I dont want any more weird remake / reimagining wannabe hybrid games. Capcom should stop getting obsessed with past and do meaningful story decisions for the franchise instead of convoluting the past like they did with re2 2019 and re3 2020.
Yeah some people can be vicious. People should try to be a little more sensitive when it comes to evaluating a person's physical looks. I personally didn't like Geordie Dandy as Chris (I much prefer Matt Mullins), but I think a lot people went overboard in how they submitted their feedback to Capcom. They didn't have to ridicule the actor; a simple "we don't like this, just go back to the original look" would have sufficed. Some people also picked on the designs for Leon and Claire in RE2R for looking to juvenile, but that's the reason I like them, especially Leon. Eduard Badaluta is adorable--you just wanna pinch his cheeks with that baby-face of his. I hope they get him to do Leon again in RE4R.I really like Geordie Dandy's version of Chris and Amra Silajdzic's version of Jill. It's a big shame that people insult the looks of these models by calling Amra "Botox Jill" and laughing at Geordie's weak jawline. In my opinion, it's even easier for me to believe and empathize with characters if they don't have perfect facial features. After all, I am the same. Although, despite this, Geordie and Amra are still very hot people.
I also don't share the view that because this is a fictional world, characters should be sexualized. It's not about realism at all, it's about emphasis: if the game devotes itself to horror or relationships between people, then such sexual tension is out of focus. I'm still distracted by how comically Jill's chest is shaking in the first game. I mean, I'm trying to build a connection with her. Why would I consider her a sexual object?
At the same time, I am not against sexualization at all. This is also an art form. And I, to be honest, can occasionally get involved in the erotic genre. I just think that this is not a quota, but a tool that needs its place.
They didn't have to ridicule the actor; a simple "we don't like this, just go back to the original look" would have sufficed.
I get what you're saying. I'm glad they're going back to his "regular" look in RE8, though. RE7 Chris just didn't do it for me. I think it was a failed experiment in the end, and it looks like they know that.I mean, I'm glad they figured out how to give Chris a more recognizable look, too. I read that they tried to do this in Resident Evil 7 as well, but they had problems with it. But it is also understandable: this was the first experience with such technologies. Since then, developers have been able to improve many elements, including lip sync.
But sometimes people can be unpleasant surprises. And this is now happening, for example, with Paulie from the remake of Mafia. I'm really angry when this happens.
I disagree. I wouldnt have liked ada to see as an evil character in re6. The devs seemed to consider cloning in re6 by making re2, re4 and re6 adas different people and clones but instead they went with the doppleganger route which is different from cloning. I think it's cause of live action movies involving alice and her clones even though cloning existed since the 1st game with tyrants and that's also how alexia / alfred were created.I didn't read all of that, just the beginning but it made me think about Ada. I would have preferred if she was straight up an evil entity in RE6 instead of playing Batman, and the whole clone thing was cringe worthy.
She was always on the evil side more or less until she made is very clear in RE4 that she has her own thing going on, even if it looks like she's just a puppet. Now after 6 she is a vigilante... I wish they either go back to something simple and less heroic with her story or just kill her already
This may be a harsh set of opinions, but I really do feel strongly about them.I was unpleasantly surprised by the opinion that Chris Redfield did the right thing by killing Mia in Resident Evil Village. Of course, we don't know anything about the context yet, and we can hardly even be sure that this scene really happened, but some people took it at face value and, based on this, say that Chris did the right thing. You know, because Mia was a criminal.
It made me think about how the franchise audience interprets the series, the characters, and how it relates to the storytelling methods the authors use.
Of course, I can always put it down to a blind love for Chris Redfield that tries to justify whatever he does, but I prefer to think that people have their heads on their shoulders, so they understand what they are saying.
The first thought that came to me is that such people divide the Resident Evil universe into good and bad, white and black. I think part of the problem is that the meaning and form of storytelling in games in the series doesn't work together from time to time.
Take Chris Redfield, for example. When he is called a hero, he objects or gets very angry. And all because, in terms of meaning, he is not a hero figure: he kills criminals and kills monsters that were once ordinary people. This is his work, which is not heroic, but which can even be a traumatic experience. That's why he's not a hero. He's a soldier.
But the storytelling form prefers to romanticize the narrative, and in the most vivid and affecting way, typical of many anime and comics. No matter how deep the motivation of Wesker, Morgan, Simmons, or anyone else, the game will always set moral guidelines on many levels of information transmission: from dialogues to representation of appearance. The same goes for Chris: fans consider him a hero because the form of the story romanticizes him, and the conflicts in which he is involved allow you to see him only from this angle, so no matter how angry Chris is at his reputation as a hero, people will call him a hero, count the number of times he saved the world, and call it achievements.
And we find ourselves in a situation where Chris kills a person who is someone's wife and maybe even someone's mother. And she doesn't even look like the illegitimate daughter of Lilith and Satan.
And is Mia really so bad? She was definitely working for the syndicate. But her job was to get weapons from one lab to another. It was Alan's fault, and Eveline's own, that things got out of hand. As a result, Mia did not just get to the farm, but, without having time to warn anyone, she suffered for 3 years and fought for her sanity.
Can we judge her? Yes. The law must judge her. But I think she might get a second chance if she helps find the syndicate. This could be witness protection. That doesn't make her a good person, but it's a situation where such simple labels don't fit. This is a gray moral that can be viewed in different ways, since Mia is humanized.
However, Chris breaks into her house and kills her in cold blood. If she's a criminal, then according to the fans, Chris can do it. But he can't. This is not the right thing to do, but a Lynch trial. Chris took on a right he never had.
