Resident Evil 3 Remake Resident evil 3 review are in

[ToCool74]

@Turo602 i think people and reviewer are disappointed by nemesis because Peter fabiano the producer of re 3 say in more than 3 interview that nemesis would have beem more intelligente than mr x, that he would have used a more formidable IA than the one capcom created for mr x in re 2 remake, but this isn't the case, because nemesis is s normal boss as any other game, he had simply different pattern move than mr x,

I remember that interview and your right, they made it a point frame Nemesis as being all around better and more dangerous than Mr X in everyway so I myself as well as others where expecting something more robust with this Nemesis only to find out that he is a lot more dumbed down than Mr X as far as predictability and AI goes which is a shame no matter how you spin it since fans went into this experience with that impression thanks to certain producers from Capcom framing it that way. Also just based on the fact that RE3 has a MUCH bigger area to work with this Nemesis in the Racoon City streets in comparison to Mr X who is confined mostly to 1 large building it only makes sense that fans would have expected something better instead of something watered down.

 

[xMobilemux]

There are also walkthrought of 5 hours long whit all cutscene in it on YouTube, obviously i didn't see them because of spoiler, so i can't say if it is rushed, but they are there, whit a long time of 5 hours whit cutscene included

If you're talking about the same playthrough I noticed on youtube, I didn't watch that playthrough either to avoid spoilers, but the title says it's an assisted difficulty run and based on peeking at some thumbnails, it looks like the player is rushing through the game, avoiding the files and exploration of the game. Can't say for sure as I won't watch it, but that looks like the case for the 5 hour run time.

This is a confusing situation, some say it's too short at 5-6 hours while others say it's around 9 hours.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

I remember that interview and your right, they made it a point frame Nemesis as being all around better and more dangerous than Mr X in everyway so I myself as well as others where expecting something more robust with this Nemesis only to find out that he is a lot more dumbed down than Mr X as far as predictability and AI goes which is a shame no matter how you spin it since fans went into this experience with that impression thanks to certain producers from Capcom framing it that way. Also just based on the fact that RE3 has a MUCH bigger area to work with this Nemesis in the Racoon City streets in comparison to Mr X who is confined mostly to 1 large building it only makes sense that fans would have expected something better instead of something watered down.

Yeah, also most review were disappointed by the fact that you can simply put nemesis down whit one single grenade, steal the box he drops and leave unscratched
To put nemesis down in the original you have to use every ammo in your inventory if not more of them, and only than you could have hearned the box he drops
Mr x himself need 2-3 grande to go down
Knowing that nemesis can go down whit just one grande is a disappointment

@xMobilemux i think it's that, what you wre saying gives me hope that maybe the game isn't that short after all, but who knows
Edit: i didn't notice it was on assisted

 

[Jonipoon]

The demo was revived well because playing 10 minutes or 2 hours of a game is different than playing the whole game, is like watching 10 minutes of a movie o could call it good and beautiful compared to its predecessor but only after playing the whole game I can say if it's true or not
When reviewer first tryed the first level of dmc 2 they called a better game than dmc 1 but when review came out the game wss completely destroyed, because you cannot really make a full review on just a piece of game that you are not even playing as long as you want since it's essentially a one shot play and your cloack is ticking

That's the problem. People were praising the demo and making wild assumptions based on rumors, I saw one reviewer who said this while playing: "This could be the biggest and longest RE game ever!". Perhaps many people were so impressed by the demo they wouldn't tolerate one single error in the final product.

 

[Turo602]

One of the reviews I saw mentioned that while the game was short, that your time with the game adds up because you're given in-game objectives to earn points to unlock costumes and such, which sounds a little like RE5. But it seems like the game has some replayability, which I never doubted because of stuff like speed runs, knife runs, and so on. But it was the only reviewer I saw that actually bothered to mention it and not just say the game was short.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

That's the problem. People were praising the demo and making wild assumptions based on rumors, I saw one reviewer who said this while playing: "This could be the biggest and longest RE game ever!". Perhaps many people were so impressed by the demo they wouldn't tolerate one single error in the final product.

Yeah that right, i myself say this while playing the demo because I expect that the whole game would be on the level of the demo and this can be fair actually

The problem is also the fact that all review say that the second half of the game is rushed unespired and poor both on design and technical level and it's also pretty linear
Prereviewer were invited to play the first half of the game by capcom some weeks ago that's why all Prereviewer say the game was good because they expected the second part of the game to be on the level of the first part or even to surpass it making this game better than re 2 remake maybe, but what theu find was just a second rushed part that was many step back from the first half of the game
If you think about it the demo also came from the first part of the game
I seriously think that every person in the world who tryed the demo or have seen a bit of the game was thinking on how amazing would have been the second part of the game when you finally reach the explorable clock tower whit the gameplay we saw in the demo, but no they cut it in favor of a linear second part

If the second part is really linear and unespaired like everyone say than the problem is also the fact that Capcom didn't manage to deliver a consistent experience, it really happear that the first half is closer to re 2 remake like we can see from the demo, but it happear the second part is just going from point A from point B by just shooting until you have reach a cutscene, like any other action game, nopuzzle no backtracking no tension, nada, at least this is what most review say

 

[Jonipoon]

Let's wait and play the game ourselves before we can look into the second part being "linear and uninspiring". If 50% of the game really includes NO backtracking or exploration at all, if the second half is really 100% constant intense action without any room to breathe at all, then yes we can call it linear and uninspiring. So that means for the second part of the game there are no saverooms? Because if there are still saverooms, that means there will be time to breathe.

 

[Roku]

Well that's positive than, but the timer did stop in resident evil 2 remake during cutscene too and in re 7 too i think, and my first play trought was about 10 hours whitout cutscene in those two game, so this game is half longest than a single campaign from re 2 and half of re 7
But i will only know after i will play it, maybe it will take me longer than 5 hours

The 4 hours review weren't necessarily rushed since they say that themself, the timer didn't stop during retry too so maybe the reviewer that say that last longer did die frequently or probably did they play it on hardcore

There are also walkthrought of 5 hours long whit all cutscene in it on YouTube, obviously i didn't see them because of spoiler, so i can't say if it is rushed, but they are there, whit a long time of 5 hours whit cutscene included

@Turo602 i think people and reviewer are disappointed by nemesis because Peter fabiano the producer of re 3 say in more than 3 interview that nemesis would have beem more intelligente than mr x, that he would have used a more formidable IA than the one capcom created for mr x in re 2 remake, but this isn't the case, because nemesis is s normal boss as any other game, he had simply different pattern move than mr x, but patter move didn't make an upgrade on the IA and they also say that it wasn't scripted in many part of the game, that he would have randomly happeared, but also admitting it would have also been scripted, this was obviously a lie and many review writed this disappointment
If Capcom would have simply closed they re mouth, than probably nobody would have complained about it right now... But it's also true that reviewer and people are complaining about the nemesis in the second half of the game, i didn't know the detail but mostly all review and people who already played the game were disliked by how nemesis was handle in the second part, calling it a banal design choice
Personally i didn't play the game so i can't talk for this, i would only know after i play it

Every review I've read/watched said that Nemesis was way better and more terrifying than Mr X, and made Mr X look like a baby, which is why they were disappointed, because they wanted Nemesis to be more present.

Regarding being able to knock him down with 1 grenade, I think that's a result of the game offering more difficulty setting than 2. One of which, from what I've read, seems to be almost impossible to beat without mastering the dodge.

The original had only two difficulty setting (easy and hard), so it feels fitting in a sense.

But anyway, it's interesting how many different opinions there are on this game!
This remake seems to be as divisive as the original was.

 

[Mr.R]

Time doesn't stop in cutscenes during RE7, @Albertwesker959. I'm pretty sure the cutscenes in 7 are unskippable so...RE3R is probably longer than 7's main campaign, if it's any consolation for those who thinks this might be a problem? But we're close to finally find out for ourselves.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

Time doesn't stop in cutscenes during RE7, @Albertwesker959. I'm pretty sure the cutscenes in 7 are unskippable so...RE3R is probably longer than 7's main campaign, if it's any consolation for those who thinks this might be a problem? But we're close to finally find out for ourselves.

Just One day and we will find out the true

 

[UniqTeas]

Yes, we are so close. And honestly - the people I trust most with reviewing this game will be the people on this forum.

I guess the real reviewers were the friend we made along the way. lol.

Turo - I think your explanation of why reviewers are disappointed in Nemesis is spot on. That is exactly how I felt about it too, but didn't want to put in the effort of explaining it so well. lol.

