Right now, we are in the age of the remake. From Dead Space to Demon's Souls, and
from The Last of Us to Like a Dragon, it seems like every publisher is
now ransacking its back catalogue to look for games it can reheat
and sell to us all over again. But there's one studio that's doing
things differently - and that's Capcom. Specifically its Resident Evil team. Over the last two decades, Capcom
has remade Resident Evil 1, 2, 3, and 4 - and these games feel like way
more than just recycled retro favourites. So - what are they doing differently?
And how do they pull it off? Well - I'm Mark Brown,
and this is Game Maker's Toolkit. Do you remember when Gus Van
Sant remade the movie, Psycho? This was no ordinary remake: instead, it was a
near-perfect, shot-for-shot recreation of the original film, with the same script, camera moves,
and musical score - but a few modern updates, like shooting in colour, and adding more gore
and nudity to that infamous shower scene. If you don't remember it, I'm not surprised - I
think everyone involved would rather you forgot. The remake bombed at the box office,
it was savaged by critics, Roger Ebert called it "pointless", and Hollywood
has never tried such a thing again. *Pumbaa Farts* For the most part. But in the world of video games... well this is actually how a lot of remakes work. Despite using all new engines and assets, the goal is to be as faithful as
possible to the original game. To make a beat-by-beat
recreation of what came before. But with a few conservative
tweaks to the gameplay or content. Now this can certainly lead to good games. And I've used these remakes to catch
up on titles I missed upon release. But I think there are two big
problems with this approach. For one, it can lead to games
with absolutely cutting edge graphics - but gameplay that feels
dated and surpassed by later titles. And two - if you've already played the original, then this perfect recreation offers
little incentive to pick up the remake. So that's why Capcom doesn't follow this
trend - while its remakes are heavily influenced by the original games, it liberally
changes both the gameplay and the content. For gameplay, take Resident Evil 2. The PlayStation 1 original has these fixed, CCTV-style camera angles, and
Leon moved around like a tank. For the remake, Capcom did experiment
with keeping this viewpoint... but ultimately went for something more modern:
turning it into an over-the-shoulder shooter. And for content, look at Resident Evil 4. This remake mostly follows the
beats of the original game, but regularly makes changes - content
is moved around, played out of order, expanded, shrunk, cut entirely,
and replaced by brand new stuff. So even if you've played the original,
this remake is full of surprising twists. Take the iconic village siege from the
opening of the game - seems familiar enough, but then I went up this tower and,
oh, that's not how I remember it. And then I rounded this corner
and, oh no, what's happening now? Capcom says "if we remade the game so
players do the exact same thing as the original, that's not really
going to be fun or interesting". Of course, it's not enough to just say "throw
out the source material and do something new". Remakes are playing to our
nostalgia for the original, and any changes can feel like
blasphemous meddling with perfection. There are no shortage of remakes that have
angered fans by changing things too much. Whether that's Ratchet's characterisation, Peter Parker's face, or Venture Beat describing
Shadow of the Colossus's new graphics as "too good". So, Capcom says its remakes "show love for
the original work through their content, which includes both where the remake makes changes
and where it remains the same as the original". They know when to stay faithful, and
know how to stray from the source. One way to do this is to focus
on capturing the sensation of playing the original game - even if
you're not copying the exact details. For Resident Evil 2, Capcom says a
guiding principle was that "whenever people play this, they should get the
same feeling we got back in the day, even though the outer layers are different". So while it loses the forced camera perspective, the developers still wanted the game to
be tense and claustrophobic - and so made it difficult to aim exactly where you want,
and kept the camera tight behind Leon's back. A smart approach is to identify some
pillars of the original - things define the DNA of what made it
so beloved in the first place. For Resident Evil 4, that included stuff like
its lighting-fast pace, its b-movie dialogue, the way you can tackle encounters in different
ways, and how fun the game was to replay. The designers behind the Dead Space remake
had a similar idea - with "sci-fi horror, unbroken immersion, and creative
gameplay" as the pillars. "Any novelty, enhancement, enrichment, or whatever had to fit inside one of
those pillars" - the developer says. Importantly, these pillars
should be feelings, not features. Aesthetics, not mechanics, to bring
us back to the previous episode. This allows developers to change how the game
works, without messing with how the game feels. For example - Leon can use his
knife for some brand new moves like a parry, and a stealth takedown. This could change the feel of the
game, making Leon overpowered. But by making it so the knife can break and
need to be patched up by the merchant, Leon stays one step behind, and the remake stays true
to the survival horror feeling of the original. So - this approach can be
used to address the three main things that all remakes should consider. Number one is modernisation. Remakes are entering the industry today, and so people expect modern conventions and
