The bug up Capcom's a*s

[Keaton]

There may well be a far more logical reason for why Resident Evil is getting its 6th instalment, and Devil May Cry is still waiting for its 5th.

Resident Evil was originally released in 1996, Resident Evil 2 in 1998, Resident Evil 3: Nemesis in 1999 and Resident Evil Code Veronica in 2000.

Whereas Devil May Cry was created when in 1998 (after Resident Evil 2) Capcom wanted to make a PS2 instalment of the series, but since this ended up changing nearly the entire Resident Evil forumula, it was changed into Devil May Cry with an all new story and theme.

Resident Evil, for Capcom, is their 'child', they've put alot of work into Resident Evil and since Resident Evil 5 didn't quite make the impact that they wanted it to, it seems obvious that they would work on (as SpardaTM stated) the more profitable line of interest.

Also, since Resident Evil is a simply older series it makes sense that number 6 would come before Devil May Cry 5 (or shortly after), afterall, they had Resident Evil 3: Nemesis out a year after they began development on Devil May Cry 1.

Looking forward to both titles all the same though, well, amusing both series get the stories right this time, I'm still reeling at what seemed a 'random' mutation for Wesker and a lack of Vergil. ^^

 

[Laurence Barnes]

if u think of it this year most people are upsessed with viruses and zombies

like re,i am legend,shaun of the dead and the crazies

it's the zombie virus year

they'll try to fit viruses into any game and film

 

[aka958]

why whould devil may cry have a survival feel. it is not a survival game. it is in the stylish action subgenre of the hack and slash genre. it isn't about survival and it is not supposed to be. it is about style. if you have to run from every enemy and conserve ammo you can't be stylsh.

if you prefer survival games you perfer survival games but don't try to judge a game from a differnt genre the same way. diffent genres have differnt traits.

Ye I kind of know that.
But just rushing to the next screen and fight a little herd of enemies then just going to the next 4 enemy fights before going to the last screen where the boss is can be quite tedious after doing it lots of times.
Yes I did take a really general concept, there is still alot of combos to do against every enemy and lots of ways to avoid damage.

But RE has more vastly tactics and use of terrain, it's longer, it got a little more epic story that really makes you want to continue.
If you shoot a normal zombie on it's legs it'll stagger or maybe even fall down, shooting with a shotgun knocks them back, blasting them with the rocket launcher either kills them instantly or knocks them away, sniper for precise shooting and instant killing oftenly, revolver when things are going out of hands or just to be awesome.
The list could grow longer.
RE also gets repetetive in the long run though, doing the same puzzles in the missions and such.

But, I think I'm just stating my opinion right now.

 

[Poroner]

I have played both DMC of course and RE but DMC it's more stylish.In RE you must get ammo and run around.RE is more popular because the story makes you continue and the basic reason it's that in RE it's the 6th part of it and in DMC it's only the 5th.I personally like more DMC.

 

[aka958]

Yeah, we've come to that conclusion already.
Since RE is another genre than DMC.
But do take in consideration thought that DMC is shorter, how many fights do you do in mission 17?
Well... One at the harbor, one just afterwards in that market or whatever it is, one at the streets, then one at the entrance of the church, suddenly a boss fight with Agnus inside the church.
How many battles are that in total?
Let me count... *counting*
Mmmm... It seems like it's five. Five fights in one mission, there is a total of 20 missions, which the last one is just one fight.
Yeah, it is short as hell.

Well anyways back on track, the reason because RE is getting a sequel before DMC is what Keaton wrote I believe.