• We've completed one of the biggest updates to our forums in years and have pushed the update live! New forum structure that's all inclusive, prefix system categorizes topics per game title. More thread options such as articles, questions, deep dives, etc. Read more in the pinned thread!

RE:2 RE:2 Director’s Cut

mert20004

Mert_BIO_6
First of all, changes in a remake is to be expected.
"Remakes" of a game have been around since the early 90's or even earlier, except we don't call these "remakes", we simply called them "ports".
When you port a game from one platform to another that has a higher graphical capability, sometimes it's expected for the game to be remade from the ground up with some changes, like Lunar from Mega CD to Saturn or the several Ys ports.

Regarding the RE2 remake itself, I am not "bothered" by the changes at all.
There are some that I disagree with but overall, it did not ruin my enjoyment of the game.

The removal of the A/B scenario is something that I can live without, since it's nothing more than an overrated gimmick.
The idea of "your actions in one campaign affects the other" seemed "innovative" way back when I first played the game in 1998 but after experiencing more "zapping" system in other games, the one implemented in RE2 is simply too gimmicky and out of the way.

RE1 already showed that the outcome of your actions can occur in the exact same campaign you are playing and there's no need to go out of the way to push it to another campaign.
Other games like Siren has a "zapping" system that is not only deeper but is necessary for you to get the true ending.
RE2's "zapping" system feels like they just want different outcomes for the sake of having different outcomes and it doesn't affect the ending or anything.

"Zapping" system works best in a campaign with scripted character change, like in Code: VERONICA.
If you try to mix "zapping" and a "select any character you want", then that makes the A/B thing necessary for balancing.
Such setup is inefficient and I bet nobody can figure a way around it if you try to write your own "zapping" system that also has a "character select" format, without resorting to an out-of-way solution like the "A/B" system.
From a development perspective, this is too wasteful and time-consuming.

Straightforwardly, the remake did a much better job at being a "horror game" than the original.
I had a lot of fun with the original when it was fresh back in 1998 but I'm not the kind of idiot who lets nostalgia dictate my judgement.
Looking back at it now, the original is too clunky, gimmicky and imbalanced.
This is especially when you consider that it's supposed to be a "horror" game (or "Survival Horror" if you will) that has a purpose of keeping the players on their toes.

The "wide hitscan aiming" shooting system in the original means that you can just point your bullet-fed gun in the general direction of the enemy and fire, you'll virtually never miss.
"Limited ammo" is kind of a dumb thing to bring up with such aiming.
And let's not forget the game even gives you an auto lock-on to quickly face an enemy when you draw your weapons.
The lock-on and wide hitscan are two separate things and even if you turn off the lock-on in the menu, you can still automatically hit the enemy but just pointing the gun at their general direction.

The pinpoint shooting in the remake feels much more natural in challenge.
Not only you are manually landing your shots but you also have to make your shots count, as you hit parts to either maximize damage or cripple the enemy.
When you think about those decade-long argument about how horror games are supposed to be "challenging" and "tense", wouldn't a more manual shooting scheme be a suitable choice than a "hit enemies automatically by aiming at their general direction" system?

Wide hitscan shooting also bypasses other factors that comes with firing a gun, like recoil or muzzle rise.
There's a significant difference in how the muzzle rise of Leon's burst-fire handgun causes him to miss two out of his three shots at a zombie and how the aim assist in the original allows Leon to juggle a zombie dog in the air, automatically landing all three hits from the burst-fire.

And speaking of operating a gun, who could forget the convenience of stopping time to reload in the original RE2?

Certain players will always tell you that "running away from zombies is the best strategy".
But that was because zombies can't follow you through rooms, most of the time.
In the original, not only zombies are basically trapped in the rooms they appear, exiting and reentering the room causes them to reset their position back to their starting points, making them predictable.
Simply running away is still possible but now has a much higher risk, due to how zombies can spill out here and there, turning up unpredictably in a corner when you backtrack.
The zombie you left behind in the morgue may turn up when you're trying to dodge zombie dogs.
This is how your "old school" knowledge may fail you.
Killing and crippling at least some of the zombies may increase your survival.

And then you're basically going through some sort of monster-petting zoo, since you virtually have one enemy type per room.
If a room contains zombies, then that's all you need to worry about.
Meanwhile, you can have a hallway with a Licker, zombie and a Tyrant all together at once in the remade version.
Do you move silently to evade the Licker's detection or run away from the Tyrant?
You won't get this type of situation in the classics.

And speaking of the Tyrant, it's laughable in retrospect, when you think about how it gives up going after you the second you leave the room (but with the exception of the conference room).
Having it hunt you around the precinct is a much more tense experience as you won't know exactly where it is.

Regardless of what was "changed", the remake does a much better job at being a "horror" game than the original.
This is also if you consider all those decade-long arguments about the "true meaning" of "Survival Horror", like how such games need to be challenging, tense and keeps players on their toes.
The RE2 remake would qualify much more.
Yeah as much as ı love re2, it's really an easy game. Though this doesnt bother me since that's one of the reasons why it's more enjoyable than re1. I also feel that way about re6 when compared to re4 and re5 which feels easier, ı figured how the game works and it's really easy and satisfying to go through while re4 and re5 still give me annoyance due to their limitations despite them trying to be revolutionary, especially re4.

Though ı want to explain more things. While ı dont mind 2019 version increasing challenge, at many aspects, this isnt done properly. It has better mechanics but some changed stuff is for the worse.

Like making zombies unnecessarily bullet spongy, ( Though not as annoying as remake, since that game has an annoying crimson head system. ) overusing t-103 along with a terrible mutant form, overusing g monsters rather than a single boss encounter, changed ivies and birkin's mutant forms excluding 1st and 3rd ones.

