Resident Evil 2 (2019) How would you rate REmake 2?

[Springhosen]

Alright, but who gets to decide what exactly those "actual flaws" are? To me, the story discrepancies between the campaigns are an actual flaw; not that Leon and Claire rarely meet, but that nothing that happens in either character's story seems to affect the other in any way. Others would argue that doesn't matter as long as gameplay isn't affected. Am I in the right or in the wrong here?

Gameplay alone does not a game make: story discrepancies are actual flaws.

The fact that Leon and Claire don't interact as much affects neither of their stories in any way.

Costumes, especially fantasy ones like the Noir costumes, do not affect the story or gameplay in any way.

The fact that you haven't figured out how to deal with lickers is not a 'game' issue that's a 'you' issue. You can't fault the game because you don't have a strategy.

I guess my main point is to stop faulting the game because your personal feelings were hurt because they didn't include something that you enjoyed from the original. They aren't obligated to include anything, including the zapping system - even though they should've included that for story purposes. We're supposed to believe that two characters are running around simultaneously doing many of the same things and the other character didn't take anything before you or do something ahead of you?

 

[Mr.R]

Aggressive people tire me up. I brought the first remake up to make a comparison to where the RE2 remake might had gotten its inspiration on handling scenarios. Also, the first remake is not a perfect game, I can and will make complains and comparisons as I see fit. This "petty fanboys" **** talk is getting old. The worst part of the RE fanbase is the ones who think they're more worthy fans of the series than others. It was the reason I moved away from other Resident Evil forums. Let's not get that **** in here too. We don't need this and everyone here loves this series. We don't need to be jerks about it.

 

[Turo602]

Never said the game was perfect or didn't have its flaws, in fact I had my own gripes in my review. I'm just extremely tired of seeing the people who put Resident Evil 2 on a pedestal finding petty reasons and pointing to them as why the remake isn't perfect, but no game will ever be perfect.

"I enjoyed playing it but costumes were three dollars. Costumes were free in the original back in 1998."

"I liked it but lickers were too hard. They were never that hard before." (Even though they were.)

"It was fun but Claire and Leon don't chat over the radio like BFF'S. The original is better because Claire and Leon chat."

It's not going to be the original, that's why it's a REMAKE. It's going to be different and updated and bringing up petty complaints so that you can still hail the original as better is ridiculous.

The original did some things better.

The remake did some things better.

The remakes existence doesn't erase the original from history. If the original is that important to you, go play it but don't pick apart the remake like the original was perfect because it wasn't. The remake has its actual flaws, talk about those.

The only thing that's petty around here is you. Grow the hell up.

This is a remake. Expect comparisons. Your total disregard for everyone's complaints is childish. Especially when these complaints come from the fact that the original was known for certain things that were considered massive improvements over the first game, yet aren't present in the remake. If you wanna brush it off and say it adds nothing, good for you. That's your opinion, not a fact.

If you can't contribute to a conversation anymore, then let it go. Don't blow up in some juvenile tirade where you're just gonna bring things up you refused to discuss further and act like you have a point. Because all it sounds like, is that you can't handle the fact that some people might actually still prefer the original game. Who f*cking cares what other people still prefer? That's their business.

What the hell is the point in talking about this game if we can't compare it to the original? The original is the standard in which a remake has to achieve or surpass. Besides, it's quite obvious in this thread alone that everyone still either enjoys or loves this game regardless for what it does despite not checking all the boxes of the original. What's the big f*cking deal?

 

[Springhosen]

The only thing that's petty around here is you. Grow the hell up.

This is a remake. Expect comparisons. Your total disregard for everyone's complaints is childish. Especially when these complaints come from the fact that the original was known for certain things that were considered massive improvements over the first game, yet aren't present in the remake. If you wanna brush it off and say it adds nothing, good for you. That's your opinion, not a fact.

If you can't contribute to a conversation anymore, then let it go. Don't blow up in some juvenile tirade where you're just gonna bring things up you refused to discuss further and act like you have a point. Because all it sounds like, is that you can't handle the fact that some people might actually still prefer the original game. Who f*cking cares what other people still prefer? That's their business.

