110°

Resident Evil: Umbrella Corps could be a good budget shooter I Geek

Capcom’s latest Resident Evil title, Umbrella Corps, is a third-person team-based spinoff that takes place after Resident Evil 6 — even though the antagonistic Umbrella company that used to be central to the franchise is dead at this point in the ridiculous series timeline. Nevertheless, Capcom showed off an action-packed trailer at its World of Capcom panel at New York Comic Con.

DarkOcelet3114d ago

Well, unlike Evolve/Titanfall and all those MP only shooters, this one is priced right.

And the mechanics looks fresh and fast paced so that will definitely make it stand out.

I still wish they would have gone with Outbreak File 3.

xPhearR3dx3114d ago

Have you seen ANY videos of this game? It's the most generic cookie cutter shooter there is. Nothing about this stands out aside from Resident Evil in the name.

DarkOcelet3114d ago

I am generally talking about the mechanics my friend not the environment/atmosphere etc etc. Yes, it does look generic but some of the mechanics looks interesting. And we surely havent seen everything.

pompombrum3114d ago

^^^ I hope for the game's case you're right, it's going to take more than the Resident Evil name for it to enjoy any sort of success in such a saturated market.

fitfox3114d ago

Not proud of this fact, but i'll prolly buy this, A FPS resident evil is kinda unique right? gotta add it to the collection.

traqueia3114d ago

Resident Evil Gun Survivor series

fitfox3114d ago

true its first person but id like to see the gun when im shooting

Pillsbury13114d ago (Edited 3114d ago )

If it's online only and you are getting half a game then it should be 30$.

Looking at you R6 siege.

KwietStorm_BLM3114d ago

Is a single player-only game considered half a game?

SuicidalTendencies3114d ago

If a multiplayer only game dies out then you're left shooting at walls if it doesn't get shut down(EA). That's not a problem with single player only games.

_-EDMIX-_3114d ago (Edited 3114d ago )

?? Nope. Each game has a value all its own bud. That is like saying fighting games should be half price because they are not RPGs or something.

No...just no.

Witcher 3 should be half price guys, it doesn't have multiplayer. /s

Do you understand just how many games don't have multiplayer? Do you get how many games are multiplayer only or don't have a single player and are static games? ie racing, sports, fighting etc?

OH should they be half price too?

Play what you like, buy what you like...but don't start assessing value of titles you ironically want to be half price.

As someone who plays both MP and SP....no, hell no that makes no sense. Mind you, I had zero problem paying FULL PRICE for the BF series years ago before they added a single player. The single player is STILL of no value to ME as I play BF for its MP, I literally never even start a SP game in those games as I'm not buying it for that, its about MP for me and I'll gladly pay $60 for that experience.

JUST like I'll gladly pay $60 for Until Dawn or The Witcher 3 etc.

I'm paying for what it is, not what I want it to be or for its number of modes etc.

Pillsbury13114d ago (Edited 3114d ago )

Rainbow six seige had a single player mode and was cut from the game because of budget constraints. Rainbow six games usually have a single player component. Are you telling me it's ok for companies to cut things out of their games and sell them half finished and sell them full price? Titanfall should have been half price.

An no I am not referring to single player games that have a full feature list. I am referring to half baked online only games that should have shipped with more content.

ITS Not ok for companies to sell unfisinhed products period.

_-EDMIX-_3114d ago (Edited 3114d ago )

"ITS Not ok for companies to sell unfisinhed products"

How do you know what is finished and what is "unfinished" that doesn't really make much sense as the product being made for sale is by what Ubisoft deems it to be.

Not you.

You either choose to buy it.....or not. What it launches with is what it launches with, unless you had content IN YOUR GAME AFTER RELEASE removed, you have zero claim of "unfinished" as what Rainbow Six Siege is as a product is a MP only game.

Thus...its very much "finished".

What your stating in terms of your own little definition of "unfinished" can apply to every game ever made as MOST games have content removed based on design reasons, limitations etc. No game just launches with 100% all ideas that where made day 1 LMFAO!

Soooooo by your logic zero game is actually finished as...have you heard what Conker was originally going to be?

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

MAN BRO, it was "UNFINISHED" bro, damn...they swindled us good bro.

Your stating a product as "finished" based on content that was clearly not going to see the final game based on the publisher seeking to use its funds elsewhere as this game's MP mode also has free maps for the rest of the titles support life.

What it is...is what the publisher deems it to be...NOT YOU, you can't now state its um "unfinished" unless you some how own the damn game's IP and copyright and are stating its not ready for release or something lol.

Stand back guys, Terminator 1 is "unfinished" because I found some deleted scenes....man bro!

When a game is released...its finished....thats it. You can't state something is "unfinished" based on what happens in development as that just makes zero sense, your basically crying for something you don't even know the length, quality etc of. Thus...your crying and whining AFTER THE FACT, as if to state if you never heard of the single player getting canned, you clearly would not be stating "unfinished" how many damn games do you think scrap content based on being inferior? So is every game unfinished by your stupid, childish logic?