As for scenarios; a and b scenarios arent cut per say. Since the game still has 2 claire and 2 leon scenarios along with 1st and 2nd run options. I dont mind zapping being cut but honestly they should have also cut 2 of those scenarios and make only 1 claire and 1 leon scenario. That would have been enough. As it stands, the scenarios really feel tedious and repetitive to go through after finishing one and scenarios not being connected to each other only make it worse for me. I wished it was designed more similar to re6 in this aspect. That game doesnt really feel repetitive at all imo, especially when compared to previous and later ones.

Moving and shooting is a nice addition rather than tank controls however that affects your crosshair and ı dont like that at all. It makes that decision less effective. I prefer outbreak file 2, re6 and rerev2's design systems, they feel more comfortable without that crosshair design system. I also dont like that laser is exclusive to some weapons. I wished there was an option that could be switched like in re6 and rerev2. It would also be nice if you could unequip weapons and being able to perform weak melee attacks like in outbreak games. Being able to tackle, kick ( kevin ) or crouch ( cindy ) are gameplay features that ı really wished were implemented in the game for claire and leon.

Having a zombie, licker and tyrant in the same room sounds very cool as a premise however at the same time, t-103 doesnt really try to destroy the other creatures, it overall just pushes and ignores them in favor of targeting the player. I wished it battled lickers like the ones in damnation did, that would have been really cool. In outbreak file 2, tyrant r can defeat hunter r for a short section. I wished that was expanded both from that game and movie and was seen in the game. More with t-103, ı also wished it dropped loot and was stunned for a longer time. It recovers quick from what ı've remember though ı didnt battle it that much unlike og game cause it's really fast and trying to battle it with normal weapons would most likely result in damage taken.

The zombies following through rooms was done before though. It was seen in outbreak games. Other creatures can follow too. So ı think the " This is how your "old school" knowledge may fail you. " statement applies to people who didnt play those games.

And ı dont really care much for " horror " . You could say that's due to me starting with re6 which is considered least horror ( and that's if it is even considered as one since many people still dont accept it as survival horror along with considering re7 as return to roots. ) and not playing any other franchises that are considered in survival horror sub genre. I find horror / survival horror exaggerated due to forced rules made up by fans. I was one of them while being under that belief for a long time until some time around the release of re2 2019; ı've decided not to believe to those anymore and just articulate my opinions more carefully and properly.

I also have a lot of story issues with the game but that's already mentioned so ı would rather not repeat it again.

Regardless re engine version can be enjoyable but ı still prefer og game and darkside chronicles.
 

mert20004

Mert_BIO_6
Which nobody has a valid counterargument against and they try to gloss over this factor as much as possible.
As I mentioned, this is especially when you consider years worth of argument about what "true Survival Horror" means from fans of the older style, implying how the older titles are "superior" to the newer ones due to aspects like "challenge" or "puzzles".
It's hypocritical for them to even try to suggest that "over-the-shoulder/pinpoint aiming will make the game too easy" but forgetting the fact that the original gives you aim assist, auto lock-on and reload while pausing.

It's no surprise that nobody makes these comparison anymore with games like RE7 and RE2:R existing.
That's because if we still follow the same logic, RE2:R will be more "Survival Horror" than any of the classic titles.

First and foremost, Resident Evil 2: Remake is a video game and a "horror" one at that.
If we're still doing comparisons about which is "better", then it's undeniable that the remake is a much more balanced and organic horror experience than the original could ever be.

People can keep sidetracking into miscellaneous aspects like "lore" or "characterization" because nobody has the courage to go head-to-head on how these two games fulfill their purpose as "horror games".
Yeah ı dont like the forced rules about survival horror either. And honestly the newer ones ( Prior to re7 cause that game is considered a return to roots by many fans. ) in terms of their game design, arent that different from older ones either. Sure they emphasize combat, action and killing enemies along with streamlined adventure elements but they still have plenty of exploration and inventory management along with those gameplay elements that those fans praise older games for. This especially applies to re4 and re5 ı think. Re6 is the one that actually feels the most different from older games in these aspects due to focusing on action, combat, setpieces and killing enemies more than any other entry while having the most streamlined of those adventure elements and that still makes the game more fresh and unique imo. And that's not even talking about how the series started to become more action oriented with re2 anyways, even kamiya says it when comparing re2 to re1.

Though ı dont see how talking about lore and characterization is sidetracking. If anything, the ones who make statements like " Horror good, action bad. " , " Who cares about story and characters in re games? " , " Re never had a strong storyline. " , " Characters were always poorly written. " are the ones who act more arrogant by completely dismissing those aspects and forcing others to do the same thing as if horror / survival horror are the only things that should matter.
 
Last edited:
It has better mechanics but some changed stuff is for the worse.
The only major gripe I can think of from the top of my head is the alligator encounter, where it's made into a more scripted chase scene, rather than a more natural boss encounter.
But when you think of it, even in the original, the gas tank method not only instantly kills the Alligator with one bullet but this ensures that it doesn't spill into Scenario B.
Once you figure this out, why would you fight it any other way?
There are no "pros and cons" about fighting it head on or letting it escape to return into Scenario B.

