View Full Version : Resident Evil Remakes
supersonicsjm
06-09-09, 19:16
What Resident Evil games does everyone think deserve a remake? I think RE2, 3 and CV should be remade and REmake and 0 should be rereleased on PS3 and 360.
No real need, It can be moved.
But I'll save everyone the hassle and say:
RE2 and RE3, That is all.
RE was remade, RE:CVX, 4 and 5 are recent enough to escape being remade as well as the significance of Darkside Chronicles in relation to CVX.
Kieron Baird
06-09-09, 19:25
I think Resident Evil 3 is a perfect candidate for a remake, I think it would be quite nice to see a similar style of gameplay as that of Resident Evil 4 & 5 brought to it.
supersonicsjm
06-09-09, 19:25
No real need, It can be moved.
But I'll save everyone the hassle and say:
RE2 and RE3, That is all.
RE was remade, RE:CVX, 4 and 5 are recent enough to escape being remade as well as the significance of Darkside Chronicles in relation to CVX.
Yeah, but I still think RE: CV deserves a remake due to the Spencer Mansion replica, no longer looking like the Spencer estate if you use the Gamecube REmake as it's basis. It'd be great if it was remade to look like the Spencer estate. I also wanted to make this poll multiple choice.
TBH i not botherd about remakes prefer new games.
But if games were remade Dante said it all.
supersonicsjm
06-09-09, 19:30
I think it'd also be great if these older games also had RE4/5 gameplay and a choice of inventory style.
Lisa Trevor
06-09-09, 22:23
Resident Evil 2, Resident Evil 3, Resident Evil Code Veronica and Surviver
junglist_dnb
06-09-09, 22:31
RE2.
Would'nt mind the Outbreaks being remade aswell on 360/ps3.
Ok it looks like Dante started the topic now since i have copied over the other posts from the other topic lol
Oh well at least it the poll works how it was intended.
Just for the record. I did not make this topic. ಠ_ಠ
Just for the record. I did not make this topic. ಠ_ಠ
Sorted now :)
thezombiemessia
07-09-09, 12:32
I don't think any of the games deserve a remake...they're all great the way they are.
But I'll say it time & time again...IF they were to remake a game in the series, I'd say it would be nice if they did RE2...but I don't particularly care either way.
It would be nice to see a revival of the Outbreak series, and it'd be nice to see a remastered version of Survivor make it's way onto the PSP and DS...but they don't need to be remade.
RE2 because it's my favourite. And some of the Spin-offs. Maybe a XBLA/PSN Gaiden remake.
It would be nice to see RE2 Remake for PS3/X360/PC and some of spinn-offs like Dead Aim...
To be honest, given how good the Resi 1 remake was, i'd buy any resi remake they released. If i had to choose just onr though (As i just did in the poll) it would be Resi 2. That's where my love of the series started (Its now in my top 3 favorite game series along with Zelda and streetfighter) and claire and leon look like they are going to look fantastic with thier next gen (Darkside) makeover.
supersonicsjm
07-09-09, 19:30
I'm sure a remake of RE2 wouldn't be that difficult to achieve, since I'm sure everything aesthetically was updated for Darkside Chronicles, so if they were to reuse character models and setting designs, up the polygon count for the 360/PS3 and apply a different engine to it, it wouldn't be as difficult as say REmake was to do, since that will have been done from scratch. I'm interested as to who voted for RE4 and why, out of curiosity.
I don't think any of the games deserve a remake...they're all great the way they are.
But I'll say it time & time again...IF they were to remake a game in the series, I'd say it would be nice if they did RE2...but I don't particularly care either way.
It would be nice to see a revival of the Outbreak series, and it'd be nice to see a remastered version of Survivor make it's way onto the PSP and DS...but they don't need to be remade.
I would have elaborated, but I didn't think it was worth the time considering the subject matter has been swirled so many times over, I have dulled to it.
But yes, TZM has summed up my thoughts on this extremely well.
Remakes are plot rehashings, they are the same thing over, any truly good game does not need a remake since it is perfectly contained, it is exactly what the creator intended, and to renew that is to steal what the creators originally intended, with the only exception being the limitations of technology preventing them from achieving their intended vision.
But remastery? sure thing, but RE2 and RE3 have already been remastered on gamecube. The survivor series has been unfortunately shunned, but I would not mind the original being revised for DS, or maybe Gun Survivor 2 and Dead Aim making a Wii title.
supersonicsjm
07-09-09, 19:42
I would have elaborated, but I didn't think it was worth the time considering the subject matter has been swirled so many times over, I have dulled to it.
But yes, TZM has summed up my thoughts on this extremely well.
Remakes are plot rehashings, they are the same thing over, any truly good game does not need a remake since it is perfectly contained, it is exactly what the creator intended, and to renew that is to steal what the creators originally intended, with the only exception being the limitations of technology preventing them from achieving their intended vision.
