RE2 remake is true survival horror

[Nate]

I prefer the dark, atmospheric, foreboding experience of methodically exploring the dilapidated police station and sewers. Are we ever going to get back to that in future RE instalments? Or has the action horror style of the RE4 remake rendered it obsolete?

[Terron]

resi 1 remake is still King imo but 2 remake is absolutely fantastic also. I put 2 remake well ahead of 7, village, 3 and 4 remake though I enjoyed am all well enough.

[Nate]

Originally posted by Terron:

resi 1 remake is still King imo but 2 remake is absolutely fantastic also. I put 2 remake well ahead of 7, village, 3 and 4 remake though I enjoyed am all well enough.

Agreed, though RE1R didn't make much of an impression on me, but its probably because I never played the originals so I don't have much nostalgia for the series. I'm something of a newcomer. But I love RE2R in case you haven't noticed, and I'm currently enjoying RE4R even if it's less on the 'horror' spectrum, still a great game. I also enjoyed Village. I think I liked RE7 well enough but I just don't remember much about it.

[Phobos]

RE1 Remake still is the superior game in the franchise to me. It was the first I played but I never played the original prior, and nostalgia or not, compared to a lot of survival horrors, it almost didn't age.

Control is smooth once you understand how the tank works, it's perfectly balanced with the enemies health / speed, visuals are stunning, atmosphere is fantastic and soundtrack is top-notch.

Voice acting's perfect too, the game is well written and plausible, it's just a work of art.

RER2R is better than I expected it to be, and it's one of the best survival horror in the recent years, but I can't call it perfect, they messed up the interactions and differences between scenario A and B compared to the original, enemies are just too bullet-sponges overall, and soundtrack is clearly disappointing overall (sound design is great, though).

It's a great experience and a well-done remake, but it doesn't achieve what RE1R did.

[Koala 4peace]

Originally posted by NateDogg:

...
But he also wanted to make "the scariest game ever" so horror was at the forefront of his design. I would say that DS1 is a horror game with action elements. I know people who refuse to play DS1 because they think it's too scary. I doubt you'll hear many people say that about RE4.
...

Horror is really relative. I'm a big scaredy cat, could not handle RE1R because i found it far more scary than the original. Same with the Silent Hill series or Clock Tower. And when i tried Dead Space, i started being scared because of the fame; after a few hours i was wondering if there were actually scares; then bored; then felt like an idiot on the only time i got surprised by an enemy in 3 hours. But i was more scared of Dead Space before playing than in anything the game offered.

For me it was a very decaff version of RE4. Of course, given how the game is considered a jewel of the horror genre, i guess it just failed to click for me.

[Nate]

Originally posted by Phobos:

RER2R is better than I expected it to be, and it's one of the best survival horror in the recent years, but I can't call it perfect, they messed up the interactions and differences between scenario A and B compared to the original, enemies are just too bullet-sponges overall, and soundtrack is clearly disappointing overall (sound design is great, though).

I agree RE2R isn't perfect, but I haven't really itemised exactly what I dislike about it. Some boss fights were more frustrating than fun, and I thought the final act was contrived with the Umbrella lab setting, but I understand its an RE game and there always has to be the ubiquitous "Umbrella conspiracy" but I never take it seriously. Sometimes I go purely by my own enjoyment and I 'enjoyed' RE2R more than RE1R, warts and all.

[Simbolic]

RE4R likely did better because the original was already a fan favorite. It changed and revolutionized the genre. Although seemed like after that none really did well until they started with the first person player games. The biggest reason I think most started failing was the lack of gore especially for RE6. Remember seeing zombies eat people in the streets and all there was were red stains on the victims clothes in RE6. No guts hanging out or torn open chest or stomach.
Then finally they started bringing back the heavy gore in RE7, Village and RE2R. which brought it's popularity back up.

[Nate]

Originally posted by Koala 4peace:

Originally posted by NateDogg:

...
But he also wanted to make "the scariest game ever" so horror was at the forefront of his design. I would say that DS1 is a horror game with action elements. I know people who refuse to play DS1 because they think it's too scary. I doubt you'll hear many people say that about RE4.
...

Horror is really relative. I'm a big scaredy cat, could not handle RE1R because i found it far more scary than the original. Same with the Silent Hill series or Clock Tower. And when i tried Dead Space, i started being scared because of the fame; after a few hours i was wondering if there were actually scares; then bored; then felt like an idiot on the only time i got surprised by an enemy in 3 hours. But i was more scared of Dead Space before playing than in anything the game offered.

For me it was a very decaff version of RE4. Of course, given how the game is considered a jewel of the horror genre, i guess it just failed to click for me.

The relativity of horror is debatable, but fear is certainly relative. I'm surprised that you found DS1 boring, but I can appreciate that it didn't scare you. I will concede that RE2R does a better job of making me feel vulnerable, perhaps because I lack the resources to neutralise all threats. But in DS1, you ARE the biggest threat on the Ishimura. Perhaps its just a fun game with dense atmosphere and methodical pacing. I thought it was fun, anyway.

