Resident Evil 7 Speculation

TheBatMan wrote:

We also had the V Complex plant, which turned out to be quite embarrassing. But why on earth would you want the main threat to be botanic? They were going to do that with Biohazard Dash but thankfully they saw sense and scrapped it.

We've had enough of all that rubbish. No more leeches, no more queen ants, no more parasitic whales, robot Salazar's, Lord of the Rings cave trolls etc etc. Just give us a genuinely interesting all-new antagonist with a unique goal that is not taking over the world, or destroying the world, ruling over humans as a god, or causing bioterrorism just to show the world how dangerous bioterrorism is.

By god... this is the greatest thing iv'e ever read here!

Who's to say such a villain wouldn't work with plants?

A robot Salazar?

Ghost Leader wrote:

A robot Salazar?

I wondered about that for a moment myself but then I figured he must have meant that walking statue.

TheBatMan wrote:

with a unique goal that is not taking over the world, or destroying the world, ruling over humans as a god, or causing bioterrorism just to show the world how dangerous bioterrorism is.

Then what the hell would the story be then?. I mean there's only so many reasons that somebody would unleash a horde of rabid mutants onto the world.
And i still think that a botanical threat would be cool. (i loved the green zombies) We've already had fish, insects, and SAW victims. So why not plants?.

What may i ask are your ideas for the enemies and or antagonist of RE7?. And you can't just say "I'd make something unique and interesting and great".

The story would not be any of those things precisely because we've seen them all so many times before in various recycled incarnations. It's getting boring. And who says anybody has to unleash a horde of rabid mutants onto the world? There are thousands of other ways to tell an effective story in the biohazard universe.

A botanical threat would not be cool because we've already been there, done that. The Alexia-Pod was a giant plant and was the first jump the shark moment in the series that began the long downward shift of semi-realistic horror to downright fantasy. Likewise the V-Complex was a giant plant. We've also had Plant 42, the Ivies, the Evil Shades, the Dorothy Plant etc etc. We've seen them so many times they are just not interesting any more, certainly not to sustain a whole game.

The antagonist needs to be someone new. Derek Simmons was fine for example but for some reason Capcom chose to kill him off in the very same game he was introduced. He also needs a proper motivation for what he's doing, something more original than a bitter ex-employee or the clichéd take over/destroy the world thing. We also need a genuine reason to fear and hate him or her.

And of course, they need to survive Resident Evil 7 so they can further evolve and grow.

As for the story well that's a question I cannot answer off the top of my head but if I was ever paid by Capcom to write the scenario I'd certainly come up with something vastly different than what has come before. It certainly wouldn't be related to bioterrorism. We've been stuck in that era for far too long now.

We also need to get rid of the air of invincibility that surrounds Chris, Leon, Claire, Jill etc. You know before you even pick up the pad they will not die. - That needs to change, otherwise their can be no fear. Classic example is Jill. Had she stayed dead after Lost In Nightmares, the series would be in exactly the same place as it is now. Exactly the same. But yet they brought her back. Why?

Chris was originally supposed to die instead of Piers at the end of six, but Capcom themselves admitted they bottled it and switched it round.

Above all else, the stories, characters, enemies and environments need to return to realism. No more mutated dinosaurs, giant trolls etc. No more people with seven different professional careers by the time they are 20 years old. No more 16th century castles that have turret mounted Gatling guns hidden under the floor, or impossibly gargantuan undersea facilities that have somehow been constructed in total secrecy.

It's shouldn't be as hard as people make it out to be. The series already has enough richly fulfilling lore to come up with an effective, inventive horror experience.

The series never had a sense of realism to begin with. There's the secret underground lab in not only the Arklay Mountains, but also within Raccoon City that's accessible from its own police station. The first game had Mutated fleas bigger than humans and giant reptilian creatures. Neptune would be one of the more realistic characters. The second game gave us a man who broke the laws of conservation of matter. The third game gave us another nigh indestructible creature capable of tanking just about anything short of a couple railgun shots and/or nuke. And Rebecca, Jill, and later Alexia were good example of pre-RE4 prodigies being in professional positions even before being 20 in the case of Rebecca and Alexia.

I do agree that the main characters aren't in any real danger to begin with, but we can't expect them to be like their 1998 selves. I'm pretty sure working in the same field for nealry 20 years would make you much better than you were back then.

I don't see how a secret lab is unrealistic. The police station is also not connected to the lab in Raccoon City, only connected to the sewer network which is largely under the control of Umbrella.

When I said realism I meant the first games were based on semi-believable science as opposed to direct fantasy. Things like the enlarged fleas are a direct effect of the t-Virus on most insects, and it is extensively described in supplemental material of how hypothetically such a process could work, which helps make it more believable. The same cannot be said of random occurrences such as the El Gigante or Simmons' dinosaur and fly transformations for example.

If one was to create a human biological weapon using a virus and muscle-strengthening surgeries the T-002 is probably a loose adaptation of what most people would imagine it to be like. Of course it's still pure science fiction, but the principles behind it are realistic, and that's what makes it more terrifying. Something like the Novistadors on the other hand are just pure wizardry and therefore just not scary.

If you're referring to Birkin then again this is explained in the supplemental materials. The mutation cycles of the t-Virus are two generations, whilst the G-Virus is endless until death. This explains his rapid transformations and dramatic size increase. Again, not achievable in the real world of course, but not beyond the realms of possibility in a fictional setting because the hypothetical scientific processes behind it are explained, making us believe it could be real.

The point I make about the characters is that having 20 careers at 19 years old is just stupid, and that many of them are now just superheroes the average person cannot relate to. Capcom can make new and interesting characters without these traits, whilst at the same time still keeping the old core cast in the background.

I had a concept for RE7. Go find it.

Yeah i'm still pulling for a Reboot lol. It's time.

TheBatMan wrote:

I don't see how a secret lab is unrealistic. The police station is also not connected to the lab in Raccoon City, only connected to the sewer network which is largely under the control of Umbrella.

I'm fine with a secret lab, but it was just the locations of them that irked me. Putting them under/ near a semi-densely populated area is pretty silly.

Quote :

When I said realism I meant the first games were based on semi-believable science as opposed to direct fantasy. Things like the enlarged fleas are a direct effect of the t-Virus on most insects, and it is extensively described in supplemental material of how hypothetically such a process could work, which helps make it more believable. The same cannot be said of random occurrences such as the El Gigante or Simmons' dinosaur and fly transformations for example.

I don't remmeber El Gigante's backstory, but Simmons was infected with the C- Virus which if I remember is the lovechild of the G and T-Veronica virus which means it's no surprise that he can do that stuff since he pretty much has a combination of William's and Alexia's abilities.

Quote :

If one was to create a human biological weapon using a virus and muscle-strengthening surgeries the T-002 is probably a loose adaptation of what most people would imagine it to be like. Of course it's still pure science fiction, but the principles behind it are realistic, and that's what makes it more terrifying. Something like the Novistadors on the other hand are just pure wizardry and therefore just not scary.

I'll hand it to you there. I don't see how a parasite can cause something like that.

Quote :

The point I make about the characters is that having 20 careers at 19 years old is just stupid, and that many of them are now just superheroes the average person cannot relate to. Capcom can make new and interesting characters without these traits, whilst at the same time still keeping the old core cast in the background.

A better idea would be to create a character who's not a fighter/super intelligent in any way and make them new to bioterrorism. They made the mistake with Jake and Helena by having one be a mercenary and a government agent. Maybe someone who knows just a bit about firearms, but not as much as Claire.

TheBatMan wrote:

As for the story well that's a question I cannot answer off the top of my head but if I was ever paid by Capcom to write the scenario I'd certainly come up with something vastly different than what has come before. It certainly wouldn't be related to bioterrorism. We've been stuck in that era for far too long now.

Pretend you're being paid and give us an example, then. To make such a boast, then say you can't come up with anything because you aren't being paid is kind of a cop out.

Nobudy wrote:

I'm fine with a secret lab, but it was just the locations of them that irked me. Putting them under/ near a semi-densely populated area is pretty silly.

Not really. As is the case with the alleged presence of an underground city inhabited by lizard people beneath Los Angeles, it would be largely relegated to a conspiracy theory.

