Resident Evil 2 Remake in HD!

[John Connor]

Capcom's Yoshiaki Hirabayashi, who produced this year's million-selling Resident Evil HD remaster, wrote on Facebook that he pitched Resident Evil 2 HD to his boss today.

It's unclear how the meeting went. But the image being shared through Capcom's own social channel and presumably with its consent is likely a good sign.

http://news.yahoo.com/resident-evil...vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQTAxMDRfMQRzZWMDc2M-

Video here: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/re...romising-videos/1100-6419182/#ftag=YHF6738a5f

Looks interesting. I hope it will be for PC as well.

 

[ImpulsE69]

A few days ago it was all over the news sites that Capcom had asked users why they wanted a RE2 remake in regards to a fanmade remake that was done and what their opinion was of it. (shown in the 2nd link)

They apparently didn't give a C&D.

 

[Lil Frier]

Good, I was worried there would be new games and IP this generation. We haven't had enough stuff remastered this generation. Hopefully this gets the full $60 price tag remaking a 17-year-old game deserves.

All of my sarcasm.

 

[Sulaco]

Good, I was worried there would be new games and IP this generation. We haven't had enough stuff remastered this generation. Hopefully this gets the full $60 price tag remaking a 17-year-old game deserves.

All of my sarcasm.

That's...really not fair.

It will depend on what exactly they mean by "remake", whether it's just glossing over some textures and upping the res of the identical '97 release, or if it's a true REMAKE, as was done for the original game in 2002.

If it's a true remake, that's WONDERFUL news. The RE1 remake still stands to this day as one of the best survival horror games ever made, and it featured dozens of new areas and massive additions that made it vastly different and improved from the PSX game.
If they do that with the already excellent RE2, then survival horror fans are in for a real treat.
As long as they don't treat it like bilge like RE5 and 6, that is.

 

[Lil Frier]

Why not just make an RE7 in the vein of RE2 then? Why doe they have to re-release something old? It's obnoxious how lazy this generation's developers and publishers has been. It's full of visual upgrades in an old package, maybe with some DLC added, and slapped with a $40 price tag (Gears, God of War 3, Dishonored, Sleeping Dogs, I could probably go on longer).

 

[darkswordsman17]

I wondered how long it would take them to remake/remaster 2. It is really weird how little RE2 gets mentioned in RE discussions. I never played it very much though, and was partly waiting for it to get a remake like the first one before I did.

 

[John Connor]

Resident Evil on the Game Cube and RE2 for PSx are my favs. I did play some of RE3 if I can remember. Don't think I ever played Code Veronica. My Bro. is a RE nut and has played pretty much all of them.

I saw on YouTube that you can play Game Cubes games with the emulator Dolphin. And Resident Evil looked just like the console.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Why not just make an RE7 in the vein of RE2 then? Why doe they have to re-release something old? It's obnoxious how lazy this generation's developers and publishers has been. It's full of visual upgrades in an old package, maybe with some DLC added, and slapped with a $40 price tag (Gears, God of War 3, Dishonored, Sleeping Dogs, I could probably go on longer).

It has nothing to do with laziness and I don't have any issue with these remasters for the current gen. The previous gen went too long in the tooth and a lot of games were reduced because of it (meaning they had superior assets that they had to cut back, and often performance issues). Also it seems to be as much about porting them to a code base that will enable them to function longer (i.e. being x86 means they can offer games for longer, like on Steam or PSN, without needing major reworking like older console ports to newer ones). You might not care about that but it could have benefits (for instance say on the PS5, it could mean better backward compatibility, and things where if you buy a game digitally you can still play it on newer hardware). Things like that make more sense to do them earlier on.

Personally I really like that option as there will be games I missed out on, and I can play them with some nice improvements. Likewise if it was a game I really liked, I can get a better looking and performing version. You certainly don't have to buy the remastered games (and if it was one I already played, then I'd wait until it was cheap anyway).

And while it is disappointing that there aren't much new (let alone really unique) major releases that aren't sequels, that's really nothing new in games.

Is not like this is preventing or even holding up RE7. Plus it appeases the people wishing for the style of the earlier games, gives people that were too young to really play it a way to play it. The first two RE games are worthy of a nice remake. And maybe it will help them understand what made the early games enjoyable compared to the more recent ones.

Frankly, they need to reboot the entire franchise. The story is just plain stupid, the characters barely even resemble themselves, and the gameplay is probably the worst part because they're hampered by their lineage while trying a bunch of other things. I'm not saying go back and remake the first game again and start the story over, I'm saying go back to a simpler setup and skip the political bio-terror BS and other insanity that is laughably stupid bad in the newer ones. Heck, 3 would be a good premise if they made a decent sized city and open world with randomly generated stuff (meaning you start in different sections, items and enemies randomly generate, you just try to evade the Nemesis and or kill it, which would require special equipment; likewise they could make RE2 in a similar deal without a Nemesis like enemy hunting you the whole time).

