Resident Evil 4 sold on name + heightened action = broader appeal. Then RE5 sold well because of RE4's rep + name. The game turned out to be even more actiony and the feeling that it was at least half-decent wasn't exactly unanimous.
They had a chance to surprise the mass market with an awesome survival horror (ish) game that could stimulate the market and open the door for far more.
Now we get to move and shoot, take cover, blah blah blah plus all that RE5 action plus possibly more. Pretty retarded.
But, with that said, granted they don't rinse and repeat RE4 (ala RE5) again and give us a difficulty mode hard enough that it at least sort of touches upon that certain survival horror tension, I'll really enjoy this. Because RE5 would've still been great if it weren't just a total retread.
I am not american but I truly feel sorry to hear that.
Looks like RE's dead for me. Ah well.
"This is why you do a game with a lower budget, so you can keep the identity intact."
If only it actually worked like that. A company the size of Capcom can't just suddenly decide to operate on indie developer margins and expect to survive. I mean, I see where you're coming from and I wish you were right, but a smaller budget and smaller profits just isn't going to sustain them, and unfortunately, game development isn't a charity.
You have to go where the money is.
If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the millions of consumers who buy COD overshadowing every other genre.
Just stick to PC indie games, they'll always cater to every genre.
And then when this flops(possibility), they go under instead. It's a win-win I guess. And yes, if they can do small Arcade titles, they can scale down the budget of their bigger titles if they wanted. But no, they want those COD pie-in-the-sky numbers. It's not going to happen for them.
A lot of them are available digitally in contemporary platforms, or cheap online. I'm fine with the series moving in a different direction, so long as the games are good (as long as you play it coop, RE5 was one of the best in the series).
But yeah, Capcom are right. A survival horror game in todays market would never sell 5+ units like RE5 did. And even if it could, good luck getting investors to part ways with their tens of millions to gamble on you.
Wrap your mind around that shit, and then suddenly this make sense.
Reading this hurt me in my soul. I literally just died a bit inside.
Smaller budget doesn't need to be indie budget. Look at Nintendo, they're on of the biggest if not the biggest videogame company in the world and their biggest game yet had 100 staff working on it. Not only only that but they introduced a completely alienating control scheme in said game, and it's one of their biggest franchises.
Maybe even Destructoid could do a little article about this very thing *AHEM AHEM*
I don't think he meant "shoestring budget" -- if he's talking about a "lower" budget, that could mean Vita/3DS. Thus, you can keep some horror elements (Revelations) while mixing in action.
From what I can tell, Revelations sold very well, at least outside of the US.
RE revelations has been the most critically acclaimed RE since 4........
they dont see that 5 was trash.......\
They think every game needs to sell as well as COD and that will just lead to no risk or imagination
Believe me. If Dead Space 3 goes almost full-on action, all those little heads at Visceral Games are gonna roooooooooooooll.
Regarding the article: honestly, RE5 was crap, and I'm not buying any more RE games until I'm interested again. I loved the first few games, and, despite the growing trend against it, I loved RE4. I'll tell you what I loved about RE4: the beginning was genuinely nerve-wracking. Until you got a hang of the controls and amassed a huge cache of weapons, ammo, medical supplies, etc., that game was -freaky-.
Remember the scene where you're trapped in that house? And the not-zombies are breaking in from every direction? Seriously. Best moment of the game, hands down. Hell, the first time the chainsaw guy came after me or the first time a peasant's head exploded into an alien -thing- - these were great and they were freakin' scary.
RE5 is BORING and SHITTY. I couldn't muster more than a few hours to put into it. Also, the coop crap completely ruined the mood of the series.
Seriously, Capcom sucks these days. I don't know how it happened, but, in like 3 years, they went from one of my absolute favorites to a company I largely avoid purchasing from. For all the noise made about Bioware being bought by EA, I feel like Capcom has dropped further and more quickly without even being touched by an entity like EA. See also: Square Enix.
Anyone have an ETA of when Dead Space 3 is coming out? Jesus...
"I don't think he meant "shoestring budget" -- if he's talking about a "lower" budget, that could mean Vita/3DS. Thus, you can keep some horror elements (Revelations) while mixing in action.
From what I can tell, Revelations sold very well, at least outside of the US."
And that's all well and good for a series offshoot/spin-off/whatever, but Resident Evil is one of Capcom's cash cows that sustains them so they can do the more quirky offshoots and handheld/downloadable games. I mean seriously, where's Capcom without Resident Evil and Street Fighter? If you don't have those, and you don't replace them with something equally big, I don't think you have a Revelations, or a Lost Planet, or a Dragon's Dogma.
That's something that people who complain about CoD and all it's me-too clones don't understand. A publisher NEEDS those cash cows to be able to afford to do the more ambitious and interesting projects these days. We don't have to like those cash cows, but I think we do have to tolerate their existence and appreciate that without them, there's a whole lot less games being made overall.
So yeah, Capcom needs its blockbusters to keep it afloat, and it needs to evolve those to keep up with what's selling. I regret that, but I grudgingly understand and respect it, and I also understand that taking Resident Evil lower budget to keep it the way I want it isn't what's best in the long run.
Considering how bloated the games market is and how many "me too's" there are, I have zero problem with less games being released.
But you know, like all bad, stupid, and wrong things done in the business world, this is money's fault.
www.thevenusproject.com
"Considering how bloated the games market is and how many "me too's" there are, I have zero problem with less games being released."
I think you misunderstood me. My contention is that the games you aren't interested in are the games that are funding the development of the ones you ARE interested in. So no, I think you WOULD have a problem with less games being released if you're at all interested in video games.
But you can make a blockbuster game without a blockbuster budget which forces your hand to go for the broadest audience possible, and looking at Monster Hunter, Capcom should know this.
If the vast majority of Capcom's coffers are coming from only two franchises, it needs a new business strategy. But I don't think that's the case.
As long as the game is solid i don't care
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if this shift in priorities led to the cancellation of some experimental/fun/interesting games. After all, why invest in that 'crap' if you can make millions cloning RE5?
Personally, I think the whole strategy is wrong. RE6, IMO, will be less successful than anticipated. Hell, this whole family of RE action games that is coming out this year - I think they'll all disappoint. Meanwhile, Capcom has no interesting new IPs, no interseting new ideas, and no interesting takes on old IPs/ideas.
You don't stay a successful mega-company by just copying CoD over and over again. You have to have your own ideas occasionally, and Capcom hasn't had any new ideas since RE4 for the RE games and SFIV (original release) for their fighting games.
The market for games has to shrink eventually though. I can't see this being a perpetual thing where studios are churning out hundreds of games a year and only a dozen or so are actually making a profit. It seems as though there's some kind of video game bubble with too many games and not enough people willing to buy them.
There's going to be a point where there really are less games simply because these publishers are churning out too many of them. We're in sort of a heyday of video games that's never been seen before, nor is it something that can ever expect to last. A rude awakening is making its way down the pipe it seems, especially if companies continue to follow your suggestion and turn their heavy hitting franchises into shameless cash cows.
Even the best of cows eventually go dry. How long can Capcom and others run their franchises into the ground before people stop buying them? How long does it take for a company to ruin its reputation? Because for all the copies that RE5 sold, you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people that actually enjoyed it. This model is not very sustainable.
Thing is, Monster Hunter is astro-fucking-nomically huge in Japan but I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people over here in the US that give a damn about it. It's just not that huge here, is it?
For perspective, consider that Monster Hunter as a series has sold 18 million copies as of June of last year (source: wiki of course). That sounds great, but that's over the course of 15 games. Unless it's just talking about the main series entries, in which case it's over the course of 6 games. Either way, that's no where NEAR the kind of sales Capcom gets from Resident Evil and Street Fighter. Not even close.
So yeah, I mean, you raise an interesting point, but I think the numbers continue to bear out what I'm saying, especially when we look at it from a North American standpoint.

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow



























follow