Is RE1R really that good? I suppose I could revisit it, I'm just not a fan of the fixed camera angles. Fixed camera angles were simply a limitation of the time, but now some people appreciate it as a 'style' of game. I have played horror games that were more 'adventure' focused, and I might be able to appreciate RE1R in that light, less as a 'shooter' per say. I wouldn't mind if RE1 was remade again, but in the same vein as RE2R.

I missed the boat on Silent Hill, but I hear they're remaking SH2 and I'm looking forward to it!

[Nate]

Originally posted by Simbolic:

RE4R likely did better because the original was already a fan favorite. It changed and revolutionized the genre. Although seemed like after that none really did well until they started with the first player games. The biggest reason I think most started failing was the lack of gore especially for RE6. Remember seeing zombies eat people in the streets and all there was were red stains on the victims clothes in RE6. No guts hanging out or torn open chest or stomach.
Then finally they started bringing back the heavy gore in RE7, Village and RE2R. which brought it's popularity back up.

Its weird that people like to be scared.... but not 'too' scared. RE2R is a terrifying game for alot of people which is why its less popular. But other RE games aren't scary enough, so they lose interest altogether. Fear is a delicate balance. There is a demand for it as an entertainment medium, but you gotta strike that balance just right!

[Koala 4peace]

Originally posted by NateDogg:

The relativity of horror is debatable, but fear is certainly relative. I'm surprised that you found DS1 boring, but I can appreciate that it didn't scare you. I will concede that RE2R does a better job of making me feel vulnerable, perhaps because I lack the resources to neutralise all threats. But in DS1, you ARE the biggest threat on the Ishimura. Perhaps its just a fun game with dense atmosphere and methodical pacing. I thought it was fun, anyway.

Is RE1R really that good? I suppose I could revisit it, I'm just not a fan of the fixed camera angles. Fixed camera angles were simply a limitation of the time, but now some people appreciate it as a 'style' of game. I have played horror games that were more 'adventure' focused, and I might be able to appreciate RE1R in that light, less as a 'shooter' per say. I wouldn't mind if RE1 was remade again, but in the same vein as RE2R.

I missed the boat on Silent Hill, but I hear they're remaking SH2 and I'm looking forward to it!

Well, i guess as surprised as i am when people say it's actually scary, but as i said, for some reason it failed to click with me. Anyway, if you give a chance again to RE1R, the steam version has a choice to use normal controls, not tank ones, and what i played of the game i found they serve generally better. But to each, their own.

Originally posted by Simbolic:

RE4R likely did better because the original was already a fan favorite. It changed and revolutionized the genre. Although seemed like after that none really did well until they started with the first player games. The biggest reason I think most started failing was the lack of gore especially for RE6. Remember seeing zombies eat people in the streets and all there was were red stains on the victims clothes in RE6. No guts hanging out or torn open chest or stomach.
Then finally they started bringing back the heavy gore in RE7, Village and RE2R. which brought it's popularity back up.

Well, OG RE4 was revolutionary indeed, but as a horror game failed, and that is accepted even by the fans who like it. And RE5 and 6 doubled down on the shooty part (and QTEs, thrice be damned) and did not even attempt to be scary. Since the 360/PS3 era was the one where multiplayer was shoved down player throats, wheter it made sense or not, they tried for a more L4D vibe, but the result was underwhelming.

A friend compared RE6 with an arcade shooter, and honestly, i think is an accurate description. "House of Dead" was a ♥♥♥♥♥, but hardly scary.

[Bullett00th]

Originally posted by NateDogg:

Originally posted by Simbolic:

RE4R likely did better because the original was already a fan favorite. It changed and revolutionized the genre. Although seemed like after that none really did well until they started with the first player games. The biggest reason I think most started failing was the lack of gore especially for RE6. Remember seeing zombies eat people in the streets and all there was were red stains on the victims clothes in RE6. No guts hanging out or torn open chest or stomach.
Then finally they started bringing back the heavy gore in RE7, Village and RE2R. which brought it's popularity back up.

Its weird that people like to be scared.... but not 'too' scared. RE2R is a terrifying game for alot of people which is why its less popular. But other RE games aren't scary enough, so they lose interest altogether. Fear is a delicate balance. There is a demand for it as an entertainment medium, but you gotta strike that balance just right!

It's not so much about being scared as it is about the satisfaction of overcoming fear.

That's why I don't enjoy overreliance on jump scares. It's not something you overcome. A loud sound and a something suddenly jumping in your face just evokes to evolutionary defense mechanisms and a natural nerve reaction, like a doctor hitting a hammer on the knee.