 

[darkswordsman17]

Resident Evil on the Game Cube and RE2 for PSx are my favs. I did play some of RE3 if I can remember. Don't think I ever played Code Veronica. My Bro. is a RE nut and has played pretty much all of them.

I saw on YouTube that you can play Game Cubes games with the emulator Dolphin. And Resident Evil looked just like the console.

The first two games are by far the best (or best define what RE is to me at least, and I'm not someone who hates all of the later ones either). 3 is ok but was more like an expansion for 2. It'd have made for good DLC these days. Code Veronica is ok but it's also really f'ed up (the story is just bizarre), and the gameplay was wonky (the knife is really overpowered for instance). It was when the series really went off the rails. It also I think kicked off the action-oriented design going forward (the opening cutscene is like a full on 80s action movie). 0 hardly ever gets mentioned although it was ok from what I recall (it tried a weird self co-op gameplay mechanism). The remake was good (I don't consider it a wholly different game though). I liked 4 (really liked the early part, it just got too insane later on). And I liked 5 co-op (it isn't especially good, I can see why some don't like it, but if you play it co-op it is enjoyable). 6 was just plain bad (I liked the atmosphere in one part, and gameplay was ok-ish but it was hampered by trying to still feel like RE; story was laughably bad, and there are some horrible parts, often because of excessive QTEs). Oh I played through 6 co-op as well and it was still terrible, so single player is probably even worse.

I did play Revelations, it was fun but not spectacular co-op. I'd put it about in line with 4 and 5. Didn't play that squad shooter Raccoon City game. Haven't played Revelations 2 (and it seems like an experiment to see what they could get away with, episodes, DLC, game pretty much wasn't even finished, multiplayer issues). And I didn't play some of the other offshoots (there was like a first person lightgun type game on PS1 I think?).

Yeah, plus with Dolphin you could apply AA and some other things usually to boost fidelity even more. With the REmake I'm not sure it benefits as much as say Wind Waker did (there we people playing that in 1080p with AA and stuff years before the HD version on the Wii U, it looked really good, but the visuals of Wind Waker made it really well adept for doing that). But if you do the PC version now I think you get more control over the visuals and might be able to do mods and things more.

 

[Sulaco]

Why not just make an RE7 in the vein of RE2 then? Why doe they have to re-release something old? It's obnoxious how lazy this generation's developers and publishers has been. It's full of visual upgrades in an old package, maybe with some DLC added, and slapped with a $40 price tag (Gears, God of War 3, Dishonored, Sleeping Dogs, I could probably go on longer).

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you know/have played little of the RE series.

At this point, the "main story arc" is so ridiculously polluted, convoluted, and asinine, that the series not only "jumped the shark", it built a stupid rocket, filled it with stupid rocket fuel, and blasted off over the shark. It's...terrible.
Hell, the opening scene of RE6 has you shooting the President of the United States because he's turned into a zombie. Six-story tall monsters are rampaging through the streets of major cities. It's essentially Godzilla with zombies. There's nothing left resembling survival horror. The entire world has been engulfed and nearly destroyed by this "virus" (of which there have been like 45+ different permutations and variations), so where do you go from there?

So basically, they're left with either a complete RetCon of all the bullsh*t of the last 3 games, continuing on with the ludicrously overdone, exhausted story arc, OR, reimagining the best entries in the series.

Let's not forget too, Resident Evil 2 is 18 YEARS old.

Eighteen.

This is not Tomb Raider 2013 (ha!), God of War, The Last of Us, or other PS3-era games from 3 to 7 years ago. The game is coming on 20 years old.
A complete remake of one of the greatest games ever made (if that's what they're doing), certainly in it's genre, is hardly to be lumped in with updating Lara Croft's "hair textures" and adding in The Last Of Us's DLC. 🙄

I've played and owned every entry in the Resident Evil series the day they released (aside from some of the early mobile and light gun-style games), and it's a love-hate relationship. Some of the best moments in all of survival horror gaming can be found in the series. And some of the worst. It's a series with so much potential, that was utterly milked dry and twisted in 20 different directions so as to be virtually unrecognizable from what it was at its best.

