What could ruin Resident Evil?

[Sage J Crimson]

`nods at the other comments` I gotta agree they really have down played many of the older games to button pressing interface. What I used to like about the Resident Evil series before 4 was the fact that health, bullets, and weapons were limited. You didn't recieve money from some dead body and buy weapons; you either discovered them or you had to beat the stank out of some guy to get it.

But let me digress. I want to say RE was ruined when they created the whole new third person shooting genre, which removed the horror story line and surprise shocks and the surviving element. The camera angles never bothered me, but it was the chief complaint for many because it made the situation of a monster coming at you tougher to deal with. That's really understandable but its a horror game. Its not supposed to be safe and you're not supposed to have the ability to make it through unscaved.

If there were to make a hybrid of the old games and new I would love that. I would love to see a insanly strong monster tear through the stage hunting you. I would love for the survival element to be brought back. I would love to see you playing by yourself because that's what the original was about- you being stuck in a shitty situation ALONE!

I digress one more time, its not like I didn't like the other games. I thought they were well thought out and had good playability but lacked what the originals brought to the table.  

[Sage J Crimson]

Wait! What they could do to ruin the series is make Wesker be Kevin Costner (sp?).  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Alright... This is gonna be a long one... So you better go grab some popcorn.

Canas Renvall

The idea of a... semi-open world Raccoon City would really give you a sense of hopelessness with all the destruction, unlike being in the few streets and alleys (and the gas station razz ). Also, the idea of a real-time Nemesis could really get your pulse pounding, especially with worrying if you're being too loud or not..

Even if RE3 was the most action oriented out of the original trilogy, it still had that creepy stillness to it. And there's NOTHING that keeps features that you just mentioned from working for a static camera angle. The loudness effect, the real-time Nemesis, it all would work just fine with static cameras.

Canas Renvall

The reason I think RE3 could work with the RE4/5 camera system is,

Now, see? There's the first problem right there. And I actually think it's a problem with all gamers and gaming in general these days. Look at your wording, "could work"... See, that's the problem with the way games are evaluated these days, it's too robotic. "Graphics good? Gameplay good? Game good!" That's bullcrap. That eliminates all personal opinion. And maybe that works for professional reviewers, but screw them, I don't even consider them real gamers. Like, are graphics good in Dead Space? Yes. Is the gameplay solid? Yes. Does it work? Yes. But I hated it, and that's my personal opinion.

What I'm trying to say is, it's not about what COULD WORK. Ratchet and Clank COULD WORK as an FPS. Do we want it to be an FPS? Canas, I think you an I are both gonna answer "Hell no" to that. My point is, Resident Evil is what it is. (I'm talking about classic RE here). Yes, there are a number of ways one could approach making a game like that, but it was originally made with static cameras, and that's how it should be. However, I don't even entirely agree with you on that.

Canas Renvall

as it is the most action-oriented game in the original trilogy, and the remake being the way this person said it, you'd have a camera where say, you hear a wall crashing open behind you and you know it's Nemesis, so you starting running like hell down an alleyway nearby only to find yourself face-to-face with a s**t-ton of zombies clogging it. Turn around, Nemesis is right there. Screwed is you.

See? That's just depressing. If Resident Evil has come down to nothing but being hopelessly outnumbered by the enemies everywhere, then that's not Resident Evil. Resident Evil used to be about 2 or 3 zombies in each hallway, or surrounding a room, and slowly creeping towards you, and you going, "Oh crap, which one do I kill first? Will I have the time to escape before the next one gets to me?" Not about overcrowding it to the point where you'd need a grenade to clear the way. No thank you, RE4.

Canas Renvall

Also, let's be honest, the story of RE3 isn't the strongest, and like he said... aside from a few events, there isn't a ton of story development in the game, so remaking Raccoon City like that wouldn't ******** up any canon.

Actually, I dunno if it would ******** it up or not. But that's just not true, Canas. RE3 had more character development than either RE1 or 2 (and no, "I'm just a woman. And I'm in love with you" doesn't count for decent character development), and while I didn't calculate it exactly, just from playing it, I could tell that it has more dialogue to gameplay ratio than RE1 or 2. So it has even more of a story than either of those two games.

Canas Renvall

So, in closing... Would I want static camera angles? Naturally, that's a given. But the way they described it, there's no reason they couldn't take the camera angle they created for 4 and turn it into something actually scary (for once).

