Uhm, there's multiple methods to do that without making an irrelevant scene that never actually happened just to sell your plot.

Showing Veltro's video taped threat about spreading the virus followed by showing the dead bodies on the zenobia and them rising as Ooze obviously implies that Veltro did exactly what they claimed, infected the crew of the zenobia.

The later revelation that the crews been dead the whole time and Veltro doesn't exist wouldn't alter what the trailer showed or make it irrelevant, it would simply make the viewer aware that the trailer mislead them without lying to them. No different than the "Time to Die....Chris" line Wesker spouts in the re5 trailer while showing him with his gun to chris' head in full pause and Chrise looking on in shock despite that line happening during the final battle, not on the jet. It implies something without lying about it or making a scene irrelevant because it never actually happened.

Norman also had the T-abyss virus. They could show him in veltro gear holding it followed by the dead bodies and ooze rising etc. Easily implies veltro infected them and provides the viewer with the 'red herring' that is desired without making the scene irrelevant since Norman does in fact have the t-abyss virus and flaunted it.

Also, they could show Raymond in full Veltro gear simply standing over the dead bodies of the crew followed by him turning to the tied up chris and stating something like "Mission Accomplished" over his radio before switching to showing the Rachel stuff. This implies he infected/killed the crew members while not being irrelevant because the 'mission accomplished' could simply be finding the dead bodies and him radio'ing o'brian to tell him that the chris dummy and all is setup and ready to go. It creates a red herring without making the entire scene irrelevant and 'never happened' once the revelation is realized.

I'm sorry but showing Raymond outright infecting the crew with t-abyss which never actually happened, just to sell a red herring plot is bad and lazy writing. It's lazy when you can't be bothered to think of a suitable way to present your red herring without outright lying to do it. Took me all of a minute to come up with 3 different possible scenarios with minimal effort involved. If I actually took the time to sit and put effort, I'm sure I could come up with something far better at that. These people got paid to do this and had months to do all of this and couldn't come up with anything?

The Scream example is exactly the same in reference to being lazy. It's creating a red herring without actually trying to tie it to the plot. Raymond infecting people that 'never happened' is just as stupid as Sidney killing Gale Weathers that 'never happened' just to throw the audience off from the real 'revelation'.

Takenaka mentioned in his development blog that the TGS scenes were meant to be included in the game, along with some more "narrative".

Guess you can close the lid on whether or not those things happened.

I honestly think every 2005 date in the game took place within a few days. It's just fucking difficult to get a sense of perspective on timing when there literally no reference to when the game and its background events take place (aside from the midnight sun reference). Saying 2005 in a file and then in the game itself can mean that the file was written in January 2005 while the game opens in December 2005. Which would mean that the crew of the Zenobia were running around the ship for about a year followed by monsters (even though they were already doing that from 2004) and shit.

Just totally fucking stupid of them not to give dates. Utterly pointless too. They've fucked up the dates in BH5 and Degeneration (BH5 originally 2008, then 2009, CAPCOM failed to change dates to reflect the change, while Degeneration was October 23, got bumped to November 14 but they failed to remove the references to October), and just flat-out refused to even give any in Revelations. Absurd.

I actually think its better policy to not give dates. Leaves more room for additional info at later points (or later games), and lessens the chance of things contradicting date-wise.

This is understandable, until you realize Revelations makes less sense without solid dates.

Have you ever seen the Usual Suspects? One of the the best films of the last twenty years and writer Christopher McQuarrie employs this exact same technique at its finest. Hardly 'lazy writing' when it wins you an Oscar for best screenplay.

The Scream reference you came up with is just stupid and not worth comparing.



Well if that's true then case closed then. But it still makes no sense for survivors to be on the ship unless the crew submitted the vaccine data and Morgan killed them literally hours before the game begins which would be the only way to account for any survivors. And as you point out, without firm dates there is no way to prove or disprove this either way.

Raymond going around finding survivors and injecting them with virus samples he seems to have randomly found does not make any sense whatsoever. But then again, this is Capcom and I should have learned not to think too deeply into these things many many years ago...

Also, the latest log book entry is rather cryptic and may be worthy of translation as it seems to hint at the GPC member interviewing Jessica as someone we may already know...

http://www.capcom.co.jp/bhrev/logbook/log_20120221.html

"And this person is a woman who from the voice.
It also amorous, mature woman."

ADA! :DDD

That, could actually be it entirely. Heck, the body of the researcher holding the anti-virus in the laser-room appeared to be barely decomposed. Judging from the decomp on some of the other bodies, are we talking a few days to a week at most?

I don't think he went looking for people, almost everyone was already dead. I think he just found those two researchers and decided to shoot them and turn them into Ooze. As you can see from the laboratory, he had no shortage of the virus either. The researchers weren't exactly innocent and were just as responsible for Terragrigia as Lansdale, so him killing them isn't unbelievable, particularly since he is already a very dubious character in terms of morality.

Uhm, completely different considering the whole point of that was that the characters 'were' lying. That was actually part of the plot, for them to lie to interrogation. It's not lazy writing when the scene that 'never happened' is shown as a 'lie' given to cops while the 'real' deal is shown later on to the audience. That works 'with' the plot and has purpose. A con artist lying to cops about what actually happened is a believable plot to help confuse the audience.

The Revelations thing is not believable since it's simply "Haha veltro infected the crew of the zenobia! Wait, that's Raymond now so nevermind, that didn't happen". There's no explanation for the 'lie' to make it work in the plot. There's no character recalling that scene and 'lying' about it to someone else for their own agenda. If Jessica was being interviewed and recalled the scene as a way of trying to throw blame on Raymond and off of her, that's one thing.



No, it's exactly the same. Both are presenting scenes that never happened solely to throw the audience off from the true mystery plot twist. Revelations wants you to believe Veltro was the 'killer' so to speak and shows a fake scene to give that impression, then later on when you find out that O'brian was behind it and not Veltro, 'oh yeah the Veltro scene never happened'.

With Scream you're shown Sidney killing Gale Weathers to make you belive Sidney is the 'killer' with a fake scene, then later on you find out 'X' was behind it and not Sidney, and the whole Sidney scene 'never happened'. Same thing. You're taking it from the "Well the Veltro thing IS actually part of the plot since O'brian actually wants that to be believed" perspective as to why it's uncomparable to Scream when I'm trying to tell you that's irrelevant to the point I'm making. Though in that respect, add the killer trying to frame Sidney as the killer to the actual plot of this made up scream movie and there you go, now it's in the exact same boat.


In ANY event, if the scene actually DID happen as News Bot says, then that's good. I'm much happier going back to my original question as to why Raymond would infect them in the first place than getting annoyed over lazy 'never happened' red herring bullshit.

Did Raymond infect them under orders from O'Brian, or is that Raymond just showing his "traitor" colors?

He was still with the FBC, so perhaps he was given orders to make sure there were no "living" crew or researchers left?