The Resident Evil 4 Remake

My name is Leon. S. Kennedy; No way ___

So the time has come. Our most sincere warnings have not been heeded and against the best judgement of all the world we're currently looking at a Resident Evil 4 Remake rocketing towards us at speed of the ancients. (Which is to say it's due next year. Guess we're having a game free year for 2022.) At this rate we are absolutely going to see a Resident Evil 5 and 6 Remake, at which point they'll have successfully rewritten all the franchise to fit the RE7 model and they can stop? Nah, then they'll remake Revelations 1 and 2. Then... Umbrella Chronicles? We're well past the point of reasoning with the madlads and Capcom, and only abject insanity can inform their bizarre business decisions now. How else can we reconcile with a world that is threatening to re-release a game that was perfect where it was at. Not because of how it was made, or what it said, but because it was exactly what was needed when we needed it. You can't just replicate that magic! You can't remake it! All you can hope to do is preserve it. And I... heck, I just don't know.

To be clear, Resident Evil is actually on something of a hot streak recently. The likes of which I seriously couldn't have expected after the suicidal leap-into-the-abyss that the franchise was on before this renaissance. After Resident Evil 6 and Umbrella Corps it was really starting to seem like Capcom had lost the plot completely, even after 7 most were looking to one another nervously, rationalising the successful outing as little more than a flash-in-the-pan fluke moment. But Resident Evil 2 Remake? Resident Evil 8? Resident Evil 3: Remake? (Though it was lamentably short.) These ain't no one and dones. Resident Evil is back as the premier name in horror and I'm actually a bit chuffed to be able to say that. Walking around abandoned factories and being jumpscared by various off-brand rips of children's properties is fine and all, but the excitement of fighting for your sliver of health bar against an army of monsters is unmatched. (We really need a remake of The Suffering. Who owns those rights? Midway? Bugger.)

We're in exactly the right flow theoretically for Resident Evil to remake one of it's magnum opi, but does that translate into the real world so neatly? Maybe some products are just that smidge too perfect for any remake attempt and so it should never be tried, and maybe the very success streak in the horror market that Capcom are on is the problem that is going to bring RE4R down. Take for instance the fact that the original RE4 isn't even a hit for it's horror. Sure, there are horror elements to the game, such as the Sewer chase scene and the Regenerators, but the bulk of the game was this miss-match between traditional gothic horror elements and bombastic action set-pieces that should have clashed into a train wreck but instead synergised into- (wait, is this a Hegelian Dialectics moment? Am I ever going to understand that nonsense enough to be able to use that useless philosophical nugget?) 

In some ways the prevailing heart of horror that Resident Evil has been nailing lately is the very antithesis of what made Resident Evil 4 work. I mean just look at that reveal trailer, dour and brooding with a typically PSTD protagonist suffering from his past experience but swearing that this is the time he's going to set it right. All these modern reiterations and new versions of old game properties copy that exact same formula, it's really rather wild. Resident Evil 3 Remake had a tortured and haunted Jill who was brooding over the events of the one game that Capcom have skipped right past remaking, Rise of the Tomb Raider started with Lara in therapy for all of the super natural violence she perpetrated in the last game and 'Deus Ex: Mankind Divided' was spurred by the nihilistic declaration of 'I tried to save the world once, now look at it!'. The failed and/or tortured protagonist is a real edgy and avant-garde approach to take, or at least it is until it's been done so often it's wrapped back around into being a predictable trope again. This isn't going to be our happy-go-lucky, Zombie suplexing Leon Kennedy from prime RE.

I mean just think of what this more serious tone means for the game we already know and love! Can you imagine this 'Punished Venom Kennedy' quipping back to the call "I'm sending my right hand after you" with "Your right hand comes off!"? How about a laser-beam knife fight on an Island after gunning down monks with a minigun turret. (Or did the Monks have the minigun? RE4's craziness is starting to screw with my recollection again!) What if this whole new serious slant to the narrative causes us to more properly examine the premise of Resident Evil 4 and confront, as we've all joked in the past, how this narrative quite literally tells the story of an American Secret Service Agent far out of his jurisdiction wiping out a small Eastern European village because he thinks they're kind of weird and sort-of remind him of zombies. They weren't actually zombies, remember! They were just werido villagers who happened to be in a cult! Isn't that a little harder to swallow with a serious face?

But maybe that's the secret sauce we're not expecting. Maybe this renewal with straight faced seriousness is the tee-up that will make the ridiculousness of the premise and it's characters stand out even more starkly than they did before! How much more incredible would it be if Mr serious, PTSD suffering Leon, was caught fielding clumsy advances from the president's daughter, or getting uncomfortably flirty with his over-the-radio handler just because it's a female voice that isn't Ashley's. (Wait until he meets Hannigan and finds out she's not Asian. Quickest dropped romance sub-plot ever) Maybe this time the writers will remember to seed the player with some precedent as to Jack Krauser's existence so that his appearance holds some vague weight to it. (Have Leon off-handily mention that he owes his marksmen skills to Jack or something, I'm not your parent!)

Of course, new Resident Evil remake means new remake faces, and whilst we're getting what looks to be the same Leon from the previous Remake (and presumably the same Ada) our supporting cast is going to be brand new and photographically mapped to some increadibly attractive face for unclear Capcom reasons. This time we've seen Ashley who borrows her likeness from a Dutch Instagram model and I have to admit- this girl actually looks like the original model a little bit. It's not as jarring as the Russian super model face now stuck on Jill's head, at least. I mean, Ashley has lost a lot of her frumpiness in favour of morphing into this homogenously classic depiction of 'attractiveness', which is certainly going to make her a little less charming to hate; but what are ya gonna do? Capcom will Capcom.

At the end of the day do I have faith that Resident Evil 4 will be a good game? Of course I do, I know how good this new line of Resident Evil has been and have no evidence to infer they're going to falter anytime soon. But will it be the right kind of good, to match the ethereal fame of a Resident Evil game that totally rewrote third person action gaming and the overall narrative tone of one of gaming's oldest horror franchises? I just don't think so. And no matter how polished the game is, how professionally sealed the product ends up; it won't ever live up to what to a game which was as much a movement of culture as it was an entertainment product. is failing to live up to that a point of shame? Perhaps not, but it does leave me wondering how Capcom could be so utterly hubristic as to try. I'll still play it though, why not?

Easy modes for Hard Games

The stick and the carrot, or the carrotstick?

Over the years a certain debate has begun to pick up steam when talking about games, and it's whether or not every single game should feature some sort of difficulty scale with an 'easy mode' in the pursuit of being accessible. And no, this conversation isn't all going back to Game Journalists making demands about how all games need to be catered towards making their jobs easier, (although there are some instance where that might be true) but more from a fraction of the gaming public who feel ostracized from certain games simply because they can't cross the threshold of skill required to be involved. But then what is the solution? Pressure developers into creating easier modes for their games despite themselves? And should they even have to? I thought it might be fun to look at this issue from both sides and see where I fall on it. So that's what I did.

Hard Games Should have easy modes. 

The biggest draw of gaming and the gaming medium is it's propensity to entertain, and the biggest barrier in the way of that is accessibility. Whether we take that in terms of hardware accessibility, from scarcity or expense, software accessibility, from lack of preservation, or just natural accessibility. These are the  chasms that we have to bridge over on our journey to bring entertainment to as many as possible. Sometimes this means making special provisions for the colour-blind, the visually impaired, the audibly impaired and so on and so forth. In the instance of the matter at hand; that means adapting the game to be playable by everyone of any level of skill, so that potential fans aren't turned off from a game they might love due to lacking the natural reflexes of another fan. Difficulty modes and adaptive gameplay make for experiences that all can enjoy and aren't exactly exclusive features to only casual games. Take Resident Evil 4 for instance, a decently tough and intense game at it's highlights, that's a game wherein resources will become more plentiful the more you struggle with the journey, letting people experience more of the content. Or how about X-Com Enemy Unknown, one of the most challenging tactical campaigns in gaming, they have difficulty modes all the way to the point where you can make several mistakes and still make a good shot of winning.

In particular this conversation relates to Dark Souls and the way in which it's reputation as a difficult game drives some more casual players away from it in the knowledge that there is no path catered for them. If they don't have the time commitment or don't want to take on that stress, they'll be barred from enjoying a franchise that many others consider to be one of the best ever made. By asking for an easy mode, it's not as though people are asking to be let off easy, they just want to feel as though they're still having fun when playing games and living the fantasy they come to the gaming world for. Why can't there be an easier mode wherein enemies don't hit as hard as they would, or the player naturally has more health, or the number of in-game enemies is reduced, or some combination of the three? What could possibly be the harm in letting more people play your game?

In my personal experience, I've never been especially great at tactical games, particularly those that require you to take control of an entire army such as 'Empire at War' and 'Divinity Dragon Commander'. I just don't have it in me to remember every single unit weakness and pair off team to team across a huge battlefield, so I end up resorting to overwhelming force like a coward. That being said, it's the grace of games like those, in offering easier difficulty modes where AI isn't quite as aggressive as in other modes, that I'm allowed to play these games anyway and really understand their unique allure. Without easy difficulty modes, I'd never have enjoyed Stellaris or Civilisation in the way that I have, and isn't it a crime for two incredibly formed series' like that to be cut off from potential fans? I certainly don't feel like I've experienced some lesser version of either of these games and putting the power of making the game as difficult as I'm comfortable with allows me to adapt and improve and, maybe, rise to the challenge of the hardcore levels one day.

Hard Games shouldn't have easy modes

There's several different ways to approach the creation of entertainment and satisfying your consumers, sometimes it's by making them contented and happy but, and this goes especially true for interactive mediums such as gaming, sometimes challenging them is the point. Don't get me wrong, most of the time it's never really a sound strategy to make a game that intentionally frustrates players unless you're actually making a troll game. (Cat Mario-for instance) That doesn't mean, however, that a game can't place itself outside of your comfort level, as long as it then gives you the space and resources to develop and reach that level. Games such as that, and my mind goes to some of the tougher rougelites seeing as how that's what I've had recent experience with, fall back on intrinsic development within the player and meticulously craft themselves in order to make that satisfying. It's by no means a simple proposition, and it would be nigh on insulting to say that difficulty games with an easy mode are the result of lazy developers, but a final game which can put up solid walls and let players, through determination and skill, crack them is always going to feel more rewarding then one which is just a sandbox for destruction and power fantasies. Those titles are fine, but they don't tell an intrinsic journey that ultimately improves the player by the end, not just the avatar they're controlling.

Bringing this around to Dark Souls, there we have a game which almost perfectly encapsulates this whole philosophy with gusto. At it's core the famous gameplay of Dark Souls shoots at being unforgiving, but blameless. Through tight controls, comprehensive inertia, telegraphing enemies and just consistent rules of play across the board, never once does it intentionally put you in a position where failure is it's fault, it's always your own. Is this stressful? At times. Can this be frustrating? If you let it. But in it lies a challenge, that if you give yourself the chance to preserve, learn and improve the game will give you your hard earned victory. Pulling away the consequences for losing, making mistakes less punishing or making the struggles less full, softens that eventual victory. Where's the relief in victory without the challenge to get there. And, I know it's kind of low blow, but struggle is sort of the entire point of the Dark Souls game as a work of art. It's not a power fantasy of blowing through this dark medieval world, but a journey from the bottom of the foodchain as a wastrel to the point of becoming a Lord. Thus an 'easy mode' would sort of betray the nature of the very game you're playing. 

When I've come to tough games I recognise the feeling of being frustrated, but what differentiates that from games with sliding difficulty scales is that those sorts of challenge games are typically built specifically for the climate of challenge that's presented. Cuphead is created so that a single slip up has the potential to throw you back most of a level, and making compromises along the chain threatens to scar the integrity of the whole gameplay experience. Does this make it so that these games aren't for everyone, yes it does; but there's nothing wrong with that. If I want to play a more casual game because that's just the mood I'm in then I have that option, there's no need to force myself to play something I don't want to. Does that limit the growth of these sorts of games somewhat? Perhaps, but it also, inexplicably, builds upon their allure, because everyone loves the bragging rights of saying that they took on and beat a game considered to be one of the toughest.

