Resident Evil 7 character (Poll)

Ghost Leader wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

I give up. It was only wishful thinking on my part, I didn't expect everybody to spit on it.

We aren't spitting on it, we're just saying why Steve shouldn't be brought back.

Really? Yet a whole lotta "fans" seem to praise the newer RE games. Games that bring high-end, super-sleek laptops to 1998, oh, and Predator suits, too, that can also shapeshift. And lasers.

I want a reboot. Pick up from CVX and go in a different direction. One where I can play a game without floating cities.

What the hell are you talking about? :suspect:And no, the current story arc doesn't need to be rewritten from some specific point. That's stupid. If they reboot, it should be an entirely new story arc unrelated to Umbrella, Wesker, the T-virus, and so on.

I just want an honest-to-goodness RE game that doesn't have things like "instructors", goddamned insectoid enemies nonstop, and the "organisation", that's all. Hell, the one character I want back most is...wait for it... Barry-freakin'-Burton!

TyrantSteve wrote:

I give up. It was only wishful thinking on my part, I didn't expect everybody to spit on it.

I wasn't spitting on it. I was simply telling you why bringing Steve back wouldn't make sense. Even if Manuela is still alive, it's been 11 years after Op Javier. Plus, she's as far as we know, she's in U.S government custody. That's like trying to bring Wesker or William Birkin back.

Nobudy wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

I give up. It was only wishful thinking on my part, I didn't expect everybody to spit on it.

I wasn't spitting on it. I was simply telling you why bringing Steve back wouldn't make sense. Even if Manuela is still alive, it's been 11 years after Op Javier. Plus, she's as far as we know, she's in U.S government custody. That's like trying to bring Wesker or William Birkin back.

That's why I think a semi-reboot's in order. Go back to just after CVX, then go off in a different direction.

TyrantSteve wrote:

That's why I think a semi-reboot's in order. Go back to just after CVX, then go off in a different direction.

No way if you semi-reboot it, still it'll change the whole of it. It's like you're starting from a scratch again, and you just can't simply say that you're going into different direction. It is clearly impossible.

Miss Claire Redfield wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

That's why I think a semi-reboot's in order. Go back to just after CVX, then go off in a different direction.

No way if you semi-reboot it, still it'll change the whole of it. It's like you're starting from a scratch again, and you just can't simply say that you're going into different direction. It is clearly impossible.

It's a retcon. Retcons are mainly a good thing. They tend to ignore the bad parts of a series canon and allow it to resume its older style.

TyrantSteve wrote:

Miss Claire Redfield wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

That's why I think a semi-reboot's in order. Go back to just after CVX, then go off in a different direction.

No way if you semi-reboot it, still it'll change the whole of it. It's like you're starting from a scratch again, and you just can't simply say that you're going into different direction. It is clearly impossible.

It's a retcon. Retcons are mainly a good thing. They tend to ignore the bad parts of a series canon and allow it to resume its older style.

No, a retcon is what the Chronicles games did with their RE2 & 3 segments, or Metal Gear Solid 4 with Big Boss. You're talking about rewriting the whole thing past a certain point. Completely different.

Ghost Leader wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

Miss Claire Redfield wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

That's why I think a semi-reboot's in order. Go back to just after CVX, then go off in a different direction.

No way if you semi-reboot it, still it'll change the whole of it. It's like you're starting from a scratch again, and you just can't simply say that you're going into different direction. It is clearly impossible.

It's a retcon. Retcons are mainly a good thing. They tend to ignore the bad parts of a series canon and allow it to resume its older style.

No, a retcon is what the Chronicles games did with their RE2 & 3 segments, or Metal Gear Solid 4 with Big Boss. You're talking about rewriting the whole thing past a certain point. Completely different.

Why would that be so bad?

TyrantSteve wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

Miss Claire Redfield wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

That's why I think a semi-reboot's in order. Go back to just after CVX, then go off in a different direction.

