Resident Evil original vs GameCube remake/(2015 Remaster)

[QUAKETALLICA]

So I haven't played either game, but judging from gameplay footage, I think the original just looks way better to me, and I'll explain why. Yes, this is an unpopular opinion I'm aware, but hear me out. (Also, I am aware there are other differences in length, story, cut content, etc. which I'm not discussing.)

Firstly, the opening cutscene. The original actually has an FMV with real actors, it's super gory (on uncensored version), and the beast/predator actually looks scary, like some massive reptilian creature you barely get a glimpse of before it mauls your face or mutilates limbs. In the remake, they did it all with game models, and the "beast" look like a couple of dogs. Looks absolutely ridiculous that a group of 5 or 6 armed soldiers are wetting their pants and running for shelter...from two wild dogs. Makes no sense why they would need to run to a mansion to hide out.

Secondly, the fixed camera angles. See, in the Playstation days, there were limits on what they could actually render, and it didn't look particularly great anyway since it was all low polygons. So a really clever way to work around this limitation was to use fixed camera angles. That way, the backgrounds would just remain static images, similar to a painted matte backdrop in a movie. That makes it a lot easier on the hardware since it just has to load basically an image file, not render everything individually. This allows the game to get away with much higher quality graphics than it would've been otherwise able to achieve. But it also works really well aesthetically, because it gives the game a unique, distinct, and cinematic look, and because it adds a level of claustrophobia from taking away player camera control, which adds to the experience in a horror game.

But by the PS2/Gamecube time, it just makes no sense to still use this now arbitrary restriction. Obviously, they wanted to be true to the experience so they kept it anyway, but you're just left feeling, why? In the original, it felt like a clever workaround. But in the remake and especially the remake's remaster, it just feels so unnecessary, because the game can actually render everything, and does, just like every other modern game, so it's a bit like, what's the point? That's why the excellent RE2 remake doesn't slavishly stick to the ways of the past. It modernizes the camera because even though the fixed camera angles are great and have a nice feel to them, they just feel anachronistic and out of place in a more modern looking game.

Third, the graphics in the game. What? You say? But clearly the more recent one looks way better! On a technical level, sure. But it also looks ever so dreary and dull. For both this game and RE: Zero, when I compare the look of the original to the respective remasters, for some reason they made the remasters look so grey, dark, dingy, and for lack of a better word, ugly! Sure, I get it. It's supposed to be a haunted house, and haunted houses are traditionally dark. But the original colors are just way more vibrant and inviting. I would rather be in a house or a train that has vibrant, popping colors than one where everything looks the color of dirt. (Also, adding excessive bloom in the remaster of the remake was just...unnecessary. It is not an improvement).

I think the Resident Evil 4 remake looks better than its original counterpart for the same reason. Original RE 4 has a very brown and grey look to it, which again, can be moody and I get why they chose it for a horror setting, but ultimately it's not the most appealing look.

Now I'll repeat what I said in the beginning. I haven't played the games, so I'm sure there's gameplay differences/quirks, and apparently there's differences in length of story or cut content, and that's all fair game to mention in the GameCube iteration's favor. But from what I can make of it, my preference is leaning to the original. I'm glad they brought back the first three games on GOG. I'll probably get them when they go on sale eventually.

[Genesis 26]

the original game looks like a doll's house too colourful, here they did it so they made it those dark and grey colors to create a more spooky atmosphere together with thunder they did an excellent job, it's beautiful rather than ugly, the fixed camera is not a limitation and another style different from over the shoulder, thank god that this camera exists, I'm tired of always seeing the same camera behind the back in all games, always the same ♥♥♥♥, the grafic is better than re engine sorry and is gorgeus for a gamecube game

[QUAKETALLICA]