But remastery? sure thing, but RE2 and RE3 have already been remastered on gamecube. The survivor series has been unfortunately shunned, but I would not mind the original being revised for DS, or maybe Gun Survivor 2 and Dead Aim making a Wii title.
That's true, but it'd still be nice if RE2, 3 etc. got a treatment similar to REmake, update the visuals, add things they wanted to put in originally like grenades for those who know about RE 1.5 etc.
thezombiemessia
07-09-09, 19:52
I'm interested as to who voted for RE4 and why, out of curiosity.
They probably played the PC version *ba-dum-bm-csh*
Remakes are plot rehashings, they are the same thing over, any truly good game does not need a remake since it is perfectly contained, it is exactly what the creator intended, and to renew that is to steal what the creators originally intended, with the only exception being the limitations of technology preventing them from achieving their intended vision.
Before anybody tries to argue against this by citing REmake as a counter-argument, I'll explain the main reasons why REmake was made, but the rest have been left as they are.
1 - REmake was designed as a fresh new game for newcomers to play. It was the launch title for the GameCube versions of the RE games, giving newcomers a reason to buy the game, rather than just having to fork out £20-£30 for a relatively low quality PS1 port.
2 - Shinji Mikami had an idea for RE1. That idea could not be met with the PS1, cutting out characters, locations, items, etc. RE2 & the rest were designed with the technological limitations in mind, meaning they fit their design, and fit on the disc.
REmake was created to fit the original idea of RE1, it is essentially the Director's Cut of the Director's Cut. The final version of RE1.
The chances are, RE2 & RE3 in particular will never be remade. They do not need to be. They are not being used as launch titles for the series, and they were designed from technology upwards...rather than idea to technology.
I suppose the only real arguement remaining would be the release on modern gen consoles, but I suppose thats what digital distribution is for.
I can agree that there is something to be said for letting classic games remain as they are. I can (and do) still play through both Zelda: occarina of time and final fantasy 7 but would still be interested in seeing how a remake would look! plus (and i realise that digital distribution such as wii ware, has made this largley a thing of the past) the systems these games run on will wear out eventually. this may mean that classic stories like Metal gear solid would be lost forever. i would rather play a graphically enhanced remake than loose the game forever.
Re makes also have the added benefit of introducing new generations to classic games. I managed to get my friends son into street fighter by letting him play SF II HD. someone of his generation would never have been as impressed with an older (allbeit still awesome) game like SF II had it not had a HD remake.
thezombiemessia
08-09-09, 00:09
Basically, the only major reason people want remakes is because of the graphics.
This is what it boils down to.
If we don't want a game to dissappear into the ether, then they could just port it to a current gen console...but then people would complain about "how ugly it looks" without considering the actual game or how it plays.
All in all, it is an argument of Asthetics. Can you put up with polygons and pixels the size of your teeth?
I doubt that many games would just fade away, the bulk of popular titles will be preserved as data in marketplaces, I think the first to go would actually be interest, people who loved the games will continue to do so, they'll have their collections, but the newer audience will have their own generation of titles to enjoy, they may consider classics to be garbage due to the graphics.
And TZM brings a fair point, I mean, look at REmake, what innovations have been made? hardly any. and besides, if the RE games where to adopt the "RE4/5 Control Scheme" then you're looking at a total overhaul to make the enemies work with the system, but then it would just be re-skinned RE4/5 with a different story.
So, the real solution is to look forward to the new titles and the new content they can provide rather than retredding the same old road and calling it new.
I still say there is something to be said for a graphic overhaul of classic games. Try getting a kid to play something like Streets of Rage II these days. all you will get is how rubbish the graphics are. sadly, to the new generation, Old or low res graphics = Bad game. the kids these days are not bothered by the likes of Gameplay, Physics or quality of puzzles. Thats why the likes of Transformers the game and harry potter do so well! all kids want is thier favorite charaters and flashy graphics. If a graphic overhall of a clasic game helps get kids into decent games thus lowereing the amount of film/tv tie in crap that gets produced, i say go for it.
the other angle to conssider is that of refreshing things for long term fans. When this thread started i decided to dig out Resi 1 DS and play through it. I soon realised that, having completed it as many times as I have, i was playing on auto pilot. the puzzles had become a matter of mere routine. I reached the garden area in less than 20 mins. the re make on the other hand adds new puzzles, areas and enemies into the mix, prolonging the life of one of my favorite games.
Before anybody tries to argue against this by citing REmake as a counter-argument, I'll explain the main reasons why REmake was made, but the rest have been left as they are.
1 - REmake was designed as a fresh new game for newcomers to play. It was the launch title for the GameCube versions of the RE games, giving newcomers a reason to buy the game, rather than just having to fork out £20-£30 for a relatively low quality PS1 port.
