Resident Evil 2 HD Remaster (Official Topic)

[MisterScott]

I assume that the remake is canon, though, because in the original, viewers see that Joseph Frost finds Edward's hand in the grass, but in the remake, Joseph finds Kevin's head in the wreckage of Bravo Team's chopper. Edward dies on the train in the prequel, after warning Rebecca about the dogs. And Lisa Trevor is in the rail shooter games too, finally slain by Wesker, so that confirms the remake is canon and not the original.

Technically both the remake and the original are canon but in their own seperate universes with the remake being the reboot.

Zero came out years later so what happened to Edward in that game is completely irrelevant to what happend to him in the original game, so if the original game implied that Kenneth died outside the train than that’s canon in the original games universe, same with the different character designs and the absence of certain monsters and parts of the Mansion.

Also I find the canonicity of Zero to be questionable, as it depicts Rebecca Chambers as a Asian American whereas she is a European American in every other game, also in Zero she was had a different, more independent personality then her other incarnations, elements of the story might be canon in the remake universe (and other games that incorporate the remake, rather than the original games timeline) but the game itself possibly isn’t.

The is just my personal taste but I consider the original game to be more canon because it’s set in the first incarnation Resident Evil universe, I am still a fan of the later versions of Resident Evil but when I think of Resident Evil 1 I will always think of Barry as a clumsy big bearded man who dropped the rope, and I will always think of Jill as a woman with a Canadian accent and a cleft chin trying to fit her long hair in her beret.

 

[Cure Zombrex]

Leon's hair looks wrong. He had more orange type hair in the original, and did not look so "cute" as some people put it across. If they are calling it a re-imagining on their site, then it means the original is still canon. Personally, I hate it how movie series that have been running for years, decades even, later decide to just ignore certain entries and do direct (alternative) sequels so that the rest of the franchise 'does not count' any longer. Although I do kind of support the comments about people saying it has to yield some relevance and it's hopefully not just a fan project thing that doesn't matter, although 'Operation Raccoon City' wasn't canon either, and that game was 9000 times worse. However, until Capcom states whether it is a canon entry or not, I'd like to stick to my own theory or whatever it is you can call it, that the original's story counts more than this remake/reboot/re-imagining/whatever, because it has flaws that are not totally excusable, like altering Claire's attire so it looks so modern, hereby not keeping it all that original anymore. They got her character's choice of gun wrong in the animated movie sequel 'Degeneration' anyway when they gave Claire a shotgun. LOL. But this seems a bit overkill...

 

[Cure Zombrex]

Am i the only one who is TOTALLY DISAPPOINTED!? My worst fears have come true about this game. This game looks like by the numbers yet another OTS RE game. Nothing special and nothing like the original RE2. The game looks super easy, you can just headshot your way around EVERYTHING, just think about this for a sec. If you do this in the original RE2, would it be half as fun? It throws the whole ammo conservation out.

And as for OTS, WOW... screw this! 3rd person shooters NEVER work as effective horror games ever. At least RE4 was balls to the walls action fun, this doesn't even look like that. It just looks like it'll have the same ammo limitations as the original RE2 but with a revamped combat which makes everything way easier BUT at the same time not as FUN as Re4. I was hoping for RE3 remake but after this? NO thanks Capcom! This game ain't for me and i'm sick of playing these 3rd person shooter "Horror" games, they've never been good at actually being horror, only shooting.

They won't go back to doing them like the ones from 1996 to 2004, if that's what you mean. Even Wikipedia calls that the golden age of the genre, whereas they refer to 2005-present as the transformation. And yeah, I do somewhat agree that third person horror games are a mixed bag, but The Evil Within did it well. When 10 of those zombie looking things are running at you, I find it hard to aim at them. They're not even easy to kill.

 

[MisterScott]

Leon's hair looks wrong. He had more orange type hair in the original, and did not look so "cute" as some people put it across. If they are calling it a re-imagining on their site, then it means the original is still canon. Personally, I hate it how movie series that have been running for years, decades even, later decide to just ignore certain entries and do direct (alternative) sequels so that the rest of the franchise 'does not count' any longer. Although I do kind of support the comments about people saying it has to yield some relevance and it's hopefully not just a fan project thing that doesn't matter, although 'Operation Raccoon City' wasn't canon either, and that game was 9000 times worse. However, until Capcom states whether it is a canon entry or not, I'd like to stick to my own theory or whatever it is you can call it, that the original's story counts more than this remake/reboot/re-imagining/whatever, because it has flaws that are not totally excusable, like altering Claire's attire so it looks so modern, hereby not keeping it all that original anymore. They got her character's choice of gun wrong in the animated movie sequel 'Degeneration' anyway when they gave Claire a shotgun. LOL. But this seems a bit overkill...

In my opinion when somebody does a retcon which makes a drastic change of any sort, you’ve pretty much created a alternate universe, just because a change isn’t relatively “big” or “important” doesn’t excuse the fact they have rewritten history, which is what a reboot basically is, a continuity set in a altered timeline.

Capcom gave Chris and Barry complete retcon facelifts in two different occasions , changed Rebecca’s ethnicity and added characters and monsters in the remakes that never existed and gave Claire a new set of clothes which contradicts what she canonically worn.

Stop and think for a moment, imagine your life with a completely different face, of completely different ethnicity, wearing completely different clothes,having been places you have never before and met people you never met in your life at that point in time, seriously how is that not a alternate universe? if that is not a alternate universe than I don’t know what is.

For a retcon in a remake to not be considered a alternate universe it would have to be for the sake of consistency and realism, not lore breaking, for example if the remake gave the guns more realistic sound effects than the original that is acceptable as it is upgrading the game to be less cartoony, Claire’s face in the remake (unlike her costume and hairstyle) in itself isn’t lore alternating and could’ve easily passed as canon Claire as the new model keeps her original facial features intact while adding new details like lip colour and skin blemishes which were ether features that were left out or couldn’t be achieved realistically back in the 90s with the technological limitations of the time.

On the other hand Capcom redesigned Chris’s face in Resident Evil 7 because they claim that it’s not realistic to find a photogrammetry model that looks like Chris, that is no excuse because Chris in the very first game was modeled after Charlie Kraslavsky his cutscene actor and his face type (with some alterations, like hairstyle and age) has been used since Code Veronica and even up to the Resident Evil Vendetta Movie, so saying that his face isn’t realistic even though he was originally modelled after a real person is stupid, so congratulations Capcom for no good reason you created a alternate universe version of Chris Redfield that has a similar backstory but with a small jaw, bigger rounder eyes, a huge curved nose and blonde hair.

 

[Jen]

Am I just oversimplifying things in my mind?

To me, it seems that yes, they're changing quite a few things but the overall lore from what we've seen so far isn't changing. They're editing minor details, changing certain interactions by fleshing them out, but so far from what I've seen, that doesn't mean they're changing the major plot details. That to me constitutes a remake, not a reboot, which would be a total overhaul that changes the major plot entirely, for example if Leon was a nurse starting work at a hospital and an outbreak happened. They're still following the gist of what happened in RE2, and just expanding on certain parts to create a more full experience.

Leading on from that, even if the game turned out to be a reboot, I also think that it would be too soon to say that anyway based on the small amount of the game that we've seen. We've seen a small snippet and so far it seems like nothing too major to the overall plot has changed, and we don't have details of the overall plot anyway from such a small segment.

These things in my mind make it a remake, as opposed to a reboot.

Technically both the remake and the original are canon but in their own seperate universes with the remake being the reboot.

Also I find the canonicity of Zero to be questionable, as it depicts Rebecca Chambers as a Asian American whereas she is a European American in every other game, also in Zero she was had a different, more independent personality then her other incarnations, elements of the story might be canon in the remake universe (and other games that incorporate the remake, rather than the original games timeline) but the game itself possibly isn’t.

The is just my personal taste but I consider the original game to be more canon because it’s set in the first incarnation Resident Evil universe, I am still a fan of the later versions of Resident Evil but when I think of Resident Evil 1 I will always think of Barry as a clumsy big bearded man who dropped the rope, and I will always think of Jill as a woman with a Canadian accent and a cleft chin trying to fit her long hair in her beret.

In my opinion when somebody does a retcon which makes a drastic change of any sort, you’ve pretty much created a alternate universe, just because a change isn’t relatively “big” or “important” doesn’t excuse the fact they have rewritten history, which is what a reboot basically is, a continuity set in a altered timeline.

Capcom gave Chris and Barry complete retcon facelifts in two different occasions , changed Rebecca’s ethnicity and added characters and monsters in the remakes that never existed and gave Claire a new set of clothes which contradicts what she canonically worn.

Stop and think for a moment, imagine your life with a completely different face, of completely different ethnicity, wearing completely different clothes,having been places you have never before and met people you never met in your life at that point in time, seriously how is that not a alternate universe? if that is not a alternate universe than I don’t know what is.

I feel like you're taking the 'alternate universe' thing too far with this, like the way it is in a sci-fi story where tiny changes spin off into multiple alternate realities. In terms of Resident Evil and video games, tiny changes like this don't constitute alternate universes. They're just minor changes in a much larger picture, that don't massively affect the overall story. They don't make it a reboot.

Leon's hair looks wrong. [snip] However, until Capcom states whether it is a canon entry or not, I'd like to stick to my own theory or whatever it is you can call it, that the original's story counts more than this remake/reboot/re-imagining/whatever, because it has flaws that are not totally excusable, like altering Claire's attire so it looks so modern, hereby not keeping it all that original anymore. They got her character's choice of gun wrong in the animated movie sequel 'Degeneration' anyway when they gave Claire a shotgun. LOL. But this seems a bit overkill...

I understand why people are annoyed that Claire has lost her iconic clothing, hell, I'm disappointed too. But details like Claire's clothes or Leon's hair being different aren't massive changes to the canon. And I feel like Capcom don't need to state it's canon, the game is called Resident Evil 2. Isn't that enough?

I don't remember Claire having a shotgun in Degeneration, but either way, she doesn't have a certain weapon type assigned to her either.

 

[Turo602]

In my opinion...

 

[KManX89]

So basically you admitted that the first Resident Evil 1 takes place in a alternate universe from the remake, supersededing is the same as rebooting, a drastic retcon which is effectively a minor but noiticble reboot is enough to be considered a reboot in its own right so there no point comparing this to Devil May Cry as that underwent a extreme reboot.

In the remake the STARS characters look different, there are new zombies that were not in the original, Lisa Trevor wasn’t in the original, the Mansion is completely overhauled, saying the remake supersedes the original as canon begs this question, where does the first game without any changes or additions fit in the lore? you can’t just pretend that this iconic game that started it all and has a well developed story even by today’s standards “never happened” and that the remake is the “true story”, the PS1 version came first and the remake came later and changed a lot of things and added stuff so the original has to be in a alternate universe from the remake doesn’t it? because it’s so obviously different on many levels and you do realise that a alternate universe doesn’t have to be extremely different like DMC.

The remake is set in a very similar but not indentical alternate universe from the original game, same with directors cut, so I can imagine that the first Resident Evil 2 is set in the same universe as the original first game while the remake of Resident Evil 2 is probably set in the remake universe, the only way we can know for sure is by playing the game and checking out the picture at the STARS room.

Actually, that's where you're wrong, REmake is now officially the canon game, overwriting the original in the main series' continuity, you want to know how I know that? Umbrella's End, one of the only parts of Umbrella Chronicles that is canon, retains Chris' REmake look:

So there you go, REmake overtook RE1 in canon, not simply exist in an alternate universe from it, just like this game will now be canon over the original RE2, it works the exact same way. Pretty telling how a game that kept almost nothing from the first RE1 except for the general story and layout of the mansion with some tweaks and additions-new game code, new character models and backgrounds (with some notable changes to the original character designs, might I add), new dialog, new areas, new story bits, etc. is now considered canon.

"But wait! Barry's no longer sporting the full beard & mustache in REmake, so it MUST be set in an alternate universe!" Yeah, no, the clean cut version you see in REmake is what you get, same with this new-and-improved sporty version of Chris and the headbandless Rebecca, the above scan don't lie.

As for the developers saying it's not a remake, I wouldn't take that at face value when the game's own producer (Yoshiaki Hirabayashi) clearly says it is:

He's even flashing an image that says "Resident Evil 2 Remake" when announcing the game FFS. It's probably another case of them trying to throw you off and start a debate where it doesn't exist, just like with the "are you sure this is the real Chris?" comment despite the earlier confirmation:

Say what you will about the drastically-redesigned Chris in RE7, it's technically the same Chris from Rev1/RE5/RE6/Vendetta, just with an extreme makeover due to some odd design choices, it's the Rev1 Jill situation all over again. Basically the equivalent of recasting a film character.

 

[MisterScott]

Wrong. Both the original and the remake are canon in their own universe, it’s just that the remakes timeline is now the primary storyline while the original games timeline is discontinued, which is basically what a reboot is, it’s basically the same thing Marvel and DC have been doing with their comics over the years to a lesser extent.

 

[Turo602]

Wrong. Both the original and the remake are canon in their own universe, it’s just that the remakes timeline is now the primary storyline while the original games timeline is discontinued, which is basically what a reboot is, it’s basically the same thing Marvel and DC have been doing with their comics over the years to a lesser extent.

It's the same universe. There are no timelines. The fact that it's called remake should tell you everything.

 

[Mjolnir Mark IV]

Who looks more like their original counterpart?

Jill has a more faithful outfit to the original while Claire has a more faithful facial model, remember Jill in the original was potrayed “Inezh” not Julia Voth and she has a completely different hairstyle, I already made a post explaining how Remake Claire compares to the original on this topic.

Okay, and what do you think is more important in making a PS1 character recognizable: the outfit or the face?

Which remake scene follows a closer narrative to the original?

As of Leon’s encounter of Marvin being different, you do realise that Remake does the exact same thing with Richard, who was already dead when Chris saw him (and died before Jill could give him the serum) in the original whereas in the remake he can be saved and dies much later at the hands of Yawn or the Neptune (depending if you are playing as Jill or Chris).

You're comparing a single scene with a complete narrative (Mravin) to one that has multiple variations (Richard). For that reason alone, it's a bad choice to use as a comparison. But even still, collectively, the remake scenes where Richard has been poisoned are much more true to the original than Marvin's scene is to RE2 because they didn't simply remove the narrative of Richard's death scene in the remake the way you seem to be implying, they moved it to the scene where he survives. Compare the dialog of Richard's survival scene in the remake to Richard's death scene in the original. Do you really think it's less true to the original than Marvin's scene is? Furthermore, they were patching up a plot hole in Richard's scene: in the original, why does Rebecca/Jill not give Richard the serum when they have it right there? Or if you prefer, why does Richard insist on handing the radio over when he should be letting them treat him with the serum? It makes no sense. This is a problem area that they needed to address, and I think their solution is ingenious because they actually thought of a way to keep the original narrative of his death scene by moving it to an alternate scene where he survives. So because this scene has a severe lapse in character logic and multiple variations—unlike Marvin's scene—it's not a good one to use as a comparison.

So, back to the scene I asked you to compare in the first place: the reason I asked you to compare the narrative of the first mansion scene with the first RPD scene is because compared to the original RE1, the RE1 remake mansion scene is nearly identical. Compare them and see for yourself. Nothing in the narrative of the RE2 remake matches the original RE2 as closely. Not even close.