What the hell is the point in talking about this game if we can't compare it to the original? The original is the standard in which a remake has to achieve or surpass. Besides, it's quite obvious in this thread alone that everyone still either enjoys or loves this game regardless for what it does despite not checking all the boxes of the original. What's the big f*cking deal?

I feel like perhaps it is you who should grow up. A remake isn't going to be the same as the original; they're gonna change things.

Get over it.

 

[Turo602]

I feel like perhaps it is you who should grow up. A remake isn't going to be the same as the original; they're gonna change things.

Get over it.

Or maybe get over your blind justifications. Not all changes are equal. Being a remake doesn't mean it can just go off and do whatever the hell it wants and become a kart racer because "they're gonna change things." The original remake changed things, yet it didn't remove essential elements of the game. If stating that hurts you, well, get over it.

 

[Springhosen]

Or maybe get over your blind justifications. Not all changes are equal. Being a remake doesn't mean it can just go off and do whatever the hell it wants and become a kart racer because "they're gonna change things." The original remake changed things, yet it didn't remove essential elements of the game. If stating that hurts you, well, get over it.

What essential elements changed, though - aside from the zapping system, which I already said should've been included?

Is it that the costumes weren't free or that Claire and Leon chatted a few times and now they don't?

 

[Jonipoon]

Comparisons has to be made when it comes to a remake, and I believe many complaints are valid. Let people point out the flaws, it will not make the game itself less enjoyable for me.

In the end, the finished product is what we got. It's too late to change things around.

HOWEVER, everything we say and complain about to Capcom will possibly have an impact on them designing their next game.

 

[Turo602]

What essential elements changed, though - aside from the zapping system, which I already said should've been included?

Is it that the costumes weren't free or that Claire and Leon chatted a few times and now they don't?

I've already talked about those things. Are you gonna say something new or continue on calling it petty? Because it feels like we're just going in circles here.

As a remake, it fails to capture what made the original the critical success it was. These "petty" complaints are purely to compare and contrast, and the remake had the opportunity to include those elements or do them better, and it didn't. That makes it a weak remake, but no one has denied that as a game itself, it's great. Just look at the poll. Complaining over somebody else's preferences is pointless.

 

[black 93]

A 9 for me. So near perfect, but nothings perfect now is it. If someone told me a few years back that RE2 could be played over the shoulder, id have been very very doubtful. Capcom truly acheived something great with this remake. After seeing this, im all for an RE3 remake. And hell id even be down to see the first game remade with the RE engine. The spencer mansion redone how the police station was? Holy hell.

 

[Springhosen]

I've already talked about those things. Are you gonna say something new or continue on calling it petty? Because it feels like we're just going in circles here.

As a remake, it fails to capture what made the original the critical success it was. These "petty" complaints are purely to compare and contrast, and the remake had the opportunity to include those elements or do them better, and it didn't. That makes it a weak remake, but no one has denied that as a game itself, it's great. Just look at the poll. Complaining over somebody else's preferences is pointless.

But you haven't addressed those things. You've complained about them and talked about principles and how they are essential but you haven't told me how.

And I'm not complaining over your preferences, I'm complaining at the high regard you're holding your preferences in.

How is any of that essential? The essentials of the game are still there otherwise it wouldn't even feel familiar at all. The story is still there, the characters, the main events are still there and how you overcome obstacles is still there. The core of the game is still there.

Your complaints are your preferences, and yours only and have no bearing on the story getting across, the puzzles inside the game or the gameplay. You're basically saying that this is what is important to you and therefore must be important to everyone and there's no way that the story or meaning could get across without them... But they can. This is why they are petty.

Perhaps you should look up what "essential" means because as far as I can see, the only essential they left out that made Resident Evil 2 the success it was originally was the zapping system - which I've mentioned numerous times.

