"Art doesn't need to justify itself at all." However, it does need to be made. Worked into being. Often through extraordinary amounts of skilled man-hours and money. These are fine and limited resources which are focused on the realisation of fewer and fewer works at a time as the kind of art in question becomes harder and harder to make at such advanced standards. This factor, rarely touched on, I believe makes this issue very serious. We are not discussing whether or not a game is good. We are discussing how to best spend years of the lives of some of the greatest potential-bearing artists and craftsmen alive. If I sound deeply serious throughout this comment it is on account of the respect I have for these artists. First, on the subject of fixing things, if the new iteration of the thing isn't led by its original creator (or perhaps someone acting for them) it's not an update or a fixing. It's about money. The "fixing" is half marketing noise (“improved!”) and half adjusting towards expectations set by later games to smooth out character and create a more one-size-fits-all experience (replacing Dead Space 1’s idiosyncratic diving space movement with 3D flying). Nothing done by the newer Dead Space of all games is running on a straight improvement track. "Fidelity" is quantifiable, so we like talking about and fixating upon it. But we are capable of appreciating things which are not quantifiable. The game has a new aesthetic direction painted on top of old bones. Some may dislike this. The "three-dimensional glory" looks like it makes the sensational experience of zero gravity completely different. We can't say one is better. But I don’t really think I’m disagreeing with you yet. What you call a "capitalist" context I would call a "tasteless" one. Or a "non-appreciative" one, in which there is little if any sensitivity towards vision or the human will behind a work. Each thing taken as a meaningless iteration of novel entertainment. Only the most grossly quantifiable elements are taken to have tangible presence. "Graphics". A handful of youtube meme transmitted "gameplay mechanics" (it has soulslike dodging and bonfires now!), etc. More than anything else the idea that a game can be flatly “improved upon” is simply *stupid*. A moron will reduce anything they see to a "consumable product", while an intelligent and halfway cultured observer can recognise the humanity in anything. Now, you could say the motivation to cater to morons is "capitalist", but what happened? Was Japan a communist/socialist country that underwent a capitalist revolution last year? New management? If essentially “capitalist” decisions are being made now where *previously they weren’t*, we need an explanation. Your "capitalist context" comments all imply some kind of observer viewing the things this way within and/or due to this context, but who is that? Who is this person who *would* get it, were it not for capitalist context? The developers? The producers? The audience? Whose view is distorted by capitalism and how? I see this as a moron issue. Games are getting more expensive to make because morons want them to be cooler and newer on the level they can appreciate. And that level is “Software to be improved upon in an impossible pursuit of perfection”. This is just how normal stupid people see video games. Remakes primarily existing because morons who the art is lost on will just read newness and progress in terms of novelty *and scaling technology* (which is constantly getting more expensive). If there is any economic logic to observed here, it’s that the expectations of these stupid people are more and more expensive to fulfil as time goes on, and so this incentivises further and further moves towards safety as big productions become bigger investments. Normal people demand big and they are easily scared. Which means increasingly technically elaborate works expressing increasingly boring and played out ideas. Remakes don’t happen (at least in Japan) because management fantasises about some perfect dehumanised game which is just a machine they constantly update to bring in more money. They already have gacha for that. Remakes happen as a compromise move between letting their people do *some* real artist’s work and wanting relatively sound chances of good returns on high investment. This might sound semantic but I consider the distinction essential to understanding what went wrong in games. “Capitalism” does not generate disregard for the nature of works produced. And as for artistic merits of remakes. "Remakes can play on expectations". Yes, but working within established tradition is something common to ALL MEDIA. Not just those which share titles 1-1. You're constantly giving up the key to this yourself throughout the history of your channel. The answer is "HORROR". What is "genre" but a creative tradition which iterates upon itself and its history, playing off of itself to by turns use your expectations to achieve comfort, familiarity, surprise, bewilderment, etc. Resident Evil exists regardless of what your new game is called. It exists in peoples' minds without you having to call your own work "resident evil". The experiences they had are there. The expectations formed by those experiences are there. You could say that the title of "resident evil" primes people in a certain way we can have more fun with, but creation is a blank slate. There are endless ways to prime people for one experience or another. Including to invoke the expectations formed by another work. You can officially market your game as a "residentvania" if you really want the morons to get it and be thinking very specifically that "This is going to be like Resident Evil" when they fire it up. Yes, if you own the rights and reuse the name and premise down to the specific sequence of events you can play off of very specific expecations. But is that really interesting? It's a cute trick to talk about in video essays, but again, we could be making anything and we make the resident evil mansion again... only the zombie's in *THAT* closet this time. REmake is actually about the best possible example of this because it is both Shinji Mikami directing again and a tech-leap makes enormous new possibliities. REmake is almost like a tech demo showcase of virtual architecture and object-modelling, using your memories of the PS1 standards to better make the impression of progress. But of course I also adore Code Veronica and consider that game an amazing jump. And I personally found the novelty of expanding Resident Evil's premise on entirely new ground more exciting than a re-exploration of the same premise. If making something with past works consciously in your mind as you're working, and expected to be in the minds of the audience who will see your work makes something a "meta-sequel", then the label is sort of meaningless in the sense that this is merely how culture works. Not only within the continuity of a particular IP, but really all information that is still alive in the minds of the living. Shinji Mikami was influenced by Lucio Fulci’s Zombi2 while making this game. He didn't care for how explicit it was. He saw his own approach to horror as a kind of correction of that. In a sense Resident Evil is a 'meta-sequel' to Zombi2. Japanese pop-culture of this period was also heavily inspired by real world events, such as the Sarin Gas Attacks. Resident Evil is also a meta-sequel to Aum Shinrikyo. I am stretching this point to absurdity to make a point of how deep influence runs. What you are calling meta-sequel I would just call anything attached to a tradition of ideas. Be they visual, intellectual, historical, artistic, etc. You say that "You have to have played the original to fully appreciate the changes in the remake." Yes, you have to have played the original to fully appreciate the changes in the remake. But the remake is more than its changes. What does it mean to fully appreciate something? If I have to play RE1, and maybe even the Director's Cut to fully appreciate REmake1 *JUST ON THE LEVEL OF ITS CHANGES*, what do I have to play (or god forbid, does this go even beyond games?) to fully appreciate *ALL OF IT?* Or perhaps to make this simpler, how do I fully appreciate the original Resident Evil? We then don't have "changes" to get in the way. What is full appreciation? Remakes provide interesting opportunities for comparison. REmake2 is a frame through which we can reflect back upon the original RE2. There is interest in comparing older and newer works. We can compare capacities and limitations, and how these are worked within in different periods. Evolving tastes of new audiences and new artists. Just the thing is, *WE CAN DO THIS WITH ANY TWO THINGS*. They do not have to share titles, or even be officially related by IP at all. Or even be the same form of media. I’ll return to this line of thought.
