Well, that's pretty believable. I hope they seek to improve on their organization rather than scale it back and make something smaller.
Well, I believe they can have that decent budget, but they don't need that many outsourcing staff. The product ends up lacking identity with that happening.
Why are people making it sound like they admitted to making a completely bad game? That doesn't seem to be the case.
Was I one of only a few who didn't mind the big action feel of the game? I love all of the REs but we've been leading up to this since RE4 and RE5.
Was I one of only a few who didn't mind the big action feel of the game? I love all of the REs but we've been leading up to this since RE4 and RE5.
This couldn't be more wrong. People wanted an internally-developed DMC5, and DMC4 did nothing to deter that (and certainly didn't "run the series further into the ground"). People did not want DmC, therefore they aren't buying it. It's that simple. The only point here is that a hypothetical DMC5 likely wouldn't have matched DMC4's sales numbers, but it certainly wouldn't have dropped far below every other installment as DmC did.Devil May Cry was not going to sell bucket-loads regardless of who made it. At least it now has good word of mouth to give the series a chance in the future. A Capcom developed DMC5 most likely would have ran the series further into the ground - as DMC4 already started that.
I've seen this the first time. This is awesome.
Bombastic bang bang games don't usually instill fear or suspense. There's a market for that type of game, but I enjoyed RE a lot more when it was as much about the mood as it was about any action that took place.
I also agree that it all started with RE4, which is why I consider RE4 the beginning of the downfall of horror in the franchise.
Resident Evil has been an action thriller game since the fourth installment so, no, I don't mind. I do mind that their campaign is a mess and the only mode I really like in the game is mercenaries. A mish mash of different, badly done set pieces, a less than ideal camera for an action game, and a disjointed story line left me disappointed.
Well it had to be something didn't it.
Maybe when the HD Revelations outsells it, it will open their eyes.
I would rather an original take on the series, or at least something interesting, rather than Capcom taking the reigns again. RE6 burned a load of bridges IMO - cannot see many caring for another round unless it gets a reboot of some sort (even an internal reboot may suffice to get the series out of its own ass)
Devil May Cry was not going to sell bucket-loads regardless of who made it. At least it now has good word of mouth to give the series a chance in the future. A Capcom developed DMC5 most likely would have ran the series further into the ground - as DMC4 already started that.
Uh, DMC4 is the highest selling DMC game in the series. And the word of mouth is anything but good for DmC unless you are only factoring in reviewers.
They were too ambitious for their own good while trying to satisfy too many different genres at once.
Well this explains it. In any of the campaigns, the chapters pacing feels off for all of them.
Translation - Too many cooks with their hands in the stew.
Devil May Cry was not going to sell bucket-loads regardless of who made it. At least it now has good word of mouth to give the series a chance in the future. A Capcom developed DMC5 most likely would have ran the series further into the ground - as DMC4 already started that.
Well at least they realise they made a piece of shit.
The only bad word of mouth from people I know is anyone who was a hardcore top player in DMC. Anyone who just enjoyed the series as is seems to like DmC though there are of course both sides shown depending on where you look.
Also I still give the higher sales to it being early gen and its first multiplatform DMC game.
Though since we didnt get a DMC5 its hard to see if it really would have sold better than DmC.
DmC doesn't have any better word of mouth than DMC 4 did, and the average review scores are almost exactly the same. What it does have is projected sales that are not even half of what DMC 4 sold.
This false narrative people have been peddling about DMC 4 for years to justify the reboot is quite something, especially now after DmC has flopped.
I would rather an original take on the series, or at least something interesting, rather than Capcom taking the reigns again. RE6 burned a load of bridges IMO - cannot see many caring for another round unless it gets a reboot of some sort (even an internal reboot may suffice to get the series out of its own ass)
Devil May Cry was not going to sell bucket-loads regardless of who made it. At least it now has good word of mouth to give the series a chance in the future. A Capcom developed DMC5 most likely would have ran the series further into the ground - as DMC4 already started that.
The biggest thing I wonder though is what's Capcoms plan for mood and fear like you said.
A lot of people comment on revelations bringing it back but I still feel it gets way to much love in that regard. RE4 brought with a bigger/new fanbase and I don't see capcom cutting them out for a return to horror. It'll be interesting to see what they do going forward since with all that said, they seem to be making a big deal about going back to its "scary" roots.
Yup, agreed. That's why I talked about them focusing on what made the older games great. It's harder to keep that focus on a project when you have ~600 people working on it. Give us a more seamless adventure with two protagonists at most and cut out that co-op shit or at least make it optional in the same way Dead Space handles it.
Yup, agreed. That's why I talked about them focusing on what made the older games great. It's harder to keep that focus on a project when you have ~600 people working on it. Give us a more seamless adventure with two protagonists at most and cut out that co-op shit or at least make it optional in the same way Dead Space handles it.
