What Are You Playing?

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Griffith said:
Turnaround button! I wish the dodge was in this one too, I keep wanting to avoid or push off zombies but you're basically stll vulnerable from behind even if you get around them.

Yeah that's quite annoying actually.

Griffith said:
It's an interesting discussion given their tortured co-development and role reversal. I think Nemesis works better exactly because it was supposed to be the smaller story, a side quest, rooted in the atmosphere of the first two, but leaner and meaner, and was then legitimized with Jill and the numerical designation. Code: Veronica, on the other hand, certainly expands on the story and gameplay ambitions of 2, but with decidedly mixed results that changed the franchise forever.

Yeah I mean if you put aside the gameplay (which was starting to feel dated at the time), the story is really the main problem. Resurrecting Wesker through cutscenes is of course the worst decision in the entire series (made worse by the fact he became "Super Wesker"), but the rest of the plot and characters are equally awful. Steve and Alfred are terrible characters, and Alexia is a lame boss based on a lame concept. T-Veronica virus? Talk about creative bankruptcy. And then there's stuff like Chris piloting a fighter jet to Antarctica. It's really too bad because the game has some good stuff in it. It also established the fact the series' storyline could be half-assed without problem, which continued in Resident Evil 4, 5 and 6.

Griffith said:
I'll go ahead and call it now: it seems like a lesser version of the game in a fancier, modern package. It's very streamlined, to the point I don't know what took them so long.

Well you've basically summed it up. :ganishka: That's exactly how I would put it.
 

I know that I know :)

My post our worse
Aazealh said:
It also established the fact the series' storyline could be half-assed without problem, which continued in Resident Evil 4, 5 and 6.

I don't really see resident evil 4 story as half-assed I mean 5,6 where bad really bad story and all the only way I could finish them is to laugh at them with a friend (Chris destroying a boulder with his bare fist is still by far the greatest thing in gaming I have ever seen but it signifies the series passing the point of no return), but 4 in my eyes had a nice story very cheesy/cliche but nice, and the plaga virus was interesting. Resident Evil 4 was something different from the rest of the games maybe I'm being a little bias because it was my first introduction to the Resident Evil Franchise but that's how I feel. If you don't like it that's ok at least the games are moving back to the more original playstyle and story I'm guessing RE2 is going to be one in a long list of remakes.

Aazealh said:
Chris piloting a fighter jet to Antarctica.
Ok, I need to see this.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
I know that I know :) said:
I don't really see resident evil 4 story as half-assed

It was clearly written in a single afternoon when the project was a month away from launch. The characters are grotesque but not in a good way and it barely ties into the series' lore (which is explained by how it came to be, but isn't really an excuse). I could write a better story in literally two minutes.

Here, in fact I'll do it now: replace Ashley with Sherry Birkin, Leon is after her not because he's with the secret service but because of their history together (and he can still be an FBI agent or whatever you want). Las Plagas are the basis for the Nemesis parasite, which explains why Umbrella is/was involved. Sherry was kidnapped because of her ties to the G-Virus research. They want to combine Las Plagas with the G-Virus to create the ultimate bioweapon. Replace Salazar with someone less ridiculous. Ditch the useless codec conversations. The rest can be kept as is, but with deeper ties to bioweapons research (tweak Saddler for example, make him an ex-scientist who went a bit crazy). Change "Los Gigantes" to something less lazy. Ada's segment is fine, although I'd do without the Wesker reveal at the end.

I know that I know :) said:
the plaga virus was interesting.

"Las Plagas" is a parasite, not a virus. You're out of your depth here among the mega nerds. :iva: :ganishka:

I know that I know :) said:
If you don't like it that's ok at least the games are moving back to the more original playstyle and story I'm guessing RE2 is going to be one in a long list of remakes.

I love Resident Evil 4. That's why I wish its story was not terrible.
 