You say: "The Resident Evil 2 remake is so different in the way it plays that it successfully avoids undercutting the uniqueness of the original and instead it stands as a companion piece. The purpose it fills, from a purely artistic perspective, is to make something out of every lesson learned from all the mainline resident evil games that came before." This to me feels like an echo of the "capitalist" logic invoked before, in which video games are content to be refined and rendered more efficient over time as profitable entertainment tools. Your suggestion that the developers are making something out of lessons raises the question; "To what end?" You ask "What if?" Again, you seem mentally caged by the lines of IP. Games other than Resident Evil 2 were made since Resident Evil 2. Lots of different ways of firing guns in video games have been explored. Firing guns at zombies even. A guy named Leon Kennedy firing guns at zombies even. SEQUELS alone can do this. Not even getting into the extraordinary variety of OTHER GAMES which have been made since. All of the most interesting parts of this game *as a remake* are what are basically B-scenario changes. Mixups to play on your expectations of something you already know. Everything else, new "mechanics" and so on, are things we could appreciate just as well in any other work. How does moving and shooting in a "survival horror game" work? Why don't I go play The Evil Within and then get back to you? I can tell you how a lot of other weird and novel ideas also work if I go play that because it didn't have to spend so much of its energy being Resident Evil again. "Resident Evil 4 will be remade again. And I think it should be. And it doesn't even have to be made by Capcom". Yes, it will. It will have a lasting influence upon media made in the future. Including many things which will not be called Resident Evil 4. The next phrase that caught my attention here was "Self reflecting on their own legacy". Most artists both only have so many ideas in them, and often hold the same fascinations within themselves for a long time, if not their whole lives. It is possible to consciously reflect upon and iterate upon your own work without doing it again so directly. Sequels do this. As do superficially "unrelated" later works by the same artist generally. Shinji Mikami directed The Evil Within. He is very clearly experimenting with what he can do in the same vein of RE4, but trying to make it new. Trying to do it different. And key point here, Capcom is not a person. They have consistent staff across many works, but the will which most strongly asserted itself to realise Resident Evil 4 was that of Shinji Mikami. Who *did not* direct the RE4 Remake. The RE4 Remake was *other people* reflecting upon his legacy. Why I mention The Evil Within above. Mikami *did* "direct" that one. I can't quantify how much personal involvement he had in each work, how much each is truly *his* in its final form, but if they are anybody's they are *his*. And if there's someone who could actually be said to "self-reflect" in the context of Resident Evil it's him. RE1make was that. RE4make is not. "Remakes are a natural step in the progression of art." I don’t know about that. 90% of what is attributed to remakes is happening regardless as culture moves on. The remaining 10% is mostly cute little tricks which are not worth the current extraordinary investment of new AAA games as art/culture. The reason these happen is because they are a safe investment (or capitalism if you please). The Japanese try to leverage this little 10% window for all it's worth because they're mostly such great craftsmen, but that just makes it more of a shame that they have to settle. "New art, has the power to move us, remakes have the power to make us realise why something moved us in the first place" We don't need the same name on both boxes to draw lines of thought between between things. Everything is another frame through which we can look at every other thing. Anything can potentially provide valuable new perspective on anything else. Take the art redpill and free your mind.
Love this! I really think what you focus on is the most important piece to consider "is this trying to or effectively replacing the previous media". I love what remakes can do, one of my favorites has been FF7. And it always feels odd that games in particular get caught up in replacement as meaning "faithful"
I read an interesting article about how Gus Van Sant’s remake of Psycho received so much hate for being a “shot for shot remake” of Hitchcock’s original film. It’s a very interesting contrast to the world of video games, where a lot of people seem to want *exactly* that, and nothing else. I never finished the original Final Fantasy VII, but my interest in it and the remake was raised significantly when I realized how the latter subverts the former.
It's always ironic to hear people complain about the RE-games being remade, when the original Resident Evil itself was meant to be a remake of an NES-JRPG game called "Sweet Home".