No way if you semi-reboot it, still it'll change the whole of it. It's like you're starting from a scratch again, and you just can't simply say that you're going into different direction. It is clearly impossible.

It's a retcon. Retcons are mainly a good thing. They tend to ignore the bad parts of a series canon and allow it to resume its older style.

No, a retcon is what the Chronicles games did with their RE2 & 3 segments, or Metal Gear Solid 4 with Big Boss. You're talking about rewriting the whole thing past a certain point. Completely different.

Why would that be so bad?

Because for starters, some characters still haven't gotten their closure. The war with Bio-terrorism continues. Even though it may never end, Chris, Leon, Jill, and ESPECIALLY Ada need their closure.

Plus rebooting from where CV left off? Reboots start from scratch like everyone's stated countless times. That means a new continuity with pretty much everything being new therefore canceling out CV in its timeline.

Nobudy wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

Miss Claire Redfield wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

That's why I think a semi-reboot's in order. Go back to just after CVX, then go off in a different direction.

No way if you semi-reboot it, still it'll change the whole of it. It's like you're starting from a scratch again, and you just can't simply say that you're going into different direction. It is clearly impossible.

It's a retcon. Retcons are mainly a good thing. They tend to ignore the bad parts of a series canon and allow it to resume its older style.

No, a retcon is what the Chronicles games did with their RE2 & 3 segments, or Metal Gear Solid 4 with Big Boss. You're talking about rewriting the whole thing past a certain point. Completely different.

Why would that be so bad?

Because for starters, some characters still haven't gotten their closure. The war with Bio-terrorism continues. Even though it may never end, Chris, Leon, Jill, and ESPECIALLY Ada need their closure.

Plus rebooting from where CV left off? Reboots start from scratch like everyone's stated countless times. That means a new continuity with pretty much everything being new therefore canceling out CV in its timeline.

Seriously, what's so bad about a retcon? It's a chance to resolve the characters stories in a satisfactory way AND get rid of the ridiculousness of the later games. Retcons don't entirely reboot something, they take it back to when it was good and continue from there. Why is that so wrong? I'm all for a retcon rather than a straightforward reboot. Is it 'cause we'd all have to go back to an earlier, non gung-ho, kiss-kiss-bang-bang, super-secret sci-fi, illuminati-type organisation with Black Hawk Down/Call of Duty stuff for Chris and Bond stuff for Leon?

im not much into idea of a comeback myself, im jst saying that if there will be a comeback for me it would be better if thats Piers, plus RE is known for Resurrections (Ada, Jill, Wesker . . .) and/or ruining the drama moment (like death of Parker Luciani) So i wont be surprised if the decide to bring back any dead character, even wesker, but if they decide to do so id prefer it to be Piers . . .

TyrantSteve wrote:

Nobudy wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

Miss Claire Redfield wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

That's why I think a semi-reboot's in order. Go back to just after CVX, then go off in a different direction.

No way if you semi-reboot it, still it'll change the whole of it. It's like you're starting from a scratch again, and you just can't simply say that you're going into different direction. It is clearly impossible.

It's a retcon. Retcons are mainly a good thing. They tend to ignore the bad parts of a series canon and allow it to resume its older style.

No, a retcon is what the Chronicles games did with their RE2 & 3 segments, or Metal Gear Solid 4 with Big Boss. You're talking about rewriting the whole thing past a certain point. Completely different.

Why would that be so bad?

Because for starters, some characters still haven't gotten their closure. The war with Bio-terrorism continues. Even though it may never end, Chris, Leon, Jill, and ESPECIALLY Ada need their closure.

Plus rebooting from where CV left off? Reboots start from scratch like everyone's stated countless times. That means a new continuity with pretty much everything being new therefore canceling out CV in its timeline.

