Resident Evil: Raccoon City announced [Officially confirmed: Post 273]

[Mr. Spencer]

I thought that in the rail shooters it was more of a gameplay mechanic than anything else. I don't know, I could go into the whole canon/non-canon debate but I think we're all sick of hearing that by now.

[Reston]

Yeah, my bad. I just was trying to post some link to videos showing it. From what I remember and to be true T-103's coat was to keep the morphing under control so it's heart would not be exposed. In the later games, especially in OBFile 2, I don't believe you can harm the T-103 until a certain scenario but that could be chalked up to the scenario story.

And then in UC/DC they decided to add the bulletproof vest idea. It's cool and makes more sense but the point being that they switched things up.

EDIT: My point in all of this was that game developers keep changing up what's canon and not canon. So it's the same with Raccoon City in terms of Vector using some stealth camoflague.

[News Bot]

Wrong.

When you shoot them you can see blood splatter. And they fall down after only a few shots. In the on rail shooter, the only way to harm them is to shoot them in the head at a constant rate.

EDIT: Outbreak File 2 added this also for the scenario End of the Road.

But RE2 you could knock it down and harm it to where it stayed on the ground until you left the move. It was not orginally bullet proof/explosive proof. It was simply designed to keep the T-103s from morphing into the form that you see when it falls into the lava. The bullet proof coat came later.


Boss battle for OB File 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok0g37OdaQI
RE2 Mr. X battle, first encounter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UYHZV9rtks

REDC: Mr. X before transformation (no damage at 42 seconds into video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y35BCZdrgjE

Those are gameplay mechanics, they don't mean anything. The coat was always bullet/explosion-proof. Not being able to harm the thing during gameplay would have been stupid, particularly since aiming for the head wasn't practical in 1998 with the Biohazard gameplay. Several sources from Biohazard 2 already state what the coat is. Survivor is actually a fairly good example, as aiming for the head takes less shots than aiming at the body (where the bullets pretty much bounce, but it obviously falls eventually because given the amount of Tyrants in that game, it would have broken the gameplay).

Also, the Tyrant R is not a T-103. Its coat was probably simply a limiter, as it's already different in appearance and appears to be much, much thinner than the actual T-103 coat. The need for such a large, bulky military coat is pretty ass-pointless if 9mm bullets cut right through it.

EDIT: My point in all of this was that game developers keep changing up what's canon and not canon. So it's the same with Raccoon City in terms of Vector using some stealth camoflague.

I have never actually seen any hard evidence for this outside of minor aesthetic changes or gameplay mechanics mis-interpreted as somehow real in terms of canon, such as any of the characters being bitten and whatnot.

[Jill4EverSTARS]

Lol how was every topic turn into an argument of validity

[Reston]

I would actually like to see the sources from Resident Evil 2 that states clearly that the T-103 coat was supposed to be bullet and explosive proof.

I knew you were gonna use that excuse about the game mechanic's not being ready for 1998. Well obviously it's true, the pre-rendered background and fixed camera would make it nearly impossible to pull off.

But the point is that the coats were supposed to keep them from morphing. They retcon it later on in the series like Capcom usually does for RE.

No need to give them more credit than they deserve..

EDIT: Plus. how can it be "explosion" proof? LOL. And I believe RE Archives even suggests that the coats were meant to keep them from morphing. Or are we gonna start taking bits and pieces of it and ignore everything else to support our "opinion"?

[News Bot]

I would actually like to see the sources from Resident Evil 2 that states clearly that the T-103 coat was supposed to be bullet and explosive proof.

I knew you were gonna use that excuse about the game mechanic's not being ready for 1998. Well obviously it's true, the pre-rendered background and fixed camera would make it nearly impossible to pull off.

But the point is that the coats were supposed to keep them from morphing. They retcon it later on in the series like Capcom usually does for RE.

No need to give them more credit than they deserve..

I don't see why you keep bringing up the fact that the coats act as limiters when this was never a contested issue (and is the primary function of the coats, with the other two being for disguise and protection), it doesn't negate the fact that they were bullet/explosion-proofed either. Earlier in the series, it went without saying. As for the sources, there are a few but it'll be some time before we get full professional translations of them (as those are expensive and we are but poor bastards). I've got two new BH2 guides which apparently have fairly detailed enemy profiles arriving soon too so that'll add more to it.

EDIT: Plus. how can it be "explosion" proof? LOL. And I believe RE Archives even suggests that the coats were meant to keep them from morphing. Or are we gonna start taking bits and pieces of it and ignore everything else to support our "opinion"?