@@escalatingbarbarism5096 Exactly what I said - that people complain about RE4make not being needed, when the whole series started, because someone at Capcom wanted to remake an old JRPG for the PS1. It's like horror fans complaining about remakes of Horror Movies, when one of the best and most well known 80s horror movies out there - John Carpenter's The Thing - is a remake.
@@manticore6963 Right, so you're saying if RE1 had stayed as remake of an awful RPG based off of a lame movie it would've sucked, and if the remake of RE4 was a different game, it would be better. I agree, remakes are total shit and I would rather have something original every single time. Anyone who supports these has no brain.
I love this perspective. My favorite remakes in games and film are the ones that subvert expectations while still managing to deliver on being faithful. It's kind of an artform in itself to find that balance.
man, what a great video. i have always found that fear is one of those sensations that cannot be synthesized and/or faked, and it's almost always some form of bitter surprise and the pretense thereof. I think that's what makes remakes of RE4 and Dead Space (which I just finished this weekend) so excellent. We have a built-in defense mechanism against that horror due inherently to our history with that game. We have antibodies to those moments. The way they switch them up is brilliantly EVEN MORE scary than they were initially because we were already lulled into that sense of security because we thought we subverted the crisis in the first place. The greater our knowledge is of that serenity, the more that terror grips us. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you, I'm glad you liked the video! Horror can obviously still be good even if we've reached the point where we know exactly what to expect. I usually say that's the point where the game stops being properly scary, but keeps being exciting. That's why the original RE games, as well as the original Dead Space games, still work for so many people. It's nice then that remakes are able to, as I said in the video, kind of scare you for the first time *again*.
Awesome video and totally agreed! I'm surprised Jacob Geller said that remakes are a lower form of art, if John Carpenter's The Thing is low art, then I don't care what high art is!
Thank you so much Daniel!! I want to give him some benefit of the doubt, since it was an unscripted comment during a podcast-like recording, but I don't believe it was simply a joke. Again, I can absolutely see his point, but The Thing is definitely one of many great counterpoints. Of course, some would argue that The Thing *isn't* a remake, but a more accurate retelling of the original novel(?). I absolutely think the point stands though. Just the fact that the first film is shown in the original Halloween sort of proves that Carpenter's version would not have existed without the previous one.
I am genuinely impressed by your defense of the art. Although I'm not much of a horror player myself, I do enjoy games that are aware that they are art, because those are the ones that tend to bring us to interesting places. And I agree, permutations of what already existing is a valid expression of art, it's just that the expression lies in the meta, the game just wears itself as a suit, as an expression of its true self with which it can play to set and divert expectations :) Hm, I just realized I think that sounds an awful lot like gender, gender being a game.. Huh.
I've got some great news! Theres a new Pim video :) Interesting perspective! Love how this kind of works as a subtle counterpoint to the Jacob Geller video on horror remakes. I dont really play horror games myself so its always nice to learn more about the genre and the ways in which it's unique. Btw what is that game at 18:10? Looks gorgeous
It wasn't intended to be my response to Jacob originally, but I randomly stumbled upon the MinnMax video and that quote definitely had an influence on how the video ultimately ended up. I think it's neat to be able to make a sort of response video that isn't just a complete condemnation or mockery of another creator. About the game, it's called Becalm. It's literally just you sitting in a boat while you listen to some relaxing music. It's very much a vibe based game!
Personally, I think the Re4 remake cutscene was terrifying. Why can Leon kill a person with 1 kick? Why does he hold this power?! Will he be responsible with this power?! Jokes aside, I hope they remake Code Veronica. Maybe leaving out the evil cross dresser trope though because other than that, it’s a silly, goofy game that was… an experience to play. I think it has a lot of potential. Also happy pride month!
You know that scene made me start thinking about how funny it is that Doom ended up being the franchise which made the completely unstoppable nature of it's protagonist a part of the series canon, when a franchise like Resident Evil have a whole school class of equally unstoppable doomslayers haha! I would *love* to see how a Code Veronica remake would remove or at the very least reduce the harm of that trope. That might frankly be the main reason why I would want that remake!
I'm generally okay with remakes, except in the case where a new game would have been more valuable. There are plenty of RE games and their latest sequel only released recently so a remake of an older game is fine since it doesn't seem like the efforts could have been allocated elsewhere. Now, if a Fatal Frame remake was announced instead of a new entry I'd be less okay with it. Although who knows, maybe remaking older games for new audiences benefits the franchise in a way that encourages further sequels, it's hard to say. Great video though! The outro gave me a craving for cake! 😅
One thing I would love to see in media where this is possible: Remakes in which the original game is included. The ability to swap between graphics systems is neat, but kinda superficial - I'd rather just have a thing in the main menu that boots up an emulator of the original console, dosbox, or whatever directX stuff the original used, and just runs the original game as is. Storage capacity has ballooned to a point where a lot of these older games are pretty trivial - a 700MB PSX game is a drop in the bucket on an 80GB modern AAA game install, for instance....let alone SNES games and the like that are so small most people wouldn't even think it was a rounding error.
I'd love that too. I can definitely see how that could be used in an awful way by publishers (not releasing originals on newer hardware anywhere else, forcing you to buy a remake where it's included, for example), but it would be *very* convenient. Both in terms of accessibility and preservation!
