Just played an hour of the Resistance Beta, 1 match as the Mastermind and 1 as a Survivor.
It's not that bad actually, nothing special, but it has it's moments.
It's not that bad actually, nothing special, but it has it's moments.
Some might already know this because of my latest status update, but I've decided not to preorder the game after all. Not because of what I've heard or read, but because of what I've seen with my own eyes (which basically confirms what I've heard and read). I've watched leaked footage of almost the entire game, and while I'm annoyed at myself for not resisting the temptation on a boring afternoon at home, at the same time I'm glad that I didn't spend a full game's price on what is basically half a game. I don't care about ink ribbons not returning, they're just yet another entry on the long list of missing features from the original, but I do care about no clock tower and a few other things I can't mention because of spoilers. As a fan of the original, even though it wasn't my favourite of the classics, I can't help making those comparisons, and it doesn't feel like much has been added to compensate for everything that's been cut.
And yeah, the original campaign was short too. RE story campaigns usually are, and I'd argue that's for the best because, as someone said, dragging it out just for the sake of making it longer doesn't automatically make it better. But most other games in the series make up for that by offering a second playable character/campaign, and/or replay value through decisions and different endings, and/or extra modes such as Mercenaries or Rape Mode. The original RE had the latter two, the remake has Resistance alright, but that being 100% online makes it unattractive for me. I'm still going to get the game eventually, because I do like most of what I've seen*, and it looks really fun. I will wait for a sale, though, because 60 simoleons is too much for the short campaign alone.
(* except for Dinosaur Nemesis, who reminds me of Simmons. Sorry, someone had to say it.)
And yeah, the original campaign was short too. RE story campaigns usually are, and I'd argue that's for the best because, as someone said, dragging it out just for the sake of making it longer doesn't automatically make it better. But most other games in the series make up for that by offering a second playable character/campaign, and/or replay value through decisions and different endings, and/or extra modes such as Mercenaries or Rape Mode. The original RE had the latter two, the remake has Resistance alright, but that being 100% online makes it unattractive for me. I'm still going to get the game eventually, because I do like most of what I've seen*, and it looks really fun. I will wait for a sale, though, because 60 simoleons is too much for the short campaign alone.
(* except for Dinosaur Nemesis, who reminds me of Simmons. Sorry, someone had to say it.)
Sounds to me like Capcom have pretty much thrown this thing together compared to 2. While 2 wasn't flawless by a long shot, it stayed very faithful to the original. No areas were cut, only expanded. Like the sewers were twice as long in the remake, they added the orphanage area, and they replaced the one and only monster that they cut with a new one. RE3 on the other hand, sounds like it may as well have been a new game. Cutting out the clock tower is absolutely ludicrous. That's like cutting the guardhouse from RE1. The only boss aside from Nemesis is gone too, Now I'm understanding from this post that ink ribbons are gone too.... The demo was great and I'm sure il still enjoy the game but some of the choices Capcom appear to have made with this one seems to go against what they accomplished with 2 last year.
Meh. Seems like most reviewers only look at the surface without giving too much thought into it. It's very easy to look at the game and think "Oh it looks and plays exactly like the RE2 remake from last year, this could've been a DLC!", but that's not really fair. I also find it ridiculous that they complain about most of the encounters with Nemesis being scripted, when they were scripted in the original as well. And while its true that Mr. X had non-scripted parts in the RE2 remake, that was just for one part of the game where you have to go back to the police station and find the electric parts. Every other meeting with Mr. X in the RE2 remake was scripted, including the first one when he lifts the crashed helicopter.
Short? RE2 remake was short too, I finished it in about 7 hours in my first playthrough and I still took my time looking around and exploring stuff. If this game is beatable in 5 hours taking the same time looking around, its not really that much of a difference. These are not 15+ hour games. The reviewers are overreacting.
It also seems like most reviewers have misunderstood the whole situation surrounding Resistance. They think that just because Resistance was thrown into RE3 as an extra game, it means RE3 is not worth 60 bucks. Is it possible that Capcom included Resistance in RE3 because they didn't believe it would sell well by itself? Yes! But is it possible that Capcom believed RE3 wouldn't sell well by itself? Of course NO! In my mind Resistance was simply an extra gift by Capcom. These reviewers just come off as the biggest crybabies right now.
Nevertheless, I still haven't played the game myself so I'll see how I feel about it. I can't imagine myself NOT enjoying it though, that's an impossible scenario that I won't allow to happen. I've avoided almost every spoiler so far, however If they've really cut out the clocktower I'm going to be extremely disappointed. It obviously won't affect my overall enjoyment while playing, but simply knowing its gone will feel a bit wrong.
