Alright... This is gonna be a long one... So you better go grab some popcorn.
Canas Renvall
The idea of a... semi-open world Raccoon City would really give you a sense of hopelessness with all the destruction, unlike being in the few streets and alleys (and the gas station
razz ). Also, the idea of a real-time Nemesis could really get your pulse pounding, especially with worrying if you're being too loud or not..
Even if RE3 was the most action oriented out of the original trilogy, it still had that creepy stillness to it. And there's NOTHING that keeps features that you just mentioned from working for a static camera angle. The loudness effect, the real-time Nemesis, it all would work just fine with static cameras.
Canas Renvall
The reason I think RE3 could work with the RE4/5 camera system is,
Now, see? There's the first problem right there. And I actually think it's a problem with all gamers and gaming in general these days. Look at your wording, "could work"... See, that's the problem with the way games are evaluated these days, it's too robotic. "Graphics good? Gameplay good? Game good!" That's bullcrap. That eliminates all personal opinion. And maybe that works for professional reviewers, but screw them, I don't even consider them real gamers. Like, are graphics good in Dead Space? Yes. Is the gameplay solid? Yes. Does it work? Yes. But I hated it, and that's my personal opinion.
What I'm trying to say is, it's not about what COULD WORK. Ratchet and Clank COULD WORK as an FPS. Do we want it to be an FPS? Canas, I think you an I are both gonna answer "Hell no" to that. My point is, Resident Evil is what it is. (I'm talking about classic RE here). Yes, there are a number of ways one could approach making a game like that, but it was originally made with static cameras, and that's how it should be. However, I don't even entirely agree with you on that.
Canas Renvall
as it is the most action-oriented game in the original trilogy, and the remake being the way this person said it, you'd have a camera where say, you hear a wall crashing open behind you and you know it's Nemesis, so you starting running like hell down an alleyway nearby only to find yourself face-to-face with a s**t-ton of zombies clogging it. Turn around, Nemesis is right there. Screwed is you.
See? That's just depressing. If Resident Evil has come down to nothing but being hopelessly outnumbered by the enemies everywhere, then that's not Resident Evil. Resident Evil used to be about 2 or 3 zombies in each hallway, or surrounding a room, and slowly creeping towards you, and you going, "Oh crap, which one do I kill first? Will I have the time to escape before the next one gets to me?" Not about overcrowding it to the point where you'd need a grenade to clear the way. No thank you, RE4.
Canas Renvall
Also, let's be honest, the story of RE3 isn't the strongest, and like he said... aside from a few events, there isn't a ton of story development in the game, so remaking Raccoon City like that wouldn't ******** up any canon.
Actually, I dunno if it would ******** it up or not. But that's just not true, Canas. RE3 had more character development than either RE1 or 2 (and no, "I'm just a woman. And I'm in love with you" doesn't count for decent character development), and while I didn't calculate it exactly, just from playing it, I could tell that it has more dialogue to gameplay ratio than RE1 or 2. So it has even more of a story than either of those two games.
Canas Renvall
So, in closing... Would I want static camera angles? Naturally, that's a given. But the way they described it, there's no reason they couldn't take the camera angle they created for 4 and turn it into something actually scary (for once).
Well, the fact that they've made two games with the behind the back camera angle and neither of them HAVE been scary, means Capcom just isn't capable of making that type of gameplay scary. Asfar as COULD WORK goes, yes, if RE3 was made (or remade) how you say, then it might be a fun, balanced game. But frankly, I don't believe it would be scary. At least not in Capcom's hands.
The only game that had behind the back camera and was genuinely scary was Siren. That's it.
Canas Renvall
Either that, or that could be Outbreak File #3. Minus Nemesis, but adding something like the Axeman or some Tyrant or something. And of course, online play.
razz Not saying that it should have online play if it's RE3 (keep it single-player please), but if it's Outbreak then it would be a must.
Now, see? That's a different story entirely. And now I'm gonna write a huge a** article about why.
Mind you for the purpose of the following, we'll ignore the fact that Capcom took the RE storyline, ate it, and then gave us what they crapped out. Let's say the storyline is still half decent, just for comparison purposes.
Case File #1: Side Story Games
Resident Evil (at it's purest) is a survival horror game with tank controls and fixed camera angles. That's what it is. And nothing else. For this example, I'll use the Mortal Kombat franchise. Just because it's a fighting game with probably the strongest storyline. In any case. So, MK is a fighting game that uses the classic setup with fighters being on the opposite sides of the screen and the health bars on top. That's what Mortal Kombat is, at it's purest. And nothing else.
Now, they've made several adventure games based on the franchise as well. All side stories, such as MK Mythologies Sub-Zero.
So that's what it comes down to. Is it okay for a pure franchise to make a side story with different gameplay? Sure! Dead Aim was fun if you ignore Morpheus' tits. Frankly, I wouldn't have minded an RE side story where it's made like an action shooter, except not against zombies, but rather against Umbrella soldiers.
See, it's simple as that, you say, "Well, this side story we're trying out different gameplay, just for this game. It's NOT a horror game. It's just placed in the same universe." That's fine.
Going back to the Mortal Kombat example. Yes, they've made some adventure games, but it's okay, because even if you hated it, you know there will be another MK fighting game, what MK truly is.
So the same with Resident Evil. If, like you say, they made a behind the back game in Raccoon City, say, Outbreak File 3, that'd be fine, because it's just a side story. But when it comes to the central plot, it should be true to the original gameplay. To what Resident Evil truly is.
Case File #2: Remakes
a. True to the Source Remake
For this analogy, I'll use the music industry.