Also, I have no problem whatsoever with adding alternate possibilities like they did with Richard. In fact, if they want to do that with RE2, I'm all for it. But even if we assume that the first scene with Marvin will have multiple variations (which I doubt), do you really think the variations will be as significant as those with Richard's first death/survival scene? That's another reason why it's a bad comparison.

Which is more similar the RPD lobby or the Mansion lobby?

They’re both completely different, the RPD has the upper levels rearranged and added a electronic shutter door and a bathroom whereas the Mansion added a new door right in front of a staircase, a different entrance to the lab and a balcony that wasn’t there in the original game.

Please read what I write more carefully if you're going to respond to it. The question I asked was, "Which layout of the remake is closer to the original, the mansion lobby or the RPD lobby?"

The layout of the mansion lobby has some additions, whereas the RPD lobby doesn't just have additions, its layout is actually rearranged. In other words, the layout of the first hub of the RE2 remake is not as faithful as the layout of the first hub of the RE1 remake.

It definitely hasn't been branded as a reboot and I'm pretty sure there's a good reason they're not calling it one either.

I think this is probably for several reasons:

• Rebranding it as a reboot would make it more obvious that they have backed out of their original commitment to do it as a remake. In other words, they don't want to look bad.
• They want to sell as many copies as possible, which to them probably means pleasing as wide a range of people as possible. So instead of committing to calling it either a remake or a reboot, they're inventing new terminology (reimagining), which relieves them of the commitment and potential judgment that comes with choosing to brand it using existing terminology.
• Reboot could be interpreted as a reboot of the entire series as opposed to a reboot of RE2 specifically, which would imply they're committing to remaking all of the games in the series. And of course no company would be foolish enough to commit to remaking so many games all at once.
• Reboot is an ugly word for fans who want a remake.
• There isn't a distinct line drawn between a remake and a reboot, it's a gradation. So they have some leeway here in how they brand it. But I think they're far enough in reboot territory in order for it to be considered a reboot, especially when you take into account all of the other factors (more on that below).

Calling it a reimagining doesn't contradict its status as a remake, because as Capcom said, this is an entirely new game, just like the previous REmake,

Capcom never said it's just like the previous remake.

It's also definitely not separating itself from the rest of the series either, like a reboot.

Besides RE3, other games in the main series aren't connected to RE2 in any way more than at the most basic level. You would have to do something extremely major, like have a Las Plagas infestation instead of the T-virus outbreak, or dismember or kill one of the heroes, in order for it to separate itself from the rest of the series. Is that your requirement for a reboot? Because that's very extreme. While such a drastic change would certainly qualify it as a reboot, reboots don't have to separate themselves from the series. That is not one of the requirements. They simply need to be distinct in some way, and change some of the continuity. And the RE2 remake has done that. Moreover, don't forget that the RE2 remake is separating itself from RE3. So in that sense, it has separated from the series.

And if by "separate" you mean to be in some way distinct, then yes, reboots do need to separate themselves. And the RE2 remake has already satisfied that requirement.

Capcom can feel free to tiptoe around the word remake all they want, but it doesn't change what it is.

Then why did they not "tiptoe" around the word remake when they announced it in 2015? And why do you think they're "tiptoeing" around the word remake now that the game has been revealed in 2018? Fans have been clamoring for a remake for years. Surely if the developers thought that's all it was, they would have nothing to hide and would still be marketing it as a remake.

And yes, had Capcom used the word reboot instead of remake, not only would I call them out for it, plenty of others would as well,

For what? Not changing as much as you think they should? They changed plenty.

the word reboot insinuates the game either won't be canon to the main series, or is starting a whole brand new canon, discarding everything that came after.

I'm not sure about the first part of that sentence because I can't think of any reboots that weren't canon at the time they were made. Can you? As for the implication that continuity gets nuked with a reboot, that's not always true. With a reboot, you shouldn't be surprised if not only the same hallmarks return but also some of the same narrative elements as well (only with a fresh take on it of course). Because that's how it often is with reboots. While there's a greater likelihood of continuity getting nuked with a reboot than with a remake, nuked continuity is no guarantee with a reboot and should not be expected. Some things just don't end up getting changed. But what you should expect are continuity changes at some level at least. A remake, on the other hand, isn't something that should make you expect continuity changes. And yet, here we are getting them in spades with the RE2 remake.

All of the developers said this?

When in the history of any game made by a team have all developers had to have confirmed something in order for it to be accepted as their official view?

Are you sure it wasn't just a misuse of a word or hyperbole?

See for yourself:

Surely, Capcom wants to sell this game like it were RE8 and not just some small spin-off project for a niche audience. Therefore, wouldn't you think they would want to make sure everyone knows it isn't just the same game as last time, or a simple remaster like I still see people calling it, so that people would want to buy it?

No, I would think they would want to make sure the fans know they are getting something they will love by not changing what they don't need to change, especially given the success of the RE1 remake (consider how little was changed in that by comparison). I would think the same game as last time is exactly what Capcom's most loyal fans want—only with better graphics and perhaps with some of the wrinkles in the controls smoothed out, and maybe even some of the plot holes patched up and the A-B continuity fixed. But the changes in the RE2 remake go far beyond that to a level that makes me think Capcom either has no idea what its most loyal fans want, or doesn't care.

Again, they're not wrong in calling it a brand new game, nor does calling it one stop it from being a remake.

Nor does calling it one stop it from being a reboot. My argument isn't that it can't be called a remake, it's that given the circumstances, it's less damaging to the fan base to call it a reboot.

Prove to me that RE2 is starting a brand new continuity separate from the rest of the series and isn't working within the boundaries of the original game and the rest of the series.

I said it was a reboot of RE2, not a reboot of the RE franchise. But RE3 will be affected, so it does extend to at least part of the series.

Also, I never stated that there are rules for how much needs to be changed,

Okay then, I can call it a reboot then? Finally, we agree!

in fact, you are the one saying this by calling this a reboot for being too different.

I never said people can't call it a remake, whereas you are telling me I can't call it a reboot. What I said was that the developers have explicitly stated it's not a remake, and that I discourage people from calling it a remake not only for it being too different, but to call attention to the fact that the developers have not acknowledged the fact that they are no longer delivering what they promised. They're pretending like this was their plan all along, and that's scummy because they gave fans false hope when they announced it as a remake in 2015, and they aren't acknowledging the bait-and-switch.

Because this is now Resident Evil 2, and in being so, has some strict guidelines to follow because it still has to successfully replace the original RE2 despite whatever new details are thrown in, just as the original REmake has.

That's not hard to do at all: a zombie outbreak happens in Racoon City, and the same characters meet and survive. I wouldn't call that strict. Although let's not forget that in order for it to not break continuity with the rest of the series, part of the RPD needs to have an identical layout to what we see in RE3, and they already blew that one.

Saying that most changes won't impact the outcome of the rest of the series isn't saying much. You could make Chief Irons transform into a Cthulu monster that shoots laser beams out of his mouth without affecting the rest of the series. You could turn all of RE2 into an unrecognizable abomination as long as Leon, Claire, and Sherry meet and survive. I'm not saying the RE2 remake is an unrecognizable abomination, I'm saying it changes far more than is necessary.

That wouldn't be following the guidelines then, would it?

You're completely missing the point, which is that they're changing far more than they need to.

... Also, elaborate on these unnecessary changes.

I already have in another post but I'll do it here for convenience:

• The statue that has gravity-defying blood dripping upwards.
• Claire's outfit.
• Leon finds out Claire is alive by seeing her on a security monitor rather than in person.
• Marvin bequeaths his knife to Leon.
• Mr. X gets impaled by a monster claw.
• Mr. X has a hat.
• A vastly higher number of lights are out.
• There are now shutters.
• There's a notebook filled with clues prominently featured in a cutscene.
• Doors, switches, and items have icons.

