Official End of Old School RE

I'm sick of all the doom saying. I really am. 

That's all.

So do something about it, instead of bitching about it.

Start a petition to keep RE to it's survival horror roots, or get find a way of getting ahold of Kawata directly. Make it known that this is not how you want the series to progress, despite what supposed North American "pressures" might persist in saying.

Don't cry about something, but then do nothing to help change things into what you want them to be. Because then you're just pissing in the wind.

Kawata needs to fuck off. He has brought nothing positive to the series. I'm officially retiring from biohazard after 6 anyway. I've come to terms it's never gonna go back to its best. One more game and I'm done. Sick of trying to defend a series that died long ago in all honesty. Karimura reignited some of my passion with his comments and enthusiasm after all these years but in reality biohazard as I loved it is dead.

Kawata isn't even working on RE6, is he?  Any comments he makes regarding its direction mean little.

Agree with every word, but I am staying (naively) positive until at least 2 more Resident Evil 5 clones. Revelations has kept the hope for a more intelligent, survival horror style alive, we just may have to turn our heads away in disgust more often than in the past. 

The sites we design, use, lurk around can reflect our own preference of style. 

Old school RE died with Dead Aim well before this article was written.

Also as a news flash, Super Mario games will no longer feature 8-bit graphics or simple left-to-right platforming.

Oh the humanity.

This site really needs a rep system <3 Sindra and TheBatman.

@ HUNK - Super Mario games are still awesome, though =D

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the series has enough room for horror and action. All CAPCOM need to do is get creative again and stop being a parasite. 

Kawata's "if it's not CoD level sales, it's a failure" mentality is terrible for ANY developer to have. Very few games actually reach those sales numbers, and most are lucky to even reach 1 million. Should they not be made at all? Hell no. 

Take Amnesia: The Dark Descent for example. An independantly developed game made on a low budget with a small number of staff. It sold quite handsomely. Why? Because it is a genuinely terrifying game. Not because the developers went to Hollywood to direct the cut-scenes. Not because they had an orchestra play three songs that aren't even included in the retail soundtrack. Not because they spent millions on marketing and promotion. It did not have a wasteful, superfluous budget (like BH5) and it delivered on its horror premise (unlike BH5).

Perpetuating this "CoD or bust" nonsense will only over-saturate the market with dull, mindless games that still won't sell CoD numbers. To most, CoD is pretty much a household name at this point and can run solely on that if it wanted to and still sell and make millions. Cloning it won't work and no other franchise will achieve that same result.

CAPCOM needs to focus on separating themselves from CoD. They need to make their franchises more distinct and unique. If a horror game doesn't sell well, such as Revelations, maybe you should do more research on where the numbers actually are. If you wanted over 1 million, then consoles were the most logical choice. Giving the game bad press by hiking up the price by $10 because of the constraints of the 3DS did not help it. Neither did being on the 3DS in general. Granted, the 3DS made the entire game more unique and enjoyable in its own way, but you can't put precedence on creativity one second and decide that money > everything the very next just because you took a chance you most likely knew wasn't going to be a big splash.

Put the money where it matters and is needed. Going on a big-budget spending spree that ultimately does not give results will not help. It will only put more pressure on the company to make more money and resort to questionable tactics to cut corners and scavenge whatever elements they can from more "successful" franchises, like a leech. Know what direction you want the game to go, be creative, and be a little more tight-fisted with the budget. Don't spend where it isn't needed.

Dead Space 1 & 2, Alan Wake, Silent Hill: Downpour, and numerous other titles have managed to have a big action focus without ruining the atmosphere...so as long as Capcom start to realise this, and start to implement it themselves, then we might be in luck.

Keep the action to the spin off's. I've no issue with that.  Keep the numbered games with some fear. RE5 was the first one that just didn't have it in my opinion.  Even RE4 had an unnerving fear running through the chapters.  This interview upsets me as I worry that Kawata retains some influence to the top dogs at Capcom.

Resident Evil has been dead for survival horror fans long before this article came along. And for all those saying it needed to modernise, they could of modernised the series and changed the control scheme etc without destroying the atmosphere of the previous games. Last game I bought brand new was Resident Evil 4 and untill Capcom fixes its shit (highly doubtful) I'm not buying another Resident Evil game. They need to look at Deadspace and realise how they have been completely outdone by them in every part. But yeah this has been discussed over and over.

