After RE6 is over, they need to focus on remakes. We all want RE2 remade...

[Chris' Boob]

That re-design of the RPD is quite an amazing picture.

[Undead Sega]

I only want Resident Evil 2 to be remade (in the style and intention of RE:Make) by Platinum Games.

[Stu]

No remakes for fuck's sake. Rubbish idea. Move on. The original games are classics, why risk tainting them?

[Xander Ashford]

Like most of the rest of you, I would only be interested in seeing remakes if done in the style of Biohazard Rebirth; however, I strongly believe that any remake from this point on would heavily mimic something like Operation Raccoon City (A more action-paced game) or Resident Evil 4/5. The survival and horror aspects would be completely lost, and then people would complain incessantly about how the original principles are lost. I think remakes are a dangerous territory because you will NEVER appeal to everyone. Some people will like the remake simply because it revisits a story they liked, but enhances it visually. While others will simply hate it and find every minor change to be unacceptable. Why take that risk if you were Capcom? Especially if you have witnessed success with games like Resident Evil 4 and 5. This is the style of game we will continually see because it is what seems to appeal to the masses these days.

Me, personally, I enjoy both the pre-RE4 genre and the post-RE4 genre. I can appreciate aspects in both, and I understand that all good things come to an end. I do believe Resident Evil will eventually reach a breaking point to where it just simply cannot continue without being too stupid. At this point, I could definitely see remakes of older games being done.

I would love to see CODE: Veronica touched up, and made into something better, but I think Darkside Chronicles is as close as I'm ever going to get to a remake.

Though, I also agree with Sean, that we shouldn't just tosh aside the original work simply because it isn't modern, but that seems to be the video game industry these days. Once a new system comes out, how quickly some forget where a series' roots are. Another question on the matter: When should remaking stop? After all, a remake will at some point be just like its predecessor and be seen as out-dated and poor graphics.

[Reston]

A remake is really a bad idea, in my opinion.

Let me play devil's advocate here and say they go back and remake the remake and follow through remaking the rest of the games (RE2, RE3, RES, REDA, RE0, RE4, REUC, REDC and RE5 ((if you want to include REOutbreak, fine)) ). Besides the cost of development and time wasted we would be right where we left off by the time they reach RE6 remake again, lol.

Seriously. What will happen when they go back and remake the remake and follow through remaking the rest of them? It's nonsense and it says, "we're desperate for money and we have no new ideas."

The REmake was a good idea because that game had very clunky controls, horrible V.O., and graphics weren't the finest. Of course it's nostalgia and it'll always have a place in mine and many others heart but the REmake caught the atmosphere just perfect.

I'll say it again, we're not getting classic fixed camera and the old days of puzzles. There is nothing wrong with RE2 and RE3 except they could be polished up but they are classics and they are good the way they are. A over-the-shoulder RE2 would be pointless as someone else previously stated that the RPD section would be over very quickly. As for RE3, you got ORC, you don't need a remake of RE3.

What Capcom could do after RE6 and hopefully they lurk in these forums and maybe get some ideas, is to go back and fill in the missing time periods. They already set themselves up for that and they apparently did it with Revelations. They could go into 1999-2002 and do something there with Umbrella (like they did with Dead Aim).

And if you want post-Umbrella, they can continue with B.S.A.A. stories involving other major popular locations. It's not like they need to go back and reboot the series because after RE6 they're SOL when it comes to ideas.

There really is no need for remaking or rebooting the series at this point. Just because it's become the norm since 2002 doesn't mean it's a good idea.

edit: oops, forgot to include CV.

[Deus Flux]

First of all The Thing (2011) is a prequel to the one in 1982, not a remake. The 1982 film is a 'loose' remake of The Thing from Another World (1951). Just FYI.

Nope. The thing (1982) is not a remake, it's an original interpretation. The thing from another world is a very loose adaptation from the story 'Who goes there'. The thing (1982) is another adaptation from the same material (just like both Solaris films).

[CODE_umb87]

Nope. The thing (1982) is not a remake, it's an original interpretation. The thing from another world is a very loose adaptation from the story 'Who goes there'. The thing (1982) is another adaptation from the same material (just like both Solaris films).

While John Carpenter's film is a more faithful adaptation, most people still consider it a remake since it borrows some original concepts from the 1951 film, such as the title screen. It's not a conventional remake.

[News Bot]

No remakes please. More stories like Revelations and less redundant shit like Operation Raccoon City instead.

[BeefWellington]

I would love to see a RE2 remake

[Vixtro]

While John Carpenter's film is a more faithful adaptation, most people still consider it a remake since it borrows some original concepts from the 1951 film, such as the title screen. It's not a conventional remake.