But still there was some "concept art" for a fully functioning alligator boss floating around, seen in one video.
I wish they went with that.
Like making zombies unnecessarily bullet spongy,
Even on Hardcore (the mode I started with) I thought it was pretty balanced, especially when there are alternate methods like having the zombie lie down before you so you can stun-lock it with a knife.
You can also do things like dismember a zombie's legs so they can't leave a room or dismember their legs so they get swept away by sewer water, eliminating them.
There are various methods other than using up all your bullets.
overusing t-103 along with a terrible mutant form,
It makes much more sense for it to stalk around the precinct, rather than giving up on you the second you leave the room like in the original.
This is also a natural progression now that they eliminated loading screens anytime you open a door and the game has enough memory to keep track of enemies around you.
overusing g monsters rather than a single boss encounter,
These makes the sewer levels more interesting and is a fitting choice.

People incessantly yap about "WHERE'S MUH SPIDERS?", when spiders wouldn't make for good encounters in the new updated sewers.
The older sewers are low-ceiling, narrow rectangular hallways, allowing ceiling spiders to get close enough to try and spit or drop poison on you.

The updated sewer design feels more natural, has wider spaces, while the walls and ceilings have become uneven.
Can they even put spiders around there effectively anymore?
Won't the ceiling spiders be too far to be able to do anything?
And the wall spiders would be ineffective "turrets" that can't hit you very well due to the poor range of their acid spit.

So the next best thing is making use of the water itself.
Having the G monsters in the water with you feels like a much more fitting choice in this case.
They could sneak up on you and make use of the water to quickly close-in, unlike the hydrophobic spiders.
t-103 doesnt really try to destroy the other creatures,
Seems to be some sort of deliberate design choice that I disagree with.
I remember how in RE3, there's a cutscene showing a Hunter decapitating a zombie.
I'm interested in seeing more "interaction" between species like this but I guess the developers don't want you to "save ammo" by having the Tyrant kill zombies for you.
Kinda weird that Nemesis actually smashes and blows up zombies in its path to get to Jill back in the original RE3.

Though ı dont see how talking about lore and characterization is sidetracking.
Because what I said earlier.
We are discussing about a video game and yet people avoid talking about the gameplay or avoid comparing the gameplay head-to-head.
The only way anyone can continue pretending "the original is better" is to continue this practice of glossing over and sidetracking towards completely abstract or miscellaneous aspects,

Not only they sound like excuses, it's hard to take any of these seriously after all the hypocrisy I heard involving the subject.
Those who rant about RE2:R do so while also praising the RE1 remake as the "golden standards of remakes" in the same breath.
And when anyone does this, it automatically invalidates some of their arguments, due to double-standards, hypocrisy or just plan ignorance.
 

mert20004

Mert_BIO_6
The only major gripe I can think of from the top of my head is the alligator encounter, where it's made into a more scripted chase scene, rather than a more natural boss encounter.
But when you think of it, even in the original, the gas tank method not only instantly kills the Alligator with one bullet but this ensures that it doesn't spill into Scenario B.
Once you figure this out, why would you fight it any other way?
There are no "pros and cons" about fighting it head on or letting it escape to return into Scenario B.

But still there was some "concept art" for a fully functioning alligator boss floating around, seen in one video.
I wish they went with that.

Even on Hardcore (the mode I started with) I thought it was pretty balanced, especially when there are alternate methods like having the zombie lie down before you so you can stun-lock it with a knife.
You can also do things like dismember a zombie's legs so they can't leave a room or dismember their legs so they get swept away by sewer water, eliminating them.
There are various methods other than using up all your bullets.

It makes much more sense for it to stalk around the precinct, rather than giving up on you the second you leave the room like in the original.
This is also a natural progression now that they eliminated loading screens anytime you open a door and the game has enough memory to keep track of enemies around you.

These makes the sewer levels more interesting and is a fitting choice.

People incessantly yap about "WHERE'S MUH SPIDERS?", when spiders wouldn't make for good encounters in the new updated sewers.
The older sewers are low-ceiling, narrow rectangular hallways, allowing ceiling spiders to get close enough to try and spit or drop poison on you.

The updated sewer design feels more natural, has wider spaces, while the walls and ceilings have become uneven.
Can they even put spiders around there effectively anymore?
Won't the ceiling spiders be too far to be able to do anything?
And the wall spiders would be ineffective "turrets" that can't hit you very well due to the poor range of their acid spit.

So the next best thing is making use of the water itself.
Having the G monsters in the water with you feels like a much more fitting choice in this case.
They could sneak up on you and make use of the water to quickly close-in, unlike the hydrophobic spiders.

Seems to be some sort of deliberate design choice that I disagree with.
I remember how in RE3, there's a cutscene showing a Hunter decapitating a zombie.
I'm interested in seeing more "interaction" between species like this but I guess the developers don't want you to "save ammo" by having the Tyrant kill zombies for you.
Kinda weird that Nemesis actually smashes and blows up zombies in its path to get to Jill back in the original RE3.


Because what I said earlier.
We are discussing about a video game and yet people avoid talking about the gameplay or avoid comparing the gameplay head-to-head.
The only way anyone can continue pretending "the original is better" is to continue this practice of glossing over and sidetracking towards completely abstract or miscellaneous aspects,

Not only they sound like excuses, it's hard to take any of these seriously after all the hypocrisy I heard involving the subject.
Those who rant about RE2:R do so while also praising the RE1 remake as the "golden standards of remakes" in the same breath.
And when anyone does this, it automatically invalidates some of their arguments, due to double-standards, hypocrisy or just plan ignorance.
I dont mind alligator that much actually in re2 2019. I'm glad it's kept though ı still think it was handled better in og game and darkside chronicles. Former has more variety of encounters due to both sherry and ada being possible to encounter it depending to your actions while latter has better boss fight sequence overall along with coop between claire and leon though ı still wished ada encountered it in that game as well. With 2019 version, ı'm still bothered that claire and sherry dont encounter it but ı cant really complain about it that much cause apparently they really forced that monster to appear in the game somewhat.

