I really feel like with Requiem, Capcom was trying so hard to please the entire resident evil fanbase by maintaining ambiguity in a whole lot of ways, and yet it still backfired on them tremendously—and I’m not just talking about the Leon being married shtick.
I’m going to breakdown some requiem points and how hard Capcom worked on trying to appease fans on all sides, and also discuss a few major eras of toxicity in the resident evil fanbase to educate anyone whose unaware, and hopefully amplify a voice for those who have been affected directly or indirectly by these toxic fans or the toxic part of this fanbase. You are not alone, and there are lots of fans who don’t think the same way these crazy fans think.
Zeno and “Mr. X;” Obviously Zeno isn’t Wesker and “Mr. X” isn’t actually the same Mr. X we dealt with back in RE2—but they’re clearly trying to appease fans by not only acknowledging the most important aspects of most resident evil games (Wesker and/or Bioweapons), but make the fans feel like they’re heard. Obviously they can’t actually have Wesker or Mr. X (both are supposed to be dead, and having them be alive would have fans calling it a lazy cashgrab or defying the law of physics), so they went with what they thought was the next best thing.
Oswell E. Spencer. There’s been such a hyperfocus on Wesker in the games because he’s such an active character (and later boss), that you can easily forget about Spencer—the mysterious looming presence felt behind every resident evil game, even long after he’s gone— the viruses, marcus and bailey, wesker and alex—all of the causalities these characters caused leads directly back to Spencer’s door. The fact that they chose to do a whole shtick with Spencer and Grace and not Grace and Wesker (before the game came out, I remember people theorizing that Grace would be a Wesker clone), says a lot about the care that went into this game. Wesker is just an effect of something, but you can’t have an effect without a cause. And that cause would be Spencer. Ironically, with Zeno, they still managed to, in a way, have “Wesker” without actually having Wesker (acknowledging how both characters are important, since Wesker serves as the headliner villain, but Spencer is the real predating evil).
Leon dying. I think it’s pretty clear Capcom wanted to kill off Leon in this game, hence why you have an ending where he dies. They obviously want to go somewhere VERY new with the franchise, but at the same time, they’re being held back by various plotlines and characters from previous games(Chris, Jill, Leon, and Claire). They tried to do a new thing with RE7, and yet they still had Chris in it. What does Chris actually even do? You could replace Chris with Hunk or a new character for his role and DLC of that game, and it’d make no difference. Maybe it’d make the game better, actually. If you read the development book for RE7, they were nervous about their new take with this game—(and if I remember correctly)—urging their team not to look at outside feedback so it doesn’t psyche them out while they’re working on the game. But despite the immense care that went into this game, RE7 still somehow backfired—while it revitalized the franchise and set up the RE2 remake for success (RE7 brought a whole lot of new fans on board), people couldn’t stop critiquing it for “not being like a resident evil game.” Well guess what: when Capcom said it was going back to their roots with RE7, they weren’t talking about the resident evil franchise as a whole—they were talking about Resident Evil 1. Obviously RE1 is not the same game as RE2 and RE3, with the same going for RE4 and RE5 being vastly different from RE2/3 tonal wise, and also very different from RE1. Capcom was trying to do more horror (the main complaint fans made about RE4–6 was that the games needed “real horror”), so they decided to go back to their roots of survival horror with RE1: the shotgun puzzle in RE7, mirroring the RE1 shotgun puzzle, should’ve gotten people to take the hint—but as far as I know, I haven’t seen a single person online mention just how similar RE7 is to RE1–all they do is complain about how it deviates from the classic franchise formula and therefore sucks (again, with them somehow not realizing it’s mostly reiterating the classic RE1 formula) because fans still treat Resident Evil like the “cheesy b-horror movie plot game with no depth.” They don’t like to give Resident Evil any sort of credit because they don’t think it has any substance; I hate to break this to people, but if Resident Evil had no substance, we would not have over 30 games, four CGI animated movies/one animated miniseries, three live action adaptations(Andersons’ series, Roberts’ WTRC, plus a Netflix show) a whole slew of novelizations (SD Perry), manga comics/stage plays, a huge cult following on AO3 and every major fan fiction website, lots of merchandise and toys, big partnerships (Porsche and Hamilton)—and so on. There’s literally supposed to be a Resident Evil live action movie coming out this year by the guy who did Weapons and Barbarian! But yes, according to some of these hardcore fans who spend every waking moment of their lives consuming constant RE content and making their own fanwork, “Resident Evil has no depth or substance.” I’d argue Resident Evil is more like Scream instead—a satire, and people still need to remember that the way the voice acting sounds and the animation looks for the older games—this was ALL games at the time. Silent Hill had the same thing!Anyways, Capcom realized after RE7/8 that they’ll never be able to go anywhere new with the franchise—unless they tie up lose ends. Leon dying in one of the endings was an experiment—because how many people who got that as their first ending, went online and complained/wished farewells to Leon, only to be corrected by someone else saying there’s multiple endings (“of course Leon will never die!”) Capcom did an experiment, whether people realize it or not, and got their response. This wide response is going to impact where they take the games from here and Leon’s story going forward.