As I said in a previous post, none of these changes are necessary:

These changes only succeed in making the game different, in some cases for no apparent reason, and in other cases, it even makes the game worse. Blood dripping the wrong way is something that should be reserved for supernatural horror like Silent Hill, Claire should be more recognizable, finding out Claire is alive in person is much more dramatic than finding out she's alive by seeing her on a security monitor, and icons that indicate doors, switches, and items detract from the survival aspect of the game.

And that's not all. There's Marvin too:

And why does so much narrative context need to be completely removed from the scene with Marvin? They cut out the reference to Leon's welcoming party, and the story of what happened at the mansion and the RPD in the aftermath of RE1. This is important not only because it creates context, but because it patches up a plot hole by explaining how an outbreak was able to happen so long after the mansion incident when the returning STARS members knew what was going on. Now the RE2 remake has created a new plot hole: how come the rest of the RPD doesn't know about the mansion incident? Why would the surviving STARS members not try to inform the RPD? The RE2 remake also removes the objective Marvin gives Leon about rescuing the remaining survivors in the police station. And having the guy draw his gun and lock the door behind you raises the tension level and implies Marvin knows he is doomed to turn into a zombie, which I think is very intriguing. There's just so much narrative straight up deleted. Why? They also cut out Marvin giving Leon a card key, which adds a practicality to both the narrative and the gameplay by giving the player access to more areas, which of course ties in with the objective Marvin gives Leon. Why is removing all of this "needed"?

More on Marvin:

Marvin tells Leon to "rescue the survivors in the other rooms," other as in not this one—as in stay the hell out of this room. Drawing his gun on Leon and the way he locks the door after Leon leaves supports this interpretation. The act of locking himself inside also adds a layer to his character because it implies a degree of cowardice: he knows he's going to die, but he's not willing to eat a bullet as a human to save other people from being attacked by him after he turns. It also adds to the narrative by exploring one of the psychological impacts in zombie catastrophe, which is that people turn on people. The game returns to this theme again with Annette, and a little bit with Ben. Chief Irons too, although he's also a sadist.

As far as I can tell, the story of RE2 is still very well intact. Leon meets Claire somewhere outside in Raccoon City, they get split up, Leon ends up in the Police Station by himself, meets Marvin, and so on. Seems like they're hitting all the same beats as the original.

Just because they're hitting beats doesn't mean they aren't changing more than is necessary.

I don't see how making Marvin more of a human character and having him save Leon, talk more, and whatever else, is unnecessary or even so drastically different that it's somehow a reboot

What makes him more human is the technology, the continuity between takes, and acting. I'm not complaining about any of that. As for the script, he's less human in the RE2 remake because he's less fallible. There's no implication of a very human impulse to prolong his own mortality, as depicted in the original RE2 (and as described above).

As for why I consider most of the changes in the RE2 remake unnecessary, the reason can be traced back to this simple logic: trying to fix what isn't broken is unnecessary. If you go beyond that, you aren't necessarily making improvements, you're simply making changes that may or may not be better.

As for why I consider the RE2 remake a reboot, it's because of:

1. The number of changes.
2. The degree of each change.
3. Expectations created from the RE1 remake, which is much more faithful than the RE2 remake. I think this difference in the level of change between the two remakes alone probably warrants a different word, but my reasons certainly don't begin and end here.
4. The difference in what the developers promised during the announcement (a remake) versus what they have revealed (a reimagining), and their decision not to acknowledge that they are failing to deliver what they originally promised. Using the word reboot allows more of the truth behind the bait-and-switch to surface.
5. Expectations created from the high number of video game remakes in general that are more faithful.

To clarify that last point, if we are to divide video game remakes into these three categories and define them like this...

1. remasters (enhancements such as higher resolution textures, better framerate, etc.)
2. remakes (completely rebuilt from the ground up)
3. reboots (retold with different continuity)

...the vast majority of remakes (item #2) are more faithful than the RE2 remake. I'm not saying a video game remake aggregate is the standard by which all remakes should be measured, but I think expectations established by what is most common shouldn't be completely discounted. That having been said, the only existing remake in the franchise (RE1 remake) carries more weight as a point of reference for what should be expected.

And I'm not laying down rules here with the terminology because apparently there isn't a general consensus on how some of these words are used. I'm just trying to categorize and define things in a way that helps you and others understand why I consider it a reboot, and why I encourage you and other people to think of it as a reboot too.

The guy is still gonna turn into a zombie, and you're still gonna have to kill him. Why should a remake carry over the primitive storytelling of the past,

The script and flow of events, which are vital components of the storytelling, are not primitive in the original. It's the lack of continuity between takes, the animation, the inability to move cameras during cutscenes, and the editing that are primitive—but you don't hear me complaining about any of that with the RE2 remake.

when they could do pretty much the same thing, but in a much better way?

Different does not mean better.

I don't see how this doesn't work. This new remake is retconning the past game it is based on. It is changing the facts of it. Retcons come in various forms for various reasons. Your definition is merely one example of a retcon.

That's fine, but it doesn't mean you aren't using the word retcon incorrectly. The game is not a retcon. You can call it a remake or a reboot. It might contain retconning. But it is not itself a retcon. If you want to think of a remake or reboot as one big collection of retcons, that's fine, but that's now how the word is used. I'm trying to help you out here.

 

[Cure Zombrex]

Well, if you feel that way, do what I'm doing and just treat it as a re-imagining that is stand alone and maybe then you will not feel as disheartened as I do. Since I was half expecting Capcom to do this, it does not really bother me. Maybe Capcom will leave it in our hands to decide what is canon. But I still say this cannot be canon because of the flashbacks we've had in other media, that has Claire and Leon's original designs. Sigh.

 

[Hel]

But I still say this cannot be canon because of the flashbacks we've had in other media, that has Claire and Leon's original designs. Sigh.

And I still say there are no flashbacks to Leon and Claire in their original designs other than Darkside Chronicles, where they already changed Claire's outfit among many other things, and the non-canon Operation Raccoon City.

 

[Mjolnir Mark IV]

They're editing minor details, changing certain interactions by fleshing them out, but so far from what I've seen, that doesn't mean they're changing the major plot details. That to me constitutes a remake, not a reboot, which would be a total overhaul that changes the major plot entirely, for example if Leon was a nurse starting work at a hospital and an outbreak happened. They're still following the gist of what happened in RE2, and just expanding on certain parts to create a more full experience.

Reboots don't require "a total overhaul that changes the marjor plot entirely," as you say. In Superman reboots, he always arrives on Earth as a survivor of the exploding planet Krypton, sent by his biological parents, raised in Smallville by his foster parents the Kents, moves to Metropolis, becomes a reporter, dates Lois Lane, works at the Daily Planet, etc. It's the same for Batman reboots, Spider-Man reboots, etc.

Leading on from that, even if the game turned out to be a reboot, I also think that it would be too soon to say that anyway based on the small amount of the game that we've seen. We've seen a small snippet and so far it seems like nothing too major to the overall plot has changed, and we don't have details of the overall plot anyway from such a small segment.

It's without a doubt true that many of us are saying much based on a small sample of what the game is. But I think it's safe to say that the sample size they've given us more or less represents the direction the finished game is going to go in. Developers most certainly anticipate the reaction fans will have to a reveal, and likely wouldn't show parts that are atypical of their vision. And I think it's important to note that from what they've shown of the narrative, nothing is as close a match to the original as the RE1 remake is to the original RE1.

I feel like you're taking the 'alternate universe' thing too far with this, like the way it is in a sci-fi story where tiny changes spin off into multiple alternate realities. In terms of Resident Evil and video games, tiny changes like this don't constitute alternate universes. They're just minor changes in a much larger picture, that don't massively affect the overall story. They don't make it a reboot.

The key thing that separates a remake from a reboot is how distinct it is, especially with the continuity. The more drastically you change the contunity, the easier it is to say it's a reboot.

