The Future of Resident Evil

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

The Future of Resident Evil

Phillip Levin offers some advice to Capcom on how to reboot the Resident Evil series.

Read Full Article

I completely agree with this article. Althought stepping in and way out of the survival horror genre and then trying to go back again would leave a lot of people wondering what the hell is going on with this series. If they retreat out of whatever they created with RE4 and 5 they should go all the way back, if that cant be done just stubbornly stick on this road they have chosen and press forward. Of course this is capcom they tend to stick to a template, milk it for all its got then tweak it a little and repeat.

When I read your "New York City" suggestion, 'I am Legend' immediately sprang to mind...

I agree with a lot of your points, but the chief obstacle I think we're facing here is that Capcom has to appeal to the market demographics. With Halo 3, Gears of War and so on dominating as titles, any retreat to simpler days would probably be widely criticized. Without plentiful ammo and excessively powerful guns, players would die. A lot. Even Resident Evil 5 was criticized for some of the monsters having instant kill attacks, and it's the most player-friendly game in the series! So, if the player dies more, they'll probably get fed up and ditch the game. I noticed the horde thing with my latest playthrough of the game, as well; instead of being afraid of the zombies, I was just focusing on making every shot count and reloading at critical times. Very action gamey indeed. But again, you drift away from that and your market appeal starts fading.

Mind you, Capcom wouldn't have to reach into 28 Days Later (*cough* those weren't zombies! *cough*) for ideas when fast zombies are concerned, seeing that they've got their equivalent (Crimson Heads). However, this would require a rewrite of many underlying plot sections, seeing that they've been trying to keep zombies physically possible (in the movement sense). To be honest, I think the Plagas/Uroboros device is much more effective, as it creates living hosts (not to mention parasites exist), and therefore has better 'scare potential' through body horror and the like.

Overall, I think they're just trying to find ways to combine action and horror to create the most marketable formula (I keep saying that because I think they're really just trying to sell games). Maybe, after they establish a strong foothold, they can return to those niche elements that have made players soil their pants for the last ten years.

I think Co-Op can work in survival horror games. But to do so, it needs to feed into the atmosphere. Namely, two thoughts should always be at the back of your mind: Can I rely on this person? & can I trust this person? Its one of the things that seems to make Left4Dead work (though admittedly I havent been able to play it so dont know this) that having to cooperate with your teammates to survive but never really being 100% sure whether they have your survival in mind adds to the tension. Following on from this, if Co-Op is to be part of this, then the game must be built accordingly. Making a game designed for 1player then adding Co-Op into it just makes it that much easier & less scary.

Im in total agreement with many of your points, but then again its easier said then done. Remeber that all the ideas in the world wont matter if they cant be done. Its all good to say you want a scary game which has clever systems to keep you horrified with every turn and for it to have a fantastic enviornment aswell as a good destruction system and full interactivity with every object, infact I asume that thats what every manufacturer will go for, I seriously doubt Capcom will go in and say, "ok lets make a subpar game with no original ideas which will just keep the fans happy till we have to turn out another one". I personaly think (having no experiance in the game industry but having a resonable workingh knoledge of graphic modeling and rendering aswell as some knoledge of programing) that game companies dont make great games all the tiome not because they dont have ideas but that they just cant with the tech and time avalible carry out the ideas they have. And I would like to state that though proccesor power and graphics increace that wont mean its easier to create good games, If im totaly honest I would say that if gamers expect a jump to the next gen concels to be as improved as the last few then they are being unrealistic. Im notr trying to be sceptical (though im sure thats the way it comes across) but i just dont belive that developers have the time or $$$ to carry out the increacing demand for quality in games.

It may spruce the game up but people will complain it is too much like Left 4 Dead. Make an partner for the game that isn't completely whacko idiotic too. At least in RE4 she wasn't tripping you up every 25 seconds.

You suggest that Resident evil shouldn't be an action game... but surely RE4 and RE5 are action games?

