It would be interesting if set in Raccoon City during the outbreak, through the eyes of a new protagonist. One of the reasons I love Resident Evil 3 so much is because we get to roam the streets of Raccoon City, way more than in Resident Evil 2.
Started with 2 when I was a kid. Scared the hell out of me back then. Always have been my favorite since. Then I gradually purchased and played all of the main entries and some of the spin-offs.
Best: RE 5
Worst: RE 7
Best: RE 2
Worst: RErev 2
Best: RE 4
Worst: RE Damnation
I'd like a new story with new characters as well. I don't see the point in recreating the story of the games with the same characters. First off, it would be pointless. Second, I wouldn't feel comfortable with it because of the actor casting, I'd always have something to critizise, actors not looking like the actual characters, not getting him right, etc.. Same with the story, they would probably leave plot holes, forget or change/adapt certain details and it would greatly irritate me. Even if they would get it right, don't see the point.
I'd like something with new characters, but set in the same canon as the game. I'd like it to be set in Raccoon City before and/or during the outbreak. Basically, I want "What happened to Dave ?".
Are you kidding me ? Yeah, Claire and Leon's campaign are the same. Except for 2 or 3 different passages, namely playing Sherry instead of Ada, going to the orphanage and meeting Irons instead of Ben, it was the same thing. The story doesn't make sense anymore. The boss fights are the exact same. It's so frustrating knowing that in the original game the second scenario was different than the first and connected well with it. The worst is that you still have to play the second scenario to know the true end. When I play the first RE I always make sure to play both Chris AND Jill but for RE 2 Remake I'm not even sure I'll bother playing the 2nd scenario anymore as I'm so pissed off about it. So yeah, when your game is 7 hours a scenario, and your 2nd scenario is 30 minutes worth in terms of differences, that's what I call two scenarios being the same.
"Every RE game have the tendency to be short once you master the games so that shouln't be of any concern."
According to your logic I guess I shouldn't be concerned about salarial inequity between sexes because It's alway been that way. Well, It's been a concern for me since day 1 and still is. It's not because it's always been the case that it is a good thing and that I should not be concerned about it. I paid 79,99 $ on that game not including taxes, so when it only lasts for 7 hours, it's a concern for me.
"Genres don't dictate what makes a game good or bad on themselves either." No, you're right. I loved RE 4. RE 6 was just awful. It's also pretty normal for someone to want the series to go back to what it was when it first started. That's why I expect RE to be a survival, just like I expect Metal Gear Solid to be a stealth action game¸and not a coop zombie game. Just like I expect Call of Duty to be a first person shooter and not a strategy game.
What I didn't liked from RE 0 was the boxes that were missing. I know it's stupid but really, it feels like so painful to have to make all the way to a certain room far far away to deposit and take stuff instead of having multiple boxes spread in different locations. Wasn't really a fan of the swapping system for some reason. Story and ambiance wise I liked it as much as the first three though, it was a great addition to the lore. But taking into account the things I didn't liked, it is there in my "ranking". Similar with Outbreak Files 1 and 2. Damn I love the fact that we are in Raccoon City, seeing the nightmare from normal citizens's perspective and revisiting some places from 2 and 3 before Jill Leon and Claire went there. But the gameplay.. It's a bit too hard. There's only 4 inventory space, and that virus gauge makes it impossible to take your time to explore and all. You're pressed by time, didn't liked that too much. Story-wise you also don't really know for sure when are the scenarios taking place or in which order, and what character you should play "canonically". As for RE 4, even though the game is more "action horror" than "survival horror", damn its good. When I played it a first I remembered feeling "betrayed", as the zombies were gone and there was a lot of action, but when I got passed that I loved the game so much. Leon is so badass in this game, and even though the story is a bit disconnected for previous entries, I loved it. Love the over the shoulder camera as well. As for the action, as much as there is, I though it was kinda well balanced, and you still had to use your ammo wisely as you didn't had that much. I loved the ambiance, the village in the first part, the castle, it was great. I disliked the military base at the end though. Too much action compared to the 2 previous sections of the game and you had those military with sub-machine guns.. Loved the lenght of the game as well. I remembered my first playtrough taking me like 18 to 20 hours to finish. All in all I really enjoyed it. Well, for Revelations 1, the gameplay felt "flat". The way you move, walk,run, shoot, the fightings, I don't know, there was something missing.. Parker annoyed me. He felt too much like a "comic relief". Loved to play Jill though. As for Revelations 2 I'd have to play the game once more on proper conditions have a better opinion of it. I played on 360 only once and it was "laggy" as hell. RE 5, I loved it so much. I loved the story, the gameplay as well, you had to use your ammo wisely here too. I have fond memories playing the game in coop with friends, it was so much fun. In solo it was very frustrating because of Sheva wasting her ammo constantly. Loved Africa despite being set in sunny environnements most of the time. Should have cut a bit on the action here too. Loved the rivalry Chris/Wesker, Jill being back, the lore about Spencer. Never played Operation Raccoon City, Umbrella Corps, Gaiden and Survivor 2 and I'll make sure to stay far away from them.
