As Resident Evil 7 DLC makes its scheduled debut a week after launch, a question is raised; should it have been part of the complete game package?
Players have long debated the merits of third-person as opposed to first-person perspective in games and the topic has recently resurfaced on Reddit, this time concerning the long running Resident Evil series. The discussion so far has generated somewhat heated opinions from users on both sides of the argument.
Resident Evil has a long history of using both perspectives, with some entries in the series like Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 3 offering players a third-person view, while others like Resident Evil 7 provided players with a first-person perspective. Some fans believe third-person allows for better visibility and control over the character, while others believe that first-person immerses you more deeply into the game's atmosphere.
Third always
It's what it's always been and how it's meant to be played whether it's fixed camera angles or over the shoulder.
There was a time when I would have agreed but if you've got a vr setup the 1st person RE's are on another level.
That being said, they can both exist because they're both fantastic.
Exactly. If there was no VR version available or possible I’d say 3rd person. But because of the extreme heightened immersion, VR trounces the flat screen version, so 1st person please.
They should have the option to have both going forward imo. But I do prefer third person view
I love both and the new mainline RE games should stay in first person for at lest one more game that’s why i hated that Capcom for some reason added third person in RE8 .. like why ? What was the point ? It just lost what made the new games unique and different. Re7 is a gem and already such a classic, it’s RE1 of this generation or well the prevous generation i guess i should say and RE8 is bonkers and so fun. Such great games.
Resident Evil has remained the most popular horror franchise in video games for a long time. These are the reasons why.
The remakes are good examples
Resident Evil 2: "Here's how you do a remake"
Resident Evil 3: "Here's how NOT to do a remake"
I think RE3 was actually pretty good but just short and flawed a bit. If Capcom would’ve just put the RE3 campaign and it’s dodge mechanic into RE2 (maybe called it RE Raccoon City Chronicles) and placed the the game in a canonical order LEON A, CLAIRE B, JILL C; then dropped the multiplayer nonsense, it would have been the most perfect package. I enjoyed RE3’s ties in to 2 and they streamlined it well. It just was a flawed deliver.
Oh don't get me wrong, it was a good game but compared to RE2 it was a step back
It was lazier, felt rushed, shorter in comparison and totally the wrong way for Capcom themselves to do a remake
Luckily they got the memo because I'm sure I read RE4 was supposed to be done by the team that did RE3 before they rebooted development.
RE3 needs a directors cut, it needs to be longer, they need to include the choices, add the other locations in by expanding/reworking the current story and also rework how Nemesis works. I want to explore more the city, even if areas have nothing to do with the main objectives and only exist to explore for collectibles or to find new gear.
Punching huge bolders while being in a volcano sounds cool on paper, but looks very dumb.
More QTEs = worse experience (RE6 mostly)
Sometimes big doesn't mean "better" (RE6 bosses mostly)
Not every game's suppose to have a multiplayer component (RE3 remake, Umbrella Corps). But sometimes it just works (Outbreak)
Small stamina bar for melee attacks is dumb (RE6)
Locking better skills behind drip-fed skill point drops is awful (RE6)
Do not give your flagship IPs to outside studios. But if you did, heavily control the game quality and direction (Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City)
For me Resident Evil’s biggest impact on the gaming medium will always be that over the shoulder control scheme pioneered by RE4
VGChartz's Evan Norris: "With Resident Evil Village out imminently, it seems like an ideal time to revisit its immediate predecessor, Resident Evil 7: Biohazard, a game that steered the franchise back to its roots. After replaying the game this past week, I can say with confidence it remains one of my favorites in the long-running series, due to its scary and disturbing atmosphere, challenging boss battles, twisting narrative, breathless action, and old-school survival-horror gameplay. It's certainly not perfect — there isn't much enemy variety and the final boss is a letdown — but overall it's a great game worthy of the name Resident Evil."
Honestly whenever I see paid DLC like map packs or story expansions released within a month or two I always feel like it's cut content
It's usually not do see that they worked on right after they finish the game because that stuff still takes time so in reality it was probably being created during development or maybe even cut.
Capcom does it the worse because with a Resident Evil game ever since 5 you know you're going to get DLC modes. And Capcom was really bad with last generation Street Fighter iterations and especially bad with cut endings in akuma wrath.
While some developers you can debate whether it's cut content I always feel with Capcom that it most definitely is.
Never too early for me, love me some day 1 dlc! Nothing like forking over an extra +$20 for only 1-2 hours of content, bring it on! #Sarcasm
Who cares?
To what benefit is it to the consumer to hold back the release of content just to give some sort of Illusion that it's being worked on?
It's insane that they're releasing DLC a week after releasing the game. Especially as it's a relatively short but full priced game. A great game but still arguably too short to be releasing chargeable content packs 1 week after it's release.
There is only one paid DLC in the hishtory of world which is not unmoral and worth every single penny. WITCHER 3: Blood and Wine!!!! If you compare that much work and value to e.g. all fighting games DLCs, you want to smash Capcoms etc. faces....