You also mention moving it to NYC, which sounds a lot like you would want them to tread on the toes of the Alone in the Dark reboot, which didn't exactly set the world on fire.

New York is a massively overused city in media, and if they really want to shift things around, why not go for Tokyo, Berlin or St. Petersburg?

I agree with what you said about pacing, and the old survival horror games of my youth (Alone in the Dark 1 and AitD2 spring to mind) and these mixed things up by having empty places to build the suspense so you never knew when you were going to come face to face with a zombie (or other creature). They also employed the cheap scare tactic, enemies coming through doors/windows as you walk past, and they also had limited ammunition as well as certain enemies that could only be dispached in a certain way.

Why not mix up the weapons? Make ammo limited, but have melee weapons, baseball bats, knives, something like that?

Basically I'm advocating a return to the roots, and away from the action-film running maniac creatures and machine guns.

CuddlyCombine:
When I read your "New York City" suggestion, 'I am Legend' immediately sprang to mind...

Same here.

I kind of think it might be cool take it all the way back - set the next Resident Evil in a mansion, like the first one was. There's something about a mansion that's inherently creepy, and I think it would be a lot of fun to see what the team could do now with all this recent technology.

Whatever you do for the love of god don't go back to prior RE4 controls and camera

What the hell Phillip.

I think Resident Evil Outbreak showed that you can cooperative play (4 player, no less) and still maintain the classic Resident Evil atmosphere.

Things they could fix in Outbreak:
-Better visuals, but it was PS2 give it a break
-More scenarios
-Shorter load times
-Voice chat (but make this an optional setting, adlib or voice chat)

Do this, and Resident Evil online would be perfect.

Andy_Panthro:
New York is a massively overused city in media, and if they really want to shift things around, why not go for Tokyo, Berlin or St. Petersburg?

I'd like to see Seattle get some love. Major population center, lots of people have heard of it, and it's known for often being dark, dreary and rainy. Now that's some atmosphere.

Forget Seattle (no offense guys), put that shit in Detroit. Detroit is a shithole now, imagine the wasted industrial districts by I-75 with plagas monsters infesting dilapidated warehouses.

I like the idea of seattle, i mean set it in winter and it would just be dark all the time, Detroit is a ok sudgestion and it could work, but once you got bored of the warehouses it isnt much of a city with defining characteristics, but why is everyone suggesting citys in the states. Its too close to home, people wont be scared if they feel like they are near home. For example set it in Oslo, have it set deep winter where snow storms is a major factor in the game (kinda like the lost planet games but not so obvious, like if your temperature drops below ... then you start to lose health the snow will also mean that you wont see everything which helps on pace and atmosphere and will alow breaks in the storm which alow you to see the destroyed city. And then there is the fasctor of language, imagine if everyone you came across spoke eithwer sweedish (with out or with broken subtitials *as if you only knew some of the language*) or broken english. It would alow the player to create a fear of their own imagination, asuming Capcom brought someone in who is experianced in the phycological user of language. For example if you come across someone and they shout "Help there is a 500 foot deadly monster with giant mutant teath with and claws just dont move it sees you if you run" then you go ok thats cool but if you come across somone shouting in a language you dont understand (i just realised sweedish isnt as good language because its not a scarry language like german or russian) and your subtitals show you "Help there is a ... deadly ... with ... teeth and claws, just dont... you run" then it creates pace and atmospere aswell as panic (you know what im talking aboutg if youve ever been yelled to do something in a language you dont understand)

CuddlyCombine:
When I read your "New York City" suggestion, 'I am Legend' immediately sprang to mind...

I agree with a lot of your points, but the chief obstacle I think we're facing here is that Capcom has to appeal to the market demographics. With Halo 3, Gears of War and so on dominating as titles, any retreat to simpler days would probably be widely criticized. Without plentiful ammo and excessively powerful guns, players would die. A lot. Even Resident Evil 5 was criticized for some of the monsters having instant kill attacks, and it's the most player-friendly game in the series! So, if the player dies more, they'll probably get fed up and ditch the game. I noticed the horde thing with my latest playthrough of the game, as well; instead of being afraid of the zombies, I was just focusing on making every shot count and reloading at critical times. Very action gamey indeed. But again, you drift away from that and your market appeal starts fading.

