Resident Evil 2 HD Remaster (Official Topic)

[Matteo]

I'm not even asking for that much. I just want it to be more true to the original than the direction it's going in. If they're going to make changes, they should stick to problem areas such as plot holes and continuity, instead of approaching it like the entire game is a problem area.


I totally get this, I really do. Splitting up is not a good idea. But if you change this one detail, it causes a chain reaction that causes more and more to be changed as the story progresses until RE2 becomes less and less recognizable. And isn't it going to be a bit weird when Leon and Ada have their romantic moments, while Claire and Sherry stand by? Plus the partner dynamic between Claire/Sherry and Leon/Ada would have to be replaced with something more like Outbreak, because now you have a group of four instead of a partner system. Also consider how much less scary situations are when you're not alone. Not just zombie and licker encounters, but boss fights as well would turn into battles with numerous allies on your side. It would be far less intense to have that kind of security blanket and support.

I think a better solution would be to give Leon and Claire a better reason for splitting up at the STARS room, like two people they know they need to rescue at the same time, such as Sherry and Ben (or Marvin). Maybe just before leaving the STARS room, Leon picks up a distress call over the radio from someone asking for medical attention, and he and Claire team up to go help him, but on the way, Claire sees Sherry running away from zombies, and she and Leon decide to split up so they can do both rescues simultaneously. If it's Ben who asked for help on the radio, who Leon discovers has locked himself in a cell and is in no immediate danger and really only wanted backup supplies, this would further justify the irritation that Leon already expresses in his encounter with him. This isn't the level of change that would bother me—in fact, sticking to little adjustments like this could actually help a RE2 remake shine. But they're going far beyond that. They're meddling with things that already work well and don't need to be changed.

In fact Leon and Claire have split up in searching for survivors in the police station, but after leaved out from the police station why they still continue separeted ways? C'mon no one will do it imaho.

 

[Mjolnir Mark IV]

Yeah, a reboot doesn't have to change everything to be considered a reboot, but it does have to change something major to be called so: This game has the same story, with the same main events, with the same characters (with the same goals and mostly, the same style), with the same antagonist and enemy, with the same locations.

Everything you mention here has undergone change with the RE2 remake, with the exception of perhaps one of the antagonists and the enemies. And you're inventing imaginary standards for what constitutes a reboot. There are tons of reboots where the setting, main characters, enemies, supporting cast, and basic plot all remain the same. The examples in comic books are plentiful beyond measure.

This alone doesn't make it a reboot, since they're telling and doing the same exact thing -

You call that exact? Anyway, the definition of reboot (from Dictionary.com) is:
"to produce a distinctly new version of (an established media franchise, as a film, TV show, video game, or comic book)"
There is no question that this definition is applicable to the RE2 remake. The "distinct" part is precisely what's dividing fans. You can insist on calling it a remake if you want (although I discourage that because I think it's damaging in that it conceals the truth about what was promised and what is being delivered, which essentially makes it a euphemism). But you can't say it isn't a reboot. The developers have said it's not a remake, and it's obviously not something as simple as an HD remaster. If it's neither of those two, what is it? There's only one commonly used term remaining to describe it, and it's "reboot."

just compare it with the Tomb Raider's one to see the differences.

The Tomb Raider reboot is not the standard by which all other reboots are measured. A reboot doesn't have to check every item on your checklist in order to be considered a reboot. If you want to say that there are reboots that have more distinct changes than those in the new RE2...okay, so what? But to say a reboot must have as many changes as the Tomb Raider reboot in order to be considered a reboot at all is to set unreasonably high standards for the word "reboot."

And I'd argue that a reimagination is still a remake, and that they called it so because:

1 - There will be only 2 scenario's with a more defined story.
2 - To try and ease the judgement of the players (it's easier to please the players by calling it so, it's their way to tell players that it's a remake without calling it so)

The change in the number of scenarios is just the tip of the iceberg, and to say "it's their way to tell players that it's a remake without calling it so" is a pretty out-there conspiracy theory. It's obvious that they're aware they're making changes that surpass what people think of as a remake. Otherwise they wouldn't go out of their way to not only rebrand it as a reimagining but also to explicitly state, "this is not a remake." You're in complete denial of the truth if you won't accept that the developers consider it more than a remake. If you haven't yet watched the video I linked earlier, you need to do that and listen to what the developers say. I shouldn't have to defend hard facts like this.

RE1 and REmake had a different design, they changed it and added to it, because they wanted the Remake to look closer to their original vision. They wouldn't use rejected design it they thought that they were bad or unpractical, if they're using it now it's because they can.

The RE1 remake was made by the same director as the original RE1, but the RE2 remake is not being made by the same director as the original RE2, so that is definitely not a fair comparison. With the RE1 remake, it was the same guy coming back to revisit his work, so you have an argument there that he may have also changed or added things he couldn't do with the original. But with the RE2 remake, it's a new guy who has his own vision for something new and unique, so your argument there is very weak. And anyway, I can't think of a single change to the layout of the RE2 environments that would have been more difficult to implement in the original game. We're talking about differences in design, but there is no limitation on layout when it comes to pre-rendered backgrounds. The only limitations are the number of camera angles, the resolution, and the number of colors. None of those are a factor in basic layout.

They were probably rejected because of the hardware they were working on (which btw, is the same reason they couldn't put the stuff that they ended up adding in the remake) -

Every design change I can think of would have been possible in the original. It just wouldn't have looked as good (obviously). And I don't have a problem with additions if they're good. What I have a problem with is unnecessary changes—which the RE1 remake did not do nearly to the same extent as the RE2 remake is doing. Not even close.

for example: the new hall of the police station it's way more realistic and polished of the old one - there was no reason to choose the latter when they already had this design (wich btw, worked much better), so why go with the more unrealistic design? It's probably because that was the one they had less problem with. Now that they're working with a much more powerful hardware they can actually use what they couldn't at the time.

They could have easily implemented the new layout of the lobby in the original game if they wanted to. If you disagree, it sounds like your understanding of game design and hardware limitations is limited. All they would have to do is replace the "disc loading" ladder with a "disc loading" staircase and swap the locations of the statue and reception desk. We're talking about design choices, not hardware limitations.

As for the realism of the design, I was in the police station of a major US city recently, and aside from having elevators, the layout of its lobby made way less sense than the original RE2 lobby.

And another problem I have with the RE2 remake lobby is that the staircase in the back makes it look too much like the mansion lobby from RE1, which reduces the unique identity of the RPD lobby. In other words, this little touch only succeeds in homogenizing the design variety in the series. You might think this is too small a detail to matter, but consider that it's the main hub in both games, so you see it a lot. Personally, I would prefer a spiral staircase for the RE2 remake. That's closer to a ladder in design and would help the RPD lobby maintain more of its unique identity. Unique design is more important than real-life practicality in this case anyway.

I wasn't talking about the design or the locations of the puzzles, which I'm okay with (well, mostly, there are some that are actually weird now that you're making me think about it, for example the one on the second floor, with the statue with the red gem, that should have raised so many questions between the police officers).

You need to collect all of the files you can pick up in RE2 and read them, because they explain how the chief is an art collector and that there are officers who are weirded out by odd things in the police station.

I'm talking about some rooms and stuff like the hall or the emergency stairs - or even the lack of rooms like the bathrooms.

I have no objection to adding bathrooms. It's changing the layout of existing rooms that I have an objection to.

Yeah, but they're aren't changing stuff just for the sake of it, they're changing stuff that needed to be changed.

Why does the statue need magical gravity-defying blood dripping upwards? Why does Claire's outfit need to be changed? Why does Leon need to find out she's alive by seeing her on a security monitor rather than in person? Why does Marvin need to bequeath his knife to Leon? Why does Mr. X need to get impaled by a monster claw? Why does he need a hat? Why do so many lights need to be out? Why do there need to be shutters? Why does there need to be a notebook filled with clues? Why do the steps at the lobby's entrance need to be curved instead of straight? Why do doors, switches, and items need icons? None of these changes are "needed." These changes only succeed in making the game different, in some cases for no apparent reason, and in other cases, it even makes the game worse. Blood dripping the wrong way is something that should be reserved for supernatural horror like Silent Hill, Claire should be more recognizable, finding out Claire is alive in person is much more dramatic than finding out she's alive by seeing her on a security monitor, and icons that indicate doors, switches, and items detract from the survival aspect of the game.

And why does so much narrative context need to be completely removed from the scene with Marvin? They cut out the reference to Leon's welcoming party, and the story of what happened at the mansion and the RPD in the aftermath of RE1. This is important not only because it creates context, but because it patches up a plot hole by explaining how an outbreak was able to happen so long after the mansion incident when the returning STARS members knew what was going on. Now the RE2 remake has created a new plot hole: how come the rest of the RPD doesn't know about the mansion incident? Why would the surviving STARS members not try to inform the RPD? The RE2 remake also removes the objective Marvin gives Leon about rescuing the remaining survivors in the police station. And having the guy draw his gun and lock the door behind you raises the tension level and implies Marvin knows he is doomed to turn into a zombie, which I think is very intriguing. There's just so much narrative straight up deleted. Why? They also cut out Marvin giving Leon a card key, which adds a practicality to both the narrative and the gameplay by giving the player access to more areas, which of course ties in with the objective Marvin gives Leon. Why is removing all of this "needed"?

If you think all of these changes are improvements, that's fine. But you can't say the original is problematic for not doing it the way you like best. You should reserve that kind of judgment for plot holes and breaks in continuity. Furthermore, they've changed literally every single line of dialog. Do you really think the entire script of RE2 needs to be changed? I'm actually starting to wonder now, do you even like RE2?

I'm pretty sure that they are going to keep the main jump scares, they are just changing the timing and the locations (one of the dev said that we're going to see a glimpse of the licker in another window for example).

Again, I don't have a problem with this if such things can be improved (although I'm incredibly skeptical that the licker reveal can be orchestrated any better than it is in the original). But changing things simply to surprise the player for the first playthrough is a cheap gimmick. They are trading lasting quality for fleeting novelty. Does that sound like a good trade to you? If the new timing and locations aren't an improvement, they're making a change for the worse.

it also makes more sense for the new Marvin to not pull out his gun IMO (I mean all the rooms are connected, closed or not, Leon was still going to enter by other side of the room anyway), which is why I don't mind is new location.

Don't forget that Marvin tells Leon to "rescue the survivors in the other rooms," other as in not this one—as in stay the hell out of this room. Drawing his gun on Leon and the way he locks the door after Leon leaves supports this interpretation. The act of locking himself inside also adds a layer to his character because it implies a degree of cowardice: he knows he's going to die, but he's not willing to eat a bullet as a human to save other people from being attacked by him after he turns. It also adds to the narrative by exploring one of the psychological impacts in zombie catastrophe, which is that people turn on people. The game returns to this theme again with Annette, and a little bit with Ben. Chief Irons too, although he's also a sadist.

Whatever man, let's just agree to disagree xD

Sounds good to me.

Either way, we're going to enjoy a new RE game.

That's the thing, I'm scared I won't enjoy it.

 

[MisterScott]

Ugh, now we're seriously arguing about whether REmake 2 is canon or not? You don't tell the exact same story, with the same characters, same enemies, same events, same location, same everything, just with more added to it, and NOT have it be canon. It's simply an expansion of the original game with a new camera perspective and up-to-date visuals and any changes will simply override the original RE2's in canon, just like the first REmake (since it reshuffled a lot of areas and whatnot from the first game). If say, Nemesis is featured in a small cameo like I talked about earlier, the canon will simply be expanded to include him in the lore with either Claire or Leon seeing him lurking the streets, something that was never touched on in the original, but very easily could've happened given the timeline of the two games (Nemesis' first fight with Jill took place just before Leon and Claire arrived in Raccoon City).

The whole Lisa Trevor ordeal never happened according to the logic of some people in this thread.

Different versions on Resident Evil 1 are set in their own continuity.

The original game, directors cut and the remake are all set in a alternate universe from each other and non of them are canon since none of the games show Chris, Jill, Barry and Rebecca escaping together, of course the Mansion Incident depicted in those games did happen in the canon but under slightly different circumstances and the “true ending” is not acessable in game as the gameplay was designed by be a player determined experience sort of like a RPG not bound to any continuity and it makes sense when you take into consideration that Capcom never expected it to be successful enough to be considered sequel worthy.

So Lisa Trevor doesn’t exist in the canon of the first game or directors cut, only remake and any further games that references her.

 

[Mjolnir Mark IV]

You don't tell the exact same story, with the same characters, same enemies, same events, same location, same everything, just with more added to it, and NOT have it be canon. It's simply an expansion of the original game with a new camera perspective and up-to-date visuals and any changes will simply override the original RE2's in canon

But it's not the "exact" same story, etc., "just with more added to it." You're majorly downplaying, maybe even completely disregarding, the high number of existing elements that are being changed.

In fact Leon and Claire have split up in searching for survivors in the police station, but after leaved out from the police station why they still continue separeted ways? C'mon no one will do it imaho.

I would address this by having someone's radio damaged beyond repair during a boss fight around the time they leave the police station. Then later in the lab when one of them sees the other on the computer monitor, they make contact using the intercom.

 

[Mr.R]

I wonder if back in 2002 people complained about the same things regarding the original Remake. The complete, drastic changes on the mansion (even more so than what we've saw from the RPD so far.), or the fact that Barry doesn't really looks like the same character and things like that ("Rebecca doesn't have her Ryu headband anymore!"). I'm not getting into an argument about this game, per se, because we can't really change people's opinions. Some will like, some won't. I just hope that the people favorable to the game heavily outweigh the ones that doesn't like it and maybe we can get a RE3 Remake on the same way. At any rate what I know is that I'm liking so far, it's what matters to me. I'm just wondering if any kind of remakes on a big franchise can stir this kind of discussion regardless of quality.