Well, the fact that they've made two games with the behind the back camera angle and neither of them HAVE been scary, means Capcom just isn't capable of making that type of gameplay scary. Asfar as COULD WORK goes, yes, if RE3 was made (or remade) how you say, then it might be a fun, balanced game. But frankly, I don't believe it would be scary. At least not in Capcom's hands.
The only game that had behind the back camera and was genuinely scary was Siren. That's it.

Canas Renvall

Either that, or that could be Outbreak File #3. Minus Nemesis, but adding something like the Axeman or some Tyrant or something. And of course, online play. razz Not saying that it should have online play if it's RE3 (keep it single-player please), but if it's Outbreak then it would be a must.

Now, see? That's a different story entirely. And now I'm gonna write a huge a** article about why.
Mind you for the purpose of the following, we'll ignore the fact that Capcom took the RE storyline, ate it, and then gave us what they crapped out. Let's say the storyline is still half decent, just for comparison purposes.

Case File #1: Side Story Games
Resident Evil (at it's purest) is a survival horror game with tank controls and fixed camera angles. That's what it is. And nothing else. For this example, I'll use the Mortal Kombat franchise. Just because it's a fighting game with probably the strongest storyline. In any case. So, MK is a fighting game that uses the classic setup with fighters being on the opposite sides of the screen and the health bars on top. That's what Mortal Kombat is, at it's purest. And nothing else.
Now, they've made several adventure games based on the franchise as well. All side stories, such as MK Mythologies Sub-Zero.
So that's what it comes down to. Is it okay for a pure franchise to make a side story with different gameplay? Sure! Dead Aim was fun if you ignore Morpheus' tits. Frankly, I wouldn't have minded an RE side story where it's made like an action shooter, except not against zombies, but rather against Umbrella soldiers.
See, it's simple as that, you say, "Well, this side story we're trying out different gameplay, just for this game. It's NOT a horror game. It's just placed in the same universe." That's fine.
Going back to the Mortal Kombat example. Yes, they've made some adventure games, but it's okay, because even if you hated it, you know there will be another MK fighting game, what MK truly is.

So the same with Resident Evil. If, like you say, they made a behind the back game in Raccoon City, say, Outbreak File 3, that'd be fine, because it's just a side story. But when it comes to the central plot, it should be true to the original gameplay. To what Resident Evil truly is.

Case File #2: Remakes
a. True to the Source Remake
For this analogy, I'll use the music industry.
Imagine that Resident Evil 1 is the first album of your favorite band. Now, when they started out in 1980s, they were still fairly indie, and recorded their first album in some low budget studio and released it on Casette Tape. You happened to get your hands on a copy of it, and you fell in love with the sound of it. You fell in love with the melodies, the lyrics and the style they were putting out, even though the quality was lacking.

Now, REmake... So, several years later, when the band became really popular, they said, "Let's take that first album and remake it." They took their oriringal source sheet music, and all that stuff. They redid the whole album in a big budget studio, with new, better instruments. Made the same album but it sounds so polished and gleaming with production quality. Also, they added a song that was cut from the original album and a few new songs to boot, and some of the existing songs have some extra guitar solos, or whatever it is your band does. By the analogy that's Remake. It's the same game. Same gameplay style, same camera angles, same scenes. The only difference being the few new features, and the extra levels. The extra levels being those new guitar solos. Now, if you absolutely hated the idea of Lisa Trevor and the few changes in the architecture. Then you hated those extra guitar solos, and you'll just stick to listening to the original album. Or in the real world, stick to playing the original game.
But for most people, it was good, it felt right, it didn't bastardize the source material. And for the vast majority, that's the one definitive version of that album/game.

That could fail, too. Maybe the band put a new guitar solo into every song, and you happen to hate those guitar solos. The video game equivalent to that would be MGS: Twin Snakes. It's MGS1 for all intents and purposes, but they redid the action scenes in the cinematics, and I'm very aware that many fans of MGS didn't like that, and choose to ignore Twin Snakes as their definitive MGS. Honestly, not me, I like Twin Snakes and for me, if I was to replay the series, I'd play Twin Snakes instead of MGS1. But that's just me.

But the point is, going back to Remake. The gameplay, the camera angles, everything was true to the source, and that's the right way to make a REMAKE. It was remade with the new technology available.


b. Different Genre Remakes
Now, if you remake a game with completely new gameplay... Again, using the music industry example. It's a remix for all intents and purposes. The RE1 scenario in Umbrella Chronicles is basically a techno remix of the first album's remake. And while it can be an interesting interpretation of it, it's not definitive. We all know that. Who in their right mind takes the RE1 and RE3 scenarios of Umbrella Chronicles as canon?