Leon being married. Let’s be honest: Capcom knew they would get the heat whether they revealed who Leon married or they didn’t, but at least the fallout would be less and fans would be happy that the team acknowledged something important to a lot of re fans—right?? No. Some people in the comments of this post are saying that they should’ve revealed who Leon married and there wouldn’t have been a fallout—but do none of you see a legitimate problem with that? Re fans ship Leon with everyone—from Ada, to Claire, Helena, or Chris—heck, people probably even ship him with green herbs! And it doesn’t matter how popular people think the Ada and Leon ship is because of the characters previous chemistry, or how much people want Leon to be married to some random woman instead of Ada or Claire—Capcom is still going to get backlash from toxic fans. And because of people like that, Capcom has been playing it safe this entire game. The game looks like an absolute masterpiece from what I’ve seen—but imagine how different the plot could’ve been if they didn’t HAVE to play it safe. Because of fans like this…
Leon will never die, but also won’t be able to be happy and retire. He’s going to become the equivalent of Peter Parker now—forever stuck in a stasis of being miserable for the sake of audience entertainment and repeating stale witty one liners, but also the blunt of people complaining as well because Capcom isn’t doing anything new with him—and rightfully so. I’m not mad about Capcom not having the balls to off Leon or let him happily retire—who on earth wants their families and careers to be threatened by crazy fans who can’t separate real life from fiction? Eduard Bataluta and Lily Gao are prime examples of this. Say their names.
No ships will ever be canon. Valenfield? Nope. Chrisker? Hard pass. Cleon? Definitely not! So now, because of people harassing the devs, and the devs wanting to play it safe (and rightfully so), nobody is going to get their cake or icecream. Congratulations guys 👏; you really showed them who’s the boss.
We’ll never get original games like RE7 or RE8. Capcom already learned their lesson with that via audience reception, and I honestly think that has to do with the reason they offed our favorite mold man Ethan Winters. As I said, with RE7/8, Capcom wanted to go somewhere very new—but they were still stuck trying to close up prior plotlines and characters arcs that fans found unsatisfying or unresolved. Capcom was struggling to find a way to please everyone, and they thought the perfect way to do that was to start going back to the core characters and their plotlines (cough cough resident evil requiem cough cough). The reason RE8 has less horror is because—after all these fans complaining they wanted “real horror” in the next RE game, once they got it—they now complained there wasn’t enough “action.” Via interviews, I’m pretty sure that might be why Capcom toned down the Lycans aggression and some of the scary stuff that they originally planned for (we see some evidence of this in the RE8 in-game artbook, that strangely looks scarier than some of what’s in the game itself); they listened to wider fan feedback while making the game, unlike RE7 where they surprised everyone at E3 (2016) with a new game announcement (which they probably did by keeping beta testing and outside fan interactions to a minimum). I feel like the fans most consistent/constantly brought-up critiques of RE8 (not being scary, ethan dying, the bosses), literally just comes down to Capcom listening to audience reception after the release of RE7 and doing exactly what they wanted—(having more of Chris in RE8 and not restricting his playable part to a DLC like RE7 is a good example, since people were ultra-focused back in the day on the whole Blue Umbrella/BSAA stuff ((that also served as the modern RE7’s bridge to the older games)) and Chris’s part in it all—hence the quite popular reiterated theories at the time “RE7 Chris is a clone” and “RE7 Chris is actually Hunk”), and yet somehow, despite this amazing game, I still remember back then a certain chunk of fans saying RE8 was a “bad resident evil game” because it “had way too much action” and “wasn’t scary???” The main complaint fans literally had with RE4-6 was that it needed to be scary with less blockbuster action because a lot of the over-the-top fight/stunt stuff made it feel “not really scary;” and with the RE7, the critique it was that the game needed more action because…*checks notes again* “it was too scary?” And now, the main critique with RE8 is that it needed more “horror” like the House Beneviento section because “the action, classic re inventory design and weapons made it not scary” and just “made it feel like a standard resident evil game?” What does that even mean???
