Is RE3 a filler to you?

[Mr. Rod]

Why blame it on RE3, when every other game in the series follows/followed a pretty similar formula?

[Guest]

I agree on the half a game thing. Obviously I can't speak from a knowledgable perspective as I'm no Capcom employee, but it does seem more of a thing of opportunity than a thing of actual direct intent. Capcom are renowned for reusing materials and turning it into opportunities, especially during the 90's. I imagine Capcom drafted a lot of ideas for RE3, like setting it on a "ship" or whatever, and then realised they had a bunch of leftover artwork from RE2 and a bunch of plot holes they needed to fill. If Capcom are the Capcom I know, re-using old materials and turning it into new money making content is the best way to go. Granted there's a lot of great artwork in RE3 so Capcom surely put the work into it, but one scenario is kind of dissapointing and being set in the exact same place as RE2 doesn't give it the feel that it's actually moved forward all that much, regardless of the changes to the engine and the bonus materials they included.

[Grem]

Why blame it on RE3, when every other game in the series follows/followed a pretty similar formula?

I suggest you play RE3 again. The others had enough story development and original sub plots to separate themselves from RE1.

[Alzaire]

I believe it was TheSelfishGene who has pointed it out a few times (forgive me if it was someone else), but I believe Resident Evil 3 was originally intended to just be a side-game just called RE Nemesis and that Code Veronica was intended to be RE3. But something between their deals with Sony and Sega and such caused some issues and so they had to call Nemesis RE3 and Code Veronica became the non-numbered title.

[Guest]

I believe it was TheSelfishGene who has pointed it out a few times (forgive me if it was someone else), but I believe Resident Evil 3 was originally intended to just be a side-game just called RE Nemesis and that Code Veronica was intended to be RE3. But something between their deals with Sony and Sega and such caused some issues and so they had to call Nemesis RE3 and Code Veronica became the non-numbered title.

According to CAPCOM, RE3 was going to be Called Resident Evil 2.1 or Resident Evil 1.9. And Code Veronica RE3. But then, Capcom gave Resident Evil 1.9 (2.1) the title of RE3 because they felt it deserved.

[News Bot]

According to CAPCOM, RE3 was going to be Called Resident Evil 2.1 or Resident Evil 1.9. And Code Veronica RE3. But then, Capcom gave Resident Evil 1.9 (2.1) the title of RE3 because they felt it deserved.

Actually they renamed it BH3 because "1.9" would hurt sales. CODE:Veronica was planned as the original BH3 but was changed before it was even announced. Also it is important to note that one of BH3's main purposes was to show more of Raccoon City, since BH2 was only set in the city itself for about 10 minutes.

I suggest you play RE3 again. The others had enough story development and original sub plots to separate themselves from RE1.

Now I really disagree with you.

1) Umbrella Europe
2) Nemesis
3) U.B.C.S.
4) Monitors
5) Umbrella's activities in Raccoon City
6) The U.S. Government's activities in Raccoon City
7) The destruction of Raccoon City
8) Explaining the actions of S.T.A.R.S. after BH1
9) Epilogue Files (which ended up determining the main canon timeline)

It had more sub-plots than BH1 and BH2 combined, underneath the over-arching plot of Jill escaping from Raccoon City.

[rehunk88]

Resident evil 3 is my favorite re game of them all
it kicks the hell out of re 4 and 5 for sure
its not a filler at all you see the whole deal about jill getting infected by nemesis rape
and the destruction of the city.

[Det. Beauregard]

The real RE3 is Code Veronica in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more with this. CVX felt like a proper sequel to RE2, while Nemesis felt like a side story (originally it was supposed to be, before the whole Sony thing). I will say that RE3's gameplay was better than CVX's (more fluid controls, manual stair climbing, dodging), but in every other aspect I think CVX wins.

