• Welcome to the Resident Evil Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Resident Evil series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Resident Evil 3 Remake Is RE3 as good as RE2 seriously?

Wesker90

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
93
Reaction score
47
Points
1,503
Age
30
I will admit I have NOT played RE3 yet I've been off the forum for a long while doing other things but as a veteran RE gamer I still haven't even touched this game yet surprisingly so what's the true verdict since I hear it's just too short and lacking classic content?

What are some professional pros and cons from this board so I don't have to listen to uptight critics from the gaming media.
 
D

Deleted member 21244

Guest
I will admit I have NOT played RE3 yet I've been off the forum for a long while doing other things but as a veteran RE gamer I still haven't even touched this game yet surprisingly so what's the true verdict since I hear it's just too short and lacking classic content?

What are some professional pros and cons from this board so I don't have to listen to uptight critics from the gaming media.
Resident evil 3 is Many step back to resident evil 2
It's even many step back compared to the original re 3

Everything in resident evil 2 is better than in resident evi 3, from gameplay, to soud, to content, to atmosphere, to enemy AI, to maps, to bosses, to puzzle, to faithfulness to the original, to enemy design ecc ecc also Mr x is 10 times better and scary than the scripted and weak nemesis

1) THE GAMEPLAY , resident evil 3 is just going from point A to point B shooting or dodging enemy whit a lot of ammo and herbs, puzzle are not present in this game but instead you sometimes pick some random key that 90% of the time are located next to the door it open... So long to the iconic key and iconic door of resident evil 2... As the gameplay is some sort of fun, it s nothing that remain impressed, and it's something already seen in many other action game... The ink ribbon a glad returning feature in re 7 and re 2 remake, available in the hardcore difficulty, is also been cut, because the game is so scripted that it was impossible to put typewriter in good location
It almost look like capcom returned to the re 6 root after all the sacrifice they made to let go of that **** and returning to horror form whit re 7 and 2 remake

2) THE SOUND, resident evil 2 invented a new type of audio, made by 3 point, where you were able to hear mr x footstep and the zombie roar even if they were above or under you, and you can even understand where they are by just listening, the sound also change if you are located in an open zone like the rpd hall or in a small zone like rpd corridors, to make it more simple, if you shoot into the rpd hal the sound of the shot will be different from shooting into a tight room or corridor
they really work hard on sound, unfortunately re 3 remake have none oc this, sound are pretty bland and minimal, zombie can't be heard from afar and nemesis foot can't be heard to help you dodge him also because nemesis is a scripted boss so you can't even dodge him, you ll face him anyway

3) ENEMY and ENEMY AI, in resident evil 2 the IA was really impressive, zombie patrol the rpd and follow you trought door and other room, you are also able to shoot they're leg and harm to dismember them, and they also have hole on they're body after you shoot them or knife cut... Also if you dismember them they will fall to the ground but they will continue to follow you until they are not killed like true zombie... Resident evil 3 had none of this, zombie are relocated to room and zone, they can't open door to follow you, they just stand there, as soon as you open the next door the zombies return to they're scripted spot, dismemberment is also limited... Zombie are also easy to kill in re 3 compared to re 2 and they don't felt like a real treath due to this


4) NEMESIS AND NEMESIS AI, in resident evil 2 mr x have its own AI, he stalks you trought the rpd even when he is not on screen, he even react to sound made by the player like footstep or shooting, he is unpredictable he can happear whenever you expect to kill you, he is also hard to put down, because you have to shoot to its head since his body is covered by his trench coat, or you can use three granade to put him down or a flashbag to stun him for few second... Nemesis had none of this amazing AI, he is just a normal boss happearing at scripted moment during the game, and his first form can go down whit just one ****ing grenade even on hardcore, he dosent stalk you, he dosent happear suddenly, he is just a boss like birkin was in the re 2 remake, but more weak... Nemesis also happear in the game for like 15 minutes, he completely disappear in the second half of the game and just randomly happear in the nest to be the final boss... Nemesis second form design is the worst design i have ever seen in a videogames and also one of the worst bosses ever faced in video-game history

4) BOSSES, nemesis is the only boss in this game and most of the battle are the same, except for the last two, and they put not treath at all expect to the extreme difficulty because you die in one hit unless you don't use special item... The only good boss battle whit nemesis is the one whit the flamethrower, the rest are just bland and forgettable

5) MAPS, well i think you already know how re 2 remake maps where amazingly done, all map where interconnected between them and you can even go back in case you forget to pick something, on thr other hand, resident evil 3 map are just straight forward, just going from point A to point B, and there is not time to explore because you leave every map after 5 minutes, there is no time to breath, and the map that are more explorable and felt open are way to small and can be explored in 5 minutes, like the hospital and the nest

6) PUZZLE, like i sayd before, the game have no puzzle except for two stupid puzzle that can be solved in 30 second, puzzle that even a kid can done, the rest are just put this key into that door to open it, and 90% of the time key are just next to the door they need to open

7) FAITHFULNESS TO THE ORIGINAL GAME AND CUT CONTENT, regardless all of the flaws like some cut story contet, resident evil 2 was pretty faithful to the original, the map, the puzzle, the bosses, the extra contet like tofu and 4th survivor were all there, there were also some new location and puzzle, like the orphanage and the ada part or the prologue at the gas station...

Resident evil 3 instead had nothing of the original game except for the character and the name of the game and core story point, everything was cut in this remake...
Here it's the list of all the cut contet

location: 3/4 downtown, 3/4 of uptown, clock tower, park and 3/4 of dead factory were all cut

Puzzle: resident evil 3 had the most amazing and well done puzzle in re history and they were all cut from this remake, they are not present in any way

Live selection: the moment when the screen freez and give you two choice to made in order to face the treath and have a different story, were cut from the remake

Alternate ending and story changing: the alternate ending and story differences where all cut, you instead have a straight forward story

8 epilogues: the epilogues showing you what iconic re character did after resident evil 3 were all cut from the remake

Costume: the 6 costume were all cut from the remake... The remake had only one unlockable costume and that's ridicolous

Mercenaries: mercenaries were cut from the remake and capcom put resident evil resistance in its place which is an amazing multiplayer game but had nothing to do whit re 3 it's like a game on its own...

Grave digger: a boss that was present many time in the original was cut from the remake

Iconic moment: iconic moment like the intro where police officer and swat fight zombie or where Brad is killed by nemesis are all cut and replaced by non memorable cutscene, every iconic moment you can remember about the original game is not present in the remake


It's ridicolous how a 1999 game had more contet than a 2020 one, re 3 remake had zero replay value, there is nothing to unlock expect for some coin, some infinite weapon, and some concept and statue...

On the positive note: re 3 remake had better graphic than the original and sometimes even better than re 2 remake, shooting and dodging is fun and Jill and Carlos are amazing characters, and atmosphere is good, but that's it, it's not a memorable game at all, you will forget about it as soon as you play it

If you had to buy my suggestion is to just wait for a heavy price drop
 
Last edited by a moderator:

UniqTeas

G Virus Experiment
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
1,548
Reaction score
1,584
Points
13,271
Age
34
Good Analysis and Welcome Back AlbertWesker959!

The game is fun, but overall, a disappointment. I wish we got a full RE3R rather than so much added to Resistance. I couldn't enjoy Resistance. But mostly because I am a single player story focused kind of player. Waiting in lobbies is excruciating to me. Same reason I stopped playing Fall Guys after about 2 hours.
 

Rain611

You can't kill me.
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
1,592
Reaction score
1,753
Points
28,378
Age
32
Good Analysis and Welcome Back AlbertWesker959!

The game is fun, but overall, a disappointment. I wish we got a full RE3R rather than so much added to Resistance. I couldn't enjoy Resistance. But mostly because I am a single player story focused kind of player. Waiting in lobbies is excruciating to me. Same reason I stopped playing Fall Guys after about 2 hours.

That's funny because I'm only in queue for about 30 seconds tops on Fall Guys.

As far as R3make goes, I'm one of the few that actually really liked the remake. Long story short, I hated the original and they basically fixed all the stuff that I didn't like. The Nemesis choice stuff was cut out (I never saw the point for those), they majorly fleshed out Carlos as a character when originally I found him to be so bland. Also, they made Carlos's hospital part much more substantial and it was lots of fun. I personally didn't miss the Clock Tower because I didn't think it added all that much to the story, same with Gravedigger. It also made the Nemesis fight more fun for me (although final nemmy on Inferno had me raging so hard) and the game had a much faster pace which was great because I thought the original drug on like no other.