2 - Shinji Mikami had an idea for RE1. That idea could not be met with the PS1, cutting out characters, locations, items, etc. RE2 & the rest were designed with the technological limitations in mind, meaning they fit their design, and fit on the disc.
REmake was created to fit the original idea of RE1, it is essentially the Director's Cut of the Director's Cut. The final version of RE1.
Also without it, newcomers wouldn't have got into the original games(and RE0) only showing interest in the newer 'action-based' REs.
thezombiemessia
08-09-09, 12:20
I still say there is something to be said for a graphic overhaul of classic games. Try getting a kid to play something like Streets of Rage II these days. all you will get is how rubbish the graphics are. sadly, to the new generation, Old or low res graphics = Bad game. the kids these days are not bothered by the likes of Gameplay, Physics or quality of puzzles. Thats why the likes of Transformers the game and harry potter do so well! all kids want is thier favorite charaters and flashy graphics. If a graphic overhall of a clasic game helps get kids into decent games thus lowereing the amount of film/tv tie in crap that gets produced, i say go for it.
As I said, it boils down to asthetics. What about when the REmakes get outdated? Should we remake them? And how about the remakes of the remakes? Should we remake them when they get outdated?
the other angle to conssider is that of refreshing things for long term fans. When this thread started i decided to dig out Resi 1 DS and play through it. I soon realised that, having completed it as many times as I have, i was playing on auto pilot. the puzzles had become a matter of mere routine. I reached the garden area in less than 20 mins. the re make on the other hand adds new puzzles, areas and enemies into the mix, prolonging the life of one of my favorite games.
But, at the end of the day, you're still going to end up feeling exactly the same about the remake.
When you start autopiloting on REmake, are you going to want another REmake, so it freshens it all up?
Obviously there is going to be a point where the current generation tire of any game, regardless of how many times they are remade. but i still maintain that introducing new generations and thus allowing developers the revenue and incen tive to continue producing these great series (and seeing thier stories through to completion) plays an important part in the life of any series. Look at something like zelda. for those of us raised on Link to the past and links awakening, these early titles hold a special importance but the later generations only know Link and Zalda from Twilight princess and Phantom hourglass. Should we let these classic games dissapear with us just beacause todays visual obsessed youth don't want to play these games or should developers continue to generate intrest and income in thier series, thus keeping them going?
remember, for every remake or port (or shoddy film tie in) that is made (cheaply) the developer gains precious income needed to develop new titles for this new and expensive generation. Would Financialy underachieving classics like okami have been produced if capcom hadn't been able to make up it's potential losses selling Gamecube/ ps2 ports of the early resident evil games?
thezombiemessia
08-09-09, 20:36
What you're talking about is ports, not remakes.
Ports require only a little bit of investment, and generally garner a lot of profit.
If Capcom were to remake more games, they'd be building it from scratch, thus spending the same amount that they could spend on releasing new games.
The way to get people interested in a series is to release new games, and let people realise that it is a part of a series (generally by having the mentions of a previous game in either the storyline, the manual, or on the back cover). If somebody isn't interested by that point, then they never will be.
Rehashing a game and making it look nicer isn't going to make much more difference than just releasing a brand new title and making the audience aware of the previous games.
I find it very hard to believe that there is a majority of people out there that believes Twilight Princess & Phantom Hourglass to be the only Zelda games, and the same goes for the Resi series, especially considering the latest title has the number 5 in it.
And again, this all boils down to Asthetics. The main argument you have here is that the latest generation is unwilling to play something that looks like a PS1 game...but honestly, if they do think that (which, surprisingly, the majority of them don't) then they aren't really worth the time and effort it would take...because a REmake inherently keeps the same gameplay mechanics as the original game, often putting off those that dislike PS1 generation games.
Definetly RE2: it's still the most played of the series (a lot of people that I know only played that one) and I would love to go through it again with upgrades.
What you're talking about is ports, not remakes.
Ports require only a little bit of investment, and generally garner a lot of profit.
If Capcom were to remake more games, they'd be building it from scratch, thus spending the same amount that they could spend on releasing new games.
I find it very hard to believe that there is a majority of people out there that believes Twilight Princess & Phantom Hourglass to be the only Zelda games, and the same goes for the Resi series, especially considering the latest title has the number 5 in it.
And again, this all boils down to Asthetics. The main argument you have here is that the latest generation is unwilling to play something that looks like a PS1 game...but honestly, if they do think that (which, surprisingly, the majority of them don't) then they aren't really worth the time and effort it would take...because a REmake inherently keeps the same gameplay mechanics as the original game, often putting off those that dislike PS1 generation games.
Point 1: in reference to re makes. Remakes are easier than building a game from scratch as often all that needs to be redesigned are the assets and rudementary level layout. If you look at Metal gear solid twin snakes, silicon knights needed to build very litle from scratch. the engine was taken from metal gear solid 2 (as were the physics engine and A.I) the soundtrack was remastered from the origional with few major changes and the level layout changed little. the only ccompletley new part was the graphically updated asset library. Now i admit that more thought time and money goes in to something like REmake but on the whole re makes do not require a vast amount more work than a port (which still require a small amount of re coding for new platforms etc).
Point 2: I Never said that newer generations thought that the latest Zeldas were the only ones. They have seen the older ones on wii ware and the like. my point was that (as someone who works with kids) i have found it hard to get them interested in games with older graphics.
thezombiemessia
09-09-09, 12:03
It still takes relatively less effort to port a game than it does to remake it...and it all comes down to how you are remaking it.
The MGS remake was quite a smart move by Silicon Knights, using a pre-existing engine, etc.
But REmake? That was built from the ground up (although also used for RE0). They had to add new dialogue, a new script, new characters, locations, items, etc, etc, etc.
If RE2 were to be remade, people would expect no less from Capcom than adding in new script, new items, new dialogue, and new locations...it would not be a simple graphical update, otherwise people would still be annoyed. The same still goes for RE3, etc.
As or your second point:
"the later generations only know Link and Zalda from Twilight princess and Phantom hourglass"
Is what you said, which is why said what I said...if you get what I'm saying :p.
But either way, you say it is harder to get kids into older games, but not impossible. It also, again, leads to the problem of when do we stop catering for laziness and ignorance? These people, not always just kids, don't want to play them because they look ugly...so should we remake all the classics from this generation when the graphics get out of date? What about when MGS4 becomes a terrible looking game...should Konami remake it?
By catering to the people that are too lazy to try something out because of the way it looks, we are just exacerbating the situation...
I wouldn't say that games should get remade when they get too old and hence "bad looking". The way I see it, as some great games were made on old & limited hardware (the PS namely), it wound't be bad to re-propose them in a new form with improved technology (and additional re-working in script to keep them fresh). After all, they aren't movies, they are videogames, software - and software get upgraded and rewritten every day.
Younger people will definetly buy these remakes: the franchise is still famous and even though they might have not played the original games, they certainly have heard of them. And if they haven't, the amount of pubblicity will cover that up.
thezombiemessia
09-09-09, 14:03
I wouldn't say that games should get remade when they get too old and hence "bad looking". The way I see it, as some great games were made on old & limited hardware (the PS namely), it wound't be bad to re-propose them in a new form with improved technology (and additional re-working in script to keep them fresh). After all, they aren't movies, they are videogames, software - and software get upgraded and rewritten every day.
Younger people will definetly buy these remakes: the franchise is still famous and even though they might have not played the original games, they certainly have heard of them. And if they haven't, the amount of pubblicity will cover that up.
So, when we get to the PS6, we should remake PS3 games? Because they will look graphically inferior to the PS6 games...
And when we get to PS9, we'll remake the PS6 games yeah?
It's a neverending cycle or rehashing games just because they don't look as good as we think they should.
RE1 may not look great, but it's storyline is still great. RE2 doesn't look great, but it is mostly considered to be the best in the series...but, hey, it looks crap...lets remake it.
Kieron Baird
09-09-09, 16:11
I don't see the problem in remaking a game to improve graphics, aslong as some new features make their way too, I don't see the harm.
People who don't want a updated version of the game don't need to buy it. Also it is good for those who missed the original or don't want to hunt down an old version of the game.
thezombiemessia
09-09-09, 16:20
But, as I keep stressing, when does it stop?
As long as they add new features every time, can they remake the game over and over? To the point where the game doesn't even resemble the original?
Kieron Baird
09-09-09, 16:52
The thing is if the game moved away from the original so much, they could just release it as a new title. As for it been an endless cycle, I think it would stop before it just got silly. I mean in the year 2050, I doubt they will still be looking at PS1 games and SNES games to remake.
thezombiemessia
09-09-09, 17:29
But they wouldn't be PS1 games anymore...they'd be PS3 games wouldn't they?
remaking remakes, because the remake no longer looks good.
This is why it would be an endless cycle.
Plus, this sort of thing doesn't stop...as much as people complain, companies still port thousands of titles to every console imaginable. Latest case? REmake & Zero being ported to the Wii.
So, when we get to the PS6, we should remake PS3 games? Because they will look graphically inferior to the PS6 games...
And when we get to PS9, we'll remake the PS6 games yeah?
It's a neverending cycle or rehashing games just because they don't look as good as we think they should.
RE1 may not look great, but it's storyline is still great. RE2 doesn't look great, but it is mostly considered to be the best in the series...but, hey, it looks crap...lets remake it.