At the end of the day all anyone's wants to do is to spread their love of games to new experiences and try out the new hotness that everyone else says is great, but it can feel demeaning when you're just not in the demographic for that sort of game. Although, one could go so far as to say that's just the natural breakdown of consumers; some products are better suited to some types of people over others, there's nothing you can really do to please everyone and trying to often results in some of the most confused games of all time. (Resident Evil 6, for example) Maybe equating this situation to spreading oneself too thin seems odd to you, but I've always held the belief that when designing art it's of foremost import to be true to the work and catering for the audience should never override that. Does that mean some games are supposed to be prohibitively tough and there's nothing that should be done about it? Maybe, but that doesn't exactly sound right either. It's an argument of tug and pull that perhaps lacks a 'please everyone' option, but how do you fall on the conversation? Let me know in feedback.

Yet more Resident Evil...

 "This is really becoming quite the inconvenience for me"

Ah yes, for some strange reason the Resident Evil team actually kept going after the reveal of RE8's gameplay, and it wasn't in order to touch on Resident Evil 4's remake. Whilst this was met with no end of disdain online from folk shouting "Isn't it about time we heard about it?" for me it's actually a sigh of relief, because I'm still not working myself around to the idea of an RE4 remake. As I mentioned last update, I feel that Resident Evil is currently split between two states of how it was and how it now is, with the old games circling around the Raccoon city crew in these dramatic action-tilted affairs, and the new ones taking decidedly us away from the larger-than-life-characters-who-may-or-may-have-been-named-after-adult-actors. Now it's all about submerging the player in an immersive horror experience that's entirely first person. Resident Evil 4 5 and 6 don't really fit anywhere into that equation, reviving them would serve only to further muddy the waters and make the franchise more confusing. And it would seem that my scepticism has been mirrored somewhere.

Reports from those 'in the know' people that get in the news so often, seems to indicate that the absence of Resident Evil 4 Remake isn't some sort of marketing decision, but a necessary one seeing as how the game is nowhere near to showtime. And this isn't a case of CDPR "shine it up in the back and maybe it'll stay that shiny till launch", rather the game is literally in early development stages again due to a late-stage shift in development which led to a complete restart. (Isn't it odd how these stories are becoming so popular nowadays? I wonder if that's indicative of any actual trend or we're only just hearing about this stuff now.) As the rumour mill goes, this overhaal of the development process is being fuelled by warring minds within the creative departments as well as a new studio that's been promoted to takeover the project. (Or to assist with the project? It's unclear) So if you thought that interpersonal drama was unique to candid Twitter threads... stay tuned because I bet someone's going break radio silence about it under the ol' azure bird, it's only a matter of time. 

As I understand it, the conflict goes thusly; one group of developers noted how fans reacted somewhat poorly to the Resident Evil 3 Remake, (the value proposition was quite bare considering all the game had to offer. I.E. Not enough) and have interpreted that a critique on the ways in which RE3R skipped over some of the original's plot/systems. (Personally I care not for the little 'faux choice' moments from the original game, I think they're vastly overhyped. But it seems I've been overruled.) This party believes that their next game should stick firmly to the script with RE4 in order to make things right, which sounds like a huge mistake to me because there's no way to recapture 2005-era weirdness, ya gotta make your own! The opposing party, as one could probably rather simply deduce, want to take a few more risks with the remake and change some elements of the story in order to fit nicer into this new canon. (Not that the separate canons are all that different, to be honest. Things have slid together decently.)

From this conflict has spawned battered prides as development needed to be halted and restarted, and I can only imagine the amount of time and effort lost from such a move. (I do hope such overhauls aren't initiated lightly) And our result; no RE4R this year from the looks of things. Which actually works out quite nicely given that Village is due for the midyear. But with this extra time I must take the moments to wonder; will this be good for the project or detrimental? Given what we've been told I can only assume that the new project is erring in the direction of making significant changes to the original- and for some reason that actually does make me feel a lot better. I suppose some of my worry about the remake was wrapped up in the possibility that this game would replace the classic, much as how RE2R and 3R have, but perhaps that won't be the case if things turn out different enough. I don't want one of the most influential action adventurer zombie titles ever to be lost in the crowd, thank you very much, and I hope there's a world of coexistence in this, now inevitable, plane of remakes.

Of course, the things we did see was just about as weird as that which we didn't, and perhaps my biggest shock of the Resident Evil night was learning that Capcom and the Kingdom Hearts team share the same naming conventions all of a sudden. Resident Evil RE:Verse is a brand new oddly stylized multiplayer title that uses the RE Engine's versatility to a confusing end. This here's an actual multiplayer shooter with deathmatches and everything, because I suppose we're all just supposed to forget exactly what happened last time Resident Evil dipped it's toes into competitive multiplayer. (It was really bad) For the pittance that it's worth, however, the recent Resident Evil Resistance was decent enough to prove that there is room for multiplayer carnage in the RE brand, so maybe RE:Verse can fit in too. (That name feels so wrong to say.)

From what I can tell, RE:Verse actually uses the new models that have been made for the RE engine in order to bring the biggest crossover the franchise has ever had. We're talking Leon Kennedy, Claire Redfield, Jill Valentine and, in a surprise turnout, what looks like RE7 Chris from that brief 3 second cameo at the end of the game. (I guess we don't have to wait for Code Veronica until the siblings are reunited. Good thing too, because I'm pretty sure that remake is never coming.) There's also the backdrop of all the classic locations of Racoon city, which means the police station, and a bunch of the RE monsters now playable. That means we have Mr X in his final form, Nemesis in at least his first form and Jack Baker! (That's right, I always forget about the Bakers....)

But the cast list is just the meat of the game, the thing which sticks with everyone is the curious sheen on the whole affair. What I originally assumed to be an issue with the stream I was watching is actually a, (shall we say unique?) take on the art of the game that I, quite honestly, am not in love with. Saturation has been dialled up and there's the odd comic-book grain filter that looks like something out of XIII over the whole thing, it looks quite bizarre. The effect, as I can only assume was intended, is that the game sort of looks like it's from the pages of some old pulpy magazine, but to what end I have no idea. Is the team trying to highlight the comic-book nature of this crossover deathmatch game in order to distinguish it from the otherwise canonical events of the game? 'cause I had to really pull some gymnastics to come up with that explanation and even that doesn't make much sense. (Hey, as long as the game is good. I guess.)

