Liked it when I was young "YO 3D RESI" .... but the older I got and the more the series went in the wierd anime direction CV started, plus Steve, yeah, not a fan.
On top of all that, I did eventually play it and.. just didn't really like it. Another poster mentioned it as being the start of RE being too silly and that's my experience too. People talk a lot about "camp" in the RE series but I think the leap from 1-3 and CV in that regard is enormous.
This is what I'm talking about. Of all the mainline games, REC:V seems like the one that Capcom is least willing to directly reference. I've literally been complaining about this since 2001. Maybe I need to get another hobby...
CVX for PS2 got a 6.5.
The original CV IGN review is awful to read. https://uk.ign.com/articles/2000/03/31/resident-evil-code-veronica
I kinda felt like a geek who got a swift slap from a beautiful woman due to a bit too much ambition after reading the latest issue of Accelerator. It may have stung my pride a little bit...but eventually, I sat down, stared from across the room, and amidst a slew of dorky little giggles, muttered almost to myself: "She touched me. Awesome."
Apparently this review was altered for some reason in December 2018. The quote above remains.
Abso-fucking-loutely. We've talked about reconning history, but there was a lot of reconning the history of Resident Evil when Code Veronica came out. This idea of "camp" suddenly invaded everything, but to my eyes it was nothing more than an easy excuse for shit writing. People were talking about how the series had always been camp, and I have never agreed with that. It's also a terrible thing to try and purposefully create camp, camp is something that is best when it is organic not because you plugged in a formula that tells you how to be campy. In numerous replays of R2 "camp" is not something that has ever really come to mind because it's trying very hard and succeeding at setting an uneasy tone. RE3 is all action, so it does lose some of the atmosphere of 2, but it's just a very different experience so I think it's ok. Code Veronica just went full-on stupid. Steve, the siblings, a giant worm, the return of Wesker, a recreation of the original mansion, every single thing was just fucking dumb. Even the things they did right, like recreating the house from Psycho, were either not important enough or used well enough.
Well I guess this is why it's divisive because all those things are a positive for me. RE is camp and it's best when it knows it's campy. Wesker was the best move the series could make, no villain in the series even comes close. Steve was a great spoof on Leo and the killed him so horribly it's hilarious. Ashfords were the perfect mix of weird and creepy, where Marcus was just some terrible FF villain reject as an example of a poor RE villain, these guys fit into RE perfectly. Worm is a fine RE monster. The recreation of the RE mansion is one of the best moments of the game, remember this is before REmake so to see the most iconic location looking so incredible was a dream come true. Chris in a fighter jet, come on it's perfect.
A lot of people bring up valid points about the game design and to that I say yeah it has some odd design choices. And a game can have weird decisions and still create an experience that is incredible, that's what CV does.
CVX on PS2 was reviewed 17 months after the Dreamcast launch, and in many cases ports get lower scores than their original versions. On that note, the PS2 version has an 84 on Metacritic overall.
The CVX PS2 on IGN doesn't actually prove your point, either. It spends time explaining that the game's formula works for those who explicitly want it, which the reviewer admits to not being such a person. Nowhere does the review even remotely insinuate that CV was "the beginning of the fall of RE" like some of its most vocal critics have claimed.
Fantastic, deep and pivotal experience for the RE series. I don't think I'd have gotten into RE quite like I have if I hadn't begun with CV. The game pulled me into the franchise and I never looked back.
Nah, those who looked past "Oh a new gen console and everything is 3D" saw the flaws and steps backwards even then.
It was a poorer game in every way.
I'd already addressed reviews and I quoted the part I wanted to respond to. There is no revisionist history, CV has always been seen as deeply flawed by the fanbase and RE3 has always been praised.Why leave out the rest of what he said when quoting him? His paragraph as a whole is absolutely true and balid.
I'd already addressed reviews and I quoted the part I wanted to respond to. There is no revisionist history, CV has always been seen as deeply flawed by the fanbase and RE3 has always been praised.
Those 17 months were enough time for the 'new gen visuals' haze to fade and the game to be reviewed for what it was.
Also sales wise CV saw a huge drop from previous titles. On DC it sold 1.14m and PS2 1.4m. And it had an entire generation to build up those numbers, on PS2 at least.
I'd already addressed reviews and I quoted the part I wanted to respond to. There is no revisionist history, CV has always been seen as deeply flawed by the fanbase and RE3 has always been praised.
Now, admittedly, my feelings for the series have been somewhat mixed. I'm one of the few people that truly didn't like the first game. I loved the second game though, and still consider it a classic PlayStation title. I felt the third was rather average, having much more action than the first two, but far less story or development and less replay value than the second. So I went into CODE: Veronica with mixed feelings for the franchise as a whole -- afraid I'd get a game that further diminished story for a simple cash-in that had a whole lot of zombies to kill and very little motivation to do so. What I received was a game that has the best story of the series by far, one of the most atmospheric games I've ever played on a console, and another must-own title for the Dreamcast.