Imagine that Resident Evil 1 is the first album of your favorite band. Now, when they started out in 1980s, they were still fairly indie, and recorded their first album in some low budget studio and released it on Casette Tape. You happened to get your hands on a copy of it, and you fell in love with the sound of it. You fell in love with the melodies, the lyrics and the style they were putting out, even though the quality was lacking.
Now, REmake... So, several years later, when the band became really popular, they said, "Let's take that first album and remake it." They took their oriringal source sheet music, and all that stuff. They redid the whole album in a big budget studio, with new, better instruments. Made the same album but it sounds so polished and gleaming with production quality. Also, they added a song that was cut from the original album and a few new songs to boot, and some of the existing songs have some extra guitar solos, or whatever it is your band does. By the analogy that's Remake. It's the same game. Same gameplay style, same camera angles, same scenes. The only difference being the few new features, and the extra levels. The extra levels being those new guitar solos. Now, if you absolutely hated the idea of Lisa Trevor and the few changes in the architecture. Then you hated those extra guitar solos, and you'll just stick to listening to the original album. Or in the real world, stick to playing the original game.
But for most people, it was good, it felt right, it didn't bastardize the source material. And for the vast majority, that's the one definitive version of that album/game.
That could fail, too. Maybe the band put a new guitar solo into every song, and you happen to hate those guitar solos. The video game equivalent to that would be MGS: Twin Snakes. It's MGS1 for all intents and purposes, but they redid the action scenes in the cinematics, and I'm very aware that many fans of MGS didn't like that, and choose to ignore Twin Snakes as their definitive MGS. Honestly, not me, I like Twin Snakes and for me, if I was to replay the series, I'd play Twin Snakes instead of MGS1. But that's just me.
But the point is, going back to Remake. The gameplay, the camera angles, everything was true to the source, and that's the right way to make a REMAKE. It was remade with the new technology available.
b. Different Genre Remakes
Now, if you remake a game with completely new gameplay... Again, using the music industry example. It's a remix for all intents and purposes. The RE1 scenario in Umbrella Chronicles is basically a techno remix of the first album's remake. And while it can be an interesting interpretation of it, it's not definitive. We all know that. Who in their right mind takes the RE1 and RE3 scenarios of Umbrella Chronicles as canon?
Another video game example would be Mortal Kombat again. Their last adventure game, Shaolin Monks was meant to be a different genre remake of MK2. It's a completely different game. It felt like a God of War type game more than a Mortal Kombat type game. Now, was that game not fun? No, it was fun. And if they hadn't butchered the storyline (to the point where even the Midway staff said it's not Canon) it'd be a fine example of a different genre remake that works.
But even if it was true to the original story, and even if it looks and plays great... It will never replace MK2 as the definitive Mortal Kombat 2 game.
So if I were to use the Resident Evil example... Imagine if they did remake RE3, made it into an over the shoulder game, butchered the storyline, and then said it's not canon. That's fine. Because they said it's not canon. It's fun to play. But it does not replace the original.
Back to the music industry example. Fear Factory's second album was remixed and re-released as pretty much an industrial techno album as opposed to the industrial metal that they actually play. Is it a cool interpretation to listen to? Sure, it is. Does it replace the original? HELL NO!
So the same with RE. Yes, if they remade RE3 with behind the back camera, it might be a fun game to play. But there's no way it could replace the original RE3.
And when it comes to remakes, maybe YOU want it to be just for fun. But personally, to me, a remake means a definitive version of the game. Like, REmake, is the definitive version of what happened in RE1, for me. It completely replaces RE1.
And if they make it just for fun, then I see no point in playing it. Had the storyline in Umbrella Chronicles not been butchered, the only reason I'd see to playing it would be the new scenarios.
Imagine if Metal Gear Solid 1 was remade in the Metal Gear Ac!d style gameplay. Would it be fun? Sure. Would it be the definitive version of the game? Hell no!
Imagine if they remade FF7 as an action RPG. Could it be fun? Sure. Would it replace the original FF7 as the definitive version? Only if you're a Square-Enix sheep who buys everything they put out without descrimination or half a brain given.
Some things aren't meant to be remade. And as much as I'd like to see RE3 in new updated graphics, if it's remade with a different style of gameplay, like rail shooter or behind the back camera, I would NOT play it.
Or let's use another example, since I've given up on RE. Something that could probably use a remake.
I guess we'll use Silent Hill... Shattered Memories is supposed to be a reimagining, and areboot of the franchise. So it doesn't really count as a remake for me. Because it's the equivalent to SH1 what Tomb Raider anniversary is to TR1. But, let's say aside from Shattered Memories, they're planning to create a true to the original remake of Silent Hill 1, and do it with updated graphics. Would I want that? Sure. But if they made it in another genre. Or heck, if they made it in the gameplay style of Homecoming... Could it work? Could it be fun? Sure. Would it replace the original? No. And therefore there's no point of me playing it.
So, in conclusion, like I said, Could Work is a bad way to suggest new gameplay styles. Because a lot of things could work. But Resident Evil 1 2 and 3, with the fixed camera angles and no HUD whatsoever. No on screen interface while you're in-game. It felt like playing a movie. And if it were any other way... Let's say, if RE1 and 2 were as they are, and RE3 was remade in the style of RE5, then I'd see no point in playing it.
And that's another thing. The behind the back camera that Capcom brought up came with the on screen button prompts and a health bar in the corner. And I think I hated those things more than I hated the camera itself. Resident Evil's immersion came from the screen being 100% dedicated to the scene. If the remake had a Health Bar on the screen, I would've liked it about 75% less.