Why is this the only video game remake that actually managed to improve on everything from the original without making...

It's more of
>im a literal child who wouldnt understand good game design if it punched me in the face, so I learned to "deal with" concepts such as a hilariously shitty camera and an NES tier inventory system because they added an artificial sense of challenge to an incredibly simple puzzle game

faggot

>If they remade Metal Gear 1 right now, for example, they would not do it as a top down 2D game like the NES version, they would reimagine it something like the later MGS games
And thats why it would be a shit remake. And you would probably eat it up like the faggot you are. Fucking kill yourself.

Why the fuck would you care about being faithful to MG1. It's a good game but if it were expanded it'd be so much better.

this. they cared, which most game dev's dont.

Because it was only made 5 or 6 years after the original, so they hadn't even experimented with the gameplay formula yet. Also I thought they did a pretty amazing job with the second one.

Are you upset that everyone is afraid to compare the first 5 or so resident evil games before "re4" to the average 90s style point and click adventure because they'll come out the worse for it?

you could just say "I wish they made REmake 2 as a low budget spin-off project for Switch / Mobile instead of AAA" because that's the only way they would ever remake it in the classic style. They have to make money somehow, and basically no one is going to buy a $60 PS4 game with fixed-cam classic RE gameplay in 2019

It's not. Most SNES remakes do exactly that.

>The time between now and the remake is three times the amount of time between the original and the remake.

Is your favorite game King's Quest? Do you have type II diabetes?

I think about this kind of stuff a lot and it terrifies me.

no its obvious you cant identify the good design in resident evil because you are.. in fact.. afraid. its ok little buddy

REmake is completely soulless compared to RE1

Because unlike most games that get remade Resident Evil had so much room for improvement. Like with all Remakes a remake only makes sense if the original was special kind of bad where it had a lot of good ideas but kinda shitty execution. That's Resident Evil for the PS1, no one really knew how to do this type of game yet, everyone in the industry was still trying to wrap their heads around designing games in 3D, it was a mess so people could forgive a game being shit if it was trying something new. Resident Evil is supposed to be a horror game but the original PS1 game is often more of a unintentional comedy. It's cute how bad it is at being a horror game most of the time.

Remakes only exist when people in suits think they can make a buck on name recognition however, and rarely do the these conditions overlap with a game like Resident Evil where you have a bad game with good ideas but you also have name recognition and you've in the intervening years developed the genre enough that now you actually do it right this time. Most of the time the original was actually good, and the remake will feel at best pointless because we still have the original and at worst like poor imitation that missed the point.

If you want to know how to make a good remake here is the formula
-Shitty game with good ideas but executed poorly
-We generally know how to do better now
-Enough people know about to make it financially worthwhile
Got to land on all three or else it either won't happen, or it'll end up the same or worse than the original.

Believe it or not, there are people who will tell you they think it did not improve everything. They'll say that a well-lit windowless Doom level due to its juxtaposition of mundanity and monsters is more unnerving than dark hallways with shadows of trees moving in the moonlight. They'll say without going into detail that the Lisa section after the mansion ruins the pacing of the levels. They'll say that crimson heads and dealing with them is worthless busywork and when you argue back they'll say that they're not a threat at all because everyone has played through the game 100 times and they never need to revisit any area where they killed a zombie. Also they'll insist that the fact that hunters don't decapitate you makes it a 0/10.

>everything should be a fps or ots 3ps
Kill yourself you filthy zoomer quadroon.

Attached: maxresdefault(15).jpg (1280x720, 109K)

I never said it should or shouldn't be, in fact I said the top-down version would be a much more faithful remake. I'm just stating the facts. When was the last full-price AAA game to come out with fixed camera gameplay that actually had combat? Or even Silent-Hill-style tracking cameras?
They don't make them anymore, just like how they don't make full-price AAA 2D platformer games anymore, because it's widely perceived as outdated and low-effort vs other $60 AAA offerings of 2019

Thats not a remake.

Because it was made by the original creators, with love and dedication. At the time when games were NOT being made for "the wider audiences", but for your target fan-base.

hush, zoom, hush.

Not if business execs remain in charge of triple-A vidya. Fixed camera-angles in RE are to Capcom as what turn-based combat is to Square-Enix and FF; the audience is there, but they'd rather milk on the casual action-gamer bucks.

how fast can you beat jill's scenario on normal, Yea Forums? i got it down to 2 and a half hours. not so good at the underground/cave section unfortunately.

ahem

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (1000x1253, 284K)

Ah ah, good joke fellow user. It would've been even funnier if you posted Kiwami 2

>At the time when games were NOT being made for "the wider audiences", but for your target fan-base.
Don't kid yourself, they made it for money just like every other AAA videogame ever. They're developers working for a living to sell a product. If the target fanbase weren't basically the same thing as "the wider audience" like they were in 2002, they wouldn't have remade it like they did (if at all). Classic RE was still very very popular in 2002 gaming

Fair enough, but not everything has to be a AAA blockbuster. What ever happened to niche genres? You can still make a profit from them and, especially in REs case, appease your disgruntled oldfag fanbase and keep them as consumers.

what about REmake2?

