Resident Evil 2 HD Remaster (Official Topic)

[Hel]

The Remake of Resident Evil 1 wasn’t that faithful ether, for instance they shaved off Barry’s iconic beard and made him skinnier and nobody complained then so why are everyone complaining about Claire’s new jacket?

Barry in Remake looks nothing like Barry who was originally a big bearded guy while the Barry in Remake was a average sized clean shaven man with a slight ginger stubble, if it were not for his signature red flak jacket at face value he could easily pass as a random STARS cop.

I can only speak for myself, but it's not so much Claire's new outfit that bothers me. Even though it's a completely unnecessary change just for the sake of changing something, it still looks like an outfit the character would actually wear, so I can look past that. Her face, though... She's supposed to be 19, not 14, and it doesn't look like her at all. I read somewhere that Capcom tried to make the characters look more like their original versions this time, unlike what they did with "Chris" in RE7, yet I don't recognise Claire at all. If not for the ponytail, you could have told me that was Sherry and I would have believed you.

And yes, the Remake changed Barry, too. Maybe that doesn't bother me so much because I was never a fan of original Barry, or because he was just a supporting character rather than the playable protagonist, either way I agree with the previous poster that he was still much more recognisable. As you said yourself, at least he was still wearing the same outfit, and he did still have a beard, even though it wasn't quite as full as originally. All this new Claire has is... the ponytail, basically.

 

[Mjolnir Mark IV]

She looks older and her The clothes she’s wearing seem to be taking more inspiration from her Revalations 2 and Code Veronica outfit more than her Resident Evil 2 outfit but you can still tell she is Claire by her face, I don’t entirely agree with how Capcom designed her new look but I’m sure we can all agree that as far as her facial structure is concerned she is a more faithful reimagining of Claire than Remake Barry was of Barry and Resident Evil 7 Chris was of Chris as the latter two looked like movie characters that experienced a “actor swap”.

Are you trying to tell me you would recognize the RE2 remake Claire as Claire if you saw a render of the character model with no context? I'm sorry, I don't believe you. Claire totally looks like she experienced an actor swap for the RE2 remake, she's got a much rounder face. But I think her outfit is a much more important visual touchstone than her face when it comes to recognizable hallmarks, and they decided to scrap that. I'd put hair at number two, but even that's different aside from the ponytail (she now has wavy hair parted on the side instead of relatively straight hair parted in the middle—and the strands hanging down in front of her ears are pretty much gone).

 

[MisterScott]

Are you trying to tell me you would recognize the RE2 remake Claire as Claire if you saw a render of the character model with no context? I'm sorry, I don't believe you. Claire totally looks like she experienced an actor swap for the RE2 remake, she's got a much rounder face. But I think her outfit is a much more important visual touchstone than her face when it comes to recognizable hallmarks, and they decided to scrap that. I'd put hair at number two, but even that's different aside from the ponytail (she now has wavy hair parted on the side instead of relatively straight hair parted in the middle—and the strands hanging down in front of her ears are pretty much gone).

Here is a higher definition screenshot I found on the PlayStation Store Website, if you look at her eyebrows and the shape of her ears, eyes, nose and lips you can see that they have a very similar facial structure to her Resident Evil 2 cutscene model, the biggest difference apart from her hairstyle is her bigger and wider face which doesn’t look too bad as it makes her resemble her Code Veronica model which was a a realistic version of how she looked in Resident Evil 2, at first I though she looked like her Revalations 2 model but this screenshot changed my mind (take into consideration that the first screenshot is taken from a angle where she is “looking up” and the different expressions).

Also her lipstick looks like a shout out to Adrienne Frantz, the actress who potrayed Claire in the Live Action Resident Evil 2 commercial directed by George Romero.

 

[Turo602]

When was it ever stated that REmake and REmake 2 take place in an alternate universe? As far as I know, the original has been obsolete ever since the REmake, which has since replaced the original in the canon. While I haven't read or heard of any direct statements regarding this game's canon, I think it's safe to assume the same of this game as with the original REmake.

