General Unpopular Opinions on Biohazard
- Thread starter Dead-Emmett
- Start date
1. I don't like that the characters in the series have long been the center of the universe.
I like Ada Wong and liked her role as a corporate spy in Resident Evil 2. But then it turns out that the head of an ancient organization was in love with her, and this dependence became the root cause of a global disaster in the world. And this incident, of course, involved all the most important people who constantly crossed paths with each other, and Chris Redfield again saved the world.
I don't mean that the story was badly written. I don't like that the story caters to the characters and narrows the world into their personal space.
The worst example for me was the plot twist with Rebecca in the last movie. It turns out that of all the women in the world, she looks like the bride of a villain. Because this is Rebecca, and she's a familiar character in the series.
I think the reason why I like Resident Evil and Resident Evil 7 so much is because of their approach to building the world. The main characters there are just cogs in a huge mechanism. Even on arrival at the mansion, you could feel that there were people here before us and there was a history that did not depend on us in any way. We are just those who got to the wrong place at the wrong time, and all sorts of links like the Raccoon or Dulvey newspapers constantly created a sense of the outside world that exists behind the walls of houses, woodlands and kilometers of swamps. Even the criminal organizations we fight are faceless. We don't know who their leaders are, so we look up to them when recently, and even in The Evil Within, it has become a tradition to associate huge corporate machines with the figures of specific people.
I have never been more in touch with the universe than in these games in the series.
2. I also don't like that the series likes to move away from the roots of body horror and focus on fighting human enemies. In the last film, it is literally a battle of superheroes and supervillains, for whom the zombie and virus were a secondary means.
I do not understand why the authors can not at least once move away from the usual superhero plot and try to focus on bodily fear.
I really liked Eveline and Marcus's mimicry, but the authors themselves were probably not very interested in exploring their complex concepts deeper.
I like Ada Wong and liked her role as a corporate spy in Resident Evil 2. But then it turns out that the head of an ancient organization was in love with her, and this dependence became the root cause of a global disaster in the world. And this incident, of course, involved all the most important people who constantly crossed paths with each other, and Chris Redfield again saved the world.
I don't mean that the story was badly written. I don't like that the story caters to the characters and narrows the world into their personal space.
The worst example for me was the plot twist with Rebecca in the last movie. It turns out that of all the women in the world, she looks like the bride of a villain. Because this is Rebecca, and she's a familiar character in the series.
I think the reason why I like Resident Evil and Resident Evil 7 so much is because of their approach to building the world. The main characters there are just cogs in a huge mechanism. Even on arrival at the mansion, you could feel that there were people here before us and there was a history that did not depend on us in any way. We are just those who got to the wrong place at the wrong time, and all sorts of links like the Raccoon or Dulvey newspapers constantly created a sense of the outside world that exists behind the walls of houses, woodlands and kilometers of swamps. Even the criminal organizations we fight are faceless. We don't know who their leaders are, so we look up to them when recently, and even in The Evil Within, it has become a tradition to associate huge corporate machines with the figures of specific people.
I have never been more in touch with the universe than in these games in the series.
2. I also don't like that the series likes to move away from the roots of body horror and focus on fighting human enemies. In the last film, it is literally a battle of superheroes and supervillains, for whom the zombie and virus were a secondary means.
I do not understand why the authors can not at least once move away from the usual superhero plot and try to focus on bodily fear.
I really liked Eveline and Marcus's mimicry, but the authors themselves were probably not very interested in exploring their complex concepts deeper.
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.
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.
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.
The devs at Capcom have always been pretty pervy lol. Since day one. There's a "behind-the-scenes" video out there from the very first RE game where one of the artists (can't remember if it was Mikami himself or some other staff member) shows off some "sexy" concept art that he made for Jill--and he made them sexy on purpose. Yes I agree it can be distracting, especially while playing the game--seeing Jill's pendulous breasts in RE1 or Chris's buffed-up physique in RE5 or Ada's long silky legs in RE4... but at the same time, I do kinda like the sexualization of the characters. I think it's a fun aspect of the RE games, haha
Last edited:
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 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.
And speaking of it, "more and more I find myself wondering" each day what the characters will look like in RE4 remake.
A. Wesker
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
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
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
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.
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.
This may be a harsh set of opinions, but I really do feel strongly about them.
