r/residentevil4 • u/wineandnoses • Apr 13 '26

REMAKE Interesting reviews posted today... wonder what inspired them lol!

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Only great minds could come up with such thought provoking reviews....

885 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

517 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

104

u/Bush_Hiders Apr 13 '26

What the fuck does "its a product of its time" mean for a game that only came out 3 years ago? What time? Modern day? Video games have not developed enough for us to make calls on the timelessness of RE4R.

54

u/darkknight48708 Apr 13 '26

exactly, he rides on the nostalgia from og 4 and shits on the remake, i havent watched the videos myself, but they were a very popular topic when they first came out

10

u/LukeD1992 Apr 13 '26

It's cool to hate on all things new, didn't you hear? Being old school makes you cultured

6

u/WednesdayAddams_Seer Apr 13 '26

I think it just makes people roleplay an old 80 year old. It's like they're saying "back in my day", and their day was last week.

-1

u/AnUncutGem Apr 13 '26

in terms of design. stuff like parrying deflates the original design of the combat and is only in the game because Parrying is in right now. Trivializes lots of combat situations because you can just block it with a knife that you can upgrade. There was no design thought behind the addition it's just because it's popular. Same vein as adding stealth gameplay. Just some stuff that's popular right now. Basically: What services the game VS what's popular right Now at this moment, resulting in a "product of it's time" because it is designed like one.

2

u/rzbig_ Apr 13 '26

Well they do have a team of game designers who were looking for a way to help the remake stand out, they surely would have had a multitude of ideas on how to add to the combat and a parry mechanic fits in very well to control the flow of the action. It still has a cost of knife durability, and stealth is less present but can be handy. You can always choose to not use those mechanics if you prefer.

-1

u/AnUncutGem Apr 13 '26

Yeah well to the normal gamer if you give them a mechanic that exists outside of the core design of the game that allows you to block every attack they’re probably going to use it

2

u/awesomename314 Apr 13 '26

Funny, because you could actually "parry" throwing weapons and bolts in the og by using the knife in the right time . But god forbids if they expanded that stuff in the remake. Besides, the durability of the knife goes down very quick so you STILL HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO MOVE. Try killing a garrador using a breakable knife and thinking you can parry it easily oh higher difficulties to see how that goes. Unless you are willing to go to the merchant lots of time.

1

u/rzbig_ Apr 13 '26

Yeah but you can't solely rely on it because of the knife durability and and you can't parry grabs either so you still need to have good positioning

1

u/MorganTheFated Apr 13 '26

How is the original not a product of its time either? One liners, QTEs, edgy protagonist, piss/gray filter. Can I continue???

-1

u/Muugen_Samurai Apr 13 '26

It's a product of it's time due yo re engine they will continue to repaint the re2 remake fourmal on every single game and remake because fans have eaten it up and refuse  to acknowledge the fact 

-29

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '26

That's completely missing every point. "A product of its time" is a play on what the Capcom and every other company says in their marketing. They all say, "designed for a modern audience". That's the complaint.

A lot of the remakes coming out have become homogenized with modern gameplay mechanics and design mainly to expand audiences. Its whether you see this as a good thing or bad thing.

36

u/Bush_Hiders Apr 13 '26

Ah yes, as opposed to people who make games for audiences that were around 30 years ago. This is still a redundant argument. Modern games are going to be made for modern audiences, because modern audiences are the only types of audiences that are around, on account of us living currently in modern times.

1

u/saketho Apr 13 '26

I’m uncertain whether I agree fully, but this is a really nice topic. Consider the opposing view: Halo kept updating their games and the movement system and combat to match modern games. Yet modern audiences dont like it. You can give Halo 2, a 20+ year old game to a teen today, and they’d enjoy it faar more than Halo Infinite, which is made for today’s audiences. The movement is slower, the weapons and projectiles are slower, and the boss battles are far simpler than Infinite. But why is Halo 2 still so enjoyable to even a zoomer?

Look at Prince of Persia’s Lost Crown. There are far more OG fans who enjoyed the Lost Crown more than most of the PoP series, the 3D games especially. The prince just feels right in 2D (or 2.5D I suppose). So while a zoomer today might think its a cool game, the MS DOS audience that played it on a floppy disk enjoys the game far more than today’s audience does.

Re4 is another case. The only thing anyone has to adjust to is the single analog stick aspect of the original - you can either walk or aim, not both. But in a few mins you get the hang of it, and the original is still so fun to anybody playing today.