conveniences like fast travel and quick save. And they don't want to see mechanics that are... I don't want to say dated,
so let's say unfashionable. That's why Capcom pulled the
button-bashing quicktime events from RE4 - "QTEs are not popular
in today's games," the devs said. But, any change to the mechanics is
going to have a knock-on impact to the rest of the game - and risk ruining the feel. Take the new Goldeneye remaster - it makes
sense to update for modern first-person shooter controls, but that makes the game, which
was designed for much clunkier inputs... well it makes it a bit of a cakewalk. Resident Evil 4 could have
fallen into the same trap. In the original game, Leon couldn't aim and move at the same time - he became a turret
every time he pulled out his pistol. But not adding strafe was an intentional
choice on Capcom's part - in 2004, it said "we didn't want to go into
the shooting / army type genre". The remake, predictably, lets Leon strafe - and he generally moves around like
a typical shooter protagonist. But to counterbalance this change, the enemies
are now more aggressive and more numerous. So despite Leon's newly nimble movement, the
game still feels as pulse-pounding as ever. Number two is addressing
criticism of the original. If there's one thing that puts me off from
replaying Resident Evil 4, it's Ashley. This lengthy escort quest
can become an annoying bit of babysitting that threatens to spoil the fun. Of course, it would be tempting to dramatically
change how she works in this remake - perhaps make her invincible and helpful, like the partner
characters in games released since 2005. But that would change the dynamic of the
original game - so, instead, Capcom made more considered changes, with careful tweaks to
her AI, her health bar, and her characterisation. No game is perfect, and there will always
be elements that don't gel with fans... or indeed the developers. Talking about The Wind Waker, Zelda boss Eiji
Aonuma says "right after the game was completed, there would be discussions about how we wish
we could have done something [different]" - and so the Wii U version
makes some welcome changes, like speeding up a contentious
late-game fetch quest. And number three is making the game
more approachable and accessible. A remake is trying to win over people
who never played the original - and that includes those who bounced off the first
game, or were never able to start it. The first Resident Evil Remake was
intentionally designed to ease in new players, with Capcom accepting that the
first game really threw you into the deep end. And Resident Evil 2 through
4 all come with an assisted difficulty setting with features like
health regeneration and aim snapping. Old games can be notoriously difficult
to get into, and rarely accommodated players with disabilities - so
it's good to see remakes that make things more approachable,
and add accessibility options. The Last of Us Part 1 is a notable standout, with perhaps the most extensive suite
of options seen in a game thus far. But it's usually important to
make these changes optional. In the Pokemon Diamond and Pearl remakes,
the devs added a team-wide EXP Share, which means that when you win a battle,
all of your Pokemon get experience points. This wrecked the balance and made the
game super easy, barely an inconvenience. It could have been a good option for those who
want an easier time, but it's actually just part of the game and can't be disabled, which
annoys those who want more of a challenge. I kinda feel the same way about this
button in Resident Evil 4's remake which automatically tidies up your attache case. And I know I could just "not press the button", but it's right there! Of course I'm
going to press the button! I am weak. So, Capcom doesn't try to perfectly recreate
the original game, when it does a remake. It freely changes characters, plot
points, mechanics, puzzles, and content. This makes each remake feel as
fresh as a brand new release, and enjoyable even to those who have
finished the original a million times. But it uses the sensation of playing
the first game as a lodestar, to carefully guide new changes
- keeping Resident Evil 2 scary, and making sure Resident Evil 4 still
feels like an action-packed rollercoaster. And I think this also helps explain Capcom's
least-loved remake: Resident Evil 3. By nerfing Nemesis - by turning Jill's
invincible stalker into a simplistic set piece, RE3 doesn't accurately capture the sensation of
the PS1 original - and so kinda fails as a remake. But when done right, says Capcom, "a
remake of a game can deliver a new experience to players while also touching
upon the memories we have of the original, which is an appeal that is different from
the appeal of a completely new game." But there's one problem when it comes to making
such massive changes in a remake. You see, the reason why Psycho was
dubbed pointless is because the 1960 original is readily available,
and eminently watchable today. In general, it's reasonably easy to remaster
a movie - which means to go back to the master recording, and make a new print with an improved
picture, for a modern format like Blu-Ray. This means that, in Hollywood, remakes are free to
liberally adapt the source material - completely changing the film to work in a different time, or
a different culture, or with a different audience. Change what you want: the
original is always available. But games are different. Old games get stuck on disintegrating
hardware, digital games get delisted, online games see their servers go down,
and entire storefronts go offline. And it's really tough to do a straight