I understand why people are annoyed that Claire has lost her iconic clothing, hell, I'm disappointed too. But details like Claire's clothes or Leon's hair being different aren't massive changes to the canon.

This is very true, but it's not just the clothes and hair that are different, it's the narrative too—when, where and how scenes play out and where characters are on the checkerboard, what they say, what they do, who they interact with, how they interact with each other, etc.

As for the developers saying it's not a remake, I wouldn't take that at face value when the game's own producer (Yoshiaki Hirabayashi) clearly says it is:

He's even flashing an image that says "Resident Evil 2 Remake" when announcing the game FFS.

That video is outdated. It was released in 2015 when the game was announced! The rebranding shifted from remake to reimagined when they revealed the game this year at E3. They then punctuated this rebranding by explicitly stating it's not a remake here:

 

[MisterScott]

So basically instead of replying to my post you make fun of me with a video of Dwayne Johnson while ignoring everything else I said? I could just as easily tell you and everyone else that their opinion doesn't matter because after all what is the point of having a proper debate when you can post irrelevant youtube videos? no it doesn't work like that, at the end of the day whenether we are right or wrong all our opinions matter because we are all part of the discussion.

Actually, that's where you're wrong, REmake is now officially the canon game, overwriting the original in the main series' continuity, you want to know how I know that? Umbrella's End, one of the only parts of Umbrella Chronicles that is canon, retains Chris' REmake look:

So there you go, REmake overtook RE1 in canon, not simply exist in an alternate universe from it, just like this game will now be canon over the original RE2, it works the exact same way. Pretty telling how a game that kept almost nothing from the first RE1 except for the general story and layout of the mansion with some tweaks and additions-new game code, new character models and backgrounds (with some notable changes to the original character designs, might I add), new dialog, new areas, new story bits, etc. is now considered canon.

"But wait! Barry's no longer sporting the full beard & mustache in REmake, so it MUST be set in an alternate universe!" Yeah, no, the clean cut version you see in REmake is what you get, same with this new-and-improved sporty version of Chris and the headbandless Rebecca, the above scan don't lie.

As for the developers saying it's not a remake, I wouldn't take that at face value when the game's own producer (Yoshiaki Hirabayashi) clearly says it is:

He's even flashing an image that says "Resident Evil 2 Remake" when announcing the game FFS. It's probably another case of them trying to throw you off and start a debate where it doesn't exist, just like with the "are you sure this is the real Chris?" comment despite the earlier confirmation:

Say what you will about the drastically-redesigned Chris in RE7, it's technically the same Chris from Rev1/RE5/RE6/Vendetta, just with an extreme makeover due to some odd design choices, it's the Rev1 Jill situation all over again. Basically the equivalent of recasting a film character.

Just because Capcom used the remake model of Chris in Umbrella Chronicles doesn't mean this his (and the other characters) original design "doesn't count anymore", the only thing that Chris's model in Umbrella Chronicles proves is that for that game they decided to set it in the remake's instead of the original game's timeline, so you are correct in the sense that the remake timeline is being used by Capcom as its primary universe but that doesn't mean that the original game "didn't happen", its "still there" in a different continuity, just like the timeline of Directors Cut.

And I would like to point out that the evolution of Chris Redfield scan you posted is inaccurate as the Code Veronica model in that scan is Remake Chris wearing an alternate costume, it isn't the actual model of Chris that was in Code Veronica which looked more like an animated version of his original cutscene actor.

And at the end of the day at least Remake Chris actually looks mostly like his original design unlike the blonde guy with the small jaw, big round eyes and huge nose we saw in Resident Evil 7.

Okay, and what do you think is more important in making a PS1 character recognizable: the outfit or the face?


You're comparing a single scene with a complete narrative (Mravin) to one that has multiple variations (Richard). For that reason alone, it's a bad choice to use as a comparison. But even still, collectively, the remake scenes where Richard has been poisoned are much more true to the original than Marvin's scene is to RE2 because they didn't simply remove the narrative of Richard's death scene in the remake the way you seem to be implying, they moved it to the scene where he survives. Compare the dialog of Richard's survival scene in the remake to Richard's death scene in the original. Do you really think it's less true to the original than Marvin's scene is? Furthermore, they were patching up a plot hole in Richard's scene: in the original, why does Rebecca/Jill not give Richard the serum when they have it right there? Or if you prefer, why does Richard insist on handing the radio over when he should be letting them treat him with the serum? It makes no sense. This is a problem area that they needed to address, and I think their solution is ingenious because they actually thought of a way to keep the original narrative of his death scene by moving it to an alternate scene where he survives. So because this scene has a severe lapse in character logic and multiple variations—unlike Marvin's scene—it's not a good one to use as a comparison.

So, back to the scene I asked you to compare in the first place: the reason I asked you to compare the narrative of the first mansion scene with the first RPD scene is because compared to the original RE1, the RE1 remake mansion scene is nearly identical. Compare them and see for yourself. Nothing in the narrative of the RE2 remake matches the original RE2 as closely. Not even close.

Also, I have no problem whatsoever with adding alternate possibilities like they did with Richard. In fact, if they want to do that with RE2, I'm all for it. But even if we assume that the first scene with Marvin will have multiple variations (which I doubt), do you really think the variations will be as significant as those with Richard's first death/survival scene? That's another reason why it's a bad comparison.


Please read what I write more carefully if you're going to respond to it. The question I asked was, "Which layout of the remake is closer to the original, the mansion lobby or the RPD lobby?"

The layout of the mansion lobby has some additions, whereas the RPD lobby doesn't just have additions, its layout is actually rearranged. In other words, the layout of the first hub of the RE2 remake is not as faithful as the layout of the first hub of the RE1 remake.

OK lets start off with if the design of the face vs the design of the costume when it comes to the recognisability of a PS1 character, both are important, you seem to be forgetting that in the original game Jills "official look" was how her actress Inezh looked in the game's cutscenes, the game models are important too but as far as the detail goes for a remake model you would ideally take more inspiration from Jills actress or Claires CGI model as they have more detail, it was in the cutscenes with the actors that showed us what Jills (and the other characters) face looks like with life like visuals and it was one of the final cutscenes that revealed that she has long hair under her beret (the in game model was like that as well but not as obvious because of the old graphics), same with Claire as her in game model looks almost cartoonish when it comes to the design of her face and the fine details of her costume compared to her cutscene model, and in different departments Capcom screwed them up when they were tasked with recreating them in the remakes, they changed Jill's facial structure (thakfully not to the extreme extent that they did with Barry) and gave her a hair color and shorter mid length hair style that she canonically didn't have until the events of Resident Evil 3, but for some reason they kept her outfit almost exactly like her original, with Claire they ruined her outfit and hairstyle (not to the extent that they changed Jill's hair) but gave her a new face that looks like a realistic version of her cutscene model that added new details that her orignal model didnt have while keeping her original facial features intact, making her look more organic and less animted reducing the "uncanny valley" effect , so in different areas Capcom went through unnecessary lengths to "modernise" their classic look instead of making 100% faithful recreations of their original design in modern graphics.

As of Marvin's changes vs Richard's, I would like to point out that you only covered Richard in Jill's scenario in remake and didn't mention Chris's , in the original game Chris finds Richard already dead while in the remake not only did Chris find him alive but he also first encounters Rebecca while she was treating Richard instead of finding her in a mansion store room where she pepper sprayed him by accident in the original, so its just as if not more unfaithful as the new scene with Marvin and Leon.

And finally as for the Mansion vs the RPD, you are right that the RPD is relatively less accurate, but my point was that the redesign wasn't unexpected since the Mansion underwent heavy redesigns, but the biggest changes in the first remake was the lab entrance not the lobby.

Am I just oversimplifying things in my mind?

