Off topic but I noticed there has not been much talk of mercaneries even though it’s coming out in only 2 days time.
Resident Evil 4 Remake First Impressions
- Thread starter Turo602
- Start date
I gotta say Capcom did kinda drop the ball with their DLC this time around. Paying extra for crucial items like the "Handgun Ammo Charm", "Expanded Treasure Map", and other things reeks of Pay to Win. I mean the handgun ammo charm in particular is stll sitting on the left side of my attache case and has never left it because it is that vital to me, and the expanded treaasure map goes without saying for its usefulness. I thought these kinds of business practices died sometime in the 2010's? I guess not.
@leon_hellppp I also feel old but for the exact opposite reason, if I was still a tween I would have been able to crush "Professional" mode w/o breaking a sweat now I'm just kinda slogging through the game half-heartedly with little desire to start from scratch with barebone equipment.
@leon_hellppp I also feel old but for the exact opposite reason, if I was still a tween I would have been able to crush "Professional" mode w/o breaking a sweat now I'm just kinda slogging through the game half-heartedly with little desire to start from scratch with barebone equipment.
So, I've been sick since yesterday which finally gave me the opportunity to play it. I've currently completed Chapter 5, and contrary to the majority I gotta say that I'm not that impressed.
It's not that it isn't a good game, because it most certainly is. I just feel like it's almost a carbon copy of the original, only with better graphics (and sneak mode lol). Personally I didn't play RE4 until 2020 when I was 30 years old, so I don't feel the same nostalgia upon seeing classic locations reimagined in the RE Engine - it does nothing for me. Just like in the original, I enjoy the combat and the adrenaline pumping action when hordes of Los Ganados attack you, but so far I honestly feel the original did it better. My heartrate was definitely higher in the original compared to the remake during the encounters I've had up until Chapter 5.
The story and the dialogue might have been improved a little bit, but the core themes and campy situations remain unchanged. I wasn't a fan of the supernatural fantasy themes in the original, and I'm not a fan now. The lightning and atmosphere might be a bit darker, but it still feels completely different from the fantastic survival horror atmosphere in the RE2 remake. I was hoping the RE4 remake would be a more grounded experience with a bigger emphasis on classic sci-fi horror, but maybe I was setting the bar too high. Nevertheless, if Capcom had actually done that I'm sure that diehard fans of the original would've been ****ed off, since that would've stripped it of its identity.
I just feel like I'm playing RE4 again, but with better graphics. In that sense, I guess it's a dream come true for most fans. I can only imagine the pure sense of joy you people must feel. Personally, I feel angry, because if Capcom is able to be 100% faithful to the original RE4 with this remake, then why oh WHY did they completely butcher the RE3 remake? Excuse me for bringing RE3 into this discussion but it's a tough pill that I'm NEVER going to swallow.
It's not that it isn't a good game, because it most certainly is. I just feel like it's almost a carbon copy of the original, only with better graphics (and sneak mode lol). Personally I didn't play RE4 until 2020 when I was 30 years old, so I don't feel the same nostalgia upon seeing classic locations reimagined in the RE Engine - it does nothing for me. Just like in the original, I enjoy the combat and the adrenaline pumping action when hordes of Los Ganados attack you, but so far I honestly feel the original did it better. My heartrate was definitely higher in the original compared to the remake during the encounters I've had up until Chapter 5.
The story and the dialogue might have been improved a little bit, but the core themes and campy situations remain unchanged. I wasn't a fan of the supernatural fantasy themes in the original, and I'm not a fan now. The lightning and atmosphere might be a bit darker, but it still feels completely different from the fantastic survival horror atmosphere in the RE2 remake. I was hoping the RE4 remake would be a more grounded experience with a bigger emphasis on classic sci-fi horror, but maybe I was setting the bar too high. Nevertheless, if Capcom had actually done that I'm sure that diehard fans of the original would've been ****ed off, since that would've stripped it of its identity.
I just feel like I'm playing RE4 again, but with better graphics. In that sense, I guess it's a dream come true for most fans. I can only imagine the pure sense of joy you people must feel. Personally, I feel angry, because if Capcom is able to be 100% faithful to the original RE4 with this remake, then why oh WHY did they completely butcher the RE3 remake? Excuse me for bringing RE3 into this discussion but it's a tough pill that I'm NEVER going to swallow.
