• 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

Your Personal RE Game Rankings

Jonipoon

Professional Sandwich Consumer
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
923
Reaction score
1,027
Points
7,040
Age
30
RE3 has always been considered a weaker title by the general RE public and usually a lot of people's "least fav" out of the classics along with CV, which is honestly why all the complaints about sticking to the original more closely absolutely floored me! So many people complain about the game from the length to it being uninspired sitting between the complexities of RE2 and CV. They changed some things for the remake and it still wasn't good enough. You really can't make everyone happy.

I wouldn't presume that everyone hated RE3R just from the loud protestors. I thoroughly enjoyed my time with it and think the remake gave it more replayability.
Ironically, I think it's actually the other way around. OG RE3 gets a bad rep because of a loud minority whom considers the RE2/CVX storyline to be the true RE3 even though that's not the case. And RE3 is actually not a short game if you compare it to a single scenario from RE2, they match up pretty well when you look at various longplays and speedruns for comparison.

A remake of RE3 was in extremely high demand from people following the release of RE2R, I thoroughly remember every comment section on YouTube, Facebook, etc being flooded with this. For a game "being considered a weaker title by the general RE public" in your mind, I don't feel that kind of demand would've happened. If you look at comments sections now they're not exactly filled to the brink with people demanding a remake of CVX (which you put on the same level of "least fav" along with RE3) even though it does happen.

I don't think anyone with a reasonable mind has suggested that "everyone hated RE3R". However, it is fair to suggest that it has received a pretty polarized response, especially considering there are so many people who really like the original.

When you say "they changed some things for the remake", well that's a huge understatement. I understand if you don't like RE3 but they didn't change "some things for the remake", the remake is almost a complete overhaul from the original. I've just replayed OG RE1, RE2, RE3 back-to-back with REmake, RE2R and RE3R and it's astonishing how closely the remakes of 1 and 2 mirrors the originals while the remake of 3 is so far off. It's a completey different game that keeps a few basic plot points from the original.

That's not saying RE3R is a bad game. It's just a terrible, terrible remake.
 

Rain611

You can't kill me.
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
1,506
Reaction score
1,641
Points
24,726
Age
31
I hear that. Since I know how I mean it in my head, I don't ever reconsider what I am typing. I will try to be more clear with my next couple of posts. =)

I very much enjoyed RE3R myself. I had a lot of fun with it and even got the Platinum. And my criticism is not that it's just short. It's just underwhelming to me that they didn't want to show off more of the city. That was the big excitement for me and it let me down there. I think RE3R is a good game, but I haven't seen anyone put it in their top 3 which was interesting. I am glad people enjoyed it so much because Capcom clearly designed a good game. But I much prefer the original. It has so much more to see and do and experience. But we all have our unique opinions and I appreciate that.

I'm on the opposite side of the fence I guess because I thought running back and forth across Raccoon City was tedious at the very least and downright not enjoyable. I didn't even want to finish the game when I played it the one and only time I played it, and the only reason I did is because I wanted to experience as much of the universe as I could. People talk about the train in RE0 being bad? Omg, RE3 was so much worse. In my opinion of course.
Ironically, I think it's actually the other way around. OG RE3 gets a bad rep because of a loud minority whom considers the RE2/CVX storyline to be the true RE3 even though that's not the case. And RE3 is actually not a short game if you compare it to a single scenario from RE2, they match up pretty well when you look at various longplays and speedruns for comparison.

A remake of RE3 was in extremely high demand from people following the release of RE2R, I thoroughly remember every comment section on YouTube, Facebook, etc being flooded with this. For a game "being considered a weaker title by the general RE public" in your mind, I don't feel that kind of demand would've happened. If you look at comments sections now they're not exactly filled to the brink with people demanding a remake of CVX (which you put on the same level of "least fav" along with RE3) even though it does happen.

I don't think anyone with a reasonable mind has suggested that "everyone hated RE3R". However, it is fair to suggest that it has received a pretty polarized response, especially considering there are so many people who really like the original.

When you say "they changed some things for the remake", well that's a huge understatement. I understand if you don't like RE3 but they didn't change "some things for the remake", the remake is almost a complete overhaul from the original. I've just replayed OG RE1, RE2, RE3 back-to-back with REmake, RE2R and RE3R and it's astonishing how closely the remakes of 1 and 2 mirrors the originals while the remake of 3 is so far off. It's a completey different game that keeps a few basic plot points from the original.

That's not saying RE3R is a bad game. It's just a terrible, terrible remake.

I see a ton of people asking for a CVX remake, personally. While I can see how it can be viewed as the rightful RE3, it makes no difference to me. I thought CVX was a far more enjoyable game any way you look at it, and that is why I want to see a remake.

I can also see why R3make is considered a bad remake, because yes, they did change a lot as compared to the REmake and REmake2. That being said, I really liked the changes, it actually made RE3 playable for me. I mean, there are things I didn't like about it - no game is perfect, but I still think it was a lot more enjoyable than the original. There was less running back and forth and probably most impressive for me was how Carlos was fleshed out. I couldn't stand him in the original but he was pretty cool in the remake.

Anyways, those are just my thoughts, as someone who had to struggle to finish RE3 because I found it to be so tedious and boring. To each their own of course.
 

Magnolia Grandiflora

Kahnum of Outworld
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,280
Reaction score
4,591
Points
39,478
Age
30
@Jonipoon To me the improvements on RE3 were much needed and I loved the original. There were many parts of RE3 for me that lagged and were like humps to overcome just to get to the next part. I think the remake got rid of many of those and, while I still love the original, I'd play the remake over it any day.

My observation that it was seen as weaker is the impression I've gotten on this forum where the original RE3 really falls to the wayside from a lot of the posts I've read over the years, not any personal bias I have toward the game as I enjoyed it. The complaints about CVX, on the other hand, are about difficulty and backtracking not story/length.

There are quite a lot of people who don't like the original RE3, just like there are many people begging for a CVX remake so I assume we're just experiencing two different sides of the fandom there and will have to agree to disagree.

@UniqTeas I know what you mean about them not showing off a lot of the city. Unfortunately the original fell victim to much the same in my opinion. The one thing I really wish they had included in the remake though was the water treatment facility and the water sample puzzle. (One of my favorite puzzles of the entire series.)
 
Last edited:

Turo602

The King of Kings
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
2,388
Reaction score
2,643
Points
21,318
Honestly, I do tend to see more love for Resident Evil 3 than Code Veronica. For one, it has a number in the title which instantly gave it so much more attention. Many people still disregard Code Veronica when talking about the classics and Code Veronica is a very polarizing game that people seem to either really love or really hate. Not to mention, Jill Valentine and Nemesis are arguably the most recognizable and popular characters in the series because of Resident Evil 3.

in terms of demand for a remake, Resident Evil 3 definitely had a ton more demand than I'm currently seeing for Code Veronica, but it was only natural due to its deep connection with Resident Evil 2. Like when Ocarina of Time was remade for the 3DS, there was this huge movement to get Majora's Mask remade.

I myself have no special love for the original Resident Evil 3 as I only played it once and I honestly don't remember it that well to have gotten any kind of nostalgia from the R3make. But I did really enjoy the R3make but only because it was an extension of REmake 2 and it provided me more content to enjoy that same amazing gameplay, beautiful visuals, and atmosphere that I loved so much in REmake 2. I thought the characters were done really well despite my gripes with Jill and I definitely enjoyed their renditions here a lot more than I did the original.

Yet I was still really disappointed by it when it was over. My biggest gripe with the game is the way Nemesis was handled, which is far more reminiscent of the Ustanak than it was Nemesis or even the new and improved Mr. X from REmake 2 which had a lot more in common with Nemesis than he did originally. Mr. X gave us a glimpse of what Nemesis could be in a modern remake where the pursuer mechanic can take center stage with a much smarter and more aggressive tyrant which I feel we only got a small glimpse of in R3make.