To me, it seems that yes, they're changing quite a few things but the overall lore from what we've seen so far isn't changing. They're editing minor details, changing certain interactions by fleshing them out, but so far from what I've seen, that doesn't mean they're changing the major plot details. That to me constitutes a remake, not a reboot, which would be a total overhaul that changes the major plot entirely, for example if Leon was a nurse starting work at a hospital and an outbreak happened. They're still following the gist of what happened in RE2, and just expanding on certain parts to create a more full experience.

Leading on from that, even if the game turned out to be a reboot, I also think that it would be too soon to say that anyway based on the small amount of the game that we've seen. We've seen a small snippet and so far it seems like nothing too major to the overall plot has changed, and we don't have details of the overall plot anyway from such a small segment.

These things in my mind make it a remake, as opposed to a reboot.




I feel like you're taking the 'alternate universe' thing too far with this, like the way it is in a sci-fi story where tiny changes spin off into multiple alternate realities. In terms of Resident Evil and video games, tiny changes like this don't constitute alternate universes. They're just minor changes in a much larger picture, that don't massively affect the overall story. They don't make it a reboot.


I understand why people are annoyed that Claire has lost her iconic clothing, hell, I'm disappointed too. But details like Claire's clothes or Leon's hair being different aren't massive changes to the canon. And I feel like Capcom don't need to state it's canon, the game is called Resident Evil 2. Isn't that enough?

I don't remember Claire having a shotgun in Degeneration, but either way, she doesn't have a certain weapon type assigned to her either.

Ok correct me if I am wrong you seem to be under the impression that only crazy sci fi stories involving time travel (like for example The Terminator) can have alternate realities, that is simply not how it works, any work of fiction can have a alternate universe which is basically another continuity that is similar but not identical to the source material and how different it varies can depend, like I said before a reboot doesn't have to be extremely noticeable like DMC.

And Resident Evil does have a multiverse, first of all you have the original game, directors cut, the remake and all their different endings, then you have the wildstorm comic books and SD Perry novels, Operation Raccon City , the Anderson movies and marvel vs capcom to name a few, the list goes on, just because the current games apparently follow the remakes timeline over the original's doesn't change the fact that it is an alternate universe.

 

[KevinStriker]

Okay, and what do you think is more important in making a PS1 character recognizable: the outfit or the face?


You're comparing a single scene with a complete narrative (Mravin) to one that has multiple variations (Richard). For that reason alone, it's a bad choice to use as a comparison. But even still, collectively, the remake scenes where Richard has been poisoned are much more true to the original than Marvin's scene is to RE2 because they didn't simply remove the narrative of Richard's death scene in the remake the way you seem to be implying, they moved it to the scene where he survives. Compare the dialog of Richard's survival scene in the remake to Richard's death scene in the original. Do you really think it's less true to the original than Marvin's scene is? Furthermore, they were patching up a plot hole in Richard's scene: in the original, why does Rebecca/Jill not give Richard the serum when they have it right there? Or if you prefer, why does Richard insist on handing the radio over when he should be letting them treat him with the serum? It makes no sense. This is a problem area that they needed to address, and I think their solution is ingenious because they actually thought of a way to keep the original narrative of his death scene by moving it to an alternate scene where he survives. So because this scene has a severe lapse in character logic and multiple variations—unlike Marvin's scene—it's not a good one to use as a comparison.

So, back to the scene I asked you to compare in the first place: the reason I asked you to compare the narrative of the first mansion scene with the first RPD scene is because compared to the original RE1, the RE1 remake mansion scene is nearly identical. Compare them and see for yourself. Nothing in the narrative of the RE2 remake matches the original RE2 as closely. Not even close.

Also, I have no problem whatsoever with adding alternate possibilities like they did with Richard. In fact, if they want to do that with RE2, I'm all for it. But even if we assume that the first scene with Marvin will have multiple variations (which I doubt), do you really think the variations will be as significant as those with Richard's first death/survival scene? That's another reason why it's a bad comparison.


Please read what I write more carefully if you're going to respond to it. The question I asked was, "Which layout of the remake is closer to the original, the mansion lobby or the RPD lobby?"

The layout of the mansion lobby has some additions, whereas the RPD lobby doesn't just have additions, its layout is actually rearranged. In other words, the layout of the first hub of the RE2 remake is not as faithful as the layout of the first hub of the RE1 remake.


I think this is probably for several reasons:

• Rebranding it as a reboot would make it more obvious that they have backed out of their original commitment to do it as a remake. In other words, they don't want to look bad.
• They want to sell as many copies as possible, which to them probably means pleasing as wide a range of people as possible. So instead of committing to calling it either a remake or a reboot, they're inventing new terminology (reimagining), which relieves them of the commitment and potential judgment that comes with choosing to brand it using existing terminology.
• Reboot could be interpreted as a reboot of the entire series as opposed to a reboot of RE2 specifically, which would imply they're committing to remaking all of the games in the series. And of course no company would be foolish enough to commit to remaking so many games all at once.
• Reboot is an ugly word for fans who want a remake.
• There isn't a distinct line drawn between a remake and a reboot, it's a gradation. So they have some leeway here in how they brand it. But I think they're far enough in reboot territory in order for it to be considered a reboot, especially when you take into account all of the other factors (more on that below).

Capcom never said it's just like the previous remake.


Besides RE3, other games in the main series aren't connected to RE2 in any way more than at the most basic level. You would have to do something extremely major, like have a Las Plagas infestation instead of the T-virus outbreak, or dismember or kill one of the heroes, in order for it to separate itself from the rest of the series. Is that your requirement for a reboot? Because that's very extreme. While such a drastic change would certainly qualify it as a reboot, reboots don't have to separate themselves from the series. That is not one of the requirements. They simply need to be distinct in some way, and change some of the continuity. And the RE2 remake has done that. Moreover, don't forget that the RE2 remake is separating itself from RE3. So in that sense, it has separated from the series.

And if by "separate" you mean to be in some way distinct, then yes, reboots do need to separate themselves. And the RE2 remake has already satisfied that requirement.


Then why did they not "tiptoe" around the word remake when they announced it in 2015? And why do you think they're "tiptoeing" around the word remake now that the game has been revealed in 2018? Fans have been clamoring for a remake for years. Surely if the developers thought that's all it was, they would have nothing to hide and would still be marketing it as a remake.


For what? Not changing as much as you think they should? They changed plenty.


I'm not sure about the first part of that sentence because I can't think of any reboots that weren't canon at the time they were made. Can you? As for the implication that continuity gets nuked with a reboot, that's not always true. With a reboot, you shouldn't be surprised if not only the same hallmarks return but also some of the same narrative elements as well (only with a fresh take on it of course). Because that's how it often is with reboots. While there's a greater likelihood of continuity getting nuked with a reboot than with a remake, nuked continuity is no guarantee with a reboot and should not be expected. Some things just don't end up getting changed. But what you should expect are continuity changes at some level at least. A remake, on the other hand, isn't something that should make you expect continuity changes. And yet, here we are getting them in spades with the RE2 remake.


When in the history of any game made by a team have all developers had to have confirmed something in order for it to be accepted as their official view?


See for yourself:

No, I would think they would want to make sure the fans know they are getting something they will love by not changing what they don't need to change, especially given the success of the RE1 remake (consider how little was changed in that by comparison). I would think the same game as last time is exactly what Capcom's most loyal fans want—only with better graphics and perhaps with some of the wrinkles in the controls smoothed out, and maybe even some of the plot holes patched up and the A-B continuity fixed. But the changes in the RE2 remake go far beyond that to a level that makes me think Capcom either has no idea what its most loyal fans want, or doesn't care.


Nor does calling it one stop it from being a reboot. My argument isn't that it can't be called a remake, it's that given the circumstances, it's less damaging to the fan base to call it a reboot.


I said it was a reboot of RE2, not a reboot of the RE franchise. But RE3 will be affected, so it does extend to at least part of the series.


