Resident Evil - Virgin Vampire Wine Mom vs Chad Magnetic Lebowski

[Kheapathic]

What I honestly would like for RE9 would be: RE7's gameplay style, but with zombies infesting a major city, RE2 and RE3 style, which is basically what I wanted ever since they introduced the First Person style. Take the open world design of Village and just run with it. You have a city to explore, survivors to interact with, even small survivor communities acting as "towns" or a central hub. Merchants can be found in these holdout communities which double as safe zones. And the player has their own shelter which they use to store equipment and save.

You would have to scavenge your own weapons and equipment. You scavenge valuables and such to sell or trade to different merchants for new weapons or attachments (or just scavenge for straight up money to pay), but there are guns and attachments you can randomly find in the world, alongside what you can buy, and you can sell what you don't need. Out in the world, you also have to face other survivors as threats (and sources of loot), and other BOWs as stronger enemies or bosses.

Make it a true survival game, with things like food and water and fatigue you have to monitor. Injuries would be treated realistically, with how realistic depending upon your current difficulty level (I'm imagining that the "harder than hard" difficulty will have zombie attacks result in a one hit kill, ala ZombiU). Guns are treated realistically, as are ballistics (with real names, ala RE5, rather than the fake names they've been using since) and monster fighting is down to what weapon and ammunition you use, rather than RNG, like in RE2make. So a shotgun will always take a zombie's head off if you use buckshot, but might just put a large whole in it or blow it apart with a slug. Basically its Escape from Tarkov, but with zombies, an actual open world, and no multiplayer.

If you die, you either permanently lose whatever you are carrying on you at the time (unless you insured it or something, like Tarkov), or have to return to where you died to retrieve whatever you lost (like in ZombiU or Dark Souls), and failure to do so may result in it being lost forever.

I never played it, because I don't have a WiiU; but isn't this what ZombiiU (or whatever it's called) is?

 

[Gravemind]

I never played it, because I don't have a WiiU; but isn't this what ZombiiU (or whatever it's called) is?

Kinda sorta.

Just as a note: ZombiU got ported to other consoles + PC as just "Zombi" so it's playable if you REALLY wanted to try it.

I don't recommend it, though. The game's a lot more linear than it presents itself to be and the basic gameplay really starts to show how jank it is over time.

 

[Coldgrip]

What I honestly would like for RE9 would be: RE7's gameplay style, but with zombies infesting a major city, RE2 and RE3 style, which is basically what I wanted ever since they introduced the First Person style. Take the open world design of Village and just run with it. You have a city to explore, survivors to interact with, even small survivor communities acting as "towns" or a central hub. Merchants can be found in these holdout communities which double as safe zones. And the player has their own shelter which they use to store equipment and save.

You would have to scavenge your own weapons and equipment. You scavenge valuables and such to sell or trade to different merchants for new weapons or attachments (or just scavenge for straight up money to pay), but there are guns and attachments you can randomly find in the world, alongside what you can buy, and you can sell what you don't need. Out in the world, you also have to face other survivors as threats (and sources of loot), and other BOWs as stronger enemies or bosses.

Make it a true survival game, with things like food and water and fatigue you have to monitor. Injuries would be treated realistically, with how realistic depending upon your current difficulty level (I'm imagining that the "harder than hard" difficulty will have zombie attacks result in a one hit kill, ala ZombiU). Guns are treated realistically, as are ballistics (with real names, ala RE5, rather than the fake names they've been using since) and monster fighting is down to what weapon and ammunition you use, rather than RNG, like in RE2make. So a shotgun will always take a zombie's head off if you use buckshot, but might just put a large whole in it or blow it apart with a slug. Basically its Escape from Tarkov, but with zombies, an actual open world, and no multiplayer.

If you die, you either permanently lose whatever you are carrying on you at the time (unless you insured it or something, like Tarkov), or have to return to where you died to retrieve whatever you lost (like in ZombiU or Dark Souls), and failure to do so may result in it being lost forever.

Isn't this just State of Decay, or close to it? It's not a bad idea, though I disagree on the 1st person perspective thing.

 

[Mega Black]

1st person is the absolute worst option imo. Your scope of view is so limited and it feels much less like playing as a character when you can't see him. Character design matters a lot, not just floating eyes and hands.

