Okay, I wasn't sure. I would say, then, that the RE GC engine was also used for RE0, so my point of Capcom not putting work into a whole new engine just for one remake still stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon McShig
And I know that I'm coming off as loony on this issue, but it does actually make sense. (At least to me. *heh*) Once a game moves from being a port to a remake, the way I see it, there is a certain level of "responsibility" for said remake. You can't just take the game, pretty up the graphics, and call it a day.
An example of a poor remake is Phantast Star for PS2. Even though I'll sure as hell pick it up, everything I've seen of it screams "pathetic" when it comes to the quality of the remake. Somelike like that would have been a great remake back in the days of the Genesis, but not at this point. I know why it was so shabby - Sega (or whomever it was who actually did up the game) was pumping out an entire line of them. To that, I'd say, they should have picked and choosed what they remade and made them worth a damn.
An example of a middle-of-the-road remake to me would be Resident Evil GC. Obviously the graphics were going to be improved - there was no way they could do otherwise. Beyond that, I see their additions and improvements as minimal. Being that RE is at least 50% puzzle and exploration game, I think they should have mixed things up more, so that people who played the original would have more "new" to experience. Instead of making the mansion pretty much the same as it was before, give it a good mixing up. Drop a good majority of the old puzzles, and give us new ones, or at least change up the old ones enough that we almost don't regocnize them anymore. Two of the big complaints about the original game - the item box and the control - as I said before, would have been easy fixes. Having recently played Disaster Report, it had a brilliant means of limiting the amount of items you can carry, but still being fair about it. If nothing else, at LEAST Capcom could have given us a second control option, much like how Silent Hill gives you "2D" or "3D" control. And, while I know that this would have been a big one, if they were going to have to re-render all of the environments anyhow, they should have been polygonal. Being in a room and not being able to see three feet in front of you because of the ass camera angels is just ridiculous.
With DOAU, I think that is a good example of a remake going beyond what it needs to do. Had this come from a number of others companies, I wouldn't have put it past them to just update the graphics for the new console, put the two games together into a pack, and call it a day. When taking a fighting game and making a remake, I myself wouldn't call things like a huge amount of new costumes and bringing in a "new" character as expected pieces of the remake. Of course, I can't think of an example of a fighting game being remade, so maybe it is hard to say what is an expected level of updates for such a thing. As well, while I might expect online play as an expected fighting game remake if the game is coming to Xbox, I wouldn't expect so much work to be put into said mode.
I think there are different levels of expectations for remakes depending on the genre of the game. If you're remaking a fighting game, you might add in a few new costumes, a new stage or two, do some game and characters tweaks, and that's most of what is needed. But when you get to adventure games, RPGs, stuff like that that are heavily story, character, or exploration driven, I think you have to set the bar higher. If you take a game that is based on one of those things, and don't give that the most attention in your remake, I think you're not making a worthwhile remake. Pretty new graphics are nice, but if I already know where all of the items are at, know the solutions to all of the puzzles, know how the storyline is going to go, etc., then I don't see much worth to the remake.