Seriously, what's so bad about a retcon? It's a chance to resolve the characters stories in a satisfactory way AND get rid of the ridiculousness of the later games. Retcons don't entirely reboot something, they take it back to when it was good and continue from there. Why is that so wrong? I'm all for a retcon rather than a straightforward reboot. Is it 'cause we'd all have to go back to an earlier, non gung-ho, kiss-kiss-bang-bang, super-secret sci-fi, illuminati-type organisation with Black Hawk Down/Call of Duty stuff for Chris and Bond stuff for Leon?

Ridiculousness of the later games? Where was the complaining of ridiculous when S.T.A.R.S decided to split up in a situation where they didn't fully understand what's going on? Where was the complaining when Willy B decided to break the law of conservation of matter. When Nemesis could take multiple shots from a freaking railcannon? Now it's ridiculous for Chris to be more action hardened despite being in the Air Force since he was 17 later to be with S.T.A.R.S, and Leon becoming an agent as early as November 1998? Look. Each game has it's ridiculous moments. All everyone is saying here it that Steve is dead. No questions no arguments. It's like Wesker when he died. Any character can comeback, but what sense would it make when files/characters/cutscenes outright tell you that said characters are dead.

@Chris: Ada and Jill never actually died. Both were fatally wounded (Ada has that UC scenario that starts her on critical health to prove and Jill was taken by Wesker for experiments he would have killed her had it not been for her viral immunity.)

Retcons are bad because they directly show just how amateur of a writers Capcom employs. The hard way would be managing to say canon without any retcons but try pretty hard to correct somebody elses bullshit who wrote the game before you. I know the feeling when a worse writer was working on a game before you, but it doesn't excuse retconing anything, because he could try and explain it in a way to make it good. In other words, retcons are the easy, lazy way out.

I'm sick of this now. It all just started when I said I wanted Steve back, then you lot jumped on my back. I tried to defend my theory, but everyone spat in my face. Now that I'm trying to point out how a reboot/retcon could actually work I've got people trying to string me up. Leave me alone. It's you that can't take an opinion.

Nobudy wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

Nobudy wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

Miss Claire Redfield wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

That's why I think a semi-reboot's in order. Go back to just after CVX, then go off in a different direction.

No way if you semi-reboot it, still it'll change the whole of it. It's like you're starting from a scratch again, and you just can't simply say that you're going into different direction. It is clearly impossible.

It's a retcon. Retcons are mainly a good thing. They tend to ignore the bad parts of a series canon and allow it to resume its older style.

No, a retcon is what the Chronicles games did with their RE2 & 3 segments, or Metal Gear Solid 4 with Big Boss. You're talking about rewriting the whole thing past a certain point. Completely different.

Why would that be so bad?

Because for starters, some characters still haven't gotten their closure. The war with Bio-terrorism continues. Even though it may never end, Chris, Leon, Jill, and ESPECIALLY Ada need their closure.

Plus rebooting from where CV left off? Reboots start from scratch like everyone's stated countless times. That means a new continuity with pretty much everything being new therefore canceling out CV in its timeline.

Seriously, what's so bad about a retcon? It's a chance to resolve the characters stories in a satisfactory way AND get rid of the ridiculousness of the later games. Retcons don't entirely reboot something, they take it back to when it was good and continue from there. Why is that so wrong? I'm all for a retcon rather than a straightforward reboot. Is it 'cause we'd all have to go back to an earlier, non gung-ho, kiss-kiss-bang-bang, super-secret sci-fi, illuminati-type organisation with Black Hawk Down/Call of Duty stuff for Chris and Bond stuff for Leon?

Ridiculousness of the later games? Where was the complaining of ridiculous when S.T.A.R.S decided to split up in a situation where they didn't fully understand what's going on? Where was the complaining when Willy B decided to break the law of conservation of matter. When Nemesis could take multiple shots from a freaking railcannon? Now it's ridiculous for Chris to be more action hardened despite being in the Air Force since he was 17 later to be with S.T.A.R.S, and Leon becoming an agent as early as November 1998? Look. Each game has it's ridiculous moments. All everyone is saying here it that Steve is dead. No questions no arguments. It's like Wesker when he died. Any character can comeback, but what sense would it make when files/characters/cutscenes outright tell you that said characters are dead.