Most people are dumb then. (< Nothing new)

The Thing (2011) is NOT a remake of John Carpenters The Thing, it is a prequel, it is about what happens to the Norwegian team who first discovered the 'Thing' and how it led up to the point of the opening scene in John Carpenters The Thing. Just because it borrows concepts from the original 1951 film: 'The Thing from Another World'; doesn't change anything.

This is just like what people are saying about Ridley Scott's Prometheus. Too many people think it's a remake of Alien because Fox said "reboot" a few times, but this was before they established a proper script. Prometheus is a prequel to Alien.

[CODE_umb87]

The Thing (2011) is NOT a remake of John Carpenters The Thing, it is a prequel

If you're referring to me, I kinda already stated this earlier.

Regarding the 1982 film, it has been regarded as a 'ostensible' remake for many, MANY years. Obviously it's not a 'remake', even though many consider it to be. It's just like "28 Days Later" being considered a zombie film, when in fact it's not, yet it's still under that category.

[Wrathborne]

Most people are dumb then. (< Nothing new)

Especially those who resort to name calling.

Vixtro, The Thing 2011 is a "premake". Its part prequel and part remake.

Its not really one or the other and is in the middle. That's one of the reasons it got so many negative responses. They're pretty much copied the formula of the Carpenter version and worked around it in a few cases too, but they didnt really do their own thing.

I liked some of what they did in the film, but in the end what I liked were all the scenes that were almost mirrors of the carpenter scenes.

...Though I will give them credit for the splitface scene when the Thing falls to pieces attacks them and you see how it becomes split face, but they didn't have enough of their own ideas to make the film stand on its own two feet.

Sorry to disagree with you on the "premake".

anyone else find it funny so many people are saying no reboots and remakes, but go back and say ' but remaking RE2 is OK"

[Vixtro]

If you're referring to me, I kinda already stated this earlier.

Regarding the 1982 film, it has been regarded as a 'ostensible' remake for many, MANY years. Obviously it's not a 'remake', even though many consider it to be. It's just like "28 Days Later" being considered a zombie film, when in fact it's not, yet it's still under that category.

I consider the 1982 film a spiritual remake of the original 1951 film. 28 Days Later, it's definitely not a Zombie film, but hey, most people these days are all too quick to point and say "Zombie!!!" to any person that seems mindless and is trying to harm others.

Especially those who resort to name calling.

Name calling? Just stating facts. But seriously, that comment was semi-sarcasm, it was just a quicker way to express the common ignorance of the general public.

Vixtro, The Thing 2011 is a "premake". Its part prequel and part remake.

Its not really one or the other and is in the middle. That's one of the reasons it got so many negative responses. They're pretty much copied the formula of the Carpenter version and worked around it in a few cases too, but they didnt really do their own thing.

I liked some of what they did in the film, but in the end what I liked were all the scenes that were almost mirrors of the carpenter scenes.

...Though I will give them credit for the splitface scene when the Thing falls to pieces attacks them and you see how it becomes split face, but they didn't have enough of their own ideas to make the film stand on its own two feet.

Sorry to disagree with you on the "premake".

anyone else find it funny so many people are saying no reboots and remakes, but go back and say ' but remaking RE2 is OK"

I totally understand what you're saying, The Thing (2011) has the overall overlay that it is copying key events and situations that play out in the 1982 film. Still, given that they decided to make it a prequel and not a remake, it had to tie into the original film, so there was little they could do to change much that was established in the 1982 film without damaging any and all credibility. To me, it looked like they were just playing it safe by keeping the creature true to the 1982 film whilst making (good?) use of today's technology to make it look "updated".

At the end of it all, we got a respectable prequel, nothing stellar like John Carpenters masterpiece, but they could have done allot worse, making it really whacky and not tie in with the 1982 film well enough at all.

anyone else find it funny so many people are saying no reboots and remakes, but go back and say ' but remaking RE2 is OK"

So yeah, back on topic, () I think the reason people feel a remake of RE2 would be "OK" is because of how great and successful REmake was. I know that I myself never thought of a remake of RE2&3 until after I had played REmake. Before RE4 was released, I think an RE2make and even an RE3make would have been awesome. Now though, I really doubt it since RE4 has changed the series for what seems; keeps.

[Aleff]

Not sure if I would want a RE2 remake, but the Outbreak #2 RPD level is enough for me, I guess

[Det. Beauregard]

^ If you're okay with the third floor of the RPD not existing...

Pfft.