Dar_Klink

Last Guardian when? - CyberKlink 20XX before dying
RE2 looks great so I'm of course playing RE1make HD since I already have it from a humble bundle from months ago! Really loving the look of it and having a mixture of nostalgia from playing, but not beating, the PS1 version and just the actual enjoyment of out good REmake is and how good the HD ver looks. I love how it sort of feels like an old point-n-click with its item combining puzzles and the mansion has a great atmosphere and exploring it feels very natural and easy to visualize the layout of in my head.

Also been playing Travis Strikes Back, which is sort of overshadowed by Mickey Mouse and Leon Kennedy's games. It's fun, just a bit barebones and has some wonky decisions that make it novel and cool in some ways and annoying and clunky in others. It's a Suda51 game for sure!

In RE2 news:
99YmWyb.png

What the fuck :troll:
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Aazealh said:
It's really too bad because the game has some good stuff in it. It also established the fact the series' storyline could be half-assed without problem, which continued in Resident Evil 4, 5 and 6.

Beyond half-assed; I'm still waiting for Chris and Claire to take on Umbrella in Paris or whatever. But yeah, I love Resident Evil 4 as well but it was definitely a game that transcended it's cheesy bad story elements rather than succeeding in any part because of them (the best they could do was lean into it). What's frustrating to this day is how the series still vacillates between this semi "serious" Resident Evil tone and the gonzo, anything goes version. Leon's either a relatable, in over-his-head rookie or a quipping super agent, Chris Redfield is a either tough but cool veteran cop or a musclebound ubermensch able to punch boulders, and it changes game to game. In RE7 Chris seemed to be back to semi-normal, as normal as RE gets anyway, and then what little there is of him in the RE2 remake makes him out to be Mr. Wild Ladies Man (so KEWL I always knew he got all the chicks with that guitar and jacket by his desk :badbone:). I don't even know what Chris' character is supposed to be anymore, the last time he made any sense was, somewhat ironically, Code: Veronica.

Aazealh said:
Well you've basically summed it up. :ganishka: That's exactly how I would put it.
Dar Klink said:
RE2 looks great so I'm of course playing RE1make HD since I already have it from a humble bundle from months ago! Really loving the look of it and having a mixture of nostalgia from playing, but not beating, the PS1 version and just the actual enjoyment of out good REmake is and how good the HD ver looks. I love how it sort of feels like an old point-n-click with its item combining puzzles and the mansion has a great atmosphere and exploring it feels very natural and easy to visualize the layout of in my head.

This reminds me that it should be noted, and differentiated from this RE2 remake, that the 2002 REmake was directed by original Resident Evil creator, director, and longtime series producer Shinji Mikami specifically to update and perfect his original vision of the game. Thus why it's more than just a technological upgrade but a classic unto itself. This one, while a lot of fun and wish fulfillment dating back to RE4, doesn't have nearly such lofty a pedigree or ambitions since Mikami moved on from Capcom long, long ago (make what you will of the up and down direction of the franchise since). Anyway, not that it's a bad thing, but it's quite a different animal from REmake despite seemingly following in its footsteps.

Dar Klink said:
In RE2 news:
https://i.imgur.com/99YmWyb.png
What the fuck :troll:

:ganishka:

And Aaz was afraid crazies would do side by side playthroughs of both games, which I already see on youtube but don't want to watch yet (IDK why, it's not like there's been any surprises).
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Dar Klink said:
Also been playing Travis Strikes Back

Wow what the fuck it's out already? Man I'm really out of touch. :ganishka: I'll have to get it at some point. Sigh... Too many games, not enough time. :sad:

Dar Klink said:

Haha wow. To think I was happy to kill that boss without taking damage or using too much ammo.

Griffith said:
what little there is of him in the RE2 remake makes him out to be Mr. Wild Ladies Man

Duuuuuude, don't tell me you fell for this. It's obviously a coded letter, the key part being the segment about "this girl with an extra large umbrella". He's gone into recon mode in Europe to scope out Umbrella's operations there and is discreetly signaling his friends back home. Come on, obvious stuff! Minor spoiler:
in Claire's run she remarks on how this letter doesn't sound like Chris, further hinting at what I just said.

