Capcom missed a great opportunity... (Chris Campaign Spoilers)

#1postmanmanmanPosted 12/27/2012 6:53:10 AM
...by killing off Piers. It would have made a lot more sense for them to kill off Chris for a number of reasons:

--It would be a more satisfying end to Chris's character arc in this game. I know it's a Resident Evil game so character development is literally nonexistent, but considering Chris spends his entire campaign freaking out about how all his soldiers have died, it would make sense that he ends up sacrificing himself so that one of his soldiers can live. As it stands, his ending is.... ANOTHER one of his soldiers dies. How is that a resolution at all?

--It would make the game's story matter at least somewhat. Capcom's writers don't seem to care about anything that happened in the RE series except Racoon City. I mean, really, did the events of RE4, 5, and Revelations just never occur? "It's just like Racoon CIty!" ...yeah, and Terragrigia and Kijuju... but nobody seems to remember that any bioterrorist attacks happened except Racoon City. There are also a very small group of recurring characters, including Chris, Jill, Leon, Ada, and now Sherry I guess. Nobody else gets so much as a mention. What happened to Barry, Rebecca, Parker, Jessica, Sheva, etc? So yeah, I guess what I'm getting at is that if Chris was killed off, the writers would have to acknowledge the events of this game in the future.

--It would be a good way of signifying the continued evolution of the franchise. Clearly Capcom is pretty dedicated to this increasingly action-oriented approach (for better or for worse) so the recurring characters are beginning to feel a little anachronistic. It's weird to think that this Chris is the same one that was pacing slowing around a mansion several years ago, so introducing new characters would be a good way of breathing some life into the series.

So yeah. Capcom really should have killed off Chris rather than introducing a new character, only to kill him off almost instantaneously.

TL;DR: piers is hot, why'd he have to die :(
#2NeoseekerDarkKnPosted 12/27/2012 7:35:36 AM
While I do agree with one aspect of your post, Piers shouldn't of been killed off, I can't say Chris should've kicked the bucket instead.

They DID have great set-up with Chris talking about his retirement from B.O.W fighting. It would've concluded his Resident evil story perfectly (killing off his arch nemesis and training the new guy to take his place)

The ideal ending would've been both escaping and Chris retiring, while Piers becomes a new BSAA squad leader.
#3postmanmanman(Topic Creator)Posted 12/27/2012 9:00:05 AM
NeoseekerDarkKn posted...
While I do agree with one aspect of your post, Piers shouldn't of been killed off, I can't say Chris should've kicked the bucket instead.

They DID have great set-up with Chris talking about his retirement from B.O.W fighting. It would've concluded his Resident evil story perfectly (killing off his arch nemesis and training the new guy to take his place)

The ideal ending would've been both escaping and Chris retiring, while Piers becomes a new BSAA squad leader.


This would work too, but my thinking was that if they didn't kill off Chris, even if he retired, Capcom would find some excuse to totally ignore Piers and bring Chris back. Like I said, they basically only care about a small group of recurring characters.
#4desiboPosted 12/27/2012 9:35:04 AM
I want to see a fresh start in a new city with a character that has no experience with these scenarios. Basically I'm saying the series needs a reboot. Use zombies only and give it the old feeling it had sort of Silent Hill type.
---
In three words I can sum up everything I've heard about life: It goes on. -Robert Frost.
#5sidebeardPosted 12/27/2012 3:04:54 PM
Agree with OP I think. Either that, or have both live and Chris retire. I dunno, would have been more a more momentous ending.

Hmm, maybe we haven't seen the end of Piers after all, seems a bit odd to build up Chris's successor only to erase him within the space of one game.
---
'What did you say?! Insects' life doesn't compare to human lives!'
#6jastenPosted 12/27/2012 3:09:13 PM
sidebeard posted...
Agree with OP I think. Either that, or have both live and Chris retire. I dunno, would have been more a more momentous ending.

Hmm, maybe we haven't seen the end of Piers after all, seems a bit odd to build up Chris's successor only to erase him within the space of one game.


You never actually see him die on screen either. Rule number one of well... entertainment.... you don't see them die, they ain't dead. Rule number two... even if you do, they probably still aren't dead XD
---
We are not merely the sum of our parts
#7sidebeardPosted 12/27/2012 3:29:38 PM
jasten posted...
sidebeard posted...
Agree with OP I think. Either that, or have both live and Chris retire. I dunno, would have been more a more momentous ending.

Hmm, maybe we haven't seen the end of Piers after all, seems a bit odd to build up Chris's successor only to erase him within the space of one game.


You never actually see him die on screen either. Rule number one of well... entertainment.... you don't see them die, they ain't dead. Rule number two... even if you do, they probably still aren't dead XD

Yeah, and what does Ada say: 'Why doesn't anything stay dead anymore?!'
---
'What did you say?! Insects' life doesn't compare to human lives!'