Of course, RE8 isn't out yet and we know nothing about the story yet, but if the story rumors/leaks are true, then: Chris killing Mia is justice being served. Yes, she is a criminal indeed. And if you think about it, Ethan is also a criminal in a way--given that he's harboring her instead of turning her ass in. She was partially responsible for the events of the game and because of her and her dipshit co-worker Alan (who thankfully got what was coming to him early on), an innocent family had to suffer for 3 years and eventually come to an end. A lot of Mia fans say that it was just Alan's fault for Eveline's escape and not hers--but that's not the real point there. The point is that Mia was working for The Connections and was still involved with their work by looking after their experiments. And even if her intentions weren't meant to be bad, it really doesn't matter because she still knew about it all and said nothing, just went along with it. I feel absolutely zero sympathy for her, or Ethan, for that matter. The only one I feel sorry for is their innocent child, who is also supposedly killed in RE8, but of course we don't know that yet.
There's the whole debate about whether the right choice was to save Mia or Zoe in RE7. When I first played the game, I chose to save Mia because I thought she was innocent and, because she was Ethan's wife, logic would dictate that she is the appropriate choice. But after finishing the game and learning the whole story, I immediately wish I could have gone back and saved Zoe instead. And what's worse is that my poor choice will forever be recorded on the stats on RE.net ? Thankfully there are a lot of people who this also happened to and now there is a lot more Zoe defense than Mia. No offense to any Mia fans/defenders on here but I seriously cannot understand the mindset of defending her over Zoe, the REAL victim. The only "bad" thing about the "bad" ending is that Zoe dies. Mia dying is quite satisfying.
Honestly, I really hate the way the series is going in terms of the characters, particularly the "protagonists". Is this who we're supposed to be rooting for and sympathizing with? Criminals and beta-males who stick with them and don't know right from wrong? Fuck's sake, it's pathetic. Aside from that they are incredibly shallow and boring characters. Seriously, #bringbackLeon
Also, as much as I love him, maybe Chris dying in RE8 (another speculated rumor) is a positive thing. I'm getting real sick of the Redfields getting all the attention. It's literally been A WHOLE DECADE in the story timeline since we've actually seen Jill. Where is she? What is she up to? What about Leon and Ada? Where are they and what are they doing now? It's been about 8 years since we've seen them. The clock is ticking and they're getting older! At the very least give us some cameos with them!
Last edited:
In 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.
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.
Last edited:
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 shown
To me its naive to think its all black and white, but also as the saying goes "two wrongs don´t make a right", so yes like russident said even cops and law enforcement have to abide to the law code and generally can´t simply terminate people by bust into their house and just do as they see fit.
And considering Ethan and Mia seem to be cured from the Mold infection, it would be simple to knock on their door and hold Mia in custody.
And Chris from Vendetta makes it clear that being a soldier is not at all an easy job, act like killing can patch things up is just silly ... whether if its someone bad or good that is infected this shouldn´t be done withouth considering options first. When it is done is because of a question of survival and to stop the spreading of bioweapons.
But from the developers commentary we see during Village Chris is again going through some turmoil and dark stuff in his life.
Also from past leaks from insiders it looks like Ethan was receiving training from Chris, so Chris killing Mia is for all intents and purposes a bit arbitrary, as he is killing the wife of someone he is training and might consider a partner?
And considering Ethan and Mia seem to be cured from the Mold infection, it would be simple to knock on their door and hold Mia in custody.
And Chris from Vendetta makes it clear that being a soldier is not at all an easy job, act like killing can patch things up is just silly ... whether if its someone bad or good that is infected this shouldn´t be done withouth considering options first. When it is done is because of a question of survival and to stop the spreading of bioweapons.
But from the developers commentary we see during Village Chris is again going through some turmoil and dark stuff in his life.
Also from past leaks from insiders it looks like Ethan was receiving training from Chris, so Chris killing Mia is for all intents and purposes a bit arbitrary, as he is killing the wife of someone he is training and might consider a partner?
Their viewers sound nuts. ?
Someone brought this up in a post for the RE subreddit a few months ago and I have to agree. Something else I don't like about the newer RE titles is how much the characters swear. It's interesting because, in the original titles of RE 1-3, not a single curse word is uttered throughout any of the games (not that I remember, at least). Like, at all! It's something that I've always found creative about them. Then again, the world was different back then. Maybe people didn't swear so much in the 90's as they do now? I wouldn't know, I was a little kid.
It's not that I've got anything against swearing. I swear quite regularly, just like most people do nowadays, but why does there have to be a "fuck" or "fuck you" in almost EVERY sentence of dialogue? It just feels like lazy and uncreative writing to me.
But then, when you think about it, under a situation like that--being stuck in the middle of a huge city during a viral outbreak full of zombies, mutant monsters and god knows how many other horrific freaks of nature--I guess you'd be under some heavy stress.