Griffith said:
And Aaz was afraid crazies would do side by side playthroughs of both games, which I already see on youtube but don't want to watch yet (IDK why, it's not like there's been any surprises).

Haha not afraid, looking forward to it rather!
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Aazealh said:
Duuuuuude, don't tell me you fell for this. It's obviously a coded letter, the key part being the segment about "this girl with an extra large umbrella". He's gone into recon mode in Europe to scope out Umbrella's operations there and is discreetly signaling his friends back home. Come on, obvious stuff! Minor spoiler:
in Claire's run she remarks on how this letter doesn't sound like Chris, further hinting at what I just said.

That's what he wants HR to believe! :carcus:

Anyway, oops! I vaguely remember flagging that telling "umbrella" line now that you mention it, but then I completely forgot about it. I'm not putting a lot of thought into the memos unless there's a safe or letter combo to be discovered, but this certainly makes me feel better about that. Adieu Chris Redfield, covert poon hound ("Hey Barry, you better bring your Magnums because the Big Ole Women out here are so hungry for meat they'll swallow you whole!" Claire: "Eww." =).
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Griffith said:
I'm not putting a lot of thought into the memos unless there's a safe or letter combo to be discovered

Haha, me neither to be honest and this is another difference with the original games I feel, where the memos really told a part of the story and mattered more.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Aazealh said:
Haha, me neither to be honest and this is another difference with the original games I feel, where the memos really told a part of the story and mattered more.

Yep, exposition, character and story development were way more heavily supported by the found papers in that game; whether it was to fill in the blanks, reinforce characteristics you kind of got by meeting someone or foreshadowing, contrasting, and even revealing the true face of someone like Irons. So far they've been pretty perfunctory, but to be fair the old ones could also be wordy and overlong and keeping them short and to the point fits this style and pace, especially since I pretty much skim or skip through them anyway, clearly.

Anyway, I'm at the labs and I'm OVER it, no more sneaking around conserving resources; anyone that crosses my path is getting dropped, chopped, or burned. :daiba:
 

I know that I know :)

My post our worse
Griffith said:
Anyway, I'm at the labs and I'm OVER it, no more sneaking around conserving resources; anyone that crosses my path is getting dropped, chopped, or burned. :daiba:
God help you when you eventually reach a boss and realize all you got is a half-broken knife and a herb.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
I know that I know :) said:
God help you when you eventually reach a boss and realize all you got is a half-broken knife and a herb.

We'll see, if I run low I'll do what I gotta do, but more likely I end up with a surplus anyway, so I don't want to let it go to waste in storage. Plus, there's an upgraded Magnum with about 30 rounds, and plenty more yellow powder, waiting for any bosses that try to ruin my day. I took out the last boss only using pistol ammo (there's a trick to the fight), so I have plenty.

I can only play at night after everyone's asleep and I have to be up for work by 5am, so I am literally tired of sneaking around. Thus, until the game makes me pay for it...

https://youtu.be/lilsN_MVV0s
 
I know that I know :) said:
I'm about to get the Witcher 3 it looks sick.

I highly recommend playing Witcher 2 first in case you haven't yet. It's a good game in its own right and will make for a better immersion into the story and events of the Witcher 3.
 