Mind you, Capcom wouldn't have to reach into 28 Days Later (*cough* those weren't zombies! *cough*) for ideas when fast zombies are concerned, seeing that they've got their equivalent (Crimson Heads). However, this would require a rewrite of many underlying plot sections, seeing that they've been trying to keep zombies physically possible (in the movement sense). To be honest, I think the Plagas/Uroboros device is much more effective, as it creates living hosts (not to mention parasites exist), and therefore has better 'scare potential' through body horror and the like.

Overall, I think they're just trying to find ways to combine action and horror to create the most marketable formula (I keep saying that because I think they're really just trying to sell games). Maybe, after they establish a strong foothold, they can return to those niche elements that have made players soil their pants for the last ten years.

Agreed on all but one point.

RE4 was actually much more kind. Only bosses had insta-kill moves.

But Capcom has lost their way with this series, and they should either kill it or fix it. There really is not much of an excuse for the problems in 5.

Plauged1:
Agreed on all but one point.

RE4 was actually much more kind. Only bosses had insta-kill moves.

Really? My friend ranted for hours (slight hyperbole here) about a 'Dr. Sanchez' (probably not his name) character who would rape you with a chainsaw, and apparently those appeared quite often. I haven't actually played RE4 more than the first few areas.

Fredrick2003:
What the hell Phillip.

I think Resident Evil Outbreak showed that you can cooperative play (4 player, no less) and still maintain the classic Resident Evil atmosphere.

Things they could fix in Outbreak:
-Better visuals, but it was PS2 give it a break
-More scenarios
-Shorter load times
-Voice chat (but make this an optional setting, adlib or voice chat)

Do this, and Resident Evil online would be perfect.

Agree'd. I loved Outbreak. Also, it could use more features, harder challenges (Very Hard relatively wasn't that much harder) stick with the classic zombies, (though being stronger and faster can be good) and have more energy to the gameplay. With more story and maybe more features, (what about creating your own characters? it is a wide city, and I think it would work) it would be very fun.

I'd say Phillip has a host of ideas here, that could make the next game really quite good. A very dark major city (St. Petersburg would be my vote) could be close to terrifying if done well. I like my classic slow zombies, but if they were made relentless, going from scene to scene, actively following you that could provide a nice piece of horror. Bearing down on you, not the quick adrenaline rush, but the knowledge in the player's mind that they are indeed closing in on you, better think quick. Be a bit more inventive with mutants, and you can have the fast pursuit monsters there. I most certainly think they need to get away from the main characters after 5; someone with a little less muscle and far less skill as the main character. If you have power, you only have the fear of losing it.

Hmmm. Could give you a rather fine character (combat specialist), but who sustains a serious injury early on. A broken arm perhaps. That could increase the tension as you are forced to be slower during key moments. Waiting, willing the character to go faster as he/she fumbles with loading their pistol, making gasps of pain all the while, which are just audible over the zombie groans. Perhaps a car explodes near you early, choose your injury (eye-half of screen is pure black even in 3rd person, arm, slow reload, leg, drag and slow movement).

JimbobDa3rd idea about throwing in confusing foreign language could be nice in the way of taking away the power of communication from the player. Zombies, people you can't understand, you are truly alone.

A good article, and I agree with a lot of your points, bar a few. Fast zombies would be cool, but I would prefer more of a mix. Zombies could move at different speed based on injuries they have, so there is more variety in it than just fast or slow. Also, on the subject of co-op, this definitly shouldn't be removed. Perhaps co-op can be done on a harder game setting to keep the challenge in the game, and there should also be a mini-game esque event in which you and a friend can go down more of a RE4/5 type path and have some guns blazing fun for a while.