Another video game example would be Mortal Kombat again. Their last adventure game, Shaolin Monks was meant to be a different genre remake of MK2. It's a completely different game. It felt like a God of War type game more than a Mortal Kombat type game. Now, was that game not fun? No, it was fun. And if they hadn't butchered the storyline (to the point where even the Midway staff said it's not Canon) it'd be a fine example of a different genre remake that works.
But even if it was true to the original story, and even if it looks and plays great... It will never replace MK2 as the definitive Mortal Kombat 2 game.
So if I were to use the Resident Evil example... Imagine if they did remake RE3, made it into an over the shoulder game, butchered the storyline, and then said it's not canon. That's fine. Because they said it's not canon. It's fun to play. But it does not replace the original.

Back to the music industry example. Fear Factory's second album was remixed and re-released as pretty much an industrial techno album as opposed to the industrial metal that they actually play. Is it a cool interpretation to listen to? Sure, it is. Does it replace the original? HELL NO!
So the same with RE. Yes, if they remade RE3 with behind the back camera, it might be a fun game to play. But there's no way it could replace the original RE3.

And when it comes to remakes, maybe YOU want it to be just for fun. But personally, to me, a remake means a definitive version of the game. Like, REmake, is the definitive version of what happened in RE1, for me. It completely replaces RE1.
And if they make it just for fun, then I see no point in playing it. Had the storyline in Umbrella Chronicles not been butchered, the only reason I'd see to playing it would be the new scenarios.

Imagine if Metal Gear Solid 1 was remade in the Metal Gear Ac!d style gameplay. Would it be fun? Sure. Would it be the definitive version of the game? Hell no!

Imagine if they remade FF7 as an action RPG. Could it be fun? Sure. Would it replace the original FF7 as the definitive version? Only if you're a Square-Enix sheep who buys everything they put out without descrimination or half a brain given.

Some things aren't meant to be remade. And as much as I'd like to see RE3 in new updated graphics, if it's remade with a different style of gameplay, like rail shooter or behind the back camera, I would NOT play it.

Or let's use another example, since I've given up on RE. Something that could probably use a remake.
I guess we'll use Silent Hill... Shattered Memories is supposed to be a reimagining, and areboot of the franchise. So it doesn't really count as a remake for me. Because it's the equivalent to SH1 what Tomb Raider anniversary is to TR1. But, let's say aside from Shattered Memories, they're planning to create a true to the original remake of Silent Hill 1, and do it with updated graphics. Would I want that? Sure. But if they made it in another genre. Or heck, if they made it in the gameplay style of Homecoming... Could it work? Could it be fun? Sure. Would it replace the original? No. And therefore there's no point of me playing it.


So, in conclusion, like I said, Could Work is a bad way to suggest new gameplay styles. Because a lot of things could work. But Resident Evil 1 2 and 3, with the fixed camera angles and no HUD whatsoever. No on screen interface while you're in-game. It felt like playing a movie. And if it were any other way... Let's say, if RE1 and 2 were as they are, and RE3 was remade in the style of RE5, then I'd see no point in playing it.

And that's another thing. The behind the back camera that Capcom brought up came with the on screen button prompts and a health bar in the corner. And I think I hated those things more than I hated the camera itself. Resident Evil's immersion came from the screen being 100% dedicated to the scene. If the remake had a Health Bar on the screen, I would've liked it about 75% less.  

[Baroque_murder]

Holy Smokes Bio. Unfortunently I had started reading before I made popcorn so I finished by the time it was done.

I agree with a lot that you said. One of the main things is how you compared remakes of games to remakes of music albums. If Guns N Roses Released an redone version of Appetite for Destruction, I would still buy it, but I would still have the original copy of it due to the fact that it is the original and there will be nothing else like it.