Something that I think is also worth mentioning wrt remakes is that it allows for greater accessibility. Playing Silent Hill 2 is a logistical nightmare. There's the PS2 version, the PC version, and the HD collection (which is a rancid garbage fire). Figuring out which to play and then finding the means to play it is confusing and probably discourages a lot of people from trying. The tank controls especially are a huge frustration for people more familiar with modern control schemes. I have my concerns about the SH2 remake as well, but best case scenario, it will give people the chance to experience a legendary game that they otherwise might not. Personally, I wish Konami would give the original a re-release as well. Shout out to the SH2: Enhanced Edition team.
Wild Zero is such a great movie! Guitar Wolf in general are fantastic, I saw them live in 2019 and the wall of noise they produced was loud it was like being punched in the chest for two hours.
Ohboy this is a good one. I def agree with you, and also get the flip side of remakes being seen as lesser. But i super believe this negative mindset has only emerged because of capitalism and a possible over saturation of poor remakes. Because if you remember like 10-15 years ago this wasn't the case, remakes were usually met with excitment. It was always the expectation that it was being handled by people who also were passionate about the 'what ifs' and reflecting on past choices through a different lens. And then a couple bad apples spoiled the whole lot. I myself have flip flopped between both a lot, on the one hand it can seem a bit tiring to get more of the same, but then again as someone who has studied game dev its also a REALLY interesting thought exercise and experiment to explore a what if and create a whole new experience for the player.
Well, you know how much I love talking about RE4 and this video is a great addition to the conversation. I need to give RE4Remake another go around soon and I think you've pushed me over the edge now. Great work!
Not gonna lie, having finally released the video, and having just finished Fatal Frame 4, I kinda want to do a sixth replay of the RE4 remake now haha!
This is the second time I've done something cake related on this channel. I don't know what it is. My mind just gravitate towards cake related humor haha!
Great video as usual. Even though I'd like to encourage you to produce more, I appreciate the time invested in each one. Loved the ending with the cake and the Deadly Prem "music"! xD
If more people supported me on Patreon, making it possible for me to work on videos 50 percent or even full time, I absolutely would make more. That you recognized the Deadly Premonition music makes you a cool one in my book!
I have, and I have a whole lot of thoughts about it! Not sure it will be it's own video, or if I'll wait for more games to come and make a more proper part 2 to my previous Frictional Games video.
i agree that remakes are a good thing, especially since older games can become inaccessible to newer audiences due to dated gaming mechanics or hardware incompatibility. and it's not like the og game is lost to everyone for all time, it's still there, but with a higher barrier to entry, which won't stop a dedicated gamer.
I read a Stephen Graham Jones short story in a Best Horror of the Year anthology and it was amazing! Then I read his novel 'The Only Good Indians' a couple weeks ago and it was terrible. How's 'Heart is a Chainsaw', in your opinion? Now, an unpopular opinion*. I don't like is how casually people nowadays call games art, as though we gamers were desperate for validation like comic books readers were in the 80s and 90s, when comics started being called graphic novels (yikes!) and literature (cripes!). The worst was bringing Al Pacino on stage to present games, when he clearly is ignorant of all things video games. *Unpopular but correct. Everyone else is wrong.
Small change between the spanish version of RE:4 and the remake. The original, settled in a northern spanish village have villagers speaking spanish like the spanish speaked in latin-america. And the spanish community loved it and enjoyed as a joke. But: The remake made the villagers speak spanish like we talks in Spain. And was a bit of a disappointment.
This I can agree with. I wasn't a fan of neither version Justice League, but I do think it's interesting to see how a piece of art can be given a second chance like that.
I agree with the thrust, you can make good art from any source material and that applies just as much to remakes. Howevet the concern I tend to have is with the artistic merits of the pieces themselves, namely how such things are often excuses to sand down the quirks that made the individual interesting in the first place and bring it into like with modern mass market content. The fundamental concern of course being the influence of capitalism and if nothing else the micro-transactions in the remake are an example of this.
@@pimscrypt You're aware of how many were being made at once in the late 2000s, right? When the superhero movie trend is over for example, they'll still make some, but they won't be making 4 or 5 of them a year like have been.
@@escalatingbarbarism5096 I’m fully aware, but that is not the point though. It’s not about how many remakes are made. The main point is about the artistic merits of remakes as a concept.
@@pimscrypt It doesn't matter how good a remake is, it's still a remake. And especially when you remake a great game and the result is something kind of decent, but not truly comparable to the original in any way other than leeching off of blind nostalgia, what was the point? That's all these modern remakes are, none of them surpass the originals, none of them replace the originals, it's a giant waste of development time that could have been used to make a sequel or something entirely original, which I would always, always prefer.
Both the OG and Remake have their own charms. I'm so happy that now we can experience Leon and Ashley's story in 2 different and rich ways.
Couldn’t agree more!
"Art doesn't need to justify itself at all." However, it does need to be made. Worked into being. Often through extraordinary amounts of skilled man-hours and money. These are fine and limited resources which are focused on the realisation of fewer and fewer works at a time as the kind of art in question becomes harder and harder to make at such advanced standards. This factor, rarely touched on, I believe makes this issue very serious. We are not discussing whether or not a game is good. We are discussing how to best spend years of the lives of some of the greatest potential-bearing artists and craftsmen alive. If I sound deeply serious throughout this comment it is on account of the respect I have for these artists.
First, on the subject of fixing things, if the new iteration of the thing isn't led by its original creator (or perhaps someone acting for them) it's not an update or a fixing. It's about money. The "fixing" is half marketing noise (“improved!”) and half adjusting towards expectations set by later games to smooth out character and create a more one-size-fits-all experience (replacing Dead Space 1’s idiosyncratic diving space movement with 3D flying).