Th event finally ended with a little look-over of the other Resident Evil properties, such as the animated movie coming out, nothing on the alleged film reboot and, what else, oh that's right; absolute nada on the Netflix series. Remember that? The Wesker twins working their way through a rural town zombie apocalypse and we're sitting here without so much as teaser images! Well, I can grumble all I want, at the end of the day this event marks Resident Evil's evolution from a series into modern franchise. Now there's multiple TV shows coming out, both live action and animated, at least three or four games on the horizon and a movie in the works, if you were ever worried about a potential overdose on Resident Evil with these now yearly releases, threat not: it's much worse than you could have possible imagined. But hey, at least it's a good time to be a fan, I guess.

Resident NO!

Say it ain't so!

I know, I know... "Another Resident Evil blog? Are you addled?" Yes, yes I very much am. And that is due to some incredibly troubling 'news' that I heard today. (See those quotations? I hope they mean this is just a rumour) I'm being serious when I say this is 'pace around the room biting my nails' news for me, 'stare at the wall and get no sleep' sort of dread is building right now. What could have me so rattled, you ask? Well according to 'video game chronicle', various independent sources of theirs have confirmed that Capcom have built up a team and dedicated them to penning a brand new remake of Resident Evil 4 due in 2022. (Good god, please tell me I'm dreaming.)

This actually all started not too long after the release of Resident Evil 3, at which point Capcom wasted no time surveying their Resident Evil Ambassadors about whether or not they'd be willing to play another remake. (Seriously Capcom? You're going to start upsetting all of your creative writing staff at this rate.) Now us plebs could merely speculate at what this could mean, with folk like me hazarding a guess at that rumoured Dino Crisis remake that was whispered once upon a moon. No, apparently this has to be a RE game; okay then 'Code Veronica: X' makes the most sense, right? It's the last game that really leaned on the horror routes of the franchise, it featured Claire and Chris finally reuniting, and it featured actually honest-to-god zombies, so the RE Engine will be right at home. There's no way it could ever be Resident Evil 4. Right? Right!?

Of course nothing has been confirmed as of yet. We could be on the verge of an actual zombie pandemic that threatens to end all civilised life as we know it, and Capcom would still hold out to December 2021 to tease us about this game. Unless something changes in their philosophy and Capcom management themselves come out to unequivocally denounce these rumours, we're going to be spending the next 2 years with this nagging worry gnawing at the sinews on the back of our grey matter, prodding itself into our very subconscious. As for me, I cannot say that I completely believe it, but then I have no basis on which to refute these claims beyond common freakin' sense, and that's clearly gone out of the window if this is a discussion that's even being held. I mean, what's next? Are we looking at an entire reboot of the Resident Evil franchise? Is every mainline entry going to get the RE engine glow-up in order to bring things in order? Is this all just an elaborate attempt for Capcom to actually rewrite how stupid the story of RE6 was? (If so, I'd like to recommend that they also make heavy revisions to 5's plotline; practically everything in that third act needs to be scrapped in a volcano whilst being shot in the head by two rocket launchers at the same time.)

But here I am, giving into the rumours. No, I will not accept that this is being done, that anyone would ever approve of this decision. It makes absolutely no sense on every single level; and let me try to convey why remaking RE 4 is such a poor idea. After 'Code Veronica: X', the Resident Evil franchise was on something on a hiatus for the next half decade. This was all in an effort to reinvent what had steadily become a stale formula. Whilst the tank controls and stiff camera angles had worked in the beginning, (and I think still have a place in the franchise, just look at my 'in depth' series to get my full thoughts on that) modern games were starting to look very different from that and Resident Evil was under threat of becoming 'bland' and 'pastiche'. Resident Evil 4 would be their chance to change the trajectory of the entire franchise for better or for worse, and that's exactly what they did. (Mostly for the worse, but there was a little better there to begin with.)

You've likely heard it before and you'll likely as not hear it again, but Resident Evil 4 is a very special game. It's no masterpiece but it is charming and unique in a manner that makes it distinct from just about every other horror game around it. It has a lot of silly moments, melodramatic scenes and scenery chewing out the wazoo. It completely abandoned the traditional sprawling interconnected level structure in favour of a much more streamlined level-by-level system. (Which, in fairness, is the same idea that RE3 used, so you could say that Capcom are getting in their practice.) It also had arguably the single most useless companion character in the entire franchise with Ashley Graham, and let me remind you that Resident Evil 2 starred an eight year old girl! And then Resident Evil 4 shows it's sillyness in it's enemies, it's setting, it dialog, it's cartoonishly over-the-top villains, and just about everything else that Resident Evil has since become renowned for.

But all those positives worked because of one thing; it was a game of it's time. I'm not saying that Resident Evil 4 couldn't work in today's day, I'm just wondering whether or not it even should, or if Capcom are even playing to their advantages by pursing it. I mean, what's the biggest new advancement that all these remakes have in common? The use of the modern RE engine that allows for the creation of realistic zombies who decay as they take damage in a way unmatched by any other zombie game today. (Sorry, Dead Island 2. Whenever that vaporware ever comes out.) So if that's your secret weapon, Capcom, why use it on a game with no zombies in it? That's right. Least you all forget, Resident Evil 4 has no zombies, only eastern European villagers who all get shot dead by an American secret service officer for no discernible reason. Even by the late game, when you figure out that weird insectile virus behind everything and your companion gets impregnated with one, (Why does that happen in so many Resident Evils?) all the enemies suddenly morph into mercenaries toting machine guns; there's not a single honest-to-goodness zombie in the entire game! (No, the Regenerators don't count. I don't know what the hell they are...)

At the end of the day I just don't think that Resident Evil 4 either needs to be remade or fits Capcom's apparent vision for the new direction of Resident Evil. From here it looks like Capcom have gone above and beyond to ensure the quality of each title and the cohesiveness of the storylines, sacrificing weird plotthreads where necessary to accommodate that. So if that's the idea you want to pursue then that's great Capcom, but why then focus on a game that's just one giant weird plotthread? Even more then just that, it's the one game that sent the entire franchise spiralling out of control into a slump that many folk, myself included, assumed it would never get out of. At this point I'm tempted to say that Capcom would be better served making Resident Evil 4 but completely changing every thing about it until it's a different, more spooky, game; but at that point why not just call it 'Resident Evil: Revelations 3' and be done with it?

