Originally posted by @stroFan
I have played plenty of games with QTEs, and I still hold RE4 as the best one. Its opinion, its not right or wrong.
Sure there is, you're right.
Never gotten to play any game that have the QTEs placed at just the correct times as RE 4, and especialy never during cutscenes.
Originally posted by MorridiniI hope you're right, Jill is probably my favourite RE character, if not my single favourite videogame character of all time. Capcom know how important she is, they wouldn't kill her off before the game is even out.
Also, if Jill is dead I would be very surprised that they would spoil it in a trailer. So I think she is "presumed" dead and will turn out to not be dead.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriEven though she is the basis for half of Resident Evil 1 and the entire of Nemesis? She's usually referenced by both gamers and capcom as one of the primary female protagonists.
She's not dead, as evidenced by Umbrella Chronicles.Jill's just a sprite, she's never been important to the story, she just has fans because she's a chick. It wasn't until they wrote a part for her in Umbrella Chronicles that she got more involved.
-AC
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Even though she is the basis for half of Resident Evil 1 and the entire of Nemesis? She's usually referenced by both gamers and capcom as one of the primary female protagonists.
She wasn't the basis for half of Resident Evil, she was the "Easy" difficulty, nothing more. She was female because that's what male gamers usually want, and nothing in that game held any true plot investment.
Capcom always intended Chris to be the franchise player. She's a "primary female protagonist" because she's a female and was a protagonist, a.k.a. not a bad guy. That's the extent of it.
As for 3, that was just "Here's what happened at this point in time while Leon and Claire were off doing more important story development things.", and because people, for some reason, took a liking to Jill. It didn't develop the story, you do not learn anything that progresses the plot.
She isn't even that relevant in Umbrella Chronicles, she's just there.
So no, she isn't actually important, based on facts. She could never be seen again and the story would not suffer. The same cannot be said for Chris, Leon, Ada, Wesker, even Claire.
Ada and Claire are more important than Jill.
Chris has been in Resident Evil, Resident Evil: Code Veronica, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles and now Resident Evil 5. He was mentioned in Resident Evil 2.
Jill has been in Resident Evil as part of a team, sole purpose was to be the easy difficulty. She was in Resident Evil 3 just because they needed to produce another game in that style and wanted to offer a different, but unnecesary-to-story point of view, and she was in Umbrella Chronicles because fans wanted her to be.
Claire has been integral in both games she's been in, as was Leon, and Ada.
If you have an argument besides "Jill is my favourite.", then please present it.
-AC
Well if you look at the newest 5 min trailer there are huge monsters about (looks like a Kraken sort of monster), but nothing like big Giants yet.
Also since we have some RE fans here obviously I would like to draw you attention to this movie: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f90/t474069.html
A CG RE movie set after RE 4 like Advent Children was to FF VII, they had a great new trailer a few days ago (last post in that thread)
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYou know, that is just slightly overanalysing it. Just slightly.
She wasn't the basis for half of Resident Evil, she was the "Easy" difficulty, nothing more. She was female because that's what male gamers usually want, and nothing in that game held any true plot investment.Capcom always intended Chris to be the franchise player. She's a "primary female protagonist" because she's a female and was a protagonist, a.k.a. not a bad guy. That's the extent of it.
As for 3, that was just "Here's what happened at this point in time while Leon and Claire were off doing more important story development things.", and because people, for some reason, took a liking to Jill. It didn't develop the story, you do not learn anything that progresses the plot.
She isn't even that relevant in Umbrella Chronicles, she's just there.
So no, she isn't actually important, based on facts. She could never be seen again and the story would not suffer. The same cannot be said for Chris, Leon, Ada, Wesker, even Claire.
Ada and Claire are more important than Jill.
Chris has been in Resident Evil, Resident Evil: Code Veronica, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles and now Resident Evil 5. He was mentioned in Resident Evil 2.
Jill has been in Resident Evil as part of a team, sole purpose was to be the easy difficulty. She was in Resident Evil 3 just because they needed to produce another game in that style and wanted to offer a different, but unnecesary-to-story point of view, and she was in Umbrella Chronicles because fans wanted her to be.
Claire has been integral in both games she's been in, as was Leon, and Ada.
If you have an argument besides "Jill is my favourite.", then please present it.
-AC
I understand all of your points, the only one I really disagree with is your summary of Nemesis. It can't be said that 'all it was' was "another game in that style and wanted to offer a different, but unnecesary-to-story point of view" as it also fills in the story for characters you meet in Resident Evil 2, as well as Barry Burton, and while he may not be a major character, still has some importance. It explains what happens to Racoon City as well, which is pretty much the basis for a lot of the Resident Evil storyline.
I understand that she isn't 100% plot required, but to say she is completely un-needed is like saying any other mid-level character is uninportant. Leaving her out of 5 would be like leaving Chewbacca out of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. It would be nonsensical to leave out a fairly well-developed character that has some importance, even if they don't progress the story as much as the most important characters.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
I understand all of your points, the only one I really disagree with is your summary of Nemesis. It can't be said that 'all it was' was "another game in that style and wanted to offer a different, but unnecesary-to-story point of view" as it also fills in the story for characters you meet in Resident Evil 2, as well as Barry Burton, and while he may not be a major character, still has some importance. It explains what happens to Racoon City as well, which is pretty much the basis for a lot of the Resident Evil storyline.
Exactly. It shows what happened during and around the events of Resident Evil 2, but that's literally all it is. It's an alternate view, it doesn't add anything to the story.
I'm not over-analysing, you are. Everybody who makes Jill out to be important to the franchise; they are over-analysing.