It's not that I've got anything against swearing. I swear quite regularly, just like most people do nowadays, but why does there have to be a "fuck" or "fuck you" in almost EVERY sentence of dialogue? It just feels like lazy and uncreative writing to me.
But then, when you think about it, under a situation like that--being stuck in the middle of a huge city during a viral outbreak full of zombies, mutant monsters and god knows how many other horrific freaks of nature--I guess you'd be under some heavy stress.
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.
Unfortunately for me, this approach became more developed in the future and monopolized other storytelling tools. Resident Evil 6 has become the most striking example in this matter: the environment has lost all meaning, and sometimes even logic; it has become not very high-quality due to the number of levels. We don't even need to find files for the story.
Only the cutscenes and the dialogue of the characters during the game.
I think video games, in order to become an independent art form, need to find their own methods of storytelling. The reason why I'm not such a big fan of cutscenes in general is that it's cinematography: it's a movie that works by the rules of cinema. Against the backdrop of the rise of indie games, you can find a lot of interesting examples of how developers can give information during the gameplay.
Environmental storytelling is a prime example of how authors can tell stories in games. This was always an important part of the early games in the Resident Evil series, which I still appreciate. It helps me to immerse myself in what is happening, because the world around me is meaningful and contains a lot of details that are interesting to explore.
When I play Resident Evil 6, I don't feel any continuity in the storytelling. I clearly understand when the game starts and when the movie starts, because these episodes are not only visually dissonant, but also separated by black loading screens. In one case, I play an arcade game and complete game tasks, and in the other, I get a story.
One of the many reasons why Resident Evil 1 and Resident Evil 7 are my favorite games in the series is that the authors of these games carefully put unplayable episodes in the context of games. The transition is so painless that I get a sense of wholeness. After all, such cutscenes do not take on the main narrative function, but are optimized in the context of several sources of information. To understand the entire story, the player needs to explore, study, and complete the puzzle.
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.
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.
Unfortunately for me, this approach became more developed in the future and monopolized other storytelling tools. Resident Evil 6 has become the most striking example in this matter: the environment has lost all meaning, and sometimes even logic; it has become not very high-quality due to the number of levels. We don't even need to find files for the story.
Only the cutscenes and the dialogue of the characters during the game.
I think video games, in order to become an independent art form, need to find their own methods of storytelling. The reason why I'm not such a big fan of cutscenes in general is that it's cinematography: it's a movie that works by the rules of cinema. Against the backdrop of the rise of indie games, you can find a lot of interesting examples of how developers can give information during the gameplay.
Environmental storytelling is a prime example of how authors can tell stories in games. This was always an important part of the early games in the Resident Evil series, which I still appreciate. It helps me to immerse myself in what is happening, because the world around me is meaningful and contains a lot of details that are interesting to explore.
When I play Resident Evil 6, I don't feel any continuity in the storytelling. I clearly understand when the game starts and when the movie starts, because these episodes are not only visually dissonant, but also separated by black loading screens. In one case, I play an arcade game and complete game tasks, and in the other, I get a story.
One of the many reasons why Resident Evil 1 and Resident Evil 7 are my favorite games in the series is that the authors of these games carefully put unplayable episodes in the context of games. The transition is so painless that I get a sense of wholeness. After all, such cutscenes do not take on the main narrative function, but are optimized in the context of several sources of information. To understand the entire story, the player needs to explore, study, and complete the puzzle.
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.
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.
With nowadays 3d technology there's nothing holding back the in-game storytelling from being just as good if not better than the classic 2d pre-rendered backgrounds? The RE Engine was made to make 3d much more realistic and set the mood very well for a survival horror, plus it made it easier for developers by shortening development time.
That said I can understand when you said you didn't enjoy Code Veronica's story because the plot its a lot like "tokusatsu" and can feel a bit less realistic and "comic book" like, but it had some good elements there too, one being Albert Wesker officially coming back, as well as some memorable boss fights such as the ones with Tyrant in the airplane, Nosferatu and Alexia Ashford.
Wesker did show up later, with roles in RE 4, Umbrella Chronicles, Darkside Chronicles and Resident Evil 5 so his comeback had a huge impact at later games.
I also really liked how Code Veronica included 3D item inspection.
(It's details such as finding a key taped under a certain item and rotating a briefcase item so you can press the button on top)
They were totally absent from the 2nd game onwards and various other spin-offs. (Remakes and RE 7 all have that feature though).
Amazing how you could get stuck in these games for not inspecting your items thoroughly.
Last edited: