It's here - RE2 Remake Official E3 Trailer

[Code_R]

I kinda like RE7 but it's definitely not something I'll revisit often. This is at least more towards the standards of an actual numbered release post RE4 anyway.

[Guest]

Yeah 4 times ... so I would expect more conversation and more linking scenes in a big budget modern version, not less. With today's game standards I'd expect a whole separate sewer for Leon and a whole new lab area with even a version of the original G3 fight instead of that same bridge scene with Annette and the same sewer leading to the same plugs/weapon pickup for no reason at all. Why not a reimagined factory area and power room area? They could have done absolutely anything at all.

I said "fit like a jigsaw" in regard to the new version not the old. The new cinematic coverall version. But as it stands the old one has more variety and more links. More areas, more scenes, and more replay value in a release from 1998. Why is the standard 'less is more' instead of 'more is more'? RE1 Remake style. Nobody is butthurt(?) and I just said like a page back it's a great game. But it could have been perfect instead if it wasn't so lacklustre in more than one section of the experience.

You're acting as if they had their hands tied and this was the best outcome, but this isn't a release that anyone forced them to a compromise - and there's more DLC coming down the line. Maybe they should enhance what we got in the main game before spending time messing with added extras already. Or at least patch out a handful of glaring issues that would achieve more of what they were aiming for i.e. one smooth overall narrative.

Well to be fair they did have their hands tied. BIO2 presented multiple problems before and after it's release, mainly that it's prototype was a closing for the series, and it's retail game was an expansion for the series. The problem is, nobody really knew for absolute sure (in 1998) what was canon until later in the franchise.

There are 4 separate stories, one where Sherry gets infected, one where Ada dies, one where Claire destroys the G Virus and Sherry witnesses her mother's death, and one where Leon destroys the G Virus and Ada survives. This wasn't a case of taking everything from RE4-RE6 and retelling RE2 plot for point, this was literally a case of going back to 1997-1998 and doing it all over again.

That requires looking at everything, every aspect of BIO2 and deciding what to use and how to use it. The one thing that was upheld was what is concrete in RE lore, Sherry gets infected and cured by Claire, Leon destroys the G Virus and Ada survives, something that has been established for over 15 years. That means that no matter what, Claire A and Leon B will always be the narrative and the final outcome of the game, regardless of how the plot actually ends.

What they instead did was used elements from all aspects of the original to tell the story of Claire A and Leon B in a way that celebrates everything about BIO2, even parts of 1.5. I honestly don't believe their goal was to tell one rock solid cohesive story, their goal was to stick to the basic plot, but make a game that has references, surprises and plot twists that appeal to everyone.

Sherry witnessing her mother's death is part of Claire B, that is not canon, but it's there in Remake. Why? Because it's a reference to a part of RE history that never happen. Ada fslling off the platform and plummeting to her death is part of Leon A, that is not canon but it's there. Claire getting stalked by Tyrant, Leon not meeting Kendo or the Aligator, it's all the same thing, parts of RE2 that never happen.

If by reading this you still can't understand what they've done, then it's pointless trying to explain any further, becase your mind is set in its ways and wasn't want to listen. That doesn't mean you aren't entitled to your opinion, but the majority of complaints I've read the past page or so are baseless.

This game is massively faithful to the canon plot, but has been done in a way that combines both A and B scenarios into one, making a very unpredictable and surprising story for old players who don't know what to expect and are surprised to see the story told in a new way. That's exactly what they've done.

Okay fine, maybe they could have done something with G-3, but are we gonna slam this whole game based on the fact that it uses the alternative endings for both characters and has some minor inconsistencies? It was done on purpose.

[Rick Hunter]

Both Claire and Leon fight 3rd form G on the train platform, Claire on the way down to the labs, Leon when the platform gets stuck half way down. Claire fights 4th form G, Leon fights Tyrant. Do you want canon or not? Your memory of RE2 has as much inconsistency as your perception of this game.

Yeah sure...

Claire A:

https://youtu.be/wBQE8eZzbvM?t=5945

Leon B:

https://youtu.be/g4OyuujKUPk?t=7060

[Zombie_X]

The original RE2's Claire A/Leon B canon really had no issues IMO. The new RE2 does introduce inconsistencies to the established canon. Are we really supposed to believe Leon fought the same bosses in the same areas as Claire did in their scenarios? Even in the original game, A/B scenarios didn't have overlapping bosses at all. Sure Leon fought G3 jsut like Claire, but this was a newly mutated G3 and was not quite the same as the one Claire fought. My only gripe with the re-imagining of RE2 we got is the repeated boss battles and the fact that Annette dies twice. Could of easily been fixed by having Leon not fight G2/G3 in his scenarios and not have Claire fight G1. Of course some cutscenes would have to be scrubbed or reworked, but this would really fix the inconsistencies. Or you know, follow the exact way the boss fights worked for the original games A/B scenarios. What I mean is that they could have implemented the A/B scenarios in this reimagining exactly as they were in the original, similar flow and events.

Now, I do really love this new version of the game, but I don't see it as a remake. It's a bit too different in ways to the original and does change some established lore. But I can look past that and enjoy it for what it is. A new RE games based on the events of RE2, not a RE2 remake.