Did Chris have his reasons? Yes, everyone has their reasons. Maybe Chris found out that the system was corrupt. Knowing Chris, he is unlikely to tolerate this, so if there is a threat somewhere, and the state apparatus is mired in shit, Chris will take the situation into his own hands.
So I think killing Mia might be part of the job Chris wants to do. Chris is not a hero, and the new story may show a situation in which his personal interest goes even further than revenge on Carla.
We potentially find ourselves in a situation where there are no strictly good and strictly bad, no moral guidelines. And if Resident Evil Village does break this pattern, the series has a chance to move into a new stage of growing up, when it will tell more mature stories.
But not everyone can be ready for this. Recently, distrust of institutions has been spreading in our society. Instead of solving problems and creating, we are guided by emotions, organize pogroms on the streets, and even try to cancel people and history. You know, like the Joker and the masked men in the last movie. But the real way to solve any problem is to solve the problem legitimately. Institutions and laws are invented for a reason: they are things that regulate attitudes in society. I think the new game should convey this idea. How? Handcuff Chris if he doesn't go on the run. It can even be done in person by Jill if fans want to see her again. If Chris decided and actually did what he did, he should be held accountable. Otherwise, the universe will be a joke, because it means that it serves the characters, because the authors do not want to offend their fans. And it also means that these fans will draw the wrong conclusions. All over again.
You make some good points, I appreciate your well thought out post (and a lot of the other ones you've made on here). Maybe I've been looking at it from the perspective of anger a bit too much, but still, even after recognizing (or trying to recognize, anyway) some of the nuances, I still cannot sympathize with these characters. I guess I'm just too much of a virtuous person, ha. Perhaps RE8 will change my mind about how I feel about these characters, assuming they'll be better developed and more about their background will be shownIn part, I think from the perspective of my own experience. My father was involved in criminal activities in the past. He didn't kill anyone, and it has nothing to do with the murders, but, you know, I don't think I would approve of a situation where a soldier would break into our house and shoot him in front of me. This is not a detention, not a legitimate operation, but a lynching. Someone took over the right of the court and the executioner, so he decided that he could take lives. But our life is more complex than Good and Evil.
Of course, anyone can point a finger at Albert Wesker and say that he is Evil, that he is dangerous, that he is incorrigible. It's very simple. It is an archetypal Evil that the narrative encourages to kill. Just kill it to solve the problem. No matter how we feel about Mia, she is not such a character. Mia is humanized and you can look at her from different angles.
Yes, I do not dispute that Mia is a criminal. She must bear responsibility, but taking into account all the circumstances and factors. She didn't kill the Bakers, she didn't want to, and what happened didn't happen intentionally. You say that Mia knew everything, but we have no such information. We know that Eveline was created in the early noughties in Europe, and Mia was recruited in the 2010s. She lived in the United States, had no direct connection to the inner circle of the syndicate, and only carried out assignments. Accompanying Alan and Eveline was just one of them. It's not even what Ada Wong did.
And why do you think Mia and Ethan are on the run? Do you think that in this situation they will be able to buy a nice house in another country, and Mia will be able to give birth with all the medical services? I'm pretty sure that Mia and Ethan were given a second chance, because Mia provided useful assistance in the investigation. She also suffered all 3 years, forced to do terrible things and walked on the edge of death. In 2014, she might have thought that this way she would get easy money, but you don't need to cancel people because of their mistakes. We live in a terrible time when people and even liberal people forget about it.
The production of bio-organic weapons has become an everyday part of this universe, so many people, including national organizations, are involved in this. These are huge corporate machines, a huge system. And people work there with varying degrees of involvement. Even in the real world, countries like the United States and Russia create weapons of death and use them in different situations, both as a tool for preserving their territory and for their interests. Biological weapons are just a new form. In a universe where there is such biology, this will always be used. You can't just kill everyone because you have some abstract moral values. Although no, you can. I don't deny that Chris can do this on his own initiative. The problem only begins if, after the events of the game, he is accepted back into the alliance, as if he did nothing wrong. Do you understand how this will work in the real world? This could easily set a precedent in court practice where any soldier can kill any person and refer to the Chris Redfield case. It's just a joke if the writers just ignore it instead of seriously exploring the topic they've chosen.
It may sound like I hate Chris and want the worst for him, but the truth is, I love Chris as much as I love the Resident Evil universe, so I want the best for this world. Letting things like this happen to Chris without consequences is not the best thing to do. At all.
Dynamic and more action oriented scenes might not necessarily make a survival game worse, when the developers implement such elements with just enough in order to amplify the game story, and not undermine it.Even though I love CVX, I find this game a starting point in some trends for the series that I don't like.
I think the first main reason is the shift in emphasis in storytelling. I believe this is due to the fact that the developers decided to make a three-dimensional space instead of two-dimensional backgrounds. At that stage of the story, 3D could not offer a detailed environment, so environmental storytelling degraded. Instead, the focus went to cutscenes, which became more cinematic, dynamic, and so on.
The second main reason is the tokusatsu elements, which were also developed in the future. I really like the approach that Kawamura once took. I like the way he writes stories. And not only in his case, but in the series, I have always appreciated characters whose motivations and goals I understand as a human being. This is especially true for villains: Kolya's greed and Eveline's need for parental love are examples of motivation that seem human to me. Theatrical villains who want to take over the world, as well as Chris Redfield who saves the world, are elements that I would like to see in other series. They are too overdramatic for me. However, in the future, they have established themselves as an important part of the Resident Evil mythology, so I can't help but take this into account.
Well, I think that's all I wanted to say about it.