Resident Evil 2 (2019) 2nd Run Makes No Sense?

[RepresentativeDamage]

Hi everyone, I played through Leon's campaign and really loved it, so naturally I was stoked to see what Claire had been up to. I ended up being very disappointed, because the sequence of events really doesn't make any sense. In Leon's story, quite a bit of time passed before he met Claire at the gate, but in her story it was just a few minutes.
Also, all the things I did as Leon I had to do over again as Claire in RPD. Doors suddenly locked again, items back in their original locations, even the helicopter was back where it was. On top of this, I had to fight William Birkin in the exact same place with the exact same outcome. It just makes no sense, it feels like I'm playing an alternate universe when I play Claire's story.

 

[Hel]

Yep, it's a known problem. We have a thread about it here.

 

[G1bb0]

Cap om have already stated that RE2make is only 1 story told from two perspectives. The B scenario (2nd run) is just the exact same game with a few mi or changes in item placements and puzzle solutions.
It's not the same as re2 where the zapping system exists.

 

[RepresentativeDamage]

Cap om have already stated that RE2make is only 1 story told from two perspectives. The B scenario (2nd run) is just the exact same game with a few mi or changes in item placements and puzzle solutions.
It's not the same as re2 where the zapping system exists.

That is a massive disappointment, and failure in my opinion. I never played the original, but it sounds like that is one area where it was better than the remake.

 

[G1bb0]

That is a massive disappointment, and failure in my opinion. I never played the original, but it sounds like that is one area where it was better than the remake.

I agree 100% but people are taking the game to be a direct replacement for the original when it was never intended to be. Maybe if this was a bit more common knowledge then people would enjoy the game for what it is and not hate on it for what it's not.

 

[PinkHerb]

Hmm yeah, It really bugs me a lot because nothing really changed in the B run except a few little things. I like RE2 Remake but I hope it isn't considered canon

 

[Turo602]

Hmm yeah, It really bugs me a lot because nothing really changed in the B run except a few little things. I like RE2 Remake but I hope it isn't considered canon

I honestly don't think the canon is affected either way. This isn't like the first REmake where they added to the canon, which even then, that's all they really did. Everything else was still pretty faithful to the original game but the REmake is seen as the definitive experience overall. That doesn't mean the original game is any less canon now. It still tells the same story, just sh*ttier and without the extra details.

That's basically what this RE2 REmake is, a sh*ttier retelling of the original game that hits all the key points, and maybe some extra details like the orphanage are now canon, but the original game isn't any less canon because of this. REmake 2 doesn't really add anything new nor does it change anything major about the original's story because it's largely the same thing. All the Leon and Ada stuff and Claire and Sherry stuff, while it doesn't make sense for any of it to have happened at the same time, the rules of the first RE game are still in effect here. Take the unique story elements of each scenario and that's what's canon.

It's not so much a replacement of the original game as it is an alternative to it. You can play either game and still understand the series' story just fine. I think this remake's purpose was more for them to kind of reassess what a modern Resident Evil game should be and less about fixing or expanding RE2's lore.

 

[RepresentativeDamage]

I agree 100% but people are taking the game to be a direct replacement for the original when it was never intended to be. Maybe if this was a bit more common knowledge then people would enjoy the game for what it is and not hate on it for what it's not.

I think the purpose of a remake is to replace the original.

 

[G1bb0]

I think the purpose of a remake is to replace the original.

Maybe go read what capcom said about it then.
It's not a replacement.

 

[G1bb0]

Hmm yeah, It really bugs me a lot because nothing really changed in the B run except a few little things. I like RE2 Remake but I hope it isn't considered canon

The ONLY parts of RE2 that are officially recognised as Canon by Capcom are Leon, Claire and Sherry survive. Ada dies (lol) and the lab gets destroyed.
Everything else is open tto interpretation.
The remake doesn't effect canon at all.

 

[PinkHerb]

alrighty then, so I guess I shouldn't worry

 

[Jonipoon]

It's like eating a sandwich. The first bite tastes great, and the second bite tastes great too but still slightly different since the ingredients may touch your taste buds in a new order. But in the end it's still the same, tasty sandwich.

Tasty, tasty, sandwich.

 

[RepresentativeDamage]

Maybe go read what capcom said about it then.
It's not a replacement.

Not sure what the point of making it was then.

 

[Turo602]

Maybe go read what capcom said about it then.
It's not a replacement.

Do you have a source?

 

[Springhosen]

Do you have a source?

https://m.ign.com/articles/2018/09/...-its-a-brand-new-entry-in-the-series-tgs-2018

Here they explicitly stated that it is a brand new entry in the series. Many other articles say that things will not be the same and that they changed things around. I even watched a video where the director or producer says that it isn't a remake but a retelling of Resident Evil 2.

It's also here in this article:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant.com/resident-evil-2-remake/amp/

It was my understanding the entire time that we were waiting on the game to be released that they were not the ones who called it a remake, WE were.

 

[Hel]

I've decided to just stick with my headcanon. That's what it usually boils down to anyway with RE. Too confusing and contradictory otherwise.