[Darkness]

I did claire A leon B in the remake and theres really no proof in claire A that annette is -dead- dead I loved the remake and I noticed the repeated boss battles but they did little to ruin the experience. If they had spent just a little more time on the game it wouldve been a 10/10 and not a 9/10.

[Kei_M]

You're acting as if they had their hands tied and this was the best outcome, but this isn't a release that anyone forced them to a compromise - and there's more DLC coming down the line. Maybe they should enhance what we got in the main game before spending time messing with added extras already. Or at least patch out a handful of glaring issues that would achieve more of what they were aiming for i.e. one smooth overall narrative.

I absolutely agree. It's really sad when RE6 did the intersecting campaigns better.
My theory is they made two separate identical campaigns with their own full ending sequences and at some point they chopped off the extended ending to make a first/second scenario system.
Using the already existing gate scene from the first scenario, they created some sort of cheaply made second scenario with the assets they already had and reinserted the extended ending despite the fact the dialogue in those endings are now referencing the WRONG gate scene. I feel like this method COULD have worked with a little more tweaking so it just makes it feel cheaply executed and that just makes me sad
I'm holding on to a little hope for some sort of DLC fix in this respect, but I'm not holding my breath. At least the game is still incredibly fun to play, it just a little disappointing we couldn't have gotten that PERFECT package.

[Rick Hunter]

My theory is they made two separate identical campaigns with their own full ending sequences and at some point they chopped off the extended ending to make a first/second scenario system.

Yes everything points to that. Capcom saying there's no A/B scenario a few months ago, and rumors of second run being added at the last minutes gives credence to your theory.

The game follows RE1's logic where each character has the same scenario, resulting in none being canon.

Nobody's going to make me believe they did that out of artistic vision. They probably had time/budget constraint and determined it was the best approach. They just made it even more nonsensical by adding those second run scenarios.

[P.I.M.P.]

i finished leon scenario in 10 hours, my god this game stresses you out like no ones business, the amount of times i died with the last two bosses bearing in mind i played this on hardcore level

due to time i will be playing normal mode with claire lol but man im loving this game. cant wait to play hunk scenario and the dlc chapters

guys wasnt there a scenario with ada for this game or is that scrapped?

[Guest]

Yeah sure...

Claire A:

https://youtu.be/wBQE8eZzbvM?t=5945

Leon B:
https://youtu.be/g4OyuujKUPk?t=7060

I stand corrected, apologies sir. It's G3 that kills Annette in Claire A. *hangshead*

Still the original isn't as coherent as being made out to be here, yes the A and B scenarios work in a very consistent manner, and much more coherent than the remake, but the same criticisms can be applied to the original as well. Leon B is void of almost any interaction with side characters what so ever, yes him and Claire communicate but some of the conversations he has with her don't even take place in Claire A, making it void of worth noting.

The only side character Leon interacts with is Ben; where as Claire interacts with Kendo and Marvin, you really have to play the scenarios which aren't canon in order to get an experience that rectifies questions raised, such as Marvin's discussion with Leon, or him finding out about Umbrella or what is actually even happening. The idea that only 2 scenarios were going to be written as canon hadn't been decided at that point and for many years later, and just like RE1 at the time that didn't matter.

Now, today, that does matter, because it's written into the history of RE, so to have an A and B wouldn't really work, because you'd be going back to the old idea of alternate storylines and that's something that because of the time the series has taken to grow, can't happen. Its just unfortunate that things didn't work out in the remake. But the original absolutely isn't perfect, and while we can commend it for it's fantastic draft and plot, has just as many whoopsies we can criticise.

[Rick Hunter]

You're not fundamentally wrong, but the problem is that when we point out things that could have been much better in the remake, your argument basically is "b.. b. but it wasn't that good in RE2 to begin with!!". You're projecting the criticism on the original game for god knows what reason.

The fact RE2 wasn't "perfect" in that department (I don't care that much about these kind of small inconsistencies personally) is exactly why this remake makes me sad; it was a fantastic opportunity to focus on only two scenarios that would establish a definitive canon and satisfy everyone in the process. That's why it's such a wasted opportunity.

It also hurts the title replayability because of how repetitive the game becomes, and I'm very, very sensitive to such things. After playing Claire A / Leon B I've seen everything the game has to offer in terms of plot and gameplay going through the main story (outside of Marvin). It wasn't the case in the original game; there was still room for surprise because of the different events.

I would have preferred two shorter scenarios, but each of them unique and complementary. Basically: Shorter campaigns, but a richer experience and overall package.

[Guest]

I would have preferred two shorter scenarios, but each of them unique and complementary. Basically: Shorter campaigns, but a richer experience and overall package.

But this is exactly what you've got, two separate campaigns, both with alternate routes and unique endings, but complimentary to eachother, with the exception of the labs argument. Why would you want campaigns shorter than the 2-3 hour campaigns we've already got? That would total maybe a minimum of 8 hours worth of gameplay with barely any replay value what so ever.

I keep returning to A and B from the original because this is something that simply can't exist without making stuff up entirely, one because canon is already established, and two because they decided in the beginning already not to do it, probably because of the former.

I'm responding to comments such that 2nd is just a tacked on variation of the 1st scenario, when in fact that's all it can be and to expect anything more is ignoring the previous two points entirely.