|
Cardboard Fox posted:I've finally played through the whole series(1->5). Ended up skipping Code Veronica just because after playing 4 I couldn't go back to those tank controls. And this right here is the general attitude taken towards REC:V. Ever since RE4 was announced I argued that Capcom was doing an intentional job at burying Code Veronica. Yes, I realize that they did re-release it on the PS2, but that always just smelled of a money grab. More seriously though, I think Capcom regretted, almost immediately, that they put the true sequel to the franchise on the DC and not the PS2. It's been a long time now, but lets not forget how heavily invested in the Dreamcast Capcom was. Yet it was a system that was doomed to die early. But they made their choice and then tried to rewrite history. REC:V was never mentioned in later games (though I haven't played 5) but RE2 is CONSTANTLY spoken about. Everything is told in relation to RE2, but REC:V is the more recent event and yet never seems to cross any character's mind. Capcom's attempt to bury the game went as far as to change the numbering of the games. RE-RE2-RE3-RE:CV-RE4 is the correct order, but it's very easy to see that over time people can become confused on where REC:V comes in the order. I think REC:V also has the distinction of being the game that was just a bridge too far. It was lauded at the time of its release but I feel that it holds up the poorest of all of the original four. RE1 is a brutal game to play by today's standards, but as a classic its age can be forgiven. REC:V really display's that the franchise really did need to take a dramatic new turn. The gameplay had gotten very dull. Anyone who had been playing the franchise since the beginning was now so well versed in how to play that there was almost no challenge in it. Aside from the very frustrating boss fight in the cargo plane there is almost no sense of the player ever really being in over their head. To make up for this Capcom made the game very long (by RE standards), but this doesn't mean much when the gameplay is stale. With this point in mind it is easier to understand how Capcom came to the conclusion to reboot the franchise and thus pretend REC:V never happened. They instead rebooted the franchise from the strength of RE2 which allowed for a lot more potential story lines than REC:V did.
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Raziel 0128 posted:Darkside Chronicles did an admirable job of actually making Steve Burnside a likable character and Alfred Ashford more of a threat you can take seriously. It did a great job of turning around the otherwise mediocre Code Veronica story. Incidentally after having replayed the HD version it's amazing what some lighting and less indoor fog can do for a game that previously lacked any atmosphere. Code Veronica somehow manages to have draw distance fog in that small pointless submarine and make a blizzard appear completely grey. The only downside to the HD version was the new dark lighting made it quite hard to see the herbs hidden in corners for me at least. I've stayed out of this conversation because I've had very little to add, but this post caught my attention because it addresses the weakest of the early games. I remember REC:V being one of the biggest disappointments of my gaming life. The game started off with a ton going for it but slowly devolved into a boring mess, and yet everyone acted like it was the greatest game ever. I thought that the game had the opportunity, early on, to take the series in a new direction and grow the universe and branch out from. When the relationship between the twins crept into the story line I thought it was going to be revealed that she died tragically, spurring an effort to create a compound that could reanimate dead tissue. But no, they stuck with the tired story line, everything was done to create the perfect biological weapon. As the game unfolded they did very little to develop any kind of atmosphere, and other than two bosses, nothing ever really made me hesitate. Ammo and herbs were plentiful, even to the point that they gave you unlimited blue herbs to counter balance constantly respawning moths. Hunters were there, but they were pathetic next to the badasses from the original game. Even the title of the game, "Code: Veronica", I mean  ????? RE3: Nemesis makes sense for a title, Nemesis is a major character whom follows you and is the final boss. Why would you name a game after a loving passcode? Seriously, you could not read ANYTHING in ANY of the journals you collect throughout the game, and still you could complete the self destruct sequence because the activation code is right there in the title of the game. This isn't an issue of being unoriginal, it's straight up lazy. Did no one in the office say "Hey, we can think of a better title. RE4 would make a lot more sense than REC:V." All of this makes me think, to this very day, that at some late point in development Capcom emotionally bailed on the project. Maybe it was because they lost faith in the Dreamcast, or maybe it was because they realized they had a weak product on their hands and wanted to move on from it. Either way, the first three games felt like they had a lot more attention paid to them, where as REC:V was pretty