Why Capcom is the King of Remakes

Right now, we are in the age of the remake.

From Dead Space to Demon's Souls, and 
from The Last of Us to Like a Dragon,

it seems like every publisher is 
now ransacking its back catalogue

to look for games it can reheat 
and sell to us all over again.

But there's one studio that's doing 
things differently - and that's Capcom.

Specifically its Resident Evil team.

Over the last two decades, Capcom 
has remade Resident Evil 1, 2,

3, and 4 - and these games feel like way 
more than just recycled retro favourites.

So - what are they doing differently? 
And how do they pull it off?

Well - I'm Mark Brown,
and this is Game Maker's Toolkit.

Do you remember when Gus Van 
Sant remade the movie, Psycho?

This was no ordinary remake: instead, it was a 
near-perfect, shot-for-shot recreation of the

original film, with the same script, camera moves, 
and musical score - but a few modern updates,

like shooting in colour, and adding more gore 
and nudity to that infamous shower scene.

If you don't remember it, I'm not surprised - I 
think everyone involved would rather you forgot.

The remake bombed at the box office, 
it was savaged by critics, Roger Ebert

called it "pointless", and Hollywood 
has never tried such a thing again.

*Pumbaa Farts*

For the most part.

But in the world of video games...

well this is actually how a lot of remakes work.

Despite using all new engines and assets,

the goal is to be as faithful as 
possible to the original game.

To make a beat-by-beat 
recreation of what came before.

But with a few conservative 
tweaks to the gameplay or content.

Now this can certainly lead to good games.

And I've used these remakes to catch 
up on titles I missed upon release.

But I think there are two big 
problems with this approach.

For one, it can lead to games 
with absolutely cutting edge

graphics - but gameplay that feels 
dated and surpassed by later titles.

And two - if you've already played the original,

then this perfect recreation offers 
little incentive to pick up the remake.

So that's why Capcom doesn't follow this 
trend - while its remakes are heavily

influenced by the original games, it liberally 
changes both the gameplay and the content.

For gameplay, take Resident Evil 2.

The PlayStation 1 original has these fixed,

CCTV-style camera angles, and 
Leon moved around like a tank.

For the remake, Capcom did experiment 
with keeping this viewpoint...

but ultimately went for something more modern: 
turning it into an over-the-shoulder shooter.

And for content, look at Resident Evil 4.

This remake mostly follows the 
beats of the original game,

but regularly makes changes - content 
is moved around, played out of order,

expanded, shrunk, cut entirely, 
and replaced by brand new stuff.

So even if you've played the original, 
this remake is full of surprising twists.

Take the iconic village siege from the 
opening of the game - seems familiar enough,

but then I went up this tower and, 
oh, that's not how I remember it.

And then I rounded this corner 
and, oh no, what's happening now?

Capcom says "if we remade the game so 
players do the exact same thing as the

original, that's not really 
going to be fun or interesting".

Of course, it's not enough to just say "throw 
out the source material and do something new".

Remakes are playing to our 
nostalgia for the original,

and any changes can feel like 
blasphemous meddling with perfection.

There are no shortage of remakes that have 
angered fans by changing things too much.

Whether that's Ratchet's characterisation,

Peter Parker's face, or Venture Beat describing 
Shadow of the Colossus's new graphics as "too good".

So, Capcom says its remakes "show love for 
the original work through their content,

which includes both where the remake makes changes 
and where it remains the same as the original".

They know when to stay faithful, and 
know how to stray from the source.

One way to do this is to focus 
on capturing the sensation of

playing the original game - even if 
you're not copying the exact details.

For Resident Evil 2, Capcom says a 
guiding principle was that "whenever

people play this, they should get the 
same feeling we got back in the day,

even though the outer layers are different".

So while it loses the forced camera perspective,

the developers still wanted the game to 
be tense and claustrophobic - and so made

it difficult to aim exactly where you want, 
and kept the camera tight behind Leon's back.