Originally posted by Genesis:

the original game looks like a doll's house too colourful, here they did it so they made it those dark and grey colors to create a more spooky atmosphere together with thunder they did an excellent job, it's beautiful rather than ugly, the fixed camera is not a limitation and another style different from over the shoulder, thank god that this camera exists, I'm tired of always seeing the same camera behind the back in all games, always the same ♥♥♥♥, the grafic is better than re engine sorry and is gorgeus for a gamecube game

No disagreement, for a gamecube game, it was certainly very good for its time, but it's time has long passed. Gamecube is just as dated as the PS1. I mean the difference between the two was just maybe 5 or 6 years. Both of them are 20+ years removed from the present now. I would rather have a PS1 looking game than generic mid-2010s horror game, which is what the remaster looks like. Every horror game of the last 10/15 years has this same look to it. It's stale.

[90054321564584560]

I just think Re classic formula is only good for its time. Thats why the remake has to reconstruct the story to pad out a few more hours.

[Genesis 26]

Originally posted by 90054321564584560:

I just think Re classic formula is only good for its time. Thats why the remake has to reconstruct the story to pad out a few more hours.

for cut more story you mean, better the remaster of 2 and 3

[90054321564584560]

Originally posted by Genesis:

Originally posted by 90054321564584560:

I just think Re classic formula is only good for its time. Thats why the remake has to reconstruct the story to pad out a few more hours.

for cut more story you mean, better the remaster of 2 and 3

2 remake didnt get cut much. More like they ruined the plots with non sensical changes to the plot. 3 remake is the one got the most cut.
2 and 3 remakes are the examples of why I said the formula worked on ps1's limitation but not suitable for more modern changes. It would require a huge reconstruct from the narrative to fit the gameplay to pad out a few more hours to the game. Same reason why FF7 remake is such a controversy on the its narrative compared to the og

[Hux]

The fixed camera perspective can't be reproduced with BTS or FP. Also the focus on puzzles distinguish it.

[Genesis 26]

Originally posted by 90054321564584560:

Originally posted by Genesis:

for cut more story you mean, better the remaster of 2 and 3

2 remake didnt get cut much. More like they ruined the plots with non sensical changes to the plot. 3 remake is the one got the most cut.
2 and 3 remakes are the examples of why I said the formula worked on ps1's limitation but not suitable for more modern changes. It would require a huge reconstruct from the narrative to fit the gameplay to pad out a few more hours to the game. Same reason why FF7 remake is such a controversy on the its narrative compared to the og

that is not the real remake of resident evil 2, the real remake of resident evil 2 is that of the darkside chronicle, vaslty superior of the reimagined

[Lanzagranadas]

Originally posted by QUAKETALLICA:

But by the PS2/Gamecube time, it just makes no sense to still use this now arbitrary restriction.

It still made sense because even for the GC, the visual quality and level of detail a game could achieve by using pre-rendered backgrounds was still notable. Compare RE Remake and RE0 with GC games that used fully 3D backgrounds.

Originally posted by QUAKETALLICA:

That's why the excellent RE2 remake doesn't slavishly stick to the ways of the past.

It slavishly sticks to the overused third person shooter OTS camera that we've seen in countless games in the last two decades instead, simply because this is business and Capcom is a company that needs their games to sell over a half dozen million copies to be considered a success. So whatever is popular and sells more copies is the "right" way to do things for them, and obviously full 3D games with impressive graphics are way more appealing to the general public.

Side-scroller, isometric, top-down view, etc. are also 'ways of the past' and no longer mainstream. So why are games like that still being made when everything could be 3D? Because video games are not just about instant gratification and mass catering. They are also a form of art, and art doesn't need to be enslaved to ad-populum preconceptions of what's right and what's wrong to do in XXXX year.

Fixed cameras are a style and design choice that’s just as valid as any other, as long as the game is balanced around it. Games like Signalis and Darkwood have been played and loved by many Survival Horror fans, even though their camera and other visual aspects aren’t eye-candy for the masses. Darkwood has probably one of the least appealing cameras and graphic styles.