And if anyone puts a Sphere Hunter review up, she is the person whose opinion I treasure most with this kind of stuff. She is a long time fan and deeply embedded in the series and lore. Suzi is a treasure!

 

[Deleted member 21244]

Some reviewer are going to review re resistance as a separate game from re 3 even metacritic have a different page for resistance review
that's fair since they are two different game in the end

I played the beta in this days ans must say it's pretty good, I'm looking forward to see how it will be updated in the future

Edit: some review give an 8 and 8.5 to resistance, calling it fun and entertaining, not bad at all... Looking Forward to read other review and you guys opinion as soon as the game came out

 

[Mr Sunshine]

I think one of the main reasons why reviews are less favorable for RE 3 is that RE 3 is a sequel. Yes, both games are remakes, but RE 2 has this air of novelty both in gameplay and graphics - because it came first.

Was RE 2 Remake rushed? Probably. Scenario B was practically non-existant, but most reviewers let it slip and weren't as critical. They were too focused on all the positive things RE 2 offered. But what was positive for RE 2 is the expected standard for RE 3.

 

[Roku]

I think one of the main reasons why reviews are less favorable for RE 3 is that RE 3 is a sequel. Yes, both games are remakes, but RE 2 has this air of novelty both in gameplay and graphics - because it came first.

Was RE 2 Remake rushed? Probably. Scenario B was practically non-existant, but most reviewers let it slip and weren't as critical. They were too focused on all the positive things RE 2 offered. But what was positive for RE 2 is the expected standard for RE 3.

I agree with you, in fact this is what I mostly dislike about RE3's reviews.

I think this double standards are unfair, because in my opinion, while it's fair to criticize the lack of improvements in certain areas, it's unfair to be as harsh as most reviews are, especially when most of them try to imply that this is a "RE3 problem", something that was never present in RE2.

That "RE2 never made sacrifices" (this is a phrase I've read/heard often).

This is disinformation, which I dislike.

I also dislike this comparisons, because while RE3 is a sequel, it often feels like reviews are comparing this two game a bit too much, by not only expecting RE3 to be on the same or higher level of RE2, but also expecting it to be another RE2, when RE3 never wanted to be that and always had its own vibe.

I think my biggest complaints about the reviews, is that most often than not, while reading them, I feel like I know in which ways RE3 isn't on par with 2, but I never learn anything about RE3 as it's own game.

For example, some reviews complained about the lack of puzzle compared to RE2 which I can understand, but at the same time, is it a problem because they were more prominent in RE2 or because their absence hurts the core of the game? Because, given RE3's context and premise, their limited numbers don't necessarily feels like a problem.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

I agree with you, in fact this is what I mostly dislike about RE3's reviews.

I think this double standards are unfair, because in my opinion, while it's fair to criticize the lack of improvements in certain areas, it's unfair to be as harsh as most reviews are, especially when most of them try to imply that this is a "RE3 problem", something that was never present in RE2.

That "RE2 never made sacrifices" (this is a phrase I've read/heard often).

This is disinformation, which I dislike.

I also dislike this comparisons, because while RE3 is a sequel, it often feels like reviews are comparing this two game a bit too much, by not only expecting RE3 to be on the same or higher level of RE2, but also expecting it to be another RE2, when RE3 never wanted to be that and always had its own vibe.

I think my biggest complaints about the reviews, is that most often than not, while reading them, I feel like I know in which ways RE3 isn't on par with 2, but I never learn anything about RE3 as it's own game.

For example, some reviews complained about the lack of puzzle compared to RE2 which I can understand, but at the same time, is it a problem because they were more prominent in RE2 or because their absence hurts the core of the game? Because, given RE3's context and premise, their limited numbers don't necessarily feels like a problem.

The lack of puzzle hurt the core of the game for me, because they were present in the original game and they were fun and memorable, maybe you forgot but the original re 3 had many puzzle, like the clock tower one, the goddess statue puzzle, the water puzzle, the virus puzzle ecc All of this are gone in the remake, and it hurt the core of the game, you can feel it especially since the game present itself whit some puzzle in the start but later there are zero puzzle... I just counted two puzzle and they were pretty easy.... There was no need to cut the puzzle
Also its fair to compair re 3 remake whit 2 remake since capcom itself did that before launch, comparing nemesis whit mr x, comparing the gameplay Whit that of re 2, graphic ecc ecc
So i don't see way review should not compare the two game, the comparison it's inevitable
Re 1 and 2 were compared too back in the 90s
Re 3 remake is a good game but simply a step back from re 2 remake, re 2 remake did everything better, the only things re 3 did best his the story and character development and characterization

 

[Roku]

The lack of puzzle hurt the core of the game for me, because they were present in the original game and they were fun and memorable, maybe you forgot but the original re 3 had many puzzle, like the clock tower one, the goddess statue puzzle, the water puzzle, the virus puzzle ecc All of this are gone in the remake, and it hurt the core of the game, you can feel it especially since the game present itself whit some puzzle in the start but later there are zero puzzle... I just counted two puzzle and they were pretty easy.... There was no need to cut the puzzle
Also its fair to compair re 3 remake whit 2 remake since capcom itself did that before launch, comparing nemesis whit mr x, comparing the gameplay Whit that of re 2, graphic ecc ecc
So i don't see way review should not compare the two game, the comparison it's inevitable
Re 1 and 2 were compared too back in the 90s
Re 3 remake is a good game but simply a step back from re 2 remake, re 2 remake did everything better, the only things re 3 did best his the story and character development and characterization

I'm not saying the game shouldn't be compared to RE2 at all, I'm just saying that it shouldn't just be reviewed as "Resident Evil 3, the sequel" but also as "Resident Evil 3, it's own game".

Because at the end of the day, 2 and 3 are very different games (with different vibes, different goals, a different structures, and different premises), and what worked for 2 doesn't necessarily work for 3.

1 and 2 are very similar (2 tried to follow 1 step by step, even though it ended up being a lot more linear and easier than it), but 2 and 3 took very different routes.

For example, imo the absence of puzzles wouldn't necessarily hurt a game with this structure; their presence never made sense in the first place (in fact, it was one of the most criticized aspect of the original), because as opposed to 1 and 2 (in which you were trapped in Umbrella's locations, aka the organization that started it all and wanted to keep their secrets... Well, secret), in og 3 you spent a lot of time in the streets, and Iore-wise (or story-wise), it made no sense to solve puzzle to open up part of a city that had no business being locked in the first place. Umbrella was a big company there, but it didn't own Raccoon City in its entirety.

There is no reason for the city to be full of puzzles, because there is nothing to be hidden there, for the most part.

This said, I haven't played the game yet, so I'm not saying that I'm right about this or that my statements are facts (what I shared are just my opinions on the matter, and should be taken as such), what I dislike isnt the fact that reviews criticized the lack of puzzles per sé, but how they did it, because most of them focused on the fact that they were present in 2 instead of explaining why their absence might hurt 3.

 

[Deleted member 21244]

I'm not saying the game shouldn't be compared to RE2 at all, I'm just saying that it shouldn't just be reviewed as "Resident Evil 3, the sequel" but also as "Resident Evil 3, it's own game".

Because at the end of the day, 2 and 3 are very different games (with different vibes, different goals, a different structures, and different premises), and what worked for 2 doesn't necessarily work for 3.

1 and 2 are very similar (2 tried to follow 1 step by step, even though it ended up being a lot more linear and easier than it), but 2 and 3 took very different routes.

For example, imo the absence of puzzles wouldn't necessarily hurt a game with this structure; their presence never made sense in the first place (in fact, it was one of the most criticized aspect of the original), because as opposed to 1 and 2 (in which you were trapped in Umbrella's locations, aka the organization that started it all and wanted to keep their secrets... Well, secret), in og 3 you spent a lot of time in the streets, and Iore-wise (or story-wise), it made no sense to solve puzzle to open up part of a city that had no business being locked in the first place. Umbrella was a big company there, but it didn't own Raccoon City in its entirety.

There is no reason for the city to be full of puzzles, because there is nothing to be hidden there, for the most part.

This said, I haven't played the game yet, so I'm not saying that I'm right about this or that my statements are facts (what I shared are just my opinions on the matter, and should be taken as such), what I dislike isnt the fact that reviews criticized the lack of puzzles per sé, but how they did it, because most of them focused on the fact that they were present in 2 instead of explaining why their absence might hurt 3.

It's a game, there s no need to explain why a puzzle is there, also if you really put that way most of the puzzle in thr original re 3 were even explained in file, so they could have easy put them back into the remake...

They just cut them, and you feel it, the second part even if good it feel just like any other action game because you simply shoot, there are no puzzle, ans the item box became pretty uselles... Even re 4 had more interesting puzzle.

Even if enjoyed the re 3 remake and i think it's a good game, it's useless to continue defend cut contend like the puzzle and the missing are like clock tower and park, thr developer could have simply put all this staff in the game

Also re 2 and 3 in the end are very similar and the comparison is inevitable, they have the same gameplay, same engine and they are set in the same time period, in the end one of the two will came out better than the other if you compare them

 

[Roku]

It's a game, there s no need to explain why a puzzle is there, also if you really put that way most of the puzzle in thr original re 3 were even explained in file, so they could have easy put them back into the remake...

They just cut them, and you feel it, the second part even if good it feel just like any other action game because you simply shoot, there are no puzzle, ans the item box became pretty uselles... Even re 4 had more interesting puzzle.

Even if enjoyed the re 3 remake and i think it's a good game, it's useless to continue defend cut contend like the puzzle and the missing are like clock tower and park, thr developer could have simply put all this staff in the game

Also re 2 and 3 in the end are very similar and the comparison is inevitable, they have the same gameplay, same engine and they are set in the same time period, in the end one of the two will came out better than the other if you compare them

Dude, I'm not trying to defend the game. I'm explaining why, in my opinion, some of the reviews of the game missed the mark.

The puzzles made no sense in the original, but it was a different time, and it was acceptable, because realism in videogames wasn't a thing at the time, and the hardwares limitations made their presence vital. I love them, so their presence never bothered me at all, but the way they were inserted was flawed.

RE has been going for a more toned down/realistic tone starting with 7 (which tbh, I'm mixed about), were they always successful with it? Nope, but this is the tone they are going for so they're trying to stick with it.
Could have some puzzles make a return in some kinda way? Maybe in one of the building?

Maybe, but my point is that instead of explaining it as "RE2 had them, so RE3 should have them", reviewers should have focused on explaining in which ways this (and everything else) hurts RE3 as it's own game.

RE2 and 3 are similar on a surface level, but at the end of the day, they're going for different things.

RE2 ----> more survival horror-oriented experience, more claustrophobic areas and atmosphere, slower rhythm, less ammo etc...
The focus is: on survival, exploration and finding a way out

RE3 ----> more of an action horror-oriented experience, with more open ended areas, as a result it's more linear and chaotic, has a faster rhythm/pacing, it's more straightforward.
The focus is: on escaping, making your way out of town and keep moving.

Different goals means different structures and different designs choices.

As I said, it's ok to compare them, they should since RE3 it's a sequel, but they should do more than just that, because RE3 it's also its own game.

For example: I loved Suzi's review because she explained in depth what worked and what didn't and why this things work or don't work in the context of RE3 Remake, watching it I learned a lot because of how informative it was. Unfortunately, I've come across very few articles as informative as hers (which is specifically, what I'm criticizing).

I'm not saying that RE3R is perfect, it has its problems. I'm just saying that if you're going to criticize it's flaws, then you have to explain them in depth, because if not the critic will come off as shallow, and won't be as informative as it should be.

 

[Jonipoon]

After having played the game, I know understand why some reviewers had a more mixed opinion to it, but not for the exact same reasons as my self.

The game is not too short, but it feels short because they give you almost no time to breathe before jumping into another action scene. Also because they cut out almost 50% of the OG's levels its difficult to even call it a remake of RE3.

 

[Mr.R]

After having played the game, I know understand why some reviewers had a more mixed opinion to it, but not for the exact same reasons as my self.

The game is not too short, but it feels short because they give you almost no time to breathe before jumping into another action scene. Also because they cut out almost 50% of the OG's levels its difficult to even call it a remake of RE3.

While I don't mind the action scene upon action scene (I'm a RE6 fan...oh well...) I do agree that it's hard to call RE3 a Remake. I still didn't finished yet (had a busier weekend than I expected, but I'm taking it slow and enjoying the game). In RE2R, you had the three main locations (even if the sewers and the Lab were entirely different places than the original) and people liking or not the "new" story, It's fair to call it a Remake. In RE3R's case, I suppose we could call an "Reimagination" of RE3. A new take on Jill's escape from Raccoon City. Is this a bad thing? For me, no. For some people it might be. I do miss this one classic location (the other two setpieces people complained about I couldn't care less. RE3 was my favorite of the original trilogy, but these two locations were so freaking bland...), but I'm having a lot of fun with the game.