Okay then, I can call it a reboot then? Finally, we agree!


I never said people can't call it a remake, whereas you are telling me I can't call it a reboot. What I said was that the developers have explicitly stated it's not a remake, and that I discourage people from calling it a remake not only for it being too different, but to call attention to the fact that the developers have not acknowledged the fact that they are no longer delivering what they promised. They're pretending like this was their plan all along, and that's scummy because they gave fans false hope when they announced it as a remake in 2015, and they aren't acknowledging the bait-and-switch.


That's not hard to do at all: a zombie outbreak happens in Racoon City, and the same characters meet and survive. I wouldn't call that strict. Although let's not forget that in order for it to not break continuity with the rest of the series, part of the RPD needs to have an identical layout to what we see in RE3, and they already blew that one.




You're completely missing the point, which is that they're changing far more than they need to.


I already have in another post but I'll do it here for convenience:

• The statue that has gravity-defying blood dripping upwards.
• Claire's outfit.
• Leon finds out Claire is alive by seeing her on a security monitor rather than in person.
• Marvin bequeaths his knife to Leon.
• Mr. X gets impaled by a monster claw.
• Mr. X has a hat.
• A vastly higher number of lights are out.
• There are now shutters.
• There's a notebook filled with clues prominently featured in a cutscene.
• Doors, switches, and items have icons.

As I said in a previous post, none of these changes are necessary:


And that's not all. There's Marvin too:


More on Marvin:




Just because they're hitting beats doesn't mean they aren't changing more than is necessary.


What makes him more human is the technology, the continuity between takes, and acting. I'm not complaining about any of that. As for the script, he's less human in the RE2 remake because he's less fallible. There's no implication of a very human impulse to prolong his own mortality, as depicted in the original RE2 (and as described above).

As for why I consider most of the changes in the RE2 remake unnecessary, the reason can be traced back to this simple logic: trying to fix what isn't broken is unnecessary. If you go beyond that, you aren't necessarily making improvements, you're simply making changes that may or may not be better.

As for why I consider the RE2 remake a reboot, it's because of:

1. The number of changes.
2. The degree of each change.
3. Expectations created from the RE1 remake, which is much more faithful than the RE2 remake. I think this difference in the level of change between the two remakes alone probably warrants a different word, but my reasons certainly don't begin and end here.
4. The difference in what the developers promised during the announcement (a remake) versus what they have revealed (a reimagining), and their decision not to acknowledge that they are failing to deliver what they originally promised. Using the word reboot allows more of the truth behind the bait-and-switch to surface.
5. Expectations created from the high number of video game remakes in general that are more faithful.

To clarify that last point, if we are to divide video game remakes into these three categories and define them like this...

1. remasters (enhancements such as higher resolution textures, better framerate, etc.)
2. remakes (completely rebuilt from the ground up)
3. reboots (retold with different continuity)

...the vast majority of remakes (item #2) are more faithful than the RE2 remake. I'm not saying a video game remake aggregate is the standard by which all remakes should be measured, but I think expectations established by what is most common shouldn't be completely discounted. That having been said, the only existing remake in the franchise (RE1 remake) carries more weight as a point of reference for what should be expected.

And I'm not laying down rules here with the terminology because apparently there isn't a general consensus on how some of these words are used. I'm just trying to categorize and define things in a way that helps you and others understand why I consider it a reboot, and why I encourage you and other people to think of it as a reboot too.


The script and flow of events, which are vital components of the storytelling, are not primitive in the original. It's the lack of continuity between takes, the animation, the inability to move cameras during cutscenes, and the editing that are primitive—but you don't hear me complaining about any of that with the RE2 remake.


Different does not mean better.


That's fine, but it doesn't mean you aren't using the word retcon incorrectly. The game is not a retcon. You can call it a remake or a reboot. It might contain retconning. But it is not itself a retcon. If you want to think of a remake or reboot as one big collection of retcons, that's fine, but that's now how the word is used. I'm trying to help you out here.

WOW, you could make a novel out of this post.

 

[KManX89]

Wrong. Both the original and the remake are canon in their own universe, it’s just that the remakes timeline is now the primary storyline while the original games timeline is discontinued, which is basically what a reboot is, it’s basically the same thing Marvel and DC have been doing with their comics over the years to a lesser extent.

Then explain Chris having the same updated look from REmake in Umbrella's End, which was set one year before RE4 (2003) and is canon to the main series? There are no alternate universes, RE1 is no longer canon just like the original RE2 will no longer be.

 

[MisterScott]

Then explain Chris having the same updated look from REmake in Umbrella's End, which was set one year before RE4 (2003) and is canon to the main series? There are no alternate universes, RE1 is no longer canon just like the original RE2 will no longer be.

No alternate universes? You obviously completely ignored my recent response in which I referenced how Resident Evil as a expansive multiverse which includes but is not limited to 3 different versions of the first game and their alternate endings, Operation Raccoon City and Marvel Vs Capcom which are all seperate universes , the original games will still be canon in their own alternate timeline, just like the Star Wars Legends and the countless Superhero movie reboots.

You claim that the designs from the pre remake Resident Evil 1 are no longer canon even though Chris in Resident Evil 6 is obviously a aged version of his original cutscene actors face rather than the remake face (which was pretty close to the original anyway) or the blondie with the small jaw from Resident Evil 7.

Same with Revalations 2 Barry, looks like a older Classic Barry rather thank the skinnier Barry No Beard we saw in Remake, so by the looks of it the old designs still hold some relevance.

So just because a game with non canon designs has events that are applicable to a degree in the canon universe doesn’t make their retcon designs canon, just like how the stage play in Japan where Chris, Rebecca and Piers were played by Japanese actors is telling a canon story (the outbreak in Australia) but the Japanese Chris isn’t canon, only a element of the stage play’s storyline is.

I explained almost all of this in my previous posts, please pay attention because I am sick and tired of repeating myself, if you’re not interested or willing to back track a few pages then feel free to ignore me I don’t care.

 

[Mjolnir Mark IV]

OK lets start off with if the design of the face vs the design of the costume when it comes to the recognisability of a PS1 character, both are important, you seem to be forgetting that in the original game Jills "official look" was how her actress Inezh looked in the game's cutscenes, the game models are important too but as far as the detail goes for a remake model you would ideally take more inspiration from Jills actress or Claires CGI model as they have more detail, it was in the cutscenes with the actors that showed us what Jills (and the other characters) face looks like with life like visuals and it was one of the final cutscenes that revealed that she has long hair under her beret (the in game model was like that as well but not as obvious because of the old graphics), same with Claire as her in game model looks almost cartoonish when it comes to the design of her face and the fine details of her costume compared to her cutscene model, and in different departments Capcom screwed them up when they were tasked with recreating them in the remakes, they changed Jill's facial structure (thakfully not to the extreme extent that they did with Barry) and gave her a hair color and shorter mid length hair style that she canonically didn't have until the events of Resident Evil 3,

While I agree, you do realize this has nothing to do with my question, right? The question I was asked was not "Should the PS1 pre-rendered and live-action characters be used as reference, or the in-game models?" as your explanation seems to imply. It was "what do you think is more important in making a PS1 character recognizable: the outfit or the face?"

but for some reason they kept her outfit almost exactly like her original,

Probably because they realized that it's the most important factor in making the character recognizable from that particular game.

with Claire they ruined her outfit and hairstyle (not to the extent that they changed Jill's hair)

I would say the effect of the change to each character's hairstyle is more or less equal, especially since half of Jill's hair is covered by her beret.

but gave her a new face that looks like a realistic version of her cutscene model that added new details that her orignal model didnt have while keeping her original facial features intact,

I don't see Claire's features as being kept intact because her facial structure in the RE2 remake is rounder than it's ever been.