Eh I have to disagree. I agree Ethan is bland but I think there is also an added immersion and control factor that you shouldn't discount when it comes to first person. Fixed cameras are also intensely limited, I don't see why the distinction matters overmuch.

It's probably the one in most need of a remake, I agree. I also think it'll be the one most butchered though.

Yeah but unlike the other games, where every cut enemy or butchered moment feels like something was lost, I don't think a loose remix and cutting or changing will do anything to harm the admittedly good concept of the original.

Take the open world design of Village and just run with it. You have a city to explore, survivors to interact with, even small survivor communities acting as "towns" or a central hub. Merchants can be found in these holdout communities which double as safe zones. And the player has their own shelter which they use to store equipment and save.

This sounds closer to a Dead Rising game, and though I like the idea I'd prefer Resident Evil remain largely tight and scenario focused. An open world Raccoon City does make my dick hard, though I don't have any idea how you could reconcile something like that with the timeline.

I seriously just want a new Outbreak game with some of the later entries' features. Several large areas and scenarios to play through in various parts of the city -- the hub could have a merchant and could tie back into the various scenario zones.

 

[Soycast Guy]

This definitely won't be in the remake:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=NliXqttlDlE

Either they’ll remake the game and make it massive pussy mode, or not remake it at all because of the possible controversy.

Capcom has said they “might” remake CV, but will they? Troons would freak out.

I’d love a remake because CV had great ideas, but it was on inferior hardware. Only in my wet dreams.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

I never played it, because I don't have a WiiU; but isn't this what ZombiiU (or whatever it's called) is?

ZombiU is far more linear than what I just described. Nor is it a hardcore survival game outside of the whole "if you die, you got to go back and get your stuff" bit and the "you have to look down into your bag and can't see what around you" part. Critical Nobody did a worthwhile review of the game if you want to know more:

Isn't this just State of Decay, or close to it?

Eh, maybe? Never played State of Decay, so... But based on what this review showed:

I think Capcom could do better. It would at least look much better and play better due to the RE Engine. It should be noted that there are a few indie games with a similar setup to what I described. But they are all being worked on by small teams (sometimes consisting of one person) and have limitations in what they can do based on that. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but State of Decay is multiplayer focused? I'm thinking something single player. If we are looking at open world zombie games, maybe more like Days Gone, but slower and far more survival sim and mil sim than that game.

It's not a bad idea, though I disagree on the 1st person perspective thing.

To each their own.

This sounds closer to a Dead Rising game,

Dead Rising was fairly cartoony, and (at least initially), its settings were rather compact, though apparently the later games tried to go for larger open worlds.

An open world Raccoon City does make my dick hard, though I don't have any idea how you could reconcile something like that with the timeline.

I figure that this idea would have to be set in an entirely new city with a different zombie outbreak, since I think the well on games set in Racoon City has indeed run dry at this point.

I seriously just want a new Outbreak game with some of the later entries' features. Several large areas and scenarios to play through in various parts of the city -- the hub could have a merchant and could tie back into the various scenario zones.

You and me both, but other than references to characters from those games, Capcom seems determined to forget that those games even existed.

and though I like the idea I'd prefer Resident Evil remain largely tight and scenario focused.

Even Resident Evil has deviated from this formula. The first three games were more open, with RE3 being the most open in terms of level design, while RE4-RE6 were just straight linear progressions of levels. I just think that basic design is somewhat played out at this point. A more open world setting would be something different that might breath some life into the franchise without alienating anyone, like what Elden Ring did to Soulsborne games.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Eh I have to disagree. I agree Ethan is bland but I think there is also an added immersion and control factor that you shouldn't discount when it comes to first person. Fixed cameras are also intensely limited, I don't see why the distinction matters overmuch.

Immersion can be enhanced but there's a tradeoff. Look at "best video game characters" lists, and usually you won't find many FPS characters on there. Sometimes you'll find a rogue "Doomguy" in for nostalgia bias, but there's a good reason why the lists feature iconic looking characters and not faceless self-inserts 99% of the time.

I guess it comes down to personal preference. I liked seeing the different costumes you could unlock, and even the base designs. Everyone loves Jill's PS1 look, and Leon's leather jacket from RE4.