But to answer the original question: Is RE3 a filler? When compared to the other games in the original series (even RE0, dare I say), yeah, I think it kind of is a filler. Don't get me wrong - I really like RE3 - but the whole game felt like an expansion pack to RE2 rather than a whole new game. It was extremely short, there was only one story path (aside from the live decisions), and compared to RE2, the story felt too simple. It just didn't seem to have the depth to its characters that RE2 (and later CVX) had. Jill is a cool character and I've always liked her, but compared to the other female leads in the series I've always found her to be a bit bland (let the flaming begin). Brad was a loose end that needed tying up, Carlos was pretty much face-value, and Mikhail had some potential but was killed too soon. Nicholai was really the only character that had any real depth, but only if you played the other games in the series and picked up the tiny bits of info from them.

If you compare RE3's story with RE2's, you'll see what I mean. RE2 had all these different things happening at once that all came together at the end, giving the game far more depth overall. The Remake and CVX had more linear stories, but in these three games (and even RE0 to a degree) the world I was exploring seemed to come alive. It felt immersive and detailed, and I felt trapped. In RE3, even with Nemesis chasing me all the time, I didn't feel that way. It seemed like I was running back and forth through cramped streets and side alleys that didn't even vaguely resemble any American city just so I could get to my next objective and advance the game. I didn't feel frightened or vulnerable; I could drift through much of the game on auto-pilot.

The game also just didn't feel as well thought-out as RE2. For example, in RE2, the opening cutscene shows the two main characters get into a terrible crash and luckily emerge unscathed, only to be on a street surrounded by walking corpses converging on them. Surrounded by the flaming wreckage of the accident, they had no choice but to slip through the streets to get to the RPD. It was exciting. In RE3, Jill jumps out of an exploding building and simply appears in an alleyway, with no explanation as to what happened before that. One minute she's sitting on a bed with a handgun, the next she's simply in an alley. How did the building explode? Were there zombies in there? Did she blow the building up to escape? What was the building in the first place? An apartment? A hotel? Could we have played through that segment? All these questions come to mind, and when I gain control of Jill I honestly care more about answering these questions than I do escaping the zombies in the alley.

Just my opinion. RE3 is a fun game and I play it often, but it is just missing something.

[Mr. Rod]

I suggest you play RE3 again. The others had enough story development and original sub plots to separate themselves from RE1.

I've played RE3 enough times, thanks but no lol Paul took the words out of my mouth.

[Guest]

I never liked the Nemesis mechanic, it's actually the one thing that stopped me from playing the game (yes, Nemesis is one of two main RE titles (3 and 5) that I've never played through). You essentially have to fight an enemy who's more powerful than the final boss of the previous game, right at the very beginning. As a player I don't want to have to opt to run away from the Nemesis, I want to fight and kill the f***er, but because of his sheer difficulty I can't be bothered to put the time in messing around, perfecting techniques just to do him over. Sure I can see how it adds replay value, but it's not the kind of replay value I'm looking for. A lot of the time I play a game once and once only (unless it's an absolute masterpiece), I don't want to have to go through a huge section of the game only to find that I've missed unique items which are actually worth collecting.

Normally I'd try and conquer this sort of thing, but I do think the Nemesis is unbalanced and was designed poorly in a lot of ways. He's fast and grabs you quickly and when you do get the chance to get up off the ground, you have to mash the buttons as hard as you possibly can just to escape and aviod a quasi unescapable grab. On paper this is a great idea, it references a lot of mechanics that were sucessful in their other games, however in execution it's demanding on the player and combined with the overall health of the Nememsis, makes it a tedious and painful experience. Talking of health, the fact that the Nemesis can take you from yellow caution to death in one attack emphasises further how frustrating his battles can be. This is all personal opinion of course, however I think there would have been better solutions to replay value than making the (first encounter with) Nemesis a brick house and giving him potentially missable items.

[Mr_Zombie]

I never liked the Nemesis mechanic, it's actually the one thing that stopped me from playing the game (yes, Nemesis is one of two main RE titles (3 and 5) that I've never played through). You essentially have to fight an enemy who's more powerful than the final boss of the previous game, right at the very beginning.

