By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - (UPDATE)Resident Evil 3 remake leaked Cover, New Jil Faces. Edit: Added Resident Evil Resistance Cover & Close up view of Jill Valentine

Tagged games:

Yes! That's what i wanted. This 2020, re8 next gen.



Around the Network

Face scan of Sienna Guillory would have been perfect. (2004) or (2012)



Nothing beats the flood of RE games that hit the 'cube back in the day!

https://youtu.be/I9nxBJBEdzo



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

Good God that is a horrible redesign for Nemesis. What's with the stupid looking crooked nose? And the ridiculous looking skinny, long teeth? The OG design was 10x better than this. Hopefully, they fix it, or at least have it where they can change his model to something more like his OG one.



Hiku said:
shikamaru317 said:

Well, they could be a bit busy with Res 8, especially if they are upgrading their engine with next gen tech for Res 8. So I wouldn't be surprised if they at least contracted out part of the work on Res 3 Remake to a 3rd party studio. 

Partially may be fine. But the reason I think Capcom wouldn't outsource it fully is because after a downward spiral at the start of the generation, Capcom have been managed a lot better in recent years, and now they're as good as they've ever been again.
So I think management is extra careful now to not go back to their old mistakes, which was not giving their franchises the care and time they needed. And the former is always a known risk when using a different developer. Metroid Prime 4 is a recent example that comes to mind.
They also shifted management for Street Fighter earlier this year, and it's now the head of Monster Hunter in charge there, and not Yoshinori Ono.

So hopefully they won't take any major risks with their big titles. The RE spinoff is somewhat understandable, but I wouldn't gamble with RE3. Especially after how well received RE2 was, and the expectations ppl will have of its sequel.

haxxiy said:

According to one of the Resetera mods with insider info, he clarified today that it is being developed in-house for two years and a half already, just not by the same RE2 team. The same engine as RE7 and RE2 remake as expected, too.

That timeframe would explain why we're already seeing the cover art on PSN. Indicating a 2020 release.

But that would be interesting, considering that means RE3 was greenlit before they even showed the RE2 trailer at E3.
And Capcom said that RE2 sold "above expectations". So they didn't even expect it to do as well as it did, but they still started development on RE3?

That would also be before MHW became a huge success. So Capcom had only just started making a comeback with RE7.

I see nothing unusual of allowing the other remaster before having the sales projection being exceeded.

They probably already have a high enough projection that would make money, they simply over achieved.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Hiku said:

[trimmed]

But that would be interesting, considering that means RE3 was greenlit before they even showed the RE2 trailer at E3.
And Capcom said that RE2 sold "above expectations". So they didn't even expect it to do as well as it did, but they still started development on RE3?

That would also be before MHW became a huge success. So Capcom had only just started making a comeback with RE7.

I see nothing unusual of allowing the other remaster before having the sales projection being exceeded.

They probably already have a high enough projection that would make money, they simply over achieved.

I agree. RE2 is one of the best games released this year, and it's not unusual to think that the developers knew they had something good on their hands as they were building it.

Also, Capcom's devs seem to have mastered the RE Engine. Making RE3 is probably a lot quicker than RE2, which was a lot quicker than RE7, with the groundwork already built.



Hiku said:
DonFerrari said:

I see nothing unusual of allowing the other remaster before having the sales projection being exceeded.

They probably already have a high enough projection that would make money, they simply over achieved.

It's noteworthy because just a few years before that, Capcom couldn't even greenlight the R&D budget for Street Fighter 5. One of its biggest franchises.
And that's comping off the huge success that was Street Fighter 4. Before Sony offered to fund part of the development, Yoshinori Ono estimated that we wouldn't have seen SF5 until 2018 at the earliest. Capcom were in a bad financial situation due to poor investments into the mobile market.

It takes a lot to recover from that. Let alone be in a position where you comfortably greenlight the funding of a second remake before the first one even gets any fan feedback.

And Street Fighter 5 certainly didn't help, as it had a poor launch. The game was rushed out with minimal content, because Capcom wanted to have it out before the Capcom Pro Tour started that year, in February.
Over the years they managed to steer the ship right and make SF5 profitable, but it wasn't the big success they were expecting.

Marvel vs Capcom Infinite was their next big, from scratch, project. And that one failed spectacularly, and was never salvaged.
They abandoned all plans for continued support for it, almost immediately.

I believe Resident Evil 7, in Feb 2017, was the first big new project for them that ended up being a hit on home consoles. And the starting point of their comeback.

And that was several years after REmake 2 was announced. Which was announced in August 2015.
That's why I find the timing of RE3's funding noteworthy.

RaptorChrist said:

I agree. RE2 is one of the best games released this year, and it's not unusual to think that the developers knew they had something good on their hands as they were building it.