CuddlyCombine:
[quote="Plauged1" post="6.111742.1992002"]Agreed on all but one point.

RE4 was actually much more kind. Only bosses had insta-kill moves.

Really? My friend ranted for hours (slight hyperbole here) about a 'Dr. Sanchez' (quote]

Dr Salvador.

also, many plagas had insta kill moves. If you walk up to a monk with a plaga sticking out his head, it will eat your face. Simple as.

I agree with this article 100%.
They need to go back to making them scary, as much as I loved RE4 & 5, they just weren't scary. Not like the first one's.
They should go back to that. And please, do take the co-op off, that did defeat all horror in RE5.
I do like your idea with it being in a major city, that would certainly get chills going up peoples' spines.
Hopefully Capcom gets smart and makes the next one more like this, and not action based.

Fast zombies are frightening, yeah. The problem for me is that RE is supposed to be survival horror, not survival fear. Horror is a slower, more insidious emotion, much more difficult to instill.
Regular, clunky, pokey-Joe George Romero zombies horrify the bejesus out of me. Sure, you can sidestep one. A couple of them clumsily stumbling over each other trying to reach you is darkly comic.
Several dozen, a hundred, most of the population of a major city, teeming outside, pouring into your little safehouse, surrounding you and advancing with all the glacial inevitability of death itself? That, friends, is horror.

So, yeah. I don't like fast zombies. Just my lil' opinion.

CuddlyCombine:

Plauged1:
Agreed on all but one point.

RE4 was actually much more kind. Only bosses had insta-kill moves.

Really? My friend ranted for hours (slight hyperbole here) about a 'Dr. Sanchez' (probably not his name) character who would rape you with a chainsaw, and apparently those appeared quite often. I haven't actually played RE4 more than the first few areas.

Dr. Salvador is mostly an optional mini boss. It is only neccasary to fight him 3 or 4 times at most. I remember all optional encounters: chapter 1, avoid the house and take a left at the tower and follow the path. To fight another one go into the house. Path decision in chapter whatever the hell. You do HAVE to fight 2 in the mines, though. I think one in the 1st chapter is unavoiable too. But to clear the margins of enemies, here is a list. Mini boss- chaisaws, garradors, iron maidens,j.j. Regulars are the ganodos, wolves, parasites and regenerators. Bosses- El lago, Village Chief, Salazar, Vertiggo, Saddler, and the ogres.

In 5, those bugs popped up everywhere and so did the fat army dude. The chainsaw gets back up and is even faster and stronger than before. That is especially unforgiving for someone who hasn't had previous experience.

Lord_Ascendant:
It may spruce the game up but people will complain it is too much like Left 4 Dead. Make an partner for the game that isn't completely whacko idiotic too. At least in RE4 she wasn't tripping you up every 25 seconds.

If it was like left4dead that would be a blessing - L4D is one of the best games ive played, but if youve played it you know those additions wouldnt make it at all like L4D.

Cousin_IT:
I think Co-Op can work in survival horror games. But to do so, it needs to feed into the atmosphere. Namely, two thoughts should always be at the back of your mind: Can I rely on this person? & can I trust this person? Its one of the things that seems to make Left4Dead work (though admittedly I havent been able to play it so dont know this) that having to cooperate with your teammates to survive but never really being 100% sure whether they have your survival in mind adds to the tension. Following on from this, if Co-Op is to be part of this, then the game must be built accordingly. Making a game designed for 1player then adding Co-Op into it just makes it that much easier & less scary.

