Boo! Resident Evil 0 HD Released

Why don't you make like a tree and- wait, are you a tree? Or... yeah, well, look, just get out of here.

Cor, have you been following the Resident Evil 4 HD Project? I’m still amazed by their attention to detail in recreating textures and tweaking models, and even tracking down places Capcom photographed for texture bases.

In comparison, Capcom’s own official HDifications of the survival horror series are a bit unexciting. But hey, they are bringing the games to PC and they are making them play nicely with modern systems and whatnot, so sure! The 2002 prequel Resident Evil 0 [official site] is their latest, released yesterday. It’s the one with all the leeches.

The Resident Evil 0 HD Remaster does have a load of recreated textures, to be clear, and it’s certainly far fancier than the GameCube original release. And as RE0 was never released for PC, hey! RE0 is now on PC! It’s added 5.1 channel surround sound, modernised controls, and so on too.

It also has a new mode, a Wesker Mode where Bertie stops pretending that he can’t run around at 50mph and shoot lasers out his eyes. You get to murder everyone real hard!

I could not tell you much about Resident Evil 0. I’m one of those bums who only started with RE4, see, and only got round to the first game over the holidays. I played about an hour of the RE1 HD remake and got bored. Sorry, everyone. But how about that bit in RE4 where Leon S. Kennedy suplexes people so hard their heads explode, yeah? Ace.

RE0 HD is on Steam for £15.99. Have a launch trailer:


  1. Spuzzell says:

    What I think:

    Incredibly old fashioned and clunky and a bit shit, but you get used to it.

    Looks nice though.

  2. dethtoll says:

    This was never the best of the old-school REs. Clunky and difficult, trying to manage two characters at once is a pain in the ass.

    It’s rewarding if you like old-school surhors, and if you care at all about Resident Evil’s storyline this is a treasure trove of information, but it’s not gonna win any awards in and of itself.

    ReMake, meanwhile, is quite possibly one of the greatest remakes ever.

    • Baines says:

      “Never the best” is honestly being a bit kind, unless you want to include all the spin-off games as well to lower the bar.

      • dethtoll says:

        Most of the spinoffs are fine, if not as good as the main series. The only one that I’d conclusively chuck out the window is that silly GBC one.

  3. piedpiper says:

    I have no clue how someone can get bored with Resident Evil 1. It’s beyond my imagintaion seriously.

  4. A7ibaba says:

    It looks like sh*t. And they call this “remastered” for PC ?! Maybe 2004,today not.

    • Capt. Bumchum McMerryweather says:

      It looks fine to me. It’s been remastered, not remade, so all the existing stuff has been tweaked. Besides who really gives a shit about graphics these days? As long as a game runs at my monitor’s native res i really don’t care how advanced the shader model is.

  5. Nyarlathotep says:

    I am so upset that they did not even bother fixing the issues in the previous remaster, namely the game rendering at 1440p no matter which resolution you pick, which made it unplayable for my modest laptop.

    You can fix it with a patch (few KB) made by the community, but I’m furious they did not even bother acknowledging the issue with either game, and that most people just dismiss it with “it’s ur ryg dudz ok? lol”

    Never mind that the pre rendered textures look like crap with a big resolution (2560×1440).

    It blows my mind that editors sell this as a remaster while it’s basically already obsolete.

  6. SomeDuder says:

    “And the world will burn in an inferno of hate, muhaha” Oh come on, how can you not love this? Or “Jill sandwich”? No?

    I gues you had to have grown up with these games be able to appreciate the hams you control, but next discount this appears in, I’m buying.

    • dethtoll says:

      Resident Evil’s roots in old horror really shine through in the older games, yeah.

  7. Unsheep says:

    The early Resident Evil and Silent Hill games are as much puzzle, strategy and adventure games as they are action games, so focusing too much on the combat controls is to miss a great deal of what these games are all about. They are not shooters.

    Most older third-person games, whether console or PC, have awkward controls. Considering this is simply a remaster of the original game you need to have realistic expectations.

    Is it logical or rational to expect a remaster of such an old game to look and play like a modern triple-a title ?! No it is not.

    A ‘reMASTER’ simply means ‘an enhancement in the graphics and sound quality of the original release’. All it means is that it will look and sound better than the original.

    A ‘reMAKE’ is a different thing entirely. A reMASTER is not the same thing as a reMAKE. A remake is the same as a reboot.

    Tomb Raider 2013, Elite Dangerous, Thief 2014, Star Wars Battlefront 2015, XCom Enemy Unknown etc. are all reMAKES of some previous original game.

    Home World Remastered, Grim Fandango Remastered, Metro Redux, Turok Dinosaur Hunter etc. These are all reMASTERS.

    Its not just about semantics. A reMASTERED music album is one where the sound quality has been improved. With a reMASTERED game its not only the audio that has been improved but also the visual quality. That is what a reMASTER is. You take something old and polish what is already there. You might add or alter a few things but the vast majority of the elements are the same as before.

    A reMAKE logically implies that you ‘make’ something, you build something. Its more than simply a polishing of a previous game, you re-create the original game, you build a new version of it.

    • Kitsunin says:

      Well you’re close, but that isn’t what a remake is. Tomb Raider 2013 etc. are not remakes. A remake is something made again from the ground up, directly tied to a certain product. Resident Evil 2002 is a remake because it’s the same plot and gameplay of the original Resident Evil, but rebuilt from the ground up with a lot of things changed. The DS versions of Final Fantasy III and IV are also examples of remakes, while the mobile versions of Final Fantasy V and VI are examples of remasters.

      Redux is the word which describes Tomb Raider and such. They’re bringing back the old characters and story, and maybe even throwing the old canon away, but they aren’t really rebuilding anything specific.

      • TillEulenspiegel says:

        “Remaster” is arbitrary nonsense when applied to games, a half-coherent analogy to music and film, where you have an actual master tape.

        There are plenty of “remakes” which reuse original game logic code.

        • Kitsunin says:

          Um, I mean yeah, there isn’t a literal definition, so of course it’s a bit arbitrary, but I think the distinction between remaster and remake is pretty damn clear. A remaster is a cleaning up of an old game: Making it so it works with modern systems and expectations, and perhaps throwing in a cherry on top (bonus content or a graphical overhaul). Ultimately only something worth bothering with if you wanted to play or replay the original anyway.

          Yes, you aren’t literally remastering it because yes, mastering isn’t a part of the game development process, but the name is the same because the process of “remastering” a game gives you a result with the same essence as a remastered song.

          And yeah, there are remakes which reuse original code, I mean, there are entire games which reuse code from older games, holy shit you’re being literal.