Admittedly, I'm being a little alarmist right now but I am on edge. I've ignited quite a passion for modern Resident Evil and I don't want to see it all go down the drain so quickly before we've had the chance to see new things come out of it. (That and I just found out that FF7 is going to be an exclusive until April 10 2021, so I'm really reeling over here.) Perhaps Capcom have one of their transformative visions in mind that'll put all of us doubters to shame, or perhaps all these rumours are complete nonsense and Capcom are putting their team behind a Hello Kitty game universe. (stranger things have happened) Whatever the case, it won't be until the December after next where we hear official word on that, and by that time I'll have FF7 so I probably won't care as much.

Difficulty Settings in video games

Mein Leben!

The world of video gaming is a diverse one, welcoming in a variety of folk from every corner and walk of life. Thus is the appeal of entertainment, as anyone can theoretically take part without having to succumb to worries about what they physically capable of or qualified to do. Of course, disability aids are only just starting to hit the main stream, but that's not what this blog is about. You see, as I have mentioned before, one of the most universal tools for generalizing game audiences to as many folk as possible is the inclusion of a difficulty selection. Which just so happens to be the topic which I intend to delve into with today's blog.

In the age when games began hitting the home market, there started a shift in the development priority of those games. Previously, as many games were designed for the arcade, developers had to strike a careful balance between games that were fun enough to keep folk coming back and difficult enough for them to not be able to beat it easily. Through this method developers could maximize profits for the arcade, therefore increasing the marketability of their software. In fact, some games were specifically designed to be unbeatable for this very reason, hooking players on the promise of an impossible task. Although, this wasn't as deceitful as it may sound, as this was how video games existed back then; there were no endings, just brief fun-packed play sessions.

Obviously, that dynamic had to change once video games started entering the home. Now people no longer had to pay per session and only had to buy the thing once, meaning that developers could create a finite experience for people to enjoy. Now they just had to ensure the game was good enough to keep their name in people's mind for the next time that they're game hunting. (A philosophy that survives to this very day.) It was somewhere along the evolution of this particular development method that the question of 'accesibility' began to crop up in the Dev room. Games were still rather difficult in general and that realistically limited the potential customer base for the budding medium, meaning that it was in everyone's best interest to start to open up gaming.

The home market ushered in many quality-of-life improvements to gaming as well as broadening the scope of games that could be made. Now games no longer had to be designed for quick play sessions but could be long form and require multiple sessions in order to complete. (hence the advent of the 'save' functionality thanks to 1986's The Legend of Zelda.) It is hard to determine exactly when difficulty settings were 'invented', so to speak, but we can see their blueprints as early back as 1980 with 'Adventure' for the Atari 2600. In 'Adventure', players were presented with three dungeons to go through, each larger than the last. Through this concept, players who were unfamiliar and not confidant with this new type of game could ease into it with the easier dungeon before diving into the harder ones once they got a footing. A very simple premise but one that would shape the development of video games significantly for the next few decades.

Once the Xbox and Playstation had begun to hit the market, coming up to the turn of the millennium, it was starting to become a common practice for video games to always have the 3 standard choices of difficulty. 'Easy, Normal and Hard' became as common a site to the average gamer as 'press any button to start', for difficulty settings had grown from a quirk into a development requirement. On a positive note, this opened up gaming to lower skilled individuals and allowed everyone a chance at the fun, however there were a few repercussions. Anyone who was an active gamer in the early 2000's knows the stigma that was attached to playing on the 'easy' difficulty, as it is the same sort of stigma that lingers around any activity with slight skill-based leanings. Now, I'm not about to discuss the folly of 'skill-based' worth-assignment in communities, I haven't got the patience, but I will summarize that this divide caused a whole lot of senseless noise for no real gain. (Good job, early 2000's gamers.)

There is a conversation of relevance to be had there, however, regarding whether or not one is playing the 'full experince' depending on the difficulty that they choose. And I mean that in regards to lower and higher difficulties. Modern games are, afterall, meticulously balanced in order to ensure that players can enjoy themselves without becoming too frustrated whilst simultaneously not breezing through everything without a care in the world (at least in the generally accepted theories on standard game design) which makes the task of creating difficulty settings a very daunting one. Devs are required to mess with the game's balance whilst maintaining balance to ensure that all players have a comparable experience, it's like handing weights to a tight rope walker, eventually somethings gotta give. During this age it became a common criticism to accuse Devs of lazy difficulty settings, wherein they just cranked up/ down a setting as seemed necessary, creating a dull or frustrating experience for those on any difficulty other than normal.

Some developers combated this uneven difficulty disparity by throwing in some more clever systems into their games such as Dynamic Game Difficulty Balancing or DGDB. One such team who worked on these mechanics was the world-famous Capcom team on their weird horror/action hybrid 'Resident Evil 4'. As many will likely know, Resident Evil 4 did not shed the series patented difficulty settings, but they did update it with a smart dynamic twist. As the player derives much of their supplies from crates, as well as the environment, and isn't lingering in areas, as was the status quo with earlier games, the team could use the map to spawn in supplies as they were needed. Therefore, if you are struggling or dying a lot, you'll find more ammo and curatives at the next item spawn point. These systems are so useful, in fact, that you'll find RE4 speedrunners intentionally plunging themselves off of cliffs in order to trigger the extra supply drops and make the run easier. Through this, the team allowed players to play how they wanted whilst relieving the potential frustration that could occur, all without telling the player what was happening. (Very sly, Capcom!)

Of course, at some point the entire concept of 'diffculties' became a little bit outdated as we moved into the modern age. Developers were growing sick of having to fine tune their fine tuning and gamers were bored of being constantly ridiculed for their difficulty choices, and so the whole system started to be slowly faded out. In the modern age we only really see those systems pop up in heavily skill-based games wherein people would be absolutely eviscerated without a 'training' mode, such as racing games and strategy games. But the action/adventure genre, which is a genre that is now totally owned by the triple A, tends to shirk such systems altogether. that being said, there are still some Developers who stubbornly stick to their ways, such as RPG Devs, but little effort goes into the actual development of 'diffculty' modes and they usually just end up being very arbitrary additions.

Personally, as a self-confessed masochist, I have always selected the hardest difficulty of any game I play for my first time. (Afterall, If I'm only going to play through this game once, I might as well experience everything.) As such I find myself a little saddened to see difficulty settings slowly phase out of gaming as we moved towards more homogenized experiences. Some of my favourite gaming memories have been about pushing against an immovable wall of difficulty until it eventually gave way, and I feel that something in that has been lost in the current regime. At least we'll always have RPG's difficulty settings, that's one system that traditionalists will never let Devs kill.

Return of the living undead

You almost became a Jill sandwich!

You may be wondering "What zombie game is big enough to warrant a whole separate entry?" That's easy, Biohazard. For those unfamiliar, Biohazard (Or 'Resident Evil' as it is known in the west.) is a historic game that is often labelled as the father of survival horror. Whilst that isn't quite true (the 'Alone in the Dark'  and 'Clocktower' series' predate it.)  we can certainly credit Capcom for perfecting the formula. Every single entry had innovated in both storytelling and zombie design, to the point where I feel I need to cover each mainline entry. This way we'll be able to track the progression of the zombie aesthetic as dictated through the genre leader. So let's go all the way back to 1996 and start at the beginning.

Resident Evil/ Biohazard

Ever since the beginning, Resident Evil set the bar the gaming horror. Leaning off of the 'haunted house' trope, Resident Evil takes place entirely within the grounds of the spacious Spencer Mansion, situated in the Arklay mountains. Players take control of either Jill Valentine or Chris Redfield, seasoned members of special rescue squad S.T.A.R.S, as you scour through the old building looking to find out what happened to the previous team. Along the way, the protagonist is surprised to find the halls teeming with undead, zombie dogs and a biological super weapon. What follows is a race to the truth during which you unravel the secret truth behind the T-Virus.

Seeing as how the game was made back in 1996, you could reasonably deduce that the game's models aren't the prettiest in the world. The models are all blocky and rudimentary and they move more like stiff puppets actual humans. However, this doesn't mean that the zombies themselves still aren't intimidating. Capcom's Rotted feature the greyish skin that we are used to and shuffle around, arms raised and moaning. It is easy to see the classic Romero influences for these zombies. However, Resident Evil is renowned for not just sticking to zombified humans, so we have even more designs to consider. The, aforementioned, zombie dogs are one of the more impressive entities. Aside from appearing through one of the most effective and memorable jumpscares in gaming, these monsters manage to unnerve with their bloody coats and superficial skin damage. Those Doberman look as mangy as they do viscous. Then there are the Hunters, who look like the love-child between the Battletoads and Wolverine; Plant 42, which is a plant and the Tyrant, who is big bald and has a razor blade for an arm. Series fans may be able to see the genesis of some of the weird and wonderful zombie designs that would follow in the later games.

Resident Evil 2

Two years later in 1998, Capcom delivered the sequel to the original surprise hit. Development woes and design reworks meant that some people were doubtfull whether or not this game could live up to the success of the original. Little did they know, Resident Evil 2 would eclipse all other Capcom victories to become their most successful and celebrated game for years to come. Resident Evil 2 took the action away from Spencer Mansion, to the nearby locale of Raccoon City. There, players took control of either Leon Kennedy or Claire Redfield as they went toe-to-toe with a threat that completely eclipsed the Mansion incident. The total meltdown of a small city due to the mass release of the G-Virus. The protagonists are tasked with navigating through an old museum-turned-police-station, as they slowly unravel the conspiracy behind the outbreak and work to expose the pharmaceutial company Umbrella. This game was dripping with atmosphere, action and memorable side characters like Ada Wong and Sherry Birkin. It was also lush with a lot more zombies.

The tech available to Capcom at the time of the original was much approved upon by the time they came around to the sequel. This meant that they could work to bring more zombies to the screen then they ever had before. Instead of just 3 zombies, we could have triple that amount at once. This was essential for depicting a city turned to ruin, especially in that opening scene in which players are forced to flee from an onslaught of shambling undead. The models themselves are much more varied than the last game's offering. Zombies can appear with all-new structural damage, mimicking some of the more audacious makeup affects from zombie movies. More influence was placed upon the action element too, meaning that players received a few setpeice moments like the chase scene with the giant alligator. The Tyrant was also improved upon. Instead of the underpants wearing boss from Resident Evil 1; this new Tyrant wore a black trench coat with a matching hat and, crucially, was not limited to a couple of boss arenas near the end. Indeed, you won't have gone very far in the game before you find yourself stalked by this unkillable powerhouse. Mr. X (As he is known) lends to the overarching dread that players feel even when revisiting areas that they knew well, you never know when X could be just around the corner. "But what about the gross bosses?" I hear you cry. "That's my favourite part!". Resident Evil 2 has us covered in that department with the beast known as G. A huge fleshy, eyeball covered, monster who rapidly evolves throughout the course of the game. His final form, as a gelatinous toothy maw, still gives me chills.

Resident Evil 3: Nemesis

By the time Resident Evil 3 rolled around, nobody was ready to give up the success story that was Resident Evil 2. Fans wanted more and Capcom wanted to capitalize on their most profitable game ever. Couple that with a desire to churn out another game as soon as possible and you are left with 1999's Resident Evil 3: Nemesis. This game took place concurrently with the events of Resident Evil 2 and followed Jill Valentine as she tried to survive her return to Raccoon city whilst being hunted by the titular Nemesis. Fans went through this game fully in the knowledge of what happens to Raccoon City after the incident,(Kaboom.) and so it added a whole new layer of tension as they struggled to outrace their fiery demise. Resident Evil 3 recycled a lot of the previous game's assets in order to create whole new parts of Raccoon City for Jill to fight her way through as she raced against the clock, striking this odd balance between locales that felt both new and familiar.

The star of Resident Evil 3 is undoubtedly the Nemesis. This Frankenstein reject popped up on all the marketing and screenshots and even got his mug on the front cover, so it was clear the Capcom was proud of him. And they have a right to be, afterall, he has earned his place in the hall of video game monster fame. Nemesis' most striking feature is his patchwork face that hearkens back to the flesh mask of Leatherface, another horror icon. He sports a heavy trench coat, several protruding tubes and enough mental acuity to wield a rocket launcher. (I feel like the definition of 'Zombie' got a little bit muddled.) Players would find themselves facing Nemesis at points throughout of story wherein they can either run or fight him off; Nothing seems to kill him but at least you have the opportunity to hold him back. This choice carried over onto the narrative, wherein you had moments to make split second decisions about where to go in the face of danger. By the time you reach the final encounter, you have built up enough of a history with the beast to really enjoy it when you watch him get blown to smithereens.

Resident Evil 0/1

In 2002, Capcom were finally ready to release another game, but this wasn't the long awaited Resident Evil 4, but a prequel dating back to before the first game. Some people were dissatisfied with the Hollywood action of Resident Evil 2 & 3, and they wanted the franchise to go back to it's scary roots. Capcom agreed to heading this direction and we ended up with Resident Evil 0. In this game, players were reintroduced to S.T.A.R.S' youngest operative Rebbecca Chambers, as she and escaped convict Billy Coen find themselves on a zombie infested train. Players take control of both protagonists as they make their way back to Spencer Mansion and through the Umbrella labs to discover the origins behind the Progenitor Virus. But that wasn't all that happened in 2002. You see Capcom, perhaps realizing how dated Resident Evil 1 looked, also decided to completely remake the original with shiny new assets, controls, monsters and voice acting. (No more "Jill sandwich".) They even tried to make the story intelligible. 'Tried' being the operative word there.

With the leap forward to the Gamecube, Capcom had the hardware to bring their zombies to life with unmatched fidelity. This time around the polygonal models actually resembled the shape of humans and the zombies improved accordingly. Chewed up faces and desiccated corpses were everywhere now as Capcom went nuts in proving how detailed they could make their iconic zombies. They even went so far as to introduce a new, unkillable monster, to the original game. Lisa Trevor is a hunched, lanky creature with a patchwork face reminiscent of the Nemesis. You can hear her in the early game, wailing from the basement, before she ambushes you at the sheds. Many still remember the sounds of dragging chains as Lisa stalked them through the caves in the later game.

Resident Evil 4

It wouldn't be until 2005 when we would finally see the continuation of the Resident Evil story. Resident Evil 4. Fans were eager to find out what sort of game they would receive, would it follow the horror roots of the original or lean towards the action that the later games embraced. No one expected the type of game that actually released. Resident Evil 4 was weird. Weider than anyone could have anticipated. Taking place in an undisclosed European country, players are put back in control of series favourite: Leon Kennedy, as he tries to track down the trail of the president's kidnapped daughter. Resident Evil 4 completely ditched the puzzle solving, backtracking elements of previous games to tell a more adventurous story that doubled down on the weirder elements of Resident Evil. That means more eccentric villains, mutated monstrosities and the return of Ada Wong. (Conspicuously not dead despite the events of Resident Evil 2.) Although the one element that I find strange even now is their approach to the zombies.

Or rather, the lack of Zombies. Resident Evil 4 ditches the traditional flesh eaters in favour of a game full of weird village cultists who worship 'Los Illuminados'. This means that instead of fighting shambling Walkers, players end up facing off against shambling farmers and one guy with a chainsaw. If you think this means that you won't see any outlandish beings then worry not, Resident Evil 4 has plenty in that department too. There comes a point nearing the end of the first act, when players will notice a villager's head explode into a tentacle. This is the game's signal to get weird. From then you'll fight a troll, a lake monster, this cloaked mantis monster called Verdugo (Who has one of the scarier scenes in the game.) and the heavy breathing Regenerators who... are just really unsettling. That isn't even counting the series stable transformation sequences. Resident Evil 4 has three! First there is the annoying count Salazar who becomes... I don't even know what that is. Then there is Jack Krauser who gets a sword arm and Saddler who becomes a- praying mantis? Body horror was never so surreal as when Capcom got ahold of it.

Resident Evil 5

Four years later in 2009, fans would be treated to Resident Evil 5. The previous game had been another runaway hit, bringing in an entirely new demographic of fan that came with their own expectations about what a Resident Evil game should be. Perhaps this was the first time when Capcom started to realize how much their fan base tugged in different directions, how could they realistically please such a wildly diverse audience? For the time being, they decided to stick with the formula they constructed in 4 with the tonally confused 5th entry. This time player's were put back in the shoes of original protagonist Chris Redfield with his new partner Sheva Alomar. Through co-op or alone, players would travel across an unspecified region of Africa in search of the cause of another outbreak. This would lead players into another tale about the misdeeds of Umbrella, capping off with the surprise return of two series favourites: Jill Valentine and Albert (I swear this guy has already died twice.) Wesker. The game was a very mixed offering with spotty AI and a lack of thematic consistency, but personally I forgive all simply for the scene where Chris punches a boulder in half with his bare hands. True genius.

Resident Evil 5 expands on the 'tentacle beast' type of monster from the last game. This time the locals had these gross mouth flaps that would stretch out and try to wrap around the players face in close combat. At this point the game's had almost entirely veered away from traditional zombies and moved into general horror monsters. These guys were suffering from a malignant parasite, not a mild case of reanimation. Despite that, we did get some more of the classic zombie animals to make us afraid of our four-legged brethren once again and some big impressive boss monster too. This is the point where Resident Evil's monster stop being imaginatively grotesque and just started becoming unrecognizable bulbous messes. One them flew, one of them was a sort of Kraken, but non of them were memorable. Most fans just remember the matrix-inspired Albert Wesker fight and the follow-up in the volcano at the end. Classic fans came away a little disappointed with the offer, but not to worry, things couldn't get any worse than that, could they?

Resident Evil 6

In 2012, things got worse. Capcom buckled under the pressure of being pulled every which way by their fanbase and puked out a complete mess of a game. No one on the development team had any idea what direction to take, so someone had the bright idea to follow every direction at once. Resident Evil 6 has 3 separate campaigns, (and a secret 4th one) each followed a different storyline with different protagonists and a different theme. You have the Leon plot thread wherein you encountered traditional zombies in a horror-like setting that weakly tried to capture the atmosphere of the original game and appeal to traditional fans; Then was the Chris campaign, which had the characters fighting against gun toting pseudo-zombies in an adrenaline-fueled sprint that wanted to snap up the shooter crowd; and finally there was Sherry Birkin's campaign which was designed to appeal to... fans of punch'em'ups? Was that a thing in the Resident Evil community? Was there a successful branch of resi-themed fighting games that passed me by? Whatever the reason, someone saw fit to throw that into this smorgasbord of a product. In the story you... I can't remember. There were 3 whole different plot threads that took place at different times, all over the world. I couldn't keep track of what was happening. I completely forgot Rebbecca Chambers showed up until I researched for this blog. All I can remember is Leon and newcomer Deborah Harper finding the President killed, Chris shooting things, Ada Wong being vague and mysterious and Sherry being... Ellie from The Last of Us without the heart.