@Magnolia Grandiflora Yeah, I'm honestly failing to see what's so special about this remake. It is so damn faithful to the original that you start wondering what was the point of remaking it in the first place. It tries to be more grounded on the surface but underneath it's all the same campy action as before, and I honestly prefer the original RE4 that didn't take itself too seriously - it was way more fun. This remake feels like it cannot balance itself between serious and campy.
Also, this is just a silly complaint from my side but why the heck didn't they include Leon's RE2 remake outfit as an extra costume option? I mean, it's the same engine.... the 3D models are all there....
Also, this is just a silly complaint from my side but why the heck didn't they include Leon's RE2 remake outfit as an extra costume option? I mean, it's the same engine.... the 3D models are all there....
Always interesting how we interpret things differently.
I thought RE4R’s horror was in tune with sci-if horror even if the castle setting gives off a different fantasy vibe at times.
The series has always had some campiness level to it though which, admittedly, RE4-RE6 takes it even further.
Still, I think Capcom grounded the remake just enough to make it feel like an appropriate direction for the series but also still managed to be faithful to the original game.
I thought RE4R’s horror was in tune with sci-if horror even if the castle setting gives off a different fantasy vibe at times.
The series has always had some campiness level to it though which, admittedly, RE4-RE6 takes it even further.
Still, I think Capcom grounded the remake just enough to make it feel like an appropriate direction for the series but also still managed to be faithful to the original game.
Last edited:
How does the game being faithful to the original negate it being remade though? Is that not what people loved about the original REmake? I know if I wasn't too familiar with the original Resident Evil, I'd say the REmake just has better graphics too. But that would also be wildly misinformed as would be the same for Resident Evil 4.
And this is where I'll get controversial. I think that argument about the original Resident Evil Remake is totally valid, especially if they decide to remake it again in the vein of the newer remakes with actual gameplay upgrades that add to the appeal for a newer audience.
The only thing it added was the Lisa Trevor stuff and that could've been communicated via UC or game files until the time came for them to properly remake the title without fixed cameras and tank controls. I honestly think the big driving force was the release of Zero and making more titles accessible during their GameCube exclusivity deal. In the end, neither title was what would be considered successful in comparison to the first three titles as most of the sales numbers for both come from the ported PS3/Xbox versions, a whopping 12 years after their initial GameCube releases.
RE4R didn't really change too much of the gameplay/genre concerns of most of the original's critics and didn't do anything story wise, in my opinion, to make it fit better into the series. Granted, if they had done either of those things I'm sure there would be rioting in the streets, but the fact is you didn't add to it in any way shape, form or fashion so why did it need to be remade?
The answer is it didn't, they wanted your money because the collective 12 million and some change they got off you over all versions of the original wasn't good enough.
If you enjoyed the game, you enjoyed your time with it and you see it as $70+ well spent, that's your business. I myself bought the Remake even though I still own a PS2 and the Director's Cut and I enjoyed my time with it; I see it as $20 well spent. But let's not try to make either game something they're not. They're both glorified cash grabs and neither was necessary as they're both extremely faithful story wise and the gameplay isn't much different.
The only thing it added was the Lisa Trevor stuff and that could've been communicated via UC or game files until the time came for them to properly remake the title without fixed cameras and tank controls. I honestly think the big driving force was the release of Zero and making more titles accessible during their GameCube exclusivity deal. In the end, neither title was what would be considered successful in comparison to the first three titles as most of the sales numbers for both come from the ported PS3/Xbox versions, a whopping 12 years after their initial GameCube releases.
RE4R didn't really change too much of the gameplay/genre concerns of most of the original's critics and didn't do anything story wise, in my opinion, to make it fit better into the series. Granted, if they had done either of those things I'm sure there would be rioting in the streets, but the fact is you didn't add to it in any way shape, form or fashion so why did it need to be remade?
The answer is it didn't, they wanted your money because the collective 12 million and some change they got off you over all versions of the original wasn't good enough.
If you enjoyed the game, you enjoyed your time with it and you see it as $70+ well spent, that's your business. I myself bought the Remake even though I still own a PS2 and the Director's Cut and I enjoyed my time with it; I see it as $20 well spent. But let's not try to make either game something they're not. They're both glorified cash grabs and neither was necessary as they're both extremely faithful story wise and the gameplay isn't much different.
Nope. I largely agree with you both. I do think some of the mechanics they've implemented are a step or two forward and I hope they improve upon them with future iterations (remakes or otherwise) and there were indeed some quite challenging puzzles later on in the game, but deep down inside I can't really say I came out of the RE4R feeling like a million bucks. I've played both RE1 and RE4 at the times of their inception so nostalgia isn't a factor here. I enjoyed RE4R for what it was, positives and negatives but I'm kinda ready to move on now at this point tbh.
