Resident Evil 3 Remake Incredible Mod Fixes RE3 REmake

[KennedyKiller]

No, you're wrong because that's not what I said at all.


Yes, you did.


But back to the main point since you keep droning on and on about film remakes just to avoid admitting that you made a terribly hyperbolic sh*t take. No one is arguing about the quality of remakes. That's not the topic nor is it relevant to how people rate video games. Movies are timeless and remakes are treated entirely differently than video game remakes which are catered to a brand new audience who is still invested in an ongoing property due to lack of accessibility of older hardware and software.

Acknowledging the work something is based on isn't the same as judging the work on its own, judging it in comparison to the original, and then weighing the 2 and finding the medium like you did. There is no special formula for remakes. A game review is a game review. It's being rated as a product and not from the point of view of a fanboy with strange preferences and gripes no one cares about. It's being reviewed for a mass audience, not Resident Evil fanboys.

There is no prerequisite that one must play the original game before doing a review of a remake because they must be able to compare it and judge it so that they can figure out the final score... Yes, they do their research for the sake of being informative, but no one in their right mind is going to dock a point because they don't like Jill's new face or Nemesis doesn't chase you around like in the original, they cut content, story is different, etc.

If you are judging or reviewing a remake, be it a remake of any kind, and are doing so with no knowledge of the original product, you're making your judgment or review without all the information available to you. If you DO have knowledge of the previous product and claim you're keeping your bias out of it in your judgment, you're wrong. You're going to inherently have some sort of comparison in your mind. As for you saying "no one is arguing about quality of remakes" you can't call me out for using a generalization like "This is literally exactly how we judge remakes of movies...why are video games any different? Movie A. had X,Y,Z, and Remake does not. It hurts overall product. Is labeled as bad. That's how movie remakes are judged. " when clearly I don't mean LITERALLY everyone. It's obviously hypberbolic. Then you give an EQUALLY hyperbolic generalization about "no one." So if you're going to allow generalizations that are literal that's fine. If you aren't that's fine too. But be consistent in your argument. You did the literal same thing I did that you acted like was such an issue.

 

[Turo602]

If you are judging or reviewing a remake, be it a remake of any kind, and are doing so with no knowledge of the original product, you're making your judgment or review without all the information available to you. If you DO have knowledge of the previous product and claim you're keeping your bias out of it in your judgment, you're wrong. You're going to inherently have some sort of comparison in your mind.

And? People are smart enough not to treat their personal bias as objective criticisms. I've done it here constantly and so have many others. I mean, seriously, "it's a good video game but a bad Resident Evil game" is a popular phrase around here.

As for you saying "no one is arguing about quality of remakes" you can't call me out for using a generalization like "This is literally exactly how we judge remakes of movies...why are video games any different? Movie A. had X,Y,Z, and Remake does not. It hurts overall product. Is labeled as bad. That's how movie remakes are judged. " when clearly I don't mean LITERALLY everyone. It's obviously hypberbolic. Then you give an EQUALLY hyperbolic generalization about "no one."

Is this really the best you came up with? Of everything I said, you picked out "no one" because literally no one in this thread is arguing about the quality of remakes because it's not relevant to the discussion but you, who thinks you somehow made a convincing argument by deviating from the main point, which you're doing again with this half assed attempt at a "gotcha" that you've tried and failed to use before.

 

[KennedyKiller]

And? People are smart enough not to treat their personal bias as objective criticisms. I've done it here constantly and so have many others. I mean, seriously, "it's a good video game but a bad Resident Evil game" is a popular phrase around here.


Is this really the best you came up with? Of everything I said, you picked out "no one" because literally no one in this thread is arguing about the quality of remakes because it's not relevant to the discussion but you, who thinks you somehow made a convincing argument by deviating from the main point, which you're doing again with this half assed attempt at a "gotcha" that you've tried and failed to use before.

It's not a gotcha. It's a fact that when you sad "no one" is inaccurate. I know you didn't literally mean no one. You were generalizing. Which is what I was doing before hand. So if you called me on it, then I'll do the same. As for treating something as objective criticisms, you can most certainly do that. But since this is a remake of a game, there is inherently going to be things this game does differently, and those things can be OBJECTIVELY better or worse. Objectively the graphics in the PS4 remake are of course better. Objectively the voice acting is better. That said, the things that are objectively better do not make the game better as a whole. Or even good as a whole.

 

[Turo602]

It's not a gotcha. It's a fact that when you sad "no one" is inaccurate. I know you didn't literally mean no one. You were generalizing. Which is what I was doing before hand. So if you called me on it, then I'll do the same.

It's you looking at arbitrary things trying to start new arguments to avoid addressing the original point.

As for treating something as objective criticisms, you can most certainly do that. But since this is a remake of a game, there is inherently going to be things this game does differently, and those things can be OBJECTIVELY better or worse. Objectively the graphics in the PS4 remake are of course better. Objectively the voice acting is better. That said, the things that are objectively better do not make the game better as a whole. Or even good as a whole.

That's not the point at all. I don't understand how it's so hard for you to just admit you were being deliberately obtuse and just move on. Why the mental gymnastics?

 

[KennedyKiller]

It's you looking at arbitrary things trying to start new arguments to avoid addressing the original point.


That's not the point at all. I don't understand how it's so hard for you to just admit you were being deliberately obtuse and just move on. Why the mental gymnastics?

That's entirely the point? Because I'm saying this is a bad game. I'm saying this is a bad game because it's a remake. You can't have one without the other in the case of a remake, again, regardless of medium. If it is a remake, and it is bad as a remake, then it is a bad product. The whole goal of a remake is to be a good remake. Otherwise why remake it. So if it's a bad remake. They've failed at that goal. The product is bad.

 

[Turo602]

That's entirely the point? Because I'm saying this is a bad game. I'm saying this is a bad game because it's a remake. You can't have one without the other in the case of a remake, again, regardless of medium. If it is a remake, and it is bad as a remake, then it is a bad product. The whole goal of a remake is to be a good remake. Otherwise why remake it. So if it's a bad remake. They've failed at that goal. The product is bad.

And I've already countered these claims... We're just going in circles now. You're making a moot point.

 

[KennedyKiller]

And I've already countered these claims... We're just going in circles now. You're making a moot point.

You haven't countered these claims. You've spouted things that just aren't correct. If you set out to build a porch. And instead you build stairs. They might be just fine stairs...but that wasn't the intention. The intention was a porch. So you screwed up. If you remake a game. And it's a bad remake. You screwed up. You can say these stairs work. These stairs function. These are mighty fine sturdy stairs. And that's all well and good. But they weren't supposed to be stairs to begin with, so you failed.

 

[Turo602]

You haven't countered these claims.

Yes, I have.

That makes no sense. You just said the game was okay. Literally no one rates it separately as a remake and then factors that into their final score because the original game is irrelevant and the game is appealing to modern gamers. Telling someone who has never played the original RE3 that the remake is a bad game because you're personally upset about it being a bad remake just makes you look like an angry fanboy rather than someone who knows what they're talking about. I know it's not your job to rate or review games, but that's just such a garbage and hyperbolic take.

Again, circles.

Restating your opinion with an analogy after deviating from the main point with long winded and pedantic nonsense isn't a very compelling argument. Now once more, with feeling.

 

[KennedyKiller]

Yes, I have.

Again, circles.

Restating your opinion with an analogy after deviating from the main point with long winded and pedantic nonsense isn't a very compelling argument. Now once more, with feeling.

Then tell me. How is it a good game despite the fact that aside from on a graphical level, they failed in every other category to enhance this game as a remake.

 

[Turo602]

Then tell me. How is it a good game despite the fact that aside from on a graphical level, they failed in every other category to enhance this game as a remake.

Holy sh*t, bro, seriously. What aren't you getting? That is not the point at all. I've done this enough times already. I hate having to restructure my arguments and get them across in different ways just so they can be brushed off by someone who doesn't take the time to understand what is being said. Do I seriously need to keep responding with quotes?

 

[KennedyKiller]

Holy sh*t, bro, seriously. What aren't you getting? That is not the point at all. I've done this enough times already. I hate having to restructure my arguments and get them across in different ways just so they can be brushed off by someone who doesn't take the time to understand what is being said. Do I seriously need to keep responding with quotes?

You have not, in the slightest, explained why it's a good. Game. You've only said my viewpoint on what makes it a bad game is false. So tell me how it's a "good game just a disapointing RE game."

 

[Turo602]

You have not, in the slightest, explained why it's a good. Game. You've only said my viewpoint on what makes it a bad game is false. So tell me how it's a "good game just a disapointing RE game."

Because even Resident Evil 2 lite is a pretty f*cking good game even if it doesn't fully capture every aspect of Resident Evil 3, which in no way reflects a sh*tty 2/10 over some fanboy pettiness. This thread's very existence should tell you how I'm disappointed as a fan but I'm not dumb enough to seriously believe or defend the notion that it's closer in quality to Superman 64 of all f*cking games than Resident Evil 2 itself. You even admitted yourself the game was okay.