I never played on hardcore. From what ı've seen; zombies do insane amount of damage and can take player from fine to straight up danger status with one bite. Re7 was already tedious on madhouse from what ı've remember even with unlockables and ı didnt really want to do it for re2 2019, especially after growing even more issues for it eventually. I wished improving health or defense like in re4, re6 and re7 was possible. I know that you can gain more resistance against attacks if you use a mixed herb that contains a blue herb but that seems to be temporary. But regardless ı'm still glad it has a harder difficulty option. Og game didnt have one in many of the versions, it seems to be exclusive to few. I never played those modes and from what ı've seen; ı'm not a fan of them that much.

Regardless ı dont really like zombies in re2 2019 that much. Evading them is difficult due to their huge grab range and characters' movement speed feel slow. Chances are they would be bitten behind when they are trying to evade them. This becomes the worst in ada's section which is simply terribly designed and not fun at all.

I always shot them in the head; ı dont think ı've dismembered their legs. But apparently it depends to chance like critical headshots? I remember seeing that sometimes even shotgun cant destroy their legs with one shot.

I dont mind t-103 stalking player more with improved mechanics but it still didnt need to be in 1st run scenarios. It should have been only in 2nd run scenarios. It lost its charm quick and became more of an annoyance. I still dont know why it's more aggressive while nemesis in re3 2020 is a joke except its 2nd form.

You make good points why spiders dont appear in the game. However ı still prefer darkside chronicles over both when it comes to them. Blowing up little spiders especially is really fun imo. As for g monsters, perhaps another reason why ı dont care for them that much is due to irons' death scene. It's very anti-climactic, especially when compared to og game which has more brutal death scenes for him.

Yeah that reminds me of defending jill section in re3 2020. For some reason, zombies and hunters team up against carlos. Despite og game showing one decapitating a zombie. What a terrible section that is.

I personally care about gameplay and story equally as much as ı can. I dont really like to downplay the latter that much like how many fans do. With re2 2019, if ı have to give the most praise to something, it would be claire's 1st run really. I dont care for leon's that much except kendo and ı cant stand to 2nd run at all. Storywise though, ı see the game a trainwreck. Even re3 2020 isnt as annoying as re2 2019 in this aspect.
 
I won't refute the gameplay as that's obviously more fun and accessible but when it comes to lore it becomes a nitpicky topic. When it comes to RE:2, it has been outright dismissed lore wise to juggernauts of the community like TheBatMan. People will be missing out on key aspects of the lore if they seriously want to go through a deep lore playthrough of the entire series, which the "remake" failed at achieving because the B scenarios was too much work for them to make more unique.

This all started when they took RE6 criticism too seriously, like they went far and beyond to make sure no other RE would be like it ever again; and that means overall game content as well. It's just sad because I wanted more out of RE:2, I was able to plat it in a day which shouldn't be achievable for a game geared towards deep survival mechanics, so it failed in that regard. Again, its a fun game and its one of my favorites despite it's flaws, but you cant deny it failed to add more to the lore in a meaningful way, regardless how you feel about the gameplay.

For examples; Leon and Claire meet up like only 2 times, too much Anette focus and how she dies in 2 different ways, Sherry being infected was left ambiguous, fighting the same bosses in the exact same areas as RE1 style, missing areas like RE:3, poor connections to other titles, etc.
 
Last edited:
juggernauts of the community
Oh, another one who needs to bring in "authorities" into his arguments in order to make his words sound more convincing.

You don't see me bolstering my points by bringing up factors like "community juggernaut", "authority" or "the majority", do you?
I didn't write something like "The behemoths of the RE gameplay society approves of the updated gameplay".
I simply wrote my own points loud and clear, while putting together valid comparisons between the original and the remake.

I spoke for myself.

If you have anything to add, please do so in your own words.

The only time I post quotes from other people is if it's from the developers, since these help prove or clarify intentions or purposes behind the scenes.
you cant deny it failed to add more to the lore in a meaningful way,
When it comes to games, I prioritize gameplay and even if there are somethings I dislike about how the lore is handled in a game, I don't put that as a "major gripe" that brings down the game.

As mentioned before, it's also hard to take all these "lore" talks seriously when there's hypocrisy and double standards behind it.
Like people complaining about how there aren't enough conversations between Leon and Claire because their interactions are cut.
Yet people are totally okay with interactions between Barry and Jill being cut in the RE1 remake, the "golden standards of remakes".
It's not just some missing scenes but actual branching paths being cut out.

Or how some people complain about there lacking any explanatory cutscene to why the chopper crashed on the precinct.
And yet nobody has a problem with why there's a hole leading to the basement in the RE1 remake.
Wasn't there supposed to be a cutscene that explains it?
But in the remake the hole is just there.

And Barry's characterization change resulted in a plot hole due to an abrupt script change.
Maybe you think that Lisa Trevor's inclusion is supposed to be a "meaningful addition to the lore"?
Except that Lisa's presence actually had a hand in Barry's abrupt characterization change and the plot hole.
Despite all this, fanboys of the RE1 remake still go about saying "this is how a remake should be" or "this is the gold standards of remakes", while criticizing similar changes in the RE2 remake.
So yeah, I can't take all this double standards seriously.
 

Caffeine Addict

thesaunderschild
I thought the way they did the scenarios was pish and absolute laziness. It was as if the characters were both doing the same things, and fighting the same bosses. Which of course, wasn't the case in the original.

I feel like Capcom rushed the game, despite apparently having a lengthy development time. They didn't really think of how the fans would notice this and complain. They just wanted to reimagine the game to basically skimp on everything.
 

mert20004

Mert_BIO_6
Oh, another one who needs to bring in "authorities" into his arguments in order to make his words sound more convincing.

