Movies Infinite Darkness Spoilers

[russident]

It's not so much about enjoyment as about disgust and shock. The horror genre doesn't exist for a comfort zone.

That's why it's a niche genre as well.

 

[MrSpooky]

I've played all the games and I know them well, thank you.


First of all, Richard Pearsey wasn't hired to write the plot. He was hired to adapt a script that was already written by the Japanese. This includes dialogues and such that they seem more natural to a Western audience. This is what Kawata himself explained, calling it a "culturalization process", as well as the reason why Pearsey is mentioned in the credits as a narrative consultant.

The main writer was Morimasa Sato, and he also directed Resident Evil Village.

Secondly, "Blue Umbrella" was Shinji Mikami's idea, and he established it in Biohazard 4. When he left the company, this storyline continued to be developed by Yasuhiro Seto in the Chronicles series and Umbrella Corps, which he wrote too.


Chris didn't work for Umbrella, he worked with Umbrella because the alliance's jurisdiction is limited in the US, which was explained even in Resident Evil 5.

The UN Council banned Umbrella from having its own mercenaries, but instead an agency was established where BSAA staff are transferred for military operations.

And after the events in Louisiana, the company became a sponsor of the BSAA, so the soldiers at the end of Village are equipped with Umbrella's things and carry Wesker guns. Not to mention it's a freaking B.O.W.


Keeping people in the dark out of a sense of protection has always been part of Chris' character. This is literally the reason why Claire got into a couple of incidents. And before that, it annoyed her that he didn't tell her everything.

Chris had different voices and faces, but never a character.


Umbrella Corps literally tells about the illegal corps of the company from 7 and Village, lol. Just because so far the developers have chosen to build up the storyline while they focus on something else does not mean that they are ignoring something.


This is irrelevant to continuity.

The old games and their gaidens had a high degree of violence, where we were shown death scenes with all the details no worse than in Italian films.

Only after that, the series became censored to the point where the characters no longer lose their heads from the chainsaw even. The camera is just trying to hide it.

So BIO7 for me was nothing less than a return to form in this regard.

to be honest, I don't know why you gave me the vibe you were gonna complain about my paraphrasing of Chris working with Umbrella, I was tired when I wrote it, and I'm very aware of that, you trying to criticize the semantics it's just a poor attempt to show you were right on something little that I already had to acknowledge, it's just you wanted to go your own way.

I feel it's silly even arguing about it, we both play these games.

 

[MrSpooky]

It's not so much about enjoyment as about disgust and shock. The horror genre doesn't exist for a comfort zone.

That's why it's a niche genre as well.

it doesn't suit Resident Evil, it just turns the franchise into a cheap slasher gory horror, but it's okay if you wanna defend it to death.

I felt the horror in 7 and Village was handled in a way a bit trashier. Cheap shock.

 

[russident]

to be honest, I don't know why you gave me the vibe you were gonna complain about my paraphrasing of Chris working with Umbrella, I was tired when I wrote it, and I'm very aware of that, you trying to criticize the semantics it's just a poor attempt to show you were right on something little that I already had to acknowledge, it's just you wanted to go your own way.

You could have just asked me instead of making silly theories.

I wrote this because I got the impression that Chris, who does not work for Umbrella in the new game, is part of the argument about "inconsistency", otherwise I have no other explanation why it was mentioned.

But as with RE, you are not interested in learning something. You like to speak for other people you never know. If you think that someone is arrogant, someone is a fan who doesn't see problems, and someone criticizes semantics, then you don't need real information to draw conclusions.

 

[Caffeine Addict]

Not much point in arguing about a franchise that has seen better days. You know how some oblivious individual always defends what is there in plain sight.

They're not going to change. I tried to tell numerous forum goers the same things, but they just become snide and act like you're obsessed or something. LOL.

Oh well.

 

[russident]

Repeating the same thing for several years and watching videos of freaky marginals is somehow more substantial, yes.

They're not going to change.

It's not people's fault if you cling to the brand like a parasite and don't want to move on.

 

[Caffeine Addict]

Why is that? Because I speak the truth about it online?

You know? If Capcom copied one thing from a game that came out the prior year, I may be willing to say, "OK. It was just a mere one-time coincidence. Perhaps I am overreacting a bit!"

But I cannot do that, at all. Because there are NUMEROUS things I can prove that they copied from the game or games I am referencing, present in their game, or more than one game.

Now, that's not me saying that the game they made is in itself in any way bad. But it just feels awfully cheap to copy something because it's trending, or popular. Then if you don't credit the person's ideas, it's not right that you copied something somebody else made, and then act like you thought it up first.

Like for example, in RE6, you play as a character who teams up with soldiers in a squad, and in both games, you can go down a shoot in a park, for a laugh. Since the Gears of War game was released first, it's clear they copied that and didn't even thank the makers of that game. The idea of going to a war torn region is almost identical too, as is the gameplay. But that's not me saying the game sucks because they copied things. I'm just basically pointing out that this is something Capcom does a lot.

In Resident Evil: Revelations 2, they copied at least six or seven things from The Last of Us. And guess what? That game also came out after Naughty Dog released their game. So you can see a pattern is forming with Capcom copying things from games that had just gotten released or at least shown off online.

The winter section.
The dam section.
The crafting system.
Cut and paste boss fight with the Vulcan Blubber.
Very similar main protagonist.
Similar running enemies.
Immune girl.
Seeing enemies through walls.

So yes. How can anybody say they weren't copying Naughty Dog, just because their game was immensely successful?

RE8 also has a section that's similar to P.T. and they practically copy everything in RE4, with a slightly changed order, but that's about it. So that's just stating the facts.

Konami's demo came out first, and Capcom just wanted to capitalise on that, because like shooters, they could see that first person games had gotten noticed over the years. Which is quite obvious. Right?

That's why I don't think Capcom deserves as much credit as fans give them. So why people keep sticking up for them, I really don't know.

 

[russident]

Why is that? Because I speak the truth about it online?

Your stunning truth is shattered by the simple fact that absolutely all artists use someone else's work as references.

You mention the new games in the BIO series, but you seem tactfully silent about how the classic games largely copied the mechanics and design of Alone in the Dark. Even your favorite BIO2 had entire assets that were based on movies like RoboCop 3, Aliens, Speed and so on.

And you know what? That's not a bad thing.

One of the reasons why many people like Alan Wake, for example, is because it's a big homage to Twin Peaks with similar characters, locations and plot bits.

Silent Hill takes many ideas and visual images from King's works and many films. Even the elementary school is completely copied from Kindergarten Cop.

Developers copied things earlier even more than they do now. Ken's theme is a copy of one of the Top Gun themes. Kojima literally used the image of Sean Connery as the avatar of Big Boss. The Metal Gear cover even copied Kyle Reese.

This is such a huge and obvious topic that you can write dissertations on it all your life. Picasso also said that great artists steal. Georges Polti discovered back in 1890s that there are only 36 dramatic situations in any story. Vladimir Propp saw the repetitiveness of fairy tales in different cultures and wrote a work about it.

But instead you focus on one particular series for a God-known reason.

So why people keep sticking up for them, I really don't know.

For the same reason you like old games: they enjoy them. These games give them special experiences, so they don't care how much Dimitrescu looks like Count Dracula. These are different characters that feel different.

If you care so much that Capcom uses different ideas and references, then start your crusade from the very foundation: from old games that copy other people's things the most. But you either don't know anything about it, or you can't cross your double standards.

Since the Gears of War game was released first, it's clear they copied that and didn't even thank the makers of that game.

Cliff Bleszinski is a fan of RE, and RE4 inspired him for Gears of War.

Naughty Dog was inspired by RE when they decided to change the combat system in Uncharted.

Dead Space was a great love letter for RE.

Neil Druckmann enjoyed RE7.

You see, none of them have any problems with anything, they borrow elements themselves. And this is completely normal. But not for you: you were so offended for other people that now you have arranged some kind of vendetta.

But I cannot do that, at all.

Yes, because you're not really a fan. You're not in this community because you enjoy playing games or discussing them. The series has long lost interest for you, and you just can't move on, sitting on this forum and repeating the same boring nonsense for years.

And I'm just wasting my time. Everyone will forget this discussion, after which you will again talk about how Capcom uses references. It's been your way of life for a long time.

 

[Caffeine Addict]

It's already been known for years that Capcom took inspiration from Infogrames, and gory films like Lucio Fulci's Zombi 2. That doesn't make it right, I guess. But you cannot trademark a dog or something bursting through a window, because a lot of horror stories involve creatures crashing through doors, windows or whatever, to get at their intended targets. In that case, then I would have to assume you're gonna say everything is just copying.

And I point out the recent RE sequels more often for blatantly carrying out this practice, as it's just too obvious they're copying, and I even offered a degree of proof. But that's all they ever do.

Of course, I like the new games to an extent. Or I wouldn't be playing them. But they have gone downhill in terms of their quality. And the character models don't look all that swell anymore.

You know they're stuck for ideas when RE8 lifts everything from RE4. So they're even copying their own games now. That's too funny, dude.

 

[Caffeine Addict]

OK.

Hopefully you can meet me halfway here, once I provide the necessary proof.

If they're not copying other games and movies, and people's copyrighted art pieces, what is all this legal drama and evidence about, then? No-one goes to court over nothing.

You talk about Konami copying things. If that's the case, then they're just as bad. But didn't they get permission first?

They totally did NOT copy Silent Hills whatsoever, right?

Also...

Here's the link to the article about that last YouTube upload.

Resident Evil 6 Vs. Gears of War 3: A Slide-by-Slide Comparison

Some people may have noticed that Resident Evil 6 is a bit more like a modern Gears of War game than it's like a classic Resident Evil game. Is that because you can now run and shoot at the same time? Is it because you're now in explosive adventures in a game that feels more like a war-time...

kotaku.com

And lastly, this boss battle involving Claire, Moira and Natalia is just like the one Joel, Ellie and Bill have with the Bloater in the school; I noticed you even exit a window after the fight ends, so they basically did copy Naughty Dog. But that's fine. You can pretend they're not stealing other people's ideas for their own gain all you want.

Wow. So it truly is the same...

 

[russident]

Proof of what? You can't tell me what I don't already know here.

When Capcom steals textures, it's terrible, because it's the appropriation of someone else's work.

When they do a segment that looks like P.T. because of the radio and the red lighting, I don't see anything terrible about it. Despite these associations, it is still a different context with a different aesthetic that mechanically functions differently.

Moreover, P.T. as a whole is a collection of other people's ideas. Even the embryo is an obvious reference to David Lynch, and David Lynch also copied people's ideas.

Everyone is inspired by each other. Nothing is born out of a vacuum.

But you decided to ignore everything I wrote above, it seems.

 

[russident]

So they're even copying their own games now. That's too funny, dude.

They've been doing this literally since the days of BIO2. They literally reused the same spiders with the same textures even. Dude, you're biased.

 

[Caffeine Addict]

But haven't you ever observed that Capcom does this, precisely after a big selling game comes out? They obviously do that to ride the momentum of another game's popularity. Or else, why would they be doing this?

 

[Caffeine Addict]

They've been doing this literally since the days of BIO2. They literally reused the same spiders with the same textures even. Dude, you're biased.

Well, I cannot really provide an answer as to why they do this. You would have to approach Capcom about that. But it's likely because it would consume time to change the design of the spiders, or it's just that many species of spiders have matching patterns on their bodies. So they just used the same ones to cut corners.

If anything is inexcusable, it's using the same looking zombies and villagers for RE4, and the remakes of RE2 and 3, when the original RE3 from 1999 was more capable of adding a variety of different types. However, even the earlier RE games had enemies that all looked the same, for the most part. Every crow. Every Hunter. Every dog. You couldn't tell any of them apart, really.

Why does it matter anyway?

 

[russident]

Well, I cannot really provide an answer as to why they do this.

And I'm not asking you to do that.

But haven't you ever observed that Capcom does this, precisely after a big selling game comes out? They obviously do that to ride the momentum of another game's popularity. Or else, why would they be doing this?

I don't agree with this opinion, but if it were true, so what? How does this encroach on your free will to buy a product or not?