Snoorlax said:
We are saying the same thing because it's facts. What you don't like facts now? To say that RE3 is more significant than CV story and gameplay wise is not only stupid but also dead wrong. We know Capcom doesn't care but they also didn't care for RE Remake, Zero and 3 for a long time until they gave them a remake because they had no idea where to go further after RE6 bombed critically. They knew these games have huge nostalgia behind them despite low sales originally yet Capcom capatilised on it. So it's not always about how games performed 20 years ago but about if actual demand for a remake is there then they'll give us that remake no problem cause they sure made a quick buck on that half assed RE3 remake. I'm actually against all this remake BS but I'd gladly take a CV remake over RE4 that doesn't need it at all. Sorry but that DMC-RE4 example is a terrible comparison. |
It wasnt suppose to be a good comparison but on the same quality as those that believe that CV should of been chosen because it was RE3 in early development. Ok. So? My argument was never a battle between between RE3 and CV in regards to what is more significant, but that CV is ultimate NOT important if someone wanted to catch on the series before RE8 and that is dead true; many started with RE4 as their first game and had no issues with understand plot. I don't know why you're lecturering me about sales when I flat out said CAPCOM could shit in a bag and call it RE are it would be a multi million selling regardless of original sales in a earlier post.