Yeah, on the Co-Op matter, It would be smart to take the perfect dark zero approach to Co-Op and often split up the two friends, so they are in two different paths, unable to see or help each other, No. 1, if they do this properly and at the right times, it would make the player more releived for times when they have their buddy around, and also instill more fear during the times when your alone. Seeing as most survival horror games are just single player (L4D notwithstanding, as it makes the player scared even with three friends) this will be a change and make the player plain scared when theyre alone, in case some instant kill guy comes up behind them without their friend to warn them...(I liked those monsters alot, it added realism. i Laughed my head off when wesker stabbed me through the stomach with his hand...and the chainsaw guy HAS to be a one shot killer or else its just stupid ^^)

Ever since RE4 I think that the series has tried to evoke an 'Aliens' feeling, instead of an 'Alien' vibe.

However, the thing about RE4 is that it was just paced slower. There are stretches where it's just you and one of those shivering spiny things that only die when you have the infrared scope and can hit the right parasites.

It's harder to pace things slower for co-op, I think. In L4D, the idea is to move, move, MOVE. Stopping is death, and even taking the time to look for sometimes vitally needed items isn't given, because the rest of the group has moved along and you're alone. This isn't always the case; a good group will move forward briskly, but thoroughly.

How you do get two players to slow down and move carefully through an area? I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's a lot easier to limit one person's movements/activities than two, especially since everyone wants to get in on the 'fast zombie' idea. I'm not convinced that fast zombies and deliberate pacing really work together. The RE series has enough enemy variety however that this might not be as big an issue as I initially think.

Another problem I had with RE5 were the 'shooting' scenes. Being on the back of a jeep shooting at a monster isn't all that scary to me--you have a very big gun that shoots lots of bullets. I realize that some flat out action scenes are fun, and can break the pace up, but there were at least 4 that I can think of and that's probably 2 too many. Whereas being on the boat and having to get off to open gates; I thought that was very well done. High tension, even if it isn't 'scary'.

I do appreciate that they were trying to break some of the conventions of the genre; bright environments, vehicular chase scenes (instead of running) and so forth, but those conventions exist for a reason, and perhaps the real problem is that the Resident Evil series is so well known that they feel they don't have to do a lot to set up the atmosphere now. Think about it; is there an atmospheric buildup to RE5's adventure, or can you find yourself gunning down a horde within ten minutes?

I don't think that the series needs to get back to the roots per se, but I do agree that they need to focus on the pacing of their games if they want to call them survival horror. Slowing things down a bit would assist in that, I think.

Because really it's about atmosphere more than anything else. I thought RE4 worked great, and I'm glad they did RE5 the way they did if for no other reason than because hopefully the Wesker storyline can end and they can legitimately shift the focus of the game without cries of: But what about...?

Fredrick2003:
What the hell Phillip.

I think Resident Evil Outbreak showed that you can cooperative play (4 player, no less) and still maintain the classic Resident Evil atmosphere.

Things they could fix in Outbreak:
-Better visuals, but it was PS2 give it a break
-More scenarios
-Shorter load times
-Voice chat (but make this an optional setting, adlib or voice chat)

Do this, and Resident Evil online would be perfect.

I agree with him.

I also agree with the main article.

(aside from the co op not working, bullshit. I think co op would be excellent)

Course, I'd be scared shitless if it was first person playable. That would REALLY freak me out.

And I'm sorry, I'm getting flamed for this, but I want to put a virtual me into the zombie apocalypse.

That's right. I want charecter creation.

And armor/items that DON'T fit inside my pocket. 8/

Oh, about the co op.....

what if, when you started the game, you and your friends were already seperated, and needed to find each other? You'd have to use landmarks, and the game could limit radio frequencies (chat) to allies that you'd met already as well, and finding another team mate would be one of the most relieving things ever.

......unless behind him there happens to be a few city blocks worth of zombies pursuing him.....

....less even if he happens to be a faster runner than you. >.>

I'm going to stop talking on this though, because all of my ideas make up a zombie survival horror game, but what's created just isn't Resident Evil.

Great idea's. I would prefer if if they made two different games though, one that returned to Survival Horror roots and one that countinue with the zombie blasting action so I could play it.