Honestly, I think there's a big difference between the 32-bit generation of games and the current one. Games made on the Playstation had very rough edges and the 3d technology was quiet primitive. RE4 (the GameCube version) for example holds up pretty well compared to the stuff I play on the PS3: sure, the resolution is lower and things like DEAD SPACE (sorry, I am in love with that one) have better graphic tricks (the lighting effects are super!), but RE4 characters already look enough like real persons, the controls and frame-rate are smooth...technically speaking, is a good game imho and unless someday virtual reality will be avaible, I doubt any technological improvement will be able to change it as a whole.
RE2 on the other end has blocky, squared character models, fixed 2d backgrounds that take sometime to load (I keep playing the PS version - maybe the GC ports have improved loading times), primitive CG sequences, limited animations & controls and so on. It was made at the dawn of the Playstation history and so is far from perfect: after all, they were already able to improve some things in RE3 - and RE2 was a major improvement over RE1. Nowadays I don't see the same technological leap, just as Blu-Ray aren't as revolutionary as DVDs were over VHS: sure, many details are better, but on a general level, what was accomplished with the 128-bit generation is an important milestone that will hardly fade.
I am a retrogamer (I still play BLOOD, DUKE NUKEM, SUPER MARIO BROS, SPLATTERHOUSE and many others) so I am not a snobbish techno-freak, but if someone would come to me and say "Would you like to play a enhanced RE2 with cutting-edge graphics & sound and new features that couldn't be made back in 1998?", hey: who wouldn't say no?
thezombiemessia
09-09-09, 18:08
I said at the very start that it would be nice to get a remake of RE2 and RE3, but again...graphical updates are all relative.
We can't say there won't be massive updates in technology in 3 generations time, because we get massive leaps in what things can do and what they look like every so often.
Even the fact that RE2 shows an improvement over RE1, and RE3 improves upon RE2, should show you that even within a technology that seems the best, it can be made better.
As the technology improves, we add in more polygons, make everything smoother, and get closer to realism. As storage space increases, we're able to use more and more of this technology on more and more of the items.
REmake RE2 now, and it'll look fantastic, but will still be limited. So what if 3 generations from now, people start saying that want another REmake of RE2, but with more stuff? Like an interactive environment, or more items, or more enemies on screen?
The fact that there are people that want remakes of almost brand new games (Code Veronica, RE4, and the Outbreak series as an example) goes to show that no matter how minor the difference, people will still be petty enough to want a graphically enhanced version of an older game.
No, RE isn't perfect at the moment, and it would be really nice to see a remake...but I'd prefer to move on, get new games, and look to the future. I'd like to leave RE2 as it is, rather than constantly having to sit through even more topics of people wanting to see a remake of the remake.
Interestingly, I've actually seen threads elsewhere on the internet that demand a remake of REmake, just so we can have it in HD on the PS3 and 360...which just goes to show what I'm on about. An endless cycle.
I said at the very start that it would be nice to get a remake of RE2 and RE3, but again...graphical updates are all relative.
We can't say there won't be massive updates in technology in 3 generations time, because we get massive leaps in what things can do and what they look like every so often.
Even the fact that RE2 shows an improvement over RE1, and RE3 improves upon RE2, should show you that even within a technology that seems the best, it can be made better.
As the technology improves, we add in more polygons, make everything smoother, and get closer to realism. As storage space increases, we're able to use more and more of this technology on more and more of the items.
REmake RE2 now, and it'll look fantastic, but will still be limited. So what if 3 generations from now, people start saying that want another REmake of RE2, but with more stuff? Like an interactive environment, or more items, or more enemies on screen?
The fact that there are people that want remakes of almost brand new games (Code Veronica, RE4, and the Outbreak series as an example) goes to show that no matter how minor the difference, people will still be petty enough to want a graphically enhanced version of an older game.
No, RE isn't perfect at the moment, and it would be really nice to see a remake...but I'd prefer to move on, get new games, and look to the future. I'd like to leave RE2 as it is, rather than constantly having to sit through even more topics of people wanting to see a remake of the remake.
Interestingly, I've actually seen threads elsewhere on the internet that demand a remake of REmake, just so we can have it in HD on the PS3 and 360...which just goes to show what I'm on about. An endless cycle.
As long as they'll be cult-things (games, movies and whatever), they'll be re-issues as those who control them will always want to squeeze as much money as they can from their products: just look how many special editions of the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE are out there. I can live with that and I am free to choose if purchase something or not. Personally, I didn't buy the ports of RE2 and 3 for the GC even though they had some (slight) improvements, as I haven't bought the PS2 version of RE4 despite the new Ada scenario.
True, 3 gens from now, who knows what we will see, but back in the 90s there was still a lot more ground to cover with CG technology or digital technology in general: back then, doing a whole film with digital backgrounds was sci-fi and many people were considering 3d games far from realistic.