You don't see me bolstering my points by bringing up factors like "community juggernaut", "authority" or "the majority", do you?
I didn't write something like "The behemoths of the RE gameplay society approves of the updated gameplay".
I simply wrote my own points loud and clear, while putting together valid comparisons between the original and the remake.

I spoke for myself.

If you have anything to add, please do so in your own words.

The only time I post quotes from other people is if it's from the developers, since these help prove or clarify intentions or purposes behind the scenes.

When it comes to games, I prioritize gameplay and even if there are somethings I dislike about how the lore is handled in a game, I don't put that as a "major gripe" that brings down the game.

As mentioned before, it's also hard to take all these "lore" talks seriously when there's hypocrisy and double standards behind it.
Like people complaining about how there aren't enough conversations between Leon and Claire because their interactions are cut.
Yet people are totally okay with interactions between Barry and Jill being cut in the RE1 remake, the "golden standards of remakes".
It's not just some missing scenes but actual branching paths being cut out.

Or how some people complain about there lacking any explanatory cutscene to why the chopper crashed on the precinct.
And yet nobody has a problem with why there's a hole leading to the basement in the RE1 remake.
Wasn't there supposed to be a cutscene that explains it?
But in the remake the hole is just there.

And Barry's characterization change resulted in a plot hole due to an abrupt script change.
Maybe you think that Lisa Trevor's inclusion is supposed to be a "meaningful addition to the lore"?
Except that Lisa's presence actually had a hand in Barry's abrupt characterization change and the plot hole.
Despite all this, fanboys of the RE1 remake still go about saying "this is how a remake should be" or "this is the gold standards of remakes", while criticizing similar changes in the RE2 remake.
So yeah, I can't take all this double standards seriously.
While ı agree with the things you say for remake overall, ı still dont see how it makes re2 2019 any better. If anything, it feels more messy than remake while having an identity crisis. Remake doesnt break the lore in the same way re2 2019 does either so it doesnt feel as trainwreck as that game.

If you dont want to care about story as much as gameplay, then that's fine but at the same time though; ı dont really see how you have issues with remake's story but for re2 2019; you dont have as much. Those story aspects you mention for remake can also be downplayed, especially since remake doesnt replace re1. That's just a false assumption that fans make. Just like reimaginings which dont replace og games either.

If you didnt have as much issue with re3 2020 as you did with other 2; then ı would understand that since that game is more easier to take for what it is compared to those 2 games. I feel that it can be criticised a bit too much. I would prefer the criticisms to be divided between those 3 games better rather than overcriticising one while downplaying the others a lot.
 

mert20004

Mert_BIO_6
This was shared somewhere else and ı want to drop it here, ı agree with the points:

" 1. Some enemies from RE2 are missing. This game also doesn't introduce new enemies unlike RE1 Remake did.

2. Scenario system is a mess. They don't even connect to each other unlike RE2's scenarios or RE6's campaigns.

3. The new ivies are so bad and very lazily designed; the original ones are better. Their only attack is an instant kill grab; that is it. They also look more like zombies. Oh and why can't I use weapons other than flamethrower and grenade launcher loaded with flame rounds to kill them like how I could in RE2? Speaking of grenade launcher; you can't obtain normal grenade rounds for some reason.

4. Weapons really have poor impact, especially shotgun and magnum. They also sound quite bad; compare the upgraded shotgun to the beast in RE2.

5. Breakable knives. Really wished the one that can't be broken wasn't an unlockable and you had it with you right from the start. Honestly I prefer one weak unbreakable knife over multiple breakable knives.

6. In 2nd run; all handgun ammo pickups are replaced with special handgun ammo. ( Those weapons also have weird aiming poses and Claire's gun takes ages to reload. She also had that gun in RE2 and she reloads that thing way better in that game. ) I wished we could find regular handgun ammo without relying gunpowder and the game balanced both types of them.

7. Mr. X is used WAY too much. He should have been exclusive to 2nd run; his scariness started to deplete way earlier and he instead became annoying. Also; what's with the hat? Should had a design similar to the one in Darkside Chronicles.

8. Speaking of Mr. X; I would have liked him to drop ammo when defeated; that felt satisfying to do in RE2. I hope you'll be able to defeat Nemesis in RE3 Remake and he'll drop items when that happens.

9. Why can't I stomp on zombies when they grab my foot?

10. Barely any character interactions. I wished Leon encountered Sherry way earlier in RPD, both Leon and Claire had roles in saving infected Sherry from lab and Ada temporarily saw Sherry. Also why aren't Leon and Claire communicating each other with radios instead of lame papers?

11. 4 scenarios barely have any differences from each other unlike in RE2 where they had good amount of differences.

12. Ada's new backstory is stupid. RE2 Ada's backstory is a lot better while making the game connect better to RE1 Remake.

13. They lazily removed bowgun instead of improving it. They could have added some aspects from RECV like explosive bolts or an upgrade that allows you to fire the weapon in single or burst mode. Instead they made SMG exclusive to Claire which brings me to next complaint...

14. You can't obtain the SMG as Leon like how you can in RE2. It's also better in RE2.

15. Why is Ada's section so obnoxious? Like you could have put a 1st aid spray and some ammunition to her inventory.

16. No Extreme Battle mode. Should have been in the game instead of the atrocious Ghost Survivors episodes.

17. Death scenes have weird blinking effects which is unnecessary.

18. Marvin doesn't recap the events of Mansion Incident unlike in RE2.

19. The game's soundtrack is really generic and it barely plays. Why is the original soundtrack a paid DLC instead of an unlockable?