As for what I didn't like about it -

I didn't like how they did Jill in the game. Her snarky attitude didn't seem proper for her character in my opinion and it seemed like they just wanted to make her super edgy. Ew.

I had some issues with the controls (nothing too major) sometimes but nothing I couldn't work around.

The difficulty spike in Nightmare/Inferno modes is ridiculous but if you like super hard runs, that shouldn't be an issue.

Overall I was happy with the game but I also didn't like the original so it seems to me if you liked the original, you won't like the remake but if you didn't like the original (like me) you will probably like the remake.

And to get to the comparison, I think REmake2 did a better job sticking to the source material whereas R3make didn't. That being said, I think the choices made worked well enough given each unique situation. At the end of the day I like REmake2 better but I also love the original RE2 and the remake was almost everything I wanted it to be in the end.
 
D

Deleted member 21244

Guest
Good Analysis and Welcome Back AlbertWesker959!

The game is fun, but overall, a disappointment. I wish we got a full RE3R rather than so much added to Resistance. I couldn't enjoy Resistance. But mostly because I am a single player story focused kind of player. Waiting in lobbies is excruciating to me. Same reason I stopped playing Fall Guys after about 2 hours.
Thank you, but i only write rarely recently, just felt the need to made this re 3 analysis XD
 

Mr.R

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
327
Reaction score
475
Points
6,838
Age
31
RE2R is the better game between them both, but the two games are...kind of a different experience for me. RE3 is a more action-oriented than 2, with a very fast pace (one thing RE3 does better is that...it's a prettier game. In my opinion, RE3 has some of the best facial expressions I've ever seen in a game, but this is just a detail, of course). Things happens fast, but there are some great moments in RE3 too. I'd say...if you're still unsure, wait for the price to drop a little bit. I'm sure RE3 will be featured at some Halloween themed sale, like most RE's games does every year.
 

Wesker90

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
93
Reaction score
47
Points
1,503
Age
30
Thank you, but i only write rarely recently, just felt the need to made this re 3 analysis XD
Wow thanks for the write up well appreciated.

Yeah I don't understand why Capcom couldn't capitalize on RE2's momentum I mean how hard is it to stay loyal to the source of the originals? RE2 was perfect for me just like it's original counterpart minus the zap system but it still thrived everywhere else.

RE8 might fix this set back but RE3 should have been a lot better than it sounds even a kid could probably have brainstormed how the game should have been designed.
 
D

Deleted member 21244

Guest
Wow thanks for the write up well appreciated.

Yeah I don't understand why Capcom couldn't capitalize on RE2's momentum I mean how hard is it to stay loyal to the source of the originals? RE2 was perfect for me just like it's original counterpart minus the zap system but it still thrived everywhere else.

RE8 might fix this set back but RE3 should have been a lot better than it sounds even a kid could probably have brainstormed how the game should have been designed.
Because re 3 was unfortunately made by a secondary team and not by a main capcom team and was made in like 2 and half years, while re 2 remake was made in 5 years, and was made by more competent people... there was no time, they had to cut everything from the re 3 remake in order to be released in time...
This is because capcom is releasing a re game evey year now and they wanted re 3 remake to be released before re 8 trailer announce so that everyone attention was on re 8 instead of re 3...
 

Wesker90

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
93
Reaction score
47
Points
1,503
Age
30
Because re 3 was unfortunately made by a secondary team and not by a main capcom team and was made in like 2 and half years, while re 2 remake was made in 5 years, and was made by more competent people... there was no time, they had to cut everything from the re 3 remake in order to be released in time...
This is because capcom is releasing a re game evey year now and they wanted re 3 remake to be released before re 8 trailer announce so that everyone attention was on re 8 instead of re 3...
Ah I get it now.
 

Roku

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
84
Reaction score
120
Points
5,688
Age
26
Honestly, I think that it is an unfair comparison, mostly because both games tried to do different things, and both took different choices to reach their respective goals. It's mostly a matter of taste.

Resident Evil 2 is more of a survival horror experience, while Resident Evil 3 is more of an action horror one, which means that while RE2 is designed to be a slower, atmospheric, close and personal experience, RE3 is designed to be a faster, more adrenaline-rushing, well-paced one.

