and just like that the remake is ruined.
Capcom will think that over-the -shoulder is what everyone wants...
You know, you guys are making a pretty big assumption in assuming that's all the fan team was capable of too...
and just like that the remake is ruined.
Capcom will think that over-the -shoulder is what everyone wants...
"They have invited us to a meeting to discuss further ideas."
Hopefully one of the ideas InvaderGames had WASN'T "Make the game over-the-shoulder like our game..."
(nobody could bring back to life the masterpiece of 1998 better than the creators themselves).
Unity Version (fixed camera): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtiyfSFe1BM
Unity Version (fixed camera): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtiyfSFe1BM
If you contacted Capcom, they probably would not have replied until they contacted you.
WTF Capcom.
It's like you're learning.
They're gonna get brain raped
and just like that the remake is ruined.
Capcom will think that over-the -shoulder is what everyone wants...
Weird how these guys are getting all the attention, while Rod Lima has been doing his own interpretations of RE2 (mainly using Capcom assets) for about just as long for the purpose of learning Unreal/UDK.
Recently:
Resident Evil 2 -UDK project- A&B sametime co-op test
Resident Evil 2 4th Survivor -UDK project- (Hunk run)
I actually found their attempt at a remake to be horrible, compared to this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flBvR9zl1Zg <THIS is what Capcom should be aiming for.
Although they did do a good job emulating Resident Evil: Left4Dead Edition.
And they still won't be, so what's his point?
edit:
Well, seeing that version, I stand corrected. The version that was continually showcased was the one that was definitely not Resident Evil 2 though due to the perspective. Still, you should watch the other Rod Lima remake videos. It's a lot closer to the source material (since it uses so many of the original assets anyway), while feeling updated.
I love the fixed camera angles, but at this point I kinda want it to be over the should just to see all the meltdowns lol. I mean, we don't even know what the game is going to be like some posters have already been overreacting.
I don't see the problem with the remake being in third person. I'd rather have the remake be more than just a graphics upgrade.
You two are the masters of lockpicking my disdain.I love the fixed camera angles, but at this point I kinda want it to be over the should just to see all the meltdowns lol. I mean, we don't even know what the game is going to be like some posters have already been overreacting.
If you honestly think they're going to rebalance the game depending on the camera, then you're in for a rude awakening. That would be like them making two different games, in a game in which already has 4 different scenarios, The workload would be massive. If they honestly do it the way you are saying, it will cost them a lot of extra development time and they will have to make a decision over which one to go with.
TBH, the onyl way Capcom can satisfy its fanbase is to include both perspectives,
"They have invited us to a meeting to discuss further ideas."
Hopefully one of the ideas InvaderGames had WASN'T "Make the game over-the-shoulder like our game..."
Thats actually cool of Capcom to not C/D them into obscurity-and instead (hopefully) let them help with RE2Make!
What advantage other than nostalgia does a fixed camera angle have over a dynamic one?
There's so much more you can do with an Evil Within style camera gameplay wise that you can't do with fixed camera angles.
There's a reason fixed camera angles were chosen for the series in the first place despite an FPS version initially being in development. Fixed camera angles are excellent at elucidating and enhancing feelings of tension and fear. Take the Licker corridor in BIO2 for instance, every single angle is carefully placed to make the player feel uncomfortable with a sense of foreboding. You can't do that with an over-the-shoulder perspective very well at all. It's the same principle in movies, they're shot in specific ways to maximize terror. With a constant OTS perspective, you can't do this. The OTS camera doesn't actually give the player more options anyway apart from being able to free-aim, which already severely decreases the possible tension because you then become a demigod.
I highly disagree with the notion that you can't provide a sense of foreboding terror and tension with a dynamic camera. It might not be the same type of terror, but it can still be done for sure. And along with that you can have the ability to do the various gameplay enhancements that come with the dynamic camera angle. A very good example is Dead Space, the Ishimura is a fantastic environment invoking this type of terror we're debating.
I'm also OK if they go with the RE3.5 camera system of both the fixed cameras for exploration and OTS for combat.
If it's not the same type of terror, it's not a faithful remake, which is what the majority of fans want based on the reaction to the first remake.
The BIO4 prototype's camera wouldn't work either because that game's areas were built around it. On top of that, there was no free aim. You could only aim side-to-side when over the shoulder. The Dead Space camera works because Dead Space was designed around the camera, just as BIO2 was designed around fixed cameras.
