Wild.Dog: It's really a bad game to begin with. It was never re release not even on the PSN store.
I mean i did sort of enjoy it back in 00. But it's one of the few games i would not put a dime if it was re released.
I think that Capcom agrees with me, the game is just bad and it would sell even worst than in 00
Externica: I do remember Resident Evil Zero did give a shoutout to Resident Evil: Survivor by name dropping Sheena Island during the intro.
So, unless Capcom has stated otherwise since 2002 it at least seems to be canon?
Never played Survivor myself and only every watched a Longplay ages ago. So, please humour me: Why is the game so bad?
Back in 00, arcades were still a thing, there were many games that use handguns, rifles or other type of gun. Time Crisis 1 and 2. Silent Scope series, etc.
So when Capcom announced Survivor, everyone was expecting it to be like that. On rail shooter. The PSX already had games like time crisis, there was the guncon and even other light guns even some had pedals.
What we got? A first person shooter, that reused assets from Resident Evil 1 and 2, it was not on rail but you had to walk and it was clumsy because it was the same tank controls you had in RE1-3 but now in first person...
Worst the US version did not support lightgun..
Truly a cash grab for a console that was at the end of it's life cycle.
Survivors series are mostly bad games, Chronicles series on the other hand are what the survivor should have been from the start.