 

[purbeast0]

speaking of tomb raider, i wish capcom would give RE the "tomb raider" treatment. the latest tomb raider really re-invented the series and was an outstanding game. resident evil to me has sucked since RE4. it went all COD for the OCD gen and completely lost the survival horror feel.

i wish they could go back to the roots. give me some of that stuff where you open a door and you hear slience, except for the tapping of the claws of the monster walking around the corner. or you see something run right by your view on the ceiling but you have no clue wtf it is.

it's sad that the silent hill game got canned because that game actually looked like it had a great premise that was freaky as hell. deadspace actually was the most recent game that brought the scary atmosphere of survival horror. you wouldn't encounter hordes of enemies at once like RE started to do in RE4, you would go into a room and see maybe 1 or 2 enemies, and then had to figure it out with very limited ammo.

we don't need anymore remakes. if you want to play re2, go play re2 on psx. it's like the people on the street fighter forums who simply want SF5 to be SF3. if you want to play old games, go play them.

 

[Sulaco]

we don't need anymore remakes. if you want to play re2, go play re2 on psx. it's like the people on the street fighter forums who simply want SF5 to be SF3. if you want to play old games, go play them.

Have you ever played the Resident Evil remake? It's not a straight "remake". There are literally dozens of additions to the game that add entirely new, expansive areas, plot twists, enemies, characters, puzzles, and more. This is not the half-assed "remasterings" of TLoU, Tomb Raider, and others this past gen. The sheer amount of brand new content rivals the original game's length and scope, quite literally.

If Capcom were to do that with Resident Evil 2, a game which is already viewed by many as one of if not the best in the series, and is, again, eighteen years old, I don't see what there is to complain about. I would take the RE2 story arc, with today's graphics, and loads of new areas to explore, over Capcom's dismal track record of new RE entries with Presidents turning into zombies and kung fu Wesker.

Frankly, I think Capcom is trying to have its cake and eat it too. I'd wager they're planning on this RE2 remake to appease the old fans and true survival horror buffs and perhaps attract them back into the fold, and then continue on with RE7 and the "main entries" in the series more like the action/shooter/CoD slop we've seen of late.

 

[Lil Frier]

No, I've never played the RE games, but you kind of missed my point. It wasn't to continue the series' story arc, I didn't even know that the games were tied together. I assumed they were individual experiences, like Fallout. I was just meaning make a new RE game and give it a style/feel of RE2, which people liked, rather than the newer games that people hate. This, instead of just remaking a game.

My problem is that so many teams are remaking so many games and skipping new IP opportunities to do it. Even with some additions, I hate seeing these old games put back out and priced at $40, it's insane. I like Dishonored (even if a turtle plays it faster than I am), but $40 for the DLC-inclusive "Definitive Edition?" I got the game and all of its DLC for, like, $13.50 on Steam during the 2013 Holiday Sale. Such things should be $20, really. Too much double-dipping and greed is going on, while we have to watch new projects get pushed back to allow this crap. Sleeping Dogs and God of War 3 are a couple of examples of other overpriced remakes/remasters. At least Microsoft's going it so if you get Gears Ultimate you get the other 3 games (2, 3, Judgment) for free via backwards compatibility.

If they're going to do this, then IMO, they should either do the first two with full remakes, charging $40 for them. That, or go the route of Halo: TMCC, give us all of the games (preferably in remake form, rather than 2 remakes and 2 ports), and charge $60. I don't look forward to $40 for an 18-year-old game's visual boost and possible content additions. It's just not worth the price tag.

 

[Sulaco]

No, I've never played the RE games, but you kind of missed my point. It wasn't to continue the series' story arc, I didn't even know that the games were tied together. I assumed they were individual experiences, like Fallout. I was just meaning make a new RE game and give it a style/feel of RE2, which people liked, rather than the newer games that people hate. This, instead of just remaking a game.

My problem is that so many teams are remaking so many games and skipping new IP opportunities to do it. Even with some additions, I hate seeing these old games put back out and priced at $40, it's insane. I like Dishonored (even if a turtle plays it faster than I am), but $40 for the DLC-inclusive "Definitive Edition?" I got the game and all of its DLC for, like, $13.50 on Steam during the 2013 Holiday Sale. Such things should be $20, really. Too much double-dipping and greed is going on, while we have to watch new projects get pushed back to allow this crap. Sleeping Dogs and God of War 3 are a couple of examples of other overpriced remakes/remasters. At least Microsoft's going it so if you get Gears Ultimate you get the other 3 games (2, 3, Judgment) for free via backwards compatibility.

If they're going to do this, then IMO, they should either do the first two with full remakes, charging $40 for them. That, or go the route of Halo: TMCC, give us all of the games (preferably in remake form, rather than 2 remakes and 2 ports), and charge $60. I don't look forward to $40 for an 18-year-old game's visual boost and possible content additions. It's just not worth the price tag.

