Resident Evil Revelations

[Smiley]

herp durah ahhhh ahhhhhhh!!!

[Smiley]

Stop twisting my words and looking for excuses to dislike a game you haven't played and probably have no intention of playing.

CAPCOM can change elements of their games at any point during development, on a whim if they wish. This does not make it misleading; it just means they changed things. You turning it into a bizarre conspiracy theory just looks incredibly sad, particularly when you have nothing to go on except "THAT'S DIFFERENT SO IT'S MISLEADING". The teaser fulfilled its purpose of showing the concept of the game at the time at a very incomplete and unfinished stage of development, before the actual story was even fully written. Can you live with this?

Actually lemme clarify without the nigel thornberrness of it.

I did preorder the game on amazon for $40. So the only thing I'm at fault for is being a cheapskate, but I'd like to think that's a reasonable price for a 3DS game. Hell Revelations is the only reason I have an interest in a 3DS. I'm sure that followed for a lot of people and the teaser followed by the developer interviews with said teaser played a part in that.

A 'return to form' sounded good. And I knew it would be behind the shoulder. I knew it would be split into chapters. Some modern decisions I was okay with simply because it would translate well on a hand held. Still I want to try it out. But yeah the teaser was misleading in every sense of the word. You can show off the game and 3DS capabilities without implying a string of events that have no bearing on the actual product. And if something was scrapped it should be said in advance to give gamers an understanding about what product their looking into now.

[News Bot]

You can show off the game and 3DS capabilities without implying a string of events that have no bearing on the actual product. And if something was scrapped it should be said in advance to give gamers an understanding about what product their looking into now.

You can also show off a completely different game before scrapping a month before release and developing something completely new with the same name. That's game development for you. Just because things change a few years later with a game that was only partially written and was a few months into development does not mean the intention was to mislead. What would CAPCOM have to gain from that? Satisfy some sadist tendency?

If you want intentionally misleading, there are some elements in the actual trailers produced when the story was actually finished that are intentionally misleading for the purpose of keeping the plot a surprise.

[Four Eyes]

You can also show off a completely different game before scrapping a month before release and developing something completely new with the same name. That's game development for you. Just because things change a few years later with a game that was only partially written and was a few months into development does not mean the intention was to mislead. What would CAPCOM have to gain from that? Satisfy some sadist tendency?

If you want intentionally misleading, there are some elements in the actual trailers produced when the story was actually finished that are intentionally misleading for the purpose of keeping the plot a surprise.

*instantly more curious* So the trailers imply things that simply are not the case, huh...? This is gonna be fun. *smirks*

[Smiley]

You can also show off a completely different game before scrapping a month before release and developing something completely new with the same name. That's game development for you. Just because things change a few years later with a game that was only partially written and was a few months into development does not mean the intention was to mislead. What would CAPCOM have to gain from that? Satisfy some sadist tendency?

If you want intentionally misleading, there are some elements in the actual trailers produced when the story was actually finished that are intentionally misleading for the purpose of keeping the plot a surprise.

It is misleading. Nothing was said that the teaser was scrapped. They even played on "clone" Chris by having pics and a tied man to a chair in the demo. Knowing that the teaser tells a completely different thing than the actual product. So either you say "this was scrapped we're going a different direction" like in RE4 or you play off on something everyone is speculating over knowing it won't be like that in the actual game.

Mis-lead-ing.

[News Bot]

It is misleading. Nothing was said that the teaser was scrapped. They even played on "clone" Chris by having pics and a tied man to a chair in the demo. Knowing that the teaser tells a completely different thing than the actual product. So either you say "this was scrapped we're going a different direction" like in RE4 or you play off on something everyone is speculating over knowing it won't be like that in the actual game.

Mis-lead-ing.

Okay, so because they didn't take a break from developing the game to say "Hey guys, we've changed these specific plot details", they are intentionally misleading people? Come on guy. Let go of those straws.

[Smiley]

Honestly, would that have hurt? Would it have taken time and money to make a statement and let the fans know? Not really. Why would that have been a problem?

[News Bot]

Honestly, would that have hurt? Would it have taken time and money to make a statement and let the fans know? Not really. Why would that have been a problem?

If you consider spoiling the story as "hurt", then yeah, probably. Even if they just said "We changed stuff" you'd still bitch.

[Smiley]

What would they spoil though? All they'd say is that they're changing the concept. That's not spoiling whatever story they make. That's being upfront and discarding any further thinking into their teaser.

So yeah, they mislead. I could bitch about a lot of things. Misleading gamers wouldn't have been one of them. That at least would give them some cred as story-tellers and marketers.

[Wrathborne]

I could bitch about a lot of things.

[Smiley]

Exactly. That's the spirit!

[News Bot]

What would they spoil though? All they'd say is that they're changing the concept. That's not spoiling whatever story they make. That's being upfront and discarding any further thinking into their teaser.

So yeah, they mislead. I could bitch about a lot of things. Misleading gamers wouldn't have been one of them. That at least would give them some cred as story-tellers and marketers.

Except the concept is the exact same. Jill and co. on a cruise ship with monsters. The only things that changed were story-related.

[Smiley]

Except the concept is the exact same. Jill and co. on a cruise ship with monsters. The only things that changed were story-related.

Wrong. The concept showed much more than that bare bones premise of Jill on a ship. If it was only "Jill on a ship" then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't see where your defense stems from. If they were going to change the story around then the proper thing to do is debunk their official teaser and lay that rest. It would not spoil their story like you suggested. They wouldn't even have to tell their story.

If it was going to change no matter what then they'd get out easy by saying 'we're making a new story unlike the teaser'. Instead they chose to mislead. So rather then get complaints for making a new story and pulling a teaser out of their ass they get an extra jab for saying nothing and misleading others.

[Vito]

My god i cant belive you are bitching about this =S

Its great that stupid clone Chris crap got changed.

[Smiley]

In my defense I'm only replying to Newsie's comments on what I said. I couldn't say if "clone Chris" was good or not. It doesn't exist in the context of the game. But the teaser still was misleading. =D

Could I possibly go any further than pointing out the obvious? I'm waiting to find out.