As for fixed cameras, those are part of deliberate choices by the director in regard to level design. When used properly they're highly effective, the developers have more control over what the player experiences.

There's a YouTube channel called Nitro Rad, he kind of goes into the philosophy behind cameras in horror games in-depth, it's a pretty good channel if you want to check it out.

Yeah but unlike the other games, where every cut enemy or butchered moment feels like something was lost, I don't think a loose remix and cutting or changing will do anything to harm the admittedly good concept of the original.

You're probably objectively correct, but I've always been more interested in faithful remakes (unless the game in question is an unplayable mess or entirely aged out, like Metroid 1).

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

As for fixed cameras, those are part of deliberate choices by the director in regard to level design.

As mentioned earlier, those fixed cameras were largely a result of hardware limitations, not purely stylistic ones. The games were simply built to accommodate them. First person isn't really that fundamentally different on too many levels when it comes to horror itself. The game just has to be built differently to accommodate it.

When used properly they're highly effective, the developers have more control over what the player experiences.

If the point was to entirely tailor the game to allow the developers to control what the viewer experiences, it would be far more economical to just make a movie, since then you could 100% tailor what the viewer experiences. Despite you deriding such games earlier, games like SOMA showed that its completely possible to have a truly nerve wracking experience playing a first person game without the game developer having to control every single aspect of the player's experience. And if they still want to have a tailored experience, they can, they just have to be strategic about it.

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

Trying to think of different places they could go to next in the series. I would love some kind of feudal Japan esque ringu fatal frame zombie stuff but...

I can't think of a new locale. Australia? India? Hawaii? Wait no Dead Island did it already.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

That's kind of the point. Just the like the point of the weird camera angles in the older games was to limit your vision so that you couldn't see everything out to get you. Except first person does it more naturally, since it isn't the game camera simply refusing to give you a usable angle. Its realistically limited by what you can and cannot see.

Those methods for limiting vision aren't equally effective. If the fixed camera angle is handled appropriately then you always see everything you need to. Realistic isn't always better.

In first person it's up to you to constantly be doing 360s if you want to watch your back, and that's no fun to me. Worrying about what's lurking around a corner is fine when you can also see all around yourself so when you're focusing on that corner it's less likely something can catch you off-guard or at least without a chance to react.

Resident Evil has literally been built on this concept since the very beginning. Even in the third-person, over-the-shoulder games, your Field of View is limited and partially obscured by your character's model. Its done that way on purpose and kind of part and parcel of survival horror on some level. This isn't like a platformer where the camera is going to be pulled out, giving you a view of everything around your character.

Yep, and that's why I dislike all games that shove the camera directly into your character's spinal cord, not even just horror games where it's most problematic.

You could usually see all around your character in all the good, classic horror games. You'd basically need to argue they were all shitty until Resident Evil 4.

I mean, that's kind of how horror works. And its what RE, once again, has always done. Of course, you still need to be able to build an atmosphere for that sense of dread to even be there in the first place.

Not really, you don't need something jumping in your firs person face or creeping up behind you unbeknownst to you for horror to be effective.

One of the most iconic scares is the dog scene in RE1. You see everything happen immediately and know their exact position in relation to you and the room, how many there are, and what they're doing.

From a gameplay perspective you're not going to get blindsided or worry about something you can't see in that situation, it's perfect.

Camera angles don't determine horror. If you think it does, your the one with a limited perspective.

I never said they did, it just determines the type, and in my opinion, the quality (especially from a gameplay perspective). There's horror games with 2D side scrolling design or top down views too, usually indie or low budget. You can make horror whoever you want, but everyone will have a preference.

You ever play CoD and say "what the fuck hit me?" Well, I don't like those moments in a horror game. It's not a dealbreaker, I liked Dead Island, so I'm not saying every FPS horror game is bad by default, I'm more lamenting the death of fixed cameras.

As mentioned earlier, those fixed cameras were largely a result of hardware limitations, not purely stylistic ones. The games were simply built to accommodate them. First person isn't really that fundamentally different on too many levels when it comes to horror itself. The game just has to be built differently to accommodate it.

Maybe they were due to limitations but the end result was still good. That's a common story in game development, actually (or used to be anyway).