I'm not an expert on armour, but explosion-proofing is pretty common, whether it be the absorption of the explosive shock or the blocking of shrapnel. Even simple ballistic vests provide protection from explosions, the T-103 coats are basically mammoth versions of those. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_vest

And again, nowhere do I say the coats were not used as limiters. Nor does any source say they aren't. Why do you keep bringing it up? lol. Take DC for example:

One of the features of the T-103 is its green trench-coat. Besides the functions of bullet and explosion-proofing, this coat can also let it disguise as a human, and restrain the virus in its body as a limiter. Once this coat is removed, it will mutate into the more powerful, but almost uncontrollable "Super Tyrant”.

No retcon.

[Reston]

I am not bringing that up as the issue.

My issue is that you're "Claiming" that the coats were always meant to be bullet proof and explosion proof since the days of 1998 which I do not see possible, considering you said so yourself that the game mechanics would not be feesable in such a manner to properly allow this type of obstacle to overcome.

So how would the original intent of the game have them be bullet proof/explosion proof when the game style that Capcom was using (fixed cameras) allow for that to happen?

I don't believe it. Sorry. That's my opinion. But I'll wait for the translation.

Remember, my original post was simply about why people are crying over stealth camo for this game and I brought up the T-103 coats as an example of Capcom retconing the series.

That's all.

[News Bot]

I'm sorry. A retcon is a retro-active change. Nothing was changed with the coats. At best, they merely added to it. There's a fundamental difference there. It was never stated that their function as a limiter was their sole purpose of existence, only that it was a primary function. Other sources state that it was also used for disguise and protection. This is obvious since older Tyrants already had limiters. Why make a specialized coat specifically for the Tyrants when limiters were already readily available and internal?

And again, what are you talking about now? I said the gameplay wouldn't allow for the proper "shoot the head" mechanic to be implemented. How does that mean the coats weren't bullet/explosion-proof?

[Reston]

Exactly my point.

But you're sitting here and claiming to defend your position that Capcom way back in 1998 decided that the coats are bullet proof and explosion proof.

And the final version of the game says differently. And you said, "they always were".

I asked for the source that you claimed. And you said, "You'll have to wait for a translation".

So be it. I just find it funny.

And nice pic add, btw.

I'll be right here waiting for your source that claims that the vests in RE2 from 1998 were bullet proof and explosive proof at the time of the games release as you stated.

[News Bot]

What? How does it say differently? Explain this to me. Outline exactly where it says differently. Because it doesn't say anything on the issue.

You are arguing semantics right now.

And pay me and you'll get your source right away.

[Reston]

Um No.

Why don't you outline for me where it states that the coats on the T-103 units from Resident Evil 2 back in the year of the BH2 being published where it states that the coats are explosive/bullet proof?

Okay.

You do that. Otherwise, go get your "Source" translated. Because I'm calling BS on you.

EDIT: Pay you aka "I can't backup my own opinion and instead of admitting I am wrong, I'll just keep this going".

[News Bot]

Even if I list the sources you'll ignore them anyway, but here are the page numbers.

Research On Biohazard 2 ~final edition~ (pages 019 - 021)
Biohazard 3 Official Guide Book ~ Fulfillment of her Escape~ (page 149)
Biohazard Gun Survivor Official Guide Book (page 127)
Inside of Biohazard: The Darkside Chronicles (pages 027, 066, 067)

Two more should be added to this soon once I get them.

Your definition of "retcon" is wrong, too.

"Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon) refers to the alteration of previously established facts in a literary work."

Alteration = Change
Change =/= Addition (or simply unspoken facts, whichever way you decide to look at it)

[Mr. Spencer]

For anyone who plays the Mass Effect games here, News Bot is the Ambassador Udina of Project Umbrella.

[Reston]

So I would ignore your stated sources because you made a list that anyone could have found and presented? Obviously you know I do not have all those sources on me and it'll take some time to look for them. So you'll have to excuse me as it may take some time.

But my point still stands. I am still awaiting for "you" to present your "opinion" that you stated in which you said that the creators behind Biohazard 2 say that the T-103 limiter coats were ALWAYS bullet and explosive proof, including those in RE2.

And I said "RE2" sources as you claimed. So "DC" and "RE3" do not count. But I'll see if I can find those RE2 sources you're saying in which the coats are bullet proof/explosive proof.

And your attitude is wrong, also. But hey, it's cool you try to side track your opinion in an attempt of trying to find faults in me.

[News Bot]

You've yet to show evidence of a contradiction or retcon of any kind, so I don't know why I'm even debating it with you. If you want to ignore facts simply because you've never heard of them before, go right ahead. Don't try and portray ignorance as fact, though.