Why this go-to catchphrase is completely meaningless.
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."
Well if Capcom goes the way of zombies with RPG's and machineguns, or parasite infested Las plagas who can ninja kick me, they can suck it. No way will I buy this crap. Please give me back survival horror!
I agree. It just needs to be a good game.
Yep it does
The Resident Evil fanbase has been divided for years. This series needs a reboot, not a sequel to the dismal Resident Evil 6!
Capcom need to give us a game dripping with atmosphere and include some serious survival elements with tight, realistic animations and gameplay. I want limited ammo and supplies, as well as a vulnerable cast of characters and a dark, engrossing story to carry us through to the end.
Stop reusing the same boring characters, ridiculous foes and dull story, and don't give us any more wholly unnecessary, overblown, cinematic action set-pieces...
Brock Wilbur is a nightmare man with a heart of solid gold. Born in Salina, Kansas and booklearn'd at the Northwestern University in Chicago, Brock is a 6'7" writer slash comedian now living in Los Angeles. He has some books and standup albums and films that you might enjoy, and you can track them all down on the internetwebs. He accepts tributes in the form of video games and gin -- like an adult.
uh-huh. WTF was that article.