20. Changing Umbrella's orders feels unnecessary. In RE2, they simply needed the G-Virus. Here; they need Birkin alive as well. The big problem with this is one of the USS soldiers shoot Birkin and they check his body to reach the conclusion that he's dead even though he isn't. What?

21. Wasn't a big fan of the new lab's design and map layout. I think RE2 had a better lab design and map layout.

22. Claire forgets her brother completely ( " That's... that's great news. " ) after Marvin tells her that he's on vacation. She also doesn't sound that surprised when you read Chris' coded letter in her scenario. This affects the ending as well, she isn't really concerned with finding Chris unlike in RE2. ( " I have to find my brother. " )

23. The ending. Why show us Sherry crying over Annette's death only to follow that with the ending that shows Sherry wanting Leon and Claire to adopt her? It just doesn't follow IMO. "
 
identity crisis
And that's the problem right there.
You judge the game under a very specific criteria that has no bearings on the developer's purpose or what the general audience thinks.

You want to continue judging the game that way, fine, go ahead.
But you have to know that such criteria means nothing among the general audience.
Everyone has their own personal criteria for how they want their games.
Some don't care about factors like "faithfulness" or "lore".
 
Last edited:

mert20004

Mert_BIO_6
And that's the problem right there.
You judge the game under a very specific criteria that has no bearings on the developer's purpose or what the general audience thinks.

You want to continue judging the game that way, fine, go ahead.
But you have to know that such criteria means nothing among the general audience.
Everyone has their own personal criteria for how they want their games.
Some don't care about factors like "faithfulness" or "lore".
I dont see how that's a problem.

For me, the game feels confused at what it wants to be and ı'm not so sure how to take it. It's somewhere in between at feeling like a remake and a reimagining and ı feel that the game has an identity crisis due to this. It's not a very faithful remake like the one released in 2002 is but at the same time, it doesnt feel like it's meant to be taken as different from og game as possible like re3 2020 is either.

I dont mind taking risks since darkside chronicles did that and there ı like the drastic changes of its retelling sections overall when compared to og games.

Re2 2019 though still feels confusing. Like for example it's called " Resident evil 2 " or " Biohazard re:2 " on the covers. While og game is called " Resident evil 2 " or " Biohazard 2 " . You can see that the names feel very faithful overall.

With re3 2020; it feels like they wanted to do even more drastic changes when compared to og game, since re2 2019 did that and it was overall very liked. The game is called " Resident evil 3 " or " Biohazard re:3 " on the covers. While og game is called " Resident evil 3 nemesis " or " Biohazard 3 last escape " . So you can see that they wanted to focus at making an even more drastically changed game by removing the " nemesis " / " last escape " names. This is just a small example.

Being faithful doesnt always mean for the better since there could be some aspects left in a game's recreation and they could still feel like an annoyance. Like parallel scenarios and mo disc business in remake or 2 claire and 2 leon scenarios in re2 2019.

But anyway, how do you think the game should be judged exactly? I dont really like identity crisis statement that much tbh, especially when it's said for re6. I considered rerev and re7 having identity crisis due to my opinion which was something like " They cant decide whether they want to be survival horror or action. " but ı scrapped that opinion of mine after figuring out that survival horror is just a marketing term and isnt even a real genre. So far re2 2019 is the game that ı use identity crisis statement for, due to previously explained reasons as well as devs' realism excuses when it comes to cutting / changing some stuff. I wished ı didnt use that but ıdk what else ı could use.
 
I can’t take anything you say seriously either Goldsicke; especially when you misuse words like double standard and attack people for caring about lore. So we are done here; consider yourself blocked by me.
 
the game feels confused at what it wants to be
What was it that the game "wants to be"?
Was it something the creators said themselves?
Re2 2019 though still feels confusing.
You're just overthinking.
Capcom has different marketing decisions in different regions.
It's no different than how Resident Evil 4 was marketed as "Survival Horror" back in Japan but in Europe the packaging tells you "forget Survival Horror".

The guys back in Japan gave the title "Biohazard RE:2", where "RE" on the title stands for "remake".
Marketing staff from other regions have different ideas.
But anyway, how do you think the game should be judged exactly?
As its own title, as its own separate release.

No different than how I judge RE6.
The closed-minded haters judged RE6 based on how "faithful" it is to the rest of the series, using their own made-up criteria that once again, has no bearings on the creators, because the creators have their own rules and idea about what "Resident Evil" or "Survival Horror" means.

Fanboys in general are ruining their own enjoyment by always making up rules, criteria and commandments on what "Resident Evil", "Survival Horror" or "remake" means.
And then they get all upset when Capcom and the rest of the world don't give a fuck about these rules.

The thing I can't stand about this "lore" talk is the general idea that I must give a fuck about it for some reason.

"you cant deny it failed to add more to the lore in a meaningful way," or crap like that.

I can deny it all I want because I don't take "lore" that seriously.
Take that "lore" talk to someone else that cares.

And remember the only reason I'm posting my thoughts here is because you asked me to.
It's not necessarily something that you will like to hear.

So we are done here; consider yourself blocked by me.
I don't troll nor fling insults, so the only reason anyone would want to block me is because they have no means of arguing back what I said.

Pointing out the double standards of REmake fanboys who are oblivious about the cuts and changes in that game did the trick.
 

mert20004

Mert_BIO_6
What was it that the game "wants to be"?
Was it something the creators said themselves?

You're just overthinking.
Capcom has different marketing decisions in different regions.
It's no different than how Resident Evil 4 was marketed as "Survival Horror" back in Japan but in Europe the packaging tells you "forget Survival Horror".

