-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Resident Evil 2 Review Thread
- Thread starter Dusk Golem
- Start date
Never really played RE2 classic, didn't know anything about the 'zapping' system I just googled five minutes ago. I'm really enjoying the 2nd scenario right now and do find it worth playing.
The only thing I didn't like about the remake was the A/B inconsistencies that Sphere Hunter brings up. Annette's place in both runs is very weird, as is Mr.X/"Tyrant"'s given the context of Claire's run.
Those minor details are really the only things that bug me at all. The stealth Sherry segment didn't really bother me, as the game gives you plenty of time before (and during) to figure out which ways are dead ends and which places are available for hiding.
Those minor details are really the only things that bug me at all. The stealth Sherry segment didn't really bother me, as the game gives you plenty of time before (and during) to figure out which ways are dead ends and which places are available for hiding.
Thanks for sharing this. She echoed a lot of my thoughts on it.
Yeah, I honestly would've preferred for them to just make a Claire campaign and a Leon campaign, each very different and meticulously crafted to make sense with each other. Only problem I can see is the ending - it feels like you'd need to remove the ability to choose who to play as first, and create the campaigns to be played in a specific order. That, or have a separate third short campaign covering the ending where Leon and Claire work together.
Is it just me or is the second run harder than the first run? I see less ammo, and Mr X appears so early on.
BTW Claire's playthrough is harder than Leon's IMO, the SMG sucks and there's not enough grenade launcher ammo compared to how much shotgun and desert eagle ammo there is for Leon's weapons.
BTW Claire's playthrough is harder than Leon's IMO, the SMG sucks and there's not enough grenade launcher ammo compared to how much shotgun and desert eagle ammo there is for Leon's weapons.
I've played Claire then Leon 2nd Run on Hardcore, and I never got the Spark Shot on the first run, but still finished it fine. I did get the Flamethrower on 2nd Run, and I'm dead sure I would've run out of ammo without it, so I do think 2nd Run is harsher.
Yeah, this is mostly how I view it. I would have liked it if there were some mutually exclusive events. It would have added some replay value, too!
I wish more of the game had moments like when Leon grabs the G-virus sample. "That was easy..." he says, and it's because Claire opened up the locker before he got there. It would add a lot of replay value if there was more stuff like that, where one play through doesn't explain everything and you have to play the other to see the interwoven story. You could walk into the Nest as Leon and just find Annette dead in the security room, no explanation until you play as Claire and witness her actually die, rather than the dumb double-G3 Double-Annette timeline shenanigans we witness.
The Mr. X stuff would get muddled since he dies in Claire's campaign very early. Maybe have both of them fight G4 together?
It would be perfectly fine if they removed him dying in Claire's campaign, or just had him show up with a big hole in his chest revealing his heart in Leon's after that point. I don't think it's a huge problem, but it's one of those points that shows that Leon and Claire's campaigns don't actually line up in-game.
This is my GotG so far, but I do have the same minor nitpicks as most do on here. My expectations were based off what how good the OG REmake was in comparison, where they improved on every aspect of the original while adding new locations, enemies and bosses with nothing on the cutting room floor. I fully expected the 2nd run/B game to very different and unique. I expected a new boss, a new enemy or 2 and an expanded streets section. The extra areas and bosses were literally the best part about REmake 1, so I figured that stuff like that would be added. Zapping though was out of the question as they said that from the beginning so no worries there. I really like what they did to the Ivy's since the original ones were lame and goofy looking. G Mutants also make more sense than a boss.
I wouldn't want them to remove the Birkin vs Mr X scene (that shit was awesome, one of the coolest parts in the game for me), so either have him with the wound in Leon's campaign, or have there actually be 2 Mr X's (with Leon able to find the dead one).
Saw Fungo posted here before, he kinda did a review of the remake.
Pretty garbage review, and Fungo is usually on point with his Rezi videos. All he does is complain about is the lack of fixed camera angles and declare the new version to "souless" for some reason. Going by the likes to dislikes, seems like his viewers think the videos poor quality too.
I think when he talks about camera angle he does a good job of explaining why it was effective and what it could add to a fixed camera angle. But the point is that REmake accomplishes all that. I was more confortable with zombies close to me in the original one than in the remake. He just seems to assume fixed camera angle are inherent needed to accomplish a certain feeling of horror. And REmake 2 basically proves the contrary. I think RE2 felt a little short in some points, but it's definitely a worth remake, there is no doubt of it in my mind. Indeed, the single best compliment I can give to it is that I want REmake 3 to be similar to it. I also strongly disagree RE2 was made for casual audiences, indeed, I think this game is harder than the original.