The enemies, level and gameplay design are designed around each game tone and approach (for example, RE3's enemies are faster, because RE3 as a game is designed to be faster, Mr. X in RE2 is slow because he's meant to be a tension bringer/walking puzzle you need to figure out and avoid)
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 21244

Guest
Honestly, I think that it is an unfair comparison, mostly because both games tried to do different things, and both took different choices to reach their respective goals. It's mostly a matter of taste.

Resident Evil 2 is more of a survival horror experience, while Resident Evil 3 is more of an action horror one, which means that while RE2 is designed to be a slower, atmospheric, close and personal experience, RE3 is designed to be a faster, more adrenaline-rushing, well-paced one.

The enemies, level and gameplay design are designed around each game tone and approach (for example, RE3's enemies are faster, because RE3 as a game is designed to be faster, Mr. X in RE2 is slow because he's meant to be a tension bringer/walking puzzle you need to figure out and avoid)
To bad that Capcom always says before release that the game would have been better than re 2 remake in every way and even better than the original game, so capcom was the first to make comparison between the two remake

The say that raccon city would have been huge, explorable and more fleshed out, FALSE

They say nemesis would have used Mr x AI but more advanced, FALSE

They say the game would have been a re 3 nemesis full Remake FALSE

When everyone where afraid that clock tower would have been cut from the game capcom released a trailer where the clock tower was shown and later for some magical reason an image of jill stand in front of the clock tower was released, and everyone where assured that clock tower was there FALSE

Probably if Capcom wouldn't have hyped the game whit false expectation, disappointment would not have been this high... Also it's obviously that after re 7 and re 2 remake, a game that just come out a year before and was well received , you expected the sequel to have the same feature but improved... But Re 3, expect the graphic, throw in the toilet every technical improved capcom have made in the past 10 years whit the re series... Comparison are inevitable and fair

You say enemies and gameplay were designed to be more faster than re 2 remake, but 90% of the enemies use the same animation from re 2 remake and they move at the same speed, gameplay mechanic are the same as re 2 remake expect that you can dodge now but jill and Carlos move at the same speed as Leon and claire

Also the original re 3 wasn't as action as you think, it was build around tension and puzzle solving , the original re 2 was actually more action than the original re 3, you have like a hundred of ammo sometimes and there are a lot of enemy at once in the rpd, and puzzle aren't as hard as that from re 3, you just have to put that key into that door and that emblem into that statue, while the original re 3 have puzzle in which you have to use you're brain to figure out how to pass them, even when you play as Carlos which is the most action part of the game, you must solve puzzle lol

So the original re 3 was built around tension and puzzle solving, while capcom think it was good to make the remake an action game, but they were so wrong...
They could have also than that but at least keep the core of the game intact like square enix did whit final fantasy 7 remake, the game is definitely more action, more faster in every way, but it still feel like you're playing the original ff 7 because the core gameplay remained intact...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Roku

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
84
Reaction score
120
Points
5,688
Age
26
To bad that Capcom always says before release that the game would have been better than re 2 remake in every way and even better than the original game, so capcom was the first to make comparison between the two remake

The say that raccon city would have been huge, explorable and more fleshed out, FALSE

They say nemesis would have used Mr x AI but more advanced, FALSE

They say the game would have been a re 3 nemesis full Remake FALSE

When everyone where afraid that clock tower would have been cut from the game capcom released a trailer where the clock tower was shown and later for some magical reason an image of jill stand in front of the clock tower was released, and everyone where assured that clock tower was there FALSE

Probably if Capcom wouldn't have hyped the game whit false expectation, disappointment would not have been this high... Also it's obviously that after re 7 and re 2 remake, a game that just come out a year before and was well received , you expected the sequel to have the same feature but improved... But Re 3, expect the graphic, throw in the toilet every technical improved capcom have made in the past 10 years whit the re series... Comparison are inevitable and fair

You say enemies and gameplay were designed to be more faster than re 2 remake, but 90% of the enemies use the same animation from re 2 remake and they move at the same speed, gameplay mechanic are the same as re 2 remake expect that you can dodge now but jill and Carlos move at the same speed as Leon and claire

Also the original re 3 wasn't as action as you think, it was build around tension and puzzle solving , the original re 2 was actually more action than the original re 3, you have like a hundred of ammo sometimes and there are a lot of enemy at once in the rpd, and puzzle aren't as hard as that from re 3, you just have to put that key into that door and that emblem into that statue, while the original re 3 have puzzle in which you have to use you're brain to figure out how to pass them, even when you play as Carlos which is the most action part of the game, you must solve puzzle lol

So the original re 3 was built around tension and puzzle solving, while capcom think it was good to make the remake an action game, but they were so wrong...
They could have also than that but at least keep the core of the game intact like square enix did whit final fantasy 7 remake, the game is definitely more action, more faster in every way, but it still feel like you're playing the original ff 7 because the core gameplay remained intact...