I like the idea of a big city, but there is something to consider. In a zombie apocalypse, especially if they are fast zombies, anyone with even a lick of sense avoids a major city like the plague! Still, I imagine it wouldn't be hard to find a good reason why the character would be there, maybe they were already there when it happened and couldn't get out before hand. But chances are that if someone is unfortunate enough to be stranded, they aren't going to wander around, (at least not unless it is absolutely necessary), they are going to find a defensible position and bunker down as much as possible. Then again I wonder how well applying real world "if it happened" logic to a game would really work.

Id like a horror game where you are inexperienced (and therefore really bad) at using weapons. So much so that they are rarely an option at all. You would have to escape using your wit and the scenery around you. That could make a game terrifying. The concept would basically be replicating the situation the average person would be in if an epidemic like resident evil broke out.

I think this columnist has really grasped what is needed for Resident Evil, with a few tweaks.

I actually liked the controls and fixed cameras of Resi 0-3. We should bring them back, I think it adds to the atmosphere not being able to see further than a certain point rather than having wide open camera-over-shoulder views.

Definitely bring zombies back, in any form, fast, slow, legless, but we need the undead, not just irate villagers with bugs up their asses.

We definitely need some more urban settings. In Resi 4/5 you were in the middle of nowhere and as such didn't have many exploration options simply because small villages are usually pretty linear for convenience. Set it in a big city with lots of walkways. I like Venice myself, built on tiny walkways connected by bridges OVER WATER, if you can't make countless locations to be trapped in frightening then I can't help you.

Definitely make it single player only, and REALLY don't add a NPC partner that you are stuck protecting/stumbling over all the livelong day.

Arionis:

Fredrick2003:
What the hell Phillip.

I think Resident Evil Outbreak showed that you can cooperative play (4 player, no less) and still maintain the classic Resident Evil atmosphere.

Things they could fix in Outbreak:
-Better visuals, but it was PS2 give it a break
-More scenarios
-Shorter load times
-Voice chat (but make this an optional setting, adlib or voice chat)

Do this, and Resident Evil online would be perfect.

I agree with him.

I also agree with the main article.

(aside from the co op not working, bullshit. I think co op would be excellent)

Course, I'd be scared shitless if it was first person playable. That would REALLY freak me out.

And I'm sorry, I'm getting flamed for this, but I want to put a virtual me into the zombie apocalypse.

That's right. I want charecter creation.

And armor/items that DON'T fit inside my pocket. 8/

I agree with most of the article, except co-op not working, because it already worked, 3 times.

Lncredible:
Id like a horror game where you are inexperienced (and therefore really bad) at using weapons. So much so that they are rarely an option at all. You would have to escape using your wit and the scenery around you. That could make a game terrifying. The concept would basically be replicating the situation the average person would be in if an epidemic like resident evil broke out.

There actually is a game being made like that. It's called Silent Hil: Shattered Memories for the Wii. It's a "re-imaging" of the first Silent Hill, but in interviews it was stated there there is a lot less emphasis on weaponry and more on using your wits and getting away from bad stuff. Add on the "psychological profiling" and some spooky stuff (ex. using your phone to take pictures and seeing stuff that were not really there) and we've got an interesting horror title that doesn't feel like an action one.

Back on topic, I've never actually played any RE games besides RE4. I'd like to be able to try out the earlier RE's one day.

Actually, Capcom could probably make a lot of money if they remade RE2. Then they can use that money to make the next RE project.

I agree with some things in the article, but fast zombies are not a requirement for scary. They get the adrenaline pumping, that I agree with - but adrenaline is not a requirement for being scared. Also, co-op can be made to work - I watched videos of RE Outbreak and it still maintains the SAME exact feel as a single player RE, as long as players aren't spamming the funny voice dialogues. It's actually really intriguing how things work out - for example, players have to work together and gang up on zombies blocking their way by having someone knock them down and the rest to kick them to keep them down. Or someone to hold the door (barring?) while the others do something. Plus there was the whole item creation system where you could combine items for cool results - for example, a taser taped to a broomstick = ranged taser stick.