 

[Turo602]

But you haven't addressed those things. You've complained about them and talked about principles and how they are essential but you haven't told me how.

And I'm not complaining over your preferences, I'm complaining at the high regard you're holding your preferences in.

How is any of that essential? The essentials of the game are still there otherwise it wouldn't even feel familiar at all. The story is still there, the characters, the main events are still there and how you overcome obstacles is still there. The core of the game is still there.

Your complaints are your preferences, and yours only and have no bearing on the story getting across, the puzzles inside the game or the gameplay. You're basically saying that this is what is important to you and therefore must be important to everyone and there's no way that the story or meaning could get across without them... But they can. This is why they are petty.

Perhaps you should look up what "essential" means because as far as I can see, the only essential they left out that made Resident Evil 2 the success it was originally was the zapping system - which I've mentioned numerous times.

I've elaborated on both points and I've explained how, you're just once again dismissing it because YOU want to keep insisting that they add nothing, which is blatantly false. If it was in the original game, praised, and then removed in the remake, you can't possibly say they added nothing before. It's like the original game was a bacon cheeseburger and the remake is a plain hamburger but saying they're both the same because either way, they're both burgers.

It's one thing if you personally don't care about any of those things and don't see the big deal, but telling others they can't be disappointed with it or criticize the remake for lacking it is ridiculous. Especially since no one ever stated that the story couldn't get across without those elements.

Just because you want to define "essential" as what gets the story across in its most bare bones form, doesn't mean that's the standard for remakes or that we should all be okay with it. You're not the be all end all on what's essential to remaking video games. Maybe I've just played better remakes before, so I have higher standards for them. That doesn't mean the game itself isn't amazing. If you can't make that distinction, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Springhosen]

@Turo602 But I'm failing to see what the story lacks because of the things you've pointed out but failed to say why they are essential.

And if it didn't change the story either way, is it really as essential as you think it is?

What was so praised in the original - aside from the zapping system, which I've already covered numerous times - that is not in the remake?

You say we're going around in circles and if we are it's because you're arguing about standing by your opinion and that everyone has a right to, which is true, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking how are the things you've pointed out - which aren't story plot points, or change the story in any way - essential to the core of the game or so very praised? I don't understand why you're getting so defensive, to the point of railing at me and telling me to grow up, that you won't even answer the question.

Or is there no answer, perhaps because the flaws you've pointed to don't amount to anything to the general public? They're essential to you but not necessarily to the game itself? (And if so, then you are not the standard for remakes either.)

Why can't you just answer the question?

 

[Turo602]

@Turo602 But I'm failing to see what the story lacks because of the things you've pointed out but failed to say why they are essential.

And if it didn't change the story either way, is it really as essential as you think it is?

What was so praised in the original - aside from the zapping system, which I've already covered numerous times - that is not in the remake?

You say we're going around in circles and if we are it's because you're arguing about standing by your opinion and that everyone has a right to, which is true, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking how are the things you've pointed out - which aren't story plot points, or change the story in any way - essential to the core of the game or so very praised? I don't understand why you're getting so defensive, to the point of railing at me and telling me to grow up, that you won't even answer the question.

Or is there no answer, perhaps because the flaws you've pointed to don't amount to anything to the general public? They're essential to you but not necessarily to the game itself? (And if so, then you are not the standard for remakes either.)

Why can't you just answer the question?

We're going in circles because we've already covered this topic and I'm not a fan of repeating myself. Rather than respond to me and refute my points, you decided to have a go at me and continue on saying it adds nothing, and now you're asking me to repeat myself because you're still purposely rejecting the points I've made about the character interactions and costumes without refuting them. Do we need to have the same conversation again? Just so you could not say anything and then trash me to Mr. R?

The problem here is that you keep making the story the one important aspect that matters so long they get it across, and I just don't see it that way. It's fine that you do, but don't tell me I can't prefer the way it was done in the original because you don't think it adds anything.

