Hideki Kamiya says 1.5 sucks! WTF!?

[Rick Hunter]

Not a clever idea from a gameplay perspective, when being limited is what truly adds to the survival aspect.

What survival aspect are you talking about? We're not talking about the advanced mode of Biohazard Director's Cut here, but BH2. The only "survival" aspect in that game is the Hunk/Tofu scenario. And oh, surprise, Hunk is an "armored" soldier.

[Pikminister]

I think most of the 'saner' 1.5 fans...

Nah, they're all the same.

1.5 fans = Jilluminados in terms of wackiness.

And oh, surprise, Hunk is an "armored" soldier.

He sure looks like he's wearing some, doesn't he? Full body textures, I mean armor.

[News Bot]

The story is relatively similar, from what we know - there's a huge fuck up in Birkin's lab and the city gets infected. It's the characters that were mostly different, in that we got to see more of the side cast, and Umbrella was already on the way out...which would have been a much bigger change if RE4 hadn't killed it in a prologue. I know they apparently felt the story would have made the series a trilogy, but without more details I don't see why.

Personally, I liked the idea of the armour system, especially if clothing was damageable as rumoured. I don't see it being any different from upgrading to bigger, stronger guns.

Don't get me wrong - Resident Evil 2 is my favourite in the series, and I don't believe 1.5 is better simply because of greener grass syndrome. But I also don't see a reason to believe that it's as shit as some of the staff claim, given what I've personally seen.

The aspects of the story you mentioned barely count even as bare-bones, though. There is a lot more to it than that. The story is dramatically different between both versions as it was completely rewritten. Some characters were kept, but they were rewritten entirely. Leon and Marvin are the only ones who remained similar. This is not counting the fact that BH1.5 has two scenarios, BH2 has four. Umbrella was gone in BH1.5, and the game also would have been the end of the series storyline. I think not believing virtually every single person who worked on the game still stems from greener grass syndrome.

Upgrading weapons is different from upgrading armor or health. Enemies get stronger, forcing the player to struggle harder to survive. With extra health, the player doesn't have to worry about being attacked.

What survival aspect are you talking about? We're not talking about the advanced mode of Biohazard Director's Cut here, but BH2. The only "survival" aspect in that game is the Hunk/Tofu scenario. And oh, surprise, Hunk is an "armored" soldier.

The series was "Survival Horror". The focus is on survival, which running around looking for armor and throwing grenades into crowds of Zombies don't really work very well with. That's a heavier focus on action. And why are you using "HUNK is an armored soldier" as an excuse when armor still isn't a gameplay aspect there? You should try playing the Nightmare mode of BH2.

For the record, here's what Kamiya had to say about the game's rejection back in 1998:

It was entirely scrapped due to the fact it didn’t live up to expectations and we couldn’t say with confidence “This is BIO 2”. We didn’t want to release it as ‘BIO 2’ though it may have succeeded as a game if not given the name ‘BIO’.

[Guest]

We'll only know if it's shit when we play it (if that ever happens)

[News Bot]

We'll only know if it's shit when we play it (if that ever happens)

This is not really a valid argument since some people will like it regardless of its flaws. Kamiya admits that it would probably be a good game, but it's not a good BIOHAZARD game. It is that regard he's talking about when he calls it shit.

[Darkmoon]

Nah, they're all the same.

1.5 fans = Jilluminados in terms of wackiness.

Now that's just not fair. The Jill fans have only started acting batshit crazy since before RE5 - we've been been batshit crazy since 1998. Clearly we are the superior, longer lasting crazy.

The aspects of the story you mentioned barely count even as bare-bones, though. There is a lot more to it than that. The story is dramatically different between both versions as it was completely rewritten. Some characters were kept, but they were rewritten entirely. Leon and Marvin are the only ones who remained similar. This is not counting the fact that BH1.5 has two scenarios, BH2 has four. Umbrella was gone in BH1.5, and the game also would have been the end of the series storyline. I think not believing virtually every single person who worked on the game still stems from greener grass syndrome.

Upgrading weapons is different from upgrading armor or health. Enemies get stronger, forcing the player to struggle harder to survive. With extra health, the player doesn't have to worry about being attacked.