Nothing done by the newer Dead Space of all games is running on a straight improvement track. "Fidelity" is quantifiable, so we like talking about and fixating upon it. But we are capable of appreciating things which are not quantifiable. The game has a new aesthetic direction painted on top of old bones. Some may dislike this. The "three-dimensional glory" looks like it makes the sensational experience of zero gravity completely different. We can't say one is better. But I don’t really think I’m disagreeing with you yet.
What you call a "capitalist" context I would call a "tasteless" one. Or a "non-appreciative" one, in which there is little if any sensitivity towards vision or the human will behind a work. Each thing taken as a meaningless iteration of novel entertainment. Only the most grossly quantifiable elements are taken to have tangible presence. "Graphics". A handful of youtube meme transmitted "gameplay mechanics" (it has soulslike dodging and bonfires now!), etc. More than anything else the idea that a game can be flatly “improved upon” is simply *stupid*.
A moron will reduce anything they see to a "consumable product", while an intelligent and halfway cultured observer can recognise the humanity in anything. Now, you could say the motivation to cater to morons is "capitalist", but what happened? Was Japan a communist/socialist country that underwent a capitalist revolution last year? New management? If essentially “capitalist” decisions are being made now where *previously they weren’t*, we need an explanation.
Your "capitalist context" comments all imply some kind of observer viewing the things this way within and/or due to this context, but who is that? Who is this person who *would* get it, were it not for capitalist context? The developers? The producers? The audience? Whose view is distorted by capitalism and how?
I see this as a moron issue. Games are getting more expensive to make because morons want them to be cooler and newer on the level they can appreciate. And that level is “Software to be improved upon in an impossible pursuit of perfection”. This is just how normal stupid people see video games. Remakes primarily existing because morons who the art is lost on will just read newness and progress in terms of novelty *and scaling technology* (which is constantly getting more expensive). If there is any economic logic to observed here, it’s that the expectations of these stupid people are more and more expensive to fulfil as time goes on, and so this incentivises further and further moves towards safety as big productions become bigger investments. Normal people demand big and they are easily scared. Which means increasingly technically elaborate works expressing increasingly boring and played out ideas.
Remakes don’t happen (at least in Japan) because management fantasises about some perfect dehumanised game which is just a machine they constantly update to bring in more money. They already have gacha for that. Remakes happen as a compromise move between letting their people do *some* real artist’s work and wanting relatively sound chances of good returns on high investment.
This might sound semantic but I consider the distinction essential to understanding what went wrong in games. “Capitalism” does not generate disregard for the nature of works produced.
And as for artistic merits of remakes. "Remakes can play on expectations". Yes, but working within established tradition is something common to ALL MEDIA. Not just those which share titles 1-1. You're constantly giving up the key to this yourself throughout the history of your channel. The answer is "HORROR". What is "genre" but a creative tradition which iterates upon itself and its history, playing off of itself to by turns use your expectations to achieve comfort, familiarity, surprise, bewilderment, etc.
Resident Evil exists regardless of what your new game is called. It exists in peoples' minds without you having to call your own work "resident evil". The experiences they had are there. The expectations formed by those experiences are there.
You could say that the title of "resident evil" primes people in a certain way we can have more fun with, but creation is a blank slate. There are endless ways to prime people for one experience or another. Including to invoke the expectations formed by another work. You can officially market your game as a "residentvania" if you really want the morons to get it and be thinking very specifically that "This is going to be like Resident Evil" when they fire it up.
Yes, if you own the rights and reuse the name and premise down to the specific sequence of events you can play off of very specific expecations. But is that really interesting? It's a cute trick to talk about in video essays, but again, we could be making anything and we make the resident evil mansion again... only the zombie's in *THAT* closet this time.
REmake is actually about the best possible example of this because it is both Shinji Mikami directing again and a tech-leap makes enormous new possibliities. REmake is almost like a tech demo showcase of virtual architecture and object-modelling, using your memories of the PS1 standards to better make the impression of progress. But of course I also adore Code Veronica and consider that game an amazing jump. And I personally found the novelty of expanding Resident Evil's premise on entirely new ground more exciting than a re-exploration of the same premise.
If making something with past works consciously in your mind as you're working, and expected to be in the minds of the audience who will see your work makes something a "meta-sequel", then the label is sort of meaningless in the sense that this is merely how culture works. Not only within the continuity of a particular IP, but really all information that is still alive in the minds of the living. Shinji Mikami was influenced by Lucio Fulci’s Zombi2 while making this game. He didn't care for how explicit it was. He saw his own approach to horror as a kind of correction of that. In a sense Resident Evil is a 'meta-sequel' to Zombi2. Japanese pop-culture of this period was also heavily inspired by real world events, such as the Sarin Gas Attacks. Resident Evil is also a meta-sequel to Aum Shinrikyo. I am stretching this point to absurdity to make a point of how deep influence runs. What you are calling meta-sequel I would just call anything attached to a tradition of ideas. Be they visual, intellectual, historical, artistic, etc.
You say that "You have to have played the original to fully appreciate the changes in the remake."
Yes, you have to have played the original to fully appreciate the changes in the remake. But the remake is more than its changes. What does it mean to fully appreciate something? If I have to play RE1, and maybe even the Director's Cut to fully appreciate REmake1 *JUST ON THE LEVEL OF ITS CHANGES*, what do I have to play (or god forbid, does this go even beyond games?) to fully appreciate *ALL OF IT?* Or perhaps to make this simpler, how do I fully appreciate the original Resident Evil? We then don't have "changes" to get in the way. What is full appreciation?
