Did Resident Evil need a full remake in 2002? Who asked for this? The original game still held up fine.

This is one of my least favourite ritualposts on this board, and that's saying a lot because I hate most of them.

"FF7 on N64" thread next week, yeah?

The point was to show off the leap in graphics between two versions of the game separated by only a single console generation, and it accomplished that.
Returning fans loved to see the differences and were thrilled at all the surprises that awaited them despite how familiar it all was. It pretty much set an impossible standard that not even the likes of Metal Gear Solid could match, and it's debatable if the leap between RE1 to REmake is greater than from MGS1 to MGS2 in terms of graphics.

REmake was never meant to replace RE1 or be a "superior" or "upgraded" version. The fact that many fans thought it was the pinnacle of survival horror as a genre isn't the fault of the game being so damn good.

>>11872875 (OP)
Yes because back then the graphical leap within just one generation was obvious and was a major showcase of the hardware. These days you have to zoom in 300% and pixel count or use framerate graphs to see a difference.

>>11872879
Fpbp

>>11872875 (OP)
>Did Resident Evil need a full remake in 2002?

Yeah since Capcom wasn't reprinting the PS1 version anymore.

>Who asked for this?

Nintendo, gamers who wanted new copies. Same reason why RE2 and 3 were on the DC and GC, even if they weren't remade.

>The original game still held up fine.

>scratched up copy for $75

>gamecube game for $40

do the math

>>11872913
>Yes because back then the graphical leap within just one generation was obvious and was a major showcase of the hardware. These days you have to zoom in 300% and pixel count or use framerate graphs to see a difference.
Depends on the game and the art style, you have to be retarded to not notice the huge graphical leap between RDR1 and RDR2 for example

>>11872938
It's not as readily apparent and as extreme like the process of going from the PS1/N64 to the very next generation. Games like REmake are the reason why people think game graphics have stagnated, because they were such shocking leaps.

>Did Resident Evil need a full remake in 2002?yes for two reasons.
1. in the 5th gen the pre rendered flat image technique was greatly subdued by the storage and resolution constraints of the psx, also the rendering tech available at the time. you got an impression of the potential but that was it. on the gamecube with 00s era 3d rendering tech they were able to fully realize that method, a lot of seventh gen games don't even look as good as remake rendered in realtime 3d.
2. resident evil 1996 wasn't up to the standards capcom set by the end of the gen, re2 and especially re3 are good looking games for the time. re1 had large room for improvement even taking into a count there era it was in.

>>11872875 (OP)
>Did Resident Evil need a full remake in 2002?

yes for two reasons.

1. in the 5th gen the pre rendered fixed angle image technique was greatly subdued by the storage and resolution constraints of the psx, also the rendering tech available at the time. you got an impression of the potential but that was it. on the gamecube with 00s era rendering tech they were able to fully realize that method, a lot of seventh gen games don't look as good as remake rendered in realtime 3d.

2. resident evil 1996 wasn't up to the standards capcom set by the end of the gen, re2 and especially re3 are good looking games for the time. re1 had large room for improvement even taking into account the era it was in.

>>11872938
>the huge graphical leap between RDR1 and RDR2
8 years of difference between RDR 1 & 2, exactly like RE and REmake
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiQf90hKJG8&ab_channel=Candyland
The huge graphical leap, you say?
Do you understand how insane the difference between RE and REmake is compared to this?

>>11873063
poster never said it was the same. he was just pushing back on the claim that there's barely any difference in fidelity in the modern era. the leap from the 7th to 8th was pretty stark as much as you could expect without fundamental shifts in poly count.

>>11872875 (OP)
>Who asked for this?
nobody and that's exactly why it's good

>>11872875 (OP)
>Did Resident Evil need a full remake in 2002?
Yes
>Who asked for this?
I did

>>11872875 (OP)
Games are made to make money. Also, RE1 wasn't on a Nintendo console.

>>11873189
>RE1 wasn't on a Nintendo console.
Checkmate atheists

>>11873189
>>11873374
Why did they port RE2 to N64 but not RE1 or RE3?

>>11872875 (OP)
No, because it's a boring game.

>>11873374
That's not Resident Evil retard. That's Biohazard.

>>11872875 (OP)
technology advanced rapidly in a short amount of time, only this board has an issue with it

The majority of people that actually played this game would be from the steam version 10 years later.

So you can add an extra 10 years to that date

>>11872879
Here's how FF7 could have saved the Saturn

>>11872875 (OP)
>The game was part of an exclusivity agreement between Capcom and Nintendo to bring previous and new Resident Evil games to the GameCube.
>Who asked for this
Nintendo did. It was a cool idea and pre rendering capabilities had improved an incredible amount in the 6 years since the original. It was probably cheaper to make and it was great for marketing purposes for the gamecube, not only to get away from the "kiddy" rep Nintendo had but graphically it was very impressive.

>>11872891
you cant compare REmake to MGS2,REmake has pictures for background while MGS2 has melting 3D ice cube in its environment.

>>11872935
>scratched up copy for $75
i didnt even pay that for a copy in good condition in 2019 so i doubt it was 75$ in 2002.

>>11873951
>not only to get away from the "kiddy" rep Nintendo had
Didn't really help when the other 99% of games were still kiddy games, party games or JRPGs. They did the same thing with Treasure on the Wii, where Sin & Punishment 2 is the only cool game on that system.

Nintendo consoles are a joke.

>>11872875 (OP)
Yo this nigga is playing with the screen equivalent of an steamdeck hahahahahahaha

"need" wasn't the question. Back there you could actually wow people by showing off the power of the new console generation in comparison to the previous one. It was cool.
Remaking things now is just kind of tediously routine, and usually makes the game worse in some way.

>>11872875 (OP)
The original, while awesome and scary, was an unintentional comedy. Not only were they able to impress everyone with the big leap in graphics, but they were able to make the game they had originally intended and more. I love both, but the remake is just so much better

>>11874690
>they were able to make the game they had originally intended
Who is "they?"

>>11874706
Mikami and whoever else was making the game, Idk. I read about how stuff like the graveyard was supposed to be in the original game. I'm sure they came up with a lot more since they got another attempt on much stronger hardware

>>11872875 (OP)
God yes. It was AMAZING back when it first came out. Looked so real.

>>11872913
THIS 100%.

>>11872875 (OP)
THE GAME IS GORGEOUS

>>11872875 (OP)
no game "needs" a remake. every single one exists solely to make money.

>>11873063
Yes, REmake's graphics, from models and rendering to the animations, have more in common with a game made today than they have with those of the original RE.

My goodness!