Y'all asking for an RE4 remake next and I kind of want them to do REREmake lol.
I don't know I feel RE1 works better with fixed angles, though I'm sure Capcom would prove me wrong given the chance lol
Y'all asking for an RE4 remake next and I kind of want them to do REREmake lol.
Y'all asking for an RE4 remake next and I kind of want them to do REREmake lol.
I don't know I feel RE1 works better with fixed angles, though I'm sure Capcom would prove me wrong given the chance lol
Dude for real
After seeing how amazing and detailed this is I want all RE games made this way
Alone in the Dark was the true trend setter, though. RE1 is an example of a game that ran into development problems and solved them by finding a popular game and aping it while adding a few twists of its own.I keep blaming Capcom for chasing trends instead of setting them like with RE1-4.
AgreedY'all asking for an RE4 remake next and I kind of want them to do REREmake lol.
Y'all asking for an RE4 remake next and I kind of want them to do REREmake lol.
This remake needs to be the new gold standard
Incredible mix of what made RE4 amazing with elements of the old games and most importantly... something new
Maybe it will turn out good this time.
but it doesn't look more action-y, that's the thing. It has the over-the-shoulder perspective that RE4 has, but the similarity stops there. The game's producer, on the official Capcom stream, literally called the game "a metroidvania survival horror game". And that's exactly what the videos show. The player cannot kneecap the zombie and supplex them like Leon could in RE4, ammo is scarce and enemies are aplenty.
Also, considering just how mediocre Code Veronica was, that's one more reason why I want them to remake it just like RE2.
RE 2 is first time that leon and claire fight B.O.W.s.
Unlike RE 3,CV and later RE game that RE Character become action hero.
AitD was first but hardly a trend setter. RE1-3 were basically the template for every horror game until RE4. Even AitD later copied their design to a t.Alone in the Dark was the true trend setter, though. RE1 is an example of a game that ran into development problems and solved them by finding a popular game and aping it while adding a few twists of its own.
I clipped Leon's death animation and made it brighter so you can actually see it.
I feel like the original soundtrack won't quite match the new level of tension early into the game. Then there's the matter of what they'll do with new areas.
I really hope other parts of the game do a better job of incorporating some of original music into the game, including the 1.5 tracks.
Hahaha, I love Resident Evil 7 and the fact it is in First Person perspective. 2's scenario is just a better one and the gameplay looks really tense with a waaay better variety of enemies and we haven't even seen the rest.
What I can say is they seem to be meshing many different things from other Resident Evils into this remake.
Yep. Been waiting for this for a long time.People asking for an RE4 remake should just acquaint (or reacquaint) themselves with the RE4 HD project. Just need a copy of the steam version of the game and a half decent PC. The full release is coming soon.
People asking for an RE4 remake should just acquaint (or reacquaint) themselves with the RE4 HD project. Just need a copy of the steam version of the game and a half decent PC. The full release is coming soon.
Wise word mister.The last page reminds me of one of the biggest tips I ever got for working on games: Be picky of what critique you take on the games you create, many gamers don't know the differences between actual critique and personal preference.
I see a lot of people stating personal preference as fact or a critique everyone would agree with (on preferences for what they should remake), which frankly is not true, and just got me thinking about that old piece of advice.
AitD was first but hardly a trend setter. RE1-3 were basically the template for every horror game until RE4. Even AitD later copied their design to a t.
Capcpom set the standard. After RE4 they just chased every trend and fad
You make some good points, especially the bolded. Never really considered that aspect. I think I'll probably keep hoping that the actual reworked music isn't relegated to a once-in-a-while nostalgia tug in the background and then do a second run after with the original OST tunes. Definitely won't do it the first time around.
I definitely meant it as a lighthearted joke. I really liked RE7's entire middle section...the beginning and entire ending were borderline nap-inducing for me however. I just can't help but think that this RE2 Remake is what fans have been fucking asking for, screaming for, since after RE4 and it just feels like they finally managed to slowly drag themselves there after so many false starts. Just...who knew this was even possible anymore for this franchise.
I also think RE7 had many great ideas in its own way but in hindsight when looking at gameplay videos of this, that game feels more like a spinoff than RE2 Remake currently looks at least for someone like me who's been there since RE1. I think RE7 was more like a good trial run for a hopefully much improved and fleshed-out RE8, it's a great foundation if they can strip the bullshit and iron out the glaring kinks.
Edit: Should clarify I'm just really hyped and who knows, maybe this also takes a nosedive off a cliff after a few hours and turns into an on-rails shooter or some shit...
Pretty much the entire RE1 template was taken verbatim from AitD. AitD predates Resident Evil by four years and was a very popular game. The entire reason RE1 looks and plays the way it does (fixed camera angles, male and female protagonists, things breaking through windows, survival horror mechanics, etc) is because during development Mikami discovered AitD, and RE1 was rebooted.AitD was first but hardly a trend setter. RE1-3 were basically the template for every horror game until RE4. Even AitD later copied their design to a t.
Both RE1 and AitD have significant shortcomings. IMO, RE2 was the first truly good RE game. And it is really, really good. RE1's big problem is that it's not scary but it pretends to be scary. And the atmosphere is terribly undermined by the acting. AiTD is a much moodier game despite its more limited visuals, with a sense of dread and menace. AitD's shortcoming of course is the latter half of the game with its poor pacing and lacklustre ending, and that while it discourages combat by giving you very few weapons and little ammo, your melee attacks are OP.Resident Evil is also a good game. So there's that difference.
