next main character for CG movie

[Jill Lover]

There should definitely be a game or GCI movie with Jill's background story about her death and all...
That would be really nice...

[Alexia_Ashford]

I don't see why I have to get dragged into this nonsense. The cases where I said it was bullying was because it was that, bullying. Three or four people insulting and flaming one person, and nothing missv said provoked that sort of behaviour. Even if they did annoy you a bit, you don't HAVE to jump on and take the bait.

This is a good debate and I don't see why you two have to get so riled up over it. Chill out.

For what it's worth, I agree with the fact that Rebecca is very bland and I certainly would not like to see her in any future installments. The point about Leon and Chris being "super" now doesn't really work considering S.T.A.R.S were always a specialized rescue team anyway, the best of the best, trained for combat and terror situations. They weren't civvies. The next main character should be someone fresh, and if not, I'd probably say Jill.

[Jill Lover]

Jill is always a good marketing option, but why not Sherry? I'd rather see her in the next RE game.

[Alexia_Ashford]

Simply for the fact I never paid much attention to her and I'm not that bothered about her, in all honesty. It's an unexplored avenue though so it could make for an interesting movie. I like Jill but post RE3 I began to find her a bit annoying. In RE3 I thought she was great, but I wouldn't like all the hype and OMGZ that would come from it. Maybe Sherry or Chris would be a better choice.

Or perhaps, even Wesker or Spencer and do a movie based on Umbrella and the darker side of Resident Evil. The Dark Side Degeneration!

[Jill Lover]

Yes definitely, Jill after RE3 became really dissapointing... she's not the badass cop we met in RE1 and RE3 anymore... and her role in RE5 was a waste of time... I personally think, Sherry or Barry would be the choice for me.

[Vector]

I just peed a little from laughing, man. Seriously.

[Jill's Boob]

This is a good debate and I don't see why you two have to get so riled up over it. Chill out.

I was just debating, I just found it offensive (yes, a rude person like me) that missv "quoted" me with words that I did not use. I understand he/she is trying to be clever or witty (and failing) but it seems like a taboo thing to do.

Otherwise I am done in this topic. I made my point, and once it was validated/confirmed/what-have-you by Mr Zombie when he started making the same point, I felt my work was done, and that I was making a coherent, matter-of-fact argument that can be understood by someone that isn't dense.

[Jill Lover]

Chris and Jill would kick ass. I would die for that. Also Wesker...

[Mr. Spencer]

How about we do something new instead of focusing on old, tired storylines?

[Jill Lover]

Whatever you want, as long as Jill and Chris are in.

[missvalentine]

In the opening of RECV Claire can duck and shoot in slow-motion. She can't do that few minutes later, in the game. Heck, she can't duck at all. Is that a problem or "huge continuity fuck up"? No.

In RE Zero Rebecca could drop item anywhere on the floor. Can she do this in RE1? No, she magically lost the ancient power of dropping items wherever she wants and is forced to use those ugly chests.

Oh, so your all for capcom making more mistakes and having even more continuity errors are you?

Yes the thing with Claire was a huge mistake and was very stupid, and i see people complaining about it all the time. So lets not do that again shall we.

Sure, a game designer can do whatever he wants, he could give Jill wings and make her fly. But are people gonna buy it? I don't think so, it's just going to go beyond the point of believability. And people will hate on the game for making even more continuity errors.

I mean when RE started out it was Supposed to be realistic, it isn't really the case anymore is it.

First of all, missvalentine, don't ever use words that I never did to quote me. It's extra funny though, since a post from you in this very thread accuses me of "twisting your words" (which I never did) when you subsequently pull a stunt that is far worse.

Second, I can keep this rebuttal short, since Mr. Zombie is now making the exact same argument I have been, all along. He waltzed into this topic, and immediately grasped the real issue that was being debated.

It is just that you are too dense to accept something, and instead - as you usually do - start to ignore the subject matter at hand, distorting the topics to fit your own strange logic.

It's why there is a perceived animosity between yourself and so many others on this site (which, I believe, mods like Alexia Ashford like to mistakenly call "bullying"). No, so many people here disagree with you because you are usually wrong. And you never once (NOT EVEN ONCE) will admit it and accept it and go on about your day (or remove yourself from trying to repeatedly prove your point).

So I rest my case. Both myself and Mr Zombie have stated that "game design" will dictate the flow of any game, just like the director of a CGI film will dictate what any character will do in the film.

But thanks for giving me a chuckle, as you usually do, when I read your arguments. Especially your step-by-step pictoral debate, and the accompanying logic (?) that make these RE characters seem like real people who are restricted by their video game representations (i.e. if Chris can do something in RE5, then he has to be able to do it in RE7, but cannot do it in RE1.5), rather than instead being fictional masses of polygons who can do whatever the game designers choose them to do.

-FIN-

Your post was long and had nothing to do with my post so i shortened it. I apologize.

So, i have 'strange logic' because i can clearly see that having someone like superman in a survival horror game is just not going to work? Chris is now incompatible with the Survival Horror genre. And so is Leon, and Jill if the removal of P3o doesn't make her normal again.