However, these are all small flaws in was has been, and still is, the greatest survival horror series of all time. Code Veronica has finally brought both depth and long, satisfying gameplay to the Dreamcast, a thirst quencher after too many arcade quick-fixes. And I love it. The jaw-dropping graphics will have your friends sitting around just watching you play (and perhaps "helping"), especially after you turn off the lights. "Go left. No, left. Look in the box. Now try th.. AAAAGH!" they'll cry. With long, intense gameplay, this is a purebred, zombified winner, and a necessary addition to any Dreamcast library. Hmm… maybe I won't sell my shares in Umbrella Corp. after all.
In the end, Resident Evil: Code Veronica is the best game in the series, thanks to features like dynamic real-time camera angles, a wonderful linear story, and some of the best graphics seen on the Dreamcast. To call it a must-own game is a definite understatement.
And yet CODE: Veronica was Capcom's best selling game of that generation until RE4 came out, when you combine the DC and PS2 versions. More than Devil May Cry, more than Onimusha, more than Outbreak.
RE4: 3.9 million
CV: 2.54 million
Dino Crisis: 2.5 million
DMC: 2.16 million
Onimusha: 2.1 million
Onimusha: 2.0 million
You're quoting gaming media though. Not the fanbase.Decided to go back and read some reviews from CODE: Veronica on Dreamcast.
AllGame:
GameRevolution:
GameSpot:
And according to Wikipedia, here are the score run downs from the time:
Hardly "CV has always been seen as deeply flawed by the fanbase and RE3 has always been praised" as someone claimed earlier.
Capcom doing poorly all gen doesn't make CV sales good, especially when gotta combine different releases which without a doubt include an amount of repurchases.
Looking at sales, RE2 sold almost 5 million units, so REC:V did about half that. This tells me a lot about how people viewed Code Veronica. Well reviewed or not, the game did not live up to expectations for one reason or another.
Well I guess this is why it's divisive because all those things are a positive for me. RE is camp and it's best when it knows it's campy. Wesker was the best move the series could make, no villain in the series even comes close. Steve was a great spoof on Leo and the killed him so horribly it's hilarious. Ashfords were the perfect mix of weird and creepy, where Marcus was just some terrible FF villain reject as an example of a poor RE villain, these guys fit into RE perfectly. Worm is a fine RE monster. The recreation of the RE mansion is one of the best moments of the game, remember this is before REmake so to see the most iconic location looking so incredible was a dream come true. Chris in a fighter jet, come on it's perfect.
A lot of people bring up valid points about the game design and to that I say yeah it has some odd design choices. And a game can have weird decisions and still create an experience that is incredible, that's what CV does.
Because the Dreamcast died an early death and had no further sales, while the PS2 went on to become the best selling console ever. That is how the PS2 version outsold it.Besides, if the game were awful, who would repurchase it? If the Dreamcast game was truly a terribly received title, how did the PS2 version outdo it?
The answer is because your narrative simply doesn't hold scrutiny when examined under the evidence we have now.
Because the Dreamcast died an early death and had no further sales, while the PS2 went on to become the best selling console ever. That is how the PS2 version outsold it.
And just because it got criticised by the fanbase doesn't make it some abomination, you're trying build a strawman argument there.
Gaming media at the time we're all pro-3D and anti-2D, so games going full 3D just got praised out the ass even if they weren't very good and had major drawbacks like CV had.
As time moved on the 3D newness stopped existing and the games got looked at for what they actually were.
And yet you posted this earlier:
If your opinion was limited to just preferring RE3 over CV, that's one thing. But you're literally inventing unsubstantiated reasons to speak against the game, while ignoring its critical and commercial successes. It goes beyond just "thinking it was a step back since day 1."
The game was seen as steps backwards by the fanbase, because it literally, factually was. Key features of previous games were missing or done worse. The fanbase criticised the game because of this, and some other decisions.
But you're trying twist and turn this into "If the game is terrible, how can it have got sales!!".
As I pointed out in a previous post, CV lacked features even RE1/2 had, not just RE3s new ones.Your arguments still make no sense. I guess by that definition (that because CV didn't have RE3's features, therefore it was a step back), REmake and RE0 were also seen as a step back from RE3 because they too didn't include its spinoff features that were never intended to be used in mainline REs?
Or that CV's longer and more relevant narrative, stronger characterization, more thematic puzzles, first person aiming, higher number of bosses, wider weapon/enemy/environment variety meant nothing to the fanbase back then?
I was around then too. I cannot remember anything you've asserted in this thread as forming some kind of dominant narrative on CV.
As I pointed out in a previous post, CV lacked features even RE1/2 had, not just RE3s new ones.
..and yes, REmake are RE0 are in some ways steps backwards too. Not on the level of CV, but they were. Even Remake's branching paths are steps back from RE1's as an example.
Also just because some features were only intended for a spin-off doesn't mean a game without them isn't steps backwards, especially when they were features that greatly enhanced the game and genre. Outside of RE RE3s features were put to great use, and some of them have finally returned to RE even if it took nearly 20 years.
Also, you can't remember anyone ever thinking RE1, 2 or 3 were better than CV or had better features even in any way? Really? Bollocks.
Yup me too. Great memories of that game and that system.