As Resident Evil 9 Requiem approaches, a compelling debate emerges within the gaming community: should beloved legacy characters face permanent endings, or should they be preserved indefinitely? The Last of Us Part II’s controversial decision to kill Joel Miller provides a fascinating case study in both the risks and potential rewards of eliminating fan-favorite protagonists. With RE9’s return to Raccoon City potentially serving as a culmination of decades-old storylines, the question becomes increasingly relevant: what should Capcom do with characters like Leon Kennedy, Claire Redfield, and other franchise veterans?
The answer isn’t as straightforward as it might seem. Both preservation and elimination carry compelling arguments that reveal fundamental tensions between artistic integrity, fan service, and commercial viability.
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. I may earn a small commission if you purchase through these links at no extra cost to you. This helps support my gaming content.
The Case for Character Deaths: Artistic Integrity and Emotional Impact
Narrative Authenticity: After 30+ years of bioweapons incidents, government conspiracies, and impossible survival scenarios, the idea that every main character continues to survive strains credibility. Real people die in dangerous situations – even skilled, experienced people. Allowing characters to face permanent consequences would add weight and realism to RE9’s horror elements.
Emotional Stakes: When players know that beloved characters are essentially immortal due to plot armor, tension diminishes significantly. Joel’s death in The Last of Us Part II, while controversial, created genuine emotional impact precisely because players didn’t expect it. RE9 could achieve similar emotional resonance by putting legacy characters at real risk.
Character Arc Completion: Some storylines naturally reach endpoints that death could serve meaningfully. Leon’s journey from rookie cop to government agent could conclude with a heroic sacrifice that defines his legacy. Claire’s investigative work could lead her into danger that finally proves fatal. These deaths could provide satisfying narrative closure rather than indefinite continuation.
Generational Transition: Grace Ashcroft represents a new generation of protagonists. Having her mentor figures die – possibly while protecting her or helping her investigation -would complete the symbolic passing of the torch from old guard to new. This transition could feel more impactful than simply having older characters retire or disappear.
Creative Freedom: Preserving characters indefinitely limits storytelling options. Writers must constantly find new ways to challenge characters without permanently harming them, leading to increasingly contrived scenarios. Character deaths free future narratives from these constraints.
The Last of Us Part II’s Success: Despite controversy, TLOU2 won numerous awards, sold over 10 million copies, and is considered by many critics to be a masterpiece. Joel’s death, while painful for fans, served the story’s themes about cycles of violence and the costs of survival. Some argue the backlash came from players who couldn’t accept that their personal attachment to Joel wasn’t more important than the story being told.
🎮 What’s Hot in Video Games Right Now
See which games, consoles, and accessories are climbing fast in popularity. Updated hourly, this list spotlights the biggest jumps in sales rank across the entire Video Games category – from the latest releases to must-have gear. It’s the easiest way to discover what gamers everywhere are buying today.
👉 Check out the trending picks here
The Case Against Character Deaths: Fan Investment and Franchise Value
Fan Attachment Investment: Players have spent decades building emotional connections to these characters. Killing them feels like betraying that investment, particularly when fans have supported the franchise through multiple entries specifically because of these relationships.
The Last of Us Part II Backlash: While the game achieved critical success, the fan division was genuine and lasting. Many players felt manipulated and abandoned the franchise entirely. Social media remains filled with negative reactions years later, suggesting the damage was more significant than sales figures indicate.
Commercial Considerations: Leon Kennedy’s face sells games, merchandise, and movie tickets. Dead characters can’t anchor marketing campaigns or generate excitement for future releases. From a business perspective, killing valuable assets seems counterproductive.
Capcom’s Historical Pattern: The company has successfully avoided major character deaths for decades while maintaining franchise popularity. This suggests their current approach works and doesn’t require dramatic changes.
Alternative Drama Sources: RE9 can generate emotional stakes through other means – conspiracy revelations, monster encounters, environmental storytelling, and Grace’s personal journey. Character deaths aren’t necessary for effective horror or compelling drama.
The Daryl Dixon Phenomenon: Some characters become so beloved that killing them risks catastrophic fan backlash. Leon Kennedy has arguably achieved this status, where his death would overshadow any narrative benefits.
The Middle Ground: Risk Without Permanent Loss
Perhaps the most sophisticated approach involves putting characters in genuine danger without necessarily killing them:
Serious Consequences: Characters could face permanent injuries, trauma, or other lasting effects that change them without ending their stories entirely.
Temporary Deaths: Characters could appear to die but return later, providing emotional impact while preserving long-term value.
Retirement Endings: Legacy characters could step back from active bioweapons fighting, concluding their action-hero phases while remaining alive for potential future appearances.
Symbolic Deaths: Characters could “die” metaphorically – their old selves ending while new versions emerge, transformed by RE9’s events.
Genre Expectations and Horror Traditions
Horror games occupy unique narrative space regarding character mortality. Traditional horror often requires sacrifice and loss to achieve emotional impact, but video game horror operates differently:
Player Agency: Game protagonists succeed or fail based on player skill. Having characters die regardless of player performance can feel unfair or manipulative.
Franchise Continuity: Unlike standalone horror films, game franchises must balance individual story needs with long-term series considerations.
Commercial Realities: Horror films can kill protagonists because each entry stands alone. Game franchises risk damaging their most valuable assets.
Learning from Industry Examples
Game of Thrones: The TV series’ willingness to kill major characters initially strengthened storytelling but eventually contributed to fan alienation when deaths felt arbitrary rather than meaningful.
Marvel Cinematic Universe: Despite constant peril, most major characters survive because their commercial value outweighs narrative convenience. When deaths do occur (Iron Man, Black Widow), they serve clear story purposes and feel like natural conclusions.
The Walking Dead: The show’s frequent character deaths maintained tension but also led to viewer fatigue and declining ratings as fans became reluctant to invest in new characters.
The Stakes for RE9
The decision about legacy character mortality in RE9 carries implications beyond the game itself:
Franchise Future: How RE9 handles beloved characters will influence fan expectations for future entries and remakes.
Industry Precedent: Other franchises are watching to see whether The Last of Us Part II’s approach becomes a template or cautionary tale.
Fan Trust: Capcom’s relationship with longtime fans could be strengthened or damaged based on these choices.
What Seems Most Likely
Based on Capcom’s history, industry trends, and fan reactions to similar decisions elsewhere, RE9 will probably avoid killing major legacy characters. The company has demonstrated consistent risk aversion regarding beloved characters, and the mixed reception of The Last of Us Part II provides a clear warning about potential backlash.
However, the possibility remains that Capcom could surprise everyone. If the company believes RE9 represents a natural conclusion to certain character arcs, and if those deaths serve compelling narrative purposes, they might risk fan anger for artistic integrity.
The Fundamental Question
Ultimately, the debate reveals a fundamental tension in modern entertainment: should creators prioritize artistic vision or fan satisfaction? Should stories serve their own internal logic or preserve elements that audiences love?
The Last of Us Part II argued for artistic integrity over fan comfort. Resident Evil has traditionally chosen fan satisfaction over dramatic risk. RE9 will reveal which philosophy Capcom believes serves the franchise better.
Both approaches have merit. Both carry risks. The gaming industry will learn valuable lessons regardless of which path Capcom chooses – assuming they have the courage to make a definitive choice rather than playing it safe with preservation by default.
The conversation itself might be more valuable than the answer.
Leave a Reply