www.tombraiderforums.com  

Go Back   www.tombraiderforums.com > Community Forums > Video-Games, Consoles and Related Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28-02-21, 00:58   #35351
TrustyBow
Professor
 
TrustyBow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Vroom Vroom
Posts: 4,099
Default

Playing through RE7 again. It honestly might be my overall favorite RE game. Definitely the best at being a straight up horror title at least.

Most of the games flaws, like the lack of enemy variety and the boat section, are the kind of flaws I would expect from a AAA horror game. Like having more enemies would take away from the grounded horror that they were going for, but they also needed an action based 3rd act to fit within the AAA structure that people expect.

I usually put RE2make as my favorite, since I consider that to be a 'smoother' experience, but RE7 at it's best is much better than RE2 at it's best.
__________________
SOPHIE <3
TrustyBow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-21, 07:23   #35352
dg1995
Explorer
 
dg1995's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 968
Default

I really can't understand people that consider 2 & 3 originals better than remakes.

I mean just compare the gameplay advantages that the remakes have over original versions:

-No loading screen when going from one room to another.

-No 1 second loading when the camera changes angle.(On PS1 every time you moved out of camera you had the game loading the next screen)

-You have to actually aim manually with your weapon than using an easy auto aim.

--The tank controls got eleminated to give you better movements.

-You have a much better camera than the original ones.(In the original ones you sometimes ran in the zombies due to not seeing them outside of camera.)

-The inventory loading is faster and you can add 4 shortcuts for weapons.(In the original you have to pause the game to change your weapon)

-Much better bossfight battles due to better camera and movements.(3 Original Nemesis fights were badly designed with the game forcing you to mash buttons to escape Nemesis's grab or making Jill stand after falling)

-You don't have the spider enemies in 2&3 which were the most useless enemy types in the original games.(after they nerfed them from the deadly spiders they were in 1 original.)

-You can skip cutscenes which in 2 original you couldn't even do that in majority versions.

-Stairs are better balanced in remakes than 3 original.(Zombies don't even grab you on stairs in 3 original)

-The removal of the choice system in 3 remake isn't really a bad idea since the choice system forces you to replay the game to get the full story.(Which forces you to replay the same game over and over again for just seeing some different cutscenes in some areas)
Onimusha 2 had lots of different cutscenes that you can't see them in your first playthrough which makes some characters appear underdeveloped in the first playthrough.
dg1995 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-21, 07:44   #35353
Uzi master
Relic Hunter
 
Uzi master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,960
Default

Literally everything you just said subjective, or overall incredibly minor things. More importantly, even if both remakes are better than the originals, they could still have been better than they are if they kept the things that were missing from the originals.

Being a significantly longer game will beat out minor game-play advantages most of the time, particularly in regards to 3.

Loading times weren't an issue if you played the PC versions (and honestly is a pretty silly thing to compare)
Fixed camera angles have their advantages for setting the visual tone, gameplay wise it can be an issue but it's not an objectively better thing.
Same with tank controls; RE 4 and 5 were still very good games and their gameplay was designed around the controls.
The bossfights are better, but there's less of them.
Removing an enemy type entirely is an improvement? That's just silly.
Plenty of unskippeable segments that may as well be cutscenes, the entire orphanage section comes to mind. I find watching the old cutscenes much more enjoyable than that part.
Stairs OP plz nerf now! (seriously though, this is such a miniscule thing...)
Removing choices and branching plots is... A good thing? Replayability is bad? Okay, that is subjective... But very few people will agree.
Uzi master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-21, 12:51   #35354
xdesperado_
Explorer
 
xdesperado_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dg1995 View Post
I really can't understand people that consider 2 & 3 originals better than remakes.

I mean just compare the gameplay advantages that the remakes have over original versions:

-No loading screen when going from one room to another.

-No 1 second loading when the camera changes angle.(On PS1 every time you moved out of camera you had the game loading the next screen)

-You have to actually aim manually with your weapon than using an easy auto aim.

--The tank controls got eleminated to give you better movements.

-You have a much better camera than the original ones.(In the original ones you sometimes ran in the zombies due to not seeing them outside of camera.)

-The inventory loading is faster and you can add 4 shortcuts for weapons.(In the original you have to pause the game to change your weapon)

-Much better bossfight battles due to better camera and movements.(3 Original Nemesis fights were badly designed with the game forcing you to mash buttons to escape Nemesis's grab or making Jill stand after falling)

-You don't have the spider enemies in 2&3 which were the most useless enemy types in the original games.(after they nerfed them from the deadly spiders they were in 1 original.)

