-
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.
Do you consider the Resident Evil remakes as entry replacements or new timeline?
- Thread starter Zor
- Start date
Technically you can go with either one, as certain supplemental materials make references to the original, but in practice the average person only needs to pay attention to REmake and now REmake 2. Some of the references to RE1 in recent times are more like minor Easter eggs, in-game jokes or flat out oversights rather than any definitive stance on how the RE story must play out. It's also notable that references to the originals (or to things long considered non-canon like RE2 Leon A/Claire B) are often done in material not written by a main series writer.
But RE4 (taking place in 2004) isn't the first time that Leon is learning Ada is alive, so there's no continuity error or broken lore either way. Leon either learns that Ada is alive at the end of RE2 (original), or he learns it offscreen after the events of the game (remake). In RE4, Leon questions Ada about her ties to Wesker, which he obviously learned of before the game began.
I don't really think in terms of timelines, as much of how the games go together in terms of tone.
Classic RE was pure old timey B movie nonsense.
RE4 and RE7 are a bit alike in tone, just with one being darker than other. There's horror mixed with a bit of comedy. Vaguely Raimi-esque, with one being Spider-Man Raimi and the other being Evil Dead Raimi.
Then RE5 and RE6 are full on Michael Bay stuff.
REmake 2 and 3 give me the vibe you see in a lot of modern horror movies. There's a kind of colorful starkness in how things look, with mild element of genre awareness in the setups and writing, just a hint of comedy, but also lots of harrowing brutality.
Classic RE was pure old timey B movie nonsense.
RE4 and RE7 are a bit alike in tone, just with one being darker than other. There's horror mixed with a bit of comedy. Vaguely Raimi-esque, with one being Spider-Man Raimi and the other being Evil Dead Raimi.
Then RE5 and RE6 are full on Michael Bay stuff.
REmake 2 and 3 give me the vibe you see in a lot of modern horror movies. There's a kind of colorful starkness in how things look, with mild element of genre awareness in the setups and writing, just a hint of comedy, but also lots of harrowing brutality.
Capcom seems to think they are replacements.
youtu.be
4:23 in the video
Inside Resident Evil's Last 12 Years Of Change
The producer for the HD remake of Resident Evil speaks with Game Informer's Tim Turi about his 12 years working on the series, including what it was like to ...
youtu.be
4:23 in the video
Agreed.
Remake 2 was good but it didn't totally replace the original for me like REmake.
We're pretty much on the same page. Hence, why I'm afraid they are going to remake REmake (a la Resident Evil 1) and keep the same gameplay as these newer games. Not really sure why people are calling these games replacements, since several components of the original games are removed. They are compliments to the original, but entirely changed the game design of the original PS1 classics. They can never be proper "remakes" to me because of that.
Remake one, as a replacement, but for me, Remake 2 and 3 are neither, I will put them as a retelling of the events with some changes which will fall in line with the changes found in scenarios Claire A versus Leon A/ Claire B versus Leon B in the original Resident Evil 2 or the different decisions one could take while playing Resident Evil 3.
This is how I feel. REmake 2 while good failed with scenario B for both Claire and Leon. While the original RE2 knocked it out of the park.
REmake on the hand was basically better than the original and improved the story with Lisa Trevor that explained how Nemesis and the G Virus came to be.
That is exactly my point, based on the original game it wasn't a continuity error, at the end of 2 he suspected she was alive and would logically look into that.
In the REmake 2 continuity, he believes her dead and would have no reason to look for signs of her.
Ada's reintroduction in 4 was never perfect to begin with, it expects you to just take things on faith. That during the gap between the events of 2 and 4 Leon had access to resources and opportunity through the government to learn she was alive and working with Wesker.
But again, in the original continuity, he would have reason to suspect she was alive and search. In the new continuity, he would not reasonably have that suspicion. The difference is obvious and huge.
The first game? Yeah I would say so as it adds more the the existing lore and game.
2? Nah not a chance. There a lot of missing stuff in it and it feels way less complete. The A/B scenarios were missed and I miss the lore papers you could find in the original.
3 gould go either way. The original game was vague cause of the choices.
2? Nah not a chance. There a lot of missing stuff in it and it feels way less complete. The A/B scenarios were missed and I miss the lore papers you could find in the original.
3 gould go either way. The original game was vague cause of the choices.
Just because Leon believes Ada to be dead at the end of the remake doesn't mean that he won't brush up against information to the contrary in the six years between RE2 and RE4. That's a pretty big gap, and even with the original RE2 to RE4, there was a lot that happened between games that we never got to see, like Leon learning of Wesker, as we both mentioned.
I just can't see it as some glaring continuity or lore issue, when there's a lot there that isn't explicitly filled in anyway, thanks to the aforementioned six year gap between 2 and 4.
OP
OP
Capcom has said time and time again they are reimaginings. They were even correcting some press people during RE3 showings.
OP
OP
OP
OP
Storyline replacements sure. Replacements to the original games? not at all, I'd still like a classic collection of the originals. 2 and 3 play entirely differnt to the original and even the original RE1 has elements not present in REmake like more complex branching paths.
I'm sure the true canon lies somewhere in the middle, like how RE2's canon was a mix of A and B scenarios.