People give camera angles too little credit. It's a major part of the game, not some incidental piece that the developers just threw in at the end.
I dunno man, IMO it's archaic and videogames have made considerable improvements as to how 3rd person adventure/horror functionally play. I think it will do the game wonders just how Metal Gear Solid 3's new camera system helped it considerably compared to the birds eye view.
I agree not every game needs it, but this is a shooting game. If this was a remaster for a game like Haunting Ground or Clock Tower I would say stick with the fixed angles. Because combat plays a big role in Resident Evil and with all the advancements to third person shooters in the previous console generation it would be waste to make such a big game without utilizing all of them.
I agree not every game needs it, but this is a shooting game. If this was a remaster for a game like Haunting Ground or Clock Tower I would say stick with the fixed angles. Because combat plays a big role in Resident Evil and with all the advancements to third person shooters in the previous console generation it would be waste to make such a big game without utilizing all of them.
"Hopefully"? The fan remake was nothing. Every bit of it was ripped from the other games, you really think that's useful to CAPCOM?
There's a reason fixed camera angles were chosen for the series in the first place despite an FPS version initially being in development. Fixed camera angles are excellent at elucidating and enhancing feelings of tension and fear. Take the Licker corridor in BIO2 for instance, every single angle is carefully placed to make the player feel uncomfortable with a sense of foreboding. You can't do that with an over-the-shoulder perspective very well at all. It's the same principle in movies, they're shot in specific ways to maximize terror. With a constant OTS perspective, you can't do this. The OTS camera doesn't actually give the player more options anyway apart from being able to free-aim, which already severely decreases the possible tension because you then become a demigod.
uhh the main reason they used fixed camera angle was cause the game had pre rendered backgrounds, which made the game as a result have much better looking backgrounds then it ever should have, a few other ps games did this, and some early ps2 games.
OTS is detrimental to horror and encourages you to fight because it's fun to do so.
I have a huge problem with this statement. The shooting aspect of the game not being fun as a design decision is not at all the way to go. You can still make a good survival horror game with a dynamic camera while making the combat system responsive and fun. The sruvival horror aspect can definitely come by tweaking the difficulty and availability of ammunition. Encourage the survival aspect by rewarding players on how they use the limited ammo they have rather than making the shooting a chore to go through. And having a dynamic camera lets the game provide a lot of different scenario's on how to use their ammo by implementing more environmental hazards, limb specific stuns to help maneuver your way around, among other things.
It is the way to go for a survival horror game. Incidentally, the shooting is already fun in the older games, it's just not encouraged. Whereas it is openly encouraged in OTS games because it's much easier. There's no way around this.
Pre-rendered backgrounds weren't decided until they already decided on fixed camera angles. The game started as initially full 3D until they realized it would look like ass.
You're wrong about that. Evil Within on Hard mode is a great example of this. Resources are limited and it's all about how you use them in conjunction with the environment maintaining the survival horror aspect about the game.
you sure about this? anyway the is reason these type of camera angles are not used anymore cause they cripple gameplay, you can talk all you want about them being scary and tense, but i found evil within, dead space and resident evil first play through scarier and even more tense, and i'm a huge fan of resident evil 2.
You're wrong about that. Evil Within on Hard mode is a great example of this. Resources are limited and it's all about how you use them in conjunction with the environment maintaining the survival horror aspect about the game.
you sure about this? anyway the is reason these type of camera angles are not used anymore cause they cripple gameplay, you can talk all you want about them being scary and tense, but i found evil within, dead space and resident evil first play through scarier and even more tense, and i'm a huge fan of resident evil 2.
That is The Evil Within. Not BIO2. You can't equate one to the other as if they crossover perfectly. BIO2 would need to be completely redesigned for the new camera. The Evil Within was designed around it, and is still nothing like the classic BIO games. It is much closer to BIO4 than anything else.
Hence, the game is a Remake and no a remaster. As game designer has the liberty to manipulate certain dimensions of the environment to incorporate these new gameplay enhancements. I'm not saying to rip-off TEW, but if you're going to spend millions of dollars on such a big budget game you should make it the best videogame possible.
If RE2 is indeed a remake and not a remaster, it most definitely will cost millions. Just look at all the backgrounds and art alone from the original RE2. To remake all those into next gen assets that are rarely ever recycled throughout the game at a level of detail of a a next gen console will cost millions. There's no question about it.
DC is not a remake, an on-rail experience, and developed for Wii hardware, that is obviously going to be a fraction of the cost.