Last edited:
I'm gonna have to call BS on this. In its 21 years of existence, I have never seen REmake referred to as a cash grab, which is as flimsy as calling a sequel to a game a cash grab based on the fact that a company is merely trying to profit off of a popular IP by expanding it. By that logic, everything Capcom does is a cash grab.
Porting RE4 to every console, that's a cash grab. Low effort, cost-effective work, for huge profits. Remaking RE4 from the ground up with a triple A budget after years of development on the other hand... yeah, doesn't really seem so cash grabby to me.
And since when were remakes judged solely on how much new lore was added? Because once again, brushing everything REmake and REmake 4 does that completely transforms the experience under the rug, whether it be through cutting, adding, remixing, or updating, is massively disingenuous.
Yes, RE4 is too faithful in certain regards where I would have personally loved for them to have taken some liberties, but it's also very different in both big and small ways. So much so that even the rabbid RE4 fanboys are crying about how much they cut or how they missed the point of the original game's campy story, etc. etc.
So what they're both fixed camera games or both over the shoulder games. Metroid: Zero Mission is still just a 2D game too. That doesn't make them the same by any stretch. Is making something better no longer a good enough reason to remake it? Especially when they're so outdated and overshadowed by the very games they've inspired.
Resident Evil 4 is a benchmark game, and I've been very vocal around here over the years about how much I disliked various aspects of the game and even gone in depth on different occasions about what I would love to see in a remake that would greatly improve it. Resident Evil 4 remake is as close to that vision as we'll ever get, and at the end of the day, is a game I would rather play over the original as it appeals to my tastes far more than the one we got in 2005 and I know I wasn't droning on about graphics for all these years either.
Porting RE4 to every console, that's a cash grab. Low effort, cost-effective work, for huge profits. Remaking RE4 from the ground up with a triple A budget after years of development on the other hand... yeah, doesn't really seem so cash grabby to me.
And since when were remakes judged solely on how much new lore was added? Because once again, brushing everything REmake and REmake 4 does that completely transforms the experience under the rug, whether it be through cutting, adding, remixing, or updating, is massively disingenuous.
Yes, RE4 is too faithful in certain regards where I would have personally loved for them to have taken some liberties, but it's also very different in both big and small ways. So much so that even the rabbid RE4 fanboys are crying about how much they cut or how they missed the point of the original game's campy story, etc. etc.
So what they're both fixed camera games or both over the shoulder games. Metroid: Zero Mission is still just a 2D game too. That doesn't make them the same by any stretch. Is making something better no longer a good enough reason to remake it? Especially when they're so outdated and overshadowed by the very games they've inspired.
Resident Evil 4 is a benchmark game, and I've been very vocal around here over the years about how much I disliked various aspects of the game and even gone in depth on different occasions about what I would love to see in a remake that would greatly improve it. Resident Evil 4 remake is as close to that vision as we'll ever get, and at the end of the day, is a game I would rather play over the original as it appeals to my tastes far more than the one we got in 2005 and I know I wasn't droning on about graphics for all these years either.
I guess the question is: if the remake is so faithful in terms of story and gameplay, how exactly was it greatly improved? At this point it seems like just a hype from a new experience with maybe how smooth the game is.
And I'm sorry but it is a cash grab. Ports are cash grabby too, you're correct, but I'm not going to say remakes can't be cash grabs. If they didn't change anything fundamental AT ALL, what's really stopping it from being in the same league as a cash grab port? Not a single solitary thing.
Low effort on something you know will sell is definitely a cash grab but so is only exerting a lot of effort on something that has been proven to sell. Which I think is what @Jonipoon meant in his original post about the effort in RE4R vs RE3R. And I enjoyed RE3R. I've spent the last few days replaying it and have had a blast, but I won't lie and say it was given maximum effort because it wasn't. We got short changed because they packed the game with their pet project Resistance and then skipped their long shot remake to remake a sure thing in the exact same way they made it the first time.
And I'm sorry but it is a cash grab. Ports are cash grabby too, you're correct, but I'm not going to say remakes can't be cash grabs. If they didn't change anything fundamental AT ALL, what's really stopping it from being in the same league as a cash grab port? Not a single solitary thing.