Differences to the story, improvements to the dialogue, redesigns, rearranged placements of things, and any other new additions or expansions don't make these games take place in alternate universes or somehow make them reboots instead of remakes. Just because the game isn't shot for shot following the original doesn't mean we're not getting essentially the same story as before. Whatever differences or alterations exist are done to modernize the experience for newcomers, keep things fresh for fans of the original, and to keep things in line with the current landscape of the franchise. But the story, the landmarks, the characters, key events, enemies, etc. are all present here.

One look at the game, it's blatantly obvious what you're looking at, and that's Resident Evil 2. It may not be as faithful of a REmake as the original on Gamecube was, which retained almost the same exact experience as the original game, only prettier, refined, and expanded on, but it's in no way a reboot either. The game is literally re-making Resident Evil 2, as in doing again, from scratch. It still takes place in 1998, after RE1 and somewhere in between the events of RE3. It may be expanding on the events of RE2 and presenting them in a more sophisticated way, but it's definitely not a fresh start for the series, as a reboot would imply.

 

[Mjolnir Mark IV]

When was it ever stated that REmake and REmake 2 take place in an alternate universe?

Alternate as in different. It doesn't need to be stated because stating that two versions of the same thing can't occupy the same place at the same time would be stating the obvious. We're talking Continuity 101 here.

Differences to the story, improvements to the dialogue, redesigns, rearranged placements of things, and any other new additions or expansions don't make these games take place in alternate universes or somehow make them reboots instead of remakes.

They most certainly do take place in alternate universes, otherwise you've got yourself a paradox. Two versions of the same person or event occupying the same place in spacetime is impossible. You can't have both in the same universe—you have to choose one version of the person, place, or event per universe. And when these two universes become different enough, you've got yourself a reboot. Exactly where that line is drawn is subjective. But judging from what we have so far, I think it's completely fair—and less damaging—to think of the new RE2 as a reboot.

Just because the game isn't shot for shot following the original doesn't mean we're not getting essentially the same story as before.

If you get rid of the basic plot, it's not even Resident 2 anymore. I'm not saying it isn't recognizable, I'm saying it's not as recognizable as it should be. And I'm not asking for shot-to-shot fidelity either.

Whatever differences or alterations exist are done to modernize the experience for newcomers, keep things fresh for fans of the original, and to keep things in line with the current landscape of the franchise.

You pretty much just defined "reboot."

But the story, the landmarks, the characters, key events, enemies, etc. are all present here.

That's great, but the problem is that they're far more different than they need to be.

One look at the game, it's blatantly obvious what you're looking at, and that's Resident Evil 2.

God help us if that wasn't true. If we couldn't tell what game we were looking at, that would be a failure even as a reboot.

Too much of your argument amounts to "at least it's not a complete failure." I think we should really expect more than that. RE2 deserves that.

It may not be as faithful of a REmake as the original on Gamecube was, which retained almost the same exact experience as the original game, only prettier, refined, and expanded on, but it's in no way a reboot either. The game is literally re-making Resident Evil 2, as in doing again, from scratch. It still takes place in 1998, after RE1 and somewhere in between the events of RE3. It may be expanding on the events of RE2 and presenting them in a more sophisticated way, but it's definitely not a fresh start for the series, as a reboot would imply.

Any time continuity is significantly refreshed with new designs or different narratives, it can potentially be considered a reboot. And I think the changes made to the new RE2 are significant. It doesn't need to be the entire series to be considered a reboot either—I was using the word to describe RE2 specifically. But now that you mention it, since it's a fresh start for RE2, that also means it directly changes RE3. So in that sense it is rebooting the series, starting from RE2. There's no rule that says you can't reboot a series partway through. It's unconventional, but there's no rule against it.

But don't take it from me. The developers themselves are no longer calling it a remake, as they did in 2015 when they announced it. They're calling it "reimagined." They probably chose that word instead of "reboot" to soften the blow of their bait-and-switch reveal. That and they probably don't want people to think they're going to remake every game in the series—but for the sake of one title in the series, it's the exact same difference.

Anyway, at this point, this is definitely semantics. The point is that they're changing way more than is necessary for a remake to be totally awesome, as the RE1 remake has demonstrated. I think there's no question that in the case of the new RE2 and in light of its 2015 announcement and 2018 reveal, describing it with the word "remake" is a euphemism. That's why I think using the word "reboot" reverses some of the damage by bringing more of the truth to the surface. That and relative to the RE1 remake, the changes are significant enough to categorize it under the "reboot" tier. But if you absolutely refuse to accept the word "reboot," then consider it an unfaithful remake, or if you don't like the sound of that, a reimagining. But I don't think either of us should be prohibited from using the word we think best describes it.