But that's the point. It is scary. You hear the Nemesis theme and you know you're fucked because you will either have to dodge it and run away or fight with the weapons you have at the moment. Its appearances were unpredictable the first you're playing the game (or even on later playthroughs if you took different routes). I think a boss-like enemy that can pop-up anywhere and follow you through several rooms was a great idea for a horror title.

Also, Nemesis isn't all that hard if you learn the trick: he is lefty; you have to dodge it from the right side. With that in mind, you can easily beat it even with a pistol (although it takes a lot of time and ammo).

[REmaster]

I don't get the hate for BH3. It added more to the series gameplay-wise than BH2 and was mega fun.

No the story is not filler. Anyone who says it doesn't add anything is either ignorant or not paying attention. Raccoon City's destruction is the turning point of the series, Jill's infection is vital later on in BH5, and so on. Just because it stayed in Raccoon City doesn't mean it was filler. The city was still full of zombies in BH2 (although in the drama albums, Umbrella and the U.S. Government personally go in and incinerate everything).

Amen. The destruction of Raccoon City gets brought up every five seconds after RE3. You might as well say Shadow Moses isn't relevant in MGS.

RE3 was fun. Good game. Good memories.

Yup, my love for the series dried up after RE3, was replenished a bit after the Remake and 0, and I've been hanging on for dear life ever since. I pretty much play for the story anymore than anything, not that I really even need to buy the games to do that, I could just talk to Newsbot.

[kevstah2004]

I never liked the Nemesis mechanic, it's actually the one thing that stopped me from playing the game (yes, Nemesis is one of two main RE titles (3 and 5) that I've never played through). You essentially have to fight an enemy who's more powerful than the final boss of the previous game, right at the very beginning. As a player I don't want to have to opt to run away from the Nemesis, I want to fight and kill the f***er, but because of his sheer difficulty I can't be bothered to put the time in messing around, perfecting techniques just to do him over. Sure I can see how it adds replay value, but it's not the kind of replay value I'm looking for. A lot of the time I play a game once and once only (unless it's an absolute masterpiece), I don't want to have to go through a huge section of the game only to find that I've missed unique items which are actually worth collecting.

Normally I'd try and conquer this sort of thing, but I do think the Nemesis is unbalanced and was designed poorly in a lot of ways. He's fast and grabs you quickly and when you do get the chance to get up off the ground, you have to mash the buttons as hard as you possibly can just to escape and aviod a quasi unescapable grab. On paper this is a great idea, it references a lot of mechanics that were sucessful in their other games, however in execution it's demanding on the player and combined with the overall health of the Nememsis, makes it a tedious and painful experience. Talking of health, the fact that the Nemesis can take you from yellow caution to death in one attack emphasises further how frustrating his battles can be. This is all personal opinion of course, however I think there would have been better solutions to replay value than making the (first encounter with) Nemesis a brick house and giving him potentially missable items.

To me he was nothing but a lazy recycling of Mr. X with faster reflexes.

[CrimsonElder]

To me he was nothing but a lazy recycling of Mr. X with faster reflexes.

Just like Mr X Was a lazy recycling of the Prototype Tyrant from RE 1?

[Mrox2]

for those who say re3 is like re2 , in that way then :
RE2 has claire and leon
RE1 has jill and Chris
RE2 has annete and her husbend william
RE1 Had Wesker and his tyrant
RE2 Has Labs
RE1 Has Labs
RE2 Has Mr.x which gets trnasformed to be more storonger later.
RE1 Has Tyrant which gets trnasformed to be more storonger later.
RE2 Has self destruct
RE1 has self destruct
RE1 & 2 Use similar graphics
Dont forget that RE2 was based on 1.5 which was Based on RE1 ... there are more and more ......
To me the best of them all is 1.5 ... nothing beats it ;P
& who says nemesis is hard from the first fight , just get your ammo and always dodge by pressing the aim button when he wants to grab you or push you ....