The whole game matters to me. Character interactions, zapping, the unique scenarios. That's Resident Evil 2. It's the game's identity and part of the Resident Evil 2 experience. Those have always been the talking points of the game because that's what it brought to the table over the first game. That's what makes it essential.

Just because they can water the story and game down and still hit all the major story beats, doesn't mean that it was somehow a good idea to omit those elements that made the game bigger and better than its predecessor. And telling us to replay the original if we just want the same game is rather condescending considering most of us still love what this game does right, even if it's different from the original.

You keep asking if it's essential, like if that makes it okay to remove it from the game. How about you start asking does it make the game better? More cutscenes, more dialogue, free costumes, unique scenarios, and the zapping system. In what world is that not a good thing to want? If they released this version for 60 bucks along with the standard edition, which one would you buy? Would you still be saying those aren't essential qualities and be happy getting the neutered version because it's the same story?

I don't care what the general public thinks. That doesn't mean a good portion of the Resident Evil fanbase doesn't share my sentiments. I'm not the first person to say these things nor will I be the last. Should we have all just shut up and praised Resident Evil 7 because the general public loved it?

And the reason I've been defensive is because I've been treating you with nothing but respect, but lately you have this sassy elitist attitude, which I don't know if it's coming from a bad place or not, that you've been directing at me over something as stupid as me thinking they fumbled some aspects of this remake I otherwise love and enjoy.

 

[Jonipoon]

Isn't the original Resident Evil 2 from 1998 vastly overpraised as well though? For sure, it's a classic game that holds a special place in many hearts, but how much of that is pure nostalgia? I mean, I'm personally guilty of it myself when talking about Nemesis, the biggest reason for me liking it is definitely purely because of nostalgia.

I, for sure, am going to receive a lot of backlash for simply suggesting this.

 

[Springhosen]

Isn't the original Resident Evil 2 from 1998 vastly overpraised as well though? For sure, it's a classic game that holds a special place in many hearts, but how much of that is pure nostalgia? I mean, I'm personally guilty of it myself when talking about Nemesis, the biggest reason for me liking it is definitely purely because of nostalgia.

I, for sure, am going to receive a lot of backlash for simply suggesting this.

This is my point exactly! A point I've been trying to get @Turo602 to see from the beginning.

I don't care that he has complaints; the remake isn't perfect and even I've stated that myself, though I've been accused of blindly praising it. (Something he has been doing to the original this entire time.) I care that he's holding his complaints in such esteem that he's calling things essential and insisting they must be in there when over half of his praise of the original comes from nostalgia of not only Resident Evil 2 but of how gaming itself used to be.

It's a new era and things will more than likely never go backwards but I guess some folks are slower to learn that than others.

 

[Jonipoon]

Yeah, well, its not like the RE2 remake is a huge middle-finger to the franchise, like The Last Jedi is to the Star Wars franchise.

 

[Turo602]

Yeah, way to miss the point. Guess some people are just slow in general. Complete utter nonsense.

"Blindly praising the original." In what way? When have I stated that the original RE2 was flawless? Please, quote me. Or are we just creating false narratives to stir sh*t? Because if I recall, this is a thread where we critique this game, not the original. I didn't just play the original RE2, I played this one and I gave my thoughts. Want to critique the original RE2? Make a thread.

How does nostalgia play a factor in stating that the original was superior in certain aspects? Am I saying the original performances were better, the gameplay, and characters? You know, things that have actually aged? No, but let's make sh*t up and ignore everything else. F*cking petty.

Blindly praising is hiding behind a "new era" as if Capcom is representative of the entire industry itself. Once again, I've just played better remakes that didn't hide behind excuses like nostalgia or new era to justify omissions and day one DLC. Games like Resident Evil REmake, Metroid: Zero Mission, and Castle of Illusion that stayed faithful to not just the original story, but original product, while still managing to stay fresh by adding, changing, and modernizing things.

But if we can't be critical of the games we enjoy because otherwise we're nostalgia whores, then there's no point in talking about this f*cking game anymore. It's f*cking perfect unless Magnolia states a flaw. Which apparently to her is the zapping system even though it adds nothing to the story. Only she can have preferences when comparing it the original without being a fangirl. Everyone else be damned, you're just fanboys.