 

[MisterScott]

I wonder if back in 2002 people complained about the same things regarding the original Remake. The complete, drastic changes on the mansion (even more so than what we've saw from the RPD so far.), or the fact that Barry doesn't really looks like the same character and things like that ("Rebecca doesn't have her Ryu headband anymore!"). I'm not getting into an argument about this game, per se, because we can't really change people's opinions. Some will like, some won't. I just hope that the people favorable to the game heavily outweigh the ones that doesn't like it and maybe we can get a RE3 Remake on the same way. At any rate what I know is that I'm liking so far, it's what matters to me. I'm just wondering if any kind of remakes on a big franchise can stir this kind of discussion regardless of quality.

Back in the late 90s and early 2000s people were a lot more laid back and just took things at face value and didn’t really care much about minor plot changes and character redesigns as long as they found the game entertaining, it wasn’t until around the beginning of the 2010s when people started paying close attention to detail of all the movies they watch and the games they play, if the remake just came out today for the first time in its exact GameCube era form I bet that it would be just as controversial as the remake of Resident Evil 2, because the Resident Evil 1 Remake is just as “guilty” of being unfaithful to the original as the Resident Evil 2 Remake when it comes to plot changes and redesigns of the building layout and characters, the only difference between the two from what we have seen as far as the “faithfulness” goes is that the latter changed the camera angles.

 

[Turo602]

I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to understand the difference between a remake, a remaster, or a reboot. This game is most definitely a remake and unlike Prince of Persia (2008), DmC (2013), and Tomb Raider (2013), which were all reboots because they each started their own brand new continuity and were not defined or limited to anything that came before.

Resident Evil 2 on the other hand is clearly defined by the original. Picking apart gameplay changes is one thing, but the story will no doubt lead to the same outcomes as the original, despite whatever presentational differences it may have. Yes, there are big changes being made, but most are trivial and don't impact the outcome of the rest of the series because it's still just following the guidelines of Resident Evil 2.

Marvin having an expanded role in the beginning of the game, or Leon coming across more cops, or being told to stay back for a week instead of partying are all minor changes that hold no real weight to the overall story and lore of the series. These things are called retcons, and they're nothing new to this series or any other series that has gone on for as long as Resident Evil has.

The purpose of this title is to flesh out and expand on the events of Resident Evil 2 in a way that wasn't possible in 1998. It's purpose is to be the definitive telling of the Resident Evil 2 story, which is true of any remake. Calling it a reimagining doesn't mean it's not a remake anymore. Remakes are essentially just that, a reimagining of something old using modern techniques and ideas. Not a complete reboot/reset where there are no specific guidelines to follow.

And I don't even know what's going on here anymore with this whole canon nonsense. It's pretty simple to follow, I don't get why people look for trivial details to debunk or question facts stated by Capcom.

 

[Drakortha]

New video from Capcom. They talk about their decision to go with OTS @ 1:22

 

[MisterScott]

I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to understand the difference between a remake, a remaster, or a reboot. This game is most definitely a remake and unlike Prince of Persia (2008), DmC (2013), and Tomb Raider (2013), which were all reboots because they each started their own brand new continuity and were not defined or limited to anything that came before.

Resident Evil 2 on the other hand is clearly defined by the original. Picking apart gameplay changes is one thing, but the story will no doubt lead to the same outcomes as the original, despite whatever presentational differences it may have. Yes, there are big changes being made, but most are trivial and don't impact the outcome of the rest of the series because it's still just following the guidelines of Resident Evil 2.

Marvin having an expanded role in the beginning of the game, or Leon coming across more cops, or being told to stay back for a week instead of partying are all minor changes that hold no real weight to the overall story and lore of the series. These things are called retcons, and they're nothing new to this series or any other series that has gone on for as long as Resident Evil has.

The purpose of this title is to flesh out and expand on the events of Resident Evil 2 in a way that wasn't possible in 1998. It's purpose is to be the definitive telling of the Resident Evil 2 story, which is true of any remake. Calling it a reimagining doesn't mean it's not a remake anymore. Remakes are essentially just that, a reimagining of something old using modern techniques and ideas. Not a complete reboot/reset where there are no specific guidelines to follow.

And I don't even know what's going on here anymore with this whole canon nonsense. It's pretty simple to follow, I don't get why people look for trivial details to debunk or question facts stated by Capcom.

Why does a reboot have be drastically different to be considered a reboot? For example Marvel’s current mainstream comic universe (Earth 616) is technically a reboot as the timeline got retconned from the 1960s/1970s into the present day, of course Spider-Man is still Spider-Man and Ironman is still Ironman but you cannot pretend their first few comics that were set in the 60s never happened, but because the original Spider-Man and Ironman would be in their 70s or 80s right now it was necessary from a business standpoint to make a reboot in a contemporary setting universe that is more or less indentical in its lore besides the era its set in so the old comics from the 1970s “still count” because the current universe has its own equivalent series of events, but those particular comic issues are not in the same universe, this is type of soft reboot that I call a quiet reboot which is when the reboot is essentially a drastic retcon that makes the previous continuity obviously distinguishable but has a very similar series of events and is never officially referred to as a reboot.