If the point was to entirely tailor the game to allow the developers to control what the viewer experiences, it would be far more economical to just make a movie, since then you could 100% tailor what the viewer experiences. Despite you deriding such games earlier, games like SOMA showed that its completely possible to have a truly nerve wracking experience playing a first person game without the game developer having to control every single aspect of the player's experience. And if they still want to have a tailored experience, they can, they just have to be strategic about it.

There's a balance that can be struck. It doesn't need to be 100% control like a movie nor does it need to minimize directorial control. Resident Evil struck that balance fine.

To be clear, I'm not at all saying a first person game can't be scary. Personally, even pixelated indie shit like Lone Survivor can spook me. I'd probably shit myself and die playing Resident Evil 7 like I almost did playing P.T. I just think FPS is inherently less interesting, fun, and more poorly designed from a gameplay perspective in this genre.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

@SSj_Ness Quote bug:

Those methods for limiting vision aren't equally effective. If the fixed camera angle is handled appropriately then you always see everything you need to.

And first person games work with the fact that you won't see everything and build themselves around that. Its just a different way of doing things. Neither is inherently better necessarily. But one could potentially take a player out of the game less because it isn't the game intentionally setting up a scare in a very telegraphed manner.

In first person it's up to you to constantly be doing 360s if you want to watch your back, and that's no fun to me.

The thing is, if you actually watch people play first person games, rarely do they ever do that. Which is they scares can still be effective. There's even a game, called Saiko no sutoka that actively took advantage of this fact. Its one of those pursuer games that has a nigh invincible pursuer character after you, but what makes it very notable is that the pursuer AI is extremely intelligent, and doesn't just bum rush you at the nearest opportunity. One of the things the pursuer AI will do is simply silently follow you, for long periods of time if you don't turn around, just to fuck with you. The unpredictability of the AI is the selling point, and the game takes advantage of the player's limited perspective. And it works because people don't actually constantly look behind them in these games, unless the have a reason to.

You could usually see all around your character in all the good, classic horror games.

In tank control and fixed camera angles, to a certain extent yes, but they still limited your field of view with the camera angle. Third person games that lacked the fixed cameras, like Fatal Frame, didn't do that, nor did the early first person games. Some more adventure style games, like the first Clock Tower, and isometric games like Sweet Home, are also exceptions, but that was because of their limited technology and the basic game style.

Not really, you don't need something jumping in your firs person face or creeping up behind you unbeknownst to you for horror to be effective.

Both things (enemies stalking behind you and Jump scares) are things RE has done since its inception, even before first person became the norm.

One of the most iconic scares is the dog scene in RE1. You see everything happen immediately and know their exact position in relation to you and the room, how many there are, and what they're doing.

Which is also an example of jump scare of something jumping in your (proverbial) face. Its just not in first person. The only real difference is the perspective.

From a gameplay perspective you're not going to get blindsided or worry about something you can't see in that situation

You are still being blindsided, you can just see clearly what is blindsiding you. This is also the case in games like RE7 9/10 times, since enemies don't spawn and attack you until you are in a room and can see (or hear) them. The game rarely just throws a situation at you where an enemy attacks you that you just couldn't see coming, and if it did, you could avoid being ganged up on by paying attention and listening. In all my time playing it, I never found RE7 manifestly unfair.

I never said they did, it just determines the type, and in my opinion, the quality (especially from a gameplay perspective). There's horror games with 2D side scrolling design or top down views too, usually indie or low budget. You can make horror whoever you want, but everyone will have a preference.

Fair enough.

To be clear, I'm not at all saying a first person game can't be scary. Personally, even pixelated indie shit like Lone Survivor can spook me. I'd probably shit myself and die playing Resident Evil 7 like I almost did playing P.T. I just think FPS is inherently less interesting, fun, and more poorly designed from a gameplay perspective in this genre.

Also fair enough. Agree to disagree then.

 

[Coldgrip]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but State of Decay is multiplayer focused?

The first one was not, the second one had four player co-op.

I guess a third one is being made as well, though I have no idea if it's still coming out or if it's been scrapped.

I can't think of a new locale. Australia? India? Hawaii? Wait no Dead Island did it already.

Mexico during Spain's first contact with the Aztec or Incan nations. Maybe the 1830s during the riverboat era on or around the Mississippi? For a more modern time, how about the Kowloon? Though India isn't a bad option either now that you mention it.

