IIRC Crowbcat also made a video shitting on some of the RE4 cuts and changes which didn't really need to be made, video was titled something like "soul vs. soulless" and of course modern RE fanboys were sperging the fuck out in the comments. Capcom seems to have an extremely dedicated base of ballwashers who will defend ANY old slop that falls out of their asses - sort of reminds me of Kojima in a way.
Literally the only reason I can imagine this is down to Capcom being more or less the only old-school AAA game dev/publisher that hasn't completely shit the bed in terms of output. Put us 10-15 years back and that sentiment would probably be the opposite. People in this thread might
hate the remakes (2, 3 and 4) + RE7, 8 and the upcoming 9, but it can't be overstated just how
horrible everyone else is in comparison. A 4-6/10 in 2009 is a 8/10 in 2025, things have gotten that much worse.
I have 2 theories on why Capcom hasn't completely doom spiralled like other AAA contemporaries.
One is down to the data they collect every other year. Since they release primarily male-dominated games, which has remained stagnant, they've made no all-encompassing attempts to shift their philosophy to appeal to a non-existent section of their audience. Ubisoft and EA also collect data, but its mired by including the demos for games like The Sims, Just Dance, mobile games, online shooters, etc. When other companies were attempting to cater to the "wider audience," Capcom's own data showed that they had no such audience so they didn't try to, at least nothing that didn't feel half-hearted. They're playing it safe*, and it's working out for them.
A second one is that their game development is still rather old fashioned and less atomised like other studios. They keep single project directors that may or may not change from one game to the next, and games are less likely to get fucked over by the "writer's room effect" i.e. since there's less people interjecting, the project can maintain a single vision that helps with consistency, more or less. Just as an example, Resident evil 8 had 2 directors: an art director, and a game director. Horizon Zero Dawn 2 had
7 directors. The former had a professional credits list of 1'500 people, the latter had 3'400 people. They're not all that comparable as games but I think one left more of a lasting impression than the other alongside having a longer lifespan in general discourse.
*
Like EA, they did try and chase the multiplayer co-op trend of the early-to-mid 2010s, one they arguably contributed to thanks to the runaway success of RE5. Capcom's Operation Racoon City to EA's Dead Space 3. But GTA: Online and Minecraft probably encouraged that more than RE5. Fortunately companies seem less likely to pursue trends on a whim considering there was no AAA response to things like Lethal Company or Baldur's Gate 3, far as I'm aware.
Oh that's cool, I wouldn't mind an Evil Within 3 either.
Probably won't happen though.
I wasn't much a fan of the first 1 but the 2nd one really hooked me. I think the 1st was relying too much on the "twist" to carry the story but since the 2nd had you aware from the outset, it had to pick up the slack it lacked in some areas in the previous game. At least it ended in such a way you can consider it "finished" if you wanted since it's more or less a happy ending, even if you got that wiggle room for something more with the post-credits scene.
I'm generally strapped for decent horror titles that aren't just some walking sim/puzzle/jump scare simulators, so I'd appreciate a 3rd game. Considering how well the SH2 remake, RE7 & RE8, and Chronos New Dawn sold, there's at least a proven appetite in the market for survival horror nowadays, so it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to do.
