1.5

[Darkmoon]

It's not how the franchise was set up starting from RE2, though. There was no distinction between "main games" and "spin-offs", the only difference were numbered titles (decided to keep the names of the PlayStation trilogy consistent, as mentioned in an EGM interview with Okamoto) and non-numbered titles (all games beyond 1/2/3), but that was not meant to say anything about what was part of an overarching storyline or what was not: they were all just as important fragments of one big universe.

I've got to disagree, at least up to a point. I agree that just being a numbered title doesn't mean you're more important to the storyline, as RE4 lacks relevance bar the Los Plagas and CODE: Veronica has one of the most important plot developments in the series storyline in Wesker's return. Whether you agree with his revival or not being a good idea is another matter.

The point I was trying, obviously not well, to make is that the story wouldn't have suffered a huge ammount by being a trilogy rather than five main games. I don't believe for a moment that if 1.5 had come out we'd have only gotten 3 games though. There's nothing to stop most of the non-numbered games being released in the aftermath of Umbrella's fall. You might have needed to tweek the storyline to make it fit, but there not close enough to the main plot and don't have enough impact on it for there to have been much difference. However, with Umbrella in trouble by RE2 and no reviving Wesker I think the plot could have been resolved in three games, with side games fleshing out the series and maybe a second trilogy focused on a new foe. It's not as though trilogies come in three parts anymore...

My main point is that stretching the games did more harm than good to the storyline. For several games we have the build up of taking on Umbrella, and the pay off? A prologue in RE4. I think that aiming at Umbrella may have been a mistake, and instead focusing on the virus and the monsters might have been a smarter way to go. Yes, we eventually got Umbrella Chronicles as well, but I dislike the game a fair ammount, personally. It was obviously created once they realised how badly they'd blown things

The series only started to step away from the initial Umbrella arc when Mikami rewrote the story for RE4. Incidentally, at the time of its release, Mikami finished off Umbrella in a similar way it was finished off in 1.5: It was closed down by the government immediately after RE3, according to a Kobayashi interview: "Why would the U.S. government allow a company that developed the T-virus, and in the end forced them to destroy an entire city, to continue to exist? They wouldn't. Hence the rationale for Umbrella going away after RE3."

The difference being we don't have RE2, RE3 and CODE: Veronica aiming the characters at taking down Umbrella...and then the fall of Umbrella having nothing to do with said characters. Umbrella went out with a whimper, not a bang. Maybe the origional plan for RE3 would have made it so the main characters escaped with a complete set of evidence to destroy them and they are taken down in the epilogue. We'll never know, but I personally think it may have been a better way to deal with it. Again, that's my personal taste though.

Then, fans started to complain about how they were taken away that final showdown with Umbrella (that was initially planned, though never known when to take place). That made Capcom revisit the idea and retcon Umbrella's "big fall" from being a mere stock prices crash to a big lawsuit, achieved by infiltrating their last big stronghold in Russia. This was the right to exist for The Umbrella Chronicles: It heavily relied upon promoting itself as the final Umbrella battle in press releases and trailers.

I completely agree, but it was a clusterfuck of epic proportions that they needed to go back and make a game to cover such a huge plot point. I know when I booted up RE4 I had no idea what I was getting myself into. I'd just bought a GameCube so I could play it, thankfully cheap and with Remake and Zero as well. I put in RE4 and within 30 seconds I wanted to snap my controller in half. Maybe that's a good part of why I still dislike RE4's plot so much. That was a massive letdown. The only thing that made me hope was Kruaser's hint that Umbrella wasn't completely gone/was being revived.

Secondly, most of the side games add only details to the over all plot. The events in those games themselves don't make a vital impact on the main series, only add information on characters or B.O.W's which, as a rule, don't make it out of the game and into the series at large. They do not, however, in my opinion add to the overall plot in anyway but fleshing out details.

I define this in a simple enough way...do the events of in tis game have an impact on those following them? The answer is, usually, no. You do not need to play Dead Aim to under anything about the series, you don't need to play Outbreak or Survivor to know what's going on in RE4 and RE5. You miss out on a lot of details not playing those games, but you don't miss out on the vital events referenced game after game or the basic knowledge. I suppose another good way to define things would be: is this gonna be recapped in the next game?