Low effort on something you know will sell is definitely a cash grab but so is only exerting a lot of effort on something that has been proven to sell. Which I think is what @Jonipoon meant in his original post about the effort in RE4R vs RE3R. And I enjoyed RE3R. I've spent the last few days replaying it and have had a blast, but I won't lie and say it was given maximum effort because it wasn't. We got short changed because they packed the game with their pet project Resistance and then skipped their long shot remake to remake a sure thing in the exact same way they made it the first time.
Last edited:
I would say the atmosphere is a vast improvement done with RE4R which goes beyond simply having better graphics. I don’t think the majority of fans, who have been enjoying the remake, are imagining this feature.
I think it’s even more noticeable in later chapters, specifically the castle and island locations, where Capcom manages to scale back these sections of the game and improved their look and the flow of these sections.
Regardless, I think there’s some bitterness over Capcom overlooking valuable games like Code Veronica and cutting a lot of content for RE3R (despite the cut content I still think it’s a good game). It’s understandable to be mad but I don’t think that takes away from how well RE4R turned out and what it improved on.
I think it’s even more noticeable in later chapters, specifically the castle and island locations, where Capcom manages to scale back these sections of the game and improved their look and the flow of these sections.
Regardless, I think there’s some bitterness over Capcom overlooking valuable games like Code Veronica and cutting a lot of content for RE3R (despite the cut content I still think it’s a good game). It’s understandable to be mad but I don’t think that takes away from how well RE4R turned out and what it improved on.
I've yet to play the remake and have only tried the demo, so I'll reserve my opinion on the game until I do, but I must say, modernizing RE4 and making it more accessible is a big improvement and justifies the existence of the remake.
That's the purpose of a remake: to take an old piece of media and make it more accessible to a newer audience while reshaping, trimming, and repurposing context where necessary (e.g., Luis ballistic line that has aged poorly).
I go back to the classics a lot, so it's very easy for me to get used to the gameplay of the OG when I want to start a new playthrough, but that's not the case for most people. I've seen so many people complaining about the game being unplayable or giving up after the first 2 hours or so because of the "outdated" gameplay, people who are now enjoying the remake and are finally able to get into it, whether it's because of the smoother and modernized controls or the added layer of survival horror elements that enriches the atmosphere and experience and makes it more compatible with the remake trilogy.
I also disagree with calling RE4R a cash grab, that would imply that Capcom used it to make cheap and fast money with little effort, which isn't the case here. Obviously Capcom knew RE4R would sell, but they were also aware of how much backlash and hate they'd get if they didn't get it right, and invested in it. RE4 has been in development since 2018 or so, was rebooted during development because Capcom wasn't happy with it and had multiple teams working on it. It's obvious that effort and care was put into the project.
That's the purpose of a remake: to take an old piece of media and make it more accessible to a newer audience while reshaping, trimming, and repurposing context where necessary (e.g., Luis ballistic line that has aged poorly).
I go back to the classics a lot, so it's very easy for me to get used to the gameplay of the OG when I want to start a new playthrough, but that's not the case for most people. I've seen so many people complaining about the game being unplayable or giving up after the first 2 hours or so because of the "outdated" gameplay, people who are now enjoying the remake and are finally able to get into it, whether it's because of the smoother and modernized controls or the added layer of survival horror elements that enriches the atmosphere and experience and makes it more compatible with the remake trilogy.
I also disagree with calling RE4R a cash grab, that would imply that Capcom used it to make cheap and fast money with little effort, which isn't the case here. Obviously Capcom knew RE4R would sell, but they were also aware of how much backlash and hate they'd get if they didn't get it right, and invested in it. RE4 has been in development since 2018 or so, was rebooted during development because Capcom wasn't happy with it and had multiple teams working on it. It's obvious that effort and care was put into the project.
Last edited:
There's a difference between being faithful and being a slave to the original. Yes, it's based on the same work, it is a remake. But the gameplay is nothing like the original's stop and shoot, melee, and knife loop that feels really arcadey by today's standards. The knife is no longer something you can spam and is more of a defensive item. Ammo is not as generous and is balanced with crafting in mind, making it far more essential. Enemy A.I. is smarter and more aggressive to make up for Leon's increased mobility and you no longer have to pause the action just to switch weapons.
There's tons of cut content that has been replaced with new content and the design and overall flow of gameplay has been altered by the general redesign of most locations that often include new puzzle elements. Areas are also combined or remixed, which added a surreal quality to the game as someone extremely familiar with the original. You'll even find yourself entering locations from the opposite direction you did in the original and some locations have even been mirrored to keep returning players on their toes.