Bud...grow up, either buy it or don't, your logic can apply to all games released and that have ever released with content that was removed due to design. Your angry based on new found knowledge, seems like you would have been happier never knowing it existed as folks like you love to live in ignorance.

You are only owed the product advertised, nothing more. Your buying the game that releases, not what you some how want the team to release, you don't own the team, publisher etc and they have no ode to add something that is now not in the game....you really need to grow up a bit and really understand what your actual rights are bud, you don't own the team and where never promised everything they placed their hands on.

Pillsbury13114d ago (Edited 3114d ago )

while I do agree you have the choice of buying it or not and the game ships as intended, does that mean we as consumers have to sit back and get more and more content stripped from us only for it to be sold later on?

I mean come on grow up when do we draw the line as far as stripped down games?

Idk why you brought up conker as that was before paid DLC was implemented.

I understand your argument about you get what you get and it's not up to you to decide what's in the product but really bro? Haven't you ever been pissed when you thought something should have been included in the game in the first place you had to buy? Ever??

But yes ultimately it's consumer choice whether to buy or not. Can you not agree that it's not right for developers to constantly strip games down only to sell it to us later?

_-EDMIX-_3114d ago

@Pills- "does that mean we as consumers have to sit back and get more and more content stripped"

Stripped? when was it yours exactly? What was taken from the final game that you actually physically had?

Soooo no, that sounds like classic entitlement.

Its hard to claim something thing is um 'stripped" of something you DON'T OWN THE RIGHTS TO!

You don't own the team, the publisher, the IP etc.

"Haven't you ever been pissed when you thought something should have been included in the game in the first place you had to buy? Ever??"

? Nope. Because when I buy a game, I under the full understanding that I'm buying a product that was advertised, not what I "think" it should be included with it.

It makes no sense, its like assuming ever game should have 1 more map, 1 more chapter, 1 more level, fighting games should have 1 more character etc.

Bud enough, you can cry about that about any game, at the end of the day, did they promise it to you? Was it advertised to actually be in the product your buying? Is it on the box that it includes such content? Do you not fully understand that your buying THEIR product?

Its not yours ,you have zero control over what they put up for sale as gaming is not a right, its a damn privilege, you don't need to game, you don't need to buy their product.

"Can you not agree that it's not right for developers to constantly strip games down only to sell it to us later?"

Nope, as its not your actual game bud, its theirs, the decide what they want in their final product and even if it was something that was suppose to come in the final game that they changed their mind on and released as DLC....that is for them to actually decide and that is something they have the right to do. Bud...the entitlement, when does that go too far with assumptions of what a game should or shouldn't have in it?

I mean...are you not agreeing to buy said product as promoted? When on earth did this become some collaborative effort consumer to artist? Its not your damn work, company, project etc.

So the concept of something being "striped" makes zero sense as unless it was in your hands and you played it then one day it wasn't...you don't have much claim over such a thing.

If I write a book and decide that during this process I'm going to make a series of books instead and near the ending I add that part to the beginning of the second book....

How did I "strip" something from you that never was yours to begin with? Its MY WORK..NOT YOURS, your merely seeking to buy what you know as Book 1, I know that book 2 has some of what was in Book 1 originally.

Your buying what I'm making CURRENTLY, not what I was originally going to do, that has nothing to do with the final product and the final book is what I decide, not you, the same goes for ALL mediums. Your again buying what is currently being marketed, not what you want it to be or content you think "should" be in it.

_-EDMIX-_3114d ago (Edited 3114d ago )

I mean...you can't take such a childish claim to court bud, I've heard this cry by many on here about DLC and the reality is....do you even have a case on a product that you don't own? Where did they state your buying the teams work and everything they put their hands on?

Can you not state this about books, film, art, music? I mean seriously, its entitled and your assuming you have some right to content you didn't pay for and have no legal right over. Why is it you don't see this in film, shows, books, music? Yet...in gaming some concept exist where someone feels they are owed pretty much everything that isn't nailed down to the studio lol.

Hey..Bioware is making a new IP, while making Mass Effect 4...so you owed that new IP too? I mean...its being made by that team while they are making Mass Effect 4.. So if you feel that DLC is yours because Bioware made it during Mass Effect 4's development, why stop there? Anything they make your owed right bro? Do you not see how strange that sounds?

If you have a real legal reason why your owned something like that, I would love to hear it, but I've never heard on any site, forum anywhere anything that gives consumers such a strange right.

You have the right to received what was promised and what was marketed. NOT everything the team was working on.

Game development Teams today make DLC

Films studios make behind the scenes

Authors make special editions to books

Musicians make live, tribute, demo albums etc

An extra is an extra, no matter how it was created, you have no right to it and they have no ode to some how give hand outs for free just because.

If you have some right to content thats not yours...might as well say this for the rest of those mediums too bud.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3114d ago
BABY-JEDI3114d ago

I love RE but, This game is truly a pile of sh*te!

DevHextor3113d ago

I can see myself paying $30 for this, If price goes up, I don't see myself buying. Price is the biggest issue I have with some of these new multiplayer only games. Evolve, Titanfall, Battlefront, Rainbow Six: Siege all want $60 for a game that is online multiplayer only, with no story/campaign offline mode, meaning in a year it could be a very expensive paperweight.

