Canas Renvall
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.
So, what you're saying is, "if we can't get the best, I'll settle for what they give me?"
Dude, first of all... Did Capcom SAY they were remaking RE3? Cause if not, then this conversation shouldn't even be happening.
Canas Renvall
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
Canas Renvall
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.
You're totally missing the point, though. I don't disagree that it could work.
But allow me to quote Jurassic Park:
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they COULD, they never stopped to think if they SHOULD."
That's the same case. Yes, RE3 could potentially make a kick a** action shooter. But SHOULD it be done? No, it shouldn't.
Canas Renvall
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.
That's another problem with society. I call it the Batmobile syndrome.
Everyone is so obsessed with what's more real, what's more practical, they never stop to think about style and aesthetics.
Look at the Batmobile in the new Batman movies. It's the ogliest piece of machinery I've ever seen. "But, Bio! It's more realistic that way!" Who cares!? It used to look slick and kick a**, now it looks like Chris from RE5, big and bulky.
My point is, that, look at RE for what it SHOULD be. The survival horror game. The atmosphere of quiet stillness. Not knowing what's around the corner. It's not about what, "Makes sense", technically speaking, the whole police squad failed against the zombies, so not Jill, nor Leon, Claire and especially not Sherry should've survived that encounter. Yes, that's unrealistic. That particular aspect is about defying the odds. But that's story related.
Gameplay related aspect of the game would be the narrow hallway with three or so zombies crowding it. That's what RE was about. If you want your shitton of zombies share in classic RE, there's always the mercenaries mode in RE3 (which was the only Mercenaries mode ever to actually include MERCENARIES, so I don't see why it's even CALLED that in the other games). But the core gameplay itself is not about fighting off a crapload of zombies.
Because, Canas, and this is where your two theories contradict. See, the game actually has to be BEATABLE. Which means, either you don't put too many zombies in it, and have the ability to outrun them, OR you give you character a crapload of ammo. One or the other. Yes, if you're stuck between a hoard of zombies and Nemesis with like, 25 bullets in your handgun and nothing else, you're completely screwed. And how would you get out of something like that?
Canas Renvall
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.
Oh, and I suppose Raccoon City being nuked 2 days after Leon and Claire escaped isn't huge?
Let's pretend that Capcom didn't completely derail the storyline, and that I'm actually still giving a crap. Capcom barely even touched on the G-Virus since RE2, other than less than decent CGI movie they made.
But nuking a whole city to cover Umbrella's crimes, that's freakin cataclysmic. RE3 was much more important to the overall storyline than RE2 was, IMO.
Canas Renvall
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.
Again, you're saying, "Well, I'll just settle for what they give me."
Actually, you got your facts wrong. The only thing that Capcom muscled him, is OUT of making RE4 to be with the hook man and the black smoke (Lost, anyone?). Which could've been more scary, but they'd be more wrong for the series than even the Ganados. Either way, Mikami flat out refused to make another RE game in the classic style. Capcom were the ones who kept him pinned down that long, telling him to KEEP MAKING them like the classics. So it was Mikami to blame for RE4, not Capcom.
And Takeuchi, don't even get me started.
My point is, you're saying now, "They need a new director" etc. etc. Well, frankly, I agree with you. But look at it this way. If they find a new director who can make behind the back actually scary, why couldn't they find a new director who can make Static Camera gameplay more accessible to the nooblet fanbase that Capcom wants so badly?
Canas Renvall
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.
Either way. Like I keep saying over and over. The awesome thing about static cameras is that they give the impression like you're actually playing out a movie. And heck, I guess that's what I get for being an actor, but that's one thing I loved the most when I picked up RE for the first time. So to have the camera behind the back would be totally counterproductive, because even if it's scary, even if it works, even if it's technically Survival Horror... It's not Resident Evil. True Resident Evil plays like you're watching a horror movie. That's what I love about it.
But all that aside, I come back to my first question. IS Capcom remaking RE3? Because if not, then I don't see why you want a remake of RE3 so badly? RE3 is good enough as it is. Stop fishing for better graphics, you're the one whose main defense of the Wii is that Gameplay is most important.
If Capcom doesn't want to remake (and as I predict Bastardize) RE3, then let it rest. RE3 is not getting remade, all is well.
