Jump to content

Resident Evil 4 Remake


Abby_TheLastofUs

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, CelestialRequiem said:

I'm reading it, it just isn't particularly relevant. 

 

The reason why I have that view is because there is nothing wrong with old games. I think there are excellent ways to preserve them, such as remasters, but I don't think a game needs to be remade if the game is already great. Resident Evil 2 for example is a great game; but its remake plays nothing like the original and in my opinion is a worse game than the original. So a remake was pointless. 

 

There can be exceptions to this view of mine, such as the original Resident Evil. That case is very specific, however, as it was remade by the original creator, whereas RE2 was not and RE4 will not be. 

 

Good games are good games. You remaster them, port them, but remaking them serves no creative purpose when the game is already good. "Modernizing" games also runs the higher risk of them playing worse than the original versions. 

 

So we're going to have to agree to disagree here. 

 

Good games can also age poorly in some or even several areas, though.
It's really not that hard to comprehend, nor is it completely illogical and without reason or purpose.

 

Most people, for example, are not going to say that the original Ocarina of Time is wholly better than its remake for the 3DS unless they're blinded by nostalgia and/or elitism.
(Save for a relatively small handful of people where it's purely a preference more than anything, nostalgia-driven or not)


Is the original better in some areas? Sure. Is it better all-round? Probably not.
Either way it's still rather subjective, but there's still an obvious and clear preference here for most people.

 

You're even admitting that it's a personal preference here despite treating it as an objective statement earlier.
Maybe try conveying that better next time instead of cherry picking out only specific points to rebut with nonsense.

 

14 minutes ago, CelestialRequiem said:

What's your stance on remaking movies? 

 

Depends on what the movie is, as we wouldn't have gotten the masterpiece that is Peter Jackson's King Kong if he didn't remake and reimagine the original 1933 film.
That said, the mediums aren't really that similar despite how hard the video game industry is trying to parallel Hollywood, so it's not really fair to compare them to that extent.

 

You don't have to worry about how a movie controls since they aren't interactive, but for games that's one major part of what makes them what they are.

Edited by Zephrese
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stan Lee said:

No game ever "needs" to be remade. But if we get an awesome new iteration out of it then what harm? We'll be getting new RE games as well and even if it sucks, the original will always be there since they re-release it on every damn system anyway.

 

Exactly my stance on this kind of subject.

 

They'll more than likely continue to re-release the original RE4 even after this remake comes out too, and probably the remake itself as well. lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Stan Lee said:

No game ever "needs" to be remade. But if we get an awesome new iteration out of it then what harm? We'll be getting new RE games as well and even if it sucks, the original will always be there since they re-release it on every damn system anyway.

Well, to be clear, there isn't any "harm", exactly. I would just say purposeless. I'd rather have new experiences. I would love the originals on my PS4 or PS5. They're locked onto my PS3/Vita. 

Edited by CelestialRequiem
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CelestialRequiem said:

Well, to be clear, there isn't any "harm", exactly. I would just say purposeless. I'd rather have new experiences. I would love the originals on my PS4 or PS5. They're locked onto my PS3/Vita. 

 

Okay, that I can agree to. Newer games are pretty much always preferable, imo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

The irony is if Outbreak was an original game released today, you people hating on all their new games would hate on that too.

If it had the same effort as REsistance,Umbrella corp or Operation Raccoon City then   certainly I would just like I still think Gun Survivor is garbage on fire but if it had the same effort as the remakes or something like RE7 or RE8 I would praise them like I did when said games were released, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Edited by Sunnyburrito
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, CelestialRequiem said:

I'm reading it, it just isn't particularly relevant. 

 

The reason why I have that view is because there is nothing wrong with old games. I think there are excellent ways to preserve them, such as remasters, but I don't think a game needs to be remade if the game is already great. Resident Evil 2 for example is a great game; but its remake plays nothing like the original and in my opinion is a worse game than the original. So a remake was pointless. 

 

There can be exceptions to this view of mine, such as the original Resident Evil. That case is very specific, however, as it was remade by the original creator, whereas RE2 was not and RE4 will not be. 

 

Good games are good games. You remaster them, port them, but remaking them serves no creative purpose when the game is already good. "Modernizing" games also runs the higher risk of them playing worse than the original versions. 

 

So we're going to have to agree to disagree here. 

 

What's your stance on remaking movies? 

Great games need a remake so the new generations can play them properly. You probably lived in the 90s, but the majority of the gaming community didn't, so RE2 is incredibly dated for them, like 99% of the PSX games. You probably love the original, but it doesn't hold up well today because not a single studio makes games like that anymore. Remastered versions of a game work with the nostalgic public, but if you wanna get to a bigger audience, you need to do a remake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jeanoltt said:

 

Great games need a remake so the new generations can play them properly.