But already in the first years of the new millenium, things have changed: take MGS 2 and 3. While SNAKE EATER is more refined than SONS OF LIBERTY, it is not that much advanced technologically speaking. RE1 and RE2 instead almost look like games from two different systems.
That said, I'd prefer to see new RE games myself, but, again, the new direction of the series isn't of my taste and so between seeing a new Las Plagas game I'd prefer to play an enhanced RE2...
thezombiemessia
09-09-09, 18:42
And here we've hit the nail on the head.
My main point, where this argument seems to have stemmed from, is that the games don't need to be remade.
At the end of the day, the argument is purely for a graphical update, whether that's because people think it is ugly, or they think new graphics will attract new users, etc, it all boils down to graphics.
It would, certainly, be nice to see a RE2 and RE3 remake, but it is not a necessity (SP?).
And here we've hit the nail on the head.
My main point, where this argument seems to have stemmed from, is that the games don't need to be remade.
At the end of the day, the argument is purely for a graphical update, whether that's because people think it is ugly, or they think new graphics will attract new users, etc, it all boils down to graphics.
It would, certainly, be nice to see a RE2 and RE3 remake, but it is not a necessity (SP?).
I agree.
If they do come all well and good but i would prefer to continue the story TBH
Funniest thing, is that it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a decent follow up. I must say the plot of Degeneration could be a very nice premise for a future game...
Kieron Baird
10-09-09, 09:56
Imagine Resident Evil 1,2 & 3, all on one disk, new unlockables, new enemies (aswell as the classics obviously) and new features in general. All with new and improved updated graphics, and possibly the Resident Evil 5 style of game-play but with much less ammo available, which is one of the features that added to the difficulty of the original.
If this game came out for the PS3 and Xbox 360, I doubt any Resi fan would complain, sure it would remake but with new feature and all on one disk. I agree remakes will go on for awhile, after all as others have said, it is a business after all. Though I feel that remakes will eventually stop and they will just do like they do with the Sega Mega Drive games for example, release them for the new consoles but in their classic, retro form, for convenience and so the new generation can experience a blast from the past.
I have seen a lot of people on this forum that simply say "leave it up to Capcom it is their decession" or "trust in Capcom to do what is best" when it comes to other topics of debate, so maybe it would be best just to adopt that attitude here. Leave it up to Capcom to decide whether or not remakes are essential and/or financially viable. At the end of the day they are just giving the fans what they want or in some cases, what they think they want.
If it ends up a flop, it will end the cycle.
thezombiemessia
10-09-09, 12:43
You keep missing what I mean when I say it'd start a cycle.
You're thinking that it'd be like the Port roblem that Capcom seem to get themselves into sometimes...repeatedly porting the same game.
What I'm on about is this:
- Fans scream for a REmake of "game name here"
- "game name here" gets remade for the PS3/360/whatever.
- Fans go "yay!"
- PS6/Xbox whatever comes out.
- Fans say "we want a remake of the remake, because the remake looks crap!"
- Company remakes the remake.
- Fans go "yay!"
- PS9/Xbox whatever comes out.
- Fans say they want a remake of the remake of the remake, because the remake of the remake looks crap.
- Company remakes the remake of the remake.
- Fans go "Yay!"
- PS12.Xbox whatever comes out.
- Cycle repeats, endlessly.
As I said, if it all comes down to graphics, and trying to introduce new generations to the series by getting them to play the same games but slightly nicer, it'll repeat in a cycle.
Also, as I said, it'd be great, fantastic, awesome, amazing, and nice if we were to get a remake of RE2 and RE3. But it isn't neccessary. The games don't need to be remade.
Point taken. although i wa trying to make the distincton between retaining the existing fans (By making new instalments of our favorite series) and introducing new ones (with ports, downloads and remakes). I agree though that, despite my belief that Remakes serve a small purpose, they are not strictly necessary to either fans or the games industry as a whole
Kieron Baird
10-09-09, 14:00
You are missing what I am saying too, I doubt it will get to that stage. The cycle will end and eventually what is amazing now, will be the retro of the future. I mean they keep releasing the old Sega Mega games on the new consoles, for convenience but keep them in their retro form.
I believe this will be the case with Resi too, eventually the cycle will end and it will be classed as retro, a way to make money and do nothing at all with the old product. I mean even N64 is classed as retro now and they just release it as it was back then.
By the time of the Xbox 10803260 qnd PS3000 I doubt their will be demand for Resident Evil 2 & 3 remakes, the constant recycling will have ended and if the games are even remembered, would probably be released as retro, in the form of whatever the last remake was, thus the cycle would end.