 

[RipvanX]

I hope a Director’s Cut mod of some kind does come to fruition one day, this game still has potential that Capcom simply cannot recognize. Even during the reveal, they mismarketed this game as a campaign portion to Resistance, like WTF? Not only did that confuse consumers, that only gave the game a measly 4 months to build up hype as opposed to REmake 2 which had about 7 months + the 14 years of speculation after REmake released in 2002.

Releasing it in 2020 was also a poor choice for obvious reasons, Capcom could of easily delayed the game another year along with RE8 to add more meaningful content. RE6’s backlash has caused Capcom to look at all this the wrong way. It wasn’t the amount of content that was the problem, it was the QUALITY. REmake 3 has good content, just not enough of it.

So by the end of the day, REmake 3 is a lite version of one of RE6’s campaigns and a competent action game for what it is. Fans wanted different but Capcom can do whatever they want in the end and tell us to kick rocks. Screaming from the hilltops that this was literally a 2/10 will make people not take your criticisms seriously, as REmake 2 also shares the same issues and isn’t a 1:1 remake either.

I guess that game is a 2/10 as well for not having proper B scenarios, no Ada theme, changing the Ivy design, no crows or spiders, reimagining the sewer and lab areas, cutting the Marshalling yard, removing iconic cutscenes or changing them entirely, less interaction between Leon and Claire, no Battle Game mode, a weaker OST overall, changing character personalities, missing items such as the lighter and crossbow, making Marvin dumb and not mentioning the mansion incident, retconning Outbreak series events by changing dates and altering the geography of the city, etc.

 

[Jonipoon]

I'd rate RE3 remake in two ways; with my heart and with my brain. If I rate it with my heart, it is easily the worst game I've ever played simply because of how much they changed and cut from the original that I love. If I rate it with my brain, it is actually not that bad - but even if you look at it as its own game without comparing it to the original or any other RE game there are still some very big flaws with it:

- Campaign is too rushed, one-linear and short, there is no breathing room left for exploration
- Because of the above reason, it can't make up its own mind if it wants to be an action game or a survival horror game
- Little to none replayability

Overall I'd rate it 5/10.

 

[Jonipoon]

Wow, take a look at this! Some modder is seriously recreating the city park from the original game using assets from the remake. Unfortunately this is done in Unreal Engine, but it still almost brought tears to my eyes. Imagine what could have been the greatest remake...

FU Capcom...

 

[Hardware]

I'd rate RE3 remake in two ways; with my heart and with my brain. If I rate it with my heart, it is easily the worst game I've ever played simply because of how much they changed and cut from the original that I love. If I rate it with my brain, it is actually not that bad - but even if you look at it as its own game without comparing it to the original or any other RE game there are still some very big flaws with it:

- Campaign is too rushed, one-linear and short, there is no breathing room left for exploration
- Because of the above reason, it can't make up its own mind if it wants to be an action game or a survival horror game
- Little to none replayability

Overall I'd rate it 5/10.

I agree with you on the short campaign, but, personally, I thought the gameplay was very good: it was more action-y, but the game still felt like survival horror RE. The problem is that it is on fast-forward and everything is shortened: the sewers section is a prime example, especially that one bit you have to use the battery pack to unlock doors. In another game (classic RE or something like RE2make), that section would've been longer, with the doors separated by more ground, forcing you to resort to strategic item management and backtracking to progress. As for replayability, I must confess I finished it several times and unlocked every item. Yes, some parts of it feel rushed - the ending especially. Some others are great though. It's a half-missed opportunity in my book: it could've been much, much better. At the same time, it has some undeniable virtues - the writing and acting are the best in the series. I know it's not a movie but, for the first time in 25 years, Jill finally felt like a real character. It's too bad we won't be seeing more of her - and, after Village, I am seriously not holding my breath for the next RE game - just as I did in the RE4-6 era. I actually only held my breath for the remakes of 2 and 3.

 

[Ikawaru]

it was more action-y

More "action-y"....than the original Nemesis?

Remember, when Nemesis was originally released it got criticized by fans for being significantly more action packed than that of the previous two, and the random RNG puzzles solutions also got criticized.
It's actually quite easy to sit here in 2021 and long for the days of Nemesis of yore but lest not forget history is a living organism and the past is always compared to the present, so nostalgia is quite a factor here.

As Joni stated, the game was just rushed and needed to be longer and more room for exploration, and perhaps bring back the reloading tool, and it would have been a proper RE3R.

 

[Hardware]

More "action-y"....than the original Nemesis?

Remember, when Nemesis was originally released it got criticized by fans for being significantly more action packed than that of the previous two, and the random RNG puzzles solutions also got criticized.
It's actually quite easy to sit here in 2021 and long for the days of Nemesis of yore but lest not forget history is a living organism and the past is always compared to the present, so nostalgia is quite a factor here.