For the RE games of the PS1/Dreamcast/PS2 era, I'd say faithfully recreating a character's outfit in a new remake is more important than faithfully recreating their face because the outfit for each game is iconic and instantly recognizable, while the character faces fluctuate from game to game—which basically means you can pick whichever version of the face you want as a developer. But I fail to understand the point in not only changing the outfit, but creating a new face that doesn't resemble any of Claire's iterations (plus the different hair we've discussed). And while we're at at, that shade of lipstick isn't in the pre-rendered version of her face or her picture on the item menu for that matter.

As of Marvin's changes vs Richard's, I would like to point out that you only covered Richard in Jill's scenario in remake and didn't mention Chris's ,

Incorrect. Go back and read it again. I mention Rebecca, which is in direct reference to Chris' scenario.

in the original game Chris finds Richard already dead

You can trigger Chris finding Richard dead in the remake as well.

while in the remake not only did Chris find him alive but he also first encounters Rebecca while she was treating Richard

You can trigger this same exact scene in the original RE1. There is more than one version of the first encounter with Rebecca in that game.

instead of finding her in a mansion store room where she pepper sprayed him by accident in the original, so its just as if not more unfaithful as the new scene with Marvin and Leon.

I would disagree because at least Rebecca's alternate scene still exists in the remake. That's half of the collective narrative of the scenes you picked, even considering the removed scene. But with Marvin, much more than half of the original narrative is removed. In fact, it's practically gutted. Just do a side-by-side comparison with the dialog. You'll see what I mean. Even with the scenes you insist on comparing, you're going to find more of RE1's narrative intact in the RE1 remake, compared to how much of RE2's narrative made it into the RE2 remake.

But even after all this you still haven't answered my question about comparing the first scene in the mansion to the first scene in the RPD, which is a much more fair comparison not only because each scene contains a complete narrative, but because it's the first scene of the main area from each game.

And finally as for the Mansion vs the RPD, you are right that the RPD is relatively less accurate, but my point was that the redesign wasn't unexpected since the Mansion underwent heavy redesigns, but the biggest changes in the first remake was the lab entrance not the lobby.

Lab as in a specific room or lab as in the general area? I'm not sure which entrance you're talking about, but the entrance to the general underground lab area has the same layout. Same layout for the entrance to the room with Tyrant too.

 

[MisterScott]

While I agree, you do realize this has nothing to do with my question, right? The question I was asked was not "Should the PS1 pre-rendered and live-action characters be used as reference, or the in-game models?" as your explanation seems to imply. It was "what do you think is more important in making a PS1 character recognizable: the outfit or the face?"


Probably because they realized that it's the most important factor in making the character recognizable from that particular game.


I would say the effect of the change to each character's hairstyle is more or less equal, especially since half of Jill's hair is covered by her beret.


I don't see Claire's features as being kept intact because her facial structure in the RE2 remake is rounder than it's ever been.

For the RE games of the PS1/Dreamcast/PS2 era, I'd say faithfully recreating a character's outfit in a new remake is more important than faithfully recreating their face because the outfit for each game is iconic and instantly recognizable, while the character faces fluctuate from game to game—which basically means you can pick whichever version of the face you want as a developer. But I fail to understand the point in not only changing the outfit, but creating a new face that doesn't resemble any of Claire's iterations (plus the different hair we've discussed). And while we're at at, that shade of lipstick isn't in the pre-rendered version of her face or her picture on the item menu for that matter.


Incorrect. Go back and read it again. I mention Rebecca, which is in direct reference to Chris' scenario.


You can trigger Chris finding Richard dead in the remake as well.


You can trigger this same exact scene in the original RE1. There is more than one version of the first encounter with Rebecca in that game.


I would disagree because at least Rebecca's alternate scene still exists in the remake. That's half of the collective narrative of the scenes you picked, even considering the removed scene. But with Marvin, much more than half of the original narrative is removed. In fact, it's practically gutted. Just do a side-by-side comparison with the dialog. You'll see what I mean. Even with the scenes you insist on comparing, you're going to find more of RE1's narrative intact in the RE1 remake, compared to how much of RE2's narrative made it into the RE2 remake.

But even after all this you still haven't answered my question about comparing the first scene in the mansion to the first scene in the RPD, which is a much more fair comparison not only because each scene contains a complete narrative, but because it's the first scene of the main area from each game.


Lab as in a specific room or lab as in the general area? I'm not sure which entrance you're talking about, but the entrance to the general underground lab area has the same layout. Same layout for the entrance to the room with Tyrant too.

First of all when we were on the topic of what makes a PS1 character more recognisable, the costume or the face I already answered that both are equally important and that is my answer, the reason I mentioned the importance of how the characters appeared in the cutscenes is because they show their canon faces and their clothing in better detail than the standard in game models, just in case anyone replied to my post with something like “they can do the remake face however they want because you can’t recognise their original faces anyway due to the old graphics”, so to avoid anybody responding to my answer like that I basically referenced the most detailed in game depictions.

As for Claire’s model itself, Claire has always had a slightly rounded face, the only screen shot we have of her in the remake (the wallpaper depicting her with Leon doesn’t count as those models are not used in the actual game) shows her in a “looking up” angle which can make peoples faces look rounder, and as I mentioned she looks a lot like Claire as she has a similar facial structure as far as the the shape of the eyes, nose, lips and ears were designed, this model without question looks a lot like Claire facially (she isn’t like remake Barry or 7 Chris), and even though it wasn’t in the original it was still a good decision to give her lipstick like her Romero commercial actress as one of the creepiest things about her original model was the complete lack of lip textures making them look the same as her skin giving the illusion that she hasn’t no lips (and since no detail was previously put in that area they can take some liberties with if she wore lipstick or not) this is a good example of a redesign done right for the sake of realism not giving the characters a unnecessary facelift like they did with Barry, the only problem is that her hair and outfit have more in common with her Code Veronica and Revalations 2 style than how She was dressed in Resident Evil 2.

As for Rebecca’s introduction, I have completed the original game so many times that I lost count and I do not recall Rebecca appearing anywhere else besides the storeroom where she pepper sprayed Chris, so I would like to know how you managed to trigger the alternate scene.

And even if that scene was in tbe original that’s doesn’t change the fact that’s they cut out her other introduction from the remake, as well as other scenes like Barry dropping Jill’s rope and Wesker escaping the Mansion while activating the self destruct without getting impaled by Tyrant.

On the topic of the Lab entrance, I wasn’t talking about the lab interior or the fountain that you drain with the medals , I was referring to the underground era where Enrico was killed, originally that tunnel system was linked to the entry of the the lab through a small elevator near a the statue puzzle after you killed the giant spider but they changed it into a passageway that’s leads to Lisa’s Trevor’s hideout, wheras the lab entrence in the remake is located behind the lobby staircase in a dungeon like room where Lisa’s mother’s grave is located, additionally they completely changed the circumstancess of how Barry can die.

 

[KManX89]

No alternate universes? You obviously completely ignored my recent response in which I referenced how Resident Evil as a expansive multiverse which includes but is not limited to 3 different versions of the first game and their alternate endings, Operation Raccoon City and Marvel Vs Capcom which are all seperate universes , the original games will still be canon in their own alternate timeline, just like the Star Wars Legends and the countless Superhero movie reboots.

No, pre-REmake RE1 was canon to the rest of the series (RE3/original RE2-onwards), now REmake is.

The timeline goes something like this:

RE0-REmake-RE3-REmake 2-CV-UE-RE4-Rev1-LiN-RE5-Rev2-RE6-RE7

How can it be in an alternate universe if it no longer exists in the continuity it was originally apart of? The short answer is that it isn't, that's what remake means. It would only exist separately in an alternate universe if it were a reboot like DmC from the main Devil May Cry universe, but it's not, so that theory is out the window.

Barry grew (notice I said grew, not regrew) the beard in Rev2 BTW.