She's really not. Resident Evil 3 could have been a brand new character, it wouldn't have altered the story of that game or the overall series, at all. Remove Chris, you can't. You can't remove Leon, can't remove Ada or Claire.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
I understand that she isn't 100% plot required, but to say she is completely un-needed is like saying any other mid-level character is uninportant. Leaving her out of 5 would be like leaving Chewbacca out of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. It would be nonsensical to leave out a fairly well-developed character that has some importance, even if they don't progress the story as much as the most important characters.
Stop, just stop.
What importance? If she's not important to the plot, at all (And she isn't, that's a fact), then why do you feel there's this mythical need to involve her? If they involve her, it's fan appeasement, nothing more. Unless they specifically write a plot part for her that specifically has to be her. Currently, she isn't relevant at all.
If we never saw Jill again, the story wouldn't suffer, nothing would be lost.
Point is, Barry Burton could be anyone, any sprite. Jill's existence was only important insofar as there needed to be a team, and there obviously needed to be a woman, so there was Jill. That's it, she made up the numbers.
She's not a well-developed, important character. What does she have? The first game, which wasn't her story, it was Chris's. 3, which wasn't adding anything to the plot. Umbrella Chronicles didn't add anything for her.
You like her, for some reason, I get it. You'd like to see her return, cos you like her. Swell.
She isn't actually a main part of the story.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriStrange thing is, I actually totally see what you mean about it all, and I'm modest enough to admit you've swayed my view on the character.Exactly. It shows what happened during and around the events of Resident Evil 2, but that's literally all it is. It's an alternate view, it doesn't add anything to the story.
I'm not over-analysing, you are. Everybody who makes Jill out to be important to the franchise; they are over-analysing.
She's really not. Resident Evil 3 could have been a brand new character, it wouldn't have altered the story of that game or the overall series, at all. Remove Chris, you can't. You can't remove Leon, can't remove Ada or Claire.
Stop, just stop.
What importance? If she's not important to the plot, at all (And she isn't, that's a fact), then why do you feel there's this mythical need to involve her? If they involve her, it's fan appeasement, nothing more. Unless they specifically write a plot part for her that specifically has to be her. Currently, she isn't relevant at all.
If we never saw Jill again, the story wouldn't suffer, nothing would be lost.
Point is, Barry Burton could be anyone, any sprite. Jill's existence was only important insofar as there needed to be a team, and there obviously needed to be a woman, so there was Jill. That's it, she made up the numbers.
She's not a well-developed, important character. What does she have? The first game, which wasn't her story, it was Chris's. 3, which wasn't adding anything to the plot. Umbrella Chronicles didn't add anything for her.
You like her, for some reason, I get it. You'd like to see her return, cos you like her. Swell.
She isn't actually a main part of the story.
-AC
I disagree with certain points (mainly trivial things) but overall you're pretty much completely right. I guess my reasoning was that I played the original Resident Evil 1 when I was quite young and obviously didn't have the skill to play on Chris' difficulty level, so played through it as Jill, so from then on I always thought of her as one of the protagonists rather than how you explained it; her only really being the 'easy' difficulty setting rather than anything else.
Thanks for explaining it logically, I feel a lot less 'fanboy'-ish now.
I am just wondering how much longer they can really keep going.
I think, for a five game series, it doesn't feel prolonged or milked. It feels like there's a lot going on that not COULD be resolved, but NEEDS to be resolved.
I think six is good. I think that so long as they start tying up loose ends as opposed to creating them, it could all work out nicely. I mean...six could be the re-introduction of Claire, Leon could return, and then Chris could be in it to carry on from five. One big collective end.
That said, many factors could arise to stop this series being ended how I'd love, personally (Not that I have a specific end in mind):
1) They could carry it on too long by opening up too many new avenues in their games, more things to be resolved and more games to be made as a result.
2) They could just ignore all the excellent open ends they've laid down already, and just end the game without resolving them. For example, if the series ended with five and we never found out what the deal was with four, or how it all connects, then that'd suck.
3) As I found with The Matrix, consumers can often end up creating a better scenario than what actually ends up being produced. So while we're all sitting here discussing how many things could be amazing, what they give us might be a disappointment just because of all the talking we've done, even if it's not that bad.
I trust them, though.
Regarding the end, I don't really know if I want everything to be resolved and revealed or not.
I mean, I don't want them to keep coming back, but who honestly has the guts to end such a huge, loved series on a cliffhanger, for good? Nobody...yet. I'd like that. Maybe Umbrella never gets totally destroyed, or we never find out who is behind everything (Probably not ONE person, since Umbrella is probably a multi-owner corporation).
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I am just wondering how much longer they can really keep going.I think, for a five game series, it doesn't feel prolonged or milked. It feels like there's a lot going on that not COULD be resolved, but NEEDS to be resolved.
I think six is good. I think that so long as they start tying up loose ends as opposed to creating them, it could all work out nicely. I mean...six could be the re-introduction of Claire, Leon could return , and then Chris could be in it to carry on from five. One big collective end.
That said, many factors could arise to stop this series being ended how I'd love, personally (Not that I have a specific end in mind):
1) They could carry it on too long by opening up too many new avenues in their games, more things to be resolved and more games to be made as a result.
2) They could just ignore all the excellent open ends they've laid down already, and just end the game without resolving them. For example, if the series ended with five and we never found out what the deal was with four, or how it all connects, then that'd suck.
3) As I found with The Matrix, consumers can often end up creating a better scenario than what actually ends up being produced. So while we're all sitting here discussing how many things could be amazing, what they give us might be a disappointment just because of all the talking we've done, even if it's not that bad.
I trust them, though.
-AC
I'll say, they will milk it for all it's worth.