Maybe so. Despite the whole admitting it quite possibly not as good, it could be my obsession with the game making me think some elements might be good. But so far, you haven't said anything to convince me otherwise either - we don't know enough to say how the 1.5 story would have differed, but nothing we have confirmed such as Ada being Linda and an Umbrella scientist or Chief Irons not being a massive asshole make much long term difference. Even Umbrella being shut down. You change some dialogue in RE3 and CODE: Veronica, mention final shell companies not yet found, etc, and you can get to the same place RE4. Only this time with some sense that the cast actually did something, which still pisses me off.

And yes, the staff have the best idea of the quality of the game. I haven't played it yet. But given excuses I've heard have ranged from 'it was too blue', something I had Enrico confirm can be fixed in hours, to it played more like RE1 even though 1.5 seems to include a number of things that the retail dropped making it more like 1...well. I've probably seen more 1.5 material than most people, and I haven't seen anything to indicate these huge problems, even from the non-magazine published stuff. I am not saying they're not there, just that I, personally, haven't seen them.

So write it off if you will. I'm certainly not discounting Kamiya's, and other developers, judgement. Equally, however, I'm not assuming they're correct and dropping all interest in it.

[Enrico Marini]

Its not that hard to critique your own work and judge it as bad. Its something that happens in the game industry, heck it even happened to me when I was studying 3d Game art.

The more someone said something I did looked good, the worse I saw in it. All the flaws, bodge jobs and corners cut, the things I wanted to include but could not budget for.

I'm under no disillusion that RE2 is the better game and 1.5 sucks in comparision. I still want to play it, though we are not likely going to ever find a full finalised version of the game.

Its like the Deleted Scenes in a film. They hold relevence to the released and finalised product, in this case RE2, but are not necessary at the same time.

I am a person who likes to see the development steps and changes, which is why I was so interested in the early RE1 alphas.

The core elements of the two games seem the same:

- Birkin's G-Virus
- Birkin's want for Sherry to copulate another G-Being
- Travelling from the RPD -> Sewers -> Umbrella Lab (I know there is the Umbrella HQ in there too)

It would be nice to know how the different characters altered its path.

To me it isn't a case of the grass is greener but rather a section that has yet to be explored fully.

[News Bot]

we don't know enough to say how the 1.5 story would have differed, but nothing we have confirmed such as Ada being Linda and an Umbrella scientist or Chief Irons not being a massive asshole make much long term difference.

We have almost the entire scenario mapped out on Project Umbrella. http://projectumbrella.net/articles/...io-Description
The game generally didn't have that much of a story. Partially because there wasn't going to be any continuation.

Also, its interesting to note how many people were opposed to the game. Okamoto didn't agree with the closed-off and potentially series-ending storyline and proposed making BIOHAZARD a wider universe, and brought in Sugimura to revise the story. Sugimura suggested they start from scratch due to the poor quality. Mikami approved. Kamiya was relieved. The general consensus is that it just wasn't as good as they wanted it to be, so they started over and made a product that was unanimously seen as superior. I have yet to hear a single development member actually praise the game other than the admission that, on its own, it was alright, but lacked the quality expected of the series.

[Grem]

Yeah, News bot is right. Even Mikami said that the final BH2 was vastly superior to BH1.5 and he's not the type to say things he doesn't think.

[Darkmoon]

I'm pretty sure that isn't the entire scenario, I don't think. It makes almost no mention of a number of things. It doesn't even mention the actual source of the outbreak, for one thing. I admit, I don't have Project Umbrella's resources, but it doesn't even mention the role people like John, Marvin and Sherry play, let alone Linda. What exactly was Birkin up to this time? There's a great deal missing from that.

Again, however, there's nothing in there that really suggests the series would have ended at three - the main difference is still Umbrella's already collapsing, but given that Linda is wearing an Umbrella labcoat we can at least guess that they're not gone altogether. I do believe they felt that the scenario would end the series, but I'm not so sure it would have been so.

Again, I'm not saying 1.5 is better. I dunno how many times I have to repeat that point. The point I'm trying to make is it's probably not Operation Raccoon City level shit. My main issue is, since we don't have the details of how the story played out and none of the gmaeplay I've seen suggests anything awful I, personally, am not seeing the awful that's supposed to be there.

