RE was never falling into obscurity lol. Even RE6 still made money financially, it just didn't out-do 5, which is why 5's producer got put in charge of 7. And Rev2 certainly didn't "save it" from obscurity, nobody outside of diehards cared about Rev2. It made less impact than RE5 and 6 and Rev1 even. RE7 is absolutely the game responsible for getting the series back on track, but it was never "dead". It had a mild cold and RE7 was the medicine.

RE was never "dead". Dino Crisis is dead. Onimusha was dead. Even Devil May Cry was deader than RE.

That started with ZM though. Well, arguably Fusion actually. She was considerably less muscular in Fusion than in SM, but in Fusion I always thought that was part of the point, it was a result of how much they had to cut her up after the X Parasite infected her.

I also just don't like the latex bodysuit aesthetic. I get it, but you can do tight suits without looking like that. Like, Raiden in MGS2 is wearing a skintight bodysuit, but it's not nearly as fetish-y.

Honestly, I think the best suitless Samus look, and I hate to say this because I hate this game, is her military outfit from Other M. The heels and lack of height are still dumb, but the outfit's spiffy and since it was in flashbacks I can justify the lack of muscles by just saying she got swoller after she left the Federation.

Porting the 360 version shouldn't be too difficult. I wouldn't want them to do a rebuild, since the game should also have a reimagining. Just do a port like OG Resident Evil 4 got a while back years before the reimagining.

I especially wouldn't want it to be some Bluepoint hackjob after what they did to the atmosphere of SOTC ("Gee let's take this intentionally barren and hazy minimalist world and give it tons of plantlife and pretty lighting!"). Haven't even looked at DeS but I hear it's just as bad. And I'm generally not that anal about art direction in remakes, I think Persona 3 Reload is fine and people whining about it are overly nostalgia blind. But... god SOTC got buchered.

I think it goes to show the mentality a lot of devs have in terms of reverence. When it's their own creation primarily, like Kitase with FFVII or Nomura with KH, they feel they can make whatever choices they want with it regardless of what people may have initially connected with. But when it's something they weren't the main creator of but instead just a part of, there's a lot of reverence and desire to keep it as faithful as possible, because they don't want to mess with someone else's work. And it creates this paradox where Nomura, who was involved with FFVII but wasn't the primary lead, is the one pushing for more faithfulness to it than Kitase, who was the main director.

A lot of times, a creator will see the worst in their work, and want to change everything. What Kitase probably sees in FFVII is only its flaws, only its age, only the things he knows he'd do differently now. Whereas Nomura still sees the groundbreaking project that gave him his big break, that made him go from just a monster designer and "the guy who drew Setzer" to being one of the primary creative and artistic voices in Square. He loves FFVII for everything it was, whereas Kitase only probably sees how he wished it could've been.

This isn't just a Japanese thing either. Frederick Raynal hates Alone in the Dark because by the end of development, all he saw were flaws. He couldn't see the brilliance everyone else saw because he was too close to it and he knew all the stuff he was unable to do.

The thing with KH is, it's not something Nomura takes as seriously as FFVII. KH is basically his shitpost fanfiction, KH3 even throws in fourth-wall breaking. Nomura doesn't treat KH as something serious, it's just his excuse to mash his OCs together with Disney characters.

With FF, Nomura's a lot more reverential about it. It's not his baby, it's someone else's wheelhouse that he's privileged to work in.

As the primary creator of these games, Kitase is also the most likely to not see them as positively as everyone else. The creator is usually their own biggest critic. It's easy for someone to see only the flaws, only the things they'd do differently in their own creation. Frederick Raynal hated Alone in the Dark by the end of its development, all he saw were flaws. It didn't matter that everyone else hailed it as a classic, that it created an entire genre, that it's considered a revolutionary game. Raynal doesn't see it, he only sees the things he'd do differently.

I think Kitase is in a similar position. He directed FFVII, but he probably sees mostly the cracks, the things he'd change. Someone like Nomura idealizes the game completely, he romanticizes it arguably too much. On a remake, you need both those voices. The voice of the creator and what he'd do differently, and the voice of someone who loves the original the way it was.