It's not how the franchise was set up starting from RE2, though. There was no distinction between "main games" and "spin-offs", the only difference were numbered titles (decided to keep the names of the PlayStation trilogy consistent, as mentioned in an EGM interview with Okamoto) and non-numbered titles (all games beyond 1/2/3), but that was not meant to say anything about what was part of an overarching storyline or what was not: they were all just as important fragments of one big universe.

I should point out I, personally, love all the little details the extra games add. But I don't believe they were absoloutely needed in the series, and I do feel the main story has been very badly mishandled. The fall of Umbrella being a main point or irritation...they needed to create a side game to explain how it had happened, but again, the side game doesn't add many details that are ever raised again. No futher mention of the idea that Sergei provided the genetic template for the clones, no mention of the Ivan type tyrants...the main thing to come out of the game was that Wesker had control of at least some of Umbrella's resources and it's mainframe. Which is also, I don't think, raised again but does help to explain why he can do the stuff he does later.

The series only started to step away from the initial Umbrella arc when Mikami rewrote the story for RE4. Incidentally, at the time of its release, Mikami finished off Umbrella in a similar way it was finished off in 1.5: It was closed down by the government immediately after RE3, according to a Kobayashi interview: "Why would the U.S. government allow a company that developed the T-virus, and in the end forced them to destroy an entire city, to continue to exist? They wouldn't. Hence the rationale for Umbrella going away after RE3."

Then, fans started to complain about how they were taken away that final showdown with Umbrella (that was initially planned, though never known when to take place). That made Capcom revisit the idea and retcon Umbrella's "big fall" from being a mere stock prices crash to a big lawsuit, achieved by infiltrating their last big stronghold in Russia. This was the right to exist for The Umbrella Chronicles: It heavily relied upon promoting itself as the final Umbrella battle in press releases and trailers.

[Darkmoon]

I wholly disagree.

You're confusing "expansion" with "stretched". It was always intended (after BH1) that the world of Biohazard would have a large storyline and mythology, and every single game, no matter how you try and deny it, contributes something major to the storyline. The issue is that most people don't see their importance because they dismiss the games automatically for being side-games.

I wonder if we're thinking along different lines...for a start, I'd disagree with the idea of them planning this as soon as they started the sequel. We have heard, after all, that 1.5 led into a trillogy rather than a vast series. Obviously, it's unclear exactly how much of that storyline was re-used once 1.5 was scrapped but we know the main plot point, the fall of Umbrella, happened in RE4. Or by, rather.

Secondly, most of the side games add only details to the over all plot. The events in those games themselves don't make a vital impact on the main series, only add information on characters or B.O.W's which, as a rule, don't make it out of the game and into the series at large. They do not, however, in my opinion add to the overall plot in anyway but fleshing out details.

I define this in a simple enough way...do the events of in tis game have an impact on those following them? The answer is, usually, no. You do not need to play Dead Aim to under anything about the series, you don't need to play Outbreak or Survivor to know what's going on in RE4 and RE5. You miss out on a lot of details not playing those games, but you don't miss out on the vital events referenced game after game or the basic knowledge. I suppose another good way to define things would be: is this gonna be recapped in the next game?

It's one of the reasons I so dislike RE4's plot. If it was scrapped and RE5 claimed that Wesker had discovered or created Las Plagas no one would have noticed the lack of RE4. The single plot point that made it out of the game could have been covered by a file in the next. It's not whether a game is meant to be a main game or a side game that I'm working with, only how much it adds to the overall plot.

I should point out I, personally, love all the little details the extra games add. But I don't believe they were absoloutely needed in the series, and I do feel the main story has been very badly mishandled. The fall of Umbrella being a main point or irritation...they needed to create a side game to explain how it had happened, but again, the side game doesn't add many details that are ever raised again. No futher mention of the idea that Sergei provided the genetic template for the clones, no mention of the Ivan type tyrants...the main thing to come out of the game was that Wesker had control of at least some of Umbrella's resources and it's mainframe. Which is also, I don't think, raised again but does help to explain why he can do the stuff he does later.

[RetroRain]

To me, there is a lot about 1.5 that makes it much more interesting than the retail version we got.

- Leon was more scared and afraid, compared to the retail version, where he was cool and angry.

