I've been thinking about this subject for a good while now, and actually started scripting
this video around the release of last year's Resident Evil 2, but with no formed conclusion,
I left it on the back burner. But with the upcoming Resident Evil 3 and Final Fantasy
VII, I feel obligated to finish it, since the topic is just as relevant as it was last
year.
With movies, what is and is not a remake is pretty clear-cut: it's a retelling of the
same story. Changes will be made, of course; elements that don't hold up or are period-specific
will change, as will things that don't need changing, but it's largely the same movie,
just usually worse.
With video games, though, this is often not the case. Sure, you get some like Resident
Evil or Metroid: Zero Mission, which absolutely feel like updated versions of the original
title, intended as an improved, definitive version of that game. But, with remakes like
Resident Evil 2 and 3 and Final Fantasy VII, I feel that the line has become quite blurry.
Resident Evil 2 initially looks like the map is mostly unchanged, but once you leave the
RPD and enter the sewers and lab, areas seem to carry only the basic descriptor of the
original locales and it feels more like a brand new game. And then, there's the shift
from a fixed camera to a third person shooter perspective. Yes, the plot is mostly the same,
drawing on all previous scenarios to make a kind of definitive version of the story,
but is that really all that's needed to be considered a remake?
Take The Darkside Chronicles, for instance. That game retells RE2 and Code Veronica in
a rail shooter format. The environment is much more faithfully recreated compared to
the remake, and the plot has very few tweaks beyond the two characters being together the
whole time. But, no one would ever consider this game a remake of those two. Why is that?
Is it because it retells multiple games instead of one? Well, no, because Crash Bandicoot
and Spyro the Dragon's recent revivals were remakes of three games apiece, and no one
would argue that those aren't remakes.
Is it the shift in genre? RE2 is still a survival horror, after all, while DSC is a rail shooter.
But then, I'd argue that there is as much difference between an old-school survival
horror and a rail shooter, as there is between a turn-based JRPG and a real-time action RPG.
So, what is the core essence of a video game that must be preserved to qualify for the
moniker of remake, if not the story, gameplay or level design? Is it the tone and atmosphere?
Resident Evil's remakes are notably more serious and grounded than the originals, so it doesn't
seem to be that.
Is it the structure of the campaign? RE1 and 2 (kind of) keep the same multi-campaign approach
to their stories as the originals, which DSC doesn't, instead combining them into a single
campaign. But FFVII is being split into multiple games with currently vague carry-over from
one to the next.
Is it just a feeling that can't be easily defined? A certain unquantifiable instinct
that this new thing is like the old thing? Maybe, but I can't imagine too many people
feel that way with FFVII and the recent REmakes.
Or, is it simply a matter of branding? Is it only a remake if the creators decide it
is? DSC was never labelled a remake, so it isn't; while RE2 and 3 and FFVII were, and
so they are? That's a rather... unsatisfying answer.
Could it be a combination of these elements, like a certain percentage of these things
needing to carry over? RE2's tone and the majority of its gameplay are different, but
it has the same plot, campaign structure and genre, and the environments and gameplay have
certain elements carry over. FFVII's genre and gameplay are radically different, with
a seemingly more serious tone, but it seems to have the same basic plot and environments.
DSC has a slightly darker tone and the genre, gameplay and campaign structure are radically
different, but the story is the same.
Story seems to be the key factor here. If the gameplay is the same but the story is
different, then it's just a sequel. Gameplay needs to have some common elements, even if
it's just inventory management and puzzle solving, or character growth. Genre, or maybe
just sub-genre, doesn't strictly matter, nor does the tone. Campaign structure seems to
be another notable component.
Even a year since I began putting these thoughts to paper, I still have no real conclusion
on where the line between remake and reimagining lies. As such, I suppose the best option would
be to leave this essay open-ended and rather than providing my own, ultimately subjective
view, to instead use this essay to open a discussion about the subject. What do you
guys think are the key factors that must be adhered to to qualify as a remake, if anything?
Let's get the discussion going and see if we can work this out together, so we can properly
evaluate Resi 3 and FFVII when they finally release this year.
If you liked this video, why not subscribe and support me on Patreon like these fine
people here? If not, then make sure to share it with your enemies so they can suffer along
with you.
Today's recommended video is The Real Games to Anticipate in 2020 by The Gaming Brit,
which is actually a thinly-veiled excuse to discuss franchise revivals, video game analysis
and the modern approach to remakes, using Devil May Cry 5, The Last of Us II and Resident
Evil 3 as segues.