Do you consider the Resident Evil remakes as entry replacements or new timeline?

[Zor]

I know, who cares right? They're just intentionally silly, shlocky games at the end of the day, and I agree. But I still thought it was an interesting question.

Not that I'm trying to imply that the Resident Evil franchise has the most incredible lore, or anything. But there's lots that I enjoy about it, and having just beaten Resident Evil 3 on PSone in anticipation of the upcoming remake, I think my favourite Resident Evil period, story-wise, is 1-3.

Things were simpler then, and the scale smaller, building to its explosive culmination through a mansion, a police station, and then the city itself.

With all this in mind, I was wondering how people felt about the lore of Resident Evil today now that we have the likes of REmake 1 & 2, but also VII and the rumoured RE8.

Do you see these REmakes, and the upcoming RE3, as reverse-engineering into the ongoing saga as it currently exists, replacing what was once there? Or do you see them as creating their own timeline that might one day connect with the newest latter entries at some later date?

Or is it something you don't really think about?

 

[Deleted member 24021]

I think of them as replacements.

 

[Kalentan]

Replacements.

 

[nsilvias]

reimaginings

 

[Master Chuuster]

I think with all the streamlining they did and all the additions to the story they made with RE1 and 2 (and probably will be doing with RE3), it's clear that Capcom see them as replacements.

 

[404LinkNotFound]

I always thought the rule of thumb for any remake of an older game is
If its a good remake -> becomes new canon
If its bad -> Ignored

 

[Video Games Are Dumb]

I think with all the streamlining they did and all the additions to the story they made with RE1 and 2 (and probably will be doing with RE3), it's clear that Capcom see them as replacements.

Click to shrink...

Yeah and they're so similar to the original games that it doesn't really matter all that much. I doubt they'll be any references going forward that will be exclusive to either version.

 

[DeliciousSunnyD!]

I think the original Resident Evil remake has an argument for being considered a replacement, but it's the only one. And even then, both games are valid for different, important reasons.

The remake of 2 is absolutely, 100% not a replacement for the original Resident Evil 2. The remake is good, but the original RE2 is incredible.

 

[Rhaknar]

replacements

 

[The Shape]

Replacements, all of them.

 

[Tetsujin]

I consider the first one a complete replacement. RE2+3 I see more as an alternative take.

 

[Master Chuuster]

Yeah and they're so similar to the original games that it doesn't really matter all that much. I doubt they'll be any references going forward that will be exclusive to either version.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, pretty much. The larger, most important story beats are more or less consistent across the originals and the remakes, and I don't think any of the larger additions in the remakes directly contradict anything from the originals.

So yeah, they're more additive than they are replacements, I guess.

 

[Jawmuncher]

Nah. They're an addition & not a replacement. We've seen this in the series for awhile now as they pick and choose elements from remakes and classics as to what is canon.

 

[Master Chuuster]

Although it'll be interesting to see what the devs officially cement as canon where the ending to Nikolai's story is concerned.

 

[Dark_Chris]

Companion pieces. REmake didn't fully replace RE1 either (events shown in both games are actually canon). RE2 and RE3 remakes are the same way.

 

[Z-Beat]

Replacements. All content going forward treated Lisa Trevor as canon after REmake

 

[TechnoSyndrome]

I would like to think of them as just fun reimaginings but I guarantee you Capcom thinks of them as replacements.

 

[Nightfall]

Totally replacements. In terms of movie speak it would be the definitive director's cut. Like Final Cut for Blade Runner.

 

[Zor]

Replacements. All content going forward treated Lisa Trevor as canon after REmake

Click to shrink...

There were Lisa Trevor references post-REmake? That's awesome! She's always been one of my favourite things about the first remake and I never knew if she was ever acknowledged beyond that game.

 

[AuthenticM]

Yeah, replacement. That will definitely be more the case as we see more remakes that depart more and more from the original plot. RE3 seems to be changing stuff more than RE2 did, for example.

 

[Deleted member 13798]

Replacements I guess, but until they remake Code Veronica X and beyond (assuming they won't do 4+) then the lore isn't too affected so they kind of fall into an in between place for me.