Pretty much the entire RE1 template was taken verbatim from AitD. AitD predates Resident Evil by four years and was a very popular game. The entire reason RE1 looks and plays the way it does (fixed camera angles, male and female protagonists, things breaking through windows, survival horror mechanics, etc) is because during development Mikami discovered AitD, and RE1 was rebooted. I think the biggest factor with Resident Evil, to be completely honest, is that it was the first time a lot of console audiences had played a game like that. Adventure games were a predominantly PC-oriented genre. A console imitation of a PC game will typically overshadow the PC original. You just have to look at something like STALKER and Far Cry 2. Console audiences tend to think Far Cry popularized design elements such as weapon degradation and "hardcore" open world FPS design, and will say stuff like, "Metro: Exodus seems to be taking a lot of influence from Far Cry 2!" PC gamers roll their eyes and say, "That was all in STALKER a year earlier."
Both RE1 and AitD have significant shortcomings. IMO, RE2 was the first truly good RE game. And it is really, really good. RE1's big problem is that it's not scary but it pretends to be scary. And the atmosphere is terribly undermined by the acting. AiTD is a much moodier game despite its more limited visuals, with a sense of dread and menace. AitD's shortcoming of course is the latter half of the game with its poor pacing and lacklustre ending, and that while it discourages combat by giving you very few weapons and little ammo, your melee attacks are OP.
The last page reminds me of one of the biggest tips I ever got for working on games: Be picky of what critique you take on the games you create, many gamers don't know the differences between actual critique and personal preference.
I see a lot of people stating personal preference as fact or a critique everyone would agree with (on preferences for what they should remake), which frankly is not true, and just got me thinking about that old piece of advice.
The dodge mechanic should probably replace defensive weapons in the (hopefully) inevitable RE3make. But make it so that you can't just dodge infinitely. Maybe a stamina meter under your health that slowly refilled could determine your likelyhood of performing a successful dodge. Upon completing the game, turning it off could be an option for those who wanted to attempt a no damage run.
To clarify, the point I'm making is that quite a few people are caught up on this idea that Resident Evil shouldn't imitate other games. That it should be a leader, and not a follower. What I think is critical to understand is that the entire reason RE1-3 are the games we know and love (presumably, not everyone loves them) is because Capcom were willing to shamelessly rip off the most popular horror game on the market. It would be like Capcom rebooting Dead Rising 5 into something that plays like Five Nights At Freddy's with some cool Japanese twists. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Resident Evil adopting ideas, however broadly or deeply, from contemporaries. The entire reason Resident Evil was such a hit was because Capcom were willing to throw out their existing work and replace it with something deeply unoriginal that WORKED. What has changed is that in 1996 most PS1 gamers didn't recognise where RE1's "Hey, it works!" design came from. But in 2018, literally everything about modern Resident evil is nitpicked as "Oh, great, they're just ripping off <insert popular horror game here>, why doesn't Resident Evil innovative?" The sometimes false belief in the originality and innovation of particular Resident Evil titles has led to the modern games copping a lot of unfair flack, I feel. When RE7 was revealed you had people scorning it as a "PT knockoff". Resident Evil has always been about liberally borrowing from other games series and then fitting it all together into a nice package with some really solid game design holding everything together. Something as fundamental as "Should Resident Evil have fixed camera angles?" is quite often discussed without the important context that the only reason why it had them in the first place is because AitD had them and they seemed like a great idea -- a decent compromise between tech limitations and gameplay considerations. Same with tank controls.Whether or not RE1 is a good game isn't really dependent on whether it's scary or not, although I think it can be considered a weakness the game has. Neither games are scary, but Resident Evil is a great game that runs well.
Edit: I'm not saying that the fact that RE1 lifted several elements from AitD isn't notable, however.
To clarify, the point I'm making is that quite a few people are caught up on this idea that Resident Evil shouldn't imitate other games. That it should be a leader, and not a follower. What I think is critical to understand is that the entire reason RE1-3 are the games we know and love (presumably, not everyone loves them) is because Capcom were willing to shamelessly rip off the most popular horror game on the market. It would be like Capcom rebooting Dead Rising 5 into something that plays like Five Nights At Freddy's with some cool Japanese twists. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Resident Evil adopting ideas, however broadly or deeply, from contemporaries. The entire reason Resident Evil was such a hit was because Capcom were willing to throw out their existing work and replace it with something deeply unoriginal that WORKED. What has changed is that in 1996 most PS1 gamers didn't recognise where RE1's "Hey, it works!" design came from. But in 2018, literally everything about modern Resident evil is nitpicked as "Oh, great, they're just ripping off <insert popular horror game here>, why doesn't Resident Evil innovative?" The sometimes false belief in the originality and innovation of particular Resident Evil titles has led to the modern games copping a lot of unfair flack, I feel. When RE7 was revealed you had people scorning it as a "PT knockoff". Resident Evil has always been about liberally borrowing from other games series and then fitting it all together into a nice package with some really solid game design holding everything together. Something as fundamental as "Should Resident Evil have fixed camera angles?" is quite often discussed without the important context that the only reason why it had them in the first place is because AitD had them and they seemed like a great idea -- a decent compromise between tech limitations and gameplay considerations. Same with tank controls.
I think the licker might also appear in the front hall. My take is that Marvin is going to get killed by a licker and his blood will splatter on the statue. We saw a screen with the bloodied statue, and in this shot, Marvin is looking at something with his gun out
This is the first time I noticed that Marvin is equipped with a Browning HiPower. Nice little attention to detail, as that was the gun Claire carried in the original (and the intro to CODE: Veronica).
The description of Leon's handgun even states that it is a non-standard issue, which is a nice explanation as to why he was the only RPD officer whoever seemed to carry one.