What is "properly"? 

 

3 minutes ago, Jeanoltt said:

 

You probably lived in the 90s

Irrelevant. I play games that even predated my existence. By decades, even. 

 

4 minutes ago, Jeanoltt said:

You probably love the original, but it doesn't hold up well today because not a single studio makes games like that anymore.

Holds up just fine. Plays just as well as it did the day it released. 

 

7 minutes ago, Jeanoltt said:

Remastered versions of a game work with the nostalgic public, but if you wanna get to a bigger audience, you need to do a remake. 

This comes back to my argument of, I'd prefer new experiences. I'm not talking about what is or isn't commercially viable. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CelestialRequiem said:

What is "properly"? 

 

Irrelevant. I play games that even predated my existence. By decades, even. 

 

Holds up just fine. Plays just as well as it did the day it released. 

 

This comes back to my argument of, I'd prefer new experiences. I'm not talking about what is or isn't commercially viable. 

It's great that you can enjoy a game that was released 20 years ago, but most people can't if they didn't live that generation. That's the purpose of the remakes if you were wondering?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, CelestialRequiem said:

Holds up just fine. Plays just as well as it did the day it released.

 

Again, not everyone's going to agree with that, which is the point being made here. Not with this specifically, but just in general.

 

I don't know if I agree with the generational mentality outright, however. That's never mattered to me, at least, but that's subjective as well I suppose.

Edited by Zephrese
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jeanoltt said:

 

Great games need a remake so the new generations can play them properly. 

This is really something. If new generations played a remake of a great game, not only would they not be playing those original games "properly", they wouldn't be playing them at all; they'd be playing a completely different game since that's what a remake is. You're not arguing in favor of preservation you're arguing in favor of just wanting shiny new things because you get bored easily. A game can be 20 years old and still be better than new and remade games alike, why does a great game "need" a remake for people to appreciate them? You're just separating people by decade for no reason and adding emotes to your messages for that extra passive aggressive zest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sunnyburrito said:

If it had the same effort as REsistance,Umbrella corp or Operation Raccoon City then   certainly I would just like I still think Gun Survivor is garbage on fire but if it had the same effort as the remakes or something like RE7 or RE8 I would praise them like I did when said games were released, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Daily reminder ORC sold better than both Outbreak games combined.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really is simple as this: 

 

  1. Original product that was quality was inspired by the creator's design philosophies and will remain good forever. 
  2. Remaking that quality product (99% of the time through a different creator) is them attempting to make something good while also deviating what made the original product good. 

 

Therefore, remakes are pointless. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Surely if people like them, then they aren't any more "pointless" than the originals?

 

For example, I played RE2 to death on initial release on the PS1. I loved that game...

...but I think the remake is a better game in 2021.

 

Certainly wasn't "pointless" to me. I wouldn't want to play the old one now, having played the new version. It has aged poorly.

Sure, the gameplay is exactly as it was back then - of course it is - but the surrounding factors have changed, casting that existing gameplay in a negative light.

Expectations have changed.

Standards have changed.

I have changed.

 

You can be a purist if you like, but I think to argue no game ever ages poorly is doing a disservice to the general progression of games as a medium, and specifically to the games out there which have aged well.

 

 

 

I mean, realistically, if you are going to insist on being reductive about it, then let's go all the way with it:

 

  1. Original product was game made to make money. 
  2. Remaking that is to make more money. 

 

Therefore, remakes are exactly the same as the original - products to make money.

That is the "point" of all videogames.

 

If the original makes a profit, it wasn't "pointless"

If the remake makes money, it isn't "pointless"

 

 

 

I shouldn't have to elucidate this again, but, I'm only talking about my perspective on the matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Deadly_Ha_Ha said:

This is really something. If new generations played a remake of a great game, not only would they not be playing those original games "properly", they wouldn't be playing them at all; they'd be playing a completely different game since that's what a remake is. You're not arguing in favor of preservation you're arguing in favor of just wanting shiny new things because you get bored easily. A game can be 20 years old and still be better than new and remade games alike, why does a great game "need" a remake for people to appreciate them? You're just separating people by decade for no reason and adding emotes to your messages for that extra passive aggressive zest.

 

Yeah, I didn't quite understand their point about generations myself. lol 

Although there are sadly a lot of people who won't play things that're "old" because old equals bad in their minds for whatever reason.

 

That said, I wouldn't say that most remakes are "completely" different games from their originals.

If you're playing something like Shadow of The Colossus for PS4, you're still basically playing the original game just with some slight changes and quality of life improvements.

(Obviously something like Final Fantasy VII Remake or the remakes of Resident Evil 2 and 3 are a different story entirely, but I digress)

 

5 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

You can be a purist if you like, but I think to argue no game ever ages poorly is doing a disservice to the general progression of games as a medium, and specifically to the games out there which have aged well.

