Reason behind capcom getting rid of wesker?

My point exactly. Those games are main series as much as RE3 is a spinoff. What I'm trying to say is that even if RE3 had only been called Resident Evil: Nemesis, people would still propably count it as a main series game. Just like RER and CVX now. Oh, and they propably would have named CV as RE4 if the exclusivity deal with Sony had allowed it.

However, I still feel RE2 is more important to the overall story than RE3. A merged remake would suffice well. The reason why I mentioned RE3's origins as a spinoff to begin with was just to elaborate on how the company might see it and its importance.

Mass Distraction wrote:

My point exactly. Those games are main series as much as RE3 is a spinoff. What I'm trying to say is that even if RE3 had only been called Resident Evil: Nemesis, people would still propably count it as a main series game. Just like RER and CVX now. Oh, and they propably would have named CV as RE4 if the exclusivity deal with Sony had allowed it.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was wondering in my original question. I think we're both on the same page here. Just going at it differently. This is why I dislike when video game companies start subtitling games instead of giving them numbers. There's usually no real consistency to it, and it confuses fans and non-fans alike. Doesn't help when subtitled, non-numbered games are required to understand the story of subsequent numbered games. CVX is obviously an example of this, as are the recent Assassin's Creed games.

Going back on-topic (since I realised I haven't actually made an on-topic post in here ), the reason Capcom got rid of Wesker is that they had run out of time to write him as an effective villain. If RE5 came out, and Wesker was still a shady, behind-the-scenes manipulator, you'd have fans moaning that he'd been around for 11 years, and wasn't dead, it was getting old, we need new villains etc etc etc. So they killed him off.

I think it was probably the right thing to do. The way they handled it, though......ugh.

Cyberization wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

My point exactly. Those games are main series as much as RE3 is a spinoff. What I'm trying to say is that even if RE3 had only been called Resident Evil: Nemesis, people would still propably count it as a main series game. Just like RER and CVX now. Oh, and they propably would have named CV as RE4 if the exclusivity deal with Sony had allowed it.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was wondering in my original question. I think we're both on the same page here. Just going at it differently. This is why I dislike when video game companies start subtitling games instead of giving them numbers. There's usually no real consistency to it, and it confuses fans and non-fans alike. Doesn't help when subtitled, non-numbered games are required to understand the story of subsequent numbered games. CVX is obviously an example of this, as are the recent Assassin's Creed games.

Going back on-topic (since I realised I haven't actually made an on-topic post in here ), the reason Capcom got rid of Wesker is that they had run out of time to write him as an effective villain. If RE5 came out, and Wesker was still a shady, behind-the-scenes manipulator, you'd have fans moaning that he'd been around for 11 years, and wasn't dead, it was getting old, we need new villains etc etc etc. So they killed him off.

I think it was probably the right thing to do. The way they handled it, though......ugh.

Well actually Assassins creed has quite good subtitling, compared to RE, there are 3 main stories, Altairs, Ezio, Connor, and two of em have sub chapters, when RE looks really like a mashed potato, agree with the fact that CV should have been the 4 part of the game. . .

ChrisRedfieldRE156 wrote:

Cyberization wrote:

CVX is obviously an example of this, as are the recent Assassin's Creed games.

Well actually Assassins creed has quite good subtitling, compared to RE, there are 3 main stories, Altairs, Ezio, Connor, and two of em have sub chapters, when RE looks really like a mashed potato, agree with the fact that CV should have been the 4 part of the game. . .

That's not really what I meant. I'm aware of the AC story (and for the record, I think after AC2 it's a load of utter nonsense). I was more referring to the fact that AC Brotherhood and Revelations are both subtitled, therefore making it appear as if they're spin-off games, or sub-stories. This makes it seem to some folks that they can be easily skipped, without missing too much of the plot.

Whereas this is the exact opposite, in fact AC Bro and Rev advance the story fairly significantly, even killing off a major character in one of them. If you skipped from AC2 straight to 3 you'd be completely lost. That was the point of my little rant against gaming companies and their naming habits

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Counter question: Code Veronica and Revelations are spinoffs but does anyone see them that way?

I've always considered CVX to be a main story game in spite of the title's lack of a number (they should have just called it "Resident Evil 4", IMO) because it carries on the main plotline with main characters. I consider a spinoff to be a title with minor characters that looks at main story events from a different point of view (Outbreak), has a completely self-contained story with either main characters or minor characters (Dead Aim, Revelations), is non-canon altogether (ORC), or takes place in the same universe but doesn't reference main story events or characters.

Quote :

Hurr durr bethur graphex

And biggah 'splosions!

I felt that re4 was a self-contained stor at first, but the I came to realize that without that story (specifically Krauser), RE5 would never come into plan, and we would probably never hear Wesker losing his breath over "Complete global saturation".

Cyberization wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

My point exactly. Those games are main series as much as RE3 is a spinoff. What I'm trying to say is that even if RE3 had only been called Resident Evil: Nemesis, people would still propably count it as a main series game. Just like RER and CVX now. Oh, and they propably would have named CV as RE4 if the exclusivity deal with Sony had allowed it.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was wondering in my original question. I think we're both on the same page here. Just going at it differently. This is why I dislike when video game companies start subtitling games instead of giving them numbers. There's usually no real consistency to it, and it confuses fans and non-fans alike. Doesn't help when subtitled, non-numbered games are required to understand the story of subsequent numbered games. CVX is obviously an example of this, as are the recent Assassin's Creed games.

Oh, I got what you meant from the start and I completely agree. I just wanted to answer with a question And it's not a problem that would only persist in video games, it's an annoyance with movies too.

Cyberization wrote:

ChrisRedfieldRE156 wrote:

Cyberization wrote:

CVX is obviously an example of this, as are the recent Assassin's Creed games.

Well actually Assassins creed has quite good subtitling, compared to RE, there are 3 main stories, Altairs, Ezio, Connor, and two of em have sub chapters, when RE looks really like a mashed potato, agree with the fact that CV should have been the 4 part of the game. . .

That's not really what I meant. I'm aware of the AC story (and for the record, I think after AC2 it's a load of utter nonsense). I was more referring to the fact that AC Brotherhood and Revelations are both subtitled, therefore making it appear as if they're spin-off games, or sub-stories. This makes it seem to some folks that they can be easily skipped, without missing too much of the plot.

Whereas this is the exact opposite, in fact AC Bro and Rev advance the story fairly significantly, even killing off a major character in one of them. If you skipped from AC2 straight to 3 you'd be completely lost. That was the point of my little rant against gaming companies and their naming habits

Oh yea i see what u mean, agree with that, both Bro and Rev are quite important for the entire story. And for the record also i think everything after Altair is nonsense, never thought that that gayboy Ezio, would make to be an assassin.

ChrisRedfieldRE156 wrote:

Cyberization wrote:

ChrisRedfieldRE156 wrote:

Cyberization wrote:

CVX is obviously an example of this, as are the recent Assassin's Creed games.

Well actually Assassins creed has quite good subtitling, compared to RE, there are 3 main stories, Altairs, Ezio, Connor, and two of em have sub chapters, when RE looks really like a mashed potato, agree with the fact that CV should have been the 4 part of the game. . .

That's not really what I meant. I'm aware of the AC story (and for the record, I think after AC2 it's a load of utter nonsense). I was more referring to the fact that AC Brotherhood and Revelations are both subtitled, therefore making it appear as if they're spin-off games, or sub-stories. This makes it seem to some folks that they can be easily skipped, without missing too much of the plot.

Whereas this is the exact opposite, in fact AC Bro and Rev advance the story fairly significantly, even killing off a major character in one of them. If you skipped from AC2 straight to 3 you'd be completely lost. That was the point of my little rant against gaming companies and their naming habits

Oh yea i see what u mean, agree with that, both Bro and Rev are quite important for the entire story. And for the record also i think everything after Altair is nonsense, never thought that that gayboy Ezio, would make to be an assassin.

Why exactly, is everything after Altair, nonsense?

Mcghie wrote:

To be fair I thought ezio was an amazing character.
Assassins creed 2 storyline was very compelling and probably the best in the series.
I like the whole lothario persona they gave ezio and how very clueless he was at the beginning, it felt as if you were progressing through the chapters but also progressing Ezio's skills.
That to me felt like a more connective story and than just starting the game and already being an assassin.
Story's like that build character, its much like a great movie or book, they often start from the very beginning and take the character(s) through a journey of progression.

Couldn't agree more with that.

Mcghie wrote:

To be fair I thought ezio was an amazing character.
Assassins creed 2 storyline was very compelling and probably the best in the series.
I like the whole lothario persona they gave ezio and how very clueless he was at the beginning, it felt as if you were progressing through the chapters but also progressing Ezio's skills.
That to me felt like a more connective story and than just starting the game and already being an assassin.
Story's like that build character, its much like a great movie or book, they often start from the very beginning and take the character(s) through a journey of progression.

Yes. Agree x 100. I loved, and I mean loved Assassin's Creed 2 for it. Ezio was a total dude in AC2. The fact we got to see him grow up and age as we progressed was really immersive. It (and the first game) actually did something original. A somewhat unique storyline was created, it had memorable characters and it was a blast to play.

It's from Brotherhood onwards where I felt the series fell apart. Too many gameplay gimmicks that no one asked for (flying machines, naval combat, blowing random shit up, broken stealth missions), too many missions where nothing relevant actually happens, way WAY too many side missions that ruin the pacing of the storyline, and not enough of actually planning and carrying out assassinations, which is something the series really lost after AC1. Plus, the story took a turn for the ridiculous after AC2's ending, and from what I played of Bro and Rev, it only got even more convoluted.

Haven't played 3. I read the story, and it sounds atrocious.

Cyberization wrote:

Yes. Agree x 100. I loved, and I mean loved Assassin's Creed 2 for it. Ezio was a total dude in AC2. The fact we got to see him grow up and age as we progressed was really immersive. It (and the first game) actually did something original. A somewhat unique storyline was created, it had memorable characters and it was a blast to play.

It's from Brotherhood onwards where I felt the series fell apart. Too many gameplay gimmicks that no one asked for (flying machines, naval combat, blowing random shit up, broken stealth missions), too many missions where nothing relevant actually happens, way WAY too many side missions that ruin the pacing of the storyline, and not enough of actually planning and carrying out assassinations, which is something the series really lost after AC1. Plus, the story took a turn for the ridiculous after AC2's ending, and from what I played of Bro and Rev, it only got even more convoluted.

Haven't played 3. I read the story, and it sounds atrocious.

AC2 ended up being my favorite out of the series, too.

AC1 was okay and the setting was amazing but it just wouldn't hold me and I never finished it (sorry, Nite, I tried *shrug*), Brotherhood was great and Rome a beautiful place to explore (the Romulus lairs were my favorite part).

Revelations was... okay but Byzantium felt too small a city to be the capital of an empire (the epic ending was worth it, though).

But AC3 ended up fizzling out for me. 18th century colonial architecture was just... bleh and the wilderness environments weren't all they were hyped up to be. The only really neat parts being the exploration of the Aztec ruins, the famous "Money Pit" on Oak Island, and the wreck of the Octavia in the Arctic circle. I just looked up the ending on YouTube (which was anti-climactic compared the previous 3 games) and traded it in.

I might one day play AC4 down the line, but it's not a priority. Not after AC3.

I love how the threads evolve in here. From Wesker to remakes to spinoffs and eventually to Assassin's Creed.

Mass Distraction wrote:

I love how the threads evolve in here. From Wesker to remakes to spinoffs and eventually to Assassin's Creed.

:D:D

Hey just bought the DVD collection of The Walking Dead, Maan its awesome

I wasn't asking for more off topic, mind you.

Mass Distraction wrote:

I wasn't asking for more off topic, mind you.

OK ok, back to topic, not everyday u get a chance to play on ur nerve strings . . .

Mass Distraction wrote:

I love how the threads evolve in here. From Wesker to remakes to spinoffs and eventually to Assassin's Creed.

They seem to get enjoy creating new threads on the off topic section. Obviously this thread is about Capcom getting rid of Wesker but they we're talking about Asassin's Creed. This is not new, happens most of the time.

If there's one game with a story as intricate and detailed as RE's, it's Metal Gear Solid. If there are two, that second one is Assassin's Creed. Discussion is going to spill over. This topic has hardly yet shifted entirely to AC, though.

Unpredictability is a good thing.

Ghost Leader wrote:

If there's one game with a story as intricate and detailed as RE's, it's Metal Gear Solid. If there are two, that second one is Assassin's Creed. Discussion is going to spill over. This topic has hardly yet shifted entirely to AC, though.

Unpredictability is a good thing.

Agreed. Assassin's Creed has one of the most beautiful, and detailed story in the gaming industry.

Bet Mass right now looks like this

Yeaa a good topic lost

The topic hasn't been "lost", not by any stretch. If anything, it's been discussed to its fullest extent because, as has been stated already, Capcom's reasoning for "getting rid" of Wesker was to end the Chris/Jill/Wesker story arc once and for all.

What more is there to discuss about it beyond just throwing around personal opinions that can't be debated or argued to any form of factual accuracy?

Ghost Leader wrote:

The topic hasn't been "lost", not by any stretch. If anything, it's been discussed to its fullest extent because, as has been stated already, Capcom's reasoning for "getting rid" of Wesker was to end the Chris/Jill/Wesker story arc once and for all.

What more is there to discuss about it beyond just throwing around personal opinions that can't be debated or argued to any form of factual accuracy?

Going on-topic, I heard that Chris wasn't even supposed to be in 6. They just had a sketch of Chris and Leon aiming their guns. I guess 5 was supposed to give Chris his closure like what they did for Jill. Leon will probably get his once he gets with Ada once and for all (Probably never). Though it would be funny to see 50 year old Leon and Ada still playing their Cat and Mouse game.

37 Narwhals wrote:

I don't have a problem with Wesker dying, I just wish Jill or Barry would've done it instead of Sheva.

This. So much this. Goddamn it. I just hate it when a random new character appears and does something a main char should have done. I also really hate how they forgot Barry.

I do agree that Wesker had the green light from me to die, but I dislike Ada so much that I wish Wesker was still here. Ada and Leon, the characters that the fanbase loves the most as far as I saw, are two of the worst characters to have stepped in this game. I know people will get all pissy at me over this, but Leon and Ada are both so badly written that it's painful for me to watch them, let alone listen to their dialogue that makes me puke my fucking guts out.

So, having more Wesker wouldn't be so bad considering which characters the Capcom seems to fap to the most.

Ghost Leader wrote:

If there's one game with a story as intricate and detailed as RE's, it's Metal Gear Solid. If there are two, that second one is Assassin's Creed. Discussion is going to spill over. This topic has hardly yet shifted entirely to AC, though.

Unpredictability is a good thing.

Not to start a war here, but MGS storyline and dialogue cannot be even compared to RE. RE is a B move style game. MGS isn't. Not saying anything else, RE is my favorite game, but common.

Shrike wrote:

37 Narwhals wrote:

I don't have a problem with Wesker dying, I just wish Jill or Barry would've done it instead of Sheva.

This. So much this. Goddamn it. I just hate it when a random new character appears and does something a main char should have done. I also really hate how they forgot Barry.

I do agree that Wesker had the green light from me to die, but I dislike Ada so much that I wish Wesker was still here. Ada and Leon, the characters that the fanbase loves the most as far as I saw, are two of the worst characters to have stepped in this game. I know people will get all pissy at me over this, but Leon and Ada are both so badly written that it's painful for me to watch them, let alone listen to their dialogue that makes me puke my fucking guts out.

So, having more Wesker wouldn't be so bad considering which characters the Capcom seems to fap to the most.

Ghost Leader wrote:

If there's one game with a story as intricate and detailed as RE's, it's Metal Gear Solid. If there are two, that second one is Assassin's Creed. Discussion is going to spill over. This topic has hardly yet shifted entirely to AC, though.

Unpredictability is a good thing.

Not to start a war here, but MGS storyline and dialogue cannot be even compared to RE. RE is a B move style game. MGS isn't. Not saying anything else, RE is my favorite game, but common.

Hey, it's your opinion. I respect it. However, I agree with you as well. his whole Leon/Ada thing needs to end. Because I played Leon's re6 game first, I thought Ada was dead for real, but my true thoughts doubted it. Then during ch5 when Simmons knocked Ada silly, I thought she was dead for real. But, then I thought, "Wait; this is a game series where being smacked around by an 8ft super soldier is nothing but a tickler."

Shrike wrote:

Not to start a war here, but MGS storyline and dialogue cannot be even compared to RE. RE is a B move style game. MGS isn't. Not saying anything else, RE is my favorite game, but common.

It can in terms of depth and complexity.