Remakes provide interesting opportunities for comparison. REmake2 is a frame through which we can reflect back upon the original RE2. There is interest in comparing older and newer works. We can compare capacities and limitations, and how these are worked within in different periods. Evolving tastes of new audiences and new artists. Just the thing is, *WE CAN DO THIS WITH ANY TWO THINGS*. They do not have to share titles, or even be officially related by IP at all. Or even be the same form of media. I’ll return to this line of thought.
You say:
"The Resident Evil 2 remake is so different in the way it plays that it successfully avoids undercutting the uniqueness of the original and instead it stands as a companion piece. The purpose it fills, from a purely artistic perspective, is to make something out of every lesson learned from all the mainline resident evil games that came before."
This to me feels like an echo of the "capitalist" logic invoked before, in which video games are content to be refined and rendered more efficient over time as profitable entertainment tools. Your suggestion that the developers are making something out of lessons raises the question; "To what end?"
You ask "What if?" Again, you seem mentally caged by the lines of IP. Games other than Resident Evil 2 were made since Resident Evil 2. Lots of different ways of firing guns in video games have been explored. Firing guns at zombies even. A guy named Leon Kennedy firing guns at zombies even. SEQUELS alone can do this. Not even getting into the extraordinary variety of OTHER GAMES which have been made since.
All of the most interesting parts of this game *as a remake* are what are basically B-scenario changes. Mixups to play on your expectations of something you already know. Everything else, new "mechanics" and so on, are things we could appreciate just as well in any other work. How does moving and shooting in a "survival horror game" work? Why don't I go play The Evil Within and then get back to you? I can tell you how a lot of other weird and novel ideas also work if I go play that because it didn't have to spend so much of its energy being Resident Evil again.
"Resident Evil 4 will be remade again. And I think it should be. And it doesn't even have to be made by Capcom". Yes, it will. It will have a lasting influence upon media made in the future. Including many things which will not be called Resident Evil 4.
The next phrase that caught my attention here was "Self reflecting on their own legacy".
Most artists both only have so many ideas in them, and often hold the same fascinations within themselves for a long time, if not their whole lives. It is possible to consciously reflect upon and iterate upon your own work without doing it again so directly. Sequels do this. As do superficially "unrelated" later works by the same artist generally. Shinji Mikami directed The Evil Within. He is very clearly experimenting with what he can do in the same vein of RE4, but trying to make it new. Trying to do it different.
And key point here, Capcom is not a person. They have consistent staff across many works, but the will which most strongly asserted itself to realise Resident Evil 4 was that of Shinji Mikami. Who *did not* direct the RE4 Remake. The RE4 Remake was *other people* reflecting upon his legacy. Why I mention The Evil Within above. Mikami *did* "direct" that one. I can't quantify how much personal involvement he had in each work, how much each is truly *his* in its final form, but if they are anybody's they are *his*. And if there's someone who could actually be said to "self-reflect" in the context of Resident Evil it's him. RE1make was that. RE4make is not.
"Remakes are a natural step in the progression of art." I don’t know about that.
90% of what is attributed to remakes is happening regardless as culture moves on. The remaining 10% is mostly cute little tricks which are not worth the current extraordinary investment of new AAA games as art/culture. The reason these happen is because they are a safe investment (or capitalism if you please). The Japanese try to leverage this little 10% window for all it's worth because they're mostly such great craftsmen, but that just makes it more of a shame that they have to settle.
"New art, has the power to move us, remakes have the power to make us realise why something moved us in the first place"
We don't need the same name on both boxes to draw lines of thought between between things. Everything is another frame through which we can look at every other thing. Anything can potentially provide valuable new perspective on anything else. Take the art redpill and free your mind.
I was literally watching your video on venom when you dropped this, instantly came to watch
Hope you'll enjoy both haha!
Love this! I really think what you focus on is the most important piece to consider "is this trying to or effectively replacing the previous media". I love what remakes can do, one of my favorites has been FF7. And it always feels odd that games in particular get caught up in replacement as meaning "faithful"
I read an interesting article about how Gus Van Sant’s remake of Psycho received so much hate for being a “shot for shot remake” of Hitchcock’s original film. It’s a very interesting contrast to the world of video games, where a lot of people seem to want *exactly* that, and nothing else. I never finished the original Final Fantasy VII, but my interest in it and the remake was raised significantly when I realized how the latter subverts the former.
Pim, your mentioning of Pathologic 2 makes me want to hear your analysis of pathologic
Lucky for you, that video already exists!
Nice vid! Thanks for making and sharing
It's always ironic to hear people complain about the RE-games being remade, when the original Resident Evil itself was meant to be a remake of an NES-JRPG game called "Sweet Home".
Things are seldom as original as people would think they are, and that is absolutely fine.
What point do you think you're making?
@@escalatingbarbarism5096 Exactly what I said - that people complain about RE4make not being needed, when the whole series started, because someone at Capcom wanted to remake an old JRPG for the PS1.
It's like horror fans complaining about remakes of Horror Movies, when one of the best and most well known 80s horror movies out there - John Carpenter's The Thing - is a remake.
@@manticore6963 Right, so you're saying if RE1 had stayed as remake of an awful RPG based off of a lame movie it would've sucked, and if the remake of RE4 was a different game, it would be better.