@Chris: Ada and Jill never actually died. Both were fatally wounded (Ada has that UC scenario that starts her on critical health to prove and Jill was taken by Wesker for experiments he would have killed her had it not been for her viral immunity.)

Wesker was impaled in the first game. He came back. Just saying.

And no, it's not ridiculous for Chris to be more action hardened. But it is ridiculous to make him look like he's taking Bane serum.


 

Shrike wrote:

Retcons are bad because they directly show just how amateur of a writers Capcom employs. The hard way would be managing to say canon without any retcons but try pretty hard to correct somebody elses bullshit who wrote the game before you. I know the feeling when a worse writer was working on a game before you, but it doesn't excuse retconing anything, because he could try and explain it in a way to make it good. In other words, retcons are the easy, lazy way out.

Not always. If done in just the right way, they can be pieces of art. I think for the next game, they should kick Shotaro Suga off of the creative team and employ a real horror writer.

Also, some of the older RE games had multiple ways for the ending to play out. Maybe the next RE could take it from there.

TyrantSteve wrote:

I'm sick of this now. It all just started when I said I wanted Steve back, then you lot jumped on my back. I tried to defend my theory, but everyone spat in my face. Now that I'm trying to point out how a reboot/retcon could actually work I've got people trying to string me up. Leave me alone. It's you that can't take an opinion.

No one's jumping on you or spitting on you. You just kept mentioning something that's near impossible. Wesker's most likely to never come back considering a rocket took his head out combined with another RPG plus lava. Heat in which Urobouros is weak to. Same goes for Steve.

TyrantSteve wrote:

Wesker was impaled in the first game. He came back. Just saying.

Wesker injected himself with a virus capable of doing so from Birkin. The T-Veronica virus hasn't shown the ability to revive people. And again, Wesker used Steve's remains for Javier's daughter.

TyrantSteve wrote:

And no, it's not ridiculous for Chris to be more action hardened. But it is ridiculous to make him look like he's taking Bane serum.

Not really. People who are truly dedicated can look like that without enhancements. Look at Chris from the various years of 2003, 2005, 2006, and finally 2009. Plus, in RE6, they toned him down.

TyrantSteve wrote:

I'm sick of this now. It all just started when I said I wanted Steve back, then you lot jumped on my back. I tried to defend my theory, but everyone spat in my face. Now that I'm trying to point out how a reboot/retcon could actually work I've got people trying to string me up. Leave me alone. It's you that can't take an opinion.

Oh, we can take opinions just fine, but we're also perfectly entitled to scrutinize them if we wish to do so, which is something you can't seem to take apparently. If you expected everyone here to coddle you just because you have an opinion, you're mistaken. If I think something is a stupid idea, I'm going to tell the person who came up with it flat out, regardless of whether it's you, Shrike, Vandal, Mass, or anyone else on this site.

...so my most recent RE7 ideas render me criticism free-ish?

TyrantSteve wrote:

Miss Claire Redfield wrote:

TyrantSteve wrote:

That's why I think a semi-reboot's in order. Go back to just after CVX, then go off in a different direction.

No way if you semi-reboot it, still it'll change the whole of it. It's like you're starting from a scratch again, and you just can't simply say that you're going into different direction. It is clearly impossible.

It's a retcon. Retcons are mainly a good thing. They tend to ignore the bad parts of a series canon and allow it to resume its older style.

I know what Retcon is. It is a short term for 'Retroactive Continuity' which means adding a information at the back story of a character or fictional character without invalidating that which had gone before. Like Ghost said earlier. Metal Gear 4 is a Retcon game, because of the story, and appearance of Big Boss there. But not only Metal Gear, I knew a few games that has Retcon story, like God of War, Crisis Core, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, and Final Fantasy X-2 most of it is Retcon and not only this, they're so many Retcon games. I bet in other games it'll work. but not in Resident Evil I guess.

