• 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

Spera01

Spera01

russident said:
Zombies in the classic games of the series are not the real living dead, because the t-Virus is not able to resurrect the dead. These enemies are so called because they just look like George Romero's undead, but they are not undead. They're not real zombies. It's the same with Lycans, who look like werewolves but aren't really werewolves.
Click to expand...
This. Do people seriously think we have real werewolves and vampires running around in village? Come on, it's obviously just meant to be heavily inspired by these things. The explanation at the end of the day is going to be a virus of some sort. This is Resident Evil. And the series has always been inventing new creatures from different virus strains, this is nothing new.

RipvanX said:
I’m sure certain strains of T-Virus can resurrect the dead as seen in the graveyards of RE3 and CVX, with T-Alfred being the one that leaked on Rockford Island, correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
If I'm remembering correctly, I believe the explanation for the graveyard zombies in those games were that they were people recently buried who were in that "comatose" state of becoming a full on zombie and mistaken for being dead. Thus they were buried still technically "alive" but infected by the T-virus.
 
R

russident

RipvanX said:
I’m sure certain strains of T-Virus can resurrect the dead as seen in the graveyards of RE3 and CVX, with T-Alfred being the one that leaked on Rockford Island, correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Each game has a loophole on this topic, as the authors clearly want to use the iconic trope of the zombie genre, but do not want to contradict the established biology.

Brad didn't die from the Pursuer's tentacle, because a powerful strain of the t-Virus managed to save Brad's body, despite the brain damage.

The people who were buried in the cemetery suffered from asphyxia due to the t-Virus, fell into a state of presumed death, and were buried in the ground.

People on Rockfort Island were buried alive and were infected with the t-Virus through rainwater.

The Zombies from the remake of the first game had a period of re-activation of the t-Virus (V-ACT), which saved their lives by causing a dramatic mutation.
 
O

Ouroboros

2make is better, but I hate it more than 3make because I expected 2make to be great. With 3make I knew what I was going to be getting, and I didn't get my hopes up. But in terms of gameplay 2make is better with more content, decent gameplay, better bosses, and the higher difficulties are fair. In 3make the difficulties is completely unfair, especially at the end. Regardless both suck as remakes compared to the beauty of REmake.
 
RipvanX

RipvanX

On a side note; Dead Space Remake is looking promising and will not be cutting any content unlike what Capcom has done here. Beautiful yet flawed modern takes on Raccoon City, where the events will never be ironed out properly. Not even the creators know or really care what’s canon and what’s not so why should we at this point?

Even dedicated lore enthusiasts like TheBatMan have thrown in the towel in understanding this mess and he’s been writing a detailed timeline for over 10 years.
 
Last edited:
C

Caffeine Addict

I don't get some fans. Especially these YouTubers.

In old videos, they say RE7 sucks. It's not a real RE game. I hear statements like that quite a lot, to be honest. Yet the same people go on to say RE8 is amazing. The game is not even as good as RE7.

But anyway, the same thing occurs with RE2. Despite having cut content and a different story, they praise RE2. Yet they generally say RE3 sucks, but call the RE2 remake a masterpiece. Now I would not say the RE2 remake is absolutely awful, but there are enough faults present, so it hardly qualifies as excellence. It does not even have the same creepiness factor. It's entirely different. But RE2 is so beloved, they let this slide. :p
 
MGr

MGr

I found them equally disappointing. Both cut the Raccoon story to shreds by removing the best moments from the older games and making the characters not act like themselves. Both are just mechanically improved bio4 with a Raccoon skin. They also do not at all take place in 1998 with the clothing and technology presented. It is my personal belief that they are part of Alex Wesker's NEST2 simulations as seen in Resistance as a means of studying the outbreak by reenacting it. This theory has previously been applied to ORC, whose characters UMBRELLA CORPS alludes to with their symbol from that game, plus that game does definitively confirm that Raccoon City among other outbreaks has been simulated before. The best thing about both was Hunk and Nikolai. As with their original counterparts, I believe they should have been released as one game.
 
C

Caffeine Addict

MGr, I wish the RE community had more guys like you. We did notice a lot of stuff was cut. But sometimes online, if you go to the forums that are obviously the really active ones, they're not as accepting of any perceived hate. Not that we are haters. We are "carers" instead. We notice when Capcom fumbles the rugby ball.

Also, here is another interesting RE6 video for mert2004. :)

 
C

Caffeine Addict

I still think remaking RE3 (and 2, I guess) was a huge waste of time. They absolutely wrecked RE3.

I think the whole game is utter shite, as it's too linear, and lacks pretty much every aspect of quality the original had, from the gameplay, story, locations, puzzles, and the music.

One of the most memorable scenes in the original was Brad being killed by Nemesis, which they omitted completely, and Carlos facing Brad instead of Jill just did... nothing for me at all. Also, Barry was supposed to save Jill and Carlos before Raccoon City's destruction, but Capcom totally missed that out, even though it's meant to be canon in the overall timeline. Not even any alternative endings either, so WTF?

I don't know. I didn't really like the RE2 remake either, but if you don't compare it to the original so much, I guess it's okay as a general horror game. But after seeing how Capcom disrespected RE3, I am not excited about any further remakes. Plus, I honestly think they're just remaking RE4 as what I think will be their most ultimate cash grab. After seeing what they did to the other remakes, I think unless they put their back into it, this will suck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MGr
MGr

MGr

Caffeine Addict said:
MGr, I wish the RE community had more guys like you. We did notice a lot of stuff was cut. But sometimes online, if you go to the forums that are obviously the really active ones, they're not as accepting of any perceived hate. Not that we are haters. We are "carers" instead. We notice when Capcom fumbles the rugby ball.

Also, here is another interesting RE6 video for mert2004. :)

Click to expand...
I appreciate that. Yeah some of the RE Engine fan community are strangely brutal if you didn't like these games. I'm just glad the sales numbers speak for themselves and BIO6 fans quietly keep buying ports of it when they're released leaving these newer games still off of the top spot. I think it frustrates them which I find amusing given how hypocritically rude they are.
 
R

russident

It's too early to talk about RE:4 yet, because Capcom still wants to re-visit RE:3 in whatever degree. This title has received mixed reviews and does not have such good sales dynamics, unlike the titles before and the title after it, so I genuinely don't understand those people who think it is in the interests of Capcom to repeat such an experience.
 
C

Caffeine Addict

That is a pity we never got any DLC. The game was way too short, and felt like a RE2 add-on.

I think they need to consider not being in so much of a hurry.
 
R

russident

I really don't think the developers were in a hurry. This project was originally planned as a small game that was supposed to be released shortly after RE:2. For the same reason, Capcom had low sales expectations, which were eventually fully satisfied.

In other words, Capcom simply chose a direction and made artistic decisions that eventually turned out to be controversial. The developers didn't cut anything and didn't give up on something just because they had little time, but the director saw the game as a linear and cinematic story, so it was written that way. And many simply did not like this vision, because the original title was designed differently.

Caffeine Addict said:
That is a pity we never got any DLC.
Click to expand...

Given the latest official report, we may indeed see some additional content.
 
MrSpooky

MrSpooky

I have mix feelings because the story in RE2 was a little better with the original parts they added but gameplay was dreadful, step-backs gameplay from worse than Revelations games.

in the other hand RE3 story was bad, I liked some original stuff they added in remake level and the gameplay was actually more bearable, to the point I was having more fun replaying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom