Tweet
You mean the hole created by a man whose semi-mutation was growing a giant sharp wang? Yeah, great script. Great character development. *cough*
Are you serious? How the hell did RE4 have everything to do with Wesker? Do you actually remember the fact that Wesker was only mentioned, and not even seen in the original copy of the game? RE4 has NOTHING to do with Wesker. NOTHING. It was only ret-conned and Separate Ways added to give even the smallest, thinnest connection to the entire RE universe. Before that, it may as well have been a separate game altogether, and just use the "Biohazard" label to get more sales.
Wrong. Kidnapping Ashley was the idea of Saddler, and would have happened with or without Wesker. Saddler could have used someone else to kidnap her, it just happened to be Krauser. Kidnapping Ashley was the idea of Saddler and Los Illuminados for their own ends, and rescuing Ashley was of course the idea of President Graham. Wesker's only slight involvement in the plot was the fact he wanted a sample. You know, just like in Resident Evil 2. But wait, Leon was in RE2, and Wesker wanted a sample, so RE2 must have been all about Wesker too!
Yeah, because no one saw that coming. You know, the sequel of a series INDICATING where the series is heading, not actually developing the existing story in any way. Kudos to RE4.
I thought Wesker is the uber cool villain who made RE4's plot uber cool?
Your point being what? The "lame plot" you just described is the plot for the entire Resident Evil series. For one, if you don't like it, why do you play the games? For another, if you think the original plots are so lame, why are you even here? You can't justify one game's plot by saying "Hey, it's predecessors were shit. Because this one game had nothing to do with it, it was good". Even then, you counter your own argument that RE4's plot was good because it has to do with the main villain, Wesker. If the original 3 plots were so lame, doesn't that by default mean RE4's plot is too?
The first 4 games (RE1, 2, 3 and CV) all established a game universe, with characters, a plot and the bad guys. RE4 had nothing to do with any of it, it was a half baked attempt of a game. Even Capcom themselves have now admitted it was a side story and didn't have much to do with the game universe, and even described the story as being "odd" in parts.
I will always defend RE4 as a game, as I found it enjoyable, replayable and all around a very fun game to play. But please, to me, Resident Evil was part of my childhood and I've loved the series ever since it came out, so please don't try to tell me RE4 was a decent Resident Evil game.
RE4 had everything to do with Wesker who is the definite main villain of the series.
The whole game, rescuing Ashley, only happened because of Wesker.
The game also established Wesker is trying to re-establish his own Umbrella which tells us where the series is heading.
He didn't. I just threw two lame scenes of Wesker together.
As compared to the revolutionary storytelling done in previous REs. Such as an evil corporation making an evil virus that causes evil things to happen where people die.
And now the heroes have to escape the evil or destroy it.
Never seen that done before.
And now the heroes have to escape the evil or destroy it.
Never seen that done before.
The first 4 games (RE1, 2, 3 and CV) all established a game universe, with characters, a plot and the bad guys. RE4 had nothing to do with any of it, it was a half baked attempt of a game. Even Capcom themselves have now admitted it was a side story and didn't have much to do with the game universe, and even described the story as being "odd" in parts.
I will always defend RE4 as a game, as I found it enjoyable, replayable and all around a very fun game to play. But please, to me, Resident Evil was part of my childhood and I've loved the series ever since it came out, so please don't try to tell me RE4 was a decent Resident Evil game.
Comment