I know that I know :)

My post our worse
Bleac said:
I highly recommend playing Witcher 2 first in case you haven't yet. It's a good game in its own right and will make for a better immersion into the story and events of the Witcher 3.
Hmmm yeah maybe ill play the Witcher 2 first it looks pretty good
 
The Witcher 2 is a good game, but I think it's a pretty bad place to jump into the series. It just seems like it throws too much at you at the beginning without giving you a reason to care or understand what in the Sam Hill is going on. It feels like it was made with the expectation that you played the first Witcher and are already familiar with the universe. I agree that it's more rewarding to go into the third game with the accumulated knowledge of everything that happened in the previous entries, but at the same time, I think it does a better job at acclimatizing newcomers to the series with its more slow-paced beginning.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
When trying to determine the best entry point for The Witcher series I concluded the best course of action was just to not to play any of them. Conundrum solved! :guts:
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Griffith said:
When trying to determine the best entry point for The Witcher series I concluded the best course of action was just to not to play any of them. Conundrum solved! :guts:

It's one of those series where I feel like I've given it an honest shake and it just never did anything for me. Same with Dragon Quest. I've played like, 6 games in that franchise and it's just not for me. Oh well!
 
Cyrus Jong said:
The Witcher 2 is a good game, but I think it's a pretty bad place to jump into the series.
Cyrus Jong said:
I agree that it's more rewarding to go into the third game with the accumulated knowledge of everything that happened in the previous entries, but at the same time, I think it does a better job at acclimatizing newcomers to the series with its more slow-paced beginning.

That's how I personally got into the series, and it's what got me so hooked on the whole concept of the games, hence why I'm recommending it. The Witcher 3 could arguably have a similar effect, but I don't know if I would've enjoyed the second game as much had I played the Witcher 3 first. In other words, both are good starting points, but I honestly believe playing them in chronological order enhances the level of enjoyment for each one individually and also for the long run; and it's not the case where you play through a bunch of underwhelming prequels just to have a slightly better experience with the latest installment either, these are both solid games and it would be a shame not to profit and maximize the experience.

Cyrus Jong said:
It just seems like it throws too much at you at the beginning without giving you a reason to care or understand what in the Sam Hill is going on. It feels like it was made with the expectation that you played the first Witcher and are already familiar with the universe.

It didn't seem so to me. In theory it was made as a sequel, but it was completely redesigned to play and feel like a fresh game, upholding little elements from its predecessor, as to not be too confusing for the console players and other newcomers to the series. It even gives you a rundown of what Witchers are and the few major plot points from the first game (which can be, and in fact were, summarised in just a couple lines of text). That is why I believe it's the optimal starting point.

Even if, unlike the 3rd game, this one throws you right into the action from the get-go, it still takes the time soon after to explain what is going on. There are also more story elements, characters and world building that carry on between 2 and 3 than there are between 1 and 2. By playing 2 you get crucial insight about Yennefer and the Wild Hunt (which are basically at the core of the 3rd game), the conflict with Nilfgaard, characters like Letho, Roche and the Blue Stripes, King Radovid and many other small references. It basically sets the scene perfectly for the Witcher 3. The same can't be said about the first game.

Griffith said:
When trying to determine the best entry point for The Witcher series I concluded the best course of action was just to not to play any of them. Conundrum solved! :guts:

Griff, you God damn troll :iva:
 
Bleac said:
It didn't seem so to me. In theory it was made as a sequel, but it was completely redesigned to play and feel like a fresh game, upholding little elements from its predecessor, as to not be too confusing for the console players and other newcomers to the series. It even gives you a rundown of what Witchers are and the few major plot points from the first game (which can be, and in fact were, summarised in just a couple lines of text). That is why I believe it's the optimal starting point.

It might have been the idea to make TW2 work as a standalone product, but in practice, I don't think it does so well. Opening up a story in medias res and withholding some details from the outset is perfectly fine, but TW2 is not graceful at all about explaining those details for the uninitiated. Characters like Triss and King Foltest enter the scene establishing point blank that they have a history with Geralt, but the chaotic opening doesn't really allow for the player to learn what exactly that history is. Which not only makes things potentially confusing for someone unaware of those histories, but it also means they'll be less likely to care about those characters, which a cliffnotes version is never going to accomplish.