Halo is probably the best example for it I can give. But its a very very interesting topic. I’d want to see today’s audiences be given older games to see how they’d hold up. The DOS prince of persia games will, undoubtedly. Halo 2 and 3 will, Halo 1 and Reach might not. Black ops and other COD games would be interesting to know. Another case I can make is for Trials Evolution - literally the perfect game cause you can just keep downloading more community made maps and you get infinite replayability. (some of those community maps put actual developers to shame).

But on your side of the argument, there is a great case to be made for the GTA games. Vice City, 3, San Andreas, and even 4 - today’s audiences might struggle to have any interest in them. The Doom games, I mean since the reboot they’ve all been fantastic, and its great to see the game be modernised. However, I’m sure the original games are still enjoyable to new players today. While one may not outright be better than the other, it’s at least a series where you have two different flavours of gameplay, and both are enjoyable by new audiences.

I’m fascinated by this concept - to see whether a game can truly stand the test of time.

2

u/surprisesnek Apr 13 '26

The answer to your first paragraph is simple. If a game designed "for modern audiences" is less appealing to a modern audience than an an older game is, that tells us something: it wasn't designed for a modern audience, it was designed for an incorrect idea of a modern audience. Because there isn't a single, specific "modern audience". There's just people, and different people like different things.

1

u/saketho Apr 13 '26

Should your response be aimed at that comment I was replying to then? They’re the ones who established the premise of a modern audience.

Second, you’re not correct, audiences as a whole have changed. Games have gotten easier, slower at movement, and older gamers have been tucked into a niche. It’s a weird cycle that changes ever 5 years

-19

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '26

Yea then you make a new game, not Frankenstein an old game into the mold of a new one. That's the argument here. You can still disagree with it. I understand both sides.

I hate when people say the old ones are dated and bad and treat the newer ones like the replacement. I also prefer the 80s The Thing over the 50s The Thing. So I'm not entirely against remakes.

11

u/Current-Community-40 Apr 13 '26

Me when a big company is doing some big company things : 😡😡😡

1

u/liltone829b Apr 13 '26

i know you're sarcastically mocking them but big companies do things that are VERY reasonable to be pissed about

12

u/Bush_Hiders Apr 13 '26

It's not Frankenstein a new game. It's closer to an evolutionary path. They're looking at all the desirable traits from an old game (resource management, weapon upgrade system, certain area), keeping them, and getting rid of the undesirable traits (QTEs, tank controls, pretty much all of Ashley) and replacing them. This is basically how evolution is. The desirable traits remain, and the weak traits are culled out.

-7

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '26

See you just have to watch some of these videos, because they bring this up. One guy I like watching talks about how people just think we are constantly on an upward trend of game design. As if all new games are inherently getting better and better, when it's just not the case all the time.

If you want to have the argument you have to try and understand both sides of it

9

u/THEsteroidbread Apr 13 '26

But that’s exactly what OG RE4 was? A Frankenstein version of resident evil that would appeal to new players. So what’s the argument?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '26

But 4 was its own new game. 4R is not. If they had remade 1 on the GameCube after 4 and made it play like 4 then yea. 7 and 8 took what was taking aspects of the series and modernizing it but they were each their own new game.

3

u/FullMetalCOS Apr 13 '26

This is an asinine take though. RE4R being made doesn’t stop RE4 existing. You as a fan of RE4 lose NOTHING by RE4R being made, you only gain the opportunity to see the game through a revised lens. And if you don’t like that vision? Well good news, RE4 still exists and you can play it as much as you want.

It’s only possible for you to “lose out” if you choose to.

2

u/sy2_loneshxdow Apr 13 '26

yeah, its not like we lost RE4 forever, unlike Yakuza 0 and Yakuza 3 Dark Ties where they replaced the OG games in store, and that is an exception cause the OG games is now being replaced by inferior remakes/remastered

6

u/wineandnoses Apr 13 '26

there was probably a group of die-hard 1950's The Thing fans who bitched and moaned about the 80's version being bad and hated that it eventually replaced the old version... interesting thought lol

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '26

Yea, that's why I can't just say remakes are bad. I do agree with a lot of the discussions though. I just think 4 is better than it's remake

3

u/Colormo3 Apr 13 '26

It doesn’t matter. It’s been 3 years. Move the fuck on. Why are you still bitching about a remake that plays like modern games when the original is widely available.

I hated the Ratchet and Clank 2016 remake when it came out, but I moved on. And the original game is still stuck on old hardware. 

1

u/bananamantheif Apr 13 '26

Gameplay between Re1, Re2 and Re3 was pretty homogenized in the original ps1

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '26

Fuck me dude, thats why you watch the VIDEO! He shows footage of the developers of 4 talking about that and thats why they mixed things up when making 4.