 

[Master Chuuster]

There were Lisa Trevor references post-REmake?

Click to shrink...

The only one I can think of is Umbrella Chronicles, might be forgetting something though

 

[Zor]

So yeah, they're more additive than they are replacements, I guess.

Click to shrink...

Nah. They're an addition & not a replacement. We've seen this in the series for awhile now as they pick and choose elements from remakes and classics as to what is canon.

Click to shrink...

I really like this notion, actually.

 

[Z-Beat]

There were Lisa Trevor references post-REmake? That's awesome! She's always been one of my favourite things about the first remake and I never knew if she was ever acknowledged beyond that game.

Click to shrink...

She's the reason the G Virus exists iirc

And yeah Umbrella Chronicles because she didn't die from that fall in REmake and showed back up when Wesker came back to life

 

[Lowblood]

Well, it doesn't matter too much for RE1 since neither game truly matches the official RE1 canon. So they'll pick and choose as needed.

The RE2s are close enough that I don't think it'll be an issue. I also doubt RE3 will change enough, though if they streamline things into only one ending that will be interesting. We'll have to see what they do.

 

[defaltoption]

Replacements, I've never liked anything with multiple timelines.

 

[Sargerus]

Replacements as the first REmake already proven it. Lisa is the original source of the G-Virus.

 

[Detail]

Remake 2 definitely isn't a replacement in my opinion, the story from the original RE2 has far more depth to it and the A&B scenarios are far more complete.

I would argue that Remake 1 is better than the original because it expands the story and doesn't take anything away.

Remake 2 in comparison, whilst it adds fantastic graphics and more modern gameplay elements, takes away from the original story and makes some very strange decisions with the lore which make no sense whatsoever (in my opinion.)

So yeah, it's more of a reimagining to me, I have 100% in remake 2 and I enjoyed the game but for me the original is a far better game because of the reasons I have mentioned.

I get the impression that a lot of people who think otherwise do so because they didn't play the original or can't cope with how the gameplay has aged (tank controls, old looking graphics) and overlook the story flaws in remake 2 in favour of the improvements remake has made in terms of gameplay and graphics.

I could be completely wrong, it's just my personal opinion is the original story and A&B scenarios are far better than Remake 2.

 

[sredgrin]

Replacements because the canon is largely stupid anyway and went in terrible directions. The less connected and more vague they are, the better they are.

 

[KDC720]

The remake of the first game is absolutely the canon version as Lisa Trevor is referenced in future games. RE2 is a bit different as it doesn't really make any drastic changes to the RE2 story and the additions are very minor at best. Remake 2 still hits all the story beats of the original, I'd say it's more of slightly alternate take than a replacement or alternate timeline.

RE3 could be interesting because the only things of note that happen in that game that impact the story going forward are that Raccoon City is destroyed and Jill is infected. My suspicion is that they may play around with things more this time around.

 

[The Iron Yuppie]

To me, I have to consider them a new timeline at least starting from REmake 2. In the REmake, Leon has no inkling that Ada is still alive, he has no idea anyone tossed the rocket launcher to him (unlike OG Leon B ending.) So his reaction to meeting Ada again in 4 would make no sense now.

 

[julia crawford]

Why we gotta be like this. All Resi games are good and worth playing... no game is replacing any other, that's just not how life works man. Let the games exist by themselves.

 

[Neoxon]

As far as the timeline goes, replacements.

 

[Terra Torment]

I know, who cares right? They're just intentionally silly, shlocky games at the end of the day, and I agree. But I still thought it was an interesting question.

Not that I'm trying to imply that the Resident Evil franchise has the most incredible lore, or anything. But there's lots that I enjoy about it, and having just beaten Resident Evil 3 on PSone in anticipation of the upcoming remake, I think my favourite Resident Evil period, story-wise, is 1-3.

Things were simpler then, and the scale smaller, building to its explosive culmination through a mansion, a police station, and then the city itself.

With all this in mind, I was wondering how people felt about the lore of Resident Evil today now that we have the likes of REmake 1 & 2, but also VII and the rumoured RE8.

Do you see these REmakes, and the upcoming RE3, as reverse-engineering into the ongoing saga as it currently exists, replacing what was once there? Or do you see them as creating their own timeline that might one day connect with the newest latter entries at some later date?

Or is it something you don't really think about?

Click to shrink...

They don't really change much as far as canon goes, though even within the games there are minor contradictions between game A and game B, Claire's story and Leon's story. I'd call them replacements.

I only dimly remember Resident Evil 3 but I hope we get to see more of the city other than a police station or just one location.

 

[Zor]

Why we gotta be like this. All Resi games are good and worth playing... no game is replacing any other, that's just not how life works man. Let the games exist by themselves.

Click to shrink...

Why we gotta be like what? It's just a question dude. I'm not out here fighting for a definitive answer, I was just intrigued how others saw it.

 

[julia crawford]

Why we gotta be like what? It's just a question dude. I'm not out here fighting for a definitive answer, I was just intrigued how others saw it.

Click to shrink...

I was more talking about the answers...

 

[Zor]

I was more talking about the answers...

Click to shrink...

I'm not seeing anyone here calling these Remakes replacements saying they're never going to play the originals ever again though. If anything, it's a mix of folks saying replacements, re-imaginings, additives, or companion pieces to what already exists, rather than a, "Thank god for the remakes, I never need to play the Classics now". Everything's gravy. I literally beat Resi 3 today and adored it.

 

[Lukemia SL]

They're replacements for me, when 3 remake releases I will have all Resident Evils of worth on one system.
The originals I'll just play on PS3 if I get that itch to do so.

 

[Alex840]

Replacements. The old ones play like shit.

The only reason I want an RE4 remake is so they can implement moving and shooting at the same time. (I know the excuse of it adding to the tense nature and the game being designed around it, but it doesn't feel good).

 

[Deleted member 2620]

I don't see the GameCube version of the original as a replacement, let alone these.

then again what remake has ever obseleted its original

 

[orlock]

God, i would adore it if it turned out that these were ultimately replacing the previous entries and this was an entirely new timeline and we were getting an entirely new set of events following RE3. Hell, remake RE4 so its more in-line with what we know of RE3.5 and the other earlier iterations. it would re-invigorate my love for the franchise for sure if it means we live in a world where RE5 and RE6 never happened (and even to a certain extent RE4).

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

REmake was a replacement. RE(2)make and R3make are so different that they just kinda seem like alternate takes. In my head the originals are canon.

Also, after R3make, ENOUGH with the goddamn REmakes.

Spoiler

I'll take a Dino Crisis remake though if they refuse to make a new game.

 

[The Praiseworthy]

Replacements.

 

[Kupo Kupopo]

Or is it something you don't really think about?

Click to shrink...

this. old school, remake? it's all good...

 

[Zor]

Spoiler

I'll take a Dino Crisis remake though if they refuse to make a new game.

Click to shrink...

Same! As much as I'd love to see a Code Veronica remake, if it came down to Capcom making that or Dino Crisis, I'd have to go the latter.

 

[Huey]

I consider the first one a complete replacement. RE2+3 I see more as an alternative take.

Click to shrink...

this right here, particularly because of the big change up in gameplay style. Definitely still a role for replaying OG RE2 but I can't really see what someone would reach for original RE when REmake is available. I'm sure someone will come forward here though.

 

[Deleted member 24021]

Also, after R3make, ENOUGH with the goddamn REmakes.

Click to shrink...

Nah they have to remake Code Veronica next

 

[FakePlasticTree]

All of the stuff that was missing in Remake 2 from the original made it feel more like a reimagining and not so much a replacement for the original game.

 

[Prine]

Replacements, as they're better games. But the stories aren't works of art or even decent, so I don't really care narratively speaking, just as long as they play well.

 

[SilverArrow20XX]

For RE2 and 3. Neither.
It's just an extra equally as canon scenario of the game.
Yet another not entirely correct telling of the story, since the actual events are a mix of all of them.
Just like some scenes differ in Claire A versus Leon A.
The remake has extra story content, but is also missing content that was in the original, like most of Ben's scenes.

RE1 remake was a replacement since it contains 100% of the original's content, plus more.