why RE 2 remake is better reviewed than RE 3 remake?

[heime2003]

i dont see any particular difference between twos

[Maximilian17]

From what I heard:

- RE3 feels like a DLC game. The game is too short and they cut down a lot of stuff from the original RE3. Because of this reason, I still feel reluctant to buy RE3.

- Nemesis has been nerfed down. Because players complain about Mr X (Having finished playing Alien Isolatien in the past, I find Mr X is easy, compared to Xenomorph).

I have been playing the original RE 1-3 a lot of times during PS 1.

[heime2003]

Originally posted by Maximilian17:

From what I heard:

- RE3 feels like a DLC game. The game is too short and they cut down a lot of stuff from the original RE3. Because of this reason, I still feel reluctant to buy RE3.

- Nemesis has been nerfed down. Because players complain about Mr X (Having finished playing Alien Isolatien in the past, I find Mr X is easy, compared to Xenomorph).

I have been playing the original RE 1-3 a lot of times during PS 1.

i dont mind of a short game but gameplaywise RE3 is inferior to RE2?

[Seamus]

RE3 may be short, but it's quite fun. It's definitely worth it on sale.

[Soulkey]

Originally posted by heime2003:

i dont mind of a short game but gameplaywise RE3 is inferior to RE2?

It is inferior.
- The gore and damage model is severely toned down.
- RE2's Tyrant/Mr X was vastly improved compared to the original 1998 version and pretty much provided the perfect template for RE3 Remake as to how stalker enemies should behave. RE3 However relegated the Nemesis free-roam section to a short 5-10min section and the rest are just action set pieces or boss fights.
- The original RE3 didn't have many puzzles to begin with, but in the Remake they removed almost all of them.
- The RE engine can't handle large numbers of enemies in RE3 so the game despawns them by exploding the corpses (Hospital section)
- The changes made to the locations and enemies are for the worse, everything looks bland.
- Mercenaries minigame was removed

[Woody]

Originally posted by Maximilian17:

From what I heard:

- RE3 feels like a DLC game. The game is too short and they cut down a lot of stuff from the original RE3. Because of this reason, I still feel reluctant to buy RE3.

- Nemesis has been nerfed down. Because players complain about Mr X (Having finished playing Alien Isolatien in the past, I find Mr X is easy, compared to Xenomorph).

I have been playing the original RE 1-3 a lot of times during PS 1.

To be fair, no way they could have Nemesis act like he did in the OG RE3 unless you nerfed him considerably. Nemesis is able to teleport around, jump on buildings, and is considerably faster than Jill is and he has weapons, it would be impossible for most people to complete the game like that.

Now i do wish they would have included Racoon Park, The Clock Tower, and the Gravedigger boss, those were HUGE things to leave out of the game that IMO is crazy that they did.

[FoutBallon]

Resident Evil 2 is a much more fun to play than Resident Evil 3. RE3 has too many rigid linear sections, whereas RE2's levels often feel open or sprawling. Nemesis is also a really boring opponent. It's not scary or exciting like Mr X in RE2, nor are RE3's boss fights intense.

In essence, RE3 felt like a formulaic movie adapted into a game, whereas RE2 is like an imaginative book turned into a game. You might still like both games, but RE2 is definitely more engaging.

[Budoshi]

One is more fun the other less fun. one got more hours of play time the other shorter.

[V I D A L]

Because of nostalgia.
RE2 remake, even though re-imagined, it still quite recognisable compared to the original. RE3 remake is absolutely completely different than the original. Almost nothing of the original can be compared to the remake. Quite frankly, the original was never that good to begin with, so they removed some of the lamest parts of the original and added a bunch of new set pieces, but people only complain about the cut parts and completely ignores how much better the new stuff is.

[vukotlak]

Resident evil 2 remake had a long way to come. It was said that the guy responsible for this remake tried several years to convince capcom to get a "GO". Eventualy they agreed and some time later when the first trailer appeared basicly everyone jumped the hype train .

Here comes the speculation by me.

So capcom realized that this game was very popular and people seriously looked forward to it so they decided. You know what let us pump out a RE3 remake as wetll. And when i say "PUMP" it out i mean exactly this.

RE3 has a lot of shortcomings cause it was not carefully crafted and thought out as RE2 remake. It was not crafted by the same people from RE2 but from a different team and not after R2 but simultaniously.

RE3 remake is not worse cause the Original RE3 was also inferior to R2 (it was but not by a longshot).

It's worse cause RE2 remake was a work of passion and RE3 is a work of "lets cash in more money).

If they would had put out the same care as for RE2 i got no doubt RE3 remake would be on par with RE2.

PS. i am not realy blaming the actualy developers of RE3 i think all these issue come from the people in suits who care more for money then gaming.

[Nameless]

Originally posted by Soulkey:

Originally posted by heime2003:

i dont mind of a short game but gameplaywise RE3 is inferior to RE2?

It is inferior.
- The gore and damage model is severely toned down.
- RE2's Tyrant/Mr X was vastly improved compared to the original 1998 version and pretty much provided the perfect template for RE3 Remake as to how stalker enemies should behave. RE3 However relegated the Nemesis free-roam section to a short 5-10min section and the rest are just action set pieces or boss fights.
- The original RE3 didn't have many puzzles to begin with, but in the Remake they removed almost all of them.
- The RE engine can't handle large numbers of enemies in RE3 so the game despawns them by exploding the corpses (Hospital section)
- The changes made to the locations and enemies are for the worse, everything looks bland.
- Mercenaries minigame was removed

1. No it is not
2. Major Cap
3. RE3 had lots of puzzles
4. RE2, RE7, and RE8 do the same.
5. Yeah, thats what remakes do. They change the environment.
6. Pointless mode nobody cared about.

[vukotlak]

Originally posted by Nameless 261:

1. No it is not

Yes it is.

[Nate]

I thought RE2 remake was better than RE3 remake in every conceivable way. Better pacing, atmosphere, exploration, combat, story, characters..... everything was better. I loved RE2 remake, I did not love RE3 remake.

[DOUBLE F]

Originally posted by Soulkey:

Originally posted by heime2003:

i dont mind of a short game but gameplaywise RE3 is inferior to RE2?

It is inferior.
- The gore and damage model is severely toned down.
- RE2's Tyrant/Mr X was vastly improved compared to the original 1998 version and pretty much provided the perfect template for RE3 Remake as to how stalker enemies should behave. RE3 However relegated the Nemesis free-roam section to a short 5-10min section and the rest are just action set pieces or boss fights.
- The original RE3 didn't have many puzzles to begin with, but in the Remake they removed almost all of them.
- The RE engine can't handle large numbers of enemies in RE3 so the game despawns them by exploding the corpses (Hospital section)
- The changes made to the locations and enemies are for the worse, everything looks bland.
- Mercenaries minigame was removed

I kind of disagree on how they handled mr x. The constant foot steps and stalking became annoying. The orig8nal where he punched through walls in triggered events was more natural. The only 2 parts he scared me was the rooftop scene and the helicopter part. The rest were corny and over done.

[Nameless]

Originally posted by vukotlak:

Originally posted by Nameless 261:

1. No it is not

Yes it is.

No it isn't. Stop lying.

[vukotlak]

Originally posted by Nameless 261:

Originally posted by vukotlak:

Yes it is.

No it isn't. Stop lying.

There are even videos on youtube showing the difference...