 

Not to mention it's a pretty unrealistic stance to have in general, subjective or not.

Edited by Zephrese
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy on the personal insults. I never did that with you.

 

EDIT: Despite people continuing to speak about my dialogue, I've left it as "We aren't going to agree, so I have nothing more left to say." on the matter. My conversation was never about how others should feel, only how I do. Despite making that clear (and now edited posts that don't reflect that), I'm not interested in arguing this. You're welcome to PM me, but insulting me probably isn't the route to take. I mean, you can, I guess. I won't report you, but if we ever talk in the future, I'm not going return any kindness. 

Edited by CelestialRequiem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the age ol' argument of whether or not remakes are "pointless" is going on here I see.

 

There's remakes for games I've played that I much prefer over the originals, despite the nostalgia I may have for them. I much prefer Pokemon FireRed/LeafGreen to Red/Blue for example. I still continue to like both and replay both every few years. Then there's games where I do prefer the originals to the remakes/remasters/re-imaginings, etc. But most of the time when that IS the case, it's because the newer version has changed something(s) drastically in a way I don't like as much.

 

I enjoyed the RE2 and RE3 re-imaginings/remakes, and they don't take anything away from the originals to me because they're basically entirely different games. The original games still exist, and I actually went back and replayed RE2 and RE3 respectively very soon after I played the remakes just to grasp how many differences there were exactly (since it had been like 20 years since I originally played them and I didn't remember them insanely well). If anything, the remakes just helped me to appreciate the games all the more.

 

Obviously everyone is going to feel differently on topics like this though. But thinking we don't "need" remakes because the originals exist is very myopic. There's plenty of people and kids nowadays that have heard about great games before their time that they've always been interested in playing, but can't either because it's stuck on old hardware or because they can't get into the clunky control scheme the game may have, how "bad" the graphics are, the lack of regard for epilepsy back then, how unforgiving and disrespectful of your time the game may be, etc. It's irrelevant whether or not you think any of those are "dumb" reasons not to play a game. Games are meant for entertainment and many people have limited time, can't really blame someone for not wanting to spend their time on a frustrating SNES or PS1 game when they could be playing a much more forgiving and gratifying 2020s game. If a remake is something that can allow people to finally be able to play a game they've had their eyes on for a long time in a way that they can get enjoyment out of, then what's the downside?

 

I'm personally fine with games getting simple remasters/ports like Square Enix has been doing with a few of their older games in recent years, but remember that this is a rather niche market. SE can probably afford to do these remasters because of their "brand name". There's going to be people buying the SaGa games having no idea what they really are just because it's attached to the Square Enix and Final Fantasy names. Same goes for Nintendo when they port old games like the 3D Mario collection on Switch. Port something like Legend of Legaia to new consoles and you might get about 100-500 sales in the first week, maybe 5,000-10,000 in the first year of release. Either way, probably not enough to make it worth porting in the eyes of the IP holders. This has happened before in the past; Baroque was ported to the PS3 as a PS2 classic in Europe and then silently delisted, almost certainly because it sold next to nothing. The game has since been ported to the Switch, in Japan only. Its sales history in general since its original release on the Sega Saturn has been pretty abysmal (almost makes me wonder why they bother to keep porting it) so they probably don't want to take risks with releasing it in the West again.

 

I love and still continue to play games from both my childhood and before it, but even I can understand why many people don't want to. You have to remember that the majority of people into games don't have 5+ consoles from across the generations, and generally stick to popular, newer titles. Remakes are just a good way to market and sell old games to a newer audience in a way that simple ports and remasters often can't. If you're concerned about preserving old games, then there's already tons of preservation projects in place for them anyway, for the people that do still want to play the originals decades from now. It tends to be a legally grey area, but it exists nonetheless, and on a rather large scale.

 

On topic though, after the RE4 VR release, I'm left wondering if that was supposed to be the rumoured RE4 remake, or if it's something entirely separate? I guess time will tell. I do personally think RE4 has aged well enough that it doesn't really "need" a remake, maybe more just a remaster with refined controls and graphics if anything, but if the rumours are true and there is indeed a RE4 remake happening, I imagine it'll be more of a re-imagining like RE2 and 3 were, and I would be interested to see how that turns out.

Edited by SuperSmexy500
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SuperSmexy500 said:

Ah, the age ol' argument of whether or not remakes are "pointless" is going on here I see.

 

There's remakes for games I've played that I much prefer over the originals, despite the nostalgia I may have for them. I much prefer Pokemon FireRed/LeafGreen to Red/Blue for example. I still continue to like both and replay both every few years. Then there's games where I do prefer the originals to the remakes/remasters/re-imaginings, etc. But most of the time when that IS the case, it's because the newer version has changed something(s) drastically in a way I don't like as much.