The opening is itself a very chaotic sequence that has a lot of things going on all at once. There's political unrest in Temeria that has caused civil war to break out, Geralt is effectively serving as the king's bodyguard with great reluctance, he has amnesia, he recently saved Foltest from an assassin who also happened to be a witcher even though witchers aren't supposed to get involved with human affairs, there are tensions between Temeria, Redania, and Nilfgaard, there's a dragon attacking...this is a lot of stuff to take in within the first half-hour, and that's before we meet the eponymous Assassin of Kings, who is in turn allied with the Scoia'tael who have a bone to pick with Foltest, and...yeah. Even for someone who's played the first game, familiarized themselves with the world, and knows how things led up to this point, there's a lot to take in. For a lot of newcomers who aren't aware of what they're supposed to know and not know, it can get overwhelming, and while some might be willing to do the research to get the full story, I honestly don't expect the vast majority to do that or even want to do that, especially when they're just beginning.

Even if, unlike the 3rd game, this one throws you right into the action from the get-go, it still takes the time soon after to explain what is going on. There are also more story elements, characters and world building that carry on between 2 and 3 than there are between 1 and 2.

More might have happened in the transition between 2 and 3 than 1 and 2, but those events are broader and more detached from the characters you follow in the third. Guys like Geralt and Vesemir don't know all the specifics of what happened between Nilfgaard and the Northern Kingdoms, so the player doesn't really have to either, and they're not even involved with it anyway. The war is itself more of a backdrop than anything. Meanwhile, the events between 1 and 2 are a lot more personal. Geralt went from being an amnesiac trying to re-establish himself in the world to an amnesiac who's now established a bunch of relationships and connections that get him tied up in events he doesn't really want to be involved with, and by all accounts shouldn't be. He just wants to get back to reclaiming his lost memory, which was then an unresolved plot thread left lingering from TW1. But understanding how he got in that position is complicated because, well, that's encompassed by the plot of the first game.

And that's kind of the final point why I don't think TW2 is a good starting off point; because not only does it begin so abruptly, but it's still addressing things left hanging from the first game. TW3 mostly isn't; by the time it begins, Geralt has resolved most of his personal dilemmas and is now involved with a whole other story with other people. Playing the third game feels like you're reading the latest book in a series of novels, whereas playing the second game feels like you're starting a book from a random page in the middle.

By playing 2 you get crucial insight about Yennefer and the Wild Hunt (which are basically at the core of the 3rd game), the conflict with Nilfgaard, characters like Letho, Roche and the Blue Stripes, King Radovid and many other small references. It basically sets the scene perfectly for the Witcher 3. The same can't be said about the first game.

Well of course the first game isn't going to set the scene for TW3. It sets the scene for the TW2 :slan:. That, and introducing the player to the universe, to Geralt, to his friends, to the politics, to the supernatural, to the witchers, and so on, which the second game decidedly does not. And I wouldn't really say it's all that important to play to understand who Yennefer is and what the Wild Hunt is, considering that both only exist through expository flashbacks that have nothing to do with the actual narrative of the game, which makes them come across as random when they do come up. Hell, even as someone who played the TW1 first and read some of the short stories, the flashbacks in TW2 were just clumsy to me.
 
Cyrus Jong said:
Characters like Triss and King Foltest enter the scene establishing point blank that they have a history with Geralt, but the chaotic opening doesn't really allow for the player to learn what exactly that history is. Which not only makes things potentially confusing for someone unaware of those histories, but it also means they'll be less likely to care about those characters, which a cliffnotes version is never going to accomplish.

From the opening cutscene the player is clearly shown that Geralt and Triss have a romantic relation of sorts, which is more than enough to get things started I would say. Her character from the first game was significantly redone, not just visually. The only important thing the player needs to know about her in the beginning is that she and Geralt have a background as lovers, most of her development that will actually bear an impact in the future happens throughout the second game.

Foltest's character and his political schemes have the highest possibility to be confusing for a new player, but you are given basic explanations in the introduction that Foltest is the king of Temeria and Geralt saved his life from an assassin at the end of the previous game. That is honestly all you really need to know about Foltest and his politics
because right after, he dies and becomes pretty much irrelevant going forward.