 

[Roku]

Alternate as in different. It doesn't need to be stated because stating that two versions of the same thing can't occupy the same place at the same time would be stating the obvious. We're talking Continuity 101 here.


They most certainly do take place in alternate universes, otherwise you've got yourself a paradox. Two versions of the same person or event occupying the same place in spacetime is impossible. You can't have both in the same universe—you have to choose one version of the person, place, or event per universe. And when these two universes become different enough, you've got yourself a reboot. Exactly where that line is drawn is subjective. But judging from what we have so far, I think it's completely fair—and less damaging—to think of the new RE2 as a reboot.

The story is the same, the characters are the same (and seems to share the same backgrounds), the main location is the same, the genre is the same, the enemies are the same - this alone makes it a remake and not a reboot (which is something else entirely - like the DmC one).

The new design are also based on the early concepts of the original RE2, and the remake seems to use a lot of the stuff that was used in RE 1.5. If anything this Remake is more RE2 than the original RE2 was (at least design-wise, even the main hall of the police station is now based on the early concept of the original RE2, same goes to the new Mr.X and etc...).

Was it needed? Actually, I think that it was. One thing that always bothered me of the original RE2 was the bad design of the police station: it wasn't realistic and it made no sense most of the times - don't get me wrong, I love the setting, but it was downright awkward in some points (which is why, it always was one of my least fav locations of the saga), the new one though? It's more realistic while still respecting the original game.

They changed the jump scares, exactly like in the REmake, which makes sense: they want to keep things fresh - yeah, the sense of surprise might only last during the first run, but it would still be enough, and definitely more than what we would have gotten if the remake was made shot by shot (and just because they're doing them differently doesn't mean that they're going to be less iconic). There is also the fact that they needed to do it if they still wanted to scare the players, which is what this genre is about (I mean, it's hard to get scared by the lickers if you already know their location, but if you don't... Now, that's something to fear) - this wasn't something to choose over, this was necessary to give life to tension.

The new soundtrack can also be replaced with the original one.
And yes, the lines are different, but that doesn't mean that the story is different (Leon is still a rookie cop, Claire is still a college student that is searching for her brother while protecting a young Sherry), which was also made in the remake, and yes this remake seems to add even more to this department but I'd argue that this is because Resident Evil 2 always had a larger plot than RE1 (which means that there is also more to add and correct). Honestly, I already like RE2make!Marvin more than RE2!Marvin, which I also liked btw (Leon and Marvin's interactions already feels more genuine).

So basically most of the addition that we saw derives from:
- Resident Evil 1.5 (which was the original RE2)
- Resident Evil 2's early concepts (design-wise)
- And a tiny bit of REmake, RE3, RE3.5/RE4 and RE7 (gameplay-wise)

Some stuff might also have been influenced by the outbreak games map/design.

 

[KevinStriker]

Never thought that the most divisive game I'd see on this whole website would be REmake 2.
I personally am trying to keep my expectations neutral as possibly. So far, I like everything I see.

 

[Matteo]

So, Claire and Leon have separated compaign, i expected one compaign like RE0 and Darkside Chronicles.
Really, it doesn't any sense split out in bad situation like that imho.

 

[Mjolnir Mark IV]

To those of you who insist that the RE2 remake isn't a reboot, consider that the developers had this to say at PlayStation's E3 gameplay demonstration:

"This isn't a remake of the original, it is a full new game that we really want to push."​

And again, they're now calling it "reimagined" on the official website. There is no mention of "remake" anywhere on the official site.

The story is the same, the characters are the same (and seems to share the same backgrounds), the main location is the same, the genre is the same, the enemies are the same - this alone makes it a remake and not a reboot (which is something else entirely - like the DmC one).

That doesn't amount to anything substantial because all you've done is describe the most basic foundation upon which either a remake or a reboot can be built. What is the same does not determine how different each of those things is going to be. And a remake doesn't have to be as distinct as DmC to be considered a reboot.

