Chris Redfield new look in RE6!

Why are capcom trying too make chris redfield look more and more different too how he looked in the re1 remake? i thought he looked different enough in re5 but now his appreance seems too be changing even more. jill valentine however looks the too how she did in the first re game except her hair is blonde.

compare how he looked in resident evl 1 remake and resident 6
http://tiny.cc/ivx7cw

http://tiny.cc/z8x7cw





lol i mean his hair has also gone from black too ginger maybe thats what ten years of steriod abuse will do too you.

Its called growth and maturing Jamesy. I mean RE6 will be like almost 15 years after the events of Raccoon city. In that time he has bulked up and changed naturally. Same with Jill. As long a its not to fucked up and unatural like Leon in Degeneration then all is good.

10-11 years after RE1 too be precise.


yeah i agree and wesker looked much older and gaunt in RE5

Jamesy wrote:

10-11 years after RE1 too be precise.

No, it actually is 15 years after Raccoon. The Raccoon Incident dates back to 1998 and RE6 takes place in 2013.

I think he looks pretty much the same as he did in RE5.

He has the same face as he did in REmake. Thats what I love about Chris. In all his new appearances, you can still check back to REmake and see that Chris has the same face. All thats different is the wrinkles, the muscles, and a bit of the hair color. He even got his REmake hair do back in RE6, so I don´t get your point.

Monster Mash wrote:

I think he looks pretty much the same as he did in RE5.

he just looks a bit swaller and older
so yeah

00biohazard wrote:

He has the same face as he did in REmake. Thats what I love about Chris. In all his new appearances, you can still check back to REmake and see that Chris has the same face. All thats different is the wrinkles, the muscles, and a bit of the hair color. He even got his REmake hair do back in RE6, so I don´t get your point.

Yep, same face, nothing change on his appearance. The only difference is, he gets older on RE6.

00biohazard wrote:

He has the same face as he did in REmake. Thats what I love about Chris. In all his new appearances, you can still check back to REmake and see that Chris has the same face. All thats different is the wrinkles, the muscles, and a bit of the hair color. He even got his REmake hair do back in RE6, so I don´t get your point.

Thanks to your avatar I was able to get a look at Chris' face and you're right. I can really see the resemblance between REmake and 6, but he's just older now.

Jill Sandwich wrote:

00biohazard wrote:

He has the same face as he did in REmake. Thats what I love about Chris. In all his new appearances, you can still check back to REmake and see that Chris has the same face. All thats different is the wrinkles, the muscles, and a bit of the hair color. He even got his REmake hair do back in RE6, so I don´t get your point.

Thanks to your avatar I was able to get a look at Chris' face and you're right. I can really see the resemblance between REmake and 6, but he's just older now.

Exactly his face got older. He just looks younger on REmake but still the same.

The new Chris needs to shave.....jk he looks better with it.

Well the way I think of it is, the Chris Redfield from the Remake has the same face as he does in RE 5... he just looks weird in RE5 because he's all roided out.. but I like how he looks more normal in the trailer.

i thought re6 took place in 2009?

That's old news. The "10 years after Raccoon" thing was a mistake on Capcom's part and they corrected it. The real setting is 2013, 4 years after RE5.

woulden't it make more sense too set the game in 2012 since we are not yet in 2013.

Jamesy wrote:

woulden't it make more sense too set the game in 2012 since we are not yet in 2013.

Well this kind of pattern has always been like that since RE1. RE2/5 was the only exceptions, since the game and release year are the same.

RE1 game year:98, release year:96'
RE3 game year:98', release year:99'
RECV game year:98', release year:00'
RE4 game year:04', release year:05'
RE6 game year:13', release year:12'

The year the game takes place in, is usually 1 or 2yrs before or after the release year.

Jill Sandwich wrote:

RE5 game year:08', release year:09'

It's the same case as was with RE2, the game and release year are the same. RE5 took place in '09.

Not that I'd be agreeing with Jamesy, it really doesn't matter when the game takes place according to the release year.

nope re5 is set in march 2009

Mass Distraction wrote:

Jill Sandwich wrote:

RE5 game year:08', release year:09'

It's the same case as was with RE2, the game and release year are the same. RE5 took place in '09.

Not that I'd be agreeing with Jamesy, it really doesn't matter when the game takes place according to the release year.

Oops. You're right lol. Sorry about that.

I'm not saying the release year determines when the game takes place. I just notice a pattern Capcom has with the main games when it comes to the year.

Jamesy wrote:

nope re5 is set in march 2009

Are you talking about the release date or the month the game takes place in? Because I already know RE5 came out in march.

Jill Sandwich wrote:

I'm not saying the release year determines when the game takes place. I just notice a pattern Capcom has with the main games when it comes to the year.

I wasn't saying you were. I've seen the pattern too, the games are usually set near the date they're released on unless it's a prequel like Zer0 or Revelations.

the game took place i think from 5th-7th march 2009 and i think the game was like relaesed a week later after the events of re5 lol.

Where'd you get the exact date? The Archives book only says March.

Does the exact date matter?

I'm curious so in that matter yes.

it said somewhere weskers death date and the days in which re5 took place