Anyway, quoting his analogy, I think it's less about missing ingredients and simply about changing the brand.
Also, I really dislike the sense of entitlement that the video delivers. I can understand why someone would be disappointed with the changes RE2make had and feel it didn't deliver the experience they wanted. But this video would be much better if he just tried to explain why RE2 fails to convey the same feeling of the 1998 game instead of just stating it doesn't. And use developer interviews to attack the game.
This video really does come across as a guy just whining about a change he doesn't like. A lot of his arguments are just REALLY poorly articulated. I like fixed camera angles quite a bit; I have always been a proponent of them. However, the over-the-shoulder perspective worked extremely well here. I don't think Mr. Fungo really gave it a sincere chance. Instead, he made a video that takes a lot of unfair potshots. He comes across as a bit of an obstinate prick.
People who use the word soulless never know what the fuck they're talking about and they always come across looking stupid as fuck
The lack of a real soundtrack and dramatic angles does take a lot out of the game. I don't know if I'd call it soulless, but I did think the mood was often empty and boring compared to the original.
I did a comparison but I can't really post my own vid, so here's an abridged example. You had this scene in the original with such a great score and visuals...
And then in the remake you get this comparatively dull sewer section as the equivalent moment. The soundtrack is pretty weak and quiet, and the sad thing is that this room had probably the most noticeable/prominent music in the entire game (outside of battles).
The game is great in its own way, but when it comes to things like the soundtrack it's definitely a lot less memorable and lacking in character. And a lot of that stuff is what really defined RE2 to me, so I think it's valid to question whether a total reimagining was the right course for a remake people were asking for over so many years- particularly when REmake was established as the template most people seemed to want Capcom to follow.
If you're going to change everything from the original, at a certain point you may as well just make a new game. You have to capture the appeal of the original when doing a remake, otherwise there's no point in it being "Resident Evil 2." I think this game is really awkwardly riding the line where it has just enough of the original DNA to feel like RE2 while losing enough of the original to also feel like it's a totally different game at the same time.
I enjoyed playing it a lot, but it's totally reasonable for someone to express disappointment with it if it didn't capture what RE2 was to them and I think getting any kind of "backlash" for being critical of the game is bullshit.
I would argue that the video is just really bad. I think he is getting "backlash" because people thought the arguments were exceptionally poor. That isn't bullshit, that is the process. If you critique a piece of media your critique will inevitably be critiqued. I mean, just look at that awful, awful metaphor at the end of the video. He is begging for a little backlash, here.
I loved Scenario A, but I won't be satisfied until they patch in a real Scenario B as opposed to some wafer-thin remix.
My problem with RE2 remake so far is that REmake 1 kept all of the content of the original game and enhanced it plus added new stuff whereas with re2 tons of stuff was thrown out including key story and plot elements (the details of the Birkin storyline, how the tragic accident occurred that caused the g-virus outbreak, Ada looking for her husband, etc.) all got cut along with several enemies and the as before mentioned A/B scenarios. I also hate how they cut all of the cool cutscenes rather than redo them (the Birkin transformation scene and how the helicopter crashed into the RPD were really memorable scenes from the original). There are things that are really good in the remake but it also leaves a lot to be desired. It definitely feels like they skimped on content which is really unfortunate. I plan to go into more detail after I finish both campaigns.
Agree with all of these points. And I get the people that don't care either weren't that into Resident Evil 2, or some maybe weren't even born I guess, but this isn't an issue that warrants a defense force.
The remake cuts some fundamental stuff to it's detriment. The alternate route to the RPD, and at the beginning Marvin could mention to Elliott another cop has gone to the roof, and then in Scenario B you see that cop, and get a similar cut scene to the original, showing the events leading up the helicopter crash. Why cut something like that other than to skimp on the budget? They literally portray the crash via sound effects. That's a step back from 20 years ago.
So if you just subjectively like something you're suddenly a "defense force"?
*bad criticism*
*responds to bad criticism on a message board*
"Whoa why so defense force bro"
*responds to bad criticism on a message board*
"Whoa why so defense force bro"
So, this is a pretty rocky start. Out-of-hand claiming that everyone who doesn't default to your position simply lacks experience is just a dismissive, shitty claim to make. I have been a fan of the franchise since the beginning. I love the original. However, I think the remake did an excellent job. I don't fit so comfortably into your narrative.