The new design are also based on the early concepts of the original RE2, and the remake seems to use a lot of the stuff that was used in RE 1.5. If anything this Remake is more RE2 than the original RE2 was (at least design-wise, even the main hall of the police station is now based on the early concept of the original RE2, same goes to the new Mr.X and etc...).

Sorry, but rejected design variations are not more canon than the game itself. Yes, whatever they choose for the RE2 remake will be canon, but basing a RE2 remake on designs that never made it into the original game does not make the RE2 remake more authentic than the original. It just makes it different.

Also, I didn't notice a difference in design with the RE2 remake version of Mr. X (other than his hat, which I didn't mind). Could you please explain or show what makes him more like the concept art?

Was it needed? Actually, I think that it was. One thing that always bothered me of the original RE2 was the bad design of the police station: it wasn't realistic and it made no sense most of the times - don't get me wrong, I love the setting, but it was downright awkward in some points (which is why, it always was one of my least fav locations of the saga), the new one though? It's more realistic while still respecting the original game.

Don't forget that the entire police station is a death trap designed by Chief Irons. Aren't there files you can collect that mention some of the renovations he orchestrates? How do you know the design of the police station isn't meant to reflect this? That's always been my impression and I've always thought it was ingenious, because it also explains all the completely insane puzzles everywhere and strange places for items to be stashed away.

They changed the jump scares, exactly like in the REmake, which makes sense: they want to keep things fresh - yeah, the sense of surprise might only last during the first run, but it would still be enough, and definitely more than what we would have gotten if the remake was made shot by shot (and just because they're doing them differently doesn't mean that they're going to be less iconic).

Making changes for the sake of making the RE2 remake feel fresh is not a good reason. If such things were optimized in the original, it's going to be impossible to improve on them ("if it ain't broke, don't fix it"). Sure, it's possible they'll improve it in situations where such things weren't optimized, but changing it to make it fresh is changing it for the wrong reason. If they're going to change it, they should change it to make it better. Years from now the first playthrough will be a fading memory. We need the game to be as good as it can possibly be for the long years down the road, not as fresh as it can possibly be for the first playthrough.

There is also the fact that they needed to do it if they still wanted to scare the players, which is what this genre is about (I mean, it's hard to get scared by the lickers if you already know their location, but if you don't... Now, that's something to fear) - this wasn't something to choose over, this was necessary to give life to tension.

If the goal is to keep players on their toes, what the developers really need to do is randomize the circumstances of each jump scare—change which window, door, room, vent, wall, etc. that something pops out from. Change what pops out. Change the number of whatever pops out. Make the gameplay itself a menacing psychopath the player can't predict. Now that's something to fear.

The new soundtrack can also be replaced with the original.

Yes, this is one of the things the RE2 remake is doing right! Give us options like this! Like I said, the music still holds up. Although please note: this feature is only available in the Deluxe Edition.

And yes, the lines are different, but that doesn't mean that the story is different

It's not just the dialog that makes up the story. It's the circumstances and location of each character encounter, the design of the characters and the environment, and what actually goes down in those cutscenes. All of that together can influence the story.

(Leon is still a rookie cop, Claire is still a college student that is searching for her brother while protecting a young Sherry), which was also made in the remake,

Again, really basic plot stuff here. That isn't nearly enough to distinguish a remake from a reboot.

and yes this remake seems to add even more to this department but I'd argue that this is because Resident Evil 2 always had a larger plot than RE1 (which means that there is also more to add and correct).

I'm not sure about there being more to add, but there probably is more to correct in terms of patching up plot holes and fixing the broken continuity between the A/B scenarios. But these are not the kind of changes we're seeing in the trailers. We're seeing changes that don't need to be made.

Honestly, I already like RE2make!Marvin more than RE2!Marvin, which I also liked btw (Leon and Marvin's interactions already feels more genuine).

Marvin is the perfect example of the direction the entire RE2 remake should take with the characters. He looks like he does in the original, only better—a visual upgrade without a significant change in design. But most of the changes to his dialog are unnecessary, and I doubt they're why his interaction with Leon feels more genuine to you. There's a lot more subtlety happening with the graphics, and I think most of the VO problems in the original can be attributed to timing and a lack of continuity between takes, rather than the ability of the actors. That having been said, the talent of the voice acting is top notch in the RE2 remake. I'm just not convinced about the casting yet, particularly for Claire.