The poster asked if the game was better than RE2, not what Capcom said about it and I was responding to that. To me, PERSONALLY, comparing both games makes no sense given the fact that each game tried to do different things, and took different decisions and approaches to reach their respective goals. To me, it's like comparing salt and sugar, both have similar purposes, but are different enough that needs to get used in different ways to work.

Whatever Capcom might have said doesn't change the quality of the game, also a lot of stuff gets changed during development, RE2 wasn't the same product we got until one year and half prior to his release when a lot of stuff got redone (something that happens quite often with the RE series), and most likely, RE3 used to be bigger too (RE2 used to be as well, before they've decided to cut some stuff), so they may have not been lies at the times, not the ones regarding the longevity and environments at least, that's why you always gotta take whatever it's said with a grain of salt.

Also, I disagree when it comes to both the enemies and gameplay, while some enemies had similar patterns to the ones present in RE2 (like zombies, zombies dogs and Nemesis, which makes sense for the most part) not every enemy did, Jill had a steadier aim than both Leon and Claire and the dodge mechanic does change the way you approach each battle, some enemies are even designed in a way that encourages you to perfect that feature because that's what the gameplay centers around.

The original RE3 - IMO - was action-heavy, it's just leaned towards one hand (action VS horror) more based on which difficulty you choose (easy = more action-heavy, hard = more survival horror oriented), which is something that's still true for the remake too, although not with the same perfect balance. Is RE3 (2020) more action oriented than the original? Of course. R3 (2020) doesn't have the same technical limitations and issues the original did, which means that it didn't have to navigate around those or compromise to make everything work. This is why RE3 (2020) doesn't have the same amount of puzzles, puzzles are perfect for more survival horrors experiences, since they force you to slow down and think, and to go back and forth infested areas to complete each quest (which creates tension), but puzzles also break the pacing, which means that they don't work nearly as well in more action titles/faster-paced experiences like the one RE3 (2020) aimed to be, since they do the opposite of what those games are trying to do, by slowing everything down (to understand what I'm trying to say, look at DMC 1-4 VS DMC 5, in which they've got rid of the puzzles to make the game flow better).

I'm not saying you have to like it (I myself would have liked more puzzles, because I'm a simple person, I like what I like regardless of what makes more sense or not) or that RE3 did it better than RE2, or even that RE3 (2020) was better than the original (I actually like the original more), just that the team had they reasons to go this way and take most of the decisions they took regardless of how people feel about them (they wanted to go the action horror route and they've approached each aspect of the game with that in mind, they took the decisions they took to reach that ultimate end).

You're free to dislike it or to disagree with them or me, of course, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you, but I have mine as well.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 21244

Guest
The poster asked if the game was better than RE2, not what Capcom said about it and I was responding to that. To me, PERSONALLY, comparing both games makes no sense given the fact that each game tried to do different things, and took different decisions and approaches to reach their respective goals. To me, it's like comparing salt and sugar, both have similar purposes, but are different enough that needs to get used in different ways to work.

Whatever Capcom might have said doesn't change the quality of the game, also a lot of stuff gets changed during development, RE2 wasn't the same product we got until one year and half prior to his release when a lot of stuff got redone (something that happens quite often with the RE series), and most likely, RE3 used to be bigger too (RE2 used to be as well, before they've decided to cut some stuff), so they may have not been lies at the times, not the ones regarding the longevity and environments at least, that's why you always gotta take whatever it's said with a grain of salt.

Also, I disagree when it comes to both the enemies and gameplay, while some enemies had similar patterns to the ones present in RE2 (like zombies, zombies dogs and Nemesis, which makes sense for the most part) not every enemy did, Jill had a steadier aim than both Leon and Claire and the dodge mechanic does change the way you approach each battle, some enemies are even designed in a way that encourages you to perfect that feature because that's what the gameplay centers around.