- Realistic modern environments. Atmosphere, something that I feel truly has been missing since the original game (and I'm not talking about REmake)

- Zombie and other enemy behavior. The zombies just looked cooler in my opinion. The fact that they could crawl up on the ledges and jump off them in the sewer was awesome. And the fact that they leaked so much blood, and whenever you shot at them, blood went all over the place. Spiders crawling through ventilation shafts in the sewer, totally awesome, never really seen in any other RE game, besides a cutscene in CV.

- More survivors. Realistically there are bound to be a few survivors. RE2 retail killed them all off.

- Realistic story. We don't know much about the story, but from what I do know it had to be more realistic than the one we got. Leon, a rookie cop, first day on the job, and Claire Redfield, sister of the main character from the first game, happen to arrive in the city at the same time on the same night of the outbreak? Isn't that a little too convenient? Where-as in 1.5, it was spontaneous.

I could go on and on, but for the most part, like Alzaire said, 1.5 has more of a RE1-esque design which was completely wiped out when they restarted from scratch.

[Enrico Marini]

Bias always comes into effect, that and prejudice. You cannot have likes and dislikes without them. If I was to play a Metal Gear Solid game other than the first then go backwards through the series, I'd probably hate the first game. I saw temple of doom before raiders of the lost ark and even though Raiders is the better film, TOD still holds my favourite out of the trilogy (I know its a Quadrilogy now).

The problem you have is us old fogies in our rocking chairs don't necessarily claim that the retail Resident Evil 2 is crap, its just the 1.5 version which was almost complete and different was denied to us. And its superiority over Resident Evil 2 for me is simply in its mystery. I've played RE2 to death, so much so that I could tempt to play the game solely in my head. I enjoyed what RE used to be, before the shift in CV to RE0/REmake and 1.5 offers me one last chance to play the style of game I enjoyed with a plot different enough to retail RE2.

Just utter the magic words "beta", "trial", or "unreleased" and people will hate what they've got.

I believe its more of a case of loving the retail version but wanting something new or fresh with the game you loved. Its a case of its new, unseen and a bit taboo.

Not everyone is going to like or want what the prototype offers but then again that is why the videogames market is/was quite diverse providing to individuals tastes.

PB, I think you're just a lost cause since you have a prior bias. You even admit to it. You had this "uninformed" picture of it in your mind as you say, and a while back you even told me you didn't give a shit about 1.5. Part of it is probably your tastes, but you also probably just didn't want to like anything about 1.5 either. You had already decided the picture of 1.5 in your mind wasn't good apparently. It's just too easy to paint yourself into that corner with a predetermined idea and the fact of hindsight.

You're severely wronging me there, Alzaire. I might not have used the right expressions to explain my view properly: While I did have an uninformed picture about 1.5 in my head (based on the few screenshots and videos I had looked at in the past), it was more of a general look and "feel" thing – but it was certainly not a negative or biased opinion of it. Though I also have the feeling you misinterpreted my reply to your PM back then. I said "I never cared that much about 1.5": Just because I don't care about something does not automatically mean I don't like it (take 3.5, for example: I used to have a just as uninformed picture on that one a few years ago, but I found it all the more intriguing).

...It doesn't help that your message came at a time where people got a little too trigger-happy with the translation requests for me, so I was not very keen on translating stuff I was not too interested in. Not to mention that I thought you were asking about the exact same character design comments I had translated for Ridley W. Hayes mere days before. I thought he just hadn't told you yet and didn't get back anything either, so it was kind of a "case closed" situation for me.

It's easy for people to say 1.5 looked awful when compared to retail, but it's like everyone forgets that if 1.5 was released as retail, there would be no comparison, and it's really difficult to even know how we all would have really felt about it in such a situation. Even the idea that 1.5 has a lot of "bland" design can be argued by comparing retail beta v.2 and final retail - there were a lot of areas that were unfinished or bland that were given more detail at the last minute. I'd bet a lot of the areas in 1.5 that people complain about would have been touched up before release too, but we'll never know.

Honestly, that argument is rendered moot by the fact that we would not even have been here if it had come that way. Had it been released, it would have been the end of the series – not because of bad sales or anything, but because it was planned to be.

I think a lot of people that are negative of 1.5 still have this fixation on quality rather than curiosity, and still have this belief that everyone who likes 1.5 believes it to be a better game, and it's just not the case.

I think Darkmoon explained this neatly: It seems that, especially for the Resident Evil series, a lot of people feel the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Just utter the magic words "beta", "trial", or "unreleased" and people will hate what they've got. Like I said, I cannot understand how anyone would favor 1.5 over RE2, but that does not make my opinion superior in any way – just as it does not give anyone else the right to call those who don't like 1.5 fatuous (for lack of a better word in the English language) biased late bloomers.

...Well, okay, the latter fits me, though: The first game I played in the series was the remake, then followed pretty much by the release order (discounting some non-numbered titles).

[Carnivol]

Since everyone's shootin' off their feelings on 1.5:
Besides the usual curiosity, the main draw for 1.5 is that it's simply just another "classic" RE game (RE1-3 + REmake/RE0, if you want)

[Alzaire]

Interest in 1.5 is all about personal tastes and experience. Personally I find the look and feel of 1.5's design and atmosphere more appealing than retail RE2's. It gives a more RE1-esque vibe which I like. But I can understand why people who came along later in the series, can't comprehend the ability to judge 1.5 on it's own instead of comparing it, or just simply have different tastes could just not like the overall design of 1.5. Story and such is really too unknown in 1.5, but again it's a taste issue. I prefer the idea of the characters being more supportive and having the opportunity to get more attached to them, to worry about their safety. RE2 really lacks that, as there's nobody that lasts that is a true helpful character other than Sherry (and though it could be argued, most people would realize she would probably live) and Ada, but even Ada is questionable cause she has ulterior motives and only relates to one character. Everyone else is either an asshole or an evil character (Ben, Irons, Annette). So it really just depends on what you prefer for the character situation in your party.

I think a lot of people that are negative of 1.5 still have this fixation on quality rather than curiosity, and still have this belief that everyone who likes 1.5 believes it to be a better game, and it's just not the case.

PB, I think you're just a lost cause since you have a prior bias. You even admit to it. You had this "uninformed" picture of it in your mind as you say, and a while back you even told me you didn't give a shit about 1.5. Part of it is probably your tastes, but you also probably just didn't want to like anything about 1.5 either. You had already decided the picture of 1.5 in your mind wasn't good apparently. It's just too easy to paint yourself into that corner with a predetermined idea and the fact of hindsight. It's easy for people to say 1.5 looked awful when compared to retail, but it's like everyone forgets that if 1.5 was released as retail, there would be no comparison, and it's really difficult to even know how we all would have really felt about it in such a situation. Even the idea that 1.5 has a lot of "bland" design can be argued by comparing retail beta v.2 and final retail - there were a lot of areas that were unfinished or bland that were given more detail at the last minute. I'd bet a lot of the areas in 1.5 that people complain about would have been touched up before release too, but we'll never know.

But anyway, my point is that I've never really seen anyone that either didn't have a prior biased judgement of 1.5 in their minds before really understanding and seeing a lot of it, or people that didn't like it anyway, ever be convinced of the possibility and prospects of 1.5.

But anyway, I don't have a problem with people who find 1.5 underwhelming or not to their taste. Obviously not everyone will feel the same way. I just wish more people would realize or accept that 1.5 is a pretty significant historical feature of the RE series. An almost complete, alternate game that we'll never see in it's fullest (only an unfinished beta when/if it ever gets leaked). It's very interesting, regardless of how good or bad it might be. Unless again, you just aren't the type to give a shit about prototypes either. Yeah 1.5 may be trumped up more than it should be, but that's how it goes in the world of fandom.

Edit:

I wholly disagree.

You're confusing "expansion" with "stretched". It was always intended (after BH1) that the world of Biohazard would have a large storyline and mythology, and every single game, no matter how you try and deny it, contributes something major to the storyline. The issue is that most people don't see their importance because they dismiss the games automatically for being side-games.

Wrong to a degree. It was intended from retail RE2 onwards that Biohazard would have a large storyline. 1.5's storyline was supposedly designed against this and would not have supported a comprehensive story at the time. So it wasn't at the time of BH1 that this was intended. Mikami didn't believe story was all that important in a horror game. It wasn't until the higher ups decided BH had a lot of potential and brought along the writer from another team that it became an "expandable" story by design. Unless you want to discount 1.5's dev. completely, but it still makes the statement "always intended (after BH1)" a bit wrong.

[News Bot]

And honestly? The RE storyline feels stretched.

I wholly disagree.

You're confusing "expansion" with "stretched". It was always intended (after BH1) that the world of Biohazard would have a large storyline and mythology, and every single game, no matter how you try and deny it, contributes something major to the storyline. The issue is that most people don't see their importance because they dismiss the games automatically for being side-games.

[Darkmoon]

No. You may not speak frankly. Only worship the 1.5!

The game obviously had issues. A lot of it's appeal lies in the fact that the grass is always greener on the otherside. Personally, I like a lot of the ideas...I love the RPD in RE2, but I think it would be easier to become emersed in a police station I feel would really exist. I'm sure there are a handful or RPD style buildings, but...

The characters being supportive and accompanying you does interest me. I think we'd have learned more about them and become more attatched to them, and so there possibe (even probable) deaths would have more meaning and impact.

And honestly? The RE storyline feels stretched. A lot of the games are filler with a few minor details added. RE1 and RE2 are good, RE3 less so (most important information: S.T.A.R.S confirmed alive and Raccoon got nuked) CODE: Veronica is only important for bringing back Wesker (which you may or may not see as a good thing) and information on the Ashfords, which wasn't nessecery. RE4 was most important for Wesker and Ada working together. RE5 summed up the plot. And the side games weren't required, one way or the other. The plot could have easily fit into a trillogy without the return of Wesker and Ada. Besides, the main difference would have been Umbrella's completely gone by RE3 rather than RE4. So not huge.

Gotta agree with the zombie horde though. The more action feeling the videos sometimes give off does slightly bother me.

Don't remember which previews mentioned these functions (clothes getting worn/torn and also affecting inventory space/damage reduction), but I'm pretty sure Curator confirmed this one to be in the build he had (+Alzaire might have to correct me on this, but I seem to recall the build Kim's contact had also had this up and running - although photo documentation might be lacking of it in action.)

Again, I do not doubt any of this information, it just has to have a reliable source to be used on Wikipedia. But I've found a passage on IGN mentioning this anyway, so it's no problem anymore.


Also, completely unrelated: Can I speak frankly here? Now that I've researched all this stuff and know what RE1.5 really was (the uninformed "picture" I had in my mind before was confirmed, though), I have to say that I'm seriously underwhelmed. I can't understand how anyone could favor 1.5 over RE2, nearly everything about it sounds like a step down. A realistic police station full of concrete instead of a fancy converted art museum? A bunch of supportive people instead of shady and insane characters like Ben Bertolucci and Brian Irons? A conclusion to the story before the franchise even had a chance to kick off? Masses of low-polygon zombies instead of a lingering fear?

Boy, am I happy they scrapped that. The only thing that sounds remotely interesting is the clothing feature.

[Carnivol]

Yeah, those are the up-close images I was referring to Okei showing damaged clothing and bloody/bruised character. You can also look closely at several official 1.5 videos and images and make out the same clothing damage. It is unknown the full extent the damage played though, such as whether it could be reversed or fixed somehow in-game or if it effected the character in any way other than aesthetics.

Could've been an experimental variation of the in-game life display (which then ultimately became the limping system in the final version).

Severely damaged clothing = Danger status (which could mean that healing items might've been mysteriously patching up your clothes )

[MeanBob]

It always interests me when you guys talk about RE1.5. Seems like everytime you do, there's always something that I never knew about and gets me pulled into what was what we didn't get when I first joined BioFlames 5yrs ago lol

[Alzaire]

Yeah, those are the up-close images I was referring to Okei showing damaged clothing and bloody/bruised character. You can also look closely at several official 1.5 videos and images and make out the same clothing damage. It is unknown the full extent the damage played though, such as whether it could be reversed or fixed somehow in-game or if it effected the character in any way other than aesthetics.

[OKeijiDragon]

Clothes getting torn and bloodied is definitely a confirmed feature, as it can be witnessed in some official videos and screenshots and Curator himself posted some explicit imagery of it on Halloween of that year before he took everything down. What isn't confirmed directly is the system of whether you could change clothing in a meaningful manner (such as effecting inventory slots and such). Other than the first era Leon uniform and the one second era video of Leon in a civilian style outfit, there was never any other indication with available material or information that you could change outfits beyond the fact (as confirmed by Inflames' source) that by the final beta era the armor had been implemented, but unfortunately there is no media to back this up.

Torn clothing? Bloody clothing? You guys mean this?

BTW, thats a proof of concept for a documentary I'm working on for RE1.5/RE2.