The Rocket Launcher of RE2

The rocket launcher in RE2 blows Mr X´s second form to bits, but none of the other creatures, except the zombie. It takes two to four rockets to defeat Birkin and the other boss monsters, but the effect of blowing them up is not duplicated with any of them. Why did the designers decide to make the rest of the bosses so strong that their forms could not be exploded by multiple rockets? The zombie is the only other creature that can be damaged realistically, but the Licker, the zombie dog, the Ivy and the spider, the aligator and the giant moth were all given special bodies that couldn't explode.  

...because Mr. X was bluffing?

I'm gonna go ahead and say "programming lapse".

Btw. Mr X in Darkside Chronicles could take multiple rocket hits if not hit at the right time. Just pointing this out. Him blowing to bits was just to make the player feel triumph and added as a visual effect.

Please don't ask what he was thinking when he was blown to bits...

Mass Distraction wrote:

I'm gonna go ahead and say "programming lapse".

Btw. Mr X in Darkside Chronicles could take multiple rocket hits if not hit at the right time. Just pointing this out. Him blowing to bits was just to make the player feel triumph and added as a visual effect.

Please don't ask what he was thinking when he was blown to bits...

No, I couldn't possibly ask such a thing. That'd be asking what ants feel when their lower bodies are crushed by a human's foot. There's no way to even feel what a creature a thousand times smaller would feel by another with a million times its strength.

Mass Distraction wrote:

I'm gonna go ahead and say "programming lapse".

Not really a lapse per say, rather I think they just saw no need in animating every creature in the game blowing apart.

Oddly enough, if the rocket launcher did the actual kind of damage it's supposed to, the entire story of the RE games it's featured in would be drastically changed. Birkin, for example could have been blown up before the end, Annette could have been saved, or met a different kind of fate.

Pau Diaz wrote:

Oddly enough, if the rocket launcher did the actual kind of damage it's supposed to, the entire story of the RE games it's featured in would be drastically changed. Birkin, for example could have been blown up before the end, Annette could have been saved, or met a different kind of fate.

Must I point out that you, canonically, only get it at the end of the game?

Mass Distraction wrote:

Pau Diaz wrote:

Oddly enough, if the rocket launcher did the actual kind of damage it's supposed to, the entire story of the RE games it's featured in would be drastically changed. Birkin, for example could have been blown up before the end, Annette could have been saved, or met a different kind of fate.

Must I point out that you, canonically, only get it at the end of the game?

I'm well aware of that. It's dropped by Ada from the platform above. I was just saying that it might have crossed the developer's minds to see how they could play around with the events of the game if the rocket launcher did its full potential damage. Might have occurred to them, it might not have.

Pau Diaz wrote:

Oddly enough, if the rocket launcher did the actual kind of damage it's supposed to, the entire story of the RE games it's featured in would be drastically changed. Birkin, for example could have been blown up before the end, Annette could have been saved, or met a different kind of fate.

Has any developer ever altered the plot of any game for the sake of a new game+ weapon? I don't think it's odd that they didn't put all of that extra work in for something that no other developer does.

37 Narwhals wrote:

Pau Diaz wrote:

Oddly enough, if the rocket launcher did the actual kind of damage it's supposed to, the entire story of the RE games it's featured in would be drastically changed. Birkin, for example could have been blown up before the end, Annette could have been saved, or met a different kind of fate.

Has any developer ever altered the plot of any game for the sake of a new game+ weapon? I don't think it's odd that they didn't put all of that extra work in for something that no other developer does.

Nor do I. Besides I get the impression that the censorship wanted to stop the bodily damage animations from being created starting from RE3. You can still blow the heads off zombies and ganados from then on, but the level of gore in RE2 was never as high in the following games.

Pau Diaz wrote:

37 Narwhals wrote:

Pau Diaz wrote:

Oddly enough, if the rocket launcher did the actual kind of damage it's supposed to, the entire story of the RE games it's featured in would be drastically changed. Birkin, for example could have been blown up before the end, Annette could have been saved, or met a different kind of fate.

Has any developer ever altered the plot of any game for the sake of a new game+ weapon? I don't think it's odd that they didn't put all of that extra work in for something that no other developer does.

Nor do I. Besides I get the impression that the censorship wanted to stop the bodily damage animations from being created starting from RE3. You can still blow the heads off zombies and ganados from then on, but the level of gore in RE2 was never as high in the following games.

RE4 and RE6 are pretty gory. I think some of the most brutal deaths in the games are in those two. RE5 got censored a lot and I don't really remember how things were in RER.

Mass Distraction wrote:

Pau Diaz wrote:

37 Narwhals wrote:

Pau Diaz wrote:

Oddly enough, if the rocket launcher did the actual kind of damage it's supposed to, the entire story of the RE games it's featured in would be drastically changed. Birkin, for example could have been blown up before the end, Annette could have been saved, or met a different kind of fate.

Has any developer ever altered the plot of any game for the sake of a new game+ weapon? I don't think it's odd that they didn't put all of that extra work in for something that no other developer does.

Nor do I. Besides I get the impression that the censorship wanted to stop the bodily damage animations from being created starting from RE3. You can still blow the heads off zombies and ganados from then on, but the level of gore in RE2 was never as high in the following games.

RE4 and RE6 are pretty gory. I think some of the most brutal deaths in the games are in those two. RE5 got censored a lot and I don't really remember how things were in RER.

Yes, now you mention it, I recall the death scenes of the novistadors and some of the others. Also yes, I also recall the zombie cannibal scenes from RE6 from you tube. How's the explosive deaths of the enemies. In RE4 and RE5, they tended to disintegrate and blew to a kind of dust upon being hit by direct mine darts, grenades or rockets.

You mean in RE6? Pretty much the same, really. Some do still try to walk at you while turning to slush as they move. At this stage they cannot hurt the player.

Well, in certain other games, such as Far Cry, they don't include gore as part of their animations. At least, whenever I used a rocket launchers, there were no human remains left behind worth mentioning. I'm guessing that Ubisoft is stricter on things like that than Capcom.