Guys, after watching the trailer this edition of Bio-hazard AKA Resident evil looks dumped down compared to 4,5 and 6. They are going first person view from the third person camera which sounds like budgetary problems since they are going in the opposite direction of where the entire industry is heading.
I don't think this title will have much mass appeal. Hope their target is in between 3-4 million sales. Resident evil 6 though poorly rated still sold 6.5 million.
They seem to be targeting 4 million with it. I don't think first person has much to do with budget, its really the way the horror industry is going - P.T, Outlast all have first person perspectives to try to make you feel more vulnerable. The trailer isn't a true representation of the final game, its meant to show the demo - which in itself is self contained, wont be part of the game, and is missing typical Resident Evil features like herbs, combat, etc. I think its probably a little lower budget than previous Resident Evil games - but still will pack a punch in terms of quality.
Unfortunately that happens more and more frequently nowadays. Companies seem to care less and less about actually perfecting the game experience and introduce the user to some new features. Instead, they prefer profit, which is very pity, but understandable ...
Well, I'm not really sure about the low budget topic, but I think that it's still a pretty popular game... I guess that the game is there, you know? I also think that they maybe tried to adapt the game a little bit more with horror movies nowadays, maybe, as you've said, that had something to do with the not big success of Resident Evil 6, I guess.
You got to be kidding me. They going to be making the game with first person view. I think that concept is very stupid. They made all the other games in third person. I am very disappointed.
The main problem is that they are always launching new games that they don't have time to think. This is a problem with a lot of big names in the gaming world. They have to launch something whether it's truly ready or not. The first person view is just a easy way of making it seem fresh. I think if it ain't broke don't fix it.
It's about mass appeal. By changing their game from the third person perspective that Resident 4-5-6 followed to the first person perspective, they are already limiting their audience to at max 3 million. The other RE did more or less in the 6-7 million range.
It is a universal truth that first person game like one of the poster said "Outlast" is definitely much more cheaper to produce then say something like the recent horror game "The evil within us" that uses the same perspective as the earlier RE games.
As far as I remember, the original Resident Evil titles were first person and as others have pointed out, you do feel a lot more vulnerable in first person view and looking at the trailer, it seems as if they are trying to clone what PT did. Resident Evil 6 was regarded as utter rubbish by the majority of the gaming community, Resident Evil 5 was hated because it was apparently racist and Resident Evil 4 was hated because it didn't feature "actual zombies" (But in my opinion and from my experience, Resident Evil 4 was an amazing game)
The first person view has nothing to do with the budget. So far the game looks like what it is supposed to be: A story-rich, true horror game. I don't really understand why you would hate it for that. The presence of fear and jump scares is something Resident Evil 5 and 6 lacked, which is stupid because the series is supposed to be scary. I have high hopes for this game, but I understand that its a subjective opinion.
You shouldn't attack a game for having a low-budget. If this is what they decided, then it probably is for best. I think I am okay with the changes. There has to be changes to see how well it will work. The Revelations series was pretty great actually. But, they felt that it is not enough. I give them props for attempting something else, but then again, what we were shown is like basing something on paper.
As far as the budget of a game is concerned, I'm not sure that to us gamers it should make all that much difference until we've actually played it. Only then are we going to be able to judge the game. Some of the biggest and best selling games in history have been made on a low budget, and I think some people might even say it's the low budget that's helped to make them what they are.
Let's not forget how much Driveclub cost to make, and just how poor that game was when it first came out so money certainly doesn't mean your going to get a groundbreaking game.
The greatest expense gaming design is often related to the rendering of 3-D graphics and the smooth and rapid transition of the scenery based on a third-person view. If a portion of the significant savings from the change from a third-person view to a first-person view is put towards a better overall 'story' and gameplay, then it is a wise decision and will provide many hours of satisfying game play for us. However, given that it is a more low-budget offering, I would hope that the price of the game is commensurate with the cost to develop it (i.e. should by $10 cheaper in my opinion).
Um. Are you understanding what I am trying saying? I am mentioning that it's incorrect to say that Resident Evil 4 was hated when it is considered one of the greatest games of all time. Then again, I wrote my reply in a way it is hard to understand. Sorry about that.