-You can skip cutscenes which in 2 original you couldn't even do that in majority versions.

-Stairs are better balanced in remakes than 3 original.(Zombies don't even grab you on stairs in 3 original)

-The removal of the choice system in 3 remake isn't really a bad idea since the choice system forces you to replay the game to get the full story.(Which forces you to replay the same game over and over again for just seeing some different cutscenes in some areas)
Onimusha 2 had lots of different cutscenes that you can't see them in your first playthrough which makes some characters appear underdeveloped in the first playthrough.
RE2 original was the first ever game RE game I played (around the time the first live-action movie came out) & it still holds a special place in my heart.

For me RE2R is just as great as the original, but the problem I have is that there are some inconsistencies towards the end (when playing Claire 1st/Leon 2nd) - with Annette dying twice in both scenarios. I do think Capcom's intention with 2nd run was just to showcase an alternate timeline, rather than fusing the A/B scenarios like in the original. If that was the case, they should have made it more clear, otherwise it seems kind of lazy.

On the other hand, RE3R just felt rushed. Visually it's fantastic, just like RE2R but I did miss exploring the Racoon Park & Clock Tower areas that were cut. Although one thing I can't stand is the fact that zombies don't die as easily, but that adds to the tension I guess.

At the end of the day, both remakes look & feel great to play.
xdesperado_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-21, 14:49   #35355
killchan
Archaeologist
 
killchan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: A better place than Marvel's Avengers
Posts: 2,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dg1995 View Post
I really can't understand people that consider 2 & 3 originals better than remakes.
If you played RE1HD you would know what these remakes could have been, even just for the camera.

But if we ignore the classic camera, RE2R is not blatantly worse than RE2 - it's still a classic survival horror game, it kept the original spirit... however they dumbed down the structure cause Capcom couldn't bother with making the B scenario an actual campaign that actually reflected A.

RE3R however is just not RE3.
It's an action game based on a non-existing movie loosely based on the events of the original RE3, the survival horror game.


I would say that the RE3R debacle ruined the opinion fans have towards RE2R.
__________________
*Depth* doesn't determine a character's value. How well they fit does.
killchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-21, 14:57   #35356
Yeauxleaux
Relic Hunter
 
Yeauxleaux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,723
Default

The story structure of RE2R is the only real problem I have with it. Even if you take say Claire A and Leon B as "canon", they still contradict eachother lore-wise. That's messy.

I think a simple fix would have been to clearly make Scenario A Claire's story, and in that story only have the Birkin boss fights (which would make sense given Claire's protection of Sherry). Then in Leon's Scenario B only have Mr X as the main boss enemy, at least until the train sequence at the very end of Scenario B anyway. That would solve a lot of issues with the lore. They also have to fix the Annette dying twice inconsistency.

There's enough content in the game already that you don't strictly NEED to be able to play both characters in both scenarios. I'd just cut one of each.

Last edited by Yeauxleaux; 28-02-21 at 14:59.
Yeauxleaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-21, 15:33   #35357
trfan16
Archaeologist
 
trfan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dg1995 View Post
I really can't understand people that consider 2 & 3 originals better than remakes.

I mean just compare the gameplay advantages that the remakes have over original versions:

-Much better bossfight battles due to better camera and movements.(3 Original Nemesis fights were badly designed with the game forcing you to mash buttons to escape Nemesis's grab or making Jill stand after falling)

-You don't have the spider enemies in 2&3 which were the most useless enemy types in the original games.(after they nerfed them from the deadly spiders they were in 1 original.)

-The removal of the choice system in 3 remake isn't really a bad idea since the choice system forces you to replay the game to get the full story.(Which forces you to replay the same game over and over again for just seeing some different cutscenes in some areas)
Onimusha 2 had lots of different cutscenes that you can't see them in your first playthrough which makes some characters appear underdeveloped in the first playthrough.
I agree with a lot of these points in your post, but these points I quoted I disagree with:

- I actually prefer the Nemesis battles in OG RE3. In OG RE3, you can actually "kill" Nemesis in each encounter and he will leave you alone until the next scripted encounter. In RE3R, he will be only be temporarily stunned if you decide to fight him. Plus, there is only like one non-linear area where Nemesis will actively pursuit you. OG RE3 had many encounters where he will follow you around for a certain time.