A smart approach is to identify some 
pillars of the original - things

define the DNA of what made it 
so beloved in the first place.

For Resident Evil 4, that included stuff like 
its lighting-fast pace, its b-movie dialogue,

the way you can tackle encounters in different 
ways, and how fun the game was to replay.

The designers behind the Dead Space remake 
had a similar idea - with "sci-fi horror,

unbroken immersion, and creative 
gameplay" as the pillars.

"Any novelty, enhancement, enrichment,

or whatever had to fit inside one of 
those pillars" - the developer says.

Importantly, these pillars 
should be feelings, not features.

Aesthetics, not mechanics, to bring 
us back to the previous episode.

This allows developers to change how the game 
works, without messing with how the game feels.

For example - Leon can use his 
knife for some brand new moves

like a parry, and a stealth takedown.

This could change the feel of the 
game, making Leon overpowered.

But by making it so the knife can break and 
need to be patched up by the merchant, Leon

stays one step behind, and the remake stays true 
to the survival horror feeling of the original.

So - this approach can be 
used to address the three

main things that all remakes should consider.

Number one is modernisation.

Remakes are entering the industry today,

and so people expect modern conventions and 
conveniences like fast travel and quick save.

And they don't want to see mechanics that are...

I don't want to say dated, 
so let's say unfashionable.

That's why Capcom pulled the 
button-bashing quicktime events

from RE4 - "QTEs are not popular 
in today's games," the devs said.

But, any change to the mechanics is 
going to have a knock-on impact to

the rest of the game - and risk ruining the feel.

Take the new Goldeneye remaster - it makes 
sense to update for modern first-person shooter

controls, but that makes the game, which 
was designed for much clunkier inputs...

well it makes it a bit of a cakewalk.

Resident Evil 4 could have 
fallen into the same trap.

In the original game, Leon couldn't aim and move

at the same time - he became a turret 
every time he pulled out his pistol.

But not adding strafe was an intentional 
choice on Capcom's part - in 2004,

it said "we didn't want to go into 
the shooting / army type genre".

The remake, predictably, lets Leon strafe - and

he generally moves around like 
a typical shooter protagonist.

But to counterbalance this change, the enemies 
are now more aggressive and more numerous.

So despite Leon's newly nimble movement, the 
game still feels as pulse-pounding as ever.

Number two is addressing 
criticism of the original.

If there's one thing that puts me off from 
replaying Resident Evil 4, it's Ashley.

This lengthy escort quest 
can become an annoying bit

of babysitting that threatens to spoil the fun.

Of course, it would be tempting to dramatically 
change how she works in this remake - perhaps make

her invincible and helpful, like the partner 
characters in games released since 2005.

But that would change the dynamic of the 
original game - so, instead, Capcom made

more considered changes, with careful tweaks to 
her AI, her health bar, and her characterisation.

No game is perfect, and there will always 
be elements that don't gel with fans...

or indeed the developers.

Talking about The Wind Waker, Zelda boss Eiji 
Aonuma says "right after the game was completed,

there would be discussions about how we wish 
we could have done something [different]" -

and so the Wii U version 
makes some welcome changes,

like speeding up a contentious 
late-game fetch quest.

And number three is making the game 
more approachable and accessible.

A remake is trying to win over people 
who never played the original - and that

includes those who bounced off the first 
game, or were never able to start it.

The first Resident Evil Remake was 
intentionally designed to ease in

new players, with Capcom accepting that the 
first game really threw you into the deep end.

And Resident Evil 2 through 
4 all come with an assisted

difficulty setting with features like 
health regeneration and aim snapping.

Old games can be notoriously difficult 
to get into, and rarely accommodated

players with disabilities - so 
it's good to see remakes that

make things more approachable, 
and add accessibility options.

The Last of Us Part 1 is a notable standout,

with perhaps the most extensive suite 
of options seen in a game thus far.