It would, because it probably wouldn't of had this negative pre release stigma around it like DmC. From straight out of the gate, hell before that when Ninja Theory was only rumored to be developing a DMC game, this game got nothing but (rightfully so imo) hate. Fans wanted DMC5, fans got something else and it reflects the sales.
Seems kind of revisionist to be honest. Capcom starting making people think DMC4 was some sort of major flop.
Yeah...I don't think Capcom is ever going to omit co-op or make it optional. It's kind of a key element to new RE games I think now.
I'm still firmly believe that a game could still retain horror elements while being co-op.
Reboot the entire franchise, and i include the movies with this.
Make them together so they work seamlessly together.. it is not hard.
And make the movies yourselves, DON'T let "them" touch it.
Yeah...I don't think Capcom is ever going to omit co-op or make it optional. It's kind of a key element to new RE games I think now.
I'm still firmly believe that a game could still retain horror elements while being co-op.
The absolute best advice possible, at this point.Keep it simpler next time.
Since they are currently innovators in that area, they should look advance the form of co-op into something more freer. I think that would be the coexistence of two or more campaigns happening in one place (either a string of segments or something more like the mansion or police station) simultaneously. I think that takes the "menu option" out of focus and puts it more organically into the game. You have solo and co-op play depending entirely on how players interact. Though I'm perfectly fine with co-op as it is now, that would go farther in expanding the appeal of co-op to those who don't want it. People secretly like co-op games, you just have to disguise it (see Dark Souls, Journey).
Would I be presuming to much to say you haven't seen any the Resident Evil films Capcom have made themselves?
Since they are currently innovators in that area, they should look advance the form of co-op into something more freer. I think that would be the coexistence of two or more campaigns happening in one place (either a string of segments or something more like the mansion or police station) simultaneously. I think that takes the "menu option" out of focus and puts it more organically into the game. You have solo and co-op play depending entirely on how players interact. Though I'm perfectly fine with co-op as it is now, that would go farther in expanding the appeal of co-op to those who don't want it. People secretly like co-op games, you just have to disguise it (see Dark Souls, Journey).
Agreed. That budget could also easily be put to other resources.
Knowing them, they will completely outsource it now.![]()
Yeah...I don't think Capcom is ever going to omit co-op or make it optional. It's kind of a key element to new RE games I think now.
I'm still firmly believe that a game could still retain horror elements while being co-op.
The only way Capcom can ever prove anything is if they indeed release a DMC5 and the sales speak for themselves.
If it's higher than DmC out of the gate than thats something, though im not sure if DmC would hurt sales of a regular DMC game.
As for DMC4 part of my opinion from it comes from just not enjoying it very much. The combat was good but everything else was extremely lacking.
Since I'm just a regular joe when it comes to DMC (I've beat them all on normal and DmC on nephilim) the story and everything else is part of what I enjoyed, and DmC easily offered something better than DMC4 in that regard. But I blame capcom more for that, they've had trouble doing game stories for years even RE takes A hit from it sometimes.
We can all agree at least DmC wasnt something akin to Dino Crisis 3
Since they are currently innovators in that area, they should look advance the form of co-op into something more freer. I think that would be the coexistence of two or more campaigns happening in one place (either a string of segments or something more like the mansion or police station) simultaneously. I think that takes the "menu option" out of focus and puts it more organically into the game. You have solo and co-op play depending entirely on how players interact. Though I'm perfectly fine with co-op as it is now, that would go farther in expanding the appeal of co-op to those who don't want it. People secretly like co-op games, you just have to disguise it (see Dark Souls, Journey).
It could. But it would benefit from being a sole playable and optional co-op. Especially for people who aren't a fan of that.
I think that's the least of RE's problems right now though. A reboot isn't needed setting/story-wise, but definitely in how they approach the game mechanically and in development (not giving it to NT or something).
I think it should be possible to keep two protagonists, with different attributes (more health vs. bigger inventory) and that way there are two characters to play while playing co-op. If the player is not playing co-op, you choose one of the two characters and play alone.
Also, while I agree that a game can have horror elements while being co-op, I don't think these elements can ever have the same impact on the player when they are playing in co-op. It's one thing to be absorbed into a game while you're sitting in a dark room with only you and your character, and it's entirely different having someone else there (either in person or over the net) that would be talking and otherwise providing some form of relief from the elements that should be inducing fear.
The fear shouldn't be negated by the presence of another person. I mean, watching a horror movie with someone wouldn't make the movie less scary would it not? Scenario design, pacing, and how the co-op is set up would go a long way of making a survival horror game scary while playing with someone else. I think it should be even more scary when you and that other person have to rely on each other to survive some pretty messed up scenarios.
though shipments of 5 million copies means the game has been successful to a degree