Also, Capcom's devs seem to have mastered the RE Engine. Making RE3 is probably a lot quicker than RE2, which was a lot quicker than RE7, with the groundwork already built.

You can read my comment above for my thoughts on that.

But I just want to add that the development of RE2 was not 'a lot quicker' than RE7.
It was apparently the other way around. RE2 was in development longer than RE7.

Resident Evil 7 began development in Feb 2014.

"It's been 4 years since we saw a numbered Resident Evil game, when did you begin developing RE7?
Nakanishi: Well we began everything to do with the game around about February 2014, so a little over 2 years"
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/capcom-famitsu-interview-on-resident-evil-7.1235171/

RE7 was released exactly 3 years after it started development.


In August 2015, Resident Evil Remake 2 was announced to be in development. It started at some point before that announcement, but let's go with August 2015. That means by the most conservative estimate, REmake2 was released 3,5 years after it was announced to be in development.

Your reasoning makes sense.

But your initial post is what got the confusion. If you had said that you didn't expect they to greenlight before RE2 shipped to great acclaim you tied it more to being before they discover they outdid their forecast.

But yes From the comments that they didn't had budget for SF5 without the help from Sony (so it would take a lot longer to release) to being able to make 2 remakes almost simultaneously is a little odd.

But perhaps they made the PS1 way on the shared assets and team so the additional cost of RE3 was small compared to just RE2.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

KratosLives said:
Must be fake. Nemesis looks bad.

Professional artists can also do bad artworks, ya' know. 

But it looks fine to me, personally. Everything. 



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first. 

Hiku said:
DonFerrari said:

Your reasoning makes sense.

But your initial post is what got the confusion. If you had said that you didn't expect they to greenlight before RE2 shipped to great acclaim you tied it more to being before they discover they outdid their forecast.

But yes From the comments that they didn't had budget for SF5 without the help from Sony (so it would take a lot longer to release) to being able to make 2 remakes almost simultaneously is a little odd.

But perhaps they made the PS1 way on the shared assets and team so the additional cost of RE3 was small compared to just RE2.

Yeah, I left out a lot of details to save some time, in case it was already known to the reader, and to not make it too long.

But another detail to consider here is that when they announced REmake 2 in 2015, they said this:





It was "finally" approved, after passionate fan request.
In other words, they wanted to do it before, but weren't allowed to.

RE team: "Can we do it now?"
Capcom: "No."

RE team: "Can we do it now?"
Capcom: "No. We can't even do Street Fighter, and you want money for a remake of an old game??"

RE team: "...Can we do it now?"
Capcom: "Sure."
RE team: "Can we also do REmake 3 before we see how well RE2 does?"
Capcom: "Sure."

It looks like something happened at Capcom around that time, where they went from being very frugal with their budget, to greenlighting multiple large scale games and taking risks again.
If this was after the huge success of MHW and RE7 and all that stuff, it'd be easier for me to point at that and say I understand why Capcom were in a position to make these decisions comfortably.

But whoever made some of these 'risky' decisions at that time (and that includes moving Monster Hunter from portable to home console) are probably looking pretty good right now in the eyes of Capcom's higher ups.

Yep whoever took the lead to approve MHW, RE7 and RE2R made some good decision and will be well seem by higher ups.

I'm sure I liked the REs decision and although I don't play MH people have really show support for it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Hiku said:

Marvel vs Capcom Infinite was their next big, from scratch, project. And that one failed spectacularly, and was never salvaged.
They abandoned all plans for continued support for it, almost immediately.

I believe Resident Evil 7, in Feb 2017, was the first big new project for them that ended up being a hit on home consoles. And the starting point of their comeback.

And that was several years after REmake 2 was announced. Which was announced in August 2015.
That's why I find the timing of RE3's funding noteworthy.

Marvel Vs. Capcom is a long running series, and infinite used tons of assets of Marvel Vs. Capcom 3, which did not look good when moved over to the new engine.  It was a very ugly game, with characters no one wanted, and going against a far superior tag team game, which had 3v3, when MvC went back to 2v2.  It is by no means, a "from scratch" game, when 75% of it is just the previous game's assets.

It's like saying any of the Tekken games are "from scratch" when they're all built over the previous games, using decades old animation, and the first game was a Virtua Fighter clone.

Considering how much Resident Evil 3's setting overlaps with Resident Evil 2, the time span doesn't seem too wild.  Jill is walking through the same police station Claire was in.  If I'm not mistaken, the first time around, things were minimally edited, and taken from different angles in RE3.  How much is this police station really going to change over the course of a few weeks?

Knowing that they'd make Resident Evil 3, just after Resident Evil 2, I'm sure they wouldn't have made things too complicated for themselves.