Same with the Resident Evil Remakes. I have the gamecube version of Resident Evil and yet I still have the playstation version. Why you might ask. For one thing I enjoyed the original version, and still do to this day. Plus it is a piece of my life that cannot be filled with the remake. I enjoy the remake and the added level of creepiness it had with the updated graphics. I mean come on. Remember the feeling when you first beat Resident Evil? I do not know about you all but I was darn proud of myself at the time. Same goes for any other game. I felt a sense of acomplishment for beating the game and no remake will take away from beating the original.  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Well, obviously. But I mean as far as the storyline goes. If you follow the storyline, (and say RE storyline didn't start sucking), and in a GOOD version of RE4, they made a reference to Lisa Trevor, then obviously the Remake is the definitive version of Resident Evil, discrediting RE1 from being canon. That's what I mean by the one definitive version. It still holds a dear place in my heart, but as far as following the storyline goes, the remakes should be definitive. And if they suck, then there's no point in playing them.  

[Baroque_murder]

Exactly, what is the point of making a remake if it will be worse than the original?  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Exactly. And frankly, bad graphics are no reason to make a remake. The only reason a game should be remade is to cover up major plotholes or to make the storyline flow coherently. But games like Silent Hill 2 and FF7 just shouldn't be remade.
Metal Gear Solid didn't need a remake either, but we got one. Frankly, it was a waste of time on their part, I think, but at least it gave GameCube owners something other than RE to play. But it was still unnecessary.

So as far as RE3 goes, there's no need for it to be remade. It is what it is. It's good enough. Especially if it was to be remade in behind the back camera. As much as I'd like to stare at Jill's butt for 3+ hours, it's not worth it.  

[Baroque_murder]

bwahahaha I don't think any guy could argue with that last statement.


I was very excited to play The Twin Snakes due to the fact that I could not find a copy of the original MGS for ps. Which I can understand why they would remake it, because they wanted to try and grasp a broader audience.

On the terms of gamecube games, have you ever played a game called Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem?  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Hey, like I said, I liked Twin Snakes, but it didn't to a whole lot other than make the gameplay a bit more fun.

Yeah, I have Eternal Darkness. But my point still remains. Neither the GameCube or the Wii are overflowing with games for a mature audience.
Heck, it's pretty sad to see people go all giddy over games like the Conduit or MadWorld, saying, "Yes! Finally! An M rated game for the Wii! See? It's not a kiddie system." If people need to make statements like that, then there obviously isn't enough Mature content for said system. And yes, I know Nintendo is more of a family oriented platform, but either way, that's my point. I just don't care for Mario or Super Smash Bros.  

[Baroque_murder]

Brawl is good for partys but so are games like Rock Band. Personally I love No More Heroes. Definitely a game to check out if you love bloody, random action games.

Eternal Darkness was unusual to me. I played as long as I could with my sanity meter empty. It made it more interesting that way.

I really hope Silicon Knights makes a sequel to it.  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

If I'm in the mood for a bloody random action game, I'll pick up Wet. That game is like Kill Bill and The Matrix rolled into one.
But yeah, as far as party games go, I'll pick Rock Band/Guitar Hero over Brawl any day. I'm a slave to the music.

Well, the sequel has been confirmed on the Wii, so expect it.  

[Baroque_murder]

-runs around screaming yes-

I am a slave for music as well. It kind of stinks though cause I change my favorite band almost everyday.

And have you noticed how this thread got off track from RE4?

I am not complaining by no means though.  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Yeah, back on topic. The point is, sometimes a Remake is sort of necessary, to get rid of a few plot holes and make the story coherent. But in that case, it should be faithful to the source material, including the style of gameplay.
But for games like RE3, a remake is completely unnecessary. The plot in that game moves smoothly and the dialogue is delivered just fine. A simple graphical upgrade is not a reason for a remake.

That, and everything else I said in that big chunk of text up there.  

[Baroque_murder]

So it should be more of a remake with extra bits of story or something of the such. Not a remake in gameplay or altogether. I agree. If you really love a game you don't mind using the controls for a second time. I know I didn't with Resident Evil.  

[Canas Renvall]

Biohazard EXTREME

Alright... This is gonna be a long one... So you better go grab some popcorn.

Even if RE3 was the most action oriented out of the original trilogy, it still had that creepy stillness to it. And there's NOTHING that keeps features that you just mentioned from working for a static camera angle. The loudness effect, the real-time Nemesis, it all would work just fine with static cameras.

I completely agree, and I would like nothing more than to have it with static camera angles. However, Capcom's willingness to make a game like that has more or less diminished to nothing.