I agree, remakes are total shit and I would rather have something original every single time. Anyone who supports these has no brain.
I love this perspective. My favorite remakes in games and film are the ones that subvert expectations while still managing to deliver on being faithful. It's kind of an artform in itself to find that balance.
For sure! It's definitely harder than it looks!
Here before the algorithm makes this video explode
The algorithm has basically been burying me since October of last year, but I appreciate the comment never the less. 💜
man, what a great video. i have always found that fear is one of those sensations that cannot be synthesized and/or faked, and it's almost always some form of bitter surprise and the pretense thereof. I think that's what makes remakes of RE4 and Dead Space (which I just finished this weekend) so excellent. We have a built-in defense mechanism against that horror due inherently to our history with that game. We have antibodies to those moments. The way they switch them up is brilliantly EVEN MORE scary than they were initially because we were already lulled into that sense of security because we thought we subverted the crisis in the first place. The greater our knowledge is of that serenity, the more that terror grips us. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you, I'm glad you liked the video! Horror can obviously still be good even if we've reached the point where we know exactly what to expect. I usually say that's the point where the game stops being properly scary, but keeps being exciting. That's why the original RE games, as well as the original Dead Space games, still work for so many people. It's nice then that remakes are able to, as I said in the video, kind of scare you for the first time *again*.
Awesome video and totally agreed! I'm surprised Jacob Geller said that remakes are a lower form of art, if John Carpenter's The Thing is low art, then I don't care what high art is!
Thank you so much Daniel!! I want to give him some benefit of the doubt, since it was an unscripted comment during a podcast-like recording, but I don't believe it was simply a joke. Again, I can absolutely see his point, but The Thing is definitely one of many great counterpoints.
Of course, some would argue that The Thing *isn't* a remake, but a more accurate retelling of the original novel(?). I absolutely think the point stands though. Just the fact that the first film is shown in the original Halloween sort of proves that Carpenter's version would not have existed without the previous one.
I am genuinely impressed by your defense of the art. Although I'm not much of a horror player myself, I do enjoy games that are aware that they are art, because those are the ones that tend to bring us to interesting places. And I agree, permutations of what already existing is a valid expression of art, it's just that the expression lies in the meta, the game just wears itself as a suit, as an expression of its true self with which it can play to set and divert expectations :)
Hm, I just realized I think that sounds an awful lot like gender, gender being a game.. Huh.
Games are gender, gender is games. Our new motto for Pride month!
I've got some great news! Theres a new Pim video :)
Interesting perspective! Love how this kind of works as a subtle counterpoint to the Jacob Geller video on horror remakes. I dont really play horror games myself so its always nice to learn more about the genre and the ways in which it's unique.
Btw what is that game at 18:10? Looks gorgeous
It wasn't intended to be my response to Jacob originally, but I randomly stumbled upon the MinnMax video and that quote definitely had an influence on how the video ultimately ended up. I think it's neat to be able to make a sort of response video that isn't just a complete condemnation or mockery of another creator.
About the game, it's called Becalm. It's literally just you sitting in a boat while you listen to some relaxing music. It's very much a vibe based game!
Personally, I think the Re4 remake cutscene was terrifying. Why can Leon kill a person with 1 kick? Why does he hold this power?! Will he be responsible with this power?!
Jokes aside, I hope they remake Code Veronica. Maybe leaving out the evil cross dresser trope though because other than that, it’s a silly, goofy game that was… an experience to play. I think it has a lot of potential.
Also happy pride month!
You know that scene made me start thinking about how funny it is that Doom ended up being the franchise which made the completely unstoppable nature of it's protagonist a part of the series canon, when a franchise like Resident Evil have a whole school class of equally unstoppable doomslayers haha!
I would *love* to see how a Code Veronica remake would remove or at the very least reduce the harm of that trope. That might frankly be the main reason why I would want that remake!
Now you know why Chris is after his genes.
I'm generally okay with remakes, except in the case where a new game would have been more valuable. There are plenty of RE games and their latest sequel only released recently so a remake of an older game is fine since it doesn't seem like the efforts could have been allocated elsewhere. Now, if a Fatal Frame remake was announced instead of a new entry I'd be less okay with it. Although who knows, maybe remaking older games for new audiences benefits the franchise in a way that encourages further sequels, it's hard to say. Great video though! The outro gave me a craving for cake! 😅
One thing I would love to see in media where this is possible: Remakes in which the original game is included. The ability to swap between graphics systems is neat, but kinda superficial - I'd rather just have a thing in the main menu that boots up an emulator of the original console, dosbox, or whatever directX stuff the original used, and just runs the original game as is. Storage capacity has ballooned to a point where a lot of these older games are pretty trivial - a 700MB PSX game is a drop in the bucket on an 80GB modern AAA game install, for instance....let alone SNES games and the like that are so small most people wouldn't even think it was a rounding error.
I'd love that too. I can definitely see how that could be used in an awful way by publishers (not releasing originals on newer hardware anywhere else, forcing you to buy a remake where it's included, for example), but it would be *very* convenient. Both in terms of accessibility and preservation!