Listen…don’t get me wrong with this: I can understand where some fans are coming from with wanting RE8 to be just as scary as RE7 (I thought this too), or thought RE7 should have had better action; they are all valid critiques—but please, make up your minds about it because the we-can-only-have one-or-the-other progression (ex: “more horror and less action, or more action and less horror”) doesn’t remotely make sense when you realize action and horror are both equally important elements of the Resident Evil series; it’s not one over the other, and that’s why RE7/8 strikes some people as “not being resident evil;” RE7 is a first person game, so the action has specifically been tailored for that perspective, compared to the usual RE fixed or third person perspective; of course the action feels different. And yet, the game still ends up going “full-on RE action” in the final third act, which is unironically, the most critiqued part of the game by fans, because it loses that crucial balance of action and horror which makes resident evil so great. But with RE8, it now prioritizes the ‘action’ over the ‘horror’ because I feel like Capcom—even after all these years—are still trying to figure out what fans actually want, not what they’re saying they want. Do they want:
• More action and less horror?
• More horror and less action?
•More action and little or no horror?
• More horror and little or no action?
This is specifically why GOOD DETAILED FEEDBACK is important coming from this fanbase, because Capcom has (from the very beginning of this series) been looking at the ratios of audience feedback towards certain things and topics (do we need more of this or less of this? do we expand this thing or drop it all together? do we build on this area/character or we don’t?) What do you think is the very first place Capcom went to look at to give them a roadmap for the RE remakes? The fans! That’s why the RE2/4 remakes were so internationally successful in the first place; after their first Resident Evil game in 1996, Capcom has constantly been improving their formula via audience reception—from using RE1 to improve the RE1 remake and the original RE2, to RE3 and waaaay down the ladder to the iconic RE4. Capcom would’ve never kept improving their games if they weren’t looking at audience feedback—but at the same time, I don’t feel like the way audiences respond is the same as five, or maybe even ten years ago was. I think I’m not alone when I say audience feedback (such as for games and movies) feels much more toxic than usual—with less valid critiques nowadays and more “let’s threaten the devs because a DLC is taking too long” or “this is a woke game only because I don’t like it so let’s boycott the game and cancel the company”—etc. Critic feedback isn’t much better either, because there’s oddly been a steadily-increasing amount of them who haven’t played the game their critiquing (but act like they did), aren’t bothering to elaborate on their critiques, or act as if their gaming preferences dictate the objective quality of the game they just played because it doesn’t match their specific tastes, etc. You can’t just write “this game/movie” has “bad dialogue” and not elaborate something so important as that—you should be explaining and citing examples from the source material on why what you watched or played has bad dialogue!
Back to RE7 and RE8–both of them—objectively and not subjectively, are fantastic games in their own right, toxic fans calling them bad games because they did something different they didn’t like is ridiculous. Resident Evil has always been a very experimental genre; that’s how we got RE4. I may have wanted RE8 to have more horror too, but that doesn’t mean I go around calling it a terrible game because every section isn’t structured like the House Beneviento bit. I’m not trying to drink the kool-aid and say that RE8 doesn’t have a single problem or flaw either—every single game to ever grace this earth does, but in my opinion, I do think a good amount of them in this game just result from Capcom trying to find a way to please the entire fanbase, which they usually do by…
• Giving fans exactly what they say they want (ex: fan service or sexier outfits)
• Trying to mutually please both sides of a two sided coin (in this case, the coin happens to be RE fans); a good example of this is Capcom and the RE dev team trying to find a good ratio with the most important, foundational groundwork parts of the series: the action AND the horror. Not to keep beating a dead horse, but Resident Evil isn’t Resident Evil without horror, the same way Resident Evil isn’t Resident Evil without the action. This franchise has been so successful because it works as a juxtapositional genre, and not just with “action” and “horror” parts either! Think about the “horror” this time…but with “the comedy;” another major part of the series that Capcom has been struggling to integrate from the older games into their modern remakes. (ex: people complaining Leon and Ada’s personalities in RE4make are too gritty and dark ((a huge tonal shift to the cheesiness and comedic approach of the original RE4)) despite the fact that they’re both valid reactions to watching millions of innocent people get infected by a zombie virus only to get wiped out by an atomic missile. Also, Leon being “grittier” is supposed to contrast his outlook later in the game, where he starts lightening up around Ashley and Luis; he’s tried to close off his humanity for far too long so he could avoid the pain of Raccoon City and avoid the risk of having emotional attachments, only to realize…his humanity never left him in the first place; it’s why he gets up everyday and does what he does. Leon’s humanity is what allows him to comfort Ashley and change Luis for the better—his humanity is what also prevents him from becoming emotionally detached to evil and tragedy like Ada, or becoming heavily corrupted and disillusioned with the system he chooses to put his faith in like Krauser had. They both represent what Leon could become, and Ada is literally supposed to serve also as a contrast to Luis specifically because of this—a former Umbrella scientist whose done terrible things and dies trying to make them right. This game is showing there’s no excuse for the choices Ada makes and will continue to make in the future, and the remake addressed that more on the nose this time—specifically with Luis; and yet…Luis still dies for doing the right thing, and Ada lives to see another day. Was it really worth it? Was it not worth it? “Can people really change?” The fact that they added all these complicated themes and made Luis feel actually tragic this time and not have it be another ‘welp he’s dead now,’ speaks volumes.
But hey, I guess some of us didn’t play the same game, because I still see toxic fans complain the game sucks because OG RE4 nostalgia impedes them from separating objective and subjective quality/preference, while also glossing over major improvements from the original—Luis and Ashley being great examples—or keep complaining that Leon is “too gritty,” despite the fact the game still tries to preserve Leon’s dad jokes while also making the way he acts more sensible based on his Raccoon City trauma). Back on topic once more, the modern games want to be taken seriously, but at the same time, they want to have cheesiness and comedy that doesn’t spoil the terror you feel when playing these games. While I do think the genres of comedy and horror naturally go together if proper thought is put in, it can still be hard to find a way and integrate both those things seamlessly—especially at the same time: you’ll usually find the comedy overpowering the horror, or even the horror overpowering the comedy—that’s why RE7’s main inspiration was Evil Dead by Sam Raimi; he’s a master at making scenes feel utterly terrifying for the audience, and highly comedic at the same time: you’re not sure if you want to laugh or sink deep back into the depths of your seat; if I didn’t say I was writing about Evil Dead, you’d probably think I was describing Resident Evil 7.
Anyways—per the main point of this post despite all my ranting, wanting a ship to be canon is NOT an excuse to harass a sweet innocent man (or his family, since I’m sure toxic fans have already done that), for doing his job. And let’s use our brains: how many actors, face models, and staff have had to distance themselves from this incredible franchise or shut down socials because of this? Look at people who blamed Avan Jogia and Hannah John Kamen on WTRC’s failure, and were so racist they became disgustingly hyperfocused on recasting them??? Every Reddit post on WTRC I see people say they should’ve recasted Hannah as Sheva, despite the blaring fact Hannah is biracial and Sheva is a black African woman? And I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people say Avan should’ve been recasted as Carlos, despite the blaring fact he is biracial as well (his father is British-Indian, and his mother has Welsh, Irish, and English roots), which doesn’t even match Carlos’s South American background! Imagine the hate they got in their dms, and still get because people—again—still can’t separate real life from fiction.
I’m a mixed person as well, and I picked the worst time to try and get into the resident evil games back then: before the release of WTRC. Imagine being a sixteen year old kid and seeing all these grown ass adults—the people you’re supposed to look up to, say Hannah looks like the “back of a labradoodle” and “fugly” because they didn’t want her as Jill Valentine? I saw someone even say they shouldn’t have casted a person of color as Jill, but someone who is white and Asian, despite the ALSO blaring fact that being white and asian makes you person of color as well. And it’s funny too—they still wanted a mixed Jill, just not a “black-and-white mixed Jill,” because “that makes you black!” People were so hyperfocused on Jill and Leon’s casting in WTRC, they seem to forget NOBODY was casted correctly!
• Kaya Scodelerio was 29 when WTRC released, probably 28 when filming started, despite the blaring fact Claire is a 19 year old college student. Kaya doesn’t look even look remotely like a 19 year old girl. And ironically, the same casting thing happened with Avan too—he would’ve been Kaya’s age during filming.
• Hannah John Kamen was 30-31 years old in WTRC (despite Jill being 23), and Robbie Amell was 32-33 while playing Chris, despite the fact that Chris is 25 in the games! I’m surprised nobody has pointed out Hannah (Jill) and Robbie (Chris) are similar ages, same thing with Avan (Leon) and Kaya (Claire) being around the same age. We could’ve had a scrapped plot with Jill and Chris doing their own thing together, same thing with Leon and Claire (which already happened). Why wouldn’t they look close in age range, like they are in the games?
• Tom Hopper (Wesker) and Donal Logue (Chief Irons) look nothing like their characters. It’s clear Donal was obviously casted as Chief Irons because Johannes Roberts was watching reruns of Gotham (2014) and decided he liked the idea of Logue playing a corrupt cop again (joking—I think?)
Fan behavior like this is what kept me from fully committing myself to playing these amazing and pivotal games for YEARS, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. So how on earth can we separate game from fandom anymore when the toxic part of this fandom is clearly affecting how the devs/company make future resident evil games and media?
I’m tired, man. Not every Resident Evil fan thinks like these people—and people like that are the ones who make ALL OF US look bad. This is why we need to denounce behavior we see like this EVERYWHERE (ex: people with Nakanishi), so we make it vehemently clear the resident evil fandom DOES not stand with these people. Harassing people, threatening people, stalking and cyberbullying INNOCENT PEOPLE and THEIR FAMILIES does NOT make you a resident evil fan, or even a toxic resident evil fan. You’re something else entirely.
So say Eduard’s name. Say Lily’s name. Say Nakanishi’s name. Say Avan and Hannah’s names. Say anyone’s name who has been affected by toxic fans like these: people just doing their jobs, or random people on the internet or outside of that. They are people too, we need to stop sitting on the sidelines thinking someone else will take care of the toxicity. They won’t, so WE have to stand up and say something. Reblog. Or make your own post on this issue to other social media websites! I don’t care. But let’s stop sitting around and being afraid or embarrassed to say anything—because looking at how Reddit, Instagram, and Youtube are—toxic platforms that still have a tiny shred of human decency unlike other platforms (cough cough Twitter), we can still cap this in the kneecap before it does irreparable damage to the fandom or even people in real life (Nakanishi). However, toxic fans are still going to be getting away with misinformation and harassment unless WE ALL (or at least a GOOD AMOUNT OF US) start putting our foots down on all these different platforms (or at least the ones we can).
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
theartofmadeline
ellievsbear
prguitarman
gracieabrams
romaincrisis
snowghoul