Resident Evil 7 is set in a different universe from the other games, it’s quite obvious since Chris looks like a completely different person and our facial features are a important part of what makes us but although it’s in a different continuity the previous events in this timeline (like the Mansion Incident, Raccoon City Outbreak, Code Veronica etc) are more or less indentical to the previous games apart from the fact that in this universe Chris was born with a completely different face, so it’s both a sequel and a slight quiet reboot, and if Chris gets redesigned again back to his normal self that game be set in the same universe as every other game released before RE 7 but 7 would still technically count as the “previous chapter” as this games timeline would have its own equivalent event of RE 7 with the only exception that Ethans rescue was done in this universe by the original canon Chris Redfield instead of the blonde guy from the other timeline.

Resident Evil 2 looks like a reboot that can also double as a remake just like the remake of the first game because you can still connect the dots in the storyline as the other events in this timeline are relatively unchanged but it still could a seperate universe as you simply cannot ignore the differences from the previous games, like the different interactions between characters, different costumes and the presence of completely new characters, for example if we were able to hypothetically teleport into fictional worlds and ask Jill Valentine from the PS1 version of Resident Evil anything about Lisa Trevor she would probably look at us with a confused look on her face as this timelines version of Jill never encountered Lisa Trevor unlike the Jill of the GameCube remake continuity which is set in a seperate, very similar but not identical universe.

 

[Cure Zombrex]

I'm happy that Marvin has a heroic role again. His first one was in Outbreak File #2. Other than that, I hope Robert Kendo has a similar extended appearance that feels important.

 

[Matteo]

I'm happy that Marvin has a heroic role again. His first one was in Outbreak File #2. Other than that, I hope Robert Kendo has a similar extended appearance that feels important.

I think that Marvin, Ben and Kendo will have more interaction with Leon and Claire, but I hope for new characters (that they will die with good probably), because at the end in the Original RE2 there was few characters.

 

[KManX89]

I wonder if back in 2002 people complained about the same things regarding the original Remake. The complete, drastic changes on the mansion (even more so than what we've saw from the RPD so far.), or the fact that Barry doesn't really looks like the same character and things like that ("Rebecca doesn't have her Ryu headband anymore!"). I'm not getting into an argument about this game, per se, because we can't really change people's opinions. Some will like, some won't. I just hope that the people favorable to the game heavily outweigh the ones that doesn't like it and maybe we can get a RE3 Remake on the same way. At any rate what I know is that I'm liking so far, it's what matters to me. I'm just wondering if any kind of remakes on a big franchise can stir this kind of discussion regardless of quality.

This.

By MM's logic, REmake 1 is a complete reboot since the Spencer Mansion in REmake isn't the same Spencer Mansion from RE1. Yeah, no, REmake 1 simply supercedes the original in the game's canon, that's how it works. So canon Barry no longer has the mustache, canon Chris looks like a movie action hero (even moreso by the time Rev 1/LiN/RE5 rolls around), canon Rebecca doesn't have the headband, anymore and Lisa Trevor was captured and turned into a monster by Umbrella in the main series canon.

 

[Mjolnir Mark IV]

I wonder if back in 2002 people complained about the same things regarding the original Remake.

I'm one of those people, and I can say I did not complain. In fact, I was blown away. While I missed some of the stuff they took out, there was and still is no question in my mind that the RE1 remake is superior overall, not just in terms of graphics.

The complete, drastic changes on the mansion (even more so than what we've saw from the RPD so far.),

I would say the basic layout of the mansion underwent less change than the RPD. As for the finer details, you should expect more change for a RE1 remake because visually, RE1 is a less complete game than RE2. But instead we're getting the opposite. Much of RE1 looks like pre-viz, so to flesh that out, you have to change it more than RE2, which by contrast, is already very fleshed out visually and doesn't need as many changes.

I'm just wondering if any kind of remakes on a big franchise can stir this kind of discussion regardless of quality.

The answer is most certainly not necessarily. The reason RE2 is being remade is because so many people already love it, and today's technology can make it look so much better. So the more you change it, the more you risk changing what people love about it, so why risk it? If they hadn't strayed from design choices for example, people like me wouldn't be complaining about how it looks. I find it very difficult to imagine a RE2 fan saying, "They should have changed the designs more for the remake. Everything looks too much like it did in the original. Why don't the characters and environments look less recognizable?" All they had to do in this regard is upgrade the visuals, not redesign the characters and environments. Sure, maybe some little nooks and crannies of RE2 could use more detail, I have no problem with that. We're talking things like some minor set dressing and adding seams to clothing that we could never see in the original. But changing basic designs on the scale that they have is completely unnecessary. That's part of why the developers aren't calling it a remake any longer (in addition to the story changes and different camera).

