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

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:

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



Around the Network

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 GameCube Games of All-Time - Special Features, Episode 5

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.



So it is as I suspected and they were in development prior to REmake 2 releasing and everything following that was them swaying the fans to believe they made REmake 3 happen. I have to say, looking back now, it was masterfully done and I'd reckon a good chunk of money went into the bot campaign to make it hit critical mass.

We are living in a cyberpunk dystopia, people. Don't forget it.



 

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

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.



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:
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.

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.

Last edited by Hiku - 6 days ago

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

Hiku said:

Assuming it does come out next year, that seems like a pretty fast development cycle, considering REmake 2 came out not even a year ago.
Makes me wonder if they really started this one after RE2, or if they were working on RE3 already simultaneously. This seems more like a dev cycle you'd expect on PS1.

Also, my take on everyone's looks:

Leon: Worse but close enough.
Claire: Worse and not good.
Ada: Better.

Jill: Worse but close enough.
Carlos: Unsure.

You really have to wonder how the heck  the only character that received an actual upgrade from it's original design would be Ada Wong of all people. Though, I do think Leon still looks fine. Carlos and Claire are the worst offenders I'd say.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

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.