Most of the characters that you are expected to care about get properly introduced and developed as the game progresses.

Cyrus Jong said:
The opening is itself a very chaotic sequence that has a lot of things going on all at once.
Cyrus Jong said:
Even for someone who's played the first game, familiarized themselves with the world, and knows how things led up to this point, there's a lot to take in. For a lot of newcomers who aren't aware of what they're supposed to know and not know, it can get overwhelming, and while some might be willing to do the research to get the full story, I honestly don't expect the vast majority to do that or even want to do that, especially when they're just beginning.

The chaotic nature probably has more to do with the fact that the story is based on a bunch of books and is more complex than your average video game story in terms of raw information. I never felt like I needed to open a wiki or do any separate research though. All the relevant information is in the game, and it gives you enough to never feel like you have to go back and play the first one because it's too confusing. Honestly, if you're not an absolute dumbass you will be able to connect the main pieces together. The biggest part of the first game can be easily overlooked.

Once again, the developers made the Witcher 2 conscious that it will be a first experience for many people and added the important bits that you would want to know from the first one across the whole game. That "in medias res" beginning doesn't really dictate how good of an introduction to the series the game as a whole is. You're focusing too much on the first couple of hours for each, instead I think you should look at how the complete experiences fare. Sure, The Witcher 3 might start less abruptly, but once you advance into the story, characters start coming into the picture, past events and choices become relevant once again. There's even a segment in the Witcher 3 where you're asked what choices you made during the second game, signifying once again how much more tied together these two are, compared to 1 and 2.

Cyrus Jong said:
More might have happened in the transition between 2 and 3 than 1 and 2, but those events are broader and more detached from the characters you follow in the third.
Cyrus Jong said:
Meanwhile, the events between 1 and 2 are a lot more personal.
Cyrus Jong said:
But understanding how he got in that position is complicated because, well, that's encompassed by the plot of the first game.
Cyrus Jong said:
...because not only does it begin so abruptly, but it's still addressing things left hanging from the first game.

It's true that the focal point of the first two games is Geralt's amnesia, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are deeply connected as far as story goes. I don't think the events between 2 and 3 are more detached. All three of the games have their own sub-plots, but I think 2 is where the main plot started connecting the most. The first game is more like a bunch of isolated extra content happening when Geralt had amnesia, from which the only story related thing that carries on is Foltest, the rest bear no aftereffect and you can just return to them later. The second game starts with the same premise of amnesiac Geralt but in this one the events actually lead to him getting his memory back and learning relevant information for the main story of the third game. The second game is actually where you understand how his amnesia started and how he got into the position he was in during the first game.

Cyrus Jong said:
...introducing the player to the universe, to Geralt, to his friends, to the politics, to the supernatural, to the witchers, and so on, which the second game decidedly does not.

The Witcher 2 contains plenty of information on Witchers, mages, geopolitics, the world and its inhabitants, character logs, bestiary, lore books and so on, just like the first game, but in addition to that it's got a refined linear story and is improved in every aspect. Unless you're a passionate CRPG fan, the first Witcher is not really worth going through first. Not to say that I don't like it, but my enjoyment of it comes mainly from the positive first impact the second game had on me, leading me on to check the rest of the series out.

Cyrus Jong said:
Guys like Geralt and Vesemir don't know all the specifics of what happened between Nilfgaard and the Northern Kingdoms, so the player doesn't really have to either, and they're not even involved with it anyway. The war is itself more of a backdrop than anything.

The war in the Witcher 3 actually plays the biggest role out of all three games. The "war ravaged lands" and all the Nilfgaardian camps and battlefields scattered across the open world indicate the continuity from the second game; and if I remember correctly you can cause Emhyr to lose or win the war depending on what choices you make, you can also get Radovid assassinated. There are definitely ways in which the player and Geralt can get involved in the political spectrum of the game.