I personally have some hope for the horror aspect of BH6 but only time will tell.

EVERY department? DS2 had an awful narrative, and they destroyed Isaac Clarke forever - it's basically gone in the same direction as RE, bar it still provides a standard for gore and cheap scares, and the gameplay is sound, otherwise it's another IP that went down the drain thanks to the #EPIC trend. 

Havn't played the sequel yet so can't comment on it. But the first Deadspace is what Resident Evil should of turned out like. Maintaining the atmosphere but modernise the controls.

Personally I'd love an Amesia Resident Evil - very atmospheric with little action. More survival with clever set pieces.

KICKSTARTER! KICKSTARTER! KICKSTARTER! KICKSTARTER! KICKSTARTER! KICKSTARTER! 

Amirite or amirite? 

This is pretty much what I say to this.

There is no reason why it has to become completely action oriented. It makes sense to have more action because of the third person view but that doesn't mean they have to get rid of the horror, atmosphere or even the survival aspect of the game.

Plus, isn't it kind of wrong? I mean, when did COD fans start buying it for an "action oriented story." Don't they care more about the multiplayer. Why can't the multiplayer be the action part they want and the story keep the same atmosphere. I may be completely wrong here but I almost never hear about the campaign mode of a COD game.

Either way, I still have hope for the series and RE6 even though I probably shouldn't.

Does this really surprise anyone? This has been Capcom's thought process since before RE5, it's just that now one of the developers is actually honest enough to come out and say it.

Let's face it - when money talks, it weakens integrity. Capcom is one of the largest game developers, and when they see the massive amount of dough that games like COD rake in, they want a piece of the pie. What they're too stupid to realize is that Western gamers get their action fix from COD, but get other fixes from other games. Getting a horror fix from Resident Evil would be a great example. Why would they want another COD-like game when they could just play the real thing?

I usually don't read the comments on IGN because the majority of the people there seem like idiots, but here's a quote that proves my point:

Other comments seem to support this view, too. And reading through them, most people on there find Capcom's attitude pathetic. All we can hope for is that Capcom sees this for themselves, but I wouldn't count on it changing the direction for RE6. It's too far into development.

Unfortunately, a lot of the masses don't take the time to understand any of this - they just see "Resident Evil" and buy it on name alone. And Capcom doesn't see the complaints - they only see the numbers.

I do have to wonder what would happen if one were set up basically saying "we're not Capcom, but the idea is that the fans show their support for a traditional resi game by paying for it themselves. We'll fund it, Capcom can make it."

With the number of people that lament the loss of the traditional game style, I just wonder how many people would put their money where their mouth is?

Not many people are going to pay for a game that 'might' be released in 2 or 3 years time. Also the cost of development for a game like that will be in the millions. There is not many options to take really, petitions are useless and even though some like me will refuse pay a penny to Capcom, there is too many others out there who are willing to pay for a game just because it has the name Resident Evil in it. 

@Matieo10,DS2 was actually very good.The main character could talk unlike the 1st game,and it still kept its roots to the 1st but not going all out action like RE5.The only downside was the multiplayer,which was horrible!

I did mention that. Gameplay-wise it's a great game, and it still holds the standard for gore and cheap/jumpy scares. It had a piss poor story, though, and giving Isaac an opinion/voice ruined it for me - Isaac Clarke isn't the hero of Dead Space, we, the player, are. That's what made the first an incredible experience.

I wouldn't know, I haven't played the multiplayer.

I have both of them and all I can say is that the 1st game is better than the 2nd one. I'm cool with Isaac Clarke not having a voice, but the gameplay is very good along with the gore and scares. Just gonna say that the multiplayer sucked big time, its ranking system is alright but there is no control for spawn camping and the human team have a more advantage over the necromorph team.

I'm with anyone who thinks DS1 is better than DS2. The latter relied too much on linear levels and big "epic" set pieces/moments that it simply wasn't a fun game. When I was about 75% through the game I just wanted it to be over, since it wasn't fun.

I will agree that DS2 reduced the horror factor of DS1.  I'm undecided on whether giving Isaac a voice had anything to do with that.  However, I still thought it was a fun game; I liked the story (although not as much as the "cultists at the ass-end of space" vibe in the first one); and I liked the expansion on the universe (a trip through a Unitology church, for instance, and seeing what happened to the Ishimura).  I did miss the magnetic boots, but the maneuvering jets were nice.

Just because Leon can do a spin-kick doesn't necessarily make it action. Look at the enemies he's facing.

Dead Space = good Resident Evil? I don't think so. Dead Space may be a good action horror game, but it still spells trend to me. And Revelations? Classic Resident Evil? Far from it.

Resident Evil can and should go back to being an exploration/horror/puzzle oriented game with a cinematic presentation--it's what Resident Evil is. Playing a game with the camera fixed behind the character is something I find boring. If you need that kind of perspective for anything, it's for action. If a game centers on exploration, horror, and puzzles, it can only benefit from weird camera placements. Resident Evil knew it and used it well. I never had issues with the controls, and let me tell you why. Because Resident Evil is *not* an action game. I don't need full freedom of movement; the game doesn't need it if its emphasis isn't on action. And it never was. So when you change your whole gameplay to emphasize action, it becomes an issue. The whole shooter feel of what passes for RE these days is undoubtedly a product of the choice of camera placement and the amount of action it allows for. Besides, you totally lose the cinematic feel. Sure, you gain things as well. Tension from being surrounded, precise aiming, more natural movement, and a closer, more intimate perspective of what's going on. All of which things an action game would need.

I get it. Kawata is a producer, and Resident Evil, along with Street Fighter, is a flagship title for Capcom. They won't allow a flagship game to become a niche market product that only hardcore fans would buy. Even if it means destroying said game's legacy. They change it to the point it's a different series altogether, to meet today's standards so to speak, but they keep the name because no one would care if the box didn't say Resident Evil. Go Capcom. As expected, money overrules everything, mostly thanks to people who would buy anything.

My official stance is that I'm not buying anything Resident Evil until it's Resident Evil in more than mere name. This is what I'm doing, or not doing, besides bitching, and as insignificant as this personal little rebellion is on its own, I'm sure if more people took that road, big companies like Capcom would be forced to spend their money on creative talent rather than technologically advanced mimicry.

Resident Evil 2 started the whole trip into action territory; Nemesis later running with the feeling, even so much as to give the player unlimited ammo. Action has always been a part of the story, it's just the perspective that has changed as well the reduction of the puzzle element. The games are also all quite linear, but instead of a progressive 'always move forward' approach, the player was gated in a set map and forced to unlock new pathways to continue.

I bring up the above, not because I long for the old days of 'classic' RE; but to really nail home what my only wish for the series would be and what I feel the real game changer was:

The inclusion of an in-game item store and 'chapter' breaks.

I can live with the change in perspective. After all, this view works well for games like Silent Hill and I have no issues with the third person, over the shoulder viewpoint. I find it more immersive.

My gripes started with RE4 when the game was seemingly rebooted. Suddenly the player was thrust into an environment that lacked anything recognizable (like a town or city) and did away with the feeling of a techno thriller. It disconnected the player from the story of Resident Evil.

RE5 did what it could to correct this and even had the player come across an underground lab, reminiscent of RE2 in terms of plot.

What ruined RE5 from actually rekindling that feeling of 'classic' RE was actually just the design decision to make it impossible to back track and worse; use immersion-breaking scoreboards that grind the tension down to nothing. The other decision was to retain 'item drops' from routed enemies and the in-game store; both of which are holdovers from RE4 (though the store was designed differently). 

Why would Leon or Chris loot money from dead villagers while looking for the President's daughter, or a terrorist? Why would these same villagers carry precious ammunition, when the only weapons they use are broken bottles and tools (and the occasional molotov cocktail or stick of dynamite)?

Honestly, I was more excited about the concepts of RE5 than the actual game that was released. If they had kept to an open aspect map design, allowed for backtracking and exploration; did away with the accursed scoreboard 'chapter' breaks and in-game store; and removed item drops from routed enemies, then RE5 would have been great instead of just merely good. It would have kept to the 'classic' RE style of action horror (because let's face it, RE2 and 3 are action horror) and would have been a memorable entry into the series for new and old fans alike. Oh and they definitely should have had actual puzzles, but that's just a nit-pick at this stage.

I read that quote when it reared its ugly head......utter vacuous bullshit.

The reviews for ORC are testament to that.