But it's usually important to 
make these changes optional.

In the Pokemon Diamond and Pearl remakes, 
the devs added a team-wide EXP Share,

which means that when you win a battle, 
all of your Pokemon get experience points.

This wrecked the balance and made the 
game super easy, barely an inconvenience.

It could have been a good option for those who 
want an easier time, but it's actually just part

of the game and can't be disabled, which 
annoys those who want more of a challenge.

I kinda feel the same way about this 
button in Resident Evil 4's remake

which automatically tidies up your attache case.

And I know I could just "not press the button",

but it's right there! Of course I'm 
going to press the button! I am weak.

So, Capcom doesn't try to perfectly recreate 
the original game, when it does a remake.

It freely changes characters, plot 
points, mechanics, puzzles, and content.

This makes each remake feel as 
fresh as a brand new release,

and enjoyable even to those who have 
finished the original a million times.

But it uses the sensation of playing 
the first game as a lodestar,

to carefully guide new changes 
- keeping Resident Evil 2 scary,

and making sure Resident Evil 4 still 
feels like an action-packed rollercoaster.

And I think this also helps explain Capcom's 
least-loved remake: Resident Evil 3.

By nerfing Nemesis - by turning Jill's 
invincible stalker into a simplistic set piece,

RE3 doesn't accurately capture the sensation of 
the PS1 original - and so kinda fails as a remake.

But when done right, says Capcom, "a 
remake of a game can deliver a new

experience to players while also touching 
upon the memories we have of the original,

which is an appeal that is different from 
the appeal of a completely new game."

But there's one problem when it comes to making 
such massive changes in a remake.

You see, the reason why Psycho was 
dubbed pointless is because the 1960

original is readily available, 
and eminently watchable today.

In general, it's reasonably easy to remaster 
a movie - which means to go back to the master

recording, and make a new print with an improved 
picture, for a modern format like Blu-Ray.

This means that, in Hollywood, remakes are free to 
liberally adapt the source material - completely

changing the film to work in a different time, or 
a different culture, or with a different audience.

Change what you want: the 
original is always available.

But games are different.

Old games get stuck on disintegrating 
hardware, digital games get delisted,

online games see their servers go down, 
and entire storefronts go offline.

And it's really tough to do a straight 
"remaster" of a game - and there are

no shortage of crummy ones to point to.

Truly great remasters, like Metroid 
Prime on Switch, are a rare treat.

So, for some players - well, 
they're counting on a remake

as the only way to revisit their old favourites.

And they want it to be exactly 
the way they remember it.

They're looking for that ultra faithful 
recreation with a few modern updates.

They want Gus Van Sant's Psycho.

But I don't think this means we 
need more shot-for-shot remakes:

it just means we need better 
game preservation - and to

praise publishers who provide 
access to the original titles.

Because no matter what you think 
of the new Resident Evil 4 Remake,

it ultimately lives alongside an excellent, and 
very moddable, HD remaster of the original game.

The RE4 Remake doesn't try to 
overwrite or replace the 2005 original,

and I'm sure I'll be replaying both in the future.

Sadly, the older Resident Evil 
games are not so easy to play today.

And I hope Capcom rights that wrong in the same 
way it does its many, many Mega Man compilations.

But other developers are showing how to do it.

Nightdive Studios is currently 
working on a wild new remake of

System Shock - but after acquiring the 
IP it also released the original game,

an enhanced edition, and even 
dropped the source code online.

And remember when Zero Mission 
let you just boot up Metroid 1,

right there, in the game? That was neat.

Just don't be like Rockstar, who removed the Grand

Theft Auto games from Steam to make 
way for its disastrous remasters.

Or Blizzard, who removed Warcraft 3 to 
make way for its, again, disastrous remake.

So, what do you reckon? Is Capcom 
king of the remakes? Or do you

prefer more faithful recreations? Let 
me know in the comments down below.