Yep, and Capcom knew this and made a smart decision.
They made a financially sound decision, I don't know if I'd go as far as calling it the right decision. Like I said, they made a game for the masses and if you are looking at the situation as trying to sell a product this was the way to go yet I don't agree with the notion that this will be for the better in the long run. The very concept of these games, the REmakes, stems from the success of the RE1 remake's success into HD. It's this outdated game that brought us all of this. If there was no appeal to it this wouldn't be happening. I can attest to that since the first time I played RE1 was on the PS4 so there is no nostalgia to my opinion. There were a few modernizations, namely a forced 16:9 aspect ratio and DMC1 walking, which really helped to make the game more accessible, specially the later, but that doesn't negate the fact that the experience was so good that it led to all of this so I refute the idea that the only place for this is amongst the niche or the nostalgic.
I don't blame them, nor hate them for it.
Nor do I. I can understand why they did it, they are a business, after all. They made a judgement call to appeal to the largest audience possible. This mentality is the reason both DmC and DMC5 exist so it can be a double edge sword if you don't know how to read the room or misjudge what most people are going to want.
Ditching the fixed camera does not make RE2Remake and RE3Remake any less survival horror.
No, of course not, but it does turn them into very different experiences. It's not just the camera angles or the mechanics. It's the tone, the structure, the pace. How the gameplay interacts with the level design, the enemies. People are often dismissive of everything but the gameplay but all the elements that compose a game play a significant part in the experience. Because of this the remakes of 2 and 3 are not compatible experiences with their originals the same way 1 is with
its remake. That they are both survival horror can only connect them to an extent. Just like how Airplane, Ghostbusters and The Hot Fuzz are not interchangeable experiences simply on the basis that they are all comedies, these games are not as similar to their originals as I'd hope they'd be and it's more complicated than just being over the shoulder.
Either play the old games again and again, or start looking at the indie and some of the AA market.
That's a rather finite absolute. I don't agree that a game like the old ones cannot be made within the AAA sphere or even within RE. If the idea seems too risky they can always make a smaller spin off that aligns much closer to the original PS1 and 2 REs. In this case, though, Capcom won't. They are no longer the risk takers they once were, they don't create or define genres, they follow the money. It is because of this that if there ever was a AAA survival horror game like RE1 or its remake it would not come from them, but if said game succeeded you can bet your sweet petunias that they'd follow in with one. So, while I don't think these types of games are necessarily gone or relegated to the smaller spectrum of the media, I do, however, think that it won't be something that Capcom themselves will revive.
I could not give a damn either way.
Well, don't say that, either. We all have a stake on the status quo. Even if you have no interest in these old games yourself, surely you have opinions on how they are perceived and how they affect the genre.
As much as I love gaming from the 90s and early 2000s, they were not perfect paradises either. There is plenty I rather not go back towards.
That's fair. I've played a few old games not long ago and it wasn't all smooth sailing, going back.
Exactly why I don't have the patience for it. I am all for games are art and all, but I have my own limits and standards. If the gameplay is complete crap and not good, or is too frustrating, I am not going to waste time.
I'm not exactly on the other boat on this but, at the same time, I don't fully share the sentiment. I didn't have money back when a lot of these games of the PS1 and 2 era were about so I'm experiencing them for the first time. As you said, it can be frustrating, and yet, for all their flaws, when I invested the time and work into playing these games as the people who made 'em intended to be played, not by the standards of a modern gamer, I found the experience to be so much more rewarding than most anything I've played from the last 10 years. Yeah, there are frustrations that were inherent within those experiences, but in trying to make things better, more accessible, we've also lost an intangible quality. One of those games
was Rule of Rose. For all its frustrations and eye rolling moments I got something from the end that I don't think I've gotten from any book, film or game. Maybe not better but absolutely unique.
I'd hate to find out Capcom removed Krauser from the RE4 remake
I don't think that will be the issue with RE4's remake. If i had to make a prediction on what possible issues might be it would be an attempt not to be insulting or offensive to anyone leading to censorship or other modern shenanigans that plague modern gaming, just look at what they did with the VR version, an unmatching tone, maybe from taking itself too seriously, losing mechanics or concepts do to the realism of the graphics. We are more likely to lose parts of the game or puzzles than characters.
glorify RE4 and act like 5 is terrible.
Oh, I uphold to this but that's for a later discussion. One can of worms at a time.
Some of the old RE forums I registered on were full of morons. TotallyRE. Resident Evil Horror. Capcom Central. Etc. They were all terrible.
Yeah, the core RE fanbase are pretty toxic. I hate using that word but they are almost the definition. I tried talking to them and, yeah, there are some people who are nice enough but, for the most part, the people I encountered were rude, condescending, arrogant, entitled or a combination of there in. If you want to find a good example of gatekeeping you don't have to go far.