Imagine having Mr.T in Silent Hill, do you think that would work well? Imagine playing has Neo or Chuck Norris in Siren, do you think that would work well? Imagine playing as Schwarzenegger in Fatal Frame, do you think that would work well?

Why make a horror game, and have atmosphere, creepy sound, and everything that makes a game scary but them get the wrong protagonist? why not just have a fitting protagonist too.

Also I'm not going to admit I'm wrong because in my point of view your wrong.

And yes, sure a Director can do whatever he wants in his films, but that doesn't mean it will be good, or that people will like it or buy it. If a director does something so incredibly stupid, everyone's going to hate it.

[Bertha]

The thing is MsV...you aren't taking into account that the video games work a certain way. RE isn't about just one side of the story, its a mesh of all that's going on. And you also have to take into account that the story runs as if none of the characters are ever bitten. You tried using a picture of Chris struggling with a zombie, saying he was weak because it was overpowering him. Well no shit. It's a zombie that can tank a few bullets. And even if it was weaker than Chris, he was being attacked. The natural physics of a body pressing upon another is going to make Chris, or any other character, stagger back. Chris isn't simply trying to get the zombie off, but he's also trying to avoid getting a chunk of his throat or shoulder eaten.

Another example of game physics... Wesker gets grabbed in Mercs, and yet he dodges bullets. If the game was played as the characters actually were, he'd only rarely have to worry about getting hurt by anything. He gets hit and takes the same amount of damage everyone else does, and yet he's SUPERHUMAN. He catches rockets and only falls to his knees when they blow up in his hands, and yet playing him in mercs, a single shot from a rocket sends him into dying. This is the same man that also picks up a missile with one hand and throws it at Chris and Sheva as if he were tossing them a pencil. It's simply how the game works.

Chris punches a boulder. Stupid, yes. Impossible, no. The rock was already sitting on a slight slope. It's not like Chris simply walked up and tapped the rock with his finger. He punched on it for a good little bit. With the lava already eroding the rock away underneath, yes, it would be possible to Chris to eventually roll the boulder. So no...Chris is NOT incompatible with survival horror games just because he buffed up after ten years, knowing full well what he had to face off against.

If you want to argue realism, take the end of RE5. Is it realistic at all that Chris, Sheva, and Wesker survived five seconds after crash landing into a volcano? No. Impossible? Yes. Even without touching the lava, the heat alone would have incinerated them all. Light a candle and hold a piece of hair, cloth, paper, etc away from the flame. The heat is going to cause it to catch fire.

It's not impossible to have any character return to the classic setting, despite the changes that have happened to them. The fact of the matter is that the classic setting is not what the developers want. Would it please older fans? Possibly. Would it sell big in a market against other more action packed games? Probably not. There's a reason why the survival horror genre is slowly fading. They are typically slower paced games that have ups and downs in action, and also what defines horror has changed. People simply don't get as frightened as they did thirteen years ago when the original RE games first came out.

[missvalentine]

The thing is MsV...you aren't taking into account that the video games work a certain way. RE isn't about just one side of the story, its a mesh of all that's going on. And you also have to take into account that the story runs as if none of the characters are ever bitten. You tried using a picture of Chris struggling with a zombie, saying he was weak because it was overpowering him. Well no shit. It's a zombie that can tank a few bullets. And even if it was weaker than Chris, he was being attacked. The natural physics of a body pressing upon another is going to make Chris, or any other character, stagger back. Chris isn't simply trying to get the zombie off, but he's also trying to avoid getting a chunk of his throat or shoulder eaten.

Another example of game physics... Wesker gets grabbed in Mercs, and yet he dodges bullets. If the game was played as the characters actually were, he'd only rarely have to worry about getting hurt by anything. He gets hit and takes the same amount of damage everyone else does, and yet he's SUPERHUMAN. He catches rockets and only falls to his knees when they blow up in his hands, and yet playing him in mercs, a single shot from a rocket sends him into dying. This is the same man that also picks up a missile with one hand and throws it at Chris and Sheva as if he were tossing them a pencil. It's simply how the game works.

Chris punches a boulder. Stupid, yes. Impossible, no. The rock was already sitting on a slight slope. It's not like Chris simply walked up and tapped the rock with his finger. He punched on it for a good little bit. With the lava already eroding the rock away underneath, yes, it would be possible to Chris to eventually roll the boulder. So no...Chris is NOT incompatible with survival horror games just because he buffed up after ten years, knowing full well what he had to face off against.

If you want to argue realism, take the end of RE5. Is it realistic at all that Chris, Sheva, and Wesker survived five seconds after crash landing into a volcano? No. Impossible? Yes. Even without touching the lava, the heat alone would have incinerated them all. Light a candle and hold a piece of hair, cloth, paper, etc away from the flame. The heat is going to cause it to catch fire.