"remaster" of a game - and there are no shortage of crummy ones to point to. Truly great remasters, like Metroid
Prime on Switch, are a rare treat. So, for some players - well,
they're counting on a remake as the only way to revisit their old favourites. And they want it to be exactly
the way they remember it. They're looking for that ultra faithful
recreation with a few modern updates. They want Gus Van Sant's Psycho. But I don't think this means we
need more shot-for-shot remakes: it just means we need better
game preservation - and to praise publishers who provide
access to the original titles. Because no matter what you think
of the new Resident Evil 4 Remake, it ultimately lives alongside an excellent, and
very moddable, HD remaster of the original game. The RE4 Remake doesn't try to
overwrite or replace the 2005 original, and I'm sure I'll be replaying both in the future. Sadly, the older Resident Evil
games are not so easy to play today. And I hope Capcom rights that wrong in the same
way it does its many, many Mega Man compilations. But other developers are showing how to do it. Nightdive Studios is currently
working on a wild new remake of System Shock - but after acquiring the
IP it also released the original game, an enhanced edition, and even
dropped the source code online. And remember when Zero Mission
let you just boot up Metroid 1, right there, in the game? That was neat. Just don't be like Rockstar, who removed the Grand Theft Auto games from Steam to make
way for its disastrous remasters. Or Blizzard, who removed Warcraft 3 to
make way for its, again, disastrous remake. So, what do you reckon? Is Capcom
king of the remakes? Or do you prefer more faithful recreations? Let
me know in the comments down below.
Regarding the last point I wonder who would be the king of game preservation - what company have the best record of providing the access to their older titles on the modern hardware?
Something he touches on towards the end of the video is quite pertinent. If you take a videogame, completely change all the character names, change the setting, and keep the basic concept of the plot, a lot of people would reject the label "remake".
However, and he uses this exact example himself, the film The Departed is a remake of the film Infernal Affairs. Everyone knows this. Nobody waggles their finger and says that it's not a "real" remake because a "real" remake meets some arbitrary definition.
And a lot of it comes back to problem of videogames being trapped in the past in a way that film isn't. A lot of casual audiences will watch a film from the 80s, but very few people will play a videogame from the 80s. So in their desperation to protect I guess the dignity of games that they like, some fans are hostile towards remakes that substantially change the original, because in their view the role of a remake is to take the original and "faithfully" re-present it.
Game audiences seem legitimately scared of remakes in a way film audiences aren't. That's why some SH2 fans are scared of the SH2 remake. Jacob's Ladder fans weren't scared of the 2019 Jacob's Ladder remake because they knew that unless it was really good on its own merits it would never threaten the original. But the catch here is that the Silent Hill 2 remake could be soulless garbage (I personally think it'll be good), and it would still displace the original SH2 by sheer presence. Videogame remakes displace the original versions in a very powerful and pervasive way.
Look at how easily the 1996 Resident Evil game was displaced by the 2002 remake. And consequently how RE2 was effectively displaced completely by the 2019 remake. There are really good arguments about what the RE2 remake did or didn't manage to accomplish as a remake. Largely irrelevant because so few people today have actually played the original RE2, or are willing to play it today.
If the 2014 RoboCop film had been a videogame, and the 1989 film had been a videogame, it would have COMPLETELY DISPLACED the original. But while the 2014 version definitely has fans, and I quite like it, it never managed to become defacto "RoboCop". The 1989 version still holds strong. Because people can, and do, go watch the 1989 RoboCop anytime they please.
A lot of what he said also applies to cross-media adaptations. The quote about evoking the same feelings as the original even if the content layer has changed is a really good rule. That's why I think something like the Last of Us show worked so well. Even when they deviated from the material, the spirit and "feel" of the games is still there.
Another great video from Mark. I have been absolutely loving the remakes from Capcom and I hope they do code Veronica next.
I know Mark touched on it in the video but I really do appreciate how the original resident evil 4 is easily available for fans regardless of system. I absolutely loved the remake but I know not all fans did so they can still play the original.
What sucks is that I never got to play silent Hill on PS2 so my only option is either play the remaster collection on my Xbox or hope the remake is as good as I heard the original is.
The beginning Roger Ebert quote is perfect answer for the people who insist remakes should be shot-for-shot perfectly faithful to the original.
Great video as always. Capcom is truly the king of remakes and the reasons highlighted in the video prove why. I really hope others look at what Capcom is doing with its remakes and learn from them. A remake shouldn't be a 1-to-1 recreation of a game, a remake needs to faithfully recreate a game with some changes but always make sure that the original is available to purchase.
Cool cool, now when can i have megaman legends back?