The guys back in Japan gave the title "Biohazard RE:2", where "RE" on the title stands for "remake".
Marketing staff from other regions have different ideas.

As its own title, as its own separate release.

No different than how I judge RE6.
The closed-minded haters judged RE6 based on how "faithful" it is to the rest of the series, using their own made-up criteria that once again, has no bearings on the creators, because the creators have their own rules and idea about what "Resident Evil" or "Survival Horror" means.

Fanboys in general are ruining their own enjoyment by always making up rules, criteria and commandments on what "Resident Evil", "Survival Horror" or "remake" means.
And then they get all upset when Capcom and the rest of the world don't give a fuck about these rules.

The thing I can't stand about this "lore" talk is the general idea that I must give a fuck about it for some reason.

"you cant deny it failed to add more to the lore in a meaningful way," or crap like that.

I can deny it all I want because I don't take "lore" that seriously.
Take that "lore" talk to someone else that cares.

And remember the only reason I'm posting my thoughts here is because you asked me to.
It's not necessarily something that you will like to hear.


I don't troll nor fling insults, so the only reason anyone would want to block me is because they have no means of arguing back what I said.

Pointing out the double standards of REmake fanboys who are oblivious about the cuts and changes in that game did the trick.
As ı said, it's meant to be both remake and reimagining. It's called both by devs. The video shared here shows the game being called as a " remake " in the game.

I'll drop some sources that calls it as a reimagining as well:



" Yoshiaki Hirabayashi: We’ve re-imagined the game but we aren’t rebooting it in the modern era, it’s still set in the same 1998ish period that the original came out in. So there needed to be care taken that objects in the game make sense for that time period. So even the music you might hear on the radio, we want to make sure none of it sounds modern or not of the era. Just before I left for E3 I was driving in my car and Nirvana came on, grunge was obviously very popular in the 90s and I was reminded how important it is to use objects or sounds to help establish a certain period of time. "

" Tsuyoshi Kanda: I really think that your readers and all the fans that’ve waited so long for Resident Evil 2 to be remade will love this reimagined version. Playing this beautiful looking new game whilst having your memories of the original flash back to you as you’re playing is quite special. We are fans too, and we’ve been really excited to bring this to you. It’s been a long time coming, so look forward to our updates between now and January and I really hope you all enjoy the game. " ( It's called both here. )

" Yoshiaki Hirabayashi: So we’ve kept you waiting, huh? Yes, I’m speaking as a producer right now, but my first game on PS1 was Resident Evil 2 as well. I know how much everyone loves it because I love it as well, and I’m also confident this is what you’ve been waiting for and you’re going to enjoy this new reimagined version. "

" “We initially started with the concept of a 50-50 split between essentially untouched content from the original game and then new stuff was added,” reveals Hirabayashi. “But when we put together that concept we realised it was a bit neither here-nor-there… We had to go further. That’s when we started thinking of it as a reimagining of the entire game.

“Since we took that stance, ‘reimagining’ is the word we’ve been using to describe it rather than ‘remake’. I think it gets across a better sense of how much this game has changed.”

But perhaps ‘reimagining’ isn’t quite right, either. Arguably it masks the reverence that’s obvious when you play the new version of Resident Evil 2 – this isn’t an iconoclastic break from the past, the tearing down of a classic, but an attempt to use modern technology and gameplay design to better capture the intention of the original. " ( They are not sure how to describe the game here whether remake or reimagining. )


Here's also this video. The description for it shares sources. They use words like " reimagining " as well. Basically my point as ı previously said.

Re6's situation is different since that's a whole different game as well as a sequel. Re2 2019 is a recreation who's meant to be some sort of remake / reimagining hybrid according to devs. Now ı'm aware re6 has a new " x horror " term but ı dont feel like that ruins the identity of the game per say. Since a game can have different gameplay / story elements mixed together and that's taken to a good logical escalation with the game. This wouldnt ruin a game's identity or make it look like it doesnt know what it wants to be.

I agree with the things you say for re4 and re6, both games are called " survival horror " in their japanese game cover. This also applies to re engine games, again they are also called " survival horror " in their japanese cover. So whether people dont consider them as survival horror due to their some different design choices when compared to past games is really irrelevant and doesnt matter. They might as well not consider them canon and it wouldnt make a difference at them being wrong.

Now ı didnt play any other remake / reimagining in other franchises other than resident evil. Maybe my knowledge might be limited about this. However perhaps calling a product, whether it's a game, a movie, a book, a comic etc. , both remake and reimagining happened other than re engine recreations? Is there an instance where this happens? Or is this exclusive to re engine recreations? Idk ı dont like the idea of something being called both remake and reimagining, it just doesnt feel right. I feel that these strong words make up the identity of the games. Trying to call them both feels like clashing.

I dont mind being entries being taken as their own but at the same time, competition between entries happens on fanbase all the time. It makes others like me also want to do this and ı did that as well. Like when people considered re6 as one of the worst if not the worst entry, it made me want to go back to others to see what's so amazing about them. And eventually ı've come to the conclusion that the way re6 is treated among the fanbase is nonsense and they are doing insane amount of disservice to the effort put into the game.

As for re2 2019, it's hard to take it on its own since the game is a recreation and the game feels like it's both a faithful remake and a on its own reimagining. Between 3 games, ı prefer remake and re3 2020 over it since they feel like they know more at what they want to be when compared to re2 2019. I still prefer 1st 3 games over all of them though.

I personally dont like the " fanboy " word that much though. I feel that's quite rude. So calling people " fanboys " or " hypocrite " isnt really polite. And ripvanx didnt disagree with the things you say regarding remake. So he's not a remake fanboy. He simply seems to be more confused at you not liking remake's changes but being fine with re2 2019.

