• 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 vs RE:3

ChrisRedfield_08

ChrisRedfield_08

Chris and Jill #1 in RE
RE2make is margrinally better, but only marginally.
Realistically, both remakes are somewhat short. RE2make is a bit longer because you have two main characters whereas RE3make has only one, as in the original. I do remember that this was even back a criticism back when the original RE3 was released, along with being more action-oriented, so it's honestly nothing new here.

RE2make gets away with its shortcomings because you have to characters to play although there's no big difference at all, unlike the original: Scenario A and B play almost the same, You face G3 on exact the same spot with both characters having the same cutscene, the Underground Laboratory was short too, the sewer section, too long.

RE3make is now even shorter than the original due to making cuts here and there (areas and puzzles), so consumers are probably more enraged over the price tag. It should have cost something around 40$ not 60$. Also, they changed Nemesis way too much. He's iconic because he was such a threat in the original but now? I feel like Jill's the one hunting him and not the other way around lol

That said, I enjoy both but RE2make gets better off for simply being longer, although I don't think RE3make is a horrible game.
 
Last edited:
C

Caffeine Addict

I had no idea the RE2 poster continued into a RE3 poster. That's really cool.

The RE2 remake gets my vote as the better remake. But to be honest, I only really like the original 2002 remake which was 110% awesomeness, and some aspects of the 'Chronicles' games did it alright too.
 
R

residentfan02

RE2 is the better game and better Remake. They cut less in 2, not to mention it recreats what the original had much better. Remake 3 is much more of a new game than a Remake, and treats the original with little to no respect.
 
N7Valentine

N7Valentine

It's my turn now, Bitch!
I just don't understand why RE3 cut so many areas. I just can't. Why reduce the clock tower to a mere boss battle arena and not an area to explore and solve puzzles? Why didn't Jill go to the RPD? Why did they remove this scene?
I remember that it gave me a heart attack as a kid.
Why dumbing down Nemesis and why making Mr. X more like the original Nemesis? I swear, I would like to hear Capcom's explanation for that shit... And it sure as hell ain't short development time... I thought they would expand the city more, adding more new areas and not making it smaller by cutting the original.

I mean, I don't hate the game, but the original RE3 is still my number 1 and I always liked more than RE2. My point goes to RE2make. It's not super faithful either, but it's somewhat closer to the source material
 
C

Caffeine Addict

The clock tower section in the original is awesome. In fact, there's not one flaw with the game. And I love how Nemesis is a buzzkill with his destroying of the chopper. There's so much that Capcom could have expanded on, but it felt like a cut price version rather than its equal. So please, Capcom. Can it with the remakes. I'm sure anybody who played this for a few hours on Steam, have asked for a refund.
 
RipvanX

RipvanX

RE2 hands down. My main grievances toward RE3 are the cut content and story changes that don’t add anything noteworthy. They are either dumbed down or nonsensical.


RE2 at least kept a lot of the main story beats but RE3? Not by a long shot.
 
C

Caffeine Addict

I didn't think much of RE2 either. But, yeah. I think they did a largely better job with that than with RE3, which I hear was really supposed to be DLC for RE2 anyway, but I don't know if that's true or just a story online tools made up. It still wasn't what a lot of people wanted.

I think what let people down was that they wanted a RE2 remake like the 2002 remake, but RE4 being a thing was what ultimately lead to Capcom not making fixed camera games anymore. Nor putting in an effort. Period.

Now RE4 is looking like 'it will be a thing' again, as soon as in 2 years from now. It's so sad. :(
 
RipvanX

RipvanX

Caffeine Addict said:
I didn't think much of RE2 either. But, yeah. I think they did a largely better job with that than with RE3, which I hear was really supposed to be DLC for RE2 anyway, but I don't know if that's true or just a story online tools made up. It still wasn't what a lot of people wanted.

I think what let people down was that they wanted a RE2 remake like the 2002 remake, but RE4 being a thing was what ultimately lead to Capcom not making fixed camera games anymore. Nor putting in an effort. Period.

Now RE4 is looking like 'it will be a thing' again, as soon as in 2 years from now. It's so sad. :(
Click to expand...
I have 0 interest in an RE4 remake, although I can see why they would do it before a CVX Remake. If the RE8 rumors are anything to go by, they will just pull the assets from that game and incorporate them into an RE4 Remake. Since it will also be set in a European village. Plus they already have the models for Leon and Ada.

Quite ingenious really, and super lazy on Capcom’s part. Where is the innovation that sparked the company pre-RE4? Seemed to have died with Flagship..
 
Last edited:
C

Caffeine Addict

I think RE4 is a partial remake, in that it has new and old elements. RE8 to me sounds like a sequel to the previous sequels 7: Biohazard and Revelations 2, which is cool. It means the lore isn't being fully ignored from a side story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom