Re 2 and 3 take place in different area only the city is the same, you only get in the rpd for like 5 minutes in the original, the other area are all differentI am excited to see the RPD in this game.
And my reason is this:
In the original RE3, you explored the RPD and found it changed from what you saw in RE2. I am excited to see what elements they used from the RE2 REmake in the game. If you faced a single Licker in the RPD, that would be CRAZY good. It doesn't make sense that RE2 and RE3 have completely different enemies when they take place in a lot of the same areas.
Resident Evil 3 takes place before Resident Evil 2, or at least the RPD part does. Lickers are, from what I remember of the original RE2, zombies that are starving and have mutated. Like an evolutionary survival mode.I am excited to see the RPD in this game.
And my reason is this:
In the original RE3, you explored the RPD and found it changed from what you saw in RE2. I am excited to see what elements they used from the RE2 REmake in the game. If you faced a single Licker in the RPD, that would be CRAZY good. It doesn't make sense that RE2 and RE3 have completely different enemies when they take place in a lot of the same areas.
Obviously yes, but to make the two game different they decided to make different enemy, we should have seen some hunter i guess in the rpdYes - if you're talking about actual physical locations they share. But a lot of the early town that Jill is in is right next to the RPD. And a Licker is seen crawling on the outside of the building. I think, for continuity sake, they should have at least one cross over monster at some point!
I mean, if you live in New York City, you will see a lot of pigeons. It's not like all of the pigeons hang out in one corner of a park and there are chimpanzees down the road.
I could be wrong, but if I remember right, Capcom retconned it to where they were Zombies, then they evolve into Crimson Heads, and then they evolve further into Lickers, which is their "Final form." So yeah, you're totally correct. IDK if that retcon is still in effect, or if Capcom has retconned their retcon (because let's face it, it's Capcom lol), but even if they have, it still makes sense as to why you see Lickers in RE2, but not in RE3. If anything you TECHNICALLY, continuity wise "In-universe" should see Crimson Heads in RE3 since that's what zombies turn into before they do lickers. But obviously they hadn't even been invented yet, because they didn't become part of canon until REmake. So if anything R3make should have Crimson Heads, but not Lickers. If that all made sense XDIf I'm not mistaken, and I definitely could be, in the original there is a memo about zombies turning into lickers.
At any rate I don't think it's necessary to have lickers in RE3. We didn't have leech monsters in RE and 0 and the original took place in the same forest.
EDIT: https://residentevil.fandom.com/wiki/Licker
And it seems they were heavily damaged zombie mutations, not starving, but you get the idea.
I knew we had discussed lickers before, possibly in a Lickers vs Hunters thread, and their origins. (I believe one of the pros in the Hunter's favor was that they were actually created to be weaponized whereas lickers were an evolutionary accident that wasn't necessarily intended.)I could be wrong, but if I remember right, Capcom retconned it to where they were Zombies, then they evolve into Crimson Heads, and then they evolve further into Lickers, which is their "Final form." So yeah, you're totally correct. IDK if that retcon is still in effect, or if Capcom has retconned their retcon (because let's face it, it's Capcom lol), but even if they have, it still makes sense as to why you see Lickers in RE2, but not in RE3. If anything you TECHNICALLY, continuity wise "In-universe" should see Crimson Heads in RE3 since that's what zombies turn into before they do lickers. But obviously they hadn't even been invented yet, because they didn't become part of canon until REmake. So if anything R3make should have Crimson Heads, but not Lickers. If that all made sense XD
No, you definitely didn't lol. I could be wrong about this, but I think this retcon was first mentioned in a file you could find in one the Outbreak games. And I'm pretty sure the same file can also be found in Umbrella Chronicles. Either way, not exactly the most popular entries in the RE series, so it doesn't surprise me that it's not common knowledge.I knew we had discussed lickers before, possibly in a Lickers vs Hunters thread, and their origins. (I believe one of the pros in the Hunter's favor was that they were actually created to be weaponized whereas lickers were an evolutionary accident that wasn't necessarily intended.)
At the end of the day I'm just glad someone else knew what I was talking about. I was beginning to think I'd made the whole thing up.
I didn't think the mutation thing was a retcon though. Just the part about the crimson heads but I thought they were always originally zombies.No, you definitely didn't lol. I could be wrong about this, but I think this retcon was first mentioned in a file you could find in one the Outbreak games. And I'm pretty sure the same file can also be found in Umbrella Chronicles. Either way, not exactly the most popular entries in the RE series, so it doesn't surprise me that it's not common knowledge.
I don't think it's a retcon, I read on the internet the mutation changed depending on what t virus strain a zombie as been infected whithI didn't think the mutation thing was a retcon though. Just the part about the crimson heads but I thought they were always originally zombies.