A post-apocalyptic Resident Evil 9 would be a terrible idea

To many fans, a post-apocalyptic Resident Evil game sounds like a natural evolution of the franchise, but I’m here to tell you why it would ruin it. 

If you’re a Resident Evil fan, you’ve likely seen the rumors of Resident Evil 9 shambling around the web like an army of aimless zombies. And while we don’t know anything concrete, we suspect that some of these reports could be true. That’s because some have come from reliable sources who got it right when they predicted Resident Evil Village.

These rumors state that “RE9 continues the Megamycete storyline from RE7 and RE Village” or that the story will “Uncover Eveline’s origin to stop the mold infection”, and that the action “Takes place on a mysterious, infected island” sounds plausible – not to mention exciting. 

However, this information is often accompanied by a“Resident Evil: Apocalypse” logo, which seems completely at odds with the otherwise plausible rumors. And while some of these reports may come true, I highly doubt that Resident Evil 9 will be called “Apocalypse”.

Saving the world

That’s because the title “Resident Evil: Apocalypse” pops up every time a new Resident Evil game is likely to be announced soon. It certainly did for RE7 and again for Village. There seems to be a segment of the RE community that thinks this is a great title and an even better concept. But when you stop and think about it, it’s neither of these things. 

First off, let’s address the title itself. Isn’t the whole “Something Something: Apocalypse” title a bit played out by now? Especially when it comes to horror or zombie fiction. Let’s also not forget that Resident Evil: Apocalypse already exists. It’s a 2004 movie by Paul W. S. Anderson that (poorly) adapts the story of Resident Evil 3. 

Then there’s the concept of the end of the world in a potential Resident Evil: Apocalypse game and why this would be a grave error for Capcom to explore. You see, once you bring about the apocalypse in Resident Evil, that’s effectively the end of the RE universe as we know it. 

From that point on, every single Resident Evil game would be set in that post-apocalyptic world and in many ways, would all pretty much be the same game. Do Resident Evil fans really want to turn the franchise into Days Gone? 

Resident Evil needs a living world to thrive

Capcom

Resident Evil’s locations are a huge part of its identity.

What makes Resident Evil so beloved is its fluidity, its ability to recreate itself when the need arises. When the series became tired after Code Veronica, Resident Evil 4 revitalized it with a focus on action horror. After the series started morphing into a Michael Bay fever dream with RE6, the sublime RE7 took the series back to its survival horror roots. 

The series found an ideal balance between these two things with RE: Village and the RE2, 3, and 4 remakes, but the possibility of future reinvention is still on the table. However, this wouldn’t be the case if Capcom decided to tear down the Resident Evil universe in a viral apocalypse. Sure, there could be a good game from it, but then what? 

Part of the fun of Resident Evil is seeing horror impact normality through the games’ various backdrops, be that the Spencer Estate, the Baker Plantation, the titular Village, or even Raccoon City. These settings are important characters in their own right and a big part of what made each entry memorable. 

While we’ve already explored the pitfalls of an open-world Resident Evil, a post-apocalyptic RE would suck the character and creativity out of the series and make it like every other zombie apocalypse story. This is exactly where Anderson’s RE movies went wrong. Keeping the world un-ended with the threat always bubbling under the surface is far more menacing. 

Playing the hero

Capcom

Resident Evil’s heroes usually save the day, but there needs to be something worth saving.

While it often comes at a cost, the good guys usually prevail in Resident Evil. The bad guy mutates into some kind of blobby super-zombie, and we have a desperate final fight. Then a rocket launcher (or some other deus ex machina) inexplicably lands in our lap, “Game Over!” we quip – and bang. And our heroes fly off into the sunset. But it’s not just Chris, Jill, or Leon overcoming these trials. It’s us, the player.

So, not only would ending the word invalidate this triumph and make every RE game that came before meaningless, it would represent failure, not just for our heroes, but for us too, and the franchise as a whole. If the world ends, Umbrella, Wesker, or whoever else, win and the whole point of Resident Evil – saving the world from bioterror – becomes redundant. If the worst-case scenario has already come true, then where are the stakes? Why survive the horror?

Isn’t it more compelling to not set Resident Evil during a would-be apocalypse and keep our options open? The true fear of RE is that any location could be hit by a bio-terror disaster at any time. The residents of Raccoon City, Tall Oaks, and Lanshiang were just going about their business until their friends and neighbors started trying to eat them. Then, their government decided to nuke their city regardless of how many survivors were still there. This could happen anytime in Resident Evil – and that’s scary.

The Resident Evil universe is still growing

Resident Evil’s lore is still expanding, the apocalypse would stifle this.

Let’s see what other terrifying things lurk beneath a mansion somewhere or in a lab waiting to escape. What monstrosities are yet to be unearthed or bioengineered to stalk us from the shadows? Better yet, let’s see them collide with other horrors like the end of RE Village teased. The creative possibilities are endless, so I’d beg Capcom to hold out on ever undoing their own good work. 

While a post-apocalyptic Resident Evil may sound like fun on paper, it would actually kill everything that makes the series so special. Then, no amount of soft reboots would be able to reanimate its rotting carcass.