He's correct about RE6!

Only the creators know what "true Resident Evil" or what "true "Survival Horror"" is.
Random people in forums who say "this doesn't feel like an RE game" or "this isn't "Survival Horror"" are only using their personal criteria that has nothing to do with what the creators think.

If any one here makes their own game series, would you like it if some random guy on a forum act like they know your games more than you do?

Even in the beginning, the very first Resident Evil was planned as a first person "Doom clone" and co-op was considered later but was skipped due to Mikami & co. not being impressed by the technology at the time.
Resident Evil has always been a very "experimental", near-formless series and you can't expect the creators or any one else to acknowledge your made-up version of what "true Resident Evil" is.
 
It's not just us. Plenty of fans feel like the franchise lost its identity along the way. Many people believe Capcom also copies other companies.
 
It's not just us. Plenty of fans feel
That's not how you prove anything.
You can't prove that the world is flat or Big Foot exists because plenty of people "feel" that way.

franchise lost its identity
Which goes back to what I said earlier:
This "identity" you speak of are rules and criteria made up by fans and has nothing to do with what the developers do or say.

You can list down or describe this so-called "identity of the franchise" but can you prove that it's exactly what the creators had in mind as well?
 
OK. That doesn't make the change good, though. All I'm saying is that there was bound to be a game about a big global scale war. However, fans have a right to feel disappointed if a series that is supposed to be atmospheric and scary, deviates away from the roots, into a Call of Duty or Gears of War clone. But personally, I don't think RE6 is the worst game ever made, but it just doesn't have the charm that the older games yield of.
 
However, fans have a right
No.
They don't.

They made up rules in their heads about what "true RE is about" and expect some guys in Japan to read their minds, when the Capcom development staff have their own ideas.
So these fans only have themselves to blame for creating such strict expectations and wound up disappointing themselves.

Again, I ask: if you made your own game series, would you be okay with a bunch of random people in gaming forums to make up their own rules about what your game should be?
And expect you to follow their rules?

Change isn't always for the better and nobody's forcing you to like change.
But understanding that developers have their own ideas, ambitions and plans for the franchise is something people have to realize.
 
Which goes back to what I said earlier:
This "identity" you speak of are rules and criteria made up by fans and has nothing to do with what the developers do or say.

You can list down or describe this so-called "identity of the franchise" but can you prove that it's exactly what the creators had in mind as well?
The fanbase can go in so many different directions but Capcom does care a bit about what fans would like to see for the future of the franchise, otherwise they wouldn't do surveys and also research, through these we know the majority of japanese biohazard fans think Leon is their favorite character, maybe all those preferences are subject to change over time but I guess that's why from time to time game companies must collect the data and feedback to "feel" the market. Since mostly business is driven by what the market and media highlights (and mostly sales and revenue but of course the creators own ideas have to be taken into account).
The preferable situation is that both the fans and the developers can get a middle ground to push both old feelings and also new ideas into each project, maybe this doesn't happen in all projects but usually when this is done with proper balance the game goes quite well, (sure there isn't a perfect formula for these things but maybe over 30% or 40% of a game's element they develop with fanbase input in mind and the other part is mostly with their own developer gut instinct.)
 
Last edited:
The fanbase can go in so many different directions but Capcom does care a bit about what fans would like to see for the future of the franchise, otherwise they wouldn't do surveys and also research, through these we know the majority of japanese biohazard fans think Leon is their favorite character, maybe all those preferences are subject to change over time but I guess that's why from time to time game companies must collect the data and feedback to "feel" the market. Since mostly business is driven by what the market and media highlights (and mostly sales and revenue but of course the creators own ideas have to be taken into account).
Capcom does listen to what fans have to say and try to fulfill wishes whenever they can but it doesn't change that all the things you hear about "franchise identity", "core elements", "roots of the series", etc. are always something made up by fans and have no bearings on what the developers think.

Nobody in gaming forums can prove that the "franchise identity" that they speak about is exactly what the creators have in mind.
I don't play along with ideas like "Resident Evil identity" or "true meaning of Survival Horror" because to begin, nobody can actually explain nor describe these.
 
Capcom copies a fair amount of games, though. That's not exactly using their "own ideas" then. While RE7 might have been in the pipeline all along, they wanted to copy P.T. because that got a lot of praise. Ultimately, Silent Hills got cancelled. So nobody knows what that was gonna be like, for definite. However, that was generally very hyped up, so Capcom saw an opportunity to do their own response title. You can agree or not, but that's pretty much what they themselves proceeded to do.

Also, they copied Gears of War for RE6, and The Last of Us for Revelations 2, massively. That's the thing. When they blatantly rip off something to a very noticeable extent, that's when fans like me lose respect for Capcom. They've done some tremendous games in their time as a company, but they copy far too much that is already popular...

Even RE7 itself was copying far too many scenes from famous horror movies. Almost like a parody compilation, in a way.

I edited this, becomes of a typo.
 