[Hux]

Originally posted by Lanzagranadas:

Originally posted by QUAKETALLICA:

But by the PS2/Gamecube time, it just makes no sense to still use this now arbitrary restriction.

It still made sense because even for the GC, the visual quality and level of detail a game could achieve by using pre-rendered backgrounds was still notable. Compare RE Remake and RE0 with GC games that used fully 3D backgrounds.

Originally posted by QUAKETALLICA:

That's why the excellent RE2 remake doesn't slavishly stick to the ways of the past.

It slavishly sticks to the overused third person shooter OTS camera that we've seen in countless games in the last two decades instead, simply because this is business and Capcom is a company that needs their games to sell over a half dozen million copies to be considered a success. So whatever is popular and sells more copies is the "right" way to do things for them, and obviously full 3D games with impressive graphics are way more appealing to the general public.

Side-scroller, isometric, top-down view, etc. are also 'ways of the past' and no longer mainstream. So why are games like that still being made when everything could be 3D? Because video games are not just about instant gratification and mass catering. They are also a form of art, and art doesn't need to be enslaved to ad-populum preconceptions of what's right and what's wrong to do in XXXX year.

Fixed cameras are a style and design choice that’s just as valid as any other, as long as the game is balanced around it. Games like Signalis and Darkwood have been played and loved by many Survival Horror fans, even though their camera and other visual aspects aren’t eye-candy for the masses. Darkwood has probably one of the least appealing cameras and graphic styles.

Well said.

[JI06CT3P]

Originally posted by Lanzagranadas:

Originally posted by QUAKETALLICA:

But by the PS2/Gamecube time, it just makes no sense to still use this now arbitrary restriction.

It still made sense because even for the GC, the visual quality and level of detail a game could achieve by using pre-rendered backgrounds was still notable. Compare RE Remake and RE0 with GC games that used fully 3D backgrounds.

Originally posted by QUAKETALLICA:

That's why the excellent RE2 remake doesn't slavishly stick to the ways of the past.

It slavishly sticks to the overused third person shooter OTS camera that we've seen in countless games in the last two decades instead, simply because this is business and Capcom is a company that needs their games to sell over a half dozen million copies to be considered a success. So whatever is popular and sells more copies is the "right" way to do things for them, and obviously full 3D games with impressive graphics are way more appealing to the general public.

Side-scroller, isometric, top-down view, etc. are also 'ways of the past' and no longer mainstream. So why are games like that still being made when everything could be 3D? Because video games are not just about instant gratification and mass catering. They are also a form of art, and art doesn't need to be enslaved to ad-populum preconceptions of what's right and what's wrong to do in XXXX year.

Fixed cameras are a style and design choice that’s just as valid as any other, as long as the game is balanced around it. Games like Signalis and Darkwood have been played and loved by many Survival Horror fans, even though their camera and other visual aspects aren’t eye-candy for the masses. Darkwood has probably one of the least appealing cameras and graphic styles.

Perfect

[Shocker]

Originally posted by Genesis:

the original game looks like a doll's house too colourful, here they did it so they made it those dark and grey colors to create a more spooky atmosphere together with thunder they did an excellent job, it's beautiful rather than ugly, the fixed camera is not a limitation and another style different from over the shoulder, thank god that this camera exists, I'm tired of always seeing the same camera behind the back in all games, always the same ♥♥♥♥, the grafic is better than re engine sorry and is gorgeus for a gamecube game

I like both the original and the remake, but saying that if a game has colors looks like a doll's house is just stupid. Since when did sucking out the color of a video game became a cool thing?

[HM Stambaugh]

Thats a lot of words for some insanity.

I have fond memories of being terrified in 240p with voice actors found off the street, but in no universe would I ever suggest to someone that the original release (even on PC with patches and mods) is the better version to play.

[Krypto]

There's one reason the remaster is better: alternate movement controls. Tank controls need to take a hike.