RE:2 RE:2 Director’s Cut
- Thread starter RipvanX
- Start date
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 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
It's just way too hard to get through to people like that, quite frankly.
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.
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.
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.
Well, it's a highly important game. It shows how Wesker and Chris ran into each other, and Chris finds Claire too.