Last edited:
Capcom copies a fair amount of games, though. That's not exactly using their "own ideas" then. While RE7 might have been in the pipeline all along, they wanted to copy P.T. because that got a lot of praise. Ultimately, Silent Hills got cancelled. So nobody knows what that was gonna be like, for definite. However, that was generally very hyped up, so Capcom saw an opportunity to do their own response title. You can agree or not, but that's pretty much what they themselves proceeded to do.
What exactly was taken from P. T.?

that's when fans like me lose respect for Capcom
You should have lost respect back in 1996, because Capcom used to copy even more than it does now:















Do you also like copying The Evil Dead when even the game hasn't started yet?



Or should I remind you about Alone in the Dark? Okay:
1. Character selection: male and female.
2. Fixed camera, tank control.
3. Backtracking, puzzles.
4. Mansion, dungeon.
5. Zombies, zombie dogs, giant worm.
6. Files, environmental storytelling.
7. A zombie dog that jumps through the window.

Does it remind you of anything? And this is all Alone in the Dark.

I can continue this list indefinitely, but people will continue to ignore it. They will scold Revelations for borrowing a map from Dead Space, but they don't see the huge log that classic games are.
 
Or should I remind you about Alone in the Dark?
Mikami admitted that he imitated Alone In The Dark when the first person RE wasn't working it out.

There's a huge double standard where it's "bad" for RE titles to be too similar to other games but RE1 gets a free pass despite it looking similar to Alone In The Dark.
 
Capcom does listen to what fans have to say and try to fulfill wishes whenever they can but it doesn't change that all the things you hear about "franchise identity", "core elements", "roots of the series", etc. are always something made up by fans and have no bearings on what the developers think.

Nobody in gaming forums can prove that the "franchise identity" that they speak about is exactly what the creators have in mind.
I don't play along with ideas like "Resident Evil identity" or "true meaning of Survival Horror" because to begin, nobody can actually explain nor describe these.
Let me be clear that I never argued about any one unique opinion being definitive about a game franchise, or identity. I know the original post is about the video review with that guy's opinion and to me it is too, just what it is, his opinion, so all that talk of what makes a game tick for some and not tick for others is extremely subjective and bound to change not only from different people as well as each single individual also being able to have a different opinion about that same thing months or years down the line.
I just wanted to make clear that game development "sometimes" takes into account what the overall game community expects to see in a given game, sometimes even to subvert these expectations,
like when we talk about videogames even though I am not completely familiar with game development I think the underlining principles of advertising still work for this kind of product, and nowadays the social media and other internet platforms became what was once the water cooler talk and word of mouth of yesterday but easier for the companies to collect what they see as more relevant info from their consumers. Even if not a major thing the opinions when taken as a collective thought are obviously not completely irrelevant, so i'm not talking about RE specifically, just how the market in general (so with varying degrees of how much it matters, which can be anyone's guess if your not working for the company of said games but still public opinion is still far from being totally irrelevant, believe it or not).
 
What exactly was taken from P. T.?



You should have lost respect back in 1996, because Capcom used to copy even more than it does now:















Do you also like copying The Evil Dead when even the game hasn't started yet?



Or should I remind you about Alone in the Dark? Okay:
1. Character selection: male and female.
2. Fixed camera, tank control.
3. Backtracking, puzzles.
4. Mansion, dungeon.
5. Zombies, zombie dogs, giant worm.
6. Files, environmental storytelling.
7. A zombie dog that jumps through the window.

Does it remind you of anything? And this is all Alone in the Dark.

I can continue this list indefinitely, but people will continue to ignore it. They will scold Revelations for borrowing a map from Dead Space, but they don't see the huge log that classic games are.
Agreed, there no fully original idea and that's because for humans to build stuff it's kind of essential to have a frame of reference whether is just a small reference or bigger ones.
Now going a bit off topic here, but even for geniuses that invent groundbreaking stuff there is evidence they somehow harness the imagination to build stuff from dreams, or the uncouncious mind.
Its debatable if someone likes copied elements or not, if a given copied idea may or may not work properly, so to each its own.
 
Last edited:
I just wanted to make clear that game development "sometimes" takes into account what the overall game community expects to see in a given game, sometimes even to subvert these expectations,
They take into account things that can be changed or applied, like how Barry's appearance in Revelations 2 was due to fan request to see him again (according to Anpo) and how RE6 implemented modern controls due to surveys (I forgot if it was Hirabayashi or Kawata that confirmed this).

But for something central, like the very "identity" of the series or what it means, I highly doubt it's something that can be changed by surveys.

If you make a game series, would you let your ideology be changed by surveys?
 
They take into account things that can be changed or applied, like how Barry's appearance in Revelations 2 was due to fan request to see him again (according to Anpo) and how RE6 implemented modern controls due to surveys (I forgot if it was Hirabayashi or Kawata that confirmed this).

But for something central, like the very "identity" of the series or what it means, I highly doubt it's something that can be changed by surveys.