TyrantSteve wrote:

I'm sick of this now. It all just started when I said I wanted Steve back, then you lot jumped on my back. I tried to defend my theory, but everyone spat in my face. Now that I'm trying to point out how a reboot/retcon could actually work I've got people trying to string me up. Leave me alone. It's you that can't take an opinion.

Take it easy man, no one even said that. Especially no one wants to fight with you. Ofcourse we can take opinions. That's why I, myself keep thinking about your opinions of Retcon, and all. We're too, just explaining you our side, and point of view. That's all.

I will most likely enjoy the series no matter which direction it goes. I have enjoyed every game I have played, although I highly, highly favor the older games and everything about them. I do think they could have went in a better direction after Code Veronica as well though. Also, did they not retcon that already... I am pretty sure in the Wesker Report, Wesker claims he has Sherry Birkin. Correct me if I am wrong, but did they not retcon this and say Sherry was captured with Leon by the Government?

I prefer the direction they were going before said "retcon" and if any retconing takes place in the future I hope it is to remedy the last retcon. I prefer the initial direction, prior to RE4.

PWNERX wrote:

...so my most recent RE7 ideas render me criticism free-ish?

No, but you can at least rest sure knowing that you're one step above Jamesy on my "must scrutinize relentlessly" list.  

Ghost Leader wrote:

PWNERX wrote:

...so my most recent RE7 ideas render me criticism free-ish?

No, but you can at least rest sure knowing that you're one step above Jamesy on my "must scrutinize relentlessly" list.

It's surprising that you have that kind of list

Miss Claire Redfield wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

PWNERX wrote:

...so my most recent RE7 ideas render me criticism free-ish?

No, but you can at least rest sure knowing that you're one step above Jamesy on my "must scrutinize relentlessly" list.

It's not surprising that you have that kind of list

Fixed.  

I've got one of those lists too. Actually it's more like a white noise list.

Claire long time ago that i played with her on RE

Funny thing, as RE4 actually was, in a sense, a retcon game. Resident Evil Gaiden was supposed to be canon and coincide with Code: Veronica but RE4 erased that plotline completely.

Vandal wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Vandal wrote:

Shrike wrote:

I hate bringing back dead characters unless it makes a huge amount of sense and and isn't cheap, which it sadly usually is.

There is no reason to come back from the dead unless you're a zombie or Jesus Christ.

I do believe Jesus himself was, to an extent, a zombie too.

No he wasn't. Not even close.

Come on, let me have my joke. He rose from the dead so he's a zombie. Easter will always be Zombie Jesus Day for me.

Besides, only Zombie Jesus could fare in a battle with Raptor Jesus and Super Mega Death Christ 2000 BC Version 4.0 Beta.

Miss Claire Redfield wrote:

I knew a few games that has Retcon story, like...Silent Hill: Shattered Memories

No. That game was a reimagining. It didn't retcon anything, it reimagined the story of the first game and is by all means not canon. Btw wasn't FFX-2 just a sequel? Correct me if I'm wrong, I've never played that one.

Ssplain wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but did they not retcon this and say Sherry was captured with Leon by the Government?

Yes, that did indeed happen.

Mass Distraction wrote:

Funny thing, as RE4 actually was, in a sense, a retcon game. Resident Evil Gaiden was supposed to be canon and coincide with Code: Veronica but RE4 erased that plotline completely.

Wow, I didn't knew that RE4 was a retcon game. I played Gaiden but I didn't knew that also. Thanks for letting me know, Mass

Quote :

No. That game was a reimagining. It didn't retcon anything, it reimagined the story of the first game and is by all means not canon. Btw wasn't FFX-2 just a sequel? Correct me if I'm wrong, I've never played that one.

Heh well, I just thought it was a retcon. FFX-2 became retcon because of FFX.