 

I enjoyed the RE2 and RE3 re-imaginings/remakes, and they don't take anything away from the originals to me because they're basically entirely different games. The original games still exist, and I actually went back and replayed RE2 and RE3 respectively very soon after I played the remakes just to grasp how many differences there were exactly (since it had been like 20 years since I originally played them and I didn't remember them insanely well). If anything, the remakes just helped me to appreciate the games all the more.

 

Obviously everyone is going to feel differently on topics like this though. But thinking we don't "need" remakes because the originals exist is very myopic. There's plenty of people and kids nowadays that have heard about great games before their time that they've always been interested in playing, but can't either because it's stuck on old hardware or because they can't get into the clunky control scheme the game may have, how "bad" the graphics are, the lack of regard for epilepsy back then, how unforgiving and disrespectful of your time the game may be, etc. It's irrelevant whether or not you think any of those are "dumb" reasons not to play a game. Games are meant for entertainment and many people have limited time, can't really blame someone for not wanting to spend their time on a frustrating SNES or PS1 game when they could be playing a much more forgiving and gratifying 2020s game. If a remake is something that can allow people to finally be able to play a game they've had their eyes on for a long time in a way that they can get enjoyment out of, then what's the downside?

 

I'm personally fine with games getting simple remasters/ports like Square Enix has been doing with a few of their older games in recent years, but remember that this is a rather niche market. SE can probably afford to do these remasters because of their "brand name". There's going to be people buying the SaGa games having no idea what they really are just because it's attached to the Square Enix and Final Fantasy names. Same goes for Nintendo when they port old games like the 3D Mario collection on Switch. Port something like Legend of Legaia to new consoles and you might get about 100-500 sales in the first week, maybe 5,000-10,000 in the first year of release. Either way, probably not enough to make it worth porting in the eyes of the IP holders. This has happened before in the past; Baroque was ported to the PS3 as a PS2 classic in Europe and then silently delisted, almost certainly because it sold next to nothing. The game has since been ported to the Switch, in Japan only. Its sales history in general since its original release on the Sega Saturn has been pretty abysmal (almost makes me wonder why they bother to keep porting it) so they probably don't want to take risks with releasing it in the West again.

 

I love and still continue to play games from both my childhood and before it, but even I can understand why many people don't want to. You have to remember that the majority of people into games don't have 5+ consoles from across the generations, and generally stick to popular, newer titles. Remakes are just a good way to market and sell old games to a newer audience in a way that simple ports and remasters often can't. If you're concerned about preserving old games, then there's already tons of preservation projects in place for them anyway, for the people that do still want to play the originals decades from now. It tends to be a legally grey area, but it exists nonetheless, and on a rather large scale.

 

On topic though, after the RE4 VR release, I'm left wondering if that was supposed to be the rumoured RE4, or if it's something entirely separate? I guess time will tell. I do personally think RE4 has aged well enough that it doesn't really "need" a remake, maybe more just a remaster with refined controls and graphics if anything, but if the rumours are true and there is indeed a RE4 remake happening, I imagine it'll be more of a re-imagining like RE2 and 3 were, and I would be interested to see how that turns out.

Great point. Everyone is different and was born in a different time, so the "game standards" of younger people are higher than in the 90s, because the technology used in the industry has advanced a lot since that. I know plenty of people that would never play a 20 years old game (and people that would), so there's nothing wrong with remakes, as long as they are respectful to the original.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CelestialRequiem said:

I. I don't need them. I'm not talking about anyone else.

 

I generally don't need remakes of games either, but I can understand why some people desire them (I do sometimes), and I can definitely understand why companies do them. I had to go back and properly read many of the posts in this thread since I skimmed it initially, to get where you're coming from, and it seems the first thing you ever posted in this thread was "good games never need to be remade". I'm sure you can understand why that could cause some disagreements and debates. Probably doesn't help that how you present some of your opinions comes across as general statements either (e.g. "therefore, remakes are pointless"). They are certainly not pointless in the wider scope of things, even if they might be to you personally. I can definitely see why comments like that could ruffle a few feathers.

Edited by SuperSmexy500
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SuperSmexy500 said:

 

I generally don't need remakes of games either, but I can understand why some people desire them (I do sometimes), and I can definitely understand why companies do them. I had to go back and properly read many of the posts in this thread since I skimmed it initially, to get where you're coming from, and it seems the first thing you ever posted in this thread was "good games never need to be remade". I'm sure you can understand why that could cause some disagreements and debates. Probably doesn't help that how you present some of your opinions comes across as general statements either (e.g. "therefore, remakes are pointless"). They are certainly not pointless in the wider scope of things, even if they might be to you personally. I can definitely see why comments like that could ruffle a few feathers.

I've made it clear several times in the thread I was only speaking about myself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...