and shallow, it lacked any real defining moment and even the Wesker reveal was lame. I feel like Capcom passively acknowledged that they hosed up with REC:V later when they released RE4. First of all, it was called RE4, when it should have been RE5. Secondly it made a big deal of establishing its timeline in relation to the destruction of Raccoon City, which was featured in RE2 and 3. If I remember correctly there was little, if any, mention of the events of REC:V, instead Capcom instilled a sense that RE4 was the true sequel to RE2 and 3 and that nothing else had happened in the universe. Most importantly it totally revamped the gameplay and story. Gone was the traditional gameplay that had begun to feel so stale in REC:V, now you could "run and gun" and buy new weapons from a mysterious arms dealer. There was a new virus in town, and it wasn't even a virus anymore. After playing RE4 I checked out of the series, by the time 5 came out I had graduated from college and had better things to do with my time. But Code Veronica has always been one of my favorite games to hate on, just because it has been so easily glossed over and was the catalyst for rebooting the franchise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Crowetron posted:Let me tell you why the Wesker reveal is awesome... That's a really interesting view of Wesker from REC:V. I'll admit that when you phrase it like that even I can believe that it was good. Unfortunately, I think this is a situation of "agree to disagree." I agree with just about everything you said, but I can't get behind the concept that it was all intentionally done. RE, especially in those days, did not strike me as being all that self aware that it could take the story to such an extreme in order for the humor factor. And even if they did, they failed to deliver a product that was entertaining. It's deceivingly difficult, in my opinion, to intentionally create a narrative that is both self aware, reasonably cheesy, and still compelling. There is a reason that most "spoof" movies fail to deliver an enjoyable experience. The writers have to push the envelope just enough that things reach a level of ridiculousness, while also giving a wink to the audience that everything is being done to intentionally invoke a laugh, without breaking the fourth wall too completely or overtly. When the game came out I must have been around 15 years old, and any attempt at humor was completely lost on me. Perhaps I was wrong, but to me the game was playing itself very straight with little attempt to convey a sense of "Hey, this is crazy and silly to the point of being comedic." Maybe the effect is more pronounced if you're playing the game with some friends and everyone is picking the plot apart, but that certainly was not what I was doing. Instead, I was left wondering what the gently caress was going on. Again, I think this all can be traced back to Capcom emotionally bailing on the product. The game didn't seem to have a solid foundation, they never really seemed to know what they wanted it to be. Did they want it to be a true sequel? Was it a game that was suppose to follow in the same vein as the dark events in RE2? Or was it a more lighthearted commentary on the zombie/survival horror genre? Was it even survivor horror anymore? I don't ask these questions rhetorically, I think they were important questions that should have been asked back then. I guess what I'm trying to say is that REC:V's problems can be pinned on the developers getting tired of the franchise they created. You can almost feel them just kinda throw in the towel and stop caring about fine tuning the game. It had great graphics, but the game itself was a mess and they didn't have the energy to really fix it. The story is incomprehensible, the gameplay monotonous (though the mini game you unlock was fun), and the final act is completely forgettable. It all adds up to create a really clear picture about why Capcom so radically transformed the franchise for RE4. If they had continued down the path of REC:V I don't think the franchise would have done well. I feel like REC:V ate up the good will that the first three games had created, no one can argue that gaming journalism has very high standards, so REC:V just had to be a 9/10. But if RE4 had followed the same formula I believe it would have been slammed as latent frustrations over the short comings of REC:V. Edit- For a good example of cheesey, over the top goodness, look at the gif of the body-slam to the boss posted earlier. That's comical, awesome, and entertaining and illustrates everything that was missing from REC:V if that was the road they wanted to go down.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Crowetron posted:Oh, I'm not saying Code: Veronica is anywhere near self-aware. You can make arguements for RE4 and beyond, but the old school games are very sincere and genuinely trying to be serious, scary thrillers. My argument is that it's goofy and entertaining because of the writers are insane morons. I'm just glad to see that there are others out there that think the game is crap too. For the longest time I felt that I was the crazy one because everyone else acted like the game was flawless.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 00:34
|
|