If people dont want to care about lore, then that's fine. At the same time though, making statements like " Re never had a good storyline. " , " Who cares about story and characters? " , " It was never meant to be serious. " etc. are basically saying rude things while dismissing writers' efforts put into the story scripts.

For example ı dont care much for horror / survival horror; especially due to how much it's exaggerated among the fanbase. It's not even used for every entry since some use different marketing terms. However some use it though to describe all of the games more properly in a group, ı would say action-adventure is more fitting. There are even sources about this and ı created a thread about it.

However if ı said that in a popular place like gamefaqs or reddit, ı would most likely get attacked and be insulted on as if ı have poor taste or something. Horror / survival horror are put into an unnecessary pedestal by the fanbase.

But anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts regardless but if you dont want to discuss anymore, you can end it if you want. I dont mind any of it either way.
 

Caffeine Addict

thesaunderschild
There's a lot of throat babies, shills, meat pullers, glacers and fecal nuggets on GameFAQs that praise the hell out of this flawed remake. They whine about the RE3 remake a lot more often, though. That's something I don't really understand, because the RE2 remake, or whatever you want to call it, is honestly just as guilty of removing stuff and mucking up the storyline, as RE3 is known for doing. So it's like those people who also say that RE5 is a bad game, when it's structurally identical to RE4 in how you play through it. So I don't get that at all.

It's just way too hard to get through to people like that, quite frankly.
 
Re6's situation is different
Ultimately, it's not different.

It's like how someone plays RE6 as their first Resident Evil game, didn't know how the previous entries were like, so they are able to judge it as its own thing with very little bias.

There will be a lot of people who play the RE2 remake first, without ever playing the original or even know it's a remake.
So you will have a case where a lot (or even most) of the general audience judges it as its own title.

A lot of REmake fanboys also aren't willing to admit that they played the remake first but not the original RE1.

For a lack of better word, your problem is how you view things in a very closed-minded point of view, with a criteria about how "things should be" or "how things should play out".
The game industry is more random than you think and you need to consider all sorts of people.

Most people don't read developer interviews anyway.
And I mean it when I say "most people" because that's just how it is.
Someone walks into a game store or browses through an online catalog, sees the game, buys it, plays it and decides they like it, regardless of the history surrounding it.

There's really nothing you can do about what the general audience thinks and if they like the game for their own reasons.
 

mert20004

Mert_BIO_6
Ultimately, it's not different.

It's like how someone plays RE6 as their first Resident Evil game, didn't know how the previous entries were like, so they are able to judge it as its own thing with very little bias.

There will be a lot of people who play the RE2 remake first, without ever playing the original or even know it's a remake.
So you will have a case where a lot (or even most) of the general audience judges it as its own title.

A lot of REmake fanboys also aren't willing to admit that they played the remake first but not the original RE1.

For a lack of better word, your problem is how you view things in a very closed-minded point of view, with a criteria about how "things should be" or "how things should play out".
The game industry is more random than you think and you need to consider all sorts of people.

Most people don't read developer interviews anyway.
And I mean it when I say "most people" because that's just how it is.
Someone walks into a game store or browses through an online catalog, sees the game, buys it, plays it and decides they like it, regardless of the history surrounding it.

There's really nothing you can do about what the general audience thinks and if they like the game for their own reasons.
But it's different. Re6 is a new game as well as a sequel. Re2 2019 is a recreation.

Yes re6 can be judged on its own as well along with other re games which can also be judged on their own. I considered the games ı played on their own for some time until ı saw competition and eventually wanted to create and share mine as well.

Though what if people would change their minds about something? For example, ı used to really like re2 2019 for a long time. However eventually ı've started to grow more and more disdain for it. There can be more examples.

Regarding re6, ı saw statements of some where they are like " Even on its own, it's a bad / really flawed game. " . I never understood these and grew more and more frustration for them to the point of eventually considering the game peak bio sequel after thinking more about it along with multiple marathons.

I dont think people should be affected by how others feel that much. While viewing other opinions and thinking about them is alright, blindly obeying them and one downplaying themselves with statements like " majority " , " minority " etc. would be a disservice.

Yes of course one cant and shouldnt do or force anyone about how they feel. Same thing with so called " proving " . Which isnt possible cause these are in the end opinions. Regardless if people want to like re2 2019; then that's fine since it doesnt replace og game. It just exists together with it as well as its chronicles retelling.
 

Caffeine Addict

thesaunderschild
RE6 is kind of copying Gears of War. They are very similar games. Not sure why it was compared to the RE2 remake. I even think RE6 is better than that rushed game.

You know, I fear the CV remake will never happen, because the RE2 remake really presented no proper link. Not that I think Capcom would do it correctly anyway. They're infamous now for screwing up.
 

mert20004

Mert_BIO_6
RE6 is kind of copying Gears of War. They are very similar games. Not sure why it was compared to the RE2 remake. I even think RE6 is better than that rushed game.

You know, I fear the CV remake will never happen, because the RE2 remake really presented no proper link. Not that I think Capcom would do it correctly anyway. They're infamous now for screwing up.
No re6 doesnt copy gears of war. They are very different games. The closest comparison would be vanquish and even that game has plenty of differences from re6. Re6 is an one of a kind game within the franchise and gaming just like outbreak games.

I dont think they will recreate recv using re engine. Especially since it's a spinoff and not a main numbered entry. At the same time though; ı dont see any purpose behind re:4 either. Since re2 2019 doesnt connect to that storywise as well.
 
Top Bottom