I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to understand the difference between a remake, a remaster, or a reboot.

Because this game in particular was announced as a remake and has now been branded as something else. If they had announced it as a reboot, there would be no confusion. Honestly, picture this: if the RE2 remake had been announced as a RE2 reboot back in 2015, would you honestly now be protesting and saying "This isn't a reboot, it's a remake!"

This game is most definitely a remake

Not according to the developers.

and unlike Prince of Persia (2008), DmC (2013), and Tomb Raider (2013), which were all reboots because they each started their own brand new continuity and were not defined or limited to anything that came before.

RE2 is also doing that, just not to the same degree. There are no rules for how much needs to be changed in order for it to be considered a reboot.

Resident Evil 2 on the other hand is clearly defined by the original. Picking apart gameplay changes is one thing, but the story will no doubt lead to the same outcomes as the original, despite whatever presentational differences it may have.

Nothing you just said restricts that from being called a reboot.

Yes, there are big changes being made, but most are trivial and don't impact the outcome of the rest of the series because it's still just following the guidelines of Resident Evil 2.

Saying that most changes won't impact the outcome of the rest of the series isn't saying much. You could make Chief Irons transform into a Cthulu monster that shoots laser beams out of his mouth without affecting the rest of the series. You could turn all of RE2 into an unrecognizable abomination as long as Leon, Claire, and Sherry meet and survive. I'm not saying the RE2 remake is an unrecognizable abomination, I'm saying it changes far more than is necessary.

Marvin having an expanded role in the beginning of the game, or Leon coming across more cops, or being told to stay back for a week instead of partying are all minor changes that hold no real weight to the overall story and lore of the series. These things are called retcons, and they're nothing new to this series or any other series that has gone on for as long as Resident Evil has.

Retcon is a portmanteau for "retroactive continuity." The part you need to be paying more attention to is the "retroactive" part. The only retconning that can be done in the RE2 remake is anything that references and changes what happened in RE1 or RE Zero, because those are the only two games that take place before RE2. Those are the only stories in RE2's past. Hence "retroactive."

But even if "retroactive" wasn't part of the word, the RE2 remake still doesn't fit the definition of retconning. Retcons are patches applied to part of previous continuity to help allow the current continuity to exist without contradicting the previous continuity. The RE2 remake on the other hand is a major overhaul that starts all of RE2 over from the beginning and retells it in its entirety. It is not just a few parts of RE2 being patched, the entire game is being rebuilt and the entire story is being retold. The changes from RE2 to the RE2 remake are bigger than any retcon in any game in the series. And when you retcon an entire title from the ground up, that is not called reconinng, it's called either a remake or a reboot, depending on how much is changed and/or how distinct the changes are.

Retconning would be if Leon and Ada had a scene in RE4 where they mention Ada grapple-hooking away from Leon in RE2 instead of "dying" in his arms or falling from the bridge. But this isn't just one part of RE2 we're talking about, or even a handful of parts, and it isn't in the past of the current work—it's all of RE2 from beginning to end in its entirety. So it's a remake or reboot, but most certainly not something as simple as a retcon.

Calling it a reimagining doesn't mean it's not a remake anymore.

Then how do you explain the fact that the developers are explicitly saying that it is not a remake? Furthermore, calling it a reimagining doesn't mean it's not a reboot.

Remakes are essentially just that, a reimagining of something old using modern techniques and ideas. Not a complete reboot/reset where there are no specific guidelines to follow.

There are plenty of reboots that follow the same guidelines of the original, especially in comics. And the developers aren't using the word "reimagined" as a synonym for "remake." They consciously changed the branding because they felt the word "remake" was no longer applicable to what they're doing to the game. There's a reason they're going out of their way to explicitly state, "This isn't a remake of the original." That is an actual quote from the developers.

 

[Venomous Oddball]

I don't think of one game as the canon one. I think the original Resident Evil, the remake, and The Umbrella Chronicles all have a place in the canon in a way. The remake has the Trevor family's story, Revelations 2 made a reference to the original, and Nightmare is canon, so Richard and Rebecca would have been found in the library instead of that hallway. I think the same for versions of 2.

 

[Mjolnir Mark IV]

By MM's logic, REmake 1 is a complete reboot since the Spencer Mansion in REmake isn't the same Spencer Mansion from RE1.

The changes to the mansion aren't nearly enough to call the game a reboot. And the RE1 remake is much more faithful to the original RE1, compared to how faithful the RE2 remake is being to the original RE2. It's not just the setting that makes me think of the RE2 remake as a reboot, it's the characters and the narrative as well.