The original RE3 - IMO - was action-heavy, it's just leaned towards one hand (action VS horror) more based on which difficulty you choose (easy = more action-heavy, hard = more survival horror oriented), which is something that's still true for the remake too, although not with the same perfect balance. Is RE3 (2020) more action oriented than the original? Of course. R3 (2020) doesn't have the same technical limitations and issues the original did, which means that it didn't have to navigate around those or compromise to make everything work. This is why RE3 (2020) doesn't have the same amount of puzzle, puzzle are perfect for more survival horrors experiences, since they force you to slow down and think, and to go back and forth infested areas to complete each quest (which creates tension), but puzzle also break the pacing, which means that they don't work nearly as well in more action titles/faster-paced experiences like the one RE3 (2020) aimed to be, since they do the opposite of what those game are trying to do, by slowing everything down (to understand what I'm trying to say, look at DMC 1-4 VS DMC 5, in which they've got rid of the puzzle to make the game flow better).

I'm not saying you have to like it (I myself would have liked more puzzles, because I'm a simple person, I like what I like regardless of what makes more sense or not) or that RE3 did it better than RE2, or even that RE3 (2020) was better than the original (I actually like the original more), just that the team had they reason to go this way and take most of the decisions they took regardless of how people feel about them (they wanted to go the action horror route and they've approached each aspect of the game with that in mind, they've took the decisions they took to reach that ultimate end).

You're free to dislike it or to disagree with them or me, of course, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you, but I have mine as well.
I disagree on the fact that they approached each aspect of the game whit the focus on action, they didn't cut content because they wanted the game to be more action but because they don't have time and resource to make a whole remake so they have to cut everything

Why cut costume? An action game cannot have more than 1 costume to unlock?
Why cut clock tower, park, grave yard and grave digger? They were not ok whit an action game? That's so wrong, i can already imagine re 3 remake gameplay into the clock tower, imagine walking in there full of spider and zombie whit nemesis stalking you sometime, also walking into the park and grave yard at night whit zombie coming out of the grave, same for grave digger, it would have been an amazing boss battle for an action game...

Mercenaries too, it would have been perfect whit the shooting and dodge mechanic of re 3 remake

Why cut the two ending? The live selection? The puzzle? Even more action game like re 4, 5 and 6 have more puzzle than this and more contet

The answer is that Capcom simply didn't have the time to make this game and opted for a linear game and cut the hardest part to design, because if you think about it clock tower, park, grave digger and puzzle are the part that should have been reworked the most and redesigned, but capcom say: we have no time let's cut everything and just make a linear game

There is no excuse for cutting content, i don't understand how people can stil find excuses for cutting everything from this remake, it's like remaking resident evil code veronica and cutting all Chris part, cutting all the puzzle, cutting alexia castle, cutting some bosses, cutting all iconic scene like wesker vs alexia and battle mode... There is no excuse for this but simply lazyness or incompetence from the developer

Capcom made that comparison whit re 2 remake like two month before release, the game was already completed by that time nothing was changed, they simply say bull**** to let everyone buy they're cash grab game

As for the dmc comparison, dmc 5 is not a remake but a sequel, so it's ok if they wanted to change gameplay a bit and make it more action , but re 3 is a remake of re 3 nemesis and this is not how you make a remake, it should have been faithful to the original... No wonder why no one complain about re 1 remake, because it's the perfect remake that expanded the original, this is how you make a remake

Difficulty didn't change the gameplay of the original lol puzzle where always there on easy, atmosphere is always the same, dying or killing the enemy whit one hit don't change the type of game it is... it's like saying dmc 5 is a survival horror because on hell or hell difficulty i die whit one hit or that re 1 is an action game because on easy i find like 200 ammo gun and zombie die whit one hit lol dmc 5 its always an action game and re 1 is always a survival horror no matter what difficulty you choose, same goes for re 3 nemesis
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Roku

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
84
Reaction score
120
Points
5,688
Age
26
I disagree on the fact that they approached each aspect of the game whit the focus on action, they didn't cut content because they wanted the game to be more action but because they don't have time and resource to make a whole remake so they have to cut everything

Why cut costume? An action game cannot have more than 1 costume to unlock?
Why cut clock tower, park, grave yard and grave digger? They were not ok whit an action game? That's so wrong, i can already imagine re 3 remake gameplay into the clock tower, imagine walking in there full of spider and zombie whit nemesis stalking you sometime, also walking into the park and grave yard at night whit zombie coming out of the grave, same for grave digger, it would have been an amazing boss battle for an action game...