There's obviously so much more to get into detail about and the same applies to REmake. These are not merely the same games with prettier graphics. I think that's a very shallow observation that I wouldn't fault someone for making if they weren't familiar with the original games at all and only vaguely remembered them. It's also a testament to how smartly crafted these remakes are that they could make someone believe it's the same thing due to how natural all the changes feel while still retaining all the key elements that gave the games their identity.
There's tons of cut content that has been replaced with new content and the design and overall flow of gameplay has been altered by the general redesign of most locations that often include new puzzle elements. Areas are also combined or remixed, which added a surreal quality to the game as someone extremely familiar with the original. You'll even find yourself entering locations from the opposite direction you did in the original and some locations have even been mirrored to keep returning players on their toes.
There's obviously so much more to get into detail about and the same applies to REmake. These are not merely the same games with prettier graphics. I think that's a very shallow observation that I wouldn't fault someone for making if they weren't familiar with the original games at all and only vaguely remembered them. It's also a testament to how smartly crafted these remakes are that they could make someone believe it's the same thing due to how natural all the changes feel while still retaining all the key elements that gave the games their identity.
You're entitled to think what you want, as am I. Atmosphere doesn't warrant a remake in my opinion and, unfortunately, most of that is chalked up to better graphics as most of the areas in the remake look pretty much the same as the original, they're just able to do more with details and lighting now.
I don't think it's shallow to say they're pretty much the same game because they are. Not having to stop and shoot is literally one mechanic upgrade. One. I ask what great improvements were made for clarification and I get atmosphere and not having to stop when you shoot.
Remake is almost a shot for shot redo of the original, except the Lisa Trevor stuff. To say that they're not pretty much the same game simply because one is prettier than the other isn't deep. In fact that's probably as shallow as you can get.
Not being a slave to the original is a total laugh when that's literally all I see when I look at the RE4R. They were too afraid to change too much because they knew if they did it would cut into their guaranteed profits.
You're justifying an entire remake, a AAA budget in your own words, on the back of atmosphere and not having to stop while shooting. That's cool and all but I don't and I think it's best to leave it there.
I don't think it's shallow to say they're pretty much the same game because they are. Not having to stop and shoot is literally one mechanic upgrade. One. I ask what great improvements were made for clarification and I get atmosphere and not having to stop when you shoot.
Remake is almost a shot for shot redo of the original, except the Lisa Trevor stuff. To say that they're not pretty much the same game simply because one is prettier than the other isn't deep. In fact that's probably as shallow as you can get.
Not being a slave to the original is a total laugh when that's literally all I see when I look at the RE4R. They were too afraid to change too much because they knew if they did it would cut into their guaranteed profits.
You're justifying an entire remake, a AAA budget in your own words, on the back of atmosphere and not having to stop while shooting. That's cool and all but I don't and I think it's best to leave it there.
I don't like RE4, therefore the remake is lukewarm.
I love RE1, therefore the remake is fantastic.
Pretty simple logic, you actually have to like something to begin with to really appreciate a faithful remake of it, remakes of both games were very faithful to their respectful core experiences. If the core is not your bag, fuggitaboutit.
I love RE1, therefore the remake is fantastic.
Pretty simple logic, you actually have to like something to begin with to really appreciate a faithful remake of it, remakes of both games were very faithful to their respectful core experiences. If the core is not your bag, fuggitaboutit.
My post was definitely not about one mechanic... but even that one thing is literally how you interact with the whole game, and it's leagues better than the original's outdated gameplay and control scheme. It may not mean much to you, but it's far more accessible to newcomers and requires returning players to adapt a whole new strategy and get better in tune with the new combat mechanics and enemy A.I.
I don't get why you're brushing that off. Same with the game's atmosphere, which you're shrinking into just being a graphical upgrade like even that counts for nothing when the game's entire presentation has been completely overhauled. Not just visual, but the sound, the writing, the performances, etc.
I also don't really feel the need to go into gross detail about everything that's done differently or better in a first impressions thread, even though I feel I gave a suitable answer on top of what others have said already. You yourself have stated you're not that familiar with the original RE4 and haven't even played the remake, so I don't really know what else to tell you. It just seems like you're being dismissive for absolutely no reason.
I don't get why you're brushing that off. Same with the game's atmosphere, which you're shrinking into just being a graphical upgrade like even that counts for nothing when the game's entire presentation has been completely overhauled. Not just visual, but the sound, the writing, the performances, etc.