130°

Every Other Time Resident Evil 3 Was Remade

Now that Resident Evil 3 remake is less than a month away, here's a look back at the other times Capcom reimagined the 1999 classic game.

Read Full Story >>
gamerant.com
Mr Marvel1505d ago

Behind AC: New Horizons, this is my 2nd most wanted game this year.
Until Capcom remade RE2, RE3: Nemesis on PS1 was my favourite RE game.

Tross1505d ago (Edited 1505d ago )

I do think it's easily one of the most underrated RE games. I'm looking forward to fending off REmake Nemesis, especially since I heard his appearances throughout the game will now be somewhat randomized.

AK911505d ago

Umbrella chronicles is still my favourite it was really cool going back and playing the classics with updated graphics.

Nerdmaster1505d ago

I would say I thought Darkside Chronicles was better mainly because 2, Code Veronica and 4 (kind of represented in the game by Leon and Krauser) are my favorite games. But the super shaky camera in Darkside really bothered me...

240°

Resident Evil 7: Redfield, Umbrella Corporation, and More all Answered in Japanese Booklet

Rely on Horror writes: Resident Evil 7's biggest mysteries have been answered in a Japanese booklet for a replica gun!

Read Full Story >>
relyonhorror.com
Tross2545d ago

Only someone involved in the mansion incident could understand huh? Please Capcom, can we finally get some acknowledgement of Jill and where she's at?

Lord_Sloth2545d ago

I take it you didn't play Revelations.

Tross2545d ago (Edited 2544d ago )

I very much did, but that only fills in the gap between the older titles and RE5. It doesn't explain what Jill has been up to since 5. I mean she had testing done on her afterwards but it should have been finished well before the present day.

Edit: It occurs to me you thought I was referring to just acknowledgement of Jill. I suppose she was acknowledged 5 years ago. I still want to find out what she's been up to since her last canon appearance, and I'm sick of seeing Chris carry on without her, especially since I'm more of a Jill fan than a Chris fan.

Lord_Sloth2544d ago

@Tross I can understand that. I'd like to see more of the cast as well and I'm all for more Jill.

TheOttomatic912544d ago

I believe @Lord_Sloth is actually referring to Revelations 2 where Jill is a major and playable character, although I too would like to see more of her (and personally Ada) but with the direction 7 is going we will probably have all the older characters in background roles whilst the newer and more inexperienced character will be at the forefront

Tross2544d ago

That was indeed Claire, who we had to wait a good 14 years to see again, all because Capcom made up some BS excuse that her story arc was over while they had no problem making up a new arc for Leon. Maybe Capcom just has something against its female cast. At least we finally got a good game starring Claire, but here's hoping Jill isn't the new Claire. I can buy the older cast being placed in the background if the male cast are too...and we get a proper completion of their arc.

TheOttomatic912544d ago (Edited 2544d ago )

@Tross and @Lord_Sloth Oh shit you guys are both right it WAS Claire, I guess you guys have a point about Jill not being in enough material since I mixed up her and Claire lol.

On a more serious note Tross I'm not sure what resentment you have to Capcom for not using classic female characters in 7 (I hope your not an SJW) keep in mind Leon is just as big as Chris in the RE series yet he was not once mentioned in 7 nor was Jake or Barry and so on. I think Capcom wants to focus on civilian protagonists and whilst we may see more of the older characters in future titles they will only be in cameos and I think we will see less and less of Chris and others as the series goes on

lunatic00012545d ago

What I still don't understand is his look...with the upcoming cgi film and mvc game...why not implement his new look to show that this is the new look for Chris going forward...maybe it's just me but it's annoying and weird especially when the new movie is canon

pietro12122544d ago

I think it might just be different character designs and art directiin between the projects. The art style from RE7 is pretty different than RE 4,5, 6 and the CGI movie's.

lunatic00012544d ago

Yeah...no doubt it has a different art direction...just my problem is how capcom did not at least try to implement his new look in the movie since they have said its canon...having his look from re5 in the movie just adds confusion especially if Chris has a huge role in main games and cgi movies going forward

AntiZeal0t2544d ago

They used photogrammetry for RE7, so it was much easier to use a real person for the game.

VsAssassin2544d ago

I agree with lunatic0001. I can understand the different art style in MvC: Infinite, but not in the new RE CG movie--which Capcom says is canon. So if that CG movie is canon, and RE7 IS canon as well, why have two version of Chris?

Digital-Devil2544d ago

Capcom will SELL you the new Chris design as DLC for MvC:I.

lunatic00012544d ago

Haha...I honestly would not doubt it...it's capcom afterall

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2544d ago
TheOttomatic912544d ago (Edited 2544d ago )

Damn that was alot of info to take in but ultimately what I gathered from that was Red vs Blue, I wonder if anyone at Capcom is a fan of Rooster Teeth?

2544d ago
70°

US PlayStation Store Gets Resident Evil Sale This Week

Capcom is holding a major sale on all Resident Evil games on the North American PlayStation Store this week.

Read Full Story >>
gearnuke.com