 

[Springhosen]

Which apparently to her is the zapping system even though it adds nothing to the story.

The zapping system did add to the story, though; it's the element that encourages the simultaneous completion of two stories. It's how you know that Leon/Claire is off going through their scenario as you are completing the other, not the communication between the characters. (That thing that made Resident Evil 2 better than the first, I believe you said - the two, parallel scenarios, I mean.)

I won't continue to argue with you on the other points here however. If you need to fulfill your seemingly personal vendetta against me by insulting me further or putting words in my mouth, feel free to visit my page.

 

[Turo602]

The zapping system did add to the story, though; it's the element that encourages the simultaneous completion of two stories. It's how you know that Leon/Claire is off going through their scenario as you are completing the other, not the communication between the characters. (That thing that made Resident Evil 2 better than the first, I believe you said - the two, parallel scenarios, I mean.)

I won't continue to argue with you on the other points here however. If you need to fulfill your seemingly personal vendetta against me by insulting me further or putting words in my mouth, feel free to visit my page.

The zapping system doesn't affect the story. The zapping system affects gameplay. It is literally impossible to complete the stories simultaneously, so I don't know how it encourages that. Zapping only works after you've completed one scenario, so yes, the fact that if you're playing as Leon and interact with Claire on several different instances throughout the story, not only reminds you there's a whole different side to the story you're not getting, but it gives you the illusion that Claire is progressing through her own story while you're doing stuff as Leon. Not after the fact. Picking up a side pack and leaving the sub machine gun for the other character has no consequences to the story. It changes how you play through each scenario, but the story can still get across without it, as you say.

The characters interacting with each other was a deliberate decision to remedy the problem of having one character disappear throughout the other's scenario and it almost continued on into 2, as Elza Walker and Leon were never meant to interact either. If you don't think this is an important element to the game, that's fine, I do.

How does thinking the remake lost something good by reducing their interactions mean I'm holding the original in high esteem? And what's wrong with it if I do? I love the original RE2. Does that mean I don't think it could have ever been topped? Of course not. This remake could have very much topped it in my eyes had they not fumbled some elements. But as it stands, it's just, different. Not better, not worse. Did I want an amazing remake in the vein of the first REmake? Hell yes, give me RE2 but prettier and better in every single way. As a remake, they lost some of what made the original great, and that is not something remakes should do. But as a video game, a survival horror game, and a Resident Evil game, it's a big win for me.

How were my complaints petty when I'm simply stating a preference of elements between the 2 games while still praising the remake? You spun a narrative about me that I didn't appreciate and you took shots at me without directly speaking to me. This is getting tiresome. I was all for a civil discussion and it became toxic for absolutely no reason. I'm willing to apologize for my behavior if we can go back to talking like adults.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

Magnolia grandifora, it s fine to like re 2 remake but don't try to force your Justification, and tell to other to accept them or not, because that s what you are trying to do, and you look like a fan boy like this, not a person who Is trying to contribute and explain his motive... I think that the game had flaws and don't try to compare it whit re 1 remake since that was a better game, much better than the original re 1, who add many things on the story gameplay but maintening everything intact, that s what a remake does, while I think that this re 2 remake is not good as resident evil 2 original since does not maintain many element of the original... It s look like more of an adaptation of the orginal, it s like when filmmaker make a movie of a book... Sometimes they completely omitte many things and change other, and in the case of re 2 remake it make the story a worse compare to the 1998 game... What I like about re 1 remake was that you can play the original or the remake but both of them are completely Canon and don't contraddict anithing of the re universe , while it s not the case in this remake since the story itself is contradicted in the game... That s my and other people point, I accept you like re 2 remake, I like it too, it s a good game but I did not try to justify to death the pretty obvious flaws, and the fact that the original had a better story and many other better things... But in the end this are all my opinion. And people can like them or not, not trying to force anyone to like this