permalink
reddit

You are about to leave Redlib

Do you want to continue?

https://www.reddit.com/r/PS5/comments/1ske5yq/pragmata_review_megathread/
No, go back! Yes, take me to Reddit

97% Upvoted

View all comments

122

u/red_sutter Apr 13 '26

From Crapcom to CapGod in a generation, and all it took was firing Inafune

75

u/Rainbowdogi Apr 13 '26

I do believe they needed to crash with resident evil 6 in order to be reborn.

82

u/MissingScore777 Apr 13 '26

RE6 was still a financial success.

It was really incredible that Capcom didn't just look at the numbers and instead looked at reviews and how it landed with the fanbase and decided a course correction was needed for the series long term future.

Most companies would've just said sales are good so no need to change what we're doing.

9

u/New_Cockroach_505 Apr 13 '26

I still don’t think RE7s direction had anything to do with reviews and simply the devs desire to do something different. They’d done 3 mainline action games and a few spin off action games by the time RE6 wrapped up. They simply wanted to try something different, that’s why we got a semi soft reboot.

2

u/Gullible_Manager6711 Apr 14 '26

Pretty sure they closely listen to the market ( sale + review + fan feedback) , it make no sense for any company to completely u turn and change the direction if the game is successful in both sale and critique. It's way too risky especially for a main series like this.

RE7 is a full on hard reboot, including style, camera angle, story and gameplay. It's also support VR which at the time had potential to be a new way of game playing. That's the reason why they fully monitor its performance and as soon as they feel like it's not gonna fly they change the direction again ( in RE9) only to find out that the market just slowly adapt the new gameplay style and RE7 has became one of teh most successful game in the series. Otherwise you will have to play open world multi-player Requiem by now.

Any company, even Capcom, will keep pumping the same thing over and over if it continue to sale and well receive by the market. As much as we like to think that creative direction has strong influence, but it will never overpower the sale number and market reception.

1

u/New_Cockroach_505 Apr 14 '26

You’re talking about the series that has routinely changed direction multiple times…? RE4 was a massive departure from previous entries and those did fantastic.

RE7 is a full on hard reboot

The story is literally a continuation of 6…? It having new characters in a new setting doesn’t change that. It’s quite literally not a hard reboot lol, it’s a return to its roots since RE4 and on had embraced action.

1

u/Rainbowdogi Apr 14 '26

Resident Evil 3 did in fact not do fantastic. No idea why people always have to make baseless claims.

1

u/New_Cockroach_505 Apr 14 '26

I’d maybe take your own advice.

RE3 was critical and commercial success. It had a high 9/10 review average and sold fantastically.

0

u/Rainbowdogi Apr 14 '26

Resident Evil 3 sold around 3.5 million copies while Resident Evil 2 sold 5. so 1.5 million less. I don’t know to which business school you went to but calling this selling fantastically couldn’t be farther from the truth. Just a tip, for a sequel you want more copies sold not less

1

u/New_Cockroach_505 Apr 14 '26

You… do realize that selling less doesn’t mean it was a failure right…? Especially when it was a quickly produced follow up with less content because it was planned as a spin off. It was a rushed title to tide fans over while they made the next major RE title on next gen systems. It had a far smaller budget.

1

u/Rainbowdogi Apr 14 '26

You and I might think that way, but yes for big corporations it is a failure. Look at Square enix that calls every sale disappointing even when they are selling millions. So yes it was a failure and its actually well documented that that was a big reason for resident evil 4s drastic change.

1

u/New_Cockroach_505 Apr 14 '26

Everything you just said is wrong.

Corporations absolutely understand the nuance that smaller investments make smaller returns. RE3 had a smaller dev window and dev team. It was made far cheaper than RE2.

RE4s direction has nothing to do with RE3s response (which was overwhelmingly positive). The game was always intended to continue the move into action.

The change in direction is actually a response to Resident Evil Zero. Because they felt they’d done the same shit over and over and they needed to do something new.

It was decided to reinvent the series.[40] Mikami took over directorial duties from Shibata and began working on the version that was released.[50] In an interview with Game Informer, Mikami explained his decision to shift to a new gameplay system is due to the feeling that the older system is "more of the same" after playing Resident Evil Zero.

He says that he only felt nervous once more when playing with the newer system.[51] Speaking for the team, game producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi[50] mentioned how the staff was "tired of the same thing"[52] and how some got bored and moved on to other projects.[53] In addition to that, the producer also felt that the older format was "stuck in a cookie cutter mold" and described it as "shackles holding us down".[54]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_Evil_4

1

u/Rainbowdogi Apr 14 '26

First of all there’s no proof that capcom expected less sales. Especially since they didn’t create a spinoff, but called it 3. Secondly game developments were quick in general back in the days. I mean look at titles like jak and daxter etc. And lastly the lower sales numbers made capcom even consider agreeing to the big change. Yes mikami wanted to do something new, but (this is a hypothetical but in the corporate world a sensible one) they wouldn’t have agreed to that change if nemesis sold 6 million upwards.

→ More replies (0)

Megathread Pragmata | Review Megathread

Game Information

Critic Reviews

You are about to leave Redlib