 

[Zacmac90]

While it would have been nice if the Remake/Reboot/Remaster whatever you decide it is had every single little detail from the original, it doesnt. But at least we finally have Resident Evil 2 in 2018 with top notch graphics and details. Storyline wise as long as the majority of the main story is the same, if they wanna add or remove a minor detail or two it wont bother me much. The only thing I got bummed by besides no Fixed camera angles or slow door opening scenes was Claires outfit. Leon's had some slight differences but it still resembled his re2 gear...

Regardless I think this game will have its Good, Bad, Ugly that we fans will obviously nitpick about but I feel this game will be up there with the 1st remake as a success and hopefully will eventually down the road lead to Nemesis and mayyyyybe code veronica getting re done too but overall im happy to get this game when it comes out

 

[Cure Zombrex]

How much do you want to bet they'll make this canon, just to pee off the fans that love the original or originals, if you want to include all the rest? It cannot be canon, though. Other games had flashbacks to Raccoon City, so Leon and Claire still had their original designs. Don't tell me this will be like the new Halloween movie where they just choose to "ignore" all the sequels, and things get messed up. If that's true, to hell with Capcom...

 

[KevinStriker]

How much do you want to bet they'll make this canon, just to pee off the fans that love the original or originals, if you want to include all the rest? It cannot be canon, though. Other games had flashbacks to Raccoon City, so Leon and Claire still had their original designs. Don't tell me this will be like the new Halloween movie where they just choose to "ignore" all the sequels, and things get messed up. If that's true, to hell with Capcom...

Like the first REmake erased all the previous games, right?

 

[Cure Zombrex]

The first remake never did that.

 

[MisterScott]

The first remake never did that.

The first remake didn’t erase any of the canon besides some dialogue and design changes and the addition of new enemies, but what I think is that even though the first GameCube version was supposed to be just a remake Capcom is trying to is retool the first remake into the first of a rebooted Resident Evil franchise starting with the 2015 re release of the GameCube version in HD and followed by its “sequel” that’s inspired by Resident Evil 2 and have basically retconned the first remake into a different continuity from its PS1 counterpart.

I covered this in another discussion but I always suspected that Capcom doesn’t think the new generation would be interested in the old PS1 version games and that they basically want us to forget they existed, they have basically conformed my suspicions in a new interview.

“When a game is 20 years old, it might be difficult for the current generation of gamers to see past the limitations or frustrations present in a game that old, to get to the core, the meat of the experience. They might put the controller down before they get to the parts that we want them to love because they can’t get over the frustration. It could even be old fashioned controls. So we don’t just want to remaster it and have a copied version of it, slightly updated.“

https://variety.com/2018/gaming/features/resident-evil-2-interview-1202848886/amp/

while I don’t agree that now is the right time for a reboot, from their perspective It makes sense to retool the remake of the first game into a reboot because it was a commercial success in 2015 and the controls were easier and it had a easy difficulty making it more ”compatible” with the new generation, and by the looks of it they are going to take that a step further and drastically modernise the gameplay for all further remakes of the classics.

 

[Cure Zombrex]

Honestly, if the old attires are in as alternative costumes, I'll be using those, because that makes absolute more sense than what they just did.

 

[Hel]

How much do you want to bet they'll make this canon, just to pee off the fans that love the original or originals, if you want to include all the rest? It cannot be canon, though. Other games had flashbacks to Raccoon City, so Leon and Claire still had their original designs. Don't tell me this will be like the new Halloween movie where they just choose to "ignore" all the sequels, and things get messed up. If that's true, to hell with Capcom...

Let's ignore for a moment that "canon" is a rather wonky term when it comes to RE, because even after countless remakes and remasters and alternate versions of RE1, we still don't know for sure how things actually happened in that mansion, and you could say the same about the original RE2 with its four scenarios.

With that said, the only game I can think of with flashbacks to Leon and Claire in Raccoon City is Darkside Chronicles - a game that, in itself, messes up the canon so much that I can't take it seriously, and for the record, it didn't get Claire's original outfit right either. Apart from that, there's Operation Raccoon City, which we know isn't canon. So... even though I'm not a fan of most of the character redesigns (so far I only like Leon), unless they also make some major changes to the story contradicting things that characters say about Raccoon City in other games, it certainly isn't going to be a canon-breaking experience.