A RE2 Remake deserves more than to be a niche low-budget side project of a classic RE game only designed to appease the oldfags. The first REmake already set the precedent that it should be full fledged AAA game that is able to compete with the best games of its year. It'd be a disservice to RE2's legacy to treat the project as anything less.
I'm sorry that many oldfags got mad about the changes that were made, but many more oldfags (like myself) didn't really mind and just saw it as its own game. The game was successful, able to draw new fans to the series, and revitalized it the most since RE5.

>appease your disgruntled oldfag fanbase and keep them as consumers.
Would they really stop being fans / consumers of the series just because their remake was inaccurate? Maybe some of the most autistic fans would boycott RE from then on, but 90% would still get the new RE games (as long as they weren't universally panned on release like RE6)

It's a totally different game.

>Don't kid yourself, they made it for money
Obviously, can't you read? He said they made it for the target fan-base and he's right. Jesus Christ you're a fucking moron.

As it is the game disregards it's legacy, that doesn't automatically make it bad but this "it's the best way to honour it" shit makes no sense to me, the project chased marketing trends and you're painting it as a profound artistic choice or some shit

It was a critical and financial success and a big hit with 90% of the RE fanbase, while being as big of a release as one of the mainline games. I never said anything about artistry, just about the precedent that REmake 1 set in terms of the AAA scale and success of the project, and living up to that precedent (which means not designing it as a cheap indie-tier game by 2019 standards)

>Jesus Christ you're a fucking moron.
oo somebody's mad

REmake's precedent was perfecting the classic formula. I mean, they're still selling and porting that game so it's not like shit's taboo, if the urge is to go big and modern then just make a new title instead of forever burning away the chance of having more admittedly "retro" remakes, be it 2 or 3 or anything after, so that "REmake" could still live on as that style of series?

Yeah, good on them, they made money, it's still a wasted opportunity, we could've had both the cake and eaten some. I'm assuming you're not using indie-tier as a negative description, it's not a good thing the mainstream AA market is mostly dead

Original had heavier atmosphere.

Not very fast because I'd actually like to enjoy that game and the atmosphere, also recklessly hurrying through is not exactly something I'd associate with survival.

Majima Everywhere isn't an unnecessary change and it certainly isn't an improvement.

Yeah right. Repetitive sounds with no echo or muffling, fully bright environments missing essential detail despite pre-rendered backgrounds literally having no polygon limit, overuse of melodic rather than ambient music, retarded voice acting in a game that is not supposed to feel like a dream unlike SH2, no injured animations to signify danger, howling wolf sounds outside that loop every 2 seconds

*is an unnecessary change

REmake had the original director return to flesh out his own vision. That said, I've seen some condemn the addition of survival items in the past. I think it's fine but it does kind of act as a "get out of jail free" option when you do have one on your person.

REmake makes you take more damage from zombies and you can choose to use or not use the defensive items when you want with the press of a button if you want to avoid or tank the damage.

Odin Sphere Leifthrasir is a great remake as well.

Oh man, almost forgot about this. Seconding the fuck out of this user, Leifthrasir is the best remake since REmake, easily.

(You)

Remake 2002 was made by the same person who made the original. It came out 6 years later, when the genre wasn't declared dead.

RE2make 2019 was made by a team of people with no connection to the original game. It came out 20 years later, when you would have to suicidal as a big publisher to release a game in a long dead genre.

Makes me wonder why no single indie dev has tried to make a game like the original re games. Takes some effort I guess.
>tfw 1.5 is in hiatus

Shit taste, the post

Survival horror's been on the upswing again compared to the late 00s-mid 10s.

I take it you've never heard of Back in 1995?

>instead of forever burning away the chance of having more admittedly "retro" remakes, be it 2 or 3 or anything after, so that "REmake" could still live on as that style of series?

I think the user you were replying to was being far too generous with the idea that a retro style remake would be possible. Modern Capcom play things as financially safe as possible, hence why they barely do anything other than monster hunter these days

There's also Simulacrum which plays and even looks exactly like Silent Hill 3 minus the combat

If pretentious indiecucks prove this niche of a market to be profitable enough like they did with shitty FPS horror walking sims a couple of years back. Capcom are the biggest sluts in the entire industry, they will make anything for a dollar.