Resident Evil 2 is a given; it's a modern classic; I would of course have to say Outbreak and File 2 deserve it thanks to the massive upsurge in on-line gaming and of course because they were two games that were vastly ahead of their time in terms of how they played. They were the Left4Dead of their time, and frankly, I'd rather buy both of those games again than ever have bought Resident Evil 5. Just my two cents on it, I know Capcom will never give us that; but 'thems the breaks' as they say.
On the issue of a constant cycle- while I see the point that remakes can get out of hand- all we have to do is look at the evidence. The majority of games that have been remade over the recent generation have been the first title, or standout title in a successful franchise. Bionic Commando, Resident Evil, Battlefield 1943 to name a few. Many of these games getting remakes aren't just from a previous generation (In the PCs case, operating system era.) they're from two, three, four generations back. What this means is that the companies doing it are sprucing up a title that would feel sluggish, dated and possibly not as good as it used to be (Thanks to the power of modern gaming) and bringing it in line with current technology.
Remaking games always has been, and always will be a business decision, on behalf of the business of selling video games. You look at the three remakes of Resident Evil (Deadly Silence with it's improved textures and new game mode, REmake on the cube with it's near perfect take on the genre Capcom used to do so well and REmake WII with a tacked on stick waving control system.....YAY.....) and you can tell they were made not solely because fans wanted it, but because it was the right time to do it business wise. Resident Evil sold incredibly well on a console few people bought in the Gamecube, Resident Evil DS was a solid title that changed up the gameplay enough (But left the original game just in case you didn't like the new rebirth mode.) and Resident Evil Wii caters for a starved demographic of 'core' gamers on a console that shuns them in favour of families.
What I'm saying is, Capcom aren't stupid business wise; they're not going to churn an updated version of a previous title every year like EA does FIFA games just because of fan demand; Capcom will wait for the right gap in the market, and the right time to do it, and THEN strike out at the core gamers that arguably made them what they are today when the conditions are right by them.
I'd love to see remakes of Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil Outbreak and File 2 because both games are games that I properly love as a gamer, and would happily pay top price to play again as intended- however, if it's not the right time for Capcom as a business, no amount of kicked up dirt can convince them- on other words; WE don't have the say on what to remake, Capcom do- and on their own terms. It's just good business.
William Birkin
16-09-09, 11:26
Resident Evil 2 for sure, i think it could be really nice to remake this one.
What i just saw in Outbreak File 2 in the RPD with graphical update was damn nice!
I think there is many possibilities to have news areas and actions in this game...Bigger Lab(places where we can go in outbreak File 2), new monsters, ect....
I'll have to say CV. Darkside Chronicles shows how much better CV can look with updated, and slightly changed, graphic styles. Nothing else would really have to change for me to buy it, to be honest. I normally don't care what the graphics are like in games, but for CV...I'm just curious about how much it would improve the game. Hell, they could even chuck in a Versus mode, Resi 5 style, where you can use the Ashford twins. I bet everyone would gang up on the people who choose Steve...hehehe.
I'd like to see a remake of RE2 not just with new graphics, but the newer control style, newer features(costumes and side stories and mini-games), new levels, retconned notes about Rebecca, Billy, Barry, Wesker, etc, new places/levels added to the story to add for those who've played the original.
I don't want to see it reproduced, but reimagined.
EDIT: And like I said before, a XBLA/PSN version of Gaiden would be pretty cool, as it's one of those largey forgotten about assets.
I'm gonna choose to be Steve for at least bits of Darkside Chronicles because I thought he was pretty cool.
supersonicsjm
18-09-09, 12:24
Everyone keeps saying that if an RE game would be remade it would be a question of aesthetics, but that wasn't completely the case with REmake. It allowed the developers to add extras which they wanted to add to the original, but couldn't due to hardware restrictions, time restraints or would give away too much story (i.e. George Trevor). I think this could also be the case for RE2, 3 and possibly to an extent CV, I'm sure everyone here knows of RE1.5, the beta for RE2, and how it's vastly different than RE2 and how some of the features we're dropped in the final version, if RE2 were to be remade, the developers could posibbly include some of those features or plot points so that we get to see the intended RE2 which simply wasn't possible back in the days of PS1. I'm sure RE3 and CV also had extra stuff that didn't make the final cut, huge proof for CV, comes from the original version on the Dreamcast and CVX on PS2 and GC, and how extra cutscenes were added to fill in plot holes, what's to say there isn't more to add. So imho, I don't think it is just a case of aesthetics, it would give the developers a chance to release there original vision and their intended vision of the game.
thezombiemessia
18-09-09, 12:46
What you are forgetting though, is that whilst REmake included things that the developers sorely wanted to include in the game, RE1.5 was scrapped because it was too close to RE1.
The elements of 1.5 that did not make it into RE2 were left out because the developer no longer wanted them in there.