Biohazard EXTREME

Canas Renvall

The reason I think RE3 could work with the RE4/5 camera system is,

Now, see? There's the first problem right there. And I actually think it's a problem with all gamers and gaming in general these days. Look at your wording, "could work"... See, that's the problem with the way games are evaluated these days, it's too robotic. "Graphics good? Gameplay good? Game good!" That's bullcrap. That eliminates all personal opinion. And maybe that works for professional reviewers, but screw them, I don't even consider them real gamers. Like, are graphics good in Dead Space? Yes. Is the gameplay solid? Yes. Does it work? Yes. But I hated it, and that's my personal opinion.

Wait, what? Notice, before "could work". "I think." It's my personal opinion that it could work, and I was explaining why. Doesn't mean you have to listen at all (that's what makes the world go 'round, diversity!), but I wanted to share my thoughts on the matter. razz

Biohazard EXTREME

What I'm trying to say is, it's not about what COULD WORK. Ratchet and Clank COULD WORK as an FPS. Do we want it to be an FPS? Canas, I think you an I are both gonna answer "Hell no" to that. My point is, Resident Evil is what it is. (I'm talking about classic RE here). Yes, there are a number of ways one could approach making a game like that, but it was originally made with static cameras, and that's how it should be. However, I don't even entirely agree with you on that.

Hell no indeed. scream Once again, I never said I didn't want it to have static camera angles, and I agree that's how it should be. I'm saying how to take a different approach that could be.

Biohazard EXTREME

See? That's just depressing. If Resident Evil has come down to nothing but being hopelessly outnumbered by the enemies everywhere, then that's not Resident Evil. Resident Evil used to be about 2 or 3 zombies in each hallway, or surrounding a room, and slowly creeping towards you, and you going, "Oh crap, which one do I kill first? Will I have the time to escape before the next one gets to me?" Not about overcrowding it to the point where you'd need a grenade to clear the way. No thank you, RE4.

Think about this for a minute. If a city of at least a hundred thousand people was zombified, do you really think you'd just meet one or two zombies at a time? This is one time where it would be logical to have a bunch of zombies after you. And like I said, limited ammo would make it even worse for your predicament. And unlike RE4, no grenades! I know you're a master with the knife. No melees, either, by the way. It's not practical to get your hands dirty with the infected flesh of a zombie.

Biohazard EXTREME

Actually, I dunno if it would ******** it up or not. But that's just not true, Canas. RE3 had more character development than either RE1 or 2 (and no, "I'm just a woman. And I'm in love with you" doesn't count for decent character development), and while I didn't calculate it exactly, just from playing it, I could tell that it has more dialogue to gameplay ratio than RE1 or 2. So it has even more of a story than either of those two games.

I said story development, not character development. What happens story-wise that you didn't already know from RE2 aside from the fact that Umbrella sent watchdogs to retrieve data? That's not huge. Most of the dialogue and cutscenes were Nicholai killing people, places blowing up, and Nemesis attacking Jill. Sure, there was a lot of character development. However, the overall story wasn't exactly thrusted forward.

And even if they did remake Raccoon City to be like that, there's nothing that would really interfere with the story's events anyway. It could still play out like it did in RE3.

Biohazard EXTREME

Well, the fact that they've made two games with the behind the back camera angle and neither of them HAVE been scary, means Capcom just isn't capable of making that type of gameplay scary. Asfar as COULD WORK goes, yes, if RE3 was made (or remade) how you say, then it might be a fun, balanced game. But frankly, I don't believe it would be scary. At least not in Capcom's hands.
The only game that had behind the back camera and was genuinely scary was Siren. That's it.

Siren was more like SH's camera... Unless you mean Siren: Blood Curse. In which case I totally agree. I love that game as much as REmake and SH2. Go figure that the director is the director of SH1. razz

However, there's no reason that the third time can't be the charm. I wouldn't expect it to be as scary as say, REmake, but I'm sure they could get it down-pat after two failed attempts. At least with a new director. Mikami only did it 'cause Capcom muscled him into it, and Takeuchi... is very, very eh. We need someone committed and skilled.

Biohazard EXTREME

And that's another thing. The behind the back camera that Capcom brought up came with the on screen button prompts and a health bar in the corner. And I think I hated those things more than I hated the camera itself. Resident Evil's immersion came from the screen being 100% dedicated to the scene. If the remake had a Health Bar on the screen, I would've liked it about 75% less.

I guess that's something else I should've added under the "keep it old-school" part of my post. Not just limited ammo and health, but keep the EKG (no health bars, I want to see how my heart's doing razz ) in the menu, keep the dodge button a skill occurrence as opposed to the flashing buttons telling you what to do... Keep it true to the original in that sense.