Heck, they definitely should make another RE Outbreak kind of game. But, I agree that single player is always the way to go when you want to make a truly scary game.

I agree and disagree with aspects of this article.

For one, I do believe that Resident Evil should revisit its roots once again. Resident Evil (GCN) and Resident Evil Zero are exemplary survival horror games: they are scary, challenging, intriguing, and they deliver to players a sense of accomplishment with the completion of each puzzle and the clearing of each monster-infested room. There is nothing better than cracking one of the complicated puzzles; it is like the mansion is actually "alive," which adds even more to the scary factor. As much as I love Resident Evil 4 and 5, they deviate too much from the original Resident Evil conventions: there are fewer puzzles (MUCH fewer in Resident Evil 5) and the sheer amount of monsters and abundance of ammo detract from the scariness of the game that fans loved. In other words, Resident Evil is not really a survival horror game anymore. As Levin states, Resident Evil has turned into "just another action game."

As far as cut-scenes are concerned, I feel that the Resident Evil cut-scenes are extremely effective and necessary; they advance the plot, offer beautiful visuals (in the GCN versions, anyway) and a sense of accomplishment, provide players that much-needed break amidst the craziness, and evoke nerdy moments for fans... what's better than seeing Wesker's backstory from Resident Evil 5 in cinematic cut-scenes? Resident Evil wouldn't be the same without them.

When it comes to atmosphere, the original Resident Evil games certainly nail it. The mansion from Resident Evil (GCN) was beautifully constructed; between the shadows, lighting effects, and creepy sounds, I was both intrigued and frightened at the same time. I don't know of a game with a more convincing atmosphere. This is the reason why Resident Evil should return to the T-virus-infected zombies of the original games. Upon hearing those classic shambling and moaning noises, I know to be alert for what was to come. The anticipation alone is enough to kill me...

Additionally, although the zombies were sometimes boring to face and defeat, Capcom varied the gameplay by introducing the Hunter, Chimera, Cerberus, and, in the GCN remake, the Crimson Head zombie which is absolutely terrifying. Each of these creatures requires their own respective techniques to overcome them. They all endure a great deal of ammo, too, so players were constantly trying to conserve ammo and find alternate routes through the mansion to avoid infested areas. I feel that the ammo supply in the original was perfect so that you never felt safe but advancing was possible. These aspects make Resident Evil a true survival horror.

Although I enjoy the over-the-shoulder view from Resident Evil 4 and 5, I concomitantly favor the third-person, camera-shifting perspective of the original. In this fashion, I anticipate in horror what lurks around every corner. This, therefore, ratchets up the suspense.

I agree with Levin that weapons shouldn't come with upgrades. Weapons should be placed so that they're difficult to find, i.e. you'll need to find keys and complete tricky puzzles to obtain them. With this comes gratification.

And, as Levin asserts, co-op would have to go.

For Capcom to produce a successful Resident Evil game that's actually survival horror, it wouldn't be too laborious, really: they would simply have to stick to the scheme of the originals, and do what they've done so well in the past. Of course they would have to introduce some new characters and a fresh storyline and setting, but it's achievable. Nothing would make me happier than to play another horrifying Resident Evil title akin to the GCN version that I love so much.

I feel that Resident Evil, as it stands, is suffering from an unpleasable fanbase. Because of the changes they made in RE4 and then RE5, they have attracted a new type of fan. Because they are at this split road, as you called it, they will most likely either do something to please the original fans, or to please the new fans. Chances are, either move will tick off at least some in the other camp.

I agree with your ideas 100% of what a new RE should be.Fast zombies would be a cool monster to fight, Unlike the villagers (be they Spanish or African) that I thought were not scary enough, so Capcom should bring zombies back. When I was reading this article I sort of thought about the alone in the dark game released last year, If this game like this were made there shouldn't be to much freedom or people would label it "GTA 4 with zombies". But any way, Capcom should totally make "Resident Evil: NY", I would buy it.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here