The 4 boss encounters with Nemesis were quite underwhelming too. There wasn't anything inherently wrong with them, but that's it? One boss encounter with Nemesis pre-f*cked up mutation? If they did more with him before his 4-legged phase, then I might have been able to forgive the watered down approach.

But it wasn't just Nemesis that disappointed me, but just how linear the game really is. A lot of the backtracking is optional with the bulk of it amounting to lock picking stuff. Otherwise, it's a very straightforward experience with lots of set-pieces and an action-fueled tone.

That's not to say the original is better because I honestly couldn't tell you, but it does have a little too much in common with Resident Evil 6, on top of being such a short experience. That's not to say the game is as flawed as RE6, I'll definitely take R3make over 6 any day. But it does seem like it just completely missed the mark, not just for fans of the original, but as a Resident Evil game.

Capcom was very misleading about the nature of this game that was most likely DLC for Resident Evil 2 or severely cut down during development that they stuck it together with an online game nobody asked for just to get away with selling it at full retail price. Had they been upfront about the actual scale and value of the game, the reception might have been a whole lot different, though it would have still been a huge disservice to the fans anyway. It's a solid game for what it is, I just don't think I'd ever consider it a favorite.
 

Jonipoon

Professional Sandwich Consumer
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
923
Reaction score
1,027
Points
7,040
Age
30
@Rain611 I understand. However I do think its strange to complain about the backtracking in RE3 while at the same time defending CVX which has some of the most tedious backtracking I've seen in a video game. Maybe it's got to do with the overall map orientation of RE3 being somewhat like a maze, but that simply adds to the experience for me. Which is why it was so disappointing to see the RE3 remake being the most linear, straightforward RE game I have ever played. Personally I don't have any issues with backtracking at all, I didn't mind it in RE3 and I didn't mind it in CVX either. Running back and forth is not a bad thing and it can be found in all the classic RE titles, and there's even a fair amount of backtracking in the RE2 remake as well.

Carlos in the remake is genuinely the only thing I like that felt like an actual improvement over the original, plus the fact that we got to visit Jill's apartment.
 

UniqTeas

G Virus Experiment
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
1,469
Points
9,995
Age
34
I look this kind of good, wholesome argument going on. Reading through everyone's comments was a treat rather than a frickin' chore. haha.

I think that RE2R (great game) and RE3R (solid game) suffer from the same issue. They start off really great and slowly get more rushed as the game goes on. RE2R gives us 2/3 of a great game and the labs are fairly rushed. RE3R gives us 1/3 of a great game in the downtown area and then rushes through the rest of the game. Capcom isn't giving their most recent titles enough time to finish and their rushing ends up appearing in the game. I assume they had a lot more plans for RE3R and then had to cut another third of the game.

I would RATHER have them delay their titles and give us more complete versions of the games. I would PAY for a DLC to RE3R to add in more locations and ANY OTHER BOSS. RE3R is like an Arcade Shooter - get to the action, kill quickly, and get it done. But that really appeals to some people and that is okay. I love the game, but I still want more!

RE7 ALSO fell victim to the rushed ending - so maybe it's just a Capcom strategy that isn't working out that well?
 

Magnolia Grandiflora

Kahnum of Outworld
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,280
Reaction score
4,591
Points
39,478
Age
30
@UniqTeas I think RE2R would have been a lot better if they had taken the time to separate the scenarios more and make it more believable that they're supposed to be going on at the same time. Even the original fell short in some areas, like repeating bosses, but they definitely should've brought back the zapping system. It was amazing as far as remakes go but they could've definitely improved on what they already had. I mean I get that they seemingly wanted the second scenarios to not be tied to a save file but there could've been different puzzles/locked doors/bosses, etc.

For RE3R, I'm very disappointed that there wasn't a Carlos campaign, or Carlos sections that fleshed out the main campaign. I like that we got the RPD and the extended hospital bit but they could've done so much more and made the game longer. I honestly feel like we were swindled out of game expansion due to Resistance though.:confused:
 
D

Deleted member 21244

Guest
@UniqTeas I personally can't speak for @Murrdogg93 however RE3R wasn't a bad game by a longshot.