[Rick Hunter]

The series was "Survival Horror". The focus is on survival, which running around looking for armor and throwing grenades into crowds of Zombies don't really work very well with. That's a heavier focus on action. And why are you using "HUNK is an armored soldier" as an excuse when armor still isn't a gameplay aspect there?

So I guess for you Dead Space is not a survival horror and is much easier than Resident Evil 2? You can do better than that. Upgrading your gear has nothing to do with a game being a survival or not. As for the Hunk armor, I'm not talking about the gameplay aspect, they could as well have made the other characters weaker. I'm just saying that your point doesn't make much sense. The Hunk scenario is what survival is all about. The main game is a walk in the park.

You should try playing the Nightmare mode of BH2.

Like it didn't happen 12 years ago...

[News Bot]

I'm pretty sure that isn't the entire scenario, I don't think. It makes almost no mention of a number of things. It doesn't even mention the actual source of the outbreak, for one thing. I admit, I don't have Project Umbrella's resources, but it doesn't even mention the role people like John, Marvin and Sherry play, let alone Linda. What exactly was Birkin up to this time? There's a great deal missing from that.

Again, however, there's nothing in there that really suggests the series would have ended at three - the main difference is still Umbrella's already collapsing, but given that Linda is wearing an Umbrella labcoat we can at least guess that they're not gone altogether. I do believe they felt that the scenario would end the series, but I'm not so sure it would have been so.

Again, I'm not saying 1.5 is better. I dunno how many times I have to repeat that point. The point I'm trying to make is it's probably not Operation Raccoon City level shit. My main issue is, since we don't have the details of how the story played out and none of the gmaeplay I've seen suggests anything awful I, personally, am not seeing the awful that's supposed to be there.

It's the entire scenario, minus the dialogue (of which there isn't much in the game to begin with). There's more stuff that we don't have in that article yet, but we can detail the entire scenario if we wanted. I'm not implying you're trying to say it's better and I myself am not saying it's ORC level shit (or even shit in general, how would I know?). I'm just explaining the reasoning of the developers. I personally don't care about it. I'd play it if it were ever released, but that's where my interest ends.

So I guess for you Dead Space is not a survival horror and is much easier than Resident Evil 2? You can do better than that. Upgrading your gear has nothing to do with a game being a survival or not. As for the Hunk armor, I'm not talking about the gameplay aspect, they could as well have made the other characters weaker. I'm just saying that your point doesn't make much sense. The Hunk scenario is what survival is all about. The main game is a walk in the park.

Opinions are wonderful and you are fully entitled to yours. That doesn't mean it applies to everyone. Dead Space and Biohazard (pre-2004) are completely different games. Comparing a game made in 1997/8 to one made a decade later is not very valid. BH2's main game is only easy once you've gotten used to it. But that goes for pretty much 99% of games. The 4th Survivor is the same.

[Darkmoon]

It's the entire scenario, minus the dialogue (of which there isn't much in the game to begin with). There's more stuff that we don't have in that article yet, but we can detail the entire scenario if we wanted.

Maybe you can, then. The article certainly isn't close to a full scenario, though. It's pretty much just an intro with translated screenshots - you could do the same for RE2 and miss out the assault on Birkin's lab, the G-Virus, etc. I didn't realize you guys had access to a fairly complete script/walkthrough of the game, given that I wasn't aware one existed.

[Guest]

This is not really a valid argument since some people will like it regardless of its flaws. Kamiya admits that it would probably be a good game, but it's not a good BIOHAZARD game. It is that regard he's talking about when he calls it shit.

Well, you've got to realise the whole 1.5 staff gave several reasons for the reboot, between Graphics being bad, the script reviewers claiming it was full of errors, the game being too conclusive or even that it seemed too much like RE1.
We don't even know 75% of the game's full storyline, so still, we can't tell if it's a true BIOHAZARD or not.

Code Veronica for example was great, but it doesn't feel like a true BIOHAZARD. Not for me.

[Guest]

Yeah, News bot is right. Even Mikami said that the final BH2 was vastly superior to BH1.5 and he's not the type to say things he doesn't think.

*cough**cough* Biohazard 4... *cough**cough*