 

[JongleJingle Returns]

AFTER 3000 YEARS I AWAKEN AGAIN TO POST ABOUT THE FUNNY ZOMBIE GAME!

Trying to think of different places they could go to next in the series. I would love some kind of feudal Japan esque ringu fatal frame zombie stuff but...

I can't think of a new locale. Australia? India? Hawaii? Wait no Dead Island did it already.

Australia would be pretty cool, but I'd figure folks would go "Hey this setting is like RE5!" and then we'd be in a death spiral of "ZOMG RE5 REMAKE??????" and "CAPCOM MAKES YOU SHOOT BLACK PEOPLE SO RACIIIIST".

Although ngl, I would like an RE5 remake. It was (Sadly) the first one I ever knew of and played.

 

[Mega Black]

Dead Rising was fairly cartoony, and (at least initially), its settings were rather compact, though apparently the later games tried to go for larger open worlds.

I would make the argument that the original Dead Rising maintained a tone much closer to classic RE. Cheesy and somewhat silly, but in a world and narrative that is taken fairly seriously by the characters and writers.

As for Raccoon City being played out, maybe. I'll admit to some nostalgia bias but no other location in the series has managed to capture the same mystique that RC has. It has a sort of heightened reality horror aesthetic that makes it very iconic, and I really wanted to explore more of the remake version, especially since RE3make shoves you through it as fast as possible to cram you into reused content as fast as possible, almost like they were ashamed of the original's ideas.

guess it comes down to personal preference. I liked seeing the different costumes you could unlock, and even the base designs. Everyone loves Jill's PS1 look, and Leon's leather jacket from RE4.

Guess ya got me there. I do like iconic character design and bonus costumes are like digital crack to my rotting brain. I think a good middle ground, if they want to keep 1st person, would be to allow switching back and forth, either at will, or during key moments.

In my experience I enjoyed the more intimate feeling 1st person provided when exploring the locations in 7 and 8. Either way is fine, I just don't get the hate.

 

[TV's Adam West]

The voice actress for her said shes an LGBT ally so nah fuck her. Shes an even bigger monster than I thought

Well in old lore, vampires were mainly bisexual, but that was more a case of having a plentiful pool of victims to seduce and kill.

 

[Smaug's Smokey Hole 2]

I would make the argument that the original Dead Rising maintained a tone much closer to classic RE. Cheesy and somewhat silly, but in a world and narrative that is taken fairly seriously by the characters and writers.

I still have my release day copy of RE1 so I had no outside influence or ideas about the game when playing it but it ties into Dead Rising a little bit. After beating RE1 you get the wardrobe key and I was 100% sure of what would be in there. What the secret bonus would be. A Mega Man costume. It was not.

And be the change you want to see in the world, make your own fixed camera tank control game with no strafing so going blind around a corner feels more tense.

edit: an no one has mentioned Enemy Zero. First person with invisible enemies that you track by sound.

 

[Cloaca Rimjob]

Well in old lore, vampires were mainly bisexual, but that was more a case of having a plentiful pool of victims to seduce and kill.

Yeah but subsaharan Africans hadn't invaded yet so go figure

 

[Raiken]

the thing with first person games is if they are creative the can absolutly terrifying if they make it work.

PT for example has lisa in some sections breath down your neck and you will not notice unless you see your shadow or reflection. just the idea that she is THERE and not do anything that moment just to fuck with you messed me up the first time, specialy if you think about how long she has been doing it.

what i can also think of is when you have something at eye level looking trough the cracks that simply does not work in third person because the camera is further away.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

the thing with first person games is if they are creative the can absolutly terrifying if they make it work.

PT for example has lisa in some sections breath down your neck and you will not notice unless you see your shadow or reflection. just the idea that she is THERE and not do anything that moment just to fuck with you messed me up the first time, specialy if you think about how long she has been doing it.

what i can also think of is when you have something at eye level looking trough the cracks that simply does not work in third person because the camera is further away.

Oh for sure. There are somethings that can only really be done in first person because of the perspective. There are some things that can only be done in third person. Its a matter of give and take.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Honestly, I'd like to see a remake of the Outbreak games but given the track record with online multiplayer RE games, I know they'd fuck it up.