It's not impossible to have any character return to the classic setting, despite the changes that have happened to them. The fact of the matter is that the classic setting is not what the developers want. Would it please older fans? Possibly. Would it sell big in a market against other more action packed games? Probably not. There's a reason why the survival horror genre is slowly fading. They are typically slower paced games that have ups and downs in action, and also what defines horror has changed. People simply don't get as frightened as they did thirteen years ago when the original RE games first came out.

Well, you just named a whole bunch of continuity errors in RE5 that should have never happened, and would never of happened in a classic game. The classic games were for the most part, realistic. The new games are unrealistic and mostly crap.

The above things you mentioned are some of the reasons why i think RE5 should be non canon. But if there was another classic RE game then none of that would happen would it, because the classics are realistic while the new style is not. So if you go back to the classic style RE is gonna have to start being realistic again isn't it.

Also with your Chris and the zombie argument. Majini's can take a couple of shots before dieing too, yet as seen in the picture Chris is falcon punching them to death like he does it every day.

[Bertha]

Well, you just named a whole bunch of continuity errors in RE5 that should have never happened, and would never of happened in a classic game. The classic games were for the most part, realistic. The new games are unrealistic and mostly crap.

The above things you mentioned are some of the reasons why i think RE5 should be non canon. But if there was another classic RE game then none of that would happen would it, because the classics are realistic while the new style is not. So if you go back to the classic style RE is gonna have to start being realistic again isn't it.


Also with your Chris and the zombie argument. Majini's can take a couple of shots before dieing too, yet as seen in the picture Chris is falcon punching them to death like he does it every day.

That's your opinion. In the classic games, characters could drop an item in a box, and that item would be in a box even if that box wasn't in the same room. Realistic? I think not. And the classics had their share of "continuity errors" as well. Chris, Jill, Barry, Rebecca, and Wesker all in the mansion. No doubt Wesker has keys, so he's good for this, but the others don't. They would, at one point or another, meet up with each other at some point. Jill goes through her game never once seeing Rebecca, and yet in a REALISTIC setting, she or Barry would, especially considering the fact that they split up to cover more ground. Likewise...Chris would have no doubt bumped into Barry at some point. Or what about the fact that RE1 and 3 had multiple endings? 2 had multiple ways to get to the end, but the final scene was always the same. Except for Barry being omitted, UC's rendition of RE1 was probably the most realistic product. Hell...I'd go so far as to say the Pachislot is more realistic.

And just because of GAMEPLAY elements, you think a game which handles the plot of the major characters of the series to be non-canon? Right. Capcom is gearing up already to tell the world that nothing in RE5 ever really happened in the games' storylines.

In case you were lucky and had every single punch kill a majini, not all of Chris' melee attacks finished enemies off. And correct me if I'm wrong....but RE4 and 5 weren't the first to use the melee counters. REmake allowed that as well. The classics simply did not have the capability to make melees possible. The games have evolved. You dislike it, yes we know that by now. It's not something you need to drag up every single time.

[Jill's Boob]

Your post was long and had nothing to do with my post so i shortened it. I apologize.

It's fine. It's just a taboo thing to do, and it especially makes you seem like you're ditching the opponents ideas in a debate/argument. Not a good way to be taken seriously.

Why make a horror game, and have atmosphere, creepy sound, and everything that makes a game scary but them get the wrong protagonist? why not just have a fitting protagonist too.

The protagonist is irrelevant as long as the game design is befitting of "horror." The protagonist is only able to do what the controller allows him/her to do.

Also I'm not going to admit I'm wrong because in my point of view your wrong.

I wasn't necessarily talking about this thread. I mean in general. Sometimes people are wrong about things - me, you, whomever. It happens. I think when you are wrong, you should admit it. It allows people to take you more serious, since they'll see you are a reasonable person.

And yes, sure a Director can do whatever he wants in his films, but that doesn't mean it will be good, or that people will like it or buy it. If a director does something so incredibly stupid, everyone's going to hate it.

The amount of money earned by the terrible live action RE films would like to talk to you.

Well, you just named a whole bunch of continuity errors in RE5 that should have never happened, and would never of happened in a classic game. The classic games were for the most part, realistic.

WHAT?!!! Realistic?!! Consider these items: Characters being unable to kick open locked doors; Rosey's example of the storage chest; by and large the existence of an 18-year-old trained in advanced tactical law enforcement AND medicine AND chemical engineering; a mansion designed where only certain keys can open certain doors along with active, puzzle-based booby traps (just how did they not get set off by zombies?); a police station with the almost exact same architectural setup as the previous game's mansion; an entire HUGE laboratory mysteriously built underneath an entire city without the genera populace being aware; the fact that a woman in a tube top can single-handedly kick the shit out of an army of the undead (and a supposedly unstoppable monster that carries a rocket launcher LMAO) while the RPD and UBCS is easily wiped out; etc.

Just a few examples of your perceived realism.

Again, you are tailoring an argument to YOUR view based on YOUR opinion of the RE series post-RE3.

Repeat after me: GAME DESIGN. GAME DESIGN. GAME DESIGN.

Hell, and I thought I was done with this thread...