Post Script

On remakes and the pitfalls of modernisation

Among film fans there tends to be a healthy antipathy toward remakes. They’re not inherently bad – unless, of course, they’re bad remakes – but the concern is a reasonable one, particularly so in the modern age of monolithic corporations falling over themselves to turn any original idea into a franchise (when they’re not recycling or reiterating on existing concepts, or reviving longdormant ones, that is). In contrast, a few dissenting voices aside, there is a much more voracious appetite for remakes and remasters in videogames. This is an industry that often has an uncomfortable relationship with its past, with great swathes of its history cast aside or forgotten. That is, until it’s time to repackage things for a new generation, under the guise of modernisation.

The broad consensus is that games can always be improved upon. Technological progress means that hardware is only getting more powerful, and in theory more capable of bringing a creator’s vision to fruition than was possible 20, ten, even five years ago. (Not for nothing has The Last Of Us, a game which undoubtedly owes a significant debt to Resident Evil, been released three times since 2013.) Received wisdom holds that these technological advancements are inherently connected to overall quality, and there are obvious benefits in terms of the fidelity and scope of modern releases. But there is also a school of thought that older games can be brought in line with a nebulous concept of ‘modern design standards’, as if there is established criteria for what that might mean. (Our belief is that ‘standards’ is often confused with ‘trends’, and in years to come that will only become more apparent.)

It’s worth considering this in light of the response to Capcom’s announcement that it would be remaking Resident Evil 4. The overriding reaction was one of delight, but it was tempered by notes of caution that sounded a little louder than usual. Just as it’s true to say that consoles have become more capable, it’s also true that the gaps between generations have narrowed – though many a PS2/GameCube-era game has been remastered or remade without so much as a quizzical eyebrow from the gaming community. Perhaps it’s partly because Capcom Production Studio 4’s game has since been ported to just about every format under the sun, but it’s also because an update largely felt unnecessary for what is still generally considered among the finest thirdperson shooters ever made.

Capcom, however, was undeterred. And some of the comments from its development team have suggested a bullish approach internally, even if the finished game betrays a keenness not to change too much. In a recent interview, director Yasuhiro Anpo conceded that his initial impression was that “a remake would be difficult”. But he and game director Kazunori Kadoi both pinpointed elements that could be “improved”, Anpo giving the example of the game’s “very one-of-akind control scheme”, an observation that isn’t only inaccurate (it’s essentially a riff on the tank controls of earlier entries, the over-the-shoulder camera giving it a different feel as a result) but also raises the question: why is that distinctiveness considered a negative? The reason is, of course, that this falls under the category of ‘modern standards’, which in this instance seems to relate to the idea that any game with a control setup that doesn’t conform to genre norms might be rejected.

That extends to the removal of quick-time event sequences, including the original knife fight involving Leon and Krauser. Though divisive, this memorable setpiece was pulled off with cinematic elan, as Leon and his former SOCOM partner circled one another; responding quickly to the many sporadic prompts during the terse exchanges between the two was the only way to avoid being stabbed. Its replacement is fine, albeit essentially a simplified Sekiro, requiring you to parry attacks before slashing with your own knife. But the rationale is largely the same: “QTEs are not popular in today’s games,” Kadoi says, a slightly baffling assertion in a game with a perfect-parry mechanic, and one where you’re asked to hammer buttons to break free when an enemy gains the upper hand. (We shouldn’t ignore accessibility considerations here – one area where modernisation is an unequivocal good – although this is more the result of improved understanding than technological progress. And despite presets that configure settings for visual and auditory support and to minimise motion sickness, Resident Evil 4 is hardly a standard bearer in this regard.)

So what does modernisation mean in this instance? Attempts to bring Resident Evil 4 in line with the remakes of 2 and 3 make sense in the context of an ongoing franchise (one in which these three entries are available on the same hardware), but it serves to make the game feel less singular. Certainly, the sterile menus for typewriter saves and rearranging items in Leon’s attaché case are out of step with the game’s visual signature – which itself feels less distinctive, despite being technically superior to the original approach.

To be clear, this 2023 release is a very fine example of a remake, one that succeeds in preserving the spirit of the original while attempting to make rewarding changes. But it’s also part of a wave of remakes that increasingly feel more like commercial exercises than creative ones, and a reminder that we should be wary of modernisation for its own sake – a pursuit that denigrates older games for the crime of not conforming to whatever is currently in fashion. ■

The overriding reaction was tempered by notes of caution that sounded a little louder than usual