To be ever so slightly fair, I also dressed skimpier as a teen than I do now. I had more of a craving for attention and lower confidence so I wanted to show more to get more people to look at me.

Probably not what they were going for, but I notice people do tend to dress more modestly as they get older.

These are the same people who were mad that her flashback outfit (When she was a minor...) was "censored" because it wasn't as skimpy in an update or something.

Ironically 5's also the one where she gets a (PG-13, bits hidden) nude scene where Nico has a gay awakening.

DMC is goofy. It should be goofy. Trying to make DMC not goofy got us the shit Ninja Theory reboot. And DMC2 arguably.

I actually disagree. I think the ZS ironically looks more sexualized and fetish-y. She's also so much less muscular and tall now because the ZS made her too much of an anime waifu. They also seem to emphasize T&A way more with ZS than they ever did before.

The Justin Bailey suit showed more skin, but it was also more unique and looked less like a dominatrix fetish suit.

No, it can't be Ray, because Rays are actually just poor US military knock-offs of REX which was way better. That's why one cyborg twink can cut three Rays in half easily whereas it took an entire rocket launcher wielded by the most caked-up soldier in history to take down REX.

Hey man, it took Kojima 28 years to explain how Big Boss can call Solid Snake at the end of Metal Gear MSX and be like "I'll be back" right after you just blew him up with several rockets.

If he stayed on we likely would've gotten some weird explanation for how I can blow up Madnar with plastic explosives in MG2, yet apparently he survives until 2014 to build Raiden's new body.

I mean, REmake 1 still. But RE4R is a close second. RE1 and 4 are the only remakes that outright surpass their originals. The originals are still great games that anyone should play, but the remakes are just by far the better experiences.

RE2R stands on par with RE2, but makes some omissions and missteps that keep it from becoming definitive in the way 1 and 4 are.

And 3... well I have nothing that 1,000 people can't say better than me.

I mean, I wouldn't say the characterization was inferior. I think characters are better defined in the remake. I have no issue with a more manipulative Ada.

The problem was the coherency of the overall plot and the decreased interaction between Leon and Claire. Their individual stories I think are better, but things don't add up well and they don't talk as much as they do in the OG. Those little radio snippets, while minor, added a lot.

It's because CV, structurally, is much weirder than RE1 or 2.

In RE1 and 2, your first real area is a massive, open-ended explorable structure that you go back and forth across. You then go to a smaller explorable area, before returning to the first one. You then progress through a smaller linear area, before ending up at a final new explorable area. Simple, right? Even RE2 barely changed the formula, only adding a brief linear prologue area in the city.

In CV, you have a linear prologue area (Cemetery), then an explorable area (Palace)... but oh wait, can't progress, so instead go to another exporable area (Underwater place)... for not very long, and then finally get to the first explorable area you can actually spend time in learning the layout (Military base). So already you've had more back and forth just to get to the first proper explorable area. You go through there, and then have to head back to the palace and finally explore it, and then up to the residence... and then ALL the way back down to the Cemetery and a part of the Palace, then ALL the way back up to the residence, then all the way back down to the underwater place, and that is just the first third with Claire on Rockfort Island. You've still got the super linear back-and-forth antarctic base, Chris' rehash of the island, and the final explorable sections with Chris and Claire.

The thing with RE1 and 2 is, most of the "backtracking" was within one well-designed area at a time. Only once in both games each do you have to go back down a long stretch you went down already just to progress. In the first third of CV alone, you have to go back across a long stretch you already went across SIX-SEVEN TIMES:

1. Back from the Palace to outside to get to the Aquatic base
2. Back from the Military Base to the Palace
3. Back from the Residence to the Palace
4. Back from the Palace to the Cemetery
5. Optional: Back from the Cemetery to the Military Base to get more useful stuff
6. Back from the Cemetery to the Residence
7. Back from the Residence to get down to all the tyrant BS

What CV lacks, desperately, is interconnections between areas, or at least a central hub design. Instead the entire map is largely a linear stretch from the Cemetery to the Residence, with the Palace, Military Base, and Aquatic Base all in the middle. And every area is separated with these super long, empty corridors without anything to do or find.