You seem to be arguing this on principle, rather than on product reality.

If you've never played any of the RE games, what is it about getting RE2 made from the ground up with PS4-level graphics and tons of new content added (that essentially adds an entire new game) that is so distasteful? Outside of the very premise of a remake? :hmm: It's new to you, so I guess I don't understand the outrage outside of the principle.

I'm sorry, I just don't trust Capcom to deliver anything approaching the old games' pacing, atmosphere, tension, and gameplay with a numbered sequel to the main series anymore.
I think the chances of getting a superior survival-horror game are just better with a proper, expansive remake of a game that did it so well, versus making RE7. :\

Again, this all assumes they would give RE2 the same treatment they gave the original Remake. If they just slap on high def textures and updates sound then all bets are off.

 

[Lil Frier]

It's the idea of how many corners get to be cut in development with a remake. They don't have to develop a story or characters or a setting. They have to get better textures, but the core of the game's already done. They might tighten up gameplay, but it's not going to become fundamentally different (FF 7 seems to be the first game where the remake breaks that mold). They might churn out extra levels, but it's not going to be a different experience. My argument is that they're not building a new experience. They're rehashing nostalgia onto a new disc and probably slapping a $40 price tag on it. That's just lame.

I wouldn't mind it AS MUCH if so many games hadn't already gotten that treatment. But what I guess I don't get is how you can say you don't trust Capcom to put out a new game, but you trust them to release crappy, disjointed content within a game nearly 20 years-old. What makes it so likely Capcom won't throw things in awkwardly and ineffectively?

 

[Sulaco]

It's the idea of how many corners get to be cut in development with a remake. They don't have to develop a story or characters or a setting. They have to get better textures, but the core of the game's already done. They might tighten up gameplay, but it's not going to become fundamentally different (FF 7 seems to be the first game where the remake breaks that mold). They might churn out extra levels, but it's not going to be a different experience. My argument is that they're not building a new experience. They're rehashing nostalgia onto a new disc and probably slapping a $40 price tag on it. That's just lame.

I wouldn't mind it AS MUCH if so many games hadn't already gotten that treatment. But what I guess I don't get is how you can say you don't trust Capcom to put out a new game, but you trust them to release crappy, disjointed content within a game nearly 20 years-old. What makes it so likely Capcom won't throw things in awkwardly and ineffectively?

Well they have a blueprint to follow with an RE2 remake: The successful, critically acclaimed RE1 Remake.

Could they still screw it up? Absolutely! This is Capcom. But the RE2 source material is:

A) Better than anything they've done with the RE plot since
B) Assuming they follow the Remake's blueprint and have the same focus with it, worlds better in the gameplay department

I just feel the entire reason for wanting to do an RE2 remake in the first place is a sort of "mea culpa, let's get back to real survival horror" approach. I hope, anyway.

Or, they're just lazy, like you imply, and they need something out before Re7 comes out. That's a distinct possibility with Capcom.

To be clear, I'm not championing any old rerelease of RE2. And I think it's more than likely this is going to be just that.
But a true "remake", in the vein of the original Remake, with as much quality NEW content as old (more or less making it a new game), with the best modern bells and whistles, would be a dream come true for fans.

But I have little faith in Capcom to do that, so my hopes are not high.

 

[gothamhunter]

It's official:

http://kotaku.com/the-resident-evil-2-remake-is-officially-happening-1723620466

I'm on another level of excitement for this. Just keep it close to the source please.

“You’ve been telling us for years that you want Resident Evil 2 to be remade,” said Capcom producer Yoshiaki Hirabyashi, “and we haven’t been able to make it happen...until now.”

Maybe Capcom took a cue from Square Enix and the response to remaking Final Fantasy VII?

Capcom has been teasing a Resident Evil 2 remake for a few weeks now on their Facebook page, alleging the game was being pitched internally, and fans had to wait to find out how Capcom executives felt about it. (This always seemed like a bunch of bullshit to me—were they really going to say “hey, guys, it’s not happening”? Video game advertising in 2015 is weird.)

“It will be some time before we can bring you an update on this project,” said Hirabyashi.

That’s because this is different than what Capcom is doing with Resident Evil 0, which is an “HD remaster,” not a full-on remake. With this project, they’re going back to the drawing board.

Resident Evil 2 was (and is!) an incredible game, and absolutely deserves a new look. The original Resident Evil remake is the standard bearer for remakes, though, and Shinji Mikami is no longer at Capcom. The development team has their work cut out for them, but I’m psyched!