 

[Cure Zombrex]

Hel and MisterScott, both of you guys get my respect because you can actually post stuff and not flame me. Lots of people post insults on my YouTube videos. I just block those idiots now.

 

[Mjolnir Mark IV]

While it would have been nice if the Remake/Reboot/Remaster whatever you decide it is had every single little detail from the original, it doesnt.

I'm not even asking for that much. I just want it to be more true to the original than the direction it's going in. If they're going to make changes, they should stick to problem areas such as plot holes and continuity, instead of approaching it like the entire game is a problem area.

So, Claire and Leon have separated compaign, i expected one compaign like RE0 and Darkside Chronicles.
Really, it doesn't any sense split out in bad situation like that imho.

I totally get this, I really do. Splitting up is not a good idea. But if you change this one detail, it causes a chain reaction that causes more and more to be changed as the story progresses until RE2 becomes less and less recognizable. And isn't it going to be a bit weird when Leon and Ada have their romantic moments, while Claire and Sherry stand by? Plus the partner dynamic between Claire/Sherry and Leon/Ada would have to be replaced with something more like Outbreak, because now you have a group of four instead of a partner system. Also consider how much less scary situations are when you're not alone. Not just zombie and licker encounters, but boss fights as well would turn into battles with numerous allies on your side. It would be far less intense to have that kind of security blanket and support.

I think a better solution would be to give Leon and Claire a better reason for splitting up at the STARS room, like two people they know they need to rescue at the same time, such as Sherry and Ben (or Marvin). Maybe just before leaving the STARS room, Leon picks up a distress call over the radio from someone asking for medical attention, and he and Claire team up to go help him, but on the way, Claire sees Sherry running away from zombies, and she and Leon decide to split up so they can do both rescues simultaneously. If it's Ben who asked for help on the radio, who Leon discovers has locked himself in a cell and is in no immediate danger and really only wanted backup supplies, this would further justify the irritation that Leon already expresses in his encounter with him. This isn't the level of change that would bother me—in fact, sticking to little adjustments like this could actually help a RE2 remake shine. But they're going far beyond that. They're meddling with things that already work well and don't need to be changed.

 

[Roku]

That doesn't amount to anything substantial because all you've done is describe the most basic foundation upon which either a remake or a reboot can be built. What is the same does not determine how different each of those things is going to be. And a remake doesn't have to be as distinct as DmC to be considered a reboot.

Yeah, a reboot doesn't have to change everything to be considered a reboot, but it does have to change something major to be called so: This game has the same story, with the same main events, with the same characters (with the same goals and mostly, the same style), with the same antagonist and enemy, with the same locations. This alone doesn't make it a reboot, since they're telling and doing the same exact thing - just compare it with the Tomb Raider's one to see the differences.

And I'd argue that a reimagination is still a remake, and that they called it so because:

1 - There will be only 2 scenario's with a more defined story.
2 - To try and ease the judgement of the players (it's easier to please the players by calling it so, it's their way to tell players that it's a remake without calling it so)

Sorry, but rejected design variations are not more canon than the game itself. Yes, whatever they choose for the RE2 remake will be canon, but basing a RE2 remake on designs that never made it into the original game does not make the RE2 remake more authentic than the original. It just makes it different.

Also, I didn't notice a difference in design with the RE2 remake version of Mr. X (other than his hat, which I didn't mind). Could you please explain or show what makes him more like the concept art?


Don't forget that the entire police station is a death trap designed by Chief Irons. Aren't there files you can collect that mention some of the renovations he orchestrates? How do you know the design of the police station isn't meant to reflect this? That's always been my impression and I've always thought it was ingenious, because it also explains all the completely insane puzzles everywhere and strange places for items to be stashed away.

RE1 and REmake had a different design, they changed it and added to it, because they wanted the Remake to look closer to their original vision. They wouldn't use rejected design if they thought that they were bad or unpractical, if they're using it now it's because they can.