Short? RE2 remake was short too, I finished it in about 7 hours in my first playthrough and I still took my time looking around and exploring stuff. If this game is beatable in 5 hours taking the same time looking around, its not really that much of a difference. These are not 15+ hour games. The reviewers are overreacting.
It also seems like most reviewers have misunderstood the whole situation surrounding Resistance. They think that just because Resistance was thrown into RE3 as an extra game, it means RE3 is not worth 60 bucks. Is it possible that Capcom included Resistance in RE3 because they didn't believe it would sell well by itself? Yes! But is it possible that Capcom believed RE3 wouldn't sell well by itself? Of course NO! In my mind Resistance was simply an extra gift by Capcom. These reviewers just come off as the biggest crybabies right now.
Nevertheless, I still haven't played the game myself so I'll see how I feel about it. I can't imagine myself NOT enjoying it though, that's an impossible scenario that I won't allow to happen. I've avoided almost every spoiler so far, however If they've really cut out the clocktower I'm going to be extremely disappointed. It obviously won't affect my overall enjoyment while playing, but simply knowing its gone will feel a bit wrong.
Last edited:
Just to clear this up. I know that I personally haven’t said that the game would automatically be **** for being in first person, but I have expressed extreme disappointment with such news and think that it is a **** decision for this series. That is my comparison as it is something that greatly affects how you play and experience the game.
That being said, this could be another game that divides fans. If you were wanting or expecting a remake on the level of REmake, then you will surely be disappointed or displeased with what Capcom is doing here. It will likely be on the level of REmake 2.
This whole discussion actually has me wondering how they would have remade the REmake using this style. Would they still utilized all the classic locations and enemies? I could totally see them removing the shark tank bit...
Anyway, I’m kind of looking at these newer remakes as how an actual television series should play out the story within the games. They are very story and character driven, which is what I enjoy most about this series to begin with.
I’m rambling a bit here but I do want to mention that hearing fans say it feels ‘rushed’ is disappointing. For me though, REmake 2 didn’t feel nearly as rushed as some fans think. With RE2, they didn’t go crazy with including different endings or enemies between the different campaigns.
On the other hand, RE7 felt rushed because the story and pacing goes off the rails by the time you leave Lucas’ funhouse and reach the ship and salt mines.
I can forgive the game more for not including multiple endings and such, but pacing and story being off is another matter for me.
Last edited:
OK, I'm gonna share my 2 cents:
- I'm not worried about its longevity. Resident Evil 3 was always the shortest one out of the bunch, so I never expected it to be long to begin with. There is so much you can expand when the whole premise revolves around Jill escaping/running away from a city that it's about to get destroyed. Resident Evil 3 to me, has always been about a desperate escape against time.
Also another thing to keep into consideration, it's that most reviewers are gonna rush through it to stay on schedule. Most often than not, reviewers are given just barely enough time to:
1) Finish the game
2) Make the reviews
3) Maybe try the optional stuff/the extra modes
Sometimes they even ends up losing sleep to respects the schedules. Sometimes they don't even finish the game at all (which is rare, but unfortunately happens).
Obviously, this is not the case for RE3, the game is short enough to be completed in time, but the way you approach it is important.
Most didn't know how much hours it required to be completed beforehand, most expected it to be longer than 2 and have a lot of contents, and all of them had to work on two separate reviews (RE3 & Resistance) and had small windows of time to do so. Maybe it's the way I approach reviews, but I always try to be quick in my exploration of the mechanics/story/contents because I want to be sure to have a complete vision of the game before reviewing it, it would feel unfair otherwise. Chill run (slow paced ones), which are my fav are always pushed to the side for when I'm not on a schedule.
Is the game going to be long? Nope, but most first playthroughs won't be 4 hours long (unless you rush through it as well, which why would you?).
Regarding the cut stuff, I can understand the disappointment, but at the same time... I can understand Capcom's motivations as well. As much as I love RE3 (it's my fav old school RE alongside REmake), you didn't really have a motivation to visit most of its buildings unlike RE1 and RE2 (where the characters were trapped in their environments so had to explore them in depth to find a way out). The police station, was there simply to make the og game longer, and was also a nice Easter egg/nostalgic trip in the past, while the clock tower, as beautiful as it was, was basically a reminder of the RE1's mansion (even though the layout was a bit different, same as RE7 and Rev2).