Was it too short? Yes but so was the original.

Could they have added some things and fleshed out the story a bit? Sure and I wish they had.

RE3 has always been considered a weaker title by the general RE public and usually a lot of people's "least fav" out of the classics along with CV, which is honestly why all the complaints about sticking to the original more closely absolutely floored me! So many people complain about the game from the length to it being uninspired sitting between the complexities of RE2 and CV. They changed some things for the remake and it still wasn't good enough. You really can't make everyone happy.

I wouldn't presume that everyone hated RE3R just from the loud protestors. I thoroughly enjoyed my time with it and think the remake gave it more replayability.

Zero also has its own little following of fans.

I know that you don't mean it the way it sounded but asking someone for a defense of their position, even with your disclaimer, infers that their opinion is wrong in some way. I might change my wording next time.♥️
Despite the disappointment of re 3 remake i did enjoy playing it and get the platinum, due to good gameplay ans graphics

But personally I think it's a really terrible remake, and it completely miss what make re 3 one of the most unique re game ever released

Also i don't actually see how the remake have more replayability than the original... The original had a lot of costumes to unlock, weapon to unlock whit point, had different decision to make trought the game, different ending, 8 epilogues, and every play trought its different since the game remix the location of item and enemy every time you play it, and you can also play the mercenaries... This mean you have to beat the game a lot of times to get everything and even if you get all the endings and saw all the different decision every playtrought after still feel fresh and different due to the remixed item and enemy and making choises still feel fresh.... the original was also the hardest game for speesrunner due to this unique feature making itna challenge every time...

The remake on the other hand, almost had nothing remain after first playtrought , just one costume, unlimited weapon, and some easy challenge to do, i got the platinum and all the challenge unlock in 30 hours... It's a game that it's easy forgotten once you finish it, i personally feel more like a dlc of re 2 than an actual entry in the series, even half of the location are just location already seen in re 2 remake like the sewer and the nest... while the original, despite having a rushed developed, feel like it's own game and feel completely different from re 2 and not only add some unique gameplay feature but also unique location like the city, the clock tower, the park and the dead factory, the remake instead had no memorable location

The remake also have a really good gameplay, but it's wasted, the game it's too short and there aren't actually long section to make this gameplay shine like the dodge mechanic a mechanic that it would have been perfect in the mercenaries mode, another things that was cut whitout reason...
It almost feel like everything that people loved about that game was cut off, and all the bad and uselles things were enanched, like the dodge mechanic, a useless feature in the original, Capcom was like: yeah let's cut the clock tower, the mercenaries, the enigmas, the live selection and all the things that make re 3 great but keep the dodge mechanic guys, a feature that everybody used one time and by accident in the original
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Magnolia Grandiflora

Kahnum of Outworld
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,280
Reaction score
4,591
Points
39,478
Age
30
@Albertwesker959 Gaming isn't about unlocking stuff. (Let's not mention that most of the costumes you're referring to, save for the original outfit and Regina from DC, were pretty ugly.)

For all its innovation in terms of gameplay, the original felt like a grind plain and simple. That in itself gives the remake more replayability.
 
D

Deleted member 21244

Guest
@Albertwesker959 Gaming isn't about unlocking stuff. (Let's not mention that most of the costumes you're referring to, save for the original outfit and Regina from DC, were pretty ugly.)

For all its innovation in terms of gameplay, the original felt like a grind plain and simple. That in itself gives the remake more replayability.
Yeah a game its also about unlocking stuff, image playing a game and after beating it you have nothing to unlock or to collect (pretty much like re 3 remake) and it's also what makes a game more repayable than other... but it's not unlocking stuff that make the original game better than the remake, it's his uniqueness, it's capability of being a new game into the series that adds different gameplay mechanic, new location and puzzle, something the remake didn't have at all, making it just a forgettable experience

How can the remake being more repayable? Every run feel the same and it's probably one of the most scripted game I've ever played after moderb warfare 2

RE7 ALSO fell victim to the rushed ending - so maybe it's just a Capcom strategy that isn't working out that well?
Yeah the problem it's actually capcom strategy, releasing a re game evey year, didn't give them enough time to actually complete the game because in case they need more time to work on a re game they simply can't, they can't delay it, because they have to delay every other re project if just one is delayed , it's all big interconnected web now...

Re 3 remake came out April 2020, re 8 trailer came out June 2020 for a release in early 2021, image having to delay re 3 remake from April 2020 to november 2020 (i don't know maybe because the developers decided to add the clock tower or they just need more time to polish it) they should have delayed all the marketing of re 8 from June 2021 to early 2021, meaning re 8 should have also being delayed too mind 2021, because you have to rework the marketing again, And releasing two re game after just two or three month would have afflicted the sales of both games
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Magnolia Grandiflora

Kahnum of Outworld
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,280
Reaction score
4,591
Points
39,478
Age
30
@Albertwesker959 It can be more replayable because that's my opinion. I'm entitled to mine, you're entitled to yours.

I didn't really use the unlocked costumes in RE3 so "unlocking stuff" was never my main focus. I play a game to play a game, not to see if there's anything to unlock at the end so that argument falls flat with me. It doesn't for you and that's okay.
 
D

Deleted member 21244

Guest
@Albertwesker959 It can be more replayable because that's my opinion. I'm entitled to mine, you're entitled to yours.

I didn't really use the unlocked costumes in RE3 so "unlocking stuff" was never my main focus. I play a game to play a game, not to see if there's anything to unlock at the end so that argument falls flat with me. It doesn't for you and that's okay.
Yeah of course everyone have its opinion, i was just curios on what exactly makes re 3 remake more replayble for you than the original

Personally i just felt that the only thing in which the remake its more replayble than the original, it's the gameplay, because it's more fast and clean and feel good... But it's not even fair to compare the gameplay from a 1999 game whit a 2020 one, if the original re 3 had the gameplay and graphic of the remake, it would have definitely beat the remake from any point, at least for me
 

Rain611

You can't kill me.
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
1,506
Reaction score
1,641
Points
24,726
Age
31
@Albertwesker959 It can be more replayable because that's my opinion. I'm entitled to mine, you're entitled to yours.

I didn't really use the unlocked costumes in RE3 so "unlocking stuff" was never my main focus. I play a game to play a game, not to see if there's anything to unlock at the end so that argument falls flat with me. It doesn't for you and that's okay.
Yeah of course everyone have its opinion, i was just curios on what exactly makes re 3 remake more replayble for you than the original

Personally i just felt that the only thing in which the remake its more replayble than the original, it's the gameplay, because it's more fast and clean and feel good... But it's not even fair to compare the gameplay from a 1999 game whit a 2020 one, if the original re 3 had the gameplay and graphic of the remake, it would have definitely beat the remake from any point, at least for me

R3make having more replay value for me also has nothing to do with unlockables and everything to do with the game as a whole. Like I've said in other posts, it has always been my opinion that the original RE3 was extremely boring with few redeeming qualities. I didn't care for the choice system, making ammo is ok but not groundbreaking to me, running around the city was annoying and the characters were flat.

The remake took out all the stuff I didn't like (listed above) and fleshed out the characters. Its better in every way, imo.
 
D

Deleted member 21244

Guest
R3make having more replay value for me also has nothing to do with unlockables and everything to do with the game as a whole. Like I've said in other posts, it has always been my opinion that the original RE3 was extremely boring with few redeeming qualities. I didn't care for the choice system, making ammo is ok but not groundbreaking to me, running around the city was annoying and the characters were flat.

The remake took out all the stuff I didn't like (listed above) and fleshed out the characters. Its better in every way, imo.
The character, story and gameplay is definitely better in the remake, but the original had like hundred of things better than the 2020 one, like puzzle for example, the best puzzle in the series, location are better, the remake would have been a lot better whit puzzle in it and whit the missing location from the original instead of reusing the sewer and the nest from re 2, they even use the same zombies ans they didn't even bother whit changing they're face a bit

Of course it's a matter of taste and opinion, and as i sayd before i liked to play re 3 remake,
but personally i think this is simply not how a remake should be made, you can't cut the entire game, there are milion of people who loved the original and they are a major number compared to the few people who'd didn't like it, and where left dissatisfied whit this remake and not only them, even newcomers feel this game was cheap and poor compared to re 2 remake or re 7, sales also prove this

Image remaking code veronica x and cutting the whole game, changing location, cutting the antarctic part, the battle mode and iconic moment like wesker vs alexia or the intro, or cutting Steve itself, and just make a scripted game where you have to go from point A to point B, for me it just dosent feel right, it's poor execution... I read many people complaining about how boring is Steve and How boring is running around Rockford island and than switch to Chris to backtrack the same location you explored whit claire, so Probably many people would like a code veronica remake like the one i listed above, but that dosent mean it's the right way to remake code veronica...

Remake Should expand and improve the original, the perfect example is resident evil remake, a game that left the core game intact but improving it and adding new things like, location, puzzle, enemy, feature, new gameplay mechanic like burning bodies and seld defense weapon ecc ecc ecc
Re 3 remake instead cut everything from the original whitout any reason, they cut the cloctower from the game, the most iconic location from the original, a location everyone loved and everyone wanted into the remake, it's like cutting the rpd from re 2 remake...
Even if you and other people feel the clock tower was a boring part, there was no need to cut it, they could have simply rework that like they did whit the hospital section, and this apply to all the other feature that where cut from the original... But of course they weren't cut to make the game better, they were cut because this game was made whit a lower budget and they had to release it as soon as possible...
And this is what actually make me really "mad" whit capcom, the fact they didn't cared about this remake, this could have been the best videogame remake ever, and an opportunity to enhance resident evil 3 and make it shine, but it was wasted
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Magnolia Grandiflora

Kahnum of Outworld
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,280
Reaction score
4,591
Points
39,478
Age
30
@Albertwesker959 Like I've said previously, playing the original felt like a grind and there were some parts of the game that I downright dreaded simply because they felt like humps to overcome, fillers instead of actual game.

And as @Rain611 pointed out, characterization and gameplay are much better. A lot of the Nemesis encounters in the original, for me, felt damn near impossible with tank controls on a controller. I've seen many PC players speedrun the game but console players? Not as many.

You gave me an aggressive, agile enemy and an inconsistent dodge mechanic is literally the only tool I have to try and make do with tank controls? There might be folks who want to work hard at being able to perfect that inconsistent dodge so they can master Nemesis encounters but not I.

You don't want to beat a game without the promise of unlockables? Well I don't want to work for hours perfecting something that some could argue is a broken mechanic just to make the game bearable to replay.

People complained about how aggravating Nemesis was in the remake over being scary but to me he was moreso in the original as my encounters with him were always a crapshoot. I dreaded seeing him, not because I was afraid but because of how annoying dealing with him was.
 
D

Deleted member 21244

Guest
@Albertwesker959 Like I've said previously, playing the original felt like a grind and there were some parts of the game that I downright dreaded simply because they felt like humps to overcome, fillers instead of actual game.

And as @Rain611 pointed out, characterization and gameplay are much better. A lot of the Nemesis encounters in the original, for me, felt damn near impossible with tank controls on a controller. I've seen many PC players speedrun the game but console players? Not as many.

You gave me an aggressive, agile enemy and an inconsistent dodge mechanic is literally the only tool I have to try and make do with tank controls? There might be folks who want to work hard at being able to perfect that inconsistent dodge so they can master Nemesis encounters but not I.

You don't want to beat a game without the promise of unlockables? Well I don't want to work for hours perfecting something that some could argue is a broken mechanic just to make the game bearable to replay.

