I'm talking about straight gameplay. I have never cared about any RE story bar RE1/REmake. They're stupid to a high degree. If we're talking about cutscenes then that's even worse, you're replaying 50% of the game AGAIN just to see what amounts to at most 10 minutes of new cutscenes. That was never intended to be masterstroke game design, it was the developers of the era looking for ways artificially inflate the length of their short games.
Again, the complete gameplay experience, not cutscenes/story. Shoving it into one run is superior because then you get a full experience during a playthrough rather than having to replay 50% of the game again to see the 25% that you missed in either Leon or Claire. That's not replay value, that's artificially making what is a 5-6 hour game into a 9-10 hour game. Are you getting any less content if you take that unique 25% found in Leon or Claire and include it in the others scenarios? Of course not, it's still there. But what you're advocating for is to artificially make the game longer by forcing the player to replay 3-4 hours of stuff they've already played before to see that 1-2 hours that they haven't
Like how you're defending junk bad game design tactic in RE2 that was only included because they rushed development due scrapping a tonne of stuff from RE 1.5? I feel like some old games that have a good reputation only have their positive elements praised and any negatives totally ignored yet new games are picked a part from every direction.
You're framing it as if the original scenarios only had story differences when they actually had many more gameplay differences than the remake does, and a lot of that content can't really be combined into a single scenario since it was specifically made to reflect the consequences of the 1st character's actions. Things like the Umbrella elevator having to be recalled and then breaking down after the A character used it, for instance.
The remake's biggest 2nd scenario difference is that the RPD is remixed and you go through it in a different order, but as the game goes on everything becomes more and more like the A scenario and the ending just feels like an extra room was added on- Instead of falling through a catwalk at the end, you continue down the hallway and get to the train room.
In the original you also had a remixed RPD that you moved through differently and the lab section was an entirely different area from the A game. Activating the train was something that actually required exploration and backtracking to do, it wasn't just an extra tacked on room. You also had a lot of content about creating the vaccine for Sherry and getting her to the train that didn't make it into the remake. It led to a much more satisfying ending than the new 2nd scenario, which again feels really abrupt.
The story differences weren't just confined to the cutscenes, you went to different areas of the game and did different things to trigger them (Ada on the bridge vs. Ada in the power room). You had totally different gameplay goals in the B scenario leading you into those scenes. You also had interactions between characters that could lead to different equipment being locked or unlocked.
I'm not really sure what's being argued here, because a few posters seem to be hammering in the idea that people shouldn't have to play the game over again to see a different scenario... but the remake
included that system. It's there, whether you want 2nd scenarios or not, and it offers much less incentive to replay than the original system. In that sense, yes, it's worse.
I guess what I'm asking is why people are defending the remake's zapping system... if they seem to hate the idea of a zapping system to begin with? If you only care about the A game, that's fine, but why not just admit that the 2nd scenarios aren't very compelling and aren't worth playing? The purpose of the zapping system is to add replay value, which the new system does a really poor job of. Don't we basically agree about this?
Weren't you the poster who was really worried it would become a straight action game and trivialize lickers? How do you feel about it?
They proved me wrong for doubting them in a lot of cases but a lot of other things turned out exactly as disappointing as I thought (the soundtrack being the major one). It's a really good game but instead of a remake it's more like you played the original and then had some crazy fever dream about it.