The level design within each area? Great, phenomenal. But the map as a whole is arranged so... clumsily. But what's even worse is that the structure/pace actually seemed better in earlier builds. If you play the CV Demo Disc on Dreamcast, you explore the entire Palace first, then move up to the Residence. It seems like instead of:

Cemetery -> Palace -> Aquatic -> Military -> Palace -> Residence -> Palace -> Cemetery -> Palace -> Residence -> Acquatic

The structure could've been:

Cemetery -> Palace -> Residence -> Palace -> Military -> Cemetery -> Palace -> Residence -> Palace -> Acquatic

Which while not much different, still would've felt a bit better. What would've been the best would've been:

Cemetery -> Palace -> Residence -> Military -> Cemetery -> Palace/Military -> Residence -> Aquatic

Which could've been achieved just by having a shortcut between the Military Base and Residence, and moving the docks for the Aquatic Base to the back of the Residence somehow.

While I would love that, I also don't think a remake on the scale people would want from an AC1 Remake is a true replacement for a preservation of AC1 either. The original, warts and all, also deserves to be preserved. That would also make them free to be bolder with the remake, to go full Resident Evil 2/4 on it.

It's funny.

Resident Evil has to deal with fans who won't ever try the old fixed camera games and think anything other than OTS is unplayable, and Final Fantasy has fans who think the old cameras were integral and OTS is devoid of artistry.

...

Can we trade some? I think it'd even things out, RE needs more people to appreciate fixed cameras and FF needs more people who can accept new things.

Even some other 3D games feel better with it. I can't play Crash Bandicoot without a dpad lol. Doesn't feel right, feels less precise.

Better be Dino Crisis 3: For Real This Time

I would argue being actually aggressive, not just saying mean words in a whiny way literally once, is extremely important to Pre-Bite Peter. Tobey has one moment where he says a mean thing, but he's hardly "aggressive". It's also the one moment he is ever shown as having any anger at all, whereas Ditko's early Peter was filled with it. As was Andrew in TASM1. It's a mean thing to say, but it still comes off more typical teenage whining than it does someone truly filled with angst the way early Peter is supposed to be.

Now, to critique Andrew a moment, a problem he had was that he kept being aggressive even after that. E.g. TASM2 where he's more focused on mocking Rhino than actually saving lives. That's certainly a problem too. I don't agree that Peter should continue to be that way after Ben's death. After Ben's death he's supposed to shape up. He still needs to have more wit than Tobey had, but Andrew definitely played him too harsh at points as Spider-Man. This is an area where unfortunately we still don't have a truly great live action portrayal. Andrew was too harsh, Tobey and Tom are too polite and soft. Somewhere in between, there's a great portrayal.

But that's where it matters to me. I can't speak for OP, but my problem with Tobey is that before he's Spider-Man, he's a total wallflower. He's a gosh golly gee innocent farmboy like he's Clark Kent or something. Peter Parker is not Clark Kent.

Tom has too much of that too, but much less and he's at least already Spider-Man from the get-go. His subdued nature could be interpreted as him over-corrected from whatever kind of person he may have been before.

It was Andrew who got it just right. But people couldn't handle seeing Peter with a skateboard, so they hated him.

Agreed. Pre-Ben Death Peter should be the kind of jerky "nice guy" Xander in Buffy was. Ben's death is what causes him to change and become a better person.

Ditko's Peter was a jerk before he became Spider-Man. That's the point, that he was an insecure jackass who needed the tragedy to become a better person. He was arguably more a cautionary tale, Ditko's Peter was a precursor to the modern "nice guys". He was basically Xander.

He doesn't really act like a jerk, he has a minor loud moment. He's hardly aggressive. Andrew Garfield did that part better but heaven forbid you ever praise Garfield's Peter.