As Joni stated, the game was just rushed and needed to be longer and more room for exploration, and perhaps bring back the reloading tool, and it would have been a proper RE3R.

I bought Nemesis in March 2000 on Day One (here in Europe it got delayed because publishing rights to the RE series had moved from Virgin to Eidos) and I've never forgotten it. I have no memory of people complaining about it, but, back then, everything was reduced to magazines and talking to friends IRL. Personally, I never really felt it was that much more action-oriented, especially since my ideal RE game was 2 and there wasn't a lot more action (even gun-wise, the standard arsenal is the same as any other classic RE game: pistol, shotgun, grenade launcher, magnum, and a "special weapon", the mine thrower, which is equivalent to the flamethrower and the taser gun in RE2 - everything else was a bonus of some kind). I think the secret is in the backtracking - which is what lacks in RE3make and makes it feel more frantic. Also, yeah, RE3make felt more action-oriented because of the dodge move actually being usable - I finished OG RE3 8 times at the very least (one per epilogue file) and I never relied on the dodge. In RE3make, it becomes part of your tactical approach.

 

[Jonipoon]

I agree with you on the short campaign, but, personally, I thought the gameplay was very good: it was more action-y, but the game still felt like survival horror RE. The problem is that it is on fast-forward and everything is shortened: the sewers section is a prime example, especially that one bit you have to use the battery pack to unlock doors. In another game (classic RE or something like RE2make), that section would've been longer, with the doors separated by more ground, forcing you to resort to strategic item management and backtracking to progress. As for replayability, I must confess I finished it several times and unlocked every item. Yes, some parts of it feel rushed - the ending especially. Some others are great though. It's a half-missed opportunity in my book: it could've been much, much better. At the same time, it has some undeniable virtues - the writing and acting are the best in the series. I know it's not a movie but, for the first time in 25 years, Jill finally felt like a real character. It's too bad we won't be seeing more of her - and, after Village, I am seriously not holding my breath for the next RE game - just as I did in the RE4-6 era. I actually only held my breath for the remakes of 2 and 3.

Another criticism I have is that the streets don't feel empty or deserted, which is a huge part of the atmosphere in the original. In the remake there are zombies everywhere you go and you never quite feel that alone since you rush through everything. There was only one time in the entire remake that I got that wonderful OG "alone" feeling, and that was when you climb out of the sewers and walk by the river, looking upon the vast, quiet cityscape. Sadly, that eerie feeling is quickly ruined by an actionpacked cutscene with Nemesis once you walk onto the bridge. The game would've benefitted from more of those kind of quiet/desolate areas.

Like you said yourself, the OG RE3 wasn't that actionpacked compared to RE2. I feel like this is something that's been blown out of proportions throughout the years thanks to a vocal minority and vague comments by Capcom. The game is 100% survival horror with huge emphasis on backtracking, solving puzzles, item management, etc. Who cares if they added a dodge mechanic that's not even that useable. Overall it's a very grounded experience with no campy tendencies.

When it comes to the writing and acting in the remake, I digress. It's easy to be blinded by its beautiful graphics and astonishing motion-capture, which is undoubtedly its strength. The acting and the facial animations are incredible, like, really incredible, but the writing is quite cliché and the characters are generally not that interesting. Now, there's nothing wrong with cliché writing if its done right, but I feel like they did Jill dirty by turning her into an errand girl that needs help navigating her own city, which is what they needed in order to elavate her new snarky attitude which I don't like. Jill is a former military and a policewoman, she is used to following orders without questioning. Even if these guys are hired by Umbrella, an experienced soldier of her magnitude would see that these individuals are just trying to help, and in these life-or-death situations you really need to be a little bit more constructive. I miss the Jill from 1999 that showed calmness and assertiveness in tough situations. She was a compassionate woman that cared about others.

Also, some of the dialogue in the game which is spoken during walking was clearly originally part of cutscenes that were cut, which in my opinion makes them less appealing.

 

[Fishcakes]

Holy sh*t, this is exactly what the game should have been like. Having Nemesis be a relentless pursuer rather than a scripted nuisance drastically increases tension and fits perfectly with the remake's more action fueled tone. He actually looks terrifying here, especially in the 2nd video which showcases Nemesis chasing Jill around in the streets. Such wasted potential. To think this one difference would have made a world of difference in the game's overall perception because this really does look incredible.

As much as I do like the REmake (I think they did a decent job despite the game being less "resident evil" then I'd have liked) I have to agree with you. They missed out on some sick opportunities with parts they didn't add. The clips look like the original re3: nemesis so it looks sick.