I've always seen the 2002 remake as being the beginning of RE, for real. Even though the original came out in 1996, Mikami's remake essentially 'replaced' it as canon, because of Lisa Trevor mostly being a focal point thereafter, and because Capcom had her appearing in at least one subsequent title, fighting Wesker.
I also thought that RE2 2019 and now RE3 were more along the lines of, "You ask and you get it" fan service kind of titles, that were just for fans to enjoy in a modern setting, and had little connection with the original games beyond being seminal remakes of those games. And I don't see how RE3 2020 is canon, when Barry Burton doesn't show up in the ending. Fans went through the trouble of making comprehensive timeline projects and whatnot to delve into the events of the franchise from when it started to the present time, so I guess some of this is not accurate anymore.
Maybe Capcom needs to clear this up somehow.
I tend to think like you about RE 1 Remake...
Its a nice replacement to the 1996 original game (there are a few of the cheesy dialogue from the original not present in it, specially Barry "master of unlocking" line pertaining to Jill, that ended up being referenced in Revelations 2 but apart from that the only minor complaint for RE 1 Remake is that it still lacks a complete ending where we can actually see all 4 mansion incident survivors Chris, Jill, Rebecca and Barry) but even that is arguable because:
1) An all survivors ending was something not present in the original game all the same.
and
2) they make the effort for you to play both campaigns and in doing so you have to consider both Jill and Chris journeys happened and mix it in your head... Yes it feels a bit weird but its the only way to go if you align the game with all canonical material ever since.
While RE 2 and RE 3 in my view should be viewed not as replacements but a Resident Evil - verse kind of thing, similar to what Spiderverse for the Marvel Spiderman franchise is, it can kinda of be there as a middle of the road retelling of the original games and while there fans can enjoy a modern embellishment and even more pickup and play attitude in regards to the new combat system, etc.
But certainly helps for Capcom they pulled a ok sucess with these Remakes, because that might pave the way for a Dino Crisis or other dormant IPs from them to resurface in the form of Remakes.
Not to mention they can experiment and check for the general public appeal of what kind of gameplay mechanics and camera perspective they enjoy more and that might fit future Resident Evil games, and if multiplayer 4vs1 is a good thing in a Resident Evil DLC or future spin-offs,
That was a smart decision, stuff like RE Resistance can gauge the public interest to see if it online can be a good thing for future games, and down the line whether they should try to extract from it what the public likes, keep using that, and discard whatever they see the public dislikes about it.
not that i totally praise and cannot criticize their product, but i realize that a great deal of the success for videogame company survival in the market comes from how they can keep their product relevant and in line with the trends too, but without loosing its core values...
And i see Capcom as a Developer that is always treading this thin line where they are in constant battle to balance this two major points in order to keep the RE franchise successful, they need to deliver a product that brings that old fan familiarity while at the same time add fresh stuff not seen before, not just with better graphics, but things the general public might not expect, as a way to garner more public interest as well as win the appraisal of the gaming media.
?