 

[Jonipoon]

Before I reply to this post, I just want to point out that I don't really care if people call this game a remake or a reimagining, as long as they don't call it a remaster because its not. Even though its not an exact 100% remake of the original, its better to call it a remake rather than a reimagining. And calling it a brand new entry would be misleading since its not 100% original either. I'm pretty sure that all those previous statements by Capcom were just part of their marketing strategy in order to elevate the game and present something fresh, which is completely understandable.

https://m.ign.com/articles/2018/09/...-its-a-brand-new-entry-in-the-series-tgs-2018

Here they explicitly stated that it is a brand new entry in the series. Many other articles say that things will not be the same and that they changed things around. I even watched a video where the director or producer says that it isn't a remake but a retelling of Resident Evil 2.

It's also here in this article:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant.com/resident-evil-2-remake/amp/

It was my understanding the entire time that we were waiting on the game to be released that they were not the ones who called it a remake, WE were.

OK, first of all, in the first article they're simply saying that it's not just a remake but also a brand new entry. One thing won't exclude another, they're not outright saying that it's not a remake. They're just stating that its more than just a remake.

The second article (which is actually 2 months older than the first) is written by a journalist whom has taken a sentence from one interview and turned it into an essay. It also seems as if the journalist doesn't quite understand the difference between a remake and a remaster, since he writes at the start of the article "developers are promising to deliver more than just an update to the game's graphics." That's not something one would say if you know the difference between a remake and a remaster.

I found a much better article which almost completely exposes the hypocrisy of many statements: https://gamingbolt.com/resident-evil-2-dev-explains-why-they-arent-calling-it-a-remake

In that article, there is a piece where Mike Lunn says "Because we don’t want you to know exactly how the puzzles are solved, we don’t want you to know exactly where the enemies are going to be. We want to surprise you. So, we have changed things a bit. But on the whole, the main idea, the main arcs of the story are very similar. But there are going to be some new surprises in there as well.” Sound familiar? That's because these changes to puzzles and where enemies show up was previously implemented in the 2002 remake of RE1.

 

[Springhosen]

Before I reply to this post, I just want to point out that I don't really care if people call this game a remake or a reimagining, as long as they don't call it a remaster because its not. Even though its not an exact 100% remake of the original, its better to call it a remake rather than a reimagining. And calling it a brand new entry would be misleading since its not 100% original either. I'm pretty sure that all those previous statements by Capcom were just part of their marketing strategy in order to elevate the game and present something fresh, which is completely understandable.


OK, first of all, in the first article they're simply saying that it's not just a remake but also a brand new entry. One thing won't exclude another, they're not outright saying that it's not a remake. They're just stating that its more than just a remake.

The second article (which is actually 2 months older than the first) is written by a journalist whom has taken a sentence from one interview and turned it into an essay. It also seems as if the journalist doesn't quite understand the difference between a remake and a remaster, since he writes at the start of the article "developers are promising to deliver more than just an update to the game's graphics." That's not something one would say if you know the difference between a remake and a remaster.

I found a much better article which almost completely exposes the hypocrisy of many statements: https://gamingbolt.com/resident-evil-2-dev-explains-why-they-arent-calling-it-a-remake

In that article, there is a piece where Mike Lunn says "Because we don’t want you to know exactly how the puzzles are solved, we don’t want you to know exactly where the enemies are going to be. We want to surprise you. So, we have changed things a bit. But on the whole, the main idea, the main arcs of the story are very similar. But there are going to be some new surprises in there as well.” Sound familiar? That's because these changes to puzzles and where enemies show up was previously implemented in the 2002 remake of RE1.

I think the overall point is still the same. Capcom has repeatedly stated over and over that it's not a remake, have avoided using the word remake and have never said, not once, that this installment was meant to replace Resident Evil 2. Period.

I thing it's a safer bet to assume that the new Resident Evil 2 was to show how new games will be from here on out while dually getting fans off their backs about a Resident Evil 2 remake.

They basically said: "Here's your Resident Evil 2. Oh and, by the way, this is how Resident Evil 8 is going to be."

 

[Jonipoon]

I think the overall point is still the same. Capcom has repeatedly stated over and over that it's not a remake, have avoided using the word remake and have never said, not once, that this installment was meant to replace Resident Evil 2. Period.

I thing it's a safer bet to assume that the new Resident Evil 2 was to show how new games will be from here on out while dually getting fans off their backs about a Resident Evil 2 remake.

They basically said: "Here's your Resident Evil 2. Oh and, by the way, this is how Resident Evil 8 is going to be."

Well, that's because they're smart. Of course they're not gonna say "This will replace the original", since that would upset many fans. They're very well-aware of the fact that RE2 is the most beloved fan favorite in the series.

 

[Springhosen]

Well, that's because they're smart. Of course they're not gonna say "This will replace the original", since that would upset many fans. They're very well-aware of the fact that RE2 is the most beloved fan favorite in the series.

The fact is: they never promoted this game as a remake so why would anyone assume it would replace the original? And even if they said that, what does that even mean? The original is still out there, still beloved and there are people who still play it.

Words are just that: words. They can say it replaces the original all they want but there is still an original. I'm sure the Remake was supposed to replace the original Resident Evil but do I care? No. I still own the original and, if I'm so inclined, I will break it out and play it. Them saying it replaces the original doesn't magically poof any and all copies of the original out of existence.

I'm confused as to this mini uproar about wording. Wording that, to my knowledge, was never even put out there by the company itself, for that matter.