 

[MisterScott]

This.

By MM's logic, REmake 1 is a complete reboot since the Spencer Mansion in REmake isn't the same Spencer Mansion from RE1. Yeah, no, REmake 1 simply supercedes the original in the game's canon, that's how it works. So canon Barry no longer has the mustache, canon Chris looks like a movie action hero (even moreso by the time Rev 1/LiN/RE5 rolls around), canon Rebecca doesn't have the headband, anymore and Lisa Trevor was captured and turned into a monster by Umbrella in the main series canon.

So basically you admitted that the first Resident Evil 1 takes place in a alternate universe from the remake, supersededing is the same as rebooting, a drastic retcon which is effectively a minor but noiticble reboot is enough to be considered a reboot in its own right so there no point comparing this to Devil May Cry as that underwent a extreme reboot.

In the remake the STARS characters look different, there are new zombies that were not in the original, Lisa Trevor wasn’t in the original, the Mansion is completely overhauled, saying the remake supersedes the original as canon begs this question, where does the first game without any changes or additions fit in the lore? you can’t just pretend that this iconic game that started it all and has a well developed story even by today’s standards “never happened” and that the remake is the “true story”, the PS1 version came first and the remake came later and changed a lot of things and added stuff so the original has to be in a alternate universe from the remake doesn’t it? because it’s so obviously different on many levels and you do realise that a alternate universe doesn’t have to be extremely different like DMC.

The remake is set in a very similar but not indentical alternate universe from the original game, same with directors cut, so I can imagine that the first Resident Evil 2 is set in the same universe as the original first game while the remake of Resident Evil 2 is probably set in the remake universe, the only way we can know for sure is by playing the game and checking out the picture at the STARS room.

 

[Mjolnir Mark IV]

Back in the late 90s and early 2000s people were a lot more laid back and just took things at face value and didn’t really care much about minor plot changes and character redesigns as long as they found the game entertaining, it wasn’t until around the beginning of the 2010s when people started paying close attention to detail of all the movies they watch and the games they play,

A person maturing into adulthood does develop a more critical eye. Maybe these people with less critical viewpoints you speak of were adolescents at the time and are now adults with more critical viewpoints.

if the remake just came out today for the first time in its exact GameCube era form I bet that it would be just as controversial as the remake of Resident Evil 2, because the Resident Evil 1 Remake is just as “guilty” of being unfaithful to the original as the Resident Evil 2 Remake when it comes to plot changes and redesigns of the building layout and characters,

Which remake character do you think looks more like their original counterpart, Jill or Claire? Which layout of the remake is closer to the original, the mansion lobby or the RPD lobby? Which remake scene do you think follows a narrative closer to the original, the scene when the main characters first enter the lobby in RE1, or the scene when Leon meets Marvin in RE2?

I think there's a great deal of difference between RE2 and the RE2 remake you're failing to observe, and I think there's a great deal of similarity between RE1 and the RE1 remake you're failing to observe.

the only difference between the two from what we have seen as far as the “faithfulness” goes is that the latter changed the camera angles.

I would be so pleased with the RE2 remake if that were true.

 

[MisterScott]

To answer your questions.

Who looks more like their original counterpart?

Jill has a more faithful outfit to the original while Claire has a more faithful facial model, remember Jill in the original was potrayed “Inezh” not Julia Voth and she has a completely different hairstyle, I already made a post explaining how Remake Claire compares to the original on this topic.

Which remake scene follows a closer narrative to the original?

As of Leon’s encounter of Marvin being different, you do realise that Remake does the exact same thing with Richard, who was already dead when Chris saw him (and died before Jill could give him the serum) in the original whereas in the remake he can be saved and dies much later at the hands of Yawn or the Neptune (depending if you are playing as Jill or Chris).

Which is more similar the RPD lobby or the Mansion lobby?

They’re both completely different, the RPD has the upper levels rearranged and added a electronic shutter door and a bathroom whereas the Mansion added a new door right in front of a staircase, a different entrance to the lab and a balcony that wasn’t there in the original game.

 

[Cure Zombrex]

I assume that the remake is canon, though, because in the original, viewers see that Joseph Frost finds Edward's hand in the grass, but in the remake, Joseph finds Kevin's head in the wreckage of Bravo Team's chopper. Edward dies on the train in the prequel, after warning Rebecca about the dogs. And Lisa Trevor is in the rail shooter games too, finally slain by Wesker, so that confirms the remake is canon and not the original.

 

[Turo602]

Because this game in particular was announced as a remake and has now been branded as something else. If they had announced it as a reboot, there would be no confusion. Honestly, picture this: if the RE2 remake had been announced as a RE2 reboot back in 2015, would you honestly now be protesting and saying "This isn't a reboot, it's a remake!"

