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 Drgon, 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.