I also don't really feel the need to go into gross detail about everything that's done differently or better in a first impressions thread, even though I feel I gave a suitable answer on top of what others have said already. You yourself have stated you're not that familiar with the original RE4 and haven't even played the remake, so I don't really know what else to tell you. It just seems like you're being dismissive for absolutely no reason.
Why bother asking what 'great improvements were made' when you've clearly made up your mind about the game?
For discussion's sake, a major complaint some fans had about the OG game was how action-focused it was, so Capcom making RE4R more atmospheric and survival-horror driven is, IMO, a pretty big improvement.
For discussion's sake, a major complaint some fans had about the OG game was how action-focused it was, so Capcom making RE4R more atmospheric and survival-horror driven is, IMO, a pretty big improvement.
For what my own completely unsolicited opinion is worth, I halfway agree with the cash grab argument. Not from the interpretation of the term that Turo602 has, where cash grab means low effort, but from a different interpretation where it means low risk. I like the remake a lot and there's no way I could disagree that it was effortful. However, when compared to an all-new game, it was a low-risk undertaking and probably the closest possible thing to a guaranteed return on investment, given the prestigious status of RE4 in gaming. In isolation it would be one thing, but forming part of a broader context of three remakes in four years (and setting up another one with its ending), I think there is something to the cash grab argument.
I mean, I've been having my fun with these remakes the past few years, but part of me wonders "what if?". The budget for each one could have been spent on completely new experiences. In an alternate universe, we might have gotten three more Revelations games, or maybe a brand new spin-off series, or just more numbered sequels. But any of these options would have carried more risk than remaking established classics with preexisting clout.
Still, I'm under no illusions about the fact that money is what the games industry is all about. I'm posting on this message board because of an unhealthy interest in a consumerist hobby. The games themselves wouldn't continue to get made without rich business sociopaths' hunger to get richer. But within that framework, constrained by whatever they're allowed to work on, I think there are creators who (sometimes) put their hearts and souls into the projects they're part of, and I try to stay positive and appreciate the good work in what they do. I think a lot of genuine love went into the RE4 remake, even if the reason for its existence in the first place is dubious.
Unrelated to anything but reading this board the past couple weeks reminds me of how much better discussion on forums was before big tech and social media took over. I kind of miss it. It's nice to see people freely expressing "negative" opinions without all that hostile forced optimism.
@Gun Powder B On the subject of DLC, have you seen the latest (attached)? Admittedly this apparently isn't anything new but I don't usually pay attention non-story DLCs.
I mean, I've been having my fun with these remakes the past few years, but part of me wonders "what if?". The budget for each one could have been spent on completely new experiences. In an alternate universe, we might have gotten three more Revelations games, or maybe a brand new spin-off series, or just more numbered sequels. But any of these options would have carried more risk than remaking established classics with preexisting clout.
Still, I'm under no illusions about the fact that money is what the games industry is all about. I'm posting on this message board because of an unhealthy interest in a consumerist hobby. The games themselves wouldn't continue to get made without rich business sociopaths' hunger to get richer. But within that framework, constrained by whatever they're allowed to work on, I think there are creators who (sometimes) put their hearts and souls into the projects they're part of, and I try to stay positive and appreciate the good work in what they do. I think a lot of genuine love went into the RE4 remake, even if the reason for its existence in the first place is dubious.
Unrelated to anything but reading this board the past couple weeks reminds me of how much better discussion on forums was before big tech and social media took over. I kind of miss it. It's nice to see people freely expressing "negative" opinions without all that hostile forced optimism.
@Gun Powder B On the subject of DLC, have you seen the latest (attached)? Admittedly this apparently isn't anything new but I don't usually pay attention non-story DLCs.
That is pitiful and a big step backwards for DLC in the franchise, I really thought business practices in the industry was getting better but stuff like that proves otherwise. I've said it before and I'll say it again, games should be 50% art and 50% business. Too much art and not enough business and you'll have a small but radically devoted fanbase but not enough sales to pay the bills and live comfortably. Too much business and not enough art and you'll just burn the franchise to the ground and turn it into an algorithm and a sleazy transaction.
Shame that the "business" side is clearly predominant in this remake, where's RE2R really did feel like it hit that perfect balance.
Shame that the "business" side is clearly predominant in this remake, where's RE2R really did feel like it hit that perfect balance.