Personally, I didn't think 4 needed a remake. With 2 and 3, there are a lot of people who couldn't handle tank controls and the graphics and other stuff. 4 is what made RE more accessible.
I wonder if they're gonna keep this up after 4. 1-4 are pretty beloved. A lot of people think 5 is where the series really went south, and 6 is where everyone agrees it had gone south. Would they remake 5? 6? I feel like if they were gonna do more 2-4 style remakes, they should do 1 or CV. Those could use it.
I'm still sad we didn't get a higher effort full remake of 3, including all the areas, the branching story bits, a more involved Nemesis system, etc. Imagine if they expanded the game and had a legit massive open Raccoon City streets. I enjoyed 3make, but it was totally just a 2make DLC and the waste of potential for what it COULD have been and probably never will be now is the problem.
Honestly, how can anyone defend RE7 and 8? They're clearly unrelated games that just had RE slapped on them last second to sell in what they considered a dead franchise.
I can see what you're saying, and sort of agree. I was annoyed how people were like "Wow, Capcom is revolutionizing Survival Horror!" when RE7 just did what so many horror games on Steam for the last 10 years had been doing. You're right that RE7 and 8 could have been new IPs. 8 was a level of camp and jump the shark action schlock on-par with RE5/6, at least.
But then again, I remember people saying the same about RE4. "Where's the zombies? Why is the camera different? This isn't Resident Evil!"
Bring me vampire mommies, give me psycho rednecks, I'm hoping the 3rd game will lean into Lovecraft next with a quiet coastal town.
"We heard how much y'all loved Vampire Mommy in 8, so we're bringing you Fish Mommy in 9."
"W... what kind of Fish Mommy?"