What if a defense force is just separate people who are all sharing their opinion? I sure as hell wasn't part of any formal organization, I wasn't recruited, I just added my two cents. I think it is a little problematic to start throwing around words like "defense force" as it is a shallow attempt to deligitimize people's opinions. It feels disingenuous and in bad taste.
Pretty low effort, Ara. Maybe try to engage more sincerely in the future?
The new Resident Evil 2 is great, I love it and understand the praise it is getting, but... it is an objective fact: it cuts significant content from the dual-scenarios.
Please feel free to make the case for why you prefer they skipped content like the helicopter crash, alternate routes, alternative bosses and the interweaving narrative.
Please feel free to make the case for why you prefer they skipped content like the helicopter crash, alternate routes, alternative bosses and the interweaving narrative.
I absolutely love this version, I'm currently watching maximillian dood playing through resident evil 3 nemesis. It's strange to see the RPD station I think one day before resident evil 2. Not sure they can not change a few things if and when they do a 3 remake.
Skipped helicopter crash was handled in-game as all the encounters also were. It was an effective way to cut on costs (since I doubt there's actually a helicopter in the air if you noclip it) and it's no secret that for all their expenses they ended up cutting corners, but the tradeoff is that the game is more playable in areas where the original wasn't, particularly dynamics between player, zombies and Mr. X.
Now, Mr. X's first encounter in the original was pretty brilliant too, but when push comes to shove, the way it works is that you have a limited time to unload magazines on him until he goes down before he walks to where you stand. It's a completely scripted encounter in that sense and it's cool because it adds tension, but I have to give kudos to how Capcom managed to implement him this time, to how it was suggested that he would follow you in the original. Granted, you don't see his hand reach over the railing right at the POV of the fixed camera in this game and it's less surprising when he idly finds your location versus a prescripted surprise, but again, it's the dynamics here that impress more. That's also what they were going for.
I can make a case for how I like playing this game more than the original but honestly I just see them as two games that are more or less just as good but in different ways. That said, I agree that the lack of true A and B scenarios which was essentially 4 playthroughs, is a big minus but for what it's worth they essentially took all the most iconic encounters from each scenario and stuck them into each campaign instead. The lack of spiders, moth and crows is my biggest issue, but that said crows always confused me just a little in RE2 originally. It made sense because they could've come from the Raccoon forest where it was suggested they spread the T-virus, but in RE2 it's suggested that rats spread the G-virus, so I would've loved to see mutated rats instead lol.
How can you say "objective fact" then use a subjective word like "significant"?
I've seen this sentiment these last few days about A/B scenarios and my doubt remains the same: isn't A significantly larger in this version than in the original? The game is more substantial now than it ever was, with some important 2nd Story elements having made the transition to the first playthrough. B's now a different experience to what we saw in the 1990s, "lesser" wouldn't be an inappropiate word to describe it, but it's only as a consequence of A being expanded/improved and a change of priorities at Capcom (a "remake" not following the original step-by-step).
I could swear I remember a preview or interview that claimed this was the case before release. Maybe I'm wrong but I got that impression somehow.
I've made this same point many times. Content hasn't been cut from A/B, it's just been included in BOTH. It's the people complaining about cut content that are actually advocating for content to be cut. They want stuff cut from A and only included in B and vice versa.
REmake is hailed as the high point of the series. I made a point about would REmake be better if they cut Crimson heads from Jill and only had it in Chris or cut one snake fight from each of Chris and Jill or cut Lisa from Chris and only had it in Jill etc... would that be a better game? Yet to get a response.
I would argue that the helicopter crash is more immediate in the remake. The problem with cutscenes is that they force your perspective away from the protagonist. I don't think it was a budget decision to keep the narrative firmly tethered to your chosen protagonist at all times. The helicopter crash feels far less cinematic, but it also feels more visceral (more like it actually happened). That was, in my opinion, a creative decision.
I think losing the alternate routes was unfortunate. I think the interweaving narrative was done better in the original. However, I still feel like the end product is exemplary, and those missing elements didn't diminish that experience for me.
I can see why you have a problem with it, but don't dismiss other people's opinions simply because they do not.
I think the end product is exceptionally strong, but there are frequent cut scenes elsewhere throughout the game, and the crash is tethered to whichever character is witnessing it, so I think the helicopter was most likely cut due to a budgeting decision.
Everybody dismisses or endorses certain opinions. I've said repeatedly I appreciate people can be very happy with the game and not care about the issues raised, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them or sit on the fence and say everyone is right!
You're creating a strawman argument. The "cut content" those people refer to isn't Mr. X, but clearly if he was exclusive to B Scenario it would help to differentiate the two modes, given they're very similar in this version compared to the original.
Your REmake comparison isn't appropriate either. I would be fine if Lisa or Crimsonheads were seperated into different scenarios, because they would still be in the game, that wouldn't be cut content.
What IS cut content is the stuff from RE2 that is no longer in REmake 2, which has been outlined plenty of times in terms of routes, narratives, enemies, bosses, cut scenes.
Haven't read the past 49 pages, but I want to reinforce how amazing the PC port is of this game. On a high end machine, it's runs like a dream with max settings at 4K and in some spots looks next gen to me, especially the architecture I'm the first and last thirds of the game.
I haven't played the original since January of '98, so I have no comments on the remix of the story or cut content, but I believe there is enough content to warrant the price of entry. With the DLC that's coming soon, I'm really looking to checking back in.
About to start my Leon A/Claire B run tomorrow sometime.
I haven't played the original since January of '98, so I have no comments on the remix of the story or cut content, but I believe there is enough content to warrant the price of entry. With the DLC that's coming soon, I'm really looking to checking back in.
About to start my Leon A/Claire B run tomorrow sometime.
I never said you should have to agree with everyone. I said that you shouldn't instantly paint everyone who doesn't see it as a problem as being a lesser fan of the original version of Resident Evil 2, or having never played it in the first place (which is an assertion you made based on nothing). That was my bone of contention. Not that you disagreed, but that you tried to invalidate the opinions of others.
Eh? I never even mentioned Mr X so the strawman is on your part. The gameplay elements of the original A/B are all more or less found within REmake2 but now more of them appear in both.
Again nothing " differentiate the two modes" in REmake yet I've never ever seen that as complaint leveled against it. The consistency is not there with this type of critique. Seems like nitpicking for the sake of it.
None of the significant events from A/B akin to Lisa or the Crimsonheads has been cut so this isn't an appropriate comparison by you.
And it's been outlined plenty of time why none of that is "factually objectively significant" as you previously stated and some of that is outright false. What REmake2 added in terms of complexity and depth far outweighs what RE1 -> REmake did and far outweighs "cutting" stuff like a one and done jump scare/set piece with crows. If cutting crows dampens the experience for you so much that it totally negates the gameplay improvements made then I don't know what to tell you. Fair enough if that's your opinion, but don't make it out as if it's "facts" that people need to adhere to or else they're underage/not real RE fans. That's pathetic gatekeeping.
They cut a lot of stuff not just "crows". Scenario B in the original had totally different bosses inc. Mr X, a different route which interlinked with Scenario A, rather than overlapping it, with new areas, there were in total 4x playthrough variants each with unique cut scenes and dialogue and Scenario A & B were significantly different.
REmake 2 bulks up the campaign, NEST is far superior in the remake. But it also subtracts elements, and especially in terms of the Scenario B the creative direction and prioritisation is bit odd. For example, let's remove x but spend resources on an orphanage subplot that didn't exist in the original game.
It would be like the REmakes devs using Lisa or crimsonheads as justificationg for cutting: crows, spiders, the plant, the shark and the snake.
Last edited:
As good as it is, that would have been a better game. It is too bad they didn't deliver with the different scenarios.
It's a very minor complaint, but even the rendition of the initial city run from the original is altered in this - I was thrilled to see it's inclusion later on - but it feels much less organic and claustrophobic as they opened up the roads around the basketball court and contrived a corridor out of crashed cars. Something about it just felt off.
This game might just end up as not only my game of the year, but my second-favorite game of the generation, right after Bloodborne.
Low effort bait. Try harder. Or stop blaming the game for being a bad player.
Same boat, though the #1 is Breath of the Wild for me personally.
I just finished Scenario B last night, and I think this ended strong. I think having Mr. X such an immediate, persistent thread for Claire in Scenario B works well, even when it can be infuriating in the moment. And the story scene that abruptly ends that threat is a hell of a moment. The secondary character parts for both Ada and Sherry help with the overall pacing. Admitedly, I stowed so much ammo and power weapons that went unused for Claire/Leon, I sort of wish they telegraphed the bigger fights just a wee-bit more.