They were probably rejected because of the hardware they were working on (which btw, is the same reason they couldn't put the stuff that they ended up adding in the remake) - for example: the new hall of the police station it's way more realistic and polished of the old one - there was no reason to choose the latter when they already had this design (wich btw, worked much better), so why go with the more unrealistic design? It's probably because that was the one they had less problem with. Now that they're working with a much more powerful hardware they can actually use what they couldn't at the time.

I wasn't talking about the design or the locations of the puzzles, which I'm okay with (well, mostly, there are some that are actually weird now that you're making me think about it, for example the one on the second floor, with the statue with the red gem, that should have raised so many questions between the police officers). I'm talking about some rooms and stuff like the hall or the emergency stairs - or even the lack of rooms like the bathrooms.

Making changes for the sake of making the RE2 remake feel fresh is not a good reason. If such things were optimized in the original, it's going to be impossible to improve on them ("if it ain't broke, don't fix it"). Sure, it's possible they'll improve it in situations where such things weren't optimized, but changing it to make it fresh is changing it for the wrong reason. If they're going to change it, they should change it to make it better. Years from now the first playthrough will be a fading memory. We need the game to be as good as it can possibly be for the long years down the road, not as fresh as it can possibly be for the first playthrough.


If the goal is to keep players on their toes, what the developers really need to do is randomize the circumstances of each jump scare—change which window, door, room, vent, wall, etc. that something pops out from. Change what pops out. Change the number of whatever pops out. Make the gameplay itself a menacing psychopath the player can't predict. Now that's something to fear.

Yes, this is one of the things the RE2 remake is doing right! Give us options like this! Like I said, the music still holds up. Although please note: this feature is only available in the Deluxe Edition.

It's not just the dialog that makes up the story. It's the circumstances and location of each character encounter, the design of the characters and the environment, and what actually goes down in those cutscenes. All of that together can influence the story.

Again, really basic plot stuff here. That isn't nearly enough to distinguish a remake from a reboot.
I'm not sure about there being more to add, but there probably is more to correct in terms of patching up plot holes and fixing the broken continuity between the A/B scenarios. But these are not the kind of changes we're seeing in the trailers. We're seeing changes that don't need to be made.

Marvin is the perfect example of the direction the entire RE2 remake should take with the characters. He looks like he does in the original, only better—a visual upgrade without a significant change in design. But most of the changes to his dialog are unnecessary, and I doubt they're why his interaction with Leon feels more genuine to you. There's a lot more subtlety happening with the graphics, and I think most of the VO problems in the original can be attributed to timing and a lack of continuity between takes, rather than the ability of the actors. That having been said, the talent of the voice acting is top notch in the RE2 remake. I'm just not convinced about the casting yet, particularly for Claire.

Yeah, but they aren't changing stuff just for the sake of it, they're changing stuff that needed to be changed. I'm pretty sure that they are going to keep the main jump scares, they are just changing the timing and the locations (one of the dev said that we're going to see a glimpse of the licker in another window for example).
And I don't think that this has anything to do with the new look (though, I'd admit that it does help when it comes to certain stuff), I'm replaying RE2 lately, and I'm liking the new lines better, they feel much more genuine (I like the new note - that is now written by Marvin btw - that welcomes Leon better too), it also makes more sense for the new Marvin to not pull out his gun IMO (I mean all the rooms are connected, closed or not, Leon was still going to enter by other side of the room anyway), which is why I don't mind is new location.

Whatever man, let's just agree to disagree xD
Either way, we're going to enjoy a new RE game.

 

[KManX89]

Ugh, now we're seriously arguing about whether REmake 2 is canon or not? You don't tell the exact same story, with the same characters, same enemies, same events, same location, same everything, just with more added to it, and NOT have it be canon. It's simply an expansion of the original game with a new camera perspective and up-to-date visuals and any changes will simply override the original RE2's in canon, just like the first REmake (since it reshuffled a lot of areas and whatnot from the first game). If say, Nemesis is featured in a small cameo like I talked about earlier, the canon will simply be expanded to include him in the lore with either Claire or Leon seeing him lurking the streets, something that was never touched on in the original, but very easily could've happened given the timeline of the two games (Nemesis' first fight with Jill took place just before Leon and Claire arrived in Raccoon City).

The whole Lisa Trevor ordeal never happened according to the logic of some people in this thread.