Something that I think is also worth mentioning wrt remakes is that it allows for greater accessibility. Playing Silent Hill 2 is a logistical nightmare. There's the PS2 version, the PC version, and the HD collection (which is a rancid garbage fire). Figuring out which to play and then finding the means to play it is confusing and probably discourages a lot of people from trying. The tank controls especially are a huge frustration for people more familiar with modern control schemes. I have my concerns about the SH2 remake as well, but best case scenario, it will give people the chance to experience a legendary game that they otherwise might not. Personally, I wish Konami would give the original a re-release as well. Shout out to the SH2: Enhanced Edition team.
remakes can be great, i don't think it is worth remaking most games released in 2005 or after though, they aged well enough.
Wild Zero is such a great movie!
Guitar Wolf in general are fantastic, I saw them live in 2019 and the wall of noise they produced was loud it was like being punched in the chest for two hours.
I'M SO ENVIOUS!!
Ohboy this is a good one. I def agree with you, and also get the flip side of remakes being seen as lesser. But i super believe this negative mindset has only emerged because of capitalism and a possible over saturation of poor remakes.
Because if you remember like 10-15 years ago this wasn't the case, remakes were usually met with excitment. It was always the expectation that it was being handled by people who also were passionate about the 'what ifs' and reflecting on past choices through a different lens. And then a couple bad apples spoiled the whole lot.
I myself have flip flopped between both a lot, on the one hand it can seem a bit tiring to get more of the same, but then again as someone who has studied game dev its also a REALLY interesting thought exercise and experiment to explore a what if and create a whole new experience for the player.
Well, you know how much I love talking about RE4 and this video is a great addition to the conversation. I need to give RE4Remake another go around soon and I think you've pushed me over the edge now. Great work!
Not gonna lie, having finally released the video, and having just finished Fatal Frame 4, I kinda want to do a sixth replay of the RE4 remake now haha!
The cake joke at the end was so good lmao
This is the second time I've done something cake related on this channel. I don't know what it is. My mind just gravitate towards cake related humor haha!
Great video as usual. Even though I'd like to encourage you to produce more, I appreciate the time invested in each one. Loved the ending with the cake and the Deadly Prem "music"! xD
If more people supported me on Patreon, making it possible for me to work on videos 50 percent or even full time, I absolutely would make more.
That you recognized the Deadly Premonition music makes you a cool one in my book!
Heya Pim! I was wondering if you got the chance to play the new amnesia game yet?
I have, and I have a whole lot of thoughts about it! Not sure it will be it's own video, or if I'll wait for more games to come and make a more proper part 2 to my previous Frictional Games video.
i agree that remakes are a good thing, especially since older games can become inaccessible to newer audiences due to dated gaming mechanics or hardware incompatibility. and it's not like the og game is lost to everyone for all time, it's still there, but with a higher barrier to entry, which won't stop a dedicated gamer.
I read a Stephen Graham Jones short story in a Best Horror of the Year anthology and it was amazing! Then I read his novel 'The Only Good Indians' a couple weeks ago and it was terrible. How's 'Heart is a Chainsaw', in your opinion?
Now, an unpopular opinion*. I don't like is how casually people nowadays call games art, as though we gamers were desperate for validation like comic books readers were in the 80s and 90s, when comics started being called graphic novels (yikes!) and literature (cripes!). The worst was bringing Al Pacino on stage to present games, when he clearly is ignorant of all things video games.
*Unpopular but correct. Everyone else is wrong.
Small change between the spanish version of RE:4 and the remake.
The original, settled in a northern spanish village have villagers speaking spanish like the spanish speaked in latin-america.
And the spanish community loved it and enjoyed as a joke.
But: The remake made the villagers speak spanish like we talks in Spain. And was a bit of a disappointment.
It’s a bit more culturally sensitive, which is good, but I can definitely see how it would feel like an in-joke being removed.
@@pimscrypt If you want to be culturally sensitive you must know how to joke in that culture.
I wish we were more in the habit of remaking bad things or things that missed their potential the first time around.
This I can agree with. I wasn't a fan of neither version Justice League, but I do think it's interesting to see how a piece of art can be given a second chance like that.
It was a good video and got me thinking of remakes in a more generous way, but the reason I’m commenting is the cake. 😄
Funny thing is that this is the second time I've bought a cake for a video related gag, and I have a feeling it won't be the last.
@@pimscrypt Makes sense. More cake for you! 😁
RE6 would have to be multiple games, IMO.
Yeah, they're good for like a few weeks in time.
Great ✨✨ 🔥☺
I agree with the thrust, you can make good art from any source material and that applies just as much to remakes.
Howevet the concern I tend to have is with the artistic merits of the pieces themselves, namely how such things are often excuses to sand down the quirks that made the individual interesting in the first place and bring it into like with modern mass market content. The fundamental concern of course being the influence of capitalism and if nothing else the micro-transactions in the remake are an example of this.
You shouldn't resign yourself to acceptance, this is just a trend that will be over in like 5 years. It happened with horror movies.
Remakes of horror films never stopped being made.
@@pimscrypt You're aware of how many were being made at once in the late 2000s, right? When the superhero movie trend is over for example, they'll still make some, but they won't be making 4 or 5 of them a year like have been.
@@escalatingbarbarism5096 I’m fully aware, but that is not the point though. It’s not about how many remakes are made. The main point is about the artistic merits of remakes as a concept.
@@pimscrypt It doesn't matter how good a remake is, it's still a remake. And especially when you remake a great game and the result is something kind of decent, but not truly comparable to the original in any way other than leeching off of blind nostalgia, what was the point? That's all these modern remakes are, none of them surpass the originals, none of them replace the originals, it's a giant waste of development time that could have been used to make a sequel or something entirely original, which I would always, always prefer.
You are more than free to think that.