Mercenaries too, it would have been perfect whit the shooting and dodge mechanic of re 3 remake

Why cut the two ending? The live selection? The puzzle? Even more action game like re 4, 5 and 6 have more puzzle than this and more contet

The answer is that Capcom simply didn't have the time to make this game and opted for a linear game and cut the hardest part to design, because if you think about it clock tower, park, grave digger and puzzle are the part that should have been reworked the most and redesigned, but capcom say: we have no time let's cut everything and just make a linear game

There is no excuse for cutting content, i don't understand how people can stil find excuses for cutting everything from this remake, it's like remaking resident evil code veronica and cutting all Chris part, cutting all the puzzle, cutting alexia castle, cutting some bosses, cutting all iconic scene like wesker vs alexia and battle mode... There is no excuse for this but simply lazyness or incompetence from the developer

Capcom made that comparison whit re 2 remake like two month before release, the game was already completed by that time nothing was changed, they simply say bull**** to let everyone buy they're cash grab game

As for the dmc comparison, dmc 5 is not a remake but a sequel, so it's ok if they wanted to change gameplay a bit and make it more action , but re 3 is a remake of re 3 nemesis and this is not how you make a remake, it should have been faithful to the original... No wonder why no one complain about re 1 remake, because it's the perfect remake that expanded the original, this is how you make a remake

I respect your opinion but I disagree, the fact that they cut contents doesn't negate the fact that they still approached the various aspect of the game (structure, level design etc...) with a precise goal/tone in mind.

They did cut stuff, and budget probably influenced some decisions, but in my opinion, what was present in the game was exposed and thought in a certain way to fit with the overall goal, tone and direction of the game.

They wanted the game to be in a certain a way (action horror oriented), and took various decisions to reach that goal (by reworking the dodge and making it one of the most important feature of the game, making it more fast-paced in various ways, reintroducing quick time events, making the aim steadier, making boss battles more dynamic and a tiny bit more strategic, avoiding stuff that could slow the game down and break the pacing like the breakable knife etc...). I'm not saying that everything 100% worked for the better, by the way, just that there was a reason they choose to opt for most of this stuff.

I also disagree on the difficulty stuff regarding the original RE3, depending on the difficulty you choose the game did, encourage you to play it in a certain way rather than the other, IMO.
Easy difficulty gave you tons of ammunition, more weapons (even giving you the assault rifle from the start!), made you start with 3 erbs, gave the player infinite ink ribbons and discouraged the player from undertaking any risk-vs-reward behavior by making the rewards a lot less interesting.
This encouraged a more action-oriented approach and removed most of the tension present in the game (being killed in easy difficulty isn't much of a deal and doesn't hold the same weight, when you can save whenever, and most often than not you don't have to worry about having to decide between killing normal enemies or putting down Nemesis because you're given enough ammo to do both, fighting Nemesis in general doesn't have the same appeal since the reward for it isn't as interesting as it is in the hard mode).
The hard difficulty, on the other hand encourages a more survival horror approach, by doing the opposite and giving you less resources (and so forcing you to constantly take hard decisions and actually weight the pros and cons of every action you had to take and of the choices presented to you), offering you special weapons to encourage you to fight Nemesis and take some risks (risk-VS-reward), making every death count (limited ribbons) etc...

This said, while I explained my perspective and shared my opinion on the matter, I don't expect you to agree with me or change yours. You have your own perspective on the matter and that's cool, but you also have to respect mine and accept the fact that I've a different opinion from yours without brushing it off as me trying to defend Capcom or whatever, rather than me simply having my own, different opinion.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 21244

Guest
I respect your opinion but I disagree, the fact that they cut contents doesn't negate the fact that they still approached the various aspect of the game (structure, level design etc...) with a precise goal/tone in mind.

They did cut stuff, and budget probably influenced some decisions, but in my opinion, what was present in the game was exposed and thought in a certain way to fit with the overall goal, tone and direction of the game.