With tension-based horror it's a different story. It's about being afraid to even look at a licker, and gradually learning to walk past it without a sweat. It's about going from nervously wasting ammo on shambling zombies to methodically stunning them and learning to avoid the ones you don't need to kill. It's about going from Mr.X being a terrible threat to a minor nuisance. It's rewarding as hell.

[Nate]

Originally posted by Bullett00th:

Originally posted by NateDogg:

Its weird that people like to be scared.... but not 'too' scared. RE2R is a terrifying game for alot of people which is why its less popular. But other RE games aren't scary enough, so they lose interest altogether. Fear is a delicate balance. There is a demand for it as an entertainment medium, but you gotta strike that balance just right!

It's not so much about being scared as it is about the satisfaction of overcoming fear.

That's why I don't enjoy overreliance on jump scares. It's not something you overcome. A loud sound and a something suddenly jumping in your face just evokes to evolutionary defense mechanisms and a natural nerve reaction, like a doctor hitting a hammer on the knee.

With tension-based horror it's a different story. It's about being afraid to even look at a licker, and gradually learning to walk past it without a sweat. It's about going from nervously wasting ammo on shambling zombies to methodically stunning them and learning to avoid the ones you don't need to kill. It's about going from Mr.X being a terrible threat to a minor nuisance. It's rewarding as hell.

Interesting breakdown on the rewards of "jump scare horror" vs "tension based horror". I had not made that distinction, but you're probably right. I don't have the language to acknowledge "jump scare horror" because it's so completely irrelevant to my experience playing any REAL horror game. But anytime people talk about "jump scares" in video games, I always check out. How are jump scares even relevant to horror? Granted, RE2R and DS1R have their share of jump scares, but they are not 'reliant' on them, as you suggested. Yes, tension based horror is the real draw, agreed 100%.

[Simbolic]

Originally posted by NateDogg:

Originally posted by Simbolic:

RE4R likely did better because the original was already a fan favorite. It changed and revolutionized the genre. Although seemed like after that none really did well until they started with the first person player games. The biggest reason I think most started failing was the lack of gore especially for RE6. Remember seeing zombies eat people in the streets and all there was were red stains on the victims clothes in RE6. No guts hanging out or torn open chest or stomach.
Then finally they started bringing back the heavy gore in RE7, Village and RE2R. which brought it's popularity back up.

Its weird that people like to be scared.... but not 'too' scared. RE2R is a terrifying game for alot of people which is why its less popular. But other RE games aren't scary enough, so they lose interest altogether. Fear is a delicate balance. There is a demand for it as an entertainment medium, but you gotta strike that balance just right!

Exactly I think having alot of gore also contributes alot to that fear level. Walking past a body with blood everywhere all mutilated and ripped apart. Then knowing afterwords you would be fighting whatever the hell did that. Really increases the tension of that encounter.

[Koala 4peace]

Originally posted by Bullett00th:

That's why I don't enjoy overreliance on jump scares. It's not something you overcome. A loud sound and a something suddenly jumping in your face just evokes to evolutionary defense mechanisms and a natural nerve reaction, like a doctor hitting a hammer on the knee.

It already was on the original, and i have been there several times in the remake. But i always, always jump in the interrogation room on RE2. It's above me.

[Nate]

Originally posted by Simbolic:

Originally posted by NateDogg:

Its weird that people like to be scared.... but not 'too' scared. RE2R is a terrifying game for alot of people which is why its less popular. But other RE games aren't scary enough, so they lose interest altogether. Fear is a delicate balance. There is a demand for it as an entertainment medium, but you gotta strike that balance just right!

Exactly I think having alot of gore also contributes alot to that fear level. Walking past a body with blood everywhere all mutilated and ripped apart. Then knowing afterwords you would be fighting whatever the hell did that. Really increases the tension of that encounter.

Yes, 'implied' horror is the most effective because we scare ourselves more than anything. The less you know about the threat, the scarier it is, which seems to be what you're suggesting. You see the violence, but you don't know what caused it, which is left to the imagination, and THAT'S the scary part, your own imagination.

[Simbolic]

Originally posted by NateDogg:

Originally posted by Simbolic:

Exactly I think having alot of gore also contributes alot to that fear level. Walking past a body with blood everywhere all mutilated and ripped apart. Then knowing afterwords you would be fighting whatever the hell did that. Really increases the tension of that encounter.

True, but its also been said that 'implied' horror is much worse because instead of SHOWING you the violence, its merely implied, leaving the rest to your imagination. And the truth is, we scare ourselves more than anything else. I think fear is suppose to be, like.... the absence of knowledge? The more you know about the threat, the less scary it becomes. The boogy man is really just a marginalised homeless guy fighting for his own survival, more tragic than scary.

I agree the not knowing can also be huge factor. The spiritual unknown and demons as such. Is usually the most horrifying for anyone.
In my opinion, I think the best and scariest movie was the first Jeepers Creeper. That was a crazy movie. The acting of the brother and sister was also phenomenal. Especially the brother when at moments he would tremble. Just made you really feel his fear.