Novistador wasn't made by just introducing a plaga to a bug or a person. It was the result of a biological experiment and it's never specified how they did it. Plagas were involved, though. Still, having a man sized bug person isn't that different from hunters, who were part human, part reptile. They could just have done the same thing, just with a plaga instead of a virus.

Likewise the giants were made through experimentation, not just simply putting a plaga inside a person. Of course, it is never explained what those experiments were, but it's not that much different from previous experiments in RE.

Another thing I don't get is the "main character has to die for a game to be scary" argument. In most games ever made the main characters don't die, and that includes horror games. That said, they don't die canonically but the player can get them killed numerous times during gameplay, which is the core of the experience. If I'm playing a scary game I'm more afraid of getting killed during gameplay rather than being horrified during cutscenes. Horror comes from atmosphere and design, not from not knowing if my character dies at the end or not. Hell, Doomguy was originally supposed to die at the end of the game. Would that have made Doom scary? It'd still be the same game. Even if Jill had died in RE5 that game would still not have been scary. All it does is change the story, not the feeling I get from playing the game.

TheBatMan wrote:

Chris was originally supposed to die instead of Piers at the end of six, but Capcom themselves admitted they bottled it and switched it round.

Can I have a source on that?

Nobudy wrote:

I'm fine with a secret lab, but it was just the locations of them that irked me. Putting them under/ near a semi-densely populated area is pretty silly.

I'm still not seeing the issue here considering Umbrella had so much influence in Raccoon City. They directly employed one third of its citizens, were responsible for a number of citywide initiatives to help prosper the economy and financed a number of buildings and municipal enterprises. They also controlled a large portion of the sewer network so all in all the underground lab is fine.

Nobudy wrote:

 I don't remmeber El Gigante's backstory, but Simmons was infected with the C- Virus which if I remember is the lovechild of the G and T-Veronica virus which means it's no surprise that he can do that stuff since he pretty much has a combination of William's and Alexia's abilities.

Simmons went from a man, to a dog, back to a man, to a Centaur, to a man, to a dinosaur, to a man, to a fly and then a spider. I don't care what virus he had inside him. The very idea is just downright terrible and more humorous than scary.

Ghost Leader wrote:

Pretend you're being paid and give us an example, then. To make such a boast, then say you can't come up with anything because you aren't being paid is kind of a cop out.

I'm not 'boasting' about anything. I'm simply saying I obviously cannot just think something up off the top of my head for the sake of this thread. But given the time to work on something properly I'm confident I could come up with something. It's got nothing to do with being paid.

Mass Distraction wrote:

Novistador wasn't made by just introducing a plaga to a bug or a person. It was the result of a biological experiment and it's never specified how they did it. Plagas were involved, though. Still, having a man sized bug person isn't that different from hunters, who were part human, part reptile. They could just have done the same thing, just with a plaga instead of a virus.

That's the problem though. It's never specified how they could do it because it's impossible. You cannot even use 'loose' science to come up with such a thing. It's scientifically impossible to bend light to create that camouflage effect for example. The Hunter on the other hand, is different because it's extrensively explained how one could be created, hypothetically speaking in a fictional setting of course. But it's that notion of semi-realism that makes the creatures more plausible, and that makes them feel more real. That is what the series needs to get back to for its enemies.

Mass Distraction wrote:

Likewise the giants were made through experimentation, not just simply putting a plaga inside a person. Of course, it is never explained what those experiments were, but it's not that much different from previous experiments in RE.

I disagree. There it's never explained because it can't be. It's just straight out of Lord of the Rings. It's fantasy. It's not even comparable to say the zombie for example which has reams of detailed notes explaining exactly how an infected human regresses from healthy body and mind into shambling zombie.

Mass Distraction wrote:

Another thing I don't get is the "main character has to die for a game to be scary" argument. In most games ever made the main characters don't die, and that includes horror games. That said, they don't die canonically but the player can get them killed numerous times during gameplay, which is the core of the experience. If I'm playing a scary game I'm more afraid of getting killed during gameplay rather than being horrified during cutscenes. Horror comes from atmosphere and design, not from not knowing if my character dies at the end or not. Hell, Doomguy was originally supposed to die at the end of the game. Would that have made Doom scary? It'd still be the same game. Even if Jill had died in RE5 that game would still not have been scary. All it does is change the story, not the feeling I get from playing the game.