If you make a game series, would you let your ideology be changed by surveys?
I already stated that sometimes a developer can make use of the "past" game elements (could be from general elements of the same franchise or what they usually see as proper for that specific project they are working) but how much these elements that are popular shape the game to a level that it's part of its identity might lean into very subjective territory,
but my only point in the topic is that while public opinion does not shape a whole game it still is an additional factor of the process of decision making of a game.
Nothing more, nothing less.

But anyway that's just fact of matter, as I said I'm no developer but anyone with enough brains knows how important in this day and age listening to costumers can be, i am not saying Homer Simpson or any average Joe should ever be giving the keys to the game development kingdom but it's not rare to see people that were once fans of the RE franchise end up working on one of the games, for better or for worse take the case of Resident Evil 2 (2019) where a few of the voice actors even stated in some interviews were fans of the old games so felt good that they were there participating in a new game, and I don't think the developers found that this previous knowledge of RE that the voice actors had was bad, probably that even boosted their commitment to make it a worthwhile experience for other fans. At the end of the day the director knows what's going to be in the game or not but it is certainly not bad when like minded folks are alongside him to provide feedback, no one makes a game alone, it's really a big effort from so many people, even if some directors like to act balls to the wall and say they done it all by themselves that with all honesty is quite hard to believe.
 
but how much these elements that are popular shape the game to a level that it's part of its identity might lean into very subjective territory,
Sometimes, certain elements are recycled because it's easier to develop that way.
You build a system and then keep reusing it until you feel it's time to redo the system or rebuilding it becomes a necessity.
A recurring element is just a recurring element.
It does not mean it was a part of the series's "identity".
The fact that some of these elements are discarded just like that shows that they weren't integral as some fans made these out to be.

You said it yourself: you're no developer.
Maybe you should try to see things from a developer's perspective.

take the case of Resident Evil 2 (2019) where a few of the voice actors even stated in some interviews were fans of the old games so felt good that they were there participating in a new game,
What are you trying to suggest about these "once fans"?
Are you implying that if a "once fan" works on an RE game, it influences the design somehow?
 
Last edited:
You said it yourself: you're no developer.
Maybe you should try to see things from a developer's perspective.

What are you trying to suggest about these "once fans"?
Are you implying that if a "once fan" works on an RE game, it influences the design somehow?
Well I just said professional game development is not my field, I do think the gaming business has become so big and competitive that some of the workers suffer with the workload and the game needs to go Gold at X ammount of time.

So an exercise of filling those shoes for me is just too much... Even if i attempt making an indie game I think I'd still not understand the big companies and how they work.

So I guess in this line of work, as much as any, it has to be experienced for real, you know?
At least when we talk about games like RE with large production crews that usually take years of planning and then the effectively development of the game
I feel their perspectives are so much different from an outsider anyway.
But once you are indeed part of the crew it's obvious your work now is part of the identity of that project, clearly your unique contribution is there, whether you are an old fan or not, and anything we experience as humans consciously or not will impact on the level of that contribution, so yes playing the old games is still a relevant thing for someone that worked in a sequel or remake from the franchise, at least as I said regarding RE 2 (2019) it seems that had an impact.
 
Last edited:
Even if i attempt making an indie game I think I'd still not understand the big companies and how they work.
Doing Indie stuff does plenty to open your eyes about game development.
I used to look down on "palette swaps", like how Final Fantasy games recycles the same enemy asset but changes the color and renames it to something else.
Until I resorted to do the same thing when I was the only sprite creator/artist/animator for a game project.

Reading or watching stories about game development also helps a lot.

In most cases, game developers will resort to recycling, reusing, cutting corners, cheating the system and do whatever to get the game done or working without crashing the platform they're on.
Prerendered backgrounds of RE1 is the result of Capcom's limitations and last resort, since they've been doing nothing but 2D games up to that point.

Recurring elements could be seen as "recycling" to make it easier on the development but outsiders who have no game development experience will mistakenly see it as an "identity that is being preserved".
It could be a case of "identity" if we asked the developers directly but the fact that a lot of recurring elements can be discarded at the drop of a hat shows it's not an "integral identity" factor.

I feel their perspectives are so much different from an outsider anyway.
A better example would be the producer.
Yoshiaki Hirabayashi himself is a "once fan" who played RE2 before he joined Capcom.
His earliest known work is doing motion captures for RE2002, on the GameCube.

Anyone who has been following interviews Hirabayashi has about remaking RE2 will know it's his fanboy dream.
When he talks about wanting to remake RE2 back in 2014, he even makes sure to say "speaking as a fan and not a producer".

Maybe someone out there will think that "if an old fan of the original RE2 works on the remake, it will be much more faithful" but we can see that is not the case.

Related to the topic is how there are often misconceptions that "Capcom is being overrun by newbies who don't know anything", when the truth is that a lot of the old veterans from the 90's are still running the show, like how Yasuhiro Anpo was the main programmer of the original RE2 and is the director for the RE2 remake.
 
Top Bottom