Not everyone is gonna care about the political gibberish, but for those who do there is a lot of information and trivia to be found in both 2 and 3 - which constitutes another arguably important connection between them.

Cyrus Jong said:
Well of course the first game isn't going to set the scene for TW3. It sets the scene for the TW2

You didn't understand, let me reiterate:

You can't say the first game sets the stage for the second to the same extent the second does for the third (I hope that wasn't even more confusing).

Cyrus Jong said:
And I wouldn't really say it's all that important to play to understand who Yennefer is and what the Wild Hunt is, considering that both only exist through expository flashbacks that have nothing to do with the actual narrative of the game, which makes them come across as random when they do come up.

That is not true. The flashbacks are not the sole exposition for Yennefer and the Hunt. You actually get quite a lot of important dialogue from Letho right at the end which tells you
how the WH took Yennefer away and how Geralt tracked them down and ended up joining them in exchange for her.
The randomness of the flashbacks that you mentioned finally ties together and Geralt's amnesia is concluded.

I remember how eager I was to play the Witcher 3 after finishing this game, to finally confront the WH and find out what they are, to see Yennefer's character after hearing so much about her, to see if Letho will make another appearance (
if you let him go
) and so on. That's why these story elements are important.



TL;DR


I believe the Witcher 2 facilitates a better and more immersive first impression for the world of the games without compromising too much and builds real anticipation for the Witcher 3 (it made me really glad I didn't go into it completely blind). Also, if afterwards you want to play the first game and fill in the extra tid-bits, references, side story and character interaction you will likely have a much easier time dealing with the lack of polish it suffers from.
 
I finished Claire’s story and redid just enough of Leon’s to get that unbreakable knife. I thought Claire’s A scenario was great both as a horror game and story-wise. I thought it was far scarier than Leon’s, especially
Mr. X who seemed way more aggressive in her story. I couldn’t get him off my ass whereas in Leon’s story I barely ever ran into him.

Being dense, it took me nearly until the lab to realize what Capcom did: They took the original RE2’s A scenario and made that Claire’s main story, and they took the original’s B scenario and made that Leon’s main story. Once I realized that it all started to make sense. I think they, intentionally or not, made Claire’s A scenario the “real” story line with Leon’s scenario there just to explain why the lab’s self-destruct mechanism activates.

To be honest, I’m fine with that. Claire was a total badass (unlike Leon) in this game, although probably bordering on being a sociopath at some points, and I loved how they developed her character (unlike Leon’s). I felt her story was really well crafted as well (unlike Leon’s). I really enjoyed how they blended the original’s two scenarios. G-Birkin was an actual character with a motive (unlike in Leon’s story). All in all, they should have just made her story THE story, and used Leon for a complementary post-completion bonus game that shows his actions during the game’s events as well as explaining behind-the-scenes events like they did in RE4 with Ada’s Separate Ways.

Anyways, as a casual fan of the series, this remake didn’t reach the heights I hoped it would, but I really enjoyed it and would welcome an RE3 remake. But as a diehard Leon fanatic? Everyone who worked on this game should be sent to prison for life.

The game did me interested in the series again. I’m playing the DLCs for RE7 since I never played them. Right now I’m playing Chris’s Not A Hero DLC. So far it has been a lot of fun, and it’s been interesting learning about RE7’s Umbrella right after playing RE2. (
Reading a memo that says Umbrella, still run by a lot of its original workers/members, became an anti-BOW organization to show they’re not terrible people anymore right after playing a game where they used orphaned children as human guinea pigs is a trip.
)

ETA: I know I’m coming across as harsh when it comes to the remake, but I really did like it. I agree 100% with what everyone has said about it so far, and I think Griffith nailed it. (I had no idea Shinji Mikami did the RE1 remake. If I had known that beforehand I wouldn’t have hoped for quite as much from RE2’s team.)
 
Top Bottom