Nobody said the main character has to die for the game to be scary. It's just about the emotional impact and aiding the story. Resident Evil has very little of this because it's never killed off any of its main protagonists. The closest we've ever had is Brad Vickers. You only have to look at shows like Lost and Game of Thrones to see the effect the deaths of their characters have on an audience. Now I'm not saying I'd go out and kill them all, but you have to remove that invincibility factor. If RE7 had Claire as an NPC character for example, you'd know before you even played the game that she would survive simply because she is Claire. And that is what needs to change.

Had Jill died in RE5 of course it wouldn't have altered the scare factor, but it would have stayed with you long in the mind afterwards and resonated whenever you played a future sequel. Doomguy had no personality so no one would have cared whether he lived or died.

Mass Distraction wrote:

Can I have a source on that?

Sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u5D316sPT_Q

3:40 onwards.

And watch onwards after that for their original ideas for Ada. It's hilarious and something we on the podcast actually joked about in the build-up to the game being released. I can't believe they even considered it.

All that about the old creatures have been explained mostly in suplemental material, though. Something not all that many have actually even heard of. Of course there is the point of not having any deeper explanation but that's beside my point at least. Despite being grounded in "science" the old RE's monsters are all still impossible humbug, no matter how they try to explain themselves. And who knows, maybe there really is a way to bend light that way in the RE universe. I prefer my games not all that grounded in reality anyway, makes them more interesting.

TheBatMan wrote:

Nobody said the main character has to die for the game to be scary.

TheBatMan wrote:

You know before you even pick up the pad they will not die. - That needs to change, otherwise their can be no fear.

You kinda did say that. Maybe it was just poorly worded. Anyway, and again, in most horror games out there it's 99% certain that the main character in the game most likely lives to see another day. I don't care for killing off characters just to have an impact, which is something even George Martin has said about Game of Thrones: Killing off characters in his books isn't just for the simple reason to make them dead and so that "no one is safe", they serve a deeper purpose for the story. You even said about Jill that "Had she stayed dead after Lost In Nightmares, the series would be in exactly the same place as it is now. Exactly the same." So to say, it would've been nearly pointless and just had the "OOH" factor. Since RE's story is so incoherent to begin with I don't think killing off characters would serve any bigger purpose, unless they decided to start writing some huge story ark at this point in the series.

TheBatMan wrote:

Doomguy had no personality so no one would have cared whether he lived or died.

He had in the original draft of the game, the same draft that would have killed him off at the end.


Btw. Thanks for that link, I'll be watching it in its entirety later.

TheBatMan wrote:

Nobudy wrote:

 I don't remmeber El Gigante's backstory, but Simmons was infected with the C- Virus which if I remember is the lovechild of the G and T-Veronica virus which means it's no surprise that he can do that stuff since he pretty much has a combination of William's and Alexia's abilities.

Simmons went from a man, to a dog, back to a man, to a Centaur, to a man, to a dinosaur, to a man, to a fly and then a spider. I don't care what virus he had inside him. The very idea is just downright terrible and more humorous than scary.

I think you're exaggerating a bit. He had his human form, the dog form, dinosaur, and his fly form. It's no surprise that he can do that stuff. After all, we see how Birkin and Alexia were capable of transforming. Alexia was more in tune with shape shifting while Birkin was in tune with becoming bigger than what would be possible. With the C-Virus being stabilized with Sherry's dormant G-Virus and later Jake's blood, it makes sense that it would evolve beyond the originals allowing him to shift forms at (sort of) will. The G-Virus allows size changing while the Veronica Virus made for the shape shifting.

Basically the creatures that can be explained to some extent through real scientific methods and experimentation make them feel more real. If they feel more real then they are scarier. This series is about the horrors of science gone wrong and viral manipulation and I feel strongly the creatures need to remain grounded in that. They have to seem believable instead of just having blatantly impossible abilities that no virus or science could ever hope to achieve.

