SPOILERS: Why do you fight the same boss in both 1st and 2nd run?

[Swordgun]

I thought I already defeated William and watched his wife Annette die soon after in my first run. The game is consistent in terms of plot except for that part where you get to see Annette die AGAIN after fighting William, also again.

It's weird because it's easily fixed. The writers should've just removed that entire section from one of the runs. It's not like it's a different timeline, Leon and Claire are in the same timeline and they interact with one another from time to time during either of the runs.

I don't know why it's still there.

[Ameto]

Originally posted by Psyche:

It's not like it's a different timeline, Leon and Claire are in the same timeline and they interact with one another from time to time during either of the runs.

Each scenario is a different timeline in which the only things they have in common is their encounters and the order that each gets to the room that has the vaccine and the G-virus. There are things that clearly don't match in each other stories like Mr X getting killed in the middle of Claire's story but being alive by the end of Leon's.

As for why it's that way, it's because it's easier to write and gives them the freedom of not having to think of several different paths and bosses for each of them to make the story work.

If it bothers you, just think that the scenario you're playing right now is the true story, and the other character got lucky. Or that neither story is true, and the real one is a mix of both that we'll never get to witness, because it would be really boring.

[Swordgun]

Originally posted by Ameto:

Each scenario is a different timeline in which the only things they have in common is their encounters and the order that each gets to the room that has the vaccine and the G-virus. There are things that clearly don't match in each other stories like Mr X getting killed in the middle of Claire's story but being alive by the end of Leon's.

And I forgot about the most obvious thing, Marvin Branagh being present in both scenarios. And dying twice. I guess you're right.

But this makes it worse somehow. Thinking that you never really play the same Leon or Claire you interacted with.

Originally posted by Ameto:

Or that neither story is true, and the real one is a mix of both that we'll never get to witness, because it would be really boring.

Lol.

It makes me wonder what Claire (or Leon if you're playing as Claire) in the current timeline actually witnessed and went though to get to the end. I bet they never fought any boss because the player killed all of them. Taking the easiest rout.

[Ameto]

Originally posted by Psyche:

It makes me wonder what Claire (or Leon if you're playing as Claire) in the current timeline actually witnessed and went though to get to the end. I bet they never fought any boss because the player killed all of them. Taking the easiest rout.

The only thing I want to know is how the character from the 1st run got past the Spade key door on the way to the helicopter scene. Everything else can be explained somehow, but that one just bothers me.

[ut]

The locations of key items are different in A and B. So definitely not the same timeline.

[My 600 Ping Life.]

The 1st and 2nd Scenarios aren't part of the same timeline like in the original RE2. They're 2 different timelines that interlace when Leon checks the monitor.

I know - it's very confusing...

[lordtictac101]

Originally posted by Ameto:

Originally posted by Psyche:

It makes me wonder what Claire (or Leon if you're playing as Claire) in the current timeline actually witnessed and went though to get to the end. I bet they never fought any boss because the player killed all of them. Taking the easiest rout.

The only thing I want to know is how the character from the 1st run got past the Spade key door on the way to the helicopter scene. Everything else can be explained somehow, but that one just bothers me.

clearly the jerk desided to relock the door after going through it! XD

[0-0-Bram]

as good as this game is the story only makes sense one at a time. people hate on RE6 all the time, but the way its story was woven through all the different characters was masterful. they should make a mission akin to assignment ada, where you fly through the whole game in one session going through doors and past bosses already taken care of by the main character, and only fighting the final boss before the train since that's unique to each person. no saving, just some checkpoints. call it Assignment: Continuity or something

[Lanzagranadas]

Capcom explained that when addressing the "Two Mr. X?" issue in an interview. Scenarios aren't really consistent, they do contradict each other no matter which scenario variant of which character you're playing:

Some fans theorize that there are multiple Mr. Xs chasing you in the story of RE2, because there are multiple deaths across Leon's and Claire's paths. Do you want to address that theory, and tell us how many Mr. Xs we're really encountering?

There’s only one Tyrant. When designing the game, we wanted whichever scenario the player is currently in to be representative of the main story arc. You could say that each scenario could be considered a parallel world, which is why you see Tyrant appear multiple times.

Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/resident-evil-2s-director-talks-mr-xs-ai-scary-footsteps-and-the-dmx-mod/

Some events are consistent (like if you meet Marvin as Claire in Claire 1, you won't meet him in Leon 2nd, and visceversa), but many others are not. That's why you have repeated boss fights in the same areas, or certain characters dying in one scenario, then dying later in the other.

[Fired Chicken]

Because they were to lazy to do what the 1998 devs did

[Crusta]

Originally posted by Ameto:

As for why it's that way, it's because it's easier to write and gives them the freedom of not having to think of several different paths and bosses for each of them to make the story work.

Bull_ ♥♥♥♥. It was because of lazyness and having to meet deadlines, nothing else.

[Ameto]

Originally posted by silent snake:

Because they were to lazy to do what the 1998 devs did

Originally posted by 𝚁𝚎𝚍🏆𝟺𝟻𝟽:

Originally posted by Ameto:

As for why it's that way, it's because it's easier to write and gives them the freedom of not having to think of several different paths and bosses for each of them to make the story work.

Bull_ ♥♥♥♥. It was because of lazyness and having to meet deadlines, nothing else.

WTF you're talking about. They picked a game that had a simplistic story and with the voice cast recording in a studio and they went and fleshed out the cutscenes and filmed them with motion and audio capture. They expanded Sherry's and Irons's backstories and made a whole new area and mechanics for their interaction. The game was supposed to be out on the RE2 20th Anniversary but the devs and actors had to scrap everything they had worked on and start over. They considered not including 2nd scenarios altogether but managed to work a compromise. They worked their ass out to make a game that turned out massively successful, and you two are there sitting your bums and accusing them of being lazy. That's pitiful at best.

[Crusta]

Originally posted by Ameto:

Originally posted by silent snake:

Because they were to lazy to do what the 1998 devs did

Originally posted by 𝚁𝚎𝚍🏆𝟺𝟻𝟽:

Bull_ ♥♥♥♥. It was because of lazyness and having to meet deadlines, nothing else.

WTF you're talking about. They picked a game that had a simplistic story and with the voice cast recording in a studio and they went and fleshed out the cutscenes and filmed them with motion and audio capture. They expanded Sherry's and Irons's backstories and made a whole new area and mechanics for their interaction. The game was supposed to be out on the RE2 20th Anniversary but the devs and actors had to scrap everything they had worked on and start over. They considered not including 2nd scenarios altogether but managed to work a compromise. They worked their ass out to make a game that turned out massively successful, and you two are there sitting your bums and accusing them of being lazy. That's pitiful at best.

the scenario system in RE2R was clearly rushed. Only blind people or white knight fanboys wouldn't see it -_-

PS: I loved the RE2 Remake and gave it a positive review. Doesn't mean i won't point out its obvious flaws.

[Lost Drunk]

Originally posted by Psyche:

I thought I already defeated William and watched his wife Annette die soon after in my first run. The game is consistent in terms of plot except for that part where you get to see Annette die AGAIN after fighting William, also again.

It's weird because it's easily fixed. The writers should've just removed that entire section from one of the runs. It's not like it's a different timeline, Leon and Claire are in the same timeline and they interact with one another from time to time during either of the runs.

I don't know why it's still there.

Welcome to new tier of AAA quality games. This "reimagined" version is a joke to the original, but is not a bad game in general gameplay.

[Nick Naughty]

We need a remake RE2 remake, one that follows the original plot.

Mr x in the original was an unexpected nice surprise during story B, it was something to look forward to.

[RevolverBigBosselote]

Originally posted by Psyche:

Originally posted by Ameto:

Each scenario is a different timeline in which the only things they have in common is their encounters and the order that each gets to the room that has the vaccine and the G-virus. There are things that clearly don't match in each other stories like Mr X getting killed in the middle of Claire's story but being alive by the end of Leon's.

And I forgot about the most obvious thing, Marvin Branagh being present in both scenarios. And dying twice. I guess you're right.

I think its funny to imagine Marvin ate a green herb and healed to full but then got bit by another zombie like an idiot