It definitely hasn't been branded as a reboot and I'm pretty sure there's a good reason they're not calling it one either. Calling it a reimagining doesn't contradict its status as a remake, because as Capcom said, this is an entirely new game, just like the previous REmake, otherwise it would just be a port or a remaster. It's also definitely not separating itself from the rest of the series either, like a reboot. Capcom can feel free to tiptoe around the word remake all they want, but it doesn't change what it is. And yes, had Capcom used the word reboot instead of remake, not only would I call them out for it, plenty of others would as well, and plenty of others would be left in confusion as to the state of the franchise as the word reboot insinuates the game either won't be canon to the main series, or is starting a whole brand new canon, discarding everything that came after.

Not according to the developers.

All of the developers said this? Are you sure it wasn't just a misuse of a word or hyperbole? Surely, Capcom wants to sell this game like it were RE8 and not just some small spin-off project for a niche audience. Therefore, wouldn't you think they would want to make sure everyone knows it isn't just the same game as last time, or a simple remaster like I still see people calling it, so that people would want to buy it? Again, they're not wrong in calling it a brand new game, nor does calling it one stop it from being a remake.

RE2 is also doing that, just not to the same degree. There are no rules for how much needs to be changed in order for it to be considered a reboot.

Prove to me that RE2 is starting a brand new continuity separate from the rest of the series and isn't working within the boundaries of the original game and the rest of the series. Because if this is really a reboot, then you're telling me that Chief Irons can literally turn into Cthulhu and shoot lasers and it would be completely within the realm of possibility. Also, I never stated that there are rules for how much needs to be changed, in fact, you are the one saying this by calling this a reboot for being too different. A reboot can follow the source material as closely or as loosely as it wants, but either way, it would have no effect on the source material. Whereas if this game wanted to state that Claire was a lesbian, you can bet it would be shown, stated, or alluded to in a future installment. Because this is now Resident Evil 2, and in being so, has some strict guidelines to follow because it still has to successfully replace the original RE2 despite whatever new details are thrown in, just as the original REmake has.

Saying that most changes won't impact the outcome of the rest of the series isn't saying much. You could make Chief Irons transform into a Cthulu monster that shoots laser beams out of his mouth without affecting the rest of the series. You could turn all of RE2 into an unrecognizable abomination as long as Leon, Claire, and Sherry meet and survive. I'm not saying the RE2 remake is an unrecognizable abomination, I'm saying it changes far more than is necessary.

That wouldn't be following the guidelines then, would it?... Also, elaborate on these unnecessary changes. As far as I can tell, the story of RE2 is still very well intact. Leon meets Claire somewhere outside in Raccoon City, they get split up, Leon ends up in the Police Station by himself, meets Marvin, and so on. Seems like they're hitting all the same beats as the original. I don't see how making Marvin more of a human character and having him save Leon, talk more, and whatever else, is unnecessary or even so drastically different that it's somehow a reboot... The guy is still gonna turn into a zombie, and you're still gonna have to kill him. Why should a remake carry over the primitive storytelling of the past, when they could do pretty much the same thing, but in a much better way? Hence, the whole point of remaking it.

Retcon is a portmanteau for "retroactive continuity." The part you need to be paying more attention to is the "retroactive" part. The only retconning that can be done in the RE2 remake is anything that references and changes what happened in RE1 or RE Zero, because those are the only two games that take place before RE2. Those are the only stories in RE2's past. Hence "retroactive."

But even if "retroactive" wasn't part of the word, the RE2 remake still doesn't fit the definition of retconning. Retcons are patches applied to part of previous continuity to help allow the current continuity to exist without contradicting the previous continuity. The RE2 remake on the other hand is a major overhaul that starts all of RE2 over from the beginning and retells it in its entirety. It is not just a few parts of RE2 being patched, the entire game is being rebuilt and the entire story is being retold. The changes from RE2 to the RE2 remake are bigger than any retcon in any game in the series. And when you retcon an entire title from the ground up, that is not called reconinng, it's called either a remake or a reboot, depending on how much is changed and/or how distinct the changes are.

Retconning would be if Leon and Ada had a scene in RE4 where they mention Ada grapple-hooking away from Leon in RE2 instead of "dying" in his arms or falling from the bridge. But this isn't just one part of RE2 we're talking about, or even a handful of parts, and it isn't in the past of the current work—it's all of RE2 from beginning to end in its entirety. So it's a remake or reboot, but most certainly not something as simple as a retcon.

I don't see how this doesn't work. This new remake is retconning the past game it is based on. It is changing the facts of it. Retcons come in various forms for various reasons. Your definition is merely one example of a retcon.