For the characters, I meant the fearing for their safety as opposed to literal fear. If Claire wanders off, you should be genuinely concerned for her instead of being totally unconcerned simply because she is Claire Redfield and therefore invincible. Capcom need to do something in a future game to let us know these people are not gods.

Jill's death would have resonated much more had it been real. It would have given Chris even more of a reason to go gunning for Wesker and her loss would have felt in future titles. When I said nothing has changed I meant because Jill has not been used by Capcom since, expect for Revelations which was a prequel of course.

I'm also not talking about killing people for the sake of doing it. Of course they would have to serve the story. That is why Capcom changed their mind about Chris in RE6. In 5 he'd completed his character arc; Wesker was dead, he'd literally saved the world from the Uroboros threat and he'd rescued Jill. He could have walked away from the series after that because his job was done, but yet Capcom were thinking of bringing him back for 6 for no other reason than to kill him off at the end. Something like that is pointless dramatic impact.

But put it this way, what would have resonated with you more? The climax of RE5 as we got with Wesker going crazy, infecting himself with Uroboros and Chris punching boulders, or Wesker just remaining in his normal, superhuman state, Chris knowing he cannot hope to defeat him, simply tackles him into the lava at the end of the game and dies a hero's death, at the same time finally getting rid of Wesker for good?

As for Simmons, his transformations are just comical. No-one can mutate and expand their body mass to such an extent then transfer back. That is just pure fantasy. Birkin was fine because the G-Virus has endless mutation cycles and he was always going to slowly get bigger and more repulsive - that is believable. But Simmons was just a joke. And t-Veronica doesn't invoke shape-shifting either. (Though I do blame Code Veronica for starting the series down the more fantastical and silly side, which Zero then followed.)

I don't mind many of the mutants in later games but even I do have to say that Simmons' transformation were over the top. His transformations would have made more sense had he not reverted back all the time. Then got chain gunned to the face. In his human form. To no effect. Then dies of impalement.

TheBatMan wrote:

Basically the creatures that can be explained to some extent through real scientific methods and experimentation make them feel more real. If they feel more real then they are scarier. This series is about the horrors of science gone wrong and viral manipulation and I feel strongly the creatures need to remain grounded in that. They have to seem believable instead of just having blatantly impossible abilities that no virus or science could ever hope to achieve.

Agreed. At least we haven't gone to the insane powertrip the movies have shown. Yet.

As for the more horrifying stuff viruses can do, I very much liked how the C-virus affected normal humans. Some became zombies, and a few evolved beyond that (kind of like crimson heads). Those who got a dose of the more refined strain became J'avo, whose arms, legs and other body parts changed rapidly after being damaged. Then became the chrysalid for, during which they went through massive mutations into more "perfect" creatures. This was a more conserved version of what happened to Simmons and more akin to the previous mutations in the series caused by T-Veronica and G. Then in Revelations 2 we had all those people and chimera-like things that were created through experimentation with a new strain of T. So technically we have already seen some of what you described. I wouldn't mind another game about horrifying experiments akin to RER2.

TheBatMan wrote:

But put it this way, what would have resonated with you more? The climax of RE5 as we got with Wesker going crazy, infecting himself with Uroboros and Chris punching boulders, or Wesker just remaining in his normal, superhuman state, Chris knowing he cannot hope to defeat him, simply tackles him into the lava at the end of the game and dies a hero's death, at the same time finally getting rid of Wesker for good?

In all honesty I would have been good with either. His death in 6 would have made sense at least in one single aspect: to pass the torch to a younger generation (i.e. Piers). I did like Piers, too bad he had to die. He's been a good character in every installment he has appeared in.

Btw. I really wish Capcom had not botched the reveal of Jill's fate through pretty much every trailer they made. It was kind of anticlimactic to play the game already knowing what was gonna happen.

If there is more than one protagonist, they should all be expendable; but not 100% expendable. Character death should be determinate on a few factors: who they are, what they're equipped with, if they're alone, and what is in the area at the time. If your party of four is being stalked by a stealthy and deadly BOW while also being assaulted by smaller fodder, who would be smart enough to warn others of It's location, who will be able to get away from It, who will try to kill It, and who is helpless against It? If someone is attacked, will you be able to get to them in time to save them? In a classic RE scenario, you start with a couple protagonists and add in an isolated locale. Then you give them little supplies and barely enough to defend themselves. Next you put two types of obstacles in their path: passive obstacles like puzzles and locked doors, and active obstacles like character interaction and the biological threats. Finally, you add personality to it in the form of setting and character development.