So yeah, I think that it makes sense to shift things a bit with this one. The story, premise and structure required it to work fluidly.
- I'm not worried about its longevity. Resident Evil 3 was always the shortest one out of the bunch, so I never expected it to be long to begin with. There is so much you can expand when the whole premise revolves around Jill escaping/running away from a city that it's about to get destroyed. Resident Evil 3 to me, has always been about a desperate escape against time.
Also another thing to keep into consideration, it's that most reviewers are gonna rush through it to stay on schedule. Most often than not, reviewers are given just barely enough time to:
1) Finish the game
2) Make the reviews
3) Maybe try the optional stuff/the extra modes
Sometimes they even ends up losing sleep to respects the schedules. Sometimes they don't even finish the game at all (which is rare, but unfortunately happens).
Obviously, this is not the case for RE3, the game is short enough to be completed in time, but the way you approach it is important.
Most didn't know how much hours it required to be completed beforehand, most expected it to be longer than 2 and have a lot of contents, and all of them had to work on two separate reviews (RE3 & Resistance) and had small windows of time to do so. Maybe it's the way I approach reviews, but I always try to be quick in my exploration of the mechanics/story/contents because I want to be sure to have a complete vision of the game before reviewing it, it would feel unfair otherwise. Chill run (slow paced ones), which are my fav are always pushed to the side for when I'm not on a schedule.
Is the game going to be long? Nope, but most first playthroughs won't be 4 hours long (unless you rush through it as well, which why would you?).
Regarding the cut stuff, I can understand the disappointment, but at the same time... I can understand Capcom's motivations as well. As much as I love RE3 (it's my fav old school RE alongside REmake), you didn't really have a motivation to visit most of its buildings unlike RE1 and RE2 (where the characters were trapped in their environments so had to explore them in depth to find a way out). The police station, was there simply to make the og game longer, and was also a nice Easter egg/nostalgic trip in the past, while the clock tower, as beautiful as it was, was basically a reminder of the RE1's mansion (even though the layout was a bit different, same as RE7 and Rev2).
So yeah, I think that it makes sense to shift things a bit with this one. The story, premise and structure required it to work fluidly.
Last edited:
How reviewers were counting on the game being longer than RE2 remake battles me.
The games length doesn't bother me, as I play RE games into the ground anyway. Iv literally beaten RE2 remake around fifty times. I'm not even joking. It's funny how reviewers these days think a game has to be 100s of hours long, to me that's less fun. It's why iv never been to into Rock star games. Sure they're fun, but they go on for far too long. The best RE games have always been a happy medium. Shorter campaigns that you can just jump into, but one's that are fun, full of details, and plenty of things to encourage replays. Iv heard many professional reviewers say " I beat this game in under 6 hours". Upon hearing that I went straight back to their review of RE2 last year, they said the same thing. They also said the same thing about RE7. Suddenly now its a problem? Even RE5 could be beaten under 5 hours and had to be to unlock the rocket launcher. In fact the only RE that can't be truly sped through is RE6, which was one of most of these same reviewers biggest problems with it. . I'm more disappointed with the cuts iv heard they've made to the game. However I have heard that they've expanded and put a lot of effort into the hospital and the RPD visit, so that's something.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 21244
Guest
I wasn't referring to you personally, i don't even remember your opinion on the re 8 leak
By review it dosent look like on the level of re 2 remake but a step backwards unfortunately, but I'll wait the game for myself to make my opinion on the matter
@black 93 longevity did matter in game, i wasn't expecting a 100 hour game neither did reviewer but a 4 hour a game is disappointing, re 2 remake was short but i didn't take 4 hours on standard to came to it's end, it take me 20 hour to finish both campaign, and now i can easy speed run evey campaign whit 1 hour and half, but speed running and playing a game for the first time its a different things, also is not even the longevity that bother most review but the fact that you feel. That the game ends to soon and it's not sudisfying, I'm totally not that happy about this things if the turn put yo be true , i mean, 4 hour? Both re 5 dlc lasted 4 hours or the dlc from re 7 not a hero and end of zoe combined lasted 4 hours, this should be a main game sold at 70 dollar not a dlc
@Jonipoon the producer itself say that resistance was put alongside re 3 because they felt that re 3 wasn't enough since it only have its campaign, it's not a gift from capcom, Capcom dosent make gift itswa company that it's only interested in money, they let us pay 15 euro for some extra costume in re 2 so they don't give us resistance because they wanted to make a gift to us but because they know that re 3 had poor extra content and could not be selled at full price, Infact there are standard to deliver if you want w game to be selled at full price and a 4 hour campaign is not one of them
Even metal gear solid v ground zeroes was longer and had more extra content, and was selled at 30 dollars because it could not be selled at more
I really can't understand how many of you defend capcom and say that it's good having a 4 hour game whit cut content
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we have been focusing a lot on the negative reviews and not a lot on the positive reviews.
IGN did give it a 9 out of 10 and they are a fairly reputable source. And I think they usually have a co-reviewer to corroborate the findings of the first reviewer before it even gets to the editor who not only fixes any grammar, spelling, or structure issues - but they also have the task of justifying if the reviewers words match the score they gave.
There are surely a lot of valid concerns - and honestly - they are are the same ones from RE2. They cut out too much and tried to put their own stamp on the game instead of honoring the source material. That is an issue for me personally, but I will definitely still enjoy the game. I was mad at RE2 for these reasons, but I still thought it was my favorite game of 2019.
I look forward to hearing all of our thoughts after playing the game! Because one thing I know they did right - More enemy types. Great because we have been complaining about that for two entries now and I am glad they listened.
IGN did give it a 9 out of 10 and they are a fairly reputable source. And I think they usually have a co-reviewer to corroborate the findings of the first reviewer before it even gets to the editor who not only fixes any grammar, spelling, or structure issues - but they also have the task of justifying if the reviewers words match the score they gave.
There are surely a lot of valid concerns - and honestly - they are are the same ones from RE2. They cut out too much and tried to put their own stamp on the game instead of honoring the source material. That is an issue for me personally, but I will definitely still enjoy the game. I was mad at RE2 for these reasons, but I still thought it was my favorite game of 2019.
I look forward to hearing all of our thoughts after playing the game! Because one thing I know they did right - More enemy types. Great because we have been complaining about that for two entries now and I am glad they listened.
Yeah, the hypocrisy is strong. I don't understand what they have against RE3.
And @Albertwesker959 I think most of us aren't defending Capcom per se, but rather criticising the reviewers for being overly negative because of things they didn't have any problems with in the RE2 remake.
D
Deleted member 21244
Guest
I think that some things should be found in the middle, review are maybe to rough because despite the disappointing on some aspect the game is still good but nonetheless we cannot defend capcom on the negative aspect and cut content of the game
Re 2 review were more positive because probably review manage to passe on the second campaign cut, something that really bother me, they give high score because re 2 remake was an overal innovation on many front , re 3 remake on the other hand its not innovative and will inevitably suffer the comparison not only whit the original game but also whit it's predecessor re 2 remake
If review manage to pass on the second campaign cut in re 2 remake but not on re 3 remake cut than I'm really worried
@UniqTeas fortunately i don't read ign anymore since some issue i and some people had whit It
they give a 9.8 fo fortnite and 6.8 fo death stranding so this pretty let you understand what is their vision on game
They did forget to play re 2 remake second run and criticise the game for thr lack of a second run and story but it was they're mistake
Also ign most of the time didn't ended game and simply rushed trought them to deliver the review and this things upsetted many people, and some people working at ign admitted that company literally buy review, so i don't really think ign is the one to take in consideration here
I wil read they're review right now because you suggest it and to see they're vision on the game but i personally don't trust them anymore
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not defending them for having a short game. What I'm saying is this is nothing new and to some extent should have been expected. Every single RE game except 6 can be beaten in under 5 hours even on a first time casual playthrough. I'm calling them out for what they've cut. All I'm saying is the amount of content that appears to have been cut is much more of a problem for me than a 4 to 5 hour campaign which is standard for this series anyway.
That's an interesting point. RE7's campaign is hardly 4 hours and even though the game has a lot of side content, most of it are mini games at best, most of them are paid and the two "campaigns" are roughly 1 hour each and I rarely see complaints about that (miriad the complaints I've heard about the game). Also, most of the reviews I've seen concerning RE3 put the play time into 5-6 hours instead of 4. I think the reviewer who clocked 4 hours must had rushed through the game. I think some of this might be blowing out of proportions, really.
D
Deleted member 21244
Guest
I don't remember any re game to be finished in under 4 - 5 hour the first time personally, unless i rushed trought it, but everyone has different play styles
Well i hope it get longer on hardcore
@Mr.R
It take me 10 hour to bear re 7 the first time, it didn't last 4 hours unless you know what to do, i was one of the first people complaining about re 7 lack of content and rushed ending ans review did complain about it too
I read many review that say that they ended re 3 in 4 hours by exploring very corner and by not rushing it
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this reviewer sums up just about everything that's wrong with a lot of the reviewers for RE3 remake:
First of all he makes a lot of false statements. He says original 1999 Nemesis isn't scripted and shows up randomly whenever he wants, which is false. He also suggests that nothing was cut from RE2 remake, which is another false notion.