They wanted the game to be in a certain a way (action horror oriented), and took various decisions to reach that goal (by reworking the dodge and making it one of the most important feature of the game, making it more fast-paced in various ways, reintroducing quick time events, making the aim steadier, making boss battles more dynamic and a tiny bit more strategic, avoiding stuff that could slow the game down and break the pacing like the breakable knife etc...). I'm not saying that everything 100% worked for the better, by the way, just that there was a reason they choose to opt for most of this stuff.

I also disagree on the difficulty stuff regarding the original RE3, depending on the difficulty you choose the game did, encourage you to play it in a certain way rather than the other, IMO.
Easy difficulty gave you tons of ammunition, more weapons (even giving you the assault rifle from the start!), made you start with 3 erbs, gave the player infinite ink ribbons and discouraged the player from undertaking any risk-vs-reward behavior by making the rewards a lot less interesting.
This encouraged a more action-oriented approach and removed most of the tension present in the game (being killed in easy difficulty isn't much of a deal and doesn't hold the same weight, when you can save whenever, and most often than not you don't have to worry about having to decide between killing normal enemies or putting down Nemesis because you're given enough ammo to do both, fighting Nemesis in general doesn't have the same appeal since the reward for it isn't as interesting as it is in the hard mode).
The hard difficulty, on the other hand encourages a more survival horror approach, by doing the opposite and giving you less resources (and so forcing you to constantly take hard decisions and actually weight the pros and cons of every action you had to take and of the choices presented to you), offering you special weapons to encourage you to fight Nemesis and take some risks (risk-VS-reward), making every death count (limited ribbons) etc...

This said, while I explained my perspective and shared my opinion on the matter, I don't expect you to agree with me or change yours. You have your own perspective on the matter and that's cool, but you also have to respect mine and accept the fact that I've a different opinion from yours without brushing it off as me trying to defend Capcom or whatever, rather than me simply having my own, different opinion.
Difficultly don't change the type of game, just because in re 2 remake you can have hundreds of ammo and regenerative Healt and auto aim on assisted don't make it an action game, it's still and horror game but whit easy setting, same for re 3 nemesis

As for the rest i respect you're opinion but i simply don't respect the game and capcom decision and incompetence on it... That's all
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jonipoon

Professional Sandwich Consumer
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
976
Reaction score
1,085
Points
7,040
Age
30
RE3 remake is like going back to your favorite restaurant after 5 years, only to find out that they've removed the outdoor seating, completely changed the menu so that all the best dishes are gone, and hired a new bartender that makes terrible half-assed cocktails. And of top of that, they have the guts to ask you to pay for leaving your coat in the cloakroom...
 
D

Deleted member 21244

Guest
RE3 remake is like going back to your favorite restaurant after 5 years, only to find out that they've removed the outdoor seating, completely changed the menu so that all the best dishes are gone, and hired a new bartender that makes terrible half-assed cocktails. And of top of that, they have the guts to ask you to pay for leaving your coat in the cloakroom...
Give this man/girl a medal
 

Alexis Evanz Reider

Legendary survivor
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
51
Reaction score
25
Points
2,233
Age
29
as someone who grown up with RE3 , that was not RE3 .
they ruined their great opportunity
RE2 remake was outstanding. i couldn't played it but i watch it very carefully, which i really loved this game and i will play it one day.
everything was same before, and not same before. they mixed past and remake very brilliant.
but in RE3, i only enjoyed nemesis entrance and i told my self: look what they've done its awesome.but, no. after that exciting scenes, there where no more RE3 in games.
they created a new mini game by sacrificing , Jill and nemesis and all other creatures in RE3 Original.
 

Jonipoon

Professional Sandwich Consumer
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
976
Reaction score
1,085
Points
7,040
Age
30
I mean, you can still kind of forgive the RE2 remake for omitting the branching storylines since the game is fantastic on so many other levels. It managed to re-capture 90's survival horror in a modern third-person remake by combining the best of old and new, while mostly respecting the original and utilizing today's technology to its fullest capacity. The only real dick move by Capcom was that they put the original soundtrack as paid DLC. But at least they did put the OST in the game, compared to the RE3 remake....

RE3 remake didn't just disrespect the original, it can barely stand on its own because of how incredibly rushed and incomplete it feels as a game.
 
Top