What I want is for Capcom to go back to these basics, and then add to them by using additional variables. Use a few pre-established characters with a few new characters for protagonists, add in a location that is big enough to give variety but small enough to not overwhelm players (no more globe-trotting) with more than enough dark secrets to be considered Resident Evil material, and an enemy that seems to have no motive (preferably one that doesn't display weakness). Each playable character should have a reason to be where they are in the game, and each will have certain attributes that may affect gameplay. A cop would play like any normal RE protagonist would (minus gung-ho attacks) during gameplay, while outside of gameplay their AI will be actively searching for useful information and attempting to aid the other characters. A college student wouldn't play as well as the cop, their gunplay would be somewhat sloppy and they wouldn't be so great in evasive actions. However, if the college kid is a jock, they'll have an easier time with a long melee weapon. AI wise, this character would be either the first to panic when things go sour, or the first to go head-first into danger when an opportunity presents itself.

Basically, a characters personality should affect their actions in AI control and their gameplay in a players control. Of course, the characters should at least have relevance to the plot. But the biggest thing I want added is an enemy that is unlike anything Capcom has ever used. A creature that should be like a cross between a Mimic and The Thing (John Carpenter's The Thing, mind you). It should be able to manipulate and use a character and their traits against them, as well as learn exactly what the player may do while in control. It shouldn't have an obvious weakness (and players should be given many instances to try different actions to be shown just this). I have no idea what the hell it should look like, but it should be a damned dangerous BOW to be around with high intellect and unpredictable attacks. Something that can put the Xenomorph from Alien Isolation to shame by being able to manipulate THE PLAYER.

Basically you just described ObsCure.

Mass Distraction wrote:

Basically you just described ObsCure.

ObsCure was like that to a small extent. AI was a crapshoot, though (for partners), and I don't think the game ever learned how to beat you.

@PWNERX
It also sounds an awfully lot like an outline for a Outbreak re-boot. which i would (and do) support.
-
On the subject of character death, killing people off for shock value or to make it seem more "dangerous" is really dumb.
I never go into a game thinking the main character is going to die, and it in no way diminishes the tension of the game.
I'm not trying to get too personal here. But the very idea is one of the dumbest most asinine things that i have ever heard.

And besides Piers had a great death in RE6. It was actually alot more impactful than than had it simply been Chris's death.

Bulls-3ye wrote:

And besides Piers had a great death in RE6. It was actually alot more impactful than than had it simply been Chris's death.

They even said in the interview (which I wholly recommend watching) that they felt Chris' death in 6 would have felt cheap. Still, had Chris died it would have ushered in a new generation of heroes. Now it's just the same old Chris until he retires.

Bulls-3ye wrote:

@PWNERX
It also sounds an awfully lot like an outline for a Outbreak re-boot. which i would (and do) support.
-
On the subject of character death, killing people off for shock value or to make it seem more "dangerous" is really dumb.
I never go into a game thinking the main character is going to die, and it in no way diminishes the tension of the game.
I'm not trying to get too personal here. But the very idea is one of the dumbest most asinine things that i have ever heard.

And besides Piers had a great death in RE6. It was actually alot more impactful than than had it simply been Chris's death.

Character death in a final installment of RE wouldn't just be for shock value or to give a sense of danger, but it'd affect plot and maybe even affect other characters' well-being depending on who gets it. Plus, it already was played with in RE1 and 3.

PWNERX wrote:

Character death in a final installment of RE wouldn't just be for shock value or to give a sense of danger, but it'd affect plot and maybe even affect other characters' well-being depending on who gets it. Plus, it already was played with in RE1 and 3.

The difference is that RE1 was a singular game that could well have stayed as just one release had it not been favorably received and in RE3 the only "main" character's death we saw was Brad who honestly hadn't had much of a role to begin with.