out for the sixth game to tell me that for sure… but I do believe his status quo is a factor in when the series ends.
Here’s how stories work; you have a beginning, middle, a climax, and an end. Usually, around the climax/end; the protagonist overcomes either the antagonist or whatever other issues exist. Applying this model to the Resident Evil franchise, Chris (the protagonist) defeats Wesker (the antagonist) in RE 5. While this might not be the last game, it is certainly nearing the end of the franchise, at least story-wise. Yes, there might be a bit more of the remnants of the viruses to overcome in RE 6 and possibly 7, but the war is essentially over.
Bringing in a new villain to fill Wesker’s position is more than a little pointless. Not only does it drag the franchise further, but Wesker is obviously a fan favourite. He’s very popular with consumers, so anyone Capcom tries to put in his place will be met with hostility. It’s not that RE needs Wesker to be ‘better’, but his involvement ties most of the stories together. Capcom just can’t get rid of the main elements and still attempt to call their product ‘Resident Evil’… and expect it to be well-received all in one. This is why a new lead villain won’t work well, imo.
If Wesker is dead, it makes sense for Capcom to‘re-invent’ the series because… quite frankly, it’s ‘finished’. However, the last time we saw this done was with RE 4, and it did take some heat from fans for being too detached from the main story. I don’t know if Wesker is dead or not, I’ll hold out for the sixth game to tell me that for sure… but I do believe his status quo is a factor in when the series ends.
inch
they would obviously touch up on that somewhere maybe another RE game based on them or even just throw some information on them in one of the games.