- I agree the spiders were pretty useless in the originals, but they could've been revamped to be more dangerous in RE2R and RE3R. And were they really more deadly in OG RE1? IIRC, you don't even have to encounter most of the spiders in OG RE1 except for the Black Tiger in the underground tunnels. And he was just an optional boss fight.

- I feel that the choice system was a much-needed addition to OG RE3 to provide replay value. It wasn't always just a simple cutscene change and sometimes changed the way how the game played out. For example, jumping out of the window of the cable car changes a few things in the Clock Tower - You will appear in the courtyard of the Clock Tower, Carlos won't give you the Freeze Rounds, and Carlos will help fight Nemesis in the courtyard battle and causing him to lose his Rocket Launcher.

As for the remakes, I love RE2R and felt that it was a worthy remake for the most part. There are some stuff that I felt that RE2R does better than the original like better puzzles, better handling of Mr. X, and I like the expanded roles for certain characters like Marvin and Elliott. My main complaint about this game though is the lack of a proper A/B scenario. OG RE2 actually does a solid job with the A/B storyline and zapping system. I thought that RE2R could expand and improve on it but it's basically non-existent.

RE3R, on the other hand, was pretty disappointing as a remake. The removal of key locations is definitely one of the biggest flaw. In RE2R, I could recognize most of the areas from the original. Can't say the same thing about RE3. Also, puzzles were pretty much non-existent in RE3R even though they were OG RE3's strong suit. There are other issues that people have already listed in this thread as well. I like RE3R and thought it was a fun game to play, but it doesn't really pass as a remake IMO.
trfan16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-21, 19:45   #35358
jajay119
Tomb Raider
 
jajay119's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeauxleaux View Post
The story structure of RE2R is the only real problem I have with it. Even if you take say Claire A and Leon B as "canon", they still contradict eachother lore-wise. That's messy.

I think a simple fix would have been to clearly make Scenario A Claire's story, and in that story only have the Birkin boss fights (which would make sense given Claire's protection of Sherry). Then in Leon's Scenario B only have Mr X as the main boss enemy, at least until the train sequence at the very end of Scenario B anyway. That would solve a lot of issues with the lore. They also have to fix the Annette dying twice inconsistency.

There's enough content in the game already that you don't strictly NEED to be able to play both characters in both scenarios. I'd just cut one of each.
I think that still throws up story issues though as Mr X is in Raccoon City to get the G-Virus sample so should be chasing Sherry and Claire also like he does in the original. At least he was there for that reason in the original version yet in the remake we don't find out why he is there. He just relentlessly persues Claire and Leon with no real reason why. Also, Sherry in the remake doesn't even seem to have the G Virus in her necklace given she drops it and it falls open when irons kidnaps her so Mr X or Irons wanting to kidnap Sherry makes no sense in the remake where in the original he knew she had the sample.

So much of the finer story details got screwed in the remake its hard to understand why. I think originally they were going for one campaign where you periodically flit backwards and forwards between Leon and Claire. That would have made more sense in how the game is structured.
__________________
... in my opinion.
jajay119 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-21, 22:04   #35359
shockwave_pulsar00
Professor
 
shockwave_pulsar00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ga
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dg1995 View Post
I really can't understand people that consider 2 & 3 originals better than remakes.

[REASONS]

No one complained about a lot of these issues because they are products of their time on a PS1.

Most people will agree that the gameplay of 2's remake is a step up, minus the missing enemies who could have just had an upgrade instead of being dropped completely.

The real complaints come from the way the story is handled. It's sloppily thrown together without a care if things line up like they did in the OG game. Was the OG perfect? No, but it was better than what Capcom pulled with the remake.

Most popular complaints are:

- Claire and Leon barely interacted.
- Why are the first game's events barely mentioned?
- WTH does Irons want Sherry's pendant? What is he doing at all?
- Why is Mr. X there? Who dropped him off?
- Where is the MUSIC?
- Why did Ben's involvement get dropped?
- Why did Ada lose the connection to RE1? What's with her attitude change?

That's just a few. The story was streamlined so much, that parts are just completely glossed over so that the lowest common denominator won't be confused if they don't know the series or played the first game. It's just BAD.

-------

RE3 is a different beast. It cut out major chunks of the original game and the beginning's pacing is pretty bad after Jill's apartment.

We basically sprint through uptown just to get to downtown in about 5 minutes:
- Brad introduced.
- 30 Seconds later he's dead.
- Dario also makes a cameo appearance in an area we can never backtrack through.
- Crawl under fence and get to parking lot.
- Take elevator up to roof.
- Get in car and drive off roof with Nemesis.
- Carlos Introduced.

Capcom also seems so afraid to have a game starring *just* a female character that they threw her male side character into the story not even 10 minutes after the game starts in the remake. Now I really liked this version of Carlos, but I don't appreciate Carlos's role taking away from Jill's game. Jill not being able to run through the RPD and make any comments is a travesty IMO. His entire section when she gets knocked out should have been longer and shouldn't have come from her gameplay.

Speaking on Nemesis, he just felt less compelling than Mr. X. He is confined to such tiny areas that It just felt like Jill barely had to deal with any threat what so ever. Nemesis also fails at his entire purpose as he doesn't kill a single STARS member in the game, like he did in the OG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeauxleaux View Post
The story structure of RE2R is the only real problem I have with it. Even if you take say Claire A and Leon B as "canon", they still contradict eachother lore-wise. That's messy.

I think a simple fix would have been to clearly make Scenario A Claire's story, and in that story only have the Birkin boss fights (which would make sense given Claire's protection of Sherry). Then in Leon's Scenario B only have Mr X as the main boss enemy, at least until the train sequence at the very end of Scenario B anyway. That would solve a lot of issues with the lore. They also have to fix the Annette dying twice inconsistency.

There's enough content in the game already that you don't strictly NEED to be able to play both characters in both scenarios. I'd just cut one of each.
I can already tell you right now the reason they didn't just do Claire A - Leon B.


It's because of Leon. If some fans of the series had to WAIT to play him, they would have lost their ****. Capcom probably assumes most players of the game also played Leon first and are most nostalgic about the Leon A scenario.
__________________
Locked and Loaded....

Last edited by shockwave_pulsar00; 28-02-21 at 22:09.
shockwave_pulsar00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-21, 22:14   #35360
Yeauxleaux
Relic Hunter
 
Yeauxleaux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shockwave_pulsar00 View Post
RE3 is a different beast. It cut out major chunks of the original game and the beginning's pacing is pretty bad after Jill's apartment.

We basically sprint through uptown just to get to downtown in about 5 minutes:
- Brad introduced.
- 30 Seconds later he's dead.
- Dario also makes a cameo appearance in an area we can never backtrack through.
- Crawl under fence and get to parking lot.
- Take elevator up to roof.
- Get in car and drive off roof with Nemesis.
- Carlos Introduced.
Yes. It's infuriating as **** the way the condensed what could have been made into a good 30-60 minutes worth of gameplay down to a little 5 minute introduction. It's actually ridiculous. I do like the idea of Nemesis ambushing Jill at her apartment to start the game, but after she escapes from him that first time there is no excuse for them condensing so many quick things that were more important in the original like that.



Quote:
Capcom also seems so afraid to have a game starring *just* a female character that they threw her male side character into the story not even 10 minutes after the game starts in the remake. Now I really liked this version of Carlos, but I don't appreciate Carlos's role taking away from Jill's game. Jill not being able to run through the RPD and make any comments is a travesty IMO. His entire section when she gets knocked out should have been longer and shouldn't have come from her gameplay.

I can already tell you right now the reason they didn't just do Claire A - Leon B.

It's because of Leon. If some fans of the series had to WAIT to play him, they would have lost their ****.
I believe this too. I also love the remake's take on Carlos and I'd be all for him having a separate campaign of his own as a Scenario B, but it is so obvious Capcom don't have the balls to make a mainline game that unambiguously stars a female character at this point. Meanwhile, virtue signalling about how Claire and Jill were "inappropriately sexualised" in the 90s games, to justify putting them in the blandest generic tank top and combat boots outfits for the remakes, mind you.

I don't understand what's changed since the 90s that they're now so scared to be more progressive with female representation like they used to be (where it actually matters, not in pretending to be woke about sexualisation). RE3 is supposed to be Jill's game and if the douchey frat bros are turned off by a campaign were you ONLY play as her then they don't need to play it. Same with them not being able to handle playing Claire before they unlock Leon, yknow after two games Leon starred in where Claire was nowhere to be found.

Last edited by Yeauxleaux; 28-02-21 at 22:23.
Yeauxleaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 08:51.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.