People complained about how aggravating Nemesis was in the remake over being scary but to me he was moreso in the original as my encounters with him were always a crapshoot. I dreaded seeing him, not because I was afraid but because of how annoying dealing with him was.
Well i agree that nemesis was to much broken in the original, but that was the purpose of him, to be an unstoppable force, they could have worked him better of Course , but almost every enemy from the fixed camera re era were "broken"
For example i was playing the first dino crisis game yesterday, i never played it, and all enemy are "broken", you just stand there whit regina shooting large raptor in tight corridor that literally run at you and jump at you, and you can't actually dodge them or stop them from attacking you, you can simply stand there and shoot until they die, or you can run, but in both cases there is a 90% of probability of being hit... Than you have Pterodactyls flying around the map and you can't even hit them due to the camera, than you face a t rex that is twice as fast as you, and even if you run you are inavitable hit by him... Every other re game is "broken" from this point of view , but i guess it was also intentional because they are meant to be survivor horror game, where you have to face enemy that felt unstoppable, it would have been an action game if enemy weren't designed like this at the time

Personally i felt nemesis was a joke on the remake, you simply throw a grenade at him and he is down, you are rewarded whit a case (that dosent feel so much earned) and you can run around freely, so nemesis completely loose his point of being an unstoppable forces in the remake,and it's also a bit retarded in the story since he had jill in his grasp like 5 or 6 time but he never killed her, he tossed her aside like a retarded villain... for how much broken it was in the original, it served his gameplay purpose well, and never let jill go in the story, it actually feel like he would have stop at nothing to kill her, and it felt like he would have killed her instantly if he manage to get her in his grasp, while in the remake he is stopped by himself since he let jill run away even after having her throat in his hand
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Murrdogg93

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
126
Reaction score
59
Points
2,883
Murrdogg - That is one of the most unique rankings of anyone I have seen. RE3 REmake is ranked really high as well as RE0. Do you have a defense for these positions? (Not that you need one, this is totally subjective, lol)
Never played through the original games. But have watched playthroughs.

Objectively speaking, I overall prefer the Remakes over the Originals because of the fundamental upgrades in quality, since technology has changed in 20+ years.

My thought process for my personal rankings is starting at a perfect score, then thinking if there is anything that I wish was different or something to complain about.

In the cases of RE 2 & RE 3, I wish that RE 2 had more scenario based story like the original, but otherwise no issues with it. RE 3 I wish had its maps interconnected entirely like RE 2, as this would have created more Nemesis chases, like the Original. Otherwise I enjoyed the other aspects of the game. I simply went with which characters I like more to break the tie.

Regarding RE 0, the transporting key items can be annoying. The Bat boss fight is annoying. One room with 2 Hunters did have me stun locked a bit before killing them, but I didn't have a shotgun on me in that moment, so it might not be an actual issue with a shotgun. So I only have 2 actual gripes about RE 0, which is why it's just below RE 3 & RE 2, which have 1 gripe each for me.
 
Last edited:

UniqTeas

G Virus Experiment
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
1,469
Points
9,995
Age
34
I can see your points Murrdogg - This thread is so interesting to me because everyone has very valid reasons for their personal choices and it all makes sense. Every RE title has SOMETHING going for it and our personal interactions with the game shape our experiences very differently which is interesting in itself. Except for for people who love RE6 above everything else. Those people just made a mistake. haha.

As for the replayability of RE3 versus RE3R, I think both gave value in different ways. I think RE3 original has the edge since the decision making system actually gave you more options leaving me to WANT to play the game a second or third time. RE3R made the game super fun and then added more variety in harder difficulties which added some room to want to play more, but after beating it 6 or 7 times to get the Platinum, I was just super annoyed with it. How many times did I do that hospital attack??? TOO MANY TIMES.

But like I have said in other threads, I think all of the remakes are solid games, but RE2R and RE3R are just not as good as their original counterparts since their focus is more on immediate gameplay and graphical qualities while the originals were about being lost in a stark landscape and surviving. The only remake that completely eclipses the original is the original REmake.
 
Top