Due to the game being so confused on what direction to take, there sure are a lot of different types of zombies to talk about. Although, none of them are new or different. Leon's zombies had more structural damage then we had ever seen before, sometimes with entire chunks of the face missing, but Chris' zombies were essentially just the same guys from Resident Evil 5 just with ballistic armour on. Sherry and Jack's zombies were literally just people in masks; you could have called that portion of the game Streets of rage 5 and no one would have called you out. Even in the horror sections, the Zombies seemed a lit more mobile than one would expect from beings known as 'walking dead'. I remember some zombies launching themselves through the air like acrobats. (Apparently rigor mortis does wonders for your athletics!) Resident Evil 5 certainly had some of most authentic looking zombies of any game to date, but they were woefully underutilized in an underwhelming outing. I remember hearing a story about some boardroom executive saying that they wanted 'Resident Evil' to be spoken about in the same breadth as 'Call of Duty'. Well, if we're talking about franchises that ran out of steam, then he certainly got his wish. Resident Evil 6 underperformed and the franchise went on hiatus for 5 years.

Resident Evil 7: Biohazard

In 2016, Capcom went back to the drawing board and tried to return to their horror routes for their next outing. Fans were treated to a couple of demos that tried to capture the popularity of PT and fill the void from the recently cancelled Silent Hills. Neither demo captured the ingenuity of Kojima's PT, but they did build up anticipation for a return to form for the Resident Evil franchise. On January 24th, 2017 Resident Evil 7: Biohazard released. (Or 'Biohazard 7: Resident Evil' in Japan.) This time the game was completely in first person and came with a big focus on personal body horror, the kind that really gives me the shivers. Thematically, the game borrowed heavily from modern Hollywood horror movies with the whole, stuck in the middle of nowhere with a creepy family, premise; but Capcom managed to put all those lazy Hollywood duds to shame with their mastery over atmosphere. Resident Evil 7 went right back to basics, setting the action in one location like with the original, having the woefully unprepared protagonist scrounge about for resources and ensuing that players never felt safe anywhere they went with relocating enemies. This time players had to survive the Baker's family ranch as they tried desperately to find a missing loved one and uncover the secret of the weird goings-on in Louisiana.

Capcom veered away from the armies of zombies and focused on the horror surrounding the Baker family. The Bakers all appear to be human but harbor some sort of parasitic entity that makes them unique. Jack is semi-indestructible and incredibly powerful, able to walk through walls and take a car to the chest. Marguerite is... she has... there's these bees... and then she turns all long and skinny... she's weird. Then there is Jack who has an unhealthy obsession with jigsaw-style death traps. As I said, All of these beings appear human but their abilities make them anything but. And thanks to the brand new RE:Engine, us players were able to take advantage to that to gruesome effect. Jack may not go down to a bullet to the face, but the bullet still pierces his skin and leaves a mark. For the first time players could actually see the effect of live structural damage on their enemies, rendered in a realistic fashion. Just imagine what that technology would look like rendered on a traditional zombie! Oh right, there's also the 'Molded' monsters, but they're not really worth remembering. 

RE: 2

All the way back in March of this year, Capcom debuted their next outing and much to everyone's surprise, it wasn't Resident Evil 8. Many were worried when the last outing failed to hit sales figures, they thought that it might be the end of Resident Evil, or at least the end of their plan to return to horror. Seems they were wrong on both counts, it just signalled Capcom to change their approach and try their hand at the Disney model for success. And so we received RE:2, a completely fresh remake of Resident Evil 2 in the RE:Engine. Capcom wanted to reignite the passion for Resident Evil by returning to the entry that sparked off the fervour in the first place. And it was good. It was very good. I am not usually a huge fan of horror games but I personally rank RE:2 on my list of my top ten favourite games of all time. It deftly handles dread and action in a world that looks and feels beautiful. Survival horror has never been done as well as Resident Evil 1 & 2 and the RE:2 project managed to capture that illusive charm perfectly and translate it into the modern age. And I haven't even mentioned the zombies themselves yet.

RE:2 features actual, honest-to-god, zombies (Finally!) and they are fantastically realized in the RE:Engine. Capcom built these undead models from the bones up, first creating the skeletal structure then laying on the muscle before coating the whole thing with flesh. This not only allows them to create mauled corpses with actual depth but to have players capable of stripping away that flesh in combat. Shotgun blast a zombie in the face and watch the layers crumble away before your eyes. This kind of fidelity eclipses anything you can see in zombie movies or even in landmark zombie shows like The Walking Dead. Impressive makeup and prosthetics can only go so far in creating something believable, but a functional animated engine is capable of anything imaginable. Some have gone so far as to call RE:2's zombies the best in fiction and I can't envision any strong argument otherwise. Of course, the improved tech also goes a long way in bringing some of RE:2's other monsters to life. The Zombie dogs, Lickers, Ivy zombies and Mr. X himself, are all stunning in their detail. The remade G also manages to look even more disgusting than his original incarnation. I didn't even think that was possible.

Much of video gaming zombie culture has been formed and shaped by the Resident Evil games. The fact that the trope still isn't completely played like it honestly should be, is because of franchises like Resident Evil that keep coming back and keeping it fresh. I jokingly rib Capcom for forgetting what zombies looked like during games 4-6, but in truth this was just the way that they managed to keep the subject matter scary whilst continuing the same story. Now we've gone full circle and have gone back traditional movie zombies, only now games have come to realize them better than the movies can. It honestly makes me intensely excited to see what the future holds for zombies and The Resident Evil franchise. We may not even have to wait too long to catch a glimpse. This morning. news broke that Capcom are looking for ambassadors to playtest a new, unspecified, Resident Evil game. (News that wasn't out when I started this article yesterday.) Could this be the rumored Nemesis remake, or perhaps Resident Evil 8? No one knows yet, but we all wait with baited breath. We can't wait to see what undeath has in store.