" Let me get this straight, so because of the type of gameplay RE6 has, you feel the game itself is inferior to everything else just because of personal preference? I at least gave RE7 some credit for being a decent horror game on its own, but it is surprising to see that because you don't like RE6's gameplay, it's already the worst game there is in existence"
I don't "hate" the game only because of its gameplay, but the whole feel there is to it. The game is clearly meant to be action, I didn't felt any tension. The Story, I didn't liked it either. Like I said, I thought it looked like a fan fiction. That whole Neo-Umbrella thing, with Jake being the son of Wesker, ughh... But to give the game credits, I liked the first two levels in Leon's campaign. I loved that we finally got to see some real zombies again, it felt like Raccoon City a bit, loved it. When they got to China they lost me though.. I also liked the length of the game. It was good to have a Resident Evil game that doesn't last only 3-7 hours. And that is a main concern for me about the old Resident Evil titles and new ones. They are too short. 3 to 4 hours, 7 hours if you're "lucky". Same with RE2 remake and 7. They were too short. Especially now that Claire's scenario is now basically the same as Leon, there is no point in playing it, so that reduces the lenght of the game considerably.
"As to what RE2 Remake has shown, I hope they did learn their past mistakes with RE7 and just stick with what made previous entries far better than RE7 did. Hopefully by now, they'll stick with controls similar to RE6, Revelations 2, and RE2 Remake as that is more fitting for the series than anything at this point."
If they keep the same gameplay as RE2 Remake for RE 8, I'm totally up for it, but if they keep improving on 7's gameplay I wouldn't mind either. To be honest, I prefer RE2 Remake's gameplay to 7, so I'd be totally up for it, just not the same as 6, as for me RE2 Remake and 6 are very different in terms of gameplay even though they both are 3rd person.
In what way do you mean by "WAY TOO FAR"?
In a way where there is too much action. The enemy's, the Jav'o, they are mutants armed with machine guns and rocket launchers, and when you play Chris you get that machine gun right with tons of ammo right at the beginning and you're with the whole BSAA and Tanks helping you. We're a long way from the first Resident Evil where you're in a manor practically all alone, beginning with only a knife and a Beretta.
"I, for one, would expect a main Resident Evil title (or maybe a spin-off) to have good character development, non-boring and/or relatable protagonist, decent plot, RE-like horror and atmosphere, good meaningful puzzles (if any), immersion, fine RE6, Rev2, and RE2 Remake-like control schemes, and more other things."
I agree with you on that point, we basically want the same thing here. All of the above, coupled with RE2 Remake or an improved RE 7 gameplay, and I'm happy.
RE 7 is far from being perfect, I'll give you that. The fights fell "flat", and the enemy variety was non-existent. But I disagree with you when you talk about the immersion. It was great, and must have been better with VR. Original plot ? How is Resident Evil 6's plot any better ? It looked like a fan fiction. I could have write this. And when you think about it, did any RE game had an original plot ? What exactly is original to you ? Creative gameplay mechanic ? Sure, adding a lot a QTE is creative.. Not sure what you were expecting. Where you love the "freedom" of movement that RE 6 gives, I hate it. I prefer the "tank" controls from the earlier RE games, like 4, Rebirth and RE 2 remake. It makes you feel vulnerable, powerless, you have to rely on your weapons and make every bullet worth, because you don't have a lot. RE 7 gave me that feeling of powerlessness. In RE 6 it doesn't matter if you have enough bullets or not, because you're a kung-fu master and you can escape any situation easily. It was boring. Like I said, RE 7 is far from being perfect, but still is in every way a better game than RE 6 and if they decide to go first person again with RE 8, I'm pretty sure Capcom can improve the formula and make something even better.
"Do you not realize the TRUE aspects of a decent RE game ?"
Well obviously I don't, so enlighten me.
"RE doesn't have to mainly focus more on horror just to be a great RE game. RE4, for example, has action with some horror elements here and there, along with Revelations 2 and they're FAR better and more fun than RE 7." "It surprises me that there are still people out there that say RE4 and/or RE5 are great, but put too much crap on RE6 for no reason."
It's all about BALANCE. RE 6 took it WAY TOO FAR.
"To think that RE5 and RE6 hold better sales than RE7 itself is something to rethink about what's best for the series at this point."
Are we not gonna mention that RE5 came out 10 years ago, RE6 7 years ago, and RE7 2 years ago ?
Don't worry, RE7 came to be due to the disastrous reception of RE6.
And how can you compare RE2 Remake with Resident Evil 6 ? They are nothing alike. Just because they both are third person does not mean they are similar. The controls and gameplay are different.
At the end of the day I guess it all comes down to what you expect from Resident Evil. What I expect from it is that feeling of powerlessness, having to make every bullet worth because you don't have a lot. The creepy ambiance, the horror, the mystery, the slow pace, the puzzles.
I really hope they are gonna improve on RE 7's formula for RE 8, and not go back to something like RE 6.
Wow, the things you can hear these days..
"It's a good generic horror game on its own, but as an RE game, it did extremely terrible and has little to no qualities about what makes up for a decent immersive RE tittle. A "return to its roots" does not mean that you need to sacrifice everything that makes up for a good RE game, just for the sake of having horror in it."
Sacrifice everything that makes up for a good RE game ? What on earth are you on about ? It did exactly brought back everything that makes a good RE game. Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised as it is coming from the guy who says that RE 6 had " The best plot and background story". Do you even know what RE was before they ruined and transformed the franchise ? A SURVIVAL HORROR. And that's exactly what RE 7 was. Who cares if Leon or Chris are not there ? At the end of the day what I expect from RE is to give me a great survival horror. And that's what I got. Now If I understand you correctly, if they make a Gears of War game and in the process replace the protagonist's name for Leon Scott Kennedy or Chris Redfield you will be happy and call that crap a good RE title ? Unbelievable. Because that's exactly what RE 6 did.
No they don't. That would be a waste of time.
Same as you, RE 3, Code Veronica and Outbreak
1: Resident Evil 2 Remake
2: Resident Evil 3
3: Resident Evil HD Remaster
4: Resident Evil Code Veronica X
5: Resident Evil 7
6: Resident Evil 4
7: Resident Evil Outbreak 1 and 2
8: Resident Evil 0
9: Resident Evil 5
10: Resident Evil Revelations 2
11: Resident Evil Revelations
1000: Resident Evil 6
Jill's S.T.A.R.S uniform.
Yes, I suggest an order. Here it is:
- Resident Evil 0
- Resident Evil HD remaster
- Resident Evil 3: Mid-game when Jill gets infected by the Nemesis and fall into coma, you stop
- Resident Evil 2
- Resident Evil 3: After finishing RE 2 you come back to RE 3 and finish it
- Resident Evil Code Veronica X
- Resident Evil 4
- Resident Evil Revelations
- Resident Evil 5
- Resident Evil Revelations 2
- Resident Evil 6
- Resident Evil 7
Now I didn't included all the spin-offs, just the main entries in the series.
Exactly. Like Gpersinger said, RE 7 brought the franchise back to it's horror roots, and it was about damn time.
Avoid most encounter, run past zombies to keep the most of your ammo. To kill the Ivy's, I use the Lightning Hawk on them.
For real I never took the time to think about it.. All I care is Resident Evil 3 Remake. Really hope they do it. But for Resident Evil 8 I think I'd like to come back first person. It really felt fresh and good. The thing is, if they come back to 3rd person, I'm scared they'll go back to action like Resident Evil 5 and 6. Now if they keep the same gameplay as Resident Evil 2 Remake and it's a great survival like this one, then go 3rd person !
Code Veronica for me. I find the gameplay and story more interesting, and you play Claire and Chris.
No, Resident Evil 4 doesn't need a remake. It's already good the way it is, plus I think that people had enough of the game, it literally came out on almost every existing console (Not that it's a bad thing)