Then he goes against himself when he says the game plays too similar to RE2 remake, but the next second he blames the gameplay for being faster than RE2 remake. I know for a fact that the zombies in RE3 remake move in the EXACT same speed as RE2 remake, and besides the X-smash thing the experience is almost exactly the same. He's clearly just looking for ways to trash the game as much as possible.
Additionally, he talks about the game using the same engine from RE2 remake and says that gamers in 2020 expect MORE. Seriously, did he expect Capcom to create a completely new engine from scratch just for RE3 remake? Ridiculous. Does he even know that RE2 reuses the same engine from RE7?
He claims to be a huge fan of RE3 fan but comes off as a person whom constantly favors RE2 over RE3. And based on what he said about 1999 Nemesis it doesn't seem like he knows that much about it. A true RE3 fan would never suggest that the game should've been a DLC for RE2.
First of all he makes a lot of false statements. He says original 1999 Nemesis isn't scripted and shows up randomly whenever he wants, which is false. He also suggests that nothing was cut from RE2 remake, which is another false notion.
Then he goes against himself when he says the game plays too similar to RE2 remake, but the next second he blames the gameplay for being faster than RE2 remake. I know for a fact that the zombies in RE3 remake move in the EXACT same speed as RE2 remake, and besides the X-smash thing the experience is almost exactly the same. He's clearly just looking for ways to trash the game as much as possible.
Additionally, he talks about the game using the same engine from RE2 remake and says that gamers in 2020 expect MORE. Seriously, did he expect Capcom to create a completely new engine from scratch just for RE3 remake? Ridiculous. Does he even know that RE2 reuses the same engine from RE7?
He claims to be a huge fan of RE3 fan but comes off as a person whom constantly favors RE2 over RE3. And based on what he said about 1999 Nemesis it doesn't seem like he knows that much about it. A true RE3 fan would never suggest that the game should've been a DLC for RE2.
I, too am a bit worried by the underwhelming reviews, and I'm in the camp that it's not so much the longevity as it is the cut content from the original that worries me. The clock tower was an important bit from RE3 and they cut that and other areas just to make a quick nostalgic buck.
I'll still get the game and I'll wait until I actually play it before I form my opinion, but just hearing that kinda irks me. I'll give the game its fair shake, but I'm not gonna defend that just for the sake of blindly defending Capcom.
I'll still get the game and I'll wait until I actually play it before I form my opinion, but just hearing that kinda irks me. I'll give the game its fair shake, but I'm not gonna defend that just for the sake of blindly defending Capcom.
D
Deleted member 21244
Guest
The video is full of spoiler so i will not look it, but by what you are saying this guy as no valid point for what he is saying, and simply stupidly talking
Not all review did talk like this some of them have valid opinion, this one seems to not have it
In the original re 3 nemesis was most of the time scripted but he could also happear randomly trought the map in raccon city but it will of course not follow you like mr x does in re 2 remake, he can randomly spawn but it's location appearance will inevitably repeat itself , try to free roam raccon city after you meet Carlos and you will notice that
it's useless to make comparison between nemesis from the remake and the original since they work the same, so the one talking in this video is wrong, most review are not upset about nemesis because they compared it to the original nemesis but because compared to mr x from re 2 remake it's a step back
Some rumor that seems to be true suggested that re 3 remake was going to be delivered alongside re 2 remake as one game, so the developer itself pretty consider re 3 as dlc or separate ways to re 2, this poor guy just quoted what he heard maybe
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the thing, @Albertwesker959 , there is a lot of different reviews talking about the length of the game. From 4 to even 7 hours. We'll only know once we played. I'm stepping back from this discussion and wait for the game. There's not much to be said for now that I didn't said earlier. I'm still fairly optimistic, and Jim Sterling's video reviewing the game was pretty optimistic. That being said, amidst the reviews, I really hope everyone who plays it have a good time. I'm pretty sure I'll have.
I dont understand why capcom did a half arsed attempt at remaking RE3 and cutting out the clock tower and grave digger boss?
Re3 is a classic re game but they seemed to be totally reckless with it. did they want to get the game out of the way quickly because of Re8 or something?
Re3 is a classic re game but they seemed to be totally reckless with it. did they want to get the game out of the way quickly because of Re8 or something?