Since then, these elements have made their debut in various games, such as RE3 and RE4.
To add any of the "missing" plot points from 1.5 would be to ruin the game as a whole. The "missing" plot points from 1.5 are having Kendo survive, having Marvin Branagh become a supporting character instead of Ada, etc, etc. These are all things that would completely retcon absolutely everything that RE2 had, and everything that came from these events.
I'd like to see a non-canon RE spin-off, which contains at least one of the original RE4 settings. And shows us fans what it could've been like.
supersonicsjm
19-09-09, 16:50
What you are forgetting though, is that whilst REmake included things that the developers sorely wanted to include in the game, RE1.5 was scrapped because it was too close to RE1.
The elements of 1.5 that did not make it into RE2 were left out because the developer no longer wanted them in there.
Since then, these elements have made their debut in various games, such as RE3 and RE4.
To add any of the "missing" plot points from 1.5 would be to ruin the game as a whole. The "missing" plot points from 1.5 are having Kendo survive, having Marvin Branagh become a supporting character instead of Ada, etc, etc. These are all things that would completely retcon absolutely everything that RE2 had, and everything that came from these events.
There were still features that weren't intorduced until ages later, like hand grenades, and some that have yet to see the light of day in a Resident Evil game like the shutters that were seen throughout the police station, I've only seen them in Dino Crisis, so it might be interesting to see if the developers can make a puzzle out of those, plus I'm sure we only got to see some of the plot and a lot of RE1.5's plot was kept behind closed doors, so there may be some hidden plot elements we haven't seen that may have been incorporated into a remake of RE2, or for example they could include Elza Walker, but in a different capacity, so instead of being a main playable character, she could have been a key researcher at Umbrella, and they could incorporate who she was intended to look for in RE1.5 into the plot of RE2. I didn't necessarily mean keep Marvin and the gun shop owner alive, and Ada was still a support character for Leon in RE1.5
What you are forgetting though, is that whilst REmake included things that the developers sorely wanted to include in the game, RE1.5 was scrapped because it was too close to RE1.
The elements of 1.5 that did not make it into RE2 were left out because the developer no longer wanted them in there.
Since then, these elements have made their debut in various games, such as RE3 and RE4.
To add any of the "missing" plot points from 1.5 would be to ruin the game as a whole. The "missing" plot points from 1.5 are having Kendo survive, having Marvin Branagh become a supporting character instead of Ada, etc, etc. These are all things that would completely retcon absolutely everything that RE2 had, and everything that came from these events.
Don't get offended, but you're always too drastic or lapidary. Seeing what could've been wouldn't ruin the series - in other fields (like movies), it happens very often: think about the alternative cuts of ALIEN and ALIEN 3 for example. And what about Paul Schrader's version of the 4th EXORCIST movie?
Besides, what would change if Kendo survived the initial zombi attack? Also, all the informations we got so far just imply he didn't die at the beginning. As for Marvin, some gameplay footage show him assisting Leon along with Ada - and that too would just be a slight alteration of the original plot. Similar stuff happened in the REmake too: think about the guy (who was he again? Richard?) getting eaten by the sharks in the basement while in the original PSX game he died from the snake attack. And what about Forest coming back as a zombie in the Director's Cut?
Kendo dying didn't have a mass impact on the story to be honest, if anything it was an act of stupidity in that he was supposed to be keeping watch. The ONLY purpose it served was to give you a free new weapon (If you were quick enough to grab it without fighting.) and to be honest Marvin's death didn't serve much of a purpose other than to show how bad a shape the RPD was- they aren't, nor have they ever been crucial plot elements or even crucial characters.
Look at what REmake did with Richard- they gave him purpose, rather than just flopping down dead after the serum run, he played a role in keeping you safe by sacrificing himself; it didn't change much, but it gave the character's death more meaning and made you care more. When he died in the first game, there was so little interaction that you didn't care if he lived.
We're talking hypothetically here, but I think some people are forgetting the quality of the writing in REmake, and conversely aren't applying what remakes of that calibre can do for us as gamers and fans.
Look at what REmake did with Richard- they gave him purpose, rather than just flopping down dead after the serum run, he played a role in keeping you safe by sacrificing himself; it didn't change much, but it gave the character's death more meaning and made you care more. When he died in the first game, there was so little interaction that you didn't care if he lived.
Yeah - even though I wasn't touched by his death in both games, in the REmake they gave a little more of purpose to the character but, most importantly, to the big run through the mansion to recover the serum! I mean, in the original it always pissed me off that curing him from the venom didn't have any reason, as he died of poisoning anyways.
While Marvin turning into a zombie was a cool thing in RE2 (very Romero-esque), it would be good having his character fleshed out a little more. Actually, that can be said about almost every RE character as, let's face it, most of the games were pretty much straight forward when it came to characters interaction.